Document R54LE0GeDyvvZaDa5LoDYZxv

ORIGINAL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY IN RE: PAOLI RAILROAD YARD ) PCB LITIGATION, ) ) ) ) MASTER FILE ) NO. 90-0609-C-6 CONTINUED DEPOSITION OF R. EMMET KELLY, M.D. DECEMBER 12, 1990 GORE REPORTING COMPANY 408 OLIVE STREET ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 241-6750 HARTOLDMONOO11731 1 IN THE COURT 0 F COMMON PLEAS 2 PHILADELPHIA COUNTY 3 4 5 IN RE) PAOLI RAILROAD YARD ) 6 PCB LITIGATION, ) 7) 8) 9 ) MASTER FILE 1 0 ) NO . 11 12 1 3 Continued deposition of R. EMMET 1 4 KELLY, taken on behalf of the Plaintiffs, 1 5 at the offices of Brown, James & Rabbitt, 1 6 705 Olive Street, in the City of St. Louis, 1 7 State of Missouri, on the 12th day of 1 8 December, 1990 before Ronald A. Gore, 1 9 Registered Professional Reporter and Notary 2 0 Public. 21 22 23 24 25 GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 277 HARTOLDMONOO11732 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: 2 3 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS ; 4 Mr. Arnold E. Cohen 5 Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, 6 Branzburg & Ellers 7 1401 Walnut Street 8 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 9 19 10 2 10 1 1 Mr. Joseph C. Kohn 1 2 Kohn, Savett, Klein & Graf 1 3 2400 One Reading Center 1 4 1101 Market Street 1 5 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1 6 19 107 1 7 FOR THE DEFENDANT MONSANTO 1 8 COMPANY: 1 9 Mr. Michael H. Malin 2 0 White & Williams 2 1 One Liberty Place 2 2 Suite 1800 2 3 1650 Market Street 24 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 25 j 19103-7301 / / GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 278 HARTOLDMONOO11733 1 FOR THE DEFENDANT GENERAL ELECTRIC 2 COMPANY: 3 Mr. Robert J. Shaughneasy 4 Williams & Connolly 5 Hill Building 6 839 Seventeenth Street, N.W. 7 Washington, D.C. 20006 8 FOR THE DEFENDANT THE BUDD 9 COMPANY : 1 0 Mr. R. Thomas Mclaughlin 1 1 Kelly, McLaughlin & Foster 1 2 1700 Atlantic Building 1 3 260 Broad Street 1 4 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1 5 19 102 16 FOR THE DEFENDANT AMTRAK: 1 7 Ms . Suzanne H. Gross 1 8 Margo 1is, Edelstein, 1 9 Scherlis, Sarowitz & Kraemer 20 The Curtis Center 2 1 Fourth Floor 22 Independence Square West 23 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2 4 19 1 06-33 04 2 5 FOR THE DEFENDANT CONSOLIDATED GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 279 HARTOLDMONOO11734 1 RAIL: 2 Ms. Mary C. Smith 3 Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz 4 3000 Two Logan Square 5 18th and Arch Street 6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 7 19 109 8 FOR THE DEFENDANTS SOUTHEASTERN 9 PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION 1 0 AUTHORITY AND THE PENN CENTRAL 1 1 CORPORATION: 1 2 Mr. Roger F. Cox 1 3 Blank, Rome, Comisky 1 4 & McCauley 1 5 1200 Four Penn Center Plaza 1 6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1 7 19 10 3 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 280 HARTOLDMONOO11735 1 INDEX 2 3 Examination by Mr. Cohen 4 Examination by Mr. K o h n 5 EXHIBITS 6 7 Kelly Exhibit 4 8 Kelly Exhibit 5 9 Kelly Exhibit 6 1 0 Kelly Exhibit 7 1 1 Kelly Exhibit 8 1 2 Kelly Exhibit 9 1 3 Kelly Exhibit 1 0 1 4 Kelly Exhibit 1 1 1 5 Kelly Exhibit 1 2 1 6 Kelly Exhibit 1 3 1 7 Kelly Exhibit 1 4 1 8 Kelly Exhibit 1 5 1 9 Kelly Exhibit 1 6 2 0 Kelly Exhibit 1 7 2 1 Kelly Exhibit 1 8 2 2 Kelly Exhibit 1 9 23 Kelly Exhibit 2 0 2 4 Kelly Exhibit 2 1 25 Kelly Exhibit 2 2 PAGE 282 420 284 304 3 13 322 322 348 3 53 370 387 389 397 3 99 402 4 06 4 14 4 17 485 500 510 GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 28 1 HARTOLDMONOO11736 1 R. EMMET KELLY, 2 of lawful age, having been first duly sworn 3 to testify the truth, the whole truth, and 4 nothing but the truth in the case 5 aforesaid, deposes and says in reply to 6 oral interrogatories propounded as follows, 7 to-wit : 8 CONTINUED EXAMINATION 9 QUESTIONS BY MR. COHEN: 1 0 Q. Doctor, during yesterday's 1 1 session you identified certain things that 1 2 you said that you would be glad to check 1 3 for at home and see if you could bring them 14 along today. Have you brought anything 1 5 with you? 1 6 A . Yes, I have. 1 7 Q May I see what you have, sir? 1 8 A . Well , I think, first of all, you 1 9 asked le to look over what depositions I 20 might have given outside of Monsanto. This 2 1 is the only one I was able to find dealing 2 2 with PCB's. 23 Q. Is that Gallatin, G-a - 1 - 1 -- 2 4 A. --a-t-i-n. 25 Q . Plaintiff versus Illinois GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 28 2 HARTOLDMONOO11737 1 Central? 2 A. That's correct . 3 Q. And you gave a deposition on May 4 20, 1988 in a matter pending in the United 5 States District Court for the Southern 6 District of Illinois. And this is the 7 civil action. Is that correct, sir? 8 A. That is correct. 9 Q. You say that's the only one you 1 0 were able to find, that's the only one you 1 1 had the transcript for? 1 2 A. That's right. That's correct. 1 3 Q. Now, there are some other names 1 4 here, can you explain to me -- 1 5 A. One is the lawyer for the 1 6 defendant. 1 7 Q. Bethany Culp? 1 8 A. Of Oppenheimer, somebody, 1 9 somebody and somebody. 2 0 Q . And i s that the person 2 1 contacted you i n order to obtain 22 A . Ms . Culp, yes. 2 3 Q. Wanted to obtain your testimony? 2 4 A. Beg pardon? 2 5 Q. In order to obtain your GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 28 3 HARTOLDMONOO11738 1 testimony? 2 A . That is correct . 3 Q . Did you testify a s an expert 4 witness in that c a s e ? 5 A . Yes, I did. 6 Q Were y o u compensa ted for that? 7 A . Yes, I was. 8 Q . There a re, howeve r, apparently 9 other depositions that you' ve given or 1 0 other incidents where you'v e given 1 1 testimony, but you don't ha v e the 1 2 transcript? 1 3 A I do not have that, that's 1 4 correct. 1 5 Q. Do you have any information 1 6 regarding the actions in which you 1 7 testified, the names of the parties, the 1 8 courts in which the matters were pending, 1 9 anything like that? 2 0 A. No, sir, I do not. 2 1 Q. Why don't you mark this a s 2 2 Exhibit 4. 2 3 (Kelly Deposition Exhibit Number 2 4 4 mark'd for identification). 25 A. You asked me to bring some GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 28 4 HARTOLDMONOO11739 1 documents to substantiate my quotes from 2 Dr. Kimbrough. 3 Q. Yes. 4 A. I will have here a n article from 5 Health and Environmental Digest, Volume 2, 6 Number 7, August 1988. And I quote, in her 7 last paragraph, "Thus, despite positive 8 laboratory data and except for chloracne, 9 exposure to PCB's has led to no convincing 1 0 clinically demonstrable chronic health 1 1 effects in humans." Dr. Kimbrough was at 1 2 that time in the United States 1 3 Environmental Protection Agency in the 1 4 United -- in the UEPA office of the 1 5 regional operations director of the health 1 6 and risk capabilities. 1 7 Q. Is that for me, sir? 1 8 A. Well, I guess I'll give it to my 1 9 counsel and he'll do what he wants with it. 2 0 MR . M AL I N : Obviously, you can 2 1 the record, we've given i t to you 2 2 i m e s in d i fferent contexts. 2 3 MR . COHEN : I s this for me? 2 4 MR . MAL IN : Well, does a n y b o d y 2 5 c o p i e s of this? You've all got GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS , NISSOUR I 2g5 HARTOLDMONOO11740 1 it . 2 A . In fact, I think that' s my only 3 copy. 4 MR . MALIN : That' s the Doctor ' s 5 only copy. 6 MR . COHEN : That e x p 1 a ins it. 7 then . 8 MR . MALIN : He do e s n ' t have 9 copying machi n e s and all t h a t . 1 0 MR . COHEN : Well, that ' s why I 1 1 asked if this was for m e . This was 1 2 apparently se n t to y o u by f ax m a chine, is 1 3 that right, s ir? 1 4 A. I think it was, y e s , s i r . 1 5 Q . You have a fax m a chine in your 1 6 home? 1 7 A . No . Bu t I was g i v i ng a 1 8 deposition where t h ey h a d a f a x machi n e 1 9 Q So, t h i s d o cum e n t w a s sent t o 2 0 location where you were giving a 2 1 depos ition? 2 2 A. That is correct. 2 3 Q. Do you know who sent it to that 2 4 location? 2 5 A. Dr. Kaley , GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 286 HARTOLDMONOO11741 1 0 Dr. Kaley? 2 A . Right. 3 0 . K - a -1-e-y? 4 A . The same man. 5 Q The same man? 6 A . The same man. 7 Q Did he send i 8 request? 9 A. Yes, he did. Then we have on 1 0 here metabolic and health consequences of 1 1 occupational exposure to polychlorinated 1 2 biphenyls by about eight different authors, 1 3 of whom the principal author is A.B. Smith, 1 4 who was with the United States Department 1 5 of Health and Human Services, Public Health 1 6 Service, Center for Disease Control, 1 7 NIOSH. And I quote from Dr. Smith, page 1 8 367, "One would expect that adverse human 1 9 health effects from exposure to PCB, if 2 0 they exist, would most readily be 2 1 identified in groups with the greatest 22 exposures (excluding poisoning attributable 23 to accidental contamination of food). None 2 4 of the published occupational or 2 5 epidemiological studies (including ours). GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 28 7 HARTOLDMONOO11742 1 however, have shown that occupational 2 exposure -- none have shown that 3 occupational exposure to PCB's is 4 associated with any adverse health outcome 5 to be distinguished from demonstrable 6 sub-clinical biochemical alterations. 7 E x c e p t i o n s to this is occurance o f 8 chlorac n e t* 9 Q May I ? 1 0 MR . MALIN i Why don't we copy 1 1 this? N o ne of us have ever seen that one 1 2 before. s o I'd like to have c o p i e s . 1 3 MR . COHEN : We'll arrange to have 1 4 this co P i ed here today , and we c a n mark i t 1 5 and m a k e it part of th e record. and we can 1 6 return i t to the witne s s . 1 7 A . Thank you. The last one is 1 8 another article by Dr. Kimbrough, who at 1 9 that time was in the Center for 2 0 Environmental Health, Centers for Disease 2 1 Control of the Public Health Service, 2 2 United States Department of Health and 2 3 Human Services. And on page 106, she says, 2 4 I quote, "In conclusion, various toxic 2 5 effects of PBB" -- that's polybrominated GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 288 HARTOLDMONOO11743 1 and PCB's have been described in 2 laboratory animals. In humans, acute 3 poisoning outbreaks have only occurred 4 following exposure to a combination of 5 PCB's and PCDF's. When humans were exposed 6 only to PCB's or PBB, the only observed 7 acute effects have generally been minor. 8 So far, no significant chronic health 9 effects have been causally associated with 1 0 exposure to PCB's or PBB's." 1 1 MR. MALIN: You've seen that one, 1 2 so -- 1 3 MR. COX: May we each be provided 1 4 with a copy of the Smith article , Arnold, 1 5 a t this time? 1 6 MR . COHEN : We're going to have 1 7 copies made. 1 8 MR. COX: Thank you. 1 9 MR. COHEN: That is marked 20 Exhibit K -10 , can you tell me in what 2 1 connection, with what matter it was marked 2 2 as Exhibit K- 10 ? 2 3 A. Are you asking me? 2 4 Q. Yes, sir. 2 5 A. It must have been in one of these GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 289 HARTOLDMONOO11744 1 depositions. 2 Q. Did you produce this document at 3 a deposition where it got marked? 4 A . I don't know how it came there. 5 It may have been produced by someone else, 6 and they asked me to comment on it. 7 Q Do you know what the K means? 8 that for your name? 9 A . Kelly, I would imagine, yes. 1 0 Q But you don' t know which 1 1 d e p o s i t i o n it was? 1 2 A . No , I do not # 1 3 (Discussion off the record). 1 4 MR. COHENs Is there anybody who 1 5 wants a copy of the human health effects of 1 6 polychlorinated biphenyls and 1 7 po1ybrominated biphenyls by Dr. Kimbrough? 1 8 MR . COX : N o . 1 9 MR . MC LAUGHLIN : I ' 11 have 2 0 when you get a c h a n c e . 2 1 MR . COHEN : Anything else. 2 2 A . That ' s it. 2 3 Q That's it? 2 4 A . Yes, sir. I believe that ' s 2 5 was asked to bring. and that ' s all I GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI 29 0 HARTOLDMONOO11745 1 promised. 2 MR . COX : Why don't we identif y 3 the la s t Kimbrough art ic1e more completely 4 for t h e record, if you would do that, by 5 title and citation. 6 MR. COHEN I've given the 7 title. The author i s R e n a t e D . Kimbrough. 8 It a p p ear s in the a n n u a 1 review of - - 9 A It's easy t o read down a t the 1 0 bottom , I think . 1 1 Q Pharmacol ogy and Toxic ology, 12 Volume 2 7 , for 1987 11 appears to be 1 3 Volume 2 7 pages 87 t o 111. Did I get that 1 4 right. Do ctor? 1 5 A Yes, that ' s correct . 1 6 MR. COX : The Smith article? 1 7 MR . COHEN : The Smith article is 1 8 going t o be copied. 1 9 MR . MAL I N a He read the citation . 2 0 MR . COX: I ' m sorry. Thank you. 2 1 MR . COHEN Yesterday, when we 2 2 were talking about studies that you had had 2 3 done, which I assume were toxicologic 2 4 studies that were done starting with a 2 5 cooperative venture with H a 1 o w a x in the mid GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 29 1 HARTOLDMONOO11746 1 to late ' 3 0 ' s , you said that there had been 2 some prio r studies done at t h e request o f 3 Swann Chemical? 4 A . That is correct. 5 Q By a Dr. Flinn in New York, I 6 believe? 7 A . That is correct. 8 Q -y-n-n? 9 A . -y-n-n , I b e 1 i e v e . 1 0 Q those the only studies that 1 1 you're aw are that have had been done at the 1 2 request o f Swann on the toxic properties of 13 PCB ' s ? 1 4 A . Yes, sir. 1 5 Q Do you know where those studies 1 6 are? 1 7 A . I may have a copy of them. 1 8 Q All right. At home or in your 1 9 office, y our old office files? 2 0 A . My office file, which -- 2 1 Q Is that in your possession, or 2 2 can you g et ahold of it? 2 3 A . You mean like right now? 2 4 Q Not right now, you're sitting 25 here givi n g a deposition. After we leave GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 29 2 HARTOLDMONOO11747 1 here today 2 A . Yes, I think I can. 3 Q All right. Will you agree t o d o 4 that for me, sir, and provide copies o f all 5 of the Swann Chemical studies? 6 A. Well, I can only give you what I 7 have, and that' s what -- that'' s the only 8 one, I b e 1 i e v e , I've ever seen f rom Swann. 9 Q Yes. I didn't f i n i s h . All o f 1 0 the Swann C h e m ical studi e s on the t 0 X i c 1 1 propertie s of PCB's that you have i n your 1 2 possession, in your files or in your 1 3 control, and would you provide them to Mr. 1 4 Ma 1 i n? 1 5 A. Yes, I will. 1 6 Q. Thank you, sir. Now, you had 1 7 talked about there were two epidemiological 1 8 studies, apparently, done on the workers at 1 9 the Krunmerich plant, Z a c k and Muech study 2 0 and G a f f e y ? 2 1 A . Yes, sir. 2 2 Q. How many times did either of 23 these investigators do studies of the 2 4 Krummerich employees? 2 5 A. I only know the one. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 29 3 HARTOLDMONOO11748 1 Q . So, each of them did one study of 2 workers a t Kruuuerich? 3 A. That is correct. 4 Q. And do you know who at the 5 Krummerich plant they studied? 6 A. Yes. The Gaffey study was all 7 the hourly workers that were present. Now, 8 these were mortality studies, they weren't 9 the workers, these were death certificates 1 0 they looked at. 1 1 Q Yes. So, they n e v e r actually 1 2 interview e d or worked wi t h the workers 1 3 themselve s ? 1 4 A . That is correc t . 1 5 Q Did they have m e d i c a 1 records 1 6 the worke r s ? 1 7 A . That , I do not k n o w . 1 8 Q . This is Gaffey w e ' r e talking 1 9 about? 2 0 A . Gaffey. 2 1 Q. So, the only thing that you're 22 aware of a t this time that Gaffey looked 23 at, that you feel confident that they 2 4 looked at, were the death certificates? 25 A . That is correct. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 294 HARTOLDMONOO11749 1 Q For hourly workers? 2 A. That is correct . 3 Q. Now, how many -- 4 A. I'm not certain if all the hourly 5 workers. Conceivably, he may have had 6 salaried workers in there. I'd have to 7 look at the paper. I think it was 8 primarily hourly workers. 9 Q. Now, you made a distinction here 1 0 between hourly workers and salaried 1 1 workers; what does that distinction 1 2 indicate in your mind? 1 3 A. Well, that some people are paid 1 4 by the hour and some are paid by the month, 1 5 that's one of the distinctions. Two, it 1 6 depends where the salaried worker was 1 7 working. If he were a foreman who was a 1 8 salaried individual, and he was exposed the 1 9. same way the workers were. If the person 2 0 happened to be a secretary in an office 2 1 building, she was not under the same 2 2 working conditions as the hourly worker. 2 3 Q. Do you know who it was a t 2 4 Krummerich that he did study? 2 5 A . Will you repeat that? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI 295 HARTOLDMONOO11750 1 Q Do you know which individuals 2 fell within the scope of the study; was it 3 just hourly or was it hourly and salaried, 4 either/or both? 5 A . I can't answer that. I do not 6 know. 7 Q You don't k n o w ? 8 A . No . 9 Q With respect to hourly workers , 1 0 your knowledge o f the Krumm e r i c h 1 1 plant, you do have personal experience with 1 2 the Krummerich plant, do you not? 1 3 A. Yes, of course. 1 4 Q. You've been there and seen the 1 5 operation? 1 6 A . Dozens of times. 1 7 Q How many? 1 8 A . Dozens of times. 1 9 Q . Dozens. You have seen the 2 0 process o f manufacture? 2 1 A . Yes . 2 2 Q . How big a physical fac i 1 i t y is 2 3 it, do y o u know? 2 4 A . You mean in square fee t ? 2 5 Q . Well, whatever measure ; square GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 296 HARTOLDMONOO11751 1 feet, square acres? 2 A . I'd have t o be guessing. I c an ' t 3 tell you the physic a 1 dimensions of i t , how 4 many reactors they had in it, or anything 5 of the sort. They did just chlorination 6 t h ere. They did n o t manufacture, the 7 d i phenyl , they j u s t did the chlorination, 8 Q So the d i phenyl came to the plant 9 a n d was r e c e i v e d by the plant in some form 1 0 o r a n o t h e r? 1 1 A . Yes. 1 2 Q . Do you k n o w what form it was 1 3 r e c e i v e d in? 1 4 A . Well, i t ' s a solid. Whether it 1 5 w a s recei v e d -- w h ether it was pumped into 1 6 a tank or molten , I do not know, 1 7 Q So, it ' s a solid at room 1 8 temperature? 1 9 A . Yes. 2 0 Q And t h e n it has to be heated to 2 1 b e put in a 1 i q u i d form? 22 A . Y e 8 . 2 3 Q Now, the Krummerich plant, I 2 4 gather, has a recei ving department? 25 A . Ye8 . GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 29 7 HARTOLDMONOO11752 1 Q . Has some sort of warehousing or 2 storage of incoming material in the 3 department? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And then it has various process 6 departments? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And then, I assume, they also 9 have a packaging department, finished 1 0 goods? 1 1 A. Yes. 1 2 Q. A warehousing of finished goods? 1 3 A. Yes. 1 4 Q. And a shippingdepartment? 1 5 A. Yes. 1 6 Q. Do you know if employees from all 1 7 of these departments were included in the 1 8 Krummerich study? 1 9 A. I do not know. 2 0 Q. Do you know at all who was 2 1 included in the Krummerich study? 2 2 A. Beg pardon? 2 3 Q. Do you know who was included in 2 4 the Krummerich study done by G a f f e y, the 2 5 mortality study? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 298 HARTOLDMONOO11753 1 A . Well, I really don't understand 2 that question. Do I know who was -- 3 Q. Included. 4 A. I didn't do the study. All I did 5 was read Gaffey's paper. And I'll have to 6 read Gaffey's paper to see what he says was 7 included in there. But he said he got as 8 many death certificates of the Krummerich 9 employees, and to the best of my knowledge, 1 0 I believe that's the hourly employees, that 1 1 he could find, not only the PCB workers, 1 2 but everybody in all departments of the 1 3 plant, whether they were working in 1 4 warehousing, shipping, receiving or in the 1 5 phenyl department, or any other department 1 6 that might be there, all the workers . 1 7 Q. You're saying now he did all the 1 8 workers? 1 9 A. He did -- I never said he only 2 0 did the PCB workers. I've said all the 2 1 time this was a mortality study of the 2 2 hourly workers in the Queeny -- in the 2 3 Krummerich plant . And he did that by using 2 4 what death certificates he had. I do not 2 5 know what the limits of his death GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 299 HARTOLDMONOO11754 1 certificates were, whether he included 2 salaried foremen, salaried manufacturing 3 superintendants or not. 4 Q. Do you know what year he did the 5 study? 6 A. Sometime after I left. I would 7 say -- I can't tell you the exact year, 8 but it was after 1974. 9 Q. So, it was sometime between 1 0 1/1/75 and today? 1 1 A. Well, I can limit it alittle 1 2 more. It was between 1/1/75, and you can 1 3 put a ceiling on two years ago. I knew 1 4 about it two years ago. 1 5 Q. Did you ever review the protocol 16 that he used to satisfyyourself that the 17 results of Gaffey's -- is that Dr. Gaffey? 1 8 A. Dr.Gaffey. 1 9 Q. Is he a Ph.D? 2 0 A. He's a Ph.D, and a very well 2 1 known epidemiologist, and I would not put 2 2 myself up as a n expert to review his 2 3 protocol. So, the answer to your question 2 4 was no. 2 5 Q You didn't even let me finish GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 300 HARTOLDMONOO11755 1 i t . But your answer is going to be no. 2 anyway? 3 A . I don't know. I ' 11 have to h ear 4 the q u e s t i o n . 5 Q Okay. Did you ever s a t i s f y 6 your s e 1 f from your revie w of h is proto col 7 that t h e results of Dr. G a f f e y ' s s t u d y were 8 reli ab 1 e ? 9 A . I did not revi e w his pro toco 1 , I 1 0 read h i s paper. And I d o not know i f his 1 1 p r o t o c o 1 was expl a i n e d i n there. I do n ' t 1 2 know w h at he said about i t a t this pre sent 1 3 time 1 4 Q. Are you satisfied with his 1 5 reliability? 1 6 A. Am I satisfied with what? 1 7 Q. The reliability of the study? 1 8 A. No question about it, yes. 1 9 Q. And what do you base that 2 0 conclusion upon? 2 1 A. On my knowledge of Dr. Gaffey's 2 2 work, his experience and his reputation a s 2 3 an epidemiologist. 2 4 Q. But not based upon any particular 2 5 knowledge you have of this particular GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 30 1 HARTOLDMONOO11756 1 study? 2 A . Well, the study seemed all right 3 to me . I read the paper. it seemed all 4 right to me. 5 Q. How about Zack a n d Muech, are 6 they doctors? 7 A . No, they are not 8 Q. What are they? 9 A . Frankly, I don't know. I never 1 0 met either one of them. I don't know them 1 1 at all. I know nothing about their 1 2 qualifications . 1 3 Q. So, you're not in a position to 1 4 tell us whether they enjoy the same 1 5 reputation as Dr. Gaffey? 1 6 A . Well, I've heard Gaffey's name 1 7 mentioned quite a bit, and I never heard 1 8 Zack and Muech mentioned at all. 1 9 Q. What type of study did they do? 2 0 A. They did a mortality study on PCB 2 1 workers. 2 2 Q. Also a t Krummerich? 2 3 A. Also a t Krummerich . 2 4 Q. Do you know when they performed 2 5 their study? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONOO11757 1 A. Sometime after 1974, one or two 2 years afterwards. 3 Q And do you know which wo rkers 4 they included within the scope of their 5 study? 6 A . N o , I don't. 7 Q - You would agree with me. however. 8 would you not, that different -9 A . I do n't know. 1 0 Q Let me finish the questi on, and 1 1 then can you s ee whether you agree o r 1 2 disagree. 1 3 A . Yes, sir. Sorry. 1 4 Q That 's quite all right. You 1 5 would agree with me, would you not, that 1 6 various workers in the Krummerich plant, 1 7 depending upon their particular tasks, 1 8 would have had different experience with 1 9 their exposure to PCB's? 2 0 A . Yes , sir. 2 1 Q . I ' m going t o put in front of you. 2 2 sir, the c o p i e s of the exhibits that we had 2 3 marked as 1 , 2 and 3 yesterday. I'm go i n g 2 4 to ask you, if you would, sir, to select 2 5 number 1 from that stack . Do you have that GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 303 HARTOLDMONOO11758 1 in front of y o u / sir? 2 A. Yes, I do 3 Q . I ' ra going to g i v e y ou what is 4 regretably an even worse copy of the 5 document. 6 A. Yes, sir. 7 Q. Now, why don't we j ust mark this 8 one now as Exhibit Kelly 5. 9 (Kelly Deposition Exhibit Number 1 0 5 mark'd for identifica t i o n ) . 11 MR . COHEN : You rec ognize Kelly 1 2 5, do you not, sir? 1 3 A. I don't know what y ou mean do I 1 4 recognize it. I know what it is when I see 1 5 it here. This i s a letter fr om me to Mr. 1 6 Allen at Hexagon, with a n a w f u1 lot of 1 7 additions to it and I don't recognize 1 8 those. I don't know what the y are. 1 9 Q Okay. Well, I was going to ask 2 0 you about some o f those addit ions. 2 1 MR . MALIN : Handwri 11 e n 2 2 additions? 23 A. Handwritten additio n s . 2 4 MR . COHEN s Handwri 11 e n 2 5 additions. The document, aga in, has those GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONOO11759 1 numbers PRR and a series of num... bers f and 2 S C M and a series ofnumbers, somewhat 3 different than -- different sequence than 4 the Kelly Exhibit 1. But you will agree 5 with me that the typed portion of the 6 letter or the typed portion of the document 7 from the date, which is even more obscure 8 on this, but appears to be the same, from 9 that point down to your initials and, 1 0 apparently, I guess, your secretary's 1 1 initials, is the same text? 1 2 A . Yes. 1 3 Q. So, it appears to be another 1 4 copy, whether it was ribbon or photocopy or 1 5 whatever, of your letter of February 17, 1 6 1961; but not on the copy, not reflected on 1 7 the copy is the blind carbon copy message, 1 8 correct? 1 9 A . That ' s correct . 2 0 Q. I guess there is no way to tell 2 1 a t this point whether that was 2 2 inadvertently cut off or whether it never 2 3 appeared on this copy? 2 4 A. Or if this was a photostat of my 2 5 copy, my carbon . GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 305 HARTOLDMONOO11760 1 Q. Which may not have had the blind 2 carbon copy on it at all? 3 A . Right 4 Q Now, starti n g at the top. there 5 is some handwri ting. looks like initials 6 and a n a m e with a 1 i n e drawn through i t , 7 and u n d e r it. Do you recognize that 8 handwri ting at all? 9 A . Which one? I ' m sorry. 1 0 Q . Looks like W . R . Rumson, or 1 1 s o m e t h i n g like that. 1 2 A. No, sir, I do not recognize that. 1 3 Q. Then it says -- apparently, it 1 4 looks like " R . C . , have copies made for 1 5 W.R.D.," some more initials and all 1 6 scratched out, do you see that? 1 7 A. Yes. 1 8 Q. Do you recognize that 1 9 handwriting? 2 0 A . No, I do not. 2 1 Q Going over to the left side o f 2 2 the page. about halfway down it says "Heat 2 3 transfer. skin effects , Connecti cut, 2 4 constant exposure, peri o d of m o n t h 8 . " Do 2 5 you see that writing? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 306 HARTOLDMONOO11761 1 A . Yes, I d o . 2 Q Do you recognize that 3 h a n d w r i ting? 4 A . No . It ' s not my handwriting. 5 Q It's not somethi ng that appear 6 on this document -- y o u ' v e never seen a 7 copy of this document with that handwri t 8 on it before? 9 A. No, I have not. Conceivably, 1 0 this may be a photostat of the letter I 1 1 sent to Allen. If I sent blind copies, if 1 2 I had my notation to the people I sent 1 3 b 1 i n d copies to, the only one that w o u ldn 1' t 1 4 h a v e the blind copy n o t a t i o n would be 1 5 All e n ' s letter, the letter t o Allen. S o , I 1 6 don ' t know anything about t h i s . 1 7 Q. Well, did your letter, when you 1 8 sent it to Dr . Allen, have the lette r h e a d 1 9 on it; did the letter have a letterh e a d ? 20 A . Yes, it would. 2 1 Q There is no letterhead on this? 2 2 A . N o , there isn't. 23 Q What was the letterhead? 24 A . Monsanto Company, or M o n s a n t o 25 Chemical Company, whatever they were going GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI 307 HARTOLDMONOO11762 1 under on that date 2 Q. Did you have your own stationery 3 identifying you as medical director, or 4 whatever your particular capacity -5 A. No, I did not. 6 Q. Then there is a bracket around 7 the third paragraph, I gather it's not 8 possible for you to tell how that came to 9 be on the document? 1 0 A . No, sir. 1 1 Q. Then it appears over on the 1 2 right-hand side, it says "Emmet Kelly," 1 3 that, I gather, is you? 1 4 A. That i s , I . 1 5 Q. Do you recognize the hand, who 1 6 wrote that? 1 7 A. No I do not. 1 8 Q. Elmer Wheeler, do you know that 1 9 name? 2 0 A. Yes, certainly . He was in our 2 1 department. 2 2 (Discussion off the record) . 2 3 MR. COHEN : I'm sorry, you said 2 4 Elmer Wheeler was -- 2 5 A . Yes. He was the industrial GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 308 HARTOLDMONOO11763 1 hygienist, and, as I said, he was the 2 administrative director of toxicology and 3 industrial hygiene. 4 Q. Is he a Doctor? 5 A . No. Master's Degree. 6 Q . I n what field? 7 A . Chemical engineering. 8 Q . And he was an industrial 9 hygienist a t Monsanto? 1 0 A . That ' s correct . 1 1 Q. There is a name below that, it 1 2 looks like Joel Gannett? 1 3 MR. COX i I object to the form of 1 4 the question. 1 5 MR. COHEN i Do you see it? 1 6 A . I see it, yes. 1 7 Q. Can you make it out? 1 8 A . It's probably Jack Garrett. 1 9 Because he's also a n industrial hygienist 2 0 in that department -- in our department. 2 1 Q. G-a-r-r-e-t-t? 2 2 A. --e-t-t. You're asking me to 2 3 assume, and that ' s what I would assume, 2 4 most likely. 2 5 Q. So, these are individuals who GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 309 HARTOLDMONOO11764 1 were working with you a t that time. M r . 2 Wheeler and Mr. Garrett? 3 A . Yes. 4 Q. But you don't recognize the hand 5 that put any of that information there? 6 A . No. It's not Wheeler's or 7 Garrett's. 8 Q. Then over, again, to the left 9 side, again, it says "State Health 1 0 Department, Indiana," and a dash. Do you 1 1 see that? 1 2 A . Yes, sir, I see that. 1 3 Q. Do you recognize that hand? 1 4 A. No, I do not. 1 5 Q. Then it says, "Three people 1 6 sealing thermostats, exposed three days, 1 7 eight hours. Mr. Keane," K-e-a-n-e. Do 1 8 you see all that? 1 9 A. Yes, I see all that. 2 0 Q. Do you recognize that hand? 2 1 A . No, I do not. 2 2 Q. Is there anything about that 2 3 information, three peoplesealing 2 4 thermostats, exposed three days, eight 2 5 hours, that triggers any recollection in GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 310 HARTOLDMONOO11765 1 your mind? 2 A . Ceerrttaaiinnllyy,. I've testi fied today 3 -- y e 3 t e r d a y to you that three people in 4 Indiana - - I said it was a midwestern 5 state, I thought it was Indiana, were 6 working w ith the heat transfer apparatus; 7 it was j e rryrigged, and they had developed 8 a chemica 1 hepatitis from a n acute exposure 9 to hot 1 e a k i n g PCB in the heat transfer 1 0 unit. 1 1 Q. So, this i s a further notation 1 2 regarding that episode that you had 1 3 described . Now, was that the episode that 1 4 occurred in the ' 4 0 ' s ? 1 5 A. I said I wasn't quite so sure. 1 6 11 was either ' 4 0 ' s or ' 5 0 ' s, I didn't know 1 7 when. 1 8 Q. But there were two episodes 1 9 involved . In fact, if I look a t Kelly 1 , 2 0 it says, "It may interest you to know that 2 1 your case is only the second that I have 2 2 heard of since 1940". 2 3 A. It must have been 1940, then. 2 4 Q. And this is some further 2 5 information regarding that particular GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 311 HARTOLDMONOO11766 1 episode? 2 A . It's just a referenc e to i t . 3 11 ' s not further information. it was j u s t a 4 reference to it. 5 Q But you don't recogn i z e t h e h and 6 o f anyone who wrote that? 7 A . No, I do not. 8 Q . Do you see below tha t the wor d s 9 "Don't educate them"? 1 0 MR. MALIN: I object to the f o r m 1 1 of that question. I don't believe it s ays 1 2 "Don't educate them." It looks to rae li k e 1 3 it says "Don ' t educate theirs". 1 4 MR. COHEN : How do you read i t , 1 5 Doctor? 1 6 A . Beg pardon ? I can't read 1 7 Q You can't read it at all? 18 A . I can read "don 't," I can d 1 9 "educate." I cannot make out the last word 2 0 or the signature before the question m a r k , 2 1 if that'8 a question mark. 2 2 Q. So, there is nothing that you can 23 tell me about that; you don ' t recognize the 2 4 hand, you don't know how it got there , you 2 5 don't know what it means, is that right ? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI 312 HARTOLDMONOO11767 1 A . That's correct. 2 Q. Can we agree, counsel, that this 3 is a copy of a document that was produced 4 by Monsanto in connection with the request 5 for production of documents in this 6 litigation? 7 MR. MALIN: Yes, this was 8 produced by Monsanto. 9 MR . COHEN And it's from the 1 0 Monsanto files? 11 MR . MALIN Yes, it's from the 1 2 Monsanto files. 13 MR. COHEN And it was maintained 1 4 by Monsanto Company in the ordinary course 1 5 of their business? 1 6 MR . MALIN 3 Well, I don't know 1 7 what the document retention policy is, 1 8 normally. But like all PCB documents, at 1 9 some point they decided they would retain 2 0 them all, so this was a document that was 2 1 kept initially, a t least, in the ordinary 2 2 course of business. 23 MR . COHEN : Thank you, sir. 2 4 (Kelly Deposition Exhibit Number 25 6 mark'd for identification). GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 3 13 HARTOLDMONOO11768 1 MR . COHEN : The document has been 2 marked as Kelly 6. Have you had a chance 3 to look a t the document, sir, Kelly 6 ? 4 A. I will now, sir. { if 5 Q . Plea s >e d o . 6 A. Yes, |s i r , I've had the 7 opportunity to go over it. 8 Q. Have you ever seen it before? 9 A. I think I have, yes, sir. 1 0 Q. Tell me the circumstances under 1 1 which you saw this document? 1 2 A. Probably at one of these 1 3 depositions on PCB's. 1 4 Q. Someone gave it to you and asked 1 5 you some questions about it? 1 6 A. To the best of my recollection, 1 7 yes. 1 8 Q. You haveno recollection of 1 9 anyone at Monsanto or anyone associated 2 0 with Monsanto prior to a deposition or out 2 1 of the context of litigation providing you 2 2 with a copy of the document? 2 3 A. I have no recollection. 2 4 Q. The document "News For Release," 2 5 styled "News For Release, Monsanto"? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOUR I 314 HARTOLDMONOO11769 1 A . Yes t sir. 2 Q . Is this the type material that 3 you have seen during your tenure of 4 employment with Monsanto, where Monsanto 5 prepared information for distribution to 6 the press? 7 MR. MALIN:I'll object to the 0 form of thatquestion. 9 MR. COHEN ! Why don't you tell me 1 0 if you recognize the document as something 11 that Monsanto used and, if not, just tell 1 2 me what it is. 1 3 MR . MALIN : I still object to the 1 4 form of the question. If you think you can 1 5 understand that -- 1 6 A. Well, I've seen news releases 1 7 from Monsanto, and this looks like one 10 Monsanto put out. 1 9 Q. That ' s what I wanted to know. 20 This lookslike the way Monsanto sent out 2 1 news releases, is that it? 2 2 A. A t least one of the ways. They 2 3 may have had a dozen ways of sending them 2 4 out. 2 5 Q. But this is one of the ways? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 3 15 HARTOLDMONOO11770 1 A . Yes. 2 Q . Yourecognize it assuch? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. It was donethe same way during 5 your tenure of employment? 6 A . I can't say it's the same way, 7 but it may very well have been similar to 8 it . 9 Q. Do you know who wrote this? 1 0 A. I haven't the slightest idea. 1 1 Q. Now, it is apparently a two page 1 2 document, and thenanother page attached to 1 3 it which is a biographical sketch of Dr. 1 4 Gaffey. 1 5 A. Yes, sir. 1 6 Q. Do the names S.G. Collins or L.J. 1 7 O'Neill mean anything to you? 18 A. I don'trecognize them a t all. 1 9 (Discussion off the record). 2 0 MR . COHEN : Those are n o t names. 2 1 i n any event. that you identify w i th anyone 2 2 a t Monsanto? 2 3 A . No. 2 4 Q. Would the author of the News For 2 5 Release, in your experience while you were GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 3 16 HARTOLDMONOO11771 1 employed there. b e reflected anywhere on 2 the document? 3 A. Yes. As a rule, they put 4 somebody's name on it in case the editor or 5 whoever gets this wants some more 6 information, so they call the person up. 7 So, again, if I make an assumption, these 8 people were probably in the public 9 relations department. 1 0 Q. I s that where, in your 1 1 experience, the name of the author would 1 2 usually go, up a t the top there where it 1 3 says Collins and O'Neill? 1 4 A . No, not the name of the author, 1 5 the name of the individual to ask for more 1 6 information. 1 7 Q I see. That telephone exchange 1 8 314 694 and then a series of fou r numbers 1 9 after that. is that a telephone number you 2 0 recognize a s being a Monsanto office? 2 1 A. Well, 314, obviously, is a 2 2 Missouri area code. 694 is the prefix for 2 3 all the Monsanto extentions, and the other 2 4 four digits are the individual extensions. 2 5 So, for direct dialing they would go right GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 31 7 HARTOLDMONOO11772 1 to the person's desk by dialing 694, so and 2 s o , so and s o , so and so. 3 Q Now, in the second paragraph on 4 the first page. it refers to Dr. William R. 5 Gaffey. Is that the same Dr. G a f f e y we 6 were talking about before that did the 7 Krummerich report? 8 A . Yes. 9 Q. It says he's anemployee of 1 0 Monsanto Company? 1 1 A . Yes. 1 2 Q . Do you know when he became a n 1 3 employee of Monsanto Company? 1 4 A. Probably a year after I left, 1 5 sometime in '75. 1 6 Q. So, at the time he did the study 1 7 on the Krummerich plant, he was an employee 1 8 of Monsanto Company? 1 9 A. Yes. 2 0 Q. Do you know what position he 2 1 held? 2 2 A . Beg pardon? 2 3 Q. Do you know what position he held 2 4 when he did the study a t Krummerich? 2 5 A . Chief epidemiologist ofMonsanto GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS , MISSOUR I 3 18 HARTOLDMONOO11773 1 Company. 2 Q . Is this report, to your 3 knowledge, a report of his study done a t 4 Krummerich? 5 MR. MALIN: I object to the form 6 of the question . I don't think the Doctor 7 has testified that he has necessarily had 8 any knowledge, since he wasn't personally 9 present a t the time. You can answer. Dr. 1 0 Kelly. 1 1 A . Well, this is not a report o f his 1 2 work a t the Krumraerich plan t , it's a r e port 1 3 on the review of G a f f e y o f ten differ e n t 1 4 people, ten different people's 1 5 epidemiological studies. 1 6 Q. Did he publish a report 1 7 reflecting the information that is 1 8 summarized in this news release? 1 9 A . I think he did. 2 0 Q. Have you ever seen it? 2 1 A Yes. Again, I've seen a copy 2 2 and I d o not k now where it was publishe d, 2 3 if it was p u b 1 ished. But I ' v e seen a 2 4 G a f f e y report on these ten people. Whe t h e r it was a n i n t e r n a 1 document o f Monsanto o r GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ___ ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 319 HARTOrDMONOOl 1774 1 p u b 1 i s h e d i n the general literature. I 2 can' t a n s w e r that. 3 0 . So, you don't recal 1 where you 4 saw the report? 5 A. Where I saw it? 6 Q . Yes. 7 A. You mean geographical location I 8 saw it or whether I saw it in a journal , or 9 what do you mean? 1 0 Q. That * s right . 1 1 A. In a journal ? 1 2 Q. Whether it was in a journal, 1 3 whether it was something that was sent to 1 4 you, whether it was something that was 1 5 distributed to people associated with 1 6 Monsanto, such a s yourself, a consultant? 1 7 A. Or brought up in a deposition. 1 8 Q. Brought up in a deposition? 1 9 A. That ' s probably where I saw it, 2 0 but I don't know. But I saw it, and I do 2 1 not know if it's been published in the 2 2 general 1iterature or if it was published 2 3 a s a n internal document of Monsanto, which 2 4 may have been sent to other people. I did 2 5 see a report by G a f f e y on these ten GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 320 HARTOLDMONOO11775 1 individual studies by various people. 2 Q Do you have a copy of it? 3 A . What? 4 Q Do you have a copy of it? 5 MR . MALIN : I b e 1 i e v e that 6 have provided you with that. However, if 7 we haven't. I'll be more than happy to do 8 it. It's been published and it's 9 available. 1 0 MR. COHEN j Thank you. Do you 1 1 have a copy of it, sir? 1 2 A . Yes, I do. 1 3 Q . Do you have it in your office at 1 4 home? 1 5 A . Yes. 1 6 Q. All right. Since counsel has 1 7 already agreed to produce it, it won't be 1 8 necessary for you to obtain it and supply 1 9 it to your counsel , we'll just look forward 2 0 to seeing it. 2 1 A . What was the thing you asked for 2 2 before? Give me a piece of paper . You 23 asked about some article earlier today, I 24 didn't make a note. 25 MR. MALINs I've got it. Doctor. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 32 1 HARTOLDMONOO11776 1 Can we take a short break? 2 MR . COHEN s Sure. 3 (Recess) 4 (Kelly Deposition Exhibit Number 5 7 mark ' d for identification) . 6 MR. COHEN: Doctor, if you have 7 no objection, I'm going to take a photocopy 8 of the Smith article which you brought here 9 today and give it to the reporter who will 1 0 mark it for identification as Kelly 8. 1 1 (Kelly Deposition Exhibit Number 1 2 8 mark'd for identification). 1 3 MR . MC LAUGHLIN : I 3 7 the one 1 4 dated January 26, '67? 1 5 MR. COHEN: Yes. 1 6 MR. MALIN: I believe I have a 1 7 copy of the Swann test that the Doctor was 1 8 referring to, dated May 25, 1934, which I'm 1 9 willing to give you, assuming that I can 20 get copies back. It's rather thick. 2 1 MR . COHEN : We'll certainly make 2 2 a copy of it today. 2 3 MR. MALIN: Let the record show 2 4 -- let me identify it for the record. Let 2 5 the record show that counsel for Monsanto GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 195 HARTOLDMONOO11777 1 is producing a report of Dr. Frederick B. 2 F 1 i n n of patch test s made on materia 1 3 received from Swann R e s e arch. Inc., dated 4 May 2 5 , 1 9 3 4 , which were o r i g i n a 1 1 y 5 referred to in the d e p o s i t i o n of Dr. Kelly 6 by Dr. Kelly. Dr . Kelly a d v i s e s me this is 7 the copy that he ha s at home and w o u 1 d 8 produce. 9 A. That ' s t h e one 1 0 MR . MAL1N : Th is is an e x h i b i t , 1 1 apparently, marked in an other d e p o s i t i o n 1 2 consisting of four pages 1 3 MR . COHEN : 1 s that the e n tirety 1 4 of the report. four page s ? 1 5 MR . MALIN : 11 , apparently , i s 1 6 the entire report. 1 7 A. Yes. 1 8 MR . MALIN : A c cording to the 1 9 Doctor, it's the e n tire repor t . 2 0 A . I only had a few pages in the one 2 1 I remember. 22 MR. COHENi So, you were 2 3 surprised to see that thick document when 24 he gave it to you? 2 5 A. That's right . GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 323 HARTOLDMONOO11778 1 MR . M ALIN : And it wasn't the 2 same document. 3 MR . COHEN : Y o u're f a m i 1 iar w i t h 4 D r . F 1 i n n ' s report. D r . Kelly ? 5 A . Yes. This one is a 1 1 patch 6 t e s ting 0 n rabbits. I f he d i d a n y feed i n g 7 o r any i n jection, if the re w a s a report o n 8 that that I have that's not in this. I'll 9 give it to my counsel. This is just patch 1 0 testing on rabbits. 1 1 Q. Apparently, the spelling of 1 2 Flinn's name is F-l-i-n-n? 1 3 A. Yes. I guess I was wrong. 1 4 Q. Is this copy available to us for 1 5 us to mark? 1 6 A. It's not mine. 1 7 Q. Mr. Malin, is this copy available 1 8 to mark? 1 9 MR. MALIN : That's the only copy 2 0 I've got. 2 1 MR. COHEN : Y o u would like to 2 2 have a copy made for m a r k i n g? 2 3 MR . MALIN: That' s right. 2 4 MR . COHEN : Let's come back to 25 Dr. F1in n . Let's go on to Kelly 7 . Do you GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI 324 HARTOLDMONOO11779 1 recognize Kelly 7, sir? 2 A . Yes, Ido. 3 Q. What is it? 4 A. Kelly 7 is a letter from a D. 5 Wood, who's located a t that time in 6 Brussels, dated 26th of January 1967, the 7 subject of Sweden, Aroclor. I was a 8 reciepient of one of the copies. It was 9 sent to George B u c h a n an in S t Louis , w h o 1 0 was eit h e r i n itarke t i n g or w a s a p r o j e c t 1 1 manager for Ar o c 1 o r s . I ' m n o t c e r t a i n what 1 2 his part i c u 1 a r p o 3 i t i on at t h a t time w a s . 1 3 Q S o , that r e f e r e n c e w h ere it s ays 1 4 DWs GB, at the top, it says from Brussels, 1 5 Belgium? 1 6 A. Yes. 1 7 Q. Date? 1 8 A . Yes. 1 9 Q. Subject, reference? 2 0 A . Yes. 2 1 Q Does reference ref e r to the 2 2 author a n d the recipient. DW : GB ? 2 3 A . I do n ' t know. The DW is Douglas 2 4 Wood. I don't know if GB i s Georg e 2 5 Buchanan or a secretary. I don't know. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 325 HARTOLDMONOO11780 1 Q Okay. 0 n the c c list that 2 includes you, apparently so meone has 3 scribbled through that, and below it 4 something is written, which is also crossed 5 out, with some initials; do you see that? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Do you recognize any of that 8 handwriting? 9 A. Do I recognize an y of the names? 1 0 Q. The handwriting. 1 1 A . The handwriting, no, I certainly 1 2 don ' t. 1 3 Q. When you received the document, I 1 4 gather it didn't have any o f that on it, is 1 5 that correct? 1 6 A. I can't remember, but I don't -- 1 7 Q. You wouldn't thin k so? 1 8 A. I w o u 1 d n ' t think s o . 1 9 Q. Additionally -2 0 A. I was told not to assume . 2 1 Q. I don't want you to assume 2 2 anything, sir. If you don' t know, just 2 3 tell rae that you don ' t. 0n the first page, 2 4 the second paragraph is als o apparently 2 5 underlined? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 326 HARTOLDMONOO11781 1 A . Yes. 2 Q . That wouldn ' t have been on the 3 document when you received it originally, 4 would it? 5 A. I don't ever recall receiving any 6 documents where they underlined things . 7 Q . Again, those PRR and S C M numbers , 8 that was not part of the original document? 9 A . That is correct . 1 0 Q. You are familiar with the 1 1 document, however? 1 2 A . Yes, I am. 1 3 Q. What was Mr. Wood doing over 1 4 there in Brussels, do you know? What was 1 5 his task? 1 6 A . Well, I think he was a scientist, 1 7 I don't know, in their research 1 8 department. I don't know whether he did 1 9 development work or anything else. I don't 2 0 know. I met him, I don't know the exact 2 1 -- what his exact duties were. 2 2 Q . You say he's a scientist? 2 3 A . Yes 2 4 Q . Do you know what type of 2 5 scientist h e was? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 327 HARTOLDMONOO11782 1 A . No , I don't. 2 Q I s h e still alive? 3 A . I don ' t know 4 Q Tu r n to page 2, please . Do you 5 what h e ' s referri n g to when he says 6 "Fortunately, there has not been too much 7 adverse comment as yet from plant workers 8 since they have not associated the 9 polychlorinated biphenols mentioned in the 1 0 article with Aroclor or Pyralene used in 1 1 the Swedish factories "? 1 2 A. I don't know what he's referring 1 3 to . 1 4 Q. This s p e 1 1 s biphenols 1 5 b-i-p-h-e-n-o-1 - s ; d o you recognize that 1 6 being PCB's, as w e ' v e been referring t o 1 7 them? 1 8 A. Well, yes Certainly -- well 1 9 don't know what the article -- he mentions 2 0 in that paragraph , he states the plant 2 1 workers have not associated polychlorinated 2 2 biphenols mentioned in the article, they 2 3 haven ' t associated that with Aroclor, then 2 4 he uses the correct term, chlorinated 2 5 diphenyl , so, unless I would see Jensen's GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 17F HARTOLDMONOO11783 1 original article where he talked about 2 polychlorinated biphenols, I don't know 3 what they mean. 4 Q. Well, p-h-e-n-o-1, phenol, is not 5 the same as p-h-e-n-y-1, is it? 6 A . That's correct. 7 Q . Different chemicals? 8 A. Different compounds, yes. 9 Q. And the article is referred to in 1 0 the first paragraph on the first page? 1 1 A. Yes. 1 2 Q. If you go back? 1 3 A. Yes. 1 4 Q. You said you didn't know which 1 5 article he was referring to;that's the 1 6 article that he's referring to? 1 7 A. Yes. 1 8 Q. He recently sent you a 1 9 translation of a Swedish newspaper article 20 referring to the identification in nature 2 1 of polychlorinated biphenols? 2 2 A. Yes, sir. 2 3 Q . Do you recall there being a fair 2 4 amount of press back in thelate ' 6 0 ' s 2 5 regarding Jensen's work where he discovered GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 329 HARTOLDMONOO11784 1 the existence of PCB's? 2 A . There was a great deal of 3 newspaper publicity and a great deal of 4 confusion, because he was also talking 5 about DDT and trying to identify the 6 compounds they were talking about. I do 7 not know what the -- how much they were 8 doing in the press talking about 9 polychlorinated biphenols, but the whole 1 0 matter got a lot of publicity. 11 Q. Would you agreethat, however, 1 2 that in this memo, polychlorinated 1 3 biphenols, o-l-s, is being used 1 4 interchangeably with chlorinated diphenyls? 1 5 A. No, I don't know that. 1 6 MR. MALIN: I object to the form 1 7 of the question. 1 8 MR. COHEN: Would you look at the 1 9 article, please? 2 0 A. Yes. And what'sthe question, 2 1 again? 2 2 Q. Whether in this particular memo, 2 3 Mr. Wood is using those terms 2 4 interchangeably? 2 5 MR . MALIN : I'm going to object GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 33 0 HARTOLDMONOO11785 1 to the form of the question as 2 mischaracterizing the memo, because it's 3 obvious that they are not being used 4 interchangeably, because he's discussing 5 confusion between the two. 6 A. He did say in the second 7 paragraph , "I should like to emphasize that 8 there is no doubt that the chemical which 9 is the subject of the investigation and the 1 0 news release is chlorinated diphenyl," 1 1 that's what he says. No matter what they 1 2 call it, it was Wood's belief that they 1 3 were referring to chlorinated diphenyl, 1 4 yes. 1 5 Q. So, you do agree that here, while 1 6 Mr. Wood is not using the phrase -- the 1 7 two descriptions interchangeably, he makes 1 8 it clear that the news article referring to 1 9 biphenols, o-l-s, in fact, is referring to 2 0 PCB ' s ? 2 1 A. That's what he says in the second 2 2 paragraph . 2 3 Q. Now, going back to the second 2 4 page where I asked you about the sentence, 2 5 "Fortunately there has not been too much GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 33 1 HARTOLDMONOO11786 1 adverse comment as yet from plant workers," 2 e t cetera, to the end of the sentence, 3 where they're now associating the 4 polychlorinated biphenols mentiond in the 5 article with Aroclor Pyralene, do you know 6 what he's talking about now, since your 7 recollection has been refreshed a s to which 8 article we're talking about? 9 A . Yes. What was the question? 1 0 Q. Do you know what he's talking 1 1 about there when he says " F ortunately there 1 2 h a s n ' t been too much a d v e r s e comment as yet 1 3 from plant workers"? 1 4 MR. MALIN: I object to the form 1 5 of that question. 1 6 MR. COHEN: Let's start at the 1 7 top. Do you know whose plant workers he's 1 8 talking about? 1 9 A . No. 2 0 Q. Did Monsanto have plants in 2 1 Europe? 2 2 A . They have plants. Manufacturing 2 3 PCB or other plants? 2 4 Q. Other plants. 2 5 A . Yes. They have plants in France, GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 33 2 HARTOLDMONOO11787 1 they have plants in the United Kingdom, 2 they have a plant in Spain. They had 3 plants in Europe, yes. 4 Q . See where he talks about 5 capacitor manufacturer, "every capacitor 6 manufacturer in Sweden that we visited"? 7 A . Yes, sir. 8 Q. Would that be Monsanto's 9 customers in Europe? 1 0 A . Customers or p o t e n t i a 1 c u s tomers 1 1 Q . For PCB's? 1 2 A . That's corre c t . Two o ther 1 3 companies -- at least two. prob ably three 1 4 companies have manufac turer s of PC B i n 1 5 Europe. Monsanto was a 1 a t e com er i n t o it 1 6 and was not a major factor in Europe, as 1 7 they were in the United States . 1 8 Q. Would you agree, however, that he 1 9 is talking about plant workers in 2 0 customer's and potential customer's plants? 2 1 A. I don't know what he was talking 2 2 about there . 11 could be that, it could be 2 3 our own plant workers. 2 4 Q. Is that the only two you that you 2 5 would include within that scope of GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 333 HARTOLDMONOO11788 1 possibilities? 2 A . No. 11 could be the French 3 manufacturer's workers manufacturing 4 PCB's. It could be the Italian workers who 5 were manufacturing PCB's. It could be any 6 of those groups. 7 Q. That is despite the fact that the 8 first sentence says, "This matter was 9 raised with us by every capacitor 1 0 manufacturer in Sweden that we visited"? 1 1 A. Well, you'll have to ask Mr. Wood 1 2 what he refers to from one sentence to the 1 3 other, I'm not going to put -- I'm not 1 4 going to get into Mr. Wood's mindset as to 1 5 whether -- what he's talking about . He 1 6 did say that the matter was raised by the 1 7 capacitor manufacturer. Then he goes on to 1 8 say there was not too much adverse comments 1 9 as yet from plant workers. Now, I do not 2 0 know if he refers to the capacitor 2 1 manufacturer workers, our workers, or the 2 2 French or the Italian manufacturers of 2 3 PCB. I don't know. 2 4 Q. Do you know if Monsanto reacted 25 in any way to these concerns expressed in GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 334 HARTOLDMONOO11789 1 Mr. Wood's memo? 2 A. Well, yes. 3 Q How did they react? 4 A . They got in contact with D r 5 Jens e n , and later on we sent a task f o r c e 6 over there to talk to him about his 7 findings 8 Q And what was the up-shot o f that? 9 A . The up-shot was they came b a c k 1 0 and said I believe the man is right what 1 1 they're finding is chlorinated diphenyl, so 1 2 we'll start looking ourself as soon as we 1 3 have the instrumentation that he has. He 1 4 had pretty sophisticated apparatus, and we 1 5 didn't have that. So, we eventually got 1 6 one and sort of followed up on his work. 1 7 Q So, as of this time in 1 9 6 7 , 1 8 Monsanto itself d id not have the ability to 1 9 do the type of a n alysis that Dr. Jensen had 2 0 done? 2 1 A . That is my impression. 2 2 Q But sub sequent to that time they 23 acquired the e q ui pment in order to do the 2 4 type of a n a 1 y s i s that Dr. Jensen had done? 25 A . That is correct. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 335 HARTOLDMONOO11790 1 Q. And the equipment was what, mass 2 spectometry? 3 A. I think it was more than that, 4 there were some additions to it. 5 Q. Gas chromatography? 6 A. Again, I'm not a n analytical 7 chemist. I'm just repeating what I was 8 told. 9 Q . You don't know what equipment 1 0 Monsanto had available at that time, except 1 1 you know they didn't have the equipment to 1 2 do what Dr. Jensen had done? 1 3 A . That ' s correct. 1 4 Q. Other than meeting with Dr. 1 5 Jensen and concluding that his work was 1 6 correct and deciding t o obtain equipme n t 1 7 themselves and do the i r own investigat ion. 1 8 did they do anything t o address the co n c e r n 1 9 that had been raised by the capacitor 2 0 manufacturers and/or p 1 a n t workers? 2 1 MR . MAL I N : I object to the form 2 2 of that question. If you think you 2 3 understand that broad question -- 2 4 A . No, I don ' t . Because I find it 2 5 hard to evaluate Jensen's statement. He GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 336 HARTOLDMONOO11791 1 has been approached by several workers 2 associated with chlorinated diphenyls for 3 non-electrical uses. I don't know what the 4 basis of that statement was, because, 5 certainly, in all those times we were never 6 approached by any workers associated with 7 chlorinated diphenyls for non-electrical 8 uses. So, there wasn't any concern, a s far 9 a s we knew, in the United States, then or 1 0 now. 1 1 Q. What information was available to 1 2 workers in the United States regarding 1 3 potential health effects from PCB exposure 1 4 in 1967, January? 1 5 A. I n 1 9 6 7 , there was information in 1 6 our technical bulletins giving the toxic 1 7 properties of chlorinated diphenyl. There 1 8 was information giving the safe levels, 19 that was after we had run the work a t the 2 0 Kettering Laboratory by Dr. Treon. There 2 1 was plenty of information available. 2 2 Q. And no one was expressing 2 3 concern? 24 A. No one expressed their concern . , 2 5, It was not expressed by any government GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 337 HARTOLDMONOO11792 1 officials to me it was not expressed by any 2 letters from any workers , it was not 3 expressed by any customers who were in the 4 manufacturing area, with the exception o f 5 the acute episodes that we've talked about 6 earlier. 7 Q. Now, subsequent to January of 8 1967, did Monsanto make any change in the 9 product information that it was 1 0 disseminating to its customers regarding 1 1 potential toxic effects? 1 2 A. Remember, when you talk about 1 3 toxic effects, are you talking about toxic 1 4 effects to the environment or toxic effects 1 5 to the individual? 1 6 Q. Well, two different things. 1 7 Environmental effects is one and toxic 1 8 effects to the workers is another. 1 9 A. That'a why I asked you which 2 0 you're referring to. 2 1 Q. Let's start with toxic effects to 2 2 the workers. 2 3 A. We did not make any different 2 4 change -- any changes in our warnings, 25 because we did not have any information of GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 338 HARTOLDMONOO11793 1 toxic ill effects to the workers . There 2 were none in the United States that we had 3 any knowledge of. 4 Q. What, if anything, did Monsanto 5 do to a d d r e s s the concerns that were 6 expressed to Dr. Jensen and reported to 7 Doctor -- was it Dr. Wood or Mr. Wood? 8 A. I can't answer that,I don't 9 know. 1 0 MR. MALIN: I object to theform 1 1 of the question. 1 2 A . I don't know whether it's Dr. 1 3 Wood or Mr. Wood. 1 4 MR. COHEN: All right. But to D. 1 5 Wood, as expressed in this memo? 1 6 A . I was interrupted,will you 1 7 repeat it? 1 8 Q. Certainly. What, if anything, 1 9 did Monsanto do to address the concerns 2 0 expressed by workers toDr . Jensen and by 2 1 Dr. Jensen to D. Wood and a s expressed in 2 2 this memo? 2 3 MR. MALIN: I object to the form 2 4 of the question . First, it's compound, 25 you 're talking about two level s of GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 339 HARTOLDMONOO11794 1 concerns, the workers, and I don't know 2 that we have any idea what concerns the 3 workers expressed to Dr. Jensen. 4 MR. COHEN : We have here a 5 report, sir, that's one level. We're 6 speaking about a report back to -- 7 MR. MALIN: Let me finish my 8 objection . Then we have concerns expressed 9 in this 1 e 11 e r , that's a different 1 0 question. Will you take them one at a 1 1 time? 1 2 MR . COHEN : I ' m only speaking 1 3 about one set o f concern 3 . Again, who was 1 4 Mr. B u c h a nan? 1 5 A . He was either i n the marketing or 1 6 the product manager for PCB ' s in the United 1 7 States. I do not know if his authority 1 8 referred to world-wide or not. 1 9 Q. In any event, a report is being 2 0 given to him in January of 1967 by D. Wood 2 1 from Europe indicating, among other things, 2 2 that workers have expressed concerns to a 2 3 scientist who has found evidence of 2 4 environmental contamination by PCB ' s, 25 correct? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 340 HARTOLDMONOO11795 1 A . No, I don't think the workers 2 talked about environmental contamination. 3 did the Y? They talked about the p o s s i b 1 e 4 effects o n their health. 5 MR . MALIN : I ' ra not sure we know 6 that's why I objected to the form of the 7 q u e s t i o n . We don't know what -- 8 A . Well, they say as a possible 9 effect o n their health. And that has 1 0 nothing to do with environmental stuff . 1 1 MR. COHEN: Let's go to the 1 2 subject that you're discussing, then, the 1 3 workers ' concerns . This report from D. 1 4 Wood to Mr. Buchanan reports, among other 1 5 things, expressed concerns by workers in 1 6 Europe to a scientist, and thatscientist 1 7 is relating those concerns to D. Wood who, 1 8 in turn, is relating them to Buchanan, will 1 9 you agree with that? 2 0 A . Yes. 2 1 Q. All right. Now, what I'm asking 2 2 you is w h a t , i f anything, did Monsanto d o 2 3 as a r e s u 11 o f this report? 2 4 A . I d o not know. But you will also 2 5 have to q u a 1 i f y your question by GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 34 1 HARTOLDMONOO11796 1 recognizing the fact that Monsanto was not 2 the only manufacturer of PCB's in Europe . 3 I n fact, we do not know if these workers 4 were -- in the non-electrical uses were 5 using Monsanto PCB's or were using the 6 French Proudulac, P-r-o-u-d-u-1-a-c, 7 Company PCB's. I do not know. I do not 8 know what Wood did in response to Jensen's 9 statement. 1 0 Q. I'm not concerned about what 1 1 other companies did, sir. I'm not asking 1 2 you about what other companies did, I'm 1 3 asking you what Monsanto did? 1 4 A. I ' ra not talking about what other 1 5 companies did. I do not know if Jensen is 1 6 referring to workers who were using 1 7 Monsanto PCB's or other people's PCB's. As 1 8 I said, we were a small portion of the PCB 1 9 suppliers in Europe. 20 Q All I ' m asking you, sir, is what 2 1 you know Monsanto did in response to this 2 2 report of these expressed concerns? 2 3 A . I do not know what they did. 24 Q. Thank you. Do you see in the 2 5 next paragraph, under "Future Research, " GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS , MISSOURI 342 HARTOLDMONOO11797 1 "We were asked by Jensen if it was possible 2 for Monsanto to supply any samples of the 3 pure isomers of chlorinated diphenyl since 4 h i 8 work indicated a t the moment that the 5 lower chlorinated isomers are fairly easily 6 metabolized, and the potentially more 7 dangerous constituents are the more highly 8 chlorinated members," do you see that? 9 A . Yes, I do < 1 0 Q What, i f anything. did Monsanto 1 1 do with respect t o that? 1 2 A . You mean to supply them the 1 3 isomers? 1 4 Q. Yes. 1 5 A. I don'tknow what they did. 1 6 That'8 not my function, to supply isomers. 1 7 Q. Do you know if Monsanto ever 1 8 established or maintained a working 1 9 relationship with Dr. Jensen subsequent to 2 0 1/26/67? 21 A. Yes. As I said, they went over 2 2 and talked to him, I don't knowif that -- 23 if you consider that a working 2 4 relationship, and whether they promised him 2 5 the isomers and they were supplied to him. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 34 3 HARTOLDMONOO11798 1 I don't know. 2 Q. From your knowledge of the action 3 of chlorinated diphenyls on the body, do 4 you agree that lower chlorinated isomers 5 are fairly easily metabolized? 6 A . I don't know if I would say 7 fairly easily. They are more easily 8 metabolized than the higher ones. But back 9 in 19 -- in the 1960's they believed they 1 0 were not biodegradable, so, obviously, 1 1 people thought they were not metabolized by 1 2 other organisms, other species outside of 1 3 humans. But I think we know that the 1 4 toxicity of 1254 has a higher -- has some 1 5 higher toxicity than 1242. The Treon work 1 6 showed it. He came out with a threshold 1 7 limit value of twice as much for 1254 as he 1 8 did for 1242. And these figures, of 1 9 course, refer to the chlorination. 20 Q. What do you mean by metabolized. 2 1 Doctor? 2 2 A . Broken down by systems of the 2 3 body. 24 Q. So, I'm asking you whether you 2 5 agree or disagree with that statement, that GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI 344 HARTOLDMONOO11799 1 the lower chlorinated isomers are fairly 2 easily metabolized? 3 A. X don't know whether -- what he 4 means by fairly easily, and, so, I cannot 5 agree with that statement until I know what 6 he meant by easily metabolized. Are you 7 talking about metabolized like sugar? 8 They're not a s easily metabolized a s sugar 9 is. So, I don't know what he means by that 1 0 phrase, fairly easily metabolized. 1 1 MR. MALIN: He's answered your 1 2 question. Compared to the higher 1 3 chlorinated, they are metabolized easier 1 4 than higher chlorinated. 1 5 MR. COHEN : I don't think he said 1 6 that. You referred me to Treon's work 1 7 regarding the difference in toxicity, I ' m 1 8 asking you about the rate of 1 9 metabolization. Do you know of any 2 0 difference in the way that they're 2 1 netabol i z e d i n humans or in animals? 2 2 A . I n the way they are metabolized 2 3 or the rate? 2 4 Q The rate? 2 5 A . The rate they ' re metabolized? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 345 HARTOLDMONOO11800 1 No, I do not. 2 Q . Have you seen any articles that 3 indicate to you that there is a di fference 4 in the rate of metabol ization in either 5 humans or animals ? 6 A . I don't know if I have or not 7 Q There i s nothing that you can 8 refer me to today? 9 A. Nothing I can refer you to today, 1 0 Q. Do you see the first sentence of 1 1 the last paragraph that begins on this page 1 2 that says, "The point that I have made to 1 3 Jensen is the need for care in any further 1 4 publication of his work which is made"? 1 5 A. Yes, sir, I see that. 1 6 Q. Do you have any idea what D. Wood 1 7 is referring to? 1 8 A. No, I do not. 1 9 Q. Was it ordinary practice for 2 0 Monsanto a t that time, through its 2 1 scientists such a s Mr. Wood, to advise 2 2 independent scientists of the need for care 2 3 in further publication of their work? 2 4 A. I do not know what Dr. Jensen -2 5 I mean, what Mr. Wood means by this. I do GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 346 HARTOLDMONOO11801 1 not believe -- to answer your question, 2 Monsanto does not sensor their own 3 scientists when they're talking to other 4 scientists. 5 Q. So, you 're saying from your 6 knowledge, sir, anything that Mr. Wood said 7 to Dr. Jensen a t that time a t a scientific 8 level would have been Mr. Wood, or D. 9 Wood's own statement? 1 0 A . Yes. I don't think that Monsanto 1 1 has a policy of what you say to a 1 2 scientist, whether you say what you believe 1 3 or whether you -- if you say what the 1 4 company believes, I think you would 1 5 paraphrase and say this is what the company 1 6 believes. If you're talking as an 1 7 individual, if I was talking to Jensen as 1 8 a n individual, I would not be reflecting 1 9 Monsanto's -- necessarily, the opinion of 2 0 management. 2 1 Q. What, if any, response, do you 2 2 know, did Monsanto give to D. Wood 23 regarding his statement to Dr. Jensen a s 24 set forth therein? 2 5 MR. MALIN: I object to the form GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 34 7 HARTOLDMONOO11802 1 of that question. I don't think I 2 understand what you're asking. 3 MR. COHEN : Do you know if 4 Monsanto said a nything to D. Wood about his 5 comments to Dr. Jensen? 6 A . No , I don't know anythin g - - I 7 know nothing that Monsanto talked -- said 8 to D. Wood concerning this memorandum. 9 Q. We have Dr. Flinn's patch test 1 0 results, we can mark this as Exhibit 9. 1 1 (Kelly Deposition Exhibit Number 1 2 9 mark'd for identification). 1 3 A . Yes, sir, I read it. 1 4 Q. Now, Kelly 9 has previously been 1 5 shown to you in another deposition, is that 1 6 right? 1 7 A . Yes, it has. 1 8 Q. And that's what the Exhibit K- 2 0 1 9 is all about? 2 0 A. That ' s correct. 2 1 Q. That was not part of the original 2 2 report of Dr. F 1 i n n ? 23 A. Beg pardon? 2 4 Q. That was, obviously, not part of 25 the original report of Dr. F 1 i n n ? GORE R EPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 348 HARTOLDMONOO11803 1 A . Yes. 2 Q You are familiar with this 3 document, Kelly 9 ? 4 A . Yes, I a m . 5 Q I s this the only report of Dr 6 P1 i n n that you k n o w of that you had 7 referred to earli er in your deposition a s 8 being some of the work done previous 1y by 9 Swann? 1 0 A . I told you earlier in the 1 1 deposition that I was not sure if this i s 1 2 the only one. If there was one where he 1 3 did any feeding to animals or injection of 1 4 material, I would see if I had that report 1 5 and submit it to you. 1 6 Q. All right. So, you'll continue 1 7 looking for that? 18 A. Beg pardon? 1 9 Q . You'll continue looking for that? 2 0 A. Yes. 2 1 Q. Thank you. I note that this test 2 2 was -- or this report, rather, is dated 2 3 May 2 5 , 1 9 3 4. Was that prior to the time 2 4 Monsanto acquired Swann Chemical? 2 5 A. Yes, I believe it was. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 349 HARTOLDMONOO11804 1 Q And I see that the name Aroclor 2 is being used to identify the compounds 3 involved? 4 A . Yes, sir. 5 Q. So, the name Aroclor was part of 6 the property that Monsanto acquired when 7 they acquired Swann Chemical? 8 A. That i s correct. 9 Q. There is reference in this report 1 0 to dermatitis which had developed among 1 1 some of the workmen in the plant. Do you 1 2 know what typeof dermatitis that was? 1 3 A. Well, theonly dermatitis that I 1 4 know of that was developed among some of 1 5 the workmen in the plant, if by the plant 1 6 he means the Swann plant, is chloracne. 1 7 Q. Did you associate, then, this 1 8 report with chloracne? 1 9 A. I don't know what you mean by 2 0 associate it with chloracne. 2 1 Q. Well, this report is trying to 2 2 determine the agent that produced a 2 3 dermatitis? 2 4 A. Yes, sir. 2 5 Q. Did you identify in your own mind GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 350 HARTOLDMONOO11805 1 that dermatitis as being chloracne? 2 MR. MALINs I object to the form 3 of the question. We haven't established 4 what, if anything, he knew about this 5 particular -- 6 MR. COHEN : All right . Fine. Why 7 don't you tell me what you knew about this 8 incident? 9 A. Let me start with what I know 1 0 about the report. 1 1 Q. Fine. 1 2 A. This is a report based on the 1 3 state of the art in 1934, it absolutely has 1 4 no relationship at all to finding out 1 5 whether a particular product had caused 1 6 chloracne . And I doubt very much if it has 1 7 any relationship at all to finding out 1 8 whether a skin irritation -- whether a 1 9 material could be a skin irritant. I don 2 0 think in the last thirty years there ' s be 2 1 a series of patch tests on animals, p e o p 1 22 do not do that any more. it just -- this 2 3 is a report that is valueless, as far as 2 4 I'm concerned. Now, if you want to know 25 about the dermatitis that occurred, if GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 351 HARTOLDMONOO11806 1 that's the term you want to use, there was 2 chloracne occurred in some 2 0 , 2 5 workers 3 of the Swann Chemical Company in ' 3 3 or ' 3 4 4 that was later proven to be due to a 5 benzene that was off spec material 6 produced, it was a different color than the 7 u s u a 1 Aroclor. Why they so Id it. I don't 8 k n o w . But that was written up by Dr. Jones 9 i n a n article that I'm sure you'v e got. 1 0 because it's been in every deposition, in 1 1 which he describes the treatment of these 1 2 twenty so me people with chi oracne. After 1 3 they went back to their -- after Swann 1 4 went back to their original supplier of 1 5 benzene, and did a certain amount of 1 6 housekeeping and put ventilation over the 1 7 filling spouts where they filled the drums, 18 they had no more chloracne. And during the 1 9 years that I've been associated with 2 0 Monsanto, to the conclusion of manufacture, 2 1 we never had any chloracne in our 2 2 manufacturing process. That ' s what I know 2 3 about it. 2 4 Q. So, for all of the reasons that 2 5 you have discussed, you consider this GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI 352 HARTOLDMONOO11807 1 report to be just worthless. is that right? 2 A . Yes. A t the present date. 3 That's the way they were thinking back in 4 1 9 3 4. Flinn was a man a t Columbia 5 University who did a lot of work in this 6 field. But it's almost like using 7 mercurochrome instead of penicillin. I 8 mean, it was all right back 30 years ago, 9 but it isn't all right now. 1 0 (Discussion off the record) 1 1 (Kelly Deposition Exhibit Number 1 2 10 mark ' d for identification) . 1 3 A . Yes, sir, I've read it. 1 4 Q. Do you recognize the document. 1 5 Kelly 10? 1 6 A . Yes This doc ument is a copy of 1 7 a quarterly report from the medical 1 8 department, authored by me to the 1 9 management of Monsanto. 2 0 Q. Now, it says, "Quarterly 2 1 Report" . How often did you prepare a 22 quarterly report? 2 3 A. Every quarter. 2 4 Q . And when I say you, I'm speaking 2 5 of the medical departmen t a t that point . GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 353 HARTOLDMONOO11808 1 But you apparently prepared this particular 2 quarterly report? 3 A . Yes. With help from other people 4 in our department. 5 Q . Did you prepare a quarterly 6 report every quarter of every year during 7 the years you were medical director a t 8 Monsanto? 9 A . N O . I think there was -- later 1 0 on, we didn't do it every quarter, I think 1 1 we might have done it yearly. I think the 1 2 executive group were getting too many 1 3 reports from too many people too often, and 1 4 Ibelieve we went down to yearly reports. 1 5 I don't know the year that that started . 16 Q.But it would have been after 1 7 1969? 1 8 A. Certainly after September of '69, 1 9 yes. 2 0 Q. Because as of September '69 you 2 1 were still preparing quarterly reports? 2 2 A . That ' s correct . 2 3 Q. Do you know how many quarterly 2 4 reports you prepared prior to September of 2 5 ' 6 9 that discussedPCB's? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS , M ISSOUR I 354 HARTOLDMONOO11809 1 A. No, sir, I don't. 2 Q . Was that a subject that was 3 regularly discussed? 4 A. Only when the environmental 5 aspect of PCB became prominent. 6 Q And when was that? 7 A . That was sometime after Wood's 8 first meeting with Jensen. 9 Q So that would have been '67? 1 0 A . Was this '67 or earlier than 1 1 that? '67, yes, sir. 1 2 Q . Prior to that time or -- I ' m 1 3 sorry . 1 4 A . Prior to that time we did not 1 5 discuss PCB ' s at all in our reports . 1 6 Q. But subsequent to that time it 1 7 became a subject of frequent mention in 1 8 your quarterly reports ? 1 9 A . Yes. 11 became quite important. 2 0 Q . How about annual reports? 2 1 A . Well, when we had the quarterly 2 2 reports we didn't have an annual report. 23 Q . I understand. 2 4 A . But I don't know when the annual 2 5 reports came in, and I don't know if by GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONOO11810 1 that time the PCB problem had lessened a 2 great deal, but I'm sure we were still 3 manufacturing it and I'm sure it was still 4 present in the annual reports. 5 Q. Page 2, sir, of the report 6 itself. 7 A . Yes, sir. 8 Q . In the fourth full paragraph, the 9 last sentence reads, "Evidence indicates 1 0 that the more highly chlorinated PCB's, 1 1 including Aroclor 1254, are not subject to 1 2 biodegradation". 1 3 A. Wait a minute. I haven't found 1 4 this yet. Which paragraph, sir? 1 5 Q. It's the fourth full paragraph, 1 6 it would be the fifth paragraph of text. 1 7 A . Yes, sir. 1 8 Q. "Evidence indicates that the more 1 9 highly chlorinated PCB's, including Aroclor 20 1254, are not subject to biodegradation and 2 1 the solubility of 1254 is only 2 2 approximately 10 0 parts per billion" . 2 3 A . Yes, sir. 2 4 Q . Now, you wrotethat? 2 5 A . I wrote that, yes, sir. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 356 HARTOLDMONOO11811 1 Q Do you still believe that Aroclor 2 1254 is not subject to biodegradation? 3 A . I f it is, it's very s 1 o w . 4 Q S o , you still stand by that 5 statemen t ? 6 A . I think so. 7 Q Now, what do you mean. that the 8 solubili t y of 1254 is only appro x i m a t e iy 9 100 parts per billion? 1 0 A . Well , I refer -- I s h o u 1 d h a v e 11 said in water . In other word s , to get -- 1 2 if you put 1254 into a bucket o f water and 1 3 leave it stand there for a 1 o ng time, and 1 4 test the water , you'll find a m a xinun 1 5 concentration of 100 parts of 1254 in a 1 6 billion parts of water. 1 7 Q. What's the significance of that 1 8 fact, sir? 1 9 A . Well, the significance is that if 2 0 you were drinking water that -- from a 2 1 river that flows over PCB, which is down in 2 2 the sludge a t the botto* of the river, the 2 3 water will not pick up much PCB ' s . In 2 4 other words, it lies there like a lump of 25 coal, and it's not dissolved by the water. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 35 7 HARTOLDMONOO11812 1 Q. Do you know of any studies that 2 have established the solubility of PCB's in 3 any human body fluid, such a s blood? 4 A. Well, I'm sure it's present in 5 the blood, obviously. You can find PCB's 6 dissolved in the blood. 7 Q. Do you know the rate of 8 solubility of Aroclor 1254 in the blood? 9 A. No. I just know what the general 1 0 background level is, it's about five or six 1 1 parts per billion in the blood. 1 2 Q. That8 the amount that's floating 1 3 around in blood in people in the United 1 4 States with no known exposure, is that 1 5 correct? 1 6 A . That's right. 1 7 Q . What did you say it was? 18 A. Around five to seven parts per 1 9 billion. 20 Q. Five to 8 e v e n parts per billion? 2 1 A . Billion. 22 Q. What data do you base that on? 23 A . United States Government 24 statistics. 25 Q . From what year? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 358 HARTOLDMONOO11813 1 A . I can't give you the year. 2 Sometime in the '7 0 's or '80's. 3 Q . S o, data from the ' 7 0 ' s or ' 8 0 ' s 4 would indicate people with no known 5 exposure to PCB's have anywhere from 5 to 7 6 parts per billion in their blood? 7 A . That ' s correct. 0 Q. Do you have any more current data 9 than that? 1 0 A . Not off the top of my head, no, I 1 1 don't. 1 2 Q What data do you have. if any. 1 3 that indicates the rate by which PCB's in 1 4 the human body are eliminated from the 1 5 body? 1 6 A . I don ' t have any data. with the 1 7 exception that there are data that show 1 8 when a person has been removed from a PCB 1 9 environaent his blood level drops 4 0 , 5 0 , 20 7 0 percent after a year. 2 1 Q. Well, which is it, 4 0 , 5 0 or 70? 2 2 A. Well, it depends on the 23 individual . 11 can go as high a s 7 0 2 4 percent. 25 Q. In other words, the blood level, GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 359 HARTOLDMONOO11814 1 in your experience, of people who are 2 removed from a source of exposure have a 3 reduction of anywhere from 4 0 to 7 0 percent 4 in one year? 5 A . That's correct. 6 Q. What data is that you're 7 referring to? 8 A. That ' s data from capacitor 9 manufacturers. 1 0 Q. Is that published data? 1 1 A. It's published, sure. 1 2 Q. Do you know where it's published? 1 3 A. No, I don't. 1 4 Q. What is the mechanism of 1 5 elimination, do you know? 1 6 A. Presumably - - I don't know. I 1 7 do not know. 1 8 Q . Have you ever had your own blood 1 9 level checked for PCB's? 2 0 A . No, I haven't. 2 1 Q. I f you' 11 turn to page 3, sir. I 22 call your attention to what is the -- I 2 3 guess it i s the third full paragraph, "The 24 organic division". 2 5 A. Yes, sir. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 360 HARTOLDMONOO11815 1 Q. You wrote, "has a concerted 2 effort under way to protect continued sales 3 and uses"? 4 A. Yes, sir. 5 Q. What was thatconcerted effort, 6 a s you understood it, a t that time? 7 A. To educate the consumers not to 8 discard the material into places where it 9 could come in contact with the environment, 1 0 and to limit the use of -- limit the sales 1 1 of material for open operations where the 1 2 discarded PCB's could not be controlled . 13 Q. That was theconcerted effort to 1 4 protect continued sales and uses? 1 5 A . Yes, sir. 1 6 Q. As you understood it? 1 7 A . Yes. That was part -- yes, 1 8 that's true. Also, to protect the 1 9 environment. In other words, if this 2 0 material was going to continue to be -- to 2 1 be -- if the amount of the material was 22 going to be increased by dispers ion of the 23 stuff from customers, we were going to get 2 4 out of the business . A s our president told 2 5 me a t one of our meetings, if we can't GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 36 1 HARTOLDMONOO11816 1 control this we are s o that we are not 2 harming the environment, we will give up 3 the business regardless of the profit. 4 Q Who told you that ? 5 A . Ed Bock, B-o - c - k . 6 Q When did h e tell you that? 7 A . In 1972 o r ' 3 , at one of our 8 meetings. It's been in depositions. I'm 9 sure it's in the papers you've gotten, 1 0 that's what he said. 1 1 Q . Did he issue a written statement 1 2 to that effect? 1 3 A. Not that I know of. But he told 1 4 me. Everybody in the meeting that was 1 5 there heard him. 1 6 Q. And when did Monsanto discontinue 1 7 sale of PCB's? 1 8 A . Well, remember, first we 1 9 discontinued sales to open operations. 2 0 That's like paints, waxes -- 2 1 Q . Rayon delusterer? 2 2 A . Well, that went out with the 2 3 rayon a long time before that. Carbonless 2 4 carbon paper . That was all stopped by 25 Monsanto refus ing sales to it. Then we GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 362 HARTOLDMONOO11817 1 sold it only to places where we thought 2 there would be closed systems, such as 3 hydraulic fluids and heat transfer agents. 4 When we found out that we were getting 5 contamination in the environment from those 6 systems, we stopped that. Then when 7 substitutes became available, we stopped 8 the use in all manufacturing installations, 9 which we only had uses -- we only allowed 1 0 uses in the electrical business. And we 1 1 did that on the request of the government, 1 2 because the material in transformers was 1 3 being used in critical areas. 1 4 Q . Read your whole paragraph, would 1 5 you please, sir? 1 6 A . Beg pardon? 1 7 Q. Would you read that whole 1 8 paragraph ? 1 9 A . "The Organic Division, which 2 0 produces this series of very profitable 2 1 products, has a concerted effort under way 2 2 to protect continued sales and uses. 11 is 23 likely, however, that it will be found 2 4 impossible to prevent losses to the 2 5 environment of Aroclors 1254 and 1260 in GORE REPORTING COMPANY ' ST. LOUIS , MISSOURI 363 HARTOLDMONOO11818 1 some customer applications and that public 2 and governmental pressures will lead to 3 restrictions that cannot be met without 4 discontinuing production and sales . 5 Concurrently, action is being directed a t 6 protecting the sale and uses of other 7 polychlorina ted biphenyls and terphenyls" . 8 Q . Now, let's go back to the 9 beginning of the paragraph. What 1 0 information did you have regarding the 1 1 profitability of the PCB's? 1 2 A . Just what I was told. 1 3 Q. So, someone in the organic 1 4 division told you this is a very profitable 1 5 product for us? 1 6 A . That ' s correct . 1 7 Q And that's the in forma tion that 1 8 you relied upon when you p u t in this 1 9 paragraph that this is a s e ries of very 2 0 profitable products? 2 1 A . Yes, sir. 2 2 Q Would you describ e for me again 2 3 the concerted effort under way to protect 2 4 continued sales and uses? 2 5 MR . MALIN t 0 b j e c t i on , the GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 364 HARTOLDMONOO11819 1 question was asked and answered. Answer it 2 again . 3 A . Yes. We started a program of 4 educating the consumer, our customer, how 5 to dispose of the material ina manner that 6 would be in accord with a safe 7 environment. In other words, we told them 8 do not allow leaks, do not throw it away, 9 do not spray it on the ground.We even 1 0 made arrangements for the material from the 1 1 electrical industry to be sent back to us 1 2 to be incinerated, and so we -- then we 1 3 had a program of eliminating uses where the 1 4 material would come in contact with the 1 5 environment, such as carbonless carbon 1 6 paper, where the carbon was discarded, and 1 7 there was chlorinated biphenyl in 1 8 carbonless paper. So, to summarize, it was 1 9 a customer education, helping the customer 2 0 dispose of it in a proper manner, limiting 2 1 the u 8 e 8 of it. And, finally, a t the end 2 2 of the road, discontinuing manufacturing it 2 3 completely, two years before the government 2 4 banned it. 2 5 Q. Your last sentence says, GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 365 HARTOLDMONOO11820 1 "Concurrently, action is being directed a t 2 protecting the sale and uses of the other 3 polychlorinated biphenyls and terphenyls." 4 What action are you referring to there? 5 A . I don't remember. 6 Q. 0 n page 4, sir, under "Industrial 7 Hygiene, " part C, it says, "Routine studies 8 or visits were made to the Decatur, Eugene, 9 Luling, W.G. Krummerich, Pensacola and J.F. 1 0 Queeny Plants". 1 1 A. Yes, sir. 1 2 Q. Are these studies investigating 1 3 worker industrial hygiene issues regarding 1 4 substances other than PCB's? 1 5 A. Yes. Theydid not manufacture 1 6 PCB's i n any of these p 1 a n t s o r u s e them. 1 7 except t h ey may have used the m 1 i k e at 1 8 P e n s a c o 1 a , they used them i n the a i r 1 9 c o m p r e s s e rs , but that was not -- did not 2 0 have any worker exposure there, 2 1 environmental exposure. 2 2 Q. So, when it says routine studies 2 3 or visits, these were routine studies and 2 4 visits, but they were investigating PCB's 2 5 and perhaps a whole range of other things? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 366 HARTOLDMONOO11821 1 A . Did you say they were 2 investigating PCB's? 3 Q. And perhaps a whole range of 4 other things? 5 A. I don't think that we singled out 6 PCB's, because I said none of these six 7 plants there manufactured PCB's or used 8 PCB's, with the exception that it may be a 9 component of the oil for an air compresser, 1 0 as a 1 u b r i c a n t for an air compresser. As I 1 1 said, the r e was n o worker exposure in those 1 2 areas . 1 3 Q. The only industrial hygiene 1 4 studies you know of that dealt with PCB's 1 5 were the ones done at Krumraerich that we 1 6 referred to earlier, Zack and Muech and 1 7 Gaf fey? 1 8 A. Remember, these are 1 9 epidemiological studies, these were not 2 0 industrial hygiene studies. 2 1 Q . Well, were industrial hygiene 22 studies done regarding PCB's? 2 3 A . Yes. W e took levels of PCB's at 2 4 K r u m m e r i c h and the Anniston pi ant. 2 5 Q. You did what? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 367 HARTOLDMONOO11822 1 A . We took air levels of PCB's in 2 the air a t Anniston and Krummerich, But 3 the fact is, we didn't do them in the three 4 months, July, August and September, we did 5 them some of the other months in 1969. We 6 didn't do all plants every quarter. 7 Q. What happened to those PCB level 8 studies? 9 A . I don't know. I mean, they're 1 0 like yesterday ' s newspaper. I mean, they 1 1 found out they were under the allowable 1 2 concentration, so I ' m sure they were 1 3 discarded in the retention system. 1 4 Q. To your knowledge, in the 1 5 Krummerich plant did they show different 1 6 levels of air concentration of PCB's in 1 7 different parts of the plan t ? 1 8 A . I can't remember that . All 1 9 remember is we did not get any levels 2 0 higher than threshold limit o f . 5 2 1 milligrams per cub i c meter of a i r . 2 2 Q. Do you know if air concentration 23 studies were ever made available to the 2 4 investigators that were doing the 2 5 epidemiology studies a t Krummerich? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONOO11823 1 A. No, sir. Remember, now, the 2 workers who were doing the Krummerich study 3 were looking at death certificates . 4 Q. Do you know if any correlation or 5 attempt was made to correlate a worker's 6 task with the mortality studies? 7 A. No, I do not. But, of course, 8 the fact that they didn't have any 9 increased mortality in the plant and 1 0 specific illnesses didn't make it so 1 1 important to find out what levels the 1 2 people may have been exposed to. 1 3 Q. Who made the decision as to the 1 4 importance of determining levels of 1 5 exposure in those studies? 1 6 A . Mr. Wheeler, who was head of -- 1 7 repeat that question. 1 8 (The requested portion of the 1 9 record read by the reporter). 2 0 A. You mean epidemiological 2 1 studies? 22 Q Yes. 23 A . I don't know if -- I don't know 2 4 anything about what was the basis of the 25 studies, or whether they asked for it or GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 369 HARTOLDMONOO11824 1 thought that it was important. I would 2 imagine it would be the authors of the 3 study, but I don't know. 4 MR. COHEN: Why don't we take a 5 five minute break. 6 (Recess) 7 (Kelly Deposition Exhibit Number 8 11 mark'd for identification). 9 MR. COHEN: Have you had a chance 1 0 look at Kelly 1 1 9 1 1 A . Yes, I h a v 1 2 Q Do you rec 1 3 A . Yes, I d o . 1 4 Q Do you wan 1 5 is? 1 6 A . This is a letter from Elmer P. 1 7 Wheeler, who was in the medical department, 1 8 to a W.R. Richard, who was in the St. Louis 1 9 office, he was a research individual in St. 2 0 Louis, dated October 21, 1968. 2 1 Polychlorinated Biphenyls in the 2 2 Environment . With numbers P R R 0 5 0 5 4 2 and 2 3 SCM 051029. 24 Q. And this documenthas an 2 5 attachment to it? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS , MISSOURI 370 HARTOLDMONOO11825 1 A . A Xerox copy o f a technical paper 2 which was delivered by Dr . Risebrough a t 3 -- I don ' t know where h e delivered i t . 4 Well, yes, he delivered it at a symposium 5 on toxicology at the University of 6 Rochester in June of '68. 7 Q . You see here in the second full 8 paragraph, it says, "The meeting was billed 9 as the first annual conference on 1 0 toxicology"? 1 1 A. Yes, sir. 1 2 Q . And was underwritten, presumably, 1 3 by the ABC. Do you know who that is? 1 4 A . I don't know what that is. 1 5 Q. Mr. Wheeler, as I understand it, 1 6 worked for you? 1 7 A. Yes, he did. 1 8 Q. You received a copy of this 1 9 document in or around October of 1968? 2 0 A . Yes, I did. 2 1 Q. With the attachment? 22 A . Yes, sir. 2 3 Q. Are you familiar with the 2 4 attachment? 2 5 A . Yes, I ' m familiar. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS , M ISSOUR I 371 HARTOLDMONOO11826 1 Q Do you know who Dr. Risebrough 2 is? 3 A . Yes. He's a t the University of 4 Cal ifornia, Berkeley . He's a man who 5 discovered the residues of PCB in avionic 6 species, birds. 7 Q. Do you know if Monsanto has ever 8 had any kind of relationship whatsoever 9 with Dr. Risebrough? 1 0 A. What kind of a relationship? 1 1 Q. Yes. Have they ever funded any 1 2 studies by Dr. Risebrough, have they ever 1 3 given him any research grants, that type of 1 4 thing, has he ever worked as a consultant 1 5 for Monsanto? 1 6 A . Not that I know of. 1 7 Q. Neither before or since, to your 1 8 knowledge? 1 9 A. I just don't know. Certainly -- 2 0 no, not before or since I left, not that I 2 1 know of. 2 2 Q. I'm going to ask you to turn to 2 3 what is the third page of the abstract, 2 4 although it's not numbered 3. It does bear 2 5 those two identification stamps, it's 50545 GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 372 HARTOLDMONOO11827 1 on P R R and 51 0 3 2 on SCM. And I would call 2 your attention to -- by the way, if I can 3 just back up for a moment, do you know if 4 this abstract has ever been published, if 5 this report has ever beenpublished? 6 A. You're talking about abstract -- 7 Q . I'm talking -- 8 A . The whole report? 9 Q . Yes, the entire report. 1 0 A . I don't know whether it has been 1 1 or not. 1 2 Q Do you know if i t ' s been peer 1 3 ewed? 1 4 A . Well, I don't know that. 1 5 Q You were going t o say? 1 6 A . I was going to say , Risebrough 1 7 a well known investigator, and I suppose 1 8 this conference on toxicology, which was at 1 9 the University of Rochester by invitation 2 0 only, was probably a pretty high-powered 2 1 organization, I would imagine he must have 2 2 submitted this to the people running the 2 3 conference, but I don't know. 24 Q . Do you see in the first 2 5 paragraph, which would not be the first GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 373 HARTOLDMONOO11828 1 full paragraph, but -- 2 A . Which page are we on now? 3 Q. This is the third page. I t says 4 "They are highly toxic to man when inhaled 5 as vapors. " and then there are two 6 references , 9 and 25, and the more heavily 7 chlorinated components have 8 toxicity 9 A . What page are we on now? 1 0 Q The numbers stamped at the bottom 1 1 are P R R 050545 and SCM 051032. The first 1 2 paragraph . 1 3 A. Yes, sir, I see that. 1 4 Q. Do you agree or disagree with 1 5 that statement? 1 6 MR. MALIN: I'll object to the 1 7 for* of the question. I'm not sure what 1 8 statement we're talking about. 1 9 MR. COHEN : They are highly toxic 2 0 to man when i n h a 1e d as vapors . 2 1 A . No , I don't agree with it 2 2 Q . Do you see the re ferences 2 3 Dr. Risebrough has here, that is, number 9, 2 4 "Documentation of threshold limit values; " 2 5 4 1 , "Committee on threshold limit values. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 374 HARTOLDMONO011829 1 American Conference of Governmental 2 Industrial Hygienists, 1966"? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q, And 25, "Sax," S-a-x, "N.I., 5 Dangerous properties of industrial 6 chemicals, Reinhold, New York"? 7 A. Let's forget about Sax. All he 8 does is go around and pick up other 9 people's work and gives us his 1 0 interpretation, so I disregard him 1 1 completely . 1 2 Q. You think that Sax a s a n 1 3 authority is worthless? 1 4 A . Well, he's not one of m y 1 5 authorities that I would quote. Other 1 6 people may think so, but I think I reflect 1 7 a good body of medical a n d s c i e n t i f i c 1 8 people that would say Sa x is not a complete 1 9 authority. 20 Q. So, Risebrough, when he cited 2 1 Sax, was running against the tide a t that 2 2 time? A . I don't know. But I'm quoting you what I believe about Sax. Q Okay. How about the Committee on GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 37 5 -- HARTOLDMONOO11830 1 Threshold Limit Values, The American 2 Conference of Governmental Industrial 3 Hygenists? 4 A. I don't know if they said that, 5 I'd have to see the reference. This is 6 Risebrough ' s interpretation, or the 7 government conference ' s interpretation , 8 because after all, the American Conference 9 of Governmental Industrial Hygienists used 1 0 a Monsanto funded research by Dr. Treon at 1 1 the University of Cincinnati to come to 1 2 their decisions, so I don't know if 1 3 Risebrough, who's an analytical chemist, is 1 4 in a position to say something is highly 1 5 toxic. I think that's outside his 1 6 specialty. And I don't believe the 1 7 government documentation of threshold 1 8 values says highly toxic. I don't think 1 9 that'8 true. 2 0 Q. So, you're saying Dr. Risebrough 21 is makinga s tatement here that you think 2 2 i s outside of his area of expertise and 2 3 citing a reference that you're not sure is 24 a n accurate citation for that particular 2 5 authority or that particular statement? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 376 HARTOLDMONOO11831 1 A . That s what I am saying. 2 Q. And in addition to which the 3 reference that he's citing, indeed, relied 4 upon Dr. Treon * s work which was funded by 5 Monsanto? 6 A. That * s correct . 7 Q. So, you do not agree with that 8 par t of the s t a t e m e n t , they're highly toxic 9 t o man when i n haled as vapors? 1 0 A . Not at all. 1 1 Q . Have you bee n shown this document 1 2 before, Kelly 11? Have you been shown this 1 3 before in depositions? 1 4 A. I may have. I can't answer that. 1 5 Q. You can't answer because you 1 6 don't recall? 1 7 A. What? 1 8 Q. You can't answer because you 1 9 don't recall? 20 A. I don't recall whether I was or 2 1 not. 2 2 Q. I see. When is the last time you 23 looked a t Risebrough's article that we're 2 4 referring to here? 2 5 A. Not for a couple of years. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONOO11832 1 Q Do you agree with the second part 2 of the statement, the more heavily 3 chlorinated components have greater 4 toxicity? 5 A. As I've been saying repeatedly, 6 the Treon study showed that 1254 was more 7 toxic than 1 2 4 2 , yes. Again, if that ' s 8 what he means by heavily chlorinated 9 components, I agree that it has greater 1 0 toxicity, yes. 1 1 Q. What was the mechanism of 1 2 toxicity of the higher chlorinated 1 3 compounds as reported by Treon? 1 4 A. Just about the same as the lower 1 5 chlorinated. They both had the same 1 6 general effect, they both had enzymatic 1 7 changes in the liver. 1 8 Q. That ' s the toxic reaction that 1 9 you're speaking of, the enzymatic changes 2 0 in the liver? 2 1 A. That ' s correct. 2 2 Q. Those changes in the liver don't 2 3 necessarily, as you understand it, lead to 2 4 any particular disease or illness? 25 A . That isn't what I said. I f you GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 378 HARTOLDMONOO11833 1 get enough changes, you can get liver 2 destruction. A n enzymatic change canoccur 3 with three drinks of whiskey, you'11 get 4 changes in the liver enzymes. But you 5 won't get cirrhosis of the liver until you 6 take more alcohol over a prolonged period 7 of time. And you can also take enough in 8 2 4 hours to kill you. So, enzymatic 9 changes are only one of the changes, there 10 are changes in liver structure that can 1 1 occur from toxic effect of the liver. 1 2 Q. So, you do agree that PCB's do 1 3 cause enzymatic changes in the liver? 1 4 A. They may, yes. Depending on the 1 5 amount that's absorbed. 16 Q. I see. They may, you're 1 7 qualifying that based upon the amount of 1 8 exposure, the duration of exposure, et 1 9 cetera; that's correct? 2 0 A . That ' s correct. 2 1 Q. Can you identify for me today the 2 2 scientific literature that supports the 2 3 conclusion that we just discussed, that is, 2 4 that PCB exposure can cause or may cause 2 5 enzymatic changes in the liver? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 379 HARTOLDMONOO11834 1 MR . MAL I N : I'm going to object 2 to that as a mischaracterization of what 3 the witness said. He didn't say PCB 4 exposure, he said PCB absorption; there is 5 necessarily a difference. 6 MR .COHEN : All right . 7 MR. M A L I N: Answer the question. 8 MR. COHEN: PCB absorption, as 9 modifiedby your counsel, sir, PCB 1 0 absorption may cause enzymatic changes in 1 1 the liver; can you tell me the scientific 1 2 literature that you rely upon that supports 1 3 that conclusion? 1 4 A . No, I can't today , but it's 1 5 pretty widespread. 1 6 Q. Is it simply epidemiological data 1 7 that you rely on for that conclusion? 18 A. No. It's both animal 1 9 toxicological work and examination of 20 people. 2 1 Q . So, you do rely upon the animal 2 2 toxicologic work for a conclusion with 23 respect to the potential effect of PCB's in 2 4 humans? 25 A . 11 is part of the data base that GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 38 0 HARTOLDMONOO11835 1 I rely upon. 2 Q . What is your reason for relying 3 upon animal studies with respect to this 4 particular conclusion? 5 A. Because animal studies and human 6 studies in this case had the same target 7 organ. 8 Q S o , t h i s was one of the two 9 criteria that you discussed w i t h us 1 0 yesterday a s p o t e ntial r e a s o n s for relying 1 1 upon animal data in interpreting or 1 2 predicting effects in humans, is that 1 3 right? 1 4 A. Were there only two? I thought 1 5 there were more than two. 1 6 Q. Perhaps there are were more, 1 7 let's see. 1 8 MR . MALINs I'll object to the 1 9 miacharacterization. I think he -- what 2 0 he talked about was the requirements for a 2 1 valid epidemiological study. 2 2 MR . COHEN : You're on another 2 3 point, Mr. Malin. 2 4 A. I can't hear you. 2 5 Q . I said, Mr. Malin is on a GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 38 1 HARTOLDMONOO11836 1 different point. Me were discussing the 2 use of anima 1 testing, a nd you sai d it was 3 not freely t ransferable to humans -- may or 4 may not be t ransferable to humans, a n d you 5 went through a number of criteria. I f 6 there were m ore than two , sir, the r e c o r d 7 will reflect it, and I d o n ' t mean t o 8 mischaracter i z e your tes timony on t h a t 9 point. 1 0 A . Okay. 1 1 Q. But this was one of the criteria 1 2 that you referred to yesterday? 1 3 A. Yes, that's correct. 1 4 Q. You also discussed metabolic 1 5 studies that show the same metabolic 1 6 reaction in the different species, is that 1 7 right? 1 8 A. That's correct . 1 9 Q. In your experience, are there 20 species that have shown changes i n t h 2 1 liver enzymes in animals that h a v e t h 2 2 metabolic action on the PCB ' s a s h u m a 2 3 A. I don't know if I can recall 2 4 those studies or not. 2 5 Q. I n other words , there may be such GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONOO11837 1 studies / but you can't recall? 2 A . That is correct. 3 Q . You said earlier that Monsanto 4 had for a long time published product 5 information regarding their PCB products 6 that contain certain information for proper 7 handl ing of the material? 8 A. That is correct. 9 Q. What were the recommended worker 1 0 protection steps that were t o b e take n i 1 1 order to assure safe handl ing o f the PCB 1 2 products, as you recall? 1 3 A. Avoid prolonged or repeated skin 1 4 contact , do not breathe the fumes at 1 5 elevated temperatures or in confined 1 6 spaces. 1 7 Q. Now, how were the workers to 1 8 prevent -- how were the workers to avoid 1 9 prolonged contact with the material? 2 0 A . That is up to the p e r son who was 2 1 u 8 i n g the mater i a 1 . We tell them what t o 2 2 do. We do not know what i s going on in the 2 3 customer' s plants, so it's up to the 2 4 customer who is using the material , the 25 manufacturer, to carry that out. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 383 HARTOLDMONOO11838 1 Q . Do you recall a problem arising 2 regarding the existence of appropriate 3 gloves for the handling of Aroclors? 4 A . I don't know if it was a 5 problem . People have written to me about 6 what kin d of gloves do we use, b e c a u s e 7 Aroclor would destroy particular gloves . 8 Q . What gloves did it destroy, what 9 type of material? 1 0 A. Natural rubber. 1 1 Q. What was the mechanism of 1 2 destruction, do you know? 1 3 A. 11 dissolved them. 1 4 Q. It just dissolvednatural rubber 1 5 gloves? 1 6 A. I don't know if they dissolved 1 7 like a kleenex would in water, but they 1 8 were rendered impervious. 1 9 Q. How long did it take for that to 2 0 occur, do you know? 2 1 A. I don't know. 2 2 Q . What was the recommended glove 2 3 construction in order to prevent this 2 4 destruction of the glove? 2 5 A. Well, eventually they went to GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 384 HARTOLDMONOO11839 1 neoprene but I don't know when that was 2 available on gloves, because some of the 3 materials were fabricated in such a way 4 that they couldn't be used satisfactorily 5 in operations. So, I do not know when they 6 got down to the time frame when it got down 7 to a synthetic material that was resistent 8 to Aroclors. I don't know that. 9 Q. What are Askarels? 1 0 A. Askarel is a generic name for the 1 1 electrical uses of PCB. It's not a 1 2 Monsanto name, it's a generic name. 1 3 Q. But an Aroclor is an Askarel? 1 4 A . Askarels are Aroclors, but not 1 5 all Aroclors are Askarels. In other words, 1 6 there are chlorinated diphenyl benzenes 1 7 that are called Aroclors that are not used 1 8 in the electrical business and are not 1 9 Askarels. 2 0 Q . S o , they would be Aroclors 2 1 than the 1 2 series that we've been 2 2 discussing? 2 3 A . That ' s right. 2 4 Q. And not including the 10 series, 2 5 the 1016? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 385 HARTOLDMONOO11840 1 A . No. They would be in the 45, 4 4 2 or 5 4 . 3 Q . So, they're polychlorinated 4 biphenyl -- 5 A. Terphenyls. I mean, diphenyl 6 benzene. 7 Q . Other combinations that were not 8 used for dielectric fluid? 9 A. Yes. I'm sorry I used the term 1 0 to confuse everything. 1 1 Q . I'mnot sure you confused it, I 1 2 -- you may not have used it, I may have 1 3 thrown it in and confused everybody. 1 4 (Discussion off the record). 1 5 MR. COHENi What are Montars, 1 6 sir? 1 7 MR. MALINs I didn't hear. What 1 8 are what? 1 9 MR . COHEN : Montars , 2 0 M-o-n-t-a-r-s? 2 1 A. I'm not sure a tthe present time 2 2 what they are. That was a -- they 2 3 certainly are not chlorinated biphenyls . 2 4 They are mixtures, residues of distilled 2 5 bottoms of the manufacture of chlorinated GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 386 HARTOLDMONOO11841 1 biphenyl, but I do not know what the 2 example compos ition of the material is. 11 3 is not used in the electrical business . 4 (Kelly Deposition Exhibit Number 5 1 2 mark'd for identification) . 6 A . Yes, si r, I read it. 7 Q Now, in this document. sir , you 8 refer to - - I'm sorry, this is a m e mo from 9 someone by the n a me o f Edelblut? 1 0 A . That is correct. 1 1 Q Nho is C.M. Edelblut? 1 2 A . I haven 't the slightest i d e a . 1 3 Q This is not a name that w a s 1 4 familiar to you a t that time, or i f it was. 1 5 you've forgotten. is that fair to s a Y? 1 6 A . That is fair to say. 1 7 Q This do cument is, I not e , 3 3 1 8 years old? 1 9 A . Yes, 33 years old. 2 0 Q Do you r e c a 1 1 ever h a v i ng seen 2 1 this document bef ore? 22 A . I must have, I received a copy of 23 it. But I don't recall it. 2 4 Q You don ' t have a specif i c 2 5 recollection of i t, you 're just s a y i n g that GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI TR7 HARTOLDMONOO11842 1 it has your name on it and in the ordinary 2 course you would have received a copy. 3 There is a reference, however, apparently. 4 memo of yours dated 2/25/57, d o you 5 that. sir? 6 A . Yes, I do. 7 Q Would it be helpful to you if you 8 your memo of 2/25/57? 9 A . Helpful in what way? 1 0 Q Answering any questions about Mr. 1 1 Edelblut's memo? 1 2 MR . M AL I N : That's goi n g to 1 3 depend on the kind of questions. 1 4 A . Yes,, H e didn't ask me any 1 5 questions , h e asked for a method for 1 6 determining concentration of stuff in air. 1 7 MR. COHEN s Would you agree that 1 8 it was your belief a t that time that PCB's 1 9 would cause liver trouble by inhalation of 2 0 the fumes a t elevated temperatures? 2 1 A. Yes. We're not talking about 2 2 PCB ' s here. just so you're not u s i n g g u i 1 t 2 3 by associati o n . M o n t a r is not a PCB , i t ' s 2 4 a m ixture of tars that are a t the bottom o f 2 5 the distillation. It's got all sorts of GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONOO11843 1 chemicals in there. 2 Q . But I'm asking you about, would 3 you agree that PCB's -- that you believed 4 in 1957 that PCB's could cause liver 5 trouble by inhalation of fumes 1 iberated a t 6 elevated temperatures ? 7 A. For enough period of time, yes. 8 Q. I guess the reason I haven ' t 9 given you this is it's so darn hard to 1 0 read, I wasn't sure I was going to use it, 1 1 but why don't we mark it as Kelly 13 and 1 2 see if this clarifies it. 1 3 (Kelly Deposition Exhibit Number 1 4 13 mark'd for identification). 1 5 MR. MALIN: This is a letter on 1 6 Monsanto Chemical Company stationery, St. 1 7 Louis, Missouri, apparently to Mr. J.E. - 1 8 A. Crouch, c-r-o-u-c-h. 1 9 MR. MALIN : In Anniston, 2 0 Alabama. 11 is dated February 2 5 , 1 9 5 0 2 1 something . I can't read -- the final digit 2 2 is not there. 2 3 A . 11 must have been in -- 2 4 MR . MALIN s Probably '57. 2 5 A . 11 was the one he's referring to GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS , MIS S 0 U R I 389 HARTOLDMONOO11844 1 in number 12. Yes, sir. Is there a 2 question? 3 MR. COHEN : What were you 4 discussing in your 2/25/57 memo? 5 A. Toxicity of montars. 6 Q. And you had no toxicologic data 7 on montars, is that correct? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. You were sort of analogizing from 1 0 what you knew about PCB's? 1 1 A. No. Well, I suppose that was 1 2 part of the equation. I think some of the 1 3 other was part of Drinker's work, because 1 4 he worked with some chlorinated diphenyl 1 5 benzenes, which I'm sure are in Montars, 1 6 which was not a PCB, of course. 1 7 Q. Now, you referred to 1 8 nightboilers? 1 9 A. Beg pardon? 2 0 Q Nightboilers, is that what it 2 1 says? 2 2 A . I didn't understand your last 2 3 phrase. I refered to what? 2 4 Q . Nightboilers? 2 5 A. Highboilers. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 390 HARTOLDMONOO11845 1 Q. Highboilers, is that what it is? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. The reason I didn't want to use 4 this is that it's so obscure it's difficult 5 to see. "As you know, the old 6 chlorinated," then there is a word that I 7 can't read, "boilers were more toxic than 8 the plain chlorinated Aroclors, and I feel 9 sure that this mixture of polyphenyls is 1 0 more toxic than chlorinated diphenyl". 1 1 A. Yes, sir, that's true. 1 2 Q. What is the word before boilers? 1 3 A. It must be highboilers, that 1 4 would be the term I would use. That's 1 5 highboilers. Highboiler means you have a 1 6 distillation column, you distill off the 1 7 Aroclors at varying temperatures. I'm not 1 8 sure. but t h e n down below is a bunch of 1 9 tarry gunk. g - u - n - k . It's not quite 2 0 s c i e n t i f i c , but that ' s what it is. So, t o 2 1 get that out of there you increase the 2 2 temperature so it boils at high 23 temperatures, higher temperatures than the 2 4 Aroclors . That ' s why they call them 2 5 highboilers. And those things are not used GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONOO118461 1 in the electrical business. 2 Q . Where are they used? 3 A. I haven't the slightest idea 4 where they used them a t that time. 5 Q. We'll have some extra copies 6 made. I'm goingto ask you, if you can, to 7 identify some people for me, telling me 8 what you know about them. George Rousch, 9 Jr. , M. D . ? 1 0 A. He is my successor a t Monsanto. 1 1 Q . What can you tell me about Dr. 1 2 Rousch's educational background, do you 1 3 know? 1 4 A . Well, he had a n M.D. from 1 5 Washington University. I do not know his 1 6 undergraduate school. He was a medical 1 7 consultant for Ethyl Corporation, he was a 1 8 professor of medicine a t T u 1 a n e Univers ity 1 9 School of Medicine. He was with Monsanto 20 for two years before I retired. 2 1 Q. In what capacity? 2 2 A . Associate medical director . 23 Q. William R. Gaffey, Ph.D, we've 2 4 talked about before? 2 5 A . Yes, we have. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS , MISSOURI HARTOLDMONOOI184V 1 Q. Elmer P. Wheeler, w e've talked 2 about? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And George Levinski s, he was also 5 one of your assistant toxicol o g i s t s ? 6 A. He was the head tox icologist. 7 Q. He was also a Ph.D? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Pharmacologist? 1 0 A. I can't answer that 11 Q. You don't recall . William B. 1 2 Papageorge? 1 3 A. He was the point -- he was the 1 4 plant manager at the Anniston plant, then 1 5 he became the point man, the point person 1 6 for the environmental aspects of PCB in the 1 7 Monsanto Chemical division of Monsanto 1 8 Company . 1 9 Q Ho w was it that Mr. Papageorge 2 0 got that unh a p py task? 2 1 A . I can't hear you. 2 2 Q I say, how is it t h a t Mr. 23 Papageorge g o t that unhappy t ask? 2 4 MR . MALIN: I objec t to the form 2 5 of the question. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI Q3 HARTOLDMONOO11848 1 A . I did not appoint him, so I 2 cannot tell you. 3 MR. COHEN : What was your 4 professional relationship with Mr. 5 Papageorge from the point that he became 6 the point man, a s you called him, through 7 until your retirement? 8 A. Very friendly and very frequent. 9 He discussed the environmental aspects, I 1 0 discussed the medical aspects . 1 1 Q. Do you know his educational 1 2 background? 1 3 A . No, I don't. 1 4 MR. M A LIN : When you take his 1 5 deposition, we'll give you a C V. 1 6 MR. COHEN: J.R. Garrett? 1 7 A. Jack Garrett had a Master's 1 8 Degree, he had taught a t the University of 1 9 Tennessee, had been a research chemist a t 2 0 Texas City division, and he came to 2 1 Monsanto as a n industrial hygienist, 2 2 eventually followed Mr. Wheeler when Mr. 2 3 Wheeler retired, Monsanto industrial 2 4 hygiene. 25 Q. What was his Master ' s Degree, GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONOO11849 1 what field of study was that degree 2 obtained in? 3 A. Chemical engineering, I would 4 believe. 5 Q. What background and experience 6 did he have in industrial hygiene, to your 7 knowledge? 8 A. None, when he came with us. 9 Q . Mr. Wheeler, we've talked about? 1 0 A. I can't hear you. 1 1 Q. Mr. Wheeler, we've talked about? 1 2 A. Yes, we talked about him. 1 3 Q. He was a toxicologist? 1 4 A . No, Wheeler was a n industrial 1 5 hygienist. I said he had administrative 1 6 control over the toxicological aspect of 1 7 the department. 1 8 Q. What was Wheeler's educational 1 9 background? 2 0 A. A Bachelor Degree from some 2 1 eastern school and quite a few postgraduate 2 2 courses . I don't know if he had a Master's 2 3 Degree. He had served as the chief 2 4 industrial hygienist in one of the states 2 5 in New England, whether it was New GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 395 HARTOLDMONOO11850 1 Hampshire or something like that I'm not 2 sure. 3 Q. What had he taken his 4 undergraduate degree in, do you know? 5 A. Either chemistry or chemical 6 engineering. 7 Q. The graduate work that you knew 8 that he had, what fields of study were they 9 in ? 1 0 A . Industrial hygiene, I believe. 1 1 He was also involved in the U.S. Array 1 2 industrial hygiene laboratory for several 1 3 years before he came with us. 1 4 Q . Desmond Hasmer? 1 5 A. Desmond Hasmer was a plant 1 6 manager in our Krumaerich plant. He came 1 7 into the organic division, and I do not 18 know exactly -- in St. Louis, and I don't 1 9 know what position he held. I don't 20 remember it. 2 1 Q. Do you know anything about his 2 2 educational background? 23 A . No, I don't. 2 4 Q. Joseph Cresce, C-r-e-s-c-e? 25 A. Joseph Cresce, C-r-e-s-c-e, was a GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 396 HARTOLDMONOO11851 1 r N i t r o plant . He may 2 a n a g e r at East S t . 3 . But then he also came 4 e r s and was promoted to 5 nufacturing, in the 6 7 Q 8 ons anto o w what his p o s ition was c e s of Monsanto ? 9 A . No , I don ' t remember. 1 0 Q Do you k n o w his educational 1 1 kground? 1 2 A . No , I don ' t 1 3 (Ke 1 1y Depos i t i o n Exhibit Number 1 4 1 4 mark'd for i dentification). 1 5 MR. COHEN: Can you identify 1 6 Kelly 14 for us, sir? 1 7 A. Kelly 14 is a letter from me to 1 8 a n individual, Mr. Holloway, a t the Ford 1 9 Motor Company, dated November 21, 1960, in 2 0 which I f orwarded to him toxicity 2 1 information on a hydraulic fluid Pydraul 2 2 A - 2 0 0 . It bears -- dated November 21 , 23 1 9 6 0. 1 1 has PRR 0 5 0 1 4 8 , S CM 0 5 0 5 2 2. 24 Q. Do you know the composition of 25 Pydraul? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 397 HARTOLDMONOO11852 1 A. Do I -- I don't know the exact 2 composition, but it's -- the majority of it 3 is one of the Aroclors, it's a PCB. I 4 don't know if it's a hundred percent or -- 5 I don't know a t the present time if it's 6 easily found out. 7 Q. Now, in this attached document, 8 "Toxicity and safe handling of Pydraul 9 A - 2 0 0 , '' do you know who is the author of 1 0 that document? 1 1 A. Yes. I did. It was authored by 1 2 the medical department. I'm sure I was 1 3 ultimate responsibility for it, yes. 1 4 Q. What was the source of the data 1 5 that you used at that time in preparing 1 6 this toxicity and safe handling of Pydraul 1 7 A-200 document? 1 8 A . Well, the animal toxici ty studies 1 9 that we carried out. I'd have to find out 2 0 whether we had 12 4 2 or 1254 in it . I f we 2 1 didn't have those two compounds in, which I 2 2 believe we probably did, however, it would 2 3 be the Treon work, it would also be our 2 4 plant experience, and the response from our 2 5 customers . GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI 398 HARTOLDMONOO11853 1 Q . So, when you're referring here to 2 vapors of the fluid and possible 3 decomposition products, depending on the 4 temperature of the heated surface, may be 5 irritating if inhaled, e t cetera, e t 6 cetera, you're referring to the results of 7 the studies done by Dr. Treon? 8 A. That is correct. 9 Q . What were the decomposition 1 0 products that you were referring to, do you 1 1 know? 1 2 A . 11 could be chlorine, it could be 1 3 hydrochloric acid. I don't know what else 1 4 they were finding. 1 5 Q . Certainly, a t that time they were 1 6 not equipped, as I understand it, to find 1 7 PCDF's, is that right? 1 8 A. No. I don't believe in 1960 they 1 9 even thought about chlorinated 2 0 dibenzofurans. 2 1 (Kelly Deposition Exhibit Number 2 2 1 5 mark ' d for identification) . 2 3 HR. COHEN s That's Kelly 15. I 2 4 don't have a copy. Doctor. If you look on 2 5 that document on the first page, in the GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 399 HARTOLDMONOO11854 1 second full paragraph, you'll see reference 2 to the temperature of the metal surfaces 3 that the fluid was sprayed upon. 4 MR. MC LAUGHLIN: Can you 5 identify what that is for us, please? 6 MR. MAL IN s That is a letter 7 dated November 2, 1967 from Dr. R. Emmet 8 Kelly, M.D., Medical Director, Monsanto 9 Company letterhead, addressed to Mr. 1 0 William Vaughn of Murdock, Incorporated, 1 1 13800 Avalon Boulevard, Compton, 1 2 California. It is marked with PRR Number 1 3 050236 and SCM Number 050610. 1 4 A. Yes, sir, I've read it, Mr. 1 5 Cohen. 1 6 Q. Dr. Kelly, does this document 1 7 refresh your recollection as to the 1 8 temperature of the metal surface that Dr. 1 9 Treon was using in his tests to determine 2 0 the effects of spraying the fluid on to a 2 1 hot metal surface? 2 2 A. Yes. According to this, it 2 3 appears he sprayed it on at 1250 degrees F 24 Q. 1250 degree fahrenheit surface? 2 5 A. That ' s correct. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 400 HARTOLDMONOO11855 1 Q That ' s substantially higher than 2 we had discussed yesterday? 3 A. Not so much. If you -- you add 4 3 2 t o i t o r t a k e f i v e -- n i n t h s o f t h i s , 5 f i v e - n i n t h s i s a r o u n d s i x or s e v e n hundred 6 degrees centigrade. 7 (Discussion off the record). 8 MR. COHEN: I believe you said he 9 sprayed it on a surface five to six hundred 1 0 degrees fahrenheit? 1 1 A . I'm wrong, then. i t s h o u Id have 1 2 been c e ntigrade. Because h e used 12 5 0 1 3 degrees F . I mean, we've got it h ere. I 1 4 mean, if we ever find his report in this 1 5 bunch of material . 1 6 MR . MALIN: That would be 6 7 5 1 7 6 7 5 C . So I said five to six 1 8 hundred F, the F was -- should have been 1 9 C , centigrade. 2 0 Q. This is by your counsel's 2 1 mathematics? 2 2 A. I'll look it over. 23 Q. Sure. Satisfy yourself. 2 4 A. I agree with counsel in this 2 5 instance. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 401 HARTOLDMONOO11856 1 (Discussion off the record) 2 (Kelly Deposition Exhibit Number 3 1 6 mark' d for iden t i f i c a t i o n ) . 4 A . Do y o u want me t 0 read it? 5 M R . COHEN: Y o u d o n ' t have t 0 6 read it. I'll just ask you to look through 7 it and fa m i 1 i a rize yours elf with the 8 document. and if you w o u Id be kind e n o u g h 9 t o identi f y it for us? 1 0 A . Yes, sir, I ha v e familiari zed 1 1 myself wi t h it 1 2 Q Can you identi f y it for us , sir? 1 3 A . Yes. This is a n undated M o n s a n t o 1 4 publication on Monsanto Askarel, 1 5 A-s-k-a-r-e-1, inspection and maintenance 1 6 guide, with the number PRR 051735. 1 7 Q. Was it usual that documents of 1 8 this type were prepared without date? 1 9 A . Was it -- I didn't hear the 2 0 last -- 2 1 Q . Usual in your experience that 2 2 documents of this type were prepared 23 without date? 24 MR . MALIN: I object to the form 2 5 of the question, I don't know that he has GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 402 HARTOLDMONOO11857 1 any e x p e r i e n c e in t h is area. Anyway, if 2 you can a nswer -- 3 A . Well, it's happened in a lot of 4 ones that I've seen without dates. I hope 5 they're doing better now. 6 Q . What was the reason for the 7 publication of this document? 8 A . I don't know. This seems to be a 9 combined document with input from General 1 0 Electric, Westinghouse and Allis Chalmers, 1 1 all of whom are manufacturers of electrical 1 2 equipment. 1 3 Q . But it appears to be published by 1 4 Monsanto? 1 5 A. That's correct. We were supplied 1 6 with the material . There is a document on 1 7 our material. 1 8 Q. So, you were supplying the 1 9 material to Westinghouse, Genera 1 Electric, 20 Allis Chalmers and the others? 2 1 A . That's correct. 2 2 Q. A s we discussed earlier, Aroclor 23 -- some Araclors are Askarels, but not all 24 Aroclors are Askarels? 25 A . That is correct . But Askarel is GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 403 HARTOLDMONOO11858 1 a PCB . 2 Q . Now, if you'll allow me -3 MR. COX: May we go off the 4 record? 5 (Discussion off the record). 6 MR. COHEN: If I can refer you, 7 sir, by the stamped PRR number to page 8 51739, it says, "Use ordinary personal 9 precautions. " Is that the entire section on 1 0 information for the proper handl ing of the 1 1 material that's found in that document? 1 2 A . I s that the entire section? 1 3 Q . I n that document regarding the 1 4 proper handl ing of the material? 1 5 A . I'll have t o look. Here ' s a page 1 6 that has nothing on i t . 1 7 MR. MALIN: I'm going to object 1 8 to the form of the question. When you ' re 1 9 talking about proper handling of material , 2 0 I think you should specify whether or not 2 1 you 're talking about handling for what 2 2 purpose, for human health effects or for 23 dielectric effects or for any other purpose 2 4 for which the material is made or used. 25 MR . COHEN: Human health effects , GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 404 HARTOLDMONOO11859 1 worker safety, sir. 2 MR. M A LIN i Obviously, the 3 document speaks for itself. 4 A . Yes, sir, that's the only one in 5 here. 6 Q . What input, if any, did you have 7 into this document, do you know? 8 A . I can't answer that. 9 Q . You don't know? 1 0 A . No, I do not. 1 1 Q . Did you regularly have input into 1 2 documents 8 u c h a s this that would have been 1 3 published during your tenure of employment 1 4 with Monsanto? 1 5 A . Yes, I should have. 1 6 Q There appears to be a page that 1 7 is handwritten, but is sequentially 18 numbered with those P R R numbers; I'm going 1 9 to ask you, to your knowledge if that's 2 0 part of the original document? 2 1 A . PRR what number? 2 2 Q I'm not sure which number, but if 23 you'll keep going you' 11 come to the 2 4 handwritten page. I think you might have 2 5 whizzed by it there. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 405 HARTOLDMONOO11860 1 A You've been throug,h this more 2 recently than I have, you take it. 3 Q . Okay. PR R 5 1 7 5 2. 4 A. I never saw this before, to the 5 best of m y recollection. I feel quite sure 6 it was not part of the original document. 7 Q. Do you recognize the handwriting? 8 A. No, I do not. 9 (Kelly Deposition Exhibit Number 1 0 17 mark'd for identification). 1 1 A. Yes, sir, I've read it. 1 2 Q. Do you recognize it? 1 3 A . I do now. I haven ' t seen this 1 4 for a long time. 1 5 Q. What is it? 16 A. Beg pardon? 1 7 Q. What is it? 1 8 A. 11 is a document entitled the 1 9 Minutes of the Aroclor-wildlife review of 20 the bio-test studies. It refers to 2 1 analytical studies either being carried out 2 2 or proposed by Monsanto on the tissues of 23 the birds and other animals that were fed 24 Aroclors and industrial bio-tested. 2 5 Q. It's the minutes of what? Was it GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI 4 06 HARTOLDMONOO11861 1 a meeting of some group? 2 A . Well, there were six people 3 present, it must have been some group. 4 Because they said who wasn't present. 5 Richard was the only one. So, whatever 6 that group was, I don't know. I seem to 7 have been there, but I have no idea what 8 group it was. 9 Q Who was Kell er , R . E . Keller? 1 0 A . R.E. Keller was the head of 1 1 analytical department f or the organic 1 2 division. or whatever i t was called in 1 3 1969. 1 4 Q How about M something Farrar? 1 5 A . He was a research chemist in the 1 6 organic division. 1 7 Q And Hunt, W.H. Hunt? 1 8 A . Was our toxicologist a t that 1 9 time. 2 0 Q. Wicker? Is that Wicker? 2 1 A. Tucker. He reported to Keller, 2 2 he was also in the analytical group. 2 3 Q. Wheeler, we know. W. R . Richard? 2 4 A. Well, his name has surfaced 2 5 before, he was a scientist associated with GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS , MISSOURI 407 HARTOLDMONOO11862 1 the organic division. I do not know what 2 position he was in. 3 Q. You were apparently a t this 4 meeting that took place? 5 A . Yes. 11 1 o o k 8 like we must have 6 had F a n c h e r with us, who was director of 7 Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories. 8 Q. If you'll turn to the second 9 page, sir. 1 0 A . Yes, sir. 1 1 Q. There apparently are some changes 1 2 in the proposed tests, or changes in tests 1 3 that are already under way, do you see 1 4 that? 1 5 A . Changes in the amount of -- 1 6 we're not talking about changes in the 1 7 t e 81, we're talking about changes in the 1 8 analytical results of the tests. In other 19 words, the number of specimens that we 2 0 would examine. 2 1 Q. Do you know the reason why the 2 2 change was made in the n umber of specimens 23 to be examined? 24 A. Y e 8. I'm 8 u r e it was budgetary 2 5 reasons. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 408 HARTOLDMONOO11863 1 Q. Did the changes in any way affect 2 your confidence in the tests that were 3 being done? 4 A. The tests, remember, were made by 5 Monsanto. The tests were made by 6 Monsanto. These are analytical studies 7 that were carried out by Monsanto personnel 8 in St. Lo u i s, so they certainly di d n ' t 9 change ay confidence in the tests. They 1 0 just said why do we have to do all these. 1 1 do we h a v e to do male and females, why 1 2 can't we put the results together. 1 3 Q. Mould you go back up, sir, to 14 Roman Numeral 1 ?I believe the paragraph 1 5 says "Review bio-test feeding studies with 1 6 special regard to the scheduling and 1 7 reduction of the number of samples to be 1 8 analyzed"? 1 9 A. Yes, sir. 2 0 Q. Now, is it your understanding 2 1 that these were studies that were done a t 2 2 Monsanto by Monsanto personnel? 23 A. Yes. No question about it. 2 4 Q. So, it says review bio-test 2 5 feeding studies ; where wasBio-Test doing GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONOO11864 1 this? 2 A. They were feeding them in North 3 Brook, Illinois, right outside Chicago. 4 Q. Were they different tests than 5 the ones Monsanto personnel were doing? 6 A . Bio-Test was doing toxicological 7 testing, Monsanto was doing analytical 8 chemistry to determine how much PCB's were 9 in these various groups after various 1 0 amounts of feeding. 1 1 Q . In other words, there was a 1 2 combined effort where Bio-Test was doing 1 3 the feeding of the animals, sacrificing of 1 4 the animals and the preparation of the 1 5 samples for analysis, and then those 1 6 samples went to Monsanto for the analysis 1 7 itself? 1 8 A. After Bio-Test carried out their 1 9 own histological , microscopic analysis of 20 the specimens. 2 1 Q. And what was the analysis, then, 2 2 that Monsanto was doing, just presence and 23 amount of? 24 A. The amount of PCB in the various 25 animals a t various feeding levels. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 4 10 HARTOLDMONOO11865 1 Q Did they_ make any_ effort to 2 compare the PC B itself that they were 3 identifying in the material with any 4 Monsanto product? 5 A. I cannot follow that question. 6 Who is, they, in the first place? 7 Q. Monsanto. 8 A. To identify the PCB in the animal 9 tissue to see if it was Monsanto PCB in 1 0 there? 1 1 Q Yes. 1 2 A . Well, n o . After all, Bi o - T e s t 1 3 was g e 11 i n g the PCB f r o m M o n s a n t o , feeding 1 4 the mater i a 1 to them. sending the animal 1 5 back to u s , so we w o u Id look to f i n d out 16 what the PCB was. We didn't -- i t didn't 1 7 enter int o our dreams that t h is w a s 1 8 somebody e 1 s e ' s PCB i n there. 19 Q Let me ask you this , do you know 2 0 what methods of a n a 1 y sis they were using in 2 1 1969 to determine the PCB in the biological 2 2 sample? 2 3 A . No, I do not. 2 4 Q. Do you know if they were using 25 I gas chromatography a t that time? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 41 1 HARTOLDMONOO11866 1 A . No . But I'm sure they_ used state 2 of the art in 1969, that they had all the 3 equipment that Risebrough and Jensen had. 4 I'm sure they had it by that time. 5 Q. To your knowledge, they didn't 6 make any attempt to actually identify the 7 P C B ' s in the biological specimen with your 8 own product? 9 A. No, sir, they did not. 1 0 Q. Did they make any attempt to 1 1 determine which Aroclor was involved, which 1 2 weight or degree of chlorination? 1 3 MR. MALINs I object to that 1 4 question, it's been asked and answered. 1 5 He ' 8 already told you they knew what the 1 6 PCB'8 were that they give to them. 1 7 MR. COHEN i Would that be your 1 8 answer, sir? 1 9 A. No. Would you repeat your 2 0 question? It's a pretty confusing 2 1 question. 2 2 (The requested portion of the 23 record read by the reporter)? 2 4 A. Yes, if they got a specimen of 2 5 tissue from a rat that was 1254, they GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 41 2 HARTOLDMONOO11867 1 analyzed for 1254. I f they got a specimen 2 of a duck or a fish or chicken that was fed 3 12 4 8 , they analyzed for 1 2 4 8. 4 Q But this was a case of them 5 analyzing for the p a r t i c u 1 a r A r o c1o r that 6 they knew the animal had been fed? 7 A . That they were told the animal 8 had been fed, yes. 9 Q G o to the last page , sir. There 1 0 is a list of analytical studies here; do 1 1 you know if these studie s were done? 1 2 A . I can't answer that . Some were 1 3 done , I k now, because I' v e seen residue 1 4 studies. I don't know i f all were done. 1 5 Q . Where would t h e results be kept, 1 6 do you know? 1 7 A . They would be kept in the 1 8 analytical department of Monsanto Company. 19 Q I s that where you saw them? 2 0 A . No . I must h a v e seen them -2 1 no, I never went over to the analytical 2 2 department and looked them up, but I have 23 seen memoranda showing that we have found 2 4 this in these particular animals. 25 (Kelly Deposition Exhibit Number GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 413 HARTOLDMONOO11868 1 18 mark'd for identification) 2 A . Yes, sir, I have read 3 Q Do you recognize t h i s 4 A . Well , I can tell you w 5 I mean, I don' t recall h a vi ng s e 6 before. but I must have, I was s 7 of it. 8 Q Who it is author o f t h 9 A . Beg pardon? 1 0 Q . The author? 1 1 A . Hardy. 1 2 Q D . V . N . Hardy? 1 3 A . Yes, D . V.N. Hardy 1 4 Q. Do you know who that is? 1 5 A. Somebody over in our London 1 6 office. He's one of the scientists over 1 7 there. 1 8 Q. Do you see the reference to a 1 9 study under paragraph B, it looks like -- 2 0 A. Do you want me to identify this 2 1 thing? 2 2 Q. Sure. Go right ahead. 2 3 A. It's a letter from Dr. D.V.M. 24 Hardy to William Richard in St. Louis. 2 5 Hardy is -- was either in London -- he's GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONOO11869* 1 in London at that time. But it's dated 2 3 2 February 1 9 6 8. With a n added number PRR 3 0 2 2 1 4 4 , S C M 0 3 7 5 6 6. Now, Mr. Cohen, you 4 asked -- 5 Q. Paragraph B, "Tatton, Copies of a 6 paper entitled Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in 7 British Wildlife by D.C. Holmes, J.H. 8 Simmons and J.O'G. Tatton," Nature 9 Publication, date, et cetera . Do you see 1 0 that? 1 1 A . Yes, I do 1 2 Q It s ays. "This paper c onfirms the 1 3 work of Jensen and in particular shows 1 4 close similarity between gas-liquid 1 5 chromatograms, " is that what it is, sir? 1 6 A. Yes. 1 7 Q. And "Extracts of Kestrel liver 1 8 oil." Kestrel is a type of bird? 19 A. Yes, it is. 2 0 Q. And a commercial 2 1 polychlorobiphenyl resin? 2 2 A. Yes, sir. 23 Q. Does this indicate to you that 24 they were comparing theresults of 25 chromatograms from two different samples; GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONOO11870 1 one a biological specimen, one on a 2 commercial product , and finding that they 3 had a high degree of similarity? 4 A. I don't believe, Mr. Cohen, I can 5 answer that question without seeing the 6 paper . I mean, obviously, the paper, 7 according to Hardy, confirmed the work of 8 Jensen, so I'll go along with Hardy, then. 9 Q. Do you recognize that procedure 1 0 whereby the results of a gas chromatogram 1 1 of biological specimens are compared to a 1 2 gas chromatogram of a n industrial compound 1 3 and compared in order to determine if there 1 4 is similarity? 1 5 A. Well, I would imagine that -- 1 6 well, when you ' re running analytical 1 7 chemistry, you have to have a standard, so 1 8 they had a standard, that's a commercial 1 9 bichlorophenyl resin. Resin is not the 2 0 term we would use in the United States , but 2 1 that's the s tanda rd . So, whatever they 22 found in these birds, in the oil from the 2 3 liver, was compared to a commercial one, 2 4 yes. 2 5 Q. I'm asking you if you recognize GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 4 16 HARTOLDMONOO11871 1 that a s a procedure that was being used at 2 that time period to identify the substance 3 found in the biological specimen? 4 A . I can't comment on that, I'm not 5 a n authority on that. 6 Q. You don't know? 7 A . I don't know. 8 Q. But you would have, in the 9 ordinary course, have gotten a copy of this 1 0 memo, in any event? 1 1 A . Yes, I would have. 1 2 (Kelly Deposition Exhibit Number 1 3 19 mark'd for identification). 1 4 MR. MALIN: Kelly 19 is a four 1 5 page document entitled "Chlorinated 1 6 Biphenyls Chronological Events". 1 7 A. It does not have a date on it, 1 8 and the only thing I -- it does not have a 1 9 typewritten author. 0 n the bottom of page 2 0 four is the name of R.E. Keller, 2 1 K-e-l-l-e-r . The date 3/10/69 is on that. 2 2 The numerical additions were P R R 0 2 1 88 9 and 2 3 SCM 037311. 2 4 MR . COHEN : Do you recognize the 2 5 document, sir? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 417 HARTOLDMONOO11872 1 A . I don't remember seeing it any 2 time. 3 Q . M r Keller is the i n d i v i d u a 1 that 4 we identified earlier a s being over a t 5 Queeny plant f is that r i g h t ? 6 A . N o He was a t the -- t h i s is 7 Dr. K e 1 1 e r , h e is head of the a n a 1 y t i c a 1 8 departmen t o f the organ i c d i v i s ion. 9 whatever i t wa s called at that time. 1 0 Q . S o f there is nothin g you c a n tell 1 1 me about t h i s ; you don' t know a n y t h i ng 1 2 about it? 1 3 A . No r I can ' t. 1 4 Q Th e toxicolog i c t e s t i ng, h owever, 1 5 that was don e prior to Noveib e r 66, which 1 6 is the e a r 1 i e s t entry there, you've already 1 7 described i n this depos i t i o n , i s that 1 8 right? 19 A . I ' m sorry, my a 11 e n tion wandered, 2 0 will you r e p e a t it? 2 1 Q. That's quite all right. The 2 2 toxicologic testing that was done prior to 23 the first date shown on that document , that 2 4 is, 11/66, you've already described in this 25 deposition? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI d1 A HARTOLDMONOO11873 1 A. No. But the gist of this article 2 is on the environmental aspects, that's all 3 he's talking about here. 4 Q. I understand that. 5 A . Starting with Jensen and going 6 all the way up to the last letter, 7 memorandum, again, dealing with -- 3/5/69, 8 dealing with the environmental aspects, 9 he's not talking about toxicological data 1 0 at all. 1 1 Q. I understand that. I'm asking 1 2 you that all of the toxicologic testing 1 3 that was done by Monsanto or a t their 1 4 behest you have described previously in 1 5 this deposition? 1 6 A. Yes. I mean, I've described 1 7 previously, yes. That has nothing to do 1 8 with t h i 8 memorandum, previous does not 1 9 refer to this. 2 0 Q. I'm talking about previous in 2 1 time to now, you have previously described 2 2 that? 2 3 A. That is correct. 2 4 Q. All right. A t any time prior to 2 5 11/66 did Monsanto undertake any testing of GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 419 HARTOLDMONOO11874 1 the environment or any biological specimens 2 to determ i n e the presence o f the ir product 3 PCB ' s in the environment? 4 A . Not that I know o f . 5 Q Monsanto was, to y o u r knowledge. 6 however. aware of the many u s e s that PCB 7 products were being put to pr ior to 11/66? 8 A . Yes 9 MR . COHEN : Why don ' t we break 1 0 for lunch a t this time. 1 1 (Noon Recess) 1 2 EXAMINATION 1 3 QUESTIONS BY MR. KOHNI 1 4 Q. My name is Joseph Kohn, and I'm 1 5 substituting for my co-counsel, and I'll 1 6 ask you some questions this afternoon. Do 1 7 you have your copy of the Smith article 1 8 before you that you brought to the 19 deposition today? 2 0 A . I do now, yes, sir. 2 1 Q. Tell me again why you brought 2 2 that article to the deposition today? 23 A . Yes. Because your associate 2 4 counsel asked me about whether or not 25 epidemiologists were of the opinion that GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 420 HARTOLDMONOO11875 1 there had been no chronic industrial 2 injuries or conditions associated with 3 manufacture or use of PCB with the 4 dxcepti o n o f chloracne. 5 Q And this is a n article that you 6 purport t o rely on for that propo s i t i o n ? 7 A . One of them. I brought a couple 8 of Kimbro ugh articles . 9 Q I s A.B. Smith an epidem iologist? 1 0 A . My impression is he is. 1 1 Q . Do you know whether he is, or is 1 2 that just your impress ion? 1 3 A. That's my impression. 1 4 Q. I s Joanne Schloemer a n 1 5 epidemiologist? 16 A. I do not know. 1 7 Q. Is L.K. Lowry a n epidemiologist? 1 8 You can answer my question. Do you know 1 9 whether L.K. Lowry is an epidemiologist? 2 0 MR. C 0 X s He hasn't finished his 2 1 answer. 22 MR . KOHN: Do you know whether 23 L.K. Lowry is a n epidemiologist? 2 4 A. No. But I know this group stated 2 5 I they did epidemiological studies , so I do GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONOO11876' 1 not know if they are epidemiologists by 2 your definition, but they do 3 epidemiological studies . Because he stated 4 none of the published occupational or 5 epidemiological studies, including ours. 6 Now, here we got a group of government 7 people from NIOSH, which is the foremost 8 research group of the United States, 9 putting out a n epidemiological study, and 1 0 you're asking me do. I think these people 1 1 are epidemiologists I think they are, but I 1 2 don't know it. 1 3 Q. Do you believe that they did 1 4 their own epidemiological study, or are 1 5 they simply reviewing the results of other 1 6 epidemiological study. 1 7 A. I take the English, they said 1 8 including ours". 1 9 Q . DO you know which study they ' re 2 0 referring t 0 ? 2 1 A . Th eir own study. I don't know 2 2 which one i t i 8 . 2 3 Q . I s that a published study that 2 4 you're aware of? 2 5 A . Th is one is one. He surveyed GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 42 2 HARTOLDMONOO11877 1 three groups of workers. That's what he 2 did. That's their study . This is their 3 study. 4 Q . Are you aware of any other 5 epidemiological studies that any of these 6 individuals who are on here a s authors 7 prepared? 8 A. I do not know if they prepared 9 any before or not. Smith may have, I do 1 0 not know. 1 1 Q. The second page of this exhibit, 1 2 page 361 of the journal, in the -- 1 3 MR. MALINi Excuse me. Has this 1 4 been marked as a n exhibit? 1 5 MR. MC LAUGHLIN: This is Kelly 16 8. 1 7 MR. KOHN: In the abstract which 1 8 appears on that page, about the third 1 9 sentence, this statement is made 2 0 "Statistically significant positive 2 1 correlations of symptoms suggestive of 2 2 mucous membrane and skin irritation, of 2 3 systemic malaise, and altered peripheral 2 4 sensation were noted with increasing 25 concentrations of serum PCB." Do you agree GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONOO11878 1 with that statement? 2 A. You mean do I agree that it's in 3 there? 4 Q. Do you agree that it's correct? 5 MR. MALIN: I'll object to the 6 form of the question. Answer the question, 7 if you think you understand it. 8 A . You mean do I agree that this is 9 a -- the statement that you read is in 1 0 here? 1 1 MR. K 0 H N i Do you agree that this 1 2 is a correct and accurate scientific 1 3 statement by these scientists that you 1 4 purport to hold up as authorities? 1 5 MR. MALIN : I object to the form 1 6 of that question. 1 7 A . Well, I will agree that these 1 8 scientists found symptoms suggestive of 19 these various things . They found no 2 0 clinical abnormalities that would -- upon 2 1 which these symptoms could be based. So, 22 we're taking the words of individuals who 23 said I have this particular symptom, and 2 4 people are quite biased in their symptoms, 25 there were no clinical findings to back up GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 424 HARTOLDMONOO11879 1 the symptoms. 2 Q. Is taking what a patient says are 3 their symptoms a n accepted method of 4 ascertaining symptoms in the medical 5 profession? 6 A. Yes, if is there is no conflict 7 of interest, if the patient does not have 8 symptoms that may help him in a financial 9 way. 1 0 Q. The second to last sentence of 1 1 the abstract states, "These findings are 1 2 indicative of PCB's physiological effect on 1 3 the liver, whose long range health 1 4 significance is unknown." Do you agree with 1 5 the statement that these findings are 1 6 indicative of PCB's physiological effects 1 7 on the liver? 1 8 MR . MALIN: I object to the form 1 9 of the question . Again, what findings? 2 0 A . What 's your question. again? 2 1 MR . KOHNi Do you agree with the 2 2 statement that the findings are indicat i v e 2 3 of PCB's physiological effect on the liver? 2 4 A. Yes. PCB's can have a 2 5 physiological effect on the liver, yes. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 425 HARTOLDMONOO11880 1 Q. PCB's do have a physiological 2 effect on the liver, don't they? 3 A . 11 depends on the amount that the 4 person absorbs. 5 Q. And with certain amounts, PCB's 6 do have a physiological effect on the 7 liver; it's well documented and well 8 accepted in the scientific community? 9 MR. COX: I object to the form of 1 0 the question. 1 1 MR. MALIN : Yes, I object to the 1 2 form of the question. I f you think you can 1 3 answer that question a s it's phrased, try 1 4 to answer it. 1 5 A . Let's hear it again. 1 6 (The requested portion of the 1 7 record read by the reporter) . 1 8 A. Yes, in sufficient amounts it can 1 9 have phys iological effects . This does not 2 0 mean they're harmful effects. 2 1 MR. KOHN: Jaundice, do you 2 2 consider a harmful condition? 23 A . Certainly . But we're not talking 2 4 about jaundice here, because we have no 25 clinical findings. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONOO11881 1 Q. Do you consider hepatitis to be a 2 harmful condition? 3 A . Yes. But we have no hepatitis 4 here, we're not talking about hepatitis , 5 either. 6 Q I'm just asking a question, a s a 7 medical doctor, whether you consider 8 hepatitis and jaundice to be harmful 9 conditions? 1 0 A . Say that over? 1 1 Q. A s a medical doctor, irregardless 1 2 of this Smith article, do you cons ider 1 3 hepatitis and jaundice to be harmful 1 4 conditions? 1 5 A . Certainly, they ' re not wanted, 1 6 they're harmful. 1 7 Q. The next sentence of this 1 8 abstract states , "Nevertheless, the 19 cons istent positive association of serum 2 0 PCB with plasma triglyceride and negative 2 1 association with plasma HDL-cholesterol may 2 2 have long term cardiovascular 23 ! consequences." Do you know what long term 2 4 cardiovascular consequences these authors 2 5 are talking about? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONOO11882 i 1 A. No. You'll have to ask the 2 authors . 3 Q. Have you ever asked them? 4 A. No, I've never asked them. 5 Q. Have you ever seen any other 6 written report, memorandum, letter, 7 article, document of any kind that refers 8 to cardiovascular problems in connection 9 w i th PC B exposure? 1 0 MR . MALIN : I object to the f o r m 1 1 o f that question, entirely too broad. G o 1 2 a h e a d , i f you think you can answer th a t 1 3 A . Have I ever s e e n any artic1 e any 1 4 t i m e i n the last 30 years that referr e d t o 1 5 c a r d i o v a scular problems a s sociated wi t h 1 6 w i th PC B exposure? I may and I may h a v e 1 7 n o t . I do not have any a t the presen t time 1 8 I c a n t a lk to you about 1 9 Q. If you could turn to page 367 of 2 0 this article, Kelly Exhibit 8. Under the 2 1 heading "Discussion" on the second column, 2 2 which appears on the right-hand side, this 23 sentence appears, "It should be emphasized, 2 4 however, that the consistent inverse 2 5 associations of log ( H-PCB ) with log (HDL- GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 428 HARTOLDMONOO11883 1 cholesterol ) a t all three work sites may 2 have long term cardiovascular significance, 3 given the significant inverse, independent 4 associations of HDL-cholesterol with 5 coronary artery disease." Do you agree 6 with that conclus ion of these authors ? 7 A . This is a n assumption, this is 8 not a conclusion. It just says they may or 9 they may not. 1 0 Q. Do you agree that this cons istent 1 1 inverse association that these authors 1 2 describe may have long term cardiovascular 1 3 significance for individuals exposed to 1 4 PCB? 1 5 MR. MALINs I object to the form 1 6 of that question. You 're asking him for 1 7 his opinion, I understand? 1 8 MR. KOHN: Right. 1 9 MR. M AL I N: I f you have a n 2 0 opinion. Doctor. 2 1 A . I would have to see this 2 2 repeated. I don't know if this is accurate 2 3 or not. 2 4 Q. How do you know any of the other 2 5 findings they have in this article are GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 429 HARTOLDMONOO11884 1 accurate? 2 A. Because they're reproducable some 3 other times . 4 Q. Which ones are reproducable and 5 which ones aren't? Take your time and go 6 right through this article. 7 A . Why don't I take his conclusion. 8 Which he says, none of the epidemiological 9 studies, including ours, have shown that 1 0 occupational exposure to PCB's is 1 1 associated with any adverse health outcome 1 2 that's reproducable, because other people 1 3 and other epidemiologists have said the 1 4 same thing. 1 5 Q. Other epidemiologis ts have said 1 6 the other? 1 7 A. Not with the stature of the 1 8 government people like Kimbrough and Smith . 1 9 Q . Okay. So, you do agree that some 2 0 epidemiologists have associated harmful 2 1 clinical conditions with PCB? | 2 2 A. But they have not been 2 3 reproduced, and some of them have changed 2 4 their mind from one study to the other. 25 Q. Have there been any who have not GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI 43 0 HARTOLDMONOO11885 1 changed their minds from one 2 epidemiological study t o another? 3 A . I can ' t a n s wer that. 4 Q . A n d c a n you please identify the 5 scientists who have performed 6 epidemiol o gic a 1 studies who have found 7 clinical problems associated with P C B 8 exposure. but who you consider to be in a 9 stature 1 ess than people who work for the 1 0 governmen t ? 1 1 A. Yes. Bertasi in Italy is one. 1 2 Q . What is Mr. Bertasi ' s education 1 3 and background and training? 1 4 A. I haven ' t the slightest idea what 1 5 his educational background is. 1 6 Q But you consider him less 1 7 competent , o f less stature than someb o d y 1 8 who works for the government? 1 9 A . Yes. Because he put out a n 2 0 epidemiological survey in which his c ohart 2 1 controls would have to be females of 2 0 2 2 years and remain 2 0 years during the entire 2 3 time of his epidemiological survey, so I 2 4 don't need to know about his 2 5 epidemiological work -- or his education . GORE REPORTING COMPANY . ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 43 1 HARTOLDMONOO11886 1 MR . COHEN : Let me have that 2 answer. 3 (The requested portion of the 4 record read by the reporter). 5 MR. KOHN: Did Bertasi perform 6 any other epidemiological studies or 7 surveys that you're aware of? 8 A. I don't know. 9 Q. Any other scientists who have 1 0 performed epidemiological studies and who 1 1 have found clinical problems associated 1 2 with PCB exposure who you believe do not 1 3 have the stature of the people who work for 1 4 the government? 1 5 A. I'm not in a position to evaluate 1 6 various epidemiologists, I don't know these 1 7 people. I know the government and I know 1 8 Kimbrough , and I know that Jones is a 1 9 senior member of a group a t NIOSH. 2 0 Q. I believe you indicated that in 2 1 your opinion that NIOSH is a very competent 2 2 and well respected organization, operation? 23 A . It's competent and well 2 4 respected . That does not mean that I agree 2 5 with everything they say. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONOO11887 1 Q If they found that the Paoli 2 Railroad Yard was the most highly 3 contaminated site they had ever found in a 4 workplace inspection, do you have any 5 reason to doubt that finding? 6 MR. M A L I N : I object to the form 7 of the question. 8 MR. COX: I object to the form of 9 the question. 1 0 MR. KOHN: You may answer. Your 1 1 counsel made an objection. 1 2 A. I'm not going to answer 1 3 hypothetical questions, because I don't 1 4 know what their report said. 1 5 Q. Let me read to you from a 1 6 document prepared or authored by a Mr. 1 7 Richard W. H a r 11 e , H-a-r-t-l-e, which is 1 8 part of the record in the related Federal 1 9 Court PCB litigation and is contained in 2 0 the joint appendix. "The environmental -2 1 MR. COX: Please read the 2 2 appendix page. 23 MR . KOHN: Yes. A0008574 . The 2 4 environmental surface sampling data 2 5 collected during the NIOSH survey indicates GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 433 HARTOLDMONOO11888 1 extensive PCB contamination in the car 2 shop. This finding is in general agreement 3 with the May 8-9 1986 evaluation conducted 4 by a consultant. These levels of 5 contamination are the highest encountered 6 by NIOSH during a health hazard 7 evaluation." Do you have any reason to 8 doubt that the levels found at the Paoli 9 Yard were the highest encountered by NIOSH 1 0 during the -- 1 1 MR. M A LIN : I object to the form 1 2 of the question. 1 3 MR. KOHN: Let me finish the 1 4 question. Calm down. These levels of 1 5 contamination are the highest encountered 1 6 by NIOSH during a health hazard 1 7 evaluation. Do you have any reason to 1 8 doubt that they are, in fact, the highest 1 9 ever encountered by NIOSH? 2 0 MR. MALIN: I object to the form 2 1 of the question since it speaks in relative 2 2 terms, does not really call for a specific 2 3 or meaningful answer. If you think you 2 4 understand that -2 5 A . Yes, I certainly could not answer GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 434 HARTOLDMONOO11889 1 a question picked out of something like 2 four hundred pages of typewritten pages, 3 and I'm supposed to comment on that. I 4 certainly cannot . 5 MR. KOHN i Are you aware of any 6 findings of a n excess of circulatory 7 disease among the workers a t what's also 8 known a s the S a u g e t Illinois plant of 9 Monsanto? 1 0 A. Am I aware of what? 1 1 (The reques ted portion of the 1 2 record read by the reporter). 1 3 MR. KOHN J What we've been 1 4 calling the Krummerich plant. 1 5 A . Yes, I am. T h a t was in the Z a 1 6 and Muech study. in w h i c h they stated t h 1 7 they found a n excess of 1 8 non-arteriosclerotic heart disease in the 1 9 workers of the S a u g e t plant . Upon further 2 0 investigation of what these were, one was a 2 1 case of rheumatic fever, which I don't see 2 2 how it could possibly be associated with 2 3 PCB's, rheumatic fever being a response to 24 a s treptococcal infection; the second was a 2 5 stroke; the third was a diabetic arterial GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 435 HARTOLDMONOO11890 1 disease of the lower extremity. So, that 2 was what the excess was, and it's certainly 3 not scientifically valid. 4 Q. How many incidents of circulatory 5 disease did they find among that worker 6 population? 7 A. I don't know. They talked about 8 non-arteriosclerotic heart disease, which 9 would be non-coronary disease. These were, 1 0 I think -- the group that I just talked 1 1 about were six or maybe eight , I don't 1 2 know. But I've given you three of them, 1 3 and the others were of that similar vein. 1 4 Q. The authors found that there was 1 5 a statistically significant excess of 1 6 circulatory disease a t that plant, did they 1 7 not? 1 8 A. Well, that's what they said. But 1 9 if you put down -- supposedly put down 2 0 rheumatic fever as one of them, that ' s 2 1 nonsense. 2 2 Q. My question ia, do you agree with 23 me that they did find a, quote, 2 4 statistically significant excess of 2 5 circulatory disease? Take this one step a t GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 436 HARTOLDMONOO11891 1 a time. 2 A. No, I do not. 3 Q. Do you know how many incidents of 4 circulatory disease they found? What was 5 the total number of individuals with 6 circulatory disease in their study? 7 A. You're talking about two things, 8 now. Are we getting away from 9 non-arteriosclerotic heart disease or other 1 0 circulatory diseases? 1 1 MR . KOHN: Any kind of 1 2 circulatory disease? 1 3 A. Well, no, you've got two groups 1 4 there. Because the only thing they found 1 5 statistic -- what they said was 1 6 statistically increased was 1 7 non-arteriosclerotic heart disease; that 1 8 rules out coronary artery disease and the 1 9 usual strokes. So, I do not believe they 2 0 found any -- even for them, any 2 1 statistically increased incidents of 22 arteriosclerotic heart disease. They found 2 3 non-ateriosclerotic heart disease, which, 2 4 a s I said, included a mixed bag of things 2 5 from strokes to rheumatic fever. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONOO11892 1 Q Do you know what the sum total of 2 the individuals who had these ailments, or 3 diseases were? 4 A . No, I do not. 5 Q What was the first discussion you 6 can recall with any one a t Monsanto with 7 respect to the t o xi city of the Aroclor 8 product or of PCB's ? 9 A . When? 1 0 Q When. 1 1 A . Sometime i n 11937, give or take a 1 2 few months. 1 3 Q. That was upon your joining the 1 4 company? 1 5 A. No. I was already -- I joined 1 6 the company in January of 1936. 1 7 Q. Can you recall the incidents or 1 8 incident of your first discussion about the 1 9 toxicity of the Aroclors or of PCB's? 2 0 A . I don't recall the actual 2 1 incident, but thatwas about the time that 2 2 the Drinker work was going to be carried 2 3 out by the H a 1o w a x Corporation. 2 4 Q. And who a t Monsanto were you 25 discussing the toxicity of Aroclors or GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS , MISSOURI 438 HARTOLDMONOO11893 1 PCB's with a t that time, the first 2 discussions? 3 A . I certainly can't remember what 4 happened 44 years ago. Or was it 54 years 5 ago? 54 years ago. I don't remember. 6 Q. Was it someone else within the 7 medical department that you were -- 8 A. I was the medical department at 9 that time, I was the only doctor they had, 1 0 and I was not even associated with the 1 1 central office, I was in the Queeny plant 12 dispensary. Plant A dispensary. But I was 1 3 the only doctor on the premises. S o , 1 4 somebody talked to m e . 1 5 Q . Were you discussing the toxicity 1 6 of Aroclors with people in the sales end of 1 7 the business? 1 8 A. I told you, I don't remember who 1 9 it was. 2 0 Q. Did you discuss the results of 2 1 those first studies with anyone a t 2 2 Monsanto? 2 3 A. Certainly . 2 4 Q. Do you recall who you discussed 2 5 them with? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 439 HARTOLDMONOO11894 1 A . No I don't remember who I 2 discussed it with. I don't remember the 3 names. Obviously, the people were engaged 4 in the manufacture and sale of Aroclors, I 5 discussed it with them. 6 Q. And what group or department was 7 responsible for the manufacture and sales 8 of Aroclor? Is that the -- 9 A. I don't remember where it fit in 1 0 the organization a t that time. A s I told 1 1 your co-counsel earlier, Monsanto has 1 2 changed their organization about every 1 3 seven years, and I don't know where the 1 4 manufacture and sales of Aroclor fit into 1 5 the company pattern in 1937 and 1938. 1 6 Q . Why don't we take a little bit of 1 7 time and. if you could. trace for us how 18 Monsanto' 8 organization has changed; if you 1 9 could lay out for us the way it was when 20 you joined the company, what divisions or 2 1 department or groups there were and how 22 that has changed over time? 23 A. No, I can't do that. A 2 4 historical perspective of a company that 2 5 had seven thousand employees when I came GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 440 HARTOLDMONOO11895 1 there and fifty-five thousand when I left 2 you expect me to give you tables of 3 organizations from what happened in those 4 50 years? I can't do that. 5 Q Ca n you t ell us a n y t hi n g a b out 6 the way t h e company was organize d a t the 7 time you j o i n e d the company; w hi c h 8 department s , d i v i s i ons or groups t h e r e 9 were? 1 0 A . I can't t ell you about what 1 1 occurred a t the gen e r a 1 office. b e c a u s e I 1 2 was hired -- I was engaged by o n e of the 1 3 plants, on e of the 7 or 8 plants they had 1 4 at that ti m e , and belonged to w h at w a s 1 5 called the o rganic division. I belie v e 1 6 they had a plant they called -- a group 1 7 they called the phosphate division. And 1 8 they had a group, one or two plants -- one 1 9 plant in New England they called the 2 0 Merriiac division. That was, I believe, 2 1 the organization they had in 1936. 2 2 Q. And those were all the divisions 23 of the company a t that time, a s best you 2 4 can recall? 2 5 A . I don't know if they were GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 44 1 HARTOLDMONOO11896 1 divisions f even f or not. 2 Q . Who was the head of the organic 3 division a t that time? 4 A . John Livingston. 5 Q . Do you remember what his title 6 was? 7 A. Vice-president of something. I 8 don't know his title, any more than that. 9 Q. Did you report directly to him? 1 0 A. When I came with the company I 1 1 reported to the plant manager of the Queeny 1 2 plant. I had nothing to do with the 1 3 organization at Monsanto as a company 1 4 except to be a n employee of the Queeny 1 5 plant. Then when they had medical 1 6 problems, and found that nobody had -- had 1 7 a medical degree in the organization, they 1 8 called me. So, whether I had a dotted line 1 9 to Livingston, I don't know. 2 0 Q . A t the time that you became the 2 1 medical director, what division or 2 2 department were you housed within a t that 23 time? Were you still in the organic 2 4 division when you became the medical 2 5 i director, or were you sort of a separate. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI 44 2 HARTOLDMONOO11897 1 free-floating department then? 2 A. When I became medical director, 3 which was in 1946, the company was broken 4 down into operating divisions and staff 5 departments. Staff departments were such 6 a s treasury, purchasing, legal, personnel 7 relations , medical and so on, a new medical 8 department was formed. So, I did not 9 report to any of the divisions, I reported 1 0 to one of the vice-presidents, and I don't 1 1 know w h i c h one i t was. 1 2 Q And that was, then. on a direct 1 3 r e p o r t i n g line up to the pres i d e n t of the 1 4 company ? 1 5 A . That i s correct . 1 6 Q. And do you recall how many 1 7 operating divisions there were at the time 1 8 you became the medical director? 19 A. Four or five, I'm not sure. 2 0 Q. There was still an organic 2 1 division? 22 A. Still a n organic division. They 23 picked up a plastics division. Whether 24 they picked up a Texas division or not, I 2 5 don't know. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 4A: HARTOLDMONOO11898 1 Q. And they still had a phosphate 2 division and the Merrimac division? 3 A. That ' s correct . 4 Q. Can you just describe for me how 5 your reporting obligations, you personally, 6 changed over time from the time you became 7 the medical director until the time you 8 left the company? 9 A. Well, sometimes I reported to the 1 0 executive committee directly, sometimes I 1 1 reported to the director of manufacturing, 1 2 sometimes I reported to the director of 1 3 administration. 1 4 Q . Do you recall when it was that 1 5 the position of director of manufacturing 1 6 was created? 1 7 A . No. 11 was around the time of 1 8 the 1970's, I think. I'm not sure. 1 9 Q . Prior to that time, was there 2 0 anyone who f i 1 1 ed that role was that a new 2 1 pos ition a t that time? 22 A . It w a s n ' t a new p o s i ti on, it was 23 -- I mean. which position a r e w e talk i n g 2 4 about, director of manufacturing? 25 Q. Director of manufacturing. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 444 HARTOLDMONOO11899 1 A. I don't know when they first had 2 a director of manufacturing. 3 Q. And what were the 4 responsibilities of the director of 5 manufacturing? Did they interface with all 6 the operating divisions? 7 A . That ' s correct. 8 Q . So, t h i 8 was someone who had some 9 sort of s u pe r v isory control over. for 1 0 example. organ i c , phosphate, M e r r i mac. 1 1 plastics, e t cetera? 1 2 A. Yes. 1 3 Q. When was the position of director 1 4 of administration created? 1 5 A. I don't know. 16 Q. And that individual , I take it, 17 had some supervisory responsibility with 1 8 the various staff departments that you've 19 described? 20 A . Some of them, yes. I don't 2 1 believe he had supervisory capacity over 22 the legal department , or the accounting 23 department, because that would go to the 24 vice-president of finance. 25 Q. A t the time that you left the GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI 445 HARTOLDMONOO11900 1 company in the 1970's, to whom were you 2 reporting? Who was your direct 3 reporting -- 4 A. Monte, M-o-n-t-e, 5 T-h-r-o-d-a-h-1 . He was a member of the 6 board of directors. 7 Q. Is it your understanding that he 8 then reported directly to the president of 9 the company, or to the chairman? 1 0 A. I don't know if there was a n 1 1 executive committee put in between there or 1 2 not. I don't know. 1 3 Q. And for what period of time had 1 4 you been reporting directly to this 1 5 individual, Mr. Throdahl? 1 6 A. A couple of years. 1 7 Q. When you reported -- you 1 8 indicated there was a period of time when 1 9 you reported directly to the executive 2 0 committee? 2 1 A . Yes, sir. 22 Q. That ' s the executive committee of 2 3 the Board of Directors ? 2 4 A . Yes, sir. 25 Q. Was that made up entirely of GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 446 HARTOLDMONOO11901 1 inside directors of the company? 2 A . Yes. 3 Q And d o you know who, are t h ere 4 certain standing members of the execu t i v e 5 committee, certai n titles or pos ition s in 6 the company? 7 A . N o , I d o not. 8 Q Was the president always a member 9 of that committee ? 1 0 A . Yes. 1 1 Q Did you ever report -- did you 1 2 report on regular periodic occasions to 1 3 that comm i 11 e e ? 1 4 A . Well, I reported -- I don't know 1 5 what you mean by regularly. I reported. 1 6 c e r t a inly , at the time when I had a budget 1 7 approved, I reported whatever I said in my 1 8 regular medical department reports, whether 1 9 that was quarterly, annually or whatever 2 0 time frame I was using a t that time. 2 1 Q. And in addition to sending them 2 2 the reports of the medical department , 2 3 would you have meetings where you orally 2 4 discussed the reports of the medical 2 5 department? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONOO11902 1 A . Not routinely_ I f there were 2 something on there that was of importance 3 to them, I would go and discuss it. 4 Q. Do you recall occasions when you 5 did, in fact, go to the executive committee 6 and discuss your reports ? 7 A. Yes. I mean, I do not recall the 8 -- whether they had a full blown executive 9 committee meeting or one of the members of 1 0 the executive committee would call me and 1 1 say Emmet, come up here and talk to me 1 2 about this, and I'd go up and talk to them 1 3 about it. If that's what you mean by 1 4 reporting, that occurred at odd times. 1 5 Q. So, in addition to any formal 1 6 meetings of the full executive committee, 1 7 you had individual meetings with individual 1 8 members of the committee a t various times? 1 9 A. That's correct. 20 Q. And you were housed in the same 2 1 building physically that these inside 2 2 director members of the committee were? 23 A . Yes. 2 4 Q. Do you recal 1 a t any time having 2 5 any discussions with the executive GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS , MISSOURI 448 HARTOLDMONOO11903 I 1 committee , either t he full committee or any 2 individual members, with respect to 3 Aroclors or PCB's? 4 A . Yes. From the e n vironmental 5 point o f view, we had two t t h a t I recall. 6 very f o r m a 1 meetings in whi c h minutes were 7 taken. a n d I'm sure I've s e e n them in 8 deposit i o n s . 9 Q When did those m e e t i n g s take 1 0 place? 1 1 A . Late ' 6 0 ' s . I d o n ' t know the 1 2 exact y e a r . 1 3 Q Did you prepare s o m e sort of 1 4 wri11 e n r eport with respe c t t o the Aroclors 1 5 and PCB ' s prior to those m e e t i ng s ? 1 6 A . Well, I'm sure w e d i d. Whether I 1 7 supplied it or supplied - - I did not go in 1 8 just by myself, I went in w i t h members of 1 9 the organic division, or whatever that 2 0 group that made and sold PCB's was called 2 1 at that time. And, obviously, they had an 2 2 agenda there they sent into the executive 2 3 committee . 2 4 Q. Are you able to distinguish in 2 5 your mind as you sit here today those GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 449 HARTOLDMONOO11904 1 meetings one from the other, the two formal 2 meetings, or do they sort of blend together 3 in your mind? 4 A . Well, they were both about the 5 same problem. The first was the first full 6 blown information that we gave the 7 executive committee about the -- our 8 thoughts on the problem, and the size of 9 the problem. And the second was sometime 1 0 later in which we told them what we were 1 1 doing about it, a follow-up report. I 1 2 think it was the s econd one that I referred 1 3 to this morning that Mr. Bock, the 1 4 president, said if we can't manufacture and 1 5 sell this stuff without ruining the 1 6 environment, we'll get out of the business. 1 7 Q. You indicated that the first 1 8 meeting was for the purpose of giving 1 9 thoughts on the problem; what did you 2 0 personally perceive the problem to be a t 2 1 that point in time? 2 2 A . We were finding a contamination 2 3 in the environment that we had not known 2 4 existed before, because in those days the 2 5 question of b i oaccumu1 ation was not a GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 450 HARTOLDMONOO11905 1 problem. Bioaccumulation means that if you 2 get product X in the bottom of a lake a t 3 one part per billion, by the time the 4 organisms in the bottom of the lake ingest 5 the material, it might be -- the 6 accumulation may be -- instead of one part 7 per billion, it might be one part per ten 8 million, and then if you get a shrimp that 9 eats the plankton, it may go up to one part 1 0 per million, and then you get a fish that 1 1 eats the shrimp, the accumulation is 1 2 higher, then you get an eagle or a 1 3 Peregrine Falcon that eats the fish, he may 1 4 get quite a lot more, so the question -- 1 5 the phenomenon of bioaccumulation was not 1 6 very well known, understood in the late 1 7 1960's. Secondly, this was a situation in 1 8 which we did not have the scientific 1 9 equipment to analyze for low concentrations 2 0 of PCB's in the ecosystem. By ecosystem, I 2 1 mean the environment and fish, shrimp or 2 2 what else. 2 3 Q. So, that was your personal belief 2 4 or unders tanding of what the problem was a t 2 5 that point that you wanted to explain, or GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 45 1 HARTOLDMONOO11906 1 were asked to explain to the executive 2 committee? 3 A . Well, I wasn't asked to explain 4 it, because they -- I was there to tell 5 them about our problem; we've got this 6 stuff out in the environment, it's not good 7 and here ' s what we're going to do about it. 8 Q . Did the executive committee 9 request a report on that, or did you come 1 0 as a volunteer to the executive committee 1 1 with this problem? 12 A. When I-- when you say you, you 1 3 must mean both -- I did it in concert with 1 4 the organic -- whatever division was 1 5 responsible for the manufacture and sale of 1 6 PCB's a t that time. Both of us did it 1 7 together . I don't know who contacted the 1 8 executive committee and said look, we've 19 got something that's a problem, we want to 2 0 talk it over with you. 2 1 Q. But this did reach some critical 2 2 mass, if you will, when people in the 23 medical department and people in the 2 4 organic division felt this problem was 25 important enough to bring to the attention GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 45 2 HARTOLDMONOO11907 1 of the executive committee? 2 A . That's correct. 3 Q . And this was sometime in the late 4 1960 ' s? 5 A . Right. 6 Q. Why were you, a s the medical 7 director, or your department concerned 8 about finding environmental contamination 9 of PCB's in the environment; why did that 1 0 concern you? 1 1 A . Why did it concern me? Because 1 2 I've got just a s much love for the 1 3 Peregrine Falcon as anybody else, and it 1 4 was hurting these -- the Bald Eagle and 1 5 the Peregrine Falcon or the Morning Dove or 1 6 something like that, and as a responsible 1 7 citizen and as a responsible Monsanto 1 8 employee, I was concerned. 19 Q . Concerned that it was h a vi n g an 2 0 affect on the health and well being o f 2 1 these spec i e s ? 22 A . 11 was certainly having a n affect 23 on the well being, because the birds did 2 4 not lay eggs with egg shells on them. That 2 5 could lead to disaster a s far a s the GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 453 HARTOLDMONOO11908 1 species is concerned, it relies on eggs to 2 hatch. 3 Q. Any other reasons why the fact 4 that you were finding contamination in the 5 environment with PCB's caused you concern? 6 A . Yes. Because if we were causing 7 contamination, we wanted to stop it. 8 Q . What was it about the 9 contamination other than the harm to these 1 0 various species that you've mentioned that 1 1 caused you concern, caused you reason to 1 2 want to stop it? 1 3 A. Well, that was it. That was the 1 4 reason. But we also wanted to stop it -1 5 yes, the only reason we were concerned 1 6 about it was what was happening to these 1 7 avionic species and the presence of our 1 8 material in game fish and other things like 1 9 that that eventually may come into the food 2 0 chain. 2 1 Q The human food chain? 2 2 A . The human food chain. 23 Q . That was a concern to 24 25 A . Yes. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MI SSOURI 454 HARTOLDMONOO11909 1 Q Can you tell me why that was a 2 concern to you that this chemical was 3 getting into the human food chain? 4 A . I'm sorry, I didn't hear the 5 first part. 6 Q. Why did that cause you concern, 7 that this chemical was getting into the 8 human food chain? 9 A . Because no one wants anything in 10 their foodthat they can keep out that 1 1 i8 n 't the food. 1 2 Q. Well - 1 3 A . Whether that's weavils or 1 4 anything else in your cereal grain, you 1 5 want to eliminate it. 16 Q.Well, was your concern about 1 7 elimanating P C B ' s from the human food chain 1 8 related i n any way t o any perceived or 1 9 potential toxicity of the PCB's to human 2 0 beings? 2 1 A . We did not have long term 2 2 toxicity tests on PCB's a t that time. 23 That's why we started the two year 2 4 toxicological testing, to fill in that 25 nitch in our -- in the data we had on GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI 455 HARTOLDMONOO11910 1 PC B ' s . We tested it as though it were 2 going to be an intentional o o d additive, 3 even though it was a n inadvertent food 4 additive, and we laid out our protocol by 5 going up to the Food and Drug 6 Administration and saying here's what we 7 intend to do and here's why we're doing 8 it. They said fine, that's a good idea. 9 Q. Well, a t that time were you 1 0 concerned that there was a potential toxic 1 1 effect to humans from ingesting PCB's a s 1 2 part of the food chain? 1 3 MR. MALINi Objection, the 1 4 question has been asked and answered. 1 5 A n 8 w e r it again. 16 MR. KOHN: I'm not asking you 1 7 what acts you took or whether or not you 1 8 had started there this testing. I'm asking 1 9 whether you had a concern a t that point 20 about potential toxicity to humans from 2 1 ingesting PCB's that were out in the 2 2 environment? 23 MR. MALINs Same objection, asked 2 4 and answered. He said he wasn't aware a t 25 that time, they had no long time studies. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 45 HARTOLDMONOO11911 1 and that's why they started them 2 A. I did not know the long term 3 toxicity of PCB's. So, I wanted to find 4 out. If it turned out that there was 5 toxicity, then, obviously, I would have 6 been concerned. I was concerned enough to 7 try to find out whether there was or not. 8 I did not expect it to be, because of our 9 lack of any ill effect in our workers. So, 1 0 yes, I was concerned. 1 1 MR. KOHN: Do you recall who it 1 2 was in addition to yourself who had these 1 3 initial discussions prior to the time this 1 4 first report was made to the executive 1 5 committee about these concerns and this 1 6 problem? 1 7 A. I n Monsanto? 1 8 Q. In Monsanto. 1 9 A. Well, I'm sure I talked it over 2 0 with Elmer Wheeler, I'm sure I talked it 2 1 over with our toxicologist. And I'm sure 2 2 that any of the other sc ientists that s a i d 23 look. we're finding this in fish. there may 2 4 be a problem. 25 Q. Other than Wheeler and the GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 45 7 HARTOLDMONOO11912 1 toxicologist, do you recall the names of 2 any of these individuals? 3 A. No, I do not. 4 Q. What is your best testimony with 5 respect to the date that you first had 6 discussions with Wheeler or the 7 toxicologist about the problem of finding 8 the PCB's in the environment? 9 A. Within the first three months 1 0 after Jensen's report surfaced in Europe . 1 1 Q. Was there a n a d hoc group or 1 2 committee that came together a t that time 1 3 in response to Jensen's work in Europe? 1 4 MR. MALINs Are you talking about 1 5 Monsanto or generally? 1 6 MR. KOHN: Monsanto, yes. 1 7 A . Well, I don't know if it was ever 1 8 formalized. I mean, there were people -- I 1 9 guess it was a d hoc, we collected people 20 from the analytical laboratory, we 2 1 collected people from the research group, 2 2 we collected people from the marketing 23 group, and I don't know if -- when I say we 24 collected, somebody collected it, and 25 decided we'd go over to Jensen's and find GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 4 58 HARTOLDMONOO11913 1 out what was going on. 2 Q . Why did you collect people from 3 the marketing group? 4 A. Because they were selling the 5 material, and it was important to them to 6 know what was the future for the product. 7 We would depend on them to tell us what 8 uses of the material could be -- there 9 would be that would not be contributing to 1 0 environmental contamination. We also 1 1 wanted to know where they were using the 1 2 PCB's in future applications. 1 3 Q. Do you recall the name of any 1 4 individuals within the marketing group that 1 5 you dealt with in this time frame with 1 6 respect to the problem of PCB contamination 1 7 in the environment? 1 8 A. No, sir, I don't remember the 1 9 names . These people were not -- did not 2 0 stay 3 8 years like I did in the same 2 1 department. I mean, they rotated every two 2 2 years, or something like that. They were 2 3 promoted and transferred , And, so, I don't 2 4 remember all the names . 2 5 Q. Was the marketing department the GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONOO11914 1 people who had responsibility for marketing 2 the iroclor products, were they part of the 3 organic division, or was there a separate 4 marketing division that had marketing 5 responsibilities for various products? 6 A . The organic division would have 7 various products. Over that product, one 8 of those products would be PCB, they would 9 have a product director, who was 1 0 responsible for the manufacturing, research 1 1 and marketing of that particular product. 1 2 The product manager would -- I don't 1 3 exactly know to whom he would -- to whom 1 4 he would report . But he would report to 1 5 somebody in the organic division. 1 6 Q. Do you recall the names of the 1 7 various product directors or product 1 8 managers for the PCB products? 1 9 A . No . I f you would show me a few 2 0 memoranda, I may recognize them. but I 2 1 can't tell you off the top of my head here 2 2 Q . No one comes to mind ri g h t now? 2 3 A. No. Well, Howard Bergen was one, 2 4 a t one time he was. B-e-r-g-e-n, Howard 2 5 Bergen. But I don't know the dates when he GORE REPORTING COMPANY ' '' ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 460 HARTOLDMON0011915 1 was there . 2 Q. Other than putting this group 3 together that went to Sweden, any other 4 activities that this a d hoc group took in 5 response to the problem of environmental 6 contamination with PCB's? 7 A. Certainly, there was a lot more 8 response. They looked over their own 9 operations to see where we could cut down 1 0 contamination i n the outflows from our 1 1 plants where we were manufacturing the 1 2 material. They then decided, after they 1 3 were certain that the Swedes were on the 1 4 right track, that they were really talking 1 5 about Aroclors, they sent to their 1 6 customers and told the customers what the 1 7 facts were and how they should cut down the 1 8 contaminati on in their plants , and then 19 they made a study o f w h ere the use s were 2 0 that were impossible to carry out without 2 1 environmental contamination, and eventually 2 2 decided not to sell the material for those 23 uses. 2 4 Q. You mentioned one of the things 25 you did was to try to cut down the outflow GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 461 HARTOLDMONOO11916 1 from your own plants as one of the 2 reactions? 3 A . Yes. 4 Q . Has there some sort of 5 construction activity undertaken to, I 6 think I've seen the terminology, make a 7 concrete bathtub? 8 A. I don't know what they did. I 9 don't know the d e t a i 1 s o f the enginee ring 1 0 aspects. But they tested the outflow from 1 1 the sewers and then went backwards to the 1 2 plant to find out. the steps into the plant 1 3 to find out where they could cut down on 1 4 the contamination. 1 5 Q. Was there contamination that they 1 6 found outside of the plant, sewers, et 1 7 cetera? 1 8 A. Well, there was some. As I said 1 9 earlier, a t the Pensacola plant we had some 2 0 from their air compressers. I'm sure we 2 1 had some a t the Anniston plant from the 2 2 manufacturing. But because until the 2 3 problem surfaced, we treated it a s any 2 4 other chemical , without -- people were not 2 5 doing a great deal of waste treatment in GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 462 HARTOLDMONOO11917 1 1 9 6 7. 2 Q . Another thing that you mentioned 3 as a program that the company undertook a t 4 that time was to tell its customers how to 5 cut down contamination from their 6 operations? 7 A . Yes, sir. 8 Q. Do you recall, was there an 9 individual or group of individuals who had 1 0 responsibilty for that particular task? 1 1 A. I don't know, until Papageorge 1 2 came. I think Papageorge could tell you 1 3 more about that than I could. 1 4 Q . A t what point in time do you fix 15 his arrival on this job? 1 6 A. WhenPapageorge cameaboard? I 1 7 don't remember. It was sometime after 1 8 '68. But I don't know. 1 9 Q. Do you know whether there were 2 0 written materials prepared for the 2 1 customers to instruct them how to cut down 2 2 on the contamination from their facilities? 2 3 A . They didn't tell them how to cut 2 4 it down, they told them -- because, after 25 all, we did not know what the details were GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 463 HARTOLDMONOO11918 1 o f their manufacture and use. But there 2 were written materials telling the people 3 about the necessity, the urgency for 4 cutting it down. And we said, also, if the 5 material could be shipped back to St. 6 Louis , ship it back and we will burn it. 7 Q . Do you know when those materials 8 went out, when they were distributed? 9 A. No, I do not. 1 0 Q . Do you know to whom they went? 1 1 A. The people that used -- that 1 2 bought the material. 1 3 Q . Is it your belief that it went to 1 4 every single customer of Monsanto who 1 5 bought an Aroclor or PCB compounds? 1 6 A . I can't answer that of my own 1 7 knowledge. 1 8 Q. Do you know whether it went to 1 9 General Electric? 20 A . I'm sure it did. 2 1 Q . What makes you sure that it went 22 to General Electric? 2 3 A . Because General Electric was a 24 major user of PCB's. In fact, P y r a n o 1 was 2 5 their patented product, so they were a n GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 464 HARTOLDMONOO11919 1 important customer; if anybody got it, G E 2 got it. 3 Q . Did G E, to your knowledge, during 4 this time period have its own medical 5 director coun to yourself? 6 MR . MALIN : This is in the late 7 '60 ' s? 8 MR. KOHN : Late 1 9 6 0 ' s . 9 A. GE had a medical department 1 0 before Monsanto had one. They had a very 1 1 efficient medical department and a very 1 2 large medical department, a very large 1 3 industrial hygiene department. 1 4 Q . Do you recall who the medical 1 5 director was during the late 1960's at 1 6 General Electric? 1 7 A. It begins with a -- the '60's? 1 8 11 begins with a V, I think Van something 1 9 or other. I ' m not sure. 2 0 Q. Did you have any occas ions to 2 1 have any discussions with him? 22 A . I talked with this man a couple 2 3 times, we would be a t the same meetings, we 2 4 would be a t the, industrial hygiene -- I 25 mean industrial medical association GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 465 HARTOLDMONOO11920 1 meetings, various industrial medical 2 meetings. 3 Q. Do you recall ever having any 4 discussions with that individual about 5 A r o c 1 o r s , Pyranols or PC B ' s ? 6 A . I do not recall exactly that, but 7 I f eel sure I did. But I do not recall 8 details . 9 Q. You don't recall the contents of 1 0 any communication with him on this subject? 1 1 A . The con tents might be, "Have you 1 2 had any problems with this?" "Are you 1 3 h a v i ng troubling with your workers ?" "Do 1 4 you have any chloracne?" That sort of 1 5 question. But I can't t e 1 1 you the verse 1 6 and line o f w h e n I did t h i s . 1 7 Q But you think Y o u may have had 1 8 those kinds of discussions with the medical 1 9 people a t General Electric? 2 0 A . Certainly . 2 1 Q . And d o you know what answers you 22 got to any of those inquiries? 2 3 A . Yes. We didn't have any. 2 4 Q And who told you that? 25 A . First o f all, there was a n GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI dK HARTOLDMONOO11921 1 industrial hygienist that either I or 2 Wheeler talked to, I remember his name, 3 Speicher, S-p-e-i-c-h-e-r, and this other 4 man begins with a V, it's -- I don't 5 recall the name. But whoever was their 6 medical director a t that time. 7 Q Do you recall speaking with Mr 8 Speicher? 9 A. Yes. But Wheeler did much more 1 0 speaking, he knew him much better than I 1 1 did. I remember speaking to Speicher, but 1 2 Wheeler carried on the majority of the 1 3 literature and -- I mean, the 1 4 correspondence and telephone calls with 1 5 Speicher. 1 6 Q. Do you recall yourself ever 1 7 having any communications or discussions 1 8 with Mr. Speicher about the Aroclors or the 1 9 Pyranol? 2 0 A. Might have been in a casual way. 2 1 Aar I 8 a i d , Wheeler did it, there is lots of 22 memoranda from Wheeler to Speicher . Now, 2 3 he was a t Westinghouse, he wasn't a t G E, by 2 4 the way. 25 Q. Was there a n industrial hygienist GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 467 HARTOLDMONOO11922 1 at G E ? 2 A . Yes, there was, but I do not 3 recall the name of them. 4 Q. Did Wheeler have communications 5 with the industrial hygienist a t General 6 Electric of the same magnitude that he had 7 with Speicher a t Westinghouse? 8 A . No, I don't think so, because I 9 haven't seen memoranda to GE particularly 1 0 nearly as often as I have to Westinghouse. 1 1 Q. Any explanation for that? 1 2 A . Yes. Maybe GE knew more about it 1 3 than we did. After all, this was their 1 4 product. 1 5 Q. Do you know whether GE ever 1 6 undertook any toxicological testing of its 1 7 own with respect to its product? 1 8 A . I don't know. 1 9 fi. You don't know one way or the 2 0 othe r? 2 1 A. I don't know one way or the 22 other. 23 Q. Ever ask GE about any such / 2 4 testing? 2 5 A . I don't recall ever asking . GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 468 HARTOLDMONOO11923 1 Q. Do you know whether GE ever 2 undertook any toxicological testing with 3 respect to the A r o c1o r product that they 4 purchased from Monsanto? 5 A. Isn't that the same question you 6 asked before? 7 Q . I asked about their finished 8 product, the Pyranol? 9 A . Their finished product? 1 0 Q Is it your belief that the 1 1 Pyranol product that General Electric 1 2 marketed i s the same a s Aroclor? 1 3 A . We sen t some stuff out marke d 1 4 Pyranol to them. whether they added t h e i r 1 5 own -- they might have added corrosion 1 6 inhibitors or something else, I don't 1 7 know. To answer your question, I do not 1 8 know of any toxicological testing that GE 19 did either on Aroclor or Pyranol. Whether 20 they did or not, I don't know. 2 1 Q. But there were instances where 2 2 Monsanto actually sold from its plant a 2 3 product marked Pyranol for delivery to GE? 24 A . Well, it didn't just say Pyranol , 25 it said what it was, and it said Pyranol . GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 469 HARTOLDMONOO11924 1 Yes, I've seen labels like that. 2 Q . Do you know whether General 3 Electric did anything to cut down 4 contamination after the period of the late 5 1960's when you believe this first came to 6 your attention? 7 A. I don't know. 8 Q. Do you know whether Monsanto 9 informed any companies engaged in the 1 0 business of operating railroads to cut down 1 1 contamination of PCB's? 1 2 A. I don't know. 1 3 Q. Do you know whether General 1 4 Electric notified any railroads to cut down 1 5 PCB contamination? 16 A . I don't know. 1 7 Q. What efforts did you make in this 1 8 time period, this being sometime in 1966 to 1 9 1968, '69, to notify the general public 2 0 about the concerns you had about PCB 2 1 contamination? 22 MR. COX: I object to the form of 23 the question. 2 4 A. First of all, you asked what did 2 5 Monsanto do about notifying the general GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI 470 HARTOLDMONOO11925 1 public about the concerns we had? 2 MR . KOHN : Right. 3 A . We didn't notify the general 4 public, we notified the scientific 5 community, we notified the government 6 agencies, we notified our customers. 7 That ' s what we did. We were not selling to 8 the general public. 9 Q . A t the first meeting with the 1 0 executive committee concerning the PCB 1 1 contamination problem, did the executive 1 2 committee provide any directives or 1 3 instructions to the people who made the 1 4 presentation? 1 5 A . Well, I'm sure they did. I mean, 1 6 I don't know what the minutes showed, but 1 7 m y impression is they 8 a i d well , let ' s get 1 8 o n with the job and do it. and come b a c k 1 9 and see u s next month and tell u s w h a t 2 0 you've done, certainly. 21 ` Q. When they said get on with the 22 job, what did you understand the job was 23 you were to get on with? 2 4 A . Notifying all the customers . 25 Q. Things you just mentioned? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 47 1 HARTOIdMONOOII 926 1 A . Yes, a 1 1 the things I mentioned. 2 Q And do you recall then reporting 3 t 0 the executive committee a t a subsequent 4 time? 5 A . Yes. 6 Q And do you recall who made the 7 presentation to the executive committee at 8 that time? 9 A. Well, I think the primary 1 0 presentation was by the product group of 1 1 the organic -- I mean, by the organic 1 2 division, because that ' s where the -- we 1 3 reported on what we were finding out, 1 4 toxicological-wise, but they had to report 1 5 on what they were doing about preventing 1 6 further contamination of the environment. 1 7 That was their responsibility. 1 8 Q. Do you recall, in fact, making a 1 9 report a t that point about what you were 2 0 doing toxicologically? 2 1 A. Yes, I feel quite s ure, or -- I 2 2 mean. I'm sure I did. I just d i d n ' t go i n 2 3 there to listen, I would have said well, 2 4 we've s tarted this and we're this far 2 5 along. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 472 HARTOLDMONOO11927 1 Q. Did you report a t that time on 2 any of the previous toxicological work that 3 had been done that you testified to during 4 the last day and a half? 5 A . N o . W e had told the executive 6 committee that we had considered the 7 material t o b e relatively of moderate to 8 low toxic i t y a s far as a n industrial 9 chemical was c oncerned , s o there was no 1 0 necessity for going through what had 11 occurred before. The problem was that we 1 2 did not know aboutwhat the effects -- long 1 3 term effects of small amounts of the 14 material could do. So, that 's what we had 1 5 to test for. And that's what we told the 1 6 executive committee, giving them a 1 7 follow- up report. We did not g o back and 1 8 rehash what had been done in 19 5 4 1 9 Q So, in other words, a t that point 20 you had sufficient knowledge that the 2 1 product had, I believe your words were, 2 2 moderate to low toxicity for industrial 2 3 chemicals , and you had known this since a t 2 4 least the 1 9 5 0 ' s ? 2 5 A. Yes, sir. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 473 HARTOLDMONOO11928 1 Q And you wanted to undertake, and 2 you didn't know what the effects were o f 3 long term low level exposures ? 4 A . That ' s correct. 5 Q Didn't know one way or the o t h e r ? 6 A . Didn't know one way or the o t h e r . 7 Q . And how did you go about try i n g 8 to deterni n e what the e f f e c t s o f long term 9 low level exposure was? 1 0 A. Nell, we went up to Dr. Calandra 1 1 a t the Industrial Bio-Test, along with our 1 2 toxicologists, and we said here is what our 1 3 problem is, here is what we need to do, 1 4 what we need to find out. And he said 1 5 well, I think what we ought to do is do the 1 6 same testing that we would on a n 1 7 intentional food additive, even though we 1 8 never are going to even think of 1 9 recommending this a s a food additive. So, 20 then, when we got together with that, they 2 1 had the protocol established, we said let's 22 go down now and talk t o the Food and Drug 23 Administration. He went down t h ere and 2 4 talked to them. and said here i s what our 2 5 problem is, here i s what we are going t o GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 474 HARTOLDMONOO11929 1 do, this is our protocol. They said fine, 2 let us know when you get any results. 3 Q. And then the IBT tests were 4 performed on various species of animals? 5 A. Beg pardon? 6 Q. The IBT tests were performed on 7 various species of animals? 8 A. Dogs and rats. There were 9 others, chickens and mallard ducks. I 1 0 don't know if they did mallard ducks or 1 1 they did chickens. 1 2 Q. And did you hope at that time to 1 3 glean some information from these tests 1 4 with respect to effects on humans? 1 5 A. Well, it would give us -- 1 6 animals were all we had to work with. 1 7 Q. You were going to -- 1 8 A. We would have to translate, or 1 9 transpose from what we got with animals to 2 0 humans, yes. 2 1 Q. That was the purpose -- the 2 2 purpose of the test was t o try to get some 2 3 information with re s p e c t t o humans 2 4 A. To what a safe level would be in 2 5 the human diet, yes. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI 475 HARToOdIvOsTooT 1930 1 Q. In order to do that, you 2 conducted tests on certain species of 3 animals? 4 A. That ' s correct. 5 Q. And did the tests on the animals 6 give you information with respect to 7 effects on humans? 8 A . Yes. 9 Q. What was the information you 1 0 believe you obtained from these animal 1 1 studies with respect to the effects on 1 2 humans? 1 3 A . Theinformation we obtained was 1 4 submitted to the Food and Drug 1 5 Administration, and they came out with a 1 6 safe -- what they considered a safe level 1 7 of PCB's in the market basket of food. It 1 8 was also information they used for setting 1 9 levels in game fish and other species of 2 0 -- other, I don't know -- I believe they 2 1 used milk. also. a level in m i 1 k . 2 2 Q And do you recall w h at those 2 3 levels were that FDA set? 2 4 A . The best of my knowledge, it was 2 5 around 2 parts per million, I thought. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 476 HARTOLDMONOO11931 1 Per million? 2 A Million. 3 Q Over what period of time? 4 A . Indefinite 5 In terms of safe levels of foods 6 2 parts per million per day? 7 A . Yes. 8 MR. MALIN: In a measured 9 product? 1 0 A . Well, yes I mean, in the foods 1 1 they tested. In other words, I don't think 1 2 they tested radishes or something like 1 3 that, there is no PCB's in radishes. They 1 4 tested chickens, they tested shrimp, they 1 5 testedfish. 16 MR. KOHNs You mentioned, I 1 7 think, somewhat in gest, but not entirely, 1 8 that when you were talking to the IBT 1 9 people you said they were setting up the 2 0 test as if it was a food additive, even 2 1 though nobody would ever use PCB's as a 2 2 food additive? 2 3 MR . COX: I object to the form of 2 4 the question. 2 5 MR . MALIN : I object to the form GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 47 7 HARTOLDMONOO11932 1 of the question. 2 MR. KOHNs Why did you believe at 3 that time that you would not want to use 4 PCB ' s as a food additive. 5 MR. COXi I object to the form of 6 the question. 7 MR. M A LIN : Same objection. Go 8 ahead. 9 A . Well, first of all, w e did not 1 0 know any value it would have i n a f o o d . 1 1 Number one. So, I would see n o use for 1 2 in a food. Secondly, the toxicity a t that 1 3 time was not sufficiently known to cause it 1 4 to be a food additive, to be allowed as a 1 5 food additive . And, third, it was a n 1 6 industrial chemical that we just thought 1 7 had no place in the human diet. 1 8 MR. KOHN : At that point, a s a 1 9 physician, did you believe, or would you 2 0 have advised your own patients for t h e i r 2 1 health and safety t o avoid inges ting PCB's 2 2 MR . MALIN : I object to the form 23 of the question. Answer the question , i f 2 4 you understand it. 2 5 A . No, sir, I would not., And I GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 478 HARTOLDMONOO11933 1 would not have advised my family to avoid ' 2 i n g e s t i o n of food with PCB'S i n it. Is 3 that w h a t you asked . 4 Q You would not have a d v ised your 5 own patients to avoid ingesting food with 6 PCB'S? 7 A. With what percent? I mean, how 8 much? 9 Q. Any? 1 0 A. Well, a hundred thousand parts 1 1 per million, I would have told them not to 1 2 use it. Two parts per million, I said 1 3 there would be no problem . 1 4 Q How about ten parts per million? 1 5 A . I didn't know at that time. I 1 6 might. ten might be too high. 1 7 Q And what would the effects be on 18 the human patients from ingesting food with 1 9 a PCB level that's too high, a s you said? 2 0 A . I don't know. 2 1 MR. M A LIN ! I object to the form 2 2 of the question. He's already answered the 2 3 question many, many times over. But go 2 4 ahead and answer it again. 25 A. There were no effects known, so I GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 479 HARTOLDMONOO11934 1 could not surmise what effects might have 2 occurred. 3 MR. KOHN: Hasn't it been the 4 opinion of the medical department of 5 Monsanto since a t least the mid 1 9 5 0 ' s to 6 avoid ingestion of Aroclors? 7 A. Certainly. Just like we advised 8 on ingestion of any industrial chemical, a n 9 industrial chemical is not supposed to be 1 0 eaten or drunk. 1 1 Q. That's because it's potentially 1 2 hazardous to human beings, their health? 1 3 MR. COX! I object to the form of 1 4 the question. 1 5 MR . MALINs I object to the form 1 6 of the question. He's already answered 1 7 t h a t . It's either hazardous or you don't 1 8 kn o w or you don't take the chance. We've 19 been over that many times . If you want to 2 0 answer it again, you may answer it again. 2 1 A . Well, yes, I saw no purpose in 2 2 swallowing the stuff. Number two, we 2 3 didn't know what the toxicity of large 2 4 amounts of it was, and I couldn't put a 25 limit on how much they should take. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 48 0 HARTOLDMONOO11935 1 MR . KOH N s Well, as of the mid 2 1950's, weren't there reports in the 3 literature of harm resulting from PCB's 4 that someone who got sick from ingesting 5 PCB's would have been able to point to in 6 support of any claim that the PCB's caused 7 his or her injury? 8 MR. COX: I object to the form of 9 the question. 1 0 MR . MALIN : I object to the form 1 1 of the question. If you think you 1 2 understand that and haven't answered it 1 3 before, please answer the question. 1 4 A. What was your question, again? 1 5 MR. KOHN: Read it back. 1 6 (The requested portion of the 1 7 record read by the reporter). 1 8 A. There may have been isolated 1 9 cases, I don't recall, where somebody might 2 0 have thought PCB's was olive oil and 2 1 swallowed it. I don't know. In the 2 2 '50's? 23 MR. MALIN: Don't speculate, 2 4 Doctor. I f you know -- 2 5 A. I know of no articles relating to GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 48 1 HARTOLDMONOO11936 1 the point you just said. 2 MR . KOHN: Are you a w a re of any 3 1 i t e rature o r work prior to 1955 that 4 i n d i cated that PC B ' s were toxic. whether by 5 i n h a 1 a t i o n o r by in gestion? 6 A. Certainly. They're toxic by -- 7 certainly toxic to animals if you give them 8 enough. We had information that as far a s 9 the MLD of rats were concerned it was 1 0 around four or five grams per kilogram. We 1 1 had data in 1954 that it was toxic by 1 2 inhalation. Certainly, we knew that. But 1 3 we also know, I might say, there were a n 1 4 awful lot of other chemicals that were 1 5 toxic. too. Iron pills that people take. 1 6 that ' s got an LD 50 of around 1 gram per 1 7 kilo. Salt i s about 4 grams per kilo. I 1 8 don't know what alcohol is. It's up there. 1 9 too. 2 0 Q . Well, do you think PCB's and salt 2 1 are equally toxic to humans? 2 2 A . No, I'm not saying that a t a 1 2 3 Q . Do you think PCB's and ale oho 2 4 are equally toxic? 2 5 A . That might be. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI 482 HARTOLDMONOO11937 1 Q . If I put a glass of whiskey in 2 front of you and a glass of Aroclor, you'd 3 drink them with indifference? 4 A. No, I don't think so. 5 Q. You'd drink the alcohol, wouldn't 6 you, and not the Aroclor? 7 A. Certainly. For a lot of reasons. 8 Q. What are those reasons? 9 A. Well, one, I know the effects of 1 0 alcohol in a dose, a single dose, and I 1 1 don't know the effects of that much PCB. 1 2 Secondly, I believe alcohol tastes a lot 1 3 better than a PCB would. 1 4 Q. Any other reasons? 1 5 A. I believe that there is a 1 6 tradition in human culture that alcohol has 1 7 been used over the centuries, whereas PCB's 1 8 have not been, and I believe that's another 1 9 reason I would stick with the alcohol . 2 0 Q. Anything else? 2 1 A . No. 2 2 Q. What position did Jack Garrett 2 3 hold with Monsanto Chemical Company in 24 1 9 5 5 ? 2 5 A. He was -- he came in a s a n GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 483 HARTOLDMONOO11938 1 industrial hygienist. and afterwards 2 enlarged that to deal with aspects of water 3 pollution in the various plants. 4 Q . Did you work directly with him 5 during the 1 9 5 0 ' s ? 6 A . Yes, we were in the same 7 department. 8 Q. As the medical director, you had 9 direct supervision over the industrial 1 0 hygiene department? 1 1 A. Yes. 1 2 Q . How many people worked in the 1 3 industrial hygiene department a t that time? 1 4 A. You mean the technical people , 1 5 not the secretaries or -- 1 6 Q . Right . 1 7 A . Nell, we start out with Nheeler, 1 8 then we got Garrett, then we got somebody 1 9 by the name of Bohl, B-o-h-1 , a Dr. Bohl, 2 0 then we got somebody by the name of Eby, 2 1 B - b - y , but I don't know his first name. 2 2 There were four when I left. I think. 2 3 Might have been five when I left. 2 4 Q. Let me mark as the next numbered 2 5 e x h i b it a memorandum from J a ck Garrett to GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 484 HARTOLDMONOO11939 1 Mr. H.B. Patrick, November 14, 1955. 2 (Kelly Deposition Exhibit Number 3 2 0 mark'd for identification). 4 MR. KOHN: I place before you 5 what has been marked as Kelly Exhibit 2 0. 6 Take a moment to read that document. My 7 question is, have you ever seen it before 8 today? 9 A. I may have. It doesn't ring a 1 0 particular bell. I notice I a m not on a 1 1 carbon on it. 1 2 Q. A t the top of the memorandum 1 3 where it says subject, it says "Department 1 4 2 4 6 (Aroclors) . " Did that number 1 5 designation identify the group or division 1 6 of the company that was responsible for the 1 7 manufacture of Aroclors? 1 8 A. Well, if you have a plant like 1 9 Kruaieric h, a thousand employees , there may 2 0 be 2 5 departments in there, some of those 2 1 departments might be called 146, that 2 2 refers to the building or the buildings, so 2 3 presumably department 246 referred to where 2 4 the Aroclors were made. 2 5 Q. The first sentence of the GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 485 HARTOLDMONOO11940 1 memorandum states, "It is the opinion of 2 the medical department that the eating of 3 lunches should not be allowed in this 4 department," meaning the Department 246, 5 Aroclors, "for a number of reasons." Was 6 that your opinion a t that time? 7 A . Well, it shouldn ' t be eaten any 8 place in a chemical plant, that was my 9 opinion, not particularly the Aroclors 1 0 department. 1 1 Q . So, that was your opinion, but 1 2 your opinion was, in fact, broader than 1 3 that? 1 4 A. Well, yes. I believe that it 1 5 shouldn 't be used a t all -- shouldn 't -- 1 6 your workplace should not be your dining 1 7 room. 1 8 Q. Then the number paragraphs 1> begin. Number 1, "Aroclor vapors and other 2 0 process vapors could contaminate the 2 1 lunches unless they were properly 2 2 protected. " How could the vapors 2 3 contaminate the lunches? 2 4 A. You'd have to ask Garrett, 2 5 because I don't believe that. I think Jack GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 486 HARTOLDMONOO11941 1 also recognized that people should not eat 2 in their workplace, and he's going a s far 3 out in left field a s he could possibly go 4 to come up with some reasons to answer 5 workmen ' s complaints who wanted to eat in 6 the lunch room -- I mean, in the 7 workplace. 8 Q . You haven't discussed this 9 memorandum with Mr. Garrett? 1 0 A. No, I haven't. 1 1 Q. Paragraph number 2 says, "When 1 2 working with this material," meaning 1 3 Aroclor, "the chance of contaminating hands 1 4 and subsequently contaminating the food is 1 5 a definite possibility. " Do you agree with 1 6 that? 1 7 A . No, I don't think so. I don't 1 8 agree with that, because I don't b e1 i e v e we 1 9 ever had any area in the plant where there 2 0 was 8 o much Aroclor on the tables o r on the 2 1 pe opl e's hands that would contami n a t e the 2 2 food. And I think the amount -- even i f 2 3 there were. the amount that would b e 2 4 t r a n s ferred from your fin g e r 8 to a ham 2 5 8 a n d w i c h is negligible GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 487 HARTOLDMONOO11942 1 Q. Paragraph 3 begins, "It has long 2 been the opinion of the medical department 3 that eating in process departments is a 4 potential ly hazardous procedure that could 5 lead to serious difficulties." How long 6 had that been the opinion of the medical 7 department? 8 A . I think since the first time I 9 ever walked through a manufacturing 1 0 installation. 1 1 Q. Which i s what, 1 9 3 0 ' s ? 12 A. '37, '38. '37. 1 3 Q. What were the serious 1 4 difficulties that eating in the process 1 5 departments could lead to? 1 6 A. Those are Jack's words. I think 1 7 Jack is s lanting this memorandum to try to 1 8 stop eating in the departments. I mean, 1 9 it's just not a good idea to eat in a 2 9 department where you're manufacturing 2 1 chiiicals. Just like it's not a very good 2 2 idea to eat without washing your hands when 23 you come in from gardening. But if he's 2 4 getting in a n adversary position where the 2 5 union wants to eat a t their work place so GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI 488 HARTOLDMONOO11943 1 they can play cards or something rather 2 than go over to the cafeteria, that's a 3 different problem. 4 Q. Are you aware of some sort of 5 labor problem you were having about people 6 wanting to play cards? 7 A. Sure. Instead of walking over to 8 the cafeteria, sure, they always want to. 9 It happens all the time. 1 0 Q. You're testifying to that as a 1 1 fact which occurred a t Monsanto in or about 1 2 this time period? 1 3 A. It's a fact that had occurred a t 1 4 Monsanto that I know about. I do not know 1 5 the time frame . 1 6 Q. You don't know whether it was 1 7 before or after this memorandum? 1 8 A. It was afterwards -- I mean, it 1 9 certainly was before this. They may still 2 0 have done it afterwards, also. But that 2 1 was a common complaint, that people did not 22 want to go as far over as the cafeteria, or 2 3 the lunch room, they wanted to brown bag it 2 4 and eat a t their workplace. 2 5 Q. And you believed that the purpose GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 489 HARTOLDMONOO11944 1 of this memorandum from Mr. Garrett was to 2 discourage the workers from doing that 3 because of potential health effects? 4 A. Because, potentially, he thought 5 it just was not a good idea. And I don't 6 think he was particularly concerned, 7 certainly I would not be particularly 8 concerned about the possible health effects 9 you would get from eating a ham sandwich or 1 0 a pizza in department 246, because we did 1 1 not have that much material around smeared 1 2 on the -- we didn't have tables in the 1 3 department, anyway, they put their ham 1 4 sandwich on top of a reactor or something. 1 5 It just is not a good idea, we didn't want 16 it . 1 7 Q. Hell, is the first sentence of 1 8 this memorandum a truthful statement or is 19 it a lie? 2 0 MR. COX: I object to the form of 2 1 the question. 2 2 MR . KOHN: Let me finish the 23 question, "It is the opinion of the medical 2 4 department that the eating of lunches 2 5 should not be allowed in this department GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 490 HARTOLDMONOO11945 1 for a number of reasons". 2 MR. HAL IN i I object to the form 3 of the question. 4 MR. KOHN : Is that statement true 5 or is it false? 6 MR. COX: I object to the form of 7 the question. 8 MR. COHEN : We don't have to have 9 this Greek chorus. You asked for a 1 0 stipulation that the objection by one 1 1 enures to the benefit of all, it's not 1 2 necessary for each of you to s ay with a n 1 3 ever more forceful manner that you o b j e c t 1 4 to the form of the question. I n a dd i t ion 1 5 to which. if you're objecting t o the f o r m 1 6 of the question, you should state the 1 7 reason for the objection to the form so the 1 8 question can be restated so as not to be 1 9 objectionable a t the time of hearing. 2 0 MR . COX: There were about six 2 1 questions in that last sequence, and we'll 22 have them one by one, we'll state our 2 3 objections to them one by one. 2 4 MR. M A LIN : That question, first, 2 5 has been asked and it has been answered. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 49 1 HARTOLDMONOO11946 1 He's gone over the reasons for his belief 2 and the medical department ' s belief why 3 people shouldn't eat when they're working 4 in a chemical company, whether they were 5 manufacturing PCB's or aspirin or 6 whatever. In addition to that, there are 7 several -- there is more than one question 8 involved in the question . 9 MR. COX: Moreover, the questions 1 0 are both leading and misleading and contain 1 1 testimony by the questioner . 1 2 A. I can't hear you. 1 3 MR. COX: The questions as put 1 4 are both leading and misleading and contain 1 5 testimony by the questioner. 1 6 MR. COHEN : Are you suggesting 1 7 that we can't lead the witness? 1 8 MR. COX: I'm suggesting that I ' m 1 9 stating my objection for the record. 20 MR . COHEN : All right . So, 2 1 you're not suggesting that we can't lead 2 2 the witness, you're just objecting to 23 leading the witness for whatever reason? 24 MR. KOHN : You can answer. 25 MR . COX: My objection has been GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI 492 HARTOLDMONOO11947 1 stated and my reason for the objection has 2 been stated. 3 MR. M A L IN : If you wish to answer 4 the question again, answer again. 5 A . I'd like to hear the question 6 again, there ' s been a little byplay since 7 it was first proposed. 0 MR. KOHN: I s the statement in 9 the first sentence of Mr. Garrett's 1 0 memorandum, "It is the opinion of the 1 1 medical department that the eating of 1 2 lunches should not be allowed in this 1 3 department for a number of reasons," and 1 4 then he goes on to 1i s t the reasons 1 5 that a true statement o r i s that a 1 6 statement? 1 7 A . I f your q u e s t i o n refers ju s t t o 1 8 the first sentence, i t is true. W h e t h e r 1 9 these r e a sons are t r u e or not is the s econd 2 0 question. 2 1 a. Are the r e a sons true or f a 1 s e ? 2 2 MR . M AL I N : The same objec t i o n . 23 You don't have to ans w e r i n terms of true 2 4 or false. 25 MR . COXs I object, because I GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS, MI SSOUR I 49 3 HARTOLDMONOO11948 1 think the witness has already answered this 2 question and it's being asked in different 3 words . He's given the answer . 4 MR. KOHN: I thought this was a 5 fairly innocuous document until you 6 people -- 7 MR. COX: I object to counsel's 8 comments. 9 (Discussion off the record). 1 0 MR. KOHN: My question, then. Dr. 1 1 Kelly, is, is the representation in Mr. 1 2 Garrett ' s memorandum that these three 1 3 numbered reasons are the opinion of the 1 4 medical department a s to why you should not 1 5 eat lunches in the Aroclor department, is 1 6 that a n accurate representation by Mr. 1 7 Garrett or is it some sort of a 1 8 misrepresentation by him? 1 9 MR . HALIN : Objection to the form 2 0 of that question . You don't have to answer 2 1 in terms of those strict alternatives, you 2 2 answer in terms of what you understand. 23 A. This is Garrett ' s statement, it's 2 4 not the medical department ' s statement. 25 This is Garrett's statement. And in my GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONOO11949 1 opinion, he has exaggerated the possible 2 harm in order to stop the procedure of 3 eating in the workplace, and he has 4 exaggerated the medical possibilities of 5 harm. 6 Q. The last sentence of this 7 memorandum states, "In any case where a 8 workman claimed physical harm from any 9 contaminated food, it would be extremely 1 0 difficult on the basis of past literature 1 1 reports to counter such claims." Do you 1 2 know what type of physical harm from the 1 3 contaminated food Mr. Garrett is referring 14 to? 1 5 A . I haven't the slightest idea what 1 6 he is talking about or any of the basis on 1 7 which he talks , or the basis of past 1 8 literature reports to counter such claims, 19 you'll have to ask Mr. Garrett. 2 0 Q. Have you ever seen any documents 2 1 from any of the individuals to whom this 2 2 memorandum was sent raising any questions 23 or concerns about this memorandum? 2 4 A. No, I have not. 25 Q. Do you know what Mr. Webber ' s GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONOO11950 1 position was with Monsanto a t that time? 2 A . No, I don't. 3 Q . Do you know what Mr. Lieben's 4 position was, L-i-e-b-e-n? 5 A . No, I don't. 6 Q Do you know what Mr. Patrick ' s 7 position was? 8 A . Yes. He was the safety director 9 a t Krummerich plant. 1 0 Q Do you know whether thi s 1 1 memorandum was complied with? 1 2 A . I think it probably -- I can' t 1 3 answer that, but my impress ion is yes. 1 4 Q You believe that it was compl ied 1 5 with? 1 6 A . I believe they st opped the 1 7 process of eating. Whether that complied 1 8 with the memorandum or not. I don ' t know. 1 9 a. Is it the opinion of t h e medical 2 0 departsent that -- or is it your opinion 2 1 that individuals who work with PCB fluids 2 2 in the repair of electrical transformers 2 3 should not eat their lunches in the area in 2 4 which they are working? 2 5 A . You' 11 have to be more specific. GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 496 HARTOLDMONOO11951 1 In the area what do you mean? 2 Q I n a n area in which PCB fluids 3 would come i n contact or have come i n 4 contact? 5 A . Come in c o n t a c t with w h a t ? 6 Q With the floor , with the i r 7 clothing. 8 MR . MAL I N : I object t o the form 9 of that question. It's too vague, not 1 0 specific enough with respect to what may be 1 1 around or with respect to exposure. If 1 2 you'retalking about should people whose 1 3 clothes are soaked with PCB's pick up and 1 4 eat a ham sandwich, I think you can 1 5 probably answer that. 16 MR. KOHNi Why don't you answer 1 7 that? 1 8 A . First of all, they should never 19 have clothes soaked with PCB's. 2 0 Q. Why not? 2 1 A. Because there is a possibility it 2 2 could be absorbed through the skin, and we 2 3 advise against repeated or prolonged skin 2 4 contact . We say if -- in some of our 2 5 bulletins , if clothes are soaked with a GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 497 HARTOLDMONOO11952 1 material, launder before using again. 2 Q . And should you, similarly, not 3 get your hands in contact with the PCS 4 fluid? 5 A. Contact how much? 11 all 6 depends. I said prolonged and repeated . 7 Certainly, if you drop a bolt or a pliers 8 in liquid PCB that is a t room temperature, 9 it will not hurt you to reach in there and 1 0 pick out that pliers, then you wash your 1 1 hands and that's fine, nothing's happened. 1 2 But you shouldn ' t do that all day. 1 3 Q . You shouldn't do it several times 1 4 every day over the period of -- 1 5 A. No, you shouldn't do it s e v e r a 1 1 6 times every day. I n fact, you shouldn't d o 1 7 it once, but i t will not hurt you if you d o 18 it once. I don't know how often you have 19 to doit before you get chloracne. 2 0 Q . Didn't you, by you I mean you 21 personally, believe at least a s early a s 22 1958 that Monsanto should provide 23 additional warnings with respect to its 24 Aroclor products? 25 MR. MALINj I object to that GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 498 HARTOLDMONOO11953 1 question as, again, too vague to be 2 answered in a meaningful way. If you think 3 you understand or can refer to something. 4 Doctor, go ahead. 5 A . I don't unders tand it, because 6 all the time -- all the period that I was 7 responsible for warnings, I thought our 8 warnings were sufficient to protect the 9 workers and customers and their workers if 1 0 they followed the procedures of avoiding 1 1 repeated skin contact and avoid breathing 1 2 the material in confined spaces or a t 1 3 elevated temperatures, they would have no 1 4 problem. 1 5 Q. Well, did there come a point, 1 6 then, in the 1 9 5 0 's when it came to your 1 7 attention that there was not a warning on 1 8 either the Pyranol or Inerteen products 19 which you were selling? 20 A . I don't recall . Do you have a 2 1 memorandum there? Show it t o me and I'll 2 2 be able to comment on it. 23 Q. I know what the document says, 2 4 I'm trying to get your recollection. 25 A . Beg your pardon? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 499 HARTOLDMONOO11954 1 Q . I know what the document says, 2 I'm trying to get your recollection. Do 3 you r e c a 11 it coming to your attention that 4 there was not a warning on the P y r a n o 1 or 5 Inerteen product and that you thought, 6 strictly speaking, there should be such a 7 warning? 8 A. I don't know if your first 9 premise is true. I don't know. 1 0 Q . Let me ask the reporter to mark 1 1 a s Exhibit 21 a letter from Dr. Kelly and a 1 2 Mr . Minteer to D.F. Smith, December 19, 1 3 1958, Re, labeling Pydrauls. This is the 1 4 only copy we have. 1 5 (Kelly Deposition Exhibit Number 1 6 21 mark'd for identification)? 1 7 MR. KOHN t I place before you 1 8 what i s marked a s Exhibit 21 . Take a 1 9 moment to read that. 2 0 (Discussion off the record). 2 1 MR. KOHN i You've had a chance to 2 2 read the exhibit? 2 3 A. Yes, I have. 2 4 Q. Do you recognize your signature 2 5 on the second page of the exhibit? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONOO11955 1 A . Yes f I do . 2 Q. Do you recall sending that letter 3 in December of 1958? 4 A . I have no independent 5 recollection until I saw this. 6 Q. Does that refresh your 7 recollection that you sent that letter? 8 A . I still don't remember about 9 sending it, but I accept the fact that I 1 0 sent it. 1 1 Q. Does that refresh your 1 2 recollection with respect to a discussion 1 3 about the appropriateness of putting a 1 4 cautionary label on the Pyra no 1 and 1 5 Inerteen products ? 1 6 A. Well, did it do what? 1 7 Q. Does it refresh your recollection 1 8 with respect to that subject being 1 9 discussed a t Monsanto? 2 0 A. I don't remember too much about 2 1 any particular meeting, but I think 2 2 something needs explaining. I do not know 23 if there were -- there was any type of 2 4 safe handling data on the label without the 25 word caution . I also know that Pyranol, GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONOO11956 1 which is the General Electric formulation 2 of Aroclor, and Inerteen, which is the 3 proprietary name for the Westinghouse 4 product, both go to very sophisticated 5 organizations, and in the case of 6 Westinghouse they have carried out 7 toxicological experiments on their 8 Inerteen, so we are talking here about 9 something unusual, this is not a mom and 1 0 pop shop, this material is going to people 1 1 who have had years of experience with the 1 2 material, they ha v e received all our 1 3 bulletins which do contain the warnings . 1 4 Whether or not -- I do not know what the 1 5 label -- a t this point in time what the 1 6 label before December 19 , 1958 showed . And 1 7 I said, I think, it would be wise to have 1 8 one on there . Whether or not it's 1 9 absolutely necessary I was somewhat 2 0 equivocal on, but I do not know what was on 2 1 the label before. 2 2 Q , Your letter says, "Strictly 2 3 speaking, it would be wise to have a 24 caution label on these products. However, 25 we have never had such a caution statement GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI 502 HARTOLDMONOO11957 1 during the many years of their manufacture, 2 and it would very probably cause 3 considerable unrest in the trans former 4 plants. " Why did you believe that in 1958 5 it, quote, would be wise, close quote, to 6 have a caution label on these products ? 7 A. Well, I believe because suppose 8 the material were damaged in traffic, 9 suppose we had a 5 5 gallon drum and they 1 0 had a n 18 Wheeler filled with 5 5 gallon 1 1 drums and there was a wreck and the stuff 1 2 spilled out and there was no caution label 1 3 on it, I think that would be bad. 1 4 Q . Some people might get exposed to 1 5 it that you wouldn't want to be exposed to 1 6 it? 1 7 A. We'd want them to know something 1 8 about it. 1 9 Q. Now, your letter also says, "We 2 0 have never had such a caution statement 2 1 during the many years of their 2 2 manufacture." Does that refresh your 23 recollection that a s of December 19, 1958 24 you had never had a caution statement on 25 those products? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 503 HARTOLDMONOO11958 1 A . No, it does not, because, as I 2 said, now, I don't know what kind of a 3 statement -- if we had anything on there a s 4 far as health effects are concerned, I 5 don't know. 6 Q. You might have written a letter 7 saying we have never had such a statement 8 and that statement might have been 9 incorrect? 1 0 A . I don't know if a t that time it 1 1 was, I was referring to the fact that the 1 2 word caution may or may not be on there. 1 3 There is a difference between putting on 1 4 caution in large letters and then putting 1 5 on the information you mean or just putting 1 6 the information on, "Don ' t get this on your 1 7 hands," "Don't breathe this in a confined 1 8 space". 1 9 Q. Then the same sentence continues, 2 0 "And it would very probably cause 2 1 considerable unrest in the trans former 2 2 plants. " That is, the fixation of the 2 3 caution s tatement. Why did you believe a t 24 that time it would cause cons iderable 25 unrest in the trans former plants ? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 504 HARTOLDMONOO11959 1 A . Well r I would think that if 2 people were getting -- using the same 3 material all the time and the label has 4 been changed, the worker might very well 5 say what's on here, is this stuff I've been 6 working with for 2 0 years really bad or 7 have they changed the mixture, what have 8 they done here? 9 Q. So, in other words, it might 1 0 prompt the worker who has to work with this 1 1 stuff every day to ask some questions about 1 2 what affect it might be having on his 1 3 health? 1 4 A . Yes, it might very well. 1 5 Q . You didn't want that to happen 16 out of concern for your customer, General 1 7 Electri c ? 1 8 MR . MALINt I object to the form 1 9 of the question. 20 A . Yes. What was that ques t i o n ? 21 MR . KOHN : But you did n' t want 22 the worker to ask any questions about 23 potential health affects of this product? 24 MR . MALIN : Objection. I object 25 to the form of the question, that GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 505 HARTOLDMONOO11960 1 mi scharacterizes both what he said and what 2 this says. 3 A . I wanted the workers to get the 4 information to protect their own health a t 5 Westinghouse and G E from the people who 6 were using it a t Westinghouse and GE. 7 Q. I f they worked for Westinghouse 8 and GE, it was Westinghouse and G E ' s 9 headache? 1 0 A. We tell Westinghouse and GE all 1 1 w e know a bout the product, we do not k n o w 1 2 how i t w a s used in Westinghouse and GE . A s 1 3 far a s w e knew. there may be no exposur e a t 1 4 all in those plants. It's their 1 5 respsonsibility. 1 6 Q. Now, moving ahead about ten years 1 7 to the ' 60 ' s after the Jensen information 1 8 came to light, I believe you indicated that 1 9 the cdipany, Monsanto, embarked on a v> 2 0 program to notify its customers about 2 1 preventing PCB contamination? 2 2 A. 0 f the environment , yes. 23 Q. And you believe that was done in 2 4 the 1960's, the notification to customers? 2 5 A. I would think it was the late GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONOO11961 1 '60's, yes. 2 Q. Could it have been that in the 3 1970's you were suggesting that it was time 4 to tell the customers not to use any 5 Aroclor in certain products ? 6 A. Well, that's a n entirely 7 different statement . In one place we're 8 telling the people don't spill it around; 9 the other time, the second premise was 1 0 we're telling them not to use it in these 1 1 applications. 1 2 Q. What is your recollection as to 1 3 the first time that Monsanto began to tell 1 4 its customers not to use Aroclor paint that 1 5 comes in contact with food. with feed. with 1 6 water for either animals o r humans? 1 7 A. Give me these one a t a time, now, 1 8 one question a t a time. Peed, water, 1 9 animals? 20 Q. When did you tell your customers 21 not to have a n A r o c lor product come in 22 contact with either food, feed or water for 2 3 animals or humans? 2 4 A. For animal use? 25 Q. Animals or humans ? GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 507 HARTOLDMONOO11962 1 MR . MAL I N : A s best you can 2 recall. Doctor. 3 A . I can't hear you. 4 MR. MALIN: As best you can 5 recall. 6 A . When was the first time we told 7 our customers not to have Aroclors come in 8 contact with food? 9 MR. KOHN: Food or water for 1 0 either animal or human ingestion. 1 1 A . A s far a s we were concerned, we 1 2 always operated on the principle that this 1 3 industrial chemical was not to come in 1 4 contact with food, so I don't recall any 1 5 particular memorandum we sent out saying 1 6 don't let this get into flour, don't let 1 7 this spill over bread . Is that what you're 1 8 talking about? 19 (Discussion off the record). 2 0 MR. KOHN: Let me ask you another 2 1 question. Do you recall that the Aroclor 2 2 products were used in certain paint 23 products? 2 4 A . Yes. 25 Q. Did there come a point in time GORE R EPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS , MISSOURI 508 HARTOLDMONOO11963 1 when you advised customers who used those 2 paint products not to let the paint come in 3 contact with food? 4 A . Animal food, yes. 5 Q . Do you recall what point in time 6 you s o advised your clients? 7 A . I think sometime in the '6 0 ' s . I 8 don't know the particular time in that 9 decade. It was used in only one 1 0 application in silos where it came in 1 1 contact with animal food. 1 2 Q . Isn't it true that you were still 1 3 discussing whether or not you should notify 1 4 customers of this situation in 1970? 1 5 MR. MALINs I'll object to the 1 6 form of that question. I don't understand 17 it. 1 8 A . What situation? 1 9 MR. KOHN : The fact that paints 20 containing Aroclors were coming in contact 2 1 with food products. 22 A. Well, I don't know if we really 23 knew that the material that was painted on 24 the inside of a silo would flake off and 2 5 get into the silage . So, when we found out GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI 509 HARTOLDMONOO11964 1 it did, that's when we told them not to use 2 paint in silos . I don't know what date 3 that was. 4 MR. KOHN: I'd ask the reporter 5 to mark a s the ina 1 exhibit for today a 6 memorandum from Dr. Kelly to Mr. 7 Papageorge, March 30, 1970. 8 (Kelly Deposition Exhibit Number 9 2 2 mark'd for identification) . 1 0 A . Well, this i s a memorandum of 1 1 mine t o Mr . Papageorge, dated March 30, 1 2 1 9 7 0 , with two notations on the bottom; one 1 3 0 0 3 7 7 / the other -- 1 4 MR . KOHN i 3 3 7 , I believe. 1 5 A . 337. And the other, A 0 0 0 9 4 3 1 . 1 6 It's now got another notation, Kelly 1 7 Exhibit 2 2. 1 8 MR. KOHN: Do you recall sending 1 9 this memo randua to Mr. Papageorge in March 2 0 lc 1*70? 2 1 A. I don't recall the date, but I 2 2 recall that they had problems with the 23 material getting into milk from painting 2 4 silos, y e 8. 2 5 Q. Getting into the feed, into the GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 51 0 HARTOLDMONOO11965 1 cows and into the cow's milk? 2 A . That's correct . 3 Q . And then you state in this 4 memorandum, "All in all, this could be 5 quite a serious problem, having legal and 6 publicity overtones . " What legal overtones 7 did you see this problem having? 8 A . I think the person who had the 9 milk that had PCB in would sue us and say 1 0 we can't use the milk. 1 1 Q. Not fit for consumption when it 1 2 has the PCB's? 1 3 A . The State Department will make us 1 4 spill it on the ground because it's 1 5 contaminated. 16 Q, What were the publicity overtones 1 7 that you foresaw? 1 8 A . Well, I think if a bunch of 1 9 people were suing Monsanto, that would get 2 0 into the papers, and that's publicity that 21 i would just a s soon do without. 2 2 Q. And was the legal and publicity 2 3 problems of the company within the scope of 2 4 your duties and responsibilities as medical 2 5 director? GORE REPORT!,NG COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 5 11 HARTOLDMONOO11966 1 MR . MALIN : I object to the form 2 of that question. 3 A. They weren't the -- under my 4 responsibility, but I was -- just a s a 5 concerned employee of Monsanto, a s a 6 concerned shareholder, I was saying this is 7 a s erious problem, having these overtones 8 that we'd just a s soon not have, rather not 9 have. 1 0 MR. KOHNs Why don't we break for 1 1 today . Thank you. Doctor, for your time 1 2 over the last two days. 1 3 (Deposition Adjourned) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 5 12 HARTOLDMONOO11967 1 COMES NON THE WITNESS, R. EMMET 2 KELLY, and having read the foregoing 3 transcript of the deposition taken on the 4 11th and 12th days of December, 1990, 5 acknowledges by s ignature hereto that it is 6 a true and accurate transcript of the 7 tes timony given on the date hereinabove 8 mentioned. 9 10 11 1 2 R. EMMET KELLY 1 3 Subscribed and sworn to me before this 1 4 day of _, 19 9 1 1 5 My Commission expires: NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MISSOURI 1 6 ST. LOUIS COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXP. JAN. 15.1Q9S 17 18 19 20 Notary Public 21 22 23 24 rg 25 GORE REPORTING COMPANY > ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 5 13 HARTOLDMONOO11968 1 State of Missouri 2 ) ) SS . 3 City of St. Louis ) 4 I, Ronald A. Gore, a Notary Public 5 in and for the State of Missouri, duly 6 commissioned, qualified and authorized to 7 administer oaths and to certify to 8 depos it ions, do hereby certify that 9 pursuant to Notice in the civil cause now 1 0 pending and undetermined in the Court of 1 1 Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, to be 1 2 used in the trial of said cause in said 1 3 court, I was attended a t the offices of 1 4 Brown, James & Rabbitt, 705 Olive Street, 1 5 in the City of St. Louis, State of 1 6 Missouri, by the aforesaid witness ; and by 1 7 the aforesai d attorneys; on the 11th and 1 8 12th days of December, 1990 1 9 The said witness. being of sound 20 sind and b e i ng by me first carefully 2 1 examined and duly cautioned and sworn to 2 2 testify the truth , the whole truth. and 23 nothing but the truth in the case 2 4 aforesaid, thereupon testified as is shown 2 5 in the foregoing transcript, said testimony GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 5 14 HARTOLDMONO011969 1 being by me reported in shorthand and 2 caused to be transcribed into typewriting, 3 and that the foregoing pages correctly set 4 forth the testimony of the aforementioned 5 witness, together with the questions 6 propounded by counsel and remarks and 7 objections of counsel thereto, and is in 8 all respects a full, true, correct and 9 complete transcript of the questions 1 0 propounded to and the answers given by said 1 1 witness ; that signature of the deponent was 1 2 not waived by agreement of counsel. 1 3 I further certify that I a m not of 1 4 counsel or attorney for either of the 1 5 parties to said suit, not related to nor 1 6 interested in any of the parties or their 1 7 attorneys. 1 8 Witness ay hand and notarial seal 19 a t St. Louis , Missouri , this *1 / day of 28 199 1. 2 1 My Coisis sion 19 9 4 22 2 3 Notary Public in and for the 2 4 State of Missouri 25 GORE REPORTING COMPANY ST. LOUIS, MISSOUR I 515 HARTOLDMONOO11970