Document Nb49v74YXGjxZ7EMzy7yDv2b

IN THE 3 OTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT FOR ST. CLAIR COUNTY, ALABAMA PELL CITY DIVISION THOMAS C. DYER, ET AL, Plaintiff, ) ) ) vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL, Defendant. ) NO. CV-93-250 ) ) ) ) Consolidated For Discovery With SHELTER COVE MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL, Plaintiff, vs . MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) NO. CV 94-50-PH ) ) ) ) DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL A. PIERLE Taken on behalf of the Plaintiff October 28, 1998 REPORTER: Kevin J. Weichman, CSR-RPR No. 084-003189 DkpoNmt Taylor * Schroeder Reporting & Video "Meeting All Your Litigation Needs COURT REPORTERS 7494 Ethel Avenue St. Louis, Mo 63117 314.644.2191 800.280.DEPO Fax 314.644.1334 ASSURANCE HARTOLDMONO018077 2 1 INDEX OF EXAMINATION 2 QUESTIONS BY: PAGE 3 MR. GRAMMAS ............................................................................................... 5 4 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 5 Plaintiff' s 1 ................................................................................................. 5 6 Plaintiff' s 2 5 Plaintiff' s 3 5 7 Plaintiff' s 4 78 Plaintiff's 5 79 8 Plaintiff's 6 79 Plaintiff' s 7 ................................................................................................. 79 9 Plaintiff's 8 122 Plaintiff's 9 138 10 Plaintiff's 10.................................................................................................. 150 Plaintiff's 11.................................................................................................. 156 11 Plaintiff's 12.................................................................................................. 167 Plaintiff's 13.................................................................................................. 167 12 Plaintiff's 14.................................................................................................. 199 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018078 1 IN THE 3 OTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT FOR ST. CLAIR COUNTY, ALABAMA 2 PELL CITY DIVISION 3 THOMAS C. DYER, ET AL, ) 4) Plaintiff, ) 5 vs 6 NO. CV-93-250 MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL, ) 7) Defendant. ) 8 Consolidated For Discovery With 9 SHELTER COVE MANAGEMENT, 10 INC., ET AL, ) ) 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs . NO. CV 94-50-PH 13 MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL, ) ) 14 Defendant. ) 15 16 17 18 THE DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL PIERLE, produced, 19 sworn, and examined on behalf of the Plaintiff, on 20 Wednesday, October 28, 1998, at 9:15 a.m., at the 21 offices of Taylor & Schroeder Reporting & Video, 7494 22 Ethel Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri, before KEVIN J. 23 WEICHMAN, a Certified Shorthand Reporter, Registered 24 Professional Reporter, and Notary Public within and for 25 the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8079 1 appearances 2 3 ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF4 Peter A. Grammas, Esq. 5 E. Clayton Lowe, Jr., Esq. 6 Burr Sc Forman, L.L.P. 7 3100 SouthTrust Tower 8 420 North 20th Street 9 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 10 MAIN: (205) 251-3000 11 FAX: (205) 458-5100 12 13 ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT: 14 Adam K. Peck, Esq. 15 Lightfoot, Franklin & White, L.L.C. 16 300 Financial Center 17 505 20th Street North 18 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 19 MAIN: (205) 581-0700 20 FAX: (205) 581-0799 21 22 Michael E. Kelly 23 Smith, Helms, Mulliss & Moore 24 300 N. Greene Street, Suite 1400 25 Greensboro, NC 27401 TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8O8O 1 IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between 2 counsel for the Plaintiff and counsel for the Defendant 3 that the deposition of MICHAEL PIERLE may be taken 4 pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of 5 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to such 6 depositions, by and on behalf of the Plaintiff, on 7 Wednesday, October 28, 1998, at the offices of Taylor & 8 Schroeder Reporting & Video, 7494 Ethel Avenue, St. 9 Louis, Missouri, before KEVIN J. WEICHMAN, a Certified 10 Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the 11 County of St. Louis, State of Missouri. 12 13 14 MICHAEL PIERLE, 15 of lawful age, being produced, sworn, and examined on 16 the part of the Plaintiff, after answering "I do" to 17 the oath administered by the court reporter, deposes 18 and says: 19 MR. PECK: Usual stipulations? 20 MR. GRAMMAS: Does he want to read and sign? 21 MR. PECK: Do you want to read and sign, Mike? 22 MR. LOWE: We'd prefer him to. 23 (PIERLE EXHIBIT NOS. 1 THROUGH 3 WERE FIRST DULY 24 MARKED, RECEIVED AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD.) 25 DIRECT EXAMINATION TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018081 i 1 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 2 Q. Could you state your full name for the record, 3 please. 4 A. Michael Anthony Pierle. 5 Q. And where do you currently live, Mr. Pierle? 6 A. 801 Greenwich Green Lane in Town and Country, 7 Missouri. 8 Q. Is that near St. Louis? 9 A. It is. 10 Q. And what is your current position? 11 A. Vice president of environmental safety and 12 health for Solutia. 13 Q. How long have you held that position? 14 A. Since the company was created the 1st of 15 September, 1997. 16 Q. If I understand from prior testimony, Solutia 17 was a company that Monsanto had spun off? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. And all of the people -- well, not all, but a 20 significant number of people making up employees of 21 Solutia currently were employed by Monsanto before 22 September of 1997? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. There wasn't a big shift in employees and that 25 type stuff, I mean, it was really basically a name TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING Sc VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018082 1 change and what was part of a division of Monsanto is 2 now a separate company? 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. And what did you do, sir, before you were 5 employed as the vice president of environmental safety 6 and health for Solutia? 7 A. I virtually had the same position as vice 8 president of environmental safety and health for 9 Monsanto Company. 10 Q. And how long have you -- how long did you hold 11 that position? 12 A. I began that position somewhere around April 13 or May of 1991. 14 Q. And did your job responsibilities change from 15 Solutia -- once you became employed by Solutia, were 16 they basically the same as your job responsibilities 17 when you were employed by Monsanto? 18 A. They're basically the same. 19 Q. I was on the Internet for Monsanto and what I 20 observed on the Internet was a -- I guess a "bio," for 21 lack of a better word, on you. Is that an accurate 22 description of what I've just shown you now as 23 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1? 24 A. Is the content accurate; is that what you are 25 asking? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018083 1 Q. Is this a bio of your -- basically a general 2 description of your background as far as education and 3 employment ? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And before we start, I asked you to look over 6 that and I asked you if it was all true and accurate, 7 and you noticed that there may have been a couple 8 things that weren't quite correct. Could you clarify 9 what you believe may need some further discussion. 10 A. Yes. In the second-to-last paragraph on the 11 first page, it indicates that I'm a member of the board 12 of directors of the Monsanto Fund. That is incorrect. 13 It should be the Solutia Fund. And in the sentence 14 following that, which is: "He is chairman of the 15 National Wildlife Federation's Corporate Conservation 16 Council," that council no longer exists. So I'm no 17 longer in that capacity. 18 Q. Before September 1997, were you a member of 19 the board of directors of the Monsanto Fund? 20 A Yes. 21 Q. So this is not necessarily incorrect, it's 22 just incomplete in that it should also state in here 23 that you're now a board of director for the Solutia 24 Fund? 25 A. That's a fair point. You had started and said TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018084 1 that was off of the Monsanto Internet. It's quite 2 confusing. 3 Q. Yeah. What I did, I typed in "Monsanto" and 4 some things from Monsanto came up and some things for 5 Solutia came up. This apparently has a Solutia 6 Internet address on it. 7 A. I would have thought so. 8 Q. And it's like www.solutia.com, et cetera, et 9 cetera. But I pulled this up off of the Monsanto site. 10 Apparently they're interrelated. 11 All right. Let's talk a little bit, then, 12 about some of the things contained in this Plaintiff's 13 Exhibit 1. Your educational history, could you just 14 briefly give that to me. 15 A. I graduated with a civil engineering degree 16 from Purdue University in 1966 and I received a 17 master's degree in engineering from Washington 18 University in 1971. And then in addition to those 19 formal degrees, I attended two sort of executive 20 management programs at the University of Texas and at 21 Stanford. 22 Q. Did you say your master's was in engineering 23 also? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And what were these executive -- how did you TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8085 1 describe them? 2 A. They're basically executive management 3 sessions. Probably the best description is they are 4 sort of mini-master's of business programs. But 5 there's no degree associated with them. 6 Q. Is it more of a seminar or course work? 7 A. It is -- it's basically course work. 8 Q. And how long did it take you to complete the 9 courses? 10 A. Well, the one program in Texas, I think, ran 11 four or five weeks and the Stanford program ran eight 12 weeks. 13 Q. And you did that continuously, you took time 14 away from Monsanto? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. When did you attend these management - 17 A. I think the exact dates are on the exhibit. 18 The Texas program was in the '80s and the Stanford 19 program was in 1990. 20 Q. Because I didn't see -- and I've read this. I 21 didn't see those two mentioned anywhere in this 22 exhibit. 23 A. I thought that they were mentioned at the 24 bottom of it. 25 Q. You're right, they are. I'm sorry. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018086 1 1 Once you got your first civil engineering 2 degree from Purdue in 1966, where did you begin work? 3 A. I joined the Monsanto Company. 4 Q. And what was the reason for you going to 5 Monsanto? 6 A. Best job offer that I had at the time. 7 Q. I mean, did you have any particular ties to 8 Monsanto, parents work there, friends work there, 9 anything like that? 10 A. None. 11 Q. And what did you start out as at Monsanto in 12 1966? 13 A. I started as basically a beginning engineer 14 position with the company. 15 Q. And what types of things would you do, did you 16 do? 17 A. I was in an environmental group at the time 18 that was basically doing environmental monitoring, 19 primarily air and water work. 20 Q. And what was it about a civil engineering 21 degree that qualified you to take that position? 22 A. In the civil engineering program at Purdue, 23 there are several elective areas, one of which was 24 environmental engineering, and I had taken a 25 concentrated set of courses in that portion of civil TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018087 ----------------------------------------------- - -------------------------------------------------------- i: 1 engineering; and that as much as anything sort of 2 introduced me to the area and created interest and I 3 was able to, you know, find employment initially in 4 that field. 5 Q. Now, what types of things would you do as far 6 as monitoring environmental activities relating to air 7 and water for Monsanto at that time when you first 8 began employment with them? 9 A. Basically the work was looking at sampling 10 systems, developing certain sampling systems for water. 11 We were primarily concentrated there around 12 measurements of phenol and something called "COD," or 13 chemical oxygen demand. And in the air area, most of 14 the work that we were doing was sulfur dioxide 15 emissions primarily associated with power plants. 16 Q. Did any of your work involve studying the 17 impact that Monsanto's manufacturing operations had on 18 the environment? 19 A. You know, at that time we were looking at 20 certain, you know, effluents and discharges. You know, 21 to some extent that's looking at releases, but not 22 ultimate impact in the environment. 23 Q. Was there a division at Monsanto at that time, 24 when you first joined Monsanto in 1966, that was 25 charged with the responsibility of looking to see what TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018088 ......................................... ............................................................... .................................. ...................i; 1 impacts Monsanto's manufacturing operations had on the 2 environment? 3 A. I don't know whether -- we're dealing with 4 word definition here, you know, so I don't know what 5 you really mean by "impact on the environment." 6 Q. Well, what I mean by that is if you're 7 manufacturing chemicals and you're discharging 8 chemicals, either through permits or otherwise, into, 9 say, bodies of water, what impact those chemicals may 10 have on aquatic life, on the river systems, on people 11 who swim, boat, fishing, on people who eat the fish, 12 that type stuff? 13 A. My recollection of most of the plants at that 14 time had persons or people who were looking at 15 discharges in accordance with regulatory permits, 16 primarily at the state level, and determining 17 conformance with those. Again, I think the general 18 assumption there was that the discharges in accordance 19 with allowable permits and releases were acceptable 20 to -- were acceptable to the environment. 21 Q. Do I understand your testimony correctly, 22 then, in that you're saying that there was not a 23 particular division or department here in St. Louis 24 that oversaw all of the plants that Monsanto had around 25 the country, dealing with potential impacts of its TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018089 14 1 plant operations on the environment? 2 A. I don't know. I mean, in looking back at that 3 time, you know, my position at that point in time was 4 fairly narrow as a new engineer and I really didn't 5 have at that time a total understanding of what the 6 company's efforts and programs and their resources 7 were. 8 Q. But the position you held as an environmental 9 monitor -- and I don't know if that's a correct job 10 description, maybe it is, maybe it's not -- didn't deal 11 with studying the impacts of chemicals being left in 12 the environment and what impacts that would have, if at 13 all, on the community? 14 A. I think I've described what it is, and at that 15 time the sense was if you're discharging things within 16 your permit limits, that that's what constituted 17 acceptable protection in the environment and the 18 community. 19 Q. What permits in 1966 did Monsanto hold at its 20 Anniston plant in Anniston, Alabama, that gave it the 21 right to discharge PCBs into Snow Creek, Choccolocco 22 Creek? 23 A. I was not familiar with the plant at that 24 time, so I don't know what their factual permitted 25 situation was. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018090 -- ------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1 Q. Are you aware of any permits at all that 2 Monsanto ever had at any plant that allowed it to dump 3 PCBs into a river system? 4 A. As I recall, the structure of the permitted 5 systems is that back at state levels, and then when 6 federal permits came in in the '70s, is that the 7 permits dealt with what was restricted; things that 8 were not included were not unrestricted. 9 Q. Things that were not included were not 10 unrestricted. That's a triple negative. I'm trying to 11 figure out what that means. If something was not 12 included on a permit, Monsanto could dump as much of it 13 as it wanted into the river system? 14 A. I think that's the right legal interpretation. 15 The permits tend to focus on and limit what the 16 regulatory authorities thought was important to limit, 17 and it did not set limits on other potential discharge 18 components. 19 Q. You understand, sir -- or do you understand - 20 what this lawsuit is about, and what the class of 21 representatives that I represent who are suing Monsanto 22 and Solutia is about? 23 A. I understand that there is a lawsuit in the 24 class and I would say in general what the issue is 25 about. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018091 16 1 Q. Describe for me, if you would, sir, what you 2 believe the lawsuit is about. 3 A. As I understand this lawsuit, it's a class of 4 property owners around a lake that are basically suing 5 the company for basically charges of diminished 6 property value. Basically that's what I understand it 7 to be . 8 Q. Do you understand it to be a lawsuit involving 9 a claim of damaged riparian rights to the property that 10 these people own? 11 A. I'm not that versed in the language in what 12 you've just said. 13 Q. Have you had any personal involvement in 14 working in this lawsuit, other than your conversations 15 with lawyers? 16 A. I don't know that I fully understand the 17 question, but I'm not -- I mean, this is the extent of 18 my involvement in the details of the legal proceeding. 19 Q. None of your employees, managers, agents have 20 discussed with you in official company meetings the 21 merits of this lawsuit, the potential ways to resolve 22 the lawsuit, or anything like that? 23 MR. PECK: I'm assuming with that question 24 you're excluding conversations he's had with his legal 25 counsel? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8092 17 1 MR. GRAMMAS: Yeah, that's a good assumption. 2 MR. PECK: To the extent that you're not, I 3 would object to the question. He's certainly not to - 4 MR. GRAMMAS: I don't want to - 5 MR. PECK: -- disclose communications with his 6 legal counsel. 7 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 8 Q. Any question I ask you today, Mr. Pierle, if 9 you interpret to mean to include conversations that 10 you've had with your attorneys, I don't want you to 11 answer the question to that extent. I'm not entitled 12 to that and I don't want to know that. But what I do 13 want to know is conversations you had with employees of 14 Monsanto or Solutia, your managers, your employees that 15 work under you, about the merits of this lawsuit and 16 ways to resolve it. 17 A. No. I'm really not involved in any of those 18 conversations, if it exists. I don't know that they 19 exist. 20 Q. Is it your position, then, or do you believe 21 that none of those conversations or those types of 22 conversations have occurred between Monsanto employees? 23 A. You know, I know this case is being handled by 24 the legal department and basically it's up to them to 25 determine what conversations do or don't happen. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018093 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18 1 Q. What are your job responsibilities as - 2 basically you're the head of the entire environmental 3 department for Solutia, correct? 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. And when I -- I will use "Solutia" and 6 "Monsanto" interchangeably in the lawsuit, especially 7 given the fact that your job duties really didn't 8 change much since you took this position. But for lack 9 of a better word, Mr. Pierle, the buck stops at your 10 desk with respect to environmental issues concerning 11 Monsanto and Solutia, right? 12 A. Yeah. I mean, I think that depends on what 13 you determine to be environmental issues. 14 Q. Well, PCBs being dumped into a river system, 15 does that fall under your direction? 16 A. Certainly matters with respect to the 17 regulatory side of that, the remediation side do. The 18 matters that pertain to the legal side do not. 19 Q. Right, I understand that. And what I want to 20 talk to you about is issues other than the legal 21 aspects of it. The lawyers will deal with that, but 22 what I want to know is, is what your responsibilities 23 are as the vice president of Solutia in dealing with 24 issues involving PCB contamination in river systems 25 and, in particular, in Anniston. What involvement have TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018094 15 1 you had in considering these issues, if any? 2 A. At my level, I'm aware of the team working, 3 you know, at the plant site and with respect to the 4 various remediation projects, and am aware of and 5 involved in, where appropriate, the decisions 6 associated with those aspects around the Anniston 7 plant. 8 Q. Would that include cleaning up PCBs that 9 Monsanto put into the river system? 10 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 11 THE WITNESS: It involves currently the work 12 that we're doing concerning both remediations that are 13 undertaken as well as investigations that are underway 14 today. 15 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 16 Q. Who set the policies for Solutia, and Monsanto 17 at the time, on what is going to be done, if anything, 18 to clean up PCBs that were discharged into Snow Creek, 19 Choccolocco Creek, and Lake Logan Martin? 20 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 21 THE WITNESS: In general, policies have been 22 set, both at Monsanto and at Solutia, by policy 23 committees. They're not set by me, for example. 24 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 25 Q. Are you on the committee? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018095 20 1 A. In Monsanto, at a time, I was on an 2 environmental policy committee. In Solutia, those 3 decisions actually happen in a policy committee today, 4 but I'm not on that committee. 5 Q. Have you ever been on that committee? 6 A. Not in Solutia, no. 7 Q. Do you have the authority, sir, to order a 8 cleanup of the PCB contamination in Snow Creek, 9 Choccolocco Creek, and Lake Logan Martin? 10 A. I have the authority to make decisions with 11 respect to cleanup projects for the company to certain 12 levels. 13 Q. And what does that mean? 14 A. To the extent that there are decisions and to 15 the extent that the financial aspects of those are 16 quantified, I have authority to certain levels and at 17 certain levels I do not have authority. 18 Q. To what extent does your financial authority 19 go in ordering a cleanup of PCB contamination? 20 A. You've used the word "order." I don't think 21 I'm ordering, I believe the right terminology would be 22 in "approving" cleanup projects that come up through 23 the processes that are in place. I don't know if 24 that's responsive or not. 25 Q. Well, it's not, sir. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018096 21 1 The question was: How much money can you 2 direct -- or, how much cleanup can you direct and how 3 is it limited by money? 4 A. Yeah. The authority that I have is generally 5 at about $5 million per project, which in general is 6 significant to do most of the project and project work 7 that we have underway. 8 Q. How much money has Monsanto and/or Solutia 9 spent to clean up the PCBs around its own properties 10 and the neighboring properties out at the Anniston 11 plant to date? 12 A. I think in general the number we're using, on 13 a cumulative project basis, is somewhere around $30 14 million. 15 Q. And did anyone other than you -- did the 16 authority -- or, did the decision to do that cleanup 17 come from you, sir? 18 A. Again, the way the process works is that I 19 either have authority or it's been delegated authority 20 to commit to the work. 21 Q. All I want to know is: Did -- somebody at 22 Monsanto decided to spend $30 million to clean up its 23 own backyard. Who did that? 24 A. In some of those cases, on an aggregate basis, 25 those decisions were made inclusive of decisions at the TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018097 22 1 board-of-director level. That's consistent with the 2 financial accounting requirements and practices. 3 Q. Who's on the board of directors today? 4 A. I don't have the full list of those people. 5 Q. Could you give me the list as complete as you 6 know it? 7 A. The internal members are Robert Potter and 8 John Hunter. 9 Q. John Hunter? 10 A. Right. 11 Q. Those are the only two? 12 A. Those are the only two Solutia employees that 13 are board of directors members. 14 Q. What about Monsanto employees? 15 A. Monsanto's not a member of the Solutia board. 16 It's a separate company. 17 Q. Who else is on the board besides Mr. Potter 18 and Mr. Hunter, that you're aware of? 19 A. I know that Bill Ruckleshouse (PHONETIC) is. 20 The balance of the board, I'm just not recalling their 21 names. 22 Q. Mr. Pierle, if you decided that a cleanup was 23 warranted in Anniston, Alabama, and the surrounding 24 areas of Snow Creek, Choccolocco Creek, and Lake Logan 25 Martin -- and when I say a "cleanup," I mean removing TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING Sc VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018098 23 1 PCBs from the soils and sediments in the river 2 system -- do you have the authority to order that 3 cleanup to be done? 4 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 5 THE WITNESS: With respect to projects -- and 6 I define "cleanup" different than that. It could be 7 inclusive of that, but it could be many other things. 8 To the extent that the financial cost is within my 9 authority or has been delegated by an action above me, 10 I would have the authority to commit to a project work. 11 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 12 Q. And your limit is a $5 million decision? 13 A. Unless larger levels have been approved and 14 authority delegated. 15 Q. If it costs a half a billion dollars to remove 16 the PCBs from Snow Creek, Choccolocco, and Lake Logan 17 Martin, would you have the authority to order a cleanup 18 of that magnitude? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Where would that go? Who would have to make 21 that decision, legal department? 22 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 23 THE WITNESS: At that level, I mean, it's 24 difficult to comprehend, number one. So I assume 25 you're asking a speculative kind of question. Any TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8099 ......................................................................... .................. ................. ... ........................... 24 1 authority that would require that level, if possible, 2 would clearly have to involve the board of directors, 3 the officers and the board of directors of the company. 4 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 5 Q. In 1966 when you began your employment, when 6 was the first time you heard about PCB-related issues? 7 A. It was probably in the '68-to-'69 period when 8 there was general literature information available on 9 an increased, I think, awareness in the country around 10 PCBs . 11 Q. Did Monsanto -- how many people -- how many 12 companies other than Monsanto manufactured PCBs here in 13 the United States? 14 A. I don't know. There were others, but I don't 15 know how many. 16 Q. You didn't understand who Monsanto's 17 competitors were during the time you were working with 18 them? 19 A. No. 20 Q. That wasn't something that concerned you? 21 A. No. 22 Q. What percentage of PCBs roughly, sir, did 23 Monsanto manufacture in the United States? 24 A. I don't know. 25 Q. Isn't it a true statement, sir, that Monsanto TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018100 25 1 manufactured 98 percent of the PCBs in the entire 2 world? 3 A. I don't know. 4 Q. You've never heard those numbers? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Isn't it a true statement, sir, that Monsanto 7 was the overwhelming manufacturer of PCBs in the entire 8 world? 9 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 10 THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of those facts or 11 what the market-share position was. I just don't know. 12 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 13 Q. Who manufactured PCB in the state of Alabama 14 other than Monsanto? 15 A. I don't know. 16 Q. You said you became aware of PCB-related 17 issues in the late '60s, 1968 time frame, I believe you 18 said. What was your knowledge of PCB-related issues at 19 that time? 20 A. In general there were questions raised about 21 the environmental significance of PCBs and there were 22 efforts at that time generally to understand PCBs and 23 their sources and presence in the environment. 24 Q. And where was this information or literature 25 coming from? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018101 26 1 A. Well, as I recall, some of that was just in 2 the general news, things of that nature. 3 Q. Was Monsanto studying the impacts of PCBs on 4 the environment at that time internally? 5 A. There was work inside Monsanto around that 6 time relative to understanding its PCB losses. I don't 7 know what else was going on. 8 Q. Most of the information was coming from 9 sources outside of Monsanto that you became aware of in 10 the 1968 time frame? 11 A. Yeah, at the front end of that. 12 Q. Do you believe, sir, that Solutia today has 13 the responsibility to fully research, before it ever 14 begins manufacturing, what environmental impact a 15 product may have before it begins making it? 16 A. I think that we do look at the product and its 17 properties and a fair amount of that is also now 18 regulated by government under rules, and we do that 19 work if we're in the business of looking at new 20 materials. 21 Q. Would Solutia manufacture a product that it 22 knew would have an adverse impact on -- let me ask you 23 this: As the chief environmental manager for Solutia 24 today, would you allow this company to manufacture a 25 product that you personally knew would have an adverse TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018102 ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ -- ----------- ------------------------------------ 21 1 impact on the environment regardless of whether it was 2 regulated or not? 3 A. Under what use conditions? 4 Q. What do you mean? Under any use conditions. 5 A. If you manufactured a product with hazardous 6 properties but it was intended to be managed correctly 7 such that those did not cause damage, then I think 8 those kind of materials could be produced today. 9 Q. I understand that, and what I'm saying is: 10 Would you personally allow Solutia to manufacture a 11 product that you knew would have an adverse impact on 12 the environment regardless of how carefully you handled 13 that product even if it was not a regulated product? 14 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 15 THE WITNESS: I think again in very specific 16 situations there can be products that are made today 17 that have hazardous properties that -- I mean, I can't 18 conceive of one not being true of regulatory approval, 19 which was part of your question. 20 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 21 Q. Right. And what I'm saying is: If you knew 22 something was going to have a bad impact on the 23 environment or people that used the product and you 24 were ahead of the curve on it and knew that in fact the 25 government didn't know about it, you wouldn't TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018103 ________________________________________________ 1 manufacture it anyway just because it wasn't regulated, 2 would you? 3 A. No. 4 Q. That's where I'm really coming from. And the 5 fact that a product is regulated or not really 6 shouldn't impact your decision on whether you're going 7 to manufacture it if you know personally that it's 8 going to have some type of adverse impact? 9 A. Under its intended consequences and use, 10 that's correct. 11 Q. Okay. Don't you think, sir, that Monsanto had 12 a responsibility during the decades that it was 13 manufacturing PCBs to fully understand the impact PCBs 14 had on the environment internally? 15 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 16 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure that I understand 17 the question. 18 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 19 Q. Monsanto was the company manufacturing PCBs, 20 right? 21 A. One of the companies. 22 Q. And Monsanto manufactured PCBs in Anniston 23 from the '30s up to the '70s, right? 24 A. I believe that's correct. 25 Q. And over that 40-year period, don't you TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018104 29 1 believe that Monsanto should have known everything 2 about that product and its adverse effects, if any, on 3 the environment - 4 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 5 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 6 Q. -- as it was manufacturing it? 7 A. By the standards that were in existence during 8 that period of time. I mean, I think it would be 9 difficult to say by the standards that exist today or 10 the knowledge or whatever, that you would apply that 11 back to 1930. 12 Q. Well, the knowledge that we have today 13 about -- first of all, before I ask you that question, 14 you will agree with me that PCBs are a hazardous 15 product, won't you? 16 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 17 THE WITNESS: PCBs do have hazardous 18 properties, that's correct. 19 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 20 Q. And it's not good to eat PCBs, is it? 21 A. I don't know that it's ever been shown to be a 22 true human health hazard. So the answer to your 23 question gets tied up into how much and when and what. 24 Q. Let me ask you a simple question. Would you 25 eat spoonfuls of PCBs every day? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018105 3> 1 A. I mean, why would I? It's not part of a food 2 diet. So the answer to that is: Why would I want to 3 do that? 4 Q. It's not supposed to be in the food diet, is 5 it? 6 A. No, I'm sure - 7 Q. You-all didn't manufacture PCBs to be eaten, 8 did you? 9 A. No. 10 Q. You don't want anybody eating PCBs, do you? 11 A. I wouldn't think that that would be something 12 somebody would want to sit down and intentionally do. 13 Q. It would actually be something that somebody 14 would want to avoid, wouldn't it? 15 A. Yeah, similarly you would avoid that on lots 16 of things. 17 Q. Like what? 18 A. Eating too much table salt, eating too much 19 sugar. I mean, lots of things that you would say, you 20 know, you just -- you don't want to do because they're 21 probably not healthy for you. 22 Q. And eating PCBs is one of them? 23 A. Again, the question there is: Does ingestion 24 of PCBs cause adverse health consequences? And I think 25 everything that we see says that has not been a proven TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8IO6 31 1 conclusion. 2 Q. Okay. Now, you're the head man over the 3 environmental safety issues for Solutia. 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. And I assume that you have read articles 6 regarding adverse health effects PCBs have on human 7 beings. 8 A. I have read a fair amount of information that 9 discusses that topic. 10 Q. And you, as the head of the environmental 11 affairs at Solutia and once held that same position at 12 Monsanto, are testifying that you're unaware of a 13 single scientist who has concluded that ingesting PCBs 14 poses a health hazard to human beings? 15 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 16 Mischaracterizes his prior testimony. 17 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I didn't say that. 18 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 19 Q. I thought you said that there's nothing really 20 proven that PCBs cause adverse health effects in human 21 beings. 22 A. That wasn't the question you asked me. 23 Q. Did you not testify to that, Mr. Pierle; did I 24 misunderstand you? 25 A. I think what I said was that our general TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING Sc VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018107 --------------------------------------------------- ------------- ----------------------------------------------- ------------------31 1 conclusion, looking at all the information about PCB 2 studies, health studies, and all that, is that it does 3 not indicate that PCBs have been shown to be a human 4 health -- or, an adverse human health material. 5 Q. Are you aware of a single scientific study 6 that disputes what you just told me? 7 A. I can't tell you specifically studies. There 8 are many of them at different doses that look at dose 9 response and that, but in general, the conclusion we 10 make out of the body of studies is that that is not - 11 that is not an appropriate conclusion. 12 Q. Okay. And what I'm hearing you saying, Mr. 13 Pierle, is that you're looking at a group of studies 14 and you're reading all of them that you're aware of and 15 that you have read, and then after you've read all of 16 these studies, you're making a conclusion on your own 17 based on the work of other people as to whether or not 18 PCBs cause or may cause adverse human health effects, 19 right? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Now, some of those find that it doesn't, I 22 assume, is what you're testifying to, correct? 23 A. I haven't looked at every individual study. 24 I'm saying that when I talk with experts in my 25 department and look at that, that is the general TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8IO8 33 1 conclusion that we come to. 2 Q. Have you personally ever read a single 3 scientific study that disagrees with your conclusion 4 that you've testified to today? 5 A. My conclusion is based upon the weight of 6 evidence of all of the information, and there are 7 varying studies in there. 8 Q. So the answer - 9 A. So the proper way to look at it is to look at 10 all the information, not to look at individual studies, 11 but to look at all the information and derive 12 conclusions from the body and the weight of evidence of 13 all the studies. 14 Q. You've never seen a study that says that PCB 15 ingestion causes adverse health effects or may cause 16 adverse human health effects; is that your testimony, 17 yes or no? 18 A. No. 19 Q. So, then, can I understand that you have seen 20 scientific studies that suggest that ingestion of PCBs 21 causes or may cause adverse human health effects? 22 A. Yes, I have seen the studies. 23 Q. Okay. And can you identify who these people 24 were that conducted these studies? 25 A. I don't recall. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018109 ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- 34 1 Q. Were they Monsanto employees? 2 A. I don't believe so. 3 Q. Do you know of a single study conducted by 4 anyone within Monsanto or Solutia that has concluded 5 that the products that this company manufactured for 30 6 years, PCBs, cause or may cause adverse human health 7 effects if ingested? 8 A. I don't know of any. 9 Q. Are you aware of any studies that Monsanto has 10 conducted that show the opposite conclusion; in other 11 words, that ingestion or exposure to PCBs does not 12 cause adverse human health effects? 13 A. Again, I'm not familiar with each and every 14 study that we have conducted or others have conducted. 15 That's just not a level of detail, I think I said, that 16 I would get down to. I rely on the experts in the 17 organization that have worked for both companies to 18 provide general conclusions and recommendations in 19 those areas. 20 Q. What did you do for the Department of Commerce 21 in 1974 and 1975? 22 A. I was basically on loan in the Department - 23 or, the Commerce Department, in a small group there 24 that was the Office of Environmental Affairs, and our 25 primary role was to participate on behalf of the TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018110 35 1 department in a governmental process that was called 2 Quality and Life Review on Governmental Regulations. 3 Q. Did it have anything to do with regulating 4 PCBs ? 5 A. None. Did the process have any -- I don't 6 know whether the process did or not during my period of 7 time. I specifically stayed away from any regulatory 8 matters that were pertaining to the chemical industry. 9 Q. Why is that? 10 A. I think as basically just a prudent step that 11 says that --my background was in that industry, there 12 should be no question about being involved in any 13 regulations that would pertain to that industry. There 14 were plenty of other folks in the department that could 15 look at those things, and I specifically focused on 16 things outside that industry. 17 Q. Who paid for your services at that time? 18 A. I was an employee of the Department of 19 Commerce. 20 Q. Did you give them any special types of breaks 21 or anything as far as how much money you would receive 22 during that period of time? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Why is it that they selected you to do this, 25 sir? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOQ18111 36 1 A. In the Department --at Commerce, in that 2 group, they had a practice of rotating on an -- roughly 3 an annual basis, somebody out of industry and in prior 4 years it had been other companies and I'm not really 5 sure how my name got into the nomination process. And 6 so I was nominated and accepted and spent a year there 7 and then returned to Monsanto. 8 Q. And it was always known that it was going to 9 be a one-year position and that you were going to 10 return to Monsanto when the position was completed? 11 A. No. It was -- you asked two questions there. 12 One, it was known that it was going to be a one-year 13 assignment, but I was under no obligation to return to 14 Monsanto. I had basically stopped my employment with 15 Monsanto Company prior to that. 16 Q. This bio, Exhibit 1, says in 1974 to 1975 you 17 were "on leave" to work for the Department of Commerce. 18 That suggests to me that Monsanto knew that you were 19 going to do this and encouraged you to do it and 20 allowed you to do it and wanted you to come back when 21 you were through. Am I reading that wrong? 22 A. Basically they encouraged it. They did 23 basically allow it, but the point is that I had no 24 contractual commitment to come back. They had no 25 commitment to me to a specific position, and I had no TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018112 _____________ _____________________________________________37 1 commitment to come back. I think the hope was that, 2 from a personal standpoint, I'd be able to return in 3 another responsible position. 4 Q. What benefits did Monsanto receive, if any, 5 from you working for the Department of Commerce in the 6 Office of Environmental Affairs during that year? 7 A. None. 8 Q. There wasn't any political advantage gained? 9 A. No. I mean, I was a Grade 14GS person. I 10 mean, it was a learning position. It wasn't a position 11 of influence or consequence in the department. 12 Q. Do you believe that the single biggest 13 challenge today that Monsanto and Solutia now has is 14 PCB-remediation issues, as far as environmental cleanup 15 issues ? 16 A. I mean, it's an important issue to us. I 17 don't know whether it's the single biggest issue and I 18 can't speak for Monsanto. Their issues today are much 19 different. 20 Q. And when I say "Monsanto," I don't mean 21 Monsanto as of September 1997, I mean Monsanto prior to 22 the spinoff of Solutia and the responsibilities that 23 you held with Monsanto. Do you understand what I'm 24 saying? 25 A. Not really. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOQ18113 38 1 MR. PECK: Your question, Pete, was asking for 2 a current -- you said "today." Today Monsanto and 3 Solutia are two separate companies. I think that he's 4 got to make that distinct. 5 MR. GRAMMAS: That's fair. 6 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 7 Q. If, sir, you don't believe that PCBs cause 8 human adverse human health effects, why is it that 9 you're concerned about remediation of them in the first 10 place ? 11 A. I think we are in a process that began, you 12 know, a few years back at the plant site with respect 13 to PCBs, whether or not they exist at levels that would 14 cause adverse harm to the environment or to people, and 15 I think that our posture through this process is to 16 make sure that we understand that question and whether 17 or not there is a basis then for action. So we're in 18 it to understand and to find out and to discover 19 whether there are issues or situations that need 20 attention. 21 Q. Okay. Monsanto knew in the '50s that PCBs can 22 cause adverse human health effects, didn't it? 23 A. I don't know that for a fact. 24 Q. You've never seen literature from Monsanto 25 employees that said, We know PCBs are toxic to humans, TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018114 39 1 in the '50s? 2 A. Again, I have not gone back and looked at all 3 those documents. I wasn't involved in that. I mean, I 4 wasn't even employed at that time. 5 Q. Well, I wasn't even born at that time, sir, 6 but I've read a document produced by your company that 7 said that they knew in the late '50s that -- this is a 8 document that I've seen, I'm sure there are others, but 9 one of the documents that I've seen said that Monsanto 10 knew in the late '50s that PCBs cause adverse human 11 health effects. 12 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 13 I don't think that's an accurate characterization of 14 the document. If you want to ask him about the 15 document, show him the document. 16 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 17 Q. It seems to me, sir, as the head man over the 18 department of environmental affairs at Solutia, you 19 would at least be aware of such a document. 20 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 21 It mischaracterizes the document. 22 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 23 Q. Is it your testimony that you've never seen 24 any documents dated back in the late '50s that 25 discussed human health effects on PCBs? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8115 40 1 A. You know, I don't recall what I have or 2 haven't seen. 3 Q. All right. Well, at some point you will admit 4 that you became aware -- "you" being Monsanto, now 5 Solutia, and you personally -- became aware that PCBs 6 do in fact cause adverse human health effects at some 1 level of exposure? 8 A. I think most of the discussion of my 9 recollection around PCBs is around environmental 10 consequences, not human health consequences. 11 Q. When did you first become aware that PCBs harm 12 the environment? 13 A. Again, I think the data that I referred to in 14 the late '60s was around whether or not PCBs are 15 causing or alleged to be causing issues with respect to 16 environmental and critters within the department. 17 Q. How do PCBs hurt the environment? 18 A. I think the concerns are whether or not they 19 can -- at that time, interfered with certain processes 20 around birds and eggs that caused soft shells, and the 21 question was: Are PCBs a causative agent in what was 22 being observed at that time? 23 Q. Any other factors that show PCBs hurt the 24 environment? And don't limit your knowledge to that 25 time. Tell me all the ways you're aware of that PCBs TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018116 ____________________________________ _________________ 41 1 harm the environment. 2 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 3 THE WITNESS: Again, you know, I don't recall 4 the specific studies and works. I think what we're 5 looking at is whether or not, because of information 6 about PCBs, which I've described, we're to be sensitive 7 to whether or not they are in the environment and 8 causing any concern, and that's why we're doing the 9 studies and the work that we're doing today, to see 10 whether or not remediation is necessary and 11 appropriate. 12 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 13 Q. You're talking about remediation in Anniston? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. Here's where I'm getting at, and it's probably 16 obvious: Monsanto's known since the '50s and '60s that 17 PCBs cause harm, to both the environment and to 18 individuals, at certain levels. I realize Monsanto 19 debates what levels cause harm and all that, I 20 understand that. But at certain levels, everyone in 21 the world will agree that PCBs cause harm to the 22 environment and human beings, and Monsanto's known it 23 since the '50s and '60s. Here it is 1998. We're 24 almost at the year 2000 and it's your testimony that 25 Monsanto, and now Solutia, is still studying the issue TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOQ18117 _______________________________________ _________ 42 1 as to whether it causes harm to the environment or not 2 to determine whether you're going to remediate it or 3 not; is that your testimony, sir? 4 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 5 It completely mischaracterizes his testimony, misstates 6 numerous facts, and is completely without foundation. 7 If you can answer that question, you can try. 8 THE WITNESS: I can't answer it. 9 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 10 Q. Why can't you? 11 A. You asked -- you've stated several things 12 which I don't believe are true, and you've stated them 13 three or four times and I think we've covered that. So 14 how do I answer a question that has within it 15 statements that we believe are not true? 16 Q. What statements in there do you believe are 17 not true? 18 A. Well, you've dealt with "known to cause" and 19 "several studies" about the human health consequences 20 of that. So I don't -- you went on for a long period 21 of time, and you've got me, I guess, at the minimum, 22 confused. 23 Q. Okay. Well, let me break it down. Since the 24 '60s, Monsanto became aware of knowledge that PCBs harm 25 the environment, true or false? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018118 ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- 42 1 A. I would add the word "could" harm the 2 environment, and then I would agree with you. 3 Q. You're not convinced, as the head 4 environmental person at Solutia, that PCBs do in fact 5 harm the environment; is that what I'm hearing you say? 6 A. I think what I'm saying is that the work that 7 we're underway with is to understand whether or not 8 PCBs exist, whether they are at levels that could harm 9 the environment, and whether or not something needs to 10 be done about those. And that's the process that is a 11 very common process that's used throughout the United 12 States to deal with remediation issues, and that's the 13 process we're in. 14 Q. When did that process in Anniston begin? 15 A. My more recent understanding is that it was 16 sometime in the '90s when there was some data around 17 the storm water permit that raised a question as to 18 whether or not PCBs were leaving the site; and that 19 information, which we acted on diligently and pursued, 20 has led to a continuation of studies and understanding 21 in the area and project-related work. 22 Q. Monsanto did not begin this process of 23 studying whether or not the PCBs are harming the 24 environment until the 1990s in Anniston? 25 A. I don't know when they may have started or if TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018119 44 1 they had done anything before that. What I'm saying is 2 that my recollection of what started this level of 3 study began at about that time. 4 Q. And Monsanto at that very plant manufactured 5 PCBs from the '30s through the '70s, true? 6 A. I believe that's true. 7 Q. And during that entire period of time, 8 Monsanto engaged in a process it called "sewering," did 9 it not? 10 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 11 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 12 Q. Have you ever heard of that? 13 A. No. 14 Q. You've never heard of the word "sewering"? 15 A. I know what sewering is. 16 Q. What does "sewering" mean? 17 A. It's a discharging of materials into a sewer. 18 That would be my common definition of that. 19 Q. You're not aware that it was common practice 20 for employees at the Anniston plant in Monsanto to 21 sewer PCBs out of its plant into Snow Creek and 22 Choccolocco Creek during that entire period of time of 23 manufacture? 24 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 25 Lack of foundation. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018120 45 1 THE WITNESS: It's my understanding that there 2 was a discharge from that plant site that went through 3 a neutralization treatment basin and subsequently was 4 discharged. 5 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 6 Q. Into Snow Creek/Choccolocco Creek? 7 A. I believe that's correct. 8 Q. Now, over that 40-year period while Monsanto 9 is dumping all the PCBs into this river system, why 10 didn't it study the effects of PCBs during that time? 11 Why did it wait until the '90s to engage in this 12 process you're now talking about to determine what 13 impacts if any PCBs have on the environment and the 14 folks that live down there? 15 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 16 THE WITNESS: I don't know what they did, you 17 know, relative to plant operations and what was done at 18 that point in time. It was certainly not a common 19 practice. I mean, you're looking at a set of processes 20 that exist today that did not exist years ago, so 21 you're sort of applying a set of understandings to 22 conditions 40 years ago that simply didn't exist. 23 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 24 Q. That brings up an interesting point. Does 25 Monsanto, and now Solutia, take the position that it TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOQ18121 46 1 was perfectly proper for them to dump PCBs into the 2 river system during the '30s, '40s, '50s, '60s, and 3 early '70s? 4 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 5 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 6 Q. "Because everybody was doing it we could do 1 it. " 8 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 9 Assumes facts not in evidence. 10 THE WITNESS: I don't know how to answer that. 11 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 12 Q. Truthfully. 13 A. Of course. 14 Q. You were dumping them. Not you personally, 15 but your company was dumping them into the rivers. 16 A. There were discharges and systems in place, 17 and what was common practice at that point in time was 18 that many effluents of treatment from cities, from 19 homes, and from industry plants were basically 20 discharged into rivers and streams. That was a very 21 common practice. 22 Q. Including Monsanto, in Anniston, PCBs, 23 correct? 24 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 25 Asked and answered. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOQ18122 _____________ _______________________________ _______________ _47 1 MR. GRAMMAS: It's been asked, but it hasn't 2 been answered yet. 3 MR. PECK: He explained to you how the system 4 worked, Pete. You didn't like the answer, so you 5 changed the facts of the question. 6 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 7 Q. You can answer the question, Mr. Pierle. 8 A. I think what I told you was I don't know what 9 the facts were in the '40s, and that's what you're 10 asking me now to discuss. 11 Q. Okay. You're the head honcho for remediation 12 on PCB-related issues as we sit here today, right? 13 A. That's within my department. 14 Q. And you don't report to anybody, really, other 15 than the board of directors. 16 A. That's not true. I didn't say that. 17 Q. With respect to remediation. 18 A. Correct. I have a supervisor. 19 Q. Who's your supervisor? 20 A. My current supervisor is John Ferguson. 21 Q. And what position does he hold with Solutia? 22 A. I'm not sure of his exact title, but he is the 23 head of the shared service organization, of which I am 24 a member. 25 Q. What is that? I've never heard of that. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018123 48 1 A. It basically -- the environmental safety and 2 health department provides services to the enterprise 3 and other functions that provide service to the 4 enterprise and we report to John, who is the supervisor 5 of that shared service group. 6 Q. What enterprise? 7 A. Solutia. 8 Q. Is that shared service with Monsanto? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Sort of like a blend of Monsanto/Solutia 11 employees? 12 A. This is Solutia. 13 Q. Okay. Now, don't you believe, sir, as the 14 senior employee of environmental affairs, charged at 15 least in part with the responsibility of deciding 16 whether a remediation should take place in Anniston 17 regarding PCB exposure and contamination, that you 18 should have an understanding of the amount of PCBs that 19 were put into that river system by Monsanto and now 20 Solutia? 21 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 22 THE WITNESS: I think what we're trying to 23 understand with the work that we're doing now is what 24 is the situation today, ' the factual situation with 25 respect to the presence of PCBs, and that's what we've TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018124 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4_9 1 been working diligently on and are continuing to work 2 on. 3 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 4 Q. And that's the work you started in the 1990s? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. And Monsanto knew about -- as you put it - 7 the potential adverse impacts PCBs would have on the 8 environment as early as the late 1960s. 9 A. I think I said what, the late '60s? 10 Q. 1968 is really what you said. 11 A. Okay. 12 Q. So Monsanto knew in 1968 that PCBs could cause 13 harm to the environment, right? 14 A. Could. 15 Q. Monsanto knew from 1968 to the early 1990s, 16 before this diligent study began that you're talking 17 about, that it put PCBs into Snow Creek, Choccolocco 18 Creek, and Lake Logan Martin, right? 19 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 20 It mischaracterizes his testimony. 21 MR. GRAMMAS: That's not a 22 mischaracterization, Adam. I'm asking him this 23 question. How can I mischaracterize something he 24 hasn't answered? 25 MR. PECK: Well, you have asked him, he has TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018125 50 1 answered, and now you're mischaracterizing it. 2 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 3 Q. Monsanto knows, sitting here today -- Solutia 4 knows, sitting here today, that Monsanto put PCBs into 5 Snow Creek, Choccolocco Creek, and Lake Logan Martin, 6 true or false? 7 A. That's not true. 8 Q. You don't believe that Monsanto put PCBs into 9 Snow Creek, Choccolocco Creek, and Lake Logan Martin? 10 A. I believe what I said to you is that we are - 11 part of this work and investigation is trying to find 12 out answers to those questions. 13 Q. One of the questions you-all are actually 14 studying -- and if I'm understanding your testimony 15 correctly, Mr. Pierle, you were truthfully telling me 16 under oath that you're going to study whether or not 17 y'all are a responsible party for putting the PCBs in 18 that system? 19 A. I think that is one of the most important 20 questions that we need to factually understand. 21 Q. Is there any doubt in your mind, sitting here 22 today, under oath, testifying, that Monsanto is a party 23 that put PCBs into Snow Creek, Choccolocco Creek, and 24 Lake Logan Martin? 25 A. Listen, we wouldn't be there if we weren't TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018126 51 1 trying to understand factually that question and 2 whether we are or others are or aren't. That's what 3 we're trying to find out. 4 Q. That's not what I asked you, Mr. Pierle. I 5 asked you: Sitting here today, as the head 6 environmental manager for Solutia, is there any doubt 7 in your mind that Monsanto is a responsible party for 8 putting PCBs into Snow Creek, Choccolocco Creek, and 9 Lake Logan Martin? 10 A. And I think I answered that question. 11 Q. I didn't hear the answer if you did. 12 A. Then I'll repeat it, I guess, is that we're 13 down there trying to find out the answer to that 14 question. I don't presume anything with respect to 15 these situations and remediations. The facts need to 16 be found out and they will speak for themselves at that 17 time . 18 Q. Don't you think these studies should have been 19 conducted back in the '60s when you-all first became 20 aware that PCBs you were making may have an adverse 21 impact on the environment? 22 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 23 Asked and answered. 24 THE WITNESS: I don't know that the questions 25 and the reasons why we're pursuing things today, TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018127 __________________________________ ...___ ______________________ ___ 1 whether they would have existed have been known to 2 prompt those questions at that time. 3 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 4 Q. In fact, what prompted this diligent research 5 you're talking about in the 1990s is the fact that 6 you're being sued over PCB contamination in the river 7 system; isn't that true? 8 A. No. 9 Q. And if you weren't being sued, you wouldn't be 10 studying it sitting here today, would you? 11 A. No, we would. 12 Q. Well, you weren't sued in 1968 through the 13 early 1990s, were you? 14 A. We did begin our work before there were any 15 suits. The suits were filed as a result of the 16 information which began and became available as a 17 result of the work that we're doing. So I think the 18 sequence is fairly clear as to where the suits -- and 19 when they started in this time line. 20 MR. PECK: Can we take a break? 21 MR. GRAMMAS: Sure. 22 (A SHORT BREAK WAS HELD.) 23 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 24 Q. Mr. Pierle, how in the world can Solutia 25 undertake a legitimate study of this problem, as you've TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOQ18128 ____________ __________________________________ ______________________ 53 1 been testifying, without understanding the history of 2 PCB exposure or discharging from the Anniston plant 3 into the river system? 4 A. I think part of what, you know, we're trying 5 to understand in that study is a variety of things that 6 would include what you've described as well as issues 7 around the presence, as well as the hydrogeology of the 8 systems and the whole complexity of that. So, you 9 know, my sense is that again is part of the work that 10 is ongoing down there at this point. 11 Q. Why 1990? And can you give me a more specific 12 date as to when this project began? 13 A. I can't. I know it started with -- or at 14 least a part of the issue was around the storm water 15 permit application where we discovered some 16 information. There were also some discussions on the 17 West Side Landfill or something, but that's my 18 recollection of what -- of where this sequence of 19 events began. 20 Q. 1993, Alabama Power and Monsanto had an issue 21 relating to some property that was swapped back in the 22 '60s; is that your recollection? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. Is that what started all this? 25 A. Well, that was part of it. As I say, there TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOQ18129 54 1 were sort of events that were happening around the same 2 time . 3 Q. These studies didn't begin before 1993, then, 4 is what I'm hearing you say? 5 A. I think what I said is that I don't recall 6 exactly when they did begin. 7 Q. I understand the exact date you're not going 8 to be able to recall, but they didn't begin before that 9 1993 Alabama Power land issue, did they? 10 A. I don't know. 11 Q. All right. Now, what in the world is Monsanto 12 going to do to determine the number of pounds of PCBs 13 it dumped into Snow Creek and Choccolocco Creek during 14 the history of its manufacturing processes? 15 A. I think what we've been focusing on there is 16 what's present and what needs to be determined. That's 17 what we got into up around the plant sites and in the 18 front end of Snow Creek. So I think we're trying to 19 deal with what is the current situation and facts and 20 help us understand whether or not there is a basis 21 for -- and a requirement for remediation and the extent 22 that Solutia should be involved. 23 Q. Does Monsanto accept responsibility for the 24 PCBs contained in the upper portion of Snow Creek as 25 you just described -- or, found rather? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018130 55 1 A. I mean, what we've been doing is working and 2 trying to -- as we determine that -- and we're doing 3 some projects which we're basically trying to correct 4 and take responsibility for and do appropriate 5 remediation. 6 Q. In the late 1980s the Alabama attorney general 7 noticed a PCB problem at the Monsanto site. Are you 8 aware of that? 9 A. I have some vague recollection that there was 10 an issue back sometime in the '80s that resulted in 11 some cleanup and removal of materials. 12 Q. And Monsanto spent several hundred thousand 13 dollars cleaning up or removing sediment from Snow 14 Creek at that time, didn't it? 15 A. I don't recall what the cost was. 16 Q. But you do recall that Monsanto removed 17 sediment from Snow Creek that contained PCBs? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Did Monsanto take responsibility for putting 20 the PCBs there? 21 A. I think, in simple terms, by the fact that we 22 went ahead and did that, we probably didn't debate the 23 accountability. We said it ought to be done. There's 24 at least a likelihood that they came from the site, so 25 we ought to get on and deal with that situation. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018131 56 1 Q. You're the head guy here over environmental 2 affairs and the head guy over remediation, Mr. Pierle, 3 and all the other witnesses we've talked to have 4 pointed up the chain to you, which is how we got to 5 your deposition. Is there any doubt in your mind that 6 the PCBs in that part of Snow Creek that Monsanto went 7 in and removed came from Monsanto's plant process, any 8 doubt whatsoever? 9 A. I mean, there's a set of facts that I'm just 10 simply not aware of at that point in time. There was 11 enough justification obviously for the folks who were 12 in charge at the time to go do something and be 13 involved with that. I don't know what the whole set of 14 facts were about that. 15 Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as 16 Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and ask if you recognize that to 17 be a Monsanto news release dated approximately 1970? 18 A. That's what it's entitled and dated. 19 Q. And does that look to be the official company 20 Monsanto letterhead and that type stuff? 21 A. It looks like it is. 22 Q. Okay. Read out loud, please, for the jury the 23 first sentence on the news bulletin. 24 A. "Monsanto Company, sole U.S. producer of an 25 industrial chemical called polychlorinated biphenyl TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018132 ______________ ________________________________________ ________________ 57 1 (PCB), today said recent political charges and 2 sensational headlines about the chemical causing a 3 major ecological crisis completely ignore voluntary 4 actions the company has taken to restrict use of the 5 material." 6 Q. According to that news release that Monsanto 7 put out, sir, isn't it true that Monsanto was the only 8 producer in the entire United States of PCBs? 9 A. That's what this says. 10 Q. And you don't have any reason to dispute that, 11 do you? 12 A. No . 13 Q. Tell me, have you ever had any course studies 14 particularly designed to educate you on PCB-related 15 issues? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Do you feel like, as the head environmental - 18 manager of remediation, that's something that you 19 should be extremely familiar with? 20 A. I think those are the -- the details of that 21 are what I have a very competent staff and experts in 22 the organization to understand, and I rely on them 23 to -- for that detailed knowledge and understanding. 24 Q. Do you consider PCBs to be a hazardous waste? 25 A. There are some regulatory definitions of that TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8133 __________________________________________________________________ 1 and I don't know whether PCBs are, quote, "a hazardous 2 waste" by regulation or not. 3 Q. Is it because it's not important enough for 4 you, sir, to determine whether they are a hazardous 5 waste or not? 6 A. No. 7 Q. You don't believe that as the head man over 8 the environmental affairs and, in particular, 9 remediation projects for PCBs, you don't need to know 10 whether it's a hazardous waste or not? 11 A. I think people inside my organization that 12 work for me know the answer to that question very 13 specifically, and I rely and must rely on their 14 knowledge and judgment. 15 Q. I mean you personally, sir. You're the man 16 who makes decisions on which direction this company 17 will take as far as environmental policy, right? 18 A. Would you repeat the question. 19 Q. Yes, sir. You're the man who makes decisions 20 with respect to which direction Solutia will take with 21 respect to environmental policy? 22 A. In part, that's correct. 23 Q. And one of the decisions you made while you 24 were the vice president of environmental affairs at 25 Monsanto, and continue to make while you're the vice TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8134 -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ------------------ -----------------------------59 1 president at Solutia, is to rectify the mistakes of the 2 past that this company has made, correct? 3 A. I do not categorize these as mistakes. 4 Q. You don't believe it was a mistake for 5 Monsanto, for almost a 40-year period, to dump 6 thousands of pounds of PCBs into Snow Creek, 7 Choccolocco Creek, and now Lake Logan Martin? 8 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 9 It assumes facts not in evidence. 10 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 11 Q. You don't believe that was a mistake, even 12 looking back with perfect 20/20 hindsight, Mr. Pierle? 13 A. You can't look back and ask that question 14 legitimately. That's the fallacy of your question. 15 Q. No, that is the beauty of the question because 16 we can. That's the purpose of - 17 MR. PECK: Pete, you can ask him questions. 18 We're not here to have your jury speeches read into the 19 record. Ask him questions and he will answer them. , 20 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 21 Q. Mr. Pierle, did you or did you not take the 22 position that your company is charged with the 23 responsibility of rectifying the mistakes of the past? 24 A. We're responsible for understanding whether or 25 not we have obligations today that may deal with issues TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING Sc VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8135 60 1 of the past and we are about fulfilling those 2 responsible obligations. 3 Q. I'm going to ask you a very simple 4 straightforward question and it calls for a yes-or-no 5 answer. If you want to explain it after that, I 6 encourage you to do so. You're the environmental 7 manager for Solutia. Sitting here under oath, sir, is 8 it your testimony that Solutia should correct the 9 mistakes that it has made in the past, yes or no? 10 A. I have commented already on your definition of 11 the word "mistakes." I think that, you know, 12 throughout the time that I've worked at Monsanto, we 13 have been very responsible about our actions with 14 respect to a lot of things, including the environment 15 and the health of our workers and communities, and I 16 think that we have acted always in that fashion. 17 Q. Well, Mr. Pierle, if Monsanto -- and if I 18 understand what you're saying is, during the period of 19 40 years when Monsanto was discharging these PCBs into 20 the environment, it was not aware of a problem in doing 21 so; is that what you're saying? 22 A. I'm saying that, again, my understanding is 23 that we have acted as the responsible person given the 24 norms and standards and expectations that existed at 25 the -- at that point in time. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018136 61 1 Q. Right. So what you're saying is that in the 2 '30s, '40s, '50s, '60s, and '70s, when there were no 3 applicable federal regulations, when there were no 4 state regulations confining or describing how Monsanto 5 should discharge PCBs, it was acceptable at that time 6 during those decades for Monsanto to discharge PCBs 7 into the environment as waste? 8 A. Yes, and based upon, you know, the knowledge 9 of information that was available at that time. 10 Q. At that time. So if we later learn that that 11 was not a good practice, in hindsight can't we look at 12 it and say that was a mistake to do that? It may not 13 have been a mistake in your mind at the time, but can't 14 we look at it in hindsight, sitting here today, and say 15 that was wrong, that was a mistake? 16 A. No, I don't think that you can -- I don't 17 think you can say that. 18 Q. Okay. So the only way that Monsanto will 19 rectify mistakes of the past is if the mistakes in the 20 past were intentionally done and at the time were known 21 to be mistakes? 22 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 23 Mischaracterizes his testimony. 24 THE WITNESS: I think I've been fairly clear, 25 and what I'm saying is that as we learn more about what TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018137 62 1 happened in the past and we apply today's standards and 2 expectations, then we are about taking care of those 3 issues. I do not categorize those as mistakes. 4 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 5 Q. So when Mr. -- who's Mr. Mahoney, Richard J. 6 Mahoney? 7 A. He's a former chairman of Monsanto Company. 8 Q. Where is he today? 9 A. I have no idea. 10 Q. Did he get fired? 11 A. He retired. 12 Q. Is he in St. Louis? 13 A. I have no idea. 14 Q. Do you know the man personally? 15 A. I certainly have met him and know him, but 16 we're not personal -- close personal friends or 17 contacts. 18 Q. Do you respect the man as far as a 19 professional? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Did you follow the commitments that he made 22 for the Monsanto Company while you were employed by 23 Monsanto? 24 A. I believe I did. 25 Q. Was he your boss? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8138 63 1 A. No. 2 Q. He wasn't your boss? 3 A. Not my immediate boss. He was everybody's 4 boss . 5 Q. That's right, including yours, because he was 6 the chairman of the board at Monsanto. 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. And no one was higher, as far as an officer's 9 position, than Mr. Mahoney on January 30, 1990? 10 A. He reported to the board of directors. 11 Everybody always has a boss. 12 Q. But no single individual was a higher person 13 than Mr. Mahoney. 14 A. He was the chairman and CEO of the company, 15 that's correct. 16 Q. And if he said in an official statement that 17 Monsanto must rectify the mistakes of the past, you're 18 testifying to this jury that that does not mean 19 cleaning up PCBs that it discharged into a river system 20 over 30 years, because you don't believe that was a 21 mistake? 22 A. That's not what I'm saying. 23 Q. Well, that's what I'm trying to get at, sir. 24 Do you believe, yes or no -- and I think you've already 25 answered it -- that it was not -- strike that. Too TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOQ18139 64 1 many negatives. 2 Do you believe, yes or no, that it was a 3 mistake for Monsanto to discharge PCBs into Snow Creek, 4 Choccolocco Creek, and now Lake Logan Martin over a 5 40-year period? 6 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 7 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Again, I think what I've 8 said is, you know, looking back, had we wished we 9 hadn't done certain things? By today's standards, 10 that's probably a right thing to do and to say and 11 that's what we're about, trying to resolve today and 12 over the last several years. 13 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 14 Q. Okay. I'll ask the question again because it 15 was obviously confusing. Do you believe, sir, that 16 Monsanto discharging PCBs out of its plant in Anniston 17 into Snow Creek, Choccolocco Creek during the 1930s, 18 '40s, '50s, '60s, '70s was a mistake? 19 MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. 20 THE WITNESS: By today's standards? 21 BY MR. GRAMMAS: 22 Q. Yeah. 23 A. I'm troubling with -24 Q. By today's standards. 25 A. I'm just going to answer it that basically it TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018140 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 65 was something that I wished wouldn't have happened. That doesn't mean that -- in my mind, that that is a mistake. Q. Okay. Again, sir, my question has not been answered. MR. PECK: You have asked it twice. He's answered it twice. MR. GRAMMAS: I have asked it twice. MR. PECK: You don't like it. I'll let you ask it one more time. MR. GRAMMAS: I'll ask it as many times as it takes to get an answer. MR. PECK: That ain't going to happen. MR. GRAMMAS: Well, it's going to happen. MR. PECK: It's not going to happen. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Do you personally believe, as the senior environmental manager for Solutia, that Monsanto's discharging of PCBs into Snow Creek and Choccolocco Creek during the 1930s through the '70s was a mistake, yes or no? And if you want to explain it, you can, but the question is simple: Was it a mistake? MR. PECK: You can answer the question however you want. You don't have to accept Pete's instruction as to how to answer the question. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018141 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 66 THE WITNESS: Again, I think I've tried to be pretty clear on this, that had I wished it didn't occur? Yes. Are we about taking care of it? Yes. In my mind, you're using the word "mistake" and that, to me, is not a mistake. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. So when Mr. Mahoney stood up at a meeting of the Corporate Conservation Council of the National Wildlife Federation, of which you were on the board of directors, on January 30, 1990 - A. No, I was not. Q. Exhibit 1 of your deposition, which is your bio that we discussed earlier - A. Correct. Q. -- says that you were the chairman of the National Wildlife Federation's Corporate Conservation Council. Did I read that correctly? A. Yes, you did. Q. And you're saying that that's not true? A. That wasn't the question that you asked me. Q. What did I ask you? A. Let him repeat the question. Q. It doesn't matter what I asked you. You will admit that you were a chairman of the National Wildlife Federation's Corporate Conservation Council? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018142 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 67 A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, is that different from the National Wildlife Federation? A. Yes. Q. How are they different? A. This is a council. That is the federation. Q. But they're related? A. The council was an affiliated group that was sponsored by the federation. Q. Were you present at this January 30, 1990, meeting with the Corporate Conservation Council of the National Wildlife Federation? A. I don't believe so. Q. Did you ever have any conversations with Mr. Mahoney about what he meant when he said. We, Monsanto, must rectify the mistakes of the past? A. No. Q. Sitting here today, sir, do you believe that as part of his corporate goal, as stated at this meeting on January 30, 1990, that rectifying mistakes of the past would include removing PCB-contaminated sediments in Snow Creek, Choccolocco Creek, and Lake Logan Martin - MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: I think. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 68 BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. -- that Monsanto put there? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: I think what his response would have included was that Monsanto will take a constructive attitude towards questions of prior waste disposal and discharges and we will be an effective player in the resolution of such issues. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked to your deposition as Plaintiff's Exhibit 3. What is that, sir? A. It appears to be a copy of the speech that he made at this meeting on January 30. Q. What's the top of it say? A. It says "Monsanto Pledge." Q. And the first page says Page 1 of 2, and the second page says 2 of 2. Do you recognize this document as having come off of the web page that Solutia has? A. That's what the heading says. Q. Have you ever surfed this web page? A. I've been on the web page. Q. Do you have the authority to approve what goes on and what does not go on the web page with respect to TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018144 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 69 environmental issues? A. I may review some of the things, but not all the things. Q. The purpose of the web page is to allow the public to, at their leisure, read what Monsanto chooses and Solutia chooses to put on the web page to educate them about the type of company Monsanto and Solutia is, right? A. I mean, I think that's part of the purpose. Q. It's almost like sort of public relations-type information. A. I would say -- I would just more categorize it as information. Q. Right. And you certainly don't want any false information to be put out on a web page where millions of people can read it, do you? A. I wouldn't want any false information to be put out, period. Q. And that's because you don't want millions of people who may stop on the Monsanto web page to read information that does not accurately and truly and correctly reflect the company's position as it's described on the web page, right? A. That's correct. Q. Now, this particular document that we got out TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 70 is entitled "Monsanto Pledge" and it states here that: "The Monsanto pledge was announced by chairman and CEO Richard Mahoney at a meeting of the Corporate Conservation Council of the National Wildlife Federation in Washington on January 30, 1990." Did I read that correctly? A. Yes. Q. And then it says: "Here is the pledge as announced by Mr. Mahoney," and it starts off with a series of quotes and paragraphs; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. The tenth paragraph delivered to these folks by Mr. Mahoney says what, sir? A. "We must rectify the mistakes of the past while we continue to develop and introduce the new technologies to provide the essentials for mankind in the future." Q. Now, are you testifying under oath today that that does not include and it never was intended to mean -- when Monsanto said "We're going to rectify mistakes of the past," to remove PCB contaminants that it placed in sediments in Snow Creek, Choccolocco Creek, and Lake Logan Martin? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: Two points; one for TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018146 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7: clarification, that the paragraphs of the pledge itself are included in the first basically seven statements. These quotes are part of the general communication around that pledge. Now, specifically to your question, I think what this would basically say describes the process that we're in that says that if there have been past disposal or practices or waste for which Monsanto - and we would say Solutia -- is responsible, that we will be a proactive and constructive part of the process to bring those to resolution. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. All right, but nowhere in that statement or that pledge does he say what you just described, does he? What he says in very simple, easy, and understandable terms is, quote/unquote: "We must rectify the mistakes of the past." A. I think what I'm giving you is basically the practice that we had at Monsanto and we have at Solutia that would implement that statement. It would be wrong for any officer or chairman to basically say we have an open checkbook to the world for whatever anybody alleges against the company, and that's what your statement seems to imply. Q. No, sir, it does not, and I'm sorry if you TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING Sc VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOQ18147 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 72 interpret it that way. That's why -- see, originally I asked you if you felt it was a mistake for Monsanto to put the PCBs in this river system in the first place. Do you recall that question? A. I believe I do and I think I answered it three times. Q. I think you skirted answering it three times. I don't think I ever heard an answer. MR. PECK: Listen Pete, you can ask him questions, you're not here to debate with him or to argue with him. That's all inappropriate. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. I don't think I ever heard an answer - MR. GRAMMAS: Are you finished? BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. I don't think I heard an answer - MR. PECK: I heard an answer three times. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. -- yes or no whether it was a mistake or not, and because I never heard an answer, to my satisfaction, anyway, that it was a mistake, I presented you with Mr. Mahoney's statement that we must -- "we" being Monsanto not me, I didn't write these words, did I? These are Mr. Mahoney's words, aren't they? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018148 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 73 A. They appear to be. Q. These are the words that Solutia puts on a web page for millions of people to read at their leisure, right? A. I mean, the technical response is both web pages, because of the company's setup are both interchangeable, but those systems have now been separate and what you will find is that the Solutia and the Monsanto web pages, I believe, today are separate. Q. Okay. But on this document it says the Monsanto pledge and then there's the Solutia logo on the top right-hand corner of the page, right? A. That's correct. Q. So Solutia adopted the statements Mr. Mahoney made in here, too, haven't they? A. I think that we have very similar statements. We've not adopted those statements as they exist or were placed on the walls at Monsanto. Q. Does Solutia believe that it, like Monsanto, should rectify the mistakes of the past? A. I think I have answered that question, that - again, that basically says that we feel that where we have responsibilities and need to act in a responsible manner with respect to actions of the past, we will do so and we will do so proactively, not in an adversarial TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018149 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 74 process. Q. Do you believe, sir, that Monsanto has responsibilities to clean up the PCBs at Snow Creek, Choccolocco Creek, and Lake Logan Martin, and now Solutia? A. I think if we continue our study work and it determines that we have responsibilities as a result of that, we will be there taking care of remediation which is appropriate. MR. PECK: Pete, let me tell you, this is an additional document that I meant to produce at the beginning of the deposition. It's something that we should have provided that is similar to things you have, but when we searched Mr. Pierle's records, the notebook that this was found in was at somebody else's desk and it came up and we should have produced it. MR. GRAMMAS: I think you may have already produced something like that. (A SHORT BREAK WAS HELD.) BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. In 1986, Mr. Pierle, you were named the director of the environmental operations of Monsanto Chemical Company; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And that was an operating unit of Monsanto TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 75 Company? A. Yes. Q. And your responsibilities, among others in that position, were to implement compliance programs and cleanup of Superfund sites? A. That's correct. Q. How many Superfund sites have you worked with? A. I think we have something on the order of 100 sites over time, maybe a few more where there have been alleged Monsanto or Solutia responsibilities. Q. How many of those sites involve PCBs? And if you don't know the exact number - A. My answer would be not many, very few. Q. Tell me the PCB Superfund sites over which you've had cleanup responsibility for Monsanto Company. A. I don't think we've had any what I would characterize "PCB Superfund sites." Q. How many Superfund sites have you had cleanup responsibilities for for Monsanto that involve PCBs? A. Again, I don't remember. It's been a few. Q. Could you tell me those locations? A. The one I recall was a site in Texas called Motco that had, I think, some levels of PCB material in it. I'm really struggling. I don't recall any others where PCBs were a significant question or issue. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 76 Q. Has Monsanto been involved in any Hudson River PCB remediation? A. No. Q. Are you aware of any issues relating to PCBs on the Hudson River? A. Yes. Q. How are you aware of those? A. Through the general literature and understanding of Superfund cases. Q. Motco, was that a customer of Monsanto's that purchased PCBs? A. No. Q. Why is it Monsanto is involved in PCB remediation in Texas? A. We were involved in the remediation, which included PCBs, at that site. I didn't say that they were Monsanto PCBs and that's why we were involved. Q. Why were you involved with that site at all? A. It was a materials reclaiming site that was owned by multiple and succeeding owners that was reclaiming basically styrene tar materials, and the owner basically took a hike, and through the sort of pre-Superfund and Superfund investigative process, it was determined that some of those materials had originated at Monsanto sites and that brought us into TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018152 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 77 the involvement at that location. Q. Some of those materials included PCBs, right? A. Again, there were materials at the site that were PCBs, again a small amount. I don't recall whether those were ever part of Monsanto's responsibility. Q. What role did you have in drafting the environmental guidelines back in the 1989 time frame through today, both for Monsanto and now Solutia? A. Well, I've been involved in the process, to varying degrees, in reviews and rewrites as part of my job responsibilities and led the rewrite in Solutia as we became a separate company. Q. Now, the environmental guidelines for Solutia are still in their draft form, correct? A. We have finalized those. Q. The document that I see, and we'll talk about it in a minute, is Solutia's commitments manual. Is that what you're talking about? A. No. I think that is a -- what I referred to was the commitment statements themselves, the six commitment statements which are the broad policy statements, I believe are complete. Q. You're talking about -- not to interrupt you, but just so the record's clear, you're talking about TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING Sc VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 78 these six statements right here? A. That's correct. MR. GRAMMAS: Let's go ahead and mark that. (PIERLE EXHIBIT NO. 4 WAS FIRST DULY MARKED, RECEIVED AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD.) BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Plaintiff's Exhibit 4, could you identify that for me, please, sir? A. This appears to be a document, again taken off of the Solutia web site, which states Solutia's environmental health -- or, environmental safety and health commitments, and there are basically six statements. Q. Those are the broad policies that dictate Solutia's environmental conduct? A. That's correct. Q. All right. Now, Solutia commitments manual, dated June 9, 1998, with a big "Draft" stamp on it, it's about two inches thick and it's got "Draft" written on every page, what is this? A. That is a document that is intended to further really expound upon these statements and to delineate for us guidance and requirements and practices to be followed within Solutia. (PIERLE EXHIBIT NO. 5 WAS FIRST DULY TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 79 MARKED, RECEIVED AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD.) BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Now, I've identified this as Exhibit No. 5, the June 9th document that you were just describing. This document, Exhibit No. 5, has not been implemented yet; is that correct? It's still in the draft phases? A. The document is in its draft phase. It represents, though, many of the practices that were in existence and documented at Monsanto; and therefore, many of these are in practice today, but perhaps not all, because indeed what we're trying to do is to tailor this specifically to Solutia's businesses. (PIERLE EXHIBIT NOS. 6 AND 7 WERE FIRST DULY MARKED, RECEIVED AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD.) BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. We're going to talk about them in a minute. Plaintiff's Exhibit 6, sir, looks to me to be a document created sometime around May 22nd, 1989, according to a cover letter attached to worldwide guidelines that Monsanto followed on environmental safety and health guidelines. Is that a correct statement? A. You did say '89? Q. Yes, sir. A. Yes. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018155 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 80 Q. And Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 7 is a similar type document, with a different cover letter, dated November 11, 1992, which I believe in prior depositions have been -- has been described as an updated version of the 1989 guidelines; is that correct? A. I think that's accurate. Q. Now, what involvement did you have in drafting this 1989 and this 1992 environmental safety and health guidelines for Monsanto? A. Again, I was an active participant at both times. In the '89 document I would have been in the chemical company, so I would have been looking at, reviewing, and participating, along with others, in the development of this. And again, this was a revision of the further -- of a prior version itself. And in this case, in '92, I had less of a hands-on, you know, working with this as opposed to sort of getting a process underway to update these and to include basically what was inclusive of the Monsanto pledge. Q. Now, you had a fairly involved role in drafting, creating, and making sure that these guidelines for Monsanto were implemented and followed by the plants that fell under the Monsanto Company, right ? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018156 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 81 A. That role changed from time to time. in the '89 time period, it included implementation; whereas, in '92, in a corporate role, the direct implementation was again up to the operating units, and the role of myself and the corporate staff at that time was one more of oversight. Q. On November 11, 1992, you wrote to Monsanto employees distributing the 1992 updated version of the guidelines, right? A. That's correct. Q. Now, in this November 11 letter you write to Monsanto employees that the Monsanto pledge serves as the umbrella for Monsanto's overall environmental safety and health programs, right? A. That's correct. Q. And in support of that commitment, you developed this -- what you refer to as the Monsanto pledge guidelines, right? A. That's correct. Q. And these guidelines replace the guidelines from the environmental safety and health guidelines, which is Exhibit 6, right? A. Assuming this was the version that was in effect at that time, because this one does not refer to the '89 document specifically. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018157 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ----------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- _------------------- 82 Q. But it does refer to environmental safety and health guidelines, which are the bold words contained on the very first page of the 1989 document, right? A. Yes. Q. And you state in here that the November 11, 1992, Monsanto pledge guidelines set forth the management expectations for environmental safety and health performance, correct? A. Correct. Q. And that these guidelines describe key results against which progress will be measured, right? A. That's correct. Q. Were you a member of the environmental policy committee that approved these guidelines? A. Yes. Q. So you voted in favor of implementing the Monsanto pledge guidelines; is that a fair statement? A. Yes. Q. Now, you direct all Monsanto employees that received a copy of these Monsanto pledge guidelines to conform with the spirit of these guidelines, correct? A. Yes. Q. In fact, you say that conforming with the guidelines is not -- strike that. You say that they don't have a choice in TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018158 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 83 whether they can conform or not conform, right? A. I think what it says specifically, and I'll read it: "Conformance with the spirit of the guidelines is not optional, although considerable latitude and innovation is expected in tailoring the guidelines for specific operating units." Q. Okay. You direct these employees to follow these guidelines in a non-optional fashion, right? A. Again, it's important to make the distinction that says what the spirit of the guidelines are and what that then says is that you are expected to be smart and innovative and there is latitude in tailoring the guidelines for the specific operating units. Q. Did the latitude -- and by the way, who has the latitude in tailoring these guidelines, plant manager? A. I think that would depend upon what the particular issue was within the guidelines. They would not have latitude to change policy, but within here they would have latitude on implementation of programs, timing of results, things of that nature. Q. Would you consider the Monsanto pledge an environmental policy? A. The high-level statements within the pledge itself would be generally considered to be the policies TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOQ18159 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 84 that we expect people to operate under. Q. And if the jury believes, based on Plaintiff's Exhibit 3, which is entitled the "Monsanto Pledge" that we've just identified in your deposition, that part of the pledge was for Monsanto to rectify mistakes of the past, that would not be something that, say, a plant manager in Anniston could just willy-nilly ignore, correct ? A. I think I made it clear that that particular statement that you referred to is not part of the Monsanto pledge. Q. And is that because Monsanto, and now Solutia, does not believe that it should, as one of its environmental policies, rectify mistakes of the past? A. That's not what I said. I think what I said on a factual basis is that the first seven statements deal with what the "Monsanto pledge," as it came to be called, was the direction provided the employees as policy direction. Q. You had the authority of setting policy, environmental policy for Solutia and Monsanto when you held that position there, right? A. I could not unilaterally set policy, no. Q. You mean to tell me if you felt like a good policy for Monsanto, and now Solutia, to have is to TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 _______________________________________ rectify mistakes of the past, you couldn't ensure that that policy was implemented? A. What I'm saying to you is I do not have unilateral authority within the structure to do that. Q. Again, in the 1989 environmental safety and health guidelines, who is Mr. Corbett, H.J. Corbett? A. He was at that time the senior executive that had responsibility for environmental health and safety and some other functions. Q. So he basically was your predecessor at Monsanto? A. Well, he held the position -- it was at sort of a little bit different level and different scope, but with respect to environmental safety and health matters, he was a former leader of that area. Q. And in 1992 you wrote the letter distributing the Monsanto pledge guidelines, right? A. That's correct. Q. And based on his similar position as you, in 1989 he wrote the letter distributing the environmental safety and health guidelines? A. That's correct. Q. Now, it was also his instruction that the employees of Monsanto, it was not optional for them not to follow the spirit of the guidelines implemented, TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018161 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 86 correct ? A. If I could review the document. Yeah, it says compliance with the spirit of the guidelines is not optional. Q. And you received these guidelines, did you not ? A. That's correct. Q. And you, like every other employee, were required to follow these guidelines, too, in setting your environmental policies, right? A. Again, the spirit of those guidelines, that's correct. Q. Now, the words contained in these guidelines have significant meaning, do they not? A. Yes. Q. And these words were not empty promises that Monsanto made in an effort to trick people into believing that they were concerned about the environment, were they? A. No. Q. The promises made in these guidelines were self-imposed obligations that Monsanto, as an environmental policy, committed to follow, correct? A. Again, the guidelines contain sort of two or three different levels. One is a set of policy that TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018162 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ________________________________ sets the conduct and behavior. There are programs and specifics that were at that time intended to represent what we were doing and we were serious about those, that's correct. But in some cases, the programs or the dates and things changed as things became practical to do or impractical to do or for other reasons. Q. But the bottom line is, sir, these guidelines set the standards, promises, duties, and responsibilities of Monsanto and its employees to its stakeholders, correct? A. I would say that what was set specifically and communicated to the public were the high-level policy statements. The balance of it and the more specific guidelines were the internal programs that were evolving and being developed. So there's a slight difference there. Q. There is a slight difference, and I don't mean to be confusing and I appreciate you being clear in your answer, but we'll limit it to what was set in stone to the policy guidelines, okay? Those policies were self-imposed standards that Monsanto expected and demanded its employees to follow, right? A. That's correct. Q. Now, Solutia has not as of yet adopted the more detailed standards that we find in Plaintiff's TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018163 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ________________________________________________________________________ 88 Exhibits 6 and 7 because Solutia's basically still in draft form, right? A. I think what we have said is to the greatest extent, we should continue to use the content of these guidelines as the direction until they are replaced with a new set of guidelines. Q. You read my mind. That's where I was going next. So until the new guidelines are replaced, Solutia's required to follow the Monsanto pledge guidelines contained in your November 11, 1992, letter, right? A. Yeah. Again, in reading the statement, that those at the time in '92 said that latitude and innovation was expected in tailoring the guidelines for specific operating units. So, to an extent that qualifier still exists today. Q. Right. Same exact expectations of Monsanto in 1992 apply today to Solutia as far as these Monsanto pledge guidelines are concerned? A. Again, just to be clear with respect to our policy statements and guidance, those have been cleared and clarified in our commitment statements and to the extent that these set out, you know -- guidelines are what they are. Guidelines are things that basically - you know, they're intended to be developed to be TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018164 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ___________________________________________ followed, the spirit of the guidelines. So part of it is if the guideline doesn't apply to you, then obviously you don't follow it. Q. Right, but if it does apply to you, you do follow it. A. Unless you have some situation or set of facts that says, you know, that for some reason it's not - you're not able to do it. Q. Okay. Now, when some individual manager of a plant or some individual low-level employee is faced with a decision about whether or not to follow one of these guidelines and makes the decision that it is not required to follow it, for whatever reason, because under the spirit of the guidelines, he feels like he doesn't have to, what must he do in order to not follow the guidelines, if anything? A. Your question confused me because you said "under the spirit of the guideline, he feels he doesn't have to do it." I think what this document says is that if it's under the spirit of the guideline and that would be his understanding, then the person would have to do it. Q. What I meant to say was, I interpret that sentence -- when you talk about "spirit of the guidelines," it's both in your November letter and in TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 90 Mr. Corbett's May 1989 letter -- that following the spirit of these guidelines is not optional. A. That's correct. Q. That means there's some leeway -- or does it mean, rather, that there's some leeway that managers or lower-level employees have to not follow these guidelines? A. Again, let me make two comments. One, if they felt that there was an issue with respect to the spirit of the guideline, they would bring that issue back up through the process to the policy committee at which time there could be a consideration to change the policy and a specific guideline. If the individual was following, in their minds, the spirit of the guidelines but was doing it in a different way or doing something slightly different that was still within the spirit, then they may have the authority just to do that themselves or, within their unit, have a different process for making that decision. Q. I think we're on the same page. Really what I want to know is, Mr. Pierle, if some lower-level employee, or any employee, for that matter, makes a decision that they're not going to follow these guidelines, what must they do to bring that to the attention of Monsanto, and now Solutia, if anything? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018166 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 91 A. Well, again, if it's the spirit of the guideline, they would bring that probably back up through their sort of chain of command, to use a common expression, for consideration. If it dealt with specific execution of a portion of this which is defined as optional, then they may feel free to make that decision on their own. Q. And if it dealt with a portion of what is defined as not optional and they wanted to not follow it, what would they have to do? A. I think they may have the ability -- again, not on a policy matter, but they may have the ability to say, That doesn't apply to me; therefore, I don't have to follow that specific -- that specification. Q. We're almost there. We're almost there. A. So they can make that judgment themselves. Q. We're like this close to where we need to be, but we've got to jump that next hurdle to get to the last statement, Mr. Pierle. There may be situations where some employee feels like they don't have to follow it, but yet according to the guidelines, it's a non-optional category. Do you see the conflict now? The employee thinks, I don't have to follow it; when, in fact, you, as the highest-level manager would say. No, you're wrong, you'd better follow that. In that TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018167 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ____________________________ situation, what must the employee do to bring it to your attention or someone else's attention, if anything? A. I think I described that they would bring that situation -- we would hope they would bring that situation back up through a chain of command or through their plant people or business people, or whatever, back to say, I've got an issue here that we need to discuss. Q. What happens if you become aware of employees or plants ignoring the policies that don't fall within some of these exceptions we're talking about, they just violate the policy stated in the - A. We have a very aggressive audit program that we have had since 1980 that basically looks at the conformance with external requirements and internal requirements. The results of those audits are tabulated and actions are put in place to, you know, rectify or improve the situation. If, in that process, there was a discovery of an employee who had blatantly disregarded it, it could be subject up to dismissal of the individual. Q. Are you aware of that ever happening, and in particular at Anniston? A. I don't know whether it has or hasn't. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 93 Q. Would that be something that would normally come to your attention at the level you're at? A. Not necessarily. Q. All right. Now, what, in your mind, sir, does someone have to do to prove to you, as the lead environmental manager over remediation, that your company is fairly established as a responsible party for causing pollution or contaminants in general? A. Again, I think there has been an evolution of definition around that responsible party. Q. And I don't mean that in a term of art. Okay? What I want to know is: What does the government or a person just bringing something to your attention or a plaintiff suing Monsanto, and now Solutia, have to do in your mind -- not legally, but in your mind -- to prove to convince you that your company's conduct was fairly established as the source of pollution? A. I think there would have to be a factual presentation that basically not only were our materials there, but it was a result of some action that was assignable or definable to the company. Q. Okay. If, for example, they showed you, as the environmental manager chief over remediation, that one of your plants discharged thousands of pounds of PCBs into a river system and that they were finding TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018169 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 94 concentrations of the PCBs, both in the sediment and in fish, and that there was no other apparent source of PCBs, would, in your mind, that fairly establish that Monsanto was the party responsible for putting it there? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: You had too many hypotheses in there. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. We'll break them down. All right. If the person showed you, through evidence, that Monsanto discharged thousands of pounds of PCBs for close to 40 years, we'll just say approximately 40 years, into a river system -- you got that hypo? A. Yes. Q. -- and no apparent other source remotely close to Monsanto discharged that quantity of PCBs into the river system -- are you with me? A. Yep. Q. -- and finally, that concentration levels of PCBs are being found in fish in the river system and in sediment in portions of the river system, those three things are shown to you to exist -- and I can repeat them if you want to because we were kind of going slow writing them -- in your mind, if you were faced with TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018170 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 95 those three facts, sets of facts, would you believe that that person who presented you those facts has fairly established Monsanto as being a responsible party for the source of the PCBs in the river and fish? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: I think not necessarily, but it would sure cause me to want to understand answers to some additional questions. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Tell me, Mr. Pierle, as the head environmental manager over remediation for Monsanto, what a person has to show you to fairly establish -- notice I didn't say "conclusively" establish that you were the source, I just said "fairly" establish that you're the source, what in the world does somebody have to prove to you to establish that you would be the source of PCBs in the situation I've just described to you? A. I think what I said was that that would cause me to feel that there's enough information that says we're probably there. But within that, I would say there are more things that I then want to understand with respect to that site and the facts around that that would help me to understand then what -- you know, how fair is that and how extensive is it? Q. But under those facts, yes or no, would that TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018171 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 96 fairly establish in your mind that you're a source that would then prompt you to do some other things? A. I think what I said is that that would cause me to make sure we were involved in understanding, then, the extent and whether there's an issue there or not. Q. And you, based on your own guidelines, sir, know that once those things are fairly established, your role is to immediately get involved in that process, don't you? A. I think under different laws that, you know, you could or you couldn't. Q. Well, we're not talking about laws, we're talking about the self-imposed guidelines, sir, that you had a direct hand in making. A. And I think what I said is that that would cause us to get proactively involved in further understanding that and that we would do that and that's exactly the path that we're following. That's why we've such extensive investigations and studies underway right now in cooperation with ADEM and others down there to understand what the factual situation is. Q. Sir, your obligation under Monsanto guidelines, the health and safety guidelines in 1989, was to immediately get involved as soon as you became TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOQ18172 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 97 aware of those issues being fairly established, true? A. Yes, and I think we have. Q. Now, is "immediate," in your mind, waiting 30 years to do something about it? A. You are again asking a question that wasn't 30 years. Number one, you know, the guidelines aren't 30 years old. So you're confusing the question. You're certainly confusing me. I think what the guideline says is that based upon our experience that produced those guidelines, was that with respect to looking at retroactive actions and things that happened, that Monsanto would take a position, and Solutia, to get immediately involved in that process, not to stand back and say, We're not involved, go away, come back. And that's exactly the guidelines, the spirit of the guidelines, and that's exactly what we're doing. Q. Okay. When you say "immediately," what does that mean to you? To me it means whoa, we've done something, let's do something to figure out what's going on and fix this problem. That's what "immediately" means to me, the second you become aware of it. What does it mean to you? A. Well, I'll give you an example at another site, a Superfund site, like Motco and others, we became immediately involved in the process. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018173 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 98 Q. Let's talk about Anniston. A. That process has gone ten to 12 years. In many of these, immediate involvement leads to a process that, through no fault of anybody, is extremely extensive. So that's what "immediately" means to me. Q. And that would apply in Anniston, Alabama. A. And I think that's exactly what I've described and what we've done. Q. And if you became aware in the '80s that there was PCB contamination because the attorney general told you that they were finding high level of PCB in Snow Creek, it was your responsibility at that time to take immediate action to remediate not only what the attorney general found, but to start this process that you started four years later, and you're doing eight, ten years later, to determine what impact your discharges may have had on the river system, right. MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: Again, what you described in '85, we got immediately involved with the extent of the problem that was defined and we stayed through it through the remedy of that issue. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Sir, you did not do anything other than remediate the upper portion of Snow Creek, which is TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018174 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 __________________________________________________________________99 what I believe the attorney general asked you to do, right ? MR. PECK: I object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: I'm not familiar with what the specific - BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. And you didn't start looking into this more pervasive study, this process you've been describing, until around 1993 - MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. -- when the Alabama Power personnel brought to your attention PCBs were leaching from property you had given it 30 years earlier, right? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: We didn't give them the property. They bought the property with knowledge of what was there. So, again, your factual statements in your question are - BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. You-all didn't begin this process that you're currently in until 1993. A. Thereabouts. Q. You will admit that that's four years after TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018175 __________________________________ 1 this remediation you did on the upper portion of Snow 2 Creek. 3 A. It is, but it's also immediately upon 4 discovery of a situation, as I say, with a landfill and 5 the runoff question that we have continued to stay 6 with. 7 Q. How long does it take to do a study like this? 8 If you started in 1993 and your sole focus was to 9 determine the exact impact of what these PCBs were 10 doing to the environment, if anything, how long does it 11 take? 12 A. Again, what I've described is that through a 13 process that's been open and with the regulatory 14 officials, we have been in a stepwise process to 15 understand what the factual situation is; and 16 unfortunately, I guess that takes a long time. But the 17 reality is we're moving as fast as we can with respect 18 to sampling, understanding, determining remedies, 19 dealing with sources of problems, and doing this in a 20 very responsible way. 21 Q. Okay. And the first step you took was to 22 clean your own property, wasn't it, sir? 23 A. I think the first step, an accurate 24 characterization of that, was to deal with what was 25 defined at that point in time as a potential source of TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018176 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 101 PCB into Snow Creek, and that involved part of our property, but almost immediately, as well, took us to property that was adjacent to the plant site and we were just as quickly dealing with property owners adjacent to the plant site. Q. The first step Monsanto took, in your own words, sir, was to clean up its own backyard, right? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. Those were never his words. THE WITNESS: Those are your words. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. I'm asking you. Do you understand what I'm asking? A. You're not asking me. I told you "no" to that question. Q. That was not the first thing you did. You-all hadn't cleaned up your own backyard as we sit here today; is that what you're telling me? A. What I'm telling you, we've undertaken several actions, which include actions with respect to property we own, with respect to properties that we do not own, because that was -- the collective judgment is that's where the priority actions should occur. Q. Collective judgment of whom? A. Of the people involved in the process. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING Sc VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018177 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 102 Q. And that would be Monsanto people? A. Including the regulatory people. The public is certainly aware of this and there's been an open conversation about the steps and the actions that are appropriate. Q. Now, how large of a company in terms of dollars in revenues is Monsanto? A. Are you asking Monsanto or Solutia? Q. Monsanto, and now Solutia. But at the time this was happening, Monsanto, back in the late '80s, early '90s. How many billions of dollars did it generate ? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. Irrelevant. MR. GRAMMAS: It's not irrelevant. MR. PECK: It's absolutely irrelevant. It's not coming into evidence. You can ask him the question, but it's not coming into evidence. MR. LOWE: At what stage? MR. PECK: At any stage. We haven't changed the law in Alabama to allow that stuff into evidence yet, guys, and I don't think our current Court's going to do that. MR. GRAMMAS: Okay. MR. LOWE: There's an election later. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018178 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 103 THE WITNESS: Am I instructed to answer? MR. PECK: If you know what he's asked you. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. What's your gross revenues approximately in this time period for Monsanto, just approximately? A. About $8 billion. Q. What were the profits in that time period? A. I don't know. Q. Roughly. A. I don't know. Q. You have no idea? A. No, I don't. Q. Billions of dollars, though, would it not be? A. I doubt that. I don't think the company's ever made that much in a year. Q. Certainly there was no financial impediment, Mr. Pierle, that you're aware of, as the senior environmental over remediation, for Monsanto to look into the issues of PCBs on its property and the neighboring properties and simultaneously do this study downriver to see how bad Monsanto may have affected those properties, was there? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: And I think I've said, typically TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018179 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 104 the process that you get into here, and it's very common at cleanups everywhere in the United States, is that you look at these things and segment it in piece fashion, and that's exactly what we're doing. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Okay, and my question to you had nothing to do with your answer, in all due respect, sir. My question to you was: From a financial perspective, was there anything that you're aware of that prevented Monsanto from doing it simultaneously? A. And my judgment is that's not a relevant question. Q. Well, I don't care what your judgment of relevant is, quite honestly. MR. PECK: Let him answer. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. You have to answer the questions I ask, and the question is: Was there anything of which you were aware from a financial standpoint, as the environmental manager over remediation for this entire process from start to finish, that would prevent Monsanto from simultaneously looking at PCB-related issues on its property and at the same time look at it in Snow Creek, Choccolocco Creek, and Lake Logan Martin? MR. PECK: Pete, he's right. You're being TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8I8O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 _______ _________________ _, 105 subjected to having to answer his questions, but you can answer his question however you need to honestly answer it. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. And I want you to answer it honestly, Mr. Pierle. A. That to me is not a relevant question in the process. What is relevant about that when faced with that set of circumstances is: Are we proceeding on what is appropriate and relevant to the question? And in almost all cases, that process starts with: What are the priorities that we need to do here? Is there anything imminent that is a problem to the health or the environment? If so, you do removal. No, there's no imminent issue that needs to be dealt with. So what do you do at that point in time? You then say: Let's investigate what we understand, then, the depths of the problem to be and the steps that need to be taken. And that is precisely what we are doing. MR. GRAMMAS: Adam, would you please confer with your witness and ask him to answer the questions that I'm asking. I understand he - MR. PECK: He's answering the questions you're asking, you just don't like the answers. MR. GRAMMAS: Adam, he didn't. He says it's TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018181 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 106 not relevant and I'm not going to answer it. I want to know a simple question: Did they have any financial impediments to do them both at the same time? I'm not asking him why he didn't do both at the same time, and I'm entitled to an answer to that question, Adam. MR. PECK: Then ask him the question. If you don't like his answer, ask him again, but I'm not going to instruct my witness how to answer your questions. I don't particularly like your questions. I don't like the tone with which you ask those questions, I don't like the tone with which you treat my witnesses. I don't like anything about it and I'm not going to instruct him how to answer the questions. I'd just as soon walk out. MR. GRAMMAS: I'm sure you would. MR. PECK: I would. I'm not used to people treating my witnesses so impolitely. MR. LOWE: How many have we taken? MR. PECK: Well, that's true. The ones that Pete's taking, I'm getting used to him treating my witnesses impolitely. Not so much Clay, but Pete generally, you're right. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Mr. Pierle, I'm here to ask you questions and I'm sorry if I'm being impolite to you, but when I TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018182 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 107 don't get answers or I get nonresponsive answers, I don't accept that as an alternative. I'm doing my job and I understand you're here doing your job. All I want to know is: Are you aware of any reason, financial or otherwise, that would prevent Monsanto at that time from doing remediation work on its property and on the neighboring properties? That's the question that I'm asking you. A. And my response was that is not a question that we ask ourselves. So how can I respond to it? To us, in that process, that's not part of what you ask yourself up-front. Q. So the answer is: You don't know the answer? You don't know the answer to that question? A. I think I've answered the question to the best of my ability. Q. Are you aware of any reason why Monsanto could not have cleaned up its property and the neighboring properties simultaneously? Are you aware of any reason? MR. PECK: He's answered that question three or four times. If you must have him answer it again, he'll answer it one more time. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Are you aware of any reasons, sir? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOQ18183 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 _______________________ A. I don't know how to answer your question any better than what I've answered it up to now. MR. PECK: How long is this going to go? Are we going to need to take a lunch break? MR. GRAMMAS: Adam, that is a very central question and it deserves an answer. MR. PECK: He just answered your question. MR. GRAMMAS: He said it's not relevant to me, so I don't know the answer to it. That's fine, let me hear him say "I don't know." MR. PECK: You've heard his answer. MR. GRAMMAS: No, I haven't. MR. PECK: You've heard his answer. MR. GRAMMAS: No, I haven't. I've heard his answer, but it hasn't answered the question. I mean, it's a fair question, Adam. MR. PECK: I'm not going to instruct my witness how to answer your questions, Pete. That's not -- that's not my job here. MR. GRAMMAS: Do you think the question is a fair question? MR. PECK: No, I don't think it's a fair question. MR. GRAMMAS: Why is it not fair? Tell me so I can cure it. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8184 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10S MR. PECK: Because he has told you that's not what they even ask themselves. They don't even ask themselves that question. MR. GRAMMAS: That doesn't matter whether they ask or not. Maybe they should have asked themselves that, Adam. MR. PECK: Well, no, because it wasn't relevant. They didn't even consider the financial issue. That's the answer to your question. They didn't even consider it. MR. LOWE: Let's move beyond that. Why couldn't you do it simultaneously, period? MR. PECK: Are you going to ask that question? MR. GRAMMAS: I've already asked it three times, is there any reason why it couldn't be done simultaneously? I've asked it three times. MR. PECK: No, you haven't asked that question three times. You've asked if there was a financial impediment. MR. GRAMMAS: Let's not argue, Adam. MR. PECK: Are we going to have a lunch break or not? MR. GRAMMAS: Yeah, after we get the answer to the question. MR. LOWE: Seven minutes to 12. He's got TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8185 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 110 seven minutes to answer the question. MR. LOWE: What's the question? MR. PECK: Why couldn't you proceed with doing Snow Creek, Choccolocco Creek - MR. LOWE: No, no, no, the question is - MR. PECK: -- at the same time you did the plant site remediation? MR. GRAMMAS: No, that's not the question, Adam. MR. PECK: Well, then ask your damn question. MR. GRAMMAS: I'm going to. I've asked it. MR. PECK: Is Clay asking the questions or are you asking the questions? I think we're entitled to one person asking the questions and you choose it to be you. MR. GRAMMAS: I'm asking the questions, Adam. Clay hasn't asked any questions. MR. PECK: Ask the question. Ask the question. We're going to answer that question and we're going to go to lunch. MR. GRAMMAS: I agree. The question is the same as it's been. MR. PECK: Ask it. MR. GRAMMAS: Adam, don't scream at me. MR. PECK: Ask it. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018186 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 111 MR. GRAMMAS: Don't scream at me. MR. PECK: You've been screaming at my witness. MR. GRAMMAS: I have not raised my voice a single time. Now, you may think my manner may be impolite -- MR. PECK: I do. MR. GRAMMAS: -- but I haven't raised my voice to your witness. I haven't raised my voice to you. Don't scream at me. MR. PECK: Ask the question. MR. GRAMMAS: I don't want to hear that. MR. PECK: Ask the question. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Is there any reason, Mr. Pierle, why the remediation could not be done simultaneously on your property at Monsanto's Anniston site and on my plaintiffs' properties, or at least looked into simultaneously? A. And I answered that question, that in looking at what was known, what was needed to be understood and known, whether or not there was an immediate reason for the removal or a quick go-do-something action, that did not exist. So what needed to happen, and this is very typical, is you have to go about a more methodical TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8187 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ____________________________ __________________________________________ process to understand what is the problem, is there a problem, what needs to be done, what are the remediation options, what are the technology options, and you tend to do that in a way that looks at priority first. And whether it's the right priority or not, generally what you do is say, Where might there be potential sources, what action can we do relative to that, and that's where you go focus your attention. Then you still have to deal with the issues, Well, now, what else might there have been as a result of that? I mean, that's the process that we're in. It's very typical. It's generally been assumed to be a right in areas where we and many others are dealing, and I think that's the answer to the question. Q. Okay. I didn't hear you mention the word "finances" in there at all. Is that because finances did not play a role in this decision to clean up Monsanto's property first? A. And my response to that was that we don't ask ourselves, you know, what is it going to cost, what - can we afford to begin or not. I think, as our guideline said, we will immediately get involved in understanding what the issue is and the definition of the issue, and that's exactly what we're doing. Q. And cost to Monsanto, and now Solutia, is not TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018188 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 _________________________________________________ an issue it considers in deciding whether to clean up PCB-contaminated sediment that it is possibly responsible for causing? A. That's not what I said. Q. I'm asking you that. A. Cost is a very relevant factor in the selection of remedies and in the options that get looked at. So, yes, cost is a very relevant factor in every decision that gets taken by anyone with respect to a remediation action. Q. Do you believe, sir, that at this site, the Snow Creek/Choccolocco Creek/Lake Logan Martin site immediately downstream from your plant that manufactured PCBs over these periods of decades we've talked about today, that you-all are not the, but a major contributor to the PCB concentrations that are being found in this river system? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. No foundation. THE WITNESS: I mean, again, I thought we had sort of covered this ground in a prior conversation and questioning where I said, you know, that we are there because there is factual information that says it's important for us to be part of this solution at this site, which means that there is a probability that we TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING Sc VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018189 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ______________________________ have some responsibility. What we're about is trying to determine is that in fact real and what is the extent of that. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Now, when this probability existed you have some responsibility, is it your opinion at this point in time, sir, that you will not delay cleanup by unnecessary legal yet negatively perceived litigious steps ? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. He's quoting from a section of the guidelines, and if you want to ask him about that section, show it to him. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. You can answer the question. A. It's very clear that we are committed to pursuing the process that we're in to its completion, and that although we'd never give up a legal remedy, which you wouldn't advise me as my counsel to do that, our priority on these is to try to work through these in as acceptable a manner as we can, such as to get on with solving a problem if it exists, not worrying about litigating and delay. Q. Right, but my question, though, is a little more simple than that, Mr. Pierle. My question is: Is it your position that you are not going to delay TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018190 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ____________________ cleaning up the PCB problem through unnecessary legal steps? A. And I think I answered that and that -- just as I described, that we are moving through that with the anticipation that we will get through a process and understand whether there's a problem that needs remediation, what the extent of that is. If we have obligations, what obligation that is and how can we be part of that solution. That does not mean that if there is an outrageous under -- determination by someone that a remedy is wholly inappropriate for what the solution is, that if we have legal remedies available to us, that we will not pursue those. We are looking for a remedy as a priority. Q. Do you believe, sir, as the head of environmental management over remediation for Solutia and, in the past, for Monsanto, that Monsanto's responsibility for the PCBs in Snow Creek, Choccolocco Creek, and Lake Logan Martin, as we sit here today, have been fairly established? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. As has that word as stated in your 1989 Worldwide Guideline No. 2 under a heading called "Waste Management," Section 4, "Corrective and Remedial TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018191 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 __________________________________ Action." MR. PECK: Do you want to show him that? MR. GRAMMAS: He's read it. He's seen it. He helped write it. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Do you believe that your -- that Monsanto's, and now Solutia's, responsibility for the PCBs in Snow Creek, Choccolocco Creek, and Lake Logan Martin have been fairly established, as those words mean under that guideline? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. MR. GRAMMAS: I've got one more question and then we can take a lunch break. THE WITNESS: I think, by the words of the definition of this guideline, we're not at this step of having responsibility fairly established. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Now, what is being done by Monsanto, or now Solutia, at Choccolocco Creek, Snow Creek, and Lake Logan Martin to convince you that you are not a source of PCBs that are being found there, if anything? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: You know, there is an extensive study underway looking at the hydrology of the system, the sources, potential sources, and that report will be TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018192 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 117 instrumental in helping to -- for us to understand our responsibilities or the extent of those with respect to what you've described. I think we've said on Snow Creek, you know, we've already demonstrated a responsibility there, and I think the work that is underway will go a long way towards defining if there is additional responsibility. MR. GRAMMAS: Okay. MR. PECK: Lunch? MR. GRAMMAS: Yes. (LUNCH RECESS.) BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Mr. Pierle, has Monsanto completed the cleanup work in and around the plant and the neighboring property for PCB cleanup? MR. PECK: Did you ask "completed"? MR. GRAMMAS: Yes. THE WITNESS: I don't think all that work is done yet. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Has Monsanto determined who put the PCBs there? A. I think, with respect to most of that, we just accepted the fact that it probably came from us and, you know, with enough work around, how it may have got TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018193 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 _____________ __________________________________________________________________ there and sort of moved on per our practice here and took over accountability for it and have moved through remediation in most of the areas. Q. Are you sitting here today, sir, any less than 100 percent certain that Monsanto's PCB manufacturing processes over the 30-year period is what caused the plant to be contaminated with PCBs? A. I don't know that we've identified any other reason. Q. Okay. Did that answer my question? Are you less than 100 percent certain that you are the source? A. I guess the answer is I don't know that I needed to be 100 percent certain in that case. There was enough certainty for us to move forward and to act, and we did. Q. In that case, there was enough certainty to fairly establish that Monsanto was the source of PCBs on its own property, correct? A. I believe so. Q. Now, during this process that you-all engaged in in cleaning up your own property and the neighboring properties, did you identify any other potential sources of PCB contamination in the area? A. I know that there were some issues on some of the related property with PCB contamination that could TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018194 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 119 have come from, I think, a prior -- I forget if it was a -- some sort of a metal operation, but yes, there were other users of PCBs in the area that could have contributed materials to the property. Q. But all of those other users got their PCBs from Monsanto, correct? A. I don't know. Q. You don't know that even though on Exhibit No. 2 Monsanto has admitted that they are the sole United States manufacturer of PCBs? A. I think you're asking a different question, because there were other people that sold PCBs, as I understand it, from outside the U.S. So there were other manufacturers. I don't have the records. I don't know where they would have come from or not. Q. Under the Monsanto guidelines where we're reading from on the corrective and remedial action section, the section dealing with when Monsanto's responsibility for cleanup is fairly -- excuse me, when Monsanto's responsibility for contamination is fairly established, it will take a leadership role in cleaning up, that is the policy that Solutia employs today also, isn't it? A. I think the words say yes, that we're following the words that you've identified. I think TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018195 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 120 they're somewhat different than what you paraphrased in your statement. I mean, I think it says we'll take a leadership role in the process in moving it along. Q. And Solutia does that also? A. Yes. Q. All right. Now, Mr. Pierle, do you believe that Monsanto was fairly established to be the source of the PCB contamination in that part of Snow Creek that you-all removed some of the sediment to try to remediate that portion of the creek back in the late 1980s? A. Again, I don't recall, you know, the specifics of that case. Certainly there was enough information there and the judgment made to proceed and take responsibility for that and to move on. I don't know what the factual basis around that was. Q. But there was enough information there to at least let Monsanto determine that it was "a" major contributor, not necessarily "the," but at least "a" major contributor in the PCB contamination on Snow Creek that was somewhat remediated, correct? A. I don't want to be argumentative about this. I think what I'm saying is that if the judgment around what you described was a couple hundred thousand dollars to do the remediation and the work, that there TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018196 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 121 was probably a sense that we could have been, we ought to be part of this process, let's just get it done and move beyond it. I do not know in that context how much was done about factually, Is it yours, is it somebody else's, could they have come from someplace else. I just don't know how much of that was done. Q. Before we broke for lunch, I asked you what it would take to convince you that Monsanto was a fairly established source of potential contamination in a given situation. Do you recall that question or one similar to that? A. Probably. Q. Do you recall telling me, sir, that if you were presented with facts that demonstrated that materials manufactured in Monsanto were present on-site at a particular location and that the chemicals were attributable to Monsanto's actions, then in your mind that would fairly establish that Monsanto in that situation would be a source of the contaminant? A. I recall us writing down three sets of assumptions of which I think you've talked about two. So I don't know if you're asking me the same question or a different question than what we responded to before. Q. I thought I wrote your testimony down, and TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018197 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 122 correct me if I'm wrong, that you said if someone presents a set of facts that Monsanto manufactured materials or discovered them being there as a result of actions that can be attributed to the company, then in your mind it is fairly established that Monsanto was a contributing source of the contamination; is that not a correct statement? A. I think what I said at that point, that would be sufficient information for us to get involved in the process and to more fully understand the factual situation around that. (PIERLE EXHIBIT NO. 8 WAS FIRST DULY MARKED, RECEIVED AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD.) BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. I'm going to show you -- first of all, before I show you this, do you know who Mr. H.S. Bergen, Jr., is? A. I'm vaguely familiar with the name. Q. Who is he? A. You know, I don't remember much more than Howard "BER gun", or "BER zhun", seemed to be involved with one of the businesses some time ago, but I don't really recall. Q. Do you know who John Mason is? A. What is the middle initial? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018198 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 123 Q. Doesn't have one. It just says "John Mason." A. There's been more than one John Mason, I think, at Monsanto; although I'm not sure. I know a John Mason. Q. Who is he, the one that you know? A. The one that I know is the head of the Monsanto Fund. He's at Monsanto. Q. What is the Monsanto Fund? A. A philanthropic fund operated by a board of directors and president that disburses basically contributions that the company makes to the fund, and the fund makes judgments about, on a philanthropic basis, where to deploy the funds. Q. Does it ever deploy them for any environmental issues, cleanups, stuff like that? A. No. For cost of cleanup and things like that, no. Q. Mr. E.P. Wheeler, do you know who he is? A. I believe he was a member of the corporate medical department back in the late '60s, something like that. Q. How about Mr. Papageorge? A. I know Mr. Papageorge. I worked for him back in the '70s and he worked for me for a while in the ' 80s . TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018199 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 124 Q. What did he do for you in the '80s? A. I think he was part of -- at the time, was part of the chemical company's organization when we formed in '86, and I believe at the time he was dealing with safety and industrial hygiene kinds of issues for us . Q. PCBs ? A. I don't think so, I mean, not for what he was doing for me. I wasn't doing anything with PCBs. It was basically for safety and health programs across the chemical company of Monsanto. Q. F.J. Holzapfel? A. Holzapfel. Q. H-O-L-Z-A-P-F-E-L. A. Right. Q. Who's that ? A. I knew Mr. Holzapfel when I was at a plant, I guess, in New Jersey. He was the director of manufacturing, I believe. Q. What did he have to do with PCBs? A. I have no idea. Q. How about Mr. D.B. Hosmer? A. Mr. Hosmer was a technical manager for a while and was also a manager of an environmental and utilities group in, I believe, industrial chemicals - TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 125 well, he was when I came back from the government in 1975. He was my immediate supervisor at the time. Q. What, to your knowledge, does he have to do with PCBs for Monsanto? , A. At that time we were sort of getting out of manufacturing, but he was, in general, at a company level, responsible for environmental matters. I don't know what his specific -- I mean, he had people working with him that were dealing with more specific matters. Q. How about Mr. J.R. Savage? A. I know Mr. Savage. He was sort of a technical director and a licensing manager at a point in time. Q. What did he have to do with PCBs? A. I'm not certain. Q. How about Mr. G.L. Jessee? A. Well, I knew Gene when he was in the environmental group that I was in in the corporate structure in the mid-'80s. Q. What did he have to do with PCBs? A. I don't know. He was a former plant manager at Anniston. Q. Was he the plant manager in and around August 1970, to your knowledge? A. I don't believe so. I'm not certain. Q. How about Mr. J.C. Landwehr, L-A-N-D-W-E-H-R? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018201 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A. I'm not familiar with that name. Q. How about Mr. Paul Hodges, have we talked about him before? A. Paul was, I think, an environmental manager that worked for Mr. Hosmer -- Q. Do you know - - A. -- at one point in time. Q. Do you know why all of the individuals that we just talked about would receive a letter from Mr. Hodges regarding a PCB cleanup program at Anniston? Do you know why those individuals would have been selected to receive such a letter? A. I really don't. Q. Is it Solutia's policy, and was it Monsanto's policy, to fully disclose to the public any and all impacts that its manufacturing processes and disposal processes of its chemicals would have on the public or, in particular, people that lived downstream from one of its plants? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: I really don't --at what time period? BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. At any time period. A. We have that as an explicit part of the policy TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING Sc VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8202 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 127 and pretty much had since the mid '80s, I believe. I don't know -- I don't know that there was anything written or what the practice was before then. My own experience was that most of those conversations would typically happen with regulatory agencies who were the representatives of the public, and that's typically where most of the discussions that -- that was a more -- more the practice back before the '84 time period, as I recall. Q. Can you think of any legitimate reason why Monsanto would deliberately try to conceal information it was aware of regarding PCB contamination of Snow Creek, Choccolocco Creek, and fish contained in those bodies of water from the people who live on those water systems? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: No. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Would it offend you, sir, to know that in 1970, Monsanto in fact embarked on a course of conduct to deliberately conceal information it had discovered regarding PCB contamination and Snow Creek, Choccolocco Creek, and fish therein? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: It would if that were true. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018203 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 128 BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Can you think of any legitimate reason why a company would want to keep confidential information that it discovered regarding the amount of PCBs it was discharging into Snow Creek on a given day; and not only keep that information confidential within the company, but to destroy the information once the recipients of the information received the document describing the amounts? A. I mean, it's conceivable that at a point in time, depending on where folks were with conversations and with outside regulatory folks, what they may have judged to be appropriate. I'd have to understand more about the facts to be able to respond any more to that question, and then I'm not sure I could. Q. Okay. I'm going to show you what has been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 8 and draw your attention to the first highlighted paragraph under the section entitled "Status." Do you see that, sir? MR. PECK: You're free to read the entire document. THE WITNESS: I do see that statement. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. If you'd like to read the entire document, you can. I'm going to ask you questions about this TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018204 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 129 statement right here, though. Could you read that statement, please, out loud. A. The entire -Q. First of all, this is a Monsanto document dated August 7, 1970, correct? A. Yes. Q. And it's written to Mr. H.S. Bergen, B-E-R-G-E-N, Jr., correct? A. Yes. Q. And the people that we were discussing moments ago are all listed as recipients of the letter, right? A. Yes. Q. And who wrote the letter, sir? If you can turn to the last page -- or, actually it's a memo. It's an internal memorandum. A. It looks like a Mr. Paul B. Hodges. Q. And that's the same gentleman we talked about earlier, right? A. Yes. Q. And in the top of the memo, in bold and underlined for importance, is the words -- and actually, all capitalized, in the words "Confidential," right? A. Yes. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018205 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 0 Q. And then it says capital F, capital Y, capital I. What does that mean? A. I assume it's "for your information." Q. And then after that it says what, sir? A. "And destroy." Q. So we've got a document written by Mr. Hodges to these individuals that said that this is confidential and this is strictly for your information and after you read it, destroy it, right? A. Uh-huh, yes. Q. Now, under the heading entitled "Status," it says what, sir, that's highlighted? A. Well, highlighted in yellow is the first sentence: "We're presently discharging to Snow Creek about 16 pounds per day of PCBs, down from 250 pounds per day in 1969." Q. Okay. So we know, as of August 7, 1970, Monsanto had decreased from 250 pounds a day, the year earlier, discharging 16 pounds every day of PCBs into Snow Creek, right? A. That's what this statement says. Q. You don't have any reason to doubt the veracity of that statement, do you? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: I guess I would really want to TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018206 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 131 make sure I read the whole one to make sure that there were weren't any other qualifications. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. I understand, but as that statement appears, you have no reason, sitting here today, to doubt that it's true, correct? A. Not having read only that statement. Q. As a matter of fact, sir, as the head of environmental affairs, charged with the responsibility of remediating this project here in Anniston with respect to PCBs, this is the exact type of document you would expect to read in determining what type of PCBs may have been put into Snow Creek in the past that Monsanto is responsible for, right? A. I wouldn't personally expect to necessarily read this, no. Q. But somebody under your responsibility, if you directed to go out and find out how many pounds of PCBs were put into Snow Creek by Monsanto over the years, would go to documents like this and read it and rely on it, right? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: It could be one source of information, sure. BY MR. GRAMMAS: TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018207 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 2 Q. Now, in the third numbered paragraph in this letter it says that: "Joe Crockett, secretary of the Alabama Water Improvement Commission, will try to handle this problem quietly without release of the information to the public at this time." Did I read that correctly? A. Yes. Q. Now, if you would, sir, turn to the very last page of the letter. MR. PECK: You know, Mr. Pierle, he's taking you all through the letter, different things he wants you to read, and has asked you about pieces from it. Feel free to read the entire thing. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. If you want to read the entire letter, you're more than welcome to. MR. PECK: Thank you. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Let me know when you're finished. (WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.) (A SHORT BREAK WAS HELD.) THE WITNESS: I have read it. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Okay, sir. After having now the benefit of reading the entire document, is there anything that we TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018208 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 133 have discussed about the internal memorandum at this point that is not 100 percent true? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. No foundation. THE WITNESS: I really don't have the basis to -- you know, to answer that. I mean, my assumption would be that it's true. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. And what I'm getting at more particularly is the items about 16 pounds a day being discharged in 1970 versus 250 pounds a day of PCBs being discharged into Snow Creek in 1969. That statement that contained at the beginning of the letter and nothing in the remainder of the letter brings into question the accuracy of it, does it? A. Well, there's some further statements here about overall accuracy of sampling and the methodology, which indicates to me at least that they're looking at the accuracy in their measuring devices to see whether these are right. But it doesn't go on to describe -- Q. And that's what they found based on their own measuring devices, right? A. Based on what methodology they were using at that time. Q. And you have no reason to doubt that the TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018209 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 134 methodology that they were using was accurate, do you? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. I mean, you talk about methodology. These are documents produced by Monsanto, right? A. Yes. Q. These are documents that Monsanto management was relying on in determining what, if anything, to do about the PCB problem in Anniston, right? A. Yes. Q. And is there any reason to think that the information they were looking at was not accurate in making these decisions? A. I think they would have felt it was the best that they had and as accurate as they could be. Q. And you couldn't make decisions based on the PCB contamination problem with inaccurate information, could you, or couldn't make the right decisions with inaccurate information, could you? A. Again, my sense is it was probably as accurate as it could be for what they were trying to do at that time . Q. So based on this document in 1969 in Anniston, you-all were losing about 250 pounds a day of PCBs into Snow Creek, right? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018210 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 135 A. What it says is at the time the document was written, it was 16 pounds a day, and that that number had represented an earlier period. Q. No, what I was asking you about was in 1969, this letter says that you-all were losing 250 pounds a day. A. That's the reference that's made in the letter. Q. And they were basically bragging about being able to reduce those losses from 250 pounds a day to 16 pounds a day a year later, right? A. I don't know if they were bragging. I think what they're saying is factually they had been able to do that, which represents, you know, a pretty good reduction. Q. Okay. Now, do you think it's good policy, sir, for a company to knowingly discharge 250 pounds of chemicals a day into a river system that it knows was toxic? A. Again, now you raised a whole different question, toxic and what concentration to whom and to what. So I don't think that this statement says that they knew it was toxic in the stream or in the conditions of Snow Creek. Q. My question didn't ask you what your TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018211 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 136 understanding of toxic was, sir. My question to you was simply: Do you think that it was good practice for a company to knowingly discharge 250 pounds of PCBs into Snow Creek a day in 1969 and, according to this document, 16 pound of PCBs into Snow Creek in 1970, when all along, while it was dumping those chemicals into Snow Creek, it knew that the chemicals were toxic? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Do you think that's good practice? A. Again, I have to define "toxic" to be able to answer that question, and I did, and I answered that it was common practice for more pounds of that of materials and chemicals to be discharged into rivers and streams in the United States at that point in time, which in generally was viewed as acceptable. Q. And because -- when you say it's "common practice," that meant not only Monsanto was doing it, but other chemical manufacturers were dumping toxic chemicals into the river systems, too, right? A. And municipal treatment -- municipal systems and discharges and commercial entities and basically that was the norm of the day. Q. And because everybody else was doing it, it's okay for Monsanto to do it; is that what I'm hearing TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018212 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 137 you say? A. I think what I'm saying is that was generally accepted practice based upon the information that one knew at that point in time. Q. Now, was it generally accepted practice that these other chemical companies and cities and whoever you're referring to generally, but not by name, who were discharging -- are you saying that they too knew that what they were discharging into their systems was toxic or that they were just discharging without knowledge at all? A. What I'm saying is that people knew that there were discharges going that contained materials that may have hazardous properties. I'm not saying that people were knowingly discharging hazardous materials that had toxic end-point conditions to the environment or to human health. Q. Who is Dr. R. Emmet Kelly? A. Dr. Kelly was the medical director for Monsanto Company for a period of time back in -- well, I don't know when he started. He was there when I was there in the mid-'60s, it seemed like, to '70s, somewhere in that time. At least that's where I'm familiar with the name. Q. Did you ever have an opportunity to work with TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018213 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ________ ________________________________________________________ 138 him? A. I think I met Dr. Kelly a time or two, but I don't recall really any project work that I did with him. I recall he was pretty senior and I was pretty j unior. Q. Do you know what his reputation was within Monsanto? A. I really couldn't characterize that. I didn't know him well enough or didn't know of him enough to know of that. I think subsequent to that, you know, I think there's a general sense that he was a very good doctor. (PIERLE EXHIBIT NO. 9 WAS FIRST DULY MARKED, RECEIVED AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD.) BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Mr. Pierle, I'm going to show you what's been marked as Exhibit 9 to your deposition, and ask if this is not a letter dated September 20, 1955, to Dr. J.W. Barrett from Dr. Kelly? You can look at the second page for his signature. MR. PECK: And again, he's going to talk to you about the letter. Feel free to read it. THE WITNESS: It is a letter from Dr. Kelly to -- it looks like a J.W. Barrett, yes. BY MR. GRAMMAS: TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018214 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 9 Q. And J.W. Barrett has the word "doctor" before his name, too, doesn't it? A. It does. I don't know what that means. Q. The subject of this letter is Dr. Barrett's September 8 letter to Mr. -- it looks like Mason, about Aroclor toxicity, correct? MR. PECK: He's going to ask you about the subject of the letter, and you're going to have to read the letter. THE WITNESS: I will. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Isn't that what the subject says at the top, sir? A. Yes. Q. Aroclor is a company name for PCB, right? A. Can I read the letter? Q. You can read the letter, sure. (WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.) THE WITNESS: I have read the letter. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Now, Mr. Pierle, I want to draw your attention to the last paragraph on the first page. MCC, what is MCC, Monsanto Chemical Company? A. It probably is. Q. Doesn't Dr. Kelly tell Dr. Barrett that TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018215 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 140 Monsanto Chemical Company's position about PCBs can be summarized in the following fashion, and see if I read this correctly. "We know Aroclor" -- first of all, Aroclors are PCBs, right? A. Again, I think they can be. I'm not 100 percent conversant on the product terminology that was used. Q. Well, assume for me that Aroclors are PCBs, okay, because that's been the testimony in the past. MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. I'm not sure that that's an accurate characterization. I think the testimony's been that Aroclor includes PCBs. It's not necessarily all PCBs. MR. GRAMMAS: Well, we'll take that definition. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Monsanto Chemical Company's position can be summarized in the following fashion. "We know Aroclors are toxic, but the exact limit has not been precisely defined." Did I read that correctly? A. Yes. Q. Dr. Kelly goes on to state: "It does not make too much difference, it seems to me, because our main worry is what will happen if an individual develops any TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING Sc VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018216 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 141 type of liver disease and gives a history of Aroclor exposure. I'm sure the juries would not pay a great deal of attention to MCC's position." Did I read that correctly? A. I think you did, up until the last word, and I think that refers to MACs, attention to MACs, and I think that's used someplace else in here. Q. Yeah, I think you're right. I misread that. In any event, Dr. Kelly, back in 1955, wrote to Dr. Barrett, who was another Monsanto doctor, that Monsanto doctors on staff knew that PCBs were toxic to human beings, didn't they? A. No. Q. Okay. And he didn't also write that he's worried that exposure of individuals to Aroclors may cause liver disease. He didn't write that either, did he? A. That's not how I interpret what he says. What I interpret what he says here is that -- and I don't know that Dr. Barrett is Monsanto. So, again, I'm not agreeing to your front end. I just don't know. You made that factual statement. Q. I just assumed he was. Dr. Kelly wrote a letter to an individual. Regardless of whether that individual's employed by Monsanto, you will admit that TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018217 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 142 Dr. Kelly was employed by Monsanto? A. Yes. Q. And he wrote a letter to this man stating in 1955 that Monsanto Chemical Company knew that Aroclors were toxic. A. I think what this is saying is that based on some tox test that was available, I think he describes up above that Aroclors are toxic. Almost everything's toxic. So there's nothing new about that. The question here, as I read this, is: At what level is there toxicity? And what he goes on to say, as I read that, it says what's important here is that we understand if there is any liver disease in humans and is there Aroclor exposure that may have contributed to that. So this doesn't say that he is stating that Aroclor causes liver disease, he is simply stating that I don't know whether there's a reason to do more toxicological studies on animals or how valuable that would be. Q. Well, he says Monsanto knows that Aroclors are toxic, but the actual limit has not been precisely defined. A. Right. That's correct. And most toxicity is done in animals, and my interpretation of that is it's a question of at what level is toxicity exhibited in TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018218 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 143 the animal. Q. And, of course, you're going to point me to a study that Monsanto has that says, We know discharging 250 pounds of this toxic chemical a day does not rise to that level of toxicity that Dr. Kelly was concerned about. Where's that document? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: I didn't -- I didn't suggest that there was a document, if you state it in fact. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Exactly. So the best you can tell me is, in 1955, Monsanto knew that it was discharging a toxic chemical -- scratch that. In 1969, Monsanto knew that it was discharging, according to Plaintiff's Exhibit 8 to your deposition, 250 pounds of this toxic chemical a day into Snow Creek, right? A. That's what the one document suggests. Q. Well, the two documents together prove that Monsanto knew they were discharging a toxic chemical of up to 250 pounds a day into Snow Creek, right? A. No. I mean, what it says is we're discharging -- it's two separate things. One, we're discharging up to or were, which has been reduced; and Aroclors exhibit toxic properties in test animals. And TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING Sc VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018219 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ____________ ___________________________________________________________________ ________ what it goes on to say, as I read it, that is questioning down here further as to what's important, is: Are we seeing any adverse effects in human beings and are there any actual exposures to PCBs which may cause that effect? Q. Mr. - - A. The presence of the material and the fact that a material has toxicity does not allow one to conclude that there's any risk to the environment or an individual as a result of that. Q. I didn't ask you any of those things, Mr. Pierle, and I appreciate your contributing all of that unnecessary information, but that's not what I asked you. My questions are very simple, they're very pointed, and I want answers just to those questions and we can get out of here a lot faster. MR. PECK: Mr. Pierle can answer the question however he feels fit. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. When you do that, it makes me come back and show that the witnesses in these letters did not say the things you just said. So that's what we're going to do here. In this 1955 letter, Mr. Pierle, Dr. Kelly is not talking about rats. He's talking about human TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018220 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 __________ __ ____________________________________________________ 145 beings, isn't he? You've already read the whole letter. A. No, he is not saying that they have determined that Aroclors were tested on human beings and toxic to human beings. The letter does not say that. Q. He did not mention the word "rats," "animals," "mice," "dogs," "puppies," "gerbils," anything of that sort in this 1955 letter, did he? A. Well, let me look at it again, but he did not say that they were -- it refers to test work that was done; and the best I know, it was not common practice to test human beings directly for toxicity for chemicals. The standard practice was to test animals. So maybe it doesn't say it specifically, but it's a fairly simple deduction for someone to make from this discussion. Q. I'm not asking you to deduce anything. And if your lawyer wants to talk to you about that, that's fine . MR. PECK: Sure, you are. You're asking him to deduce things. You're asking about documents. If you don't want to know his interpretation of the document, stop showing him the document. MR. GRAMMAS: If your lawyer wants to ask you questions about why you feel like something should have TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018221 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 146 been written in that letter that wasn't, then he can have every opportunity to do that. What I'm asking - MR. PECK: You asked him -- you had asked him if the letter said toxicity to humans, Pete. MR. GRAMMAS: Adam, be quiet. I know what I'm asking. MR. PECK: Well, you apparently don't, because you're getting answers to your questions and you don't like them and you don't know what the answer means. MR. GRAMMAS: Whatever, Adam. MR. PECK: And that's why you have to keep asking him the same questions MR. GRAMMAS: Whatever. MR. PECK: Listen to his answers, Pete, and stop asking him the same questions over and over again. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Can you answer the question, sir. MR. PECK: Read back his answer. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. There's nothing in there about rats, mice, animals, gerbils, dogs, puppies, cats, anything, is there? A. My interpretation of MAC is "maximum allowable concentrations." That is a term that is very commonly used around the testing of laboratory animals. So TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018222 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 147 again, someone with some understanding of scientific testing -- and I'm not an expert -- would sure assume and deduce from this letter that's exactly what they're talking about. Q. That would have been a perfect answer if I asked you to assume and deduce for me what they're talking about. But my question was: Do those words appear in this letter anywhere, about animal studies, dogs, rats, mice, gerbils, anything like that? Do they appear in this letter, sir? A. Again, MACS would interpret that, and nothing in the letter says it's talking about human toxicity testing either. Q. Fine. Where were you in 1955? A. I was born - MR. PECK: Now he is trying to disqualify him. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. What were you doing in 1955? A. I was 12 years old, so I was probably in grade school. Q. What grade would you have been in? A. Is this relevant? Q. Uh-huh. Yes, sir. A. I was probably in the seventh grade. Q. You were in the seventh grade. You were a TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018223 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 148 12-year-old boy when Dr. Kelly wrote this letter. A. That's correct. Q. And he states in here that Monsanto Chemical Company's position -- not Dr. Kelly's, he said this is the chemical company's position -- is that they know Aroclors are toxic. A. That's correct. Q. Now, and we've know that from 1955 . A. Yes . Q. What's the date of Exhibit No . 8, sir? A. August 7, 1970. Q. Now, according to Exhibit No. 8, which is a Monsanto document, how many pounds of PCBs were being dumped into Snow Creek in 1969 on a daily basis? A. This suggests their best information says it's 250 pounds a day. Q. Simple question. Based on these two documents together, can you not tell me that Monsanto was dumping 250 pounds a day of a toxic chemical into Snow Creek? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: No. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Back to Exhibit No. 8, sir, which is the Paul Hodges letter dated August 7, 1970, he discusses in the last paragraph of his letter that high concentrations TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018224 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - _____________________________________ ___ _ of PCBs were being found in mud and fish in Choccolocco Creek, doesn't he? A. He says: "...fish samples from nearby Choccolocco creek also showed high levels of PCBs, we're instituting more sampling to determine the extent of the problem." Q. Right. Back in 1970 -- where in that letter, by the way, does he say. But Monsanto's not the party responsible for the high levels of PCBs in these fish? A. I don't think he discusses responsibility at all. Q. Where in there does he say that Monsanto is not responsible for doing it? A. I didn't say that he said that. Q. I know. I'm asking you where is it that he says that, if he does? A. I don't know why he wrote the letter and what he put in the letter, whether that was even pertinent. Q. Would you not say that, reading that letter, it's a fair conclusion to take from it, sir, that Mr. Paul Hodges believed that Monsanto was the party responsible for the high levels of PCBs in the fish found in Choccolocco Creek? A. I think what they're doing there again, as I read that letter, is looking at facts and information. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018225 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ______________________________________ ________________________ Certainly there was enough that caused him to go look and ask the question and they were also disclosing that and discussing with the state officials. Q. At the same time, they were making sure that the public didn't get a copy of this and didn't find out this information, right? A. That's what this letter says. I don't know how many other letters or what else was produced. This doesn't say that they wouldn't give it to the public. It just says with respect to this letter, it's confidential. Q. What's the date of that letter? A. August 7, 1970. Q. Who's Mr. G.W. Miller? A. I don't know. (PIERLE EXHIBIT NO. 10 WAS FIRST DULY MARKED, RECEIVED AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD.) BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Well, I'm going to show you a letter dated May 7, 1970, sir, and I ask if you would, please, review that letter. I want to ask you a few questions about it . (WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.) BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Have you had an opportunity to read Mr. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOQ18226 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 151 Miller's letter to Mr. Jessee? A. Yes. Q. It's actually an internal memorandum, as opposed to a letter, but it's dated May 7, 1970, correct? A. Yes. Q. And it deals with the subject of Monsanto putting PCBs from its Anniston plant into Snow Creek and Choccolocco Creek, doesn't it? A. I don't think it mentions Choccolocco Creek. Q. Just Snow Creek? A. I believe that's what the letter says. Q. All right. Under the third full paragraph, there are some topics of discussion, correct? A. Yes. Q. And Mr. Miller is telling Mr. Jessee that Monsanto has made the decision to "Give no statements or publications which would bring the PCB contamination to Snow Creek's situation to the public's attention." Isn't that what he says? A. This says his recommendation, "his" referring, I believe, to Mr. Crockett. So these were the recommendations of the Alabama state administrator to do that. And he goes on to say: "If approached," people are free to discuss the situation and that it's TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018227 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 152 under study and Mr. Crockett -- under his direction. Q. All right. Maybe you didn't understand my question. He states in here that Monsanto is going to take the position that it will "Give no statements or publications which would bring the situation to the public's attention." Did I read that correctly? MR. PECK: He answered your question, Pete. If you didn't like the answer, then stop asking him questions. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Did I read it correctly? A. Again, what that says is his recommendations, the way I read that, that Mr. -- those were Mr. Crockett's statements and recommendations. Those were not the statements of Mr. Miller. Q. What's AWIC? A. I believe it's the regulatory authority in Alabama at that time. Q. Let's read this paragraph above that section for a moment. Paragraph 3 of the letter says: "Mr. Crockett was most appreciative of Monsanto's approach to the problem and the fact that Monsanto came to him. Did I read that sentence correctly? A. Yes. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8228 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 153 Q. And the problem, again, is PCB contamination from Monsanto's plant into Snow Creek, right? A. I think it's a variety of information that had been discovered concerning PCBs, the plant site, and Snow Creek. Q. "He," being Mr. Crockett, "alluded that our action" -- that's Monsanto, right? A. Yes. Q. -- "would produce a situation that was beneficial to the protection of both the Monsanto and AWIC positions." Correct? A. Yes. Q. "His recommendations were as follows," and then it says: "Give no statements or publications which would bring this situation to the public's attention." Did I read any of that incorrectly? A. No, you did not. Q. Now, tying it back to the words of Mr. Miller, would not "giving no statements or publications to the public" protect Monsanto's position with respect to PCBs being dumped into Snow Creek at that period of time, sir? A. That is not the way I read the letter. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018229 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 _____________________________________________ ________ Q. Okay. Have you ever been aware of the fact that free globules of Aroclors had been seen in Snow Creek from Monsanto's plant? A. I don't believe so. Q. Would that surprise you to know that? A. If those levels of discharge were accurate, that would be possible. Q. Do you think that's good corporate practice, even back in 1969, to dump so much PCB into Snow Creek that free-standing -- what was the word they used? - "free globules" of the stuff can be seen in the creek? A. You know, again, by today's standards, we wouldn't do that, we couldn't do that. By the standards that existed at that point in time, that was not uncommon practice. Q. But -- A. Folks knew about it, the public knew about it. It was accepted. Things changed and the laws changed and there was a whole structure put in place to deal with that, but that was accepted behavior and practice at that time. Q. The public knew about it. Is that what I heard you say? A. What I'm saying to you in general, the question of discharges of pollutants in the rivers and TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018230 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 155 streams at that time was public knowledge, generally available. People knew there was pollution at that point in time. People knew and regulators knew there were things that floated on streams and sank to the bottom. So, you know, anyone at that point in time would have known that that was not uncommon. Q. Including the people at Monsanto? A. I think everybody pretty much was aware of that. Q. Now, does the fact that there were free globules or Aroclors found in Snow Creek, the fact that there were 250 pounds a day of PCBs being discharged from your plant directly into Snow Creek, influence in any manner whatsoever your opinion that Monsanto is a potentially responsible party or the responsible party for the problem that we're seeing in the creek and the lake today? A. I think, again, we've talked about this. With respect to what was in Snow Creek, that situation, it has been addressed and is being addressed. With respect to Choccolocco Creek and the lake, there's significant studies which we are leading, participating in, that are getting additional answers to that particular question. And the reason why we're there doing that is because there's enough information that TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018231 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 156 says, by our policies and guidelines, we ought to be in the process of understanding what's there. Q. And we had that information, sir, as early - "we" being you -- had that information as early as May 12, 1969, didn't you? A. They had information relative to Snow Creek and it was disclosed and discussed with the regulatory authorities. Q. Well, let's look at -- Exhibit 8 is dated August 7, 1970, and it's talking about fish samples in Choccolocco Creek, isn't it? A. It does. Q. So Monsanto had information in the '69 time period that its manufacturing process and discharges of PCBs were impacting Snow Creek and Choccolocco Creek, right? A. I think it says there were PCBs there. This does not say that that plant was the source or only source of that material. (PIERLE EXHIBIT NO. 11 WAS FIRST DULY MARKED, RECEIVED AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD.) BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. All right. Sir, I'm going to show you what has been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 and ask if you can identify that for me just by looking at the TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018232 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -------- ------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- 157 date, the author, and the recipients? A. How do you want me to identify this? Q. By telling me who wrote it, what it is, and what -- the date it was written, and who got it. A. It's a letter from Mr. Hodges to a Mr. Kuhn dated May 12, 1969, subject, "Aroclor Cleanup from Plant effluents. MR. PECK: He's going to ask you questions about the document, Mike, you'll have to read it. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Heading 3 of this document says: "Work to Minimize Losses at Anniston." Did I read that correctly? MR. PECK: He's going to ask you questions about the document, Mike, you need to read it. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Read that whole document. I'm going to run to the restroom. MR. GRAMMAS : Adam, we'll be here all day reading these. MR. PECK: That's fine . That's your choice. MR. GRAMMAS : All right. Well, just so this gentleman knows that the reason he's here all day is because you're making him read letters. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8233 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 158 MR. LOWE: That's okay. (WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.) (A SHORT BREAK WAS HELD.) THE WITNESS: I have read the document. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Now, let's turn our attention to Roman - Section Roman numeral III, it's "Work to Minimize Losses at Anniston," right? A. Yes. Q. And they define the problem, do they not, in this document; does Monsanto not define the problem? A. That's a heading that's used. Q. And the definition of the problem is that: "External to the plant -- that a problem exists at Anniston is evident because 'free' globules of Aroclors can be seen in Snow Creek." Did I read that correctly? A. Yes. Q. "We do not know what problem exists in Choccolocco Creek and the Coosa River." Did I read that correctly? A. Yes. Q. Now, it says: "Two sets of mud and water samples will be taken in Choccolocco Creek." Right ? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018234 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 159 A. That's what it describes. Q. Okay. Now, we know -- well, that was May 12, 1969, right? A. Yes. Q. And we know, as of August 7, 1970, those samples were taken by Monsanto at Choccolocco Creek, right ? A couple months later, we have the results of the fish samples that we talked about in the prior document, Exhibit No. 11. A. Well, I mean, it's over a year between the two documents, so I'm not sure if they're talking the same samples or not. Q. But you will admit that there are samples from Choccolocco Creek that show positive readings of PCBs in the fish there? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, on another section here, entitled "Internal Plant Problems," on the following page, paragraph 2 e., states that Monsanto should "Establish continuous monitoring stations on Choccolocco Creek for Aroclors (and PNP and Parathion)." Did I read that correctly? A. Yes. Q. What does EDC mean? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8235 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ______________________________________ 160 A. I think it's "estimated date of completion." Q. June 1st, 1970, right? A. Yes. Q. Tell me how many monitoring stations Monsanto has on Choccolocco Creek right now, sir, checking for PCBs . A. I don't know that we have any. Q. Is it safe to say that it's now, what, 28 years later, you didn't -- Monsanto didn't meet their estimated date of completion for putting those monitoring stations in to check the PCB contamination in Choccolocco Creek? A. No . MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. It's not, why not? A. They were probably put in, work done, and taken out. That's relatively common practice when you're doing monitoring and that. Nothing in that document says we're going to put them in and leave them forever. This was a document that describes the work plan aimed at definition of problems -- Q. So - A. -- of a project. Q. So you know for a fact, as the environmental TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018236 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ___________________ _________ _____ ____________________________ 161 manager for Solutia, that as of 1970, Monsanto had installed monitoring stations in Choccolocco Creek to check for PCBs? A. I didn't say that. Q. Well, you said that they probably did them and took them out. A. You asked me a different question as to whether or not they existed today. My response was the fact that they said that they would put them in doesn't mean if they did, they would be in existence today. Q. And the fact that they said that they should put them .in doesn't mean that they did, either, does it? A. I don't know whether they did or not. From that note, I can't tell. Q. Monsanto employees back in 1969 thought it was important enough to put PCB monitoring stations in Choccolocco Creek; you will agree with me at least as to that, based on this document? A. It says it was part of that comprehensive work plan. Q. And isn't that because as early as that date, y'all knew that your PCBs were getting into Choccolocco Creek and you just wanted to know how much? A. I think what that whole program describes is TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018237 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- ----------- ------------------------------ 162 an investigatory set of work that was undertaken at that point in time to understand losses at the plant and where they might be going. Q. And back then they thought they were going as far as Choccolocco Creek, didn't they, May 12, 1969? A. I think what that suggests is they wanted to check and see if that was the case or not. It doesn't assume that they knew that they would. Q. But we know now in hindsight that the PCBs were in fact getting into Choccolocco Creek, don't we? A. I think that one date says that there are PCBs. It doesn't say where they're from and it says that they're there; and as a matter of fact, there were subsequent actions, I think, by the State on that at a point in time. I don't know when it was, but again, this is open -- I believe, open knowledge. Q. But it's not open because of anything that Monsanto chose to disclose to the public, is it? A. Absolutely, because if you choose to disclose it to the regulatory agency who is the public. Q. Okay. And the fact that you-all say on August 7, 1970, that this is confidential information, that once the recipients read it, they should destroy the letter, and that they should try to handle the problem without releasing the information to the TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018238 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ______________________________________ public, doesn't affect, in your mind, or doesn't draw you to conclude that Monsanto's doing everything in its power to conceal this problem from the public? A. I think what all of that suggests is there was open communication to the state agencies and the State was well aware of it and the State basically said, We're working on this together, there's no need to alarm the public with it. And basically, though, if asked, that people will tell there's a program underway to investigate and understand the situation. Q. And the fact that y'all were writing these memos on August 7, 1970, saying, Let's keep this from the public, let's read this among ourselves and then destroy this information, didn't have anything to do with the fact that y'all were worried about the public finding out and suing y'all over these issues; is that what I'm hearing you saying? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: No, you're reading one letter in '70 and you're showing me another letter that talked about a conversation that wasn't marked that way that would have been open and available. So I don't derive any special meaning from that designation. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Okay. Well, we'll go through it, then, in TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8239 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 164 detail so we won't mislead anything or anyone. Again, Mr. Paul Hodges' letter dated August 7, 1970, to Mr. Bergen, in bold, underscored, all capital letters, says: "Confidential, For Your Information and Destroy." Did I read any of that incorrectly? A. No. Q. And it says in the third paragraph of this letter that we're going to do everything we can to keep this from the public, right? A. No. Q. Okay. What does it say? A. It says exactly what it says. Q. Read it. A. Mr. Crockett "will try to handle the problem quietly, without release of the information to the public at this time. He believes that FDA will not precipitate this matter...Dr. Myers, Director of Public Health...wants toxicity information on PCBs and will convey this personally to him the next week. That clearly indicates to me there's an open flow of information with state agencies, and I can't call that confidential at that point. Q. I didn't ask you what -- anything about a state agency. I'm talking about the people. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING Sc VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018240 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 165 A. You asked me to read the statement, and I did, and the state agencies are the ones that made the statement that you attributed to Monsanto or Solutia, and I'm just pointing that out. Q. Okay. Well, let me ask you this, then, Mr. Pierle: Monsanto, according to what I'm hearing you say, never took the position that it personally wanted to keep this quiet from the public to avoid being sued by someone; that was never a concern on your part? A. I don't know what these people were thinking. I'm talking to you about what's in this document at this point in time. Clearly there was an open discussion with people at this -- outside of Monsanto, of the information. Q. There was no discussion of this with the general public, was there, based on that letter, Exhibit No. 8? A. I don't know at what point in time there was. Q. At this point in time, sir. A. It doesn't describe that it is, no. Q. As a matter of fact, it says don't tell the public this stuff. A. I answered that question and that's not what that says. MR. PECK: Let's take a break. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8241 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 166 (A SHORT BREAK WAS HELD.) BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Mr. Pierle, are you testifying today that Monsanto, during this period of time, 1969/1970, when all these memos that we've been discussing came out, did not undertake to keep this quiet from the general public to avoid being sued by anyone with respect to the PCB losses that you-all knew were occurring in Anniston? A. I can't conclude that from these documents. Q. You were employed with the company at this time, were you not? A. Yes. Q. You were working with some of these people, weren't you? A. To some extent, but not in detail. Q. And it never came to your attention, either at that period of time or during the course of your promotion within the company, and even today as the head environmental manager, that Monsanto tried to keep PCB losses a secret from the public so it wouldn't be sued? That was the real reason to keep it a secret, wasn't it ? A. No. Q. Did you say no? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018242 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 167 A. I'm saying no, it wasn't kept a secret, from my reading of the documents. (PIERLE EXHIBIT NOS. 12 AND 13 WAS FIRST DULY MARKED, RECEIVED AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD.) BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Toby Bell, who is that, do you have any idea? A. I don't know. Q. I'm going to show you a memo dated September 18, 1970, again from Mr. Paul Hodges. Now, who did you say that Mr. Hodges was and what did he do at that time for Monsanto? A. I think he was an environmental manager working for Mr. Hosmer. Q. September 1970, Mr. Hodges wrote Mr. Bell and he told him in that letter that I've just handed you as Plaintiff's Exhibit -- what is it, 13? A. Yes . Q. -- that Monsanto was extremely reluctant to let the public know about any of these PCB lawsuits because you were afraid you were going to be subpoenaed and you were going to be sued, correct? A. Can I read the letter? Q. Yes, sir. (WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.) THE WITNESS: I've read the letter. Can you TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018243 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 168 repeat the question. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Yeah. You-all were concerned, deeply- concerned, about being sued during that period of time, weren't you, based on that letter? A. I think it says "from the legal standpoint," which again I would interpret to be, you know, the law department's standpoint. That's how I would interpret that. Q. Well, all lawsuits are legal in nature, aren't they? A. Yeah. That wasn't my response to it. Q. I mean, that goes without saying. A. There are legal departments, there are management departments, and business people, and if you were a lawyer inside Monsanto, I think you would probably advise that, you know, this could be tough from a legal standpoint. I don't read that that's the basis on that decision making -- that's one input into this note. That's how I read the memo. Q. Well, rather than using your words to describe this memo, don't you think it would be better to use Mr. Hodges' words, the man who wrote the memo? A. You're asking me to react to a memo, and I'm simply putting it in my context of understanding what TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8244 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 _______________ ________________________ 169 my interpretation to be. You would have to ask Mr. Hodges, if you could, and you can't unfortunately. Q. Has he passed away? A. He has. Q. Well, Mr. Hodges said, and I'll quote it and you tell me if I'm reading it incorrectly: "There is extreme reluctance to report even the relatively low emission figures because the information could be subpoenaed and used against us in legal actions." Did I read that correctly? A. It started with "from a" -- "From the Legal standpoint," and then you read it correctly. It also states in there we've got to give the data to the State folks. So they're going to give it to them anyway. He goes on to ask, then, what else can be done, even at those low levels, to reduce them further. Q. What it's saying is that Monsanto had hoped that they would be able to improve what was happening and demonstrate a favorable trend to the State, but rather than being able to improve that, the emissions had considerably increased based on the information that they found; didn't he say that, sir? A. Yeah, I think it's a disappointment that the programs had not reduced it, and he goes on to say what else can be done to reduce it. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018245 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17C Q. And given the content of this letter, sir, is it still your testimony that Monsanto at that period of time was not consciously concealing from the general public the data that it was collecting to avoid being sued by the people who were being affected by the discharges that they were putting into Snow Creek and Choccolocco Creek? A. Again, I think there were at least three questions in there. Q. There was only one question. A. Maybe you could shorten it and ask it to me again. MR. GRAMMAS: Would you read it back to him. (THE PREVIOUS QUESTION WAS READ BACK.) THE WITNESS: Again, I read that to be common. What I said was that I don't believe that I see anything in here that Monsanto was attempting to intentionally keep matters from the public because of a concern about a lawsuit. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Despite the letters and the words and the sentences contained in Mr. Hodges' September 18, 1970, memo to Mr. Bell, which is Exhibit 13 to your deposition? A. Yes. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018246 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 171 Q. All right. I'm going to show you a fairly lengthy document. It's 12 pages. If you want to read it, you're free to read it. I'm not going to ask you about all 12 pages, I'm going to ask you about certain sections. Do you want to read the whole document or not ? A. I think it has been important so I understand the context in which the sentences are that you pull out. (WITNESS REVIEWS DOCUMENT.) (A SHORT BREAK WAS HELD.) BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Have you had an opportunity, sir, to read Plaintiff's Exhibit 12? A. Yes. Q. It's an October 2nd, 1969, memo regarding a report from the Aroclor ad hoc committee, correct? A. Yes. Q. And it's to Mr. Bergen and Springate. We haven't talked about him. Who's that? A. I remember him as another business manager, business director. Q. From Hodges and several other individuals, right ? A. Yes. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018247 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17; Q. Can you identify the handwritten notes on this document, do you know who wrote them? A. No. Q. All right. Do you believe that the toxicity of PCBs toward certain species is high? A. I believe -- I think that's what the document refers to. Q. Is that your understanding of the nature of PCBs as we sit here today? A. I think it can be. There was some confusion that I'm not certain about with respect to wildlife as to whether or not, you know, back at that time PCB was the agent or DDT. There was some confusion back then, but I think kind of the assumption was all through this that there is, you know, environmental toxicity that we need to be concerned about. Q. And you will agree with me that PCBs are a very persistent chemical? A. Yes. Q. And you will agree with me that the likelihood of natural -- it says "origin," what does that mean? A. I don't know. Q. It says "or degradation," that makes more sense to me, but the "likelihood of natural...degradation of PCBs is remote." TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018248 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17: Do you agree with that? A. You know, I think at that time it was true. I'm less certain if we know any more about that today. Q. And that's a fancy way of saying once the stuff gets into the environment, it ain't very likely to go away on its own, right? A. Yes. Q. All right. Now, under this section entitled "Recommendations" in this same memo, Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 to your deposition, the gentleman who wrote this memo said that: "In view of legal and moral considerations," that Monsanto should notify all Aroclor customers of environmental contamination problems. Did I read that correctly? A. Yes. Q. All right. But it doesn't say anywhere in here that Monsanto should notify all the people who live downstream from its plant in Anniston who were receiving PCBs being dumped into their river system about the environmental contamination problem, does it? A. It says what it says. Q. You've read - A. You're presuming in your statement, at least to me, that there was knowledge and fact about that it was -- you know, where there were exposures to human TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018249 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 4 beings. I don't read that in this document. Like what this is saying is our customers are buying this from us, using this, we know to some extent what those uses are and we ought to tell them what we know -- or, what the current situation is about PCBs. Obviously we weren't hiding anything at that point. Q. Well, you had a recommendation to tell your customers, right? We can see that. A. Right. Q. Does it say anywhere in here a recommendation to tell the people that lived downstream from your plant about these same environmental problems? A. No, it does not. Q. And would you not believe that the people who lived downstream from you are just as important, had just as much right to know about environmental problems as did your customers at that time? A. As I read that memo and at that point in time, it talks about understanding again what else we know about the manufacturing facilities and where it is and certain facts in there and a work plant around that, and that was again in and around the time that the agencies were known. That refers to other people in the scientific community that are being communicated with. So the answer directly is that no, there was no TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018250 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 statement in there; but the people at that time and representing the public, like the Alabama AWIC, were informed as to what was going on. Q. Sir, do the people who live downstream from Monsanto's plant, are they considered to be just as important as your customers? A. Sure. Q. All right. Do you believe that the people who lived downstream from your plant in Anniston had the same rights to know about environment contamination problems as your customers did? A. I don't even know in 1970 or 1969 if there were people downstream. Q. Sir, I'm asking you a simple question. Sitting here today, do you believe that people who live downstream from your manufacturing facilities have the same right to know about environmental contamination problems that your facilities may cause as your customers do? MR. PECK: 19 - THE WITNESS: And that's exactly what we do today and have been and I've already commented about the difference between the time frame that you're talking about and what were generally accepted practices for communicating this information. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018251 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 176 BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. All right. And if there were people who lived downstream from your plant in 1970 -- 1969, excuse me, when this memo was written, did they have every right to know about the environmental contamination problems that your plant was causing, at least as much as your customers had a right to know? A. And I think at that point in time those communications were basically with the regulatory authorities who represent the public, and that was in essence a discharge of that communication obligation. Q. And you knew on August 7, 1970, that the Alabama department charged with regulating it was going to keep this quiet from the public, didn't you? Monsanto knew that, didn't it? A. Listen, we've been through these documents, it seems to me, before; and the answer to that is I don't know that that's what he says. Q. The document says that's what he says. A. Well, but you read one line and I read the whole document, and if you read the whole document, I think you'd probably come to a different conclusion, too. Q. Mr. Pierle, you're trying to explain to me that you, Monsanto, discharged its obligations to TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018252 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ________ __________.__________________________________________________________177 notify the public by telling state agencies about the problem; am I hearing you correctly in saying that? A. I think what I said very specifically was that the normal practice at that time, if people even communicated; and in many cases the question is: Would you even tell them? We did openly discuss this with the regulatory agencies. The regulatory agencies were the governmental unit responsible for public information. Only in the late -- mid-'80s and late '80s did the public get -- express their demand for involvement directly in such information, and the standard of practice has changed substantially. Q. I didn't ask you anything about what you told me, Mr. Pierle. A. I answered your question. Q. No, you didn't. MR. PECK: Yes, he did. Don't argue with him, Pete, just ask him questions. MR. GRAMMAS: Adam, stop telling me how to take a deposition. MR. PECK: I'm not going to let you argue with my witness. MR. GRAMMAS: I'm not arguing with him. I'm trying to move this thing forward. MR. PECK: Well, then stop asking questions TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018253 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 178 and we'll move forward. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Mr. Pierle, we'll be here -- I don't care how long it takes to finish your deposition. We're going to finish it. It doesn't matter if it takes tonight, tomorrow, we come back, we're going to finish this deposition. A. You're not -- you know, you're asking me to answer the questions you want me to answer in your way. I'm answering them truthfully from my knowledge. Q. I asked you: Did Monsanto believe that by disclosing things to the public -- to the state agencies -- that it discharged its responsibilities to disclosing it to the public? A. I answered that question. Q. And that's all I asked you, and you went into a filibuster on what was standard practice in the '70s and the '80s. I didn't care about all that. All I want to know is: At that time did y'all take the position that if you told the Alabama agency charged with certain responsibilities about the environment what you were dumping into the river, that you didn't have to tell anybody else? A. I answered your question as truthfully and honestly as I can. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018254 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 179 Q. Okay. There's a whole section in here on this confidential memo dated October 2nd, 1969, about PCB contamination, dedicated to notifying customers of Monsanto; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. It goes on for pages; is that correct? A. I believe so. Q. And there ain't nothing in here about notifying people who live downstream, is there, other than notifying the government or whatever you said? A. I think I've answered that question. Q. Is that a yes? A. My answer is what I said it was. Q. All right. On Bates number 014621, in a section, I guess, continued for the "Basis for Recommendations" title, there's a No. 4 section, titled "Losses from Monsanto Plants." Did I read that correctly? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Pierle, did not Monsanto state in 1969 that, quote: "It is impossible to establish a limit as to what can be discharged 'safely,'" unquote, with respect to PCBs? A. That's the statement that's contained here. Q. And again, that was 1969, right? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018255 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 180 A. Yes. Q. That was the same period of time that we know, based on prior exhibits, you-all were dumping about 250 pounds of PCBs into the river system in Anniston, correct? A. Yes. MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. This memo that we're talking about goes on to say -- let's follow up something for a second. Monsanto knew in 1955 that Aroclors were toxic, correct, at some level? That's what Dr. Kelly said, do you remember that memo? A. Yes . Q. All right. Monsanto knew in 1969 it was dumping about 250 pounds of this toxic chemical into Snow Creek and into Choccolocco Creek, right? A. We've been through that discussion of toxics, yes . Q. And the dumping of the 250 pounds and all that, do you remember the memo dated 1970 that we talked about? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And in 1969, that same period of time that you-all were dumping these toxic chemicals out, TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018256 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------- ----------------------181 you-all had no idea what levels could be safely discharged, did you? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. No foundation. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. According to that memo that I'm reading from. A. I think what that basically says is what it says. It doesn't know if there's a safe level of discharge. It goes back to the earlier memos around toxicity, what do we know and what are we trying to find out. It doesn't say it's unsafe, it doesn't say we don't know what is safe. Q. And despite the absence of knowledge regarding what levels are safe, despite the risk that it very well could be that no levels are safe, because if you knew it was toxic in 1955, despite those things, you-all continued to dump 250 pounds of PCBs out of your plant in Anniston into Snow Creek every single day in 1969, not knowing what effect that would have on the environment, on the fish, or on the people that live there, correct? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. No foundation. THE WITNESS: I don't think that's what that says . TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018257 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ___________ _____________________________________________ ____________________ __ __________ 18j BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. No, that's what I'm asking you. Knowing everything now that we've read, isn't it true that knowing all this knowledge, knowing the fact that you didn't have any idea, Monsanto didn't have any idea what levels were safe or not, it still dumped 250 pounds of this stuff into the creek every day. A. I think what that document says is -- in its entirety and why I read it is it lays out a very aggressive program for saying we don't know if it's safe. We are now about significantly reducing the discharges, the exposure, the use of the materials, and basically we -- "safe" has to have an exposure component to it. There's nothing in here that says we know about the exposure or the consequences of that document -- of what was going on. Q. That's right. A. So I think that's a very aggressive plan at that time to find out and reduce losses, to basically be cautious about that -- about the knowledge that they had, or the lack of knowledge, to secure more knowledge, and too at the same time significantly reduce the releases and, as it says in there, I think someplace else, to minimal levels. Q. I didn't ask you all that Mr. Pierle. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018258 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 183 MR. PECK: Yes, you did. MR. GRAMMAS: Adam, would you please stop interrupting? MR. PECK: Stop telling him what you didn't ask him. He's answering your questions. He's going to keep answering your questions. You might as well stop that preface because it's argumentative and it's improper. MR. GRAMMAS: Then just object to the form. MR. PECK: I'm getting tired of it. I wish you'd stop. MR. GRAMMAS: You just object to the form. That's your role here. MR. PECK: No, that's not my role. MR. GRAMMAS: Yeah, it is your role. MR. PECK: That's not my role. You don't have a right to argue with my witness. MR. GRAMMAS: I thought we said usual stipulations? MR. PECK: You don't have a right to argue with my witness. MR. GRAMMAS: Did we not say usual stipulations? MR. PECK: Yes, and you do not have the right to argue with my witness under whatever stipulations it TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8259 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18< is, wherever we are. MR. GRAMMAS: When we say "usual stipulations," doesn't that mean, Adam, that you object to the form and all other objections are reserved for trial. MR. PECK: Yeah, but I can't just object to the form and point out to you why I think it's improper for you to argue with my witness, because we're not going to do that, Pete, and if you keep it up, we will just go. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Mr. Pierle - MR. PECK: I don't have to sit here and let you treat my witness disrespectfully. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Mr. Pierle, I'm trying to get answers to questions. I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you, but when I sit here and I ask you a fairly simple question and I get a filibuster, it aggravates me. A. You're not getting a filibuster, you're getting an answer that integrates the information that you're putting in front of me. Q. Well - A. And that's entirely appropriate to understand the types of questions that you're asking. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018260 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 185 Q. Okay. We'll just do this little line in very simple sentences. In 1969, it was impossible for Monsanto to establish a limit as to what discharges of PCBs could be done so safely, correct? A. Yes. Q. In 1969, at that same time period, sir, Monsanto was dumping 250 pounds of PCBs a day into Snow Creek, correct? A. Correct. Q. In 1969, Monsanto was dumping 250 pounds of PCBs into Snow Creek and did not know what levels if any were safe for PCBs to be discharged into that system, correct? A. Could have been more than that could have been safe. Could have been less. Q. Correct? A. I answered your question. Q. Okay. Don't you think that that's a conscious disregard for the rights of people who live downstream from you? A. No. It's a very responsible document and plan to understand exactly what is going on and to take responsible action. Q. This memo dated 1969, which is Plaintiff's Exhibit 12, says that an investigation by Monsanto "has TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018261 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ________________________________________________ ____ miles downstream from the plant, came from the Monsanto plant ? A. Well, I don't know what they concluded in their mind, because it doesn't say that it came from the plant. They were certainly concerned about the presence of that material and they were certainly doing something about it. Q. They never cleaned it up, did they? A. I don't know that there was ever a need to clean it up. Q. Do you believe there's a need to clean it up today? A. I believe we're going to find an answer to that question when we complete the studies with respect to presence and whether or not there's risk and impact, then we will know. Q. These studies, according to this memo, should have started back in 1969, shouldn't they? A. I don't know what else transpired or happened after that time period, series of conversations with state and regulatory agencies about what should be done or shouldn't be done. I don't know what the end of those conversations were. Q. According to this document. Exhibit 12, studies should have been done back in 1969 to address TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018262 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 186 shown that the waters in receiving streams below the Anniston plant contain significant... concentrations of PCB . " Did I read that correctly? A. Yes. Q. But the more ominous concern of Monsanto at that time was "the fact that sediment in the bottom of these streams miles below the plant may contain up to 2 percent Aroclor." Did I read that correctly? A. You're characterizing that statement. Q. Did I read it correctly? A. I will read it as it's written, and I can't, you know, do any better than that: "More ominous perhaps is the fact that sediment in the bottom of these streams miles below our plants may contain up to 2 percent Aroclor." Q. Okay. This is in a section entitled "Losses from Monsanto Plants," right? A. Yes. Q. Now, isn't it a fact, sir, that in 1969 these gentlemen who authored this, Mr. Farrar, Mr. Hodges, Mr. E.V. John, Mr. Richard, and Mr. Wheeler took the position and belief that the PCBs immediately below Monsanto's plant, in the receiving streams and up to TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018263 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 __________ _______________________________________ ___________________ 188 and rectify the problems that we still have in Snow Creek, Choccolocco Creek, and Lake Logan Martin with respect to the PCB contamination. Is that a fair statement? A. It sounds to me like studies were done. Q. Is that a fair statement? A. Were being done. Q. What I said, is that correct? A. I would like -- you know, you're asking me a question. I don't know what the conclusion of this exercise was. If they did the studies and the conclusion was we understand what's there, it's not a hazard, then the answer today would be that everything that was done at that point in time that was appropriate was done. I don't know what the next set of steps and information was as a result of these data, studies, and findings. Q. How much money has Monsanto put aside to conduct this process that you keep talking about to determine whether or not some remediation needs to be done to Snow, Choccolocco Creeks, and Lake Logan Martin? A. Whatever we -- I don't know the exact number whatever we estimate at this point in time the cost of those studies to be. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018264 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ______________________________ __________________________________ 189 Q. You're responsible for establishing the reserves that this company's going to put aside to address these problems? A. Yes . Q. What are the reserves currently? A. I don't know. We have reserves for up to, like, 200 projects. I don't know in detail each line-by-line item. In the aggregate, it's something like $200 million or something a little less than that Q. For the Anniston plant? A. No. Q. That's what I'm asking you. A. No, it wasn't. You asked me what were Monsanto/Solutia's environmental reserves for projects like this. I told you I don't know what the cost in the reserve is for the Anniston plant. Q. Do you have a guesstimate? A. No. Q. Is it less than $100 million? A. I already indicated to you that we have $200 million in aggregate. We have no projects at that level. Q. Is it less than $20 million? A. Listen, you're going to walk me down number by number. I told you I don't know what the number is. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018265 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19C That's my answer. Q. And you're the man responsible for setting it up? A. Yes. Q. Now, the number -- I know you don't know, but it's certainly in the millions of dollars; you'll agree with me on that? A. Listen, I told you I don't know. Q. All right. Well, you're willing to embark this company, Solutia, on a course of events to spend whatever sum of money you've set aside, but can't recall, to study this problem of PCB contamination in this ecosystem, right? A. Yes, we are. Q. And in doing that, you don't know whether those studies have already been conducted back in the late '60s and the '70s which have already determined that there wasn't a problem at all? A. What I know is we are about a set of studies today. That's what I know. I don't know what went on in the past in detail. Q. I thought you testified moments ago, sir, that in 1969/1970 when these memos say, Hey, we need to go out and do some studies to figure out what's going on out here, I thought I heard you say that you may have TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018266 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 191 very well done that and concluded that there was no problem. Did you not say that? A. I didn't say I knew that. Q. Well, I know. You said that you may have done that and you may have decided that there really wasn't a problem out there with respect to PCBs, didn't you? A. Yeah, "we" being the vernacular with the government people and everybody that was involved. Q. If that were the case, sir, don't you think that would be something you'd want to know right now before you embark on this course and spend all this money unnecessarily to study a problem that you've already determined doesn't exist? A. My belief would be that the people that work for me know that in detail, we know where we are in the conversation. Today is not the 1970s, today is the 1990s and we feel committed that it's appropriate to do additional studies, and that's what we're about. Q. We've identified some environmental guidelines, I believe it's Plaintiff's Exhibits 6 and 7. It's the 1989 guidelines that dictated you-all's course of conduct during that period of time up through 1992, and the 1992 Monsanto pledge guidelines under your signature that dictated Monsanto's responsibilities from then up until 1997 and Solutia's TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018267 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19; responsibilities from September 1997 through today, correct ? A. Yes. Q. Now, this one. Exhibit 5 - A. With the provision that this draft is -- Q. Right, may replace it. And that's where I was going to. This one may replace it, but it hasn't yet. A. Some of the practices in here, we may have already made judgments and decisions on what needs to be changed. So, again, this is a working draft to adopt a set of decisions that we have made. Many of those are made - - as I indicated, are relatively low-level decisions, so it's conceivable that this document is reflecting changes that are already acceptable practices in Solutia. Q. Now, where in these two exhibits, sir, Exhibits 6 and 7, that you were instrumental in creating, does Monsanto, and now Solutia, address the issue of PCB remediation? Is it in this section entitled "Corrective and Remedial Action"? A. I'd have to go back and look at the documents again. I mean, that's not a document that I pull out and read every day. Q. Now, let me ask you: You've read this part of the document already. Corrective Remedial Action. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018268 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 _____________________________________________________________ _________________ We've been through that earlier, before lunch, do you recall that testimony? A. Yes. Q. Doesn't that section deal with PCB-related issues ? A. It would deal with it with respect to remediation activities associated with it. Q. Right. Is that the only thing that you're aware of, sitting here today, that dictates how Monsanto, and now Solutia, should deal with PCB-remediation issues? A. You know, there are other general rules around PCB use and regulations and requirements and systems and we basically say we'll comply with all rules and regulations. So whether specifically referenced, if there's anything to deal with that on a regulatory matter, they're probably addressed generically in other sections. Q. But as far as a cleanup activity is concerned, and in particular here at Anniston where we know thousands of pound of this stuff was discharged from the plant, this Corrective Remedial Action section in the 1989 environmental guidelines dealt with how Monsanto would remediate issues up until 1992, correct? A. It dealt with remediation matters in general. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018269 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 194 Q. Right, but it covered PCB-remediation issues, that's what I'm getting at, right? Well, let me ask you this: If I go up to a jury and I say, I spoke with Mr. Pierle directly, the man who was intricately involved in creating this document, would I be correct, Mr. Pierle, in saying that you believe that from 1989 until 1992, the section entitled "Corrective and Remedial Action" dictated how Monsanto should go about remediating PCB-related issues in the river system in Anniston? Would I be correct in saying that? A. I think that's generally correct. Q. Now, I assume you have similar language in the Monsanto pledge guidelines, do you not? A. I believe so. Q. I'm trying to find them. I've read them. Are the people who live downstream from your plant -- strike that. Are the people who lived and still live downstream from the Monsanto plant, and now Solutia, in Anniston considered stakeholders of the company? A. I think, in the broad definition of the "stakeholders," we include communities and, you know, people in and around the plant site. Q. Because when I read -- this is Exhibit 6, TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING Sc VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8270 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 E under Worldwide Guideline No. 6, "Product Stewardship," it says: "Monsanto products and intermediates will not present an unreasonable risk of harm to human life or health or to the environment when they are properly handled, transported, used, or disposed. Stakeholders will be provided information regarding" -- what I just read. And then it says: "Employees, customers, and the community are all stakeholders." So that basically answers my question that I just asked you, correct? A. Yeah. I think in this case, because we deal with it in different sections, that, you know, product stewardship deals with the community of people who are, you know, associated with customer use and that of product. I think we deal with communities in general around plant sites and that is in additional sections. Q. But here under, "Product Stewardship," stakeholders were defined as the community, right? A. Yeah. Q. And that would include - A. I'm suggesting that that community may be a different community around where we make the product. Q. So that community does not mean the people who live downstream from the plant? A. I think what I said was they are covered in TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8271 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 196 this document in additional sections. They're very important. Q. In determining what actions Monsanto will or should take with regard to any PCB remediation in Snow and Choccolocco Creeks and Lake Logan Martin, Mr. Pierle, isn't it a fact that you or people under your instruction will rely on the types of documents and on these very documents that we have identified in your deposition today as Exhibits 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 - MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. --in determining what steps if any need to be taken? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: I don't know to what extent these documents exist, you know, outside of this litigation process, you know, if they're generally available. We're going to rely on whatever information, you know, we can gather to help us understand the factual situation that I described earlier. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. And are you aware of any individuals that are still alive today who worked at the Monsanto plant who may be able to provide testimony or information to you TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018272 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 197 in your fact-finding mission to determine what impacts you-all's plant had back during this period of time? A. Well, I know that Mr. Papageorge is still alive and I believe Mr. Jessee is still alive, but the balance I don't know. Q. Do you know where Mr. Jessee is? A. No, I don't. Q. What makes you think he's still alive? A. Well, I mean, it's sort of by deduction. Typically inside the company when people pass away, there's some sort of notice. I don't recall having seen one, so I conclude from that that he is probably still alive. Q. Do you have any idea how old he would be, or Mr. Papageorge, how old they are? A. I think Mr. Papageorge would be in excess of 70. Mr. Jessee, I'm not sure. Q. If you-all needed to -- first of all, do you believe you need to understand what conduct occurred in the past at the plant in order to properly assess what remediation, if any, needs to be done today? A. I don't think we need to understand -- well, I don't know what you mean by "conduct." I think we need to understand, as best we can, you know, facts. Q. Like how much PCBs were put into the river TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018273 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 198 system and things like that? A. It would be useful. I would say, you know, in any one piece of information, probably not critical. As you go through these studies, it's more critical to understand how much is there, is it exposed to anyone, is there a risk, is there remediation. These kind of documents would go more to allocation of responsibilities. Q. Yeah. That's really what I'm getting at. These documents will be viewed internally by Monsanto as to what extent, if any, it was responsible for putting PCBs into the river system that they're being sued over today? A. As I said, my sense would be that -- to the extent that they're generally available. I don't know that they are. They're probably relevant, but I don't know the importance of the documents in the work that we have underway. Q. Who's Mr. Hanley, Mr. John W. Hanley, do you know who he is? A. Could I see the note? Q. Yeah, I'm going to show it to you in a minute, but do you know who he is just off the top of your head? A. There were several John Hanleys in Monsanto, TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8274 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19! so I don't know -- there was a guy that was a CEO. There's guys at different levels. There's more than one John or Jack Hanley that has existed in Monsanto. Q. What involvement, if any, did you have with PCB-remediation issues in 1975? A. I don't believe any. (PIERLE EXHIBIT NO. 14 WAS FIRST DULY MARKED, RECEIVED AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD.) BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 and ask you if you can tell me who Mr. Hanley is? His name and title appear at the end of the document as having received a copy of it. A. Well, the back page says he was president of Monsanto Chemical Company, so I think that describes who he is. Q. Did you ever have any conversations with Mr. Russell Train, the administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, in 1975? A. No. Q. Have you ever had any conversations with him at any time? A. I think I met Mr. Train several years subsequent to that at an environmental law institute dinner and said hello. That's about it. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018275 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20( Q. Do you agree with Mr. Train's assessment of the PCB issues that are contained in highlighted portions of this letter? And I'll read them for the court reporter: "For at least five years, the Federal Government and the manufacturing industry have been aware that polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) pose a threat to human health and the environment. Last month, at EPA's national conference on polychlorinated biphenyls in Chicago, leading experts clearly documented the fact that PCBs are pervasive in the environment, are causing disruptive and economic harm to commercial fishing in many areas, and are creating a serious potential health hazard to the public." Do you agree with those statements, sir, sitting here today? A. I think what we've said before, that with respect to the human health impacts of that, we have a different viewpoint. Q. But everything else you agree with? A. The "everything else" being basically that there are impacts on wildlife and fishing, and that was again what we felt was the principal concern. Q. I'm being more specific. Everything else that I read out of this letter you agree with other than, in your opinion, PCBs' effects on humans? And I'm talking TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018276 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 201 about just the highlighted sections that I read. A. I think with the exception of the words "human health," we don't agree with that, and again, my comment on environment, yes, we agree that there were areas of concern with that. That's what was driving, you know, our thinking and our work. Q. And there still are areas of concern as of today? A. Well, I think that's what we're -- in part what we're looking at. Q. And it's also what this lawsuit's about, isn't it, according to your understanding? A. I believe those are the allegations. Q. Tell me, sir, all the ways you're aware of, as the environment manager, the head environmental manager at Solutia, to properly dispose of PCBs. And I don't mean PCB-contaminated material, I mean during the manufacturing process, if you had some waste that was being generated, what are the proper ways that you're aware of to dispose of them? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. Foundation. THE WITNESS: Today? BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Yeah, today. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8277 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 202 A. I think the requirements are -- well, nobody makes PCBs. There are PCBs in the systems. I think you can incinerate them, although there's some pressure against incineration in general. I know there are other technologies working at decoupling carbon atoms and then trying to work with the residual materials, but I think if you were generating a liquid waste today, emptying a transformer or something, I think that you'd pretty much have to burn the material. Q. Could you throw it into a river system? A. I don't believe so. Q. At any level? A. I don't think so. I think there are regulations against spilling and dumping of this at pretty low levels. Q. We're going to jump out of sequence here. Earlier I was asking you -- with respect to PCB-related remediation issues, I directed you to Exhibit 6 to your deposition, which is the '89 guidelines in effect through '92, and particularly the corrective and remedial action section, and asked if that was the policies, procedures, and ways that Monsanto during that period of time would have or should have gone about remediating PCBs, do you recall those questions? A. Yes. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018278 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 203 Q. And I believe you said that it was in fact the guidelines that they should and would follow, correct? A. Yes. Q. All right. Now I'm going to show you the Monsanto pledge guidelines, what Mr. Lowe just found for me, and ask you if you would read the title "Superfund." It's not entitled "Corrective and Remedial Action," which is probably why I couldn't find it. Are those the same guidelines in general that you would apply in cleaning up or remediating PCB-related issues today? MR. PECK: Just for the record, you're looking at Plaintiff's Exhibit 7. MR. GRAMMAS: It's the Monsanto pledge guidelines. THE WITNESS: I think that's generally the practices that we're using today. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. That would apply even if the PCB-related -- or the PCB contaminants you were going to remediate were not related to a Superfund site, correct? A. In general I think that's correct, yes. Q. Like for example, this is the exact guideline you expect to follow in deciding whether or not to remediate the PCBs in Snow Creek, Choccolocco Creek, TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018279 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 204 and Lake Logan Martin, right? A. I think this describes the behavior that's expected and that's what we would follow. Q. And that's what you should follow? A. Sure. Q. And again, that's -- for the record, it's the Monsanto pledge guidelines dated under your cover November 11, 1992, Section 6.4, entitled "Superfund," correct? A. Yes . MR. PECK: Let's take a break. (A SHORT BREAK WAS HELD.) BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Mr. Pierle, do you think it's responsible for a company to discharge hundreds of pounds of chemicals into a system, knowing that the chemical is toxic, while at the same time not knowing what safe limits there are? A. Back in 1968, '69, '70, I think that was acceptable practice. Q. Could you define for me, sir, all of your current job responsibilities. A. I an responsible for remediation matters, as we have discussed here today. I'm responsible for providing to Solutia, the entire enterprise, services TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018280 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 205 as are needed with respect to product stewardship support and sort of following governmental regulations and the development of company policy where appropriate. Q. Regarding environmental issues? A. Environmental health and safety matters, and we also provide services, again to the entire organization, technical services and scientific services, engineering services and regulatory services needed to comply with laws and regulations. Q. And with respect to environmental issues, health and safety issues, and remediation, is there anyone within Solutia more senior to you, sir? A. No. Q. In 1983 when you were charged with the responsibility of - A. I'm sorry, what year? Q. In 1983. A. '83 . Q. I know we're jumping out of context. In 1983 when you were charged with the responsibility of being the regulatory manager and director of hazardous waste -- do you recall those responsibilities? A. Yes. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018281 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 206 Q. -- did that include PCB-related issues for Monsanto? A. Not specifically. Q. You currently sit on the board of directors at the Chemical Institute of Toxicology? A. That's correct. Q. Does that institute involve anything - involve itself with any PCB-related issues? A. No. Q. Has it ever? A. I don't believe so. Q. What does it take for a company to get the president -- for Solutia, I guess, to get -- actually, it wouldn't be. What would it take for Monsanto and/or Solutia, a plant within the company, to get the president's safety award? A. We annually look at safety-related performance. This is basically personal safety in the workplace, and we look at the best performers. Q. Receiving that award doesn't have anything to do with, like, PCB discharges, exposure, responsibilities for cleanup, that type of stuff? A. No. Q. Is the Monsanto site a PCB-free site, sir -- TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018282 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 excuse me, Anniston. MR. PECK: Anniston. free? THE WITNESS: The Anniston site, is it PCB BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Uh-huh. A. I believe it is by our terminology on "PCB free. " Q. Could you tell the world that, We're PCB free, without explaining what that meant? Could you fairly say that you're PCB free without explaining what that means in your terminology? A. I don't know how to answer that. Are you asking me to answer it? Q. Well, you just said if someone held themselves out, someone within Solutia held the Anniston plant out as being PCB free, don't you think that would be a bit misleading to the public if they didn't also give them Monsanto, and now Solutia's, unique definition of what it means to be PCB free? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: I don't know that that would - what was your term, "irresponsible"? What term did you use . MR. PECK: Misleading. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018283 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 THE WITNESS: I don't believe so. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. So you think someone could fairly tell a group of people, We're PCB free, and not feel like that's misleading to them without explaining what that means? A. I mean, I think that they would or that someone would probably ask, What do you mean by that? Q. And what do you mean by that? A. We established a program some years ago, with respect to use of PCBs in the systems, that we would remove PCBs from active use within our facilities. That means if we were using some sort of an electrical system, that we would be PCB -- in other words, we would get the PCBs out of those electrical systems. Q. But that's not to say or suggest to anyone that there aren't any PCBs on your property down there in Anniston, is it? A. No, that was not, you know, the definition in which that was intended. Q. Now, how many pounds of PCBs are currently stored on the Monsanto property? A. I have no idea whether any are. Q. You don't know that out at the West End Landfill there are thousands of pounds of that stuff being stored out there? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018284 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 209 A. Yeah. Again, we were talking about active, utilizable PCBs, and when you asked me that, I was in that follow-up question. Q. No, I'm just talking about PCBs in general. That's the confusion of saying, We're PCB free. Nobody really knows what that means. But when I say, How many pounds of PCBs are out there right now? I mean in any shape, form, or fashion, stored in landfills, barrels, whatever. A. I don't use the word "stored." They're disposed, properly disposed. That would be my terminology. When you deal with respect to the "landfill," if you use the word "stored," my definition would be different. So, as you say, it's important to understand the definition of terms. Q. How many pounds of PCBs are out there? A. I don't know. Q. How many landfills are on the Monsanto property? A. I think we've dealt with two. I think -- Q. And both landfills have PCBs in them, right? A. I think that they have PCBs or PCB-contaminated materials. Again, I'm uncertain, but they do have PCB in them. Q. There are regulations that are in existence TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018285 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 __________________________________________ _________________ today that discuss the methods by which a company must dispose properly of PCBs found, like, in soil, which are 50 parts per million or greater, aren't there? A. Yes. Q. And what do these regulations require? A. They're kind of complicated. I know they exist to deal with, you know, current waste and produced waste of materials. Q. And you're -A. I don't know exactly what they are. People in my organization know the answer to that question and I expect them to know it and they do. Q. And you expect them to follow - A. Yes. Q. -- the regulations? A. Yes. Q. That would mean that if something was greater than 50 parts per million in sediment, let's say, that's supposed to be stored in a hazardous landfill, isn't it? A. No. MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q . It's not ? A. No. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOQ18286 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ___________________________________ ___________ Q. There are no documents that I can read in Monsanto's possession that say. When we collect these samples of dirt out at Snow Creek, if it's greater than 50 parts per million, we should take it to a -- A. I don't know what the requirements are with respect to sampling or -- I mean, we would -- the documents would say that we should comply with the regulations. Q. Well, what I'm asking you is: Back in the '89 time frame when you-all were remediating the Snow Creek issues and getting PCBs out of the Snow Creek portion that the attorney general is dealing with, are you aware of any requirements that that sediment, that soil, once it dried and was measured to be greater than 50 parts per million PCBs, should have been taken to a landfill in Alabama that was designated as a hazardous waste landfill? A. I don't know what the regulations were at that time . Q. Do you know where that dirt went, that soil? A. No, I don't. Q. Do you know that it went out to your landfills right there on site? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: I don't know that. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018287 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 212 BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Do you know whether the landfills on site are hazardous waste landfills? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. No foundation. MR. GRAMMAS: I'm asking him if he knows. That is the foundation. MR. PECK: Well, your question assumes facts that are not in evidence. That's why I'm objecting, if you want to know why I'm objecting. They mischaracterize his testimony in the case. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Do you know whether or not, Mr. Pierle, the landfills out there on the Anniston plant are hazardous -- or, qualified to be hazardous waste landfills? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. No foundation. THE WITNESS: I'm not specifically aware of what their regulatory designation is today. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Do you know if they're Subtitle D landfills? A. I don't know. Q. Have you outlined in your mind or have any of your managers under you outlined a flow chart of TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018288 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ______________ ___ _____ ______________________________________________________ _______ possible scenarios that may occur with regard to the PCB-remediation issues in Snow Creek, Choccolocco Creek, and Lake Logan Martin? A. I have not seen anything. Q. Okay. What is the best possible scenario, in your mind, that could result out of this process that Monsanto is now undertaking as it relates to whether it's going to clean up the PCBs in this area? A. That a remediation properly determined by the process of the health and the environment is implemented. Q. Is the best scenario, in your mind, a determination by the people you hire that no remediation is necessary at all? A. I think we're in the process of trying to develop the answer to the question that you're asking, so I don't have a prejudgment about that. Q. Well, I know I don't have a prejudgment, but sitting here today, can you not tell the members of this jury that the best possible scenario for Monsanto would be that there doesn't need to be any remediation at all? A. No, I can't say that. Q. The worst possible scenario for Monsanto, sir, would be what? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018289 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 214 A. I don't know. Again, there is only one scenario, I think at the end of today, with respect to remediation, and that is we come to a determination as to what the process yields as a conclusion and that's the remedy that's implemented. Q. So as the highest executive officer in health, environment, and safety Mr. Pierle, is it your testimony, then, that if this process that you-all are undergoing reveals that Monsanto should remediate all of the PCBs in Snow Creek, Choccolocco Creek, and Lake Logan Martin by some form of dredging operation and remove them entirely from the system, that Monsanto would be willing to do that? A. I'm not going to speculate to that hypothetical because I think we're going to have to ask whether or not that's the outcome of the process. Q. Well, I'm asking you - A. Dredging is not a typical answer to these sorts of issues. So my general inclination is that's probably not probable, but I'm sure it will be looked at. Q. Let's talk about the different possible outcomes with respect to this remediation issue. At one extreme, an outcome is that Solutia/Monsanto does nothing, right? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8290 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 215 A. I guess that's always an option. Q. Do you think that's a very likely option, sir, given all the information you know as the environmental manager over this problem? A. I've learned long ago not to speculate or try to guess what a probable or possible outcome is. It's fact-specific and you can't make a judgment from one site to another as to what's probable, and we'll find out what the answer to that question is. Q. And Monsanto has known about this problem, according to the documents we've produced today at least, since 1969, right? A. What problem? Q. The PCB problem at Snow Creek, Choccolocco Creek, Lake Logan Martin. A. I think the documents speak for themselves, without going back through them. I didn't see anything in this relative to Lake Logan Martin. Maybe I missed it, but -Q. It was dealing with Snow Creek and Choccolocco Creek, but now we know that it's in Lake Logan Martin, right, PCBs? A. I think there's a fish advisory, so there's knowledge, and I think that lake and the area is being studied. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8291 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 216 Q. Now, 30 years of knowledge hasn't been enough time for Monsanto to figure out this problem, and now Solutia has it. A. I think I have responded that we have been very aggressively working on the issue since it came about in '93 or thereabouts and we're moving as fast as we can towards understanding and resolution. Q. Well, the issue came about in 1969, didn't it, sir, according to you-all's documents? A. I don't know what the issue is. You're describing -- Q. PCB-related problems. PCB discharges into Snow Creek, Choccolocco Creek? A. You're talking about the presence of PCB. That is different than a problem. So you're talking in these documents about the presence of PCBs. Q. Like you said, the documents will speak for themselves and they call the PCBs "problems" on numerous occasions and we don't need to go back through that. What I'm saying is: Monsanto's been aware of the presence of PCBs in this river system for over a 30-year period - MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. -- and that amount of time has not been long TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018292 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 217 enough for you-all to figure out whether doing nothing is a possible scenario to this problem, correct? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: Again, looking at the involvement of the agencies over time, the fact that what needed to be done got done, as we've discussed with respect to Snow Creek, the information in the '70s. So I have to conclude from that that the actions that were appropriate relative to the knowledge that was in hand, those actions were taken. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. I understand you're going to conclude that you-all didn't do anything wrong. My question, though, is: Based on this almost 30-year period, from 1969 to -- it's almost now 1999, and knowledge that PCBs are getting into this system, this river system, that period of time has not been long enough for Monsanto, and now Solutia, to at least determine that they're not going to do anything about the presence of the PCBs in the river system, right? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: You keep mixing "over 30 years," "is"getting into the system. I think the information we've talked about is -- you know, the information about what was getting into the system was the subject TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018293 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 218 of the '70s reduction program. There's nothing I see where it's getting into the system. The '80s system around Snow Creek, whatever Snow Creek is in that determination, was what was there was removed. The discussion about '90s, about what could be getting into the system around the storm water runoff is what - again, when we said there's evidence here that something may be getting into the system and we need to go act and do something about it. Q. Another possible scenario, rather than doing nothing, is to do some type of cleanup, is it not? A. Well, when you look at remediation options, they range from do something to what looks like is technically/economically/environmentally feasible, and that's what we expect this study to help define for us. Q. One thing is to do nothing, right? A. Yes. Q. That's one scenario - A. Right. Q. -- where you just leave it there and just let it be . A. Right. Q. The next scenario is some form of cleanup, correct? A. I don't want to mince words with you. We're TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018294 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21S talking about remediation, you're using "cleanup." Another option is to do something. If one's to do nothing, then there's an option to do something. Q. Right. Let's talk about some of those options. One extreme is to do nothing, the other extreme is to dredge the entire river system and take out every PCB that's found in there that's humanly possible to do; isn't that another situation? A. I think I've answered that question. I see no value in speculating as to what possibilities are. I think we need to stay in the process we're in to identify what those possibilities are within, again, the process that we're in, and that will tell us what the range of possibilities are. Q. Have you read any of the expert reports that the plaintiffs have submitted to this Court, sir? A. No. Q. So you're not in a position to disagree with any of the opinions that those experts have provided today, are you? A. Listen, I'm dealing with the remediation question associated with this as best we can. The lawyers are dealing with the third-party litigation and the property damage claims and I'm focusing on the remediation process. That's what I'm focused on. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONOOI8295 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22( Q. And in your mind, the two don't overlap in the least bit, do they? A. I don't know whether they do or not. Q. So you're not going to tell me today, as the head environmental manager, what the possible scenarios of remediation could be. A. No, I'm not. I mean, I rely on a lot of people and we have consultants and the whole process around the United States yields answers to that question. People don't sit in chairs and pontificate over it. I'm not going to do that. Q. And you don't want the jury who's going to read this testimony to know of the possible scenarios that the head manager over environmental affairs and remediation thinks may exist with respect to any cleanup, if there is one? A. I would hope that the jury would ask what's the process by which those are determined and whether or not those remedies were being appropriately looked at. Q. Have you been informed by any of your managers or are you aware that the lawsuit that you're here today to testify about also involves remediation as a claim? A. I've heard that there are attempts to get at TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018296 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 221 the question of remediation in the lawsuit, but again, as I said, I'm dealing with the Alabama authorities and the question of remediation. That's the issue that's in my domain and that's what I'm dealing with. Q. Do part of those Alabama authorities that you're dealing with, does that include the judge who's hearing this case and who will be hearing the plaintiff's claims for remediation cleanup? A. I don't know what the judge is going -- we're dealing with the regulatory authorities. Q. I understand that. A. The lawyers are dealing with the judges. Q. Are you aware, as a manager, as the manager of environmental affairs and safety-related issues for Solutia, that this judge may very well order this company that you work for to do some type of cleanup of the PCB problem we're alleging exists out there in the river system? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Are you aware of that fact? A. I think I answered that. I think that I said I understand that may be part of that case and that discussion, but the focus and the process that we're in that's leading to that answer, that I'm involved with, TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018297 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 222 is the remediation discussion with the agencies. Q. And this process that Solutia is engaged in and has embarked upon to determine what remediation if any should be done, are they hiring contractors to do work to study these issues? A. I believe so. Q. Do you know the names of these contractors? A. No, I really don't, not all of them. I mean, we've had a variety of different contractors doing work down there. Q. Do you know if any of the contractors that you're hiring to, I guess, make these findings are being retained by your company to provide expert testimony in this lawsuit? A. Again, that process is managed by the law department. I don't manage that process. Q. Have you paid any contractors to determine what sources other than Monsanto may have been responsible for putting the PCBs in Snow Creek, Choccolocco Creek, and Lake Logan Martin that are being detected as we sit here today? A. I think that work -- there is work ongoing on that as part of the whole study. I don't know who's directing that work. Q. You don't know which contractor is responsible TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018298 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 223 for doing that? A. No . Q. Which one of your managers is responsible for making sure that gets done? A. Well, again, I don't know whether it's one of my managers or whether that is coming from the law department. Q. Okay. Sitting here today, sir, as the head environmental manager of safety and health and remediation for Solutia, can you identify a single source other than Monsanto that may have been responsible for putting the PCBs into Choccolocco Creek, Snow Creek, and Lake Logan Martin? A. Well, as I said earlier with respect to the close end, the person that used PCB materials out of a metal mill, and I don't know what kind of metal. There was some question as to whether or not there was someone further down Snow Creek. There are other entries, as I understand it, into Choccolocco Creek and into the lake that need to be looked at, and one of the hardest things to find in some of these cases is whether or not, you know, folks have done any kind of dumping over time, and we've found at times you have to ask that question, as well. So I would assume that all of that is being looked at. That would be typical to TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018299 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 2^ what we would look at ourselves or with other PRPs in an examination of a site. Q. Tell me the names, Mr. Pierle, of sources other than Monsanto that contributed to the PCB problem that we have been talking about all day today? A. I've categorized them the best I can. Q. Do you know the names? A. I do not know the names. MR. PECK: You just don't like the answer, MR. GRAMMAS: "I don't know of any," is the answer. MR. PECK: That's not the answer. The answer is he doesn't know the names. He categorized possibilities for you, Pete. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. But you can't identify a single name of a single person or company that's done - A. I do not know the names. Q. Okay. And by your own testimony, Monsanto's been looking at this problem since the early '90s, right? A. Yes. Q. It's over eight years, by your testimony. A. I think that we said 1993. Q. All right, five years. Five years, right? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 225 A. Yes. Q. And sitting here today, on this five-year study that you-all have been doing, nobody's come up to you and said, Mr. Pierle, guess what, we've learned that A, B, C, D, and E are pumping -- discharging PCBs into this river system, it's not us, it's them. Nobody has told you that, have they? A. That hasn't been the primary focus of what we're doing today. Q. I didn't ask you if it was the primary focus, Mr. Pierle, I asked you if anybody's ever told you something like that? A. They have said that we have information or indications that these couple of people that I've described are potential contributors, yes. Q. Have they ever come up to you and said, You can remove the word "potential," A, B, C, D, and E are contributing to this problem? A. We never -- I mean, PRPs, part of -- you never remove the word "potential." I mean, it's part of the vernacular. Q. So when you say Monsanto is a -- do you believe that Monsanto is a potential responsible party for the PCBs in this system? A. I think I've answered that before. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018301 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 226 Q. I didn't hear the answer, if you did. Do you believe that Monsanto is a potential responsible party for the PCBs in the river system at - A. And my answer was that on the information we have, we're acting according to our policy that we certainly could have potential responsibilities here. Q. And when you say "potential" here, you just mean that in the vernacular, and really you can take that word out of the sentence and say, yeah, we have responsibilities? A. That's not what I said. Q. Okay. Let me ask you this: Do you believe this is a frivolous lawsuit, sir? A. Others are going to answer that question. Q. What is your personal opinion as an environmental manager? A. As soon as I know more facts about the situation, I'll be better able to understand that. My understanding to date, there are fish restrictions on the lake. I don't know the extent of concern that causes or how that supports a base for lawsuit. I really don't know. Q. Do you own any lakefront property, sir? A. No. Q. Have you ever owned any lakefront property? TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018302 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 227 A. No. Q. Are you a fisherman? A. Very, very seldom. Q. Do you like to eat fish? A. Sure. Q. Would you eat fish out of a river where a state agency has posted signs all up and down that river saying: Warning -- I think it says -- Public Health Advisory: Do not eat the fish out of this river system? A. I think based on what I know, I probably -- it wouldn't bother me to do that infrequently. Q. Would it bother you to do that frequently? A. I probably wouldn't. I'd say, What are my other options and what else can I do? Q. And that's because you don't want to expose yourself to any undue risk of having adverse health effects, right? A. I don't know whether it's that. It's just, you know, do I need to do that or don't I? Do I need to eat those fish? I don't know that it's that clear in my mind. Q. If Monsanto is found to be substantially -- is found to be a substantial or part contributor to the PCB problem in this ecosystem that we've been talking TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018303 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- ----------------2_2 about today, sir, and is responsible for the fish advisories posted out there, do you believe that Monsanto should take action at a minimum that would allow the state of Alabama to remove the fish advisories? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: I think that's a pretty complex question. At that point we'd be taking some actions in conjunction with the State and others that I would assume all would agree is appropriate. Whether that would result in the elimination of those advisories, I don't know. Q. What I'm saying is: If Monsanto's conduct caused the fish advisories to be put up there, don't you think Monsanto should do whatever -- and now Solutia, should do whatever it takes to remove the problems that are causing the fish advisories to be there? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: I think if the people that are involved in this process determine that that is not an undue problem versus other potential remedies and that's the collective judgment and decision that's made, I don't know that we'd do more than that. BY MR. GRAMMAS: TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018304 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 S Q. Okay. Who's making these collective decisions that you keep talking about? Monsanto certainly's going to be part of it. Who else is going to be a part of it? A. Well, the State and the regulatory people and the public's involved in this process, and that's going to generally - - you know, that's the process for making decisions about remediation. Q. And I know you don't want to guess or speculate about what may come out of this study, Mr. Pierle, but what I'm hearing you say is that after Monsanto spends all this money to conduct the studies to see what if anything needs to be done, it may very well be that the fish advisories that are posted all along that creek won't come down as a result of any of your conduct, true? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. THE WITNESS: I mean, it seems to me that's a possibility. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. And you can't tell me -- you're a man, as you testified earlier, that can set environmental policies for this company, right? A. No, I didn't say that. Q. I thought you told me that. TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018305 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 230 A. No, I think I was pretty clear that I am a member and I can recommend policy. I didn't say that I could set policy. Q. You could recommend as a policy that Solutia take whatever course is necessary to get these fish advisories taken off of the river system, right, you could recommend that? MR. PECK: Object to the form of the question. No foundation. THE WITNESS: I guess on a speculative basis. I don't know how to answer the question. BY MR. GRAMMAS: Q. Well, answer the question as best as you can, given your understanding of your job responsibilities. Could you go up tomorrow and write a memo -- who would you write a memo to if you would wanted to enact some new policies, environmental policies? A. It would go to our policy committee, corporate policy committee. Q. And who all's on that committee? A. Again, I think I said it's Mr. Potter, Mr. Hunter, and there are a few others that -- again, I don't know the current listing of those folks. Q. All right. Whoever these people may be, sir, you could go to your office in the morning and dictate TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018306 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 __________ ________ ______________________________________________ __________________ 231 a memo to these people that says, As the head environmental manager over health and safety, I believe Solutia should embark on a course of conduct to do whatever it takes to get fish advisories removed from Choccolocco Creek and Lake Logan Martin. A. I could do that if I felt that that was appropriate and necessary to do and it was our responsibility to do that, yes. MR. GRAMMAS: That's all the questions I have. Thank you. (DEPOSITION ADJOURNED) TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018307 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23: STATE OF MISSOURI COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS ) ) ) I, KEVIN J. WEICHMAN, CSR, RPR, Notary Public in and for the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri, do hereby certify that pursuant to stipulation there appeared before me on the 28th day of October, 1998, Taylor Sc Schroeder Reporting Sc Video, 7494 Ethel Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri, MICHAEL PIERLE, who was first duly sworn by me to testify to the whole truth of his knowledge touching the matter in controversy aforesaid, so far as he should be interrogated concerning the same; that he was examined and the examination was taken down in shorthand by me and afterwards transcribed by computer-aided transcription. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal on this 28th day of October, 1998. KEVIN J. WEICHMAN, CSR/RPR Notary Public TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING Sc VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMONO018308 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 233 STATE OF MISSOURI COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS ) ) ) I, MICHAEL PIERLE, do hereby certify: That I have read the foregoing deposition; That I have made such changes in form and/or substance to the within deposition as might be necessary to render the same true and correct; That having made such changes thereon, I hereby subscribe my name to the deposition. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this day of , 1998, at , MICHAEL PIERLE Subscribed and sworn before me this of , 1998. day My Commission Expires Notary Public TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018309 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 234 DEPOSITION CORRECTION SHEET DEPONENT: MICHAEL PIERLE RE: THOMAS C. DYER, ET AL vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL Consolidated For Discovery With SHELTER COVE MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL Upon reading the deposition and before thereto, I would like to indicate that changes should be made: subscribing the following Paae Should Reason Line read assigned for change: Paae Should Reason Line read assigned for change: Paae Should Reason Line read assigned for change: Paae Should Reason Line read assigned for change: Paae Should Reason Line read assigned for chanae: Paae Should Reason Line read assigned for chanae: Page Should Reason Line read assigned for chanae: Page Should Reason Line read assigned for change: SIGNATURE OF DEPONENT: DATE: TAYLOR * SCHROEDER REPORTING & VIDEO (314) 644-2191 HARTOLDMON0018310 Michatjj! A. Pierle Vice President of Environment, Safety and Health http://www.soIutia.com/Corporate/CorporateOfflcers/MichaelPierle.htm Ini 1 of 2 Home Site Map Feedback Search Michael A. Pierle Michael A. Pierle is a Vice President of Solutia Inc. with responsibility for environment, safety and health. He assumed his present position on Sept. 1, 1997. In this new position, he continues to hold the responsibilities of the position he previously held since April 1991, as Monsanto Company's Vice President, Environment, Safety and Health. These include: issue identification and management, development of policy initiatives, compliance oversight of both internal and external requirements in the areas of environment and worker and community health and safety. Mr. Pierle joined Monsanto in 1966 in environmental engineering and worked in a variety of areas ranging from energy conservation programs to the environmental control management over the next eight years. In 1974-1975, he was on leave to work for the Department of Commerce in their Office of Environmental Affairs. In 1975, Mr. Pierle was named Manager of Environmental Protection for the Monsanto Industrial Chemical Company. In the following year, he became the Manager of Environmental and Energy Affairs of the Monsanto Chemical Intermediates Company. In 1979, he was appointed Regulatory Management Director-Water for Monsanto Company and Director of Regulatory Management-Hazardous Waste in 1983. In 1984, he was appointed Director of Environmental Management for Monsanto Company. In 1986, he was named Director of Environmental Operation of Monsanto Chemical Company, an operating unit of Monsanto Company, with responsibilities for implementing compliance programs, cleanup of Superfund sites and managing product safety and approval programs. Mr. Pierle is on the Board of Directors of the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology (CUT), The American Eung Association of Eastern Missouri and The Monsanto Fund. He is Chairman of the National Wildlife Federation's Corporate Conversation Council. He also serves on the Advisory Committee of the Purdue University School of Engineering and Washington University School of Engineering and Applied Science. Mr. Pierle received a B.S. degree in civil engineering from Purdue University in 1966. He then received his M.S. in environmental engineering in 1971 from Washington University. In 1983, he attended the advanced management program at the University of Texas. Mr. Pierle completed the Stanford Executive Program in 1990. He is a licensed 10/25/98 12:24 PM HARTOLDMON0018311 Michael A. Pierle Vice President of Environment, Safety and Health http://www.solutia.com/Corporate/CorporateOfficers/MichaelPierIe.htm professional engineer. | Corporate | Investor | Products | Community | Employee News | Career Opportunities | | Home | Site Map | Feedback | Search | Copyright 1998 Solutia Inc. All rights reserved. Retransmission, reproduction or distribution without express written permission ofSolutia Inc. is prohibited. Solutia and the Solutia logo are trademarks ofSolutia Inc. 2 of 2 10/25/98 12:24 PM HART OLDMONOOI8312 NEWS _ cn r rpi pa-rp IMMEDIATELY 1970 ASHINCTON, 0. C. SAH PICKARD 19* Pc_ ) Monsanto E. V. John (314) 694-2891 PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT Uoniinn Company 00 N. Si. lavli. Missouri 13116 MONSANTO CITES ACTIONS TAKEN ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE ST. LOUIS, July 16 -- Monsanto Company, sole U.S. producer of an Industrial chemical called polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), today said recent political charges and sensational headlines about the chemical causing "a major ecological crisis" completely ignore voluntary actions the company has taken to restrict use of the material. "Our program began back In 1968 with the proper identification and measurement of PCB in the environment and will conclude this year by our unilateral action to restrict Its use," Howard L. Mlnckler, company vice president and general manager of its Organic Chemicals Division, said. He added that Monsanto had not been pressured into action by any legislation or organized group. "We have taken decisive action based on evidence that PCB is a persistent chemical which builds up in the environment." -more- OSW 019301 * HARTOLDMONO018313 V) ) --2 MONSANTO: MINCKLER'S REPLY TO PCB CHARGES xxx environment." Commenting on a recent report that PCB can induce birth defects In animalsMlnckler said, "Monsanto Is not aware of any scientific data that indicates polychlorinated biphenyls may cause birth defects. The results of comprehensive toxicity i studies, sponsored by Monsanto and using the usual species of laboratory animals, have failed to produce such effects^ "Scare tactics and sensational reporting do not serve the public interest nor solve ecological problems," he said. "Only a few reports have stated why PCBs were ever developed and why they are used today. Nor have the consequences of not using PCB been explained. "What should be emphasized," Minckler continued, "is that PCB was developed over 40 years ago primarily for use as a coolant in electrical transformers and capacitors. It is also used in commercial heating and cooling systems. It is not a 'household* item. "Anyone who lives in a large city is familiar with power failures. During periods of peak power needs, air conditioning and refrigeration fail, lights go out and commuters are stranded. If power companies were to remove PCB from equipment, we have been told that major blackouts would occur throughout the world. -more- DSW 019302 HARTOLDMON0018314 I) --3 MONSANTO: MINCKLER'S REPLY TO PCB CHARGES xxx world. "PCB is used in electrical equipment as a safety fluid. It has replaced combustible oil products which have, on many occasions, exploded and burned, causing deaths and injury to human life. Today state and local laws all over the country require Che use of non-flammable fluids in certain electrical equipment as a safety feature. At the moment, there are no substitutes available which equal the safety performance of PCB." Monsanto said it intends to continue selling PCB for "closed-system" uses such as electrical components and heat-transfer systems. "With rigid control over where the product goes, how it is handled and disposed of, we believe the safety functions of the product can continue to serve society and the environment can be protected," Mlnckler said. "We are discontinuing sales into 'open systems' -- adhesives, sealants, chlorinated rubber, specialty paints, etc. "For other uses, such as fire-resistant hydraulic fluids, wiiere PCB cannot be strictly controlled, we have 'dm. reformulated some fluids and they are on the market. The new products contain other fire-resistant ingredients. We will continue to develop alternate formulations which do not contain persistent PCB. We will not abandon hydraulic fluid users," Mlnckler commented, "as has been reported." -more- OSW 019303 HART OLDMONO018315 --4 MONSANTO: MINCKLER'S REPLY TO PCB CHARGE xxx reported." Monsanto has also-established a new system for disposal or recycle of spent PCB. A special high-temperature incinerator will break down PCB into harmless materials. The company also i regenerates spent fluids for reuse. The incinerator will be offered to customers who cannot otherwise destroy or regenerate their old fluids. "Although loss of PCB from our manufacturing plants has been negligible, we have further tightened up our production techniques and Installed new pollution abatement devices," the Monsanto executive said. ................... "I repeat," Minckler concluded, "our program was initiated and conducted by Monsanto alone. It will be concluded this year. We believe it is a position any responsible company would take." -0O0- OSM 0X9304 * HARTOLDMON0018316 r.o - Monsanto Pledge SUN Onliiu' I C 01/' M UNITY I H F OR 10 fl http://www.solutia.com/Community/MonsantoPledge.htn SO LU 7 I A ITM ,rTr^/^l7K'iT" nz&Li, ill: home Site Map feedback Search Monsanto Pledge The Monsanto Pledge was announced by Chairman and CEO Richard J. Mahoney at a meeting of the Corporate Conservation Council of the National Wildlife Federation in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 30, 1990. Here is the pledge as announced by Mahoney: "It is our pledge to reduce all toxic and hazardous releases and emissions, working toward an ultimate goal of zero effect. It may take time, but we will not be satisfied with anything else. "It is our pledge to ensure that no Monsanto operation poses any undue risk to our employees and our communities. "It is our pledge to work to achieve sustainable agriculture with the lowest inputs feasible, through new technology and new practices. "It is our pledge to ensure the safety of groundwater. If our products are found to pose a problem, we will solve it by whatever means necesssary. We will make our technical resources available to farmers who may have concerns about groundwater contamination, even if none of our products is involved. "It is our pledge to keep our plants open to our communities, bringing the community into plant operations. Our employees and our communities will be kept fully informed of any significant hazard - if we can't eliminate the hazard, we'll work to eliminate the source of it. "It is our pledge to do our part to halt deforestation and declining biodiversity. All corporate real estate, including plant sites, will be managed with the benefit of nature as a serious operating factor. "It is our pledge to search worldwide for technology that will reduce and eliminate waste from our operations, with the top priority being not making it in the first place. "Our commitment is to achieve sustainable development for those aspects of the environment where we have an impact. Our commitment is to 9/9/98 9:17 AM HART 0UDMON0018317 Sclutla 'nr. - Monsanto Pledge http://www.solutia.com/Comrnunity/MonsantoPledge.hti achieve sustainable development for the good of all people in both developed and less-developed nations. "But it is not enough to simply 'unpollute' the world. We must provide food and energy for ever-growing populations, most of which are in the Third World and not in the developed nations, which have the resources and freedom to worry about these vital environmental issues. 'We must rectify the mistakes of the past while we continue to develop and introduce the new technologies to provide the essentials for mankind in the future. "And we must ensure, as we know we can, that these new technologies will not create problems to be dealth with by our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. "I have described the Monsanto Pledge. We are determined to achieve it and we are pursuing the programs needed to achieve it." | Corporate | Investor | Products | Community | Employee News | Career Opportunities | | Home | Site Map | Feedback | Search | Copyright 1998 Solutia Inc. All rights reserved. Retransmission, reproduction or distribution without express written permission of Solutia Inc. is prohibited. Solutia and the Solutia logo are trademarks of Solutia Inc. 2 of 2 9/9/98 9:17 Af HARTOLDMON0018318 Solatia me. - Environmental Commitments http://www.solutia.com/Community/EnvironmentalCommitments.htrr home Site Map feedback Search Solutia's Commitments to Environment, Safety & Health Solutia's Environmental, Safety & Health Commitments are based on our strong convictions that continuous improvement in these areas is critical to creating value for all stakeholders. These commitments are drivers for a better future. We will ensure that our operations and distribution systems are safe for our employees, site contractors and guests, communities and the environment. We will make products that are safe when used responsibly. We will keep our operations open to our communities, and foster open communications with all of our stakeholders. We will continuously improve our raw material and energy utilization efficiencies to reduce our impact on the environment and improve the sustainability of our businesses. We will encourage active participation in and positive contributions to safety, health, and environmental stewardship by our employees. We will search worldwide for new technologies that bring environmental, safety and health value to all of our stakeholders. 9/9/98 9:53 AM HARTOLDMON0018319 Goiuiia i.ic. - Environmental Commitments http://www.solutia.com/Community/EnvironmentalCommitments ht Solutia People Talk About the Commitments Background on Solutia's ES&H Heritage I Corporate I Investor I Products I Community 1 Employee News I Career Opportunities | | Home | Site Map | Feedback | Search | Copyright 1998 Solutia Inc. All rights reserved. Retransmission, reproduction or distribution without express written permission of Solutia Inc. is prohibited. Solutia and the Solutia logo are trademarks of Solutia Inc. 2 of 2 9/9/98 9:53 Al HARTOLDMONO018320 * I I I I I 1 I f tTb ^ neceivz UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Ci C 2 0 19, WASHINGTON. D C. 20460 J.1-. K. December 22, 1975 errici or Tm ADMINISTRATOR Dear Mr. For at least five years, the Federal Government and the manufacturing Industry hare been aware that polychlorinated biphenyls [1'LH) qita a rhTSt^cg-hn>*" hRRTeh^nd^ha-envlro"**^-----Itr* , at EPA'e national Conferenea on Poiyciuoririitid tipneiijli lu Lhieegs, - leading experts elaarly documentad the fact that PCB* are pervasive In the environment,aracmusing disruption and economic bans, to___ . commercial fishlng in aany areas and are creating a serious potential health hasard to the public. Vhlle certain voluntary measures have been initiated in the past, the widespread and persistent occurrence ' :fTycii^Saeirjlhgrsa^thfailugeroi-eis tiaf-piacticea.,toadeauatelv "conHBrTlWTWT? Today I announced a broad EPA program of regulatory and non- regulatory actions to reduce the levels of FCBs in the environment. Hj statement, (which is enclosed), stated that vs must, as a soelaty, accept and work toward a goal of totally eliminating the production, Importation and use of PCBs as rapidly as possible. Toward that end, I am asking you, as a principal master of the PCB Industry, to commit tmitmH to a deliberate and expeditious search for alternatives. alternatives vill be required. the economic impacts of-tin will have to be considered. 1 also recognize that such an effort cannot be accomplished overnight. Nevertheless, X have confidence that American industry has the capacity to solve this difficult task, and X eollelt your full cooperation and participation in this effort. Be thee ve can begin this undertaking as soon as possible, X am inviting yon and other representatives of your Industry to meet with ms on January 11 to discuss this undertaking and work towards the development of plans on bow it can be accomplished aa smoothly and rapidly as possible. X have also askad representative* of the principal users of FCBcontalnlng transformer* and large capacitors to meet with ma on January 22 to discuss ways that we can affectively manage and control FCBs In current use. X aa enclosing a copy of'siy lot tor to theoo companies. At our meeting on January 14, vo slight also diecusa bom of tho matters outlined Is that lattar. OS* 012433 HARTOLDMONO018321 / n / n 1*,? "o 5l^ 1- th. .ft.mooe. If y" ! "r J.u.ry 1*. I". t "e {ot thl, ,,. you uy questions concerning .* 75S-&Q5& contact Dr. I. 2. Wallan, (202) 755-6956. Sincerely your*, 7{vrU/ 2 Russell . Train Administrator 00 >lT. John V. Hanley ~ Preaideot Monaanto Chemical Company 800 N. Lindbergh Boulavard Bt. Louis, Mlaaouri 63166 OS* 012**4 HARTOLDMONO018322 IN THE 3 OTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT^COURT FOR ST. CLAIR COUNTY, ALABAMA PELL CITY DIVISION THOMAS C. DYER, ET AL, Plaintiff, vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL, Defendant. ) ) ) )' ) NO. CV-93-250 ) ) ). )' ' , Consolidated For Discovery With SHELTER COVE MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL, ; . Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) vs . MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL, ) NO.CV 94-50-PH ) ) Defendant. ) DEPOSITION OF MICHAEL A. PIERLE Taken on behalf of the Plaintiff October 28, 1998 REPORTER: Kevin J. Weichman, CSR-RPR No. 084-003189 ^ DcpoNct Taylor * Schroeder Reporting & Video "Meeting All Your Litigation Needs COURT REPORTERS 7494 Ethel Avenue St. Louis, Mo 631 17 314.644.2191 800.280.DEPO Fax 314.644.1334 quality assurance HARTOLDMONOOI8323 SOLUTIA COMMITMENTS MANUAL <DRAFT> June 9,1998 OSM 122270 HARTOLDMONO018324 1ADLL ur CONTENTS 1222^ DSU HARTOLDMONO018325 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION - THE SOLUTIA COMMITMENTS II. GENERAL 1. Internal Global Environmental, Safety, and Health (ESH) Requirements Setting Procedure (to be written) 2. Chemical Distribution Q 3. Outside Processors ' 4. Community Awareness at Manufacturing Sites $3 5. Environmental, Safety and Health Reviews of Capital Projects s ^ n 6. Environmental Safety and Health Reviews of Divestitures or ^ Acquisitions of Property and/or Businesses (to be written) 7. Environmental, Safety and Health Protection for Investments Over Which the Company Does Not Have Operating Control (to be writtenj) ir 8. Environmental, SafetvrHealthl and QsrupatiorialMedicine Compliance Auditing !_i u--\_j\ Ui U '.J cs HI. ENVIRONMENTAL 1. Pollution Prevention 2. Groundwater and Soil Quality 3. Ozone-Depleting Chemicals (CFCs) IV. SAFETY 1. Safety Management Process 2. General Requirements 3. Tiered Requirements/Hazard Levels 4. Variance Procedure 5. Safety Guidance Documents OSH 1222-72 HARTOLDMONO018326 V. HEALTH 1. Industrial Hygiene Management Process 2. General Requirements 3. Tiered Requirements/Hazard Levels 4. Variance Procedure 5. IH Guidance Documents i VI. PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP 1. Product Stewardship 2. Premanufacture Notification to the United States Environmental Protection Agency Under the Toxic Substances Control Act . 3. Recording Allegations of Significant Adverse Reactions Under the Toxic Substances Control Act ' 4. Transmittal to the United States Environmental Protection Agency of Substantial Risk Information Under the Toxic Substances Control Act VH. OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE Insert Occupational Medicine section here Vffl. CROSS-REFERENCE: Commitments Manual and Responsible Care (to be written) IX. REFERENCE: Responsible Care Program filename:tbcon.doc (in Nepran M-private) rev. 6/8/98 2 J3SW 12Z273 HARTOLDMONO018327 DSW 122274 I HARTOLDMONO018328 introduction The Solatia Commitments Solutia Inc. is dedicated to ensuring the safety of our employees, customers, communities and the environment Through the Solutia Commitments, we are publicly obligated to pursue a course of stewardship that goes beyond what is required by the law. This ideal is best described in a memo issued jointly by Bob Potter and John Hunter on March 5, 1998. It is as follows: Solutia's Commitments to the Environment, Safety & Health Even before we began operating as our own company, we knew that stewardshipfor the environment, safety and health was critical to our long term success. That's why one ofourfive business imperatives is "Being a responsible company that operates safely, with respectfor the environment and the communities in which we do business." Notice that we called this a business imperative. Our rich heritage in ES&H stewardship as well as ourparticipation in the Responsible Care program of the Chemical Manufacturers Association, has taught us that taking care ofthe environment, our own people's health and safety, and the safety ofdur communities is basic to earning the public's right-to-operate, and basic to our long-term business success. To support our-business-imperatiyes, wehave-developed what we 're calling Our Commitments are based on our strong convictions that continuous improvement in these areas is critical to creating valuefor all ofour stakeholders. These Commitments are driversfor a betterfuture: We will ensure that our operations and distribution systems are safefor our employees, site contractors and guests, communities and the environment We will make products that are safe when used responsibly. We win keep our operations open to our communities, andfoster open communications with all ofour stakeholders. We will continuously improve our raw material and energy utilization efficiencies to reduce our impact on the environment and improve the sustainability ofour businesses. We will encourage active participation in andpositive contributions to safety, health, and environmental stewardship by our employees. 1-1 DSW L22275 HARTOLDMONO018329  We will search worldwidefor new technologies that bring environmental safety and health value to all ofour stakeholders. ...We 're asking each ofyoufor yourfull supportfor andfull participation in our Commitments to ES&H and Responsible Care. They are more than nicesounding statements; they represent who we are as a company. Bob Potter Chairman and CEO John Hunter President and COO i \ O) /a\ -------- \r~ i UJ ./ n i //X\ _J Li i-J \_i J 1-2 OSW .122276 HARTOLDMONO018330 THE SOLUTIA COMMITMENTS We will ensure that our operations and distribution systems are safe for our employees, site contractors and guests, communities and the environment We will make products that are safe when used responsibly. We will keep our operations open to our communities, and foster open communications with all ofour stakeholders. | ,----N'\. j -^\ {~\ | ,------ il--- ; t--- : We will contimiouslyjimprove/qur^ raw-maierialand energy utilization efficiencies1^ reducWQMr5mpa/k arithe environment and improve the sustainability ofour businesses. .... We will encourage active participation in andpositive contributions to safety, health, and environmental stewardship by our employees. We wiU seatch worldwidefor new technologies that bring environmental, safety and health value to all ofour stakeholders. filename:solint2.doc (in Nepran M-private) 1-3 OSM 122277 HARTOLDMONO018331 general DSW 122278 HARTOLDMONO018332 Program GEN6 ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEWS OF DIVESTITURES OR ACQUISITIONS OF PROPERTY AND/OR BUSINESSES (to be written) fllename:divacq.doc (in Nepran M-private) rev. 6/9/98 DSW L222 7.9 HARTOLDMONO018333 Program GEN7 ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND HEALTH PROTECTION FOR INVESTMENTS OVER WHICH THE COMPANY DOES NOT HAVE OPERATING CONTROL (to be written) fllename:nocontr.doc (in Nepran M-private) rev. 6/9/98 OSW . 122230 HARTOLDMONO018334 Program GEN8 Environmental, Safety and Health Compliance Auditing OVERVIEW Introduction This program describes the auditing policy and procedures to be taken to confirm that site management systems are in place to ensure continuous improvement and compliance with government regulations and company, business unit and subsidiary policies and procedures. The company will conduct environmental, safety and health compliance audits to confirm that site management systems are in place to ensure continuous improvement and compliance with both government regulations and company, business unit and subsidiary policies and procedures. For Further Information ' When further information or clarification is required, you may contact the following: ISSUE OWNER: Garth Fort, Leader, ESH Policy & Compliance, F2EI (314)674-8886 . TECHNICAL CONTACTS: '---- O', / \ -- J<>1: ; il /m SAFETCAND iPROPEjnjY PROTECTION \ H. D. (Dunriy) ToyrESH Policy ArCbnipliaibe, (314)674-6698 INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE H. D. (Dunny) Toy, ESH Policy & Compliance, F2EI (314)674-6698 OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE David C. Shepperly, Soluda Medical Director, F2EF (314) 674-7862 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE Neil E. Prange, ESH Policy & Compliance, F2EI (314)674-6740 Program Approval The content of this program was approved by P17-1 .DSW 122261 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HART OLDMONO018335 PI 7.1 PROCEDURES P17.1.1 Introdacdon P17.1.2 Standard This section describes the procedures to be used in ESH Compliance Auditing. Each business unit and subsidiary will be responsible for ensuring that audits are conducted in accordance with criteria shown in the following table: l ESH Compliance - will ~ Auditing Programs Auditors be consistent with the five-step auditing approach as outlined by the outside consulting firm of Arthur D. Little, and follow protocols approved by the Leader, ESH Policy &. Compliance be appropriately trained, knowledgeable of the subject they audit, and skilled as compliance auditors, and - be independent of the Iocation/site they audit P17.1.3 Audit Frequency ESH compliance audits will be performed on a three-to-five year maximum cycle. Frequency for each site will be reviewed by Policy/Planning Team and will depend upon results oLthe last"audit degree ofrisk, j I complexity,! and'' / compliance issues. P17.1.4 Audit Reviews Reports of the actual audit findings and/or recommendations will be reviewed by appropriate legal staff and distributed, at a minimum, to site managers, directors of manufacturing (or equivalent for non-manufacturing locations), legal, ESH Leader, . Leader, ESH Policy & Compliance, and Operational Excellence Process Leader. P17.1.5 FoDowup Audit findings/recommendations followup will be the responsibility of each business unit and subsidiary. The Leader, ESH Policy & Compliance will request periodic status reports of auditing and followup corrective actions for communication to upper management. filenamc:sol 17nep.doc fin Neman M-public) rev. 6/9/98 P17-2 OSH 122282 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018336 Program GEN1 INTERNAL GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY, AND HEALTH (ESH) REQUIREMENTS SETTING PROCEDURE (to be written) /A\ 1 /, U filename:reqscLd6c (in Nepran M-private) rey.6/9/98 OS W 122283 HARTOLDMONO018337 OVERVIEW Program GEN2 Chemical Distribution Introduction This program describes the policies, goals, standards and procedures necessary to implement Solutia's commitment to "... ensure that our operations and distribution systems are safefor our employees, site contractors, communities and the environment. ' Policy The company will reduce the potential risk to its employees, the public, carriers, distributors, contractors, customers' employees and the environment in the distribution of chemicals. Goals Business units must work toward incident-free performance in the distribution of chemicals, including raw materials, intermediates, finished products, byproducts, and wastes. . Measuring Progress For Further Information Appropriatejneasuremertt systems will ensuhe continuous improvement toward stated goals and Jobjectivt%^' I ! < ' I * 1 ` ' ' 1 --------! ! !i / *I "''>O''1-. When further information or clarification is required, you may contact the following; ISSUE OWNER David E. Williams, Supply Chain, F2WI (314)674-8644 Program Approval The content of this program was approved by In This Program This program contains the following procedures. Procedures P5.1 INCIDENT REDUCTION P5.2 SAFETY STANDARDS FOR WAREHOUSES AND TERMINALS See Page P5-2 P5-5 OSW 122284 P5-1 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018338 P5.1 INCIDENT REDUCTION P5.1.1 Introduction mil Definition P5.1J Actions This section describes procedures used to accomplish the company's specific goals for incident reduction in chemical distribution in order to effect incident-ffee performance. An incident is defined as any undesirable event occurring during a chemical distribution process over which the company has direct control or influence that results in aninjury, an unintentional release of a chemical, and/or damage to property or the environment. ' To achieve the goal of incident-free performance, the company will improve the carrier selection process to identify and contract transportation services with carriers who consistently demonstrate safe performance in the movement of the company's chemical products, improve the safety of chemical transportation practices through application of continuous improvement concepts, develop and apply technological advancements to improve chemical distribution safety and share these with the industry as appropriate. provide technical advice and'assistance through itsTmergency response system in a responsible and timely [manner for "butside plant gat*" incident-involving its chemical products. d L Au measure and continuously improve its response capabilities, and have trained personnel physically present, in an expeditious manner, at the emergency site - upon request of the local emergency responder or public official, or --^ -- - when the company feels a qualified emergency team can lessen the severity of an incident or ease a community's concerns about the company's products. Continued on next page -DSW 122285 P5-2 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018339 P5.1 INCIDENT REDUCTION, Continued PS.1A The company's effort to effect incident-free performance will include the emphasis areas shown Emphasis Areas below. Emphasis Area Details Emergency Response Each shipping location will have a current plan for responding to chemical transportation emergencies involving products/materials within its scope. The locations' emergency responders will receive regular training that meets or exceeds regulatory or industry standards. Training history for all emergency response personnel will be documented. Partnerships with local communities & local emergency responders along chemical transportation routes, as well as in those communities where its chemical plants are located, will be encouraged. . The total emergency response plan will be continuously monitored and improved. Detailed post-incident reports and preventive action plans will be provided as training aids to all emergency responders. Community-------- . Awareness^. ; \ __ Community-outreach programs willbe supported by offering plant facilities\and mutuaHrainingTo,,emergency responders in ~conuriunftiesneighbonng the company'stiistribution network. Through routine\communicationjwiththepublic, continuous -- improvement itrsafexhemical distribution will be emphasized and public concerns will receive response. Trained plant employees-will be the company's-"ambassadors" to the community to convey company progress and commitment to improving the safety of chemical distribution and the ___ effectiveness of its emergency preparedness and response. Continued on next page Ds* 122286 P5-3 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018340 P5.1 INCIDENT REDUCTION, Continued P5.1.4 ' Emphasis Anas EmphasbAtta . Details Risk Assessment Distribution accidents/incidents and any resulting loss of containment will be reduced according to a documented distribution risk management methodology. - An initial qualitative risk assessment methodology will be made available for use. Quantitative risk assessment models will be evaluated for especially sensitive materials. Compliance Regulatory changes that affect the distribution of the company's products will be monitored and changes will be communicated to shipping locations. Compliance audits and training will be conducted at all company shipping locations as appropriate and reported annually. Adding Value The company will recognize, as appropriate, the potential for adding value to it products. --s\ "\ /.\ ! . UJ y ~Vi/A\ !i !L-. r--' OSW . L222a? P5-4 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018341 P5.2 SAFETY STANDARDS FOR WAREHOUSES AND TERMINALS P5.2.1 Introduction This section describes the procedures used to accomplish the company's specific goals for incident reduction in chemical distribution in order to effect incident-free performance as related to warehouses and terminals that receive the company's products. p< 7 ? Standards To extend a seamless policy of operating safety results to warehouses and terminals that receive the company's products, the following standards, comparable to the company's, will be incorporated. ~ Precontracting requirements will be used to assess firms that can handle the company's products in a manner that is safe for its employees, the public and the environment Information on the company's policies, procedures and requirements regarding the safe handling and transportation of chemicals will be provided to warehouse and terminal personnel. Continuous improvement concepts will be applied to all aspects of contract management for improvement in safety and reliability of provided- services. Agreed-upon performance measurements and periodic reviews will be used as indicators of progress toward zero-incident status. P5JL3 Emphasis Areas The recognition of public concerns about emergency preparedness and safe distribution practices will be-extentied-te-all the company's distribution-locations. 1 ! mi1/ A \ j I-- i! __________________________ i Ji| : i i / " \ i ! i i J>j The compands efforTtyextend a seamless policy_of operatingsafetjCxesults to warehouses and terminals that will receive the company's products will include the emphasis areas shown below.* Emphasis Area Details ^ Selection Criteria Documented selection criteria that include appropriate safety measures will be maintained. Information Flows Defined flows of information concerning company policies, procedures and requirements on the safe handling of its products will be maintained. Performance Reviews Reviews of performance against company requirements will be conducted on a specified review cycle. Risk Management Risk management and emergency preparedness activities will be supported at all the company's distribution locations. filename:sol5.doc fin Nepran M-public) rev. 6/9/98 122248 P5-5 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018342 OVERVIEW Program GEN3 Outside Processors Introduction This program describes policies, goals, standards and procedures necessary to implement Soluda's commitment to . ensure that our operations and distribution systems are safefor employees, site contractors, communities and the environment." Policy To support its operations, the company will select outside processors that will operate with concern for worker safety, regulatory compliance, community protection, and protection of the environment ~ Goal Measuring Progress The company will pursue into its outside processor plan the specific goal to manage the company's exposure to present and future liabilities associated with the use of outside processors by maintaining currentassessments and written-contracts for each outside processor used. i --1 I/ i/ tA\ \\ < -* / \ To measiu^^ogressaghinsuhis grtal^ the company will maintain recOrdTlhat document the outside processors used, status of assessments, and status of contracts. For Further Information . When further information or clarification is required, you may contact the following: ISSUE OWNER H. D. (Dunny) Toy, Policy & Compliance, F2EI (314)674-6698 Program Approval The content of this program was approved by . Continued on next page -DSW 122-289 P7*i COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018343 OVERVIEW, Continued In This Program This program contains the following procedures. Procedures P7.1 OUTSIDE PROCESSORS P7.2 TOLL MANUFACTURERS SeePage P7-3 P7-4 - DSW 122290 P7-2 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018344 P7.1 OUTSIDE PROCESSORS P7.1.1 Introduction This section describes procedures to be used to accomplish the company's specific goals regarding outside processors. . P7.1J Applicability This section applies to firms which provide services related to Soiutia chemicals, products or wastes. This includes toll manufacturers, which are a subset of Outside Processors and which are detailed in the next section of this chapter. P7.1.3 Selection Elements The company will use only outside processors that have been selected and periodically assessed to ensure their ability to protect the public, employees and the environment adequately from any adverse effect of the. company's chemicals, products or wastes, compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, knowledge of potential hazards and any applicable manufacturing requirements associated with the handling of company materials, and use of waste disposal methods and locations as specified by contracts, with recordkeeping of all material use and waste disposal. P7.1.4 Assessments Before they are used-by the-company, outside processors jvilLbe-subject to \ \ contractsT ii 'i /\ on-site^assessments^inliless waived (see-7. fy6; Waivers), and approvals and reviews by others as appropriate. NOTE: The Leader, ESH Policy & Compliance co-approves selection of waste management firms, including cleaning firms. . __ P7.1.5 Assessment Requirements Initial assessments are intended to be thorough and multi-disciplinary. Periodic reassessments will concentrate on general performance and deficiencies previously defined. P7.1.6 Waivers On-site assessments of outside processors are required unless waived by both the Leader, ESH Policy & Compliance and the Director of Manufacturing and formally documented. Any such waivers must be resolved or re-approved every three years or less. P7.1.7 Waste Management For outside processor categories other than toll manufacturing (waste management, cleaning services, etc.), a processor's waste management practices will be reviewed as part of the on-site assessment ' P7.1 OUTSIDE PROCESSORS, Continued Continued on next page DSw L2229ti P7-3 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018345 P7.1.8 Worldwide Applicability These elements will be implemented worldwide, with modifications to reflect local conditions and the extent of the company's operating control. . OSH - 1222-92 P'7-4 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018346 P7.2 TOLL MANUFACTURERS P7.2.1 Introduction This section describes procedures to be used to accomplish the company's specific goals regarding toll manufacturers. P7A2 Applicability This section applies to toll manufacturers, which are firms under arrangements where Solutia owns two or more of the following factors: raw materials, process technology, or some or all of the output. . . Pilot plant operations for process development and/or market introduction are included. P7J23 Accountability P7.Z4 Selection Elements The Director of Manufacturing is the primary person accountable for ensuring that the initial assessments, contracts and other provisions are in place prior to commencing operations. Approval must be based on the assessment and any waivers (see 7.2.10, Waivers). The Director of Manufacturing will consult as needed with business and environmental management The decision to toll will be reviewed and re-approved by the Director of Manufacturing, or equivalent, at least every three years. - i l. In additioiCurthe selection IcleBRints listed jfohouitsidejroceSscirs, thecompany will use only toll manufhcturersJhaf Ipavebeeni seletted-ancfperipdically assessed-to^ensure their - ability to produce to market demands, producing quality product cost-effectively, capability to manage key external relations, and financial condition, which must be able to prevent business interruption and support the value of indemnifications. _ Y13~S Initial Assessment Sites will be assessed against Solutia as the standard. The initial assessment is intended to be thorough and to cover environmental compliance, groundwater history/protection, * safety and IH status and programs, ' .waste management, knowledge of Solutia technology, and . genera] knowledge/performance against the tenets of Responsible Care or similar programs worldwide. Continued on next page DSW 122293 P7-5 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMON0018347 P7.2 TOLL MANUFACTURERS, Continued P7J.6 Reassessment and Additional Requirements Periodic reassessment will be conducted at least every three years. For those operations under contract to Solutia, tollers must also have a spill response plan, and Groundwater Protection Plan. P7JL7 Waste Management Toll manufacturers, including bulk terminals and transloading, will * take title to, adopt and own any wastes generated, and manage them as their own under manifests and contracts. V7JJ& Shipping Operations Toll manufacturers involved in shipping of hazardous or regulated materials for Solutia will be supported and controls verified to be in place at the same level as such operations at Solutia locations. V7.23 Where feasible and desired by the Director of Manufacturing, costs of toller assessment, Cost Accounting oversight and management will be borne by the tolled products at the cost-of-goods level. P7.2.10 Waivers The Director ofManufacturingUs^uthorized to ' ) ) i A\ reduoeihe scope of assessments whefeVkrranted. waive requirements for prior assessments or contracts in abnorm. alsituations, and accept, conditionally orotherwiserapy deficiencies notedin theassessments. Any such waivers must be resolved or reapproved every three years or less^Where improvements are stipulated as a condition of approval, the work plan will be reviewed annually. ^ P7J.11 Exclusions Vendor equipment tests or bench-scale manufacture of small quantities/samples are conditionally excluded, dependent on coverage by purchase order or contract, Solutia stipulation of return of materials or disposal method/location of wastes, and exchange of material safety and handling information. P7J.12 Termination A termination plan, put into place when toll operations are initiated, will be executed when operations are discontinued. - filcname:sol7.doc fin Neman M-publicl rev. 6/9/98 0S** 122294 P7-6 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018348 Program GEN4 Community Awareness at Manufacturing Sites OVERVIEW Introduction Policy Goals Measuring Progress This program describes the policies, goals, standards and procedures necessary to implement Solutia's commitment to "keep our operations open to our communities, andfoster open * communications with all ofour stakeholders." The company will foster its employees' and the public's right-to-know through openness, involvement and and be responsive to questions and concerns about human safety, health and the environment at its manufacturing sites. ~ The company will openly share information on safety and the environment and establish and maintain community advisory panels at manufacturing sites. Ni ' / * \ ( | ]I The following indicators wiill-be-used to measure progress against uus'goal: '..........`/.././ ........1HJJ ^ Active community-rfdvisory panels at manufacturing! Participation in training and planning for Risk Management Program communications. Annual dissemination of data on toxic chemicals and other chemicals of local concern. Wide distribution of the Environmental Annual Review to report the company's status against stated environmental, safety and health goals. Progress toward developing routine and convenient ways (such as internet access) for interested parties to become familiar with the company's . manufacturing sites, operations, - products, and - efforts to protect human safety and health and the environment Continued on next page DSM 122295 P8-1 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018349 OVERVIEW, Continued For Farther Information When further information or clarification is required, you may contact the following: ISSUE OWNER John L. Henshaw, ESH Region 3, F2EP (314)674-8830 .... TECHNICAL CONTACTS Kevin S. Cahill, Public/Govemment Affairs, G4WA (314)674-7518 Beth L. Rusert, Public/Govemment Affairs, G4WA (314)674-8527 Loren W. Wassell, Public/Govemment Affairs, G4WA (314)674-7002 Program Approval The content of this program was approved by In This Program This program contains the following procedures. ...-C 1 ^ ] | Pnkedaret \ j 1------ | | (^ P8.1 ""cdMMUNmr INVOLVEMENTAND DIALOGUE P8.2 INFORMATION ON CHEMICAL RELEASES/INCIDENTS See Page P8-3 P8-5 OSW 1222.96 P8-2 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018350 P8.1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND DIALOGUE P8.1.1 Introduction This section describes procedures to be used to accomplish the company's specific goals for community involvement and dialogue. . P8.1J Each manufacturing site will implement a policy of openness that provides convenient ways for Openness Policy interested individuals to become familiar with the facility and its operations, products, and efforts to protect human safety, health and the environment. . P8.1J Activities To involve the community in-plant operations, the following activities, among others, may be used; \ / community advisory panels, open houses, /\ plant tours, apto \ environmental awareness days. P8.1.4 Community Outreach Community outreach programs will be implemented at each manufacturing site to inform key audiences (emergency responders, government officials, the media, employees, other businesses and the community) about the facility's . j\ emergency response prpgpramy j / a \ chemcaHnjentor^, > J impacrevaluaticui/jmd j J /A /r \\ potendalrisksTcrthe community. P8.1.5 Information Details The information provided will include details on such topics as waste minimization, emissions reduction, health effects of chemicals, and efforts to ensure safe transport of chemicals. " All information will also include planned improvements in each of these critical areas as well as expansion activity and other projects of general interest to the community. P8.1.6 Ongoing Communications An ongoing dialogue with employees and members of the community will be used to assess and respond to their questions and concerns about environmental, safety and health issues, and involve them in the community outreach effort. Continued on next page J)SW 122*97 P8-3 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018351 P8.1 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND DIALOGUE, Continued P8.1.7 Assessments Each manufacturing site will conduct an ongoing assessment of employee and community questions and concerns about the site. The effectiveness of the ongoing community rnmmimirrions effort will be evaluated regularly by the site. P8.1.8 Training Communications training will be provided for key site and company personnel who communicate with employees and the public concerning human safety, health and the environment 122298 P8-4 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018352 P8.2 INFORMATION ON CHEMICAL RELEASES/INCIDENTS PS %i Introduction This section describes procedures to be used to accomplish the company's specific goals . regarding information on chemical releases and safety. py ) t Releases/ Safety Information Each operating location will make available to appropriate audiences (neighbors in the community, employees and/or the news media), timely information about * routine or accidental releases of toxic and other chemicals of local concern, and progress and future plans for achieving the company's stated goals to reduce emissions, prevent pollution and improve safety. PS lt Personal Communications When possible, the information on chemical releases/safety should be at a personal, face-toface level and should emphasize listening to others and discussing their concerns and ideas. 1 P8.2.4 Annual Publication The company will publish and distribute an Environmental Annual Review that articulates the company's ' environmental, safety and health policies, and progress toward achieving stated environmental, safety and health goals. menamersois.ac ciiruiNenn n-MDuonc) rev. o/y, - -- n o.) / \) _ / LFll Zr-A j lJii i1 y a ,ii_____________ ^ OSW .LZZ29S P8-5 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018353 Program GEN5 Environmental, Safety and Health Reviews of Capital Projects OVERVIEW P9.1 Introduction This program describes the policy and procedure to be used for environmental, safety and health reviews of capital projects. P9.2 Policy The company's capital projects will meet Soluda policies, goals, standards and procedures, be in compliance with existing and anticipated governmental regulatory requirements, and be reviewed at all levels for environmental, safety and health impact before, and as a condition of, project funding. P9J Responsibilities The Vice President, Environmental, Safety and Health or his/her designee will review those projects requiring approval by the Chief Operating Officer (COO), the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or the Boardof.Directors. (gOD).Jhc ESHRegional Leads will participate in the project MajorA txonntobiUty'SrPreimse (MAP) reviews'!.1' A systemjbrre' iewing^otJer smallerprojects Will be established auChe\>Cs.itel s with ESH Shared Service. 1 ^: '" ` ' ***-J i- P9.4 Procedure . P9.5 Exceptions Approval P9.6 For Further Information The Company will follow the CPM and New Fixed Investment Management Process. The effects of the public climate of opinion and of existing and future governmental, '' environmental regulations that may apply also are to be considered. Employees assigned to evaluate a new location for operation will prepare an internal environmental impact assessment addressing potential environmental limitations at the site as a result of the existing socioeconomic and biophysical conditions. Any exceptions to this document must be approved by the Solutia Leadership Team. When further information or clarification is required, you may contact the following: ISSUE OWNER John L. Henshaw, ESH Region 3, F2EP (314)674-8830 ' Continued on next page SW ***300 P9-1 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMON0018354 OVERVIEW, Continued P9.7 Program Approval The content of this program was approved by fllename:Pldger7.doc (in Nepran M-private) rev. 6/9/98 J DSM 122301 P9-2 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018355 DSN 122302 HARTOLDMONO018356 Program ENV1 Pollution Prevention OVERVIEW Introduction Policy l This program describes the policies, goals, standards and procedures necessary to implement Soluda's commitment to the continuous improvement of our health, safety, and environmental program. The company is committed to continuously improve the health, safety, and environmental performance of our products and operations. We wilt ensure that our operations and distribution systems are safe for employees, site contractors, communities and the environment; ' make products that are safe when used responsibly; keep our operations open to our communities, and foster open communications with all of our stakeholders; M ' ' v j\ / A\ it~ \ 1-------: ! I continuously improve ourraw materiaPaird energy-utilization efficiencies to reduce our impafctojfctne environment and improve the sustainabilityj>f oufiusinesses; encourage active participation in and positive contributions to safety, health, and environmental stewardship by our employees; and* ~ search worldwide for new technologies that bring environmental, safety and health value tar all of our stakeholders.* 4,. . Continued on next page DSW 122303 Pi-1 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018357 OVERVIEW, Continued Goals These specific goals must be integrated into raw material yield and energy improvement plans for each business. Compliance Date Goal End of 1998 l Define major products supported by deep well injection and major energy consuming products for enterprise focus. P-a<* business will establish baselines for raw material yields, energy utilization and associated five year improvement targets. Businesses will also establish tracking mechanisms to measure continuous improvement consistent with corporate direction issued to ensure consistency. Measuring Progress The following indicators will be used to measure progress against these goals: Achievement of contingency planning for withdrawal from injection wells, if required. Annual verification of no new uses of deep well injection. Reduction df total organicjejeases and"SARA reportahle inorganic releases to deep u >;jinjectionVvells perpbundLofLproduct manufactured^ Data will he-tracked for defined major products making use/of injection wells^ \ 1 ' 1 1 ^ ' M i_! \_A Reduction in total BTUs required to manufacture defined major energy consuming products. Continued on nexi page DSU 122304 Pl-2 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018358 OVERVIEW, Continued For Farther Information When further information or clarification is required, you may contact the following: GENERAL POLICY MATTERS Garth F. Fort (314)674-8886 SECTOR LEAD - WASTE PROGRAMS J. Pat Hyland (314)674-6715 SECTOR LEAD - AIR PROGRAMS David S. Krawczylc (314) 674-3666 SECTOR LEAD - WATER PROGRAMS Steven D. Smith (314)674-4660 Program .Approval The content of this program approved by In This Program Procedures Pl.l Reducing Releases and Emissions from Process and Nonprocess Waste P1.2 Underground (Deep Well) Injection Waste P13 Handling Land Disposal and Land Application P1.4 Assessing Impact of Air Emissions Pl-5 Assessing Impact of Water Releases See Page Pl-4 Pl-5 ~~ ^ PI-6 Pl-8 PI-9 -OSH 122305 Pi-3 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018359 P1.1 REDUCING RELEASES AND EMISSIONS FROM PROCESS AND NONPROCESS WASTE PI.1.1 Introduction This topic describes procedures to be used to accomplish the company's specific goals for improving raw material yields and reducing energy requirements to ensure no negative impact to people and the environment from our products and operations. pi.1.2 Integration of Corporate Goal into Business Plans* The businesses will integrate this corporate goal into their business plans and will utilize key measures established to ensure consistency of approach to track progress. . Pl.U Additional Improvement Measures Continuing measures to improve raw material yields and reduce energy requirements include: . the emphasis of the development and use of new manufacturing and energy conservation projects and technologies, and aggressive evaluation and implementation of co-product and product recyclefreuse opportunities customer and product user interface to identify recycle/reuse and product modification opportunities PI.1.4 Nonprocess Waste Yield and Energy Tracking The above data will be compiled annually beginning with calendar year 1995. Key raw materials will be selected by the businesses for quarterly tracking using the balanced scorecard approach. Sw 122306 Pi-4 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018360 P12. UNDERGROUND (DEEP WELL) INJECTION WASTE Pl.2.1 Introduction This topic describes procedures to be used to accomplish the company's specific goals for deep well injection wastes. Pl-2 Contingency Plan for Deep Well Withdrawal The company will use the following methods to prepare for the potential of regulations mandating the withdrawal from deep wells. Perform study-grade estimates to achieve non-brine, treated surface discharge to select optimal technical strategies for total withdrawal from deep wells, and Continue to challenge the technical impediments to total withdrawal from deep wells. P1JL3 New Uses of Deep Wells New internal or external uses of deep wells are not permitted unless prior approval of the Policy/Planning Team is obtained. A new use ofdeep wells is defined as injection of streams from new products, . the addition of substances not previously injected, at that site injection of remediation wastes not previously disposed of by deep well injection Pi-5 SW ^*30? COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMON0018361 PI.3 HANDLING LAND DISPOSAL AND LAND APPLICATION PU.1. Introduction This topic describes the procedures to be used to accomplish the company's specific goals for handling land disposal and land application. . PUJ Landfill The company will not practice landfill of acutely hazardous wastes, and incinerables. NOTES: Acutely hazardous wastes are those listed in 40CFR261.33(e), plus any mixtures containing greater than 5 percent of the listed wastes. - Incinerables are hazardous wastes or wastes managed as hazardous, with a heat of combustion greater than 6000 BTU/lb. P1JJ Hazardous Waste and Managing Wastes as Hazardous For hazardous wastes and wastes managed as hazardous, fixation of particularly mobile, persistent or bioaccumulative wastes will be accomplished whenever warranted and feasible. When making the decision to manage wastes as hazardous, the company will take into account public expectations, emerging trends, and worldwide company practice regarding the same or similar wastes. ' P1J.4 The company.wlill-subj^ct contractars4ired-fok land disposal of proces^wlstes to contracting Off-Site Landfills and assessment requirements, as described iriPirogram 7, Outside Processors. In the United States, the use of off-site hazardous waste landfills will be * approved by the Policy/Planning Team and limited in number. P1JS Medical Wastes Company sites will arrange to * incinerate medical wastes generated at the company's locations, prior to land disposal of residues, and obtain assurance of incineration of medical wastes via manifests or equivalent documents. Pl.3.6 Non-Solutia Wastes The company will discourage use of Solutia facilities to commercially treat, store or dispose of non-Solutia wastes. Any such use or joint ventures (other than in-site guest/host relationships) . must be reviewed and approved by the Policy/Planning Team. Continued on next page DSW 122308 Pi-6 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018362 P1.3 HANDLING LAND DISPOSAL AND LAND APPLICATION, Continued P1J.7 Land Application of Process Byproducts and Residues The company will prepare proposals for land application of process byproducts and residues, for beneficial use or disposal, by using as guidance the Monsanto Guidance Document: Land Application ofProcess Byproducts and Residues. The ESHA discipline (including 5-year reviews) will be followed. P1JJ Land Application Approval The company will require approval of all new applications by the appropriate [Business General Manager and the ESH Policy Director.]???? The Policy/Planning Team must approve new applications if beneficial use is not included. P1JJ) Documentation Each company location will maintain a record of the on-site and commercial waste treatment. storage and disposal sites it uses. ___ / \ : : i\ 1; -- ", / Li \ 1 L_'y/' _ u u u J1 il -DSW 122309 Pi-7 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018363 P1.4 ASSESSING IMPACT OF AIR EMISSIONS Pl.4.1 Introduction .The company will assess air emissions from new processes or new businesses or existing businesses as new information on potential hazards might dictate. DSW 122310 Pl-8 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018364 P1.5 ASSESSING IMPACT OF WATER RELEASES P1J.1 Introduction The company will assess releases of water pollutants from new processes or new businesses or existing businesses as new information on potential hazards might dictate. I nlename:sol lmwm.doc (in Nepran M-public) rev. 61919% OSH L223LI Pi-9 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018365 OVERVIEW Program ENV2 Groundwater and Sod Quality Tntrodurtfo" This program describes policies, goals, standards and procedures necessary to implement the groundwater and soil quality aspects of Soluda's commitment to "... ensure that our operations. .. are safe for... the environment" Policy The company will . design and operate facilities to protect groundwater and soil quality, ' groundwater and soil quality at its facilities, pursue remedies for releases that threaten health or the environment, and * address on-site and off-site containment of groundwater and soil attributable to its operating and waste practices to ensure protection of health and the environment Goals The following s jecifiagoa s wflhbd integrated intolfteTSffipany*? groundwater and soil quality plans: j jI --/^\ j P3 I - * J ; 1 i / / 'i \ ! j [ Establishan^ctrvi'groundwaterassessment program at the company's facilities. Ensure there are no adverse public health impacts attributable to the company's wastes. Minimize the financial impact of remedial action and third-party liability attendant to wastj, sites. * Resolve, as soon as reasonably possible, the company's share of liability and remedial plans for Superfund sites where it has a responsibility, while securing timely and cost-effective resolution. Measuring ^ To measure progress against these goals, there will be an annual groundwater assessment at Progress - - - each site.. For Further Information When further information or clarification is required, you may contact the following: ISSUE OWNER Bruce S. Yare, ESH Remediation, F2EA (314)674-6370 Program Approval The content of this program was approved by . . Continued on next page P6-1 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL OSW 122312 HARTOLDMONO018366 OVERVIEW, Continued In This Program This program contains the following procedures. . P6.1 ASSESSMENT P6.2 PROTECTION P63 SUPERFUND Procedures SeePage P6-3 P6-4. P6-5 -OSW 122313 P6-2 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018367 P6.1 ASSESSMENT P6.1.1 Introduction This section describes assessment and response procedures used to accomplish the company's specific goals to . establish an active groundwater assessment program in its facilities, and ensure there are no adverse public health impacts attributable to the company's wastes. P6.1.2 Assessment Plans Programs for assessment and tracking of groundwater quality will be organized at all major locations, and lesser sites that have known groundwater issues. P6.1-3 Corrective Action Appropriate assessment of impacts on human health and the environment will be carried out when on-site waste or groundwater and/or soil contamination is discovered. Corrective action will be taken, as necessary, in a planned, orderly process to remediate soil or groundwater impacts that threaten human health and the environment P6.1.4 Any newly purchased, existing operation will be subjected to the seven-point protocol for Newly Purchased assessment of possible groundwater contamination. The issue owner of this chapter will supply Sites a copy of the assessment protocol upon request. _ <*" t: f , I f t! y i: / / A. \ ! :\ \ it\ \ j_J \ \ _j >2 S* U23K. P6-3 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMON0018368 P6.2 PROTECTION P&2.1 Introduction This section describes operating and design procedures used to accomplish the company's specific goals to ensure there are no adverse public health impacts attributable to the company's wastes. P63-2 Groundwater Protection Plans Each location will maintain a Groundwater Protection Plan that includes inspection, testing and maintenance of facilities that could contaminate groundwater, e.g. I sewers, process lines, sumps, tanks, and loading/unloading areas. _ The groundwater protection plans and designs will be commensurable with the risk posed by the specific situations. -. P6.2J Facility Design To provide improved assurance against groundwater contamination, new, replacement or expansion facility designs (including sewers and lines) will consider such options'as aboveground and/or double containment, improved materials of construction, and/or cathodic protection. /~\ *, n- ,~ New, replacement or expanded surface impoundmcnisJbr wastewater.treatment or storage must be approved by the Policy/Planning Team-on an exception basis. j P6.2.4 Storage Tanks New storage tanks for materials that could cause contamination will be provided with impervious secondary containment (e.g. dikes, liners, vaults, double wall) unless a clear showing is made on a tank-by-tank basis during project reviews that vessel contents (e.g. dilute wastewaters) or setting (e.g. in-battery containment or other adequate containment systems) do, not warrant such containment. Existing storage tanks will be reviewed in normal environmental audits. DSW L223L5 P6-4 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMON0018369 P6.3 SUPERFUND P63.1 Introduction ` This topic describes procedures used to accomplish the company's specific goals to minimize the financial impact of remedial action and third-party liability attendant to waste sites, and resolve its share of liability and remedial plans for sites where it has a responsibility while securing timely and cost-effective resolution. P6J.2 Action to be Taken ' When the company becomes aware of involvement in "Superfund" sites, it will act to ensure that there are no public health impacts attributable to its wastes, actively participate in potentially responsible parties' efforts to achieve settlement, and a laadgrthip mlg, when appropriate, to facilitate resolution. The business units will cooperate to establish responsibility for sites where several units contributed wastes. P6J-3 Legal Approach The company intends a lessened legalistic approach to site cleanup negotiations through the following actions: . | --7^ \ I --r\ * / . \ ' i--------11--, ,-- The compa_njy will pursue fair lcgislhribn and;regulations on thrgencral issues in the public arenacbut minimizing legal-risk will hot be the determining factofinthe site-specific 1 1decision^; L Li U vA U U ' filename.sol6.doc (in Nepran M-public) rev. 6/9/98 DSW 122316 P6-5 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018370 OVERVIEW Program ENV3 Ozone Depleting Chemicals plS.1 Introduction This program describes the policy, scope and site applicability for minimizing the uses and environmental releases of ozone-depleting chemicals (CFCs). P163 Policy The company will initiate actions at all of its sites worldwide to minimize the uses and environmental releases of the chemicals subject to this program, and seek out acceptable substitute chemicals, when possible.,on or before applicable compliance data* set by the site's local country laws and regulations. PI 6.3 Scope The following chemicals are those listed in the Montreal Protocol and are the minimum number subject to this policy. CFC-11 CFC-I2_____ CFC-113~H^'\ CFe-Tlk i ) C^EC-115 > J j Hfalrtn-lbfl '^ Halon-1301 Halon-2402 CFC-13 CFC-111 CPC-112 CFC-211 ___s '-CF0212 :--' >CFC-2li -------- if-- !___ .--, 'CFCSM \ : 1 JCPC-21S--: J1 ' CFC-216 CFC-217 Carbon Tetrachloride Methyl Chloroform Each company site should add to the list any other chemicals of local country concern and treat them according to this policy in conformance with local country laws and regulations. P16.4 Company sites subject to this policy include the following sites where the company owns or Applicable Sites operates facilities that use or contain one of the chemicals subject to this policy: . plants, offices, . R&D facilities, sales offices, and . warehouses. This coverage includes any subsidiary in which the company is a greater than 30 percent owner. Continued on next page P16-1 -OSW 122317 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018371 Ozone Depleting Chemicals, Continued P1&5 For Farther Information When further information or clarification is required, you may contact the following: ISSUE OWNER anrf TECHNICAL CONTACT: Deborah K. Grissett, Senior Environmental Engineer, 1690 (850)968-8839 P16.6 Program Approval The content of this program was approved by fi1enamc:sol 16.doc (jn Neoran M-oublic) rev. 6/9/98 Pi 6-2 DSW 122318 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018372 IV . SAFETY OSH L223L9 HARTOLDMONO018373 draft SOLUTIA INC. SAFETY MANAGEMENT PROCESS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Solutia Commitment Statement 1.2 Purpose 13 Scope 1.4 - For Further Information It is our commitment to ensure our operations and distribution systems are safefor employees, guests, communities and the environment. These safety requirements support Solutia's ESH Commitments and additional efforts in Solutia's Voluntary Protection Program, Responsible Care, and the Behavior Based Safety Process by defining the safety systems necessary to control risks in Solutia's manufacturing facilities. This document describes, in broad terms, the required elements of these systems and defines the level of hazard that a process/operation offers. This document applies to worldwide manufacturing operations where Solutia has direct operation control. Application of its concepts is encouraged in all other Solutia relationships. '' When further information or clarification is required, you may contact the following: John V. Birtwistle Paul M. Villane Dale E. Dressel lJ Document Approval This document was approved bv the Solutia on . Safety Proc.doc Page-1 OSH 122320 Rev. 1/15/98 HARTOLDMONO018374 DRAFT 1.0 INTRODUCTION, Continued 1.6 In This Document This document contains the following sections: . Section 1.0 Introduction 2.0 General Requirements 3.0 Tiered Requirements/Hazard Levels 4.0 Variance Procedure 3.0 'Safety Guidance Documents See Page 1 3 4 7 8 | . Safety Proc.doc Page-2 J)SW 122321 Rev. 1/15/98 HARTOLDMON0018375 draft 2.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 2.1 General .. Requirements These are the minimum requirements for all Solutia sites. Where state, federal, or country regulations are more stringent, they take precedence. Programs with tiered requirement levels (Items 2.12 through 2.15) are discussed in Section 3.0 and the individual requirements document. 2.2 Safety Requirements Document Number Requirement 2.1 Safety Program Management 23 2.3 23.1 2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.4.4 2.4.5 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.10.1 2.103 2.10.3 2,11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 . Contractor Guest Safety Incident Investigation ' Incident Loss Report Safe Work Practices and Operating Procedures Lockout/Tagout Program Hot Work Permit Confined Space Entry Breaking Into Pipelines & Equipment Temporary Connections/Installations/Situations Security Emergency Response Interlock Management . Volunteer Protection Program (VPP) Participation High Hazard Material (HHM) Management Program Fire Protection Fire Protection Impairment Control Fiie Protection Equipment Inspections Acceptance ofNew Fire Protection Installations ESH Compliance Audits ' Training Mechanical Integrity Process Hazard Analysis Management of Change Solutia Injury/Illness Classifying and Reporting Decision Process ~ Safety Proc.doc Page - 3 DSW 122322 Rev. 1/15/98 HARTOLDMONO018376 draft 3.0 TIERED REQUIREMENTS/HAZARD LEVELS 3.1 Introduction This section describes the approach of Tiered Requirements and the Hazard Levels involved in the management of Safety programs. Refer to the individual requirement documents for more details. 3.2 Tiered Requirement Programs . Tiered Requirements have varying degrees of effort and complexity depending on the program and hazard level. In general, the higher the hazard, the more diligent the control measure. . ' Tiered requirement programs include: ' ESH Compliance audits Training Mechanical Integrity Process Hazard Analysis, and Management of Change * . 3.2.1 Auditing ' The intent of the ESH compliance audits are to: confirm that regulatory and Solutia requirement requirements are being met, provide objective feedback to both the location and management that systems are in place and functional, assess safety management and control systems are designed to assure compliance and conformance, and assess Safety conformance with industry accepted standards and good practice. 3.2.1.1 ESH Compliance Audit Techniques The techniques for ESH Compliance Audits are as follows: Level 1 2 3 Audit Group Safety Regional (Corporate) Safety Plant Process Unit Safety Proc.doc Page -4 DSW L22323 Rev. 1/15/98 HART OLDMONO018377 DRAFT 3.0 TIERED REQUIREMENTS/HAZARD LEVELS, Continued 3J~2 Training The intent of training is to: inform the employee (functional, awareness, and management levels) of recognized hazards in the workplace, provide skills so the work can be conducted in a safe and healthy manner for himself, co-workers and the community, and determine the understanding ofthe material for which the training was conducted. 3.2.2.1 Training The requirements for training are summarized in the requirement procedure. 3.2.3 Mechanical The intent of mechanical integrity is to have a documented mechanical integrity Integrity system which includes the following elements: . appropriate design standards, vessel and piping inspection system, relief device testing system, . * fire protection inspection system, and .' system to control replacement of equipment and parts. These requirements will be tiered as described in applicable corporate and site ESH Procedures and engineering standards. 3.2.4 Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) Requirements The intent ofprocess hazard analyses is to : _ identify, evaluate and control the hazards in the process, assign a priority to the recommendations developed, and provide documentation of the review. 3.2.5 Management of Change . The intent of management of change is to: provide a technical basis for the proposed change, assess the impact ofthe change on safety & health, identify required modifications to written documents, identify time period required to incorporate the change, and provide authorization for the change. Safety Proc.doc Page - 5 OSW 122324 Rev. 1/15/98 HART OLDMONO018378 draft 3.0 TIERED REQUIREMENTS/HAZARD LEVELS. Continued 33 Hazard Levels The management of Safety programs is a complex task. In today's environment, elements of Safety are regulated on a number of different levels by national or local laws as well as by internal company requirements and procedures. These requirements provide a holistic view of the Safety programs which provides assurance of external and internal compliance, provide thorough coverage of all aspects ofthe Safety programs referred to in -this requirement document, and . optimizes resources needs with the establishmenrof clear requirements. are based upon defining the level of hazard that a process/operation can offer to the employees that work there. . The following table defines these hazards levels 3.3.1 Hazard Levels Table The following table defines these hazard levels: Level 1 -2 3 4 is a hazard that... can create an immediate life threatening event at the facility fenceline. can create an immediate life threatening event inside the facility or cause health impacts or evacuation outside the facility fenceline. can cause health impacts, personal injury or environmental impact inside a facility. is not beyond those managed by general manufacturing safety practices. This includes... release of toxic-chenficals, and vapor cloud explosions release of toxic chemicals, and . vapor cloud explosions chemical fires, toxic releases, and vapor cloud explosions transportation, personnel safety, and fire protection Safety Proc.doc Page - 6 -DSW 122325 Rev. 1/15/98 HARTOLDMONO018379 DRAFT 4.0 VARIANCE PROCEDURE 4.1' Purpose The purpose of a formal variance procedure is to allow deviations from the requirements in this document. It should be recognized that while these requirements are generally applicable to all facilities, circumstances may dictate the best course of action is a formal variance request, reviewed and approved by management. 4.2 Variance Requested Elements The variance request shall include the following elements: a statement requesting a variance a statement of the deviation and its duration, as existing or proposed, referencing the Safety requirement involved. an assessment ofthe hazards and consequences associated with the deviation, and . an explanation of the proposed variance request would deal with the above. Step 1 2 3 4 5 Action The variance request is submitted to the location's Director of Manufacturing (or equivalent). Director of manufacturer (or equivalent) determines who should review the document. Document is reviewed and comments are gathered. Appropriate disposition of the variance requested is determined* location is notified of results and action plans. All active, approved variances are reviewed during the site's ESH auditing process. Safety Proc.doc Page - ^ OSH 122326 Rev. 1/15/98 HARTOLDMONO018380 health < DSW LZ232J HARTOLDMON 0018381 SOLUTIA INC. INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE MANAGEMENT PROCESS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Solutia Commitment Statement 1.2 Purpose 1.3 Scope 1.4 For Further Information It is our commitment to ensure our operations and distribution systems are safefor employees, guests, communities and the environment. Industrial Hygiene Requirements support Solutia's efforts in Solutia's Voluntary Protection Program, Responsible Care, and the Behavior Based Safety Process by defining the industrial hygiene systems necessary to control health risks at Soluda's locations. This document describes, in broad terms, the required elements ofthese systems. This document applies to worldwide manufacturing operations where Solutia has direct operation control. Application of its concepts is encouraged in all other Solutia relationships. When further information or clarification is required, you may contact the following: Paul E. Shelton Steven N. Hacker Janet L. Weaver '*"* 1.5 Document Approval This document was approved bv the Solutia - on . IH ManPro.doc Page-1 DSW 122328 Revised: 01/15/98 HARTOLDMON0018382 1.0 INTRODUCTIONjContinued I 1.6 ` ' This document contains the following sections: la This Document * Section 1.0 Introduction. 2.0 General Requirements 3.0 Tiered Requirements/Hazard Levels 4.0 Variance Procedure 5.0 IH Guidance Documents See Page | 1 3 . 4 7 8 IH ManPro.doc Page -2 DSW 122329 Revised: 01/15/98 HARTO L DM 0 N0018383 2.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 2.1 General Requirements These are the minimum requirements for all Solutia sites and where state, federal, or country regulations are more stringent they take precedence. 2.2 IH Requirement Documents Document Number 2.1 22 ' 23 2.4 23 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 . 2.10 2.11 2.12 Requirement Hazard Communication - Respiratory Protection Hearing Conservation Ergonomics . Occupational Exposure Control to Ionizing Radiation Local Exhaust Ventilation - Exposure Assessment/Monitoring Frequency Chemical Control Monitoring Data Integrity Automatic Continuous Area Monitors Chemical Protective Clothing/Gloves Laser Safety Program IH ManPro.doc Page -3 DSW 122330 Revised: 01/15/98 HARTOLDMONO018384 3.0 TIERED REQUIREMENTS/HAZARD LEVELS 3.1 Introduction This section describes the approach ofTiered Requirements and the Hazard Levels involved in the management of Industrial Hygiene programs. 3.2 Tiered Requirement Programs 'Tiered Requirements have varying degrees of effort and complexity depending on the program and hazard level. In general, the higher the hazard, the more diligent the control measure. Tiered requirement programs include: Compliance audits Training Routine maintenance/Calibration Monitoring/Assessments .. 3.2.1 Auditing The intent ofthe audits are to: ' confirm that regulatory and Solutia requirements are being met, provide objective feedback to both the location and management that systems are in place and functional, . assess IH management and control systems designed to assure compliance and conformance, and assess IH conformance with industry accepted standards and good practice. 3.2.1.1 Audit Techniques Level 1 2 3 Audit Group IH Regional (Corporate) IH Plant Process Unit ` IH ManPro.doc Page -4 r. DSW L2233J. Revised: 01/15/98 HARTOLDMONO018385 3.0 TIERED REQUIREMENTS/HAZARD LEVELS. Continued 3.2.2 Training The intent of training is to: inform the employee (functional, awareness, and management levels) of recognized hazards in the workplace, ' provide drills so the work can be conducted in a safe and healthy manner for himself, co-workers and the community, and .. determine the understanding of the material for which the training was conducted. 3.2.3 Maintenance/ Calibration The intern ofmaintenance/calibration is to: evaluate systems designed to minimiye employee exposure to hazardous materials to determine ifthey are operating at design specifications and ensure that results are a valid determination of the exposure monitoring and to compare to regulations and guidelines. ' 3.2.4 Monitoring/ Assessments The intent ofmonitoring/assessment is to: document qualitative and quantitative exposure potential determinations for comparison to recognized exposure limits and guidelines, as well as good industry practices. IH ManPro.doc Page-5 DSW 122132 Revised: 01/15/98 HARTOLDMONO018386 3.0 TIERED REQUIREMENTS/HAZARD LEVELS, Continued 33 Hazard Levels The management of Industrial Hygiene programs is a complex task. In today's environment, elements of Industrial Hygiene are regulated on a number of different levels by national or local laws as well as by internal company requirements and procedures. These requirements: i provide a holistic view of the Industrial Hygiene programs which provides assurance of external and internal compliance, provide thorough coverage of all aspects of the Industrial Hygiene programs referred to in this requirement document, -- optimizes resources needs with the establishment of clear requirements, and are based upon defining the level of hazard that a process/operation can offer to the employees that work there. The following table defines these hazards levels. Level 1 2 3 is a hazard that... can create an immediate life threatening event at the facility fenceline or inside the manufacturing department (e.g., ERPG 3 (Emergency Response Planning Guidelines)), relates to the handling of regulated chemicals and known or suspected human carcinogens in manufacturing processes. is related to any material with a recognized exposure limit, has a IDLH value not previously addressed by ERPG 3 values, is a significant physical hazard. is considered a hazardous chemical, but has no recognized exposure limit. This includes... j OSHA regulated chemicals. materials with ERPG-3 values, any material with a country specific regulation, human carcinogens PEL'S, TLVs, MAK's, etc.. Ergonomics noise radiation dusts NOC, p-nitrophenol, boric acid, some consumer products IH ManPro.doc Page - 6 DSW 122333 Revised: 01/13/98 HARTOLDMONO018387 4.0 VARIANCE PROCEDURE 4.1 Purpose The purpose of a formal variance procedure is to allow deviations from the requirements in this document. It should be recognized that while these requirements are generally applicable to all facilities, circumstances may dictate the best course of action is a formal variance request, reviewed and approved by management. 4.2 Variance Requested Elements ' The variance request shall include the following elements: a statement requesting a variance `' a statement ofthe deviation and its duration, as existing or proposed, referencing the IH requirement involved. an assessment of the hazards and consequences associated with the deviation, and an explanation of the proposed variance request would deal with the above. 43 Procedure Step Action -- 1 The variance request is submitted to the location's Director of Manufacturing (or equivalent). 2 Director of manufacturer (or equivalent) determines who should review the document . 3 Document is reviewed and comments are gathered. 4 Appropriate disposition of the variance requested is determined, location is notified of results and action plans. 5 All active, approved variances are reviewed during the site's EHS auditing process. IH ManPro.doc Page - 7 DSW 122334 Revised: 01/15/98 HARTOLDMONO018388 5.0 IH GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS 5.1 Documents Available The following documents are available for additional guidance for Solutia IH issues. Contact your regional IH professional for copies, ifneeded. 1 5.1.1 5.12 IH Bulletins IH Audit Protocol -- IH ManPro.doc Page-8 OSH 122335 Revised: 01/15/98 HARTOLDMONO018389 II I i i i OSU 122336 HARTOLDMONO018390 OVERVIEW Program PS1 Product Stewardship Introduction This program describes the policies, goals, standards and procedures necessary to fulfill the product responsibilities implicit in the Solutia Commitments. Policy The company will research, develop, design, assess, manufacture, market and dispose of its products so that they meet ever-increasing societal expectations, and do not pose undue risks to human health or the environment during all stages of their life cycles- 5w A The company will work with product stakeholders (suppliers, employees, distributors, customers, consumers and disposers) to understand and reduce risks over the life cycle of the company's products. Goals The following specific goals must be integrated into the company's product stewardship plans. Practice the(principles pndJcqy elements, of Product Stewardship, as specified in appropriate programsaround theworitMhail thecompany's-glebal pp?ratiotis-and markets. /\ Provideappmpnate'safety and handling information, indutiing^Ma'ierial Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs), to potentially exposed employees, contract employees and product receivers. NOTE: Materials Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) and Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) are interchangeable terms and refer to similar requirements in different countries. Work toward the goal of no undue risk through systematic risk reduction throughout a product's life cycle. Incorporate concepts of eco-efficiency into product and process evaluations to improve their sustainability. . Gain a competitive advantage by applying product stewardship principles that add value to the company's product offerings. Continued on next page DSW 122337 P4-1 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018391 OVERVIEW, Continued Measuring Progress To measure progress against these goals, the following indicators will be used: Demonstrated progress in meeting internal and external requirements for all new product introductions (i.e., NPPD process, ESHA approvals, and governmental approvals); Demonstrated progress in determining product hazards; Visible growth in knowledge of the use of company products and the resultant exposures to people and the environment; Availability of adequate environmental, safety and health data to the ultimate product receiver, Increased understanding and diminution of the risks and environmental impacts associated with a product throughout its life cycle; and Differentiation of company products in the marketplace. For Further * Information Program Approval When further information or clarification is required, you may contact the following: ISSUE OWNER Jeffrey D. FelderrProdqct Stewardship, F2EC (/<3M14i\)6/^74i-4ii4O8A9 ! I' "V \ ""X ' /.\ H The contentOf tltis-program-was approved by-^ In This Program This program contains the following procedures. - Procedures P4.1 ESH INFORMATION AND RISK CHARACTERIZATION P4.2 RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM P43 PRINCIPLES AND KEY ELEMENTS P4.4 PRODUCT HAZARD EVALUATION See Page P4-3 P4-5 P4-6 P4-8 DSW 122338 P4-2 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018392 P4.1 ESH INFORMATION AND RISK CHARACTERIZATION P4.1.1 Introduction P4.1.2 Definitions This section describes procedures to be used to accomplish the company's specific goals regarding environmental, safety and health information and risk characterization. Terms are used in this program as defined in the following table. Term Product Product Receiver Definition Chemical substances and mixtures, materials and equipment, articles, licensed technology and services related to product use that are sold, distributed in commerce, or otherwise provided. An entity (not an individual) to whom the company transfers product This includes product receivers such as brokers or transporters who may not fall into the traditional customer category. P4.1J Product Risk Characterization A preliminary product risk characterization (ESHA Level 1 to 3, as appropriate, and an R&D MSDS) with adequate-supportingenvironmental.-safetyand-heahh exposure information will be prepared for' ' '' ` ' /' A ' ' ' ' new'xhbmical products; u\ j new isolated process intermediates, and' significant new uses for existing chemical products. >j L_! I--- An MSDS will be furnished at the earliest practical stage of R&D, and prior to off-site shipment. A product risk characterization (including an ESHA Level 4 or equivalent, a final MSDS and a shipping classification) will be completed before new product commercialization. P4.1.4 MSDS Program The company's process for generating, reviewing, and maintaining an MSDS is comprehensive and, when coupled with human experience and professional judgment, fulfills the requirement for a product risk characterization for most products. For products with significant inherent hazafd, an ESHA Level 5 is required. Significant new information will be reviewed in a timely fashion as part of the MSDS program to satisfy regulatory and product risk characterization requirements. An MSDS review/product risk characterization or an ESHA Level 5 is periodically performed commensurate with product risk. Revisions are performed, at a minimum, every five years, unless waived by the VP, ESH based on a consideration of lack of inherent hazard. Continued on next page P4-3 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL OSW L22339 HARTOLDMONO018393 P4.1 ESH INFORMATION AND RISK CHARACTERIZATION, Continued P4.1.5 ' Product Files or Information Systems Product files or information systems will be maintained for all products or product families, and will contain the data necessary to fulfill regulatory requirements and perform product risk characterizations and assessments as appropriate. The data need not be in a single file or system but must be readily available to all likely users (e.g. Product Stewardship and other ESH staff). The'data will include: - Relevant information on composition, CAS name and number, common name and synonyms, physical properties, raw materials, manufacturing processes, principal * byproducts, protective measures, exposure information, energy requirements, wastes and disposal practices, * References to relevant literature or internal reports dealing with health and safety (toxicology, epidemiology, industrial hygiene, flammability, reactivity, etc.), Material Safety Data Sheets, . Information on product use, including handling, transport, packaging and storage, which will either be - estimated (typically for new products), or obtained by visits or reviews of customer, distributor and consumer practices. A critical review of health and environmental effects and exposure information, such as \ ESHA iLevel l ;to 3, as-appropriate; nr ;ESHA Level 4i / :--/ ` ' ESfLUlniSEV J Li Lf U >j Solutia Workplace Permissible Exposure Guideline (SWPEG) Reviews, Health Effect Reviews, and Toxicology Reviews, Technology Risk Reviews, and Allegations of health concerns of customers, employees or the public. D.SW 122340 P4-4 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018394 P4.2 RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM P4J.1 Introduction This section describes procedures to be used to accomplish the company's specific goals regarding systematic risk reduction. P4.2J, Approach A systematic approach to risk management will be implemented and maintained for new products. Existing products will be managed on a case-by-case basis. P4.Z3 Options Risk management options, where needed, will be an integral part of the follow-up to each phase of aproduct risk characterization (as detailed in section 4.1, ESHInformation and Risk Characteraation). P4.Z4 All products will be appropriately labeled for hazard or risk and will conform at a minimum to Product Labeling pertinent governmental requirements and appropriate consensus standards (e.g. OSHA, EU, ANSI, ISO, etc.). P4.25 Documented Actions Documented risk management actions will be recorded in product files. (Examples of specific risk management actions are detailed in section P4.3, Principles and Key Elements.) OSW 122341 P4-5 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018395 P4.3 PRINCIPLES AND KEY ELEMENTS P4J.1 Introduction This section describes procedures used to accomplish the company's specific goals regarding the principles and key elements of Product Stewardship, including product and process design and improvement, employee education, product use feedback, information provided to contract manufacturers, distributors, customers and other direct product receivers, information received from suppliers, and responsibilities involved. P4.3.2 Productand Process Design and Improvement R&D materials used in the laboratory will be handled under Prudent Laboratory Practices (as outlined in TSCA Section 5) or equivalent guidance. Pollution prevention principles (see Program 1, Pollution Prevention) will be included as review criteria in technology risk reviews for new and existing chemicals and will be incorporated into the ESHA, NPPD and equivalent assessments. This includes opportunities for improving energy and resource (e.g. water) efficiency of our products and processes and seeking to replace existing products with those that are more environmentally friendly, as measured by scientifically valid indices that are developed. P4jJ Employee Education Employee education in the safe handling and use of chemicals is addressed in Program 2, P43.4 Product Use Feedback Employees wdrsigmficanttnistouiei 'inleiactiuii will be trained to recognize and feed back to the company's ESH network, information about product use and misuse. Feedback systems are appropriate to listen to stakeholders, including commercial and technical service liaisons with customers, product hotlines, poison control centers, etc. __ , P4J.5 Information Provided to Contract Manufacturers In addition to items covered in Program 7, Outside Processors, the company will provide guidance and information to contractor personnel on the safe handling and transportation of company products. - Continued on next page DSM 122342 P4-6 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018396 P4.3 PRINCIPLES AND KEY ELEMENTS, Continued P4J.6 Information Provided to Direct Product Receivers As appropriate, the company will ensure that MSDSs and other appropriate safety documents are provided to all direct product receivers, actively involve product receivers in dialogue and outreach regarding appropriate risk characterization, management and reduction, i work with the product receiver, when improper practices involving company products are identified, to improve the practices, take appropriate action, including termination of sale if necessary, to obtain adequate improvement, and actively seek product receiver involvement in the continuous improvement of company {noducts and as a means of differentiating those products in the marketplace on the basis of ESH stewardship. P4J.7 Information Received From . Suppliers P4.3.8 Responsibilities Up-to-date product information, sufficient to allow risk management decisions including, as appropriate, composition data and MSDSs, will be obtained from suppliers for all new materials. In addition, suppliers-wjll be-engaged asmecessaryrin-assessing environmental, safety and health impacts of raw'materials, commensurate with raw materiaTrisks. | !?| -- / /\ \ i it ____________________ Product stefta^ship-rcf]X)n5ibilities are shared^among ESH IboduerS^wardship staff and product stewards in each business and world area.. DSW L22343 P4-7 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018397 P4.4 PRODUCT HAZARD EVALUATION P4.4.1 Introduction Solutia's products will not present an unreasonable risk of harm to human life or health or the environment when they are properly handled, transported or used. P4.4J2 Responsibility ESH Product Stewardship has the responsibility for assessing hazards, if any, of chemicals that Sohitia produces or imports. This includes evaluating the adequacy of data developed to assure the safety and environmental aspects of products and intermediates produced in Solutia workplaces and shipped to Solutia customers. .' P4.4.3 Safety and Environmental Compatibility Assessment Each new chemical or proposed new use of an existing chemical will undergo a safety and environmental compatibility assessment Established products will be periodically reviewed to assure that their characteristics have been adequately assessed and classified and that a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) exists with health and safety information. Final approval of physical and health hazard assessments will be rendered by the Leader, Product Stewardship (UPS) or designee. The L,PS will inform the Leader, Medical & Epidemiology of all assessments. P4.4.4 Hazard Assessment Solutia products and chemicals will be carefully evaluated for potential for human injury and environmental damage. As appropriate, ESH Product Stewardship will consider the following in performing hazard assessments: Product and-Chcmical Name. "\ * * * CAS n_umbe. r (ifay.aila,ble_)_--_'i. Ii Common names and.synonyms _. -` /A\ / j_\ \ Tradenames --' ' 5 * ' ----- ' Molecular wetghf Physical propeny data Composition including known or expected impurities -- Expected major areas of use and volume Toxicity known --' Expected environmental impact from manufacturing process wastes and from product use ' and disposal Molecular and structural formula Countries of production and sales P4.4.5 Hazard Determination The Hazard Assessment will be used to make the hazard determination required by the appropriate Hazard Communication Standard and regulations (Table I). Professional judgement will be required in defining the scope of the assessment review. Computer data bases such as MSHI.MSDSARIEL Query will be used to determine the applicable regulatory requirements for Solutia products and components of Solutia products. Continued on next page DSW 12214*4 P4-8 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018398 P4.4.6 Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) Product Stewardship will update Soluda product and intermediate MSDSs when it becomes aware of significant new information. Supplier-provided MSDSs will be accepted as factual and will be used for employee training and for developing MSDSs for products containing these materials. P4.4.7 Other Existing Legal Requirements In addition to the MSDS effort described above, some products may also be evaluated under other applicable laws such as FIFRA, TSCA, FFDCA, CEPA, EU Dangerous Substances Directives, EU Existing Substances Regulations, etc. These may require different approaches to support regulatory approval and compliance. Table 1 Country or Region /MSDS standard or regulation USA / OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) EU / Commission Directive 93/112/EC . Requirement Appendices A and B Annex J)SW 1223<5 P4-9 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018399 Procedure PS2 Premanufacture Notification to United States Environmental Protection Agency Under The Toxic Substances Control Act OVERVIEW Introduction This section describes the company's procedure for development of premanufacture notification (PMN) to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as required under Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Requirements Abstract A PMN is required to be submitted to USEPA for all new < before the substance can be manufactured for commercial purposes. NOTE: A number of substances are exempted from these requirements including, but not limited to. drugs, food and food additives, pesticides, |-------- -N i-------- j-- R&D substancT\ \ | ' ) ) j t-x \ nonisolated intermediates, and. /^\ substances on thrTffcX inventory. /-----\ \ For Further Information When further information or clarification is required, you may contact the following: ISSUE OWNER & TECHNICAL CONTACT: Jeffrey D. Felder, Product Stewardship, F2EC (314)674-4489 Procedure Approval This procedure was approved by Continued on next page CP4-1 OSW 122346 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018400 OVERVIEW, Continued In This Procedure The following areas are covered in this procedure: Areas CP4.1 PMN REQUIREMENTS CP4.2 PMN PROCESS CP4J FOLLOWUP ON A PMN CP4.4 RESPONSIBILITIES SeePage CP4-3 CP4-5 CP4-8 CP4-10 CP4-2 OSH L22342 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018401 CP4.1 PMN REQUIREMENTS CP4.L1 Introduction This section describes the various requirements for the development of premanufacture notifications. CP4.1.2 PMN Determination Checks At a very early stage of new product development, including isolated intermediates and new imports, several checks should be made to determine if a PMN will be required for the product These checks include determining if the product is exempt under TSCA, or . 'new" under TSCA. CP4.U Exemptions CP4.1.4 Exemption ( References ' Section 2(b) of.TSCA exempts broad classes of substances such as pesticides, food, food additives, mixtures and others. The PMN rule exempts small quantities for R&D purposes, substances for test marketing low volume and polymer manufacture, impurities, some byproducts, . some articles, and nonisolated intermediates. . I ' \| ' i ! /A\ i I j | r\ Refer to-TSCA law and regulatiSns' orthe company's PMN manuaTfottietails or contact . t..... 11 --TTi rrw* C M liti it'll ^^ - the businesSunirPtoduct Stewardship Manager, or the Leader, Product Stewardship (UPS). CP4.1.5 TSCA NonConfidendai Inventory To determine if the substance is "new" under TSCA, the Product Stewardship ManagefsSbulT' search the TSCA nonconfidential inventory for the substance. If the substance is on the TSCA nonconfidential inventory, it is not new under TSCA definition and a PMN is not required. CP4.1.6 TSCA Confidential Inventory If the substance in question is not on the nonconfidential inventory, the confidential inventory must be searched. To Starch the confidential inventory, a Bom Fide Intent to Manufacture (BIM) notice must be submitted to USEPA. A copy of the instruction for submitting a BIM can be found in 40CFR720.25. Send a copy of the BIM to the L,PS for corporate recordkeeping purposes. CP4.1.7 New Substances If USEPA reports that the substance is not on the confidential inventory, then the substance is a new substance under TSCA and a PMN is required unless the material is exempt under Section 4.1.3. CP4-3 . Continued on next page OSH .122348 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018402 CP4.1 PMN REQUIREMENTS, Continued CP4.1J Each PMN will identify a technical contact in addition to an authorized official. The technical Contacts Listed contact will typically be a commercial development representative, an R&D contact, or l* . the business unit's Product Stewardship Manager. CP4.1.9 Submission Timing The PMN must be submitted to USEPA at least 90 days before the product can be manufactured for commercial purposes, including test marketing. CP4-4 4>SW 122349 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018403 CP4J. PMN PROCESS CP4.2J1 Introduction This section details the process necessary to develop a PMN. CP4^2 Procedure Details CP4.2J Initiating a PMN The PMN process should be integrated into the development scheme of a new project. In most cases, the PMN development will be initiated during the earliest phases of commercialization of a product i____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The following table lists the steps necessary to initiate a PMN. Step Action 1 Business unit Product Stewardship Manager submits an ESHA document, if one has not already been submitted, to the Toxicology Group. NOTE: See ESHA Procedures. 2 Business unit Product Stewardship Manager drafts a PMN using USEPA form. 3 Business unit Product Stewardship Manager calls a scoping meeting, consisting of, at a minimum, the business unit contact/Product Stewardship Manager, . the business unit technical contact, --an aquatic toxicologist^-. ,---------- j,----------- xmarnmaliamoxicolbgist, and i 1 * - the LP,S. --' / /\ \ ------ > L_//|--il/^A j ^>5 Copierof the-PMN"drafis, along1 with approved~ESHA for the substance are supplied to the participants in advance. NOTE: The scoping meeting can be bypassed at the discretion of the business unit Product Stewardship Manager. 4 A scoping meeting is held with decisions made by the business unit Product Stewardship Manager regarding the scope and detail of optional information to supply, the need for an optional risk analysis and, if desired, assignments to toxicology, industrial hygiene, etc., and the need for an ESHA before PMN submission. NOTE: It is appropriate at this stage of product development to initiate a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and a TF-837 for label and freight classification. Continued on next page CP4-5 DSW 122350 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018404 CP4.2 PMN PROCESS, Continued CP4.2.4 The following table lists the steps involved in finalizing a PMN: Finalizing a PMN Step . Responsible Person(s) Action 1 Business unit Product Prepares final draft using input from the scoping Stewardship Manager meeting as well as followup input from Toxicology. 2 Business unit Product * Reviews final draft for confidential information, Stewardship Manager and with patent department Develops appropriate confidentiality claims with representative substantiation, where necessary. -- 3 Scoping meeting participants Circulate final draft for review. 4 Business unit Product Calls meeting for final comments/approvals, if Stewardship Manager needed. CP4^5 PMN Information Required The required PMN information falls into the category of either Genera] Information or Risk Assessment Data. USEPA will accept additional data. To assist USEPA with their assessment, in manycasps iri5~desirabie,tcrsub riskanalysis. --1J / i\ \ pollutiohprcventlondata, orl 1 / f I >3 other information. Since the company performs a risk analysis on all new products via the Commitment Manual and the ESHA procedures, the information is available for this purpose. CP4.2.6 PMN Information References Final rules detailing PMN requirements can be found in 40CFR720. All PMNs must be submitted on USEPA Form 7710-25 (5/95). Copies of this form and instructions for its use are available from the L.PS. . CP4.2.7 PMN Submissions After final review/approval, the business unit Product Stewardship Manager forwards the PMN to the business unit Director of Technology (authorized official) for submission. ' The submission will include both confidential and nonconfidential PMNs using applicable USEPA requirements. A copy of each will be provided to the UPS for recordkeeping purposes. Continued on next page CP4-6 DSW L2235.1 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018405 CP4.2 PMN PROCESS, Continued CP4.2J PMN Fees A $2500 fee, sent to a separate USEPA office from where the PMN is sent, is required for all PMNs. Exceptions are . intermediates filed at the same time as the final product ($1,000 fee), or exemptions (zero cost). t A unique six-digit TS-user fee identification must be assigned to each PMN, and appear on the check. t :i CP4-7 DSW .122352 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018406 CP43 FOLLOWUP ON A PMN CP4J.1 Introduction This section describes how PMN followup is handled. CP4J3 The USEPA may USEPA Followup extend the review period by an additional 90 days, ask for more information under Section 5(e), issue a jointly agreed upon consent order which can include restrictions on manufacture or use in lieu of information, and restrict manufacture or use under Section 5(f). CP4.3-3 Company Followup The company may request USEPA to stop the clock on PMN reviews at any time during the review period, and commence manufacturing at any time after the USEPA review period expires, subject to any 5(e) or 5(f) restrictions. CP43.4 Notice of Commence to Manufacture (NCM) A NoticeafCpmmemxh)Uarn^actureQiCM) musrbe'submittedj(o USEPA within 30days of the first-manufacture for comfiierciatl purposes. I ^ II i : j i U-->. 7 \i >J The informatioirtoixrincluded iirtherrotice hrdetailcd in 40CFR720. Confidential claims must be made again at this time, as appropriate. Send a copy of the NCM to the LJPS for corporate recordkeeping purposes. _ Once an NCM is filed with the USEPA, the PMN substance is placed on the TSCA inventory. Continued on next page CP4-8 XISW 122353 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018407 CP43 FOLLOWUP ON A PMN, Continued CP4Ji Phone Contact All calls from the USEPA will be handled as follows: ' CaO Content Response/Action Non-confidential inquiries Confidential inquiries All verbal responses Discuss at time of call, or defer to obtain answer if unknown or if unsure of USEPA's authority in asking question. Follow up with written response when deemed appropriate. Discuss at discretion of technical contact if inquiry was previously discussed with USEPA or claimed confidential in the PMN. Address all other verbal confidential inquiries by written response only. ' . Follow up, at technical contact's discretion, with written letter documenting conversation and indicating areas of confidentiality. Give copy to L*PS. -- CP4-9 DSW 122354 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018408 CP4.4 RESPONSIBILITIES CP4.4.1 Introduction This section describes responsible parties and responsibilities involved in the PMN process. CP4.42 Responsible Parties and Responsibilities The following table describes persons involved in the PMN process and their responsibilities. Responsible Party Responsibilities . Business Unit Product . Stewardship Manager Determines if product is - exempt under TSCA, - on TSCA non-confidential inventory, or - on TSCA confidential inventory. Receives information regarding PMN, Drafts a PMN, Calls and makes decisions at scoping meetings, Prepares and reviews PMN final drafts, Forwards PMN to the DRM, TSCA, and Follows up on the PMN submission. ' Business Unit Director, <C* Serves as company's authorized official, and __ *n SubmitsPMNs to USEPA. !l ? j1 ! RevSjws'and approves aU PMNs, | J j- ' Servesias reference `for details regardingPMNs; Receivercbpies of BlMs for corporate recordkeeping, Serves on scoping committee, Provides PMN submission forms, Maintains copies ofPMNs submitted to USEPA, and Receives copies ofNCMs for. recordkeeping. __r Technical . Contact (as described in Section P4.1.8) Receives calls from USEPA on technical matters, Documents conversations with USEPA and forwards copies to L,PS, and Determines if written responses to USEPA conversations are necessary. filenamc:Pcom4.doc fin Neman M-private) rev. 6/9/98 CP4-I0 OSH 12.2353 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONOOI8409 Procedure PS3 Recording Allegations of Significant Adverse Reactions Under the Toxic Substances Control Act OVERVIEW Introduction This section describes the company's procedure for handling the Recordkeeping Requirements of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) Final Rule Under Section 8(c) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Similar requirements in other nations are referenced. Abstract of 40 CFR Part 717 Manufacturers And certain processors of chemical substances and mixtures must maintain records of significant adverse reactions to health or the environment alleged to have been caused by a substance, mixture, article, process, effluent or emission. These records are subject to USEPA inspection. (Reference: 40 CFR Part 717 - 48 FR 38178 - August 22,1983) . NOTE: The Rule does not apply to pesticides, food, food additives, drugs or cosmetics when manufactured, processed or distributed only for these uses. For Further Information When further information or clarification is required, you may contact the following: ISSUE OWNER ^TECHNICAL CONTACT Jeffreyfl'Felddr, Product Stewardship^ E2EG U---(314)674^89 j :--[_: |j \_A Procedure Approval This procedure was revised and approved by Continued on next page CP3-1 OSH 122356 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018410 OVERVIEW, Continued . In This Procedure The following procedures are covered in this section: Procedures CP3.1 ADVERSE REACTION ALLEGATIONS HANDLING CP3.2 HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL ALLEGATIONS HANDLING CP3.3 LITIGATION CLAIMS APPENDIX CP3-A - Reporting Form for Allegations of Significant Adverse Reaction to Health APPENDIX CP3.B - Flow Diagram of Solutia Procedure for Handling Allegations Subject to TSCA 8(c) APPENDIX CP3.C - TSCA 8(c) Review Procedure of Litigation Claims See Page CP3-3 CP3-6 CP3-9 CP3-10 CP3-11 CP3-12 CP3-2 OSW 122357 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOL D MO N0018411 CP3.1 ADVERSE REACTION ALLEGATIONS HANDLING CP3.1.1 Introduction CP3.L2 Definitions This section describes the procedure for handling allegations of adverse reactions under TSCA. The table below defines terms used in this procedure. (See Section 717.3 of the Rule for a complete listing of definitions.) Term Definition Allegation Known human effect A statement made without formal proof or regard for evidence. NOTE: In this instance, the alleeation infers that a chemical substance or mixture has caused a significant adverse reaction to health or the environment. A commonly recognized human health effect of a particular substance or mixture described in: * scientific articles or publications abstracted in standard reference sources, or the firm's product labeling or material safety data sheets (MSDS). NOTE: An effect is not a "known human effect'' if it meets anv of the following criteria: significantly more severe toxic effect than previously described, _ manifestation of-a toxiceffect after-a^ignificantly shorter exposure nN period'or exposure level,thamiescriberf,. or ; manifestation pfa toxic effect by an expbsureroute different from j that described,--, \ j | jj Significant adverse reaction Reactions that may indicate a substantia] impairment ofjiormal activities, or_ long lasting or irreversible damage to health or the environment CP3.1J Rule Exemptions The following are exemptions from the Rule that relate to the company: * Activities involving solely mining or other extractive functions, * Significant adverse reactions that are known human effects, and * Significant adverse reactions to the environment directly attributable to incidents of environmental contamination that have been reported to the United States federal government under any applicable authority. Continued on next page CP3-3 DSW 122358 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018412 CP3.1 ADVERSE REACTION ALLEGATIONS HANDUNG, Continued CP3.1.4 Allegation Receptors ' Because allegations can come from a variety of sources including employees, contractors. customers and neighbors, the company's receiving network must be broad. Initial receptors include . plant, laboratory and other company location supervision, plant and other company location managers, the company's medical community at all locations, % . the business unit ESH liaisons, ' sales and marketing contacts, switchboard operators at all locations, and environmental network contacts. CP3.1.5 ' Key Contacts Each domestic plant or other company-designated domestic location or laboratory will have at least one identified and trained TSCA Section 8(c) key contact Key contacts for the general offices will be the business unit Product Stewardship liaison, and 0 cul --`'f tk, * the director of gradual Stewamiihip (DPS), ar-designee.-------- . [ i--n'N ^ ) / A \ h-------h Tn . The busmesrtinit Product StcwardsTiipliaisoh has thejrsponsibilityunder this procedure for free-standingdiyisions^hd subsidiaries efwhichithe companyi owns 50 percent or more of the voting stock or other equity rights, or * has power to control the management and policies of the firm. CP3.1.6 Recordkeeping The TSCA Section 8(c) file will be kept in the Office of the Director, Product Stewardship. The file structure will conform to requirements of Section 717.15 of the Rule. CP3.1.7 Hies pertaining to adverse reactions to health of employees will be retained for 30 years. Record Retention Hies pertaining to other adverse reactions will be maintained for five years. . Continued on next page CP3-4 DSW 1.2235S COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018413 CP3.1 ADVERSE REACTION ALLEGATIONS HANDLING, Continued CP3.1JJ Disposition of written allegations will be communicated back to the individual making the Communicarions allegation. The key contact will facilitate the communication. A summary of the TSCA Section 8(c) procedure will be periodically communicated to all affected employees, and * updated as appropriate. CP3.1.9 Recording Oral Allegations Solutia Form 8(c)A (shown as Appendix CP3A) is available to be used for all employee related oral allegations of health effects and can be used at the discretion of the business unit Product Stewardship Liaison for external oral health allegations. All key contacts must note the date of receipt on a written allegation. CP3-5 OSH 122360 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMON0018414 CP3-2 HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL ALLEGATIONS HANDLING CP3.2.1 Introduction This section describes the procedure for handling health or environmental allegations. This procedure is further shown on a flowchart in Appendix CP3.B. rpt ll Review and Decision Process The company's Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(c) procedure consists of a four-step review and decision process as detailed in the following table. . NOTE: A determination that an allegation is not recordable under the Rule can be made at any step in the process. Step Action . 1 Initial receptors will transfer to the key contact at their location * persons making oral allegations, and * 'Written allegations. Decisions regarding the disposition of allegations are made according to the following table: If_ and ~ then -- the initial receptors are die members of either the allegation Occupational Medicine is oral group-fphysicians) or,, the business unit:--\ / A \ ** < 'Product Stewardship / -Liaison--/| ; j j /^\ ! these individuals may judge at Step One if the allegation is excluded. i i r-\ :// the decision is made that the allegation is excluded the allegation is oral or written it will not be acted on under this procedure. the allegation is not excluded the allegation is oral the key contact will inform the alleger that such allegation may be recordable under the Rule, and request that the alleger submit a written and signed allegation to the key contact. Continued on next page CP3-6 T)SW 122361 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMON0018415 CP3.2 HEALTH AND. ENVIRONMENTAL ALLEGATIONS HANDLING, Continued CP3^2 Review and Decision Process (con't) Step Action 2 The key contact at a location or the appropriate business unit Product Stewardship Liaison or DPS for the general offices will provide company employees with Form 8(c)A for oral allegations. The written allegations will then be reviewed by a key contact who will make a decision according to the following table: . . If- and -- then -- the allegation is written the allegation is exempt from it will be discarded. the Rule the allegation is not exempt it will be sent to the appropriate business unit Product Stewardship Liaison for review. 3 The business unit Product Stewardship Liaison will review allegations received from location key contacts and general office key contacts. If the allegation is not recofdablrupder the Rule. it.wiU be discarded" ; i !i !__/ i i ----- </ // i; \\ \\ -----) / ------- \ . i l t / . Continued on next page CP3-7 0SW 122362 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMON0018416 CP3.2 HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL ALLEGATIONS HANDLING, Continued CP322 Review and Decision Process Step ' Action 4 The Director, Product Stewardship (DPS), will form a committee to make decisions with respect to allegations that must be recorded under the Rule. This committee will be chaired by the DPS and consist of the appropriate members of OM director for human effects, -Toxicologists for human effects, Environmental scientists for environmental effects, and Environmental Law. Step 4 decisions will be made according to the following table: If- then -- and -- the allegation is not recordable under theRule__ ^ the allegation will be discarded "< Ml. !!-- the business unit Product Stewardship Liaison will .provide feedback to the - -location key contact.. the allegation^ -- 'thcDPSiwill place-the j '"s recordable wider allegationand documents[_j the Rule mandated by the Rule in the TSCA Section 8(c) file and will notify the ESH staff at Louvain-La-Neuve (LLN) and LaSalle >>' CP3.23 Wear-Dated Hotline Allegations received by the Wear-Dated hotline will be handled as follows: Step Action _____________ . *1 Allegations received by the Wear-Dated hotline will be documented by the phone operator on a standard form. 2 The documented call will be reviewed by the Product Stewardship Liaison for TSCA 8(c) relevance. 3 The hotline allegations that are judged by the Product Stewardship Liaison as meeting TSCA 8(c) recordkeeping requirements will be forwarded to the DPS for filing. . CP3-8 DSW 122363 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMON0018417 CP33 LITIGATION CLAIMS CP3-B.1 Introduction CP333 Detailed Procedure This section describes the procedure necessary to process litigation claims. The steps for handling litigation claims are detailed below. _________ ________________________________________ Step Action 1 (a) Litigation complaints will be reviewed by the law department asking the following questions for relevance to TSCA 8(c) recordkeeping: * Is the claim against a Soluda product or process? * Is the produces) in question one that is covered by TSCA, i.e., other than pesticide, herbicide, food, food additive or pharmaceutical? . Is the claim a health or environmental claim? (b) If all criteria are met, the claim will be sent to the OM director. 2 (a) Litigation claims forwarded to the law department will be reviewed by OM based on EPA's definitions of , known human effects, and . significant adverse reactions (40 CFR 717). (b) OM may need to contact the environmental scientist for assistance with environmental effects or toxicologists for assistance as to human effects. (c) Claims meeting TSCA 8(c) aiteria'Will'beTorwafded to the DPS for filing. 1 ; t i | -----V / A \ I `------ ; j 1 'CX "id) Claims^hat do not meet this^cntcria will be dropped'fromfurther TSCA review of this stepr1 " --1 !--1 1 u' 3 The DPS will request from the Law Department a copy of the complaint, abstract and answer. 4 The Law Department will forward a copy of the complaint, abstract and ansWEr to'' the DPS for filing in the TSCA 8(c) file and notify the ESH staff at LLN and LaSalle. The complaint, abstract and answer will constitute the TSCA 8(c) recordable allegation and followup for all litigation filings. CP333 Flow Diagram A flow diagram of the TSCA 8(c) process for litigation complaints appears as Appendix CP3.C. filcnamc:Pcom3.doc fin Nepran M-private) rev. 6/9/98____________________ CP3-9 ' 122164 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018418 TO: SITE KEY CONTACT. APPENDIX CP3A Form 8(c)A 10/97 REPORTING FORM FOR ALLEGATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE REACTION TO HEALTH Toxic Substances Control Act, Section 8(c) 40 CFR Part 717 Name of Allegen_____________________________ Address: (If not employee) ' _____________________________________________ Date: / /(mc/date/yr) Site Location: Site Loc. Code: (If health effect only): M___ F_____ (check one) Year of Birth: _ Employer (if other than Solatia): ______________________________________ DESCRIPTION OF ALLEGED ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECT: i 5i 1. What is the health effect oeihg claimed? / 2. How long did it last?. 3. How often have you experienced effect? 4. In what way did it affect your normal activities? 5. How were you exposed? What substance, mixture, process or operation do you think caused the effect you described: ___________________________________________________________________ Signature For company use only: Received on:_______________ By: -OSW 122365 CP3-10 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMON0018419 APPENDIX CP3.B Flow Diagram of Solutia Procedure for Handling Allegations Subject to TSCA 8 (c) CP3-H OSW 122366 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018420 APPENDIX CP3.C TSCA 8 (c) Review Procedure of Litigation Claims Complaint, abstrac and answer filed ir TSCA 8(c) fila Notify ESH staff at LLN 8 LaSalle plan * ' CP3-J2 OSU 12Z36J COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMON0018421 Procedure PS4 Transmittal to the United States Environmental Protection Agency of Substantial Risk Information Under The Toxic Substances Control Act OVERVIEW Introduction This section describes the company's procedure for handling the reporting of information to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under the 8(e) substantia] risk section of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Similar requirements that may exist in other nations are referenced. Abstract of TSCA 8(e) Requirements TSCA Section 8(e) requires that the EPA be immediately informed of any person (company) who . manufactures, processes or distributes in commerce a chemical substance or mixture, and obtains information which reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment For Further Information Jeffrey D. Felder, Product Stewardship, F2EC (314)674-4489 Procedure Approval The content of this procedure was approved by ' CP2-1 DSW 1223*8 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONOOI8422 CP2.1 DETAILS CP2.1.1 Introduction This section gives details on the company's method for handling the reporting of information to the USEPA under TSCA 8(e) and for transmitting information to other world areas that may now or in the future have similar requirements. CP2.1.2 Reporting Responsibility The requirements of Section8(e) of the TSCA apply to ".umy person who manufactures, processes or distributes in commerce. * It is the company's position that the *person ' who engages in the commercial activity is only the business organization, whether a sole proprietorship, corporation, partnership or association. CP2.1.3 Designated Company TSCA 8(e) Individuals Company organizations that might receive TSCA 8(e) information will have a designated individual to whom such information shall be communicated. At least annually, the Leader, Product Stewardship, will publish a list of the designated individuals. CP2.1.4 Employee Notification of 8(e) All exempt company employees throughout the world and others so designated by their organizational unit (plant nurses, contract physicians, scientists and engineers, etc.) within organizations that might receive or have access to TSCA 8(e) information, shall be informed of the provisions of Section 8(e), and CP2.1.5 Information Transmittal Chain Information of the type given in the requirements abstract and detailed by EPA in their TSCA Section 8(e) Reporting Guide dated June 1991, should follow the following information transmittal chain: "^ Employee submits information to supervisor, Supervisor immediately relays information to the location or department manager, whichever is applicable, . Location or department manager transmits information to the proper designated individual in the organization, and Designated individual transmits information directly to the Leader, Product Stewardship. CP2.1.6 It is imperative that the flow of information through this transmittal chain be rapid. In the event Timing of of non-availability of a member of the communication network at the time information is first Information Flow obtained, such member should be bypassed in the interest of speed. Continued on next page CP2-2 -OSH 122369 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018423 CP2.1 DETAILS, Continued CP2.L7 Records of Information All individuals involved in submission of substantial risk information to the Leader, Product Stewardship should keep a record of date of receipt and pertinent identifying details. CP2.1.8 8(e) Committee The designated official 8(e) committee will make decisions with respect to information that must be reported to the EPA under Section 8(e) of the TSCA. This committee will be comprised of the following; the Senior Medical Officer, Lead, Product Stewardship Risk Assessment & Risk Management, Environmental Counsel, Leader, Product Stewardship, ' the appropriate business unit ESH Business Liaison and/or Product Stewardship Manager, and Additional ad hoc members may be asked to participate as circumstances may require. CP2.1.9 Committee Decisions Appropriate seniormanhgement-wil) be Informed ofcommitree-decisions. . .......!...; .......t . I-- **' / / A/ A\ \ | izI_z___ , i. j ^ . In the evjent .that a committCcdecisiorvis not unanimous, the next appropriate level of managemenl-shall-bc-consulted andkhematter-willbe resolved at therfughest level, if necessary. Minutes of the meeting will be retained by the Leader, Product Stewardship who will arrange for notification of action to the submittor. In the event that the committee decides information must be reported to EPA, ESH staff at Louvain-La-Neuve and LaSalle plant will also be informed so that they may comply with similar requirements that may exist in their world areas. The Leader, Product Stewardship will make notifications that may be required by other world areas. CP2.1 DETAILS, Continued CP2-3 DSM 122370 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMON0018424 CP2.1 DETAILS, Continued CP2.1.10 Employee Notification of Committee Action Information submitted by employees will be handled according to the following table: . __________ It- and-- - then-- . An employee submits information An employee submits information directly to the EPA without the company's prior knowledge the information is submitted through company channels the employee will be notified of action taken by the 8(e) committee and the reasons for such action. the company has evaluated and determined the infcarnation is not reportable under 8(e) ' the company should review the situation to determine what action, if any, it should take with the EPA. fi]enme:Pcom2.doc (in Neprin M-privnc) rev. 6/9/98 CP2-4 DSW L2237JL COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018425 Procedure PS5 Transmittal of Toxicology and Health-Related Data To United States Regulatory Agencies OVERVIEW CP6.1 Introduction CP(L2 Policy CP6-3 Test Data Submission This section describes the policy and procedure for supplying health-related information to regulatory agencies. Health-related information should be submitted through ESH Stewardship. All toxicology or health-related data will be reviewed with ESH Stewardship prior to submission to any regulatory agency. CP6.4 Human Health Effects Data CP6.5 Human Health Effects Data If the submission include data on human health effects, it is preferable that the information be submitted to the, reguIatory,-agency by theESH Toxicology Team., I /A \ The letter Of transmiSah'foiLany toxicology ochealJth-related data musrinclude a list of the materials being transmitted, including sufficient bibliographic information for subsequent retrieval of the original data. Any such information transmitted must be recorded and the copy of the final submission retained by both -- the Leader, Product Stewardship, and the involved business unit.. Continued on next page CP6-1 OSW 122372 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018426 Transmittal of Toxicology and Health-Related Data to United States . Regulatory Agencies, Continued CP6.6 Regulatory Agency Agreements CP6.7 - Exceptions CP6.8 For Further Information CP6.9 Procedure Approval Agreements with a regulatory agency that commit the company to the future transmittal of toxicology or health-related data must ' * be reviewed and approved in advance by ESH Leader, Product Stewardship, have concurrence of ESH Leader, Product Stewardship regarding the feasibility of meeting commitment dates, and have appropriate records of such commitments maintained by both the involved business unit and ESH Leader, Product Stewardship in order to ensure future compliance with such agreements/ Any exceptions to the above must be approved by the Leader, Product Stewardship. When further information or clarification is required, you may contact the following: ISSUE OWNER: Jeffrey D. Felder, Product Stewardship, F2EC (314)674-4489 ]E ,TECHNICAL CONTACT! i A \ I [--, FrederidtJtTohannsen, 1Product Stewardship, F2EC--; (314)674^15 j LIlt-xAU The content of this procedure was approved by filenirae:Pcon>6.doc (in Ncprcn M-privalc) rev. 6/9/98 CP6-2 J3SW 122373 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018427 OVERVIEW Program PS6 Use of Animals in Research Facilities Introduction Policy For More Information . Program Approval This program contains details of the company's policy and practices regarding the use of' animals in research facilities. The company will ensure that all animals used on its behalf in its research programs * are involved in projects of importance to society, and receive humane and professionally competent care and treatment When further information or clarification is required, you may contact the following; . ISSUE OWNER: Frederick R. Johannsen, ESH, F2EC (314)674-8815. __^ \ The content-pf t lis progriu i waZapproyedty LJyi r~i i / 1 \ ! I l/ / t \ r^ P15-1 OSW 122374 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018428 P15.1 DETAILS P15.1.1 Introduction This section describes the details of the company's practices regarding the use of animals in contract research facilities. . PI5.1.2 Background The company develops industrial products that are used to better the quality of human life throughout the ` world, and . * works to ensure that these products - provide valuable benefits to society, and - are safe to use. P15.1J Need for Use of Laboratory Animals In conducting research to ensure product efficacy and safety, company scientists use a variety of new technologies, such as ' computer models, cell culture systems, and other processes. These technologies are used to * identify effective products early in the process, and \. * detect potential health problems or rirk JC i ^i--1 11 These systems areltmjtcd, however, because they do not fullyjepreisenfthe complex processes of the human body. For this reason, product research and evaluation requires the use of laboratory animals. P15.1.4 Information Requirement The company requires all scientists, technicians and managers associated with animal research ^ programs to be fully cognizant and supportive of the specifics and spirit of this chapter. Continued on next page P15-2 DSW L22373 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018429 P15.1 DETAILS, Continued P15.1.5 Program Supervision The facilities contracted to support company animal research are directed and monitored by an attending doctor of veterinary medicine, and fully accredited by the American Association for the Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAQ. P15.1.6 Research Animals Used Since rodents account for over 90% of all research subjects, the vast majority of animals used are rabbits, rats and mice. The remainder includes dogs, pigs, sheep, cattle, goats and occasionally monkeys. NOTE: The company does 21 contract with laboratories that buy animals from pounds or shelters. P15.1.7 Animal Use Protocol Since the company's goal is to give the highest consideration to the well-being of all animals used in research, it requires that contract laboratories follow these steps: 1 STEP ACTION ` 1 Assien aircompany research animals to a snecihc orotocol under the direction of -^'principal investigator. / A \ | i------, j | i / {i \ / "' \ j = ;j | ^Reriew-eaph protocol according to procedures prescribaLbygovernmental regulations amTadhered to'by the'ACUC. NOTE: This must be done before research can commence. 3 Review and approve each protocol by an attending veterinarian and the ACUC. 4 Maintain records of research use and routine care for each animal. --r Continued on next page Pi 5-3 OSH 1223-26 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMONO018430 P15.1 DETAILS, Continued P15.1.8 Research Facilities The company requires that its contractors conduct all animal research in modern, wellmaintained facilities that meet or exceed all regulatory standards. P15.1.9 Information Requests General information on the company's policy and procedures regarding animals used in - research may be requested from Solutia ESH Communications, 10300 Olive Boulevard, P.O. Box 66760, Sl Louis, Missouri 63166-6760. The telephone number is (314) 674-8552. filename:sol 15jdf.doc (in Nepran M-public) rev. 61919% P15-4 osw 122377 COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL HARTOLDMON0018431 V IA . U C U U i'A i 1U N A I. MEDICINE osw 122378 HARTOLDMONOOI8432 REFERENCE OSW LZ237S HARTOLDMONO018433 CROSS-REFERENCE: COMMITMENTS MANUAL AND RESPONSIBLE CARE(R) (to be written) filenamercrsref.doc (in Nepran M-private) &SW 122380 HARTOLDMONO018434 SPONSIBLE CARE DSW 122381 HARTOLDMONO018435 ws, responsible Care A Public Commitment Guiding Principles As a member of the Chemical Manufacturers Association, this company is committed to support a continuing effort to improve the industry's responsible management of chemicals. We pledge to manage our business according to these principles: . To recognize and respond to community concerns about chemicals and our operations. To develop and produce chemicals that can be manufactured, transported, used and disposed of safely. To make health, safety and environmental considerations a priority in our planning for all existing and new products and processes. . To report promptly to officials, employees, customers and the public, information on chemical-related health or environmental hazards and to recommend protective measures. To counsel customers on the safe use, transportation and disposal of chemical products. To operate our plants and facilities in a manner that protects the environment and the health and safety of our employees and the public. """ To extend knowledge by conducting or supporting research on the health, safety and environmental effects of our products, processes and waste materials. To work with others to resolve problems created by past handling and disposal of hazardous substances. To participate with government and others in creating responsible laws, regulations and standards to safeguard the community, workplace and environment. To promote the principles and practices ofResponsible Care* by sharing experiences and offering assistance to others who produce, handle, use, transport or dispose of chemicals. OSW 122382 HARTOLDMONO018436  Responsible Care A Public Commitment 10 Elements of Responsible Care Guiding Principles - These statements ofthe philosophy ofResponsible Care outline each CMA member and Partner's commitment to environmental, health, and safety responsibility in managing chemicals. Members and Partners pledge to manage their businesses according to these principles. * Codes of Management Practices At the heart ofthe Responsible Care initiative are the six codes of management' practices. The Codes focus on management practices in specific areas of chemical operations. Members and Partners must make continuous progress in attaining the goals of each Code. The Community Awareness and Emergency Response (CAER) Code promotes emergency response planning and calls for ongoing dialogue with local communities. The Pollution Prevention Code commits industry to the safe management and reduction of wastes. The Process Safety Code is designed to prevent fires, explosions, and accidental chemical releases. The Distribution Code focuses on reducing employee and public risks from the shipment of chemicals and applies to the transportation, storage, handling, transfer and repackaging of chemicals. The Employee Health and Safety Code protects employees and visitors at company sites. The Product Stewardship Code makes health, safety and environmental protection an integral part ofdesigning, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, using, recycling and disposal of products. Public Advisory Panel A group of environmental, health and safety thought leaders assists the industry in identifying and developing programs and actions that are responsive to public concerns. DSW 122383 HARTOLDMONO018437 Self-Evaluations . Members and Partners submit reports annually on their progress in implementing each of the Codes. These self-evaluations provide a measure of company progress and are a valuable management tool for CMA and individual companies in directing assistance efforts. Measures of Performance Recognizing the need for measurement that goes beyond self-evaluations, performance measures are being developed for each ofthe Codes. Through these measures, the industry and the public will gain a better appreciation for the progress CMA members and Partners are making in carrying out Responsible Care. Management Systems Verification The Management Systems Verification process assists members and Partners in their management and implementation ofResponsible Care . The process provides participating companies with an external view ofthe effectiveness oftheir management systems for carrying out Responsible Care and helps demonstrate the integrity of the initiative to key audiences. Executive Leadership Groups Senior level support for Responsible Care continues to be an essential ingredient ofthe initiative's success. Regular regional meetings provide a forum for senior executives to share experiences and take action on advancing the implementation ofResponsible Care. Mutual Assistance Direct company-to-company mutual assistance has surfaced as one ofthe most effective methods for advancing Responsible Care. Members and Partners at the executive contact. Responsible Care Coordinator, and practitioner levels regularly share information through the mutual assistance network, often through state chemical -- associations, which are vital to the success ofthe network. Partnership Program The Partnership Program provides an opportunity for those who otherwise may not be eligible for membership in CMA to participate directly in the Responsible Care initiative. Companies that take ownership or possession of chemicals and chemical-related associations are eligible for membership in the Responsible Care Partnership program. Obligation of Membership CMA Bylaws obligate member companies to participate in Responsible Care as defined by the Board. This includes ascribing to the Guiding Principles, participating in the development of the initiative and making good faith efforts to implement the program elements of the Responsible Care initiative. OSW 122384 HARTOLDMONO018438 Responsible Care A Public Commitment Community Awareness and Emergency Response Code of Management Practices Purpose: The goal ofthe Community Awareness and Emergency Response (CAER) Code of Management Practices is to assure emergency preparedness and to foster community right-to-know. It demands a commitment to openness and community dialogue. The code has two major components: first, to assure that member facilities that manufacture, process, use, distribute or store hazardous materials initiate and maintain a community outreach program to openly communicate relevant, useful information responsive to the public's questions and concerns about safety, health, and the environment; and second, to help protect employees and communities by assuring that each facility has an emergency response program to respond rapidly and effectively to emergencies. The community outreach component will communicate program activities and performance under all codes of management practices and will promote an open, ongoing dialogue with employees and the community. Information should be provided about such activities as waste minimization, emission reduction, health effects of chemicals, and efforts to ensure the safe transport of chemicals. The CAER Code ofManagement Practices is supported by, and will build on, CMA's CAER process. CAER supports the community's right to know about chemical industry operations and their effect on safety, health, and the environment. CAER originally was a voluntary initiative focused on emergency response issues. The new CAER Code of Management Practices broadens the facility-community dialogue to cover the full range of safety, health and environmental issues. Relationship to Guiding Principles: The Code helps achieve several ofthe Responsible Care(r) Guiding Principles: To recognize and respond to community concerns about chemicals and our operations. To report promptly to officials, employees, customers, and the public, information on chemical-related health or environmental hazards and recommend protective measures. 4 DSW 122385 HARTOLDMONO018439  To participate with government and others in creating responsible laws, regulations, and standards to safeguard the community, workplace and environment. To promote the principles and practices ofResponsible Care(r) by sharing experiences and offering assistance to others who produce, handle, use, transport, or dispose of chemicals. Management Practices; A. Community Awareness and Outreach * Member facilities that manufacture, process, use, distribute or store hazardous materials shall have a community outreach program that includes: For Employees: 1. An ongoing assessment of employee questions and concerns about the facility. 2. Communications training for key facility and company personnel who communicate with employees and the public concerning safety, health, and environmental issues. 3. Education of employees about the facility's emergency response plan and safety, health, and environmental programs. 4. An ongoing dialogue with employees to respond to their questions and concerns and involve them in community outreach efforts. - - 5. A regular evaluation ofthe effectiveness ofthe ongoing employee communications efforts. For Community: 6. An ongoing assessment of community questions and concerns about the facility. 7. An outreach program to educate responders, government officials, the media, other businesses and the community about the facility's emergency response . program and risks to the community associated with the facility. 8. A continuing dialogue with local citizens to respond to questions and concerns about safety, health, and the environment, and to address other issues of interest to the community. 3 DSW 1223B6 HARTOLDMONO018440 9. A policy of openness that provides convenient ways for interested persons to become familiar with the facility, its operations, and products, and its efforts to protect safety, health, and the environment. 10. A regular evaluation ofthe effectiveness ofthe ongoing community communications efforts. B.Emergency Response and Preparedness Member facilities that manufacture, process, use, distribute or store hazardous materials shall have an emergency response program that includes: 1. An ongoing assessment of potential risks to employees and local communities resulting from accidents or other emergencies. 2. A current, written facility emergency response plan which address, among other things, communications and the recovery needs of the community after an emergency. 3. An ongoing training program for those employees who have response or communications responsibilities in the event of an emergency. 4. Emergency exercises, at least annually, to test operability ofthe written emergency response plan. 5. Communication ofrelevant and useful emergency response planning information to the Local Emergency Planning Committee. 6. Facility tours for emergency responders to promote emergency preparedness and* --^ to provide current knowledge offacility operations. 7. Coordination of the written facility emergency response plan with the comprehensive community emergency response plan and other facilities. Ifno plan exists, the facility should initiate community efforts to create a plan. 8. Participation in the community emergency response planning process to develop and periodically test the comprehensive community emergency response plan developed by the Local Emergency Planning Committee. 9. Sharing ofinformation and experience relating to emergency response planning, exercises, and the handling of incidents with other facilities in the community. 6 0SW U238J HARTOLDMONO018441 Responsible Care A Public Commitment Pollution Prevention Code of Management Practices Purpose: This Code is designed to achieve ongoing reductions in the amount of all contaminants and pollutants released to the air, water, and land from member company facilities. These reductions are intended to respond to public concerns with the existence of such releases, and to further increase the margin of safety for public health and the environment. The Code is also designed to achieve ongoing reductions in the amount ofwastes generated at facilities. These reductions are intended to help relieve the burden on industry and society ofmanaging such wastes in future years. In implementing the Code, each company should strive for annual reductions, recognizing that production rates, new operadpns, and other factors may result in increases. Despite these fluctuations, however, the goal is to establish a long-term, substantial downward trend in the amount ofwastes generated and contaminants and pollutants released. Quantitative reduction goals will be established for giving priority to those pollutants, contaminants and wastes ofhighest health and environmental concern. _ This code also includes practices that address the broader waste management issues ^ beyond source reduction and other waste and release reduction efforts. Each member company must manage remaining wastes and releases in a manner that protects the environment and the health and safety of employees and the public. This Code complements, and should be implemented in conjunction with current and future Codes ofManagement Practices. Key terms are defined in the Glossary, which should be consulted for assistance in interpreting the provisions of this Code. Relationship to Guiding Principles: Implementation ofthis Code helps achieve the following Guiding Principles: To recognize and respond to community concerns about chemicals and our operations. To develop and produce chemicals that can be manufactured, transported, used and disposed of safely. . 7 DSW 122388 HARTOLDMONO018442  To make health, safety, and environment considerations a priority in our planning for all existing and new products and processes. To report promptly to officials, employees, customers and the public, information on chemical-related health or environmental hazards and to recommend protective measures. To operate our plants and facilities in a manner that protects the environment and the health and safety of our employees and the public. To extend knowledge by conducting or supporting research on the health, safety, and environmental effects of our products, processes, and waste materials. To promote the principles and practices ofResponsible Care by sharing experiences and offering assistance to others who produce, handle, use, transport, or dispose of chemicals. To work with others to resolve problems created by past handling and disposal of hazardous substances. To participate with government and others in creating responsible laws, regulations and standards to safeguard the community, workplace and environment. To promote the principles and practices ofResponsible Care by sharing experiences and offering assistance to others who produce, handle, use, transport or dispose of chemicals. Management Practices: _ Each member company shall have a pollution prevention program which shall include: 1. A clear commitment by senior management through policy, communications, and resources, to ongoing reductions at each ofthe company's facilities, in releases to the air, water, and land and in the generation ofwastes. 2. A quantitative inventory at each facility ofwastes generated and releases to the air, water, and land, measured or estimated at the point ofgeneration or release. 3. Evaluation, sufficient to assist in establishing reduction priorities, ofthe potential impact ofreleases on the environment and the health and safety of employees and the public. 4. Education of and dialogue with, employees and members of the public about the inventory, impact evaluation, and risks to the community. X>SW 122389 HARTOLDMONO018443 Establishment ofpriorities, goals and plans for waste and release reduction, taking into account both community concerns and the potential health, safety, and environmental impacts as determined under Practices 3 and 4. Ongoing reduction ofwastes and releases, giving preference first to source reduction, second to recycle/reuse, and third to treatment. These techniques may be used separately or in combination with one another. Measurement ofprogress at each facility in reducing the generation ofwastes and in reducing releases to the air, water, and land, by updating the quantitative inventory at least annually. Ongoing dialogue With employees and members ofthe public regarding waste and release information, progress in achieving reductions, and future plans. This dialogue should be at a personal, face-to-face level, where possible, and should emphasize listening to others and. discussing their concerns and ideas. Inclusion ofwaste and release prevention objectives in research and in design of new or modified facilities, processes, and products. An ongoing program for promotion and support ofwaste and release reduction by others, which may, for example, include: . a. Sharing of technical information and experience with customers and suppliers; b. Support of efforts to develop improved waste and release reduction techniques; c. Assisting in establishment ofregional air monitoring networks; d. Participation in efforts to develop consensus approaches to the evaluation of environmental, health, and safety impacts of releases; e. Providing educational workshops and training materials; . f. Assisting local governments and others in establishment ofwaste reduction programs benefiting the general public. Periodic evaluation ofwaste management practices associated with operations and equipment at each member company facility, taking into account community concerns and health, safety, and environmental impacts and implementation of ongoing improvements. 9 DSW 122390 HARTOLDMONO018444 12. Implementation of a process for selecting, retaining, and reviewing contractors and toll manufacturers taking into account sound waste management practices that protect the environment and the health and safety ofemployees and the public. 13. Implementation of engining and operating controls at each member company facility to improve prevention of and early detection ofreleases that may contaminate groundwater. - i 14. Implementation of an ongoing program for addressing past operating and waste management practices and for working with others to resolve identified problems at each active or inactive facility owned by a member company taking into account community concerns and health, safety, and environmental impacts. Industry Trend Data: To develop and maintain statistical industry trends, CMA will collect currently available data. Each company shall report annually to CMA, or its designated agent, for each facility: Releases ofsubstances as reported under SARA Section 313; and Wastes generated, as defined and reported in CMA's annual waste survey. 10 HARTOLDMONO018445  responsible Care A Public Commitment Process Safety Code of Management Practices Purpose: The Process Safety Code is designed to prevent fires, explosions and accidental chemical releases. The Code is comprised of a series of management practices that reflect this goal, with the expectation of continuous performance improvement for each management practice. The practices are based on the principle that facilities will be safe ifthey are designed according to sound engineering practices, built, operated and maintained properly and periodically reviewed for conformance. Process safety is an interdisciplinary effort. Consequently, the Code is divided into the following four elements: management leadership, technology, facilities and personnel. Each element is composed ofManagement Practices. Individually, each Practice describes an activity or approach important to preventing fires, explosions and accidental chemical releases. Collectively, the Practices encompass process safety from the design stage through operation, maintenance and training. The scope ofthis Code includes manufacturing, processing, handling and on-site storage of chemicals. This Code must be implemented with full recognition of the community's interest, expectations and participation in achieving safe operations. . The process safety management program in each facility is complemented by workplace health and safety programs, as well as waste and release reduction programs which address and minimize releases and waste generation. These three programs, and others, will help assure that CMA member facilities are operated in a manner that protects the environment and the health and safety ofpersonnel and the public. Relationship to Guiding Principles: The Code helps achieve several of the Responsible Care Guiding Principles: To recognize and respond to community concerns about chemicals and our operations. To make health, safety and environmental considerations a priority in our planning for all existing and new plants and processes. . 11 OSW 122392 HARTOLDMONO018446  To operate our plants and processes in a manner that protects the environment and the health and safety of our employees and the public. Management Practices: Each member company shall have an ongoing process safety program that includes: Management Leadership 1. Leadership by senior management through policy, participation, communications and resource commitments in achieving continuous improvement of performance. 2. Clear accountability for performance against specific goals for continuous improvement 3. Measurement of performance, audits for compliance and implementation of . corrective actions. 4. Investigation, reporting, appropriate corrective action and follow-up of each incident that results or could have resulted in a fire, explosion or accidental chemical release. - 5. Sharing of relevant safety knowledge and lessons learned from such incidents with industry, government and the community. 6. Use ofthe Community Awareness and Emergency Response (CAER) process to assure public comments and concerns are considered in design and implementation of the facility's process safety systems. Technology; . 7. Current, complete documentation ofprocess design and operating parameters and procedures. . 8. Current, complete documentation ofinformation relating to the hazards of materials and process technology. 9. Periodic assessment and documentation ofprocess hazards, and implementation of actions to minimize risks associated with chemical operations, including the possibility ofhuman error. 10. Management of changes to chemical operations to maintain or enhance the safety originally designed into the facility. 12 DSW 122393 HARTOLDMONO018447 Facilities: 11. Consideration and mitigation of the potential safety effects of expansions, modifications and new sites on the community, environment, and employees. 12. Facility design, construction and maintenance using sound engineering practices consistent with recognized codes and standards. 13. Safety reviews on all new and modified facilities during design and prior to start -up. 14. Documented maintenance and inspection programs that ensure facility integrity. 15. Sufficient layers of protection through technology, facilities and employees to prevent escalation from a single failure to a catastrophic event. 16. Provision for control ofprocesses and equipment during emergencies resulting from natural events, utility disruptions and other external conditions. Personnel: . 17. Identification ofthe skills and knowledge necessary to perform each job. 18. Establishment ofprocedures and work practices for safe operating and maintenance activities. 19. Training for all employees to reach and maintain proficiency in safe work practices and the skills and knowledge necessary to perform their job. 20. Demonstrations and documentation of skill proficiency prior to assignment to independent work, and periodically thereafter. 21. Programs designed to assure that employees in safety critical jobs are fit for duty and are not compromised by external influences, including alcohol and drug abuse. 22. Provisions that contractors either have programs for their own employees consistent*with applicable sections ofthis Code or be included in the member company's program, or some combination ofthe two. 13 DSW 122394 HARTOLDMONO018448 Glossary This Code uses key terms in a context that may be broader than their associated regulatory definitions. However, adherence to this Code does not relieve a company ofthe obligation to meet Federal, state and local regulatory requirements. Process Safety - The application ofmanagement and engineering principles to prevent fires, explosions and accidental chemical releases at chemical process facilities. Sound Engineering Practice - The application ofmandatory codes and standards supplemented by the use ofvoluntary codes, standards and guidelines, tempered by professional judgment. . Safety Critical Jobs - Jobs, activities and tasks, if improperly performed, that have the potential to significantly increase the risk ofa fire, explosion or accidental chemical release. . Accidental Chemical Release - Unplanned, sudden releases ofchemicals from manufacturing, processing, handling and on-site storage facilities to the air, water or land. It does not include permitted or other releases. 14 DSW 1-2239.5 HARTOLDMONO018449 Responsible Care A Public Commitment Distribution Code of Management Practices Purpose; The purpose ofthe Distribution Code ofManagement Practices is to reduce the risk of harm posed by the distribution of chemicals to the general public; to carrier, distributor, contractor and chemical industry employees; and to the environment. Adherence to the code will lead to continually safer chemical distribution and help member companies to: evaluate the risks associated with chemical distribution and methods to reduce those risks; meet or exceed all regulations and industry standards governing chemical distribution; provide emergency advice and/or assistance to people on the scene in the event of a chemical distribution emergency, develop new technologies and methods to improve chemical distribution safety. The code will also promote improvements in: employee preparedness and awareness in preventing distribution emergencies; the safety performance of carriers and other providers of distribution services; the public's preparedness in responding to chemical distribution emergencies; the public's understanding of and confidence in, industry efforts to improve chemical distribution safety. 15 DSW 1223-96 HARTOLDMONO018450 The Distribution Code ofManagement Practices applies to all modes oftransportation (highway, rail, marine, air and pipeline) and to the shipment of all chemicals, including chemical waste. The code also applies to distribution activities (storage, handling, transfer and repackaging) while chemicals are in transit between member companies and their suppliers and customers. The implementation of a number ofpractices ofthe code will vary according to the characteristics ofthe chemical being distributed, the mode of transportation and the type of distribution activity involved. Relationship to Guiding Principles: This code helps achieve several Responsible Care Guiding Principles: To recognize and respond to community concerns about chemicals and our operations; To make health, safety and environmental considerations a priority in our planning for all existing and new products and processes; To counsel customers on the safe use, transportation, and disposal of chemicals; To operate our plants and facilities in a manner that protects the environment and the health and safety of our employees and the public; To participate with government and others in creating responsible laws, regulations and standards to safeguard the community, workplace and environment; and ??????? To promote the principles and practices ofResponsible Care by sharing experiences and offering assistance to others who produce, handle, use, transport or dispose of chemicals. . Management Practices: Each member company shall have an ongoing chemical distribution safety program that includes senior management commitment through policy, communications and resources to improvements in chemical distribution safety. The program should include the following elements: 1. Risk Management 1.1 Regular evaluations of chemical distribution risks which consider the hazards of the material, the likelihood of accidents/incidents and the potential for human and environmental exposure from release of the material over the route oftransport. 1.2 Implementation of chemical distribution risk reduction measures that are appropriate to the risk level. . 16 122397 HARTOLDMONO018451 1.3 Internal reporting and investigation of chemical distribution accidents/incidents, and implementation of preventive measures. 2. Compliance Review and Training 2.1 A process for monitoring changes and interpretations ofnew and existing regulations and industry standards for their applicability to the company's chemical distribution activities, and for implementing those regulations and standards. 2.2 Training for all affected company employees in the proper implementation of' applicable regulations and company requirements. 2.3 A program for providing guidance and information to carriers, distributors and contractors who perform distribution activities for the company on the company's training and compliance requirements for the activities. ' 2.4 Regular reviews of company employee, carrier, distributor and contractor compliance with applicable regulations and company requirements. 3. Carrier Safety ' 3.1 A process for qualifying carriers ofall modes and types (common, contract, private and customer controlled) that transport chemicals to and from company facilities that emphasizes carrier safety fitness and regulatory compliance, and includes regular reviews of their performance and compliance. 3.2 Feedback to carriers on their safety performance and suggestions for improvement. 4. Handling and Storage --* . 4.1 Documented procedures for the selection and use ofcontainers that are appropriate for the chemical being shipped, in compliance with testing and certification requirements, and free ofleaks and visible defects. 4.2 Documented procedures for loading chemicals at company facilities that will reduce emissions to the environment, protect personnel and provide securement of the ladingldurihg transit. 4.3 Documented procedures for unloading chemicals at the company's facilities that will reduce emissions to the environment, protect personnel, and provide for safe unloading into proper storage facilities. 4.4 Defined criteria for the cleaning and return of tank cars, tank trucks, marine vessels, and retumable/refillable bulk and semi-bulk containers, and for the proper disposal of cleaning residues. . 17 DSW 122398 HARTOLDMONO018452 4.5 A program for providing guidance and information to customers, distributors, and other receivers on proper procedures for unloading and storing the company's chemicals. - 4.6 A process for selecting distributors and other facilities that store or handle the company's chemicals in transit that emphasizes safety fitness and regulatory compliance and includes regular reviews oftheir performance and compliance. 4.7 Feedback to distributors and operators of other facilities that store or handle . chemicals in transit on their safety performance and suggestions for improvement. 5. Emergency Preparedness 5.1 A process for responding to chemical distribution accident/incidents involving the company's chemicals. . 5.2 Documented procedures for making information about the company's chemicals in distribution available to response agencies. 5.3 A program for making facilities and/or training materials available to emergency response agencies. . . 5.4 Dialogue with state and local emergency planning organizations on the distribution and hazards ofthe company's chemicals to improve community preparedness to respond to chemical distribution emergencies. ' 5.5 Dialogue with the public on their concerns about chemical distribution safety, actions taken by the industry and the company to improve the safety of chemical distribution, and the effectiveness of emergency preparedness and emergency --< response assistance. 18 DSW L2239U9 HARTOLDMONO018453  Responsible Care A Public Commitment Employee Health and Safety Code of Management Practices Purpose: The goal of the Employee Health and Safety Code ofManagement Practices is to protect and promote the health and safety of people working at or visiting member company work sites. To achieve this goal, the Code provides Management Practices designed to continuously improve work she health and safety. These practices provide a multidisciplinary means to identify and assess hazards, prevent unsafe acts and conditions, maintain and improve employee health, and foster communication on health and safety issues. Implementation ofthe Employee Health and Safety Code, together with other Codes of Management Practices, can enable member companies to operate in a manner that further protects and promotes the health and safety of employees, contractors, and the public, and protects the environment. Relationship to Guiding Principles: _ _ Implementation ofthe Code helps achieve several ofthe Responsible Care Guiding * Principles: To recognize and respond to community concerns about chemicals and our operations. To make health, safety, and environmental considerations a priority in our planning for all existing and new products and processes. To operate our plants and facilities in a manner that protects the environment and the health and safety ofour employees and the public. To extend knowledge by conducting or supporting research on the health, safety, and environmental effects of our products, processes, and waste materials. 05w ,122V00 HARTOLDMON0018454 Management Practices: Each member company shall have an ongoing occupational health and safety program that includes: Program Management 1. Commitment by all levels of management to protecting and promoting the health and safety of people working at or visiting member company work sites, through: published policies; accountability for implementation; and provision of sufficient resources, including qualified health and safety personnel. 2. Opportunities for employees to participate in developing, implementing, and reviewing health and safety programs. 3. Provisions, including selection criteria, to confirm that on-site contractors* programs are consistent with applicable Management Practices of this Code. 4. Written, up-to-date health and safety programs and procedures appropriate to the facility. 5. Means to verify that health and safety programs and procedures are effective and that actual practices are consistent with these programs and procedures. 6. Systems for maintaining records and analyzing data to evaluate health and safety performance, determine trends, and identify areas for improvement. Identification and Evaluation: 7. Methods to identify and evaluate potential health and safety hazards in planned or ~ existing facilities, including facilities to be modified. 8. Exposure assessments and safety analyses to evaluate health and safety hazards to employees from processes; equipment; potentially hazardous chemical, physical, or biological agents; or other work site conditions. 9. Health assessments to determine employee medical fitness for specific job tasks. 10. Employee occupational medical surveillance programs tailored to work site hazards. OSH 122401 HARTOLDMONO018455 Prevention and Control: 11. Mechanisms for reviewing the design and modification offacilities and job tasks, taking into account the following hierarchy of controls: inherent safe design, material substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment 12. Systems to verify that health and safety equipment is properly selected, maintained, and used. 13. Preventive maintenance and housekeeping programs to maintain the safety of facilities, tools, and equipment 14. Timely investigation ofwork site illnesses, injuries, and incidents; corrective actions to prevent recurrence; and evaluation ofthe effectiveness ofcorrective actions taken. 15. Security procedures and systems to control entry and exit ofpersonnel and materials at the work site and restricted areas. 16. Provisions for emergency medical assistance for people at work sites. Communications and Training: 17. Communication ofhealth and safety information that is relevant to specific job tasks and the work rite. 18. Health and safety training programs, including documentation of these"programs, and methods to evaluate the effectiveness ofboth training and communications ^ activities. Trend Industry Data: To identify industry trends, each company shall report to CMA, or its designated agent, occupational injuries and illnesses, as specified in CMA's Occupational Injury and Illness Reporting Program. Relationship to Other Codes of Management Practices: This Code complements, and should be implemented in conjunction with, current and future Codes ofManagement Practices, especially those elements ofthe CAER Code involving emergency response, the Process Safety Code involving training ofemployees in their job functions, and the Product Stewardship Code involving health, safety, and environmental information, and employee education and product use feedback. 21 OSW 122402 HARTOLDMONO018456  Responsible Care A Public Commitment Product Stewardship Code of Management Practices Purpose and Scope: The purpose ofthe Product Stewardship Code ofManagement Practices is to make health, safety and environmental protection an integral part ofdesigning, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, using, recycling and disposing of our products. The Code provides guidance as well as a means to measure continuous improvement in the practice of product stewardship. The scope ofthe Code covers all stages of a product's life. Successful implementation is a shared responsibility. Everyone involved with the product has responsibilities to address society's interest in a healthy environment and in products that can be used safely. All employers are responsible for providing a safe workplace, and all who use and handle products must follow safe and environmentally sound practices. The Code recognizes that each company must exercise independent judgment and discretion to successfully apply the Code to its products, customers and business. Relationship to Guiding Principles: Implementation ofthe Code promotes achievement of several ofthe Responsible Care Guiding Principles: To make health, safety and environmental considerations a priority in our planning for all existing and new products and processes; To develop and produce chemicals that can be manufactured, transported, used and disposed ofsafely; ~ To extend knowledge by conducting or supporting research on the health, safety and environmental effects of our products, processes and waste materials; - To counsel customers on the safe use, transportation and disposal of chemical products; To report promptly to officials, employees, customers and the public, information on chemical-related health or environmental hazards and to recommend protective measures; 22 L22403 HARTOLDMONO018457 To promote the principles and practices ofResponsible Care by sharing experiences and offering assistance to others who produce, handle, use, transport or dispose of chemicals. Management Practices: Each company shall have an ongoing product stewardship process that: Management Leadership and Commitment: 1. LEADERSHIP: Demonstrates senior management leadership through written policy, active participation and communication. 2. ACCOUNTABILITY and PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT: Establishes goals and responsibilities for implementing product stewardship throughout the organization. Measures performance against these goals. 3. RESOURCES: Commits resources necessary to implement and maintain product stewardship practices. Information and Characterization: 4. HEALTH, SAFETY and ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: Establishes and maintains information on health, safety, and environmental hazards and reasonably foreseeable exposures from new and existing products. 5. PRODUCT RISK CHARACTERIZATION: Characterizes new and existing products with respect to their risk using information'about health, safety, and environmental hazards and reasonably foreseeable exposures. Establishes a system that initiates re-evaluation. Risk Management: 6. RISK-MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: Establishes a system to identify, document, and implement health, safety and environmental risk-management actions appropriate to the product risk. 7. PRODUCT and PROCESS DESIGN and IMPROVEMENT: Establishes and maintains a system that makes health, safety and environmental impacts--including the use of energy and natural resources--key considerations in designing, developing and improving products and processes. 23 OSH 1224J04 HARTOLDMONO018458 8. EMPLOYEE EDUCATION and PRODUCT USE FEEDBACK: Educates and trains employees, based on job function, on the proper handling, recycling, use, and disposal of products and known product uses. Implements a system that encourages employees to feed back information on new uses, identified misuses or adverse effects for use in product risk characterization. 9. CONTRACT MANUFACTURERS: Selects contract manufacturers who employ appropriate practices for health, safety and environmental protection for the operations under contract, or works with contract manufacturers to help them implement such practices. Provides information and guidance appropriate to the product and process risk to foster proper handling, use, recycling and disposal. Periodically reviews performance of contract manufacturers. 10. SUPPLIERS: Requires suppliers to provide appropriate health, safety and environmental information and guidance on their products. Factors adherence to sound health, safety, and environmental principles, such as those contained in Responsible Care, into procurement decisions. . 11. DISTRIBUTORS: Provides health, safety and environmental information to distributors. Commensurate with product risk, selects, works with and periodically reviews distributors to foster proper use, handling, recycling, disposal and transmittal of appropriate information to downstream users. When a company identifies improper practices involving a product, it will work with the distributor to improve those practices. If in the company's independent judgment, improvement is not evident, then the company should take further measures -- up to and including termination of the business relationship. This Management Practice should be implemented in conjunction with the Distribution Code of Management Practices. 12. CUSTOMERS AND OTHER DIRECT PRODUCT RECEIVERS: Provides health, safety and environmental information to direct product receivers. Commensurate with product risk, works with them to foster proper use, handling, recycling, disposal, and transmittal of appropriate information to downstream users. When a company identifies improper practices involving a product, it will work with the product receiver to improve those practices. If in the company's independent judgment, improvement is not evident, then the company should take further measures -- up to and including termination of product sale. Relationship to Other Codes of Management Practices: This code complements, and should be implemented in conjunction with, current and future Codes ofManagement Practices. 24 DSW 122405 HARTOLDMONO018459 I Monsanto DSW 117549 HARTOLDMONO018460  Adams, L. - 1155 Cahoon, C. - 1580 Easterday, P. A. - A3HL Allen, R. L. - 1580 Anderson, C. P. - 1560 Camacho, L. - 5300 Campbell, W. J. - 02H Edwards, D. B. - :-G5NT Edwards, R. J. - R3B Anderson, J. D. - F2WA Canaster, F. D. - 1880 Eley, B. W. - C2SB . . Andrea, I. - 5090 Auxeafans, B. P - G3SA Carpenter; W.-' D. - 03E Caruthers, R. R. - 1087 Elias, J. - Medvy KentUK- ; Ellis, J. - Edmntn,AlbCAN^V YI. Ceyanes, R. 1200 Ellsworth, G. M. - 1775 /' - Baier, M. E. - 1820/00-7 Chamberlain, D.-BrlngtnOntCan Elmer, C. - A3NB ' Balan, C. A. - 1500 Barnett, A. G. - C2SB Barnett, J. W. - A3ND Barrett, R. J. - 1260i Chan, S. - Hong Kong Chandra, Dr. U.-BrazilCBE Chavez, A. - 5300 ` Cheever, R. L. - 1060 Eltz, R. W. - GG3K English, H. B. - G5WA Ereaut, G. A. - 5020 (5) Erndle, J. F. - G5EA Beaver, E. R. - 1752 Choi, B. D. - 5280 ES&H Library - A3NH Becker, R. P. - 1700 Clark, R. - Malvern PA Evans, T. F. - A3NA . Begin, M. - CambrdgeOntCA Clarke, P. - ^ Belle, R. J. - G5NL Clayton, R. A.'rijj3E2A' . ' Farr, C. H/ - A2NE W i.'C'J Benoit, J. P. - 5090 Clegg, G. Sr. Ti;;SZ70f. ... Farris, R.- H.. -T76 Berendt, R. T. - E2NF 'Colbert, W. Fj,^ 1700.-. Fay, E. A. - 1290 'r'- ' Berger, R. - LaPorte, TXy Collier, C. B. - 1690 Felder, J. D. - G4.WE ;. .. Bingham, J. B. - B2NA ' Collier, J. Rj:;^. 1220 y. -Ferguson, J. J..'-'vSOO'O ; Bisbee, J. - 1880 . Condray, J. R.;r A3NA i . Fields, R. L. - C2HF:`:V: "'05 Bishop, D. R. - G4WA. ' . Conner, P. R. -.>A3NB . . Fiorelli ,:-A.'- C. - 1870 v'"- Bishop, J. E. - 1900 U. Cook, C. W. - 5270 " Fissmer, R. J. - G5EA Blackerby, D. - 1835 ` Corbett, H. J. - DID Fitzgerald,-X. F. - tJ4EH Blank, T. L. - 1740 " Corey, Jr. A. G. - 1775 Flynn, R. E. ^ 1729* Blase, W. A. - G4EM ; Corley, T. L. - 1560 Folk, R. M. - EHL :/ Blaylock, M. E. - B3NA Corser, M. ,L. - 1260 Foppe", D. R.:^-- EHL ' - Board, W. J. - 1690 Crone Jr., R. F. - 1690 ` ,Ford, A. M. U4E . Boesch, L. J. - G5NV Crowe, W.R. - 5010 .. Foresman^; IT.: R. - 045#!^: Bohl, C. D. - A3NL ' Curtis, H. ,W. - C2NK < > '.Fort., G4WI Boland, R. F. - 1760 Cushing, R. J. -. 1410 ' . '' FranchettiyV-V. M. - 1870 . Bourget, R. L. - 1870 Freeman, L. - T060 Boyd, P. M. - A2NG Dahlen, R. G. :r G4EM French, A~.L.; -. '1729 . v; . Boyen, V. E. - A2NB Dahl man, I. - 1580 Friedlander", B. 'R. - ASIA Boyle, W. J. Jr. - 1740 Dayton, F. H. - G5WA Fuhfemann, "T, WV-. C2SE- . Brackett, R. G. - 1825 `Debus, E. E. t C2SF Fukiichi, R. 11. - 1525 : ` .v Brandon, R. A. - B3NA - DeFer, W.rrL.- ^ }120Q-.;. - . Fuller, - C2SC/ , - Brasfield, E. N. - G5WA ' Denner, D. K. - 1060' Fiinke; R. - Mansfierd,OH " Braun, R. 0. - 5090 DePagter, J. G. - 1410 Brenner, H. R. - C2ND Desroches, R. - 5090 ,.. Gaetan, J. - WoodstckOntCAN . Bresovec, P. - 1050 , DeVet, G. - 1580r4' . - ...Gaffey, W. R... - 'A3NK ^ Bright, J. O. - F4WA 'Dieterich, D. C. - 1150 '. Galloway, J. - Glenjlurne MD Brodsky, P. H. - 02A DiGiovanni, M. P. - 1090 Ganatra, B. - 1585 '.:V , Brooks, J. J. - BB9F. Di Luca, P. - 1410 Gaul, J. M. - 1560 ^ Brouwers, J. - 5035 - Dixon, W. D. -" 03C Geddes, R. - 1850 Brown, J. L. - 1060 Dowdy, S. E. - C3NK Gibbs, M. E. - R4B Brown, R. L. - 1850 Downes, J. E. - G4WR Gilhousen, B. J. E2NK Bryant, F. J. - 1200 Driscoll, H. B. - G4NA Gledhill, W. E. - U4G Bucknell, R. W. - 02A Dubleman, S. - BB5F Graham, R. W.-Sweetwater Burch, J. F. - 1440 Duesenberg, R. W. - DIP Grattan, E. P. - A3SA Burns, M. D. - B3SB Dushney, J. P... - 1410 Gray, M. B. - 1200 Butler, D.-Paramount, CA Dutra, G. A. - 03F Griffin, G. H. - G4EK _ Buzbee, T. D. - 1580 Grigg, R. G. -- 1850 Guarraia,_L. J. - 03G LIST 304 OSH U7550 HARTOLDMONO018461 Guerra, J. - Toluca HEX Guilliams, R. E. - 1200 Jos1in, R. H. - G4WS Jurevic, E. J. - C2NJ Hachey, G. A. - A3NL Hacker, S. H. - 1690 Haechrel, P. - 1740 Hagood, J. A. - 1200 Hammond, B. G. - B2SC Harbison, E. H. - D1T Harness, R. L. - C2SB ' Hart, J. F. - 1418 Hartlen, E. D. - 1087 Harvey, T. - B2SC ` Hathaway, C. E. - R3B Hauser, G. L.-RchsterKent Hawk, E. J. - B2NA Healy, C. E. - A3ND Hebert, L. F. - 1670 Heininger, S. A. - DIR Helms, I. T. - 1160 Helscher, T. M. - 1920 Hendrikse, E. E. -G4NC Henshaw, J. L. - A3NX Herron, E. - GonzlaLA Higley, L. W. - E1NH Hill, B. J. - G4WR Hiller, F. L. - 1080 Hirsch, J. C. - 5000 Hoard, R. S. - E2NA Hoegel, D. C. - 1290 Hoogheem, T. J. - C2SD Huff, H. R. - G5WA Hume, J. C. - B3NA Hundley, C. - 1900 Hunt, P. E. - A3NB Hunt, W. M. - F3WA Hunter III, J. C. - G5NG Hwang, 7. C. 5280 Hyland, J. P. - G4WT Ingenthron, G. D. - C2SB Irvin, G. H. - B3NA Iversen, T. G. r G5HV Jackson, J. B. - 5040 . Jamro, E. S. - 1290 Janssen, E. P. - F2EA Jansson, R. E. - G3NE Jaworski, E. G. - AA4A Jeannot, P. M. - 1825 Jenkins, R. D. - 1250 Jervis, J. D. - 1690 Johannsen, F. R. - A3ND Jones, R. N. - G5WA Jones, W. H. - 1700 Kaimin, J. J. - 1250 Kayahara, Y. - 5265 Kearney, F. E. - G4WT Keffer, C. W. - C2SB Keigler, W. - GlnBumeMD Keliher, J. F. - G5NV Kennar, G. A. - 1870 Kennedy, K. H. - 1760 Kerr, J.-Rchestr,KentENG Kilby - J. L. - B3NA Kilkenny, J. E. - G5EK King, T. M. - 04C Klieve, J. R. - C2SB Knight, J. E. - 1260 Knoop, H. E. - 1918 Kocurkovic, J. V, - F1WG Koenst, J. W. - 1752 Koh, N. T. - Singapore Kraemer, C. B.-LeicesterUK Kramer, R. M. - 03A Krawczyk, D. S. - 1700 Kronenber, J. M. - C2SK Kucera, R. J. - 1260 (3) Kulig, M. A. - 1870 Kunes, W. R. - G5WB Labanosky, J. A. - 1080 Lafferre, T. H. - G4NU Lamkin, R.E.L. - G4NA Landholt, W. - 1087 . Lange, V. - 03A Lane, J. H. - 1020 Lange, V. J. - 03A Lannert, K. P. - 04C LaPlante, G. L. - 5090 Larsen, C. J. - 5040 (50 - No Covers) Lawton, R. P. Jr. - G5EB Lawyer, R. E. - 1260 Leach, J. - 1835 Ledgely, L. J.-WdstckOntCAN Lemos, G. A. - 1870 Lepriol, R. - Vichy, FRA Levinskas, G. J. - A3NB Lewington, C. -SidneyAUS Light, D. M. - 1670 Lindemann, Jr. R. E. - C2NJ Lingam, S. K. - 5295 Littlejohn, S. E. - B2ND Logie, I. -LeicesterUK Longfield, S. J. - 1720 Longin, P. - 5040 (2) Lott, K. V. - 1850 Love, J. R. ~ A2SJ Hackie, E. J. - G5WA MacMillan, K. A. - 5080 Madden, J. G. - 1410 Magin, R. W. - 03C Mahler, M. E. - 1670 Mahoney, R. J. - D1V Malfitano, D. M. - 1720 Malik, J. M. - BB5F Malloch, C. D. - A3NA Maniscalco, R.-BrlngtnNJ Marchi, E. L. - 5000 Marquez, R. - 1200 Marschall, M. V. - 1870 Martin, F. -CemayFR Mason, R. J. - G4N0 Matteucci, V. T. - G5NR Matthews, F. B. - 1760 Matyus, D. M. - 1850 Matzner, E. A. - G5NV Mauldin, G.-A. - 1087 McCarville, W. J. - A3NA McComb.C. H. - 1090 McCombs, M. W. - 1740 McCullough, C. M. - 1850 McCune, L. C. - 1010 McDannold, J. E - B2SB McGavock, M. - 1760 McGrath, A. M. - B3SA McGuire, J. N. - G4WM McIntyre, E. - 1410 McKee, G. L. - G4NC McKenna, L. W. - G4NL McMakin, J. E. - 1290 Meitner, P. R. ~ F1WE Mertens, M. - 1683 Michalski, B. A. - 1793 Mickelson, D. D. - C2NA Mieure, J. P- - G4WR Miles, J. A. - B2ND Miles, M. G. - C1ND Miller, K. S. - 1670 Miller, L. A. - B2SA Miller, M. E. - G5NA Minarich, D. - 1815 Molloy, J. W. - G4NJ Montague, M. J. - BB3B Moore, E. L. - F2WB Morgan, F. W. - BB2E Morganthaler, W. H.-04B Muhs, J- H. - 1010 . ' l v t- - LIST 304 DSM 11755J. HARTOLDMONO018462 Mullias, M. L. - 1920 Mullis, J. 0. - 1690 Munier, J. C. - VichyFR Murphy, M. J. - A3NL Murphy, R. J. - 1740 Murrell, C. R. - 1155 Musch, D. D. - 1918 Nair, R. S. - A3ND . Navarrette, C. F. - 5050 Nelson, K. N. - 1580 Nisbet, J. H. - 5050. Norlander, C. D. - G5NV Nurenberg, D.-1820/0011-6 Occupational Medicine Director - A3NB Ochsner, J. - 1540 O'Connor, G. E. - F1WF Oliver, T. B. - 1585 Osborne, - G. A. - 1410 Paget, E. - 1820/007-1 Panasiewicz, R. P. - 1500 Paradis, L. P. - G4WS Parthasarthi, M - Bombay Patel, M, N. - 1418 Paton, C. - 5510 Paul, R. - Posen, IL Peirce, M. - 1900 Perdue, W. S. - 1220 Perica, K. M. - 1290 Petersen, D. L. - 1683 Peterson, G. L. - 1650 Pflederer, R. L. - 5210 Pier, R. G. - G5NL Pierle, M. A. - G4WT Plant hanager - 5330 Plecia, F.' H. - C2SB Plotnick, M. - 5090 Politte, A. J. - 1720 Potter, R. G. - G4NH Price, D. B. - G5NG Pridham, G.-ZEKSMalvmPA Privott, W. J. - B2SA Proctor, S. I. - F2WK Quick, A. J. - 1815 Rademaker, J. C. - 1050 Ransaw, I. - 1560 ' Rapko, J. N. - G5NS Rathmer, E. - AhausFRG Ratts, K. W. - 03C Reding, N. L. - C2NA Redington, D. B. - A3NA Redmond, T. B. Jr. - 1775 Reiners, S. D. - F3WA Reining, F. E. - G4N0 Reynard, F. - AA3A Reynolds, R. W. - C3NA Rhoades, R. E. - 1630 Rhodes, V. L. - G4WR Rhyne, R. H. - 1260 Richey, W. S. - 1220 Riek, R. F. - 1010 Rivers, A. S. - F2EA Roarty, J. P. - 1290 Robinson, E. C. - A3ND Robinson, S. J. - G5NA Rodriquez, F. - Madrid . Rogers Jr., C.J. - 1440 Rogers, P. E. - 03C Rohr, J. F. - 1150 Rose, R. L. - LansngMI Roth, C. R. - A3SD Rozelle, G. D. - 1080 Rusczek, R. A. - 1870 Rutledge, L. R. - 1793 Ryan, J. P. - G5NL Sabet, A.-S. - 1010 Saito, S. - Tokyo JPN Sandberg, J. M. - 1670 Sandfort, R, M. - 5425 Sarvono, B. - 5325 Saunders, L.V.J. - B3SF Schafbuch, J. S.- A2SF Schannon, M. L. - B2ND Schelcher, P.-CernayFRANCE Schneiderman, H. A. - D1V Schroeder, A. R. - 1900 Schroeder, M. - 1740 Schultz, R. G. - 04B Scott, M. A. - 1700 Scott, R. M. - A2SK Sellew, R. F. - G5NV Senger, J. H. - A3NA Serdy, F. S. - C2SC Shayer, L. D. - F4EA Shelton, P. E. - 1630 Sherman, Jr. H. C. - 1670 Shimada, K. - 5270 Short, R. D. - A3ND Silva, E. - 1200 Sliney, D. L. - G4NJ Slocum, T. J. - B2ND Slowikowski, W. H. - G4NA Smid, M. J. - F2EC Smith, C. A. - 1793 LIST 304 -3- Smith, P. - E2NK Smith, S. D. - 1740 Solley, L. W. - 1580 Son, M. - Incheon, Korea Spies, G. J. - A3NL Spiller, R. W. - G5NA S&PP - A2NB Starr, M. S. - 1870 Stegen, D. W. - G4NA Stevens, M. W. - A3NG Stocker, D. C. - G5NG Stohr, R. A. - G5WB Storms, K. E. - A3NX Stout, L. D. - EHL Street, R. W. - C2SC Stroble, F. A. - DIF Stroup, M. A. - G4N0 Suba, L. A. - C2SE Suk, D. - Columbia, SC Sumner, W. - 1580 Sweerman, J. - Cernay, FR Sweets, C. A. - F4EA Tatum, V. W..- 1585 Tennison, S. - 5295 Thake, D. - EHL Thorne, J. G. -- 1729 Thurman, C. H. - G5NT Tolloczko, A.W. - 5000 Tominack, R. L. - A3NB Toy, H. D. - 1900 Tuk, A. C. - 1670 Tuley, J. L. - G5EA Uelner, A. F. - A3NF Uible, Jr., F. R. - F2EN Uihlein, Jr., J. J. - G5EC Unland, M^ L. - 04B Vaca, A. - 5300 Vanderstall, H. - 1683 Varaado, W. W. - G5WM Verfaillie, H. A. - C3SJVermeire, J. - 5280 Vezzetti, D. M. - 1720 Waldbeser, J. H. - F2WJ Wallen, N. - 1835 Walter, R. L. - A2SC Warborg, T. E. - 1020 Ward, D. P. - C2SK Ward, P. K. - 1690 Ward, T. J. - 1630 Ward, W.--C. - 1630 Wasson, R. L. - 04B ' OSW 117552 HARTOLDMONO018463 Watson, K. - MedwyKentUK Weaver, G. K. - 1440 Weingartner, C. F. - G5EC Weishaar, M. F. - G5WM Welch, H. - Exac Welter, J. P. - F3WG Wesley, G. J. - C2SB Wildsmith, G. - G5WB Wiley, J. G. - 1690 . Wilkens, M. P. - C3SE Wilkinson, W. A. - R2B Williams, A. E. - 5425; Williams, D. E. - F2EK . Williams, G. - Fisher Williams, H. L. - G4NL Williams, L. S.-1825/A1E Wilson, T. -BurlngtnOntCAN Wind, D. R. - 1850 Winkelmann, J. R. - 1760 Withers, W. W. - C2SA Wojick, R. B. - 1870 . Wollenberger, J. B. - E1NG Wong, C. Y.-Pasir Gudang Woods, t. - 1250 Woods, R. L. - 1580 _ * Yanne, E. - 1870 Young, D. A. - MelbourneAUS Young, G. A. - G4WF Zalba, J. - 5000 Zendejas, R. -TolucaMEX Ziemann, T. E. - C3ND Zurlinden, Jr., P. R. - 1010 LIST 304 DSW L17553 HARTOLDMONO018464 >-L. H-J. Corbett, D-l-D Hay 22, 1989 Worldwide Environmental Guidelines Distribution List Following the practice of the past several years, Monsanto's six worldwide environmental guidelines have once again been revised and updated. These guidelines have been approved by the Corporate Environmental, Safety and Health Committee and represent our "rules of the road" for environmental, safety and health programs across the corporation. While requirements vary across different units of the corporation and worldwide guidelines require some compromise to permit application to all operating units, compliance with the spirit of the guidelines is not optional. Modifications which achieve the spirit of the guideline and are more appropriate to a local condition are permitted, but not in any case where the level of protection, quality assurance or safety is less than the intent of the guideline. As an additional aid to performance in environmental, safety and health issues -- we are including an environmental, safety and health vision for the corporation. This vision statement together with premises and indicators has been widely reviewed by operating units within and outside the U.S. It represents a vision of the company we would like to become and should be working toward. Actions taken by all employees of Monsanto should be consistent with the tone and direction of this vision. Further, where current performance does not measure up to the longer term expectations as described in the vision, the heed for more aggressive improvement plans should be self-evident. This vision statement is intended to complement the worldwide guidelines as we proceed toward achieving "great company" status in envirpnmental, safety and health performance. While elements of the vision and guidelines may be discussed with individuals outside the company as appropriate -- copies of the guidelines should be considered "company confidential". attachment DSW 117554 HARTOLDMONO018465 MONSANTO'S VISION ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND HEALTH PERSPECTIVE A company which develops and markets only products which benefit society without unaccept able risks to any group. A company where major environmental, safety, or health incidents do not occur. A company with recognized and demonstrated concern for our neighbors, our employees, and both local and worldwide environments. A company which is viewed by its publics, regula tory agencies, and stakeholders as responsible, ' open, and honest -- a constructive component of society and the communities in which we do business. A company which encourages outside peer review of its decision making processes and proposed actions in environmental, safety and health matters. A company which as a matter of policy, separates the issue of the "right thing to do" from the issue of cost or affordability. A ccjpany which monitors employee health on a continuing basis and investigates possible health issues affecting current and former employees. A company which knows first whether its products, processes, plants, or people may be causing potential problems. A company which maintains a continuing multi media toxic waste minimization program empha sizing source reduction and recycle with an ultimate goal of achieving a de minimis emissions level. A company which achieves its ESH objectives at capital and operating costs which do not signifi cantly impair growth and profitability. OSH 117555 HARTOLDMON0018466 -2- A company which turns its exemplary practices into a competitive advantage. PREMISES - We will organize to achieve maximum effective results.at the lowest cost. We will organize to assign primary execution responsibility to operating entities. We will organize to provide analysis, interpret ation, strategic planning, oversight and quality assurance by groups which are independent of short term profit considerations. We will organize to provide state of the art scientific capability to ensure ESH results without the need for each entity to maintain fully proficient and complete professional skill bases. - We will take a leadership role in a variety of industry and academic initiatives to influence public opinion, stay abreast of trends, and achieve our goal.of public approval. This includes active participation with environmental groups, trade associations, professional groups and academic institutions which have goals compatible with Monsanto's objectives. PREDICTORS AND INDICATORS OF SUCCESS IN ACHIEVING OUR VTSIOM As a minimum, full compliance with all laws, regulations, and permits on a worldwide basis. Continuing reduction in injuries to employees and reduction of unexpected incidents and spills. Continuing reduction of overall waste production with emphasis on toxic and hazardous air emissions. Waste minimization at the source is preferred over waste treatment. Rapid approval of new products, at least equal to the best in our industry. Participation in the public debate on ESH issues via active membership in relevant organizations, trade associations, environmental groups, - professional associations, etc. * ` DSW 117556 HARTOLDMONO018467 -3Positive employee and community acceptance of our performance. Maintenance of strong relationships with Federal, State, and Regional institutions, in all countries in which we operate or do business. Maintenance of management skill and knowledge bases to achieve most effective legislation and regulations, interpretation and implementation of regulations. Maintenance of professional skill bases in toxicology, occupational medicine, epidemiology, industrial hygiene, safety and property protect ion, quality assurance, analytical capability, risk assessment, and others as required by future events. Rigid multi-discipline .quality assurance review of new products, new processes, existing pro cesses, products and facilities. DSW 117557 HARTOLDMONO018468 ru] In WORLDWIDE GUIDELINE EFFLUENT AND EMISSION CONTROL Reduce pollutants in effluents and emissions from Monsanto operations to meet corporate targets, going beyond those levels either required for regulatory compliance or necessary to protect health and the environment. PROGRAM EFFLUENT CONTROL: Control options for both direct and indirect (i.e., to Publicly Owned Treatment Works - POTW) liquid discharges from Monsanto operations will be developed consistent with compliance dates in permits or other enforceable instruments aryl to meet internal Monsanto needs. Substances subject to such controls will include those listed pursuant to Section 307(a) of the U.S. Clean Water Act, those substances known to be present in proposed or promulgated effluent limitation guidelines, or.other site- specific pollutants identified by the. plant which appear to warrant consideration, including those reported via SARA Tide m. Section 313. For ex-U.S* locations, use a site- specific list which is equivalent to uie^U.S.EPA lists. ' ? ' . For each location where any of these substances are used or produced, address the following: ,, 1. Regulatory compliance -- Develop specific information necessary to identify control options to ensure compliance with regulatory-driven limitations in permits or other enforceable instruments. Such information should include substance quantification profiles at reasonable levels of confidence and could include factors such as variations due to seasonal effects, product mix, hydraulic loading, production capacity, waste treatment variables, or other site-specific parameters. Timetables for this effort should be developed on a site-specific basis, consistent with needs to meet legally enforceable compliance. 2. SARA Section 313 substances.^-- Conduct a sitespecific substance-by-substance review of significantly reported SARA Section 313 releases (for both direct and indirect discharges) for those substances not addressed by limitations in permits or other enforceable instruments. ' Within the framework of the corporate waste minimization program, reduce the quantities ot such releases. 3. Water quality -- Conduct an aquatic safety assessment to determine the measurable impacts, if any, of Monsanto's effluents on receptor water quality. This should cover both direct and indirect discharges (if appropriate), with the latter impacts based on POTW effluent, where possibte, including judging Monsanto's contribution to MONSANTO COMPANY the POTW's effluent. Details for this assessment and appropriate response actions should be developed based on individual site-specific needs. Operating units will annually review, and adjust as neces sary, the priorities and timetables for the above programs. EMISSION CONTROL: Monsanto intends, by the end of 1992, to reduce air emissions, worldwide, by 90% for the chemicals reported on the SARA Section 313 reports for 1987. Beyond 1992, Monsanto will work toward an ultimate goal of zero emissions for these same chemicals. The baseline in the U.S. for this reduction will be the chemicals and quanti ties on the 1987 SARA Section 313 emissions report, with comparable programs being developed for the ex-U.S. opera tions. Operating units will establish and implement plans to achieve these reductions and will issue annual progress reports. Conduct an assessment of potential human health impacts for selected routinely emined air pollutants and develop appropriate control strategies to reduce identified potential unreasonable risk of harm to human health in surrounding communities. In addition to providing additional under standing of the potential human health impact from Monsanto plant operations, this information .will facilitate Monsanto responses to regulatory proposals and future permit needs. The list of air pollutants to be studied include: (a) those listed and regulated under Section 112 of the U.S. Clean Air Act; (b) those currently being reviewed as candidates for listing by EPA as Section 112 pollutants; (c) those for which EPA has established cancer unit risk values; (d) those con tained on the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) groups 1 and 2A lists; and (e) other site-specific pollutants identified by the plant which appear to warrant consideration (including those in significant quantities reportable via SARA Section 313X. For ex-U.S. locations, use any local regulatory lists which are equivalent to the U.S. EPA lists. Each Monsanto location will cany out the following program: ^ DSH 117558 SECTION 1 HARTOLDMONO018469 EFFLUENT AND EMISSION CONTROL (continued) l. Identify, for each air pollutant selected for review, all emission point sources (ongoing, continuous, and intermittent), as well as area and volume sources where the substances are released into the atmosphere. 2. Estimate for the selected air pollutants, their emission rates from each source. 3. Rank each of the selected air pollutants to determine their relative priorities for further evaluation using a chemical prioritization protocol established by the Monsanto Air Steering Committee which utilizes workplace exposure guides and estimated emission rates. 4. Develop work plans to complete the detailed assessment of priority 1 and major 2 pollutants by 7/1/89 (by date consistent with local needs for ex-U.S. locations). For remaining prioritized pollutants, work plans and further evaluation will be conducted within the confines of. existing resources. 5. Estimate the potential maximum downwind concentra tion for each pollutant at receptors representative of the exposed population, utilizing appropriate dispersion modeling techniques incorporating refined quantification of emissions based upon relative priorities (i.e., ranging from point source measurements for priority 1 to best estimates for priority 4). 6. Assess the potential for human health impacts at com munity receptor points using the results of the dispersion analysis, and determine if there is, or is not, a potential for unreasonable risk of barm to human health. 7. Define appropriate, cost effective controls to reduce risks to acceptable levels where a potential human health concern exists and take actions to implement such reductions. For U.S. locations, complete the first six steps above for priority 1 and major priority 2 pollutants by 7/1/89, complete step seven on a timetable consistent with local needs, and for the remaining prioritized pollutants by a date consistent with resource availabilities. For all ex-U.S. locations, complete the seven steps for all priorities by dates consistent with local needs. GENERAL: The following program elements will be imple mented as required. 1. Sample the significant emission and effluent release points of each new or modified process after startup to confirm that no pollutant, in an amount having potential to endanger health or the environment, exceeds those - levels specified by the design and/or contained within any applicable permits. 2. Operating Companies will periodically report data on permit exceedances and reportable releases (including those reportable under CERCLA), with performance to be reviewed annually. During 1989, develop uniform corporate reporting criteria and obtain ESH Committee approval. (Revised and Approved by Environmental, Safety & Health Committee April 25, 1989.) SECTION 1 Page 2 DSW 11755.9 HARTOLDMONO018470 M Iru i WORLDWIDE GUIDELINE #2 WASTE MANAGEMENT Design and operate facilities to minimize in waste streams the routine and accidental release of pollutants to the environment. Over the long term, work toward the ultimate goal of zero releases to all media. For wastes that remain, use waste disposal practices that achieve compliance with regulations and which achieve acceptable environmental impact, no health effects, minimum long-term liability and cost effectiveness. Continue waste management programs that establish Monsanto control of disposal and that favor alternatives to land disposal. . PROGRAM Except as modified by item 5. below, this guideline applies to all worldwide Monsanto facilities. . ... T\ ' - . -:'j 1. Release Reduction a) Routine Releases Each operating unit will establish a program which targets multi-media reduction of releases in waste streams to the environment, establish ing numerical reduction goals. Units will report progress annually. In the selection of alternatives for pollutant release reduction from processes, the following order of preference will be used: Reduction of source generation through process design and modification. Reuse, recycle or co-product sale. Incineration or other treatment to reduce the volume or toxicity of pollutant streams. Responsible disposal of treatment residuals or wastes not amenable to the above. The operating unit programs will integrate into release reduction plans a corporate goal to achieve a 90% reduction, worldwide, of 1987 SARA Section 313 reported air emissions by the end of 1992. Releases to air, water or the land which continue in spite of reductions will be assessed as applicable through the programs oudined in Guideline # 1 and in #2 (below) to assure no danger to health and the environment. *Al listed m 40 CFR 261.33(c). plus anjr mixtures containing greater than 5%. Wastes with heat of combustion of greater than 6.000 BTU/#. MONSANTO COMPANY b) Accidental Releases Accidental releases that are reportable to regulatory or response agencies, or that involve evacuation, significant community response or media coverage, will also be reported internally together with an action plan to prevent recurrence. The operating units will establish programs as necessary to eliminate such occurrences, working toward a goal of zero events. Progress against this goal will be repotted annually through the Manufacturing Management Council to the ESH Committee. c) WasteDatgbases Operating units will develop and utilize multi media databases on releases to the environment to enable repotting against operating unit goals and against die 90% SARA Section 313 air emission reduction target. A waste-stream based U.S. database will also be maintained to facilitate external reporting and as another internal measure of release reduction progress. 2. Waste Management ' Landfill of "acutely hazardous" wastes' and "incinerables", will not be practiced. Fixation of particularly mobile, persistent or bio-accumulative wastes will be accomplished wherever warranted and feasible, or where required by regulations. Land disposed wastes which are not subjected to management as "hazardous" waste will be evaluated for present and future environmental risk and managed _ OSW IL75A0 SECTION 2 ^ . Page 1 ~ HARTOLDMONO018471 2. Waste Management tcontinued) in an appropriate manner which has been reviewed by the unit Director of Environmental Operations. (To be completed by 12/31/90.) Waste contractors will be subject to contracting and assessment requirements (See Guideline #3). The number of off-site hazardous waste incinerators used will be minimized. In the U.S., off-site Class 1 . . landfills used will be approved by the ESH Committee and limited in number. Medical wastes generated at Monsanto locations will be disposed of via incineration. Assurance of destruction will be obtained via manifest, or other equivalent approaches if manifest is not available. ' (For the purposes of Guideline #5, outside processors used will be considered Secondary Services.) An evergreen record of both on-site and commercial waste treatment, storage and disposal sites will be maintained by each plant. Monsanto will retain ownership of all property known to contain wastes with the potential to cause injury to health or the environment unless otherwise approved by the ESH committeqjfhe use of company facilities to treat, store or dispose of non-Monsanto wastes is normally discouraged. Any such use or joint ventures for waste manage ment must be reviewed and approved by the. ' ESH Committee. 3. Deepwell Injection Program Monsanto will continue to operate its deepwell disposal systems in a sound manner protective of public health and the environment. Each plant using on-site or off-site deepwell disposal will have and maintain contingency plans for exiting deepwells. There will be no new use of deepwells except as approved by the ESH Committee on an exception basis. All new project appropriation requests will be based on the economics of disposal technology other than deepwells. 4. Corrective and Remedial Action When on-site abandoned waste or groundwater contamination is discovered, appropriate assessment and corrective action will be carried out. Any ' necessary projects will be scheduled to expedite remediation in a planned, orderly process. When we become aware of possible involvement in "Superfund" sites, we will actively participate in generator group efforts to achieve settlement and expedite cleanup. At sites where we are a/the major contributor, we will seek a leadership role when appropriate to facilitate resolution. The operating units will cooperate to establish responsibility for sites where several units contributed wastes. A goal of the corporation is to resolve as soon as reasonably possible our liability and remedial plans for sites where we have major responsibility. We intend a lessened legalistic approach to site cleanup negotiations. Where our responsibility is fairly established, we will not delay cleanup unnecessarily by legal, yet negatively perceived litigious steps. We will pursue fair legislation and regulations on the general issues in the public arena, but minimizing legal risk will not be the determining factor in site-specific decisions. 3) Ex-U.S. locations The above program elements and timing will be implemented at ex-U.S. locations, but with modi fications as necessary to reflect local limitations, restraints to compliance, and the extent of Monsanto's operating control. Status and direction of local programs will be reviewed in planned environmental audits of these facilities. % 0 (Revised and Approved by Environmental, Safety & Health Committee April 25, 1989.) i)SW 1J.7561 SECTION 2 Pace 2 HARTOLDMONO018472 1 : 1991 Monsanto FROM (NAME, LOCATION, PHONE) N. L. Reding DIR 4-2106 DATE: SUBJECT: REFERENCE: TO: May 30, 1991 cc: Env. Policy Committee Deep Wells i) 1,6 $ ( ES&H Guidelines Manual Holders Please place the attached, revised deep well policy statement in your manuals as an adjunct to Worldwide Guideline 02. The Guideline itself will be revised in the future to incorporate this initiative. The revised policy reflects the deliberations of the Environmental Policy Committee and the Advisory Councils of MCC and MAC, and will guide the ' corporation's programs through the year 2000. It is supplementary to current operating unit waste elimination goals and, when implemented, will signifi cantly improve the corporation's progress toward reaching the goal of zero effect on the environment. Every individual affected by this policy can help the attainment of this goal by focusing technology on reducing the creation of these wastes and converting such actions into a competitive advantage for their business. NLR/jm/AOlMEMO.NLR Attachment SW 117562 HARTOLDMONO018473 APPROVED DEEPWELL POLICY June 1, 1991 STATEMENT ` Project programs within the operating units will be coordinated to discontinue, by the end of 1999, the deepwell injection of waste streams except for clean brines or treated wastewaters which are best managed environmentally in deep injection wells. By the end of 1995, the optimal technical strategy(ies) for total withdrawal from wells will be selected as a contingency for possible earlier mandatory action. At Luling, only, this action includes an ARDT estimate to achieve non-brine, treated surface discharge. Before 1995 and thereafter, the operating units will continue where possible to challenge the technical impediments to total withdrawal, based on surface discharge of nori-brine treated wastewater. New or expanded internal or external uses of deepwells are discouraged and will be considered by the EPC only on an exception basis and within the constraints of this policy; the economics of any project appropriation request for such use must be based on disposal technology other than deepwells. OBJECTIVES 1. Substantially reduce SARA reported releases to deepwells by 87% by the end of 1995. 2. Achieve 70% reduction of Priority 1 pollutants (organics and toxic inorganics) to wells via Waste 0imination/Waste Minimization efforts, by the end of 1995. 3. Substantially eliminate SARA and Priority 1 releases to deepwells by the end of 1999. 4. Achieve surface discharge of treated effluent at Chocolate Bayou. At Luling, provide that only dean brine is injected, brine that is otherwise .treated to meet Effluent Guidelines (CWA). At Pensacola, achieve treated effluent wastewater suitable for discharge under Effluent Guidelines but plan to continue injection due to regulatory issues. DSW 1-17563 HARTOLDMONO018474 INDICATORS The following indicators are identified for tracking of progress: Completion of targeted projects. End-of-1995 and end'-of-1999 releases of SARA chemicals and Priority 1 substances to injection wells. t 1995 completion of contingency project definition. ahd3 Approved by EPC Committee, 4/16/91 OS* 117564 HARTOLDMONO018475 PROJECT TIMETABLES Chocolate Bayou Project Spent Acid Recovery (SAR servicing AN, MHBA, NTA. Includes limited in-`J-, J' battery wastewater * treatment for DSIDA YEAR On-Line 1995 Capital SM 75(1) Operating Expense,SM 8 New Biotreatment unit and Sludge Handling Facility. 1999 30 7 . TOTALS 105 15 idditioiUtoSSARPital fr miscellaneous Waste Elimination projects in Pensacola Project Liquid Waste Incinerator for concentrated organics, including HMD Ion Exchange Year On-Line 1995 Capital ____SM___ 10-25(1) Operating Expense,$M 2-6(1) 3-Staqe Biotreatment including Sludge Disposal and Teritiary Filter. Also provide Spare ODW Evaporator for KA and Copper Ion Exchange for Adipic. 1999 37-22 9-5 TOTALS 47 11 (l)Larger values assume some biological treatment installed early to achieve 1995 Waste Elimination goal. Lulinq Project Catalytic Chemical Oxidation Process for essentially complete organic removal, GI Wastewater. Achieve clean brine. Organic Removal and Ammonia stripping of ACL/CYA Wastewater. Achieve clean brine. Year On-Line 1995 Capital SM 35 1995 8 Operating Expense,SM 13 2 OSW 117565 TOTALS TOTALS. ALL PLANTS 43 15 195 41 HARTOLDMONO018476 PROJECTION of release reduction Waste Elimination/Waste Minimization Procrrams, Prioritv 1 Release to tniection Wells: Base Year 1987 Actual 1989- Projected End-of-1995 Projected End-of-1999 Lulino MCC & MAC Programs 1 4.0 17.3 2.6 Nil Pensacola 70.7 86.7 37-201 . 4.3 Chocolate Bavou MCC & MAC Programs 47.8 59.8 9.7 None TOTALS %Red'n vs. 1987 122.5 163.8 49.3-32.3l 60-742 4.3 962 xLower value assumes some biological treatment installed early to achieve 1995 Waste Elimination goal. SARA 313 RELEASES TO DEEPWELLS. M LBS Plant Luling Pensacola Chemical All NH NO, Otner Choc. Bayou NH S04 Otner TOTAL :SARA 313 % RED *N VS. 1987* 1?87 15 22 - . 22 171 8 179 216 1989 4 23 1 24 196 6 . 202 230 Projected End '95 0.4 4 0.5 4.5 20 4 24 29 87% Projected End '99 Nil Nil Nil 0 0 0 Nil "100% DSW 117566 HARTOLDMONO018477 fUl InJ WORLDWIDE GUIDELINE PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS A program of environmental assessments and audits of all plant sites will be maintained in order to assure regulatory compliance and the protection of the surrounding environment. PROGRAM 1. Environmental assessment documents (information such as local air and water quality, relationships with regulatory agencies, and the effects of our presence on the surrounding environment) will be prepared for each operating location. Documentation of subsequent changes or additions to assessment contents will be filed with assessments at die plant site so that an update can readily be prepared should the need arise. Executive summary sections reflecting . .. long-range plans and highlighting key environmental issues will be updated annually and transmitted as information to Environmental Managers. 2. Compliance audits for large and environmentally sensitive sites will be conducted on a three-year maximum cycle with other sites to be audited at least every five years. Audit follow-up plans will be reviewed semi-annually. 3. Groundwater assessments will be maintained for all major locations and for lesser sites with known groundwater issues. The assessment status and plans will be updated in the second quarter of each year. 4. Each location shall maintain a groundwater protection plan to include inspection, testing and maintenance of facilities with the potential of contaminating groundwater (i.e., sewers, process lines, sumps, tanks, loading/unloading areas, etc.). The ground water protection plans and designs shall be commen surate with the risk posed by the specific situation. 5. New, replacement or expansion facility designs (including sewers and lines) should consider aboveground and/or double containment, improved materials of construction and/or cathodic protection to provide improved assurance against groundwater contamination. New, replacement or expanded surface impoundments for wastewater treatment or storage will be approved by the ESH Committee on an exception basis. 6. . New storage tanks for materials that could potentially cause contamination will be provided with impervious secondary containment (dikes, liners, vaults, double wall, etc.) unless a clear showing is made on a tank-by-tank basis during project reviews that vessel contents (e.g. dilute wastewaters) or setting (e.g. in-battery containment, other adequate containment systems) do not warrant such containment. Existing storage tanks will be addressed and reviewed through normal environmental audits. (Revised and Approved by Environmental, Safety and Health Committee April 25, 1989.) MONSANTO COMPANY DSW 11756.7 if SECTION 3 Pace 1 HARTOLDMONO018478 MLnJ WORLDWIDE GUIDELINE #4 EMPLOYEE AND COMMUNITY SAFETY AND HEALTH Monsanto will provide a healthful and safe environment for its employees and community neighbors and will monitor and evaluate employee health status, determine and monitor workplace factors affecting employee safety and health, comply with Monsanto workplace exposure guidelines and with governmental safety and health regulations, review major capital projects to protect the health ofpeople at work and in the community. PROGRAM 1. Continue to perform periodic on-site surveys of worldwide operations to evaluate total safety, occupational health, and industrial hygiene status. Utilize observations and . recommendations to achieve and maintain regulatory and code compliance, attain appropriate technological sophisti cation, reduce the probability of accidents of all types, and further employee safety and health education. Generally assist sites in attaining year-to-year reductions in employee injuries and property losses. Optimize health surveillance programs to identify and prevent occupational illnesses. 2. Achieve and maintain compliance with governmental regulations and Monsanto guidelines as they relate to facility design, safe work practices, workplace exposures, health surveillance, and community safety and health in country in which a Monsanto facility is located. If regulatory guidelines are unavailable or inadeqtiate to protect worker health, Monsanto will establish guidelines where appropriate. 3. Monitor and evaluate the effect of work exposures on employee health by providing health surveillance in all locations, with a goal of offering periodic examinations for all employees. Special emphasis must be given to implementing scheduled health surveillance examina tions for those employees routinely exposed to hazardous chemicals in the workplace. These examinations will be conducted by Monsanto or contract health professionals in accordance with the Occupational Medicine Program defined by the Department of Medical and Health Sciences. 4. Collect and enter workplace materials, worker exposure, work history and employee health assessment data into the MEHI/MARS data base which will be used to . perform epidemiological and other appropriate studies evaluating worker health to enhance worker protection. 5. Continue workplace surveillance to identify potential health risks, evaluate risks based on current toxico logical information and initiate appropriate safeguards to protect the health of employees. 6. Establish guidelines for use in classifying and recording injuries and illnesses to monitor company-wide perfor mance and adherence to federal regulations regarding recordkeeping. Issue monthly summaries of appropriate statistics, and various publications designed to improve . awareness and to communicate relevant technologies to the workplace. Develop understanding of the causation of accidents and the techniques of accident prevention. 7. Provide corporate safety and industrial hygiene reviews on design, startup, and operational issues for major Dew installations and expansions. 8. Participate relative to safety and health through trade associations, other cooperative endeavors of the chemical and manufacturing industries and professional associations. 9. Provide employee training, orientation and education in safety and health. 10. Contract employees should receive any required surveil lance and safety and industrial hygiene indoctrination in accordance with Monsanto's Contractor Health and Safety Guideline. (Revised and Approved by Environmental, Safety & Health Committee April 25, 1989.) OSW 117S68 MONSANTO COMPANY SECTION 4 Pace I HARTOLDMONO018479 M uu WORLDWIDE GUIDELINE #5 OUTSIDE PROCESSORS Select companies for support of Monsanto operations -- through product conversions, custom manufacture, formulating, by-product sales, waste management, and other services supporting Monsanto businesses -- which will operate with concern for worker safety, regulatory compliance, community protection and protection of the environment. PROGRAM 1. Monsanto will utilize only outside processors which have been selected and periodically assessed to assure: (a) Their ability to adequately protect the public, employees and environment from any effect of Monsanto chemicals, products or wastes. (b) Their compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. . (c) Their knowledge of potential hazards and any applicable manufacturing requirements associated with Monsanto materials handled. (d) Their use of approved waste disposal methods and locations, with recordkeeping of all material use and waste disposal. 2. Selections and assessments shall be documented and approved by the Operating Unit Director of Environmental Operations and an appropriate contractural arrangement shall be established with each firm prior to startup of operations. 3. Outside "processors" include firms which provide services related to Monsanto chemicals, products or wastes. "Primary" firms will receive an on-site assessment, management approval, and a written contract. Secondary firms should be'assessed and be subject to approval and contracts when high hazard materials or Class B poisons are involved, or whenever the situation involves a significant risk. - Primary services include: Conversions Processing Blending Formulations Material Recovery/ Reclaiming Tank Car Cleaning1 Barge Cleaning' Drum Cleaning/Reclaiming' Waste Material Sales Waste Hauling (including oil) Hazardous Waste Disposal Material Purification Packing or Repacking Bulk Truck Geaning1 Waste Oil Disposal Waste Oil Reclaiming Transformer Retrofill 'Applicable w kaxardous products or Monsanto owned or teased vehicles. Secondary services include: Bulk Terminals Transloading Fulfillment Houses Packaged Goods Warehousing Non-hazardous Waste Disposal Vessel and Equipment Geaning Excepted are services performed by established major chemical firms (approved by the Unit Director of Environmental Operations),.publicly owned treatment works, sales of wastes which are equivalent to virgin chemicals in commerce and transformer retrofill where wastes are retained under Monsanto control. 4. Assessments are to be performed prior to initial use and at a frequency recommended in the prior assessment (normally one to three years). 5. MCC Environmental Engineering maintains a corporate-wide database of all outside processors to avoid redundant assessments and contracts and to facilitate use of approved contractors. 6. The above program elements will be implemented at ex-U.S. locations, but with modifications as necessary to reflect local limitations, restraints to compliance, and the extent of Monsanto's operating control. Status and direction of the local program will be reviewed in planned environmental audits of these facilities. (Reviewed and Approved without change by Environmental Safety <fc Health Committee April 25. 1989.) MONSANTO COMPANY DSW 117569 SECTION 5 Page I HARTOLDMONO018480 MONSANTO From (Name-Location-Phone) M. A. Pierle - G4WT/J. D. Anderson - F2WA Date: March 22, 1990 Subj: Ref: To: Management of Outside Processors . See Attached Distribution cc: E. N. Brasfield R. G. Dahlen A. F. Fitzgerald G. M. Francx J. C. Hunter III T. H. Laffere R. G. Potter D. B. Price Jr. F. E. Reining D. L. Sliney W. H. Slowikowski C. A. Sweets J. L Tuley H. L. Williams M. W. Winkel G5WA G4EM G5NV 5040 G4EA G4NJ G4NH G5NG G4NR G4NJ G4NA G4EA G5EA G4NI G5NA In order to bring focus and strength to Monsanto's management of the use of outside processor services, we are making certain organizational changes within the MCC Operations group. Monsanto environmental guidelines (attached) call for an effective program to assure that those providing outside services do so in a manner similar to that which Monsanto would employ if it chose to conduct the service itself. To date, management of Monsanto's effort to assure compliance has been substantially decentralized with responsibility for conformance placed with the requestor of the service. Progress, when measured against the performance criteria within Monsanto's worldwide guideline, has not been at the desired level. In light of the need, to improve the overall results of the program, a total quality team was established in 1989 to determine ways of improving the system. All functions were represented. The group extended its analysis by conducting a Business Process Management review. Deficiencies were examined and recommendations were made. These recommendations have been reviewed and approved by MCC management. To enable conformance with the guideline, three positions within MCC Operations will provide coordination and services in concert with all .those requesting outside processor services. DSW 117570 HARTOLDMONO018481 2 1. Manager. Toll Manufacturing (Ed Moore) This on-going position is responsible for the selection of toll (custom) manufacturing suppliers and the negotiation, monitoring and maintenance of contracts associated with these toll manufacturing arrangements. Included in the responsibilities of this position and most pertinent to this summary is the "providing of environmental and safety audits" for all outside tolling arrangements. 2. Manager. Eouipment Disposal and Waste Disposal Contracting (John Nolle) . This is not a new position, but rather an expansion of responsibilities of the prior position of manager, Equipment Disposal. This position will include the following responsibilities associated with waste disposal: a) Defines and negotiates national waste contracts with firms that ' provide such services, to reduce and minimize costs through . corporate volume leverage to control Monsanto's off-site disposal costs. Primary areas include waste disposal services (incineration, landfill, medical, waste oil, etc.). b) Serves as functional manager and corporate focal point for all national environmental service contracts Including day-to-day problem solving. c) Develops opportunities to reduce waste disposal costs through prudent contract management. d) Develops and negotiates master terms and conditions agreements with waste processing firms to insure Monsanto has appropriate contractual/legal protection. e) Maintains strong functional ties with outside processor auditing manager to ensure audits and reaudits of outside processors are current for all existing or proposed contract vendors. 3. Manager. Environmental Auditing (Gerald Rinaldi) This is a new position in MCC Environmental Operations. The position will ensure that outside processors meet Monsanto requirements for financial responsibility, Insurance, environmental compliance, industrial * hygiene, and worker health and safety as defined in ESH #5 by coordinating the overall compliance system while relying predominantly on existing plant resources to conduct the actual audits. ~ OSH 1J. 75 7J. HARTOLDMONO018482 3 It should be obvious that .these three managers, plus appropriate resources in eongveirtohnemr feonrtaMl oannsdamntaontuofamcetuertinItgs aosbsliigganmtioennstsa, nwdilrlensepeodnstoibwiliotierks cIntofsheeiyse most important areas. Your cooperation will be most appreciated Jam&s D. Anderson Director, Purchasing #20 Michael A. Pierle Director, Environmental Operations A OSH 11 75l72 HARTOLDMONO018483 S. Abdou-Sabet L. Adams j. W. Adams C. A. Balan L. Beach R. J. Belle H. W. Berry J. E. Bishop W. J. Board L. J. Boesch J. R. Bohrer W. J. Boyle P. Brezovec E. S. Brimer D. R. Caldwell R. W. Ceyanes R. L. Cheever J. J. Christian P. Clarke J. E. Crick R. J. Cushing . N. L Davis J. K. Davis D. K. Denner D. C. Dieterich M. P. DiGiovanni B. Dmuchovsky H. B. Driscoll . J. P. Dushney R. D. Ellis G. M. Ellsworth H. B. English E. A. Fay R. 1_ Fields R. J. Fissmer M. R. Foresman V. M. Franchetti W. L Friehs R. C. Gary R. Geddes W. H. Ghetti M. E. Gibbs R. W. Graham M. B. Gray C. M. Grice M. N. Hanson T. S. Hardy H. P. Harris L F. Hebert B. D. Heckenberg F. L. Hiller D. C. Hoegel S. A. Holmes C. C. Holzwarth K. S. Hood D. 0. Hummel 1010 1155 1690 1500 1260 G5NL 1410 1900 . 1690 G5NV F2WA 1740 1050 1760 1418 * 1200 1760 1760 1260 F2WA 1410 F2WB Fovil-Foley 1060 1150; 1090 F2WB G4NA 1410 1010 1775 G5WA 1290 C2NJ G5EA G4WT 1870 F2EE Fovil-Foley 1850 1080 R4B Rock Springs 1200 - 1440 1918 1050 G4NA 1690 F1WE 1080 1290 1090 1090 1793 1290 DISTRIBUTION W. M. Hunt J. P. Hyland T. G.Iversen E. S. Jamro G.L Johnson R. Jones R. N. Jones R. H. Joslin D. M. Kalbfteisch M. J. Kausch C. K. Keffer J. F. Keliher T. M. King 0. A. Klingler H. E. Knoop J. V. Kocurkovic D. S. Krawczyk M. A. Kulig J. A. Labanosky R. E. L Lamkin J. H. Lane M. D. Lauman R. E. Lawyer M. C. Lewis J. D. Leyerle D. M. Light S. J. Longfield K. J. Lott E. J. Mackie J. C. Marshall V. T. Matteucci M. D. McClendon M. W. McCombs C. M. McCullough J. T. McKean G. L McKee T. R. McNeely N. B. Miller E. L Moore E. L Moore C. R. Murrell D. D. Musch G. S. Narsh R. J. Nichols J. S. Noble J. W. O'Brien G. E. O'Connor J. C. Ochsner . W. A. Ott R. P. Panasiewicz L P. Paradis W. W. Perdue K. M. Perica D. L. Petersen R. G. Pier A. L Pighin ; ' J L M3G G4WT G5WA 1870 1440 1060 G5WA G4WS 1740 N2G C2S8 G5NV 04C F2WD 1918 F1WG 1700 1870 1080 G5NV 1020 1850 1260 1870 F2WA 1670 1720 1850 G5WA 1670 G5NR 1560 1740 1850 1670 G4NC 1060 1250 F2WB F2WB 1155 1918 1900 1630 U4C 1260 F1WF 1540 1020 1500 G4WS 1220 1200 1683 &5NA 1540 DSW 117573 HARTOLDMON0018484 A. J. Politte C. A. Pratte J. C. Rademaker D. C. Ranson J. M. Ray S. D. Reiners W. S. Richey R. F. Riek G. M. Rinaldi A. Ristic S. J. Robinson C. J. Rogers J. F. Rohr L. R. Rutledge R. F. Sackett D. E. Schoeffel A. R. Schroeder J. E. Schweitzer M. A. Scott R. V. Sharp C. A. Smith J. 0. Smith D. E. Snowbarger R. W. Spiller W. A. State D. W. Stegan D. C. Stocker a H. Stockton R. H. Talbert P. Thigpen J. L Thomas J. M. Tissue J. C. Trube A. C. Tuk C. Vance T. E. Warborg F. C. Weaver C. F. Weingartner G. Wildsmith J. G. Wiley D. Wood 1720 F2WA 1050 1020 F2WA M3G 1220 1010 G4WT 1500 t G5NA 1440 1150 1793 1760 F2WD 1900* 1720 1700 1200 1793 1740 1683 G5NA 1900 G4NA G5NG 1220 1700 1150 1690 1200 F2WA 1670 1752 1010 1010 G5EC G5WA 1690 G5NL DSW 117574 HARTOLDMONO018485 n_n [nJ WORLDWIDE GUIDELINE PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP Monsanto products and intermediates will not present an unreasonable risk of harm to human life or health, or to the environment when they are properly handled, transported, used or disposed. Stakeholders will be provided information regarding handling, storage, use and disposal of Monsanto products. INTRODUCTION ' Employees, customers and the community are all important stakeholders that are directly afTected by Monsanto's product stewardship programs. Inherent in these programs is the responsibility for assessing, managing, and communicating the risks associated with the products and intermediates Monsanto manufactures or markets or plans to manufacture or market. Product assessments are at the heart of this process and involve judgments by specialists about the level of risk borne by stakeholders as a result of manufacture, 1 processing, distribution, use and disposal of a product. They integrate data on effects, (such as toxicology, epidemiology, and medical observations), with product composition and exposure information (such as industrial hygiene monitoring, and environmental fate). For each Monsanto product or intermediate, we need enough data or information to reach a supportable conclusion that under reasonably anticipated conditions of handling and use, the product does not pose an unreasonable risk to those who may be exposed or the environment. We must recognize that our stakeholders have a voice in this decision process. It is our responsibility to provide stakeholders with information such as labels and Material Safety Data Sheets, which will permit them to have knowledgeable input into the process. Our risk management actions must reflecj.stakeholder input. i' PROGRAM 1. AH new product candidates and new process inter mediate candidates will be assessed and managed as detailed below. Note: in view of the unique charac teristics of articles, they will be handled separately from this program. a) All local, national and international product regulatory requirements will be satisfied in a timely fashion during project development. MONSANTO COMPANY b) R&D materials utilized in the laboratory will be handled according to Prudent Laboratory Practices (e.g.. National Research Council Guidance, Monsanto Research Center Policies and Procedures, or similar). c) New R&D products and process intermediates, that are either, i) shipped to customers, non-laboratory facilities or laboratories covered by the OSHA Hazard Communications Standard or, ii) produced in significant quantities (e.g., U.S. regulations define significant quantities as "quantities in excess of I00Kg/ycar") or, iii) manufactured or handled in non-laboratory facilities, will have a completed product safety review (i.e., one or more of the following: ER-200, EC-201, pilot plant safety audit or equivalent. Institutional Biosafety Committee Review) an appropriate label, and a Material Safety Data Sheet, or R&D equivalent. d) New products, new process intermediates, and significant new uses of existing products will have a product assessment (EC-202 or equivalent), a Material Safety Data Sheet and a shipping classification (TF-837 or equivalent) completed before commercialization. e) Material Safety Data Sheets for new products and process intermediates will be made available to all persons engaged in R&D commercialization of these materials. 2. All commercial products, process intermediates or product families comprised of these materials, will have ongoing product assessments, risk management and hazard and risk communications. DSW 117575 SECTION 6 I HARTOLDMONO018486 PROGRAM (continued) a) Material Safety Data Sheets or equivalent will be developed for all Monsanto products and process intermediates. Material Safety Data Sheets will be provided to employees and customers and made available to other stakeholders in an appropriate language. All issued Material Safety Data Sheets will be reviewed when significant new information affecting the product or intermediate becomes available. At a minimum, reviews will be . performed every five years. Material Safety Data Sheets will be updated as appropriate as a result of these reviews. Records of Material Safety Data Sheet recipients will be maintained, where practical. b) Product files for all products or product families . will be maintained. The product file may include the following: Appropriate Material Safety Data Sheets, references to relevant literature or internal reports, relevant information on composition, physical properties, manufacturing processes, principal by-products, protective measures and exposure information. A critical review of health and environmental effects and exposure information, such as EC-201, EC-202, Monsanto Work-Place Permissible Exposure Guideline (MWPEG) Reviews, Health Effect Reviews and Toxicology Reviews. c) Information contained in product files will be used for business decisions, government interactions, public communications and other product management activities. 3. Product Stewardship is the responsibility of the business units. Each operating company, free-standing division or world area will assign an individual(s) the responsibility for assuring that this Guideline program is met. Guideline oversight is the responsibility of the Corporate Environmental Policy Staff. Units of the corporate staff (Environmental Policy Staff, Safety and Environmental Health, and others) and business units are jointly responsible for developing information needed for product assessments. This includes regular periodic reevaluation of data available in light of new information relevant to the product. (Revised end Approved by Environmental, Safety & Health Committee April 25, 1989) SECTION 6 Pace 2 OSW 117S76 HARTOLDMONO018487 DISTRTBUTTON R. E. Ackerman U4C I. Andrer 5040 R. M. Bannister A3ND j. w. Barnett A3ND D. Barrett U4C N. C. Boggs II E2NK E. J. Bollanas ' 5300 D. P. Brown F2EC j. R. Condray , A3NA J. E. Downes G4WR K. E.. Storm A3NL P. A. Easterday A3NL C- Elmer A3NA T. F. Evans A3NA J. D. Felder G4WR J. J. Ferguson 5000 M. R. Foresman G4WT B. R. Friedlander A3NA B. J. Gilhousen E2NK J. S. Harding 5040 R. L. Harness C2SB A. D. Hatten G4WR C. E. Healy A3ND J. L. Henshaw A3NL B. J. Hill G4WR J. P. Hyland G4WT J. R. Jackson 5040 E. P. Jannsen 5270 A. J. Janusz U4C F. R. Johannsen A3ND G. M. Johnson A3NL R. H. Joslin G4WS S. P. Krchma E2NG C. J. Larsen 5040 R. I. Lennox A2NA G. J, Levinskas A3ND C. D. Malloch A3NA J. N. McGuire G4WM D. E. McKinney A3NG J. P. Mieure G4WR D. G. Montgomery G4WR M. J. Murphy A3NL R. s. Nair - A3ND J. H. Nisbet 5050 J. S. Noble U4C E. F. Ogu A3NL L. P. Paradis G4WS C. Paton/D. Abresch 5510 C. O'. Patterson F2EA C. R. Perry 5040 M. A. Pierle G4WT M. Plotnick 5090 D. J. Randall A3NG > D. B. Redington A3NA M. D. Rhine-Jones G4WR V. L. Rhodes G4WR K. T. Richardson G. M. Rinaldi E. C. Robinson R. D. Short P. H. Smith W. L. Smull G. S. Spies M. W. Stevens C. Strang R. L. Walter M. F. Weishaar C. A. Wiltshire P. C. Wright 5040 G4WT A3ND A3ND E2NK G4WM A3NL A3NG A3NL A2NA G4WM 5040 E2NK >SW 117577 HARTOLDMONO018488 Monsanto OCT i p 1990 FROM (mame-locatiom-phohe) F. E. Kearney - St. Louis, G4WT - 4-314 6 DATE: SUBJ: REF: to: October 12, 1990 cc: MCC NEW PRODUCT INTRODUCTIONS ENVIRONMENTAL AND RELATED FOLLOW-UPS ' See Distribution Monsanto's policy is to sell only those products that do not represent an unreasonable risk of harm when properly handled, etc. (Attachment 1). The final authority for permitting sampling and/or sale of new products rests with the Department of Medicine and Environmental Health "DMHS"), whose procedures are described in DMHS "Health and Environmental Compatibility Assessment of Monsanto Products, A Guide to the Use of Department of Medicine & Environmental Health Data Sheets ER-200, EC-201 and EC-202". This policy and procedure apply to Monsanto products worldwide. At each stage of the DMHS approval process (ER-200 limited to bench scale R&D sampling, EC-201 for any sampling, and EC-202 for commercialization), there are follow-up steps to be taken. The attached procedure (Attachment 2) is newly created for MCC use worldwide. Please insure that others in your organization who are involved in any aspect of new product introduction are also given copies. Your help in this as well as in insuring compliance are appreciated. . If you have any questions, please contact your assigned Manager, Product Safety. . /pam Attachments F. E. Kearney DSW 117578 HARTOLDMONO018489 PROGRAM (continued) a) Material Safety Data Sheets or equivalent will be developed for all Monsanto products and process intermediates. Material Safety Data Sheets will be provided to employees and customers and made available to other stakeholders in an appropriate language. All issued Material Safety Data Sheets will be reviewed when significant new information affecting the product or intermediate becomes available. At a minimum, .reviews will be performed every five years. Material Safety Data Sheets will be updated as appropriate as a result of these reviews. Records of Material Safety Data Sheet recipients will be maintained, where practical. b) Product files for all products or product families will be maintained. The product Hie may include the following: Appropriate Material Safety Data Sheets, references to relevant literature or internal reports, relevant information on composition, physical properties, manufacturing processes, principal by-products, protective measures and exposure information. A critical review of health and environmental effects and exposure information, such as EC-201, EC-202, Monsanto Work-Place Permissible Exposure Guideline (MWPEG) Reviews, Health Effect Reviews and Toxicology Reviews. c) Informadon contained in product files will be used for business decisions, government interactions, public communications and other product management activities. 3. Product Stewardship is the responsibility of the business units. Each operating company, free-standing division or world area will assign an individual(s) the responsibility for assuring that this Guideline program is met. Guideline oversight is the responsibility of the Corporate Environmental Policy Staff. Units of the corporate staff (Environmental Policy Staff, Safety and Environmental Health, and others) and business units are jointly responsible for developing information needed for product . assessments. This includes regular periodic reevaluation of data available in light of new informauon relevant to the product. (Revised and Approved by Environmental, Safety A Health Committee April 25, 1989) . SECTION 6 Page 2 05 W 117580 HARTOLDMONO018490 (3) ha* been submitted already to EPA under another lunditcr/ reporting provision of 1) TSCA, or 2) iom other authority that is administered by EPA. (4) is containad in a formal publication/report or a fcmi statement made available to ths ganarai public by another Federal agancy. (5) is corroborativa (in tarns of, for example, routa of exposure, dose, species, time ta oniat, severity, apaciaa, attain, ate.) of a vll-8tabllshed adverse effect. It i* important to nota, hovavar, that information that navly idantifiaa a serious toxic affact at a lower doaa level fer axampla, or confirms a serious affact that vaa previously only suspected, in nfi conaidarad by EPA to ba corroborativa and should ba raportad undar Saction 8(a) of TSCA. (6) ia information for vhich tha EPA Administrator has vaived complianca vith TSCA in ganarai or Saction 8(a) spacifically upon a request and determination of tha Praaidant of tha United States that such a waiver ia raquirad in tha intarast of tha national dafanaa; Saction 22 of TSCA outllnas the procaduraa by which such waivers arm to ba re^------- V.' With ragard to itam (2) on tha pracading paga, EPA baliavas that for tha purposaa of Saction 8(a) reporting, a subject parson need not report Information that ia obtained from vell-establiafaed/vell`recognized scientific journals, auch as those typically abstracted in a) major ccmputarized abstract data bases, or 2) publications such as currant Contents published by tha Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), Inc. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania). Similarly, information that is obtained from major U.S. news publications (a.g., newspapers or news magazines with national circulation) cr nationally broadcast U.S. radio and/or television news reports typically need not ba submitted to EPA undar Saction 8(a) of TSCA. Hovavar, vith ragard to information obtained from lasser known scientific journals, or from other magazines, nsvspapers, radio or tslavlsion reports, a subjact parson must have actual knowledge that EPA has bean adequately informed about such information. Spacifically with ragard to itam (4) , it cannot be automatically assumed that tha Agancy has bean adequately informed about information in a rsport or study by anothar Federal or other governmental agancy if tha report or study has not bean formally published or otherwise released to tha ganarai public. Therefore, if a parson obtains (i.a., possesses or knows of), for example, certain unpublished Section 8(a)-reportable information froa a study that is conducted by or for an agancy of tha U.S. Covamsan: (other than EPA), that parson must consider tha need to immediately submit those findings under Saction 8(a). Since 1977, EPA has received a number of Saction 8(a) notices fiXad by companies who had obtained unpublished results of studies conducted by or for other Federal or other governmental agencies. In most cases, such submissions are limited to 1-2 pages and the Agency immediately establishes direct contact vith tha responsible agency to minimize or eliminate the company's Section 8(e)* reporting burden. DSVj L 7622i HARTOLDMONO018491 pofll ggpoRTrsQ to ajoteh* Bxrigrr jictipt tiz) RgQPiRExryrsi Mandatory or other reporting of information to another agency dos . no- ,atiafy a company`a obligation to iaaadiataly inform EPA undar Saction 8(a) of TSCA. TKinr MUST sgcTioj t(E) nrroRXRTioif bi reported? A parson is considarad to hava discharged tha TSCA Saction 8(a) reporting obligation JLX the information is racaivad at EPA Headquarters in writing within 15 working days after tha parson obtained tha information. Relevant or significant supplemental data obtained after an initial Section 8(e) submission should also be reported in writing to EPA immediately (i.e., within 15 working days). The reader** attention is directed to THAT doel to TERM "obtxtts tktorxattoT" mxrr found on Page 6 of this reporting guide. ' Par an "Emergency Incident of Environmental Contamination" (EXEC), a telephone call to the appropriate EPA Regional Office must b* placed immediately (i.e.r as soon as reasonably possible); these phone numbers are given in the next section of this guide. A written follow-up report must also sent to EPA Headquarters within 15 working days of the date oh which the telephone report was made. HOT KP8T SECTION (El HTPORXRTIOH Bf REPORTED? Section 8(e) submissions must be transmitted to EPA in a manner that permits the Agency to verify receipt of the submission (e.g., certified or registered mail). 'In addition, the submission must state clearly that it is being provided under Section 8(e) of TSCA. Purther, the submission must contain the name, title and telephone number of the person sending the information, the name and address of the establishment with which the reporting person is affiliated, the name(s) (including Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) Registry Number(s), if known) of the subject chemical(s) ,* and a summary describing the nature of adverse effects or exposure being reported together with the source of any supporting technical data. Por an "Emergency Incident of Environmental Contamination" (EXEC), the initial telephone report must provide the time and location of the incident and as much of the above information as is known at tha time. A written EXEC follow-up report to EPA Headquarters must contain the same types of information that are required in a nonEIEC initial Section 8(e) submission. OSW 1176233 3 of 3 HARTOLDMONO018492 OVERVIEW OF TSCA SECTION 8(e) What ' Is TSCA '"Section' 8 f e) ? TSCA Section 8(e) requires that: "Any person who manufactures, processes, or distributes in commerce a chemical substance or mixture and who obtains information which reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment shall immediately inform the Administrator of such information unless such person has actual knowledge that the Administrator has been adequately informed of such information." NOTE: The term chemical substance does not include substances used exclusively as food, food additives, drugs or cosmetics if regulated by the FFDCA, pesticides if regulated by the FIFRA, and articles. The meaning of virtually every word of. this paragraph has evolved over the years, since passage of TSCA in 1976. Unlike most other sections of TSCA, EPA has not issued regulations imple menting 8(e), and therefore you won't find it in the Code of Federal Regulations. Interpretative guidance was first issued by EPA on March 16, 1978 (43 Fed. Reg. 11110; hereinafter referred to as S8(e) Guidance), and supplemented over the years by: ' %- status reports of S8(e) submissions; enforcement cases; and, letters to individual companies. In formulating the 8(e) provision. Congress responded to a concern that a number of companies had suppressed information about the cancer-causing nature of certain chemicals. Examples described during the hearings included vinyl chloride and bie-chloromethyl ether. S8(e) was designed to ensure that this type of information would receive prompt attention by the EPA. Current interpretations by EPA go far beyond these examples. (See below.) ymmumsmssssm "Persons" who manufacture, process, or distribute chemical substances or mixtures must report. Trade associations may provide a report for their members, although they are not required to do so under S8(e). Similarly, testing laboratories have no reporting obligations under $8(e), even if they are in possession of reportable information. A company can relieve individual officers and employees of their obligation to report potential S8(e) information to the Agency by: "Establishing, internally publishing, and affirmatively implementing procedures for employee submission and corporate processing of pertinent information." DSW 1176*24 HARTOLDMONO018493 -2- EPA must be "immediately informed" by telephone within hours of emergency incidents of environmental contamination, with a written follow-up sent within IS working days after the incident. In its $8(e) Guidance, EPA stated that other S8(e) information must be submitted "not later than the ISth uorking day after the date the person obtained such Information." EPA S8(e) Guidance .states that "a person obtains substantial risk Information at the time he first comes into possession or knows of such information." Further, "an establishment obtains information at the time any officer or employee capable of appreciating the significance of such information obtains it" (emphasis added). A "substantial risk of injury to health or the environment* is a risk of considerable concern because of: (a) the seriousness of the effect; and (b) the fact or probability of its occurrence. The S8(e) Guidance provides the following examples: (1) Any instance of cancer, birth defects, mutagenicity, death or serious or prolonged incapacitation, including the loss of or inability to use a normal bodily function with a consequent relatively serious impairment of normal activities if one (or a few) chemical(s) is strongly implicated. (2) Any pattern of effects or evidence which reasonably supports the conclusion that the chemical substance or mixture can produce cancer, mutation, birth defects or toxic effects resulting in death, or serious or prolonged incapacitation. The Agency has also defined "substantial risk" in terms of serious or pro longed incapacitation. Animal toxicology reports are by far the most frequent 8(e) submissions. These, of course, provide the best indication of the toxic response of a test chemical in humans (short of actually testing the chemical in humans). Normally, standard acute toxicology tests are not subject to S8(e) reporting, unless something very unusual and/or unexpected is observed. For example, a rat peroral LD5fl of 0.5 mg/kg for "Chemical X" would be unusual and unexpected if chemicals closely related to it had rat peroral LDSQ*s in the.1 to 4 g/kg range. As a practical matter, any unusual or unexpected result should be given consideration for S8(e) reporting, and any results of a "serious" nature (as defined in the S8(e) Guideline) should also be considered for S8(e) reporting. J3SW 117625 HARTOLDMON0018494 -3- The Agency guidance on S8(e) reportability hae evolved over the years, as reflected in both its S8(e) "Status Reports" and other documents, including litigation papers and letters to various companies which address specific 8(e) issues. For example, the S8(e) reportability of developmental and neurotoxic effects was addressed in a 1988 letter to Monsanto. Regarding the S8(e) reportability of mutagenicity results, the Agency's current position on in vitro tests (such as the Ames test) is: "Although a positive in vitro genotoxicity finding, when considered alone, may not be sufficient to offer reasonable support for a conclusion of substantial risk...EPA does believe that a single positive genotoxicologic finding is of value in assessing the possible risk(s) posed by exposure to the tested chemical substeuice or mixture." (8EHQ-0687-0677) However, when the exposure potential is-very high (as, for example, with a copy machine toner), the Agency has accepted a positive Ames result as an indication of substantial risk (8 EHQ-0780-0351). Also, when combined with other information (in vitro tests, for example), a positive Ames result could be S8(e) reportable. In a risk assessment context, "risk" is generally defined as a function of hazard and exposure. Thus, it would be logical to conclude that "substantial risk" (in the TSCA $8(e) context) would involve a function of hazard (such as a toxicology finding) and exposure (actual or potential). Such is not the case under TSCA S8(e). . The Agency has essentially eliminated the role of exposure in the determina tion of substantial risk (with few exceptions). Serious health effects far outweigh exposure considerations. Indeed, the $8(e) Guidance states that: "the mere fact the implicated chemical is in commerce constitutes sufficient evidence of exposure" ("commerce" has also become quite broad in its meaning, and includes R&D activities). This is addressed in the $8(e) Guidance. Information can come from designed well-controlled studies, as well as from undesigned uncontrolled circum stances. The evidence does not have to be conclusive; it should, however, reliably ascribe the effect to the chemical.* 1 The $8(e) Guidance provides the following examples: OSW 117626 (1) Widespread and previously unsuspected distribution in environmental media, as indicated Ln studies (excluding materials contained within appropriate disposal facilities). (2) Pronounced bioaccumulation. Measurements and indicators of pronounced bioaccumulation heretofore unknown to the Administrator (including bioaccumulation in fish beyond 5,000 times water HARTOLDMONO018495 -4- concentration in a 30-day exposure or having an n-octanol/water partition coefficient >25,000) should be reported when coupled with potential for widespread exposure and any nontrivial adverse effect. (3) Any nontrivial adverse effect, heretofore unknown to the Administrator, associated with a chemical known to have bio accumulated to a pronounced degree or to be widespread in environmental media. (4) Ecologically significant changes in species' interrelationships, that is, changes in population behavior, growth, survival, etc., that in turn affect other species' behavior, growth, or survival. Examples include: (i) Excessive stimulation of primary producers (algae, macrophytes) in aquatic ecosystems, e.g., resulting in nutrient enrichment, or eutrophication, of aquatic ecosystems. - (ii) Interference with critical biogeochemical cycles, such as the nitrogen cycle. (5) Facile transformation or degradation to a chemical having an unacceptable risk as defined above. There have not been many environmental 8(e) submissions to date. While EPA guidance in this area is very limited, it would appear that risk can be considered in determining reportability of environmental information. The "trigger words" to remember in this context are: widespread and previously unsuspected; pronounced bioaccumulation; and, unusual, unexpected, and nontrivial. An example of a reportable study would be extensive data on TCOD ("dioxin") in river water sediments and fish, which was both widespread and unsuspected. A nonreportable study example would be a study which describes ambient and stack sampling results, with no indication of being widespread and unsuspected. EPA S8(e) Guidance defines this as: OSH 11762.7 "Any environmental contamination by a chemical substance or mixture to which any of the above adverse effects (i.e., previously described environmental effects subject to 58(e)) has been ascribed and which because of the pattern, extent, and amount of contamination: (a) Seriously threatens humans with cancer, birth defects, mutation, death, or serious or prolonged incapacitation; or. (b) Seriously threatens nonhuman organisms with large-scale or ecologically significant population destruction." HARTOLDMONO018496 -5- sr^aww. Information need not be reported if it: (a) Has been published by EPA in reports. (b) Has been submitted in writing to EPA pursuant to mandatory reporting requirements under TSCA or any other authority administered by EPA (including FIFRA S6(a)(2); see 8(e) Guidance). This also includes timely (within 15 days) submissions under $8(d), 54, and S5 (PMN, SNUR). (c) Has been published in the scientific literature and referenced by any one (1) of six (6) defined.abstract services. (d) Is corroborative of well-established adverse effects already documented in the scientific literature, unless this information concerns emergency incidents of environmental contamination. (In its action against Union Carbide concerning an alleged 8(e) violation, EPA essentially rendered the definition of "corroborative" to mean replicative. As a practical matter rarely, if ever, would a new study "corroborate" a prior study because some parameter would almost always be different.] (e) - Is contained in notification of spills or emergency releases under other Federal authority. (f) Applies to chemicals that are exclusively food, food additives, drug or cosmetic if regulated by FFDCA; pesticide (after EUP) if regulated by FIFRA; and article. (8/20/90) OSW 117628 HARTOLDMONO018497 PROCEDURE TSCA 8(c) RECORDKEEPING: LITIGATION CLAIMS DETAILED PROCEDURE: Step 1 Litigation complaints will be reviewed at the time of receipt by the law department for relevance to TSCA 8(c) recordkeeping. Criteria for this review include the following: a) Is the claim against a Monsanto product or process? b) Is the produces) in question one that is covered by TSCA, i.e., other than pesticide, herbicide, food, food' additive, or pharmaceutical? ' c) Is the claim a health or environmental claim? If questions a, b and c are all yes, die claim will be sent to the DMHS occupational medicine group. Exceptions to this include: PCB claims which will be sent to the EPS/Product Safety Group for review and claims against MAP, Nutrition and Health Care Products which will be sent to these respective groups when the law department is unsure of the answer to question (b). Step 2 The occupational medicine group of DMHS will review the litigation claims passed to them by the-law department/The review will be based on EPA's definitions of "known human effect" and "significant adverse reactions." (40 CFR 717) For environmental effects, DMHS may need to contact the appropriate DEO for assistance. that do not meet TSCA 8(c) criteria will be dropped from further TSCA review of this step. Those claims that nr*t TSCA 8(c) criteria will be forwarded to the DRM, Toxic Substances, for filing. PCB claims that nv the 8(c) criteria will also be forwarded for filing. Step 3 Claims meeting the 8(c) criteria will be .filed in the TSCA 8(c) file maintained by the DRM, Toxic Substances. This office will request a copy of the complaint "answer" from the law department. Step 4 . The law department will forward a copy of the complaint "answer" to the DRM, Toxic Substances for filing in the TSCA 8(c) file, along with the "complaint." The "complaint" and "answer" will constitute the TSCA 8(c) recordable "allegation" and "follow-up" for all litigation filings. A block flow diagram of the TSCA 8(c) process for litigation complaints appears on the reverse side of this page. * J MONSANTO COMPANY OSW 117629 ' PR3-Appendix 3.1 HARTOLDMONO018498 TSCA 8(c) REVIEW PROCEDURE OF LITIGATION CLAIMS Complaint v Drop EPS PCB 8(c) Recordable "Complaint" ,, PCB Law Department Review Health and Environmental "Complaints" "Complaints" | covered b;y TSCA FIFRA Food and Drug Non Health and Environment Drop Exemptions from TSCA not clear MAP Nutrition Health Care Drop DMHS Medical Do not meet ' 8(c) criteria ' 8(c) Recordable ' 1 , "Complaint" Drop File "Complaint", in 8(c) file Answer" DSW 117630 File "Answer" in 8(c) file PR3-Appendix 3.2 HARTOLDMONO018499 PROCEDURE ^ RECORDING ALLEGATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE REACTIONS UNDER TSCA - U.S. Monsanto procedure for handling the Recordkeeping Requirements of Final U.S. Environmental Pro tection Agency Rule Under Section 8(c) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 1. Abstract of Rule - Manufacturers and certain processors of chemical substances and mixtures must maintain records of significant adverse reactions to health or the environment alleged to have been caused by a substance, mixture, article, pfocess, effluent or emission.' These records are subject to EPA inspection. Rule Reference - 40 CFR Part 717 (48 FR 38178 August 22, 1983) Note: The Rule does not apply to pesticides, food, food additives, drugs or cosmetics when manufactured, processed or distributed for these uses. 2. Key Definitions (See Section 717.3 of the Rule for complete listing of definitions.) * a. "Allegation" means a statement made without formal proof or regard for evidence, that a chemical substance or mixture has caused a significant adverse reaction to health or the environment. b. "Known human effect" means a commonly recognized human health effect of a particular substance or mixture described either in: i. Scientific articles or publications abstracted in standard reference sources. ii. The firms product labeling or material safety data sheets (MSDS). However, an effect is not a "known human effect" if it: i. Was a significantly more severe toxic effect than previously described. ii. Was a manifestation of a toxic effect after a significantly, shorter exposure level than described. iii. Was a manifestation of a toxic effect by an exposure route different from that described. c. "Significant adverse reactions" are reactions that may indicate a substantial impairment of normal activities, or long-lasting or irreversible damage to health or the environment. 3. Exemptions from the Role that relate to Monsanto a. Activities involving solely mining or other solely extractive functions. b. Significant adverse reactions that are known human effects. c. Significant adverse reactions to the environment directly attributable to incidents of environmental contamination that have been reported to the federal government under any applicable authority. 4. Who can receive an allegation? Allegations can come from a variety of sources including: employees, contractors, customers and neighbors. As a result, Monsanto's receiving network must be broad. Initial receptors include: plant, laboratory and other Monsanto location supervision; plant and other Monsanto location managers, the Monsanto medical community at all locations, the offices of the Operating Company Directors of Environmental Operations, sales and marketing contacts, switchboard operators at all locations and environmental network contacts. 5. Procedure for Handling Health or Environmental Allegations The Monsanto Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(c) procedure consists of a four-step review and decision process. (Note: A separate procedure for litigation claims will be used see Appendix 3.1. A determination thatft~an allegation is not recordable under the Rule can be made at any step in the process. The procedure is shown schematically on Appendix 3.2). MONSANTO COMPANY Post-It- brand fax transmittal memo 7671 oi pa* TO k.v.l, h- Co. Co. f OepC Fll * Phono DSW 1J.76 3J. : PR3-1 HARTOLDMONO018500 RECORDING .ALLEGATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE REACTIONS UNDER TSCA - U.S. (continued) 5. Procedure for Handling Health or Environmental Allegations (continued) a. Step One - Each plant or other Monsantodesignated locations or laboratory will have at least one identified and trained TSCA Section 8(c) key contact. The Director of Environmental Operations (DEO) or designate from the appro-priate operating companies, representatives of the WHSA (World Headquarters Site Administration), and Director, Regulatory Management (DRM), Toxic Substances will serve as the key contacts for the General Offices. The DEO's have responsibility under this procedure for free-standing divisions and subsidiaries of which Monsanto owns 50 percent or more of the voting stock or other equity rights, or for which Monsanto has the power to control the management and policies of that firm. At Step One, all initial receptors will automatically transfer persons making oral allegations to the key contact at their locations. Initial receptors will also transfer written allegation to the key contact at their location. (There are two exceptions with respect to oral allegations: If the initial receptors are either members of the Department of Medicine and Health Sciences Occupational Medicine (DMHS-OM) group (physicians) or the DEO's office, then these individuals can judge at Step One if an oral allegation is excluded.) Decision Criteria for Step One: pesticides, food, food additives, drugs, or cosmetics are excluded. If a decision is made that the allegation is excluded, the allegatipn, if written, will be discarded and, if oral, will not be acted on under the Rule. If the allegation is oral and not excluded, the key contact will inform the alleger that such allegation may be recordable under the Rule and request that the alleger submit a written and signed allegation to the key contact Monsanto Form 8(c)A, shown on Appendix 2, is available to be used for all employee related oral health allegations and can be used at the discretion of the DEO for external oral health allegations. All key contacts must note on a written allegation the date of its receipt - b. Step Two - The key contact at a Monsanto location or the appropriate DEO for the General Offices will provide Monsanto employees with Form 8(c)A for oral allegations of health effects. Written allegations will then be reviewed by the key contact, who will then make a Step Two decision. The key contact will determine if the written allegation is exempted from the Rule using the criteria in paragraph 3 above. If a decision is made that an allegation is exempt from the Rule, the allega-tion will be discarded. Otherwise, the allegation will be sent to the appropriate DEO for review. c. Step Three - The appropriate DEO will serve as the coordinator for Step Three and Step Four activities. Allegations received from the location (plant, etc.) key contacts will be reviewed by the DEO and a Step Three decision made. A Step Three decision also will be made by the DEO or other General Offices key contact regarding allegations made to the General Offices receptors. If the Step Three decision is that the allegation is not recordable under the Rule, the allegation will be discarded. Otherwise the allegation will proceed to Step Four. d. Step Four - The DEO will form a committee to make decisions with respect to allegations that must be recorded under the Rule. The committee will be chaired by the DEO and consist of appropriate members of DMHS-OM for human effects, appro-priate members of Environmental Sciences for environmental effects. Environmental Law and the DRM, Toxic Substances. If the decision is that the alle-gation is not recordable under the Rule, the allegation will be discarded. The DEO will provide feedback to the location key contact. If the Step Four decision is that the allegation is recordable under the Rule, then the DRM-Toxic Substances, will place the allegation and documents mandated by the Rule in the TSCA Section 8(c) file. The DEO will provide feedback to the location key contact. 6. Record keeping The TSCA Section 8(c) file will be kept in the Office of the DRM Toxic Substances. The file structure will confirm to requirements of Section 717.15 of the Rule. Files pertaining to adverse reactions to health of employees will be retained for 30 years. Files pertaining to other adverse reactions will be maintained for 5 years. 7. Communications a. Disposition of written allegations will be communi-cated back to the individual making the allegation. The key contact will facilitate the communication. b. A summary of the TSCA Section 8(c) procedure will be periodically communicated to all affected employees and updated, as appropriate. (Reviewed and Approved: Environmental Safety and Health Committee. October 20. 1987.) DSU 117632 HARTOLDMONO018501 rui In] PROCEDURE SIMPLIFIED FLOW DIAGRAM OF MONSANTO PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING ALLEGATIONS SUBJECT TO TSCA 8(c) > Allcgadon qualifies for TSCA 8(c) recordkeeping. Put in 8(c) file in St. Louis. MONSANTO COMPANY STEP ONE: Decision , t subject to TSCA 8(c) recordkeeping. Drop from process. STEP TWO: Decision Not subject to TSCA 8(c) recordkeeping. Drop from process. _,, , _ -OSW 117633 STEP THREE: Decision Not subject to TSCA 8(c) recordkeeping. Drop from process. STEP FOUR: Decision Not subject to TSCA 8(c) recordkeeping. Drop from process. PR3-Appendix 1 HARTOLDMONO018502 PROCEDURE ALLEGATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE REACTION TO HEALTH Toxic Substances Control Act, Section 8(c) 40 CFR Part 717 NAME OF ALLEGER:--------ADDRESS: (If not employee) SITE LOCATION: SITE ADDRESS: DATE:// MO DAY YU SITE LOC. CODE: (If health effect only): M [] F Q YR. OF BIRTH:------------------------ s Employer (if other than Monsanto):.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.--_--_--. f ) DESCRIPTION OF ALLEGED ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECT: 1. WHAT IS THE HEALTH EFFECT BEING CLAIMED?-------------------------------------------------------- ;---------------:------------ 2. HOW LONG DID IT LAST?-____ 3. HOW OFTEN HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED EFFECT?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. IN WHAT WAY DID IT AFFECT YOUR NORMAL ACnVITIES?-------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. HOW WERE YOU EXPOSED?----------------------------------------------------------------:------------------------------------------------------- WHAT SUBSTANCE, MIXTURE, PROCESS OR OPERATION DO YOU THINK CAUSED THE EFFECT YOU DESCRIBED: i .-I''-' FOR COMPANY USE ONLY: RECEIVED ON:. MONSANTO COMPANY BY:. Signature _ OSH 117634 PR3-Appendix 2 HARTOLDMONO018503 MInJ PROCEDURE PREMANUFACTURE NOTIFICATION TO EPA UNDER TSCA - U.S. Monsanto procedure for development of premanufacture notification (PMN) as required under Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 1. Abstract of Requirements - A PMN is required to be submitted to EPA for all new chemical substances at least 90 days before the substance can be manufactured for commercial purposes. A number of substances are exempted from these requirements including, but not limited to: drugs, food and food ' additives, pesticides, R&D substances, nonisolated intermediates, and substances on the TSCA inventory. Final Rules Reference - 40 CFR Part 720. 2. Is a PMN required? At a very early stage of a new product development, including isolated intermediates and new imports, several checks should be made to determine if a PMN will be required for the product. a. Is the product (substance) exempt under TSCA? Responsibility. Operating Company Director, Environmental Operations (DEO) or designate. Section 2(B) of TSCA exempts broad classes of substances such as pesticides, food, food additives, mixtures and others. Section 5(h) exempts small quantities for R&D purposes and has provisions to exempt substances for test marketing low volume manufacture, and polymer manufacture. Refer to TSCA law and regulations for details or contact Director, Regulatory Management (DRM), Toxic Substances. b. Is the substance "new" under TSCA? (Is it on the ` TSCA Inventory of Chemical in Commerce?) Responsibility: Operating Company DEO or designate. Contact the Manager of Administrative Services in the Department of Safety and Environmental Health Administration and have the TSCA non-confidential searched for the substance. If the substance is on the TSCA nonconfidential inventory, it is not new under TSCA definition and a PMN is not required. If the substance in question is not on the nonconfidential inventory, the con-fidential inventory must be searched. To search the confidential inventory, a Bona Fide Intent to Manufacture (BIM) Notice must be submitted to EPA. A copy of the instructions for submitting a BIM can be found in 720.25 of 40 CFR 720. Send a copy of the BIM to the DRM, TSCA for corporate record-keeping purposes. If EPA reports that the substance is not on the confidential inventory, then the substance is a new substance under TSCA and a PMN is required unless the material is exempt under Section 1 (a) above. 3. Wbat information is required on a PMN submission? Final rules detailing the PMN requirements can be found in 40 CFR 720. All PMNs must be submitted on EPA Form 7710-25 (4/26/83). Copies of the form and instructions for its use are available from the DRM, TSCA. The required PMN information falls into either the category of General Information or Risk Assessment Data. EPA will accept additional data. In many cases, it is desirable to submit Risk Analysis or other information to assist EPA with their assessment. Since Monsanto performs a Risk Analysis on all new products via Corporate Environmental Protection Guidelines and the EC-201 and 202 procedures, the information is available for this purpose. * MONSANTO COMPANY DSW 117635 PR4-1 HARTOLDMONO018504 PREMANUFACTURE NOTIFICATION TO EPA UNDER TSCA - U.S. (continued) 4. What are the details of the PMN procedure? The PMN process should be integrated into the development scheme of a new project. In most cases, the PMN development will be initiated during the earliest phases of commercialization of a product. The PMN must be submined to EPA at least 90 days before the product can be manufactured for commercial purposes, including test marketing. a. How is a PMN initiated? Responsibility: Operating Company DEO or designate. The Operating Company contact submits an . ER-200 or EC-201 to the Department of Medicine and Health Science (DMHS) if one has not already been submitted (See Monsanto booklet G-2738 for ER-200 and EC-201-202 Procedures). The Operating Company contact drafts a PMN using the EPA form. The Operating Company contact calls a scoping meeting. Minimum participants at the meeting are Operating Company contact. Operating Company DEO or designate (if not serving as a contact), member of Corporate Environmental Sciences group or other qualified environmental effects expert (if appropriate), DMHS toxicologist and DRM-TSCA. Copies of PMN drafts, along with an approved ER-200 or EC-201 for the substance are supplied to participants. At the scoping meeting, decisions are made by the Operating Company contact, as to the scope and detail of optional information to supply. If optional risk analysis is required, assignments are made to DMHS toxicology, industrial hygiene, etc., to complete the necessary sections. A decision is also made as to whether an EC-202 is needed before a PMN submission. Note: It is appropriate at this stage of product development to initiate a Material . Safety Data Sheet and a TF-837 for label and freight classification. b. How are PMNs finalized? Responsibility: Operating Company DEO or other designated Operating Company contact. The Operating Company contact prepares a final draft using input from the scoping meeting as well as follow-up input from DMHS. The Operating Company contact, together with the patent department reviews the final draft for confidential information and develops appropriate confidentiality claims with substantiation, where necessary. The final draft is circulated to the participants of the scoping meeting for final review. The Operating Company contact calls a meeting for final comments/approvals. c. How are PMNs submitted? Responsibility: DRM, TSCA After final review/approval, the Operating Company contact forwards the PMN to the DRM, TSCA (Authorized Official), for submission. The DRM, TSCA will submit the PMN (both confidential and non-confidential as appropriate), using applicable EPA submission requirements. d. How is EPA follow-up on a PMN handled? Each PMN will identify a technical contact in addition to an authorized official. The technical. contact will typically be an Operating Company DEO, Commercial Development, or R&D contact. Pbone Contact All calls from the EPA on technical matters should be handled by the "Technical Contact." All verbal questions concerning non-confidential inquiries by the EPA may be discussed at the time of cal] or deferred to obtain an answer if unknown or if unsure as to EPA authority to ask for the information. Non-confidential oral responses may be followed up with a written response when deemed appropriate by the contact. In all cases the technical contact should write a note to file documenting the conversations, with a copy to the DRM. TSCA. Confidential inquiries previously discussed with die EPA or claimed confidential in the PMN may be discussed at the discretion of the technical contact. All other verbal confidential questions will be addressed by written response only. PR4-2 Ds** U7636 HARTOLDMONO018505 M O PROCEDURE ) PREMANUFACTURE NOTIFICATIONS TO EPA UNDER TSCA - U.S. (continued) Phone Contact (continued) Uncertain areas of confidentiality will be deferred and handled according to item (5). ( Verbal response to EPA will be followed up, at the discretion of the technical contact, with a written letter documenting the conversation and clearly indicating areas of confidentiality. EPA Actions Responsibility: The Operating Company DEO or designate will have prime responsibility, with counsel of Environmental Law and the DRM, TSCA. EPA may extend the review period by an additional 90 days. EPA may ask for more information under Section 5(e). i.) An order may be issued by EPA. ii.) A consent order may be jointly agreed.to. The consent order can include restriction on manufacture or use in lieu of information generation. (Note: As a rule, consent orders should be signed by line, management). EPA may restrict manufacture or use under Section 5(f). e. How is Monsanto follow-up on the PMN submission handled? Responsibility: Operating Company DEO or designate. Monsanto may request EPA to stop the clock on PMN reviews at any time during the review period. After EPA's review period expires, manufacture can commence at any time, subject to any 5(e) or 5(f) restrictions. A Notice of Commence to Manufacture (NCM) must be submitted to EPA within 30 days of the first manufacture for commercial, purposes. The information to be included in the notice are detailed in 40 CFR 720. Confidential claims must be made again at this time, as appropriate. Send a copy of the NCM to the DRM, TSCA for corporate recordkeeping purposes. Once a NCM is filed with EPA, the PMN substance is placed on the TSCA inventory. (Approved: Operating Company Directors of Environmental Operations and the Director, Regulatory Management TSCA, October, 1983.) (Reviewed and Approved: Environmental Safety and Health Committee, October 20, 1987.) J MONSANTO COMPANY 117637 HARTOLDMONO018506 PROCEDURE OCCUPATIONAL FATAL ACCIDENT REPORTING In case of a fatal accident, Monsanto's Law Department must be contacted in addition to government, operating company, and corporate reporting requirements. OSHA regulations require that, within 48 hours after the occurrence of an employment accident which is fatal to one or more employees or which results in hospitalization of Eve or more employees, the employer of such employee(s) shall report the accident either orally or in writing to the nearest office of the OSHA Area Director. The reporting may bd by telephone or telegraph. The report shall relate the circumstances of the accident, the number of fatalities, and the extent of any injuries. In such in<tanr^< the following Monsanto guidelines are considered necessary to protect the civil rights of company employees. In addition to routine Operating Company and Corporate notifications in fatal accidents, either Mary M. Tonkin or Michael E. Gewin (for accidental deaths) or L. William Higley (for deaths from long-term chemical exposure), Monsanto's attorneys for OSHA matters, must be notified immediately.* They will provide prompt necessary legal guidance including, where necessary, sending an attorney to the site for onthe-spot counseling. In the meantime, OSHA inspectors) should be given access to the site of the accident when the inspector arrives on the premises, without requiring that the inspector secure a warrant for entry. However, neither members of location management nor any wage employee should discuss the accident with the OSHA inspector until advised to do so by the company attorney. The location manager or his designee will greet the inspector and state that location employees have been asked not to discuss the accident until the company attorney advises them accordingly. The inspector is to be fold that we have been forced to take this posture as a result of the OSHA Procedure for Investigating Criminal/Willful Violations. The inspector will be permitted to inspect the plant, and, of course, should be advised of any chemical hazards and protective measures needed, related or not to the accident. MONSANTO COMPANY Location personal will not allow the inspector to view any records or documents at this time, other than the lost-time injury log, OSHA Form 200 and Form 101 or its equivalent, until advised to do so by the company attorney. If the location is requested to rope off the area of the accident, local discretion should be exercised. The inspector, however, is not authorized to keep plant ' management away from any part of the operation. If local management believes entry by the inspector must be delayed for a few hours because of exposure, safety, confusion, etc, seek such a recommendation from Ms. Tonkin or Mr. Higley at the time of the initial call to St Louis. ' * Mary M. Tonkin, 314/694-2967 (office), 314/721-8209 (home). Michael E. Gewin, 314/694-2849 (office), 314/352-2176 (home). L. William Higley, 314/694-8503 (office); 314/862-1796 (home). (Approved: Environmental Policy Committee, February 18, 1980.) (Reviewed and Approved: Environmental, Safety and Health Committee, October 20, 1987.) (Updated for "key contacts, December 16, 1991) OSH 117638 -PR5-1 HARTOLDMONO018507 rui InJ PROCEDURE .) TRANSMITTAL OF TOXICOLOGY AND HEALTH-RELATED DATA TO REGULATORY AGENCIES - U.S. Health-related information should be submitted through the Department of Medicine and Health Sciences. The various regulatory agencies are continually supplied information from toxicology and health-related tests on Monsanto products done by or for Monsanto. In order to provide consistency in the handling and review of such information, as well as to assure proper follbw-through on commitments to these agencies, the transmittal of such test results will be carried out in accordance with the following guidelines: 1. All toxicology or health-related data will be reviewed with the Department of Medicine and Health Sciences (DMHS) prior to submission to any regulatory agency, except for routine submissions by Monsanto Agricultural Company of test data re-quired under FIFRA. In addition, DMHS will be informed of all such submissions at the time via the letter of transmittal. 2. Any such information transmitted must be recorded and the copy of the final submission retained both by DMHS and the involved operating company.3 3. The letter of transmittal for any toxicology or health-related data must include a listing of the materials being transmitted including sufficient bibliographic information for subsequent retrieval of the original data. 4. If the submission includes data on human health effects, it is preferable that the information be submitted to the regulatory agency by the Director of the Department of Medicine and Health Sciences. 5. Agreements with a regulatory agency which commit Monsanto to the future transmittal of toxicology or health-related data must also be reviewed and approved in advance by DMHS; further, DMHS must concur with the feasibility of meeting commitment dates. Appropriate records of such commitments must be maintained both by the involved operating company and DMHS in order to assure future Monsanto compliance with such agreements. 6. Any exceptions to the above must be approved by the Director of DMHS. (Approved: Environmental Policy Committee, January 17, 1984.) (Reviewed and Approved: Environmental, Safety and Health Committee, October 20, 1987.) J MONSANTO COMPANY " DSW 117639 PBS-1 HARTOLDMONO018508 GUIDELINE/PROCEDURE ) employees, representatives and agents, shall not be liable for and Contractor releases and discharges Monsanto, its subsidiaries, and their respective employees, representatives and agents, from any and ail claims, liabilities, actions, suits, judgments, losses, illnesses, injuries, deaths, damages, costs and expenses arising out of, related to, or connected with Monsanto's providing to, or use by, Contractor, its employees, representatives or agents, of the above described items, services, tools, equipment or facilities, (2) Contractor assumes all risk and responsibility therefore, (3) . Contractor shall indemnify and save harmless Monsanto, its subsidiaries, and their respective employees, representatives and agents from and against any and all such claims, liabilities, actions, suits, judgments, losses, illnesses, injuries, deaths, damages, costs and expenses and (4) the foregoing shall apply irrespective of any negligence or fault of Monsanto, its subsidiaries, or their respective employees, representatives or agents, whether such negligence orfault is joint, several, sole or otherwise. J The items, services, tools, equipment orfacilities ' are provided by Monsanto on an AS IS, WHERE- IS BASIS. MONSANTO MAKES NO WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPUED, WITH RESPECT TO THE ITEMS, SERVICES, TOOLS, EQUIPMENT OR FACILITIES AND MAKES NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE Contractor agrees to return any items, tools, equipment or facilities in the same, good-working condition as received from Monsanto. 142 Should Contractor refuse to agree to the above, the Contractor is not to be permitted to use Monsanto tools, first aid/medical facilities, equipment, breathing air apparatus, or other services. (Reviewed and Approved: Manufacturing Management Council, August 6, 1990; Environmental, Safety and Health Committee, September 19, 1990) ) DSW 112600 MONSANTO COMPANY HARTOLDMON0018509 /lonsanto on <m~-Loctioo-Phe) N. L. Reding - DIR - 4-2106 ; November 27, 1990 cc: sjEct : fEREHCE : Environmental Safety and Health Guidelines ) : Distribution List Attached is a revised issue of the Contractor Health and Safety Guideline/Procedure. This document is part of Monsanto's corporate Environmental, Safety and Health Guidelines and, as such, serves to communicate the intentions and expectations of the corporation. Monsanto has recognized for some time the need for the corporation to act uniformly on environmental, safety and health matters. Collectively, these guidelines serve that purpose. The changes to the Contractor Safety and Health Guideline were primarily motivated by the corporation's desire for con tinuously improving performance. However, other concurrent developments prompted even broader Revisions, specifically CMA's Code of Management Practice for Process Safety and Monsanto's introduction of a substance abuse policy. Every effort has been made to not only accommodate these require ments but to retain the managerial flexibility present in the original version of the guideline. The key changes require that the contractor: 1) Have a substance abuse program for employees involved in safety-sensitive work, 2) Include with the submission of the bid relevant information pertaining to their safety record, the training and experience of employees, safe work procedures used, and substance abuse program status, and 3) Hold a review with Monsanto representatives to discuss hazards identified with the job and the precautions to be taken. Obviously, all Monsanto operations have yet to fully implement the substance abuse program and not all contractors will be in a position to meet these new requirements immediately. How ever, each site is expected to respond in a manner which brings their facility into compliance in the shortest reasonable time frame. * DSW 117601 HARTOLDMONO018510 2- - Please remove the prior issue of this guideline/procedure from the ''Other Guidelines" section of the Environmental, Safety and Health Guidelines book and insert this updated version. attachment Ill N. L. Redin' OSH il7602 HARTOLDMON0018511 M O \ GUIDELINE RESEARCH ANIMAL CARE Monsanto Company recognizes that animals must be used in research both to determine the effects of various biologically active materials and the safety of all products. However, it is the stated purpose of the company that animals be utilized only when necessary and always in a humane and considerate fashion. '. Monsanto encourages and supports efforts to develop safety testing procedures which do not involve animals and will encourage their use and official recognition as and when their scientific validity is established. . Research investigators shall abide by the terms of the Animal Welfare Act and shall at all times follow the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals as issued by the National Research Council. A designated officer of the company will each year appoint a committee to be known as the Monsanto Research Animal Committee. This committee will be composed of at least three members and will have at least one representative from each major user group within Monsanto and at least one veterinarian actively engaged in the care of research animals. It shall be the responsibility of the committee and the Animal Resources Veterinarian to assure full compliance with existing laws and guidelines as they relate to the care and utilization of animal* at Monsanto. Responsibilities of this committee will include but not be limited to the following: 1 1. Provide for review and approval of all protocols which involve the use.of live animals. 2. review and approve all facilities which house animals for research including new facilities in the planning phase and, . 3. together with the Animal Resources Veterinarian, assure that corrective action is taken if deficiencies .. or violations occur. It shall further be the responsibility of this committee to file with the United States Department of Agriculture a report of animal usage at the end of each year. It shall continually be the goal of Monsanto to give high consideration to the well-being of all animals used by .this company. . (Policy approved by the Corporate Administrative Committee, October 6, 1980; revisions approved by the Environmental Policy Committee, March 20, 1984.) (Reviewed and Approved: Environmental, Safety and Health Committee, October 20, 1987.) MONSANTO COMPANY OSW M7603 HARTOLDMON0018512 M UU PROCEDURE employee health and exposure communications It is Monsanto's intent to identify hazards of chemical substances and physical agents in the workplace and to communicate such hazards to employees who may be exposed. L ResponsibiKtin Identification of health hazards of chemical substances, physical agents, and biological agents in the workplace is the joint responsibility of site management, the Directors - Environmental Operations (DEOs) and Corporate Environmental Safety and Health (ESH). Line management is responsible for the necessary communications to and education and training of employees on such hazards. Europe /Africa Specific The Director of DMHS Europe/Africa also assumes responsibility for the necessary Communications within Europe/Africa. In Europe, the DEO is represented by the Director, Environmental and Regulatory Affairs. Other countries/regions may specify additional functions who share responsibility. 2 Employee Communication, Education and Training Concerning Ac Hazards ofSubstances in the Workplace All employees whose work provides potential exposure to a hazardous chemical substance will have ready access to reference material, such as a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), and wQl receive training in the nature of the hazards and appropriate work practices, protective measures and emergency procedures. Such training will be provided to employees when newly assigned to an area with potentially hazardous exposures and annually thereafter. 3. Employee Access to Medical and Exposure Records Access to an employee's medical or exposure records (if generated) will be provided within IS working days after Monsanto receives a request in person or in writing from that employee, or as required by law if more stringent. In addition to individual medical and exposure records, an employee may have access to general --> exposure records (such as area samples) for his/her MONSANTO COMPANY work area and the individual exposure records (with all identifiers deleted) of other employees in the same work environment. Since much of the data requires interpretation or explanation, the most appropriate physician or nurse should be present during the review of medical records, and the industrial hygienist or industrial hygiene contact should be present during the review of exposure records to provide such interpretation and consultation. Written requests for medical and exposure records will be kept at the location housing the records. 4. Other Communication of Exposure Infonnadon Employees who participate in individual (personal) industrial hygiene monitoring will be informed of the sampling results. All employees in an area where ambient air concentrations or physical agents are monitored should be informed of area concentrations, their relationship to relevant federal, state or local permissible exposure limits, Monsanto guidelines and intended corrective action where required. Ufi. Specific For certain substances, OSHA regulations require written notification to the employee. 5. Communication af Physical Examination and Medical Test Data to the Employee An employee will be informed about results of health evaluations and medical tests. Copies of medical information will be sent to private physicians upon the employee's request and only with written authorization. Ufi. Specific: The employee will be informed in writing about results of health evaluations performed for occupational surveillance. - . DSk 11760** PR1-1 HARTOI UMOKO018513 EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND EXPOSURE COMMUNICATIONS (continued) d Employee Inquiries Any employee inquiry about work exposures must be addressed by site management. The location physician, industrial hygienist or other appropriate management representativc(s) should meet with the employee and provide a specific response based on the factual information available. The appropriate DEO, Manager, Human Resources and Corporate Environmental, Safety and Health representative should be consulted in any non-routine situation. Europe/Africa Specific The Director of DMHS Europe/Africa should be consulted in any non routine situation in Europe/Africa. 7. Communication ofHeath Studies When employees have been involved in epidemiology or other health studies conducted by or on behalf of Monsanto, an executive summary of the study results prepared by HSH will be communicated in writing to the responsible DEO and site managers. Communications with the employees will be coordinated by the DEO. The DEO may ask ESH and/or Europe Environmental and Regulatory Affairs (ERA) to develop a Communications Document and Dissemination Plan in consultation with plant personnel. A decision will be made at that time as to the total population to be included in the communication. Other studies known to Monsanto which are scientifically sound and which present significant new information concerning the potential hazards of a material to workers should be communicated to employees who have potential exposure to the substance. Where possible, employees should learn of significant potential hazards of materials with which they work from Monsanto, not from outside sources. However, a multitude of epidemiological, animal and other health studies are conducted annually by Monsanto and by others. These studies vary widely in terms of new knowledge provided, scientific validity, conclusiveness of the findings, applicability to humans or the work environment, etc Location management in consultation with the DEO and Corporate Environmental Safety and Health and DMHS Europe/Africa (for Europe/Africa sites) should communicate in writing any applicable, reliable study results. In determining where the results of a study should PR1-2 be communicated, factors such as the following should be evaluated: -- the scientific validity and condusivcness of the study, -- whether the study produced new results of significance, -- the applicability of the study to employees, -- the significance of any potential hazard identified, and -- the plans for follow-up studies. When there is a question of whether the results of a study are significant enough to be communicated to appropriate employees corporate-wide, the matter will be referred to the following by any member of concerned management: The Director of Medical and Health Sciences, Industrial Hygiene Director, Corporate Toxicology Director, Epidemiology Director, Medical Director, appropriate DEO and the Assistant General Counsel Environmental. The appropriate Directors of Manufacturing, Human Resources and Public Affairs/Relations will also provide consultation. A draft Communication Document and Dissemination Plan will be developed upon request, initially within ESH, to ensure that the study results are properly interpreted and that the communique will be properly reviewed and disseminated to all. operating units and/or plants. The DEO, with support from Corporate Industrial Hygiene and DMHS Europe/Africa (when Europe/Africa rites are involved) will transmit draft statements, announcements and supporting data to the appropriate location management & Access to Employee Medical or Exposure Records by Designated Representatives A designated representative with the appropriate written authorization from the employee will be provided access to an employee's medical and exposure records within 15 working days of receipt of the authorization. A designated representative is any individual or organization to whom the employee has given written authorization to have access to the employee's medical or exposure records for a specific purpose on a specified occasion. U.S. Specific: OSHA rules require that an employee's recognized or certified Collective bargaining agent will be treated as a designated representative without regard to written employee OSH 117605 HARTOLDMON0018514 n_n In. ii PROCEDURE EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND EXPOSURE COMMUNICATIONS (continued) 8. Access to Employee Medical or Exposure Records by Desffuued Representatives (continued) authorization with reaped to access to employee exposure records (with all identifiers deleted) and analyses of group medical and exposure records only. Final reports of completed epidemiological studies of unionized employees will be provided to the union involved on specific written request Information on the study results will be provided to all affected employees in a timely manner if this has not been done previously. The appropriate managers, Human Resources and ESH representatives, (DMHS Europe/Africa when Europe/Africa sites are involved) and the Assistant General Counsel Environmental should be advised of requests for access to records from a designated representative. An OSHA inspector who presents a written access ' order approved by the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA will be given immediate access to records specified by the order. No order is required for access to exposure records. Requests should be reported immediately to the Assistant General Counsel - Environmental Requests by NIOSH have been supported by the courts but should be cleared by the Assistant General Counsel Environmental before being granted: Reference should be made to 29 CFR Fart 1910 Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records, Final Rule 9-29-88. 9. Notification to Employees ofRight ofAccess Each location should make such notification of the existence, location and right of access to medical and exposure records a part of its new hire orientation program and should post or otherwise inform all employees of this information and right each year. 10. Employee Health and Exposure Communications Plans Each manufacturing and laboratory location should have written Employee Health and Exposure MONSANTO COMPANY Communications Plans which address such thing: as: the communication of and training on the hazards of chemical substances and physical agents in the workplace and proper handling methods, protective measures and emergency procedures, the handling of employee inquiries and expressions of concern about exposures, the handling of employee and designated representative requests for access to medical and exposure records, the communication of abnormal physical exam/medical test findings, the regular communication of the industrial hygiene program and of exposure levels vs. standards, the identification of materials or other subjects needing special communications efforts and plans for development of such programs locally or with the help of DMHS or others, and notification to employees of their right of access to their medical and exposure records. 1L ESH Responsibilityfor Communication Programs When its specialized expertise and/or a general communications need makes it appropriate, ESH has a responsibility to develop a Communication Document and Dissemination Plan upon request for new health hazard information. The appropriate DEOs and management at representative plants will be consulted in the development of such plans to make them more suitable and effective for plant use. Europe/Africa Specific Europe Environmental and Regulatory Affairs will be responsible for developing a Communication Document and Dissemination Plan which is appropriate for the laws and customs governing handling of employee health and* exposure information in those countries. OSH 117606 PR1-3 HARTO L DM 6 N0018515 EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND EXPOSURE COMMUNICATIONS (continued) 12 Definitions Access to Records: Consists of an opportunity to review an employee's medical and exposure records on site, and if requested, receipt of or opportunity to make a copy of the records. Unless otherwise \*A by law, trade secret informadon may be deleted from the records provided to an employee or designated representative, but they must be so informed that thU was done. Medical Records: Include reports of physical examinations, medical tests and other medical informadon on the employee in the Company's possession. Exposure Records: Include records of an employee's work history and the level of exposure to potentially harmful or toxic substances or agents and analyses of such records. Epidemiology Studies: Defined as scientific invesdgadons of potential relationships between workplace exposures and health outcome of Monsanto employees or other occupational populations, as outlined in a study protocol. (Approved by: Environmental Policy Committee, May 17, 1982.) (Reviewed and Approved: Environmental, Safety and Health Committee, October 20, 1987.) (Revised and Approved: DEO Liaison Meeting August 12, 1991.) FR1-4 DSW 14 7607 HARTOLDMON0018516 MnJ PROCEDURE TRANSMITTAL TO EPA OF SUBSTANTIAL RISK INFORMATION UNDER TSCA - U.S. Monsanto procedure for handling the reporting of information to EPA under the 8(e) substantial risk section of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). L Abstract of Requirements - TSCA Section 8(e) requires any person (Company) who manufactures, processes or distributes in commerce a chemical substance or mixture and who obtains information which reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment shall immediately inform the EPA of such information. 2. Who is responsible for reporting? The requirements of Section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act apply to 'any person who manufactures, processes, or distributes in commerce.* It is Monsanto's position that the `person* who engages in the commercial activity is only the business organization, whether a sole proprietorship, corporation, partnership, or . association. 3. How are 8(e) reporting decisions made? Monsanto organizations that might receive TSCA 8(e). information will have a designated individual to whom such information shall be communicated. At least annually, the Director of Regulatory Management (DRM) Tone Substances, will publish a list of the designated individuals. Anyone obtaining information of the type given in the abstract of requirements and detailed by EPA in their policy statement bn Interpretation and Enforcement of TSCA 8(e) (43FR 11110, March 16, 1978), should immediately submit such information to their supervisor.- The supervisor shall . immediately relay the information to the location or department manager, whichever is applicable, who, in turn, transmits it to the proper designated individual in the organization. The information is then transmitted directly to the Director of Medicine and Health Sciences. MONSANTO COMPANY It is imperative that the flow of information through this transmittal chain be rapid. In the event of nonavailability of a member of the communication network at the time information is Erst obtained, such member should be bypassed in the interest of speed. All individuals involved in submission of substantial risk information to the Director of Medicine and Health Sciences should keep a record of date of receipt and pertinent identifying details. The Director of Medicine and Health Sciences, Environmental Counsel, DRM - Tone Substances, and the appropriate operating unit Directors) of Environmental Operations will comprise the designated official 8(e) committee to make decisions with respect to information that must be reported to the EPA under Section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act. Appropriate Senior Management will be informed of committee decisions. In the event that a committee decision is not unanimous, the next appropriate level of management shall be consulted, and the matter will be resolved at the highest level, if necessary. Employees who submit information through Company channels will be notified of action taken by the 8(e) committee together with reasons for such action. In the event that, after Monsanto has evaluated information and has determined that the item is not reportable under Section 8(e), the Company becomes aware that an employee, as an individual^ subsequently reported the item to the EPA, the Company should review the situation to determine what action, if any, it should take with the EPA- OSM 117608 HARTOLDMON0018517 TRANSMITTAL TO EPA OF SUBSTANTIAL RISK INFORMATION UNDER TSCA - U.S. (continued) 4. How are employees notified of 8(e) requirements? All exempt company employees and others so Ar*\gnateA by their organizational unit (plant nurses, contract physicians, scientists and engineers, etc), within organizations that might receive or have access to TSCA 8(e) information, shall be informed of the provisions of Section 8(e). Annual reminders of 8(e) requirements will be provided to said employees. Records documenting the information communication will be maintained by the DRM Toxic Substances. (Approved by Vice President, Environmental Policy Staff, April 11, 1986.) (Reviewed and Approved: Environmental, Safety and Health Committee, October 20, 1987.) (Revised and Approved by the DEOs and the Vice President, Environmental Policy Staff, May 16, 1991.) PR2-2 DSW 117609 HARTOLDMON0018518 Monsanto Th Chemical Group 800 N. Lindbergh Boulevard SL Louis. Missouri 63167 Phone: (314) 694-1000 October 27, 1992 Dear Monsanto Employee: A Monsanto procedure is in place to receive and process any interaction that you feel could lead to a conclusion regarding substantial health or environmental risk. This procedure is designed to assist you with appropriate communication of any information of this type and to provide a compliance method for substantial risk reporting under Section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). A copy of the Monsanto procedure is attached along with a listing of designated individuals in each organization responsible for process implementation. The kind of information that you should consider for submission into the Monsanto TSCA 8(e) procedure includes: Human health effects or animal studies that suggest human health effects. Specific attention should be given to cancer, birth defects including reproduction effects, mutagenicity, death or serious or prolonged incapacitation. Environmental .effects such as widespread and previously unexpected distribution of chemicals in environmental media, pronounced bioaccumulation, and significant changes to species' interrelationships. Emergency incidents of environmental contamination that seriously thre'aten humans or the environment and are not reported under other Federal reporting requirements. A brief overview of TSCA 8(e) is enclosed. The overview also includes information regarding responsibilities for maintaining allegations, as required under TSCA 8(c). More details regarding the reporting requirements under TSCA 8(c) and 8(e) are available upon request. Please take a few minutes to read the overv-iew. A Unit oi Monsanto Company OSW 117610 HARTOLDMON0018519 2- If you have questions, don't hesitate to contact your site TSCA coordinator, your Product Safety Manager, Product Safety Director (J. P. Mieure), J. R. Condray of the Corporate Environmental, Safety and Health or myself. ` Sincerely, --------------------- Garth F. Fort Director, Environmental Operations GFF/pam Enclosures -) SW 14.761-1 HARTOLDMONO018520 MONSANTO ESH PROCEDURE PR2-1 REPORTING OF SUBSTANTIAL RISK INFORMATION DESIGNATED TSCA SECTION 8 (el INDIVIDUALS ORGANIZATION DMHS ESH - RM/EA CRL THE AGRICULTURAL GROUP THE CHEMICAL GROUP S&EH BSSR DESIGNATED INDIVIDUAL B. R. FRIEDLANDER J. R. CONDRAY M. J. MONTAGUE R. L. HARNESS G. F. FORT/J. P. MIEURE T. F. EVANS D. J. SCOTT . 9/92 ' DSW 117612 HARTOLDMONO018521 MItlI PROCEDURE TRANSMITTAL TO EPA OF SUBSTANTIAL RISK INFORMATION UNDER TSCA - U.S. Monsanto procedure for handling the reporting of information to EPA under the 8(c) substantial risk secdon of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 1. Abstract of Requirements - TSCA Secdon 8(e) ' requires any person (Company) who manufactures. processes or distributes in commerce a chemical substance or mixture and who obtains intormirioa - which reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment shall immediately inform the EPA of such information. 2. Who is responsible for reporting? . A: - j k f The requirements of Secdon 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act apply to "any person who manufactures, processes, or distributes in commerce.'' It is Monsanto's posidon that the "person" who engages in the commercial aedvity is oaiy the business organization. whether a sole proprietorship, corporation, partnership, or association. 3. How are 8(e) reporting decisions made? Monsanto organizations that might receive TSCA 8(e) informadon will have a designated individual to whom such informaaon shall be communicated. At least annually, the Director of Regulatory Management (DRM) - Toxic Substances, will publish . a list of the designated individuals. Anyone obtaining information of the type given in the abstract of requirements and detailed by EPA in their policy statement on Interpretadon and Enforcement of TSCA 8fe) (43FR 11110. March 16. 1978), should immediately submit such informaaon to their supervisor. The supervisor shall immediately relay the informaaon to the locadou or department manager, whichever is applicable, who. in cum. transmits it to the proper designated individual in the organizadon. The informadon is then transmitted directly to the Director of Medicine and Health Sciences. i MOMCAKITn COMPANY It is imperative that the flow of information through this transmittal chain be rapid. In the event of nonavailability of a member of the communication network at the time information is first obtained, such member should be bypassed in the interest of speed. * Ail individuals involved in submission of substanazl risk information to the Directorof Medicine and Health Sciences should keep a record of date of receipt and pertinent identifying details. The Director of Medicine and Health Sciences. Environmental Counsel. DRM Toxic Substances, and the appropriate operating unit Directorts) of Environmental Operations will comprise the designated official 8(e)-comznittes to make decisions with respect to information that must be reported to the EPA under Section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act. . Appropriate Senior Management will be informed of committee decisions. In the event that a committee decision is not unanimous, the next appropriate level of management shall be consulted, and the matter will be resoived at the highest level, if necessary. Employees who submit information through Company channels will be notified of action taken by the 8(e) committee togetner with reasons for such action. In the event that, after Monsanto has evaluated information and has determined that the item is not reportable under Section 8(e). the Company becomes aware that an employee, as an individual, subsequently reported the item to the EPA. the the Company should review the situation to determine what action, if any. it should take with the EPA. OSU 117613 PR2-1 L HARTOLDMONO018522 SECTIONS 8(c) AND 8(e) . OVERVIEW When Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 1976, it recognized that everyone, including employers, employees and the general public, has a role to play in protecting human health and the environment from the dangers of toxic or hazardous chemicals. Congress therefore included two sections in TSCA- Sections 8(c) and 8(e) - that place specific obligations on employees of a company to report certain types of health and environmental information either to the company, or, in certain circumstances, directly to the Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA). Monsanto has established internal procedures to enable our employees to fulfill these obligations and to simplify the reporting process. It is important that you understand and follow these procedures. Section 8(c) - Allegations of Significant Adverse Health or Environmental Effects Section 8(c) was designed to create a historical record that will help Monsanto and the EPA identify significant potential risks or environmental threats at an eariy stage so that they can be controlled before they become serious problems. Under Monsanto's 8(c) procedure if an employee wishes to internally report any suspicion or allegation that a chemical may pose a health hazard or threat to the environment, the employee may report the matter to the site 8(c) coordinator, who will help document the allegation on a form. The Company then has the responsibility to determine if the allegation should be maintained as required under the law. If you are told by someone else, such as a fellow employee or a customer, that he or she has been made ill: or even if a neighbor of yours complains that he or she thinks emissions from the plant are, for example, killing fish in the local river or giving him or her headaches, you must transfer the person immediately to the TSCA 8(c) coordinator who is required by law to request that individuals reduce their allegation to writing, sign it and send it to the Company. The Company will process these allegations and maintain them as required by the law. Follow-up actions will be taken by the Company if needed. If you submit an allegation, you will be informed regarding the outcome of the Company's review. Section 8(e) - Substantial Risk Section (e) requires employees to report factual information or data which supports a conclusion that substantial health or environmental risks may exist which the EPA does not already know. .- 1 of 2 OSW 1176 !< HARTOLDMONO018523 Unlike Section 8(c), which requires internal reporting and company record keeping of mere allegations or suspicions. Section 8(e) requires internal reporting and review of any factual information that suggests that a Monsanto product presents a "substantial risk" to human health or the environment. If the Company determines that the information reasonably supports a conclusion of a substantial risk, then a prompt submission of this information by the Company will be made to EPA. i Types of information that reasonably supports a conclusion of substantial risk include: a serious human health effect such as cancer, birth defects or death: or serious threats to plants, animals .or the environment. Spills or releases of toxic substances which seriously threaten human health or the environment are also "substantial risks". If you learn of new information that indicates that there could be a "substantial risk", you must immediately report this to your supervisor so that the investigation within Monsanto can be undertaken to determine if the information is reportable by the Company to the EPA. Because the law requires the Company to report the discovery by its employee of new "substantial risk" information to EPA within IS business days, it is critical that you promptly report such information to your supervisor. If he or she is not available, keep going up the line until you find someone who is available. Failure to meet these requirements can result in civil or criminal penalties for both you and the Company. Don't Take Any Monsanto's sections 8(c) and 8(e) procedures require employees to report both allegations and information regarding significant hazards and substantial risk, whether or not it turns out later to be of any importance, or even reportable to the EPA. If in doubt about reporting a specific incident, discuss it with your supervisor. Remember, environmental safety is everyone's responsibility, both as employees and citizens. It's also the law. 2 of 2 OSW IJ. 7615 HARTOLDMONO018524 *1 :'.ce?.ts fp.om TSCA Section 8(e) Reporting Guide June 1991 TOTICT TO ADimrXBTRATOtt OF 8UB8TMTTIAL RIS1CB. Any person vho manufactures, [ imports, ] procaaaaa, or distributes in commerce s chemical substance or mixture and vho obtains : t -information which reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment shall immediately inform the [EPA] Administrator of such information unless such person has actual knowledge that the Administrator has been adequately informed of such information. -- section S(e), Toxic Substances Control JLot (197C) Office of Toxic Substances Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20460 L of 3 DSW 117616 HARTOLDMONO018525 RgPORTiy<3 UTTDSR SECTTO* (g] 07 "scx TTTT T3 SgCTIOy > (B) REPORTHTO IXPCRTAKI1 In general, EPA considers Section 8(e) of TSCA to b a critically Important information gathering tool that aarvaa as an "early warning" mechanism for keeping the Agency and others apprised of new-found serious chemical hazards and/or exposures; Section 8(e). .data are extremely valuable input for the hazard identification and risk assessment activities within and outside EPA. raT 18 HgpBSTMrriAL RISK* TXTORXATIOr? The term "substantial risk" information refers to that information which reasonably supports a conclusion that the subject chemical or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment1; however, such information need not and most typically does not establish conclusively that a substantial risk exists. In deciding whether information is "substantial risk" information, one must consider 1) the seriousness of the adverse effect, and 2) the fact or probability of the effect's occurrence. In determining TSCA Section 8 (e)-applicability/reportability, these two criteria should be weighted differently depending upon the seriousaess of the effaot or the exteat of the exposure, i.e., the more serious the effect, the less heavily one should weigh actual or potential exposure, and vice versa. For example, in cases where serious effects such as birth defects or cancer (as evidenced by benign and/or malignant tumors) are observed, the mere fact that the implicated chemical is in commerce (including chemicals at the research and development stage) constitutes sufficient evidence of exposure to submit the new-found toxicity data. EPA has also received numerous Section 8(e) submissions alerting the Agency that chemical substances already known to be capable of causing serious health and/or environmental effects were detected in significant amounts in environmental media (e.g., soil, surface waters, groundwater, air (including workplace air)) or in products not known previously by the Agency to contain such chemicals. In such cases, the discovery of previously unknown and significant human and/or environmental exposure, when combined with knowledge that the subject chemical is already recognized or suspected as being capable of causing serious adverse health effects (e.g., cancer, birth defects, neurotoxicity) or serious environmental effects (e.g., non-trivial aquatic species tcxicity) , can provide a sufficient basis to report the new-found exposure data to E?a under Section 8(e) of TSCA. DSW 117617 HARTOLDMONO018526 The decision-making process for section 8 () -reportability should focus primarily on whether the toxicity or exposure information offers reasonable rapport for a conclusion of substantial risk under tha critaria described above, but should not focus at all on whether tha Information ia concluaiva regarding tha risk. a dacirion to raport information to tha Agancy undar Saction 8(e) should not lnvolva axhaustiva haalth and/or environmental risk assassmants of tha suhjact chemical(). Further, determining reasonable support for a conclusion of substantial risk should not include any evaluation of either tha economic or social benefits of tha usa(s) of tha subject chemical substanca(s). Finally, deter mining whether reasonable support exists for "substantial risk" is not synonymous with the determination of an "unreasonable risk" as that term is used elsewhere in TSCA. "Substantial risk" information must be reported to SPA unless the subject person has actual tacvledge that the .Agency has been adequately informed of such information. A detailed discussion of the types of information about which ZPA considers itself to be adequately informed is presented on Page 8 of this reporting guide under TEXT nrTQRXATiom 11 wor mportabu topee SSCTIOS t(HT lgO_Xl_gPBJSCT TQ 81CTIQJ tig) RZTORTnrG? For the purposes of Section 8(e), the term "person" includes the following: any natural person, corporation, firm, company, soleproprietorship, joint-venture, partnership, association, or any other business entity, any State or political subdivision of a State, any municipality, any interstate body, and any department or agency of the Federal Government. Such "persons" are subject to TSCA Section 8(e) only to the extent they are engaged in commercial activities involving manufacture, importation, processing or distribution of chemical substances or mixtures under the jurisdiction of TSCA and therefore covered by Section 8(e) of TSCA. Under Section 8(e), therm are no exemptions for small businesses, small production or importation volumes, or commercial activities such as manufacture for export only or research and development. However, Section 8(e) does not require a subject person to submit information about a chemical substance or mixture that the person does not manufacture, import, process or distribute commercially. Further, a person who obtains substantial risk information about a chemical or mixture that the person did at one time, but does not any longer, manufacture, import, process or distribute in commerce, is not required to submit the information under Section 8(e) . 3 of 3 osw 117618 HARTOLDMONO018527 m? cmiCALfl ARE SUBJECT TQ BECTIOK 8 (E) RZPORTt^ Chemicals not under TSCA jurisdiction and therefore not covarad by Saction 8(e) are discussed in Saction 3 of TSCA and includa: * (1) pesticides (as dafinad in tha Padaral Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodanticida Act (FIFRA)) whan manufactured, processed, or distributed in commerce for use as a pesticide; (2) tobacco and tobacco products; (3) source materials, special nuclear materials and byproducts (as defined in the 1954 Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and regulations issued under the AEA); (4) foods, food additives, drugs, cosmetics, and devices (as defined in the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)) vhen manufactured, processed or distributed in commerce as a food, food additive, drug, cosmetic or device. Except for those chemicals specifically excluded by definition from TSCA jurisdiction, Section 8(e) of TSCA pertains to all chemical substances and mixtures including but not limited to the following: (1) research and development (RAD) chemicals (including those intended for use as pesticides prior to application for an Experimental Use Permit (EUF) or a registration under FIFRA); (2) laboratory reagents; (3) lov volume chemicals; (4) polymers; - (5) chemicals that are manufactured solely for export; (6) intermediates (including non*isolated intermediates as veil as pesticide intermediates); (7) catalysts; (8) byproducts; (9) impurities; (10) TSCA-covered microorganisms and products therefrom. Specifically vith regard to "pesticides, a chemical substance that is manufactured, processed or distributed in commerce solely as a pesticide is excluded by Section 3 of TSCA from TSCA regulation. Hovever, a chemical substance which is in the process of research and development (RAO) as a pesticide is subject to TSCA until such time as the manufacturer or importer demonstrates the intent to 4 of 3 DSW LI 761-9 HARTOLDMONO018528 produce * pesticide by sufemittlnq to the Agency ta pplictioa 'ar a_n "rxperimental use Permit** (XUP) or registration under riritx.. For further information about this TSCA/FIFRA jurisdictional issue," tha reader is directed to EPA's initial T3CA Chemical Substance Invantory reporting regulation (43 rR 64585; December 23, 1977 ; Appendix A Comment 37, 38 and 39) and the 1986 amendments'to the TSCA Section 5 "Premanufaeture Notification Rule" (5i fr 15098; April 22, 1986). Prior to tha FITRA EUP or registration stage, such RfcD materials are chemical substances under tha jurisdiction of TSCA including Section 8(e). w It is important to note also that while some rules promulgated by EPA under other section* of TSCA, or under other authorities which are administered by EPA, may exempt certain chemical substance's and/or mixtures or certain types of commercial activities, such exemptions typically apply only to the rule issued by the Agency and not to TSCA in general or Section 8(e) of TSCA specifically. teat poe8 m TERM "OBTAINS iinroRXATioir* my? Section 8(e) pertains to information that a person possesses or about which the person knows. The Section 8(e) policy statement explains that an establishment obtains information at the time any officer or employee who is capable of appreciating the significance of the information obtains that information. "Known" information includes that information about which a prudent person of similar training, job function, etc., could be reasonably expected to know. Although Section 8(e) of TSCA does not compel subject persons to actively search for reportable information or to undertake extra ordinary efforts to retrieve reportable information, negligence or the intentional avoidance of information does not absolve a person of his/her individual Section 8(e) reporting obligations. Specifically with regard to a public scientific conference/meeting, visually or verbally obtained information fro* such a meeting is subject to Section 8(e) reporting \ml the obtained information is captured accurately/adequately in a meeting transcript, abstract or other such written record or document that is to be formally released to the public within a reasonable time frame. Information obtained from a private conference or meeting, however, should be considered for reporting under Section 8(e) within 15 working days. TEAT 1R1 TE SOURCES 07 ggCTTO- 9 VE) -SEFORTAgU XgTOMttHgK? TSCA Section 8 (e)-reportable information can come from a variety of _ sources including, but not limited to draft, interim or final written reports (including study reports, letters, telegrams, telex reports) or verba.1 reports (received at meetings or by phone) that involve observations (including preliminary observation*) `from, for example, controlled or uncontrolled; 5 of S DSW 117620 HARTOLDMON0018529 (1) human or animal studies/events (including bur nor limited to studies/events that involva high dcaa level* or non-routine rouraa of exposure); or ~ (2) environmental events/studies (including but not limited to aquatic toxicity studies, bioaccumulation studies, chemical monitoring atudiaa (supplemented if naad ba by information darivad fro* computer *odaling atudiaa baaad on actual or reasonably anticipatad chami cal axpoauraa and exposure-related parameters)). It ia important to note, however, that modaling atudiaa, including thoaa baaad aolaly on thaoratical axpoaure data (a.g., "worst-case" acanaxioa), ara aafc conaidarad by EPA to ba aufficiant in and of thamaalvaa to m*at tha Saction 8(a) raporting raquiraanta. Further, anvironaantal or haalth risk aaaaaaaant* (including thoaa uaing coxputar modaling) baaad on aithar 1) thaoratical axpoaura data, or 2) actual axpoaure data aubmittad on. a mandatory baaia under an EPA-administered atatuta typically need not be reported under Saction 8(a). Tha evidence that offers reaaonable support for a conclusion of substantial risk need not be complete nor definitive but should provide a plausible linJc between 1) an observed serious affect and one or fav chemicals (a.g., in a discrete process/operation), or 2) a specific product/activity and a previously unrecognized exposure to a chemical that is known or reasonably anticipatad to cause serious adverse health or environmental affects. EPA*a Kerch 16, 1978 Saction 8(a) policy statement ("Statement of Interpretation and Enforcement Policy; Notification of Substantial Risk" 43 FR 11110) also requires immediate reporting of "Emergency Incidents of Environmental Contamination" (EIEC). An EIEC is an environmental contamination (accidental or intentional in nature) involving a chemical known to be a serious human or environmental toxicant and which because of tha extant, pattern and amount of tha contamination (1) seriously threatens humans with cancer, birth defects, mutation, death or serious or prolonged incapacitation (a.g., naurotcxicologic affacts, serious raproductiva system effects), or (2) seriously threatens non-human organisms with large-scale or ecologically significant population destruction. tot nrronKATTom i ot esportabli ctoee section t(Ei? Thera ara several kinds of information about which tha Agency considers itself to be adequately informed already for tha purposes of Saction 8(e) of TSCA. For example, information that otherwise meats tha criteria for Saction 8(a) reporting need not bo submitted if tha information meats one or more of the following criteria: (1) is contained in an EPA study or report. (2) is published in the open scientific literature. ` 6 or 3 OSH 117621 HARTOLDMON0018530 Accachmenc 2 MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY Rev. 3 ER-200/EC-2Q1/EC-202 IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE 07/06/90 Purpose: To describe the actions, including responsibility and timing, to be taken upon approval of EC-201 and EC-202 documents for Monsanto Chemical Company products. Actions to be taken upon approval of ER-200 forms are covered summarily. Scope: This procedure governs actions for MCC worldwide. In so doing, it addresses MCC coordination with other parts of Monsanto Company that are involved in health, safety, and environmental protection issues (e.g., the Department of Medicine and Health Sciences, Industria1.Hygiene, etc.). References: 1. Health and Environmental Comoatibi1itv Assessment of Monsanto Products. A Guide to the Use of Department of Medicine and Health Sciences Data Sheet ER--200. EC-201, and EC-202. (G-2738, Rev. S/85). 2. Memo, subj "EC-201/202 Procedure: Europe", B.R. Friedlander, M.D. to R.L. Harness and M.A.Pierle, December 27, 1989 3. Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) System. A Guideline for Format. Content and Preparation. Monsanto Company, July 1989. 4. American National Standards Institute ("ANSI") Standard Z129.1 - 1988 ' ` Procedure: .- ER-200 1.0. Approval of Form ER-200 allows limited (i.e., laboratory scale) sampling for research and development purposes only. As a consequence, only the following actions will be taken by the MCC Manager of Product Safety upon receipt of DMHS approval. 1.1 Notification by the Manager of Product Safety to the submitter (typically, a researcher) of the ER-200 approval (See example memo at Enclosure 1.). This notification shall include any restrictions imposed by DMHS. The Manager of Product Safety shall also provide guidance where applicable as to the next steps being recommended in the product approval process. This may include comments as to timing of submittal of Forms EC-201 and/or EC-202, testing requirements, and Premanufacture Notice considerations. Resp: Manager, Product Safety 1.2 Notification by the Manager of Product Safety to "the site health and safety coordinator (Note: This term is not otherwise defined. It may be that a TSCA Coordinator serves this function. In the event, the intent is to provide notice to that individual .0SW 117581 HARTOLDMONO018531  at a manutacturing or research site with respansihi 1ity for insuring that proper health and safety practices for research samples are followed.) of the approval of Form ER-200, including appropriate safety .guidelines as included in the DMHS approval. Resp: Manager, Product Safety 1.3 Notification by the Manager of Product Safety to the Material Safety Data Sheet Coordinator, allowing issue of a MSDS for Research and Development Purposes. This notification shall include any recommended cautionary language included in the DMHS approval document. Disagreements concerning such language shall be resolved in accordance with procedures established elsewhere for that purpose <Ref\ 3). Resp: Manager, Product Safety 1.4 Forwarding by the MSDS Coordinator of the MSDS for Research and Development Purposes to the submitter, the site industrial hygiene contact,and, if different from the former, the health and safety, contact. This shall be done within one week of notification in 1.3 above. Resp: MSDS Coordinator 1.5 Assessment by the site industrial hygiene contact of industrial hygiene protective measures required. Resp: Site IH Contact 1.6 Communication of hazards and required personal protective measures by the site industrial hygiene contact to employees who may reasonably be expected to be occupationally exposed to the material. Resp: Site IH Contact 1.7 Implementation by the researcher, in coordination with the site industrial hygiene contact, of any industrial hygiene protective measures required. Follow--up responsibilities shall be in accordance with existing site procedures. Resp: Researcher and Site IH Contact 1.8 Recordkeeping, hazard assessment, hazard communication, etc. required to comply with U.S. TSCA or similar ex--U.S. laws shall be the responsibi1ity of the researcher and site TSCA coordinator with assistance from DMHS, Marketing Technical Services ("MTS"), R&D, and Product Safety, respectively. Resp: Researcher and Site TSCA Coordinator EC-201 2.0 Approval of a Form EC-201 allows unlimited sampling. Since this may involve significantly increased exposure to humans and the environment and may be viewed as commercial ization _in the context of a Premanufacture or Premarketing Notification, the following requirements must be met. 2.1 Notification by the Manager of Product Safety to the OSW 117582 HARTOLDMONO018532 fit1 J submitter (again, typically a researcher) of the approval .'See example memo at Enclosure 2.) as well as of any conditions attached to that approval. The Manager o-f Product Safety should also include recommendations as to the next step of the approval process. The Manager of Product Safety shall discuss alternate test protocols, as appropriate, with DMHS. For products requiring Premanufacture or Premarketing Notification , this will include DMHS`s prediction of "most likely" and "most probable worst case" testing demands by the competent authorities <e.g.t the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health and Environment Canada, the EEC). The Manager of Product Safety will in cases where such Notification is required also advise other members of the responsible business management unit <e.g.f Product Manager, R&D Manager, etc.), presenting a range of test options and recommendations. Resp: Manager, Product Safety 2.2 Notification by the Manager of Product Safety to the site health and safety coordinator of the approval of Form EC-201 and of any conditions pertaining to that approval. Resp: Manager, Product Safety 2.3 Notification by the Manager of Product Safety to the Material Safety Data Sheet Coordinator, allowing initial issue (if no Form ER-200 has been submitted and approved) or revision if necessary of a MSDS for Research and Development Purposes. This notification shall include any recommended cautionary language included in the DMHS approval document. Disagreements concerning such language shall be resolved in accordance with procedures established elsewhere for that purpose (Ref. 3). Resp: Manager, Product Safety 2.4 Forwarding by the MSDS Coordinator of the MSDS for Research and- Development Pruposes to the site industrial hygiene contact within one week of 2.3 above. Resp: MSDS Coordinator 2.5 Assessment by the site industrial hygiene contact of industrial hygiene protective measures required. Resp: Site IH Contact 2.6 Communication of hazards by the site contact to employes who may reasonably be occupationally exposed to the material. Resp: Site IH Contact . industrial hygiene expected to be 2.7 Implementation by the researcher, in coordination with the site industrial hygiene contact, of any industrial hygiene protective measures required. Follow-up responsibilities shall be in accordance with existing site procedures. ) Resp: Researcher and Site IH Contact / *OSW 147563 2.8 Communication of environmental concerns by the Manager of Product Safety to the researcher, the appropriate business unit HART OLDMONO018533 personnel, and the Manager of Environments! Protection. The Manager of Product Safety shall communicate environmental testing requirements and recommendations- at this time. Resp: Manager, Product Safety 2.9 Development of plant environmental compliance recommendations by the plant environmental contact and Manager of Environmenta1 Protection in conjunction with appropriate business unit personnel. Follow-up responsibi1ities shall be in accordance with existing site procedures. Resp: Manager, Environmental Protection and Site Environmental Contact 2.10 Reaching agreement upon the content and timing of testing programs by the Manager of Product Safety, Manager of Environmental Protection^, DMHS, and appropriate business unit personne1. Resp: Manager, Product Safety ' 2.11 Implementation of testing programs by the Manager of Product Safety and DMHS (In this context as well as throughout, Environmental Sciences Group is included in DMHS.). Resp: Manager, Product Safety 2.12 Communication of the results of testing by DMHS to Tox. Data (formerly Tox. Projects) and the Manager of Product Safety. Evaluation of impact on MSDSs by Tox. Data shall be in accordance with procedures established elsewhere (See Ref. 3). Resp: Manager, Product Safety and Staff Toxicologist 2.13 Communication of the results of testing by the Manager Product Safety to the MSDS Coordinator for consideration for inclusion in the MSDS for Research and Development Purposes. Resp: Manager, Product Safety of 2.14 Consideration of inclusion of the results of testing by the MSDS Coordinator in consultation with Tox. Data (See 2.12 above.). Resp: MSDS Coordinator 2.15 Communication of the results of environmental testing by the Manager of Product Safety to the Manager of Environmental Protection. Resulting action, if any is required, shall be in accordance with 2.9 above. Resp: Manager, Product Safety_ 2.16 Communication of any potential commercial or legal concerns by the Manager of Product Safety to the appropriate business unit personnel and Law. Resolution of these concerns shall be in accordance with the customary practices of that business unit. However, the Manager of Product Safety is responsible for notifying the Director of Environmental Operations in the event that he or she is unsatisfied with the resolution. Resp: Manager, Product Safety ' DSW 117584 HARTOLDMONO018534 2.1" Development of the Premanu f ac ture Notice by the Manager of Product Safety - 2.17.1 Development of Canadian Notices shall be by the MoCan Product Safety Coordinator for products solely manufactured and sold in Canada. If there is U.S. or MESA manufacture or sale, the appropriate Manager of Product Safety, U.S., MESA, or both, shall be jointly responsible. 2.17.2 Similarly, Premarketing Notices for products made solely by and sold solely by MESA shall be the responsibility of the MESA Manager of Product Safety. If there is U.S. or MoCan manufacture or sale, the appropriate Product Safety personnel for the U.S. and/or MoCan' shall be jointly responsible. 2.17.3 In the event of joint responsibi1ity, one of the involved personnel shall serve as lead. If the involved personnel cannot reach agreement on that issue, the issue shall be brought to the attention of U.S., MoCari, and/or. MESA management for resolution. 2.17.4 The responsible Product Safety personnel shall have the assistance of R&D, Manufacturing, DMHS, and others as required. Resp: Manager, Product Safety 2.18 Recordkeeping, hazard assessment, hazard communication, etc. required to comply with U.S. TSCA or similar ex-U.S. laws shall be the responsibility of the researcher and site TSCA coordinator with assistance from DMHS, Marketing Technical Services ("MTS"), R&D, and Product Safety; and DMHS, Product Safety, R&D, and MTS, respectively. The site TSCA contact shall have primary responsibi1ity in this for recordkeeping and hazard communication. Product Safety and DMHS shall have primary responsibility for hazard assessment. -- Resp: As described EC-202 3.0 Approval of a Form EC-202 allows full commercialization. Since this will involve significantly increased exposure to humans and the environment and will be viewed as commercialization in the context of a Premanufacture or Premarketing Notification, the following requirements must be me t. * 3.1 Notification by the Manager of Product Safety to the submitter (again, typically a researcher) of the approval (See example memo at Enclosure 3.) .as well as of any conditions attached to that approval. For products which require Premanufacture or Premarketing Notification, this will include notification of the need for filing of Notice of Commencement of Manufacture in the U.S. and Canadian or EEC equivalent, as appropriate. Resp: Manager, Product Safety ' DSH 117585 3.2 Notification by the Manager of Product Safety to the site health and safety coordinator of the approval of Form EC-202 and HARTOLDMONO018535 ot any conditions pertaining to that approval. Resp: Manager, Product Safety 3.3 Notification by the Manager of Product Safety to the Material Safety Data Sheet Coordinator, stating the need for a commercial MSDS. Processing of the commercial MSDS shall be in accordance with procedures established elsewhere (See Ref. 3). This notification shall include any new recommended cautionary language included1in the DMHS approval document. Disagreements concerning such language shall be resolved in accordance with procedures established elsewhere for that purpose (Ref. 3). Resp: Manager, Product Safety 3.4 Forwarding by the,MSDS Coordinator of the MSDS within one month of 3.3 above in accordance with previously established distribution schedules. Note that the MSDS Coordinator has prior notice in the form of a copy of the memo transmitting the Form EC-202 to DMHS for review (Enclosure 4). ' Resp: MSDS Coordinator ' 3.5 Development of a commercial label by MCC Distribution. Conflicts as to label language shall be resolved in accordance with procedures established elsewhere. Resp: MCC Labelling . 3.6 Communication of any newly noted hazards, either human or environmental, development of compliance and communication programs, etc. shall proceed in accordance with the responsibilities outlined for such hazards in 2.1 through 2.18 above. ' Resp: As described 3:7 Follow-up actions subsequent to EC-202 approval shall be accordance with established existing practices and procedures (e.g., TSCA Sections 8<c) and 8(e); environmental, industrial hygiene, and safety audits, etc.). Resp: As described in M.A. Pierle Director, Environmental Operations Monsanto Chemical Company DSW 117586 HARTOLDMONO018536 GUIDELINE -3 ) ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEWS OF CAPITAL PROJECTS i Completed Monsanto capital projects will meet Corporate Worldwide Environmental Protection Guidelines, Corporate Social Responsibility Policies, and will be in compliance with existing and anticipated government regulatory requirements. Monsanto will, at all levels of the corporation, review capital projects for environmental safety and health impact prior to, and as a condition of, project funding approval. The Senior Vice President, ESH, or his delegate will review those projects requiring approval by the Chief Operating Officer, the Chief Executive Officer or the Board of Directors. A system for reviewing other projects will be administered by the Directors, Environmental Operations, of the operating companies. The personnel assigned to evaluate a new site for the location of a Monsanto operation will prepare an internal Monsanto Environmental Impact Assessment which addresses potential environmental limitations at the site as a result of the existing socioeconomic and biophysical conditions. The effects of existing and future government environmental regulations which may apply are also to be considered. Any exceptions to this guideline must be approved by the Environmental Safety & Health Committee. (Approved: Environmental Policy Committee, April 21, 1980.) (Reviewed and Approved: Environmental, Safety and Health Committee, October 20, 1987.) MONSANTO COMPANY OSW U 758.7 HARTOLDMON0018537 GUIDELINE ri } ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW OF DIVESTITURES OR ACQUISITIONS OF PROPERTY AND/OR BUSINESS Negotiating the acquisition or divestiture of U.S. and ex-U.S. property or business units and the securing of final corporate approval are the primary responsibility of the involved operating company unit. However, corporate staff review of environmental, health and safety factors -- and any attendant liability issues -- are required during the course of such transactions. This review should be arranged through the office of the operating company Director of Environmental Operations, who will, in turn, involve appropriate Environment, Health and Safety staff and Environmental Law personnel and arrange for review by the Vice President, Environmental Policy Staff, and/or the Senior Vice President, Environment, Safety and Health. (Approved: Environmental, Safety and Health Committee, August 29, 1986.) (Reviewed and Approved: Environmental, Safety and Health Committee, October 20, 1987.) MONSANTO COMPANY OSH 117580 HARTOLDMON0018538 GUIDELINE ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND HEALTH PROTECTION FOR INVESTMENTS IN WHICH MONSANTO DOES NOT HAVE OPERATING CONTROL t Monsanto's six major Worldwide Guidelines apply at all manufacturing sites in the U.S. and ex-U.S. where Monsanto has operating control. For those investments in which Monsanto does not have operating control, we will require, at a minimum, compliance with applicable local laws, regulations and practices. If such applicable rules and practices do not provide safety, health or environmental protection which would be acceptable for Monsanto controlled sites, the company will initiate action to bring about the necessary upgrading. (Approved: Corporate Administrative Committee, October 6, 1980.) (Revision ApprovedEnvironmental Policy Committee, June, 1985.) . (Reviewed and Approved: Environmental, Safety and Health Committee, October 20, 1987.) 5 MONSANTO COMPANY DSW 117589 HARTOLDMONO018539 ANNOUNCEMENT Monsanto TO: All ESH Worldwide Guideline recipients On March 20, 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the PETAL PROTECTION POLICY of the Johnson Controls Company is a form of illegal sex discrimination. The effect of the Supreme Court decision is to make femal'e employees responsible for deciding whether they should take jobs that may involve risks to fetal or reproductive health. Therefore, the MONSANTO guideline, WOKEN EMPLOYED IN AREAS WHICH POSE AN UNACCEPTABLE HAZARD TO THE HUMAN FETUS, is rescinded for all U.S. locations. Monsanto's fetal- and reproductiveprotection policy has covered several substances, but has affected only a small percentage qf job functions at various Monsanto locations. Monsanto will continue to minimize exposures that may be harmful to employees and visitors in all locations - both in the United States and ex-U.S. Our principal concern continues, to be protecting the health of all Monsanto employees and visitors to our work sites. To this end, a committee chaired by Dr. Jack Baker of Occupational Medicine is evaluating current exposure limits for substances previously associated with the fetal and reproductive protection policy. This committee is made up of representatives from occupational medicine, toxicology, industrial hygiene and related disciplines. Working with Dr. Baker's team are representatives from each operating unit who will work on specific issues and concerns created by the rescission of the fetal protection guideline. Findings from the committee's substance evaluation will be v- reported to the appropriate work sites within three months. * * Risk-related information will also be communicated at that time. : V' Nicholas L. Reding Corporate Executive Vice President Environment, Safety, Health & Manufacturing May 3, 1991 DSW 117590 RD0509-M HARTOLDMONO018540 MLml GUIDELINE ) WOMEN EMPLOYED IN AREAS WHICH POSE AN UNACCEPTABLE HAZARD TO THE HUMAN FETUS Women employees of childbeaiing potential or who are pregnant will not be exposed to work situations which are judged to pose an unacceptable hazard to the human fetus. The Department of Medicine and Health Sciences will: Conduct appropriate toxicological tests of Monsanto raw materials, products, intermediates and byproducts. Review current literature for information on die hazards of chemicals and physical agents used or produced by Monsanto. Assess safety and health implications and the potential risks posed by these chemicals and physical agents. ' i Make recommendations to senior management and maintain a record as to work situations which in their judgment pose an unacceptable hazard to the human fetus. Management of the site(s) involved will take action that women employees of childbearing potential or who | are pregnant will not be hired into, be allowed to bid r into, or continue in job situations which have physical agents or chemical exposure levels that have been \ identified by DMHS as posing an unacceptable hazard to $ the human fetus. 1 Where rearrangement of the job situation to avoid exposure to the identified harard cannot be achifwd and an employee has to be transferred out of a job assignment, every effort will be made to protect her job grade level and her seniority. In instances where the displacement or exclusion of women of childbearing potential adversely affects our EEO goals, efforts will be made to hire or place an equivalent number of women in other departments or areas which do not pose unacceptable hazards to the human fetus. (Approved: Corporate Administrative Committee, August 7, 1978.) (Reviewed and Approved: Environmental, Safety and Health Committee, October 20, 1987.) MONSANTO COMPANY DSW * 1J.7594. OG-4 HARTOLDMONO018541 rui o GUIDELINE SAFE HANDLING OF CARCINOGENS We will provide safe and healthful working conditions for our employees. We will comply with all government regulations concerned with exposure to carcinogens. _ Where there is any data which suggest that a chemical to which our employees are exposed is a carcinogen, and such chemical is not subject to government regulations, we will evaluate that data, and based on that evaluation, take the following action: Where such data establishes the chemical as a human carcinogen, we will take appropriate action to reduce exposure to the lowest reasonable level, unless exposure is already at such a level. Where such data establishes the chemical as an experimental or suspect carcinogen, we will (individually or jointly with others) initiate study to confirm or disprove such designation. During such study, exposure will be reduced to and/or minimized at the lowest reasonable level. If it is concluded that a material cannot be produced or used without jeopardizing the health of employees, its manufacture or use will be discontinued. (Revised and Approved: Corporate Administrative Committee, October 6, 1980.) (Reviewed and Approved: Environmental Safety and Health Committee, October 20, 1987.) MONSANTO COMPANY OSH 117592 OG-5 HARTOLDMONO018542 n_n InJ GUIDELINE NONCOMPANY PERSONNEL ON COMPANY SITES Proper concern for employee health and safety will be required in the execution of contract work per formed for Monsanto. * Monsanto personnel arranging for contract work should observe the following practices. Work should not begin until a mutually agreeable method of operation has been established. . Noncompany personnel should conduct themselves so they do not constitute a hazard to Monsanto employees or property. Apparent violations of the U. S. Occupational Safety and Health Act, other applicable federal, state, and local regulations or accepted industry safe, work practices (CMA, ANSI, NiC, CIA, etc.,) by noncompany personnel should be brought to the attention of their supervisor. Noncompany personnel must be warned of hazards of Company operations or environments they may encounter so that appropriate precautions can be taken. Noncompany personnel with special expertise (i.e., those who provide equipment or personnel with particular abilities not readily available on site) may determine their own safety practices and procedures for performing tasks within their area of expertise commensurate with other Monsanto policies and guidelines. Any such safety practices or procedures which deviate from Monsanto practice or procedure are to be reviewed by the Monsanto contract administrator before implementation. Entry of Company personnel into the work area of noncompany employees should be minimized and limited to those who need to be involved. (Approved: Manufacturing Coordination Department, July 1979.) (Reviewed and Approved: Environmental, Safety and Health Committee, October 20, 1987.) MONSANTO COMPANY -OSW 117593 OG-6 HART OLDMONOOI8543 GUIDELINE/PROCEDURE CONTRACTOR HEALTH AND SAFETY Proper concern for employee health and safety will be required in the execution of contract work performed for Monsanto. SCOPE. DEFINITIONS This Contractor Health and Safety Guideline sets forth safety and occupational health guidelines applicable to Contractors performing services on Monsanto Company property where, in the judgment of Monsanto site management, there may exist the potential for personal injury or property damage or for significant safety or health issues to arise. Services administered either by individual sites or by Monsanto Engineering groups are covered. Recognizing that these guidelines may not be appropriate in all cases, judgments may be required by the individual sites as to implementation and application. These judgments are to be made taking into account the objective of this guideline that proper concern be given to Monsanto and contractor employee health and safety -- in the execution of contract work performed for Monsanto. Substantial departure from these guidelines ' should be approved in advance by the appropriate manufacturing director and, as appropriate, the Department of Medicine and Health Sciences (DMHS). This guideline applies to Monsanto U.S. sites. OBJECTIVE . : " ' All services performed by Contractors on Monsanto sites are to be covered by written contracts. Normally the Contractor is to be made aware of the requirements of this guideline before bidding, the costs agreed upon before contracting the work, and the appropriate requirements incorporated into the written contract or otherwise appropriately documented in consultation with the Purchasing and Law Departments. In accordance with the objective- of providing for Monsanto and Contractor employee safety and health in the execution of contract work, Monsanto will utilize Contractors who: have demonstrated a high degree of compliance with workplace laws/standards, policies and practices; have a history of good health and safety performance; maintain adequate insurance coverage; and, if involved in safety sensitive work, have a substance abuse program reasonably equivalent to Monsanto's. Monsanto will take into account the nature of the services, the availability of Contractors, and other relevant considerations. MONSANTO COMPANY Contractor A person (other than employee of Monsanto), firm or corporation engaged by Monsanto to provide a service on a Monsanto site. Contract The writing which contains the agreement of Monsanto and the Contractor with the agreed upon terms and conditions and which serves as proof of their . respective obligations. Contracts are to be signed by authorized representatives of Contractor and Monsanto. Contracts are to be on forms previously approved by the Purchasing and Law Departments for that use (e.g., Master Maintenance Agreement (Form G-2536], Short Form Contract [G-615], etc). Plant purchase order forms may not be utilized for contracts which require on-site Contractor employees unless approved by the Law Department. When approved existing contract forms are not appropriate, the Purchasing and/or Law Departments are to be contacted for assistance. Monsanto Representative The employee designated by site management to represent Monsanto with respect to the services being performed pursuant to the particular Contract. For Engineering awarded Contracts, this will normally be a site construction superintendent/ supervisor. RESPONSIBILITIES While contractors are responsible for assuring healthful and safe operations, work on a Monsanto site may involve unique or site specific health and safety issues as to which this guideline is directed. The manager of each site is responsible for the implementation of this guideline. CONSIDERATIONS In furtherance of the objective that Contractors provide a healthful and safe operation at Monsanto locations, the following is to be considered and implemented, when deemed applicable to the service being provided. OSW I17594 OG-6.1 HARTOLDMON0018544 . 1.0 COORDINATION The Monsanto Representative is to: 1.1 Coordinate Contractor activity on the site. \2 Be familiar with the Contracts and obtain Purchasing and Law Department review and approval as appropriate. 13 In the letting of bids, assure those jobs requiring a functioning substance abuse program are so identified. L4 Where appropriate, assure that the submission of bids from potential contractors is accompanied bT- . The OSHA 200 log summary form for at least the three most recent years. An evaluation of skill requirements for the job bid. A tentative listing of the contractor's employees likely to be assigned to the job together with their training (including . apprentice programs), work history and any other special qualifications. . A listing of written contractor safe work practices/procedures including the substance abuse program. For those contractor employees who veil be designated as performing safety critical jobs, the latest date of drug screening and confirmation of acceptable test results. 1_5 Review with the contractor his planned approach to the job including those risks he has identified, precautions to be taken, and areas of intended use of his as well as Monsanto procedures. 1.6 Explain to Contractors any unique or site specific safety or health hazards and precautionary measures associated with the services (Orientation). L7 Apprise Contractor of its responsibilities and restrictions while on sito-to include a mutual exchange of health and safety information, for example Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs), as required under the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard. 13 Follow contract services with the objective of having the Contractor minimize potential hazards to both Monsanto and Contractor employees, and to property, which may arise during Contractor services. OC-6.2 1.9 Conduct in consultation with health and safety professionals a final health and safety evaluation before the job is accepted as completed. I 2.0 PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES 2.1 Unique or site specific work hazards involved with the services (of which Monsanto is aware but with which the Contractor may not be familiar) and expected performance relating to such hazards are to be communicated to and reviewed with the prospective Contractor(s) prior to submission of bids. The following items are to be considered and addressed when applicable: Contractor Safety/Health Orientation Respiratory Protection Hazard Communication Hearing Protection Personal Protective Equipment and Clothing Supervision of Contractor Employees Substance Abuse Policy Hygiene Facilities and Practices Exposure Monitoring Medical Sendees Biological Health Monitoring Injury Reporting Use of Plant Permit Systems Site Work Practices Emergency Response and Plant Evacuation Tie-in to Monsanto Equipment Environmental Control Procedures Waste Disposal . ( 22 Contractors, at a minimum, are to be made aware of and required to comply with proper plant procedures for securing permits involving hot work, tank or other enclosed space entry; breaking into pipelines, lock-out, etc. Permits are to be coordinated through the Monsanto Representative. 23 For confined space entry permits, Monsanto will execute the permit and provide required testing prior to the beginning of contracted work. In case of hot work permits, Monsanto will execute the permit, inspect the area and provide required testing. Agreement on whose responsibility it is to provide a qualified fire watch must be made in writing prior to the beginning of contracted work. DSW 147595 HARTOLDMONO018545 rui O j* wr. *t GUIDELINE/PROCEDURE 3.0 ORIENTATION - TRAINING 3.1 Each location is to maintain a general Contractor health and safety qrientation program to convey Monsanto's commitment to health and safety, Contractor general obligations, and plant rules/procedurcs. The following topics are to be included and addressed when applicable: General Plant Policies Hazard Communication Hearing Protection Site Safety and Housekeeping Practices Basic Protective Equipment Usage Personal Hygiene Practices Site Emergency Plan Respiratory Protection . 32 All Contractor employees whose work may involve unique or site specific health or safety ' hazards will upon first entry to the site and prior to beginning work in the field be presented supplemental information pertaining to: Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for Monsanto hazardous chemicals to which Contractor employees may be potentially exposed; Known safety and health hazards unique or specific to operating areas in which Contractor personnel will work; Requirements for any special protective clothing, equipment, or other measures specific to the chemicals involved; and Other basic orientation information, as appropriate, to operating areas in which contractor employees will work. operations, and for the health and safety of its employees. 42 Monsanto will not usually undertake direct supervision of Contractor employees. The Monsanto representative will relate to the Contractor and its employees through the Contractor supervisor in charge at the site. Contractors are to have a competent, responsible supervisor in charge at the site at all times during which its employees or those of its subcontractors are present. However, it is recognized that there may be situations in which it would be impractical for the Contractor to provide full-time,'on-site supervision. Exceptions to the foregoing are to . be first approved by the Site Manager or his designee. 43 In some instances, a single individual (e.g., a specialized service repair person) who is employed by an outside agency may come onto a site to perform expert service. The Monsanto Representative is to determine that this individual is generally competent to perform the work without supervision. 4.4 In those instances where a Contractor employee has no on-site Contractor supervision, the Monsanto Representative is to proride for appropriate implementation of this guideline. In all other cases, the Contractor is to provide for implementation of this guideline as incorporated in the Contract or otherwise communicated to the Contractor. 5.0 OVERSIGHT 33 The Monsanto Representative, working with the Contractor, Engineering Construction Manager (as appropriate) and site health and safety staff, shall coordinate the orientation sessions. A record of the date, information presented, who conducted the training, and a signed list of attendees will be retained in permanent files maintained by the site. 5.1 Contractor operations are to be periodically reviewed by the Monsanto Representative in consultation with health and safety professionals as a further check that the Contractor is complying with applicable health and safety laws, rules and regulations and with contractual requirements and is not endangering personnel and property. 4.0 SUPERVISION 4.1 In all Contractor services on a Monsanto site, the Contractor is responsible for providing safe 52 If significant non-compliance is observed, the related work is to be immediately suspended and resumed only when compliance with requirements is assured. Contractors are to be advised of all non-compliance matters observed MONSANTO COMPANY OSW 1175.96 OG-6.3 HARTOLDMONO018546 by the Monsanto Representative and is to be required to bring its operations into compliance promptly. 6.0 PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT 6.1 The Contractor is to be notified prior to beginning work of the minimum requirements for personal protective equipment such as special work clothing, goggles, gloves, or full body protection. 62 The Contractor is to furnish and require the use and wearing of proper personal protective equipment by its employees. 63 If a Contractor does not have the specified equipment, the task is to be delayed until such equipment is provided by Contractor. 6.4 Personal protective equipment, including special clothing, are not to be supplied by Monsanto unless dictated by an emergency. (See Section 14.0 for indemnification requirements.) 7.0 RESPIRATORY PROTECTIVE DEVICES 7.1 Use of respiratory protective devices requires a program for proper selection, fitting, training, cleaning and disinfection, storage, inspection and repair, surveillance, periodic evaluation, medical approval, and the use of National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) approved equipment. 12 Contractors are to require each of their employees who will be expected to wear a respirator as part of his/her job to be medically evaluated for approval, properly fitted, and trained in its use prior to beginning work. 13 Documentation of the medical approval to wear a respirator is to be provided by Die Contractor to Monsanto for review by the location Medical Services. Where location Medical Services do not exist, documentation -of medical approval is to be submitted to DMHS for review. Positive pressure self-contained respiratory protective devices designed and used for the sole' purpose of emergency escape do not require medical approval and fitting. These respirators do, however, require training in their application and use. 7.4 Contractors are to be responsible for properly fitting and training its employees. In extenuating OG-6.4 circumstances, if the Contractor is not able to properly fit and train its employees, Monsanto may, upon written request, consider assisting the Contractor in providing such services. (See Section 14.0 for indemnification requirements.) 7J Contractors are to furnish the proper respiratory protective devices to its employees and to assure that such devices arc used in conformity with applicable laws and regulations. 7.6 In the event that Contractor's employees have not been fit-tested and respiratory protection is necessary, only positive pressure, supplied air equipment is to be used. 7.7 Contractors are to adhere to'the location policy regarding facial hair in the sealing area of respirators. 7.8 Supplied breathing air for respirator usage is to be provided by the Contractor unless dictated by an emergency. Monsanto may, upon written request, consider furnishing breathing air. (See Section 14.0 for indemnification requirements.) 7.9 The Contractor is to test all breathing air sources for oxygen content, and insure that the breathing air is certified as meeting the . specifications for Grade D air as described in the Compressed Gas Association Commodity Specification G-7.1-1973 prior to use, whether Monsanto or Contractor supplied. 7.10 Monsanto is to retain the right to test at its discretion all supplied breathing air provided by Contractor. 8.0 MEDICAL SERVICES The listing below includes chemical/physical agents and situations for which occupational health surveillance is presently required. This listing could be changed periodically as appropriate by DMHS. This surveillance may be required by regulation and therefore legally mandated. In addition, there are exposures for which no legally enacted standard mandates surveillance, but for which Monsanto requires periodic health evaluation. Occupational health surveillance is targeted to specific at-risk groups as defined by workplace assignment, known exposure history, and/or workplace monitoring . data and conducted by performing certain 1 specific health examinations to include the following: OSW 117597 HARTOLDMONO018547 M GUIDELINE/PROCEDURE O ACRYLONITRILE FORMALDEHYDE METHEMOCLOB1N FORMERS ASBESTOS HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE EMERCENCY RESPONSE PAB BEHZEHE HEARINC PROTECTION REQUIRED . PHOSPHORUS CADMIUM RADIATION DMAC LEAD RESPIRATORY PROTECTION REQUIRED DMF MERCURY Pre-placement health examinations are to be provided for Contractor employees who are employed in jobs for which Monsanto required/legally mandated health examinations would be performed for its full-time employees (if they were to perform the job) and who: Are or may be potentially exposed at or above the action level (/.., one-half the 8-hour timeweighted average permissible exposure limit or Monsanto workplace exposure guideline) to a chemical/physical agent and situations as identified above; AND Are anticipated to work in a designated exposure area(s) for 30 or more consecutive work days or . where non-consecutive work periods may result in sufficient cumulative work exposure to warrant evaluation. Such work evaluations wall be conducted by Monsanto Industrial Hygiene in consultation with Occupational Medicine (DMHS) as to what constitutes sufficient cumulative work exposure; ' OR Regardless of work duration, are assigned to a job for which Industrial Hygiene, in consultation with Occupational Medicine, determines sufficient potential exposure to require health examinations. . When there is any question as to whether or not the job assignment requires special health surveillance or any question as to the specifics of the health examination. Occupational Medicine, DMHS is to be consulted and is the final authority. Section 8.0 will not normally apply to Construction Contractors unless the service performed is directly associated with an active chemical processing area. Section 8.0 is not intended to apply to potential ) exposures which might result from possible catastrophic events not reasonably foreseeable. MONSANTO COMPANY 8.1 Specifications for health examinations and provisions for medical services are to be designated in the contract with the providing Contractor or otherwise appropriately communicated to the Contractor. 8.2 Where 'baseline* medical data on Contractor employees are required prior to working in an ' area, sufficient lead time for collection and analysis of samples is to be required in scheduling work. 83 The examinations are to be performed by qualified medical professionals. Examinations may be performed by an outside physidan(s), identified by the Contractor, who meets the approval of Monsanto. 8.4 Surveillance health examinations for Contractor employees are to follow as closely as possible the examinations as defined for Monsanto employees. 83 In the event a specific health examination procedure has not been established. Occupational Medicine (DMHS) is to be consulted. 8.6 Periodic and termination physicals for Contractor employees are to be in accordance with the same frequency/timing practices provided for Monsanto employees similarly situated. 8.7 Maintenance and storage of medical record information on Contractor employees will be at the discretion of the location and will follow the same policies regarding confidentiality and retention as for Monsanto employees. In all cases whether the examination is performed on or off site, a copy is to be accessible to Monsanto medical personnel or be maintained by Monsanto in the same area as the medical records for that site are maintained. Where feasible, Monsanto forms are to be used. 83 Contractors are to assure that medical services are available for contract employees in the event of injury/illness. Where the severity of the injury dictates immediate attention on-site, Monsanto may provide first aid treatment to the extent necessary to stabilize the condition of DSta 117598 HARTOLDMONOQ18548 MCHAa.A.P6?- Vfe* PrMdait Monsanto Monsanto Company 800 N. Undberati Bodevard St. Louis. Missouri 63167 Pt^wiaH>6`iH IQffl November 11, 1992 To Our Employees: . ... 1 ________ _______ _ ____ . _ ________ :___ _______ Monsanto Company is dedicated to ensuring the safety of our employees, customers, communities and the environment This is the commitment of the Monsanto Pledge, which serves as the umbrella for our overall environmental, safety and health program. In support of this commitment, we have developed the "Monsanto Pledge Guidelines." These new guidelines replace our Environinental, Safety and Health Guidelines. They set forth the management, expectations for environmental, safety and health performance, and they describe key results against which progress will be measured. The Monsanto Pledge Guidelines update our Environmental, Safety and Health Guidelines, and incorporate Responsible Care, the continuous improvement initiative created by the chemical industry worldwide. ~""Thencw guidelines have been approved by the Environmental Policy Committee. ConfortMoee.. "with the spirit at Iflft guiqeuuffl. 1U1UIUE expected in tailoring the guidelines for specific operating units. Please incorporate your existing plans and pregrams as appropriate to meet the Pledge Guidelines and add any specific programs or requirements that reflect special needs of your business. To fulfill the Monsanto Pledge, we must engineer change and add value to our businesses. In this way, we can build a competitive advantage to sustain our leadership position in environmental, safety and health improvements. This Monsanto Pledge Guidelines book should be treated as "company confidential." The section entitled "Introduction," pages i - iii, contains a summary of the Pledge Guidelines and can be used in external discussions. Sincerely, Michael A. Pierle USw 107930 HARTOLDMONO018549 I. INTRODUCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS III. MONSANTO PLEDGE GUIDELINES 1. Pollution Prevention 2. Employee And Community Safety And Health 3. Process Safety And Emergency Response - - ------ 4. Product Stewardship - -------------------- ------- ------ ------ - 5. Chemical Distribution ............... ......... ................................................. ---------- 6. Groundwater And Soil Quality ..... . ... ,,.. . ... ........._. ..______ _ _. . 7. Outside Processors 8. Community Awareness At Manufacturing Sites IV. OTHER GinDELINES --' - '" ~ 1. Environmental. Safety And Health Reviews Of Capital Projects 2. Environmental, Safety And Health Reviews Of Divestitures Or Acquisitions Of Property And/Or Businesses 3. Environmental. Safety And Health Protection For Investments Over Which The Company Does Nor Have Operating Control - ...... - ................. -----.... 4, Reprodiictivf,ITa7ard&lnTh<>WnrtpTar^ 3. Sdib Handling Of Caiilnugens ' - 1 6. Contractor/Guest Environmental. Safety And Health 7. Use Of Animals In Research Facilities 8. Ozone-Depleting Chemicals (CFCs) 9. Environmental, Safety And Health Compliance Auditing ~ V. PROCEDURES 1. Employee Health And Exposure Communications 2. Transmittal To The United States Environmental Protection Agency Of Substantia] Risk Information Under The Toxic Substances Control Act 3. Recording Allegations Of Significant Adverse Reactions Under The Toxic Substances Control Act 4. Premanufacture Notification To The United States Environmental Protection Agency Under The Toxic Substances Control Act 5. Occupational Fatal Accident Reporting 6. Transmittal Of Toxicology And Health-Related Data To United States Regulatory Agencies VI. REFERENCES Appropriate Responsible Care Program Or Industry initiative OSW 10 7934. HARTOLDMONO018550 INTRODUCTION Monsanto's Environmental, Safety and Health Program - The Monsanto Pledge : - tOLsnsurinfi the safety.ofJiur.employeesK customers,communities andjhe ' environment. Through the Monsanto Pledge, we have committedpublicly topursue a course of -- environmental stewardship ~ one that goes beyond what is required by the law. I. THE MONSANTO PLEDGE .............. .................. ....... ......... ...... Each of the company's environmental programs and commitments is embodied by the seven-point Monsanto Pledge. Announced in 1990 by Monsanto's chairman, Richard J. Mahoney, the Pledge represents Monsanto's environmental commitment to sustainable development ........... ' ------- - ... ...... _ The Monsanto Pledge It is our pledge to: reduce all toxic and hazardous releases and emissions, working toward an ultimate goal of zero effect; ensure no Monsanto operation poses any undue risk to our employees and our communities; ~ work to achieve sustainable agriculture through new - -............ -----------------------------------------technology-andorartirct;- .. --,----------- ~* ensuregouhdwatersarery; " - - ^ - keep our plants open to our communities and involve the community in plant operations; manage all corporate real estate, including plant sites, to benefit nature; and search worldwide for technology to reduce and eliminate waste from our operations, with the top priority being not making waste in the first place. At the core of the Pledge is our belief that the public grants us the right to operate every day - and every day, we must work to earn that right. The Pledge recognizes that outstanding environmental, safety and health performance isn't a cost of doing business, but is integral to our business success. It assumes that compliance with the law and our internal guidelines is basic, wherever we do business. But the environmentalism embodied in the Pledge is far more than compliance. The Monsanto Pledge sets the overall direction of the company's environmental, safety and health program. Specific guidelines detail our efforts to achieve the Pledge. OSW 107932 I HARTOLDMONO018551 II. MONSANTO PLEDGE GUIDELINES All of Monsanto's operations worldwide observe eight Monsanto Pledge Guidelines that help ensure that our products and operations fully protect human health, safety and the environment - while meeting or exceeding existing regulations. 1. Pollution Prevention -- The company will work toward the ultimate goal of ensuring zero effect attributable to waste in all media. It will research, design and operate its facilities to minimize the generation of process and nonprocess waste and the potential effect of chemical releases to the environment. FtirVaSte and releases thar'-* remain, the company will comply with regulations, while minimizing environmental threat and long-term liability. 2. Employee and Community Safety and Health -The company will provide a healthful and safe environment for its employees, site visitors, contractors and neighbors. It will evaluate employee health status, determine and monitor workplace factors affecting employee safety and health, and comply with both the company's workplace exposure guidelines arid governmental safety and health regulations. It will review major capital projects to protea the health of its people at work and that of people in the community. 3. Process Safety and Emergency Response - The company will research, develop, design and operate processes in a manner that protects the health and safety of employees, site visitors, contractors and neighbors. Beyond compliance with appropriate governmental regulations, the company will apply such standards and programs as necessary to manage operational risks at a level that ensures its continuing right to operate. All company sites will complement this effort with strategies to mitigate risk in the event of an incident . including site emergency response and support of comparable efforts within the community. 4. Product Stewardship - The company will research, develop, design, assess, manufacture, market and dispose of its products so that they meet societal needs and do not pose undue risk to human health or to the environment during all stages of their life cycles. The company will work with product stake holders (suppliers, employees, distributors, customers, consumers and disposers) to understand and reduce risks associated with the life cycle of the company's products. .............. - - TTT^iffilglll Distribution -rThccompany will reawce-p^'SgatTisrtO'IKgmplayrrs-distributors, contractors, customs' employees, ana the environment iri U16 <lUUH)UllUU uf Uimucals. - = - 6. Groundwater and Soil Quality - The company will design and operate facilities to protect groundwater and soil quality. The company will assess groundwater and soil quality at its facilities and pursue remedies for releases that threaten health or the environment. The company will address on-site and off-site contamination of groundwater and soil attributable to its operating and waste practices to ensure protection of health and the environment 7. Outside Processors -- To support its operations, the company will select outside processors that will operate with concern for worker safety, regulatory compliance, community protection and protection of the environment * 8. Community Awareness at Manufaauring Sites -- The company will foster its employees' and the public's right-to-know through a commitment to openness, involvement and community dialogue. The company will be responsive to questions and concerns about human safety, health and the environment at its manufacturing sites. Included in these guidelines are Monsanto's voluntary programs to prevent pollution and improve safety performance. Also included are specific elements of the Responsible Care initiative. DSH 107933 If HARTOLDMON0018552 III. RESPONSIBLE CARE Monsanto actively participates in the chemical industry's Responsible Care initiative, the most ambitious initiative on environmental, safety and health issues ever undertaken by a manufacturing industry. Responsible Care is woven into the very fabric of Monsanto's commitment to environmental, safety and health protection worldwide. It is an important tool to help the company fulfill the Monsanto Pledge. Six R^ponsible Care codes of mamagement practice are included in theMonsanto Fledge Guidelines: 1. Community Awareness and Emergency Response - to bring company operations and local communities together through communication and cooperative emergency planning. 2. Distribution - to the transportation of chemicals safer, regardless of the carrier or mode of shipment. 3. Pollution Prevention - to decrease the amount of pollution and hazardous waste generated by manufacturing operations. 4. Process Safety - to prevent fires, explosions or chemical releases from manufacturing plants and processes. 5. Employee Health and Safety - to improve continuously the protection of employees, contract workers and visitors at company sites. _ 6. Product Stewardship -* to reduce the risks to health, safety and environment at every stage of the company's products, from proposal to disposal. ........... '' " " ---- ------ --- - Responsible Care is an important part of the operation of every Monsanto facility. It is a vital pan of our effort to earn the public's trust and the privilege of continued operation. By weaving Responsible Care elements into its environmental, safety and health initiatives. Monsanto is forming _ the solid foundation it needs to ensure the welfare of its employees, customers, communities and the environment. Note: Responsible Core is a registered service mark ofthe Canadian Chemical Producers Association and the U.S. Chemical Manufacturers Association, and is an initiative that is being adopted increasingly in countries around the world. OSH 107934 HARTOLDMON0018553 `T'de Monsanto It is our pledge to: reduce all toxic and Hazardous releases and emissions, wording toward an ultimate goal ofzero effect; <3* ensure no Monsanto operation poses any undue risk to our employees and our communities; <3t word to acdieve sustainable agriculture tdrougd new tecdnology and practices; <3t ensure groundwater safety; <3t deep our plants open to our communities and involve tde community in plant operationsi ..--,,_ _ _ __ _ manage all eorpomta&a WTTXTrmjrrsimnTnaiinhi+w* to benefit nature; and seared worldwide for tecdnolog\1 to reduce and eliminate waste from our operations, mid tde top priority being not mading it in tde first place. Monsanto January 1990 Chaintfan and Chief Exe ive Officer Monsanto Company OSW 107935 HARTOLDMON0018554 MONSANTO PLEDGE GUIDELINE #1 r--- . . ,,---- ,' _ ... ................. The company will work toward the ultimate goal ofensuring zero effect attributable to waste in all media. It will research, design and operateits facilities to minimize the generation ofprocess and nonprocess waste and the potential effect ofchemical releases to the environment. For waste and releases that remain, the company will comply with regulations, while minimizing environmental threat and long-term liability. ........... .......... .................... .................. - .... ............ KEY RESULTS------- ----- ----------- The development and use of technologies that improve competitive positions will be emphasized. Reduce by 90 percent the company's 1987 level of ~ - worldwide air emissions of chemicals named by the The operating units will integrate into their release- _ ^ United States Environmental Protection Agency-..-^...-- :r: (USEPA) under Title III of the Supeifund " Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA Section 313) and chemicals of local concern outside the United States by the end of 1992. Reduce by 90 percent the company's 1987 level of worldwide air emissions of SARA Section 313 chemicals and chemicals of local concern outside the Reduce by 70 percent the company's worldwide United States by the end of 1992. SARA Section 313, European Community Priority Pollutant List (EC 129) and carbon monoxide ~...........~ Reduce by 70 percent the company's worldwide the end of 1995. ^ ~ ----- . _.. Discontinue the deep-well injection of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste streams and SARA Section 313 toxic chemicals by the end of 1999. PROGRAM 1.1 Process Waste The operating units will integrate into their release reduc tion plans the corporate goal of reducing all toxic and hazardous releases and emission to all media, working toward an ultimate goal of zero effect For reducing releases from processes, the order of preference is source reduction, followed by reuse, recycling or co-product sale, and finally by incineration or other treatment to reduce the volume and/or toxicity of pollutant streams. ri51inneattr^ofPategansfen: hyenHftfiQQ5. The January 1990 SARA 313 and _ - EC 129 lists plus carbon monoxide apply through the end of the `multimedia release reduction program. An effect-based release reduction target will be established every five years beginning in 1995, working toward an ultimate goal of zero effect By the end of 1993. a method and process for an effect-based reduction program for toxic chemicals will be developed. 1.2 Nonprocess Waste Each facility will maintain an inventory of all nonprocess sources of waste generation, including power generation, office and maintenance operations, general warehouse trash, packaging/shipping materials and similar sources. 13 Underground Well (Deep-well) Injection MONSANTO COMPANY 0 S W 107 93 6 MPG 1. Pape 1 of 3 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018555 The company will discontinue deep-well injection of hazardous, the company will take into account public RCRA hazardous waste streams by the end of 1999. It expectations, emerging trends and worldwide company will also apply best feasible technology to virtually practice regarding the same or similar wastes. eliminate the deep-well injection of SARA 313 chemicals. The company's name will not appear on the Contractors hired for land disposal of wastes will be list of companies making significant use of injection subject to contracting and assessment requirements (see wells for disposal of SARA chemicals for the reporting Pledge Guideline No. 7, Outside Processors). In the -year yvHyyymri The company willdemonstratc _ . United States, the use of off-site hazardous waste linigii i\ by nrhirving in 1996 mfiOpetcent reduction ' . landfills will be approved by the Environmental Policy . .. of injected SARA chemicals against the 1990 base " .... " Committee and wiiTbe limitcd in number. reporting year. ..................... Medical wastes generated at the company's locations To be prepared for the possibility of mandatory regulations, the company intends to select by the end of . will be incinerated prior to land disposal of residues. Assurance of incineration will be obtained via manifests 1993 optimal technical strategies for total withdrawal or equivalent documents if manifests are not available. from deep wells. This preparation will include study- grade estimates to achieve non-brine, treated surface discharge. All operating units will continue where___ Each company location wQl maintain a record of both the on-site and the commercial waste treatment, storage possible to challenge the technical impediments to total -- and disposal sites it uses. __ ........................ withdrawal from deep wells............ --- 1.6 Air Emission and Water Release Assessments No new uses of deep wells for hazardous or toxic ' ~ ~ materials are permitted. A "new" use of deep wells is defined as injection of streams from new products or the addition of substances not previously injected at that site. New internal or external uses of deep wells for nanhazardous wastes and nontoxic chemicals will be considered by the Environmental Policy Committee (EPC) only on an exception basis and within the__ __ constraints of these guidelin** Th nrannmics of anv The company will conduct and maintain an ongoing assessment of potential humarKhejJATlrqiaictslQcUT selected, routinely emitted air pollutants. It will develop appropriate control strategies to reduce identified, potentially unreasonable risk of harm to human health in surrounding communities. The list of air pollutants to be studied include: a) those listed under Section 112(b) of the US. Clean Air Act; b) those for which the USEPA has established cancer unit risk values: c) those for RcsearcnjaO-^_IIZ 1.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls-"PCB-Free" All company-owned sites (e.g., warehouses, plants, offices) located in the United States will minimize the potential for releases of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) by becoming "PCB-free" of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)-coaLaminated articles by the end of 1994. quantities reportable via SARA Section 313). Plants outside the United States will use the above-given pollutant list plus any additional air pollutants on any local regulatory list that the plant manager deems important. 1.5 Land Disposal Landfill of "acutely hazardous" wastes1 and "incinerables"1 will not be practiced. For hazardous wastes and wastes managed as hazardous, fixation of particularly mobile, persistent or bioaccumulative wastes will be accomplished whenever warranted and feasible. In making the decision to manage wastes as Each plant will maintain a list of all such air pollutants, ranked by established and approved protocols. Depending upon the pollutant's relative ranking and if required by the protocols, the plant will use appropriate dispersion modeling techniques to determine potential maximum downwind concentrations for each such pollutant at specified receptors representative of the exposed population utilizing appropriate dispersion 1 Ax li<d ia 40 CFR 261.33(c), plux aajr mixture* coataiaiag greeter thaa 3 percent. 1 Hazardous wanes, or wastes managed as hazardous, with a beat of combusuoa greater thaa 6000 BTU/lb. MPG 1. Pape 2 of 3 Company Confidential DSH 107937 HARTOLDMONO018556 modeling techniques. Appropriate assessments of potential human health impacts at the community receptor points will then be analyzed according to protocols established by the company's Environmental, Safety and Health staff1. Any potentially unreasonable risk to human health that is identified will be expeditiously reduced to acceptable levels through appropriate actions. "Tfie--T-- . determine the measurable impacts, if any. of its effluents on receptor water quality. The assessments should include both direct and indirect discharges (if applicable) with the mitigating impacts of the publicly owned treatment works (POTW) taken into account for the indirect discharge assessments. Any potentially unacceptable impacts to the aquatic environment identified will be mitigated in a timely manner. A reconfirming assessment will be conducted to verify that the impacts have been reduced to acceptable levels. All initial air emission and surface water release ___ . assessments required should be conducted for each of ___ the company's worldwide manufacturing sites within two years of the EPC's approval of this guideline. . Operating units will review the status of the assessments annually, and if any significant changes have occurred at a plant site, determine whether the assessment should be repeated. Any such reassessments will be completed within 12 months. 17 The following indicators will be useq to MH5UT6 progress against this guideline: - .. ~ - 1.7.1 Annual progress toward achievement of 90 percent SARA Section 313 air emissions reduction goal. 1.7.2 Annual progress toward achievement of 70 percent worldwide SARA Section 313 chemical releases and off-site transfer reduction goal. - 1.7J Achievement of contingency planning for reduction of use of deep-well injection. 1.7.4 Annual progress toward goals involving discontinued deep-well injection of RCRA hazardous waste streams and toxic SARA Section 313 chemicals. 1.7.5 Air Emissions and Water Release Assessments The company's air and water steering committees will be responsible for tracking (he air emission and water release environmental _conducted at each site and ^=^ --tmam^amtng^anqngOing4ist Of4he_ - ;--------------assessments' current status. In addition, each plant's environmental compliance audit will check the current status of these assessments and report on progress as part of the audit's findings. -1.8- Coordinators ........ ................. Where clarification is required, the following coordinators should be contacted: .... WASTE MANAGEMENT D. B. Redington, ESH. Corporate, A3NA (314)694-6503. . .. . . - ASSESSMENT C. D. Malloch, ESH, Corporate. A3NA (314) 694-8889. (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy OSH 107938 MPG 1. Pafc 3 of > Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018557 HARTOLDMON0018558 MONSANTO PLEDGE GUIDELINE #2 EMPLOYEE AND COMMUNITY SAFETY AND HEALTH The company will provide a healthful and safe environment for its employees, site visitors, contractors and neighbors. It will evaluate employee health status, determine and monitor workplace factors affecting employee safety and health, and comply with both the company's workplace exposure -- guidelines and governmental safity and health regulations. It will review major capital projects to protect the health ofits people at work and that ofpeople in the community. ~ KEY RESULTS Approach zero adverse health effects for the company's "... employees, site visiton andaite contractors, including zero occupational injury and illness. "" Certify into the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administrative's (OSHA) Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) or equivalent at all facilities where appropriate by the end of 1997. Reduce by 50 percent the company's 1991 level of --a<Tidentalreteaserofhazardousmaterials from. ~ ~rir^uaSgrroperaUcmrbyt^ PROGRAM 2.1 Health Surveillance and Assessment . . . . . The company will monitor and evaluate the effect of work exposures on employee health by providing occupational health surveillance in all locations. The goal is to offer periodic assessments for all employees. Health surveillance and periodic health assessments will be conducted by the company or by contract health professionals in accordance with the Occupational Medicine Program as defined in the company's Occupational Medicine Program ManuaL 23 Workplace Surveillance The company will conduct workplace surveillance to identify potential health risks, evaluate hazards based on current toxicological and epidemiological information and initiate appropriate safeguards to protect employee health. 23 Audits and Reviews ~ ......... The company will perform periodic on-site audits and reviews of worldwide operations to evaluate status of - safety, occupational health andindustriaihygtene pro grains. It will utilize observations and recommendations to achieve and maintain regulatory and code compliance, attain appropriate technological sophistication, reduce the probability of illnesses and injuries, and support employee safety and health education. 2.4^ Regulations and Guidelines ------------ --.... facility design, sate work and uyuauouAl fWUCtllSBc, === injury and illness recordkeeping, workplace exposures, health surveillance, and community safety and health. If regulatory guidelines are unavailable or inadequate to protect worker health, the company will establish guidelines where appropriate. 2.5Data Management The company will collect and enter workplace materials, worker exposure, work history and employee health assessment data into the Monsanto Environmental Health Information Analysis & Reporting System (MARS) data base, which will be used to perform epidemiological and other appropriate studies to evaluate worker health and enhance worker protection. MONSANTO COMPANY OSh Lo?93s MPG 2. Pape lot: Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018559 The company will establish guidelines for classifying 2.10 Security and recording injuries and illnesses and monitor company-wide performance and adherence to federal and local regulations on recordkeeping. It will issue monthly summaries of appropriate statistics and will The company will establish security procedures and _____systems to control entry and exit of personnel and_____ materials at its sites. produce other publications designed to improve awareness and to communicate relevant technologies to the workplace. The company will develop ways to -understand the causation of injuries and exposures as___ 2.11 Measurement The following indicators will be used to measure progress against this guideline: ' ........ well as techniques for prevention.^ - ^ v-v- * Annual progress,toward operatingjmit's goalsjor ; t 2.6 Loss Prevention Reviews - - - the Total Recordable Rate (TRR). ' Annual progress toward entry of 100 percent The company will conduct safety and industrial hygiene ___ . United States manufacturing and service locations reviews on design, start-up and operational issues for" '' major new installations and expansions........................ into VPP by end of 1997. - Releases as reported per the company's worldwide 2.7 Professional Activities ------------- system.----------- -------- -- ---------------------- The company will advance occupational health and safety consciousness through employee participation in Systematic review of employee health and......... ____ industrial hygiene data. ___............ ..... trade and professional associations and other coopera- live endeavors. r-' 2.12 Coordinators j-----. Where clarification is required, the following , 2.8 Employee Education"----- T : `r---------------- coordinatorsshould be contacted: -- - - ^ X .. ,,: . . . The company will provide employee training, orientation and education in safety and health. V. E. Boyen, Director, Safety & Personal Protection, A2NG, (314) 694-6007 2.9 Contract Employees The company will provide contract employees with any required occupational health surveillance, safety and ~ -- hyjiw inHnrtnmtinn In armrHanr^ iJtfcrr -- htn A, rn^n^r/rta^PtrriTnitmsiUnf --- - - Health and Sqftty, Sins located iu the United Statcs== will meet the requirements of the contractor environmental, health and safety guideline. P. A. Easterday, Director, Industrial Hygiene. A3NL, (314) 694-8836 J. H. Baker, Director, Occupational Medicine. --A3NB. (314) 694 8806------------------------- (Revised and approved by die Environmental Policy Committee, October 22,1992.) M PG 2. Page 2 of 2 Company Confidential OSW 107940 HARTOLDMONO018560 ijB& MONSANTO PLEDGE GUIDELINE #3 PROCESS SAFETY AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE The company will research, develop, design and operate processes in a manner that protects the health andsafety ofemployees, site visitors, contractors and neighbors. Beyond compliance with appropriate governmental regulations, the company will apply such standards andprograms as necessary to manage operationalrisks at a level that ensures its continuing right to operate. All company sites will complement this effort with strategies to mitigate risk in the event ofan incident, including site emergency response andsupport ofcomparable efforts within the community. KEY RESULTS Sustain do major losses from catastrophic incidents. Retain the company's preferred risk status with' ~~ insurers. Reduce by SO percent the company's 1991 level of accidental releases of hazardous materials from production operations by the end of 1996. Incur no major injuries to employees or neighbors from " a plant process incident.- designs. Designs should incorporate relevant consensus standards as appropriate. Additionally, the Safety and : Property Protection (S&PP) staff shall provide supplemental guidance through Design Guides, Tecfacts and related documents (e.g,, Guidance Notes as published by S&PP, Europe/Africa). 3J Project Reviews All projects (new processes, products or facilities) will undergo safety reviews to ensure adherent to applicable -------internal and external standards as.well asJtaexamine.the. PTmrriTAM 3.1 Process Development and Design : Every new process will be characterized in a document (e.g.. Tentative Process, Red Book, Processfor Engineering Design) that describes all materials, equipment and processing conditions, including known safe limits. Design and engineering will be based on such documentation for a new process and on existing operations if there is already an established process. The basis for design of all major operating components and critical safety systems will be recorded in a design manual. Any new or expanded facility will be reviewed for its safety impact on the community. 3.2 Technical and Engineering Standards The engineering organizations will maintain such standards as necessary to allow safe and effective HniWjTf, hnfli a nee-twrn^ffidiaftflglliUtgCfgflew, new processes will undergo a research stage review. Appropriateparticipation from the Environmental. Health and Safety (ESH) staffis required for projects managed by an operating unit's engineering organization. All major projects should also have a pre-startup review to confirm that all recommendations from prior reviews and hazard analyses (if performed) have been addressed. 3.4 High Hazardous Materials (HHM) Program High Hazardous Materials (HHM) are those materials, that if accidentally released would pose the greatest threat to neighbors and employees. A higher level of controls and operating standards are applied to these materials. The major elements of the HHM program include the use of Hazard and Operational Study (HAZOPs). the preparation of a guideline document for each HHM, and audits once every two years. MONSANTO COMPANY DSW 107941 MPG 3. Pace I of 3 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018561 3.5 Operational Safety Management Safe process operations on a continuing basis are main tained by each site by the company's commitment to a scries of fundamental practices. Included are the following: 3.5.1 Operating Procedures Written procedures are kept current for all processes. They cover necessary operating instructions, safe handling of materials, safe operating limits, and responses to deviations, including emergency steps. 3.5.2 Operator Training All production and maintenance operators must undergo training to acquire the necessary skills and knowledge for safe execution of their responsibilities. Operators must adequately demonstrate their competence before they assume their positions; training must be periodically reinforced. 3.5.3 Contractor Safety .. ___The company will provide contract employees with any required occupational health surveil lance. and safety and industrial hygiene indoc trination in accordance with Other Guideline No. 6. Contractor/Guest Environmental. Health and Safety Guideline. Sites will meet the requirements of the contractor environmental, health and safety guideline. :3,3.4 .Management Qe Change! . Anv rhanff* in aqnipmww ------------ " ~ iii 11111I1111 IITHII Lilli U ymul ilial h recognized as the safe operating regime shall be governed by a Mmanagement-of-cbangeM protocol to ensure proper safety review, authorization, training and implementation. This protocol also will apply to capital projects on all changes made subsequent to the previous safety review. A separate protocol will apply to changes in the line organization. 3.5.5 Critical System Inspections A program involving inspection, replacement and/or testing of critical equipment or safety systems must be maintained in order to ensure reliable operations and system integrity. 3.5.6 In-Depth Process audits At intervals not to exceed three years, all operations shall undergo intensive audits to examine areas of change, non-routine occurrences, new information and other MPG 3. Pape 2 of 3 Company Confidential unusual factors to ensure that no new hazards have been introduced and that appropriate' safety margins have been maintained. 3.5.7 Incident Investigations All significant incidents that threatened or could have threatened process integrity or the well-being of involved personnel will be _. investigated by a specially appointed team who will establish causes and make recommendations to prevent recurrence. 3.6 Emergency Response Effective emergency response includes not only those actions to mitigate and control the incident within the fenceline but also includes actions that address the potential impact on the community. Consequently, a site emergency response program should include the following elements: ......- 3.6.1 Emergency Procedures Written emergency procedures will be - available and kept current for each process, as - - well as for the total site. They will cover actions at each suge of the emergency including shutdown and evacuation. All employees must be trained in these procedures. Emergency Drills: - Site managers will test and audit their -----------;----- emergency plan annually and revue it as --'^necessary. At intervaU deternuned by the. - ' sild. Uie emetgeucy drih wtS4nrludf-Uie ~ ..active involvement uf cuiuiuuuiijf feuiuiucs= associated with emergency management 3.6.2 Community Preparedness The site managers will review with appropriate community officials the nature and extent of potential incidents from the site and provide the community with assistance in emergency planning if requested. 3.7 Measurements The following indicators will be used to measure progress against this guideline: Annual progress reports on S&PP Compliance Audits, the HHM Report of the Monsanto Manu facturing Council (MMQ once every two years and site ln-Depth Process Safety Audit Reports. 0 ->" i,079**2 HARTOLDMONOOI8562  Annual cost of property and business interruption insurance. Monthly reports on SARA Title III. Section 304. reportable releases against goals. S&PP quarterly property-loss reports. 3.8 Coordinator' ~~ ---- - Where clarification is required, the following coordinator should be contacted: " V. E. Boyen, Director. Safety & Personal Protection. A2NG. (314) 694-6007 3.9 Definitions ESH: Environment. Safety and Health. HAZOP: Hazard and Operability Study, a hazard identification technique. HHM: Highly hazardous material (a Monsanto designation for substances posing an acute risk). MMC: Manufacturing Management Council. SARA: Superfund Amendments ana keautnortzaiioa Act. (Revisedand approved by the Environmental Policy Committee. October 22,1992.) OSu *079*3 MPG 3. Pace 3 of t Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018563 . __ MONSANTO PLEDGE GUIDELINE ............................................................. .................................... #4 PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP The company will research, develop, design, assess, manufacture, market and dispose ofits products so that they meet societal needs and do not pose undue risk to human health or to the environment during all stages oftheir life cycles. The company will work with product stake holders (suppliers, employees, distributors, customers, consumersand disposers) to understand and reduce risks associated with the life cycle ofthe company's products. KEY RESULTS ---------- ,,, Practice the principles and key elements of Product Stewardship, as specified in appropriate propane -- around the world, at all the companyVgfcbal operations. - Provide appropriate safety and handling information, including Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs)1, to potentially exposed employees, including contract employees and product receivers. Work toward-the goal of noundue risk through^_____ ""~vysrenaticrrikreduedgn throughout ipfSdgct'rltfc: --cycle Gain a compeddve advantage by applying product stewardship principles that add value to the company's product offerings. PROGRAM 4.1 Environmental, Safety and Health Information and Risk Characterization 4.1.1 New chemical products, new isolated process intermediates, and significant new uses for existing chemical products will be accompanied by adequate environmental, safety and health exposure information to support a preliminary product-risk characterization (ER-200 or EC-201, and an RAD MSDS) at the earliest practical stage of RAD and prior to off-site shipment. A product-risk characterization (including an EC-202 or equivalent, a final MSDS and a . ...... shinning classification) will be completed before new product commercializadon. 4.1.2 The company's process for generating and maintaining an MSDS is comprehensive and, when coupled with human experience and professional judgment, will fulfill the requirement for a product-risk ____ characterization. Whenever significant new ri " :, Jnfqrmarion becomes available. it wflTbe misty regulatory ilkl [HUiKm tkk characterization requirements. An MSDS review/product-risk characterization will be periodically performed commensurate with product risk, with revisions performed at a minimum, every five years. 4.1.3 Product files or information systems will be maintained for all products or product families. The product files or information systems will contain the data necessary to fulfill regulatory requirements and perform product-risk characterizations and assessments as appropriate, including: Materia] Safety Data Sheets; * References to relevant literature or internal reports dealing with health and *Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) and Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) are interchangeable terms, and refer to the similar requirements in different countries. MONSANTO COMPANY DSW 1079A<* MPG 4. Page! of,' Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018564 safety (toxicology, epidemiology, indus trial hygiene, flammability, reactivity, etc.), relevant information on composition, physical properties, raw materials, manufacturing processes, principal by products. protective measures, exposure information, energy requirements, wastes and disposal practices; . 4JJ Pollution prevention principles (Pledge Guideline No. I. Pollution Prevention) will be included as review criteria in technology-risk reviews for new and existing chemicals, and will be incorporated into the EC-201/202 (or equivalent) assessments. 4.4 Employee Education and Product Use Feedback Information on use, including handling, ' - _ transport packaging and storage, which will either be estimated (typically for new products), or obtained by visits or reviews of customer, distributor and consumer .... practices; A critical review of health aqd environmental effects and exposure ------- - information, such as EC-201, EC-202, Monsanto Work-Place Permissible ........ Exposure Guideline (MWPEG) Reviews. Health Effect Reviews and Toxicology Reviews; ___ 4.4.1 Employee education in the safe handling and use of chemicals is addressed in Pledge Guideline No. 2. Employee And Community Safety And Health.. Employees with significant customer interaction will be trained to recognize and feed back information about product use and misuse to the company's environmental network. 4.4.2 Feedback systems to listen to stake holders, including commercial and technical service liaisons with customers, product hotlines, poison control center relationships, etc., will be nurtured and expanded as appropriate. Technology Risk Reviews; Health concerns of customers, employees or the public. 4.5Contract Manufacturers See Pledge Guideline No. 7. Outside Processors. 4.2 Risk Management System In addition, the company will provide guidance and information to contractor personnel on the safe handling 4.2.1 A systematic approach to risk management and transportation of company products. will be implemented and maintained for new T ~ ~ ~ ~ productsr-Existing-products will be managed .------ 4.6 Suppliers.. ----- -- on acase-br-case-basls. - ^^ 4.6.1 up-KPttafgand high-qualityproduct----- - -* = d.J.2 Blslr nuiuflniiflit nprinni where needed.------- -- infarmation.-incltidinf> nTMopffate~ will be an integral part of the follow-up to - composition data and MSDSs, will be each phase of a product-risk characterization obtained from suppliers for all raw materials. (as detailed in Section 4.1). 4.2.3 All products will be appropriately labeled for hazard or risk, and will conform at a 4.63 Suppliers will be actively engaged as appro priate, commensurate with raw-material risks. minimum to governmental requirements and appropriate consensus standards (e.g., ANSI. ISO, etc.). _ 4.2.4 Document risk-management actions will be recorded in product files (examples of specific risk-management actions are detailed in Sections 4.3 through 4.7). 4.7 Distributors, Customers and Other Direct Product Receivers 4.7.1 The company will ensure that MSDSs and other appropriate safety documents are provided to all direct produo receivers. 4.73 As appropriate, the company will actively involve produo receivers in dialogue and 43 Product and Process Design and Improvement 43.1 R&D materials used in the laboratory will be handled under Prudent Laboratory Practices or equivalent guidelines. outreach regarding appropriate risk characterization, risk management and risk reduction. Where applicable, the company will assist in conducting audits. If improper "nvolving company products are MPG 4. Pace 2 of 3 Company Confidential 0S I079'5 HARTOLDMONO018565 identified, the company will work with the ' product receiver to improve the practices. If adequate improvement is not evident, the company will take appropriate action, including termination of sale if necessary. 4.7J The company will actively seek productreceiver involvement in the continuous improvement of company products and as a means of differentiating those products inthe marketplace on the basis of environmental, safety and health stewardship. 4.8 Responsibilities 4.8.1 Product stewardship is the responsibility of the business units. Each operating company, free standing division or world area will assign certain employees the responsibility for ensuring that this program guideline is met. . 4.8.2 Guideline oversight is the responsibility of the corporate Environmental. Safety and Health staff- _ 4.8.3 The corporate staff and business units are jointly responsible for developing information needed for product evaluations. This includes periodic re-evaluation of new information relevant to the product on a regular basis. 4.9 Measurement ^nur fnttnwing mrfieafnrs will he used to measure progFem agatusnhls guideliner----" ........ 4.9.1 Progress in meeting internal and external requirements for all new product introductions (i.e.. EC 201/202 approvals and governmental approvals). 4.9.2 Progress in determining product hazards. 4.9-3 The growth of knowledge about bow company products are used and the resultant exposures to people and the environment 4.9.4 The availability of adequate environmental, safety and health data to the ultimate product receiver. 4.9.5 Increased understanding and diminution of the risks and environmental impacts associated with a product throughout its life cycle. 4.9.6 Differentiation of company products in the " marketplace. "" " ~ 4.10 Definitions Product Receiver: An entity (not an individual) to whom the company transfers product. This definition includes product receivers such as brokers or transporters who may not fall into the traditional customer category. . Product: Chemical substances and mixtures, materials and equipment, articles, licensed technology and services related to product use that are sold, distributed in commerce, or otherwise provided. _ .......... - 4.11 Coordinator Where clarification is required, the following coordinator should be contacted: . J. R. Condray. ESH. Corporate. A3NA (314)694-8883. ----- --------------- -Irnmmitt*0 Ortnhrr 22. JfflZJ OSW 107946 MPG 4. Pape 3 of 3 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018566 . _____________... !0B!\ MONSANTO PLEDGE GUIDELINE #5 CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTION The company will reduce potential risk to its employees, the public, carriers, distributors, contractors, customers'employees, and the environment in the distribution ofchemicals. KEY RESULTS Work toward incident-free performance in the distribution of chemicals, including raw materials, intermediates, finished products, byproducts and wastes. ..... PROGRAM ... 5.1 Chemical Distribution Incident Reduction . 5.1.1 The company win continue to improve chemical distribution in order to effect incident-free performance. An "incident" is defined as any undesirable event occurring during a chemical ~~ distribution process over which the company has. ' direct COtftfbl St Influence dm iesulti iii arrmpuy; a rUnf nf - awtfar riamaye in moncrty Of the environment 5.1.1.1 The company will improve the carrier selection process so as to identify and contract transportation services with those carriers who consistently demonstrate safe performance in the movement of the company's chemical products. 5.1.1.2 The safety of chemical transportation practices wifi be continually improved through application of Total Quality/Total Partnership concepts and tools to achieve the company's goal of incident-free performance. 5.1.1J The company will continue to support The Agricultural Group's Bulk No-Spill Delivery Program. 5.1.1.4 The company will develop and apply technological advancements to improve . . fhni-ai distribution safety and will share these with the industry as appropriate. 5.1.IS Through its emergency response system, the company will provide technical advice and - assistance in a responsible and timely manner for "outside plant gate" incidents involving its chemical products. The company will measure and continuously improve its response capabilities. Trained personnel will be physically present, in an expeditious manner, at the emergency site upon request : of the local emergency responder or public ^official, orwhen the company feels a _ -qualified emergency team can, lessen the. . seventy of an incident or eASA a cpsmtr- nity's concerns about the company's products. 5.1.2 Program Emphasis Areas 5.1.2.1 Each shipping location will have a current plan for responding to chemical transportation emergencies involving products/materials within its scope. The plants* emergency responders will receive regular training that meets or exceeds regulatory or industry standards. 5.122 Training history for all emergency response personnel will be documented. MONSANTO COMPANY OSW U)79<tJ MPG 5. Page 1 of? Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018567 5.1.2-3 The company will discuss with emergency responders and the public their concerns about chemical distribution. The company will encourage partnerships with local communities and local emergency responders along chemical transportation routes, as well as in those communities where its chemical plants are located. 5.1X4 The total emergency response plan will be continuously monitored and improved. Detailed post-incident reports and preventive action plans will be provided as training aids to all emergency responders. - - 5.1.2.5 Distribution accidents/incidents and any resulting loss of containment will be reduced according to a documented distribution riskmanagement methodology. An initial ...................qualitative risk-assessment methodology will be made available for use. Quantitative risk assessment models will be evaluated for especially sensitive materials. 5.1X6 .Regulatory changes that affect the __ distribution of the company's products will be monitored and changes will be . communicated to shipping locations. Compliance audits and training will be conducted at all company shipping locations as appropriate and reported on annually. ___ 5.1X7 The company will support community ----- -- - nntTMrii prngrm< hy offering plant --facilities and mutual training to those------- emergencyiespoudeisui communities neighboring the company's distribution network. 5.1.2.8 The company will, as appropriate, through routine communications with the public, emphasize continuous improvement in safe chemical distribution and will be responsive to public concerns. 5.1X9 As appropriate, trained plant employees will be the company's "ambassadors** to the community to convey the company's progress and its commitment to improving the safety of chemical distribution and effectiveness of its emergency preparedness and response. 5.1X10 The company will recognize, as appropriate, the potential for adding value to its products. 52 Chemical Distribution Safety for Warehouses and Terminals 5X1 A seamless policy of operating safety results will be extended to warehouses and terminals that receive the company's products. This policy will incorporate standards comparable to the company's. 5X1.1 The company will use precontracting guidelines in the selection process to assess firms that can handle company products in a manner that is safe for its employees, the public and the environment 5X12 The company will provide information on its policies, procedures and requirements on the safe handling and transportation of chemicals to warehouse and terminal personnel. 5X1J The company will apply Total Quality ............ Management concepts and tools to all aspects of contract management for continuous improvement in safety and reliability of provided services. 5X1.4 The company will use agreed-upon performance measurements and periodic reviews as indicators of progress toward zero-incident status. 5X1.5 The company will extend its recognition of public concerns about emergency preparedness and safe distribution practices to all itsdistributionlocations. -5X2 PROCKAM EMWU.SK AaF-xS " 5X2.1 Documented selection criteria that include appropriate safety measures for each product will be maintained. 5X2.2 The company will maintain defined flows of information concerning Us policies, guidelines and requirements on the safe handling of its products. 5X2.3 The company will conduct reviews of performance against its requirements on a specified review cycle. 5X2.4 The company will support risk management activities and emergency preparedness at all of its distribution locations. MPG5. Pape: of 3 Company Confidential OSW 1079.48 HARTOLDMONO018568 5J Measurement Appropriate measurement systems will ensure continuous improvement toward stated goals and objectives. 5.4 Coordinator Where clarification is required, the following coordinator should be contacted: D.E. Williams,Chemical,Purchasing/Distribution,--------------- --- ---------------------------------- ---------------------BRSS.F2EA, (314) 694-8644. (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee, October 22,1992.) ' OSM 107949 MPG 5. Pages of 3 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018569 jjB& MONSANTO PLEDGE GUIDELINE . #6 GROUNDWATER AND SOIL QUALITY The company will design and operate facilities to protect groundwater and soil quality. The company will assess groundwater and soil quality at its facilities and pursue remedies for releases that threaten health or the environment. The company will address on-site and off-site contamination ofground water and soil attributable to its 'operating and waste practices to ensure protection ofhealth and the environment. KEY RESULTS Establish an active groundwater assessment program at the company's facilities. ................... _ Ensure that there are no adverse public health impacts attributable to the company's wastes. Minimize the financial impact of remedial action and third-party liability attendant to waste sites. PROGRAM --------------- could contaminate groundwater (e.g.. sewers, process lines, sumps, tanks, loading/unload ing areas). The groundwater protection plans and designs will be commensurable with the ------risk posed by the specific situations. _ 6.2.2 Facility Design New, replacement or expansion facility designs (including sewers and lines) will consider such options as aboveground and/or double containment, improved materials of construction, and/or cathodic protection to provide improved assurance against quality will be organized at all major locatians.and at lesser sites that have known groundwater issues. Follow-up plans will address priority concerns. The assessment status and plans will be updated in a summary report during the second quarter of each year. Any newly purchased, existing operation will be subjected to the seven-point protocol for assessment of possible groundwater contamination. The coordinator of this guideline (see 6.6 herein) will supply a copy of the assessment protocol upon request 6.2 Protection 6.2.1 Groundwater Protection Plans Each location will maintain a groundwater protection plan that includes inspection, testing and maintenance of facilities that New, replacement or expanded surface impoundments for wastewater treatment or storage must be approved by the Environmental Policy Committee on an exception basis. New storage tanks for materials that could cause contamination will be provided with impervious secondary containment (e.g., dikes, liners, vaults, double wall) unless a clear showing is made on a tank-by-tank basis during project reviews that vessel contents (e.g., dilute wastewaters) or setting (e.g.. in battery containment, other adequate containment systems) do not wanant such containment. Existing storage tanks will be reviewed in normal environmental audits. MONSANTO COMPANY OSH 107950 MPG 6, Pape lot: Company Confidential HARTOLDMON0018570 6.3 Abandoned Waste or Groundwater Contamination When on-site abandoned waste or groundwater contamination is discovered, appropriate assessment of impacts on human health and the environment will be earned out. Corrective action will be taken, as necessary, in a planned, orderly process to remediate soil and groundwater impacts that threaten, human health and the environment. 6.4 Superfund 1 ~ The company will act to ensure that there are no public health impute attributable to its wastes at "Superfund" sites. 6.5 Measurement The following indicators will be used to measure progress against this guideline: 6.5.1 Submission of annual groundwater assessment summary reports by each plant subject to reporting. 6.6 Coordinator Where clarification is required, the following coordinator should be contacted: D. B. Redington, ESH. Corporate. A3NA. (314)694-6503. When the company becomes aware of involvement in "Superfund" sites, it will actively participate in potentially responsible parties' efforts to achieve......... settlement The company will seek a leadership role,-----when appropriate, to facilitate resolution. The operating units will cooperate to establish responsibility for sites where several units contributed wastes, and will undertake an oversight role for sites funded at the corporate level when no current operating unit has responsibility. A goal of the company is to resolve as soon as reasonably possible its share of liability and remedial plans for sites where it has a responsibility, while securing timely and cost-effective resolution. (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee. October 22,1992.) ........... The company intends a lessened legalistic approach to site cleanup negotiations. Where company .. ' ` ; .. responsibditv isfairlv r.srahlishr^ll^ccrmanv'wiirit'' ~~ delayctearopunnecessarityby lcgal.yet negatively perceived litigious steps. The company will pursue fair legislation and regulations on the general issues in the public arena, but minimizing legal risk will not be the determining factor in (be site-spedfic decisions. MPG 6. Pape 2 of 2 Company Confidential OSW 107951 HARTOLDMONO018571 ypm- . _______________________ ____ *jQ& MONSANTO PLEDGE GUIDELINE #7 OUTSIDE PROCESSORS To support its operations, the company will select outside processors that will operate with concern for worker safety, regulatory compliance, community protection and protection of the environment. KEY RESULTS * Manage the company's exposure to present and future liabilities associated with the use of outside processors by maintaining current assessments and written contracts for each outside processor used. PROGRAM 7.1 Outside Processor Selection The company will use only outside processors that have been selected and periodically assessed to ensure the following: a. their ability to protect the public, employees and the .. . ^ environment adequately from any adverse effect of "the company's chemicals, prodacts or wastes: " '" """ b. their compliance with all applicable Iawsan<F^~~~ regulations: c. their knowledge of potential hazards and any applicable manufacturing requirements associated with the handling of company materials; and d. their use of waste disposal methods and locations as specified in contracts, with recordkeeping of all material use and waste disposal. Before they are used by the company, outside processors will be subject to contracts and on-site assessments and approval by the appropriate operating unit or subsidiary director of environmental operations and its manufacturing director or world area designee. Periodic reassessments will be conducted for continuing use. Procedures will be maintained to define the types of outside processors subject to this program, the assessment protocols and frequency, the conditions for waiver of one or more of the above requirements, and other standards. For toll manufacturing, bulk terminals and transloading, the outside processors will take title to, adopt and own the wastes and manage them as their own under manifests and contracts. For other outside processor categories (waste management, cleaning services, etc.), a processor's waste management practices will be reviewed as part of the on-site assessments. Outside processors used by all operating units, ^subsidiaries and world arra&willbe.recorded in one or more databaseslq avoidredundant assessments and - - - contracts and to facilitateusebf approved processors~ ~~ The above elements will be implemented worldwide, but with modifications to reflect local limitations, restraints to compliance with this program, and the extent of the company's operating control. Status and direction of the local program will be reviewed in planned environmental audits of the company's facilities outside the United Slates. 7.2 Measurement ' Each operating unit, subsidiary and world area will maintain records that document the number of outside processors used, the number of outside processors for which assessments are current, and the number of outside processors with contracts in place. MONSANTO COMPANY 05 W *07*52 MPG 7. Page 1 of 2 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018572 7J Coordinator Where dariflcation is required, the following coordinator should be contacted: D. B. Redington, ESH. Corporate, A3NA, (314) 694-6503. (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee, October 22.1992.) MPG 7. Pape-of 2 Company Confidential JDSW 10 7953 HARTOLDMONO018573 Mjk MONSANTO PLEDGE GUIDELINE #8 COMMUNITY AWARENESS AT MANUFACTURING SITES The company will foster its employees'and the public's right-to-know through a commitment to openness, involvement and community dialogue. The company will be responsive to questions and concerns about human safety, health and the environment at its manufacturing sites. KEY RESULTS Establish active community advisory panels, as appropriate, at manufacturing sites. PROGRAM 8.1 Community Involvement and Dialogue Each manufacturing site will implement a policy of openness that provides convenient ways for interested individuals to become familiar with the facility, its operations, its products and its efforts to protect human safety, health and the environment Community advisory panels, open bouses, plant tours, environmental - community in plant operations may betised. _____ Community outreach programs will be implemented at each manufacturing plant to informkey audiences (emergency responders, government officials, the media, employees, other businesses and the community) about the facility's emergency response program, chemical inventory, impact evaluation, and potential risks to the community associated with the facility. The information provided will include details on such topics as waste minimization, emissions reduction, health effects of chemicals, and efforts to ensure safe transport of chemicals. Further, all information will include planned improvements in each of these critical areas as well as expansion activity and other projects of general interest to the community. An ongoing dialogue with employees and members of the community will be used to assess and respond to their questions and concerns about environmental, safety and health issues, and to involve them in the community outreach effort Each manufacturing site will conduct an ongoing assessment of employee and community questions and concerns about the site. The effectiveness of the ongoing community communications effort will be evaluated regularly by the site. Communications training will be provided for key site and company personnel who communicate with employees and the public concerning human safety, health and the environment '8.2 Information on Chemical Releases/Inckients _ Each operating location will make available timely ~ * information about routine or accidental releases of toxic chemicals and other chemicals of local concern. Appropriate audiences may include neighbors in the community, employees and the news media. Informa tion will also include progress in achieving the company's stated emissions reduction and pollution prevention goals and future plans. When possible, the information on chemical releases should be at a personal, face-to-face level, and should emphasize listening to others and discussing their concerns and ideas. The company will publish and distribute annually an Environmental Annual Review that articulates the company's environmental, safety and health policies and its progress toward achieving stated environmental, safety and health goals. MONSANTO COMPANY DSW i0795* MPGfi. Pace I of2 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018574 8J Measurement The following indicators will be used to measure progress against this guideline: Annual progress toward establishing community advisory panels, as appropriate, at each manufacturing site. Annual dissemination of data on toxic chemicals and other chemicals of local concern at each manufacturing site, as appropriate. Annual report of the company's status against stated environmental, safety and health goals through wide distribution of the Environmental Annual Review. Progress, as appropriate, toward developing routine and convenient ways for interested parties tobecome familiar with the company's manufacturingsites. its operations, its products, and its efforts to protea human safety and health and the environment 8.4 Coordinator Where clarification is required, the following coordinator should be contacted: G. F. Barton. Corporate Communications. A2SP (314) 694-7233. (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee, October 22.1992.) Ml'G 8. Pace - f - . Company Confidential QSW L07955 - HARTOLDMONO018575  S3 OTHER GUIDELINE #1 ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEWS OF CAPITAL PROJECTS The company's capitalprojects will meet the Monsanto Pledge Guidelines and will be in compliance with existing and anticipated governmental regulatory requirements. The company will review at all levels capital projects for environmental, safety and health impact before, and as a condition of, project funding. The vice president of Environmental, Safety and Health or his designee will review those projects requiring approval by the chief operating officer, the chief executive officer or the board of directors. A formal -----premise review will be held for such projects or other projects with major technology changes as determined by the operating unit, technology and engineering directors. A system for reviewing other projects will be administered by the directors, environmental operations, of the operating units. Any exceptions to this guideline must be approved by the Environmental Policy Committee, --; ... ____ _____ __ (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee, October 22,1992.) ^fenptoyees-assigwd inevalnare. a. new location for operation wilTprepare an internal environmental impactassessment addressing potential environmental' "'r ~ limitations at the site as a result of the existing socioeconomic and biophysical conditions. The effects of the public climate of opinion and of existing and future governmental, environmental regulations that may apply also are to be considered. MONSANTO COMPANY OSW 10 7956 OG 1. Pap* 1 f1 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018576 OTHER GUIDELINE . #2 ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEWS OF DIVESTITURES OR ACQUISITIONS OF PROPERTY AND/OR BUSINESSES Negotiations for acquisition or divestiture of property or business units and the securing of final corporate approval are the primary responsibilities of the involved operating unit However, corporate staff review of " environmental, safety and health factors and any attendant liability issues is required during the course of such transactions. This review should be arranged through the office of the operating unit's director of environmental operations, who will, in turn, involve appropriate Environment, Safety and Health staff and Environmental Law personnel and arrange for review by the vice president of Environmental, Safety and Health, and/or the executive vice president of Environmental, Safety. Health and Manufacturing. The review should be completed prior to seeking board of directors approval.trfthea^uisirtonlordIviesQturer""^"^^ " * -- (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee, October 22,1992.) MONSANTO COMPANY DSW 107957 OG 2. Pape 1 of 1 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018577 OTHER GUIDELINE ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND HEALTH PROTECTION FOR INVESTMENTS OVER WHICH THE COMPANY DOES NOT HAVE OPERATING CONTROL The Monsanto Pledge Guidelines apply at all sites worldwide where the company has operating control. For those investments over which the company does not have operating control, at a minimmn, compliance with applicable local laws, regulations and practices will be required. If such applicable rules and practices do not provide environmental, safety and health protection that would be acceptable for company-controlled sites, the company will initiate action to bring about the necessary upgrading. #3 (Revisedand approved by the Environmental PoUey ------------ - Committee, October 22,1992j . I - MONSANTO COMPANY OSM 107958 OG 3. Page 1 of 1 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018578 OTHER GUIDELINE #4 REPRODUCTIVE HAZARDS IN THE WORKPLACE The company will use all appropriate information to ensure avoidance ofreproductive effects in workers ofboth sexes and in offspring ofworkers. Through the departments of Medical and Health Sciences and Safety and Environmental Health, the company will do the following: The company will conduct appropriate toxicological tests of its raw materials, products, intermediates and byproducts. The company will review current literature for information on the hazards of chemicals and physical agents that the company uses or produces. The company will assess safety and health implications and the potential reproductive ------- hazards posed by these chemicals andphysical ' agents. - The company will minimize exposure to potentially harmful materials or activities by substitution with less risky chemicals or processe when feasible, through the use of engineering, work practices, and reliable protective equipment The company will provide the most accurate information currently available on materials or work practices thought to have reproductive health effects------- ------ .... . _..... The company will offer counseling by qualified health professionals to employees about workplace reproductive concerns. . . . (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee, October 22.1992.) MONSANTO COMPANY OSW 1X3 7959 OG 4. Tape 1 of 1 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018579 OTHER GUIDELINE #5 . SAFE HANDLING OF CARCINOGENS The company will provide safe and healthful working conditions for its employees. It will comply with all governmental regulations concerning exposure to carcinogens. 'The company will do the following laensure the safe handling of carcinogens: If any data suggest that a chemical to which its employees are exposed is a carcinogen, and such chemical is not subject to governmental regulations, the company will evaluate those data and then take appropriate action......................... If the data establish the chemical as a human . carcinogen, the company will take appropriate action to reduce exposure to the lowest reasonable level, unless exposure is already at such a level. If the data establish the chemical as an experimental or suspect carcinogen, the company will (individually or with others) initiate a study to confirm or disprove such designation. During each study, exposure will be reduced to and/or minimized at the lowest reasonable level. If it is concluded that a material cannot be produced or used without jeopardizing employee health, its manufacture or use will be discontinued. (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee, October 22,1992.) MONSANTO COMPANY OSW 107960 OG 5. Page 1 of 1 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018580 OTHER GUIDELINE #6 CONTRACTOR/GOEST ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND HEALTH Continuous improvement in contractor/guest environmental, safety and health performance is necessary to create an injury-free and incident-free environment at allcompany sites for employees and their guests. 6.1 Scope This guideline sets forth environmental, safety and occu pational health (ESH) guidelines applicable to contractors and guests who perform services on or visit company property. All services administered by individual sites or by company engineering groups are covered. _ Deviations Grom the contractor/guest ESH process and requirements will be thoroughly documented and . approved by the location manager or as described in the Contractor/Guest ESH Guideline Manual. No deviation from regulatory requirements will be permitted. This guideline applies initially to all company locations ;in the Uiy^ StM^ is to work toward . . .. worldwide implementation.^. .. , .... . 6J Definitions Contractor. Any non-company person performing physical work at a site under a company purchase order or contract Guest: Any person visiting, performing work or providing a service at a company-managed site, including company employees who are not permanently assigned to that location. * Certified Monsanto Representatives: Employees designated by the location management to administer the Contractor/Guest ESH Guideline. Master Monsanto Representative: The location administrator/facilitator responsible for ensuring effective implementation of the Contractor/Guest ESH process at the location, including training and certifica tion for other Certified Monsanto Representatives. Contract. The document that contains terms and conditions of the agreement between company and the contractor and which serves as proof of their respective obligations. Contracts are to be signed by authorized representatives of the contractor and company, in a form previously approved by the Purchasing and Law departments. .... ~ ~ 6J Objective _ The process described in this guideline was developed to define requirements for all company locations to ensure continuous improvement toward incident-free and injury-free performance for employees and all "pwitracmre and guests." " " ~ -- -- - ------ Through this process, it is intended that all services per formed by contractors on company sites will be covered by written contracts. Furthermore, the contractor is to be made aware of the requirements of this guideline before bidding, and the appropriate requirements are to be incorporated into the written contract In accordance with the objective of providing for employee and guest safety in the execution of contract work, the company will utilize contractors who have demonstrated a high degree of compliance with workplace laws/standards, policies and practices; have a history of good health and safety performance; maintain adequate insurance coverage; and, if involved in safety sensitive work, have a substance-abuse treatment program reasonably equivalent to that of the company. MONSANTO COMPANY OSW 107961 OG6- Papelo[4 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018581 This process is designed to help ensure that the company will go beyond current regulations, take an industry leadership position in contractor/guest safety and ensure continuous improvement toward incident-free and injury-free performance. 6.4 Responsibilities . The location manager is responsible for ensuring implementation of this guideline. Each site will have a _ minimum of one company master-certified representative with responsibility for administering and facilitating the Contractor/Guest ESH Guidelines. 6-5 Supporting Documentation This guideline is supported by Contractor/Guest ESH Guideline Manual that incorporates the following.. requirements: Contractor Management Systems Working in an Operating Facility Housekeeping Fire Protection and Prevention Hazardous Work Permits Occupational Health/Workplace Exposure Monitoring Vehicle Safety Waste Management . . . _ _ Occupational Medicine , 1 Management of Change 6.6 Practices and Procedures 6.6.1 The company's contractor/guest environmental, safety and health process defines a fully integrated approach to the management of all contractors and guests within company facilities. The process is not intended to restrict management prerogatives, but rather to provide the consistency to help ensure that the Monsanto Pledge is fulfilled and the highest organizational priority is placed on the health and safety of company employees, guests and the communities in which the company operates. OG 6. Pape 2 of 4 Company Confidential Contractor/Gucst Environmental, Health and Safety Process (see Appendix 6.1) Contractor Representative Training and Certification -- provides for the identification and consistent training of all individuals with responsibilities for selection and management of contractors and guests working at and visiting within company facilities. . Guest and Delivery Site Visit Process provides a consistent approach to the orientation and control of all guests, visitors and delivery people who enter company facilities, even those not under contract. Prt-Qualification Process -- provides a consistent approach to identifying and selecting contractors, vendors and service providers who practice effective safety programs with demonstrated leadership and performance in their industry. Selection and Approval Process -- provides a framework for the contracting of services, which indudes the identification of all ESH requirements based on the task and the pre identified risk. The process stresses clear communication of the company's performance expectations before the contract is finalized. Pre-Job Activities and Compliance Review Process - defines a systematic approach for verifying that the contractor and all of the contractor's employees meet the contractual requirements, including orientation, training, medical testing and substance-abuse screening. Plant, operating unit and job-specific expectations are emphasized. Work-in-Progress Process -- provides a process for the management and audit of the contractor's activities to the ongoing compliance with the company's policies, procedures and requirements. The process focuses on the cooperation between the company's certified representative and the contractor's management to achieve success ful and injury-free completion of work. ^ DSVt k07 HARTOLDMONO018582 Performance Evaluation Process -- provides a defined process for the evaluation of and feedback on a contractor's performance, whether the contracted work is for a defined task or ongoing services. Performance evaluations are fed into the contractor pre qualification process and after evaluation contractors either remain on the pre qualification list or are stricken from it.____ 6.7.2 Visitors and all delivery personnel entering the location are to be made knowledgeable of site rules and regulations. 6.7.3 All contractors and guests must communicate in English at a level of proficiency that ensures their safety and the safety of others. Exceptions to the English communication requirement may be granted only by the location manager.----------- 6.7 Contractor/Guest Responsibilities 6.7.1 The contractor/guest is responsible for compliance with this guideline as incorporated into the contract or otherwise communicated to the contractor in order to ensure safe ----- operations. Contractors will have a_ _____ competent, well-trained supervisor in . - charge at the site at all times when its . -- employees or those of its subcontractors ------- are present. The company will not : undertake direct supervision of contractor employees. However, when a . contractor employee has no on-site . supervision, the contractor should work - with the company's certified representative to provide for appropriate " implementation of this guideline. (Revised and approved by die Environmental Policy Committee, October 22,1992.) ----............ - .... .....'........... . : ...................... OSW 1-07963 OG 6. Page 3 of 4 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018583 OC* f>. Kaw J cl J Company Confidential MONSANTO CONTRACTOR/GUEST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OSW 10796< HARTOLDMON0018584 OTHER GUIDELINE #7 USE OF ANIMALS IN RESEARCH FACILITIES The company will ensure that all animals used in its research programs are involved in projects of importance to society and that the animals receive humane and professionally competent care and treatment. _ 7.1 Preamble The company develops pharmaceuticals, consumer : goods, agricultural and industrial products that are used to treat diseases, to grow food, and to better the quality of human life throughout the world. The company works to ensure that these products provide valuable benefits to society and are safe to use. In conducting research to ensure product efficacy and safety, company scientists use a variety of new technologies such as computer models, cell culture systems and other processes to identify effective products early on and to detect potential health problems or undesirable side effects. However, these systems are limited because they do not fully represent the complex processes of the human body. For that reason, product research and evaluation requires the use of laboratory animals. All company research with animals is conducted under the review and supervision of Animal Care and Use Committees (ACUC) appointed by senior management Each ACUC consists of scientists, veterinarians, at least one non-scientist, and at least one person not affiliated with the company. The committees regularly report their findings to senior management and appropriate governmental regulatory officials. The vast majority of animals used by company researchers are rabbits, rats and mice. Rodents account for over 90 percent of all research subjects. The remainder includes dogs, pigs, sheep, cattle, goats and occasionally monkeys. Laboratory animals are purchased from companies that raise animals specifically for research. Livestock are purchased from commercial farms. The company does not buy animals from pounds or shelters. 7.2 Animal Research The company requires all scientists, technicians and managers associated with animal research programs to be fully cognizant and supportive of the specifics and spirit of this guideline. The facilities and management programs established to support company animal research are directed and monitored by an attending doctor of veterinary medicine. The company's programs are fully accredited by the American Association for the Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC). 73 Procedures All company research animals are assigned to a specific protocol under the direction of a principal investigator. Before research can commence, each protocol is reviewed according to procedures prescribed by governmental regulations and adhered to by the ACUC. Each protocol is then reviewed and approved by an attending veterinarian and the ACUC. Records of research use and routine care are maintained for each animal. The company's goal is to give the highest consideration to the well-being of all animals used in research. MONSANTO COMPANY -sw 10 7965 OG 7. Page 1 of 2 am**,c*M<*u HARTOLDMONO018585 7.4 Facilities The company conducts all animal research in modem, well-maintained facilities that meet or exceed all regulatory standards. The company's animal facilities are considered to be among the best, in the industry. Housing spaces include special facilities to quarantine newly arrived animals, isolation facilities, and conventional holding rooms to care for required animals. Room temperature, humidity, ventilation, lighting and pityr environmental conditions are carefully monitored and controlled. 7.5 Regulatory Review The company is registered with the United States Department of Agriculture as a research facility. Under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act, the company's facilities are regularly inspected, and the company files an annual report ' 7.6 Information Requests General information on the company's policy and procedures regarding animals used in research may be requested from Monsanto Corporate Communications. 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, Missouri 63167. The phone number is (314) 694-7233. In general, the company's animal research facilities are not open to the public. However, visits and tours can be arranged by contacting the above address. Because of the nature of the research work under way, the company may restrict access to certain areas to ensure the health and safety of the animals. Recordings, filming, taping, photography and related activities are prohibited except as specifically approved. (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee, October 22,1992.) OG 7. Page 2 of 2 Company Confidential DSW 10796b HARTOLDMONO018586 OTHER GUIDELINE #8 OZONE-DEPLETING CHEMICALS (CFC'S) The company will initiate actions at all ofits worldwide sites to minimize the uses and environmental releases ofthe chemicals subject to this guideline. It willseek out acceptable substitute chemicals, when possible, on or before applicable compliance dates set by the site's local country laws and regulations. ` 8.1 Scope The following chemicals are those listed in the Montreal Protocol and are the minimum number subject to this guideline. Each company site should add to the list any other chemicals of local country concern and treat them according to this guideline in conformance with local country laws and regulations. CFC-ll CFC-I2 CFC-113 CFC-I14 CFC-115 Haion-1211 Halon-1301 Halon-2402 CFC-13 CFC-111 CFC-112 CFC-211 CFC-212 CFC-213 CFC-214 CFC-215 CFC-216 CFC-217 Carbon tetrachloride Methyl chloroform Company sites subject to this guideline include plants, offices, R&D facilities, sales offices, warehouses and farms, when the company owns or operates facilities or equipment that use or contain one of the chemicals subject to the guideline. This coverage includes any subsidiary in which the company is a greater than SO percent owner. MONSANTO COMPANY 8.2 Program The management of each worldwide site will do the following, where applicable: 8.2.1 Develop an inventory of uses and/or equipment containing any of the chemicals subject to this guideline. 8.2.2 Establish for compliance with this guideline a plan that contains the following minimum elements: For refrigeration equipment, replace the . refrigerant with an acceptable substitute when the equipment needs to be replaced or the original refrigerant is no longer available. For explosion suppression and fire extinguishing equipment, replace the suppression or extinguishing chemicals subject to this guideline with an acceptable substitute when the equipment needs to be replaced or the original such chemical is no longer available. Provisions should also exist to provide for such chemical replacement after a system discharge, where practical. After Jan. 1,1994, no new refrigeration, explosion suppression, or fire extinguishing equipment will be purchased that contains any chemical subject to this guideline, if substitute chemicals are reasonably available. OSW L0796J OG 8. Pape 1 of 2 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018587  For process and other uses of chemicals subject to this guideline, the company will expeditiously develop plans to cease using such chemicals by Jan. 1,1996. . In advance of any applicable laws and regulations, all sites will institute best management practices to minimize the uses and environmental releases of any chemicals subject to this guideline and seek opportunities for the use of acceptable substitute chemicals, where possible, consistent with good business practices and employee safety/health considerations. (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee, October 22,1992.) OG 8. Page 2 of 2 Company Confidential OSW 1079A8 HARTOLDMONO018588 OTHER GUIDELINE . #9 ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND HEALTH COMPLIANCE AUDITING The company will conduct environmental safety and health compliance audits to confirm that site management systems are in place to ensure continuous improvement and compliance with both governmental regulations and corporate, operating unit, and subsidiary policies and procedures. 9.1 Scope Environmental, safety and health (ESH) compliance auditing will be conducted at all worldwide manufacturing and research sites. 9.2 Criteria Each operating company and subsidiary will be responsible for ensuring that audits are conducted in accordance with the following criteria: 9.2.1 ESH compliance auditing programs will be consistent with the five-step auditing approach as outlined by the outside consulting firm of Arthur D. Little and follow protocols approved by the corporate ESH staff. -............... 9.2.2 ESH compliance auditors will be appropriately trained, knowledgeable of the subject they audit, and skilled as compliance auditors. 9J2JS ESH compliance auditors will be independent of the location/site they audit 9.2.4 ESH compliance audits will be performed on a three-to-five year maximum cycle. The frequency for each site will depend upon the results of the last audit the degree of risk, complexity, and compliance issues at the site. The audit frequency for each site will be reviewed by the Environmental Policy Committee. 9J2JS Reports of the actual audit findings and/or recommendations will be reviewed by appropriate legal staff and distributed, at a minimum, to site managers, directors of manufacturing (or equivalent for non manufacturing locations), legal and the corporate Quality and Compliance Assurance staff. 9.2.6 Follow-up on audit findings/recommendations will be the responsibility of each operating company and subsidiary. The corporate Quality and Compliance Assurance staff will request periodic status reports of auditing and follow-up corrective actions for communication to upper management (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee, October 22,1992.) MONSANTO COMPANY OSH 107969 OG 9. Page 1 of 1 HARTOLDMONO018589 PROCEDURE #1 EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND EXPOSURE COMMUNICATIONS It is the company's intent to identify hazards ofchemical substances and physical agents in the workplace and to communicate such hazards to employees who may be exposed. 1.1 Responsibilities Identification of health hazards of chemical substances, physical agents, and biological agents in the workplace is the joint responsibility of site management, the directors of Environmental Operations (DEOs) and corporate Environmental, Safety and Health (ESH). Line management is responsible for the necessary communi cations to and education and training of employees on such hazards. . Europe/Africa Specific: The director of the Department of Medical Health and Safety (DMHS) Europe/Africa also assumes responsibility for the necessary communications within Europe/Africa. In Europe, the DEO is represented by the director. Environmental and Regulatory Affairs. Other countries/regions may specify additional functions who share responsibility.-------------- 1.2 Employee Communication, Education and Training Concerning the Hazards of Substances in the Workplace All employees whose work provides potential exposure to a hazardous chemical substance will have ready access to reference material, such as a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), and will receive training in the nature of the hazards and appropriate work practices, protective measures and emergency procedures. Such training yvill be provided to employees when newly assigned to an area with potentially hazardous exposures and annually thereafter. U Employee Access to Medical and Exposure Records Access to an employee's medical or exposure records (if generated) will be provided within IS working days after the company receives a request in person or in writing from that employee, or as required by law if more stringent. In addition to individual medical and exposure records, an employee may have access to general exposure records (such as area samples) for his/her work area and the individual exposure records (with all identifiers deleted) of other employees in the same work environment Since much of the data requires interpretation or explanation, the most appropriate physician or nurse should be present during the review of medical records, and the industrial hygienist or industrial hygiene contact should be present during the review of exposure records to provide such Interpretation and consultation. Written requests for medical and exposure records will be kept at the location housing the records. 1.4 Other Communication of Exposure Information Employees who participate in individual (personal) industrial hygiene monitoring will be informed of the sampling results. All employees in an area where ambient air concentrations or physical agents are monitored should be informed of area concentrations, their relationship to relevant federal, state or local permissible exposure limits, the company's guidelines, and intended corrective action where required. United States Specific: For certain substances, OSHA regulations require written notification to the employee. MONSANTO COMPANY DSu I 10 79 70 PRl. Page 1of4 Company Confidential HARTOLDMON0018590 1.5 Communication of Physical Examination and Medical Test Data to the Employee An employee will be informed about results of health evaluations and medical tests. Copies of medical information will be sent to private physicians upon the employee's request and only with written authorization. United States Specific: The employee will be informed in writing about results of health evaluation performed for occupational surveillance. 1.6 Employee Inquiries Any employee inquiry about work exposures must be addressed by site management The location physician, industrial hygienist or other appropriate management representative(s) should meet with the employee and provide a specific response based on the factual information available. The appropriate DEO, manager. Human Resources, and corporate ESH representative should be consulted in any non-routine situation. EuropeJAfrica Specific: The director of DMHS Europe/Africa should be consulted in any non-routine situation in Europe/Africa. ' 1.7 Communication of Health Studies When employees have been involved in epidemiology or other health studies conducted by or on behalf of the company, an executive summary of the study results prepared by corporate ESH will be communicated in writing to the responsible DEO and site managers.---------- Communications with the employees will be coordinated by the corporate DEO. The DEO may ask ESH and/or Europe Environmental and Regulatory Affairs (ERA) staff to develop a Communications Document and Dissemination Plan in consultation with plant personnel. A decision will be made at that time as to the total population to be included in the communication. .. Other studies known to the company which are scientifically sound and which present significant new information concerning the potential hazards of a material to workers should be communicated to employees who have potential exposure to the substance. Where possible, employees should leant about significant potential hazards of materials with which they work from the company, and not from outside sources. However, a multitude of epidemiological, animal and other health studies are conducted annually by the company and by others. These studies vary widely in terms of new knowledge provided, scientific validity, conclusiveness of the findings, applicability to humans or the work environment, etc. Location management in consultation with the DEO and corporate ESH and DMHS Europe/Africa (for Europe/Africa sites) should communicate in writing any applicable, reliable study results. In determining where the results of a study should be communicated, factors such as the following should be evaluated: the scientific validity and conclusiveness of the study; whether the study produced new results of significance; the applicability of the study to employees; the significance of any potential hazard identified; and ___ the plans for follow-up studies. When there is a question of whether the results of a study are significant enough to be communicated to appropriate employees corporate-wide, the matter will be referred to the following administration by any member of concerned management: The director of Medical and Health Sciences, Industrial Hygiene director. Corporate Toxicology director. Epidemiology director. Medical director; appropriate DEO and the assistant general counsel. Environmental Law. The appropriate Directors of Manufacturing, Human Resources and Public ----- Affairs/Relations will also provide consultation. A draft Communication Document and Dissemination Plan will be developed upon request, initially within ESH, to ensure that the study results are properly interpreted and that the communique will be properly reviewed and disseminated to all opending units and/or plants. The DEO, with support from corporate Industrial Hygiene and DMHS Europe/Africa (when Europe/Africa sites are involved) will transmit draft statements, announcements and supporting data to the appropriate location management 1.8 Access to Employee Medical or Exposure Records by Designated Representatives A designated representative with the appropriate written authorization from the employee will be provided access to an employee's medical and exposure records within 15 working days of receipt of the authorization. A PR1. Pape 2 of 4 Company Confidential OSW 107971 HARTOLDMONO018591 designated representative is any individual or organization to whom the employee has given written authorization to have access to the employee's medical or exposure records for a specific purpose on a specified occasion. United States Specific: OSHA rules require that an employee's recognized or certified collective bargaining agent will be treated as a designated representative without regard to written employee authorization with respect to access to employee exposure records (with all identifiers deleted) and analyses of group medical and exposure records only. Final reports of completed epidemiological studies of unionized employees will be provided to the union involved on specific written request. Information on the study results will be provided to all affected employees in a timely manner if this has not been done previously. The appropriate managers. Human Resources and ESH representatives (DMHS Europe/Africa when Europe/Africa sites are involved) and the assistant general counsel. Environmental Law, should be advised of requests for access to records from a designated ~ representative. An OSHA inspector who presents a written access order approved by the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA will be given immediate access to records specified by the order. No order is required for access to exposure records. Requests should be reported immediately to the assistant general counsel. Environmental Law. Requests by NIOSH have been supported by the courts but should be cleared by the assistant general counsel. Environmental Law, before being granted. Reference should be made to 29 CFR Part 1910Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records, Final Rule 9 29-55. 1.9 Notification to Employees of Right of Access Each location should make such notification of the existence, location and right of access to medical and exposure records a part of its new hire orientation program and should post or otherwise inform all employees of this information and right each year. 1.10 Employee Health and Exposure Communications Plans Each manufacturing and laboratory location should have written Employee Health and Exposure Communications Plans which address such things as those as follows: the communication of and training on the hazards of chemical substances and physical agents in the workplace and proper handling methods, protective measures and emergency procedures: the handling of employee inquires and expressions of concern about exposures: the handling of employee and designated representative requests for access to medical and exposure records; the communication of abnormal physical exam/medical test findings: the regular communication of the industrial hygiene program and of exposure levels vs. standards; the identification of materials or other subjects needing special communications efforts and plans for development of such programs locally or with the help of DMHS or others; and notification to employees of their right of access to their medical and exposure records. 1.11 ESH Responsibility for Communication Programs When its specialized expertise and/or a general communications need deem it appropriate, corporate ESH has a responsibility to develop a Communication Document and Dissemination Plan upon request for new health hazard information. The appropriate DEOs and management at representative plants will be consulted in the development of such plans to make them more suitable and effective for plant use. 'Europe/Africa Specific: Europe Environmental and Regulatory Affairs will be responsible for developing a Communication Document and Dissemination Plan which is appropriate for the laws and customs governing handling of employee health and exposure information in those countries. 1.12 Definitions Access to Records: Consists of an opportunity to review an employee's medical and exposure records on site, and if requested, receipt of or opportunity to make a copy of the records. Unless otherwise specified by law, trade secret information may be deleted from the records provided to an employee or designated representative but they must be so informed that this was done. OSH 10 7*72 PR1. Page3of4 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018592 Medical Records: Include reports of physical examinations, medical tests and other medical information on the employee in the company's possession. Exposure Records: Include records of an employee's work history and the level of exposure to potentially harmful or toxic substances or agents and analyses of such records. ' Epidemiology Studies: Defined as scientific investigations of potential relationships between workplace exposures and health outcome of company employees or other occupational populations, as outlined in a study protocol. (Revised and Approved: Vice President, Environmental, Safety and Health, October 22,1992.) PRl. Page 4 of 4 Company Confidential OSH 107.973 HARTOLDMONO018593 PROCEDURE . #2 TRANSMITTAL TO THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OF SUBSTANTIAL RISK INFORMATION UNDER THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT The company's procedure for handling the reporting ofinformation to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under the 8(e) substantial risk section ofthe Tbxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as follows: 2.1 Abstract of Requirements TSCA Section 8(e) requires any person (company) who manufactures, processes or distributes in commerce a chemical substance or mixture and wbo obtains information which reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment shall immediately inform the EPA of such information. 2.2 Who Is responsible for reporting? The requirements of Section 8(e) of the TSCA apply to "any person who manufactures, processes, or distributes in commerce." It is the company's position that the "person" who engages in the commercial activity is only the business organization, whether a sole proprietorship, corporation, partnership or association. 2.3 How are 8(e) reporting decisions made? Company organizations that might receive TSCA 8(e) information will have a designated individual to whom such information shall be communicated. At least annually, the director of regulatory management (DRM), Toxic Substances, will publish a list of the designated individuals. Anyone obtaining information of the type given in the abstract of requirements and detailed by EPA in their TSCA Section 8(e) Reporting Guide, dated June, 1991, should immediately submit such information to their supervisor. The supervisor shall immediately relay the information to the location or department manager, whichever is applicable, who. in turn, transmits it to the proper designated individual in the organization. The information is then transmitted directly to the director of Medicine and Health Sciences. It is imperative that the flow of information through this transmittal chain be rapid. In the event of nonavailability of a member of the communication network at the time information is first obtained, such member should be bypassed in the interest of speed. All individuals involved in submission of substantial risk information to the director of Medicine and Health Sciences should keep a record of date of receipt and pertinent identifying details. The director of Medicine and Health Sciences: environ mental counsel: DRM. Toxic Substances: and the appropriate operating unit directors) of environmental operations will comprise the designated official 8(e) committee to make decisions with respect to information that must be reported to the EPA under Section 8(e) of the TSCA. Appropriate senior management will be informed of committee decisions. In the event that a committee decision is not unanimous, the next appropriate level of management shall be consulted, and the matter will be resolved at the highest level, if necessary. Employees wbo submit information through company channels will be notified of action taken by the 8(e) committee together with reasons for such action. MONSANTO COMPANY DSW 107971* pR2 Pape 1 of 2 Company Confidential HARTOLDMON0018594 In the event that, after the company has evaluated information and has determined that the item Is not reportable under Section 8(e), the company becomes aware that an employee, as an individual, subsequently reported the item to the EPA, the company should review the situation to determine what action, if any. it should take with the EPA. 2.4 How are employees notified of 8(e) requirements? All exempt company employees and others so designated by their organizational unit (plant nurses, contract physicians, scientists and engineers, etc.) within organizations that might receive or have access to TSCA 8(e) information, shall be informed of the provisions of Section 8(e). Annual reminders of 8(e) requirements will be provided to said employees. Records documenting the information communication will be maintained by the DRM, Toxic Substances. (Revised and Approved: Vice President, Environmental. Safety and Health. October 22.1991)....... PR2. Page 2 of 2 Company Confidential DSW 107975 HARTOLDMON0018595 PROCEDURE #3 RECORDING ALLEGATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE REACTIONS UNDER THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT The company's procedure for handling the Recordkeeping Requirements ofthe United States Environ mental Protection Agency's (USEPA) Final Rule Under Section 8(c) ofthe Tbxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is as follows: 3.1 Abstract of Rule Manufacturers and certain processors of chemical substances and mixtures must maintain records of significant adverse reactions to health or the environment alleged to have been caused by a ......... substance, mixture, article, process, effluent or emission. These records are subject to USEPA inspection. - Rule Reference 40 CFR Part 717 (48 FR 38178 August 22,1983) ii. Was a manifestation of a toxic effect after a significantly shorter exposure level than described. iii. Was a manifestation of a toxic effect by an exposure route different from that described. c. "Significant adverse reactions" are reactions that may indicate a substantial impairment of normal activities, or long-lasting or irreversible damage to health or the environment Note: The Rule does not apply to pesticides, food, food additives, drugs or cosmetics when manufactured, processed or distributed for these uses. 32 Key Definitions - - 3.3 Exemptions from the Rule that Relate to the Company a. Activities involving solely mining or other solely extractive functions. (See Section 717.3 of the Rule for complete listing of definitions.) b. Significant adverse reactions that are known human effects. a. "Allegation" means a statement made without formal proof or regard for evidence, that a chemical substance or mixture has caused a significant adverse reaction to health or the environment. c. Significant adverse reactions to the environment directly attributable to incidents of environmental con tamination that have been reported to the United States federal government under any applicable authority. b. "Known human effect? means a commonly recognized human health effect of a particular substance or mixture described in: L Scientific articles or publications abstracted in standard reference sources. ii. The firm's product labeling or material safety data sheets (MSDS). . However, an effect is not a "known human effect" if it: i. Was a significantly more severe toxic effect than previously described. . 3.4 Who Can Receive an Allegation? Allegations can come from a variety of sources including employees, contractors, customers and neighbors. As a result, the company's receiving network must be broad. Initial receptors include plant, laboratory and other company location supervision, plant and other company location managers, the company's medical community at all locations, the offices of the operating company directors of Environmental Operations, sales and marketing contacts, switchboard operators at all locations, and environmental network contacts. MONSANTO COMPANY DSW 107976 PR3. Page 1 of 8 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018596 3.5 Procedure for Handling Health or Environmental Allegations The company's Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(c) procedure consists of a four-step review and decision process. A determination than an allegation is not recordable under the Rule can be made at any step in the process. The procedure is shown schematically on Appendix 3.3.2.1 . a. Step One - Each plant or other company-designated locations or laboratory will have at least one identified and trained TSCA Section 8(c) key contact The director of Environmental Operations (DEO) or designee from the appropriate operating companies, representatives of the Business and Research Support Services (BRSS), and director, regulatory management (DRM). Toxic Substances, will serve as the key contacts for the General Office. The DEOs have responsibility under this procedure for free standing divisions and subsidiaries of which the cor. pany owns SO percent or more of the voting stock or other equity rights, or for which the company has the power to control the management and policies of that firm. At Step One, all initial receptors will automatically transfer persons making oral allegations to the key contact at their locations. Initial' receptors will also transfer written allegation to the key contact at their location. There are two exceptions with respect to oral allegations: If the initial receptors are either members of the department of Medicine and Health Sciences Occupational Medicine (DMHS-OM) group (physicians) or the DEO's office, then these individuals may judge at Step One if an oral allegation is excluded. Decision criteria for Step One: pesticides, food, food additives, drugs, or cosmetics are excluded. If a decision is made that the allegation is excluded, the allegation, if written, will be discarded and. if oral, will not be acted cm under this procedure. If the allegation is oral and not excluded, the key contact will inform the alleger that such allegation may be recordable under the Rule and request that the alleger submit a written and signed allegation to the key contact. Monsanto Form dfcJA. shown on Appendix 3.2, is available to be used for all employee related oral health allegations and can be used at the discretion of the DEO for external oral health allegations. All key contacts must note on a written allegation the date of its receipt. b. Step Two The key contact at a company location or the appropriate DEO for the General Office will pro vide company employees with Form 8(c)A for oral allegations of health effects. Written allegations will then be reviewed by the key contact, who will then make a Step Two decision. The key contact will deter mine if the written allegation is exempted from the Rule using the criteria in Step One. If a decision is made that an allegation is exempt from the Rule, the allegation will be discarded. Otherwise, the allegation will be sent to the appropriate DEO for review. c. Step Three - The appropriate DEO will serve as the coordinator for Step Three and Step Four activities. Allegations received from the location (e.g. plant, etc.) key contacts will be reviewed by the DEO and a Step Three decision made. A Step Three decision will also be made by the DEO or other General Office key contact regarding allegations made to the General Office receptors. If the Step Three decision is that the allegation is not recordable under the Rule, the allegation will be discarded. Otherwise the allegation will proceed to Step Four. d. Step Four - The DEO will form a committee to make decisions with respect to allegations that must be recorded under the Rule. The committee will be chaired by the DEO and consist of the appropriate members of DMHS-OM for human effects, appropriate members of Environmental Sciences staff for environmental effects. Environmental Law staff, and the DRM, Toxic Substances. If the decision is that the allegation is not recordable under the Rule, the allegation will be discarded. The DEO will provide feedback to the location key contact If the Step Four decision is that the allegation is recordable under the Rule, than the DRM, Toxic Substances, will place the allegation and documents mandated by the Rule in the TSCA Section 8(c) file. The DEO will provide feedback to the location key contact 3.6 Recordkeeping The TSCA Section 8(c) file will be kept in the Office of the DRM, Toxic Substances. The file structure will con form to requirements of Section 717.15 of the Rule. Files pertaining to adverse reactions to health of employees will be retained for 30 yean. Hies pertaining to other advene reactions will be maintained for five years. 'A separate procedurefor litigation claims (Appendix 3.3.1) and the company's Wear-Dated Hotline (Appendix 3.3.3) will be used PR3. Pace 2 of 8 Company Confidential -OSw 10 79 77 HARTOLDMONO018597 3.7 Communications a. Disposition of written allegations will be communi cated back to tbe individual making the allegation. The key contact will facilitate tbe communication. b. A summary of tbe TSCA Section 8(c) procedure will be periodically communicated to all affected employees and updated, as appropriate. (Revised and Approved: Vice President, Environmental, Safety and Health, October 22,1992.) OSW 10797s PR3. Pape 3 of 8 Company Confidential HARTOLDMON0018598 Appendix 3.1 SIMPLIFIED FLOW DIAGRAM OF MONSANTO PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING ALLEGATIONS SUBJECT TO TSCA 8(c) STEP ONE: Decision Not subject to TSCA 8(c) recordkeeping. Drop from process. Note.: Initial Receptors may be key contact. DEO office is also a key contact STEP FOUR: ---------Decision Allegation qualifies for TSCA 8(c) recordkeeping. Put in 8(c) Tile in St. Louis PR3, Page 4 of 8 Company Confidential Send written allegation and Forms 8(c)A to St Louis i DEO Office DEO forms an 8(c) review committee I 8(c) Committee OSW L0797S STEP TWO: Decision Not subject to TSCA 8(c) recordkeeping. Drop from process. STEP THREE: Decision Not subject to TSCA 8(c) recordkeeping. Drop from process. STEP FOUR: w- Decision Not subject to TSCA 8(c) recordkeeping. Drop from process. HARTOLDMONO018599 TO: SITE KEY CONTACT Form 8(c)A 11/92 Appendix 3.2 REPORTING FORM FOR ALLEGATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE REACTION TO HEALTH Toxic Substances Control Act, Section 8(c) 40 CFR Part 717 NAME OF ALLEGER:_____ ADDRESS: (If not employee) DATE:// MO DAY YU SITE LOCATION: SITE LOC CODE: (If health effect only): M F YR. OF BIRTH: _ Employer (if other than Monsanto):_______ ________________________________ DESCRIPTION OF ALLEGED AVERSE HEALTH EFFECT: 1. WHAT IS TOE HEALTH EFFECT BEING CLAIMED? __________________ 2. HOW LONG DID IT LAST? 3. HOW OFTEN HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED EFFECT? 4. IN WHAT WAY DID IT AFFECT YOUR NORMAL ACTIVITIES? 5. HOW WERE YOU EXPOSED? WHAT SUBSTANCE MIXTURE PROCESS OR OPERATION DO YOU THINK CAUSED THE EFFECT YOU DESCRIBED: FOR COMPANY USE ONLY: RECEIVED ON: BY: Sigmsatn OSW 107960 PR3. Pape 5 of 8 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018600 Appendix 33.1 TSCA 8(c) RECORDKEEPING: LITIGATION CLAIMS Detailed Procedure: Sup 1 Litigation complaints will be reviewed at the time of receipt by the law department for relevance to TSCA 8(c) recordkeeping. Criteria for this reView include the following: a) Is the claim against a Monsanto product or process? b) Is the produces) in question one that is covered by TSCA. i.e., other than pesticide, herbicide, food, food additive or pharmaceutical? c) Is the claim a health or environmental claim? If all criteria is met, the claim will be sent to the DMHS occupational medicine group. Exceptions to this include claims against the Agricultural Group, Nutrition and Health Care Products that will be sent to these respective groups when the law department is unsure of the answer to question (b). Step 2 The occupational medicine group of DMHS will review the litigation claims passed to them by the law department The review will be based on EPA's definitions of "known human effect" and "significant adverse reactions" (40 CFR 717). For environmental effects. DMHS may need to contact the appropriate DEO for assistance. Claims that do not meet TSCA 8(c) criteria will be dropped from further TSCA review of this step. Those claims that meet TSCA 8(c) criteria will be forwarded to the DRM. Toxic Substances, for filing. - Sup 3 Claims meeting the 8(c) criteria will be filed in the TSCA 8(c) file maintained by the DRM, Toxic Substances. This office will request a copy of the complaint, abstract, and "answer" from the law department. Step 4 The law department will forward a copy of the complaint, abstract, and "answer" to the DRM, Toxic Substances, for filing in the TSCA 8(c) file, along with the "complaint." The "complaint," abstract and "answer" will constitute the TSCA 8(c) recordable "allegation" and "follow-up" for all litigation filings. A block flow diagram of the TSCA 8(c) process for litigation complaints appears on the reverse side of this page. (Revised 10/22/92) PR3. Pape6of8 Company Confidential OSH 107981 HARTOLDMONOOI86OI Appendix 3.3.2 TSCA 8(c) REVIEW PROCEDURE OF LITIGATION CLAIMS Request "Answer* t Law Department "Answer" I OSH 107982 DRM TSCA FUe "Answer" In 8(c) rile PR3. Page 7 of 8 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018602 Appendix 3.3.3 TSCA 8(c) RECORDKEEPING: WEAR-DATED HOTLINE Detailed Procedure: Step 1 All health and environmental effect allegations received by the Wear-Dated hotline will be documented by the phone operator on a standard foita. ' Step 2 The documented health and environmental effect hotline call will be reviewed by the Chemical Group Product Safety department for TSCA 8(c) relevance. Step 3 ' The hotline allegations that are judged by the Chemical Group Product Safety department as meeting TSCA 8(c) recordkeeping requirements will be forwarded to the DRM, Toxic Substances, for filing. PR3. Page Sot 6 Company Confidential OSH 107983 HARTOLDMON0018603 PROCEDURE #4 PREMANUFACTURE NOTIFICATION TO UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY UNDER THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT The company's procedure for development ofpremanufacture notification (PMN) to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as required under Section 5 ofthe Tbxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is as follows: 4.1 Abstract of Requirements A PMN is required to be submitted to USEPA for all new chemical substances at least 90 day before .the substance can be manufactured for commercial purposes. A number of substances are exempted from these requirements. including, but not limited to drugs, food and food additives, pesticides, RAD substances, nonisolated intermediates, and substances on the TSCA inventory. Final Rules Reference - 40 CFR Part 720. 4.2 Is a PMN Required? At a very early stage of new product development, including isolated intermediates and new imports, several checks should be made to determine if a PMN will be required for the product 4.2.1 Is the Product (Substance) Exempt under TSCA? Responsibility: Operating unit director. _ Environmental Operations (DEO) or designee. Section 2(B) of TSCA exempts broad classes of substances such as pesticides, food, food additives, mixtures and others. The PMN rule exempts small quantities for RAD purposes and has provisions to exempt substances for test marketing low volume manufacture and for polymer manufacture. The rule also exempts impurities, some by-products, articles and nonisolated intermediates. Refer to TSCA law and regulations or the company's PMN manual for details or contact operating unit DEO or designee or director, regulatory management (DRM). Toxic Substances (TSCA). 4.2.2 Is the Substance "New" under TSCA? (Is It on the TSCA Inventory of Chemical in Commerce?) Responsibility: Operating Unit DEO or designee. Contact the operating unit DEO or designee and have the TSCA non-confidential inventory searched for the substance. If the substance is on the TSCA nonconfidential inventory, it is not new under TSCA definition and a PMN is not required. If the substance in question is not on the nonconfidential inventory, the confidential inventory must be searched. To search the confidential inventory, a Bona Fide Intent to Manufacture (BIM) notice must be submitted to USEPA. A copy of the instruction for submitting a BIM can be found in 720.25 of 40 CFR 720. Send a copy of the BIM to the DRM, TSCA for corporate recordkeeping purposes. MONSANTO COMPANY OS W 10798 PR4. Pape 1 of 3 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018604  If USEPA reports that the substance is not on the confidential inventory, then the substance is a new substance under TSCA and a PMN is required unless the material is exempt under Section 2 (a) above. 4j What Information Is Required on a PMN Submission? Final rules detailing the PMN requirements can be found in 40 CFR 720. All PMNs must be submitted on USEPA Form 7710-25 (1/91). Copies of the form and instructions for its use are available from the DRM, TSCA. The required PMN information falls into either the category of General Information or Risk Assessment Data. USEPA will accept additional data. In many cases, it is desirable to submit Risk Analysis, pollution prevention data or other information to assist USEPA with their assessment. Since the company performs a Risk Analysis on all new products via the Pledge Guidelines and the EC-201/202 procedures, the information is available for this purpose. 4.4 What Are the Details of the PMN Procedure? The PMN process should be integrated into the . development scheme of a new project In most cases, the PMN development will be initiated during the earliest phases of commercialization of a product. The PMN must be submitted to USEPA at least 90 days before the product can be manufactured for commercial purposes, including test marketing. 4.5 How Is a PMN Initiated? Responsibility: Operating unit DEO or designee. The operating unit contact submits an ER-200 or EC-201 to the Department of Medicine and Health Science (DMHS) if one has not already been submitted (See company booklet G-2738 for ER-200 and EC-201/202 Procedures). The operating unit contact drafts a PMN using the USEPA form. The operating unit contact calls a scoping meeting. Minimum participants at the meeting are operating unit contact, operating unit DEO or designee (if not serving as a contact), member of corporate Environmental Sciences center or other qualified environmental effects expert (if appropriate). DMHS toxicologist and DRM, TSCA. Copies of PMN drafts, along with an PR4. Pape 2 of 3 Company Confidential approved ER-200 or EC-201 for the substance are supplied to participants in advance. Note: The scoping meeting can be bypassed at the discretion of the operating unit DEO. At the scoping meeting, decisions are made by the operating unit contact, as to the scope and detail of optional information to supply. If optional risk analysis is desired, assignments are made to DMHS toxicology, industrial hygiene, etc., to complete the necessary sections. A decision is also made as to whether an EC-202 is needed before a PMN submission. Note: It is appropriate as this stage ofproduct development to initiate a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and a TF-837for label andfreight classification. 4.6 How Ait PMNs Finalized? Responsibility: Operating unit DEO or other designated operating unit contact. The operating unit contact prepares a final draft using input from the scoping meeting as well as follow-up input from DMHS. The operating unit contact, together with the patent department, reviews the final draft for confidential information and develops appropriate confidentiality claims with substantiation, where necessary. The final draft is circulated to the participants of the scoping meeting for final review. The operating unit contact calls a meeting for final comments/approvals if needed. 4.7 How Are PMNs Submitted? Responsibility: DRM, TSCA After final review/approval, the operating unit contact forwards the PMN to the DRM, TSCA (authorized official), for submission. The DRM, TSCA, will submit the PMN (both confidential and non-confidential as appropriate), using applicable USEPA submission requirements. SW *07905 HARTOLDMONO018605 4.8 How Is USEPA Follow-up on a PMN Handled? Each PMN will identify a technical contact in addition to an authorized official. The technical contact will typically be operating unit DEO. Commercial Develop ment, or R&D contact 4.8.1 PMN Fees A S2.500 fee is required for all PMNs, except intermediates filed at the same time as final product (SI ,000) or exemptions (zero cost). A unique six-digit TS-user fee identification must be assigned to each PMN and must also appear on the check. The fee is sent to a separate USEPA office from the PMN. 4JL2 Phone Contact All calls from the USEPA on technical matters should be handled by the "Technical Contact." All verbal questions concerning nonconfidential inquiries by the USEPA may be discussed at the time of call or deferred to obtain an answer if unknown or if unsure as to USEPA authority to ask for the information. Non-confidential oral responses may be followed up with a written response when deemed appropriate by the contact. In all cases the technical contact should write a note to file documenting the conversations, with a copy to the DRM, TSCA. Confidential inquiries previously discussed with the USEPA or claimed confidential in the PMN may de discussed at the discretion of the technical contact All other verbal confidential questions will be addressed by written response only. Verbal response to USEPA will be followed up, at the discretion of the technical contact, with a written letter documenting the conversation and clearly indicating areas of confidentiality, with a copy to the DRM, TSCA. 4iJ EPA Actions . Responsibility: The operating unit DEO or designee will have prime responsibility, with counsel of Environmental Law and the DRM. TSCA. USEPA may extend the review period by an additional 90 days. USEPA may ask for more information under Section 5(e). i. An order may be issued by USEPA. ii. A consent order may be jointly agreed upon. The consent order can include restriction on manufacture or use in lieu of information generation. USEPA may restrict manufacture or use under Section S(f). 4.9. How Is the Company Follow-up on the PMN Submission Handled? Responsibility: Operating unit DEO or designee. The company may request USEPA to stop the clock on PMN reviews at any time during the review period. After USEPA's review period expires, manufacture can commence at any time, subject to any 5(e) or 5(0 restrictions. A Notice of Commence to Manufacture (NCM) must be submitted to USEPA within 30 days of the first manufacture for commercial purposes. The information to be included in the notice are detailed in 40 CFR 720. Confidential claims must be made again at this time, as appropriate. Send a copy of the NCM to the DRM, TSCA for corporate recordkeeping purposes. Once a NCM is filed with USEPA, the PMN substance is placed on the TSCA inventory. (Revised and Approved: Vice President, Environmental Safety and Health. October 22.1992.) OSH L07986 PR4. Page 3 of 3 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018606 PROCEDURE #5 OCCUPATIONAL FATAL ACCIDENT REPORTING In case ofa fatal accident, the company's Law Department must be contacted in addition to following government, operating company, and corporate-reporting requirements. OSHA regulations require that, within 48 hours after the occurrence of an employment accident which is fatal to one or more employees or which results in hospitaliza- . tion of five or more employees, the employer of such employee(s) shall report the accident either orally or in writing to the nearest office of the OSHA Area Director. The reporting may be by telephone or telegraph. The report shall relate the circumstances of the accident, the number of fatalities, and the extent of any injuries. In such instances the following guidelines are considered necessary to protect the civil rights of company employees. In addition to routine operating company and corporate notifications in fatal accidents, either Mary M. Tonkin or Michael E. Gewin (for accidental deaths) or L. William Higley (for deaths for long-term chemical exposure), the company's attorneys for OSHA matters, must be notified immediately. The telephone numbers are listed below. They will provide prompt necessary legal guidance including, where necessary, sending an attorney to the site for on-the-spot counseling. In the meantime, OSHA inspectors) should be given access to the site of the accident when the inspector arrives on the premises, without requiring that the inspector secure a warrant for entry. However, neither members of location management nor any wage employee should discuss the accident with the OSHA inspector until advised to do so by the company attorney. The location manager or his designee will greet the inspector and state that location employees have been asked not to discuss the accident until the company attorney advises them accordingly. The inspector is to be told that we have been forced to take this posture as a result of the OSHA Procedurefor Investigating Criminal/Willfitl Violations. The inspector will be permitted to inspect the plant, and, of course, should be advised of any chemical hazards and protective measures needed, related or not to the accident Location personnel will not allow the inspector to view any records or documents at this time, other than the lost-time injury log, OSHA Form 200 and Form 101 or its equivalent, until advised to do so by the company attorney. If the location is requested to rope off the area of the accident, local discretion should be exercised. The inspector, however, is not authorized to keep plant management away from any part of the operation. If local management believes entry by the inspector must be delayed for a few hours because of exposure, safety, confusion, etc., management will seek such a recommendation from Ms. Tonkin or Mr. Higley at the time of the initial call to St. Louis. Contacts Mary M. Tonkin, 314/694-2967 (office), (314) 721-8209 (home). Michael E. Gewin, 314/694-2849 (office), (314) 352-2176 (home). L. William Higley. 314/694-8503 (office); (314) 862-1796 (home). (Revised and Approved: Vice President, Environmental, Safety and Health, October 22,1992.) MONSANTO COMPANY OSW L0798-7 PR5. Pape I of 1 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018607 PROCEDURE #6 TRANSMITTAL OF TOXICOLOGY AND HEALTH-RELATED DATA TO UNITED STATES REGULATORY AGENCIES Health-related information should be submitted through the Department ofMedicine and Health Sciences. The various regulatory agencies are continually supplied information from toxicology and health-related tests on the company's products done by or for die company. In order to provide consistency in the handling and review of such information, as well as to assure proper follow- through on commitments to these agencies, the transmittal of such test results will be carried out in accordance with the following guidelines: . 6.1 All toxicology or health-related data will be reviewed with the department of Medicine and Health Sciences (DMHS) prior to submission to any regulatory agency, except for routine submissions by the company's Agricultural Group of test data required under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodentidde Act (FIFRA). In addition. DMHS will be informed of all such submissions at the time via the letter of transmittal. 6.2 Any such information transmitted must be recorded and the copy of the final submission retained both by DMHS and the involved operating company. 6J The letter of transmittal for any toxicology or health-related data must include a listing of the materials being transmitted including sufficient bibliographic information for subsequent retrieval of the original data. 6.4 If the submission includes data on human health effects, it is preferable that the information be submitted to the regulatory agency by the director of the depart ment of Medicine and Health Sciences. 6.5 Agreements with a regulatory agency that commit the company to the future transmittal of toxicology or health-related data must also be reviewed and approved in advance by DMHS; further. DMHS must concur with the feasibility of meeting commitment dates. Appropriate records of such commitments must be maintained both by the involved operating company and DMHS in order to ensure future compliance with such agreements. 6.6 Any exceptions to the above must be approved by the director of DMHS. (Revised and Approved: Vice President, Environmental Safety and Health, October 22,1992.) MONSANTO COMPANY OSW 107988 PR6. Pape 1 of 1 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018608 REFERENCE: Cross Reference ESH Worldwide Guidelines, Pledge Guidelines, and Responsible Care ESH Worldwide Guideline Effluent and Emission Control Waste Management Plant Environmental Assessments Employee and Community Safety and Health Pledge Guideline Pollution Prevention Responsible Care Code on Pollution Prevention Practices No. 1 through No. 11, except No. 4 and No. 8 Employee And Community Safety and Health Code on Process Safety, Employee Safety and Health and Community Awareness and Emergency Response None (Internal Process Safety and Emergency Response Policy Elements) Product Stewardship None (Internal Distribution Policy Elements) Waste Management - Corrective and Remedial Action Plant Environmental Assessments Process Safety and Emergency Response Product Stewardship Chemical Distribution Groundwater and Soil Quality Outside Processors * Outside Processors Code on Process Safety Code on Community Awareness and Emergency Response Code on Product Stewardship Code on Distribution Code on Pollution Prevention, Practices No. 13 and No. 14 Code on Pollution Prevention, Practices No. 12 Code on Pollution Prevention. Practices No. 12 None (Internal Policy Elements on Public Participation and Involvement) Community Awareness at Manufacturing Sites Code on Community Awareness and Emergency Response, Practices No. A1 - No. A9 * Code on Pollution Prevention Practices No. 4 and No. 8 OSW 107989 REFERENCE Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018609 Responsible Care::' A Public Commitment GUIDING PRINCIPLES Member companies at the Chemieat Manufacturers Association are committed to support a continuing effort to improve the industry's responsible management of chemicals. They pledge to manage their businesses according to thesa principles: To recognize and respond to community concerns about chemicals and our operations. To develop and produce chemicals that can be manufactured, transported, used, and disposed of safely. To make health, safety and environment considerations a priority in our planning for all existing and new products and processes. To report promptly to officials, employees, customers and the public, information on chemicalrelated health or environmental hazards and to recommend protective measures. To counsel customers on the safe use. transportation and disposal of chemical products. Tg operate our plants and facilities in a manner that protects the environment and the health and safety of our employees and the public. To extend knowledge by conducting or supporting research on the health, safety and environmen tal effects of our products, processes and waste materials. To work with others to resolve problems created by past handling and disposal of hazardous substances. To participate with government and others in creating responsible laws, regulations and standards to safeguard the community, workplace and environment To promote the principles and practices of Responsible Care* by sharing experiences and offering assistance to others who produce, handle, use. transport or dispose of chemicals. OSW 107990 R, Page 1 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018610 R, Page 2 of 98 OSW L07"1 HARTOLDMONOOI8611 Responsible Care:A Public Commitment SUMMARY DESCRIPTION RESPONSIBLE CARE* PROGRAM ELEMENTS The statement of Guiding Principles for Responsible Care1 is a commitment ov eacn memoer company to fully support a continuous effort to improve the industry's-responsible manage ment of cnemicais Each member company has pledged to operate according to tne Guiding Principles and has signed to that effect. The signed statement is considered an obligation of membership m the Chemical Manufacturers' Association (CMA). The Guiding Principles are based on CMA's 1983 policy statement on health, safety and the environment and on the Canadian Responsible Care* principles. They also incorporate guidance received from member company executive contacts. Following association adoption of the Guiding Pnnciples. various CMA committees began developing-Codes of Manage ment Practices m January 1989. Each Code of Management Practices addresses several public concerns. Impetus for developing a specific Code comes from either a substantial public concerns) identified by the Public Advisory Panel or the industry, a substantive need to take voluntary action, or both. Codes m development address community awareness and emergency response, distribution, pollution prevention, process safety, employee health and safety, and product stewardship. The Codes of Management Practices identify expected manage ment practices as obiectives rather than prescribing absolute or quantitative standards. Since the Codes are intended to serve as objectives, they complement existing member company programs or practices that achieve the same goals. Responsible Care*, therefore, becomes an integral part of existing company programs and will cause each company to stretch to contmualiy improve performance Another important element in the Responsible Care* initiative is the Public Advisory Panel which is composed of a group of environmental, health and safety thought leaden. The panel is an industry (CMAI effort, not a company responsibility, it was assembled and is moderated by an experienced facilitator working at the association's direction. It serves to assist the industry in identifying and developing programs and actions that are responsive, and are viewed as responsive, to public con cerns. Meeting several times a year, the panel reviews issues on which CMA requires comment and advice. Panel members also identify areas they believe require.industry response, critique all proposed Codes of Management Practices and provide early definition of public concerns involving the chemical industry. Community Advisory Panels at the local or regional level can serve companies and the industry in a similar manner CMA has developed guidance to facilitate companies formation and operation of local panels. Effective performance evaluation is a critical element of Responsible Care* Therefore each Code of Management Practices includes a Self-Evaluation Form that measures a company s improveo use of tne management practices that the Code aefmes Memoer companies will conauct self-evaluations for each Code annually CMA will compile tne results arc periodically report industry s collective implementation orccress to the public. To document progress m ways that are meaningful to me public,CMA also will monitor statistical trena data wner; available, on industry performance. For examoie. Suoeriunc Section 313 emissions reporting and Department of Transporta tion hazardous materials incident statistics will be a component of pubiid reporting for the Pollution Prevention Code anq tne Distribution Code. Due to their varying size and operations, member comoanies will not be expected to be at the same level of performance for each Code of Management Practices at the same time However, it is expected that each member compaay report continued progress. To facilitate and support each member company's continual improvement in the responsible management of chemicals. Executive Leadership Groups (ELGsl have formed ElGs provide an opportunity for corporate leaders to discuss progress and share experiences with implementing elements of Responsible Care*. These regional groups of ten to twenty executive contracts will meet at least once a year to review Codes of Management Practices under development discuss members* progress with implementing existing Codes, identify areas where individual companies need assistance from CMA or other companies, and to address other pnonty industry issues Endorsement of the Responsible Care* initiative is an ObligatiM of Membership in the association. A member company's obligation to Responsible Care* applies to all of its chemical business. Each member company is expected to make a commitment to Responsible Care* by: ) signing the Guiding Principles of Responsible Care*' bj communicating the commitment to Responsible Care* to employees: c) making good-faith efforts to implement the Codes of Management Practices, participate in the self-evaluation process, and meet the expectations of the Responsible Care* initiative: and d) using the Responsible Care* name and logo according to CMA's guidelines. Member companies are also expected to participate m the development of the Codes and programs. In an extreme case, where a member company has consis tently not conducted its operations in accordance with the Guiding Principles and program elements of Responsible Care 5 association representatives will meet with the member company's executive contact to seek die company's positive involvement in the program. If this fails to produce a commit ment to pursue the objectives of Responsible Care*, appropriate actions will be taken including the disassociation of the company from membership. OSH 1079.92 *igc 3 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018612 R. Page 4 of 98 OSW 107993 HARTOLDMON0018613 Responsible Care:1 A Public Commitment QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT RESPONSIBLE CARP Q Who had the idea for the Responsible Care* initiative? A. Executives of the Canadian Chemical Producers Association (CCPAl began aevelopmg the concepwn 1984. Executives of Chemical Manufacturers Association ICMAI member companies that have Canadian operations brought Responsible Care* to CMA's attention. CMA considered a variety of options and adopted the performance-based Responsible Care* initiative in 1988. Q How is Responsible Cere1 different from what the chemical industry has been doing? A. Many chemical companies have programs that are designed to improve performance. However. Responsible Care* is a broad chemical industry commitment to improve performance through a process that ensures responsiveness to tbe public's concerns. Two aspects make Responsible Care* unique. First bylaws obligate CMA member companies, representing 90% of basic industrial production capacity in the United States, to participate in the initiative. And second, through a Public Advisory Panel, the public is directly involved in developing program elements. Current CMA programs such as Community Awareness and Emergency Response ICAER). Air Quality. Waste Minimisation, and National Chemical Response and Information Center (NCRIC) are vital parts of the initiative. Through Responsible Care' s self-evaluation process and Public Advisory Panel. CMA will identify areas where additional resources need to be developed to help member companies achieve the goals of the initiative. Responsible Care* also encourages member companies to help each other improve performance by sharing expenences and resources in specific areas of chemical operations. Q Why does the chemical industry aeed to do aeythieg? A. Because in spite of past efforts there still are too many incidents involving chemical operations. Politicians and government regulators will respond to the public's concerns about chemicals ancfour industry if the chemical industry does not respond first Therefore, his important for the industry to take continuing positive action to address public concerns. Q Isn't then some other way? The chemical industry is already doing e let can't it just communicate this? A. The CMA membership concluded that the chemical industry doesn't just have a public relations problem: it has a perfor mance problem. The chemicpl industry has to respond effectively to public concerns through improved performance. It is clear tnat the public's expectations are not being met on a performance basis. Until the chemical industry truly understands puoiic concerns and addresses them lor a oerfcimance standpoint. CMA memoer companies can t oossiow improve Pie public perception of their moustry Q Who prepared the Guiding Principles and what are they based on? A. The guiding Principles are based on CMA's 1983 boardapproved policy on 'Health. Safety and the Environment' and the Canadian Responsible Care* principles. They are consistent with both. They were prepared by representatives of CMA member companies and approved by the CMA Board of Directors. Q Why does CMA's Beard think Responsible Care * will work? A. Since Responsible Care* is based on concepts proven m bom the Canadian experience aad CMA's voluntary programs such as CAER. the CMA membership has confidence that it can achieve improved industry performance. Most important by signing me Guiding Principles. CMA member companies have demonstrated their commitment to make' Responsible Care* work. Q How much will Responsible Care* cost CMA member companies to implement? A. Significant resources are needed from member companies, both in terms of the `sweat equity' of participants in the development and support of the program, and in the people and dollars necessary to make the initiative "live" in each company. These costs have not been quantified because they will be different for each company. However, overall industry costs for Responsible Care* implementation will undoubtedly add to the billions of dollars already being spent by industry to manage health, safety, and environmental issues. 0 Why should a commitmeut to Responsible Cere* be en obligation of membership? A. Public concerns about chemicals and the industry are the result of collective experience with the entire industry, lithe chemical industry is to respond to public concerns effectively, it must act as a total industry: Responsible Care* must be visibly working throughout the industry and. therefore, must be both a commitment and a membership obligation of every company in the association. It is critical to achieve the cultural change needed for. the industry to improve performance in a responsive manlier. The public must be convinced that the chemical industry is living up to its commitment. OSW 10799* R. PageS of 98 HARTOLDMON0018614 Q Why have a Public Advisory Panel? A. Resoondi^g to ouoiic concerns is wiiat Resoonsibie Care' <s all aoout Therefore, a xev component ol tne initiative is tne PuDnc Aovisorv Panel Tne oanei neios tne maustrv laentifv and aeveioo programs and actions mat are resoonsive to public concms aocu: soecmc oedormance.orooiems. CMA nas aiso ceveiooec a guidebook for companies which wish to estaonsn community aovisorv oaneis at operating locations ' Q Who is on the Public Advisory Panel? Who sets it up? Can panel members be replaced. A. The Public Advisory Panel acts as a sounding board for public concerns ana as a specially Qualified focus group that directly imoacts industry policies and programs under Responsible Care* Meeting five times a year, panel members help CMA identify Pubic concerns and suggest ways to respond to those concerns. Pane) members aiso review proposed Codes bf Management Practices and evaluate other features of the initiative. Each meeting is managed by an outside facilitator experienced with panel management industry representation is kept to a minimum to encourage an open exchange of views and ideas. Currently, me panel is a 15-member group composed of individuals from bom public and private sectors. To ensure that a wide range of public opinion is expressed, the composition of the panel is diverse, Occupations and interests of members range from business and local government officials to environ mental. academic, and consumer activists, a fanner, and an expert in business ethics. ' Panel members were selected by the facilitator. Panel membership will penodically change in response to pane) members' availability and/orthe changing needs of panel expertise. The facilitator will handle such changes. Q Who wiH develop tho Cedos of Management Practices? Will tho public have imput? A. The development of Codes of Management Practices begins with me identification of public concerns by a number of sources, including the Public Advisory Panel and-CMA's Board of Directors. CMA reviews these concerns and recommends priorities for Code development If a public concern cuts across a range of company operations or activities, it maybe addressed by more than one Code. CMA member company experts develop each Code. Every memoer company has opportunities to comment on the Codes through open meetings and workshops. Public input to the codes is achieved through the Public Advisory Panel. All codes, once approved by CMA's Board of Directors; are made available to others. Use of the Responsible Care* service mark, however, must follow CMA's guidelines and can be used only with CMA approval. Q Will Responsible Cara* Codes of Management Practices become the basis for future legislation and foguletion? A. A very positive result of Responsible Care* should be for its meaningful and workable practices to be reflected in legislation or regulation that the public endorses through government action. Q How will performance against the practice Codes be measured? Who does the measuring and how are the results reported? A. 'oaiviauai comoanv managemerr wm ev jiuctr performance agamst the Cooes at Manscemer; annually bv fiimc out a seit-evaiuauon :o:-r. -or ea:- C:ce Companies will teed this information cac* rc CMA =:r~.e~ .se of such feedback would be to direct me asscc.atior < sue:;" work to areas of tne greatest need ana nigr.es: sotent.a Cvr* me longer term, these aggregate reoons sncu;c =s:ar s* a record of improvemenfmarwitt enaoteC.MA tc-ici-ursar-a-------industry's performance progress to the pubnc 0 Whet will CMA do to holp componies address the Codes of Management Practices? A. CMA will develop support programs to help companies implement the practices defined m the Codes in genera*, programs and aids (videotapes, guide-books, educational meetings, etc.) will be similar to the support provided tor ?;ti ;i: and CAER. A unique element of Responsible Care* is ;r.at member companies will help each other by sharing resources and methods they develop to implement the Codes of. Management Practices. 0 Given tilt kind nf data wo are reporting under Title III. will tho public accept the Responsible Cara4 initiative now? A. Disclosures under Title III raise the level of public concern significantly in some cases. But their only effective response is to deal with the concerns through company and industry-wide improvements. This is the essence of Responsible Care * The experience in Canada and in the United States suggests it can work. S Will chemical companies apply the initiative outside the United States? A. CMA represents North American manufacturers and can best assist its members in implementing Responsible Care* here. However, the initiative is already international in scope CMA learned from a two-year old Canadian effort Other countries that have officially adopted Responsible Care* initiatives include Australia. New Zealand. England. Germany. The Netherlands, and France. CMA's experience with CAER suggests that good initiatives soread rapidly. The United Nations, with U.S. chemical industry assistance, has already developed an international emergency response program modeled on CAER. CMA has shared Responsible Care* materials with counter part organizations in Europe. Japan. Australia, and Taiwan. Page 6 of 98 DSW LQ7995 HARTOLDMON0018615 Responsible Care: A PubIic_Commitment COMMUNITY AWARENESS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Purpose; Hie goal ofthe Community Awareness and Emergency Response (GAER) Code ofManagement Practices is to assure emergency preparedness and to fostercommunityright-to-know. Itdemands a commitmenttoopenness and community dialogue. The code has two major components: first, to assure that member facilities that manufacture, process, use, distribute orstorehazardous materials initistesnri maintain a community outreach program to openly communicate relevant, useful information responsive to file public's questions and concerns about safety, health, and the environment; and second, to help protect employees and communities by assuring that each facility has an emergency response program to respond rapidly and effectively to emergencies. The community outreach component will communicate program activities and performance under all codes of management practices and will promote an open, ongoing dialogue with employees and the community. Information should be provided about such activities as waste minimization, emission reduction, health effects of chemicals, and efforts to ensure the safe transport ofchemicals. The GAER Code ofManagement Practices is supported by, and will build on, GMA's GAER process. CAER supports the community's right to know about chemical industry operations and their effect on safety, health, and the environment. <vriyiwTly w voluntary initiariv* facnaad an emergency response issues. The new CAER Code ofManagement Practices broadens the fadHty-community dialogue to cover the full range of safety, health and environmental iasuaa. Relationship to Guiding Principles: The Code helps achievejMveral ofthe Responsible Care Guiding Principles: Q To recognize and respond to community concerns about chemicals and our operations. Q To report promptly to officials, employees, customers, and the public, information on chemical-related health or environmental hazards and recommend protective measures. Q To participate with government and others in creating responsible laws, regulations, and standards to safeguard the community, workplace and environment. Q To promote the principles and practices of Responsible Care by sharing experiences and offering assistance to others who produce, handle, use, transport, or dispose of chemicals. . OSH 107996 R. Page 7 of 98 HARTOLDMON0018616 CAER Code of Management Practices November 6. 1989 ** Pago 2 Management PraCtiCCS! A. Community Awareness and Outreach Member facilities that manufacture, process, use, distribute or store hazardous materials shall have a community outreach program that includes: pWT Fmnlnvees: -------------- -------------------- L An ongoing assessment of employee questions and concerns about the facility. 2. Communications trainingfor key facility and company personnel who communicate with employees and the public concerning safety, health, and environmental issues. 3. Education of employees about the facility's emergency response plan and safety, health, and environmental programs. 4. An ongoing dialogue with employees to respond to their questions and concerns and involve them in community outreach efforts. 5. A regular evaluation ofthe effectiveness ofthe ongoing employee communications efforts. For Community: . 6. An ongoing assessment of community questions and concerns about the facility. 7. An outreach program to educate responders, government officials, the media, other businesses and the community about the facility's emergency response program and risks to the community associated with the facility. 8. A continuing dialogue with local dtixens to respond to questions and concerns about safety, health, and the environment, and to address other issues of interest to the community. 9. A policy ofopenness that provides convenient ways for interested persons to become familiar with the facility, its operations, and products, andits effortsto protect safety,health, and the environment. 10. A regular evaluation ofthe effectiveness of the ongoing community communications efforts. B. Emergency Response and Preparedness Member facilities that manufacture, process, use, distribute or store hazardous materials shall have an emergency response program that includes: L An ongoing assessment of potential risks to employees and local communities resulting from accidents or other emergencies. 2. A current, written facility emergency response plan which address, among other things, communi cations and the recovery needs of the community after an emergency. Page 8 of 98 DSW 107997 HARTOLDMON0018617 CAER Code of Management Practices November 6. 1989 -- Page 3 3. An ongoing training program for those employees who have response or communications responsi bilities in the event of an emergency. 4. Emergency exercises, at least annually, to test operability of the written emergency response plan. 5. Communication of relevant and useful emergency response planning information to the Local _____ Emergency Planning Committee. 6. Facility tours for emergency responders to promote emergency preparedness and to provide current knowledge of facility operations. 7. Coordination of the written facility emergency response plan with the comprehensive community emergency response plan and otherfacilities. Ifno plan exists, the facility should initiate community efforts to create a plan. . 8. Participation in the community emergency response planning process to develop and periodically test the comprehensive community emergency response plan developed by the Local Emergency Planning Committee. 9. Sharing ofinformation and experience relating to emergency response planning, exercises, and the handling of incidents with other facilities in the community. MEMBER SELF-EVALUATION Each member company shall report annually to CMA, orits designated agent, the stage ofimplementation of each Management Practice in this Code. The reports shall be on the member self-evaluation form attached as Exhibit A. DSW 107997.01 R. Page 9 o( 98 HARTOLDMONOQ18618 R. Page 10 of 98 OSW 107998 HARTOLDMON0018619 Member SeiT-Evjuuauon January 6. 1992 -- Page 1 Responsible Care: A Public Gommitment- CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION MEMBER SELF-EVALUATION FORM COMMUNITY AWARENESS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Member Company Name: Responsible Care Coordinator Name: . ..... . -- Address:__________________ ,__ Telephone ( )_________________ Number qffacilities subject to code OSM 107995 R. Page 11 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018620 Member Seif-Evaluation January 8. 1992 -- Page 2 COMMUNITY AWARENESS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Instructions: Under theHespbhiiblt Car3 Initiativercsebmataber companywill submit a Self-Evaluation form annually to CMA. To establish the industry bajeline, each member company should complete this Self Evaluation form, ` 2. Indicate on the cover page the number ofmember company facilities subject to the Code. Each company must report the category for all facilities subject to the Code on this form. 3. For each Management Practice on the following four pages, indicate the number of facilities that have attained each implementation category. Each facility should appear in only one milestone category per Management Practice. The total of facilities subject to the Code should equal the number of . facilities across all she implementation categories for each Management Practice. 4. Only subject facilities owned or operated as of the reporting date should be included. 5. The implementation categories are: Category NA * Category EV - Category OP Category IA Category PP Category RI - No action. Ifno action taken beraoae the management practice is not applicable, please explain. Evaluating existing company practicee against the Management Practice. Developing plan to implement Management Practice. Implementing action plan Management Practice in place. Reasaeesing Management Practice implementation. Page 12 of 98 DSW 107999.01 HARTOLDMONO018621 CAER Code of Management Practices January 8. 1992 Page 3 Management Practices Community Awareoeu Cairgnrin NA EV DP IA PP RI 1. An ongoing assessment of employee concerns and questions about the facility. '--Comments on Category NA:-------------- -------- . _ ... , _ 2. Communications training for key facility and company person nel who will communicate with employees and the public con* cerning safety, health and environmental issues. Comments on Category NA? 3. Education ofemployees about the facility's emergency response plan and safety, health, and environmental programs. Comments on Category NA:, 4. An ongoing dialogue with employees to respond to their ques tions and concerns and to involve them in community outreach efforts. Comments on Category NA: 5. Aregular evaluation ofthe effectiveness ofthe ongoing employee communications efforts. Comments on Category NA: CtU(r NA Catafory EV CatoforyDP CatagoryU. Catafory IT Catafory KJ Re In DmWfia| ylaa t leiflwnwt Kti taflMMaaf tedn|ta Maaafaaaat Practice fas ylcca. *............. Siai|nNt Pracdaa ji m sppHcsUA* pigigg OSW 108000 R. Page 13 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018622 CAER Code of Management Practices January 6. 1992 -- Page 4 Cairrnrirs NA EV DP IA PP RI 6. An ongoing assessment of community questions and concerns about the facility. Comments on Category NA:, Wfc 7. An outreach program to educate responders, government offi cials. the media, other business, and the community about the facility's emergency response program and risks to the commu nity associated with the facility. Comments on Category NA; 8. A continuing dialogue with local dtixens to respond to questions and concerns about safety, health, and the environment, and to address other issues of interest to the community. Comments on Category NA:. 9. A policy of openness that provides convenient ways for inter ested persons to become familiar with the facility, its operations, and products, and its efforts to protect safety, health, and the environment. Comments on Category NA: 10. A regular evaluation ofthe effectiveness ofthe ongoing commu nity communications efforts.. Comments on Category NA:; CMqey KA Calagorp EV Ctf7 DP Galagoy1A Category FT Category 111 Maaagemeat hiedM la plaaa. Eeeeeeertng Piactlee tefhaauSi . Page 14 of 98 la aat applicable, plaaaa explain J3SW 108001 HARTOLDMONO018623 CAEH Code of Management Practices January 8. 1992 - Page 5 Cateyori^ Emergency Response NA EV DP IA PP RI An ongoing assessment ofpotential risks to employees and local communities resulting from accidents or other emergencies. Coimnenis on Category NA. .2 A current, written facility emergency response plan which address, among other things, communications and the recovery needs of the community after an emergency. Comments on Category NA. 3. An ongoing training program for those employees who have response or communications responsibilities in the event of an emergency. Comments on Category NA 4. Emergency exercises, at least annually, to testoperability ofthe written emergency response plan.. Comments on Category NA 5. Communication of relevant and useful emergency planning information to the Local Emergency Planning Committee. Comments on Category NA Catagwy m CatagaryKV Catagary V Catagary tt. Catagary IV Caiagaiy XI Itaaatfas. Vaa Drralaptag ylaa ta tfca it ynctles la sat apytteafcU. ylaaaa wyUh DSW 108002 R. Page 15 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018624 CAR Code of Management Practices January 8. 1992 - Page 6 Citcgnriffi NA EV DP IA PP RI 6. Facility tours for emergency responders to promote emergency preparedness and to provide current knowledge offacility opera- dons. . Comments on Category NA:, 7. Coordination of the written facility emergency response plan with the comprehensive community emergency response plan and other facilities. If no plan exists, the facility should initiate community efforts to create a plan. Comments on Category NA.- 6. Participation in the community emergency response planning process to develop and periodically test the comprehensive community emergency response plan developed by the Local Emergency Planning Committee. Comments on Category NA: 9. Sharing of information and experience related to emergency response planning, exercises, and the handling ofincidents with other facilities in the community. Comments on Category NA: Notes: Please identity any specific problems and/or resources. CtU(7 KA Cmgwr 1* Cougar? IT Calagoi? XI Page 16 of 98 Ha actios. BmkIIm Uka kicin tit mosageaaat pnctica la aat qpletU*. yluw arplata. Bnlaattaf ajoUag ttapaqr pcactlcaa ogafaut tha ICaacganaat Pnetlaa. Dmtofiai ptaa u Inpinat Magogcmcat Practice. iHifUawCsi ictlw plaa Huigaat Pnctlca ta place. XMccaochig Managamaat PrmcUec Implamaatatla*. OSW L08003 HARTOLDMONO018625 ResporrsibleGare: A Public Commitment DISTRIBUTION CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Purpose The purpose ofthe Distribution Code ofManagement Practices is to reduce the risk ofharm posed by the distribution ofchemicals to the general public; to carrier, distributor, contractor and chemical industry employees; and to the environment. Adherence to the code will lead to continually safer chemical distribution and help member companies to: evaluate the risks associated with risks; distribution and methods to reduce those meet or exceed all regulations and industry standards governing chemical distribution; provide emergency advice and/or assistance to people on the scene in the event of a chemical distribution emergency; develop new technologies and methods to improve chemical distribution safety. The code will also promote improvements in: employee preparedness and awareness in preventing distribution emergencies; the safety performance of carriers and other providers of distribution services; the public's preparedness in responding to chemical distribution emergencies; osu loaacK R. P*ge 17 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018626 Distribution Code of Management Practices January 15,1991 -- Page 2 the public's understanding of, and confidence in, industry efforts to improve chemical distribution safety. . The Distribution Code of Management Practices applies to all modes of transportation (highway, rail, marine, air and pipeline) and to the shipment of all chemicals, including chemical waste. The code also applies to distribution activities (storage, handling, transfer and repackaging) while chemicals are in transit between member companies and their suppliers and customers.The implementation ofa number ofpractices of the code will vary according to the characteristics oftHechemicaHjeingdistributed, themode oftransportation and the type of distribution activity involved. ~ "" ~ Relationship to Responsible Care Guiding Principles This code helps achieve several Responsible Care Guiding Principles: to recognize and respond to community concerns about chemicals and our operations; to make health, safety and environmental considerations a priority in our planning for all existing and new products and processes; 3 to counsel customers on the safe use, transportation, and disposal of chemicals; 3 to operate our plants and facilities in a manner that protects the environment and the health and safety of our employees and the.public; 3 to participate with government and others in creating responsible laws, regulations.and standards to safeguard the community, workplace and environment; and 3 to promote the principles and practices ofResponsible Care by sharing experiences and offering assistance to others who produce, handle, use, transport or dispose ofchemicals. Management Practices Each member company shall have an ongoing chemical distribution safety program that includes senior management commitment through policy, communications and resources to improvements in chemical distribution safety. The program should indude the following elements: 1. Risk Management 1.1 Regular evaluations ofchemical distributionriskswhich considerthe hazards ofthe material, the likelihood of accidents/incidents and the potential for human and environmental exposure from release of the material over the route oftransport. 1.2 Implementation of chemical distribution risk reduction measures that are appro priate to the risk level. Page 18 of 98 OSW 108005 HARTOLDMON0018627 Distribution Code of Management Practices January 15.1991 - Page 3 1.3 Internal reporting and investigation of chemical distribution accidents/inddents. and implementation of preventive measures. 2. Compliance Review and Training 2.1 A process for monitoring changes and interpretations of new and existing regula tions and industry standards for their applicability to the company's chemical dis- ........ tribution activities, and for implementing thoseregulations and standards^_____ 2.2 Training for all affected company employees in the proper implementation of applicable regulations and company requirements. 2.3 A program for providing guidance and information to carriers, distributors and contractors who perform distribution activities for the company on the company's training and compliance requirements for the activities. 2.4 Regular reviews of company employee, carrier, distributor and contractor compli ance with applicable regulations and company requirements. 3. Carrier Safety 3.1 A process for qualifying carriers of all modes and types (common, contract, private and customer controlled) that transport chemicals to and from company facilities that emphasizes carrier safety fitness and regulatory compliance, and includes regular reviews of their performance and compliance. 3.2 Feedback to carriers on their safetyperformance and suggestions forimprovement. 4. Handling and Storage 4.1 Documented procedures for the selection and use ofcontainers that are appropriate for the chemical being shipped, in compliance with testing and certification requirements, and free ofleaks and visible defects. 4.2 Documented procedures forloading chemicals at companyfacilitiesthatwill reduce emissions to the environment, protect personnel and provide securement of the lading during transit. 4.3 Documented procedures for unloading chemicals at the company's facilities that will reduce emissions to the environment, protect personnel, and provide for safe unloading into proper storage facilities. 4.4 Defined criteria for the cleaning and return of tank cars, tank trucks, marine vessels, and retumable/refillable bulk and semi-bulk containers, and for the proper disposal of cleaning residues. OSW 108006 R. Page 19 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018628 Distribution Code of Management Practices January IS,1991 - Page 4 4.5 A program for providing guidance and information to customers, distributors, and other receivers on proper procedures for unloading and storing the company's chemicals. 4.6 A process for selecting distributors and other facilities that store or handle the company's chemicals in transit that emphasizes safety fitness and regulatory com pliance and includes regular reviews of their performance and compliance. 4.7 Feedback to distributors "and operatorsnf other facilities that store or handle chemicals in transit on their safetyperformance and suggestions for improvement. 5. Emergency Preparedness 5.1 A process for responding to chemical distribution accident/incidents involving the company's chemicals.* . 5.2 Documented procedures for making information about the company's chemicalsin distribution available to response agencies. 5.3 A program for malring facilities and/or training materials available to emergency response agencies. 5.4 Dialogue with state andlocal emergencyplanningorganizations on the distribution and hazards of the company's chemicals to improve community preparedness to respond to chemical distribution emergencies. 5.5 Dialogue with the public on their concerns about chemical distribution safety, actions taken bythe industry and the companyto improve the safetyofchemical dis tribution, and the effectiveness of emergency preparedness and emergency re sponse assistance. Member Self Evaluation Member companies shall report annually the stage ofimplementation ofeach management practice in this code to an agent designated by the Chemical Manufacturers Association. Relationship to Other Codes of Management Practice This Code complements, and should be implemented in copjunction with, current and future Codes of Management Practices. R. Page 20 of 98 vpaoctf os# HART OLDMONO018629 SAMPLE A Public Commitment CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION MEMBER SELF-EVALUATION FORM DISTRIBUTION CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Member Company Name:_____________________ Responsible Care Coordinator Name:_____________________ Address:____________________ Telephone (__ losoos R, Page 21 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018630 R. Page 22 of 98 DSW 108009 HARTOLDMONO018631 Memoer Seti--va-maoon form January 15, 1991 -- Page 2 Member Self*Evaluation Distribution Code of Management Practices 1. Under the Responsible Care initiative, each member company must submit a Self Evaluation Form annually to CMA or its designated representative. The annual self reporting has three purposes: to establish an industry baseline from which to demonstrate continual progress in implementation of the Code. to assist individual member companies in establishing a base line from which to set priorities for future development; and to assist the industry (CMA) in designingprograms to assist the member companies in achieving the goals of the Responsible Care initiative. 2. TO ESTABLISH THE INDUSTRY BASELINE, EACH MEMBER COMPANY SHOULD COMPLETE THIS SELF-EVALUATION FORM AND SEND IT BY C.O.B., MAY 23, 1991 3. The Distribution Code is unique in the sense that it deals with both products and facilities, but more importantly it deals with a broad range of third party providers of services and many external organizations and communities. This is considerably different than the CAER, WARE and Process Safety Codes, which deal primarily with fixed facilities and, as a result, have a more common base for self-evaluation. In contrast, different self-evaluation bases for each element of the Distribution Code will likely be more helpful and appropriate. 4. Self-evaluations for the Distribution Code should be expressed as percentages since the different bases for Code elements may not always be countable units. Therefore, the evaluation of each of the 21 separate elements ofthe Distribution Code ofManagement Practices should show what percentage of the company's distribution process is at each of the six implementation stages. For example, for a specific Code element, a company could report that 10% oftheir distribution process is at stage 1,50% at stage H, 30% at stage IH, 10% at stage IV and 0% at stages V and VI. Judgment will be required on how to develop these percentages, both in terms of what base to use for the calculation, and how to reflect centralized and/or decentralized distribution activities. Mostimportantly, each company will need to establish a methodology that will remain constant over the years in orderto measure annual progress. The suggestions under Item4 below are meant to assist you in developing your self-evaluation methodology. 5. The following bases for evaluation can be applied to a number of specific code elements: Corporate programs, such as a corporate emergency response process, may be viewed as applying across the company for purposes of completing the Self Evaluation Form. The percentage implementation would result from judgment of osw 108010 R Page 23 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018632 R. Pipe 24 of 98 OSW 108011 HARTOLDMONO018633 Member Self-Evaluation Form January 15, 1991 - Page 3 sample the existence and implementation of that process, or progress upon your own implementation action plan. Alternatively, decentralized programs, such as site or division specific emergency response processes, should be judged as separate processes. A large multi-division company may have multiple emergency response processes to considerin establish* ing a percentage of implementation. Risk management activities are often undertaken on a product specific basis. Each company deals with a very large number of products which are hazardous or nonhazardous, and must select a basis from which to evaluate and report future progress in implementing the Code. Judgmentis required to make sure that a large number of non-hazardous products which the company produces or distributes do not distort the evaluation. They should also not decrease the validity ofthe base for fixture evaluations. Carrier safety reviews should be based on the number ofcarriers that fall under the code. Judgmentmustalsobe used where datais notreadily available on all carriers. The time spent on determining this basis will provide good information for progressing toward full implementation. The number of third party providers of services to your company can serve as the basis for determining percentages ofimplementation in each stage. Customer related elements should be evaluated on the basis of the number of customers, the hazardous nature ofthe products, and/orby the company divisional or business unit programs. There are some elements, such as loading and unloading procedures, that are site specific and should be evaluated on that basis. 6. It is recognized that self-evaluation methodologies wifi vary from company to company. Because of this, flexibility has been built into the evaluation process. The basis for evaluating a company's distribution process should be established, documented and applied consistently for each annual self-evaluation exercise. 7. The six implementation stages are: Stage I Stage II Stage m Stage IV Stage V Stage VI No action Evaluating company practices against Code practices Developing action plan to implement Code practice Implementing action plan Code management practice in place Implementation reviewed and reaffirmed this year OSH 108012 R. Page 25 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018634 Member Self-E valuation Form January 15, 1991 - Page 4 Risk Management PracticesI_____________ H_____HI IV V______ yi 1.1 Regular evaluations of chemical dis tribution risks which consider the haz ards ofthe material, the likelihood of acddents/inridents and the potential far human and environmental exposure from release ofthe material over the route of transport. -- > - -------------------- -- ----------------- -- . --------------------------- 1.2 Implementation of chemical distri bution risk reduction measures that are appropriate to the risk level. 1.3 Internal reporting and investigation ofchemical distribution acddentsdnddents, and implementation of pre ventive measures. Compliance Review and Training V 2.1 A process for monitoring changes and interpretations of new and existing regulations and industry standards for their applicability to the company's chemical distribution activities, and for implementing those regulations and standards. 2.2 Training forall affected company em ployees in the properimplementation ofapplicable regulations and company requirements. 2.3 A program for providing guidance and information to carriers, distributors and contractors who perform distribution activities for the company on the company's training and compliance requirements for the activities. 2.4 Regular reviews ofcompany employee, carrier, distributor and contractor com pliance with applicable regulations and company requirements. R. P*ge 26 of 98 >SM 10Q013 HARTOLDMONO018635 Member Self-Evaluation Form January 15, 1991 -- Page 5 Carrier Safety I ________ III IV V VI 3.1 A process for qualifying carriers ofall inodes and types (common, contract, private and customer controlled) that transport chemicals to and from company facilities that emphasizes carrier safety fitness and regulatory compliance, and includes regular reviews of their performance and compliance. - 3.2 Feedback to carriers on their safety performance and suggestions for im provement. - - - - --------- --- . -- % % Handling and Storage 4.1 Documented procedures for the selec tion and use of containers that are appropriate for the chemical being shipped, in compliance with testing and certification requirements, and free of leaks and visible defects. 4.2 Documented procedures for loading chemicals at company facilities that will reduce emissions to the environ ment, protect personnel and provide securement ofthe lading duringtran sit. 4.3 DneuTngnted prneednrag fnr iinlAadiwg chemicals at company facilities that will reduce emissions to the environ ment, protect personnel, and provide for safe unloading into proper storage facilities. . 4.4 Defined criteria for the cleaning and return of tank cars, tank trucks, marine vessels, and retumable/refillable bulk and semi-bulk containers, and for the proper disposal of clean ing residues. 1.5 A program for providing guidance and information to customers, distribu tors, and other receivers on proper OSW 1080 R, Pago 27 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018636 Member Self-Evaluation Form January 15, 1991 - Page 6 Handling and Storage______ SAMPLE I II_____ HI IV V VI procedures for unloading and stor ing the company's chemicals. 4.6 A process for selecting distributors and other facilities that store or handle ... the company's chemicals in transit that emphasizes safety fitness and --.-- -- ------_ regulatory compliance, and includes regular reviews oftheir performance and compliance. -- --. . .. 4.7 Feedback to distributors and operators ofother facilities that store or handle chemicals in transit on their safety performance and suggestions for improvement. Emergency Preparedness 5.1 A process for responding to chemical distribution accidents/incidents in volving the company's chemicals. 5.2 Documented procedures for making information about the company's chemicals in distribution available to response agencies. 5.3 A program for making facilities and/ or training materials available to emergency response agencies. 5.4 Dialogue with state and local emer gency planning organizations on the distribution and hazards of the com pany's chemicals-to improve commu nity preparedness to respond to chemi cal distribution emergencies. 5.5 Dialogue with the public on their concerns about chemical distribution safety, actions taken by the industry and the company to improve the safety ofchemical distribution, and the ef fectiveness of emergency prepared ness and emergency response assis tance. R. Page 28 of 98 OSM L08015 HARTOLDMONO018637 Distribution Code of Practices Questions and Answers 1. What is the distinction between a distribution emergency and a distributiOTi accident/ incident? . Answer: An acddent/mcidentis a definite and distinct occurrence ofan undesirable event. It may involve an accident (traffic, derailment, collision, mishandling) ornearmiss, or be a result of a non-accidental container or operational failure. The undesirable effect can range from a small release of product (but major media coverage) to a major release with subsequent loss of property or personal injury. An emergency is simply an accident/incident that requires immediate action. In the context ofthe code, we distinguish between the two because we have direct control or influence over the causes ofaccidents and incidents. Many circumstances that dictate the emergency nature ofthe situation are most often outside ofour sphere ofcontrol and influence. 2. The words process, program, documented procedures and defined criteria are used throughout the code. What do they mean? Answer: A program is meantto mean an organized list ofprocesses and procedures. In developing a comprehensive distribution safety program the management practices ofResponsible Care should be included in the list ofprocesses and procedures. In a hierarchy ofterms, a program lies below a policy (a general statement of commitment or philosophy) and somewhere above a process or procedure. A program must address management needs, as expressed by policy, and contain feedback and measurement steps to determine if the needs are being met. A process is a series ofrelated activities or actions that will lead to the desired end result. In the contextofthe code we have used process when itis dear the process can take many different forms, yet still provide the desired results. Documented procedures are specific instructions or steps required to complete a task successfully. They may be written procedures or videotaped procedures, for example, that are to be explicitlyfollowed and are notleft open to interpretation. They are the most detailed step in the heirarchy, below policies, programs and processes. Defined criteria are the ground rules around which a process or a procedure must be developed. In the code, the term is used to provide criteria to a third party that would enable that party to develop a process or procedure to lead to the desired end. OSk 1080X6 R. Page 29 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018638 Questions and Answers January IS, 1991 - Page 2 3. Reference is made in the code to adherence to industry standards. What is meant by this0 Answer: The term industry standards, means those agreements, developed and complied with voluntarily, by a wide range ofco-producers, interindustry groups and trade associations. Many of these agreements, in time, result in regulations or rulemaking procedures. It may also apply to a company's own internal standards of operation or practice. 4. The term, regular reviews, is used when referring to carrier safety performance, contractor and distributor performance and regulatory compliance. What is meantbv the~ term, regular review? Answer: Regular reviews is a term used to measure ortestwhetherour expectations are being met. They are crucial formanagingthe whole distribution safety process. Byregular, we allow room for periodic or random reviews and allow the company to determine its own frequency ofreview foreach element ofthe code, where itis appropriate. Reviews can take many forms, ranging from on-site and detailed audits, to presentations ofprogress with charts and graphs. This also allows incorporation of many of the safely performance reviews into quality and service review initiatives. 5. The code refers to cleaning and return ofretumable/refiQable containers. What is meant by retumable/refillable? Answer: Returnable containers are those containers specifically designed for return to the company for reuse without reconditioning or reworking the container. Generally,, this typically only applies to containers of 55 gallons and above. The EPA is developing regulations regarding refillable containers that would drop below 55 gallons. Tank trucks, tank cars and marine vessels may or may not normally return to the company. Often, they are cleaned and placed back in general service. All ofthe containers listed above are examples ofretumable/refillable containers. For the purpose of the Distribution Code we must define criteria aimed at developing proper cleaning and residue disposal of these containers. Non-refillable, non-returnable containers are not covered under this code. 6. What is meant by regular evaluations of chemical distribution risks? Answer: How often distribution risk studies should be conducted will depend significantly on the chemical involved and the dynamics of the distribution. Evaluations should be regular in the sense they become a normal and routine part of distribution activities and are conducted often enough to respond to technology changes and operating experience. Page 30 of 98 DSW 108016.01 HARTOLDMON0018639 Questions and Answers January 15, 1991 - Page 3 . 7. Tpuheblicco.dWerehqautidreoswdeiamloegaunebwyitdhiaslotagtueea?nd local planning organizations and the g5en*e:r*a*l Answer: _. Dialogue is simply two-way conversation. It implies that both parties listen and respond to each other in a constructive way. With state and local planning organizations, the dialogue will naturally focus on the more technical and factual aspects of chemical distribution, -r * M nl nn AMnl A f M ^ B^ for both parties. SW 108017 R. Page 31 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018640 R. Page 32 of 98 OSW 108016 HARTOLDMONO018641 April 6. Id AmcntfH ScprrmPcr *. |Ml Responsible Care:. A Public Commitment POLLUTION PREVENTION CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Purpose. This Code is designed to achieve ongoing reductions in the amount or all contaminants and pollutants released to the air, water, and land from member company facilities. These reductions are intended to respond to public concerns with the existence of such releases, and to further increase the margin of safety for public health and the environment. The Code is also designed to achieve ongoing reductions in the amount of wastes generated at facilities. These reductions are intended to heip relieve the burden on industry and society of managing such wastes in future years. In implementing the Code, each company should strive for annual reductions, recognizing that production rates, new operations, and other factors may result in increases. Despite these fluctuations, however, the goal is to establish a long-term, substantial downward trend in the amount of wastes generated and contaminants and pollutants released. Quantitative reduction goals will be established for giving priority to those pollutants, contaminants and wastes of highest health and environmental concern. Tit is code also includes practices that address the broader waste management issues beyond source reduction and other waste and release reduction efforts. Each member company must manage remaining wastes and releases in a manner that protects the environment ana the health and safety of employees and the public. This Code complements, and should be implemented in conjunction with current and future Codes of Management Practices. Key terms arc defined in the Glossary, which should be consulted for assistance in interpreting the provisions of this Code. 05w 14801.9 R. P*ge 33 of 98 HARTOLDMON0018642 Pollution Prevention Code . Peg# 2 Relationship to Guiding Principles Implementation of this Code helps achieve the following Guiding ---- ------------ Principles;-- .... --------------------------------.......----------- ---- o To recognize and respond to community concerns about chemicals and our operations; o To develop and produce chemicals that can be manufactured, transported, used and disposed of safely. o To make health, safety, and environmental considerations a priority in our planning for all existing and new products and processes; o To report promptly to officials, employees, customers and the public, information on chemical*related health or environmental hazards and to recommend protective measures. o To operate our plants and facilities in a manner that protects the environment and the health and safety of our employees and the public; o To extend knowledge by conducting or supporting research on the health, safety, and environmental effects of our products, processes, and waste materials. o To promote the principles and practices of Responsible Care by sharing experiences and offering assistance to others who produce, handle, use, transport, or dispose of chemicals. o To work with others to resolve problems created by past handling and disposal of hazardous substances. o To participate with government and others in creating responsible laws, regulations and standards to safeguard the community, workplace and environment o To promote the principles and practices of Responsible Care by sharing experiences and offering assistance to others who produce, handle, use, transport or dispose of chemicals. R. Page 34 of 98 OSU 108020 HARTOLDMONO018643 Pollution Prevention Code Pag* 3 Management Practices. Each member company shall haw a pollution prevention program which shall include: f. A clear commitment by senior management through policy, communications, and resource, to ongoing feduarons at-----each of the company's facilities, in releases to the air, water, and land and in the generation of wastes. 2. A quantitative inventory at each facility of waste generated and releases to the air, water, and land, measured or estimated at the point of generation or release. 3. Evaluation, sufficient to assist in establishing reduction priorities, of the potential impact of releases on the environment and the health and safety of employees and the public. " 4. Education of, and dialogue with, employees and members of the public about the inventory, impact evaluation, and risks to the community. 5. Establishment of priorities, goals and plans for waste and release reduction, taking into account both community concerns and the potential health, safety, and environmental impacts as determined under Practices 3 and 4. 6. Ongoing reduction of wastes and releases, giving preference first to source reduction, second to rccydc/rcusc. and third to treatment. These techniques may be used separately or in combination with one another. 7. Measurement of progress at each facility in reducing the generation of wastes and in reducing releases to the air, water, and land, by updating the quantitative inventory at least annually. R. Ongoing dialogue with employees and members of the public regarding waste and release information, progress in achieving reductions, and future plans. This dialogue * should be at a personal, face-to-facc level, where possible, and should emphasize listening to others and discussing their concerns and ideas. 9. Inclusion of waste and release prevention objectives in research and in design of new or modified facilities, processes, and products. OSW 108021 R. Page 35 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018644 Pollution Prevention Code Pege 4 10. An ongoing program for promotion and support of waste and release reduction by others, which may, for example, include: * a.----- Sharing of technical information and experience with --------------- customers and suppliers; b. Support of efforts to develop improved waste and release reduction techniques; c. Assisting in establishment of regional air monitoring networks; d. Participation in efforts to develop consensus approaches to the evaluation of environmental, health, and safety impacts of releases; c.- Providing educational workshops and training materials; f. Assisting local governments and others in establishment of waste reduction programs benefitting the general public. 11. Periodic evaluation of waste management practices associated with operations and equipment at each member company facility, taking into account community concerns and health, safety, and environmental impacts and implementation of ongoing improvements. 12. Implementation of a process for selecting, retaining, and reviewing contractors and toll manufacturers taking into account sound waste management practices that protect the environment and the health and safety of employees and the public. 13. Implementation, of engineering and operating controls at each member company facility to improve prevention of and early detection of releases that may contaminate groundwater. 14. Implementation of an ongoing program for addressing past operating and waste management practices and for working with others to resolve identified problems at each active or inactive facility owned by a member company taking into account community concerns and health, safety, and environmental impacts. R. Page 3 of 98 OSM 108022 HARTOLDMONO018645 Pollution Prevention Code . Pege S Industry Trend Data To develop and maintain statistical industry trends. CMA will collect currently available data. Each company shall report annually to CMA. or its designated agent, for each facility; o Releases of substances as reported under SARA Section 313; ana o Wastes generated, as defined and reported in CMA's annual waste survey. Member Self-Evaluation. Each member company shall report annually to CMA, or its designated agent, the stage of implementation of each management practice in this Code. The reports shall be on the member self-evaluation form attached as Attachment A. osw U>8023 R, Page 37 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018646 Pollution Provonttort Cod Pago 6 Glossary of Terms As used in this Code, key terms arc defined as set forth below. Note that these definitions may be broader than regulatory definitions, and that adherence to this Code does not relieve a company of the obligation to meet Federal, state and local regulatory requirements. Facility - A site used for chemical manufacturing, processing, refining, packaging, R&D, distribution or related commercial activity. Recycle A practice which regenerates or processes a material from a process to recover a useable product or material for reuse. Release - Any emission, cfTluent. spill, discharge or disposal to the air. land, or water, of any pollutant or contaminant whether routine or accidental, at or from a facility. The term does not include shipment or distribution of chemical product nor release to the environment as part of normal and intended use of a product by the consumer. Reuse - A practice that rccmplovs a material from a process cither as an ingredient in a process to make a product, or as an effective substitute for a commercial product in a particular function or application. Source Reduction A practice that reduces the amount of any release or waste generated at the source, including closed loop recycle and reuse before exit from a process. The term includes, among other practices, equipment and technology modifications, process and procedures modifications, reformulation and redesign of products, substitution of raw materials, and improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training and inventory control. Treatment - A practice, other than recycle or reuse, that alters the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics or the volume of a waste through a process or activity separate from the production of a commercial product or the provision of a service. Waste Any gas, liquid, nr solid residual material at a facility, whether hazardous or non hazardous, that is not used further in the production of a commercial product or provision of a service and which itself is not a commercial product. R. Page 38 of 98 OSW 108024 HARTOLDMONO018647 POLLUTION PREVENTION CODE REPORT 1: MEMBER SELF-EVALUATION FORM FOR THE 1991 REPORTING YEAR Instructions for the Company Responsible Care* Coordinator. 1. This form is to be submitted annually to CMA by each member company. This year the due date is XXX 31. 1992. Please submit directly to: 2. Indicate on page 1 the number of your member company's facilities that are subject to the Code. company's Responsible Care* Coordinator must report the implementation stage for aS facilities subject to the Pollution Prevention Code on this form. 3. The Self Evaluation form for the 1991 reporting year covers fourteen management practices. DO NOT COMPLETE THIS FORM. [CMAwlIlsend the SelfEvaluation Formforthe 1991 reportingyear m April/May 1992.] 4. For Management Practices 1-11 and 13 on the following pages, indicate the number of facilities that have attained each implementation category. Identify the current implementation category for each of your facilities at the tiTM you complete the form. Formanagementpractices 12 & 14. indicate the company-wide reporting using a percentage (following instructions an page 5). 5. For the Industry Trend Data, show the total number offacilities tn each appropriate bcoc. The total number of facilities for each type of Trend Data should equal the total number of facilities subject to the Code. 6. Only subject facilities owned or operated as of the reporting date should be included. 7. The implementation categories are: Category NA - No action. Ifno actiontakenbecause themanagement practice isnot applicable, please caplam. Category EV - Evaluating existing company practices against the Management Practice. Category DP Developing plan to Implement Management Practice. Category 1A - Implementing ftetlryn plan Category PP - Management Practice m place. Category RI - Reassessing Management Practice implementation. 8. Ifany facilities are shown in Category NA. please add anypertinent ronarks to the space marked "comments.* 10802S R. Pgge 39 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018648 POLLUTION PREVENTION CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES REPORT 1: MEMBER SELF-EVALUATION FORM FOR THE 1991 REPORTING TEAR l Member Company Name:___________________ L_ Responsible Care* Coordinator Name:__ Address; Telephone: l ) Number of facilities subject to the Pollution Prevention Code R. Page 40 of 98 DSW 108026 HARTOLDMONO018649 POLLUTION PREVENTION CODE Industry Trend Date Report annually to CMA or Its designated agent, the number of facilities far which annual report to CMA has or has not been submitted: ' Aaaaal Report Sobmittad* T-l. Release of substances as re ported under SARASection313: and T-2 Wastes generated, as defined and reported in CMA's annual waste survey. Form R j Form 1 _HR_ 1 1 Aaaaal Report Hot Submitted* Total Faculties `Enter the number of facilities. NOTES: 1. CMA expects to receive release data only from those facilities that are required to complete the Form R following the requirements in the Supexfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Section 313 and EPA's clarifying regulations and instructions. 2. Instruction: Under Form R. enter the number of facilities that are submitting TR1 data to CMA. Line T-l: These facilities should submit the same data as ERA requires. The 313 Form R release data are due to ERA on Jufy 1.1992 and to CMA on Jufy 31.1992. Under Form NR. enter the number of facilities that are not subject to the EPA reporting requirements. These facilities should complete Form NR Companies, not required to report 313 release data to EPA. may volunteer to send release data to CMA. These facilities are not required to submit TR1 release data to CMA as an obligation of membership. line T-2: The 1991 Reportlngyearls the first year thatfacilities must complete CMA't annual Waste Survey as an obligation of membership under the Pollution Prevention Code. os* IjOS 027 R. Page 41 of 91 HART OLDMONO018650 Mmtfeaent Practice* POLLUTION PREVENTION CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES % Catcgflria ^ . % XA XV DP IA PF R 1. A clear commitment by aenlar management through policy, communications. and resources, to ongoing reductions, at each of the company's facilities. In releases to the air. water, and land and in the generation of wastes. 2. A quantitative Inventory at each facility ofwastes generated and releases to the air. water and land, measured or estimated at the point of generation or release. Comments on Category NA: 3. Evaluation, sufficient to assist in establishing reduction priorities, of the potential impact of releases on the environ ment and the health and safely ofemployees and the public. Comments on Category NA: 4. Education of. and dialogue with, employees and members of the public about the inventory, impact evaluation, risks to the community. Commmts on Catecorv NA: ( cm7 m CmnyW CiffwyPf CU|7U Catff7 FP Ctfit Ml R, Page 42 of 98 IbMta. If st rrta % lirnu Hi niffi |iiirtii l< m Bnlulli| atfatlaf iiapujrynctfcM i|ilut Ui P*-fr|--------* fnudM. D**il*Fia| ptia U tmpli--t Mwjuwi PicU-- loptiMUai actlra pin Kutimai Fnctlci d yk-- Mntn( Kuifcaat Prmctlc* taphMUte OSH jImm nr1*1* 108026 HARTOLDMONO018651 Categoric*^ NA EV OP 2A 5. Establishment of priorities, goals and plans Car waste and release reduction, taking into account both community concerns and the potential health, safety, and environmental ftnpan as determined under Practices 3 and 4. Comments on Category NA:. Rl 6. Ongoing reduction ofwastes and releases, giving preference first to source reduction, second to recycle/reuse, and third to treatment. These techniques may be used separately orIn combination with one another. Comments on Category NA:, 7. Measurement of progress at each facility In reducing the generation of wastes and In reducing releases to the ahr. water, and land, by updating the quantitative inventory at least annually. Comments on Category NA: 8. Ongoing dialogue with employees and mrxrbcn cf the pubhc regarding waste and release information, picgrua in achieving reductionsand futureplans. Thftdialogueshouldbeatapcracnal fece-to-foce level, where possible, and should emphastee bstentqg to others and discussing their concerns and idem. Comments on Category NA:, C(uaiUtffowyyXrvA Ctlt|r7 OP XA Ctt|7 pp C4U|ory U Reactlm. gMMflw USiSCOTm t> t -- tosfpfaeaMe.pl---- --ptol*. Evthutlaf TUM114 Mpur yncdcM if(teat the t*ini[iMrt fieiltoa. ylaa u InfUaat Piutlx, lapl<aatti| iIn pies HeM(aat Pnctle* S pim*. Km--lng Hai|wwit ftittUt tapiwuriM SW 108X329 R. Page 43 of 98 HARTOLDMON0018652 Categories NA EV DP IA PP 9. Inclusion of waste and release prevention objectives in research, and in design of new or modified facilities, pro cesses. and products. Comments on Category NA: Ri 10. An ongoing program far promotion and support ofwaste and release reduction by others, whichmay. far example, include: a. Sharing of technical information and experience with customers and suppliers; ** b. Support ofefforts to develop Improved waste andrelease reducuon techniques; c. Assisting in establishment of regional air monitoring networks. d. Participation in efforts to develop consensusapproaches to the evaluation for environmental, health, and safety impacts of releases; e. Providing educational workshops and trainingmaterials: Assisting local governments and others in establishment cf waste reduction programs bendh&ng the general public. Comments on Category NA: t 11. Periodic evaluation of waste management practices associ ated with operations and equipment at each member com pany facility, taking into account community concerns and health, safety, and environmental impacts and implementstion of ongoing improvements. Comments on Category NA: Catagarjr KA Cilnwygr C*U|7 DT Catagary IA Catagwy Ctt|oi7 B1 Ha acttea. V u acttaa Wwi Iki wsqiMl ynctlM la mat agpgaaUa. piaaaa aiylah ---'---------1--f 1----*-------il-t t*m-|--------------------* 1 Daralaftag fUm ta f - -- - bmplameattig acttea glca Mi|tatat Practlca ta ylaaa. aaaa1na Kuu|MMt hutlM1 . *^ . ., __ OS W 108030 Page 44 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018653 12. See Instructions below. Categories NA EV DP LA PP RI 13. Implementation of engineering and operating controls at each member company facility to Improve prevention and early ---- turn "f that may ------ ...... - % - - - Instruction* for Practice 12. Contractor Review. and 14. PMtJlfg CMA r^gnlt** that companies may Implement Practices 12 and 14 on a compary-wideoreven corpormaon-wtde basis rsthathan on a facility baste. Therefore. CMAasks companies to complete the Self-EvaluationForm using percentages that represent company-wide implementation lor these two practices. In adding up the total percentages aosu all ofthe she categories, the numbermust equal 100%. Also, please use onlywhole numbers. Forthese two management practices the number oflacllltiea uteri to calculate the percentage may exceed the number offutilities shown on page 1. Companies may use ary appropriate method to raki llatr these percentages. One caudcq mmpanlm wfll want to carefully consider tow this calculation Is performed and use It on a yearfy baste ao that the data fins year to year can be compared meantngfuDy. Categories KA EV DP IA PP 12. lmp]ementaUanafaprocesslbrse]eeting.xetannandreviewiQg contractors and toll manufacturers taking into account sound waste managgnent practices that protect the euvlimimenl andthe health and safety of employees and the public. Comments on Category NA: RI 14. bnpkroentauancfanangatngpmpanilaraddrcsslngpBstopent> tng and waste management practices and for workingwtth others to resolve identified probtans at each active or Inactive fiacQt^ owned by a member company, taking no account asumunfly concerns and health, safdy. and mvimnmrntal impacts. Comments on Category NA- ,_ CstsT7 XA C4ti|7 rv Catfry BP Cotfry U Category IP Cifty Ml Us actios. V a* actios uka boom* tka susagemaat practice la sat appMccbla, plaaaa septets. Enhutfai Caspar practice* ftaut tka Masfmast Praetlaa. Dcoctepiag plu t* IsplMcal tbi4|iacat Kuttea. Isflasadai Ktin ptea Hiu|<saat Practice Is place. laaamilnf Man|maai rurrln Innilawratlas DSW 108031 R. Page 45 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018654 Pollution Prevention Cod* Page 7 ATTACHMENT C WASTE AND RELEASE REDUCTION CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES QUESTIONS ANO ANSWERS 1. I this s voluntary or mandatory policy? Answer: Th* Vsst* sad Release Reduction Cod* of Management Practices has b*a developed under CMA's Rospoosibl* Car* program. Adherence to tb* Responsible Cat* guiding principles is aa obligation of a*ab*rship la Q1A. 2. Mast th* Maaag*s*at Practices b* coopl*t*d ia th* specific order listed? Answer: The Maaageaeat Practices are laid oat is a logically sequential patters to coaplet* a reduction project. Tb* sequence should be generally adhered to although slight r**arraag*a*at under specific circuastaaces say be warranted. 3. Sine* th* seope of this policy covers all haxardous and non*hazardous wastes and releases, doesn't the Code require too such too fast or dilute the focus iron hazardous pollutants? Answer: The public is not seeing or asking a distinction between hazardous and non-hazardous releases and wastes. Public opinion research shows that the public wants releases lowered and performance improved. This research indicates that the public is concerned about both chealeals and trash generated by Industry. The definition of "hazardous" is not uniform throughout the United States, since many states have their own definitions that are sore restrictive than the federal XPA's. Furthermore, these definitions of "hazardous" keep changing over tine. Each'company is starting froa differing points. Each company must identify its own reduction opportunities, identify th* concerns of its own public, determine the reduction priorities and goals, and develop and implement its own reduction plan. The goal of this Code is continued performance improvement by a long term comaitaent to the reduction of wastes and releases. R. Page 46 of 98 DSW 108032 HARTOLDMONO018655 Pollution Prevention Code Page 8 4. Why does this Code appear to endorse redactions for redactions sake? Vhy should wastes and releases be reduced below health-based standards? Vhy should wastes and releases be reduced below levels allowed by statute, regulation, or permit? Answer r The public does not endorse the concept of "permitted" generation of wastes or releases to the eavixonaent. The public desires in increased nargin of safety and enrironaantal protection as a goal. If the policy is to address the concerns of the public, it nost require sustained reductions. 5. Is this Code a .never-ending spiral of reduction? Answer: The poliey is flexible so that each coatpany can assess the viability of further reductions. Certainly, reductions will be sustained under the Code as long as they are technically and econoaieally viable. To the extent reduction options reaain viable, the goal is to establish a long-tern, substantial downward trend in wastes generated and releases to the eavlronaent. 6. Will this Cede cause aeaber to accoeplish substantive reduction? Answer: To achieve the goal of earning the public's trust through laproved performance, real reductions nust occur. Therefore, this Code has aeasurable iaplannotation stages and Industry treads data subaissloa requlreaenta. 7. Does this Code apply to both large and snail coepanies and facilities? 2s there a threshold below which this Code does not apply? Answer: The Code applies to all aeabers of CHA. Even a snail coepany or facility can generate wastes and releases to the eavlronaent. There is no threshold for voluae of wastes generated, releases to the ^avireoaent, or sire of facility below which this Code does not apply. Each coepeay/faelllty will establish its own priorities. The Code envisions progress by all of Industry in reducing wastes and releases. 8. Does this Code apply to doaestlc or world-wide operations? Answer: The principles behind the Code are universal in concept. The reduction of wastes and releases is good business and good eltlxeaship. However, for purposes of CHA eligibility requireaeats, the Code applies to that portion of a corporation or eoapaay that is used to determine CHA dues. DSW 108033 R. Page 47 at 98 HARTOLDMONO018656 Pollution Prevention Code Pag* 9 9. What-about aulti-dlvlsional companies? Does tbla Coda apply to mining operations? Service stations? Warehouses? Aaawara: Adherence to tba Coda of Management Practices la a Guiding Principle of tba Xaaponslbla Cara prograa. Tba Responsible Care prograa la a aaabarabip requirement for tboaa portloaa of a coapaaj that determine tba CMA duaa atroctura. Tha .. principleof reducing vested and releases is responsible corporate behavior and should be encouraged throughout an organisation. ~ The Watte and Release Reduction Code of Hanageaent Practice Is designed for flexible lapleaentatlon bj coapanles and facilities. Each coapanj/facility aust determine the reduction opportunities, priorities, baseline, and lapleaant the reduction plan in accordance with these company/facility-derived goals. Inherent In this Code is the need to communicate with the public when deteralning reduction opportunities and priorities. Therefore, while the scope of this policy is broad, each company aust identify the sources that are included la Its lapleaentatlon activities as well as the priority and timing for these reduction activities. 10. If all of the ehealeal Industry Is to be affected, how do ve ensure fair and equitable reductionsf How do we prevent competitive disadvantages aaong CHA aember companies? Answer: The Waste and Release Reduction Code is predicated on aaklag reductions that are economically and technically sound. The Code does not envision enforcing competitive disadvantages on weaker companies by usurping their decision-making processes. Each company oust evaluate Its own reduction opportunities and develop its own reduction plan to neet company/facility priorities. 11. If all of the ehealeal industry is to be affected, how do we ensure fair and equitable reductions? low do ve prevent competitive disadvantages with other industry sagaents? Answer: This Code will actually sake our Industry more competitive than those that do not embrace its concepts. Waste and release reductions will result in less wastes, improved efficiency, and make the industry a superior competitor. 12. Is this a non-growth Code? How can this Code be reconciled with the need for expansions? How are opportunities for emission offsets (needed for sir permitting) to be preserved? Answer: This Code envisions a long-tern, substantial downward trand in total releases to the environment and waste generation. However, the aethod of achieving reductions is left to the needs and priority deterainatlons of the individual nenber coapanles. R. Page 48 of 98 OSW 108034 HARTOLDMONO018657 Pollution Prevention Code Pag* 10 The poller la not a no-growth policy; rather. It la a policy of balancing future expansIona with future waste and release reductions. Voluntary waste and release reductions nay be eligible to be banked with appropriate governaental agendas. Any plan for waste and release reductlana oust also plan to aeeonsodate expansions. Public perceptions say ultinately require a waste and release reduction type progran Just as a condition to be able to construct or expand. Several states already have proposed such regulations. 13. Won't this Code have enormous economic consequences? Answer: Waste and release reductions may or may not have a huge price tag. Some reduction projects, like fugitive emission abatenant, tend to pay for theaselves In recovered product(s); other projects may increase the priee of doing business. Industry must be willing to invest in plants that will lead to a future with less wastes and fewer releases to the environnent. The goal of Responsible Care is that the chemical industry will improve the performance of its operations constantly. In making reduction progress, each company must look at all the reduction opportunities and set their own priorities. Each company can set the scope of these priorities broadly or narrowly and implement actions at their own pace. Each company oust identify its own reduction priorities and implement a reduction plan to meet company/facility-set goals. 14. Does the hierarchy of reduction methodologies mean that all projects must use source reduction unless it is teehnieslly infeasible? Answer: Kaeh waste and release source must be evaluated for its reduction potential. The hierarchy requires that reduction projects for source reduction be evaluated before reeycle/reuse or treatment, lowever, the project to be implemented will depend on the evaluation. Technical lnfeaslblllty is only one of several facility and/or waste specific criteria that can lead to selection of a reduction project involving reeycle/reuse or treatment. When developing their reduction priorities, companies nay choose to consider other criteria including risk/benefit mechanisms, public concern, sise of the facility, economics, and other factors such as conservation of resources. OSW L08035 R, Page 49 of 98 HARTOLDMON0018658 Pollution Prevention Code Pige 11 15. This Code, as veil as other eodes under the Responsible Cere prograe, require ongoing dialogues with employees and eeabers of the public. Does each such Manageaeat Practices require a separate aeetlngT .. Answer: Mo. Meetings with employees or the public can have aultlple agenda lteas. If several Hanageaent Practices lteas are to be covered In a tingle nesting, all that is required la that the agenda and presentation clearly address eaeh topic, rather than have a general "discussion of topics." Under the Responsible Care Prograa, the process to eoaauaicate with the public and eaployees Is established under the Coaaunity Awareness and Eaergeney Response (CAER) Code of Manageaeat Practice. Coapanles are encouraged to use the aechanlsas set up under other codes to enhance effective lapleaentatlon of the Responsible Care Prograa and to better use and conserve eoapany resources. 16. Is dialogue with the public required for all facilities? Answer: Meaningful dialogue Is essential to better understanding public concern, laprevlng tbs public's understanding of our operations, and building trust. Soae facilities, due to site and location, aay have Halted opportunity for such dialogue. Where the opportunity for dialogue exists, even on a Halted basis. It should be actively pursued Individually or* Jointly with other neighboring eoapanles/faellltles. 17. Should Individual coapanles and/or facilities subait to CMA the rationale behind the annual Industry Tread data subaisaioas? Answer: Mo. The data subaitted for the Industry Tread Data reports aeed not have supporting docuaentatloa subaitted to CMA. However, when discussing these data with the local public, it is assuaed that general aetbods aad assumptions will be discussed as part of the public education and dialogue process. IS. When eoapletlng the Self-Evaluation Fora, anst every facility atteapt to progress through all the lapleaentatloa stages, or can soae facilities "nature" their progress in code lapleaeatation at less than full lapleaentatloa? Answer: All participating facilities should work to achieve full lapleaentatloa of eaeh Code and eabraee the concepts of this Code In the spirit of the Responsible Care Guiding Principles. Depending on the sine of partieuler facility or the activities carried on by that facility, a eoapany nay decide that different lspleaentatlon aethods are appropriate. For exaaple, a large facility aay use formal procedures such as written policies and R. Page SO of 98 OSW 108036 HARTOLDMONO018659 Pollution Prevention Cod* Pag* 12 manuals and conduct formal facility can accomplish tha atbods. employ** tings. Vbermas, a aaaa implementation using las saallar formal SU 108037 R. P*ge 5 J of 98 HARTOLDMONO018660 Pollution Prevention Cod* Page 13 Attaehaant B QUESTION AND ANSVERS FOR PRACTICES 11-14 These questions address lssuu is the four practleu addad to tb Pollution Pravantion Coda of Manageaeat Praetleu. Aa coapasiaa laplaaast Praetleu 1-10, thaj should exaaine tbalx iaplaaantatlon aetloas aad aodifj thaa to iaeluda waste nanageaent. QUESTIONS: IN PRACTICE 11, WHAT ARE THE WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ASSOCIATED WITH ALL OPERATIONS AND EQUIPMENT? Tbs Coda aoTisioas eoapaalu reviewing all waste aiaageaent praetleu at aaeb stap of the oparatloa(s) where wastu ara generated or ralaasad within aaeb facility. This review is within tha operating proeassaa not just at tha "and of tha pipe." WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY A CONTRACTOR AND TOLL MANUFACTURER? Contraetors ara any entity a aeaber coapany uses to handle Its secondary aatarlals and wastes. This lneludu, for axaaple, wasta traataant faeilitiu, disposal faellltlu, tank elaanars, reelaiaers, recyclers, and tha Ilka. "Contractors" dou not include publicly owned traataant works. Responsible CareO covers toll aanufacturars' operations undu two Codas. This coda covers tha wastes generated by relevant operations of toll aanufacturars. For tha purpose of this coda, toll aanufacturars ara independent partlu who: parfora a aaaufacturlag stap for a aeaber coapany in which the aeaber coapany owns the work In procus; use tha aeaber coapany's feed stock; and generate wasta fxoa tha aanufaeturing stap. R. Pape 52 of 98 OSH 108038 HARTOLDMONO018661 TO! lUtoigii ri citu*iwit wuut Page 14 WHAT DOES "IMPLEMENTATION OF A PROCESS. . .. MEAN? Th* requirement for th* "Implementation of a process. . i designed to encourage aeaber companies to do business with those contractor* and toll aanafactnrara that, aftar raaaoaabla inquiry, in believed to engage In sound waste management praetleaa. Aa part of th* contracting procedure, aeaber coapanlea should consider including language requiring the contractor to us* proper health, aafaty, and environmental practices and stating that the aeaber coapany has a right to inspect for that purpose. HOW DO YOU REVIEW THAT A CONTRACTOR OR TOLL MANUFACTURER USES SOUNO WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES? A process for "reviewing" includes reasonable reviews of th* relevant practices of contractors and toll nanufaeturers. Because of the variety of.coaaerclal relationships and circuastances, aeaber coapanlea are to exercise their own judgeaent as to how to conduct "reviews" and precisely what to do with the information obtained. CHA asabers are not expeeted to control the operations of their contractors and toll nanufaeturers. CHA aeaber eoapanies should consider performing a sit* visit and visual inspection of waste aanageaent practices by a coapany representative. The aeaber coapany aay determine that a more rigorous inspection is appropriate based on initial findings. HOW OFTEN SHOULD YOU REVIEW CONTRACTORS AND TOLL MANUFACTURERS? A review or evaluation should be done on some repeat basis. Coapanlea should determine the tlalng by an evaluation of the results of previous reviews, potential impacts, potential liability, etc. WHAT DO WE KEAN BY "IMPROVE THE PREVENTION OF RELEASES TO GROUNDWATER?" The goal is to prevent releases to the ground and to protect existing groundwater quality. While it is envisioned that a company will have an S?CC (Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures) plan for certain materials, companies should review the chemleals at the facility and extend the SPCC concepts to other materials. To improve efforts to prevent releases, member companies should review the chemicals and operations at a facility; develop plans to prevent, detect, and contain releases or potential releases; and implement thesa plans to protect groundwater from contamination. 0Sw IOQ03S R. Page 53 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018662 Pollution Prevention Code PaC* 15 IN PRACTICE 14 WHAT IS MEANT BY IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ONGOING PROGRAM TO RESOLVE IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS? "Implementation of an ongoing program..." aeans developing processes for evaluating the health, safety, and envlrcoaental lapacts of identified problems arising froa peat operating and waste aanageaeat practices and for setting priorities for addressing those probleas. The Code recognizes that not ovary identified problea poses adverse iapaets. Resolving identified probleas should consider factors such as, regulatory, technical, and eeonoaic considerations. WHAT IS MEANT BY "PAST OPERATING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES?" Past operating practices and waste aanageaent practices that companies should consider nay include operating practices such as: manufacturing operations, loading and unloading areas, storage, areas of spill contalaaaat, and recycling and reuse processes; and waste aanageaent practices such as: surface iapouadaants, waste treataent, land disposal, land treataent and faraing, and deepwell injection. WHAT IS MEANT BY "WORKING WITH OTHERS TO RESOLVE IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS?" Each aeaber company's program should include a process to cooperate, to the extent appropriate, with governaental agencies, past owners, operators, insurance carriers, the coaaunlty, and ethers to resolve the potential health, safety, and environaental iapaets, and coaaunlty concerns associated with identified probleas. WHICH MEMBER COMPANY FACILITIES, ACTIVE OR INACTIVE, ARE INCLUDED IN PRACTICE 14? This practice applies to facilities currently owned by a aeaber coapaay. This includes properties that are still owned, but no longer have ongoing operations. Inactive sites that are not owned by a aeaber coapaay, but where the company has potential involveaeat, should be addressed to the extent the aeaber coapaay deteralaes feasible. R. Page 54 of 98 osw *08(H0 HARTOLDMONO018663 Pollution Prevention Code Page 16 WHAT IS MEANT BY "TAKING INTO ACCOUNT COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND HEALTH, SAFETY. AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS?" When CHA aubtr coepanies iapleaent the employee and public outreaeh of the Code (Practices 4 and 8), companies should present inforaation about their currant and past vasts nanaxeaent practices with the goal of identifjinx the coaaunltj concerns. Coapanies should consider this input when developing plans and setting priorities for vasts aanageaent and raaediatlon activities. DSW 1O8041 R. Page 55 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018664 R. Page 56 of 98 osw 108042 HARTOLDMONO018665 Responsible Care: A Public Commitment PROCESS SAFETY CODE pF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Hie Process Safety Code is designed to prevent fires, explosions and accidental chemical releases. The Code is comprised of a series of management practices that reflect this goal, with the expectation of continuous performance improvement for each management practice. The practices are based on the principle that facilities will be safe if they are designed according to sound engineering practices, built, operated and maintained properly and periodically reviewed for conformance. Process safety is an interdisciplinary effort. Consequently, the Code is divided into the following four elements: management leadership, technology, facilities and personnel. Each element is composed of Management Practices. Individually, each Practice describes an activity or approach important to preventing fires, explosions and accidental chemical releases. Collectively, the Practices eneompass process safety from the design stage through operation, maintenance and training. The scope of this Code includes manufacturing, processing, handling and on-site storage ofchemicals. This Code must be implemented with full recognition of the community's interest, expectations and participation in achieving safe operations. The process safety management program in each facility is complemented by workplace health and safety programs, as well as waste and release reduction programs which address and minimize releases and waste generation. These three programs, and others, will help secure that CMA member facilities are operated in a manner that protects the environment and the health and safety of personnel and the public. Relationship to Guiding Principles The Code helps achieve several of the Responsible Care Guiding Principles: To recognize and respond to community concerns about chemicals and our operations, To make health, safety and environmental considerations a priority in our planning for all existing and new plents and processes. To operate our plants and processes in a manner that protects the environment and the health and safety of our employees and the public. OSW 108043 R. Page 57 of 8 HARTOLDMONO018666 Process Safety Code of Management Practices September 11. 1990 -- Page 2 Management Practices Each member company shall have an ongoing process safety program that includes: Management Leadership . 1. Leadership by senior management through policy, participation, communications and resource commit' menu in achieving continuous improvement of performance. .i 2. Clear accountability for performance against specific goals for continuous improvement. 3. Measurement of performance, audita for compliance and implementation of corrective actions. 4. Investigation, reporting, appropriate corrective action and follow-up ofeach incident that results or could have resulted in a fire, explosion or accidental chemical release. 5. Sharing ofrelevant safety knowledge and letsons learned from such incidents with industry, government and the community. 6. Use of the Community Awareness and Emergency Response (CAER) process to assure public comments and concerns are considered in design and implementation of the fadhty'i process safety systems. Technology 7. Current, complete documentation ofprocess design and operating parameters and procedures. 8. Current, complete documentation of information relating to the hazards of materials and process technology. 9. Periodic assessment and documentation of process hazards, and implementation of actions to minimize risks associated with chemical operations, including the possibility ofhuman error. 10. Managementofchanges to chemical operations to maintain or enhance the safety originally designed into the facility. Facilities 11. Consideration andmitigation ofthe potential safety effects ofexpansions, modifications and new sites on the community, environment, and employees. 12. Facility design, construction and maintenance using sound engineering practices consistent with recognized codes and standards. 13. Safety reviews on all new and modified facilities during design and prior to start-up. 14. Documented maintenance and inspection programs that ensure facility integrity. Page 58 of 98 DSW 108044 HARTOLDMON0018667 Process Safety Code of Management Practices September 11. 1990 -- Page 3 _ 15. Sufficient layers of protection through technology, facilities and employees to prevent escalation from a single failure to a catastrophic event. 16. Provision for control ofprocesses and equipment during emergencies resultingfrom natural events, utility disruptions and other external conditions. Personnel 17. Identification of the skills and knowledge necessary to perform each job. 18. Establishment of procedures and work practices for safe operating and maintenance activities. 19. Training for all employees to reach and maintain proficiency in safe work practices and the skills and knowledge necessary to perform theirjob. 20. Demonstrations and documentation of skill proficiency prior to assignment to independent work, and periodically thereafter. 21. Programs designed to assure that employees in safety critical jobs are fit for duty and are not compromised by external influences, including alcohol and drug abuse. 22. Provisions that contractors either have programs for their own employees consistent with applicable sections of this Code or be included in the member company's program, or some combination of the two. Glossary This Code uses key terms in a context that may be broader than their associated regulatory definitions. However, adherence to this Code does not relieve a company of the obligation to meet Federal, state and local regulatory requirements. Process Safety - The application of management and engineering principles to prevent fires, explosions and accidental chemical releases at chemical process facilities. Sound Engineering Practice The application ofmandatory codes and standards supplemented by the use of voluntary codes, standards and guidelines, tampered by professional judgement Safety Critical Jobs. Jobs, activities and tasks, ifimproperly performed, that have the potential to significantly increase the risk of a fire, explosion or accidental chemical release. Accidental Chemical Release Unplanned, sudden releases of chemicals from manufacturing, processing, handling and on-site storage facilities to the air, water or land. It does not include permitted or other releases. 108045 R, Page 59 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018668 R. Page 60 of 98 DSW 108046 HARTOLDMONO018669 Responsible Care: A Public Commitment SAMPLE CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION MEMBER SELF-EVALUATION FORM PROCESS SAFETY CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Member Company Name:_________________ Responsible Care Coordinator Name: .. -- ... Address: Telephone ( ) Number offacilities subject to code OSM 108047 R, Page 61 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018670 R. Page 62 of 98 OS* 108046 HARTOLDMONO018671 * 4 00 SAMPLE . PROCESS SAFETY CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Instructions; 1. Under the Responsible Care Initiative, each member company will submit a Self-Evaluation form annually to CMA. 2. Indicate on the cover page the number ofmember company facilities subject to the Code. Each company must report the implementation category for all facilities subject to the Code on this form. 3. For each Management Practice on the following four pages, indicate the number of facilities that have attained each implementation category. Each facility should appear in only one milestone category per Management Practice. The total number of facilities subject to the Code should equal the number of facilities across all six implementation categories for each Management Practice. 4. Only subject facilities owned or operated os ofthe reporting dote should be included. 5. The implementation categories are: Category NA Category EV Category DP Category IA Category PP Category RI No action. Ifno action taken beeaus# tha management practice ia not applicable, please explain. Evaluating axiating company practices against tha Management Practice. Developing plan to implement Management Practice. Implementing action plan Management Practice in place. Reassessing Management Practice implementation. R. Page 63 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018672 R. Page 64 of 98 0S* 108050 HARTOLDMONO018673 process SaJety Code oi Managemeni Practices November 21. 1991 -- Page 3 Mir,fmEnt Practices Management Leadership S&fVSPLE Citcgorigj NA EV DP 1A PP RI 1. Leadership by senior management through policy, participa tion, communications and resource commitments in achieving continuous improvement of performance. Comments on Category NA: _____________ ____________ 2. Clear accountability for performance against specific goals for continuous improvement. Comments on Category NA: 3. Measurement of performance, audits for compliance and im plementation of corrective actions. Comments on Category NA: 4. Investigation, reporting, appropriate col lective action and fol low-up of each incident that results or could have resulted in a fire, explosion or accidental chemical release. Comments on Category NA: 5. Sharing of relevant safety knowledge and lessons learned from such incidents with industry, government and the community. Comments on Category NA: CtUfT KA Gatafory EV CalagaipDP CatagarylA Catagory W CaUgoryXl Ka aettam. Ih ardaa takaa tittm tta pnetlea U eat appHcabU. plaaaa aaplata. tntaulai aatatjbag campuy practleaa agataat Ua Maaagamaat rneCa*. ' ParataptagpUa ta tmfliiaanl Mamagaaaat Practlaa. loplaaatbi actlaa ytaa klaaagcmaat Practlca ta flaw 9........... Hu|iaat PraeUaa tmplaaaatMUa. osw Loaosa R. Page 65 of 9( HARTOLDMONO018674 Process Safety Code of Management Practices November 21. 1991 -- Page 4 sample CiiCTfirin NA EV DP IA PP RI 6. Use of the Community Awareness and Emergency Response (CAER) process to assure public comments and concerns are considered in design and implementation ofthe facility1s process safety systems. Comments on Category NA:____________________ Technology 7. Current, complete documentation ofprocess design and operat ing parameters and procedures. Comments on Category NA:| 8. Current, complete documentation ofinformation relating to the hazards of materials and process technology. Comments on Category NA: 9. Periodic assessment and documentation ofprocess hazards, and implementation of actions to minimize risks associated with chemical operations, including the possibility ofhuman error. Comments on Category NA: 10. Management ofchanges to chemical operations to maintain or enhance the safety originally designed into the facility. Comments on Category NA: _ Category XA Category EV Category DP Category IA Category PP Category SI Pipe 66 of 98 Ho ecdoa. Vne action taken leetm the menegimoiit proedee ie aot eppScabla. ylaeee orpletn. tnlutii| editing company prectleee egelnet the Muniment Practice. Developing plan to Imjilinet Management Pieitlee Implementing ecdoa plan - Manegiment Praedee tat plnoa. teeneeilng Manegemant Praedee fanplimeotadan. OSW 108052 HARTOLDMONO018675 Process Safety Code of Management Practices November 21. 1991 -- Page S SAMPLE Citcgnrin Facilities NA EV DP 1A PP RI 11. Consideration and mitigation of the potential safety effects of expansions, modifications and new sites on the community, environment, and employees. Comments on Category NA: 12. Facility design, construction and maintenance using sound engineering practices consistent with recognized codes and standards. ' Comments on Category NA: 13. Safety reviews on all new and modified facilities during design and prior to start-up. Comments on Category NA: __________________ 14. Documented maintenance and inspection programs that en sure facility integrity. Comments on Category NA: 15. Sufficient layers ofprotection through technology, facilities and employees to prevent escalation from a single failure to a cata strophic event Comments on Category NA: Caugaiy KA Catafcry EV Category OP C*ta|71A Categoty PP Catageiy XI K settee. V settee takes fcecesae tk maaagt Bttuilai ilatlng cempaay prmeticoa agalast Lk PiwIa^HyUi teteilimet Xcaaecoctag Sfeaageaaaat Ptactlcc practice Is set eypScabU. pic i upUiL ;t Practice. CSW 108053 R. Page 67 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018676 Process Safety Code of Management Practice* November 21. 1991 -- Page 6 SAMPLE Ciiegariri NA EV DP IA PP R1 16. Provision for control of processes and equipment during emer gencies resulting from natural events, utility disruptions and other external conditions.' rmn*nts on Category NA: i Personnel 17. Identification of the skills and knowledge necessary to perform each job. Camminti on Category NA: ......................... 18. Establishmentofproceduresandworkpraetieesforsafeoperat- ing and maintenance activities. Comments on Category NA: 19. Training for all employees to reach and maintain proficiency in safe work practices and the skills and knowledge necessary to perform their job. Comments on Category NA: 20. Demonstrations and documentation of skill proficiency prior to assignment to independent work, and periodically thereafter. Comments on Cateeorv NA ClUfejrM ClIlfWT tV Category DP Category IA Category ft Category B1 Rtartta. r~T r~r-a T~*--i t rian l*i aifiat jMftlii li art Cnlaattai olitfa| eampeay yractlcaa agalaet tfca Kaaag--ast PiacUoo. Dmiiplaf plu ta hnptof--t lfini|iaet Prarttaa hapJaaestiag utUa ylat Kaaagemaat Practice Is ylm. iuMitn| Maaagcmaat Imtlw tatpUmaatadas. Page 68 of 98 T*---------- T*`*~ \.0805** HARTOLDMONO018677 Process Safety Code of Management Practices November 21. 1991 --Page 7 SAMPLE Cstevnriec NA EV DP LA PP RI 2L Programs designed to assure that employee* in safety critical jobs are fit for duty and are not compromised by external influences, including alcohol and drug abuse. P.nmments on Category NA: i 22. Provisions that contractors either have programs for their own employees consistent with applicable sections ofthis Code or be included in the member company's program, or some combine* tion of the two. Comments an Category NA: Category IU Category EV Coiogory PP Category 1A Category tT Category 11 !fa actfaa. ff ae actlaa Ukaa Secret the measgeaeat practice U aet eppSeebie, piece# erpleta EnkuOai erlttlag eempeay practice# agalaat tbe **nnwiint ftictlee. Dovelepiag plea ta hnpleaieat -i Practice, topltmeaflng actlaa plea HiMfiawt practice ta place. gooeecoetng Meaegemeat Practice loiiilcoretetlM OSW 108055 R. Page 69 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018678 R. Page 70 of 98 OSH 108056 HARTOLDMONO018679 Process Safety Code of Management Practices Questions and Answers Management Leadership 1. Q: How doec one define eenior management? A; Senior management u that level that has (he authority to establish policies and authorize expenditures to implement them. As used in this Code, this probably includes plant managers and above. 2. Q: What is meant by participation by senior management? A: Participation in this context refers to activities which convey and reinforce commitment and leadership as well as support the implementation of policies and procedures. 3. Q: Is it necessary to have a written process safety policy? A: Yes. 4. Q: What parameters can be used to measure process safety performance? A: Each company should establish its own methods of measurement. Counts of unwanted incidents, frequency rates, property loss statistics, audit violations, permit violations, risk reviews and completion of training are a few examples. 5. Q: How should one define the type ofincident that should be investigated? A: There is no single standard which defines the type of incident or near-miss to investigate. Management should establish a formal procedure to investigate those uncontrolled events which have potentially serious consequences. 6. Q: What should be done after each incident or near-miss investigation? A: Corrective actions orfollow-up should be identified, earned outand communicated as appropri ate within the company. 7. Q: What kind ofknowledge and lessons should be shared? A: Knowledge and lessons which can benefitothersbecause oftheirgeneral applicability or novelty or unusualness. Member companies may establish procedures to promote sharing consistent with proprietary and legal considerations. SW 108057 R. Page 71 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018680 Process Safety Code of Management Practices September 11. 1990 Page 2 8. Q: How much input do you envision our industry receiving from the public sector? A: Hie CMA fully supports the concepts of working with local communities to listen to their views and concerns and to considerthem in plant safety systems. The intent is to discuss mejorprocess additions and new grass-roots construction as opposed to minor plant changes. Individual companies are responsible for the safe design and operation of facilities; that responsibility cannot be shared with the public. Itis intended thatpublic concerns be considered in design and operations of the facility. The CAER network provides a useful vehicle to accomplish this. Technology 9. Q: What type of documentation of process design and operating parameters should exist? A: operating unit should have up-to-date safety related information that contains the design basis and procedures, (e.g.t process flowsheets, pipingand instrument diagrams or engineering flow diagrams, vessel drawings, electrical area classifications, safetyvalve capacity information and operating manuals). The documents will serve as the bade bone for employee training, hazard evaluation and process modifications. 10. Q: What is meant by operating parameters? A: Operating parameters are the ranges of conditions (eg. temperature, pressure and flow composition) within which a unit is designed to operate. Within that range, a unit is expected to operate without any problems. For example, the safe operating parameter for a reactor temperature during exotherm might be 70 degrees minimum to 130 degrees maximum. Operating outside the range could cause instability in the reaction -- runaway temperature if above, potential brittle fracture if below. 11. Q: What are some of the types ofinformation needed to define the chemistry? A: Each reactant and product should have a material safety data sheet(MSDS). Chemical reaction kinetics and acute toxicity should be known and understood. Reactive chemical performance upon mixing various chemicals in different proportions should be documented. Waste streams should bo included as well as reactants and products. 12.Q: What type of procedures should be maintained? A: Generally, all routine jobs or tasks with process safety implications should have written stepby-step instructions. These procedures should capture the experience base ofthe knowledgeable experts. The protective equipment and employee concerns should be incorporated in the procedures. Also, emergency procedures must be dear and unequivocal 13. Q: What is the difference between documentation covered in practice 7 versus that included in practice 8? A: Number 7 refers mainly to design and operating information, while number 8 specifically addresses the hazards associated with the unit being evaluated. Page 72 of 98 OSW 108058 HARTOLDMONO018681 Process Safety Code of Management Practices September 11. 1990 - Page 3 ' 14. Q: Does the reference in the Code to rick imply that we will be required to perform quantitative risk assessments on all our plants? A: No. Qualitative analysis alone should be sufficient to satisfy process safety analysis objectives in most eases. In any ease, qualitative analysis should be considered prior to performing numerical frequency or consequence calculations. 15. Q: What does periodic assessment of process hazards mean in the technology element? t A: Each member company should establish its own review frequency based on inherent hazards, operating experience, rate oftechnology change and other factors. Typical review frequencies range from three to seven years. Under very special circumstances, review frequency may be as short as one year. 16. Q: What is meant by "management of change"? A: "Management ofchange" means having management systems in place that ensure the original safe design of the is maintained and all changes, including minor modifications, are properly reviewed, recorded and communicated 17. Q: What changes should be covered? A: All changes except like for like substitutions. Examples include hardware, procedures, raw materials, operating conditions, throughput, employes, software and control mode. 18. Q: There does notseem to be a dear distinction between Technology and Facilities - shouldn't these two sections be combined? A: While it is true that the two sections are closely related and interdependent. Technology (i.e., chemistry and know-how) and Facilities (Le^ equipment and hardware) each deserve an independent focus as related to process safety. . Facilitiri 19. Q: Should the community be consulted when considering potential effects of a new site or new installation? A: Yes, using principles of the CAER process. 20. Q: Does this mean the community has approval or rejection authority over our projects? A: No: It means that we should identify and respond to community concerns. OSW 1X18 05.9 R. Page 73 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018682 Ptoccm Safety Code of Management Practices September 11. 1990-Page 4 . 21.Q: Choosing a sew plant site involves many complex considerations. Can we realistically expect to completely satisfy all interests? A: Possibly not, bat the Responsible Care Guiding Principles require health, safety and the environment to be priority considerations and such issues must be adequately resolved. 22.Q: Does the Code cover concerns about sabotage or terrorism? A; Such issues are not intended to be within the scope ofthe Code. However, good practice in site selection and planning will consider such general security issues as buffer zones, fencing, lighting, entrance gates and security surveillance. Also, mitigation and emergency response measures can help minimize consequences ofhostile acts. 23. Q: Does "sound engineering practice" extend beyond mandatory codes and regulations? A: In many eases, yes. While government codes and regulations may establish minimum legal requirements for plant design, operation and maintenance, member companies are expected to use qualified professionals to identify and apply other engineeringpractices (such as contained in many non-mandatory or consensus standards or codes) as may be necessary to fulfill our safety commitment to employees and the community. 24. Q: Are "Safety Reviews'as prescribed in practice 13 differentfrom "Process Hazard Assessments'* as prescribed in practice 9? A: Yes. "Process Hazard Assessment" is done during the process design stage and periodically thereafter. It focuses on the hazards inherent to the process and measures to control these hazards. "Safety Reviews" use "Process Hazard Asaeasment* aa a starting point and focus on the physical installation to assure that it is in accordance with design and is safe to start-up and operate. 25. Q: Shouldn't Safety Reviews go beyond simple field inspection? A: Yes. Safety Reviews may include such things as testing equipment, controls, control logic, interlocks, "water runs" etc., prior to operation with hazardous materials. In addition, such reviews should also confirm that process documentation and procedures are in place and that operators have been trained. 26. Q: Doesn't a "Preventive Maintenance Program" meet the requirement of practice 14? A: To meet the intent of this code practice, the preventive maintenance (PM) program must go beyond operating reliability and economic considerations and address all potential failures which, while possibly extremely unlikely, could impact process safety. A program to "ensure facility integrity" must search outhidden deterioration and flaws that can result in sudden end unexpected failure that can impact process safety. R. Page 74 of 98 OSu 108060 HARTOLDMONO018683 September 11. 1990 - Page 5 27. Q: What are tome examples that could be included in a PM program to satisfy practice 14? A: Metallurgical examinations for stress corrosion cracking, nondestructive acoustic testing, compressor vibration monitoring, thickness measuring for erosion or corrosion on key parts of pressure vessels and pipelines, verification of bolt and damp material of construction and quality, reliability of critical instruments and operation of safety valves are examples. 28. Q: Shouldn't a hierarchy be considered in applying "layers of protection*? ( A: Normally technology should be applied first, choosing an inherently safe or less hazardous process wheneverpossible. Thenhardware, safetyfactors,redundantcontrols, failure detection systems, etc., should be applied. Finally, emergency procedures and employee training should complement the process and hardware design. 29. Q: How many layers constitute `sufficient layers of protection"? A: There is no absolute answer to this question. The number of levels needed depends on the likelihood ofan initial failure, the nature ofthe consequences and whether additional levels of protection will materially improve safety. Layers of protection include more than redundant equipment. They may include process techniques, instrumentation and hardware, operating procedures and operator training. 30. Q: What is meant by `external conditions*? A: By external conditions we mean anythingthat is beyond the direct and immediate control ofthe process operator. An example might be an evacuation order for your plant caused by a fire or toxic release from a neighboring plant as well as an upset or incident in an adjoining process unit Pcrgqaacl 31. Q: We train our employees thoroughly; why is it necessary to also demonstrate their proficiency? A: Even with the best employee trainingprograms, people learn at different rates and comprehen sion. An actual demonstration is the only way ofbeing sure that each individual has grasped essential concepts or skills. Demonstrations can involve written tests and/or havingthe trainee show a qualified observer how they would do a job. 32. Q: Do procedures and work practices have to be documented? A: Generally, yes. Procedures typically require proper execution of several stages. Documented procedures help assure that a critical action is not overlooked and that the procedure is carried out consistently by everyone. 33. Q: Does the code require that employees be screened for alcohol and drug abuse? A: No. The Code requires programs designed to assure fitness for duty. OSW 108061 R. Page 75 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018684 Process Safety Code of Management Practices September 11. 1990 Page 6 34. Q: What kinds ofjobs are safety-critical? A: A position is safety-critical when it involves tasks which, if not performed properly, can significantly increase the likelihood of a fire, explosion, or accidental chemical release. 35, Q: What is meant by "external influence"? A: External include abuse of alcohol or drags, but the terms also refers to any factor which mightimpairjudgement, attention or general capacity to perform ajob safely. Examples indude physical impairment, emotional stress, and stress from too much overtime work. R. Page 76 of 98 OSH 108062 HARTOLDMONOOI8685 Responsible Care: A Public Commitment EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PURPOSE The goal of the Employee Health and Safety Code ofManagement Practices is to protect and promote the health and safety of people working at or visiting member company work sites. To achieve this goal, the Code provides Management Practices designed to continuously improve work site health and safety. These practices provide amultidisciplinarymeans to identify and assess hazards, prevent unsafe acts and conditions, maintain and improve employee health, and foster communication on health and safety issues. Implementation ofthe Employee Health and Safety Code, together with other Codes ofManagement Practices, can enable member companies to operate in a manner that further protects and promotes the health and safety of employees, contractors, and the public, and protects the environment RELA TIONSHJP TO GUIDING PRINCIPLES Implementation of the Code helps achieve several of the Responsible Care* Guiding Principles: I To recognize and respond to community concerns about chemicals and our operations. I To make health, safety, and environmental considerations a priority in our planning for all existing and new products and processes. I To operate our plants and facilities in a mannerthat protects the environment and the health and safety of our employees and the public. I To extend knowledge by conducting or supporting research on the health, safety, and environmental effects of our products, processes, and waste materials. OSH 108063 R, Page 77 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018686 MANA CEMENT PRA CTICES Each member company shall have an ongoing occupational health and safety program that includes: Program Management 1. Commitment by all levels ofmanagement to protecting and promoting the health and safety of people working at or visiting member company work sites through published policies; accountability for implementation; and provision ofsufficient resources, including qualified health and safety personnel 2. Opportunities for employees to participate in developing, implementing, and reviewing health and safety programs. 3. Provisions, including selection criteria, to confirm that on-site contractors' programs are consistent with applicable Management Practices ofthis Code. 4. Written, up-to-date health and safety programs and procedures appropriate to the facility. 5. Means to verify that health and safety programs and procedures are effective and that actual practices are consistent with these programs and procedures. 6. Systems for maintaining records and analyzing data to evaluate health and safety perfor mance, determine trends, and identity areas for improvement. Identification and Evaluation 7. Methods to identify and evaluate potential health and safety hazards in planned or existing facilities, including facilities to be modified. 8. Exposure assessments and safety analyses to evaluate health and safety hazards to employ ees from processes; equipment; potentially hazardous chemical, physical, or biological agents; or other work site conditions. . 9. Health assessments to determine employee medical fitness for specific job tasks. 10. Employee occupational medical surveillance programs tailored to work site hazards. Prevention and Control 1L Mechanisms for reviewing the design and modification offacilities andjob tasks, taking into account the following hierarchy of controls: inherent safe design, material substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment 12. Systems to verity that health and safety equipment is properly selected, maintained, and used. R. Page 78 of 96 OSW 108064 HARTOLDMON0018687 13. Preventive maintenance and housekeeping programs to maintain the safety of facilities, tools, and equipment. 14. Timely investigation of work site illnesses, injuries, and accidents; corrective actions to prevent recurrence; and evaluation of the effectiveness of corrective actions taken. 15. Security procedures and systems to control entry and exit of personnel and materials at the work site and restricted areas. 16. Provisions for emergency medical assistance for people at work sites. Communications and Training 17. Communication ofhealth and safety information that is relevant to specificjob tasks and the work site. IS. Health and safety training programs, including documentation of these programs, and methods to evaluate the effectiveness of both training and communications activities. INDUSTRY TREND DATA To identify industry trends, each company shall report to CMA, or its designated agent, occupational injuries and illnesses, as specified in CMA's Occupational Injury and Illness Reporting Program. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER CODES OF MANAGEMENTPRACTICES This Code complements, and should be implemented in conjunction with, current and future Codes of ManagementPractices, especially those elements ofthe CAER Code involvingemergency response, the Process Safety Code involvingtrainingofemployees in theirjob functions, and the ProductStewardship Code involvinghealth, safety, and environmental information, and employee education and productuse feedback. MEMBER SELF-EVALUATION Each member company shall report annually to CMA, or its designated agent, the implementation category attained for each Management Practice in this Code. The reports should be submitted on the member self-evaluation form provided. RESOURCE GUIDE A separate resource guide is available to assist member companies in implementing the Code. The Responsible Carr* Employee Health 4 Safety Code of Management Practices wee approved by CMAa Board of Director* on January 14.1092 DSW 108065 R. Page 79 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018688 R. Page 80 of 98 OS* l.OBObfc HARTOLDMONO018689 Responsible Care: A Public Commitment EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MEMBER SELF-EVALUATION FORM Member Company Name*. Responsible Care* Coordinator Name:. Address:. Telephone: I_____1 Number of facilities subject to the Employee Health and Safety Code:. OSW 108067 R, Page 81 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018690 R. Page 82 of 98 OSW I080*6 HARTOLDMONO018691 EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE MEMBER SELF-EVALUATION FORM Instruction* for the Company Responsible Care* Coordinator I. This form is to be submitted annually to CMA by each member company. 2. Indicate on page 1 the number ofyour member company's facilities that ere subject to the Code. Each company must report the implementation stage for all facilities subject to the Employee Health and Safety Code on this form. 3. For each Management Practice on the following pages, indicate the number offacilities that have attained eaeh implementation category. Eaeh facility should appear in only one implementation category per ManagementPractice. Identify the currentimplementation category for each ofyour facilities at the time you complete the form. 4. For the Industry Trend Data, reportthe previous calendaryear's cumulative occupational injuries and illnesses. Occupational injuries and illnesses should be reported on a company wide basis as specified by CMA's Occupational Injury and Illness Reporting (OUR) Program. 5. Only subject facilities owned or operated as of the reporting date should be included. 6. The implementation categories are: Category NA, - No action. Ifno action taken becauee the Management Practice ie not appli cable,please "T1**'* in space marked 'bommenis." Category EV - Evaluating existing company practices against the Management Practice. Category DP - Developingplan to Implement Management Practice. Category Li - Implementing action plan. Category PP - Management Practice in place. Category R1 - - Reassessing Management Practice implementation. flSW 108069 R. Page 83 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018692 R. Pg M of 98 DSW 106070 HARTOLDMONO018693 EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Management Practices Categories NA W Of IA PP Kl 1. Commitment by all level* of management to protecting and promoting the health and aafety ofpeople working at or visiting membercompany sites, through: publishedpolicies;accountabil ity for implementation; and provision of sufficient resources, including qualified health and safety personnel Comments on Category NA- 2. Opportunitiesfor employees to participate in developing, imple menting, and reviewing health and safety programs. Comments on Category NA- 3. Provisions, including selection criteria, to confirm that on-site contractors' programs are consistent with applicable Manage ment Practices ofthis Code. Comments on Category NA: 4. Written, up-to-date health and safety programs and procedures appropriate to the facility. Comments on Category NA: CutfOjrNA Cmpty EV Cutpiy OP CM|H> U Caupi; PP f Mfry W DmUfta( plu M MpiMau Mmpawil I miw piaa. MimfiMwn Pi--e-- la llaMat>| WimI'**1 hirilM laptei Pmadath --t py>--M. pi---- Pl**a- OSk 1080 7.1 R. Pape 85 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018694 Management Practice* Categories NA EV OF IA PP Kl 5. Mean* to verify that health and safety programs and procedures are effective and that actual practices are consistent with these programs and procedures. Comments on Category NA: u 6. Systems for maintainingrecord* and analyzing data to evaluate health and safety performance, determine trends, and identify areas for improvement. ramments an Category NA f 7. Methods to identify and evaluate potential health and safety hazards in planned or existing facilities, including facilities to be modified. Comments on Cateforv NA 6. Exposure assessments and safety analyses to evaluate health and safety hazards to employees from processes; equipment; poten tially hazardous chemical, physical, or biological agents; or other work site conditions. Comments on Category NA 9. Health assessments to determine employee medical fitness for specific job tasks. Comments on Category NA CattfMr NA CMenrIV eM|w>pf cmm ia taMpfy gg cirn w R. Page 86 of 98 Mela M gpM--hU. plwm ylil Sk 108072 HARTOLDMONO018695 Management Practice* Categories _________________________________________________ ________________________ NA EV DP IA PP HI 10. Employee occupational medical surveillance programs tailored to work site hazards. Comments on Category NA- 1L Mechanisms for reviewing the design and modification offacili ties andjob tasks, takinginto account the foDowinghierarchy of controls: inherent safe design, material substitution, engineer* ing controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment. Comments on Category NA: 12. Systems to verify that health and safety equipment is properly selected, maintained, and used. Comments on Category NA: 13. Preventive maintenance and housekeeping programs to main tain the safety offacilities, tools, and equipment. Comments on Category NA:14 14. Timely investigation of work site illnesses, injuries, and inci dents; corrective actions to prevent recurrence; and evaluation of the effectiveness of corrective actions taken. Comments on Category NA: Caffrj NA CiupirEv Cypn OP CaMfOT-Jr IA Cypr) PP Cmpn w Iwhudai < DrilfHn pl>a " lapbami Siaipam Piaca-- lapbMMii Mflai plu. . Muupanl Pn rmm la plaa, ( Hmiiaat Pramai lapbaanibi to aw aypMwhU, ptoaaa aaplala. OSW 108073 R. Pape 87 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018696 Management Practice* Categoric NA ev DP IA PP ftl 15. Security procedures and systems to control entry and exit of personnel and materials at the work site and restricted areas. Comments on Category NA: 16. Provisions for emergency medical assistance for people at work sites. . k % fa 'a > 17. Communication ofheakh and safety information thatis relevant to specific job tasks and the work site. Comments on Category NA- ' 18. Health and safety training programs, including documentation of these programs, and methods to evaluate the effectiveness of both training and communications activities. Comments on Category NA- INDUSTRY TREND DATA Occupational injuries and Illnessesfarthe previous calendaryearwere reported as specified m CMA's Occupational Injury and Illness Reporting Program. Yes____ No____ " If no, please explain:___________________________________________________________ _______ CtupiyN* Cmpry EV Cawyvry DP rmin u Ctitfwr pp C<Mfrn R. Page 88 of 98 N* edw. IfwirtwetwU--e Muifiei hMtak mi iffH mHi, >1mw wfUlt MMMfMMe*aakMrgMkiafMe<iliM|Wi(lPncM PmliflM pu w * >wifiiw hilt laptnMmi aettaa ytoa Mnfw Pwa M yU--. Imimmii PittI-- tapl***"******. OSH i0807< HARTOLDMON0018697 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Throughoutits development, theEmploye* Health andSafety (EHS) Codewasreviewed regularly by CMA't Health and Safety Committee, Engineering and Operations Committee, and Responsible Care*CoordinatingGroup. An earlydraftoftheEHSCodewasreviewedbymembercompanies through written comments and an open meeting, and member companies conducted a second review ofthe draft EHS Code with their employees. In addition, the draft EHS Code was reviewed periodically by the Responsible Care* Public Advisory Panel During these reviews, the following questions were frequently asked about the EHS Code of Management Practices: 1. Does the EHS Code cover all aspects of an employee's health and safety? Answer. The EHS Code is restricted to those aspects ofan employee's health and safety that are affected by his orher employmentin the chemical industry. TheEHS Code addresses occupational health and safety and does not address employee wellness or eff-the-job safety. 2. Does the EHS Code include visitors and all contractor operations? Answer. The EHS Code covers all visitors and contractor employees who enter a member company's work site. Visitors should be protected from hazards they may encounter while on the work site. All contractors should have health end safety programs for their employees that ere appropriate forthe hazards encountered in their contractedjob tasks and that are consistent with applicable management practices of the EHS Code. Contract manufacturers, or tollers, ere addressed in the Product Stewardship Code. 3. Does the EHS Code require employee participation at work cites at which employees are represented by a union? Answer: The objective of the EHS Code is to encourage member companies to fully involve employees in safety and health activities. However, at facilities at which employees are represented by a union, negotiations concerning such employee participation may be required. In the contract negotiation process, member companies should make a pood-faith effort to address opportunities for employee participation. SW 108073 R. Page 89 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018698 4. What is CMA's Occupational Injury and Hines* Reporting (OUR) Program? Answer. CMA's OQR Program serves as a basis for awarding the annua] Lammot Du Pont Safety Awards recognizing sustained achievement by CMA member companies in reducing workplace injury and illness rates. Eaeh participating company submits its injury and illness data, as reported on the OSHAForm 200, based on guidelines issued bythe U.S. Bureau ofLabor Statistics (BLS1. 4 5. Are contractor employees included in the OQR Program? Answer. At this time, contractor employees are not induded in the CMA OUR Program, unless the company directly supervises their day-to-day activities. Current BLS guidelines require reporting of occupational injuries and illnesses fay individual employers based on Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes. Both CMA and OSHA are considering revisions to the reportingguidelines that would consolidate the reporting ofoccopatinnel injuries and illnesses for a single work site, without regard to the SIC code efthe employer. 6. Does the EHS Code address substance abuse in the workplace as part of assessing medical fitness for specific job tasks? Answer. Substance abuse is addressed by the Process Safety Code in Management Practice 21: "Programs designed to assure that employees in safety-critical jobs are fit for duty and are not compromised fay external influences, ineluding alcohol and drug abuse." 7. Does the EHS Code require job tasks to be evaluated for physical requirements? Answer. Job tasks should be evaluated to determine the specific physical abilities associated with a task. An employee's abilities should be evaluated using medics! criteria before being assigned to a job task with specific physical requirements. For example, employees should be medically evaluated to determine their ability to wear a respirator before being assigned to job tasks requiring the use ofa respirator. 8. Does the EHS Code require member companies to provide annual medical examina tions to all employees aa part of an occupational medical surveillance program? Answer. No. .Occupational medical surveillance programs should provide appropriate, targeted medical assessments to those employees exposed to specific hazards. For example, regular spirometry examinations to assess lung function should be offered to employees exposed to an agent known to affect lung function. 9. Does the EHS Code require member companies to assess the effect of exposures to chronic hazards on the health of employees? Answer. As s pan of maintaining records and analyzing data for trends, member companies should assess the long-term health experience oftheir employees in relationship to exposures to chronic hazards. Chronic hazards include, for example, long-term exposures to carcinogens. R. Page 90of 98 OSk 1080.76 HARTOLDMONO018699 Product Stewardship Booklet for the Code of Management Practices The code's management practices are grouped into three categories, described as follows: Management Leadership and Commitment contains Management Practices 1-3. These practices serve to give direction, provide resources, set priorities, and establish responstoifities within your company that provide an appropriate atmosphere and founda tion for successfully implementing product stewardship. Information and Characterization includes Management Practices 4 and 5. These address the need to continually increase the body of knowledge surrounding chemical products in order to improve hazard identification and risk characterization at every stage in a product's life. As the cornerstone of product stewardship. Management Practices 6*12 are categorized as Risk Management practices, which work together to manage risks at every stage of a product's life. Some of these management practices are the most chalenging in the Code because they extend the risk management process beyond traditional boundaries to consider risks beyond the point of sale. Management practices in the first two categories provide the foundation for conducting the risk management practices in the third category. The ability to implement each management practice, therefore, refies upon the successful implementation of previous practices, with the successful development and implementation of product stewardship progressing from a planning and resource allocation to an information collection phase, and finally to action-oriented, risk management activities. Purpose and Scope The purpose of the Product Stewardship Code of Management Practices is to make health, safety and environmental protection an integral part of designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, using, recycfing and disposing of our products. The code pro vides guidance as well as a means to measure continuous improvement in the practice of product stewardship. The scope of the code covers all stages of a product's fife. Successful implementation is a shared responsibility. Everyone involved with the product has responsibilities to address society's interest in a healthy environment and in products that can be used safely. All employers are responsfcie for providing a safe workplace, and aO who use and handle products must follow safe and environmentally sound practices. The code recognizes that each company must exercise independent judgment and discretion to successfully apply the code to its products, customers and business. i .DSW 108077 R. Page 91 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018700 THE PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP CODE R. Pge 92 of 98 Relationship to Responsible Care and Guiding Principles Implementation of the code promotes the achievement of several of the Responsible Care* Guiding Principles: to make health, safety and environmental considerations a priority in our planning for all existing and new products and processes: to develop and produce chemicals that can be manufactured, transported, used and disposed of safely: < to extend knowledge by conducting or supporting research on the health, safety and environmental effects of our products, processes and waste materials; to counsel customers on the safe use, transportation and disposal of chemical products; to report promptly to officials, employees, customers and the public, information on chemical-related health or environmental hazards and to recommend protec tive measures; to promote the principles and practices of Responsible Care* by sharing experi ences and offering assistance to others who produce, handle, use. transport or dispose of chemicals. This code complements, and should be implemented in conjunction with, current and future Codes of Management Practices. Chapter 3 discusses the Product Stewardship Code's relationship to the other existing codes. Management Practices Management Practice 1 LEADERSHIP: Demonstrates senior management leadership through written policy, active participation and communication. The objective of this management practice is to set the driving force for the Product Stewardship Code. To this end. senior management must first adopt a policy that reflects the company's vision of product stewardship. This-poficy should state clearly how senior management expects product stewardship to be managed within the com pany. To be effective, the policy should emphasize that product stewardship, Ike quality and safety, must be woven into the company's culture, tt also should be dear that the commitment is an ongoing, long-term part of the company's operations and business. Finally, H the new policy represents a change in the way of doing business. It should be dear that a change in behavior is expected. In some companies, a separate written product stewardship policy may be effective. In others, a broader health, safety and environmental (H.S&E) policy that incorporates the principles of product stewardship may be more appropriate. However, a policy alone is not enough. The words of a policy must be reinforced by actions and behaviors that continuously reaffirm the goals senior management has set Senior management is responsible for conveying throughout the organization its involve ment with, and support of. product stewardship--especially to the next level of manage- OSM 108078 HARTOLDMON0018701 merit and encouraging it to do the same. (Management Practices 2 and 3 tocus on some ot the visible signals - tor example, goals, performance measurement and resource allocation). Management Practice 2 ACCOUNTABILITY and PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT: Establishes goals and responsibilities for Implementing product stewardship throughout the organiza tion. Measures performance against these goals One of the key ways senior management can convey the importance of product steward ship is by establishing it as a priority in business planning and individual performance planning. The objective is to develop a process that will result in continuous improve ment through goals that are well-defined, achievable and measurable. Similarly, indi vidual responsibilities should be dear and consistent Management Practice 3 RESOURCES: Commits resources necessary to Implement and maintain product stewardship practices The commitment of resources, both human and financial, is a critical signal that manage ment can send to show its commitment to product stewardship practices and is a vital component for some implementation activities. Undoubtedly, resources will vary from company to company. However, in all cases, the commitment of resources should be consistent with product stewardship implementation plans and sufficient to support continuous improvement Management Practice HEALTH, SAFETY and ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: Establishes and main tains Information on health, safety and environmental hazards and reasonably foreseeable exposures from new and existing products Just as Management Practice 1 is the driving force for the Product Stewardship Code. Management Practice 4 is the foundation. The objective of Management Practice 4 is to establish a knowledge base of human and environmental hazards and reasonably foreseeable exposures and, once established, to maintain it Under this practice, compa nies gather information to support the system that characterizes a product's risk (Man agement Practice 5) and. ultimately, the system that develops the methods to manage that risk (Management Practice 6). Initially, some companies may establish their knowledge base by developing information; others may do so by collecting and compiling available information. However, all compa nies should have a process to continuously gather relevant product information and to review existing information to determine if it is accurate, current and complete. Sources of information may include published, unpublished and/or internally generated scientific reports on health, safety and environmental effects and exposures. Generally, the types of information could cover animal or human toxicity, ecotoxidty and chemical and physical properties that affect exposure or the environmental impact In many cases, exposure information is not directly available but may be estimated with product use information. Information on a product's handling, use and reasonably foreseeable exposures in research, development, manufacturing, transport, storage, packaging and disposal may OSH 1060 7.9 R, Page 93 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018702 THE PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP CODE R. Page 94 of 98 be obtained by a number of means. These could include surveys ot customers ana otner product receivers, technical reviews or visits to customers, and/or observations reportec by sales and marketing personnel. Management Practice S PRODUCT RISK CHARACTERIZA TION: Characterizes new and existing products with respect to their risk using Information about health, safety and environmental hazards and reasonably foreseeable exposures. Establishes a system that ini tiates re-evaluation. This practice has two objectives. The first is to use the information gathered in Manage ment Practice 4 to develop a thorough understanding of the product's risk. This charac terization may be either quantitative or qualitative. The second objective is to establish a system that triggers re-evaluation, whether upon receipt of new information or upon periodic, scheduled review. A product may be characterized as a single entity or it may be characterized in a group of products based on similar uses, compositions or physical properties. Product risks may vary with different uses or exposures. The time frame for re-evaluation may vary from product to product. Triggers for such re evaluations might include significant new hazard or exposure data, significant new use or misuse information as it becomes known or a substantial increase in sales volume, suggesting new uses or markets. Management Practice 6 RISK-MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: Establishes a system to Identify, document and Implement health, safety and environmental risk-management actions appropriate to the product risk. The objective of Management Practice 6 is to establish a system for identifying and implementing risk-management actions. Risks involved in the production and use of chemicals can be managed and controlled if each company takes the basic information on a product's risk (Management Practice 4), characterizes It (Management Practice 5) and then implements a series of risk management actions (Management Practice 7 through 12). These risk management actions are a result of a conscious weighing of technical, ethical, societal and business issues surrounding a product Actions taken as a result can range from no action, to provkfing MSDSs and labels, to product reformula tion or repackaging, to removal of the product from a market The management practices that follow. Management Practices 7 through 12, are specific areas of company operations that warrant discussion and special emphasis. Management Practice 7 PRODUCT and PROCESS DESIGN and IMPROVEMENT: Establishes and main tains a system that makes health, safety and environmental impacts--including the use ot energy and natural resources-key considerations In designing, developing and Improving products and processes. Designing products and processes (or redesigning existing products and processes) with a system to identify health, safety and environmental impacts throughout the product lifecycle is one of the most effective ways of managing the product risks identified in Management Practice #5. One objective of this Practice is attainment of the preferred osw ioaoao HARTOLDMONO018703 DIE PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP CODE environmental hierarchy: source reduction: reuse: recycling: and disposal. Source reduction includes equipment or technology modifications, process or procedure changes, product reformulation or design, substitution of raw materials, and improve merits in housekeeping, maintenance, training or inventory control. This Practice also addresses the need for proper energy and natural resource utilizationimportant considerations for reducing potential adverse environmental impacts and achieving sustainable development. The health, safety and environmental attributes of the product throughout its entire life cycle should be addressed at the beginning, during the concept and design (or redesign) phases. Re-evaluation should occur on a periodic basis or whenever changes to the product or process are contemplated. Insights and contributions from employees in an functional areas that may affect health, safety and the environment should be incorporated into the review. These functional areas include research and development, manufacturing, distribution, sales and market ing and regulatory personnel. ' Manaoement Practice 8 EMPLOYEE EDUCATION and PRODUCT USE FEEDBACK: Educates and trains employees, based on Job function, on the proper handling, recycling, use and disposal of products and known product uses. Implements a system that encour ages employees to feed back information on new uses. Identified misuses or adverse effects for use In product risk characterization. This practice has two parts. The first is to ensure that all employees who are involved with products have the training and education necessary to understand product (and packaging) hazards, proper use, handling, reuse, recycling and disposal procedures. The second is to help ensure that any new information that may alter the way risk is being managed is factored into the risk characterization process on a timely basis (Management Practice 5). The training and education of employees should be tailored to specific job functions. For example, marketing and sales personnel are in a unique position to know how customers are using products and must be aware of product hazards, reasonably foreseeable exposures, appropriate uses and proper handling procedures. They should be able to identify product deviations and to recognize adverse health or environmental effects. These personnel should be alert to the customer's and the public's comments or percep tions. It is essential that there be timely feedback of this safety, health or environmental infor mation or concerns into the risk characterization process (Management Practices 4 and 5). This feedback may change the risk management actions (Management Practice 6). Manaoement Practice 9 CONTRACT MANUFACTURERS: Selects contract manufacturers who employ appropriate practices for health, safety and environmental protection for the operations under contract, or works with contract manufacturers to help them implement such practices. Provides information and guidance appropriate to the product and process risk to fosterproper handling, use, recycling and disposal. Periodically reviews performance of contract manufacturers. The objective of this Management Practice is to encourage the use of contract manufac turers who have sound health, safety and environmental practices for the specific opera tions under contract. SW L08081 ' R Page 95 of 98 HARTOLDMONOOI8704 THE PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP CODE The level of involvement will vary according to the product's risk. Activities could inciuae reinforcement of previously provided health, safety and environmental information, additional training, etc. At a minimum, both parties should share any accumulated knowledge that would enhance health, safety and environmental protection. The Transmittal of appropriate information* acknowledges that while we want customers to pass along H.S&E information, product changes made by the customer may mean that the information originally supplied with the product no longer applies. In these cases, the customer needs to issue information that reflects the current H.S&E informa tion. Along with Management Practices 9.10 and 11, this management practice constitutes an important outreach component of the Product Stewardship Code. The long-term result of implementing this practice. Bke the other outreach management practices, should result in improved health, safety and environmental performance - not just for CMA member companies but the entire chemical industry. As with distributors and suppliers, reviews of customers win be commensurate with product risk. However, it is appropriate to expect companies to extend the principles of product stewafdship beyond the CMA membership and Responsble Care*partners. R. Pape 98 of 98 DS 10808*, HARTOLDMONO018705 jj&EjL MONSANTO PLEDGE GUIDELINE . #1 POLLUTION PREVENTION The company will work toward the ultimate goal ofensuring zero effect attributable to waste in all media. It will research., design and operate its facilities to minimize the generation ofprocess and nonprocess waste and the potential effect ofchemical releases to the environment. For waste and releases that remain, the company will comply with regulations, while minimizing environmental threat and long-term liability. KEY RESULTS Reduce by 90 percent the company's 1987 level of worldwide air emissions of chemicals named by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under Title IH of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA Section 313) and chemicals of local concern outside the United States by the end of 1992. Reduce by 70 percent the company's worldwide SARA Section 313. European Community Priority Pollutant List (EC 129) and carbon monoxide chemical releases to all media and off-site transfers by the end of 1995. Discontinue the deep-well injection of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste streams and SARA Section 313 toxic chemicals by the end of 1999. PROGRAM 1.1 Process Waste . The operating units will integrate into their release reduc tion plans the corporate goal of reducing all toxic and hazardous releases and emission to all media, working toward an ultimate goal of zero effect For reducing releases from processes, the order of preference is source reduction, followed by reuse, recycling or co-product sale, and finally by incineration or other treatment to reduce the volume and/or toxicity of pollutant streams. The development and use of technologies that improve competitive positions will be emphasized. ' The operating units will integrate into their releasereduction plans the following corporate goals: Reduce by 90 percent the company's 1987 level of worldwide air emissions of SARA Section 313 chemicals and chemicals of local concern outside the United States by the end of 1992. Reduce by 70 percent the company's worldwide SARA Section 313, EC 129 and carbon monoxide chemical releases to all media and off-site transfers by end of 1995. The January 1990 SARA 313 and EC 129 lists plus carbon monoxide apply through thf end of the multimedia release reduction program. An effect-based release reduction target will be establishe every five years beginning in 1995, working Toward an ultimate goal of zero effect. By the end of 1993, a metho and process for an effect-based reduction program for toxic chemicals will be developed. 1.2 Nonprocess Waste Each facility will maintain an inventory of all nonprocess sources of waste generation, including power generation, office and maintenance operations, general warehouse trash, packaging/shipping materials and similar sources. MONSANTO COMPANY OSW 108085 MPG 1, Page 1 < Company Confident HARTOLDMONO018706 13 Underground Well (Deep-well) Injection The company will discontinue deep-well injection of RCRA hazardous waste streams by the end of 1999. It will also apply best feasible technology to virtually eliminate the deep-well injection of SARA 313 chemicals. The company's name will not appear on the list of companies making significant use of injection wells for disposal of SARA chemicals for the reporting year 2000 and beyond. The company will demonstrate progress by achieving in 1996 an 80 percent reduction of injected SARA chemicals against the 1990 base reporting year. To be prepared for the possibility of mandatory regulations, the company intends to select by the end of 199S optimal technical strategies for total withdrawal from deep wells. This preparation will include studygrade estimates to achieve non-brine, treated surface discharge. All operating units will continue where possible to challenge the technical impediments to total withdrawal from deep wells. No new uses of deep wells for hazardous or toxic materials are permitted. A "new" use of deep wells is defined as injection of streams from new products or the addition of substances not previously injected at that site. New internal or external uses of deep wells for nonhazardous wastes and nontoxic chemicals will be considered by the Environmental Policy Committee (EPC) only on an exception basis and within the constraints of these guidelines. The economics of any project appropriation request for such use must be based on disposal technology other than the use of deep wells. 1.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls - "PCB-Free" All company-owned sites (e.g., warehouses, plants, offices) located in the United States will minimize the potential for releases of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) by becoming "PCB-ffee" of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCAj-contaminated articles by the end of 1994. 1.5 Land Disposal Landfill of "acutely hazardous** wastes1 and "incinerables"3 will not be practiced. For hazardous wastes and wastes managed as hazardous, fixation of particularly mobile, persistent or bioaccumulative wastes will be accomplished whenever warranted and feasible. In making the decision to manage wastes as hazardous, the company will take into account public expectations, emerging trends and worldwide company practice regarding the same or similar wastes. Contractors hired for land disposal of process wastes will be subject to contracting and assessment requirements (see Pledge Guideline No. 7, Outside Processors). In the United States, the use of off-site hazardous waste landfills will be approved by the Environmental Policy Committee and will be limited in number. Medical wastes generated at the company's locations will be incinerated prior to land disposal of residues. Assurance of incineration will be obtained via manifests or equivalent documents if manifests are not available. The use of Monsanto facilities to commercially treat, store or dispose of non-Monsanto wastes is normally discouraged. Any such use or joint ventures (other than in site guest/host relationships) for waste management must be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee. Proposals for land application of process by-products and residues, for beneficial use or disposal, should be guided by the "Monsanto Guidance Document* Land Application of Process By-Products and Residues." The ESHA (formerly EC-201/202) discipline will be followed for such proposals, including 5-year reviews. New applications must be approved by the appropriate Directors of Manufacturing and Environmental operations; the Environmental Policy Committee must approve if beneficial use is not included. Each company location will maintain a record of both the on-site and the commercial waste treatment, storage and disposal sites it uses. 1.6 Air Emission and Water Release Assessments The company will conduct and maintain an ongoing assessment of potential human health impacts for selected, routinely emitted air pollutants. It will develop appropriate control strategies to reduce identified, potentially unreasonable risk of harm to human health in surrounding communities. The list of air pollutants to be studied include: a) those listed under Section 112(b) of the U.S. Clean Air Act; b) those for which the 1 As listed in 40 CFR 261.33(e). plus any mixtures containing greater than 5 percent. 1 Hazardous wastes, or wastes managed as hazardous, with a beat at combustion greater than 6000 BTU/lb. MPG1. Page2of3 Company Confidential DSw 108086 HARTOLDMONO018707 USEPA has established cancer unit risk values: c) those contained on the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) group l and 2A lists: d) other sitespecific pollutants identified by the plant that appear to warrant consideration (including those in significant quantities reportable via SARA Section 313). Plants outside the United States will use the above-given pollutant list plus any additional air pollutants on any local regulatory list that the plant manager deems important. Each plant will maintain a list of all such air pollutants, ranked by established and approved protocols. Depending upon the pollutant's relative ranking and if required by the protocols, the plant will use appropriate dispersion modeling techniques to determine potential maximum downwind concentrations for each such pollutant at specified receptors representative of the exposed population utilizing appropriate dispersion modeling techniques. Appropriate assessments of potential human health impacts at the community receptor points will then be analyzed according to protocols established by the company's Environmental, Safety and Health staff. Any potentially unreasonable risk to human health that is identified will be expeditiously reduced to acceptable levels through appropriate actions. The company will conduct aquatic safety assessments to determine the measurable impacts, if any, of its effluents on receptor water quality. The assessments should include both direct and indirect discharges (if applicable) with the mitigating impacts of the publicly owned treatment works (POTW) taken into account for the indirect discharge assessments. Any potentially unacceptable impacts to the aquatic environment identified will be mitigated in a timely manner. A reconfirming assessment will be conducted to verify that the impacts have been reduced to acceptable levels. All initial air emission and surface water release assessments required should be conducted for each of the company's worldwide manufacturing sites within two years of the EPC's approval of this guideline. Operating units will review the status of the assessments annually, and if any significant changes have occurred at a plant site, determine whether the assessment should be repeated. Any such reassessments will be completed within 12 months. 1.7 Measurement The following indicators will be used to measure progress against this guideline: 1.7.1 Annual progress toward achievement of 90 percent SARA Section 313 air emissions reduction goal. 1.7.2 Annual progress toward achievement of 70 percent worldwide SARA Section 313 chemical releases and off-site transfer reduction goal. 1.73 Achievement of contingency planning for reduction of use of deep-well injection. 1.7.4 Annual progress toward goals involving discontinued deep-well injection of RCRA hazardous waste streams and toxic SARA Section 313 chemicals. 1.7.5 Ant Emissions and Water Release Assessments The company's air and water steering committees will be responsible for tracking the air emission and water release environmental assessments conducted at each site and maintaining an ongoing list of the assessments' current status. In addition, ti.'z' plant's environmental compliance audit will check the current status of these assessments and report on progress as pan of the audit's findings. 1.8 Coordinators Where clarification is required, the following coordinators should be contacted: WASTE MANAGEMENT D. B. Redington, ESH, Corporate. A3NA (314)694-6503. ASSESSMENT C. D. Malloch, ESH, Corporate, A3NA (314) 694-8889. (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee, February 18,1994.) DSM 10808-7 MPG 1. Page 3 Company Confiden HART OLDMONO018708 MOWS. A. P1ERLE Me* PrMKMnl Monsanto Monsanto Company 800 N. Undbergh Boulevard SL Louis. Missouri 63167 --------- Phone:^314) 694-1000__ _ November 11, 1992 To Our Employees: ' ...... ..............._ Monsanto Company is dedicated to ensuring the safety of our employees, customers, communities and the environment This is the commitment of the Monsanto Pledge, which serves as the umbrella for our overall environmental, safety and health program. In support of this commitment, we have developed the "Monsanto Pledge Guidelines." These new guidelines replace our Environmental, Safety and Health Guidelines. They set forth the management expectations for environmental, safety and health performance, and they describe key resuits against which progress will be measured. The Monsanto Pledge Guidelines update our Environmental, Safety and Health Guidelines, and incorporate Responsible Care, the continuous improvement initiative created by the chemical industry worldwide. ------ Thenew-gtridcBnes have beenapproved hy-th^Enviro"^^"*31 Pniiry rninmitt^, Cpnfnrmanrp wTlfi THe-sbifirdl U16 gUlOgimeS KTimOiptiuIIair^ tudg~SBdThhdtfattojyjc -rr ~ .____ expeeted in tailoring the guidelines for specific operating units Please incorporate your existing plans and programs as appropriate to meet the Pledge Guidelines and add any specific programs or requirements that reflect special needs of your business. To fulfill the Monsanto Pledge, we must engineer change and add value to our businesses. In this way, we can build a competitive advantage to sustain our leadership position in environmental, safety and health improvements. This Monsanto Pledge Guidelines book should be treated as "company confidential." The section entitled "Introduction," pages i - iii, contains a summary of the Pledge Guidelines and can be used in external discussions. Sincerely, Michael A. Pierle DS w 107930 HARTOLDMONO018709 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION "TIr~THEMONSANTOlPLSff ^ - ----- = -- ^ --=~. III. MONSANTO PLEDGE GUIDELINES 1. Pollution Prevention 2. Employee And Community Safety And Health 3. Process Safety And Emergency Response ----4. Product Stewardship .........-- ..................... - - 5. Chemical Distribution -................. - --------- ........ 6. Groundwater And Soil Quality . .. _ . 7. Outside Processors 8. Community Awareness At Manufacturing Sites ----- --..................... ........ .............. 'IvrdTMEirGUiDmNES'" ---- -- -- -..... - -- 1. Environmental, Safety And Health Reviews Of Capital Projects 2. Environmental, Safety And Health Reviews Of Divestitures Or Acquisitions Of Property And/Or Businesses 3. Environmental, Safety And Health Protection For Investments Over Which The ...... Company Does Not Have Operating Control - ................ . _ ...----- 4, RrproductivelHarardy inT& Work-plare "" ~* * * V. VI. 'r ' 3. Safe HsuKflUig'OfCaiUnugem -- _? - ... ' * " 6. Contractor/Guest Environmental, Safety And Health 7. Use Of Animals In Research Facilities 8. Ozone-Depleting Chemicals (CFCs) 9. Environmental, Safety And Health Compliance Auditing V. PROCEDURES 1. Employee Health And Exposure Communications 2. Transmittal To The United States Environmental Protection Agency Of Substantial Risk Information Under The Toxic Substances Control Act 3. Recording Allegations Of Significant Adverse Reactions Under The Toxic Substances Control Act 4. Premanufacture Notification To The United States Environmental Protection Agency Under The Toxic Substances Control Act 5. Occupational Fatal Accident Reporting 6. Transmittal Of Toxicology And Health-Related Data To United States Regulatory Agencies VI. REFERENCES Appropriate Responsible Care Program Or industry Initiative OSW 10 793J, HARTOLDMON0018710 INTRODUCTION Monsanto's Environmental, Safety and Health Program - The Monsanto Pledge Monsanto* & customers, communities and the environment. Through the Monsanto Pledge, we have committedpublicly topursue a course of environmental stewardship - one that goes beyond what is required by the law. I. THE MONSANTO PLEDGE ............... ........ Each of the company's environmental programs and commitments is embodied by the seven-point Monsanto Pledge. Announced in 1990 by Monsanto's chairman. Richard J. Mahoney, the Pledge represents Monsanto's environmental commitment to sustainable development - ~ ....... _ The Monsanto Pledge It is our pledge to: reduce all toxic and hazardous releases and emissions, working toward an ultimate goal of zero effect; ensure no Monsanto operation poses any undue risk to our employees and our communities; work to achieve sustainable agriculture through new -technology and practices;- . ^ ~ keep our plants open to our communities and involve the community in plant operations; manage all corporate real estate, including plant sites, to benefit nature; and search worldwide for technology to reduce and eliminate waste from our operations, with the top priority being not making waste in the first place. At the core of the Pledge is our belief that the public grants us the right to operate every day - and every day, we must work to earn that right. The Pledge recognizes that outstanding environmental, safety and health performance isn't a cost of doing business, but is integral to our business success. It assumes that compliance with the law and our internal guidelines is basic, wherever we do business. But the environmentalism embodied in the Pledge is far more than compliance. The Monsanto Pledge sets the overall direction of the company's environmental, safety and health program. Specific guidelines detail our efforts to achieve the Pledge. OSH 107932 I HARTOLDMONOOI8711 II. MONSANTO PLEDGE GUIDELINES ------ All of Monsanto's operations worldwide observe eight Monsanto Pledge Guidelines that help ensure that our products and operations fully protea human health, safety and the environment - while meeting or exceeding existing regulations. 1. Pollution Prevention -- The company will work toward the ultimate goal of ensuring zero effect attributable .. .jo waste in all media. It will research, design and operate its facilities to minimize the generation of process and nonprocess waste and the potential effect of chemical releases to the envixonmenL Fdf waiste and releasesihat'1 remain, the company will comply with regulations, while minimizing environmental threat and long-term liability. 2. Employee and Community Safety and Health -The company will provide a healthful and safe environment for its employees, site visitors, contractors and neighbors. It will evaluate employee health status, determine and monitor workplace factors affecting employee safety and health, and comply with both the company's workplace exposure guidelines and governmental safety and health regulations. It will review major capital projects to protea the health of its people at work and that of people in the community. 3. Process Safety and Emergency Response - Hie company will research, develop, design and operate processes in a manna that protects the health and safety of employees, site visitors, contractors and neighbors. Beyond compliance with appropriate governmental regulations, the company will apply such standards and programs as necessary to manage operational risks at a level that ensures its continuing right to opaate. All company sites will complement this effort with strategies to mitigate risk in the event of an incident . including site emergency response and support of comparable efforts within the community. 4. Product Stewardship - The company will research, develop, design, assess, manufacture, market and dispose of its products so that they meet societal needs and do not pose undue risk to human health or to the environment during all stages of their life cycles. The company will work with produa stake holdas (suppliers, employees, distributors, customers, consumers and disposers) to understand and reduce risks associated with the life cycle of the company's products. ................................... ......... 6. Groundwater and Soil Quality -- The company will design and operate facilities to protect groundwater and soil quality. The company will assess groundwater and soil quality at its facilities and pursue remedies for releases that threaten health or the environment. The company will address on-site and off-site contamination of groundwater and soil attributable to its operating and waste practices to ensure protection of health and the environment. 7. Outside Processors -- To support its operations, the company will select outside processors that will operate with concern for worker safety, regulatory compliance, community protection and protection of the environment. 8. Community Awareness at Manufaauring Sites - The company will fosta its employees' and the public's right-to-know through a commitment to openness, involvement and community dialogue. The company will be responsive to questions and concerns about human safety, health and the environment at its manufacturing sites. Included in these guidelines are Monsanto's voluntary programs to prevent pollution and improve safety performance. Also included are specific elements of the Responsible Care initiative. DSW 107933 1/ HARTOLDMON0018712 III. RESPONSIBLE CARE Monsanto actively participates in the chemical industry's Responsible Care initiative, the most ambitious initiative on environmental, safety and health issues ever undertaken by a manufacturing industry. Responsible Care is woven into the very fabric of Monsanto's commitment to environmental, safety and health protection worldwide. It is an Important tool to help the company fulfill the Monsanto Pledge. Six Respnslb^ Cafe tpytes nfmanagement practice are included in the Monsanto Pledge Guidelines: 1. Community Awareness and Emergency Response -- to bring company operations and local communities together through communication and cooperative emergency planning. 2. Distribution - to make the transportation of chemicals safer, regardless of the carrier or mode of shipment. 3. Pollution Prevention - to decrease the amount of pollution and hazardous waste generated by manufacturing operations. * .. 4. Process Safety -- to prevent fires, explosions or chemical releases from manufacturing plants and processes. 5. Employee Health and Safety -- to improve continuously the protection ofemployees, contract workers and visitors at company sites. - 6. Product Stewardship/** to reduce the risks to health, safety and environment at every stage of the company's products, from proposal to disposal. ' ' ~ ---------- - - ~ --- Responsible Care is an important part of the operation of every Monsanto facility. It is a vital part of our effort to earn the public's trust and the privilege of continued operation. By weaving Responsible Care elements into its environmental, safety and health initiatives. Monsanto is forming - the solid foundation it needs to ensure the welfare of its employees, customers, communities and the environment. Note: Responsible Care is a registered service mark ofthe Canadian Chemical Producers Association and the U.S. Chemical Manufacturers Association, and is an initiative that is being adopted increasingly in countries around the world. OSH 107934 lit HARTOLDMON0018713 rffie Monsanto rPledqe It is our pledge to: <3t reduce all toxic and Hazardous releases and missions, working toward an ultimate goal ofzero effect; <3* ensure no Monsanto operation poses am' undue risk to our employees and our communities; <3fr work to achieve sustainable agriculture through new technology and practices; .. <3t ensure groundwater safety; <& keep our plants open to our communities and involve the nty-m-fdanU)pemtio] rporato reo= Jur.i/^Trrsrmrnnwnriht+vf* to benefit nature; and <3t search worldwide for technology' to reduce and eliminate waste from our operations, with the top priority being not making it in thefirst place. Monsanto January 1990 licn^rd J. Mahoney Chairman and Chief Exei live Officer Monsanto Company OSW 1-0 793 5 HARTOLDMON0018714 MONSANTO PLEDGE GUIDELINE #1 TM- pollutionprEvention The company will work toward the ultimate goal ofensuring zero effect attributable to waste in all media. It will research, design and operate its facilities to minimize the generation ofprocess and nonprocess waste and the potential effect ofchemical releases to the environment. For waste and releases that remain, the company will comply with regulations, while minimizing environmental threat and long-term liability. ...... " ...... ......... KEY RESULTS ----------- Reduce by 90 percent the company's 1987 levelof worldwide air emissions of chemicals named fay the United States Environmental Protection Agency _. r... (USEPA) under Title IU of the Superfund ' '' Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA Section 313) and chemicals of local concern outside the United States by the end of 1992. Reduce by 70 percent the company's worldwide SARA Section 313, European Community Priority Pollutant List (EC 129) and carbon monoxide........... ^ chemical releases lo-all media-and off-site transfers .byT --fhr rnii nf 190*1 r - ----- -- - Discontinue the deep-well injection of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste streams and SARA Section 313 toxic chemicals by the end of 1999. PROGRAM 1.1 Process Waste The operating units will integrate into their release reduc tion plans the corporate goal of reducing all toxic and hazardous releases and emission to all media, working toward an ultimate goal of zero effect For reducing releases from processes, the order of preference is source reduction, followed by reuse, recycling or co-product sale, and finally by incineration or other treatment to reduce the volume and/or toxicity of pollutant streams. _ The development and use of technologies that improve competitive positions will be emphasized. The operating units will integrate into their releaseieftaetion plans the following corporate goals: - Reduce by 90 percent the company's 1987 level of worldwide air emissions of SARA Section 313 chemicals and chemicals of local concern outside the United States by the end of 1992. Reduce by 70 percent the company's worldwide 7SARA Section-313. EC~129and carbon monoxide-- i'TiTr^nm hyenriftf 10QS. Tha January 1990 SARA 31 Land. EC 129 lists plus carbon monoxide apply through the end of the multimedia release reduction program. An effect-based release reduction target will be established every five years beginning in 199S, working toward an ultimate goal of zero effect. By the end of 1993, a method and process for an effect-based reduction program for toxic chemicals will be developed. 1.2 Nonprocess Waste Each facility will maintain an inventory of all nonprocess sources of waste generation, including power generation, office and maintenance operations, general warehouse trash, packaging/shipping materials and similar sources. 1.3 Underground Well (Deep-well) Injection MONSANTO COMPANY ' DS* 107936 MPG 1. Pape 1 of 3 Company ConCidertial HARTOLDMONOOI8715 The company will discontinue deep-well injection of RCRA hazardous waste streams by the end of 1999. It will also apply best feasible technology to virtually hazardous, the company will take into account public expectations, emerging trends and worldwide company practice regarding the same or similar wastes. eliminate the deep-well injection of SARA 313 chemicals. The company's name will not appear on the Contractors hired for land disposal of wastes will be list of companies making significant use of injection subject to contracting and assessment requirements (see wells for disposal of SARA chemicals for the reporting Pledge Guideline No. 7. Outside Processors). In the year 2000 and beyond. .The company will demonstrate ^ ^ United States, the use of off-site hazardous waste ?..progress hv uchfrvinp in 1996 an 8ft percent reduction ' landfills will be approved by the Environmental Policy of injected SARA chemicals against the 1990 base' ' Commftteeand wiUbclimitcd inhumbcr. ---------- ----- reporting year. ' Medical wastes generated at the company's locations To be prepared for the possibility of mandatory -- ------------- will be incinerated prior to land disposal of residues. regulations, the company intends to select by the end of Assurance of incineration will be obtained via manifests 1995 optimal technical strategies for total withdrawal or equivalent documents if manifests are not available. from deep wells. This preparation will include study- _. grade estimates to achieve non-brine, treated surface Each company location will maintain a record of both discharge. All operating units will continue where . _ the on-site and the commercial waste treatment, storage possible to challenge the technical impediments to total-------- and disposal sites it uses. ___ withdrawal from deep wells...... ' ~ 1.6 Air Emission and Water Release Assessments No new uses of deep wells for hazardous or toxic " materials are permitted A "new" use of deep wells is defined as injection of streams from new products or the addition of substances not previously injected at that site. New internal or external uses of deep wells for nanhazardous wastes and nontoxic chemicals will be considered by the Environmental Policy Committee <EPC) only on an exception basis and within the "constraints of these guidelines The rrannmics of anv ~T^jeaitiJtaupiUtionTequest-^sufhuti?'w^J^ TM rhnningy other thanThc u&& Of deep ~ The company will conduct and maintain an ongoing assessment of potential human heaith impacts for"^^^^^^^^: r ,i selected, routinely emitted air pollutants. It will develop appropriate control strategies to reduce identified, potentially unreasonable risk of harm to human health in surrounding communities. The list of air pollutants to be studied include: a) those listed under Section 112(b) of the U.S. Clean Air Act; b) those for which the - USEPA has established cancer unit risk values; c) those cyrrheTniernattopal tbcr-silfc------------- 1.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls-^TCB-Free" ' specific pollutants loeuuueu uji Uic pliuutlut app. u iu. warrant consideration (including those in significant - All company-owned sites (e.g., warehouses, plants, quantities reportable via SARA Section 313). Plants offices) located in the United States will minimize the outside the United States will use the above-given potential for releases of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) pollutant list plus any additional air pollutants on any by becoming "PCB-free" of Toxic Substances Control local regulatory list that the plant manager deems Act (TSCA)-conlaminated articles by the end of 1994. important. 1.5 Land Disposal Landfill of "acutely hazardous" wastes1 and "incinerables"2 will not be practiced. For hazardous wastes and wastes managed as hazardous, fixation of particularly mobile, persistent or bioaccumuiative wastes will be accomplished whenever warranted and feasible. In making the decision to manage wastes as Each plant will maintain a list of all such air pollutants, ranked by established and approved protocols. Depending upon the pollutant's relative ranking and if required by the protocols, the plant will use appropriate dispersion modeling techniques to determine potential maximum downwind concentrations for each such pollutant at specified receptors representative of the exposed population utilizing appropriate dispersion 1 As lined ia 40 CTR 261.33(e), plus aay mixtures containing greeter than 3 percent. 1 Hazardous wanes, or wastes managed as hazardous, with a heat ot combustion greater than 6000 BTU/lb. MPG 1. Pape 2 of 5 Company Confidential DSH 10 793 7 HARTOLDMON0018716 modeling techniques. Appropriate assessments of potential human health impacts at the community hazardous waste streams and toxic SARA Secrion 313 chemicals. receptor points will then be analyzed according to protocols established by the company's Environmental, Safety and Health staff. Any potentially unreasonable risk to human health that is identified will be expeditiously reduced to acceptable levels through appropriate actions. 1.7.5 Air Emissions and Water Release Assessments The company's air and water steering committees will be responsible for tracking the air emission and water release environmental atwremAnu conducted at each site and ^"thei determine the measurable impacts, if any. of its effluents on receptor water quality. The assessments should include both direct and indirect discharges (if applicable) with the mitigating impacts of the publicly owned treatment works (POTW) taken into account for Siist ofthe^ assessments'current status. In addition, each plant's environmental compliance audit will check the current status of these assessments ;--and report on progress as part of the audit's findings. the indirect discharge assessments. Any potentially unacceptable impacts to the aquaitic environment . 1.8 Coordinators ... . identified will be midgated in a timely manner. A reconfirming assessment will be conducted to verify that the impacts have been reduced to acceptable levels. Where clarification is required, the following coordinators should be contacted: WASTE MANAGEMENT All initial air emission and surface water release assessments required should be conducted for each of ' - ; D. B. Redington, ESH, Corporate, A3NA (314) 694-6503. the company's worldwide manufacturing sites within two years of the EEC's approval of this guideline. . Operating units will review the status of the assessments annually, and if any significant changes have occurred at ASSESSMENT C. D. Malloch, ESH, Corporate, A3NA (314) 694-8889. a plant site, determine whether the assessment should be repeated. Any such reassessments will be completed within 12 months. (Revised and approyedbyiheEnvironmemal Policy 1.7 The following indicators win tie used to BttllBure = progress against this guideline: 1.7.1 Annual progress toward achievement of 90 percent SARA Section 313 air emissions reduction goal. 1.7.2 Annual progress toward achievement of 70 percent worldwide SARA Section 313 chemical releases and off-site transfer reduction goal. 1.73 Achievement of contingency planning for reduction of use of deep-well injection. 1.7.4 Annual progress toward goals involving discontinued deep-well injection of RCRA OSH 107938 MPG1. Pape 3 of 3 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONOOI8717 MONSANTO PLEDGE GUIDELINE #2 EMPLOYEE AND COMMUNITY SAFETY AND HEALTH The company will provide a healthful and safe environment for its employees, site visitors, contractors and neighbors. It will evaluate employee health status, determine and monitor workplace factors affecting employee safety and health, and comply with both the company's workplace exposure guidelines and governmental safety and health regulations. It will review major capital projects to protect the health ofits people at work and that ofpeople in the community. KEY RESULTS Approach zero adverse health effects for the company's employees, site visitors andjum contractors, including zero occupational injury and illness. ~ Certify into the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administrative's (OSHA) Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) or equivalent at all facilities where appropriate by the end of 1997. Reduce by SO percent the company's 1991 level of "accidentalTrieases-of hazardous-materials-from.___ rations by the cno-of PROGRAM 2.1 Health Surveillance and Assessment The company will monitor and evaluate the effect of work exposures on employee health by providing occupational health surveillance in all locations. The goal is to offer periodic assessments for all employees. Health surveillance and periodic health assessments will be conducted by the company or by contract health professionals in accordance with the Occupational Medicine Program as defined in the company's Occupational Medicine Program Manual. 23 Workplace Surveillance The company will conduct workplace surveillance to identify potential health risks, evaluate hazards based on current toxicological and epidemiological information and initiate appropriate safeguards to protect employee health. 23 Audits and Reviews -The company will perform periodic on-site audits and reviews of worldwide operations to evaluate status of safety, occupational health anjd,ipdiustnal hygiene pro grams. It will utilize observations and recommendations to achieve and maintain regulatory and code compliance, attain appropriate technological sophistication, reduce the probability of illnesses and injuries, and support employee safety and health education. 2.4 Regulations and Guidelines --J,rh^g^p!aftV wm^rhi^vr-^maintaincompliance. wim it facility design, !! injury and illness recordkeeping, workplace exposures, health surveillance, and community safety and health. If regulatory guidelines are unavailable or inadequate to protect worker health, the company will establish guidelines where appropriate. 2.5 Data Management The company will collect and enter workplace materials, worker exposure, work history and employee health assessment data into the Monsanto Environmental Health Information Analysis & Reporting System (MARS) data base, which will be used to perform epidemiological and other appropriate studies to evaluate worker health and enhance worker protection. MONSANTO COMPANY osw i-0 ?93j9 MPG2. Pape 1 of 2 Company Confidential HARTOLDMON0018718 The company will establish guidelines for classifying 2.10 Security and recording injuries and illnesses and monitor company-wide performance and adherence to federal The company will establish security procedures and systems to control entry and exit of personnel and___ and local regulations on recordkeeping. It will issue monthly summaries of appropriate statistics and will materials at its sites. ~ produce other publications designed to improve awareness and to communicate relevant technologies to the workplace. The company will develop ways to -understand the causation of injuries andexposuretas - ^ well as techniques for prevention.-- ~~ . t 2.6 Loss Prevention Reviews - 2.11 Measurement The following indicators will be used to measure progress against this guideline: Annual progress toward opexating.unit's goah for --..- ....... the Total Recordable Rate (TRR). Annual progress toward entry of 100 percent The company will conduct safety and industrial hygiene .. United States manufacturing and service locations reviews on design, start-up and operational issues for into VPP by end of 1997. major new installations and expansions. Releases as reported per the company's worldwide 2.7 Professional Activities ---------- - system.--------- -------------- --------------- - - - The company will advance occupational health and safety consciousness through employee participation in Systematic review of employee health and ___ industrial hygiene data. .... trade and professional associations and other coopera tive endeavors. -- --- " 2.12 Coordinators .... Where clarification is required, the following ^ \ 2.8 Employee Education ---------------------------------------- --------- -coordinators should be contacted: -- ---^ The company will provide employee training, orientation and education in safety and health. . V. E. Boyen, Director, Safety & Personal Protection, A2NG, (314) 694-6007 2.9 Contract Employees The company will provide contract employees with any required occupational health surveillance, safety and ~ P. A. Easterday, Director, Industrial Hygiene, A3NL, (314) 694-8836 J. H. Baker, Director, Occupational Medicine. Nn A, rnntrnrtnrSr.nrtl \ r.vjiyj.i.'jj.ihi. health ana Sufiiy, Sim located in the United States. will meet the requirements of the contractor environmental, health and safety guideline. (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee, October 22,1992.) MPG 2. Pape 2 of 2 Company Confidential OSW 10 79A0 HARTOL D MON0018719 MONSANTO PLEDGE GUIDELINE #3.... PROCESS SAFETY AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE The company will research, develop, design and operate processes in a manner that protects the health and safety ofemployees, site visitors, contractors and neighbors. Beyond compliance with appropriate governmental regulations, the company will apply such standards andprograms as necessary to manage operational risks at a level that ensures its continuing right to operate. All _ company sites will complement this effort with strategies to mitigate risk in the event ofan incident, including site emergency response andsupport ofcomparable efforts within the community. ......... KEY RESULTS Sustain no major losses from catastrophic incidents. Retain the company's preferred risk status with'..... . insurers. Reduce by 50 percent the company's 1991 level of accidental releases of hazardous materials from production operations by the end of 1996. Incur no major injuries to employees or neighbors from a plantprocess incident. designs. Designs should incorporate relevant consensus standards as appropriate. Additionally, the Safety and - Property Protection (S&PP) staff shall provide supplemental guidance through Design Guides, Tecfacts and related documents (e.g,, Guidance Notes as published by S&PP, Europe/Africa). 3.3 Project Reviews All projects (new processes, products or facilities) will undergo safety reviews to ensure adherence to applicable ~--internal and external standards as well astCLexaminethe 3.1 Process Development and Design Every new process will be characterized in a document (e.g.. Tentative Process, Red Book, Processfor Engineering Design) that describes all materials, equipment and processing conditions, including known safe limits. Design and engineering will be based on such documentation for a new process and on existing operations if there is already an established process. The basis for design of all major operating components and critical safety systems will be recorded in a design manual. Any new or expanded facility will be reviewed for its safety impact on the community. 3.2 Technical and Engineering Standards The engineering organizations will maintain such standards as necessary to allow safe and effective TaaigH gage review. I processes will undergo a research stage review.. participation from the Environmental. Health and Safety (ESH) staff is required for projects managed by an operating unit's engineering organization. All major projects should also have a pre-startup review to confirm that all recommendations from prior reviews and hazard analyses (if performed) have been addressed. 3.4 High Hazardous Materials (HHM) Program High Hazardous Materials (HHM) are those materials, that if accidentally released would pose the greatest threat to neighbors and employees. A higher level of controls and operating standards are applied to these materials. The major elements of the HHM program include the use of Hazard and Operational Study (HAZOPs). the preparation of a guideline document for each HHM. and audits once every two years. MONSANTO COMPANY DSW 1079*11 MPG 3.'Pape 1 of 3 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018720 3.5 Operational Safety Management Safe process operations on a continuing basis are mainlained by each site by the company's commitment to a series of fundamental practices. Included are the following: 3-5.1 Operating Procedures Written procedures are kept current for all ------ processes. They cover necessary operating - instructions, safe handling of materials, safe ^ ^ operating limits, and responses to deviations, including emergency steps. 3.5.2 Operator Training All production and maintenance operators must undergo training to acquire tbe necessary skills and knowledge for safe execution of their responsibilities. Operators must adequately demonstrate their competence ___ before they assume their positions; training must be periodically reinforced. 3.5.3 Contractor Safety The company will provide contract employees with any required occupational health surveil lance, and safety and industrial hygiene indoc trination in accordance with Other Guideline No. 6, Contractor/ Guest Environmental, Health and Safety Guideline. Sites will meet tbe requirements of the contractor environmental, health and safety guideline. -3,4.4 j^NAt^ECT^iCS^ ; ~ ....... Any-changc in equipment, ---- ; ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ |nm_Lilni'i't IPIHI pins li .......I hat is .. recognized as tbe safe operating regime shall be governed by a "management-of-cfaange" protocol to ensure proper safety review, authorization, training and implementation. This protocol also will apply to capital projects on all changes made subsequent to tbe previous safety review. A separate protocol will apply to changes in tbe line organization. 3.5.5 Critical System Inspections A program involving inspection, replacement and/or testing of critical equipment or safety systems must be maintained in order to ensure reliable operations and system integrity. 3.5.6 In-Depth Process Audits At intervals not to exceed three years, all operations shall undergo intensive audits to examine areas of change, non-routine occurrences, new information and other unusual factors to ensure that no new hazards have been introduced and that appropriate ' safety margins have been maintained. 3.5.7 Incident Investigations All significant incidents that threatened or could have threatened process integrity or the well-being of involved personnel will be investigated by a specially appointed team --who willestablish causes and make recommendations to prevent recurrence. 3.6 Emergency Response Effective emergency response includes not only those actions to mitigate and control tbe incident within the fenceline but also includes actions that address the potential impact on tbe community. Consequently, a site emergency response program should include the following elements; ........ 3.6.1 Emergency Procedures Written emergency procedures will be available and kept current for each process, as well as for tbe total site. They will cover actions at each stage of the emergency including shutdown and evacuation. All employees must be trained in these procedures. Emergency Drills: ..... Site managers will test and audit their ---------------- -emergency plan annually and revise it as -.. :necessary. At intervals determined by the . 1 sneTtheemereency drillwiH 4nciudcthe----------- ~ active involvement uf umimunity fesouu.es ~ associated with emergency management 3.6.2 Community Preparedness The site managers will review with appropriate community officials tbe nature and extent of potential incidents from tbe site and provide the community with assistance in emergency planning if requested. 3.7 Measurements The following indicators will be used to measure progress against this guideline: Annual progress reports on S&PP Compliance Audits, the HHM Report of the Monsanto Manu facturing Council (MMC) once every two years and site In-Depth Process Safety Audit Reports. MPG 3. Pape 2 of 3 Company Confidential os* l0"*2 HARTOLDMON0018721  Annual cost of property and business interruption insurance. Monthly reports on SARA Title III, Section 304, reponable releases against goals. S&PP quarterly property-loss reports. 3.8 Coordinator .....' ____- - - Where clarification is required, the following coordinator should be contacted: ~ V. E. Boyen, Director, Safety &. Personal Protection, A2NG, (314) 694-6007 3.9 Definitions ESH: Environment, Safety and Health. HAZOP: Hazard and Operability Study, a hazard identification technique. HHM: Highly hazardous material (a Monsanto designation for substances posing an acute risk). MMC: Manufacturing Management Council. SAJW: Superfund Amendments and Reaothortzauon Act. (Revised and approved by the Environmental Polin' Committee, October 22,1992.) Sl' MPG 3. Pace 3 of 3 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONOOI8722 MONSANTO PLEDGE GUIDELINE ............................... . #4 PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP The company will research, develop, design, assess, manufacture, market and dispose ofits products so that they meet societal needs and do not pose undue risk to human health or to the environment during allstages oftheir life cycles. The company will work with product stake holders (suppliers, employees, distributors, customers, consumers arutdisposers) to understand and reduce risks associated with the life cycle ofthe company's products. KEY RESULTS Practice the principles and key elements of Product Stewardship, as specified in appropriate programs around the world, at all the company's global ' operations. Provide appropriate safety and handling information, including Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs)1. to potentially exposed employees, including contract employees and product receivers. - Work toward tbe goal of no undue risk through_______ ryrlp Gain a competitive advantage by applying product stewardship principles that add value to the company's product offerings. PROGRAM 4.1 Environmental, Safety and Health Information and Risk Characterization 4.1.1 New chemical products, new isolated process intermediates, and significant new uses for existing chemical products will be accompanied by adequate environmental, safety and health exposure information to support a preliminary product-risk characterization (ER-200 or EC-201, and an RAD MSDS) at the earliest practical stage of RAD and prior to off-site shipment. A product-risk characterization (including an EC-202 or equivalent, a final MSDS and a ........ shipping classification) will be completed before new product commercialization......... 4.1.2 The company's process for generating and maintaining an MSDS is comprehensive and, when coupled with human experience and professional judgment, will fulfill the requirement for a product-risk ____ characterization. Whenever significant new :_:~; r.tiafQnPation becomes available, it wilTbe ~' - revicwed asptrt-onhfJdSDS prngram.tn..,_ satisiy regulatory Hid produtit-i Uk characterization requirements. An MSDS review/product-risk characterization will be periodically performed commensurate with product risk, with revisions performed at a minimum, every five years. 4.1.3 Product files or information systems will be maintained for all products or product families. The product files or information systems will contain the data necessary to fulfill regulatory requirements and perform product-risk characterizations and assessments as appropriate, including: * Material Safety Data Sheets; References to relevant literature or internal reports dealing with health and 1Materiel Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) and Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) are interchangeable terms, and refer to the similar requirements in different countries. MONSANTO COMPANY OS M 10 79.V<* MPG 4. Pape 1 of ? Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018723 safety (toxicology, epidemiology, indus trial hygiene, flammability, reactivity, etc.), relevant information on composition, physical properties, raw materials, manufacturing processes, principal by products. protective measures, exposure information, energy requirements, wastes and disposal practices; . Information on use, including handling. _ transport, packaging and storage, which will either be estimated (typically for new products), or obtained by visits or reviews of customer, distributor and consumer practices; A critical review of health aqd environmental effects and exposure - information, such as EC-201, EC-202, Monsanto Work-Place Permissible Exposure Guideline (MWPEG) Reviews, Health Effect Reviews and Toxicology Reviews; Technology Risk Reviews; ...... ......... Health concerns of customers, employees or the public. 4.2 Risk Management System 4.2.1 A systematic approach to risk management will be implemented and maintained for new " .1 products.^Existingproducts will be managed a^ase-by-casebasts. -- ^ --... ' 4.JJ Rlfilf mampniirm iqrfinm where needed, will be an integral part of the follow-up to each phase of a product-risk characterization (as detailed in Section 4.1). 4.2.3 All products will be appropriately labeled for hazard or risk, and will conform at a minimum to governmental requirements and appropriate consensus standards (e.g., ANSI, ISO, etc.). 4.2.4 Document risk-management actions will be recorded in product flies (examples of specific risk-management actions are detailed in Sections 4.3 through 4.7). 43 Product and Process Design and Improvement 4.3.1 R&D materials used in the laboratory will be handled under Prudent Laboratory Practices or equivalent guidelines. MPG 4. Pace 2 of 3 Company Confidential 4.3.2 Pollution prevention principles (Pledge Guideline No. 1. Pollution Prevention) will be included as review criteria in technology-risk reviews for new and existing chemicals, and will be incorporated into the EC-201/202 (or equivalent) assessments. 4.4 Employee Education and Product Use Feedback ___ 4.4.1 Employee education in the safe handling and use of chemicals is addressed in Pledge Guideline No. 2, Employee And Community Safety And Health.. Employees with significant customer interaction will be trained to recognize and feed back information about product use and misuse to the company's environmental network. 4.4.2 Feedback systems to listen to stake holders, including commercial and technical service liaisons with customers, product hotlines, poison control center relationships, etc., will be nurtured and expanded as appropriate. 4.5 Contract Manufacturers See Pledge Guideline No. 7. Outside Processors. In addition, the company will provide guidance and information to contractor personnel on the safe handling and transportation of company products. 4.6 Suppliers ............................... ... ... ....... ___ 4.6.T "Up-10-daic and high-quality product--- --------- - Htfermatjon^incllMlinp.. annYnnrfate". composition data and MSDSs, will be obtained from suppliers for all raw materials. 4.6.2 Suppliers will be actively engaged as appro priate, commensurate with raw-material risks. 4.7 Distributors, Customers and Other Direct Product Receivers 4.7.1 The company will ensure that MSDSs and other appropriate safety documents are provided to all direct product receivers. 4.7.2 As appropriate, the company will actively involve product receivers in dialogue and outreach regarding appropriate risk characterization, risk management and risk reduction. Where applicable, the company will assist in conducting audits. If improper nr'nvolving company products are os*. HARTOLDMONO018724 identified, the company will work with the ` product receiver to improve the practices. If adequate improvement is not evident, the company will take appropriate action, including termination of sale if necessary. 4.7.3 The company will actively seek productreceiver involvement in the continuous improvement of company products and as a . means of differentiating those products in the marketplace on the basis of environmental, safety and health stewardship. 4.8 Responsibilities 4.8.1 Product stewardship is the responsibility of the . business units. Each operating company, free standing division or world area will assign certain employees the responsibility for ensuring that this program guideline is met. 4.8.2 Guideline oversight is the responsibility of the corporate Environmental, Safety and Health staff. 4.8.3 The corporate staff and business units are jointly responsible for developing information needed for product evaluations. This includes periodic re-evaluation of new information relevant to the product on a regular basis. 4.9 Measurement The following indicators will be used to measure rgaragaliist this guideline; ..... 4.9.1 Progress in meeting internal and external requirements for all new product introductions (i.e., EC 201/202 approvals and governmental approvals). 4.9.2 Progress in determining product hazards. 4.9 J The growth of knowledge about bow company products are used and the resultant exposures to people and the environment. 4.9.4 The availability of adequate environmental, safety and health data to the ultimate product receiver. 4.9.5 Increased understanding and diminution of the risks and environmental impacts associated with a product throughout its life cycle. 4.9.6 Differentiation of company products in the ' marketplace.' ~ ' : 4.10 Definitions Product Receiver: An entity (not an individual) to whom the company transfers product. This definition includes product receivers such as brokers or transporters who may not fallinto the traditional customer category. ..... Product: Chemical substances and mixtures, materials and equipment, articles, licensed technology and services related to product use that are sold, distributed in commerce, or otherwise /. provided. _- 4.11 Coordinator Where clarification is required, the following coordinator should be contacted: . J. R. Condray, ESH, Corporate, A3NA (314)694-8883. ........................................ DSW 107946 MPG4. Pape 3 of 3 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018725 .__________ _________________ MONSANTO PLEDGE GUIDELINE .......... , - ' #5 CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTION The company will reduce potential risk to its employees, the public, carriers, distributors, contractors, customers1 employees, and the environment in the distribution ofchemicals. KEY RESULTS Work toward incident-free performance in the distribution of chemicals, including raw materials, intermediates, finished products, byproducts and wastes. PROGRAM ... ...... 5.1 Chemical Distribution Incident Reduction . 5.1.1 The company will continue to improve chemical distribution in order to effect incident-free performance. An "incident" is defined as any undesirable event occurring during a chemical .. ~dfrlributionpToa oyer wMcbtlw company has.......... dir^t contronaTunueBCe that lesults iuan injuiy.i - - rrlirr-- * -hrmirai` <nrejg property or the environment. -' 5.1.1.1 The company will improve the carrier selection process so as to identify and contract transportation services with those carriers who consistently demonstrate safe performance in the movement of the company's chemical products. 5.1.1.2 The safety of chemical transportation practices will be continually improved through application of Total Quality/Total Partnership concepts and tools to achieve the company's goal of incident-free performance. 5.1.13 The company will continue to support The Agricultural Group's Bulk No-Spill Delivery Program. 5.1.14 The company will develop and apply -- . technological advancements to improve chemical distribution safety and will share these with the industry as appropriate. 5.1.13 Through its emergency response system, the company will provide technical advice and ~ assistance in a responsible and timely manner for "outside plant gate" incidents involving its chemical products. The company will measure and continuously improve its response capabilities. Trained personnel will be physically present, in an expeditious manner, at the emergency site upon request . of the local emergency responder or public s^^rofficiaLpr,when the company feels a .. _ qualified emergencyvam can lessen rhiT . T " severity or an iuuuerii or e&M nity's concerns about the company's products. ^ ^ Procram Emphasis Areas ' 5.13.1 Each shipping location will have a current plan for responding to chemical transportation emergencies involving products/materials within its scope. The plants* emergency responders will receive regular training that meets or exceeds regulatory or industry standards. 5.133 Training history for all emergency response personnel will be documented. MONSANTO COMPANY OSW LQ79V3 MPG5. Pape 1 on Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018726 5.1JJ Tbe company will discuss with emergency responders and tbe public tbeir concerns about chemical distribution. Tbe company will encourage partnerships with local communities and local emergency responders along chemical transportation routes, as well as in those communities where its chemical plants are located. 5.1.2.4 The total emergency response plan will be continuously monitored and improved. Detailed post-incident reports and preventive action plans will be provided as training aids to all emergency responders. - 5.1.2.5 Distribution accidents/incidents and any resulting loss of containment will be reduced according to a documented distribution riskmanagement methodology. An initial qualitative risk-assessment methodology will be made available for use. Quantitative risk assessment models will be evaluated for especially sensitive materials. 5.1.2.6 Regulatory changes that affect tbe distribution of the company's products will be monitored and changes will be communicated to shipping locations. Compliance audits and training will be conducted at all company shipping locations as appropriate and reported on annually. 5.1.2.7 The company will support community ---------------- nmreach pmgrams bv offering plant " ~ emergency responders in wmuiuuiues--------neighboring tbe company's distribution network. 5.1.2.8 Tbe company will, as appropriate, through routine communications with the public, emphasize continuous improvement in safe chemical distribution and will be responsive to public concerns. 5.1.2.9 As appropriate, trained plant employees will be the company's "ambassadors" to tbe community to convey the company's progress and its commitment to improving the safety of chemical distribution and effectiveness of its emergency preparedness and response. 5.1.2.10 The company will recognize, as appropriate, the potential for adding value to its products. 52 Chemical Distribution Safety for Warehouses and Terminals 5.2.1 A seamless policy of operating safety results will be extended to warehouses and terminals that receive the company's products. This policy will incorporate standards comparable to tbe company's. 5.2.1.1 Tbe company will use precontracting guidelines in tbe selection process to assess firms that can handle company products in a manner that is safe for its employees, the public and the environment 5.2.1.2 Tbe company will provide information on its policies, procedures and requirements on the safe handling and transportation of chemicals to warehouse and terminal personnel. 5.2.1.3 Tbe company will apply Total Quality ..... Management concepts and tools to all aspects of contract management for continuous improvement in safety and reliability of provided services. 5.2.1.4 Tbe company will use agreed-upon performance measurements and periodic . reviews as indicators of progress toward zero-incident status. 5.2.1.5 The company will extend its recognition of public concerns about emergency preparedness and safe distribution practices ~ ~ ~ "___ ^ to aUjits distribution locations. .5-2-3-Phocram-Emthasls Aao * ~~~~~ 5.2.2.1 Documented selection criteria that include appropriate safety measures for each product will be maintained. 5J2.J1J2 Tbe company will maintain defined flows of information concerning its policies, guidelines and requirements on the safe handling of its products. SJ.J.3 Tbe company will conduct reviews of performance against its requirements on a specified review cycle. 5.2.2.4 Tbe company will support risk management activities and emergency preparedness at all of its distribution locations. MPG 5. Pape: of? Company Confidential DSW 1079.48 HARTOLDMONO018727 S3 Measurement Appropriate measurement systems will ensure continuous improvement toward stated goals and objectives. 5.4 Coordinator Where clarification is required, the following coordinator should be contacted: ......................... --------- DE-wmiarns/Oremical. Purchasing/Distribution,---------------------------------------------------- BRSS, F2EA, (314) 694-8t 644. - (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee. October 22,1992.) .- - OSW i079<9 MPG 5. l'afe3or? Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018728 MONSANTO PLEDGE GUIDELINE #6 GROUNDWATER AND SOIL QUALITY The company will design and operate facilities to protect groundwater and soil quality. The company will assess groundwater andsoil quality at its facilities andpursue remedies for releases that threaten health or the environment. The company will address on-site and off-site contamination ofground\ngter and soil attributable to its operating and waste practices to ensure protection ofhealth and the environment. KEY RESULTS Establish an active groundwater assessment program at the company's facilities. ........... Ensure that there are no adverse public health impacts attributable to the company's wastes. Minimize the financial impact of remedial action and third-party liability attendant to waste sites. PROGRAM r-=ftregrams for astrssmrnt quality will be organized at all major locations, and at lesser sites that have known groundwater issues. Follow-up plans will address priority concerns. The assessment status and plans will be updated in a summary report during the second quarter of each year. Any newly purchased, existing operation will be subjected to the seven-point protocol for assessment of possible groundwater contamination. The coordinator of this guideline (see 6.6 herein) will supply a copy of the assessment protocol upon request. 6.2 Protection 6.2.1 Groundwater Protection Plans Each location will maintain a groundwater protection plan that includes inspection, testing and maintenance of facilities that -------- could contaminate groundwater (e.g.. sewers, process lines, sumps, tanks, loading/unload ing areas). The groundwater protection plans and designs will be commensurable with the -- risk posed by the specific situations.. _ _ . 6.2.2 Facrunr Design New, replacement or expansion facility designs (including sewers and lines) will consider such options as aboveground and/or double containment, improved materials of construction, and/or cathodic protection to provide improved assurance against groundwil^j^rarnmatinn - - New, repfacemenfor expanded surface impoundments for wastewater treatment or storage must be approved by the Environmental Policy Committee on an excention basis. New storage tanks for materials that could cause contamination will be provided with impervious secondary containment (e.g., dikes, liners, vaults, double wall) unless a clear showing is made on a tank-by-tank basis during project reviews that vessel contents (e.g., dilute wastewaters) or setting (e.g.. in battery containment, other adequate containment systems) do not warrant such containment Existing storage tanks will be reviewed in normal environmental audits. MONSANTO COMPANY DSW 107950 MPG 6. Pape 1 of 2 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018729 6J Abandoned Waste or Groundwater Contamination When on-site abandoned waste or groundwater contamination is discovered, appropriate assessment of impacts on human health and the environment will be earned out. Corrective action will be taken, as necessary, in a planned, orderly process to remediate soil and groundwater impacts that threaten-human health and the environment. 6.4 Superfund ' ~ The company will act to ensure that there are no public health impacts attributable to its wastes at "Superfund" sites. 6.5 Measurement The following indicators will be used to measure progress against this guideline: 6.5.1 Submission of annual groundwater assessment summary reports by each plant subject to reporting. 6.6 Coordinator Where clarification is required, the following coordinator should be contacted: D. B. Redington, ESH, Corporate. A3NA, (314)694-6503. When the company becomes aware of involvement in "Superfund" sites, it will actively participate in potentially responsible parties* efforts to achieve settlement The company will seek a leadership role, when appropriate, to facilitate resolution. The operating units will cooperate to establish responsibility for sites where several units contributed wastes, and will undertake an oversight role for sites funded at the corporate level when no current operating unit has responsibility. A goal of the company is to resolve as soon as reasonably possible its share of liability and remedial plans for sites where it has a responsibility, while securing timely and cost-effective resolution. (Revised and approved by die Environmental Policy Committee, October 22,1992.) The company intends a lessened legalistic approach to site cleanup negotiations. Where company ., ' __ retpnncihilily it fairly J^'^j^any'^l^^^~", _ .1 <telaycieanvpnmeccssarilyby.iegal.yet negatively perceived litigious steps. The company will pursue fair legislation and regulations on the general issues in the public arena, but minimizing legal risk will not be the determining factor in the site-specific decisions. M PG 6. Pape 2 o! 2 Company Confidential DSW 107951 HARTOLDMONO018730 MONSANTO PLEDGE GUIDELINE #7 OUTSIDE PROCESSORS To support its operations, the company will select outside processors that will operate with concern for worker safety, regulatory compliance, community protection and protection ofthe environment. KEY RESULTS Manage tbe company's exposure to present and future liabilities associated with tbe use of outside processors by maintaining current assessments and written contracts for each outside processor used. PROGRAM 7.1 Outside Processor Selection The company will use only outside processors that have been selected and periodically assessed to ensure the following: a. their ability to protect the public, employees and tbe . . environrnent adequately from any adverse effect of - - - tbe company's chemicals, products or wastes; '' " b. their compliance with all applicable laws and regulations: c. their knowledge of potential hazards and any applicable manufacturing requirements associated with the handling of company materials; and d. their use of waste disposal methods and locations as specified in contracts, with recordkeeping of all material use and waste disposal. Before they are used by the company, outside processors will be subject to contracts and on-site assessments and approval by the appropriate operating unit or subsidiary director of environmental operations and its manufacturing director or world area designee. Periodic reassessments will be conducted for continuing use. Procedures will be maintained4&4efine4he types of outside processors subject to this program, the assessment protocols and frequency, the conditions for waiver of one or more of tbe above requirements, and other standards. For toll manufacturing, bulk terminals and transloading, the outside processors will take title to, adopt and own the wastes and manage them as their own under manifests and contracts. For other outside processor categories (waste management, cleaning services, etc.), a processor's waste management practices will be reviewed as part of the on-site assessments. Outside processors used by all operating units. subsidiaries and world areas will be.recorded in one or ____ more data, bases to avoid redundant assessments and - . contracts and to facUitatTuse of approvedprocessbrs. - The above elements will be implemented worldwide, but with modifications to reflect local limitations, restraints to compliance with this program, and the extent of the company's operating control. Status and direction of the local program will be reviewed in planned environmental audits of tbe company's facilities outside the United Slates. 7.2 Measurement ' Each operating unit, subsidiary and world area will maintain records that document the number of outside processors used, tbe number of outside processors for which assessments are current, and the number of outside processors with contracts in place. MONSANTO COMPANY OSH 107952 MPG 7. Pape 1 of 2 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018731 7-3 Coordinator Where clarification is required, the following coordinator should be contacted: D. B. Redington, ESH, Corporate, A3NA, (314) 694-6503. (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee. October 22,1992.) MPG 7. Pact . of 2 Company Confidential -0SW 107953 HARTOLDMON0018732 MONSANTO PLEDGE GUIDELINE #8 COMMUNITY AWARENESS AT MANUFACTURING SITES The company will foster its employees'and the public's right-to-know through a commitment to openness, involvement and community dialogue. The company will be responsive to questions and concerns about human safety, health and the environment at its manufacturing sites. KEY RESULTS Establish active community advisory panels, as appropriate, at manufacturing sites. PROGRAM 8.1 Community Involvement and Dialogue Each manufacturing site will implement a policy of openness that provides convenient ways for interested individuals to become familiar with the facility, its operations, its products and its efforts to protect human safety, health and the environment Community advisory panels, open bouses, plant tours, environmental "^awareigssjffls"and titliei activities to involve the -- community in plant operations may be'tised...~ ~TM Community outreach programs will be implemented at each manufacturing plant to inform key audiences (emergency responders, government officials, the media, employees, other businesses and the community) about the facility's emergency response program, chemical inventory, impact evaluation, and potential risks to the community associated with the facility. The information provided will include details on such topics as waste minimization, emissions reduction, health effects of chemicals, and efforts to ensure safe transport of chemicals. Further, all information will include planned improvements in each of these critical areas as well as expansion activity and other projects of general interest to the community. An ongoing dialogue with employees and members of the community will be used to assess and respond to their questions and concerns about environmental, safety and health issues, and to involve them in the community outreach effort Each manufacturing site will conduct an ongoing assessment of employee and community questions and concerns about the site. The effectiveness of the ongoing community communications effort will be evaluated regularly by the site. Communications training will be provided for key site and company personnel who communicate with employees and the public concerning human safety, health and the environment '8.2 Information on Chemical Releases/Incidents Each operating location will make available timely ~ information about routine or accidental releases of toxic chemicals and other chemicals of local concern. Appropriate audiences may include neighbors in the community, employees and the news media. Informa tion will also include progress in achieving the company's stated emissions reduction and pollution prevention goals and future plans. When possible, the information on chemical releases should be at a personal, face-to-face level, and should emphasize listening to others and discussing their concerns and ideas. The company will publish and distribute annually an Environmental Annual Review that articulates the company's environmental, safety and health policies and its progress toward achieving stated environmental, safety and health goals. MONSANTO COMPANY DSH 10795*t MPG 6. Pape lot: Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018733 gj Measurement The following indicators will be used to measure progress against this guideline: Annual progress toward establishing community advisory panels, as appropriate, at each manufacturing site. Annual dissemination of data on toxic chemicals and other chemicals of local concent at each manufacturing site, as appropriate. Annual report of the company's status against stated environmental, safety and health goals through wide distribution of the Environmental Annual Review. Progress, as appropriate, toward developing routine and convenient ways for interested parties to become familiar with the company's manufacturing sites, its operations, its products, ---- and its efforts to protect human safety and health and the environment 8.4 Coordinator Where clarification is required, the following coordinator should be contacted: G. F. Barton, Corporate Communications. A2SP (314) 694-7233. (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee, October 22,1992.) M1GK. Paco: of: Company Confidential 'T........... l079S5 u . ........ ,,...... ........ HARTOLDMONO018734 OTHER GUIDELINE #1 ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEWS OF CAPITAL PROJECTS The company's capital projects will meet the Monsanto Pledge Guidelines, and will be in compliance with existing and anticipatedgovernmental regulatory requirements. The company will review at all levels capital projects for environmental, safety and health impact before, and as a condition of, project funding. The vice president of Environmental, Safety and Health or his designee will review those projects requiring approval by the chief operating officer, the chief executive officer or the board of directors. A formal premise review will be held for such projects or other projects with major technology changes as determined by the operating unit, technology and engineering directors. A system for reviewing other projects will be administered by the directors, environmental operations, of the operating units. -Employees^assigned-toevaluate anew-locatiOTiJpr^. t 3?pefaGon will prepare an internal environmental impact assessment addressing potential environmental.... limitations at the site as a result of the existing socioeconomic and biophysical conditions. The effects of the public climate of opinion and of existing and future governmental, environmental regulations that may apply also are to be considered. Any exceptions to this guideline must be approved by the Environmental Policy Committee, - ............. ...... (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee, October 22,1992.) MONSANTO COMPANY 10 7956 OG1. Pape 1 ofl Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018735 OTHER GUIDELINE . #2 ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEWS OF DIVESTITURES OR ACQUISITIONS OF PROPERTY AND/OR BUSINESSES Negotiations for acquisition or divestiture of property or business units and the securing of final corporate approval are the primary responsibilities of the involved operating uniL However, corporate staff review of ' environmental, safety and health factors and any attendant liability issues is required during the course of such transactions. This review should be arranged through the office of the operating unit's director of environmental operations, who will, in turn, involve appropriate Environment, Safety and Health staff and Environmental Law personnel and arrange for review by the vice president of Environmental, Safety and Health, and/or the executive vice president of Environmental, Safety. Health and Manufacturing. The review should be completed prior to seeking board of directors .approval .of Jtheacqulsitiohordivestiturer " "" ------ (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee, October 22,1992.) MONSANTO COMPANY X)SW 107957 OG 2. Pape 1 of 1 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018736 OTHER GUIDELINE . ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND HEALTH PROTECTION FOR INVESTMENTS OVER WHICH THE COMPANY DOES NOT HAVE OPERATING CONTROL The Monsanto Pledge Guidelines apply at all sites worldwide where the company has operating control. For those investments over which the company does not have operating control, at a minimnm, compliance with applicable local laws, regulations and practices will be required. If such applicable rules and practices do not provide environmental, safety and health protection that would be acceptable for company-controlled sites, the company will initiate action to bring about the necessary upgrading. #3 (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy------- - - ----------- Committee, October22, J992.) "' " MONSANTO COMPANY OSW 107958 OG 3. Page 1 of 1 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018737 OTHER GUIDELINE #4 REPRODUCTIVE HAZARDS IN THE WORKPLACE The company will use all appropriate information to ensure avoidance ofreproductive effects in workers ofboth sexes and in offspring ofworkers. Through the departments of Medical and Health Sciences and Safety and Environmental Health, the company will do the following: The company will conduct appropriate toxicological tests of its raw materials, products, intermediates and byproducts. The company will review current literature for information on the hazards of chemicals and physical agents that the company uses or produces. The company will assess safety arid health implications and the potential reproductive -----hazards posed by these chemicals and physical .. agents. " The company will minimize exposure to potentially harmful materials or activities by substitution with less risky chemicals or processe when feasible, through the use of engineering, work practices, and reliable protective equipment. The company will provide the most accurate information currently available on materials or work practices thought to have reproductive health effects. - ...... .... The company will offer counseling by qualified health professionals to employees about workplace reproductive concerns. (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee, October 22.1992.) MONSANTO COMPANY OSW L07959 OG 4. Page 1 of 1 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018738 OTHER GUIDELINE #5 , SAFE HANDLING OF CARCINOGENS The company will provide safe and healthful working conditions for its employees. It will comply with all governmental regulations concerning exposure to carcinogens. The company will do the following la ensure the safe handling of carcinogens: If any data suggest that a chemical to which its employees are exposed is a carcinogen, and such chemical is not subject to governmental regulations, the company will evaluate those data and then take appropriate action. If the data establish the chemical as a human . carcinogen, the company will take appropriate action to reduce exposure to the lowest reasonable level, unless exposure is already at such a level. If the data establish the chemical as an experimental or suspect carcinogen, the company will (individually or with others) initiate a study to confirm or disprove such designation. During each study, exposure will be reduced to and/or minimized at the lowest reasonable level. If it is concluded that a material cannot be produced or used without jeopardizing employee health, its manufacture or use will be discontinued. (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee, October 22,1992.) MONSANTO COMPANY OS* 107960 OG 5. Pape 1 of 1 CompanvConfidential HARTOLDMONO018739 OTHER GUIDELINE #6 CONTRACTOR/GUEST ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND HEALTH Continuous improvement in contractorlguest environmental, safety and health performance is necessary to create an injury-free and incident-free environment at all company sites for employees and their guests. 6.1 Scope This guideline sets forth environmental, safety and occu pational health (ESH) guidelines applicable to contractors and guests who perform services on or visit company properly. All services administered by individual sites or by company engineering groups are covered. Deviations from the contractor/guest ESH process and requirements will be thoroughly documented and . approved by the location manager or as described in the Comractor/Guest ESH Guideline Manned. No deviation from regulatory requirements will be permitted. This guideline applies initially to all company locations in the^United States. The intent is to work toward worldwide implementation ^ 6.2 Definitions Contractor. Any non-company person performing physical work at a site under a company purchase order or contract. Guest: Any person visiting, performing work or providing a service at a company-managed site, including company employees who are not permanently assigned to that location. Certified Monsanto Representatives: Employees designated by the location management to administer the Coniractor/Guest ESH Guideline. Master Monsanto Representative: The location administrator/facilitator responsible for ensuring effective implementation of the Contractor/Guest ESH process at the location, including training and certifica tion for other Certified Monsanto Representatives. Contract. The document that contains terms and conditions of the agreement between company and the contractor and which serves as proof of their respective obligations. Contracts are to be signed by authorized representatives of the contractor and company, in a form previously approved by the Purchasing and Law departments. 6J Objective _ The process described in this guideline was developed to define requirements for all company locations to ensure continuous improvement toward incident-free and injury-free performance for employees and all 'contractors and guests; " " ~----- Through this process, it is intended that all services per formed by contractors on company sites will be covered by written contracts. Furthermore, the contractor is to be made aware of the requirements of this guideline before bidding, and the appropriate requirements are to be incorporated into the written contract In accordance with the objective of providing for employee and guest safety in the execution of contract work, the company will utilize contractors who have demonstrated a high degree of compliance with workplace laws/standards, policies and practices; have a history of good health and safety performance; maintain adequate insurance coverage; and, if involved in safety sensitive work, have a substance-abuse treatment program reasonably equivalent to that of the company. MONSANTO COMPANY DSW 10 7961 OG 6. Pape 1 of 4 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018740 This process is designed to help ensure that the company will go beyond current regulations, take as industry leadership position in contractor/guest safety and ensure continuous improvement toward incident-free and injury-free performance. 6.4 Responsibilities . The location manager is responsible for ensuring implementation of this guideline. Each site will have a minimum of one company master-certified representative with responsibility for administering and facilitating the Contractor/Guest ESH Guidelines. - 6.5 Supporting Documentation This guideline is supported by Contractor/Guest ESH Guideline Manual that incorporates the following requirements: Contractor Management Systems Working in an Operating Facility 7 Housekeeping Fire Protection and Prevention Hazardous Work Permits Occupational Health/Workplace Exposure Monitoring Vehicle Safety Waste Management ...... . Occupational Medicine . _ Management of Change " 6.6 Practices and Procedures 6.6.1 The company's contractor/guest environmental, safety and health process defines a fully integrated approach to the management of all contractors and guests within company facilities. The process is not intended to restrict management prerogatives, but rather to provide the consistency to help ensure that the Monsanto Pledge is fulfilled and the highest organizational priority is placed on the health and safety of company employees, guests and the communities in which the company operates. OG 6. Pape 2 of A Company Confidential 6.6.2 Contractor/Guest Environmental, Health and Safety Process {see Appendix 6.1) Contractor Representative Training and Certification -- provides for the identification and consistent training of all individuals with responsibilities for selection and management of contractors and guests working at and visiting within company facilities. Guest and Delivery Site Visit Process provides a consistent approach to the orientation and control of all guests, visitors and delivery people who enter company facilities, even those not under contract. Pre-Qualification Process -- provides a consistent approach to identifying and selecting contractors, vendors and service providers who practice effective safety programs with demonstrated leadership and performance in their industry. Selection and Approval Process -- provides a framework for the contracting of services, which includes the identification of all ESH requirements based on the task and the pre identified risk. The process stresses clear communication of the company's performance expectations before the contract is finalized. Pre-Job Activities and Compliance Review Process -- defines a systematic approach for verifying that the contractor and all of the contractor's employees meet the contractual requirements, including orientation, training, medical testing and substance-abuse screening. Plant, operating unit and job-specific expectations are emphasized. Work-in-Progress Process -- provides a process for the management and audit of the contractor's activities to the ongoing compliance with the company's policies, procedures and requirements. The process focuses on the cooperation between the company's certified representative and the contractor's management to achieve success ful and injury-free completion of work. DSW 107962 HARTOLDMONO018741 Performance Evaluation Process -- provides a defined process for tbe evaluation of and feedback on a contractor's performance, whether tbe contracted work is for a defined task or ongoing services. Performance evaluations are fed into tbe contractor pre qualification process and after evaluation contractors either remain on tbe pre qualification list or are stricken from it...... 6.7 Contractor/Guest Responsibilities 6.7.1 The contractor/guest is responsible for compliance with this guideline as incorporated into tbe contract or otherwise communicated to the contractor in order to ensure safe -- operations. Contractors will have a competent, well-trained supervisor in charge at tbe site at all times when its employees or those of its subcontractors are present. Tbe company will not undertake direct supervision of contractor employees. However, when a . contractor employee has no on-site supervision, tbe contractor should work - with the company's certified representative to provide for appropriate implementation of this guideline. 6.7.2 Visitors and all delivery personnel entering the location are to be made knowledgeable of site rules and regulations. 6.7.3 All contractors and guests must communicate in English at a level of proficiency that ensures their safety and the safety of others. Exceptions to the English communication requirement may be granted only by the .....location manager.----- - - (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee, October 22,1992.) .......... ..... OSW 14)7963 OG 6. Pape 3 of 4 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018742 (Ki PilUv J i>! - Company Confidential MONSANTO CONTRACTOR/GUEST ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY & HEALTH GUIDELINE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OSW 10796* HARTOLDMONO018743 OTHER GUIDELINE #7 USE OF ANIMALS IN RESEARCH FACILITIES The company will ensure that all animals used in its research programs are involved in projects of importance to society and that the animals receive humane andprofessionally competent care and treatment. , 7.1 Preamble The company develops pharmaceuticals, consumer goods, agricultural and industrial products that are used to treat diseases, to grow food, and to better the quality of human life throughout the world. The company works to ensure that these products provide valuable benefits to society and are safe to use. In conducting research to ensure product efficacy and safety, company scientists use a variety of new technologies such as computer models, cell culture systems and other processes to identify effective products early on and to detect potential health problems or undesirable side effects. However, these systems are limited because they do not fully represent the complex processes of the human body. For that reason, product research and evaluation requires the use of laboratory animals. All company research with animals is conducted under the review and supervision of Animal Care and Use Committees (ACUC) appointed by senior management. Each ACUC consists of scientists, veterinarians, at least one non-scientist, and at least one person not affiliated with the company. The committees regularly report their findings to senior management and appropriate governmental regulatory officials. The vast majority of animals used by company researchers are rabbits, rats and mice. Rodents account for over 90 percent of all research subjects. The remainder includes dogs, pigs, sheep, cattle, goats and occasionally monkeys. Laboratory animals are purchased from companies that raise animals specifically for research. Livestock are purchased from commercial farms. The company does not buy animals from pounds or shelters. 7.2 Animal Research The company requires all scientists, technicians and managers associated with animal research programs to be fully cognizant and supportive of the specifics and spirit of this guideline. The facilities and management programs established to support company animal research are directed and monitored by an attending doctor of veterinary medicine. The company's programs are fully accredited by the American Association for the Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC). 73 Procedures All company research animals are assigned to a specific protocol under the direction of a principal investigator. Before research can commence, each protocol is reviewed according to procedures prescribed by governmental regulations and adhered to by the ACUC. Each protocol is then reviewed and approved by an attending veterinarian and the ACUC. Records of research use and routine care are maintained for each animal. The company's goal is to give the highest consideration to the well-being of all animals used in research. MONSANTO COMPANY sw 10 7965 OG 7. Pape lot: ComfMnvConfidential HARTOLDMONO018744 7.4 Facilities The company conducts all animal research in modem, well-maintained facilities that meet or exceed all regulatory standards. The company's animal facilities are considered to be among the best,in the industry. Housing spaces include special facilities to quarantine newly arrived animals, isolation facilities, and conventional holding rooms to care for required animals. Room temperature, humidity, ventilation, lighting and other environmental conditions are carefully monitored and ccmtrolled. 7.5 Regulatory Review The company is registered with the United States Department of Agriculture asa research facility. Under the provisions of die Animal Welfare Act the company's facilities are regularly inspected, and the company files an annual report ' 7.6 Information Requests General information on the company's policy and procedures regarding animals used in research may be requested from Monsanto Corporate Communications, 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd., St. Louis, Missouri 63167. The phone number is (314) 694-7233. In general, the company's animal research facilities are not open to the public. However, visits and tours can be arranged by contacting the above address. Because of the nature of the research work under way, the company may restrict access to certain areas to ensure the health and safety of the animals. Recordings, filming, taping, photography and related activities are prohibited except as specifically approved. (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee, October 22,1992.) OG 7. Pape 2 of 2 Company ConHdentiol DSW 107966 HARTOLDMONO018745 OTHER GUIDELINE #8 OZONE-DEPLETING CHEMICALS (CFC'S) The company will initiate actions at all ofits worldwide sites to minimize the uses and environmental releases ofthe chemicals subject to this guideline. It will seek out acceptable substitute chemicals, when possible, on or before applicable compliance dates set by the site's local country laws and regulations. ' 8.1 Scope The following chemicals are those listed in the Montreal Protocol and are the minimum number subject to this guideline. Each company site should add to the list any other chemicals of local country concern and treat them according to this guideline in conformance with local country laws and regulations. CFC-ll CFC-12 CFC-113 CFC-114 CFC-115 Halon-1211 Halon-1301 Halon-2402 CFC-13 CFC-111 CFC-112 CFC-211 CFC-212 CFC-213 CFC-214 CFC-215 CFC-216 CFC-217 Carbon tetrachloride Methyl chloroform Company sites subject to this guideline include plants, offices, R&D facilities, sales offices, warehouses and farms, when the company owns or operates facilities or equipment that use or contain one of the chemicals subject to the guideline. This coverage includes any subsidiary in which the company is a greater than SO percent owner. MONSANTO COMPANY 8.2 Program The management of each worldwide site will do the following, where applicable: 8.2.1 Develop an inventory of uses and/or equipment containing any of the chemicals subject to this guideline. 8.2.2 Establish for compliance with this guideline a plan that contains the following minimum elements: For refrigeration equipment, replace the___ refrigerant with an acceptable substitute when the equipment needs to be replaced or the original refrigerant is no longer available. For explosion suppression and fire extinguishing equipment, replace the suppression or extinguishing chemicals subject to this guideline with an acceptable substitute when the equipment needs to be replaced or the original such chemical is no longer available. Provisions should also exist to provide for such chemical replacement after a system discharge, where practical. After Jan. 1,1994, no new refrigeration, explosion suppression, or fire extinguishing equipment will be purchased that contains any chemical subject to this guideline, if substitute chemicals are reasonably available. DSW U) 7 9 6-7 OG t>. Pape 1 of 2 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018746  For process and other uses of chemicals subject to this guideline, the company will expeditiously develop plans to cease using such chemicals by Jan. 1,1996. In advance of any applicable laws and regulations, all sites will institute best management practices to minimize the uses . ..and environmental releases of any chemicals subject to this guideline and seek opportunities for the use of acceptable substitute chemicals.'where possible, consistent with good business practices and employee safety/health considerations. (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee, October 22.1992.) OG 8. Pape 2 of 2 Company Confidential DSM 1079.68 HARTOLDMON0018747 OTHER GUIDELINE . #9 ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND HEALTH COMPLIANCE AUDITING The company will conduct environmental, safety and health compliance audits to confirm that site management systems are in place to ensure continuous improvement and compliance with both governmental regulations and corporate, operating unit, and subsidiary policies and procedures. 9.1 Scope Environmental, safety and health (ESH) compliance auditing will be conducted at all worldwide manufacturing and research sites. 9.2 Criteria Each operating company and subsidiary will be responsible for ensuring that audits are conducted in accordance with the following criteria: 9.2.1 ESH compliance auditing programs will be consistent with the five-step auditing approach as outlined by the outside consulting firm of Arthur D. Little and follow protocols approved by the corporate ESH staff. -......... . 9.2.2 ESH compliance auditors will be appropriately trained, knowledgeable of the subject they audit, and skilled as compliance auditors. 9.2J ESH compliance auditors will be independent of the location/site they audit. 9.2.4 ESH compliance audits will be performed on a three-to-five year maximum cycle. The frequency for each site will depend upon the results of the last audit, the degree of risk, complexity, and compliance issues at the site. The audit frequency for each site will be reviewed by the Environmental Policy Committee. 9.2.5 Repons of the actual audit findings and/or recommendations will be reviewed by appropriate legal staff and distributed, at a minimum, to site managers, directors of manufacturing (or equivalent for non manufacturing locations), legal and the corporate Quality and Compliance Assurance staff. 9.2.6 Follow-up on audit findings/recommendations will be the responsibility of each operating company and subsidiary. The corporate Quality and Compliance Assurance staff will request periodic status reports of auditing and follow-up corrective actions for communication to upper management (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee, October 22,1992.) MONSANTO COMPANY DSW 107969 OG 9. Pape 1 of 1 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018748 PROCEDURE #1 EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND EXPOSURE COMMUNICATIONS It is the company's intent to identify hazards ofchemical substances and physical agents in the workplace and to communicate such hazards to employees who may be exposed. 1.1 Responsibilities Identification of health hazards of chemical substances, physical agents, and biological agents in the workplace is the joint responsibility of site management, the directors of Environmental Operations (DEOs) and corporate Environmental, Safety and Health (ESH). Line management is responsible for the necessary communi cations to and education and training of employees on such hazards. .. Europe/Africa Specific: The director of the Department of Medical Health and Safety (DMHS) Europe/Africa also assumes responsibility tor the necessary communications within Europe/Africa. In Europe, the DEO is represented by the director. Environmental and Regulatory Affairs. Other countries/regions may specify additional functions who share responsibility. - - 1.2 Employee Communication, Education and Training Concerning the Hazards of Substances In the Workplace All employees whose work provides potential exposure to a hazardous chemical substance will have ready access to reference material, such as a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), and will receive training in the nature of the hazards and appropriate wort: practices, protective measures and emergency procedures. Such training will be provided to employees when newly assigned to an area with potentially hazardous exposures and annually thereafter. 1.3 Employee Access to Medical and Exposure Records Access to an employee's medical or exposure records (if generated) will be provided within 15 working days after the company receives a request in person or in writing from that employee, or as required by law if more stringent In addition to individual medical and exposure records, an employee may have access to general exposure records (such as area samples) for his/her work area and the individual exposure records (with all identifiers deleted) of other employees in the same work environment Since much of the data requires interpretation or explanation, the most appropriate physician or nurse should be present during the review of medical records, and the industrial hygienist or industrial hygiene contact should be present during the review of exposure records to provide such interpretation and consultation. Written requests for medical and exposure records will be kept at the location bousing the records. 1.4 Other Communication of Exposure Information Employees who participate in individual (personal) industrial hygiene monitoring will be informed of the sampling results. All employees in an area where ambient air concentrations or physical agents are monitored should be informed of area concentrations, their relationship to relevant federal, state or local permissible exposure limits, the company's guidelines, and intended corrective action where required. United States Specific: For certain substances, OSHA regulations require written notification to the employee. MONSANTO COMPANY OSw ms PRL P3elo.f4 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018749 1.5 Communication of Physical Examination and Medical Test Data to the Employee An employee will be informed about results of health evaluations and medical tests. Copies of medical information will be sent to private physicians upon the employee's request and only with written authorization. . United States Specific: The employee will be informed in writing about results of health evaluation performed for occupational surveillance. 1.6 Employee Inquiries Any employee inquiry about work exposures must be addressed by site management. The location physician, industrial hygienist or other appropriate management representative(s) should meet with the employee and provide a specific response based on the factual information available. The appropriate DEO, manager. Human Resources, and corporate ESH representative should be consulted in any non-routine situation. EuropeJAfrica Specific'. The director of DMHS Europe/Africa should be consulted in any non-routine situation in Europe/Africa. ' 1.7 Communication of Health Studies When employees have been involved in epidemiology or other health studies conducted by or on behalf of the company, an executive summary of the study results prepared by corporate ESH will be communicated in writing to the responsible DEO and site managers.---------Communications with the employees will be coordinated by the corporate DEO. The DEO may ask ESH and/or Europe Environmental and Regulatory Affairs (ERA) staff to develop a Communications Document and Dissemination Plan in consultation with plant personnel. A decision will be made at that time as to the total population to be included in the communication. Other studies known to the company which are scientifically sound and which present significant new information concerning the potential hazards of a material to workers should be communicated to employees who have potential exposure to the substance. Where possible, employees should leant about significant potential hazards of materials with which they work from the company, and not from outside sources. However, a multitude of epidemiological, animal and other health studies are conducted annually by the company and by others. These studies vary widely in terms of new knowledge provided, scientific validity, conclusiveness of the findings, applicability to humans or the work environment, etc. Location management in consultation with the DEO and corporate ESH and DMHS Europe/Africa (for Europe/Africa sites) should communicate in writing any applicable, reliable study results. In determining where the results of a study should be communicated, factors such as the following should be evaluated: the scientific validity and conclusiveness of the study; whether the study produced new results of significance; the applicability of the study to employees; the significance of any potential hazard identified: and ___ the plans for follow-up studies. When there is a question of whether the results of a study are significant enough to be communicated to appropriate employees corporate-wide, the matter will be referred to the following administration by any member of concerned management' The director of Medical and Health Sciences, Industrial Hygiene director. Corporate Toxicology director. Epidemiology director. Medical director, appropriate DEO and the assistant general counsel. Environmental Law. The appropriate Directors of Manufacturing, Human Resources and Public -----Affairs/Relations will also provide consultation. A draft Communication Document and Dissemination Plan will be developed upon request initially within ESH, to ensure that the study results are properly interpreted and that the communique will be properly reviewed and disseminated to all operating units and/or plants. The DEO, with support from corporate Industrial Hygiene and DMHS Europe/Africa (when Europe/Africa sites are involved) will transmit draft statements, announcements and supporting data to the appropriate location management 1.8 Access to Employee Medical or Exposure Records by Designated Representatives A designated representative with the appropriate written authorization from the employee will be provided access to an employee's medical and exposure records within 15 working days of receipt of the authorization. A PR1. Pape 2 of A Company Confidential J.Q79 7-1 HARTOLDMONO018750 designated representative is any individual or organization to whom the employee has given written authorization to have access to the employee's medical or exposure records for a specific purpose on a specified occasion. United States Specific: OSHA rules require that an employee's recognized or certified collective bargaining agent will be treated as a designated representative without regard to written employee authorization with respect to access to employee exposure records (with all identifiers deleted) and analyses of group medical and exposure records only. Final reports of completed epidemiological studies of unionized employees will be provided to the union involved on specific written request Information on the study results will be provided to all affected employees in a timely manner if this has not been done previously. The appropriate managers. Human Resources and ESH representatives (DMHS Europe/Africa when Europe/Africa sites are involved) and the assistant general counsel. Environmental Law, should be advised of requests for access to records from a designated representative. An OSHA inspector who presents a written access order approved by the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA will be given immediate access to records specified by the order No order is required for access to exposure records. Requests should be reported immediately to the assistant general counsel. Environmental Law. Requests by NIOSH have been supported by the courts but should be cleared by the assistant general counsel. Environmental Law, before being granted. Reference should be made to 29 CFR Pan 1910 Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records, Final Rule 9 29-88. 1.9 Notification to Employees of Right of Access Each location should make such notification of the existence, location and right of access to medical and exposure records a pan of its new hire orientation program and should post or otherwise inform all employees of this information and right each year. 1.10 Employee Health and Exposure Communications Plans Each manufacturing and laboratory location should have written Employee Health and Exposure Communications Plans which address such things as those as follows: the communication of and training on the hazards of chemical substances and physical agents in the workplace and proper handling methods, protective measures and emergency procedures: the handling of employee inquires and expressions of concern about exposures; the handling of employee and designated representative requests for access to medical and exposure records; the communication of abnormal physical exam/medical test findings; the regular communication of the industrial hygiene program and of exposure levels vs. standards; the identification of materials or other subjects needing special communications efforts and plans for development of such programs locally or with the help of DMHS or others; and notification to employees of their right of access to their medical and exposure records. 1.11 ESH Responsibility for Communication Programs When its specialized expertise and/or a general communications need deem it appropriate, corporate ESH has a responsibility to develop a Communication Document and Dissemination Plan upon request for new health hazard information. The appropriate DEOs and management at representative plants will be consulted in the development of such plans to make them more suitable and effective for plant use. 'Europe/Africa Specific: Europe Environmental and Regulatory Affairs will be responsible for developing a Communication Document and Dissemination Plan which is appropriate for the laws and customs governing handling of employee health and exposure information in those countries. 1.12 Definitions Access to Records: Consists of an opportunity to review an employee's medical and exposure records on site, and if requested, receipt of or opportunity to make a copy of the records. Unless otherwise specified by law, trade secret information may be deleted from the records provided to an employee or designated representative but they must be so informed that this was done. DSW 1079.72 PR1. Pape.toM Company Confidential HARTOLDMONOQ18751 Medical Records: Include reports of physical examinations, medical tests and other medical information on the employee in the company's possession. Exposure Records: Include records of an employee's wort: history and the level of exposure to potentially harmful or toxic substances or agents and analyses of such records. ' Epidemiology Studies: Defined as scientific investigations of potential relationships between workplace exposures and health outcome of company employees or other occupational populations, as outlined in a study protocol. (Revised and Approved: Vice President, Environmental, Safety and Health, October 22,1992.) PR1. Pape 4 of 4 Company Confidential OS W 107973 HARTOLDMONO018752 PROCEDURE . #2 TRANSMITTAL TO THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OF SUBSTANTIAL RISK INFORMATION UNDER THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT The company's procedure for handling the reporting ofinformation to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under the 8(e) substantial risk section ofthe Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as follows: 2.1 Abstract of Requirements TSCA Section 8(e) requires any person (company) who manufactures, processes or distributes in commerce a chemical substance or mixture and who obtains information which reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment shall immediately inform the EPA of such information. 2.2 Who is responsible for reporting? The requirements of Section 8(e) of the TSCA apply to "any person who manufactures, processes, or distributes in commerce." It is the company's position that the "person" who engages in the commercial activity is only the business organization, whether a sole proprietorship, corporation, partnership or association. 2.3 How are 8(e) reporting decisions made? Company organizations that might receive TSCA 8(e) information will have a designated individual to whom such information shall be communicated. At least annually, the director of regulatory management (DRM), Toxic Substances, will publish a list of the designated individuals. Anyone obtaining information of the type given in the abstract of requirements and detailed by EPA in their TSCA Section 8(e) Reporting Guide, dated June, 1991, should immediately submit such information to their supervisor. The supervisor shall immediately relay the information to the location or department manager, whichever is applicable, who, in turn, transmits it to the proper designated individual in the organization. The information is then transmitted directly to the director of Medicine and Health Sciences. It is imperative that the flow of information through this transmittal chain be rapid. In the event of nonavailability of a member of the communication network at the time information is first obtained, such member should be bypassed in the interest of speed. All individuals involved in submission of substantial risk information to the director of Medicine and Health Sciences should keep a record of date of receipt and pertinent identifying details. The director of Medicine and Health Sciences; environ mental counsel; DRM, Toxic Substances; and the appropriate operating unit directors) of environmental operations will comprise the designated official 8(e) committee to make decisions with respect to information that must be reported to the EPA under Section 8(e) of the TSCA. Appropriate senior management will be informed of committee decisions. In the event that a committee decision is not unanimous, the next appropriate level of management shall be consulted, and the matter will be resolved at the highest level, if necessary. Employees who submit information through company channels will be notified of action taken by the 8(e) committee together with reasons for such action. MONSANTO COMPANY DSW K>797<* PR2. Pape 1 of 2 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018753 In the event that, after the company has evaluated information and has determined that the item is not reportable under Section 8(e), the company becomes aware that an employee, as an individual, subsequently reported the item to the EPA, the company should review the situation to determine what action, if any, it should take with the EPA. 2.4 How are employees notified of 8(e) requirements? All exempt company employees and others so designated by their organizational unit (plant nurses, contract physicians, scientists and engineers, etc.) within organizations that might receive or have access to TSCA 8(e) information, shall be informed of the provisions of Section 8(e). Annual reminders of 8(e) requirements will be provided to said employees. Records documenting the information communication will be maintained by the DRM, Toxic Substances. (Revised and Approved: Vice President, Environmental, Safety and Health, October 22,1992.) PR2. Pape 2 of 2 Company Confidential DSW 107973 HARTOLDMONO018754 PROCEDURE #3 RECORDING ALLEGATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE REACTIONS UNDER THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT The company's procedure for handling the Recordkeeping Requirements ofthe United States Environ mental Protection Agency's (USEPA) Final Rule Under Section 8(c) ofthe Tbxic Substances ControlAct (TSCA) is as follows: 3.1 Abstract of Rule Manufacturers and certain processors of chemical substances and mixtures must maintain records of significant adverse reactions to health or the environment alleged to have been caused by a substance, mixture, article, process, effluent or emission. These records are subject to USEPA inspection. Rule Reference - 40 CFR Part 717 (48 FR 38178 August 22,1983) ii. Was a manifestation of a toxic effect after a significantly shorter exposure level than described. iii. Was a manifestation of a toxic effect by an exposure route different from that described. c. "Significant adverse reactions" are reactions that may indicate a substantial impairment of normal activities, or long-lasting or irreversible damage to health or the environment Note: The Rule does not apply to pesticides, food, food additives, drugs or cosmetics when manufactured, processed or distributed for these uses. 3.2 Key Definitions - 33 Exemptions from the Rule that Relate to the Company a. Activities involving solely mining or other solely extractive functions. (See Section 717.3 of the Rule for complete listing of definitions.) b. Significant adverse reactions that are known human effects. a. "Allegation" means a statement made without formal proof or regard for evidence, that a chemical substance or mixture has caused a significant adverse reaction to health or the environment c. Significant adverse reactions to the environment directly attributable to incidents of environmental con tamination that have been reported to the United States federal government under any applicable authority. b. "Known human effect" means a commonly recognized human health effect of a particular substance or mixture described in: L Scientific articles or publications abstracted in standard reference sources. ii. The firm's product labeling or material safety data sheets (MSDS). . However, an effect is not a "known human effect" if it: i. Was a significantly more severe toxic effect than previously described. 3.4 Who Can Receive an Allegation? Allegations can come from a variety of sources including employees, contractors, customers and neighbors. As a result, the company's receiving network must be broad. Initial receptors include plant, laboratory and other company location supervision, plant and other company location managers, the company's medical community at all locations, the offices of the operating company directors of Environmental Operations, sales and marketing contacts, switchboard operators at all locations, and environmental network contacts. MONSANTO COMPANY OS W 107976 PR3. Page 1 of 8 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018755 3.5 Procedure for Handling Health or Environmental Allegations The company's Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(c) procedure consists of a four-step review and decision process. A determination than an allegation is not recordable under the Rule can be made at any step in the process. The procedure is shown schematically on Appendix 3.3.2.1 . a. Step One - Each plant or other company-designated locations or laboratory will have at least one identified and trained TSCA Section 8(c) key contact. The director of Environmental Operations (DEO) or designee from the appropriate operating companies, representatives of the Business and Research Support Services (BRSS), and director, regulatory management (DRM), Toxic Substances, will serve as the key contacts for the General Office. The DEOs have responsibility under ibis procedure for free standing divisions and subsidiaries of which the cor. .pany owns SO percent or more of the voting stock or other equity rights, or for which the company has the power to control the management and policies of that firm. At Step One, all initial receptors will automatically transfer persons making oral allegations to the key contact at their locations. Initial receptors will also transfer written allegation to the key contact at their location. There are two exceptions with respect to oral allegations: If the initial receptors are either members of the department of Medicine and Health Sciences Occupational Medicine (DMHS-OM) group (physicians) or the DEO's office, then these individuals may judge at Step One if an oral allegation is excluded. Decision criteria for Step One: pesticides, food, food additives, drugs, or cosmetics are excluded. If a decision is made that the allegation is excluded, the allegation, if written, will be discarded and, if oral, will not be acted on under this procedure. If the allegation is oral and not excluded, the key contact will inform the alleger that such allegation may be recordable under the Rule and request that the aileger submit a written and signed allegation to the key contact. Monsanto Form 8(c)A, shown on Appendix 3.2, is available to be used for all employee related oral health allegations and can be used at the discretion of the DEO for external oral health allegations. All key contacts must note on a written allegation the date of its receipt b. Step Two > The key contact at a company location or the appropriate DEO for the General Office will pro vide company employees with Form 8(c)A for oral allegations of health effects. Written allegations will then be reviewed by the key contact, who will then make a Step Two decision. The key contact will deter mine if the written allegation is exempted from the Rule using the criteria in Step One. If a decision is made that an allegation is exempt from the Rule, the allegation will be discarded. Otherwise, the allegation will be sent to the appropriate DEO for review. c. Step Three - Tbe appropriate DEO will serve as the coordinator for Step Three and Step Four activities. Allegations received from tbe location (e.g. plant, etc.) key contacts will be reviewed by tbe DEO and a Step Three decision made. A Step Three decision will also be made by tbe DEO or other General Office key contact regarding allegations made to the General Office receptors. If tbe Step Three decision is that the allegation is not recordable under the Rule, the allegation will be discarded. Otherwise the allegation will proceed to Step Four. d. Step Four - Tbe DEO will form a committee to make decisions with respect to allegations that must be recorded under tbe Rule. Tbe committee will be chaired by tbe DEO and consist of the appropriate members of DMHS-OM for burnan effects, appropriate members of Environmental Sciences staff for environmental effects. Environmental Law staff, and tbe DRM, Toxic Substances. If the decision is that the allegation is not recordable under the Rule, the allegation will be discarded. Tbe DEO will provide feedback to tbe location key contact. If tbe Step Four decision is that tbe allegation is recordable under tbe Rule, than tbe DRM, Toxic Substances, will place tbe allegation and documents mandated by tbe Rule in tbe TSCA Section 8(c) file. Tbe DEO will provide feedback to tbe location key contact. 3.6 Recordkeeping The TSCA Section 8(c) file will be kept in tbe Office of the DRM, Toxic Substances. The file structure will con form to requirements of Section 717.15 of tbe Rule. Files pertaining to adverse reactions to health of employees will be retained for 30 years. Hies pertaining to other adverse reactions will be maintained for five years. lA separate procedure for litigation claims (Appendix 3.3.1) and the company's Wear-Dated Hotline (Appendix 3.3.3) will be used. PR3. Pact 2 of P Company Confidential -DSH 107977 HARTOLDMONO018756 3-7 Communications a. Disposition of written allegations will be communi cated back to tbe individual making the allegation. The key contact will facilitate tbe communication. b. A summary of the TSCA Section 8(c) procedure will be periodically communicated to all affected employees and updated, as appropriate. (Revised and Approved: Vice President, Environmental. Safety and Health, October 22.1992.) OSH 107978 PR3. Pape 3 of 8 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018757 Appendix 3.1 SIMPLIFIED FLOW DIAGRAM OF MONSANTO PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING ALLEGATIONS SUBJECT TO TSCA 8(c) STEP ONE: Decision Not subject to TSCA 8(c) recordkeeping. Drop from process. *Note: Initial Receptors may be key contact DEO office is also a key contact. STEP FOUR: ---------Decision Allegation qualifies for TSCA 8(c) recordkeeping. Put in 8(c) file in St. Louis PR3. Page 4 of 8 Company Confidential Send written allegation and Forms 8(c)A to St Louis i DEO Office DEO forms an 8(c) review committee 1 8(c) Committee OSW L0797S STEP TWO: Decision Not subject to TSCA 8(c) recordkeeping. Drop from process. STEP THREE: Decision Not subject to TSCA 8(c) recordkeeping. Drop from process. STEP FOUR: Decision Not subject to TSCA 8(c) recordkeeping. Drop from process. HARTOLDMONO018758 TO: SITE KEY CONTACT Form 8(c)A 11/92 Appendix 3.2 REPORTING FORM FOR ALLEGATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE REACTION TO HEALTH Toxic Substances Control Act, Section 8(c) 40 CFR Part 717 NAME OF ALLEGER:_____ ADDRESS: (If not employee) DATE; // MO DAY YR SITE LOCATION: SITE LOC. CODE: (If health effect only): M F YR. OF BIRTH; _ Employer (if other than Monsanto): ________________________________________ DESCRIPTION OF ALLEGED AVERSE HEALTH EFFECT: 1. WHAT IS THE HEALTH EFFECT BEING CLAIMED? __________________ 2. HOW LONG DID IT LAST? 3. HOW OFTEN HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED EFFECT? 4. IN WHAT WAY DID IT AFFECT YOUR NORMAL ACTIVITIES? 5. HOW WERE YOU EXPOSED? WHAT SUBSTANCE, MIXTURE, PROCESS OR OPERATION DO YOU THINK CAUSED THE EFFECT YOU DESCRIBED: FOR COMPANY USE ONLY: RECEIVED ON: BY: DSW 107980 PR3. Pape 5 of 8 Company Confidential HARTOLDMON0018759 Appendix 3.3.1 TSCA 8(c) RECORDKEEPING: LITIGATION CLAIMS Detailed Procedure: Sup 1 Litigation complaint* will be reviewed at the time of receipt by the law department for relevance to TSCA 8(c) recordkeeping. Criteria for this review include the following: a) Is the claim against a Monsanto product or process? b) Is the product(s) in question one that is covered by TSCA. i.e., other than pesticide, herbicide, food, food additive or pharmaceutical? c) Is the claim a health or environmental claim? If all criteria is met. the claim will be sent to the DMHS occupational medicine group. Exceptions to this include claims against the Agricultural Group. Nutrition and Health Care Products that will be sent to these respective groups when the law department is unsure of the answer to question (b). Step 2 The occupational medicine group of DMHS will review the litigation claims passed to them by the law department The review will be based on EPA's definitions of "known human effect" and "significant adverse reactions" (40 CFR 717). For environmental effects, DMHS may need to contact the appropriate DEO for assistance. Claims that do not meet TSCA 8(c) criteria will be dropped from further TSCA review of this step. Those claims that meet TSCA 8(c) criteria will be forwarded to the DRM. Toxic Substances, for filing. - Sup 3 Claims meeting the 8(c) criteria will be filed in the TSCA 8(c) file maintained by the DRM, Toxic Substances. This office will request a copy of the complaint, abstract, and "answer" from the law department. Step 4 The law department will forward a copy of the complaint, abstract, and "answer" to the DRM, Toxic Substances, for filing in the TSCA 8(c) file, along with the "complaint." The "complaint," abstract and "answer" will constitute the TSCA 8(c) recordable "allegation" and "follow-up" for all litigation filings. A block flow diagram of the TSCA 8(c) process for litigation complaints appears on the reverse side of this page. (Revised 1QT22J92) PR3. Pape 6 of 8 Company Confidential -OSH 107981 HARTOLDMONO018760 Appendix 3.3.2 TSCA 8(c) REVIEW PROCEDURE OF LITIGATION CLAIMS Request "Answer" * Law Department "Answer** I DSW 107982 DRM TSCA File "Answer" in 8(c) file PR3. Pape 7 of 8 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018761 Appendix 3.3.3 TSCA 8(c) RECORDKEEPING: WEAR-DATED HOTLINE Detailed Procedure: Step J All health and environmental effect allegations received by the Wear-Dated hotline will be documented by the phone operator on a standard form. Step 2 The documented health and environmental effect hotline call will be reviewed by the Chemical Group Product Safety department for TSCA 8(c) relevance. Step 3 ' The hotline allegations that are judged by the Chemical Group Product Safety department as meeting TSCA 8(c) recordkeeping requirements will be forwarded to the DRM, Tbxic Substances, for filing. PR3. Pape So/8 Company Confidential OSW 107983 HARTOLDMONO018762 PROCEDURE #4 PREMANUFACTURE NOTIFICATION TO UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY UNDER THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT The company's procedure for development ofpremanufacture notification (PMN) to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as required under Section 5 ofthe Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is as follows: 4.1 Abstract of Requirements A PMN is required to be submitted to USEPA for all new chemical substances at least 90 day before the substance can be manufactured for commercial purposes. A number of substances are exempted from these requirements, including, but not limited to drugs, food and food additives, pesticides, RAD substances, nonisolated intermediates, and substances on the TSCA inventory. Final Rules Reference - 40 CFR Part 720. 4.2 Is a PMN Required? At a very early stage of new product development, including isolated intermediates and new imports, several checks should be made to determine if a PMN will be required for the product 4.2.1 Is the Product (Substance) Exempt under TSCA? Responsibility: Operating unit director. Environmental Operations (DEO) or designee. Section 2(B) of TSCA exempts broad classes of substances such as pesticides, food, food additives, mixtures and others. The PMN rule exempts small quantities for RAD purposes and has provisions to exempt substances for test marketing low volume manufacture and for polymer manufacture. The rule also exempts impurities, some by-products, articles and nonisolated intermediates. Refer to TSCA law and regulations or the company's PMN manual for details or contact operating unit DEO or designee or director, regulatory management (DRM), Toxic Substances (TSCA). 4.2.2 Is the Substance "New" under TSCA? (Is It on the TSCA Inventory of Chemical in Commerce?) Responsibility: Operating Unit DEO or designee. Contact the operating unit DEO or designee and have the TSCA non-confidential inventory searched for the substance. If the substance is on the TSCA nonconfidential inventory, it is not new under TSCA definition and a PMN is not required. If the substance in question is not on the nonconfidential inventory, the confidential inventory must be searched. To search the confidential inventory, a Bona Fide Intent to Manufacture (BIM) notice must be submitted to USEPA. A copy of the instruction for submitting a BIM can be found in 720.25 of 40 CFR 720. Send a copy of the BIM to the DRM, TSCA for corporate recordkeeping purposes. MONSANTO COMPANY in7084 0SW PR4` PaPelof;' Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018763  If USEPA reports that the substance is not on the confidential inventory, then the substance is a new substance under TSCA and a PMN is required unless the material is exempt under Section 2 (a) above. 43 What Information Is Required on a PMN Submission? Final rules detailing the PMN requirements can be found in 40 CFR 720. All PMNs must be submitted on USEPA Form 7710-25 (1/91). Copies of the form and instructions for its use are available from the DRM, TSCA. The required PMN information falls into either the category of General Information or Risk Assessment Data. USEPA will accept additional data-in many cases, it is desirable to submit Risk Analysis, pollution prevention data or other information to assist USEPA with their assessment. Since the company performs a Risk Analysis on all new products via the Pledge Guidelines and the EC-201/202 procedures, the information is available for this purpose. 4.4 What Are the Details of the PMN Procedure? The PMN process should be integrated into the . development scheme of a new project In most cases, the PMN development will be initiated during the earliest phases of commercialization of a product. The PMN must be submitted to USEPA at least 90 days before the product can be manufactured for commercial purposes, including test marketing. 4.5 Bow Is a PMN Initiated? Responsibility: Operating unit DEO or designee. The operating unit contact submits an ER-200 or EC-201 to the Department of Medicine and Health Science (DMHS) if one has not already been submitted (See company booklet G-2738 for ER-200 and EC-201/202 Procedures). The operating unit contact drafts a PMN using the USEPA form. The operating unit contact calls a scoping meeting. Minimum participants at the meeting are operating unit contact, operating unit DEO or designee (if not serving as a contact), member of corporate Environmental Sciences center or other qualified environmental effects expert (if appropriate), DMHS toxicologist and DRM. TSCA. Copies of PMN drafts, along with an PR4. Pape 2 of 3 Company Confidential approved ER-200 or EC-201 for the substance are supplied to participants in advance. Note: The scoping meeting can be bypassed at the discretion of the operating unit DEO. At the scoping meeting, decisions are made by the operating unit contact, as to the scope and detail of optional information to supply. If optional risk analysis is desired, assignments are made to DMHS toxicology, industrial hygiene, etc., to complete the necessary sections. A decision is also made as to whether an EC-202 is needed before a PMN submission. Note: It is appropriate at this stage ofproduct development to initiate a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and a TF-837for label andfreight classification. 4.6 How Are PMNs Finalized? Responsibility: Operating unit DEO or other designated operating unit contact. The operating unit contact prepares a final draft using input from the scoping meeting as well as follow-up input from DMHS. The operating unit contact, together with the patent department, reviews the final draft for confidential information and develops appropriate confidentiality claims with substantiation, where necessary. The final draft is circulated to the participants of the scoping meeting for final review. The operating unit contact calls a meeting for final comments/approvals if needed. 4.7 How Are PMNs Submitted? Responsibility: DRM, TSCA After final review/approval, the operating unit contact forwards the PMN to the DRM, TSCA (authorized official), for submission. The DRM, TSCA, will submit the PMN (both confidential and non-confidential as appropriate), using applicable USEPA submission requirements. 107985 HARTOLDMONO018764 4.8 How Is USEPA Follow-up on a PMN Handled? Each PMN will identify a technical contact in addition to an authorized official. The technical contact will typically be operating unit DEO, Commercial Develop* menu or R&D contact 4.8.1 PMN Fees A 52,500 fee is required for all PMNs, except intermediates filed at the same time as final product (SI ,000) or exemptions (zero cost). A unique six-digit TS-user fee identification must be assigned to each PMN and must also appear on the check. The fee is sent to a separate USEPA office from the PMN. AA2 Phone Contact All calls from the USEPA on technical matters should be handled by the "Technical Contact." All verbal questions concerning nanconfidential inquiries by the USEPA may . be discussed at the time of call or deferred to obtain an answer if unknown or if unsure as to USEPA authority to ask for the information. Non-confidential oral responses may be followed up with a written response when deemed appropriate by the contact In all cases the technical contact should write a note to file documenting the conversations, with a copy to the DRM, TSCA. Confidential inquiries previously discussed with the USEPA or claimed confidential in the PMN may de discussed at the discretion of the technical contact All other verbal confidential questions will be addressed by written response only. Verbal response to USEPA will be followed up, at the discretion of the technical contact, with a written letter documenting the conversation and clearly indicating areas of confidentiality, with a copy to the DRM, TSCA. 4.8.3 EPA Actions , Responsibility: The operating unit DEO or designee will have prime responsibility, with counsel of Environmental Law and the DRM. TSCA. USEPA may extend the review period by an additional 90 days. USEPA may ask for more information under Section 5(e). i. An order may be issued by USEPA. ii. A consent order may be jointly agreed upon. The consent order can include restriction on manufacture or use in lieu of information generation. USEPA may restrict manufacture or use under Section 5(f). 4.9. How Is the Company Follow-up on the PMN Submission Handled? Responsibility: Operating unit DEO or designee. The company may request USEPA to stop the clock on PMN reviews at any time during the review period. After USEPA's review period expires, manufacture can commence at any time, subject to any 5(e) or 5(0 restrictions. A Notice of Commence to Manufacture (NCM) must be submitted to USEPA within 30 days of the first manufacture for commercial purposes. The information to be included in the notice are detailed in 40 CFR 720. Confidential claims must be made again at this time, as appropriate. Send a copy of the NCM to the DRM, TSCA for corporate recordkeeping purposes. Once a NCM is filed with USEPA, the PMN substance is placed on the TSCA inventory. (Revised and Approved: Vice President, Environmental, Safety and Health, October 22,1992.) DSW 107986 PR4. Pape 3 of 3 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018765 PROCEDURE #5 OCCUPATIONAL FATAL ACCIDENT REPORTING In case ofa fatal accident, the company's Lav Department must be contacted in addition to following government, operating company, and corporate-reporting requirements. OSHA regulations require that, within 48 boors after the occurrence of an employment accident which is fatal to one or more employees or which results in bospitalization of five or more employees, the employer of such employee(s) shall report the accident either orally or in writing to the nearest office of the OSHA Area Director. The reporting may be by telephone or telegraph. The report shall relate the circumstances of the accident, the number of fatalities, and the extent of any injuries. In such instances the following guidelines are considered necessary to protect the civil rights of company employees. In addition to routine operating company and corporate notifications in fatal accidents, either Mary M. Tonkin or Michael E. Gewin (for accidental deaths) or L. William Higley (for deaths for long-term chemical exposure), the company's attorneys for OSHA matters, must be notified immediately. The telephone numbers are listed below. They will provide prompt necessary legal guidance including, where necessary, sending an attorney to the site for on-the-spot counseling. In the meantime, OSHA inspectors) should be given access to the site of the accident when the inspector arrives on the premises, without requiring that the inspector secure a warrant for entry. However, neither members of location management nor any wage employee should discuss the accident with the OSHA inspector until advised to do so by the company attorney. The location manager or his designee will greet the inspector and state that location employees have been asked not to discuss the accident until the company attorney advises them accordingly. The inspector is to be told that we have been forced to take this posture as a result of the OSHA Procedure for Investigating Criminal/Willful Violations. The inspector will be permitted to inspect the plant, and, of course, should be advised of any chemical hazards and protective measures needed, related or not to the accident Location personnel will not allow the inspector to view any records or documents at this time, other than the lost-time injury log, OSHA Form 200 and Form 101 or its equivalent until advised to do so by the company attorney. If the location is requested to rope off the area of the accident, local discretion should be exercised. The inspector, however, is not authorized to keep plant management away from any part of the operation. If local management believes entry by the inspector must be delayed for a few hours because of exposure, safety, confusioo, etc., management will seek such a recommendation from Ms. Tonkin or Mr. Higley at the time of the initial call to St. Louis. Contacts Mary M. Tonkin, 314/694-2967 (office), (314) 721-8209 (home). Michael E. Gewin, 314/694-2849 (office), (314) 352-2176 (home). L. William Higley. 314/694-8503 (office); (314) 862-1796 (home). (Revised and Approved: Vice President. Environmental, Safety and Health, October 22,1992.) MONSANTO COMPANY OSW L0798-7 PR5. Pape 1 of 1 Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018766 PROCEDURE #6 TRANSMITTAL OF TOXICOLOGY AND HEALTH-RELATED DATA TO UNITED STATES REGULATORY AGENCIES Health-related information should be submitted through the Department ofMedicine and Health Sciences. The various regulatory agencies are continually supplied information from toxicology and health-related tests on the company's products done by or for die company. In order to provide consistency in the handling and review of such information, as well as to assure proper follow- through on commitments to these agencies, the transmittal of such test results will be carried out in accordance with the following guidelines: . 6.1 All toxicology or health-related data will be reviewed with the department of Medicine and Health Sciences (DMHS) prior to submission to any regulatory agency, except for routine submissions by the company's Agricultural Group of test data required under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodentidde Act (FIFRA). In addition, DMHS will be informed of all such submissions at the time via the letter of transmittal. 6.2 Any such information transmitted must be recorded and the copy of the final submission retained both by DMHS and the involved operating company. 6.3 The letter of transmittal for any toxicology or health-related data must include a listing of the materials being transmitted including sufficient bibliographic information for subsequent retrieval of the original data. 6.4 If the submission includes data on human health effects, it is preferable that the information be submitted to the regulatory agency by the director of the depart ment of Medicine and Health Sciences. 6.5 Agreements with a regulatory agency that commit the company to the future transmittal of toxicology or health-related data must also be reviewed and approved in advance by DMHS; further, DMHS must concur with the feasibility of meeting commitment dates. Appropriate records of such commitments must be maintained both by the involved operating company and DMHS in order to ensure future compliance with such agreements. 6.6 Any exceptions to the above must be approved by the director of DMHS. (Revised and Approved: Vice President, Environmental, Safety and Health, October 22,1992.) MONSANTO COMPANY OSH 107988 PR6. Pape 1 of 1 Company ConHdential HARTOLDMONO018767 REFERENCE: Cross Reference ESH Worldwide Guidelines, Pledge Guidelines, and Responsible Care ESH Worldwide Guideline Effluent and Emission Control Waste Management Plant Environmental Assessments Employee and Community Safety and Health Pledge Guideline Pollution Prevention Responsible Care Code on Pollution Prevention Practices No. 1 through No. 11, except No. 4 and No. 8 Employee And Community Safety and Health Code on Process Safety, Employee Safety and Health and Community Awareness and Emergency Response None (Internal Process Safety and Emergency Response Policy Elements) Product Stewardship Process Safety and Emergency Response Product Stewardship Code cm Process Safety Code on Community Awareness and Emergency Response Code on Product Stewardship None (Internal Distribution Policy Dements) Chemical Distribution Code on Distribution Waste Management - Corrective and Remedial Action Plant Environmental Assessments Groundwater and Soil Quality Outside Processors Outside Processors Code on Pollution Prevention, Practices No. 13 and No. 14 Code cm Pollution Prevention, Practices No. 12 Code on Pollution Prevention, Practices No. 12 None (Internal Policy Dements on Public Participation and Involvement) Community Awareness at Manufacturing Sites Code on Community Awareness and Emergency Response, Practices No. A1 - No. A9 Code on Pollution Prevention Practices No. 4 and No. 8 DSW 107989 REFERENCE Company Confidential HARTOLDMONO018768 Responsible Care:1' A Public Coimmrtment GUIDING PRINCIPLES Member companies of the Chemical Manufacturers Association are committed to support a continuing effort to improve the industry's responsible management ef chemicals. They pledge to manage their businesses according to these principles: To recognize and respond to community concerns about chemicals and our operations. To develop and produce chemicals that can be manufactured, transported, used, and disposed of safely. To make health, safety and environment considerations a priority in our planning for all existing and new products and processes. To report promptly to officials, employees, customers and the public, information on chemicalrelated health or environmental hazards and to recommend protective measures. To counsel customers on the safe use. transportation and disposal of chemical products. Tp operate our plants and facilities in a manner that protects the environment and the health and safety of our employees and the public. To extend knowledge by conducting or supporting research on the health, safety and environmen tal effects of our products, processes and waste materials. To work with others to resolve problems created by past handling and disposal of hazardous substances. To participate with government and others in creating responsible laws, regulations and standards to safeguard the community, workplace and environment To promote the principles and practices of Responsible Care* by sharing experiences and offering assistance to others who produce, handle, use. transport or dispose of chemicals. OSH 107990 K pige 1 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018769 R. Page 2 of 98 OSH i.C799i HARTOLDMONO018770 Responsible Care:f A Public Commitment SUMMARY DESCRIPTION RESPONSIBLE CARE* PROGRAM ELEMENTS The statement of Guiding Principles for Responsible Care* is a commitment ov eacn memoer company to fully support a continuous effort to improve the industry's-responsible manage ment of cnemicais Each member company has pledged to operate according to tne Guiding Principles and has signed to that effect. The signed statement is considered an obligation of membership m the Chemical Manufacturers' Association (CMA1. The Guiding Principles are based on CMA's 1983 policy statement on health, safety and the environment and on the Canadian Responsible Care* principles. They also incorporate guidance received from member company executive contacts. Following association adoption of the Guiding Principles, various CMA committees began developing Codes of Manage ment Practices in January 1989. Each Code of Management Practices addresses several public concerns. Impetus for developing a specific Code comes from either a substantial public concerms) identified by the Public Advisory Panel or the industry, a substantive need to take voluntary action, or both. Codes m development address community awareness and emergency response, distribution, pollution prevention, process safety, employee health and safety, and product stewardship. The Codes of Management Practices identify expected manage ment practices as obiectnes rather than prescribing absolute or Quantitative standards. Since the Codes are intended to serve as obiectives. they complement existing member company programs or practices that achieve the same goals. Responsible Care*, therefore, becomes an integral part of existing company programs and will cause each company to stretch to continually improve performance Another important element in the Responsible Cara* initiative is the Public Advisory Panel which is composed of a group of environmental, health and safety thought leaders. The panel is an industry (CMA) effort, not a company responsibility. It was assembled and is moderated by an experienced facilitator working at the association's direction. It serves to assist the industry in identifying and developing programs and actions that are responsive, and are viewed as responsive, to public con cerns. Meeting several times a year, the panel reviews issues on which CMA requires comment and advice. Panel members also identify areas they believe require-industry response. critique all proposed Codes of Management Practices and provide early definition of public concerns involving the chemical industry. Community Advisory Panels at the local or regional level can serve companies and the industry in a similar manner CMA has developed guidance to facilitate companies formation and operation of local panels. Effective performance evaluation is a critical element of Responsible Care* Therefore each Code of Management Practices includes a Self-Evaluation Form that measures a comoany s improveo use of tne management practices that the Coce oelmes Memoer companies will conouct self-evaluations for each Code annually CMA will compile me results arc periodically report industry s collective implementationorcc'ess to the public. To document progress in ways that are meaningful to tne public,CMA also will monitor statistical trena oata wners available, on industry performance. For example. Suoerfunc Section 313 emissions reporting and Department of Transporta tion hazardous materials incident statistics will be a component of public reporting for the Pollution Prevention Code and the Distribution Code. Oue to their varying size and operations, member companies will not be expected to be at the same level of performance for each Code of Management Practices at the same time However, it is expected that each member company report continued progress. To facilitate and support each member company's continual improvement in the responsible management of chemicals. Executive Leadership Groups (ELGs) have formed ELGs provide an opportunity for corporate leaders to discuss progress and share experiences with implementing elements of Responsible Care*. These regional groups of ten to twenty executive contracts will meet at least once a year to review Codes of Management Practices under development discuss members' progress with implementing existing Codes, identify areas where individual companies need assistance from CMA or other companies, and to address other priority industry issues Endorsement of the Responsible Care* initiative is an Obligation of Membership in the association. A member company's obligation to Responsible Care* applies to all of its chemical business. Each member company is expected to make a commitment to Responsible Care* by: a) signing the Guiding Principles of Responsible Care*' b) communicating the commitmeot to Responsible Care* to employees; c) making good-faith efforts to implement the Codes of Management Practices, participate in the self-evaluation process, and meet the expectations of the Responsible Care* initiative; and d) using the Responsible Care* name and logo according to CMA's guidelines. Member companies are also expected to participate m the development of the Codes and programs. In an extreme case, where a member company has consis tently not conducted its operations in accordance with the Guiding Principles and program elements of Responsible Care* association representatives will meet with the member company's executive contact to seek die company's positive involvement in the program. If this fails to produce a commit ment to pursue the objectives of Responsible Care*, appropriate actions will be taken including the disassociation of tne company from membership DSW 1079S2 `ge 3 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018771 R. Page 4 of 98 -osw 10 7993 HARTOLDMONO018772 Responsible Care:1 A Public Commitment QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT RESPONSIBLE CARP Q Who had the idea for the Responsible Care* initiative? A. Executives of the Canadian Chemical Producers Association ICCPA) began Developing the concept-m 1984. Executives of Chemical Manufacturers Association ICMA) member companies that have Canadian operations brought Responsible Care* to CMA's attention. CMA considered a variety of options and adopted the performance-based Responsible Care* initiative in 1988. Q How is Responsible Care* different from what the chemicel industry has been doing? A. Many chemical companies have programs that are designed to improve performance. However. Responsible Care* is a broad chemical industry commitment to improve performance through a process that ensures responsiveness to the public's concerns. Two aspects make Responsible Care* unique. Fust bylaws obligate CMA member companies, representing 90% of basic industrial production capacity in the United States, to participate in the initiative. And second, through a Public Advisory Panel, the public is directly involved in developing program elements. Current CMA programs such as Community Awareness and Emergency Response ICAER). Air Quality. Waste Minimization, and National Chemical Response and Information Center (NCRIC) are vital parts of the initiative. Through Responsible Care' s self-evaluation process and Public Advisory Panel. CMA will identify areas where additional resources need to be developed to help member companies achieve the goals of the initiative. Responsible Care* also encourages member companies to help each other improve performance by sharing experiences and resources in specific areas of chemical operations. Q Why does the chemical industry need to do anything? A. Because in spite of past efforts there still are too many incidents involving chemical operations. Politicians and government regulators will respond to the public's concerns about chemicals artfour industry if the chemical industry does not respond first Therefore, it is important for the industry to take continuing positive action to address public concerns. Q Isn't then some other way? The chemical industry is already doing a lot can't h just communicate this? A. The CMA membership concluded that the chemical industry doesn't ;ust have a public relations problem, rt has a perfor mance problem. The chemical industry has to respond effectively to public concerns through improved performance It is dear mat tne public's expectations are not being met on a performance basis. Until the chemical industry truiv understands puoiic concerns and addresses them for a cericmance standpoint CMA member companies can t dossidw improve the public perception of their inoustry Q Who prepend the Guiding Principles and what are they based on? A. The guiding Principles are based on CMA's 1983 board- approved policy on "Health. Safety and the Environment" and the Canadian Responsible Care* principles They are consistent with both. They were prepared by representatives of CMA member companies and approved by the CMA Board of Directors. Q Why don CMA's Board think Rnponsiblo Care will work? A. Since Responsible Care* is based on concepts proven m both the Canadian experience aod CMA's voluntary programs such as CAER. the CMA membership has confidence that it can achieve improved industry performance. Most important by signing tne Guiding Principles. CMA member companies have demonstrated their commitment to make Responsible Care* work. Q How much will Rosponsiblo Caro* cost CMA member companies to implement? A. Significant resources are needed from member companies, both in terms of the 'sweat equity* of participants in the development and support of the program, and in the people and dollars necessary to make the initiative 'live* In each company. These costs have not been quantified because they will be different for each company. However, overall industry costs for Responsible Care* implementation will undoubtedly add to the bil.hons of dollars already being spent by industry to manage health, safety, and environmental issues. Q Why should a commitment to Rosponsiblo Cert* be an obligation of membership? A. Public concerns about chemicals and the industry are the result of collective experience with the entire industry. If the chemical industry is to respond to public concerns effectively, it must act as a total industry; Responsible Care* must be visibly working throughout the industry and. therefore, must be both a commitment and a membership obligation of every company in the association, ft is critical to achieve the cultural change needed lor the industry to improve performance in a responsive manner. The public must be convinced that the chemical industry is living up to its commitment. DSW 10 ?99* R, P*ge 5 of 98 HARTOLDMON0018773 Q Why have a Public Advisory Panel? A. Resoondmg to Duoiic concerns is what Resoonsibie Care' is ail aoout Therefore a xev component of the initiative is tne PuDnc Aovisorv Panel Tne Dane! neios the moustrv loentifv ano oeveico orograms ano actions that are resoonsive to public concerns aocut soecific performance .prooiems. CMA nas also ceveioDec a guioeoook for companies which wisn ;o estaonsn community aovisorv panels at operating locations Q Who is on the Public Advisory Panel? Who sets it up? Can panel members be replaced. A. The Public Advisory Panel acts as a sounding board for public concerns ano as a specially qualified focus group that directly impacts industry policies and programs under Responsible Care1 Meeting five times a year, panel members help CMA identify puoic concerns ano suggest ways to respond to those concerns. Panel members also review proposed Codes bf Management Practices and evaluate other features of the initiative. Each meeting is managed by an outside facilitator experienced with panel management Industry representation is kept to a minimum to encourage an open exchange of views and ideas. Currently, the panel is a 15-member group composed of individuals from both public and private sectors. To ensure that a wioe range of public opinion is expressed, the composition of the panel is diverse. Occupations and interests of members range from business and local government officials to environ mental. academic, and consumer activists, a fanner, and an expert in business ethics. Panel members were selected by the facilitator. Panel membership will periodically change in response to pane! members' availability and/orihe changing needs of penei expertise. The facilitator will handle such changes. Q Who wiH develop the Codes of Management Practices? Will the public have imput? A. The development of Codes of Management Practices begins with the identification of public concents by a number of sources, including the Public Advisory Panel and-CMA's Board of Directors. CMA reviews .these concerns and recommends priorities for Code development. If a public concern cuts across a range of company operations or activities, it maybe addressed by more than one Code CMA member company experts develop each Code. Every memoer company has opportunities to comment on the Codes through open meetings and workshops. Public input to the codes is achieved through the Public Advisory Panel. All codes, once approved by CMA's Board of Directors; are made available to others. Use of the Responsible Care* service mark, however, must follow CMA's guidelines and can be used only with CMA approval. Q Will Responsible Care* Codes of Management Practices become the basis for future legislation and fogulation? A. A very positive result of Responsible Care* should be for its meaningful and workable practices to be reflected in legislation or regulation that the public endorses through government anion. Q How will performance against the practice Codes be measured? Who does the measuring and how are the results reponed? A. 'noiviouai comoanv management wn> e-.anjctf :*e performance agamst the Cooes of Manaceme-: -*2:: annuallv bv fiimc out a seit-evaiuation term 'or sac' Ccce Companies will feed this information cacn cc CMA s-.r.c~. _;e of such feedback would be to direct me asscc atior s sjcccwork to areas of tne greatest need ano mgr.es: Detent,s Cvthe longer term-, these aggregate reoorts sncuic estac-s* i record of improvement marwitt enaofe .MA re ccmrrvvcs^e-- industry's performance progress to the pudhc Q What will CMA do to help companies address the Codes of Management Practices? A. CMA will develop support programs to help companies implement the practices defined in the Codes in general, programs and aids (videotapes, guide-books, educational meetings, etc.) will be similar to the support provideo for This m: and CAER. A unique element of Responsible Care' is mat member companies will help each other by sharing resources and methods they develop to implement the Codes of. Management Practices. Q Given the kind of data wa are reporting under Title III. will the public accept the Responsible Cere ` initiative new? A. Disclosures under Title III raise the level of public concern significantly in some cases. But their only effective response is to deal with the concerns through company and industry-wide improvements. This is the essence of Responsible Care* The experience in Canada and in the United States suggests it can work. B Will chemical companies apply the initiative outside the United States? A. CMA represents North American manufacturers and can best assist its members in implementing Responsible Care* here However, the initiative is already international in scope. CMA learned from a two-year old Canadian effort Other countries that have officially adopted Responsible Care* initiatives include Australia. New Zealand. England. Germany. The Netherlands, and France. CMA's experience with CAER suggests that good initiatives spread rapidly. The United Nations, with U.S. chemical industry assistance, has already developed an international emergency response program modeled on CAER. CMA has shared Responsible Care* materials with counter pan organizations in Europe. Japan. Australia, and Taiwan. R. Page 6 of 98 OSW 1-07995 HARTOLDMONO018774 Responsible Care: A Public Commitment COMMUNITY AWARENESS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Purpose; 'Hie goal ofthe Community Awareness and Emergency Response (CAER) Code ofManagement Practices is to assure emergency preparedness and to foster communityright-to-know. It demands a commitment toopenness and community dialogue. Ibe code has two major components: first, to assure that member facilities that manufacture, process, use, distribute or store hazardous materials initiate and maintain a community outreach program to openly communicate relevant, useful information responsive to the public's questions and concerns about safety, health, and the environment; and second, to help protect employees and communities by assuring that each facility has an emergency response program to respond rapidly and effectively to emergencies. The community outreach component will communicate program activities and performance under all codes of management practices and will promote an open, ongoing dialogue with employees and the community. Information should be provided about such activities as waste minimization, emission reduction, health effects of chemicals, and efforts to ensure the safe transport of chemicals. The CAER Code ofManagement Practices is supported by, and will build on, CMA's CAER process. CAER supports the community's right to know about chemical industry operations and their effect on safety, health, and the environment. CAER originally was a voluntary initiative focused on emergency response issues. The new CAER Code ofManagement Practices broadens the facility-community dialogue to cover the full range of safety, health and environmental issues. Relationship to Guiding Principles The Code helps achieve several of the Responsible Care Guiding Principles: To recognize and respond to community concerns about chemicals and our operations. To report promptly to officials, employees, customers, and the public, information on chemical-related health or environmental hazards and recommend protective measures. Q To participate with government end others in creating responsible laws, regulations, and standards to safeguard the community, workplace and environment To promote the principles and practices of Responsible Care by sharing experiences and offering assistance to others who produce, handle, use, transport, or dispose of chemicals. OSW 107996 R, Page 7 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018775 CAER Code of Management Practices November 6. 1989 -- Page 2 Management Practices; A. Community Awareness and Outreach Member facilities that manufacture, process, use, distribute or store hazardous materials shall have a community outreach program that includes: For Employees: ' -- - -.................... 1. An ongoing assessment of employee questions and concerns about the facility. 2. Communications trainingfor key facility and company personnel who communicate with employees and the public concerning safety, health, and environmental issues. 3. Education of employees about the facility's emergency response plan and safety, health, and environmental programs. 4. An ongoing dialogue with employees to respond to their questions and concerns and involve them in community outreach efforts. 5. A regular evaluation ofthe effectiveness ofthe ongoing employee communications efforts. For Community: . 6. An ongoing assessment of community questions and concerns about the facility. 7. An outreach program to educate responders, government officials, the media, other businesses and the community about the facility's emergency response program and risks to the community associated with the facility. 8. A continuing dialogue with local citizens to respond to questions and concerns about safety, health, and the environment, and to address ether issues of interest to the community. 9. A policy ofopenness that provides convenient ways for interested persons to become familiar with the facility, its operations, and products, and its efforts to protect safety, health, and the environment. 10. A regular evaluation ofthe effectiveness of the ongoing community communications efforts. B. Emergency Response and Preparedness Member facilities that manufacture, process, use, distribute or store hazardous materials shall have an emergency response program that includes: 1. An ongoing assessment of potential risks to employees and local communities resulting from accidents or other emergencies. 2. A current, written facility emergency response plan which address, among other things, communi cations and the recovery needs of the community after an emergency. Page 8 ot 98 DSW 107997 HARTOLDMONO018776 CAER Code or Management Practices November 6. 1989 -- Page 3 3. An ongoing training program for tboae employees who have response or communications responsi bilities in the event of an emergency. 4. Emergency exercises, at least annually, to test operability of the written emergency response plan. 5. Communication of relevant and useful emergency response planning information to the Local _ Emergency Planning Committee. 6. Facility tours for emergency responders to promote emergency preparedness and to provide current knowledge of facility operations. 7. Coordination of the written facility emergency response plan with the comprehensive community emergency response plan and otherfacilities. Ifno plan exists, the facility should initiate community efforts to create a plan. . 8. Participation in the community emergency response planning process to develop and periodically test the comprehensive community emergency response plan developed by the Local Emergency Planning Committee. 9. Sharing ofinformation and experience relating to emergency response planning, exercises, and the handling of incidents with other facilities in the community. MEMBER SELF-EVALUATION Each member company shall report annuallyto CMA, orits designated agent, the stage ofimplementation of each Management Practice in this Code. The repons shall be on the member self-evaluation form attached as Exhibit A. DSW 107997.01 R, Page 9 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018777 R. Page 10 of 98 OSK 107998 HARTOLDMONO018778 Member Sel/-vajuauon January 6. J992 Page ] Responsible Care: A Public Commitment-- CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION MEMBER SELF-EVALUATION FORM COMMUNITY AWARENESS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Member Company Name: Responsible Care<g) Coordinator Name:------------ --. ... -- Address: .. ------- --- Telephone ( )_________________ Number of facilities subject to code OSW 10799.9 R. Page U of 98 HARTOLDMONOOI8779 Member Self-Evaluation January 8. 1992 ~ Page 2 COMMUNITY AWARENESS AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES s< Va Instructions** 2 3 4 5 '<t Under the'Respbhaible Care Initiative,-each wamber company will submit a Self-Evaluation form annually to CMA. To establish the industry baseline, each member company should complete this Self Evaluation form, ' 2. Indicate on the cover page the number ofmember company facilities subject to the Code. Each company must report the implementation category for all facilities subject to the Code on this form. 3. For each Management Practice on the following four pages, indicste the number of facilities that have attained each implementation category. Each facility should appear in only one milestone category per Management Practice. The total number of facilities subject to the Code should equal the number of . facilities across all six implementation categories for each Management Practice. 4. Only subject facilities owned or operated as ofthe reporting date should be included. 5. The implementation categories are: Category NA Category EV Category DP Category IA Category PP Category RI No action. Ifno action taken because the management practice is not applicable, please explain. Evaluating existing company practices against the Management Practice. Developing plan to implement Management Practice. Implementing action plan Management Practice in place. Reassessing Management Practice implementation. Page 12 of 98 DSW 107999.01 HARTOLDMONO018780 GAER Code of Management Practices January B. 1992 -- Page 3 Management Practices Community Awarenew Ciifgnriri NA EV DP 1A PP R] 1. An ongoing assessment of employee concerns and questions about the facility. 4 CornnieW10" Category NA:--------- -- .. - hr- -- C' 2. Communications training for key facility and company person* nel who will communicate with employees and the public con cerning safety, health and environmental issues. Comments on Categoiy NA- 3. Education of employees about the facility's emergency response plan and safety, health, and environmental programs. Comments on Cateeorv NA 4. An ongoing dialogue with employees to respond to their ques tions and concerns and to involve them in community outreach efforts. Comments on Cateeorv NA 5. Aregular evaluation ofthe effectiveness ofthe ongoing employee communications efforts. Comments on Catesorv NA CaUge*7 KA Cstafory EV Cityiy DP CiiHWT U Calafary B Citofory XI Bm astl-- *ak-- >cim t> --aagamaat praetl-- to mmt appMeatila. pi---- wplda Bralaatlag alattag --wpaay pnctl-- agalaat U M--aga--t Pnctl--. Drvoloptag pi-- U tmpUnuni llanifnunl htctlM. baplim anting tctln fin Hut|aust htctlt* ta pia--. tnimiiiH Managua--t Pnctl-- --pi---rff--I DSW 108000 R, Page 13 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018781 CAER Code of Management Pracuces January 8. 1992 -- Page 4 Cateenri^ NA EV DP IA PP Ri . An ongoing assessment of community questions and concerns about the facility. 7. An outreach program to educate responders, government offi cials, the media, other business, and the community about the facility's emergency response program and risks to the commu nity associated with the facility. Comments on Category NA: 8. A continuing dialogue with local citizens to respond to questions and concerns about safety, health, and the environment, and to address other issues of interest to the community. Comments on Category NA: 9. A policy of openness that provides convenient ways for inter ested persons to become familiar with the facility, its operations, and products, and its efforts to protect safety, health, and the environment. Comments on Category NA:_ 10. A regular evaluation of the effectiveness ofthe ongoing commu nity communications efforts.. Comments on Category NA- _______________________ C tag ary ka Category ZV Category DP Category U Category PP Category B He eetlea. Use Zraloatlag Deralepiag pica te tke y prectlcee egaiaet tbe Implementing eetlea plea ' it Practice la piece. Mat Practice it practice la aet applicable, plaaee X Practice. Page ] 4 of 98 DSW 108001 HARTOLDMONOOI8782 CAER Code of Management Practices January 8. 1992 * Page 5 Categories Emergency Response NA EV DP IA PP RI 1. An ongoing assessment of potential risks to employees and local communities resulting from accidents or other emergencies. Commentson Category NA_ 2. A current, written facility emergency response plan which address, among other things, communications and the recovery needs of the community after an emergency. Comments on Category NA:. 3. An ongoing training program for those employees who have response or communications responsibilities in the event of an emergency. Comments on Category NA*. 4. Emergency exercises, at least annually, to test operability ofthe written emergency response plan.. Comments on Category NA* 5. Communication of relevant and useful emergency planning information to the Local Emergency Planning Committee. Comments on Category NA Catagary KA Category CV Catagary DO Catagary IA Catagary IT Catagary BI K* actiaa. Kma aettas takae kaeaaaa tka nxaaagamaat pnettca U mat appllcahla. plaaaa arpUln tnhuttng aaUttag --yaay yncdcaa agaiaat tka w*~-grmaiil fiatdaa. D*ralapU| piaa ta hnylimatt Managaiaaiit Pracdaa. Managawaat htetlM ta plana, timiirinf Maaagamaat Pnctiaa OSH 106002 R. Page 15 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018783 CAER Code of Management Practices January 8. 1992 -- Page 6 U&2QEiS NA EV DP IA PP RI 6. Facility tours for emergency responders to promote emergency preparedness and to provide current knowledge offacility opera* tions. . Comments on Category NA:. 7. Coordination of the written facility emergency response plan with the comprehensive community emergency response plan and other facilities. If no plan exists, the facility should initiate community efforts to create a plan. Comments on Category NA, 6. Participation in the community emergency response planning process to develop and periodically test the comprehensive community emergency response plan developed by the Local Emergency Planning Committee. Comments on Category NA: 9. Sharing of information and experience related to emergency response planning, exercises, and the handling ofincidents with other facilities in the community. Comments on Category NA: Notes: Please identify any specific problems and/or resources. CUf7 XA Cal agwry XV Cimwy DP Catagory IA Catagory W Catagory KJ Page 16 of 98 !( artlaa. H a* teSw Ukta becanaa thi mtat|Mt practice la aat applicable. plaaaa wpUla, Xralaatlaf arlattng napuj ynditM afalaat tka HanifaaiMl fiaillaa Davalaplae plan ta implement Management Practice. Implementing action plaa MaAafamaat Practlea la plan*. Waaeeaeetng Management Practlea Implemeatatlw. DSW 108003 HARTOLDMONO018784 Responsible Care: A Public Commitment DISTRIBUTION CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Purpose The purpose of the Distribution Code ofManagement Practices is to reduce the risk ofharm posed by the distribution ofchemicals to the general public; to carrier, distributor, contractor and chemical industry employees; and to the environment. Adherence to the code will lead to continually safer chemical distribution and help member companies to: evaluate the risks associated with chemical distribution and methods to reduce those risks; meet or exceed all regulations and industry standards governing chemical distribution; provide emergency advice and/or assistance to people on the scene in the event of a chemical distribution emergency, develop new technologies and methods to improve chemical distribution safety. The code will also promote improvements in: 3 employee preparedness and awareness in preventing distribution emergencies; the safety performance of carriers and other providers of distribution services; the public's preparedness in responding to chemical distribution emergencies; OSM 10800*, R. Page 17 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018785 Distribution Code ofMinspjnsnt Practices January 15,1991 -- Page 2 the public's understanding of, and confidence in, industry efforts to improve chemical distribution safety. The Distribution Code of Management Practices applies to all modes of transportation (highway, rail, marine, air and pipeline) and to the shipment of all chemicals, including chemical waste. The code also applies to distribution activities (storage, handling, transfer and repackaging) while chemicals are in transit between member companies and their -suppliersand^stgmers. The implementation ofa number ofpractices ofthe code will vary according to the characteristics ofthe chemical-being distributed, the mode oftransportation and the type of distribution activity involved. '~ ' Relationship tn Responsible Care Guiding Principles This code helps achieve several Responsible Care Guiding Principles: to recognize and respond to community concerns about chemicals and our operations; to make health, safety and environmental considerations a priority in our planning for all existing and new products and processes; to counsel customers on the safe use, transportation, and disposal of chemicals; to operate our plants and facilities in a manner that protects the environment and the health and safety of our employees and the public; to participate with government and others in creating responsible laws, regulations.and standards to safeguard the community, workplace and environment; and to promote the principles and practices ofResponsible Care by sharing experiences and offering assistance to others who produce, handle, use, transport or dispose ofchemicals. Management Practices Each member company shall have an ongoing chemical distribution safety program that includes senior management commitment through policy, communications and resources to improvements in chemical distribution safety. The program should indude the following elements: 1. Risk Management 1.1 Regular evaluations ofchemical distribution risks which consider the hazards ofthe material, the likelihood of accidents/incidents and the potential for human and environmental exposure from release of the material over the route of transport. 1.2 Implementation of chemical distribution risk reduction measures that are appro priate to the risk level. Page 18 of 98 X)SW 108005 HARTOLDMONO018786 Distribution Code of Management Practices January 15, 1991 -- Page 3 . 1.3 Internal reporting and investigation of chemical distribution accidents/incidents, and implementation of preventive measures. 2. Compliance Review and Training 2.1 A process for monitoring changes and interpretations of new and existing regula tions and industry standards for their applicability to the company's chemical dis tribution actarities, and for implementing those regulations and standards, 2.2 Training for all affected company employees in the proper implementation of applicable regulations and company requirements. 2.3 A program for providing guidance and information to carriers, distributors and contractors who perform distribution activities for the company on the company's training and compliance requirements for the activities. 2.4 Regular reviews of company employee, carrier, distributor and contractor compli ance with applicable regulations and company requirements. 3. Carrier Safety 3.1 A process for qualifying carriers ofall modes and types (common, contract, private and customer controlled) that transport chemicals to and from company facilities that emphasizes carrier safety fitness and regulatory compliance, and includes regular reviews of their performance and compliance. 3.2 Feedback to carriers on their safetyperformance and suggestions for improvement. 4. Handling and Storage 4.1 Documented procedures for the selection and use ofcontainers that are appropriate for the chemical being shipped, in compliance with testing and certification requirements, and free ofleaks and visible defects. 4.2 Documented procedures forloading chemicals at company facilities thatwill reduce emissions to the environment, protect personnel and provide securement of the lading during transit. 4.3 Documented procedures for unloading chemicals at the company's facilities that will reduce emissions to the environment, protect personnel, and provide for safe unloading into proper storage facilities. 4.4 Defined criteria for the cleaning and return of tank cars, t-ank trucks, marine vessels, and retumable/refillable bulk and semi-bulk containers, and for the proper disposal of cleaning residues. OSW 108006 R. Page 19 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018787 Distribution Code of Management Practices January 15, 1991 - Page 4 4.5 A program for providing guidance and information to customers, distributors, and other receivers on proper procedures for unloading and storing the company's chemicals. 4.6 A process for selecting distributors and other facilities that store or handle the company's chemicals in transit that emphasizes safety fitness and regulatory com pliance and includes regular reviews of their performance and compliance. 4.7 Feedback to istributors and operators-of other farilities that store jor handle, chemicals in transit on their safety performance and suggestions for improvement. 5. Emergency Preparedness 5.1 A process for responding to chemical distribution accident/incidents involving the company's chemicals.' . 5.2 Documented procedures for making information about the company's chemicals in distribution available to response agencies. 5.3 A program for making facilities and/or training materials available to emergency response agencies. 5.4 Dialogue with state andlocal emergencyplanningorganizations on the distribution and hazards of the company's chemicals to improve community preparedness to respond to chemical distribution emergencies. 5.5 Dialogue with the public on their concerns about chemical distribution safety, actions taken bythe industry and the companytoimprove the safety ofchemical dis tribution, and the effectiveness of emergency preparedness and emergency re sponse assistance. Member Seif Evaluation Member companies shall report annually the stage ofimplementation of each management practice in this code to an agent designated by the Chemical Manufacturers Association. Relationship to Other Codes of Management Practice This Code complements, and should be implemented in conjunction with, current and future Codes of Management Practices. Page 20 of 98 10800-7 OSV* HARTOLDMONO018788 SAMPLE Public Commitment CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION MEMBER SELF-EVALUATION FORM DISTRIBUTION CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Member Company Name:_____________________ Responsible Care Coordinator Name:_____________________ Address:____________________ Telephone {__ 03k losooe R, Page 21 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018789 R. Page 22 of 98 -OSW 108009 HARTOLDMONO018790 MemDer Seii'C-1* 3iuaoon form January 15, 1991 -- Page 2 Member Self-Evaluation Distribution Code of Management Practices 1. Under the Responsible Care initiative, each member company must submit a Self Evaluation Form annually to CMA or its designated representative. The annual self reporting has three purposes: to establish an industry baseline from which to demonstrate continual progress in implementation of the Code. to assist individual member companies in establishing a base line from which to set priorities for future development; and to assist the industry (CMA) in designing programs to assist the member companies in achieving the goals of the Responsible Care initiative. 2. TO ESTABLISH THE INDUSTRY BASELINE, EACH MEMBER COMPANY SHOULD COMPLETE THIS SELF-EVALUATION FORM AND SEND IT BY C.O.B., MAY 23, 1991 3. The Distribution Code is unique in the sense that it deals with both products and facilities, but more importantly it deals with a broad range of third party providers of services and many external organizations and communities. This is considerably different than the CAER, WARR and Process Safety Codes, which deal primarily with fixed facilities and, as a result, have a more common base for self-evaluation. In contrast, different self-evaluation bases for each element of the Distribution Code will likely be more helpful and appropriate. 4. Self-evaluations for the Distribution Code should be expressed as percentages since the different bases for Code elements may not always be countable units. Therefore, the evaluation of each ofthe 21 separate dements ofthe Distribution Code ofManagement Practices should show what percentage of the company's distribution process is at each of the six implementation stages. For example, for a specific Code element, a company could report that 10% of their distribution process is at stage 1,50% at stage H, 30% at stage III, 10% at stage IV and 0% at stages V and VI. Judgment will be required on how to develop these percentages, both in terms of what base to use for the calculation, and how to reflect centralized and/or decentralized distribution activities. Most importantly, each company will need to establish a methodology that will remain constant over the years in orderto measure annual progress. The suggestions under Item 4 below are meant to assist you in developing your 6elf-evaluation methodology. 5. The following bases for evaluation can be applied to a number of specific code elements: Corporate programs, such as a corporate emergency response process, may be viewed as applying across the company for purposes of completing the Self Evaluation Form. The percentage implementation would result from judgment of OSH 100010 Page 23 of 98 HARTOLDMON0018791 Page 24 of 98 DSW 108011 HARTOLDMONO018792 Member Self-Evaluation Form January 15, 1991 -- Page 3 SAMPLE the existence and implementation of that process, or progress upon your own' implementation action plan. Alternatively, decentralized programs, such as site or division specific emergency response processes, should bejudged as separate processes. A large multi-division company may have multiple emergency response processes to consider in establish ing a percentage ofimplementation. Risk management activities are often undertaken on a product specific basis. ~Each company deals With a very large number of products which are hazardous or nonhazardous, and must select a basis from which to evaluate and report future progress in implementing the Code. Judgmentis required to make sure that a large number ofnon-hazardous products which the company produces or distributes do not distort the evaluation. They should also not decrease the validity ofthe base for future evaluations. Carrier safety reviews should be based on the number ofcarriers that fall under the code. Judgment mustalsobe used where data is notreadilyavailable on all carriers. The time spent on determining this basis will provide good information for progressing toward full implementation. The number of third party providers of services to your company can serve as the basis for determining percentages of implementation in each stage. Customer related elements should be evaluated on the basis of the number of customers, the hazardous nature ofthe products, and/or by the company divisional or business unit programs. There are some elements, such as loading and unloading procedures, that are site specific and should be evaluated on that basis. 6. It is recognized that self-evaluation methodologies will vary from company to company. Because of this, flexibility has been built into the evaluation process. The basis for evaluating a company's distribution process should be established, documented and applied consistently for each annual self-evaluation exercise. 7. The six implementation stages are: Stage I - No action Stage II - Evaluating company practices against Code practices Stage IH Developing action plan to implement Code practice Stage IV - Implementing action plan Stage V Code management practice in place Stage VI Implementation reviewed and reaffirmed this year OSM 108012 R, Page 25 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018793 Member Self-Evaluation Form January 15, 1991 -- Page 4 Risk Management PracticesIII 1.1 Regular evaluations of chemical dis tribution risks which consider the haz ards ofthe material, the likelihood of accidents/incidents and the potential - for -human and environmental exposure from release ofthe material over the route of transport. HI IV V____________ VI --. '---- -- --- ......-- 1.2 Implementation of chemical distri bution risk reduction measures that are appropriate to the risk level. 1.3 Internal reporting and investigation of chemical distribution acddentsdnddents, and implementation of pre ventive measures. 1 Compliance Review and Training 2.1 A process for monitoring changes and interpretations of new and existing regulations and industry standards for their applicability to the company's chemical distribution activities, and for implementing those regulations and standards. 2.2 Trainingforall affected company em ployees in the properimplementation ofapplicable regulations and nmpny requirements. 2.3 A program for providing guidance and information to carriers, distributors and contractors who perform distribution activities for the company on the company's training and compliance requirements for the activities. 2.4 Regular reviews of company employee, carrier, distributor and contractor com pliance with applicable regulations and company requirements. R. Pape 26 of 98 >S W 108013 HARTOLDMONO018794 Member Self-Evaluation Form January 15, 1991 - Page 5 Carrier Safety __________ IID__________________IV V 3.1 A process for qualifying carriers ofall modes and types (common, contract, private and customer controlled) that transport chemicals to and from company facilities that emphasizes carrier safety fitness and regulatory compliance, and includes regular reviews of their performance and compliance. ........ - . .. . 3.2 Feedback to carriers on their safety performance and suggestions for im provement. -- sV i *4 % Handling and Storage 4.1 Documented procedures for the selec tion and use of containers that are appropriate for the chemical being shipped, in compliance with testing and certification requirements, and free of leaks and visible defects. VI -------------- _ . 4.2 Documented procedures for loading chemicals at company facilities that will reduce emissions to the environ ment, protect personnel and provide securement ofthe lading duringtran sit. 4.3 Documented procedures for unloading chemicals at company facilities that will reduce emissions to the environ ment, protect personnel, and provide for safe unloading into proper storage facilities. 4.4 Defined criteria for the cleaning and return of tank cars, tank trucks, marine vessels, and returnable/refillable bulk and semi-bulk containers, and for the proper disposal of clean ing residues. A .5 A program for providing guidance and information to customers, distribu tors, and other receivers on proper DSW 108014 R. Page-27 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018795 Member Self-Evaluation Form January 15, 1991 -- Page SAMPLE Handling and StorageI______H_____in_____IV_____V______VI procedures for unloading and stor ing the company's chemicals. 4.6 A process for selecting distributors and other facilities that store or handle the company's chemicals in transit -- that emphasizes safety fitness and regulatory compliance, and includes regular reviews oftheir performance and compliance. 4.7 Feedback to distributors and operators ofother facilities that store or handle chemicals in transit on their safety performance and suggestions for improvement. Emergency Preparedness --------------------- __ ---..............- - 5.1 A process for responding to chemical distribution accidents/incidents in volving the company's chemicals. 5.2 Documented procedures for making information about the company's chemicals in distribution available to response agencies. 5.3 A program for making facilities and/ or training materials available to emergency response agencies. 5.4 Dialogue with state and local emer gency planning organizations on the distribution and hazards of the com pany's chemicals to improve commu nity preparedness to respond to chemi cal distribution emergencies. 5.5 Dialogue with the public on their concerns about chemical distribution safety, actions taken by the industry and the company to improve the safety ofchemical distribution, and the ef fectiveness of emergency prepared ness and emergency response assis tance. R. Page 28 of 98 OSW L08015 HARTOLDMONO018796 Distribution Code of Practices Questions and Answers What is the distinction between a distribution emergency and a distributi^acddent' 1. incident? . Answer: ..... ....... .... .... -- .. An acddent/incidentis a definite and distinct occurrence ofan undesirable event. It may involve an accident (traffic, derailment, collision, mishandling) ornearmiss, or be a result of a non-accidental container or operational failure. The undesirable effect can range from a small release of product 0>ut major media coverage) to a major release with subsequent loss of property or personal injury. An emergency is simply an acddentfinddent that requires immediate action. In the context ofthe code, we distinguish between the two because we have direct control or influence over the causes ofaccidents and inddents. Many circumstances that dictate the emergency nature ofthe situation are most often outside ofour sphere ofcontrol and influence. 2. The words process, program, documented procedures and defined criteria are used throughout the code. What do they mean? Answer: A program is meantto mean an organized list ofprocesses and procedures. In developing a comprehensive distribution safety program the management practices ofResponsible Care should be included in the list ofprocesses and procedures. In a hierarchy ofterms, a program lies below a policy (a general statement of commitment or philosophy) and somewhere above a process or procedure. A program must address management needs, as expressed by policy, and contain feedback and measurement steps to determine if the needs are being met. A process is a series ofrelated activities or actions that will lead to the desired end result. In the context ofthe code we have used process when it is dear the process can take many different forms, yet still provide the desired results. Documented procedures are specific instructions or steps required to complete a task successfully. They may be written procedures or videotaped procedures, for example, that are to be explicitlyfollowed and are notleft open to interpretation. They are the most detailed step in the heirarchy, below policies, programs and processes. Defined criteria are the ground rules around which a process or a procedure must be developed. In the code, the term is used to provide criteria to a third party that would enable that party to develop a process or procedure to lead to the desired end. O-Sk 108016 R. Page 29 of 98 HARTOLDMON0018797 Questions and Answers January 15, 1991 -- Page 2 3. Reference is made in the code to adherence to industry standards. What is meant by this'1 Answer: The term industry standards, means those agreements, developed and complied with voluntarily, by a wide range ofco-producers, interindustry groups and trade associations. Many of these agreements, in time, result in regulations or rulemaking procedures. It may also apply to a company's own internal standards of operation or practice. 4. The term, regular reviews, is used when referring to.carrier safety performance, contractor and distributorperformance and regulatory compliance. What is meant by the term, regular review? Answer: Regular reviews is a term used to measure or test whetherourexpectations are being met. They are crucial formanaging the whole distribution safetyprocess. Byregular, we allow room for periodic or random reviews and allow the company to determine its own frequency ofreviewfor each element ofthe code, whereitis appropriate. Reviews can take many forms, ranging from on-site and detailed audits, to presentations ofprogress with charts and graphs. This also allows incorporation of many of the safety performance reviews into quality and service review initiatives. 5. The code refers to cleaning and return ofretumable/refillable containers. What is meant by retumable/refillable? Answer: Returnable containers are those containers specifically designed for return to the company for reuse without reconditioning or reworking the container. Generally,, this typically only applies to containers of 55 gallons and above. The EPA is developing regulations regarding refillable containers that would drop below 55 gallons. Tank trucks, tank cars and marine vessels may or may not normally return to the company. Often, they are cleaned and placed bade in general service. All ofthe containers listed above are examples ofretumable/refillable containers. For the purpose of the Distribution Code we must define criteria aimed at developing proper cleaning and residue disposal of these containers. Non-refillable, non-returnable containers are not covered under this code. 6. What is meant by regular evaluations of chemical distribution risks? Answer: How often distribution risk studies should be conducted will depend significantly on the chemical involved and the dynamics of the distribution. Evaluations should be regular in the sense they become a normal and routine part of distribution activities and are conducted often enough to respond to technology changes and operating experience. Page 30 of 98 DSW 108016.01 HARTOLDMON0018798 Questions and Answers January 15, 1991 - Page 3 7. The code requires dialogue with state and local planning organizations and the general public. What do we mean by dialogue? Answer: Dialogue is simply two-way conversation. It implies that both parties listen and respond to each other in a constructive way. With state and local planning organizations, the ___ dialogue will naturally focus on the more technical and factual aspects of chemical distribution. Dialoguewiththepublicwill involve moreeducational types ofinterchange for both parties. , DSW 108017 R. Pge 31 of 98 HARTOLDMON0018799 R. Page 32 of 98 osw loeoie HARTOLDMONO018800 April 6. 199ft Amrrxtfd Scptmhrr *. |991 Responsible Care: A Public Commitment POLLUTION PREVENTION CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Purpose. This Code is designed to achieve ongoing reductions in the amount or all contaminants and pollutants released to the air, water, and land from member company facilities. These reductions are intended to respond to public concerns with the existence of such releases, and to further increase the margin of safety for public health and the environment. The Code is also designed to achieve ongoing reductions in the amount of wastes generated at facilities. These reductions are intended to help relieve the burden on industry and society of managing such wastes in future years. In implementing the Code, each company should strive for annual reductions, recognizing that production rates, new operations, and other factors may result in increases. Despite these fluctuations, however, the goal is m establish a long-term, substantial downward trend in the amount of wastes generated and contaminants and pollutants released. Quantitative reduction goals will be established for giving priority to those pollutants, contaminants and wastes of highest health and environmental concern. This code also includes practices that address the broader waste management issues beyond source reduction and other waste and release reduction efforts. Each member company must manage remaining wastes and releases in a manner that protects the environment and the health and safety of employees and the public. This Code complements, and should be implemented in conjunction with current and future Codes of Management Practices. Key terms arc defined in the Glossary, which should be consulted for assistance in interpreting the provisions of this Code. 1-0801.9 R. Page 33 of 98 HARTOLDMONOOI88OI Pollution Prevention Cod# . Peg# 2 Relationship to Guidina Principles Implementation or this Code helps achieve the following Guiding -----Principles:....... ....................------------------ ------------------------------ .__ ___ o To recognize and respond to community concerns about chemicals and our operations; o To develop and produce chemicals that can be manufactured, transported, used and disposed of safely. o To make health, safety, and environmental considerations a priority in our planning for all existing and new products and processes; o To report promptly to officials, employees, customers and the public, information on chemical-related health or environmental hazards and to recommend protective measures. o To operate our plants and facilities in a manner that protects the environment and the health and safety of our employees and the public; o To extend knowledge by conducting or supporting research on the health, safety, and environmental effects of our products, processes, and waste materials. o To promote the principles and practices of Responsible Care by sharing experiences and ofTering assistance to others who produce, handle, use, transport, or dispose of chemicals. o To work with others to resolve problems created by past handling and disposal of hazardous substances. o To participate with government and others in creating responsible laws, regulations and standards to safeguard the community, workplace and environment. o To promote the principles and practices of Responsible Care by sharing experiences and offering assistance to others who produce, handle, use, transport or dispose of chemicals. R. Page 34 of 98 OSW 108020 HARTOLDMON0018802 Pollution Prevention Code Page 3 Management Practices. Each member company shall haw a pollution prevention program which shall include: -------------- 4, A clear commitment by senior management through policy, communications, and resources, to ongoing "reductions at each of the company's facilities, in releases to the air, water, and land and in the generation of wastes. 2. A quantitative inventory at each facility of wastes generated and releases to the air, water, and land, measured or estimated at the point of generation or release. 3. Evaluation, sufficient to assist in establishing reduction priorities, of the potential impact of releases on the environment and the health and safety of employees and the public. * 4. Education of, and dialogue with, employees and members of the public about the inventory, impact evaluation, and risks to the community. 5. Establishment of priorities, goals and plans for waste and release reduction, taking into account both community concerns and the potential health, safety, and environmental impacts as determined under Practices 3 and 4. 6. Ongoing reduction of wastes and releases, giving preference first to source reduction, second to rccyclc/rcusc. and third to treatment. These techniques may be used separately or in combination with one another. 7. Measurement of progress at each facility in reducing the generation of wastes and in reducing releases to the air, water, and land, by updating the quantitative inventory nt least annually. 8. Ongoing dialogue with employees and members of the public regarding waste and release information, progress in achieving reductions, and future plans. This dialogue should be at a personal, facc-to-facc level, where possible, and should emphasize listening to others and discussing their concerns and ideas. 9. Inclusion of waste and release prevention objectives in research and in design of new or modified facilities, processes, and products. DSW 108021 R. Page 35 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018803 Pollution Prevention Code Page 4 10. An ongoing program for promotion and support of waste and release reduction by others, which may, for example, include: a.-----Sharing of technical information and experience with ------------- customers and suppliers; b. . Support of efforts to develop improved waste and release reduction techniques; c. Assisting in establishment of regional air monitoring networks; d. Participation in efforts to develop consensus approaches to the evaluation of environmental, health, ana safety impacts of releases; c.- Providing educational workshops and training materials; f. Assisting local governments and others in establishment of waste reduction programs benefiting the general public. 11. Periodic evaluation of waste management practices associated with operations and equipment at each member company facility, taking-into account community concerns and health, safety, and environmental impacts and implementation of ongoing improvements. 12. Implementation or a process for selecting, retaining, and reviewing contractors and toll manufacturers taking into account sound waste management practices that protect the environment and the health and safety of employees and the public. 13. Implementation, of engineering and operating controls at each member company facility to improve prevention of and early detection of releases that may contaminate groundwater. 14. Implementation of an ongoing program for addressing past operating and waste management practices and for working with others to resolve identified problems at each active or inactive facility owned by a member company taking into account community concerns and health, safety, and environmental impacts. R, Pjie >6 of 98 OSW 108022 HARTOLDMONO018804 Pollution Prevention Code . Peg* 5 Industry Trend Data To develop and maintain statistical industry trends. CMA will collect currently available data. Each company shall report annually to CMA. or --its designated agent, for each facility: o Releases or substances as reported under SARA Section 313; and o Wastes generated, as defined and reported in CMA's annual waste survey. Member SelfEvaluation. Each member company shall report annually to CMA, or hs designated agent, the stage of implementation of each management practice in this Code. The reports shall be on the member self-evaluation form attached as Attachment A. OSW 108023 R. Page 37 of 98 HARTOLDMON0018805 Pollution Provontion Code Page 6 Glossary of Terms As used in this Code, key terms arc defined as set forth below. Note that these definitions may be broader than regulatory definitions, and that adherence to this Code does not relieve a company of the obligation to meet Federal, state and local regulatory requirements. Facility - A site used for chemical manufacturing, processing, refining, packaging, R&D, distribution or related commercial activity. Recycle A practice which regenerates or processes a material from a process to recover a useable product or material for reuse. Release - Any emission, effluent, spill, discharge or disposal to the air, land, or water, of any pollutant or contaminant, whether routine or accidental, at or from a facility. The term does not include shipment or distribution of chemical product, nor release to the environment as part of normal and intended use of a product by the consumer. Reuse - A practice that reemploys a material from a process cither as an ingredient in a process to make a product, or as an effective substitute for a commercial product in a particular function or application. Source Reduction - A practice that reduces the amount of any release or waste generated at the source, including closed loop recycle and reuse before exit from a process. The term includes, among other practices, equipment and technology modifications, process and procedures modifications, reformulation and redesign of products, substitution of raw materials, and improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training and inventory control. Treatment A practice, other than recycle or reuse, that alters the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics or the volume of a waste through a process or activity separate from the production of a commercial product or the provision of a service. Waste - Any gas, liquid, or solid residual material at a facility, whether hazardous or non hazardous, that is not used further in the production of a commercial product or provision of a service and which itself is not a commercial product. R. Page 38 of 98 osw 10802* HARTOLDMONO018806 POLLUTION PREVENTION CODE REPORT 1: MEMBER SELF-EVALUATION FORM FOR THE 1991 REPORTING YEAR Instructions for the Company Responsible Cane* Coordinator 1. This form is to be submitted annually to CMA by each member company. This year the due date is X30C 31. 1992. Please submit directly to: 2. Indicate on page 1 the number of your member company's facilities that are subject to the Code. Each company's Responsible Care* Coordinator must report the implementation stage for all facilities subject to the PoDution Prevention Code on this farm. 3. The Self Evaluation form for the 1991 reporting year covers fourteen management practices. DO NOT COMPLETE THIS FORM. ICMAwffl send the SelfEvaluation Form far the 1991 reporUngyeartnAprll/May 1992.] 4. For Management Practices 1*11 and 13 on the following pages, indicate the number of facilities that have attained each implementation category. Identify the current implementation category for each of your facilities at the you complete the form. Formanagementpractlccs 12 St 14. Indicate the company-wide reporting using a percentage (following instructions on page 5). 5. For the Industry Trend Data, show the total number offacilities m each appropriate box. The total number of facilities for each type of Trend Data should equal the total number of facilities subject to the Code. 6. Only subject facilities owned or operated as of the reporting date should be Included. 7. The implementation categories are: Category NA- Noaction. Ifno action takenbecause themanagement practice Isnot appllcahlf.. please explain. Category EV - Evaluating existing company practices sgalnst the Management Practice. Category DP Developing plan to implement Management Practice. Category 1A Implementing action plan Category PP - Management Practice m place. Category R1 Reassessing Management Practice implementation. 8. Ifany facilities are shown m Category NA. please add anypertinent remarks tothe space marked "comments." *08025 R. Pge 39 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018807 POLLUTION PREVENTION CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES REPORT 1: MEMBER SELF-EVALUATION FORM FOR THE 1991 REPORTING YEAR i Member Company Name:_________________________ Responsible Care* Coordinator Name:__ Address; Telephone: f 1 Number of facilities subject to the Pollution Prevention Code R. Page 40 of 98 DSW 108026 HARTOLDMONO018808 POLLUTION PREVENTION CODE Industry Trend Date % 'A* Report annually to CMA or Its designated agent, the number of facilities for which annual report to &A has or has not been submitted: Asacal Report Submitted* T-l. Release of substances as re* ported under SARA Section313; and T-2 Wastes generated, as defined and reported in CMA's annual waste survey. Form R J Fora 1 JBL 1 1 Aaaaal Report lfet Submitted* Total Fmcllltlm "Enter the number of facilities. NOTES: 1. CMA expects to receive release data only from those facilities that are required to complete the Form R following the requirements in the Superfund Amendment and Reauthortzatlon Act (SARA! Section 313 and EPA's clarifying regulations and Instructions. 2. Instruction: Under Form R. enter the number of facilities that are submitting TRI data to CMA line T*l: These facilities should submit the same data as EPA requires. The 313 Form R release data are due to EPA on Jufy 1.1992 and to CMA on July 31. 1992. Under Form NR. enter the number of facilities that are not subject to the EPA reporting requirements. These facilities should complete Form NR Companies, not required to report 313 release data to EPA. may volunteer to send release data to CMA. These facilities are not required to submit TRI release data to CMA as an obligation of membership. Line T-2: The 1991 Reportingyear Is the first year that facilities must complete CMA's annual Waste Survey as an obligation of membership under the Pollution Prevention Code. 0S* 1X18027 R. Page 41 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018809 Management Practice* POLLUTION PREVENTION CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES % Categories KA TV DP 1A ^ ,\ Y? RZ 1. A dear commitment by senior management through policy, communications, and resources, to ongoing reductions, at each of the company's facilities, in releases to the air. water, and tend and tn the generation of wastes. Comments on Category 2. A quantitative inventory at each facility of wastes generated and releases to the air. water and land, measured or estimated at the point of generation or release. Comments on Category MA: .... 3. Evaluation, sufficient to assist tn establishing reduction priorities, of the potential impact of releases on the environ ment and the health and safety ofemployees and the public. Comments on Category NA*_____________________ ... 4. Education of. and dialogue with, employees and members of the public about the inventory, impact evaluation, risks to the community. Comments on Category ma? ctmT a* Ciimry XV CtUfwy W Cattfr71A Catafvry IT CtfTy XI R. Pge 42 of 98 StirtlM. ga tctiw ttX-- >mw Eriluttaf litftwf imfuf putltw qilul Ui Mm|W< IwiSn. |l*a Im tspbaat Mim|iiii huSw. lapIcaatSi actlm pin Xui|iaal Prmctic* ta glut. Kui(taMt TnctlM .k-- OS* 108 026 HARTOLDMONO018810 5. Establishment of priorities, goals and plans for waste and release reduction, talcing into account both community concerns and the potential health, safety, and environmental impacts as determined under Practices 3 and 4. Categories Zf', NA TV DP 1A RI --------1--------- 1-----i---------- . ->-4; -- 6. Ongoing reduction of wastes andreleases, giving preference first to source reduction, second to recycle/reuse, and third to treatment These techniques may be used separately or in combination with one another. Comments on Category NA: 7. Measurement of progress at each facility in reducing the generation of wastes and in reducing releases to the air. water, and land, by updating the quantitative inventory at least annually. Comments on Category NA; 8. Ongoing dialogue with employees and membas cf the puhhc regarding waste and release information, progress to achieving reductionsand future plans. ThlsdUlogueshouidbetlapeiaanal face-to-face level, where possible, and should emphasfrr listening to others and discussing thetr concerns and ideas. Comments on Category NA: Clfry HA C*tcfT7 rv C*(t|oTT OH Catagarp IA Galago<7 PT CaX&fory U Ha uttn. Vh Kta Ukam fcac-- tk Bia<|aaM ynctiM la mat ajjBraMa. plaaaa OfUt CralMtlaa arUttag camnuj nuticai agalsat tka Kiuitmat fiaaHaa Dcratopiag pUa ta tiwplamaat ltiu|aat HuUm. laplasaadatg aetlata piaa Maaagemcat Ptaettea ta plow. Haaaaaaaiaf Maaagatnant HraeOct taplamantatlaa i)SW 108.029 R, Page 43 of 98 HARTOLDMON0018811 Categories NA EV DP 1A PP 9. Inclusion of waste and release prevention objectives in research, and to design of new or modified facilities, pro cesses. and products. rvtmmpnts on Category NA.'_ RI 10. An ongoing program for promotion and support ofwaste and release reduction by others, whichmay, far example, include: a_ Sharing of technical information and experience with customers and suppliers: * b. Support ofefforts to develop Improved waste and release reduction techniques: c. Assisting m establishment of regional air monitoring networks. d. Participation m efforts to develop consensus approaches to the evaluation for environmental, health, and safety impacts of releases: e. Providing educational workshops and trammgmaterlals: Assisting local governments and others m establishment of waste reduction programs benefltang the general public. Comments on Category NA:, 11. Periodic evaluation of waste management practices associ ated with operations and equipment at each member com pany facility, taking into account community concerns and health, safety, and environmental impact* and Implementa tion of ongoing improvements. Comments on Category NA: Cataf*ry KA Calagwy EV CatefD? CtUftrf 1A Category TT Category U Pape 44 of 98 K Mtlm. VMtl Ula Wf Oi WMftMt puilN la aat appScaSia. plaw Crateatias atfaUag canpaaj practlcaa afaiaat Iki MiHjiaait Practlaa. Pwilyt| yUa la kpliaat ~ implameatis^ aetlaa plaa IUu|(aat Practice ta place. osw 108030 HARTOLDMON0018812 12. See Instructions below. Categories NA EV DP LA PP JU 13. Implementation of engineering and operating controls at each TPymPsf company facility to Improve prevention and eaxfy detection of releases that may cantaxntnate^reusdwater. f'nmmt rm Category NAj ----- ......- % % - - - Intraction for Practice* 12. Contractor Rerirr. and 14. Pftlllaai CMA recognizes that companies may implement Practice* 22 and 14 on a company-wide or even corporation-wide hast* rather than on a Utility basis. Therefore. CMA asks companies to complete the Self-Evaluation Fans using percentages that represent company-wide implementation for these two practices. In adding up the total percentages across all of the she categories, the number must equal 100%. Also, please use onlywhole numbers. Forthese two management practices the number offadlmes used to calculate the percentage may exceed the number offacilities shewn an page 2. Comfanles may use any appropriate method to calculate these parentages. One caution companies will want to csrcfuDy consider lw this calculation is performed and use it cn yearty bssls so that the dsts from year to yesr esn be compared meaningfully. gtegg*e KA EV DP IA PP 1Z Implementation ofa process farselecting, retaining, and reviewing contractors and tbS manufacturers taking into amount aound waste managanent practices thatprotea the envtrenment and the health and safety of employees arid the public. Comments on Category KA: HI 14. Implementation ofan engoagprogamforaddressingpast eperating and waste management practices and far working w#h others to resolve identified problems at each active or inactive fadkty owned by a member company, taking Into account nnnnunfly esneems and health, safely, and mviua uumtal impacts. Comments on Category KA: CU|ti7 KA Caltfsry IV cueT7 nr Csisfsrp IA CstagM7 TT Citi|iy U . - K ictln. V as utl tsAaa Iicimi tki so|iMt prmctlo* U sst Cvihitjai iSiltag Mspu; pinicM igilut Ui lfaugnust rm il-- t)Til(plag plu ti impWmcat KaigiMt htcflM. Isplnauii setts* pin Hiuitsat Practice is pises. >--ltis Msss^smsst Prscttcs topi-- --tertss ylww ijiUIs DSW 106031 R. Page 45 of 98 HARTOLDMON0018813 Pollution Provontlon Cod* Page 7 ATTACHMEHT C WASTE AND RELEASE REDUCTION CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES QUESTIONS AND ANSVERS 1. Is thia voluntary or mandatory policy? Answer: Tho Vasto and Release Reduction Code of Management Practices baa been developed under CHA's Responsible Care program. Adherence.to the Responsible Care guiding principles is an obligation of oeabership in CMA. 2. bust the Management Practlcea be eoapleted in the specific order listed? Answer: The Manageseat Practices are laid out in a logically sequential pattern to eoaplete a reduction project. The sequence should be generally adhered to although slight re-arrange*eat under specific cireuastances aay be warranted. 3. Since the scope of this policy covers all hazardous and non-hasardous wastes end releases, doesn't the Code require too aueh too fast or dilute the focus froa hazardous pollutants? Answer: The publle is not seeing or asking a distinction between hazardous and non-hazardous releases and wastes. Public opinion research shows that the public wants releases lowered and performance iaproved. This research indicates that the public is concerned about both ebealeals end trash ganersted by industry. The definition of "hazardous" is not unifora throughout the United States, since aany states have their own definitions that are nore restrictive than the federal ZPA's. Furthernore, these definitions of "hazardous" keep changing over tine. Each coepany is starting froe differing points. Eaeh coopany oust identify its own reduction opportunities, identify the concerns of its own public, determine the reduction priorities and goals, and develop and implement its own reduction plan. The goal of this Code is continued performance lmproveeent by a long term coealteent to the reduction of wastes and releases. R. Page 46 of 98 DSW 108032 HARTOLDMON0018814 Pollution Prevention Code Page 8 4. Vby does thi* Code appear to endorse redactions for reductions sake? Vby sboald wastes and releases be reduced below bealtb-baaed standards? Vby should wastes and releases be reduced below levels allowed by statute, regulation, or pezait? Answer: The public does not endorse tbs concept of "permitted" generation of wastes or releases to the environment. The public desires an increased aargin of safety and enTironaental protection as a goal. If the policy is to address the concerns of the public, it oust require sustained reductions. 5. Is this Code a -never-ending spiral of reduction? Answer: The policy is flexible so that each coepany can assess the viability of further reductions. Certainly, reductions will be sustained under the Code as long as they are technically and econoalcally viable. To the extent reduction options reaaln viable, the goal is to establish a long-tern, substantial downward trend in wastes generated and releases to the environment. 6. Will this Code cause neaber to accomplish substantive reduction? Answer: To achieve the goal of earning the public's trust through improved performance, real reductions must occur. Therefore, this Code has measurable implementation stages and industry trends data subaisslon requirements. 7. Does this Code apply to both large and small companies and facilities? Is there a threshold below which this Code does not apply? Answer: The Code applies to all members of CHA. Even a small company or facility can generate westes and releases to the environment. There is no threshold for volume of wastes generated, releases to the environment, or sise of facility below which this Code does not apply. Each coepeay/facility will establish its own priorities. The Code envisions progress by all of industry in reducing wastes and releases. 8. Does this Code apply to domestic or world-wide operations? Answer: The principles behind the Code are universal in concept. The reduction of wastes and releases is good business and good cltixenship. However, for purposes of CHA eligibility requirements, the Code applies to that portion of a corporation or company that is used to determine CHA dues. DSW 108033 R, Page 47 of 98 HARTOLDMON0018815 Pollution Prevention Code Pag* 9 9. 1/hat -about aultl-dlvisional companies? Does this Code apply to mining operations? Serrlee stations? Warehouses? Answers: Adherence to the Code of Management Practices is a Guiding Principle of the lesponsible Care program. The Responsible.Care progxaa is a nenbership require*eat for those ___portions of a company that deternine the CMA dues structure. The principle of reducing wastes end releases is responsible corporate behavior and should be encouraged throughout an organisation. ~ The Haste and Release Reduction Code of Management Practice is designed for flexible lapleaeatatloa by coepaales and facilities. Each coapany/facility oust determine the reduction opportunities, priorities, baseline, and inpleaaat the reduction plan in accordance with these coapany/facility-derived goals. Inherent la this Code is the need to coemunlcate with the public whan deteraining reduction opportunities and priorities. Therefore, while the seope of this policy is broad, each coapany noat identify the sources that are included in its implementation activities as well as the priority and tlaing for these reduction activities. 10. If ell of the cheaieal industry is to be affected, how do we ensure fair and equitable reductionst Row do we prevent competitive disadvantages among CHA eember eoapanlesT Answer: The Haste and Release Reduction Code is predicated on making reductions that are oeonoalcally and technically sound. The Code does not envision enforcing competitive disadvantages on aeaber coapanles by usurping their decision-making processes. Each company oust evaluate its own reduction opportunities and develop its own reduction plan to meet company/facility priorities. 11. If all of the cheaieal industry is to be affected, how do we ensure fair and equitable reductionst Row do we prevent competitive disadvantages with other Industry segnentsT Answer: This Code will actually make our industry more competitive than those that do not embrace its concepts. Haste and release reductions will result in less wastes, improved efficiency, end aeke the industry e superior coepetltor. 12. Is this a non-growth Codet Row can this Code be reconciled with the need for expansions? Row are opportunities for emission offsets (needed for air permitting) to be preserved? Answer: This Code envisions a long-term, substantial downward trend in total releases to the environment end waste generation. However, the method of achieving reductions is left to the needs and priority determinations of the individual nember coapanles. R. Pape 48 of 98 DSW 108034 HARTOLDMON0018816 Pollution Prevention Code Page 10 The policy la not a no-growth policy; rather, It la a policy of balancing future expansions with future waste sad release reductions. ........... Voluntary waste end release reductions aay be eligible to be banked with appropriate governeental afancles. Aay plan for waste and release reductions oust also plan to aeeoeeodate expansions. Public perceptions say ultinately require a waste and release reduction type prograe just as a condition to be able to construct or expand. Several states already have proposed such regulations. 13. Hon't this Code have eaoreous economic consequences? Answer: Haste and. release reductions nay or aay not have a huge price tag. Soae reduction projects* like fugitive eaission abatenent* tend to pay for theaselves In recovered product(s); other projects nay Increase the price of doing business. Industry oust be willing to Invest la plants that will lead to a future with less wastes and fewer releases to the enviroanent. The goal of fiesponsible Care is that the cbeaical industry will leprove the perfornance of Its operations constantly. In asking reduction progress* each eoapaay oust look at all the reduction opportunities and set their own priorities. Each conpany can set the seope of these priorities broadly or narrowly and lnpleaeat actions at their own peee. Each conpany aust identify its own reduction priorities and lapleaant a reduction plan to neat conpany/facility-set goals. 14. Does the hierarchy of reduction nethodologies nean that all projects oust use source reduction unless it Is technically Infeasible? Answer: Each waste and release source oust be evaluated for its reduction potential. The hierarchy requires that reduction projects for source reduction be evaluated before reeycle/reuse or treataeat. Bowever, the project to be lnpleaented will depend on the evaluation. Technical lnfeeslblllty is only one of several facility and/or waste specific criteria that ean lead to selection of a reduction project involving reeyele/reuae or treatnent. When developing their reduction priorities, conpanles aay choose to consider other criteria including risk/benefit aeehanlsss* public concern, sire of the facility* econoalca, and other factors such as conservation of resources. U38Q3S R. Page 49 of 98 HARTOLDMON0018817 Pollution Prevention Code Page 11 15. Ibis Code, at well as other codes under the Responsible Care profree, require ongoing dialogues with employees and aeabers of the public. Does eaeh such Hanageeent Practices require a separate meeting? _ ..Answer: Mo. Meetings with eaployees or the public can bava multiple agenda ltaas. If several Hanageeent Practices ltees are to be covered in a single meeting, all that is required is that the agenda and presentation clearly address eaeh topic, rather than have a general "discussion of topics." Under the Responsible Care Prograa, the process to coaeunicste with the public and eaployees is established under the Coaaunlty Awareness and Eaergency Response (CARR) Code of Management Practice. Companies are encouraged to use the aeehanlsas set up under other codes to enhance effective lapleaeatatlon of the Responsible Care Prograa and to better use and conserve company resources. 16. Is dialogue with the public required for all facilities? Answer: Meaningful dialogue is essential to better understanding public concern, laproving the public's understanding of our operations, and building trust. Sons facilities, due to slse and location, nay have lialted opportunity for such dialogue. Where the opportunity for dialogue exists, even on a lialted basis, it should be actively pursued individually or* jointly with other neighboring companies/fecillties. 17. Should individual eoapanies and/or facilities submit to CMA the rationale behind the annual Industry Tread data subalsslons? Answer: No. The data subaitted for the Industry Trend Data reports need not have supporting docuaentatlon subaitted to CMA. However, when discussing these data with the local public, it is assumed that general methods and assumptions will be discussed as part of the public education and dialogue process. 16. When coapleting the Self-Evaluation Fora, must every facility attempt to progress through all the Implementation stages, or can some facilities "mature" their progress in code implementation at less than full Implementation? Answer: All participating facilities should work to achieve full implementation of each Code and embrace the concepts of this Code in the spirit of the Responsible Care Guiding Principles. Depending on the sire of particular facility or the activities carried on by that facility, a company may decide that different implementation methods are appropriate. For example, a large facility may use formal procedures such as written policies and R. Page 50 of 98 OSW 108036 HARTOLDMONOOI88I8 Pollution Prevention Code Page 12 aauals end conduct foraal ploy** aeetln*s. Vbereas, a sealler facility can accomplish the saaa implementation uslaf last foraal Methods. SW 106037 R, Page 51 of 98 HARTOLDMON0018819 Pollution Prevention Code Page 13 Attachment B QUESTION AND ANSWERS FOR PRACTICES 11-14 Theae question! address Issues is the four practices added to the Pollution Prevention Code of Management Practices. As coapanies implement Practices 1-10, they should ezaalae their implementation actions and modify them to include waste managenent. QUESTIONS: IN PRACTICE 11. WHAT ARE THE VASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ASSOCIATED WITH ALL OPERATIONS AND EQUIPMENT? The Code envisions companies reviewing all waste management practices at each step of the operatlon(s) where wastes are generated or released within each facility. This review is within the operating processes not just at the "end of the pipe." WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY A CONTRACTOR AND TOLL MANUFACTURER? Contractors are any entity a member company uses to handle its secondary materials and wastes. This Includes, for example, waste treatment facilities, disposal facilities, tank cleaners, reclaimers, recycles*, and the like. "Contractors" does not include publicly owned treatment works. Responsible Care# covers toll manufacturers' operations under two Codes. This code covers the wastes generated by relevant operations of toll manufacturers. For the purpose of this eode, toll manufacturers are Independent parties who: perform a manufacturing step for a member company in which the member company owns the work in process; use the member company's feed stock; and generate waste from the manufacturing step. R. Pape 52 of 98 DSW 108038 HARTOLDMONO018820 roiiwkiun rivfCiuiwu WUUC Page 14 WHAT DOES "IMPLEMDJTATION OF A PROCESS. ..." MEAN? The requirement for tbe "Implementation of a procaaa. . .."la designed to encourage member coapanles to do business with those contractor* and toll manufacturers that, after raaaooabl* Inquiry, ar* believed to engage la sound vast* senegasant practices. As part of tba contracting procedure, asaber coapanles should consider Including language requiring tba contractor to use proper health, safety, and oaviraaaental practices and stating that tbe aeaber company has a right to Inspect for that purpose. HOW DO YOU REVIEW THAT A CONTRACTOR OR TOLL MANUFACTURER USES SOUND WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES? A process for "reviewing" includes reasonable reviews of the relevant practices of contractors and toll aanufaeturers. Because of the variety of.coaaerclal relationships and clrcsastances, aeaber coapanles ar* to exercise their own judgesant as to bow to conduct "reviews" and precisely what to do with the information obtained. CHA ssabers are not expected to control tbe operations of their contractors and toll aanufaeturers. CHA aeaber eoapanies should consider performing a site visit and visual inspection of waste aanagesent practices by a eospany representative. Tbe aeaber company aey determine that a more rigorous inspection is appropriate based on initial findings. HOW OFTEN SHOULD YOU REVIEW CONTRACTORS AND TOLL MANUFACTURERS? A review or evaluation should be don* on soa* repeat basis. Coapanles should determine tbe timing by an evaluation of tbe results of previous reviews, potential lapseta, potential liability, etc. WHAT DO VE KEAN BY "IMPROVE THE PREVENTION OF RELEASES TO GROUNOWATER?" The goal is prevent releases to the ground and to protect existing groundwater quality. While It is envisioned that a company will have an SFCC (Spill Prevention Control and Counterseasures) plan for certain materials, companies should review tbe chemicals at the facility and extend the SPCC concepts to other materials. To improve efforts to prevent releases, aeaber coapanles should review the chemicals and operations at a facility; develop plans to prevent, detect, and contain releases or potential releases; and Implement these plans to protect groundwater froe contamination. 1DBQ3S R. Pape 53 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018821 Pollution Prevention Code Page 15 IN PRACTICE 14 WAT IS MEANT BY IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ONGOING PROGRAM TO RESOLVE IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS? "implementation of an ongoing program..." means developing processes for evelusting the health, safety, end environmental lupacts of Identified problems arising from past operating and waste management practices and for setting priorities for addressing those problems. The Code recognises that not every identified problem poses adverse impacts. Resolving identified problems should consider factors such as, regulatory, technical, and eeonoaie considerations. WHAT IS MEANT BY "PAST OPERATING AND VASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES?" Past operating practices and waste management practices that companies should consider nay include operating practices such as: manufacturing operations, loading and unloading areas, storage, areas of spill containment, and recycling and reuse processes; and waste management practices such as: surface impoundaents, waste treatment, land disposal, land treatment and farming, and deepwell injection. WHAT IS MEANT BY "WORKING WITH OTHERS TO RESOLVE IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS?" Each meaber company's program should include a process to cooperate, to the extent appropriate, with governmental agencies, past owners, operators, insurance carriers, the community, and others to resolve the potential health, safety, and environmental impacts, and community concerns associated with identified problems. WHICH MEMBER COMPANY FACILITIES, ACTIVE OR INACTIVE, ARE INCLUDED IN PRACTICE 14? This praetiee applies to facilities currently owned by a member company. This Includes properties that are still owned, but no longer have ongoing operations. Inactive sites that are not owned by a member company, hot where the company has potential involvement, should be addressed to the extent the meaber company determines feasible. R. Page 54 of 98 DSW 108040 HARTOLDMONO018822 Pollution Prevention Code Page 16 WHAT IS MEAWT BT "TAKING INTO ACCOUNT COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND HEALTH, SAFETY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS?" Vha CKA bar companies iaplaaant the ploy** cad public outreach of the Cod* (Practices 4 and 8), companies should pr***nt information about their currant and past vast* aanaiaaant practices vltb th* goal of identifying tb* coaaunlty conearns. Companies should consider this input vhan developing plans and setting priorities for vast* aanaja**nt and remediation activities. X1SH 108041 R. P*ge 55 of 98 HARTOLDMONOOI8823 Page 56 of 98 DSW 108042 HARTOLDMONO018824 Responsible Care: A Public Commitment PROCESS SAFETY CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Eurposfi The Process Safety Code is designed to prevent fires, explosions and accidental chemical releases. The Code is comprised of a series of management practices that reflect this goal, with the expectation of continuous performance improvement for each management practice. The practices are based on the principle that facilities will be safe if they are designed according to sound engineering practices, built, operated and maintained properly and periodically reviewed for conformance. Proce ss safety is an interdisciplinary effort. Consequently, the Code is divided into the following four elements: management leadership, technology, facilities and personnel. Each element is composed of Management Practices. Individually, each Practice describes an activity or approach important to preventing fires, explosions and accidental chemical releases. Collectively, the Practices encompass process safety from the design stage through operation, maintenance and training. The scope of this Code includes manufacturing, processing, handling and on-site storage of chemicals. This Code must be implemented with full recognition of the community's interest, expectations and participation in achieving safe operations. The process safety management program in each facility is complemented by workplace health and safety programs, as well as waste and release reduction programs which address and minimize releases and waste generation. These three programs, and others, will help assure that CMA member facilities are operated in a manner that protects the environment and the health and safety of personnel and the public. Relationship to Guiding Principles The Code helps achieve several of the Responsible Care Guiding Principles: To recognize and respond to community concerns about chemicals and our operations, To make health, safety and environmental considerations a priority in our planning for all existing and new plants and processes. To operate our plants and processes in a manner that protects the environment and the health and safety of our employees and the public. DSW 108043 R. Page SI of 98 HARTOLDMONO018825 Process Safety Code of Management Practices September 11. 1990 -- Page 2 . Management Practices Each member company shall have an ongoing process safety program that includes: Management Leadership . 1. Leadership by senior management through policy, participation, communications and resource commit ments in achieving continuous improvement of performance. .i 2. Clear accountability for performance against specific goals for continuous improvement. 3. Measurement of performance, audita for compliance and implementation of corrective actions. 4. Investigation, reporting, appropriate corrective action and foDow-up ofeach incident that results or could have resulted in a fire, explosion or accidental chemical release. 5. Sharing ofrelevant safety knowledge and lessons learned from such incidents with industry, government and the community. 6. Use of the Community Awareness and Emergency Response (CAER) process to assure public comments and concerns are considered in design and implementation of the facility's process safety systems. Technology 7. Current, complete documentation of process design and operating parameters and procedures. 8. Current, complete documentation of information relating to the hazards of materials and process technology. 9. Periodic assessment and documentation of process hazards, and implementation of actions to minimize risks associated with chemical operations, including the possibility ofhuman error. 10. Management ofchanges to chemical operations to meintain or enhance the safety originally designed into the facility. Facilities 11. Consideration and mitigation ofthe potential safety effects ofexpansions, modifications and new sites on the community, environment, and employees. 12. Facility design, construction and maintenance using sound engineering practices consistent with recognized codes and standards. 13. Safety reviews on ell new and modified facilities during design end prior to itart-up. 14. Documented maintenance and inspection programs that ensure facility integrity. R. Page 58 ot 98 OSW 108044 HARTOLDMONOOI8826 Process Safety Code ot Management Practices September 11. 1990 -* Page 3 . 15. Sufficient layers of protection through technology, facilities and employees to prevent escalation from a single failure to a catastrophic event. 16. Provision for control ofprocesses and equipment during emergencies resultingfrom natural events, utility disruptions and other external conditions. Personnel 17. Identification of the skills and knowledge necessary to perform each job. 18. Establishment of procedures and work practices for safe operating and maintenance activities. 19. Training for all employees to reach and maintain proficiency in safe work practices and the skills and knowledge necessary to perform their job. 20. Demonstrations and documentation of skill proficiency prior to assignment to independent work, and periodically thereafter. 21. Programs designed to assure that employees in safety critical jobs are fit for duty and are not compromised by externa] influences, including alcohol and drug abuse. 22. Provisions that contractors either have programs for their own employees consistent with applicable sections of this Code or he included in the member company's program, or some combination of the two. filraarv This Code uses key terms in a context that may be broader than their associated regulatory definitions. However, adherence to this Code does not relieve a company of the obligation to meet Federal, state and local regulatory requirements. Process Safety The application of management and engineering principles to prevent fires, explosions and accidental chemical releases at chemical process facilities. Sound Engineering Practice The application ofmandatory codes and standards supplemented by the use of voluntary codes, standards and guidelines, tempered by professional judgement Safety Critical Jobs. Jobs, activities and tasks, ifimproperly performed, that have the potential to significantly increase the risk of a fire, explosion or accidental chemical release. Accidental Chemical Release - Unplanned, sudden releases of chemicals from manufacturing, processing, handling and on-site storage facilities to the air, water or land. It does not include permitted or other releases. C5w IO8O45 R. Page 59 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018827 R. Page 60 of 98 OSH 1080**6 HARTOLDMONO018828 Responsible Care: A Public Commitment smm CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION MEMBER SELF-EVALUATION FORM PROCESS SAFETY CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Member Company Name:___________ Responsible Care Coordinator Name: - - ..... .....-- - Address: Telephone ( )_________________ Number of facilities subject to code DSW 108047 R, Page 61 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018829 R. Page 62 of 98 DSta 108(148 HARTOLDMONO018830 OUVCUi^Ci * a . * 9 9 * -- SAMPLE PROCESS SAFETY CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Instructions: 1. Under tbe Responsible Care Initiative, each member company will submit a Self-Evaluation form annually to CMA. 2. Indicate on the cover page the number of member company facilities subject to the Code. Each company must report the implementation category for all facilities subject to the Code on this form. 3. For each Management Practice on tbe following four pages, indicate the number of facilities that have attained each implementation category. Each facility should appear in only one milestone category per Management Practice. The total number of facilities subject to the Code should equal the number of facilities across all six implementation categories for each Management Practice. 4. Only subject facilities owned or operated as of tbe reporting date should be included. 5. Tbe implementation categories are: Category NA Category EV - CategoryDP Category IA Category PP * Category RI No action. Ifno action taken because tha management practice is not applicable, please explain. Evaluating existing company practices against tha Management Practice. Developing plan to implement Management Practice. Implementing action plan Management Practice in place. Reaaaeesing Management Practice implementation. Sh l60<, 9 R, Page 65 of 98 HARTOLDMONOOI8831 R. Pape 64 of 98 S* 108050 HARTOLDMONO018832 Process SaJety Code ol Management Practices November 21. 1991 -- Page 3 Management Practices Categoric Management Leadership NA EV DP IA PP RI 1. Leadership by senior management through policy, participa tion, communications and resource commitments in achieving continuous improvement of performance. Comments on Category NA:___________ ___________________ 2. Clear accountability for performance against specific goals for continuous improvement Comments on Category NA: 3. Measurement of performance, audits for compliance and im plementation of corrective actions. Comments on Category NA: 4. Investigation, reporting, appropriate corrective aetion and fol low-up of each incident that results or could have resulted in a fire, explosion or accidental chemical release. Comments on Category NA: 5. Sharing of relevant safety knowledge and lessons learned from such incidents with industry, government and the community. Comments on Category NA: CiUfr KA Catafary CV Ciinorr DP C*Ufr XA Calagar7 W Catayor7 K1 Ha acbaa. Vaa uttaa uka licwi tki aaufaaM yractlea la aat ippBtalU, ylaaaa axplaia- trihidai (riitbi company practice* agaiaat tka Maaagaaaat Prmctiea. ' Davalaplag plaa ta hnylwnant Kaaagaaaat Practlaa. Implratatiag actlaa fin S>ai|<wat Practtca la ptaaa ............. ttii| Ku*|<aat Pnctiea hnplamaat***^. DSw U18054 R. Page 65 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018833 Process Safety Code of Management Practices November 21. 1091 - Page 4 SAIVIPIE Cucgnrin NA EV DP IA PP RI 6. Use of the Community Awareness and Emergency Response (CAER) process to assure public comments and concerns are considered in design and implementation oftbe facility1s process safety systems. Comments on Category NA:__________________ Technology . 7. Current, complete documentation ofprocess design and operat ing parameters and procedures. rmm#nti an Citirorv NA ----- _ . 8. Current, complete documentation ofinformation relating to tbe hazards of materials and process technology. Comments on Catem-v NA: 9. Periodic assessment and documentation ofprocess hazards, and implementation of actions to minimize risks associated with chemical operations, including the possibility ofhuman error. Comments on Category NA* 10. Management of changes to chemical operations to maintain or enhance the safety originally designed into the facility. Comments on Cateeorv NA Category IU CiU|oir EV Cstsfsry DP Calagarj 1A Category IT Category XI Pape 66 of 98 Ka actios. V actios takn >mm tfca maaagemast pnettet la sat eppScahle, plaaee orpUtn. Eninating adatlag ctmptaj practice# agalaat tka u**`|iBiiil Practice. D*rlcpa| pUa ta lapkaMit Managawiaat Harttaa Implementing aetlaa plan Management Practice la pl*. PetMaaatng Managemat PtudM l"Tl~,*-*it1fi DSW 108052 HARTOLDMONO018834 Process Safety Code of Management Practices November 21. 1901 Page 5 SAMPLE Categories Facilities NA EV DP IA PP R] 11. Consideration and mitigation of the potential safety effects of expansions, modifications and new aites on the community, environment, and employees. Comments on Category NA: . - ________________________ 12. Facility design, construction and maintenance using sound engineering practices consistent with recognised codes and standards. ' Comments on CitMgBrv NA: . 13. Safety reviews on all new and modified facilities during design and prior to start-up. Comments on Category NA: 14. Documented maintenance and inspection programs that en sure facility integrity. Comments on Category NA: 15. Sufficient layers ofprotection through technology, facilities and employees to prevent escalation from a single failure to a cata strophic event Comments on Category NA: Cetagwy KA Calfry W Citsgnry Iff C*tafry XA Catagory IT Catsgaiy Ml Ha wtlw. V u setlae takes WettM tk nuamgasaat practice is act cppHeaklc. plcaac sspUla, Bvalaadag ulstlag ccmpaay practice* agalaat tka Hai|UBt hiettu. DcrdcpUg pUa tc taaptemcat Maaagna--t Ttactica. -ESW 100053 R. Pape 67 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018835 Process Safety Code of Management Practice* November 21. 1991 - Page 6 SAMPLE Citcgfirin NA EV DP IA PP Rl 16. Provision for control of processes and equipment during emer gencies resulting from natural events, utility disruptions and other external conditions.' rVimmants on Category NA: Personnel 17. Identification of the skills and knowledge necessary to perform each job. r.nmmant* on Category NA: 18. Establishment ofprocedures and work practices for safe operat ing and maintenance activities. Comments on Cateeorv NA: 19. Training for all employees to reach and maintain proficiency in safe work practices and the skills and knowledge necessary to perform their job. Comments on Cateaonr NA: 20. Demonstrations and documentation of skill proficiency prior to assignment to independent work, and periodically thereafter. Comments on Cateeorv NA: Catagvy KA Cifgory TV Category DP Category IA Catagary fT Catagory U Kaaetla. Bit actlaa tabaa bar-- i tha teamag--1 yracUca la at appMcaUa. pUaaa aaplaia. graloatlag aslaUag eomyoay yvmctlcaa agatoat tkt Maaagamaat Proctlaa. Daralofdag plaa ta fasplamaat Maaagamaot fiartln bsylamcatlag aetloe pin Kua|Mat PTactici la plaaa SMuaaitng Maaagamaat Prmctlca taaplamaafBi i0805* Pape 68 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018836 Process Safety Code of Management Practices November 21. 1991 - Page 7 ` SAMPLE Categoric NA EV DP IA PP RI 2L Programs designed to assure that employees is safety critical jobs are fit for duty asd are not compromised by external influences, including alcohol and drug abuse. r.nmmnti on Category NA- i 22. Provisions that contractors either have programs for their own employees consistent with applicable sections ofthis Code or be included in the member company's program, or some combina tion of the two. Comments on Category NA.* Category HA Category ZY Cotogory DP Category 1A Catagory PT Category V lfa actica. V ao action takaa tician tk auaagtEralaatl&g ciiatlag company practic-- agalaat the i Deraloptag pUa to Implement Kni|wt Pnctk Implamanling actica plan Maaagamaat Practice ta plaaa. mwitn| Management Practice lainlenmaTitiwi at practice la act applicable, pi---- at Practice. OSM 108055 R. Page 69 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018837 R. Page 70 * 98 OS* 108056 HARTOLDMONO018838 Process Safety Code of Management Practices Questions and Answers Management Leadership 1. Q: How does one define senior management? A: Senior management is that level that has the authority to establish policies and authorize expenditures to implement them. As used in this Code, this probably includes plant managers and above. 2. Q: What is meant by participation by senior management? A: Participation in this context refers to activities which convey and reinforce commitment and leadership as well as support the implementation of policies and procedures. 3. Q: Is it necessary to have a written process safety policy? A: Yes. 4. Q: What parameters can be used to measure process safety performance? A: Each company should establish its own methods of measurement. Counts of unwanted incidents, frequency rates, property loss statistics, audit violations, permit violations, risk reviews and completion of training are a few examples. 5. Q: How should one define the type ofincident that should be investigated? A: There is no single standard which defines the type of incident or near-miss to investigate. Management should establish a formal procedure to investigate those uncontrolled events which have potentially serious consequences. 6. Q: What should be done after each incident or near-miss investigation? A: Corrective actions or follow-up should be identified, carried out and communicated as appropri ate within the company. 7. Q: What kind of knowledge and lessons should be shared? A: Knowledge and lessons which can benefit others because oftheirgeneral applicability or novelty or unusualness. Member companies may establish procedures to promote sharing consistent with proprietary and legal considerations. CSw 108057 R. Page 71 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018839 Process Safety Code of Management Practice* September 11. 1990 - Page 2 8. Q: How much input do you envision our industry receiving from the public sector? A: The CMA fully support* the concepts ofworking with local communities to listen to their views and concerns and to consider them in plant safety systems. The intent is to discuss major process additions and new grass-roots construction as opposed to minor plant changes. Individual companies are responsible for the safe design and operation of facilities; that responsibility cannot be shared with the public. Itis intended thatpublic concerns be considered in design and operations of the facility. The CAER network provides a useful vehicle to accomplish this. Technology 9. Q: What type of documentation of process design and operating parameters should exist? A: E*ch operating unit should have up-to-date safety related information that contains the design basis and procedures, (e.g., process flowsheets, piping and instrument diagrams or engineering flow diagrams, vessel drawings, electrical area classifications, safetyvalve capacity information and operating manuals). The documents will serve as the back bone for employee training, hazard evaluation and process modifications. 10. Q: What is meant by operating parameters? A: Operating parameters are the ranges of conditions (eg. temperature, pressure and flow composition) within which a unit is designed to operate. Within that range, a unit is expected to operate without any problems. For example, the safe operating parameter for a reactor temperature during exotherm might be 70 degrees minimum to 130 degrees maximum. Operating outside the range could cause instability in the reaction -- runaway temperature if above, potential brittle fracture if below. 11. Q: What are some of the types of information needed to define the chemistry? A; Each reactant and product should have a material ssfety data sheet (MSDS). Chemical reaction kinetics and acute toxicity should be known and understood. Reactive chemical performance upon mixing various chemicals in different proportions should be documented. Waste streams should be included as well as reactants and product*. 12.Q: What type of procedures should be maintained? A: Generally, sll routine jobs or tasks with process safety implications should have written stepby-step instructions. These procedures should capture the experience base ofthe knowledgeable experts. The protective equipment and employee concerns should be incorporated in the procedures. Also, emergency procedures must be dear and unequivocal 13. Q: What is the difference between documentation covered in practice 7 versus that included in practice 8? A: Number 7 refers mainly to design *d operating information, while number 8 specifically addresses the hazards associated with the unit being evaluated. Page 72 of 98 OSW 108058 HART OLDMONO018840 Process Safety Code of Management Practices September 11.1990 -- Page 3 '14. Q: Doe* the reference in the Code to risk imply that we will be required to perform quantitative risk assessment* on all our plants? A: No. Qualitative analysis alone should be sufficient to satisfy process safety analysis objectives in most cases. In any ease, qualitative analysis should be considered prior to performing numerical frequency or consequence calculations. 15. Q: What does periodic assessment of process hazards mean in the technology element? i A: Each member company should establish its own review frequency based on inherent hazards, operating experience, rate of technology change and other factors. Typical review frequencies range from three to seven years. Under very special circumstances, review frequency may be as short as one year. 16. Q: What is meant by "management of change"? A: "Management ofchange" means having management systems in place that ensure the original safe design of the is maintained and all changes, including minor modifications, are properly reviewed, recorded and communicated 17. Q: What changes should be covered? A: All changes except like for like substitutions. Examples include hardware, procedures, raw materials, operating conditions, throughput, employee, software and control mode. 18. Q: There does not seem tobe a clear distinction between Technology andFacilities - shouldn't these two sections be combined? A: While it is true that the two sections are closely related and interdependent. Technology (Le., chemistry and know-how) and Facilities (Le., equipment and hardware) each deserve an independent focus as related to process safety. . 19. Q: Should the community be consulted when considering potential effects of a new site or new installation? A: Yes, using principles of the CAER process. 20. Q: Does this mean the community has approval or rejection authority over our projects? A_- No: It means that we should identify and respond to community concerns. DSW U) 8 05.9 R, Page 73 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018841 Pnceu Safety Code of Management Practices September 11. 1990 -- Page 4 . 21.Q: Choosing a new plant cite involves many complex considerations. Can we realistically expen to completely satisfy all interests? A: Possibly not, but the Responsible Care Guiding Principles require health, safety and the environment to be priority considerations and such issues must be adequately resolved. 22.Q: Does the Code cover concerns about sabotage or terrorism? A Such issues are not intended to be within the scope ofthe Code. However, good practice in site selection and planning will consider such general security issues as buffer zones, fencing, lighting, entrance gates and security surveillance. Also, mitigation and emergency response measures help Tr"rr'Tr"T* consequences ofhostile aeta. 23. Q: Does "sound engineering practice" extend beyond mandatory codes and regulations? A In many eases, yes. While government codes and regulations may establish minimum legal requirements for plant design, operation and maintenance, member companies are expected to use qualified professionals to identity and apply other engineeringpractices (such as contained in many non-mandatory or consensus standards or codes) as may be necessary to fulfill our safety commitment to employees and the community. 24. Q: Are "Safety Reviews" as prescribed in practice 13 different from "Process Hazard Assessments" as prescribed in practice 9? A Yes. "Process Hazard Assessment" is done during the process design stage and periodically thereafter. It focuses on the hazards inherent to the process and measures to control these hazards. "Safety Reviews" use "Process Hazard Assessment" as a starting point and focus on the physical installation to assure that it is in accordance with design and is safe to start-up and operate. 25. Q: Shouldn't Safety Reviews go beyond simple field inspection? A Yes. Safety Reviews may include such things as testing equipment, controls, control logic, interlocks, "water runs" etc., prior to operation with hazardous materials. In addition, such reviews should also confirm that process documentation and procedures are in place and that operators have been trained. 26. Q: Doesn't a "Preventive Maintenance Program" meet the requirement of practice 14? A To meet the intent of this code practice, the preventive maintenance (PM) program must go beyond operating reliability and economic considerations and address all potential failures which, while possibly extremely unlikely, could impart process safety. A program to "ensure facility integrity" must search outbidden deterioration and flaws that can result in sudden and unexpected failure that can impact process safety. Page 74 of 98 OSW 108060 HARTOLDMON0018842 September 11. 1990 -- Page 5 27. Q: What are tome examples that could be included in a PM program to satisfy practice 14'' A. Metallurgical examinations for stress corrosion cracking, nondestructive acoustic testing, compressor vibration monitoring, thickness measuring for erosion or corrosion on key parts of pressure vessels and pipelines, verification of bolt and damp material of construction and quality, reliability of critical instruments and operation of safety valves are examples. 28. Q: Shouldn't a hierarchy be considered in applying "layers of protection"? ( A Normally technology should be applied first, choosing an inherently safe or less hazardous process wbeneverpossible. Then hardware, safetyfactors,redundantcontrol&, failure detection systems, etc., should be applied. Finally, emergency procedures and employee training should complement the process and hardware design. 29. Q: How many layers constitute `sufficient layers of protection"? A: There is no absolute answer to this question. The number of levels needed depends on the likelihood ofan initial failure, the nature ofthe consequences and whether additional levels of protection will materially improve safety. Layers of protection include more than redundant equipment. They may include process techniques, instrumentation and hardware, operating procedures and operator training. 30. Q: What is meant by "external conditions"? A By external conditions we mean anythingthat is beyond the direct and immediate control ofthe process operator. An example might be an evacuation order for your plant caused by a fire or toxic release from a neighboring plant as well as an upset or incident in an adjoining process unit Perm?and 31. Q: We train our employees thoroughly, why is it necessary to also demonstrate their proficiency? A Even with the best employee trainingprograms, people learn at different rates and comprehen sion. An actual demonstration is the only way ofbeing sure that each individual has grasped essentia] concepts or skills. Demonstrations can involve written tests and/or having the trainee show a qualified observer how they would do a job. 32. Q: Do procedures and work practices have to he documented? A Generally, yes. Procedures typically require proper execution of several stages. Documented procedures help assure that a critical action is not overlooked and that the procedure is carried out consistently by everyone. 33. Q: Does the code require that employees be screened for alcohol and drug abuse? A No. The Code requires programs designed to assure fitness for duty. -DSW 108061 R, Pge 75 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018843 Ptocbm Safety Code of Management Practices September 11. 1990 Page 6 34. Q: What kinds ofjob* are safety-critical? A: A position is safety-critical when it involves tasks which, if not performed proDerly. can significantly increase the likelihood of a fire, explosion, or accidental chemical release. 35. Q: What is meant by "external influence"? A External influences include abuse of alcohol or drugs, but the terms also refers to any factor which mightimpairjudgement, attention or general capacity to perform ajob safely. Examples include physical impairment, emotional stress, and stress from too much overtime work. R. Page 76 of 98 DSW 108062 HARTOLDMONO018844 Responsible Care: A Public Commitment EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PURPOSE The go*] of the Employee Health and Safety Code ofManagement Practices is to protect and promote the health and safety of people working at or visiting member company work sites. To achieve this goal, the Code provides Management Practices designed to continuously improve work site health and safety. These practices providea multidisciplinarymeans to identify and assess hazards, prevent unsafe acts and conditions, maintain and improve employee health, and foster communication on health and safety issues. Implementation of the Employee Health and Safety Code, together with other Codes of Management Practices, can enable member companies to operate in a manner thatfurther protects and promotes the health and safety of employees, contractors, and the public, and protects the environment RELA TIONSHIP TO GUIDING PRINCIPLES Implementation of the Code helps achieve several of the Responsible Care* Guiding Principles: I To recognize and respond to community concerns about chemicals and our operations. I To make health, safety, and environmental considerations a priority in our planning for all existing and new products and processes. I To operate our plants and facilities in a manner that protects the environment and the health and safety of our employees and the public. I To extend knowledge by conducting or supporting research on the health, safety, and environmental effects of our products, processes, and waste materials. OSH 1X38063 R. Page 77 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018845 MAM CEMENT PEA CTTCES Each member company shall have an ongoing occupational health and safety program that includes: Program Management 1. Commitment by all levels ofmanagement to protecting and promoting the health and safety of people working at or visiting member company work sites through published policies; accountability for implementation; and provision ofsufficient resources, including qualified health and safety personnel 2. Opportunities for employees to participate in developing, implementing, and reviewing health and safety programs. 3. Provisions, including selection criteria, to confirm that on-site contractors' programs are consistent with applicable Management Practices ofthis Code. 4. Written, up-to-date health and safety programs and procedures appropriate to the facility. 5. Means to verify thathealth and safety programs and procedures are effective and that actual practices are consistent with these programs and procedures. 6. Systems for maintaining records and analyzing data to evaluate health and safety perfor mance, determine trends, and identify areas for improvement. Identification and Evaluation 7. Methods to identify and evaluate potential health and safety hazards in planned or existing facilities, including facilities to be modified. 8. Exposure assessments and safety analyses to evaluate health and safety hazards to employ ees from processes; equipment; potentially hazardous chemical, physical, or biological agents; or other work site conditions. 9. Health assessments to determine employee medical fitness for specific job tasks. 10. Employee occupational medical surveillance programs tailored to work site hazards. Prevention and Control 11. Mechanisms for reviewing the design and modification offacilities and job tasks, taking into account the foDowing hierarchy of controls: inherent safe design, material substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment. 12. Systems to verify that health and safety equipment is properly selected, maintained, and used. R. Page 78 of 98 05m 108064 HARTOLDMONO018846 13. Preventive maintenance and housekeeping programs to maintain the safety of fadiiues. tools, and equipment. 14. Timely investigation of work site illnesses, injuries, and accidents; corrective actions to prevent recurrence; and evaluation of the effectiveness of corrective actions taken. 15. Security procedures end systems to control entry and exit of personnel and materials at the work site and restricted areas. 16. Provisions for emergency medical assistance for people at work sites. Communications and Training 17. Communication ofbealth and safety information that is relevant to specific job tasks and the work site. IS. Health and safety training programs, including documentation of these programs, and methods to evaluate the effectiveness of both training and communications activities. INDUSTRY TREND DA TA To identify industry trends, eaeh company shall report to CMA, or its designated agent, occupational injuries and illnesses, as specified in CMA's Occupational Injury and Illness Reporting Program. RELA TIONSHIP TO OTHER CODES OF MANAGEMENT ERA CT1CES This Code complements, and should be implemented in conjunction with, current and future Codes of ManagementPractices, especially those elements ofthe CAER Code involving emergency response, the Process Safety Code involvingtraining ofemployees in theirjob functions, and theProduct Stewardship Code involvinghealth, safety, and environmental information, and employee education and product use feedback. MEMBER SELF-EVALUATION Each member company shall report annually to CMA, or its designated agent, the implementation category attained for each Management Practice in this Code. The reports should he submitted on the member self-evaluation form provided. RESOURCE GUIDE A separate resource guide is available to assist member companies in implementing the Code. The Responsible Care* Employee Health A Safety Code of Management Practices eras approved by CMA * Board of Director* on January 14.1092 DSW 108065 R. Page 79 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018847 R. Page 80 of 98 osw *080bb . HARTOLDMON0018848 Responsible Care: A Public Commitment A EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MEMBER SELF-EVALUATION FORM Member Company Name:___________ Responsible Care* Coordinator Name: Address:. Telephone:!____ 1 Number of facilities subject to the Employee Health and Safety Code:. OSH 108067 R. Page 81 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018849 R. Page 82 of 98 DSW 1<>8060 HARTOLDMONO018850 EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE MEMBER SELF-EVALUATION FORM Instructions for the Company Responsible Care* Coordinator 1. This form is to be submitted asnusBy to CMA by each member company. 2. Indicate on page 1 the number ofyour member company's facilities that are subject to the Code. Each company must report the implementation stare for all facilities subject to the Employee Health and Safety Code on this form. 3. For each Management Practice on the following pages, indicate the number offacilities that have attained each implementation category. Eaeh facility should appear in only one implementation category per ManagementPractice. Identify the currentimplementation category for each ofyour facilities at the time you complete the form. 4. For the Industry Trend Data, reportthe previous calenderyesr's cumulative occupational injuries and illnesses. Occupational injuries and illnesses should be reported on a company wide basis as specified by CMA's Occupational Injury and Illness Reporting (OUR) Program. 5. Only subject facilities owned or operated as of the reporting date should be included. 6. The implementation categories are: Category NA ~ No action. If mo action taken became the Management Practice i* mot appli cable, please explain h epoce marked Vowwwfi.* Category EV - Evaluating; existing comp anypractices against the Management Practice. Category DP - Developing plan to implement Management Practice. Category 1A - Implementing action plan. Category PP - Management Practice in place. Category Jtl -- Reassessing Management Practice implementation. DSW 108069 R. Page 83 of 98 HARTOLDMONOOI8851 R. Pape 84 of 98 DSW 108070 HARTOLDMON0018852 EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY ,_____________C_ ODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICE,,S ***(( NA ev DP (A PP KI 1. Commitment by all levels of management to protecting and promoting the health and safety of people working at or visiting membercompany sites, through: published policies;accountably ity for implementation,' and provision of sufficient resources, including qualified health and safety personnel Comments on Category NA: 2. Opportunities for employees to participate in developing, imple menting, and reviewing health and safety programs. Comments on Category NA: 3. Provisions, including selection criteria, to confirm that on-site contractors' programs are consistent with applicable Manage ment Practices ofthis Code. Comments on Category NA: 4. Written, up-to-date health and safety programs and procedures appropriate to the facility. Comments on Category NA Caffry NA Cpqr EV Caapr; DP Calafary |a CattpT PP Cf fry U Nt >rri-- IfMMSNrikmkMmtlW I loluasi wmBpi Mpoy pwnla *fli Dilft| plu M nritam Maupatal Ipytopiattin >cuw ptu. ( Mf hrlM laptaa* fppMabta.pUp-- nqriaia. OSW 1080 7.1 R. Pape 85 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018853 Management Practice* Categories NA tV Df IA M Kl 5. Means to verify that health and safety programs and procedures are effective and that actual practices are consistent with these programs and procedures. Comments on Category NA- 6. Systems for maintainingrecordsandanalyzingdatatoevaluate health and safety performance, determine trends, and identify areas for improvement. Comments on Category NA- 7. Methods to identify and evaluate potential health and safety hazards in planned or existing facilities, including facilities to be modified. Comments on Category NA: 6. Exposure assessments and safety analyses to evaluate health and safety hazards to employees from processes; equipment; poten tially hazardous chemical, physical, or biological agents; or other work site conditions. Comments on Category NA: 9. Health assessments to determine employee medical fitneaa for specific job tasks. Comments on Category NA: fangary NA Canfafy CV Catafafp DP Cinjan LA rlapq PP Catafarp R1 R. Pafe 86 of 98 Na If m tkaa kin Imum tfca PiaMaa It M< ippllnbl,. Snhk|Haf --mt pwwlw aprtaattka MajinelPan<ii, Dmlnlicyhi k lk>lkwt Mn(ikm hnlw. Ia,liain| aco-- pUa MniHani rmiia laplaa, lUaaaaanaf lUufmnl hrtii n^ltkaaukk 0Sh aspUm ioeo?t HARTOLDMON0018854 Management Practices Categories NA EV DP IA PP XI 10. Employee occupational medical surveillance program* tailored to work cite hazards. Comments on Category NA- 1L Mechanisms for reviewing the design and modification offacili ties andjob tasks, taking into account the following hierarchy of controls: inherent safe design, material substitution, engineer* ing controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment. 4 ^ I* Comments on Category NA: 12. Systems to verify that health and safety equipment is properly selected, maintained, and used. Comments on Category NA: 13. Preventive maintenance and housekeeping programs to main* tain the safety offacilities, tools, and equipment. Comments on Category NA: 14. Timely investigation of work site illnesses, injuries, and inci dents; corrective actions to prevent recurrence; and evaluation of the effectiveness of corrective actions taken. Comments on Category NA: riiT na C*Mf*ry EV Caf*n DP C*K|r; LA fnp>> PP Catmfwrf RJ H eta, lfM*nln mLn Uua Ot Mupm gi gomhuttaf btof i--mwj r*ca-- iplM ft* M**r D***Urit( pita totapl*t Uu|imi Pmo. la*lm*Mai acftaa plu , IhMfianl Purta to ptoat. to Bat BppH--hh. pU*a mptoto. OSW 108073 HARTOLDMONO018855 Management Practices Categories NA ev DP IA M *1 15. Security procedures and systems to control entry and exit of personnel and materials at the work site and restricted areas. Comments on Category NA: 16. Provisions for emergency medical assistance for people at work sites. . Comments on Category NA: 17. Communication ofheahh and safety information thatis relevant to specific job tasks and the work site. Comments on Category NA: 18. Health and safety training programs, including documentation of these programs, and methods to evaluate the effectiveness of both training and communications activities. Comments on Category NA: INDUSTRY TREND DATA Occupational Injuries and lllnessesforthe previous calendaryearwere reported as specified in CMA's Occupational Injury and Illness Reporting Program. Yes____ No____ " If no. please explain: ______ _ CcMfvry NA CsMfvfy EV fmpr) DP ftmm u fnf7 rr Ciltp*} Rl Page 88 of 98 .. Dmtaftii pin to Inplnwl laptaMMif ' _ r>-- MgUtm. OSH 1080 7** HARTOLDMONO018856 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Throughoutit* development, theEmployeeHealth and Safety (EHS) Code wu reviewed regularly by CMA'i Health and Safety Coxnsuttee, Engineering and Operations Committee, and Responsible Care*CoordinatingGroup. An early draftoftheEHS Codewasreviewed bymembercompanies through written comments and an open meeting, and member companies conducted a second review ofthe draft EHS Code with their employees. In addition, the draft EHS Code was reviewed periodically by the Responsible Care* Public Advisory Panel During these reviews, the following questions were frequently asked about the EHS Code of Management Practices: 1. Does the EHS Code cover all aspects of an employee's health and safety? Answer. The EHS Code is restricted to those aspects ofan employee's health and safety that are affected by bis orher employmentin the chemical industry. TheEHS Code addresses occupational health and safety and does not address employee wellness or eff-the-job safety. 2. Does the EHS Code include visitors and all contractor operations? Answer: The EHS Code covers all visitors and contractor employees who enter a member company's work site. Visitors should be protected from hazards they may encounter while on the work site. All contractors should have health and safety programs for their employees that are appropriate forthe hazards encountered in their contractedjob tasks and that are consistent with applicable management practices of doe EHS Code. Contract manufacturers, or tollers, are addressed in the Product Stewardship Code. 3. Does the EHS Code require employee participation at work sites at which employees sire represented by a union? Answer: The objective of the EHS Code is to encourage member companies to fully involve employees in safety and health activities. However, at facilities at which employees are represented by a union, negotiations concerning such employee participation may he required. In the contract negotiation process, member companies should make a good-faith effort to address opportunities for employee participation. 05 w 1000 75 R. Page 89 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018857 4. What is CMA's Occupational Injury and Ulnesa Reporting (OQR) Program? Answer-. CMA's OIER Program serves as a basis for swarding the annual Lammot Du Pont Safety Awards recognizing sustained achievement by CMA member companies in reducing workplace injury and illness rates. Each participating company submits its injury and illness data, as reported on the OSHAForm 200, based on guidelines issued by tbe U.S. Bureau ofLabor Statistics (BLS). I 5. Are contractor employees included in the OIZR Program? Answer. At this time, contractor employees are not included in the CMA OIIR Program, unless the company directly supervises their day-to-day activities. Current BLS guidelines require reporting of occupational injuries and illnesses by individual employers based on Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes. Both CMA and OSHA are considering revisions to the reporting guidelines that would consolidate tbe reporting ofoccupational injuries and illnesses for a single work site, without regard to the SIC code of the employer. . 6. Does the EHS Code address substance abuse in the workplace as part of assessing medical fitness for specific job tasks? Answer.: Substance abuse is addressed by the Process Safety Code in Management Practice 21: `Programs designed to assure that employees in safety-critical jobs are fit for duty and are not compromised by external influences, ineluding alcohol and drug abuse." 7. Does the EHS Code require job tasks to be evaluated for physical requirements? Answer. Job tasks should be evaluated to determine tbe specific physical abilities associated with a task. An employee's abilities should be evaluated using medical criteria before being assigned to a job task with specific physical requirements. For example, employees should be medically evaluated to determine their ability to wear a respirator before being assigned to job tasks requiring the use ofa respirator. 6. Does tbe EHS Code require member companies to provide annual medical examina tions to all employees as part of an occupational medical surveillance program? Answer. No. Occupational medical surveillance programs should provide appropriate, targeted medical assessments to those employees exposed to specific hazards. For example, regular spirometry examinations to assess lung function should be offered to employees exposed to an agent known to affect lung function. 9. Does the EHS Code require member companies to assess the effect of exposures to chronic hazards on the health of employees? Answer: As a pan of maintaining records and analyzing data for trends, member companies should assess the long-term health experience of their employees in relationship to exposures to chronic hazards. Chronic hazards include, for example, long-term exposures to carcinogens. R. Page 90 of 98 OSH 1080.76 HARTOLDMONO018858 MIE PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP CODE Product Stewardship Booklet for the Code of Management Practices The code's management practices are grouped into three categories, described as follows: Management Leadership and Commitment contains Management Practices 1-3. These practices serve to give direction, provide resources, set priorities, and establish responsibilities within your company that provide an appropriate atmosphere and founda tion for successfully implementing product stewardship. Information and Characterization includes Management Practices 4 and 5. These address the need to continually increase the body of knowledge surrounding chemical products in order to improve hazard identification and risk characterization at every stage in a product's fife. As the cornerstone of product stewardship. Management Practices 6-12 are categorized as Risk Management practices, which work together to manage risks at every stage of a product's fife. Some of these management practices are the most chalenging in the Code because they extend the risk management process beyond traditional boundaries to consider risks beyond the point of sale. Management practices in the first two categories provide the foundation for conducting the risk management practices in the third category. The ability to implement each management practice, therefore, relies upon the successful implementation of previous practices, with the successful development and implementation of product stewardship progressing from a planning and resource allocation to an information collection phase, and finally to action-oriented, risk management activities. Purpose and Scope The purpose of the Product Stewardship Code of Management Practices is to make health, safety and environmental protection an integral pan of designing, manufacturing, marketing, dtstrbufmg, using, recycling and disposing of our products. The code pro vides guidance as wen as a means to measure continuous improvement in the practice of product stewardship. The scope of the code covers all stages of a product's fife. Successful implementation is a shared responsibility. Everyone involved with the product has responsibilities to address society's interest in a healthy environment and in products that can be used safely. All employers are responsible for providing a safe workplace, and all who use and handle products must follow safe and environmentally sound practices. The code recognizes that each company must exercise independent judgment and discretion to successfully apply the code to its products, customers and business. >SW 108077 R. Page 91 of 98 HART OLDMONO018859 THE PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP CODE R. Page 92 of 98 Relationship to Responsible Care9 and Guiding Principles Implementation of the code promotes the achievement of several of the Responsible Care* Guiding Principles: . to make health, safety and environmental considerations a priority in our planning for all existing and new products and processes; to develop and produce chemicals that can be manufactured, transported, used and disposed of safely; . to extend knowledge by conducting or supporting research on the health, safety and environmental effects of our products, processes and waste materials; to counsel customers on the safe use, transportation and disposal of chemical products; to report promptly to officials, employees, customers and the public, information on chemical-related health or environmental hazards and to recommend protec tive measures; to promote the principles and practices of Responsible Care* by sharing experi ences and ottering assistance to others who produce, handle, use, transport or dispose of chemicals. This code complements, and should be implemented in conjunction with, current and future Codes of Management Practices. Chapter 3 discusses the Product Stewardship Code's relationship to the other existing codes. Management Practices Management Practice 1 LEADERSHIP: Demonstrates senior management leadership through written policy, active participation and communication. The objective of this management practice is to set the driving force for the Product Stewardship Code. To this end, senior management must first adopt a policy that reflects the company's vision of product stewardship. This.policy should state dearly how senior management expects product stewardship to be managed within the com pany. To be effective, the policy should emphasize that product stewardship, like quality and safety, must be woven into the company's culture. It also should be dear that the commitment is an ongoing, long-term part of the company's operations and business. Finally, if the new policy represents a change in the way of doing business, it should be dear that a change in behavior is expected. In some companies, a separate written product stewardship policy may be effective. In others, a broader health, safety and environmental (H.S&E) policy that incorporates the prindples of product stewardship may be more appropriate. However, a policy alone is not enough. The words of a policy must be reinforced by actions and behaviors that continuously reaffirm the goals senior management has set Senior management is responsible for conveying throughout the organization its involve ment with, and support of. product stewardship--especially to the next level of manage- DSW 108078 HARTOLDMONO018860 THE PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP CODE merit and encouraging it to do the same. (Management Practices 2 and 3 locus on some of the visible signals - tor example, goals, performance measurement and resource allocation). Management Practiced ACCOUNTABILITY and PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT: Establishes goals and responsibilities lor Implementing product stewardship throughout the organizetion. Measures performance against these goals. One of the key ways senior management can convey the importance of product steward ship is by establishing it as a priority in business planning and individual performance planning. The objective is to develop a process that wffl result in continuous improve ment through goals that are well-defined, achievable and measurable. Similarly, indi vidual responsibilities should be dear and consistent. Manaoement Practice 3 RESOURCES: Commits resources necessary to Implement and maintain product stewardship practices. The commitment of resources, both human and financial, is a critical signal that manage ment can send to show its commitment to product stewardship practices and is a vital component for some implementation activities. Undoubtedly, resources will vary from company to company. However, in all cases, the commitment of resources should be consistent with product stewardship implementation plans and sufficient to support continuous improvement Manaoement Practlce4 HEALTH, SAFETY and ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: Establishes and main tains Information on health, safety and environmental hazards and reasonably foreseeable exposures from new and existing products. Just as Management Practice 1 is the driving force for the Product Stewardship Code. Management Practice 4 is the foundation. The objective of Management Practice 4 is to establish a knowledge base of human and environmental hazards and reasonably foreseeable exposures and, once established, to maintain it Under this practice, compa nies gather information to support the system that characterizes a product's risk (Man agement Practice 5) and, ultimately, the system that develops the methods to manage that risk (Management Practice 6). Initially, some companies may establish their knowledge base by developing information; others may do so by collecting and compiling available information. However, all compa nies should have a process to continuously gather relevant product information and to review existing information to determine H it is accurate, current and complete. Sources of information may indude published, unpublished and/or internally generated scientific reports on health, safety and environmental effects and exposures. Generally, the types of information could cover animal or human toxicity, ecotoxicity and chemical and physical properties that affect exposure or the environmental impact. In many cases, exposure information is not directly available but may be estimated with product use information. Information on a product's handling, use and reasonably foreseeable exposures in research, development, manufacturing, transport, storage, packaging and disposal may DSW 1080 7-9 R. Page 93 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018861 THE PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP CODE R. Pape 94 Of 98 be obtained by a number of means. These could include surveys ot customers ana otner product receivers, technical reviews or visits to customers, and/or observations reponeo by sales and marketing personnel. Management Practice 5 PRODUCT RISK CHARACTERIZATION: Characterizes new and existing products with respect to their risk using Information about health, safety and environmental hazards and reasonably foreseeable exposures. Establishes a system that ini tiates re-evaluatlon. This practice has two objectives. The first is to use the information gathered in Manage ment Practice 4 to develop a thorough understanding of the product's risk. This charac terization may be either quantitative or qualitative. The second objective is to establish a system that triggers re-evaluation, whether upon receipt of new information or upon periodic, scheduled review. A product may be characterized as a single entity or it may be characterized in a group of products based on similar uses, compositions or physical properties. Product risks may vary with different uses or exposures. The time frame for re-evaluation may vary from product to product. Triggers for such re evaluations might include significant new hazard or exposure data, significant new use or misuse information as it becomes known or a substantial increase in sales volume, suggesting new uses or markets. Management Practice 6 RISK-MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: Establishes a system to Identify, document and Implement health, safety and environmental risk-management actions appropriate to the product risk. The objective of Management Practice 6 is to establish a system for identifying and implementing risk-management actions. Risks involved in the production and use of chemicals can be managed and controlled if each company takes the basic information on a product's risk (Management Practice 4), characterizes it (Management Practice 5) and then implements a series of risk management actions (Management Practice 7 through 12). These risk management actions are a result of a conscious weighing of technical, ethical, societal and business issues surrounding a product Actions taken as a result can range from no action, to providing MSDSs and labels, to product reformula tion or repackaging, to removal of the product from a market. The management practices that follow. Management Practices 7 through 12. are specific areas of company operations that warrant discussion and special emphasis. Management Practice 7 PRODUCT and PROCESS DESIGN and IMPROVEMENT: Establishes and main tains a system that makes health, safety and environmental Impscts-induding the use ot energy and natural resources-key considerations In designing, developing and Improving products and processes Designing products and processes (or redesigning existing products and processes) with a system to identify health, safety and environmental impacts throughout the product lifecycle is one of the most effective ways of managing the product risks identified in Management Practice #5. One objective of this Practice is attainment of the preferred osh losoao HARTOLDMON0018862 11IE PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP CODE environmental hierarchy: source reduction: reuse: recycling: and disposal. Source reduction includes equipment or technology modifications, process or procedure changes, product reformulation or design, substitution of raw materials, and improvemerits in housekeeping, maintenance, training or inventory control. This Practice also addresses the need for proper energy and natural resource utilizationimportant considerations for reducing potential adverse environmental impacts and achieving sustainable development The health, safety and environmental attrbutes of the product throughout its entire life cycle should be addressed at the beginning, during the concept and design (or redesign) phases. Re-evaluation should occur on a periodic basis or whenever changes to the product or process are contemplated. Insights and contributions from employees in all functional areas that may affect health, safety and the environment should be incorporated into the review. These functional areas include research and development, manufacturing, distribution, sales and market ing and regulatory personnel. ' Management Practices EMPLOYEE EDUCATION and PRODUCT USE FEEDBACK: Educates and trains employees, based on Job function, on the proper handling, recycling, use and disposal of products and known product uses. Implements a system that encour ages employees to feedback Information on new uses, Identified misuses or adverse effects for use in product risk characterization. This practice has two parts. The first is to ensure that all employees who are involved with products have the training and education necessary to understand product (and packaging) hazards, proper use, handling, reuse, recycling and disposal procedures. The second is to help ensure that any new information that may alter the way risk is being managed is factored into the risk characterization process on a timely basis (Management Practice 5). The training and education of employees should be tailored to specific job functions. For example, marketing and sales personnel are in a unique position to know how customers are using products and must be aware of product hazards, reasonably foreseeable exposures, appropriate uses and proper handling procedures. They should be able to identify product deviations and to recognize adverse health or environmental effects. These personnel should be alert to the customer's and the public's comments or percep tions. ft is essential that there be timely feedback of this safety, health or environmental infor mation or concerns into the risk characterization process (Management Practices 4 and 5). This feedback may change the risk management actions (Management Practice 6). Management Practice 9 CONTRACT MANUFACTURERS: Selects contract manufacturers who employ appropriate practices for health, safety and environmental protection tor the operations under contract, or works with contract manufacturers to help them implement such practices. Provides information and guidance appropriate to the product and process risk to foster proper handling, use, recycling and disposal. Periodically reviews performance of contract manufacturers. The objective of this Management Practice is to encourage the use of contract manufac turers who have sound health, safety and environmental practices for the specific opera tions under contract. -GSW 108081 ` R Page 95 of 98 HARTOLDMONO018863 THE PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP CODE The level of involvement will vary according to the product's risk. Actrvhies coukl mciuae reinforcement of previously provided health, safety and environmental information, additional training, etc. At a minimum, both parties should share any accumulated knowledge that would enhance health, safety and environmental protection. The Transmittal of appropriate information' acknowledges that while we want customers to pass along H.S&E information, product changes made by the customer may mean that the information originally supplied with the product no longer applies. In these cases, the customer needs to issue information that reflects the current H.S&E informa tion. Along with Management Practices 9.10 and 11. this management practice constitutes an important outreach component of the Product Stewardship Code. The long-term result of implementing this practice. Eke the other outreach management practices, should result in improved health, safety and environmental performance - not just ter CMA member companies but the entire chemical industry. As with distributors and suppliers, reviews of customers will be commensurate with product risk. However, it Is appropriate to expect companies to extend the principles of product stewafdship beyond the CMA membership and Responsible Care*panners. R. Pape 98 of 98 OSk 10808<t HARTOLDMONO018864 JU& MONSANTO PLEDGE GUIDELINE #1 POLLUTION PREVENTION The company will work toward the ultimate goal ofensuring zero effect attributable to waste in all media. It will research, design and operate its facilities to minimize the generation ofprocess and nonprocess waste and the potential effect ofchemical releases to the environment. For waste and releases that remain, the company will comply with regulations, while minimizing environmental threat and long-term liability. KEY RESULTS Reduce by 90 percent the company's 1987 level of worldwide air emissions of chemicals named by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under Title in of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA Section 313) and chemicals of local concern outside the United States by the end of 1992. Reduce by 70 percent the company's worldwide SARA Section 313, European Community Priority Pollutant List (EC 129) and carbon monoxide chemical releases to all media and off-site transfers by the end of 1995. Discontinue the deep-well injection of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste streams and SARA Section 313 toxic chemicals by the end of 1999. PROGRAM 1.1 Process Waste The operating units will integrate into their release reduc tion plans the corporate goal of reducing all toxic and hazardous releases and emission to all media, working toward an ultimate goal of zero effect. For reducing releases from processes, the order of preference is source reduction, followed by reuse, recycling or co-product sale, and finally by incineration or other treatment to reduce the volume and/or toxicity of pollutant streams. The development and use of technologies that improve competitive positions will be emphasized. ` The operating units will integrate into their releasereduction plans the following corporate goals: Reduce by 90 percent the company's 1987 level of worldwide air emissions of SARA Section 313 chemicals and chemicals of local concern outside the United States by the end of 1992. Reduce by 70 percent the company's worldwide SARA Section 313, EC 129 and carbon monoxide chemical releases to all media and off-site transfers by end of 1995. The January 1990 SARA 313 and EC 129 lists plus carbon monoxide apply through the end of the multimedia release reduction program. An effect-based release reduction target will be establisbec every five years beginning in 1995, working toward an ultimate goal of zero effect. By the end of 1993, a method and process for an effect-based reduction program for toxic chemicals will be developed. 1.2 Nonprocess Waste Each facility will maintain an inventory of all nonprocess sources of waste generation, including power generation, office and maintenance operations, general warehouse trash, packaging/shipping materials and similar sources. MONSANTO COMPANY SW 108085 MPG 1, Page 1 o Company Confident HARTOLDMONO018865 1J Underground Well (Deep-well) Injection The company will discontinue deep-well injection of RCRA hazardous waste streams by the end of 1999. It will also apply best feasible technology to virtually eliminate the deep-well injection of SARA 313 chemicals. The company's name will not appear on the list of companies making significant use of injection wells for disposal of SARA chemicals for the reporting year 2000 and beyond. The company will demonstrate progress by achieving in 1996 an 80 percent reduction of injected SARA chemicals against the 1990 base reporting year. To be prepared for the possibility of mandatory regulations, the company intends to select by the end of 1995 optimal technical strategies for tot^l withdrawal from deep wells. This preparation will include studygrade estimates to achieve non-brine, treated surface discharge. All operating units will continue where possible to challenge the technical impediments to total withdrawal from deep wells. No new uses of deep wells for hazardous or toxic materials are permitted. A "new" use of deep wells is defined as injection of streams from new products or the addition of substances not previously injected at that site. New internal or external uses of deep wells for nonhazardous wastes and nontoxic chemicals will be considered by the Environmental Policy Committee (EPC) only on an exception basis and within the constraints of these guidelines. The economics of any project appropriation request for such use must be based on disposal technology other than the use of deep wells. 1.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls - "PCB-Free" All company-owned sites (e.g., warehouses, plants, offices) located in the United States will minimize the potential for releases of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) by becoming "PCB-free" of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)-contaminated articles by the end of 1994. 1.5 Land Disposal Landfill of "acutely hazardous" wastes1 and "incinerables"2 will not be practiced. For hazardous wastes and wastes managed as hazardous, fixation of particularly mobile, persistent or bioaccumulative wastes will be accomplished whenever warranted and feasible. In making the decision to manage wastes as hazardous, the company will take into account public expectations, emerging trends and worldwide company practice regarding the same or similar wastes. Contractors hired for land disposal of process wastes will be subject to contracting and assessment requirements (see Pledge Guideline No. 7. Outside Processors). In the United States, the use of off-site hazardous waste landfills will be approved by the Environmental Policy Committee and will be limited in number. Medical wastes generated at the company's locations will be incinerated prior to land disposal of residues. Assurance of incineration will be obtained via manifests or equivalent documents if manifests are not available. The use of Monsanto facilities to commercially treat, store or dispose of non-Monsanto wastes is normally discouraged. Any such use or joint ventures (other than in site guest/host relationships) for waste management must be reviewed and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee. Proposals for land application of process by-products and residues, for beneficial use or disposal, should be guided by the "Monsanto Guidance Document: Land Application of Process By-Products and Residues." The ESHA (formerly EC-201/202) discipline will be followed for such proposals, including 5-year reviews. New applications must be approved by the appropriate Directors of Manufacturing and Environmental operations; the Environmental Policy Committee must approve if beneficial use is not included. . Each company location will maintain a record of both the on-site and the commercial waste treatment, storage and disposal sites it uses. 1.6 Air Emission and Water Release Assessments The company will conduct and maintain an ongoing assessment of potential human health impacts for selected, routinely emitted air pollutants. It will develop appropriate control strategies to reduce identified, potentially unreasonable risk of harm to human health in surrounding communities. The list of air pollutants to be studied include: a) those listed under Section 112(b) of the U.S. Clean Air Act; b) those for which the 1 Aj lined in 40 CFR 261.33(e), plus any mixtures containing greater than 5 percent 5 Hazardous wastes, or wastes managed as hazardous, with a heat ot combustion greater than 6000 BTU/lb. MPG 1. Page 2 of 3 Company Confidential DSW 108086 HARTOLDMONO018866 USEPA has established cancer unit risk values: c) those contained on the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) group 1 and 2A lists: d) other sitespecific pollutants identified by the plant that appear to warrant consideration (including those in significant quantities reportable via SARA Section 313). Plants outside the United States will use the above-given pollutant list plus any additional air pollutants on any local regulatory list that the plant manager deems important Each plant will maintain a list of all such air pollutants, ranked by established and approved protocols. Depending upon the pollutant's relative ranking and if required by the protocols, the plant will use appropriate dispersion modeling techniques to determine potential maximum downwind concentrations for each such pollutant at specified receptors representative of the exposed population utilizing appropriate dispersion modeling techniques. Appropriate assessments of potential human health impacts at the community receptor points will then be analyzed according to protocols established by the company's Environmental, Safety and Health staff. Any potentially unreasonable risk to human health that is identified will be expeditiously reduced to acceptable levels through appropriate actions. The company will conduct aquatic safety assessments to determine the measurable impacts, if any, of its effluents on receptor water quality. The assessments should include both direct and indirect discharges (if applicable) with the mitigating impacts of the publicly owned treatment works (POTW) taken into account for the indirect discharge assessments. Any potentially unacceptable impacts to the aquatic environment identified will be mitigated in a timely manner. A reconfirming assessment will be conducted to verify that the impacts have been reduced to acceptable levels. All initial air emission and surface water release assessments required should be conducted for each of the company's worldwide manufacturing sites within two years of the EPC's approval of this guideline. Operating units will review the status of the assessments annually, and if any significant changes have occurred at a plant site, determine whether the assessment should be repeated. Any such reassessments will be completed within 12 months. 1.7 Measurement The following indicators will be used to measure progress against this guideline: 1.7.1 Annual progress toward achievement of 90 percent SARA Section 313 air emissions reduction goal. 1.7.2 Annual progress toward achievement of 70 percent worldwide SARA Section 313 chemical releases and off-site transfer reduction goal. 1.7.3 Achievement of contingency planning for reduction of use of deep-well injection. 1.7.4 Annual progress toward goals involving discontinued deep-well injection of RCRA hazardous waste streams and toxic SARA Section 313 chemicals. 1.7.5 Air Emissions and Water Release Assessments The company's air and water steering committees will be responsible for tracking the air emission and water release environmental assessments conducted at each site and maintaining an ongoing list of the assessments' current status. In addition, plant's environmental compliance audit will check the current status of these assessments and report on progress as part of the audit's findings. 1.8 Coordinators Where clarification is required, the following coordinators should be contacted: WASTE MANAGEMENT D. B. Redington, ESH, Corporate, A3NA (314) 694-6503. ASSESSMENT C. D. Malloch, ESH, Corporate, A3NA (314) 694-8889. (Revised and approved by the Environmental Policy Committee, February 18,1994.) DSW !Q80a7 MPG1. Page 3 Company Confiden HART OLDMONO018867