Document RJe9y3qmK5pXp0JzwrVoD8Qb7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 -r* ri IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION THE CITY OF BLOONIHGTON, INDIANA? ) THE UTILITIES SERVICE BOARD OF ) BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA; and MONROE ) COUNTY, INDIANA, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs . ) :, ) :) WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,) a Pennsylvania corporation; and ) HO NS AH TO COMPANY, a Delav/are ) corporation, * ) j) ____Li__ _____________________________________ ____ i ` Civ No. I? G3-9-C The continued deposition of T7. B. PAPAGEORGE, called for examination by the Plaintiffs, pursuant to notice and pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the United States District Courts, pertaining to the taking of depositions for the purpose of discovery, taken before Arnold N. Goldstine, a Notary Public and Certified Shorthand Reporter v/ithin and for the County of Cook and State of Illinois, at 1312 Merchants Bank 3uilding, Indianapolis, Indiana, commencing on June 26, 1906, at the hour of nine o'clock a.m. . Lon go ria & Goldstine i nRn r~ ~ WATER PCB-SD0000035593 APPEARANCES: Mr. James G. McConnell Bell, Boyd & Lloyd Three First National Plasa 70 West Madison Street Suite 3200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 -and- Mr. Geoffrey M. Grodner Law Offices of Geoffrey M. One City Centre Suite 100 Bloomington, Indiana 47401 Grodner : appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs; {. f . Hr. Michael R. Fruehwald Barnes & Thornburg 11313 Merchants Bank Building Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 ! appeared on behalf of Defendant : Monsanto Company. WATER PCB-SD0000035594 1 INDE 2 WILLIAK 13. PAPAGEORGE 3 Continued Direct Examination By Mr. McConnell 4 EXHIB I 5 ; JUSJfliDSi3J)_J?PS5i.fcisn_.te.5-. 6 i .* ; ' ' ! ; 137 . 7 138 139 8 : ; 140 1 141 9 142 . j 143 * 10 ! ' 144 ! : 145 11 1 ;! 146 ' ; 147 12 : 148 149 13 150 - 151 and 152............................................... 14 153 154 15 155 156 16 Group 157 158 17 15 9 16 0 ' 18 161 162 19 163 164 20 21 22 23 24 29 Or* 291 309 319 326 323 336 33 9 3 40 352 354 360 364 373 375 37 8 3 30 3 03 3 05 3 38 3 09 391 392 3 97 393 393 401 403 292 WATER PCB-SD0000035595 293 1 MR. MC CONNELL: Rack on the record. 2 This is the resumption of the deposition 3 of Mr. Papageorge. 4 17. B. PAPAGEORGE, 5 ! having been previously duly sworn, 6 was examined and testified as follows: 7 DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) 8 BY MR. MC CONNELL: 9 Q. And you recognize that you are still 10 under oath? 11 A. I do. 12 Q. Okay. 13 Mr. Fruehwald has produced the 1970 Dress 14 release that Mr. Kafagahis" requested yesterday 15 consisting of four pages. 17hy don't we mark this t 16 as the next exhibit, 137. .17 . (The document above-referred to 18 : was marked Bloomington Deposition 19 Exhibit No. 137 for identification.) 20 V7ould you take a look at the press 21 release the court reporter has marked as Exhibit 22 137, Mr. Papageorge. I will ask you if you 23 recognize that? 24 A. I do recognize it. Longoria Golastine 236 1330 Clicaao : WATER PCB-SD0000035596 294 1 Q. Okay. 2 The date it bears is July 1970. Do you 3 have any recollection of July 16? 4 A. There is a July 16 date also. 5 Q. Okay. 6 Was this press release issued by Monsanto 7 on or about the 16th of July 1970? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. . 10 ' ; The first statement in the press, release 11 is that Monsanto is the sole US producer of 12 polychlorinated biphenyls. 13 ; You mentioned yesterday that you did some 14 investigation to determine whether or noc it could 15 be established that there had been one or two 16 other producers in this country at one tine. 17 Do you recall whether this press release 18 was issued before or after that inconclusive 19 investigation that you mentioned yesterday? 20 A. Before. 21 0. Before. Okay. 22 : ! The action that is referred to in the 23 quotei attributed to Mr. Minckler in the second 24 paragraph, unilateral action to restrict its use. : T.nnn'rtria C. nnl n 1 n r\ '' WATER PCB-SD0000035597 ./ Zj 1 Does that refer to the discontinuance- c: 2 sales to the plasticizer users and the hydraulic 3 fluid users? A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. 6 ; . So that action was taken at sometime ; $ . 7 befo' rfe this press release was issued? 3 A. Yes. 9 Q. Looking at the second page, there is a 10 reference in the first paragraph to a recent :r ' _ 11 report that peb can induce birth defects in 12 animals. 13 Do you know specifically what that refers 14 to? 15 A. Primarily the work of Dr. Risebrough in 16 California, with the inability of bird's eggs to 17 ha.tch and with soft shells and other defects. 18 Q. Do you know whether as of July 15, 1971, 19 Monsanto had undertaken any studies in bird 20 species to test the information that was reported 21 by Dr;. Risebrough? 22 A. Yes. 23 0. Do you know what the results of those 24 studies were? Longoria & Goldstine 236 imn c------WATER PCB-SD0000035598 29 5 1 A. I remember most of them, 2 Q. Okay. 3 What is your recollection? 4 A. There were three of the Arcclors testae. 5 Aroclor 1242, Aroclor 1254 and Aroclor 1250. 6 ; The animals that were used in the tests ' { . 7 were rats, dogs and chickens. The levels of ' ;: f 3 exposure as I recall were, I am not real certain 9 anymore, ten,, a hundred and a thousand parts cor 10 ;million. There was a range of exposures. 11 : As far as the rats were concerned, and 12 the dogs, the livers were larger in the exposed 13 animals than in the control animals, the 14 unexposed. The weight gain at the higher level:: 15 of exposure -- the v; eight gain of the expo sec- 15 animals was not as large as those, the weight 17 gained by the unexposed. 18 For the chickens there was a reproduction 19 problem observed at low levels of exposure of the 20 Aroclor 1242. '' ' '! 21 . i The tests were repeated and it was 22 established at about 3 parts per million and 23 above, t.he chickens would lay thin egg shelled 24 eggs and the eg*gs would not hatch as well as these f.^nnnr i a . n 1 ^rvi a ^ in n WATER PCB-SD0000035599 2.07 1 of the control animals. 2 And the dogs as I remember, they 3 exhibited a gastric irritation. Their stomach anu 4 intestines were affected by the exposure of :he 5 jhigh levels of the higher chlorinated pcb's. 6 . Q. All right. 7 A. That is all I recall at the moment. 8 Q. F7e will go into some of those reports in 9 more detail later. I was just interested in the 10 reference here to birth defects. 11 Monsanto tested that in its chicken 12 studies, at least as a test having what Dr. 13 Risebrough had reported? 14 A. That is correct. 15 Q. Looking at page 3 of the Exhibit 137, in 16 the: second paragraph on the page, there is a 17 statement again in quotation attributed to fir. 18 : Minckiler. And I will read it in to the record. , : i 19 It says, quote: 20 "With rigid control 21 over where the product goes, 22 how it is handled and disposed 23 of, we believe the safety 24 function of the product can T.nnnrtn* a f. finl 1A A WATER PCB-SD0000035600 29 3 1 continue to serve society and 2 the environment can be 3 protected." 4 And it says, Minckler said. 5 I take it the product that is referred, to 6 in that quotation is the pcb's manufactured by 7 Monsanto? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. 10 Was this statement that I just read that 11 is attributed to Mr. flinckler in Exhibit 137 a 12 statement.of Monsanto's corporate policy with' 13 respect to the sale of pcb's? 14 A. I don't know that I would call it a 15 policy, so much as a conclusion arrived at from 16 knowing the application, knowing the product and 17 knowing the need for the product. 18 Q. Would it be accurate to say that this 19 represents a statement of Monsanto's intention 20 that such rigid control be exercised? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. 23 , Do you know if there was a specific story 24 or incident that this press release was issued in ! :i : Longoria & Goldstine 236 1 030 WATER PCB-SD0000035601 response to? A. this. I don't recall any article that triggered It followed the corporate committee's approval of the restricted sales plan which was made in May. I just don't recall any specific article or incident other than the approval of the plan that triggered this. Q. Okay. . You don't recall it being in response to interview or a press conference of Congressman Ryan? A. Congressman Ryan had been critical of Monsanto almost on a regular basis. I don't know that ;there was any particular action on his part that triggered this particular release. . Q. The reason I ask that, there is a reference in the first paragraph on the first page to recent political charges. Was there any other politician other than Congressman Ryan that was critical of Monsanto? A. Ho. . Q. All right. ' When you became involved in the beginning 'I ;4 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000035602 300 1 of 1970 with the coordination of Monsanto's 2 efforts to control the release of pcb's into the 3 environment, did somebody bring you up to date on 4 the history of what had been done before? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Was that one person or more than one 7 person? 8 A. Several people. 9 . Q. Okay. . 10 Was that done by memorandum of seme sort 11 or in a series of meetings? 12 A. It was a series of one-on-one 13 discussions. 14 Q. Okay. ................... 15 Who did you talk to? 16 A. I talked to Dr. Kelly, Wheeler, Dr. 17 Richard, Mr. Bergen, Mr. S p rin g g a t e, Mr. 3 e nig n u s , 18 Mr. Johnson, Dr. Paton, Mr. Fallon, Dr. Keller, 19 Dr. Munch, Randy Graham, James Bryant. I believe 20 that is it. 21 Q. In other words, when you took over that j 22 responsibility or assumed that responsibility, I 23 guess there was was no one individual oh at had it ' . * 24 before you did,, is that an accurate statement? Longoria S Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000035603 3C1 1 A. That is true. 2 0. You wanted to talk to everybody who dealt 3 with the problem in some way before to find out 4 what the present situation was? 5 =l 'i 6i :I 7. .1 A. '| i That is correct. Q. Okay. :j . . That would be the first thing to dc in ;\ 8 coordinating would be to find out where everybody 9 is right now, is that essentially what you were 10 trying to do? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. 13 And I take it that you asked each cf the 14 people you have listed"to keep you advised of any 15 additional contacts they had with customers or 16 regulatory agencies or the press that concerned 17 pc.b' s? 18 ' A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. 20 And did they to that? . 21 A. As best they could. Yes. 22 O. Okay. 23 Can you just briefly summarize the -- 24 this may be in what you testified to yesterday -- Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicm,WATER PCB-SD0000035604 3 02 1 Dr. Kelly and Kr. Wheeler and the medical 2 department people were primarily involved in che 3 medical studies and animal studies that were being 4 conducted by the company? 5 A. Primarily. No. They were involved in 6 many things. . 7 Q. Their involvement in pcb's wan in that O M portion of it, is that accurate? 9 A. They, were the principal individuals 10 involved in those studies, yes. 11 Q. Okay. 12 And the people that were in the marketing ' . 13 department were the ones with the primary 14 responsibility for customer communication; is chat 15 i correct? 16 A. Yes. i 17 Q. Who was it that was primarily responsible 10 for dealing with the press in connection with 19 pcb1s? 20 A. Initially it was Mr. John. 21 Q. Okay. 22 A. There were other individuals in there for 23 short periods of time. I have forgotten their 24 names. Then finally by 1974 or so, it w r. s Mr. Dan | Loncoria & Goldshi no o n imn r- - -------WATER PCB-SD0000035605 303 1 Bishop. 2 Q. Was he in the public relations 3 department? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. That is in St. Louis? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Now, I notice that the press release chat 8 we just marked as Exhibit 137, most of tho 9 quotations were attributed to Mr. Mir.cklor. 10 : 1 I take it that release would have been :i . 11 prepared by the public relations department in ~t. 12 Louis? 13 , A. They were the editor's authors, yes. 14 Q. Okay. 15 So it was up to them to determine to whom 16 statements of that nature should be attributed? 17 . A. I don't know that take they made that 18 decision. I don't know who made it. Hut I would 19 be surprised if they made it. 20 Q. Let me ask the question in a bit of a 21 different way. 22 : If a newspaper reporter received Exhibit 23 137 and saw the quotations in there attributed tc 24 Howard Hinckler* and called Howard Minckler for an Lonaorla fjnlricH O ^C 1 A n WATER PCB-SD0000035606 7 -) A. 1 interview, what would happen, what would the 2 company's response or Mr. Minckler's response be , 3 according to company procedure? 4 A* Well, this varies from individual to 5 individual. I can only speculate with what lit. . 6 Minckler would have done. 7 ; He would have -- knowing the na.n he would 8 have;made himself available but he would have 9 asked Mr. John to join him in the discussion. 10 Q. Okay. 11 So it was a coordinated effort between 12 the individual who was responsible for the product 13 and the public relations people? 14 A. Yes. Public relations is a staff 15 department supplying people like Hr. Minckler with 16 services. 17 Q. I understand. 18 I ; And presumably after you became .i 19 responsible for coordinating the peb efforts in i .. 20 1970 ,j those two, Mr. Minckler and the public 21 relations people, would have advised you of any 22 press, contact that came from the outside to Mr. 23 Mine kler ? 24 A. Yes. T./Min/M-ia r r* l ^ i. f --` ^ ~~ ~ WATER PCB-SD0000035607 Q. Do you know if there was any such folic*.; up in response to this particular release that has been marked as 137? A. I am aware of follow up from different newspapers, journals and individuals. I don'c recall the specifics they wanted details, clarifications. Q. Specifically, was there any request that you can recall for detailed information about what is referred to on page 2 as comprehensive tonicity study sponsored by Monsanto? A. I don't recall that as a specific request. Q. Okay. Was the medical department responsible for communicating the results of Monsanto's toxicity studies to the various federal agencies? Ai. Yes. Q. Okay. And to my knowledge there were at least three federal agencies that were concurrently concerned with this. That is the Food and "rug Administration, the National Institute of Occupational Sa*faty and Health, and the Lonaor ia & fiol r)<?f i no ^1------WATER PCB-SD0000035608 306 1 Enviroilmental Protection Agency. 2 Were there any others? 3 A. It depends on what point in tine. 4 Some of those organizations were still 5 being formed in early 1970. The Department of 6 Agriculture was concerned at one time early on. 7 iThe EPA also had an interest. 8 Q. Right. I mentioned the Environmental o Protection Agency. . 10 A. The Environmental Protection 11 Administration -- Agency. The National Institute 12 of Environmental Health Sciences. I believe that 13 is a part of the National Science, Academy of 14 Science. 15 O. Okay. 16 A. The Center for Disease Control, which is 17 probably NIOSH in your comments. 18 ; Q. It is hard sometimes to keep track of v/ho 19 is connected to whom. . 20 Ai. I understand. The wildlife people. : i. 21 i. Q. Fish and Wildlife Service? 22 Ai. Fish and Wildlife. There vzas a 23 laboratory in Maryland, wildlife research 24 laboratory, they were very interested. The fish. Longoria & Goldstine inan nui-------WATER PCB-SD0000035609 307 1 pesticide laboratory in Columbia, Missouri. 2 Q. Is that part of the Department of 3 Agriculture? 4 A. At that time I believe it v/as. Ic was 5 pesticide oriented. <5 : There is a laboratory down in Gulf 7 Breeze, Florida, a government laboratory, that was a interested. That represented the commercial 9 fisheries, which I believe is part of the 10 Department of Commerce, I am not certain. ii Q. Okay. 12 The Department of Agriculture interest in 13 pesticides, did that result from the chemical 14 relatedness of peb's to DDT or did it result 15 because peb's were used in some way in pesticide 16 applications? . 17 A. I suspect both. 13 : Q. Okay. 19 Were peb's used in pesticides? 20 A. There was at one point in time a 21 Department of Agriculture report on a study made 22 by someone for them. I believe it was made by 23 their own people in Beltsville, Maryland in which 24 they used peb's* in a pesticide formula, for use -- T.nnnnr i a r. n. l A ~ *. i - - '**' ' ~ ~ `` WATER PCB-SD0000035610 303 1 for indoor use for crawling insects to paint or 2 spray or apply to shelving and the like, where the 3 active ingredient would be effective longer 4 because pcb's were present. 5; ;i That was a permitted or a registered .' . ' . {\ - ; - . i,t* . ' - - 6 formulation approved by the pesticide regulators 7 who at that time were under the Department of 8 Agriculture, before SPA took over that function. 9 Q. Was that a yse that was known to Monsanto 10 before the government told you about it? 11 * A. We found out about it. Let's see, how 12 did we. I don't recall. Someone informed Dr. 13 Kelly that the Department of Agriculture had made 14 this research and approved this use. 15 Dr. Kelly's department looked into it and 16 sure enough found reports and eventually Dr. Kelly- 17 wrote to someonein the Department ofAgriculture 18 recommending that that use notbe permitted any 19 longer. 20 Q. That was not a use I take it that had 21 been promoted by Monsanto? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Unlike the hydraulic fluids and the 24 electrical industry use? Lonaoria & oik. imn nu WATER PCB-SD0000035611 309 1 A. Hydraulic fluids was promoted by 2 Monsanto. 3 Q. Right. 4 A. The electrical use was promoted by 5 electrical equipment manufacturers. 6 Q. Would you mark this as 138, please 7 (The document above-referred o u was marked Bloomington Deposi o i < Q Exhibit Mo. 138 for identific ion .) 10 Would you take a look at the docum 11 that's been marked as Exhibit 138 which for t n. 12 record is a memorandum dated March 23, 1970 to :r . 13 Wheeler or Mr. Wheeler, I guess it is, from 14 A. From Mr. Garrett. 15 q. From Mr. Garrett. 16 Do you recall receiving a copy of than? 17 . A. Yes. 18 Q. And that refers to a meeting of some 19 scientists and others in Duluth, Minnesota; is 20 that correct? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. Were you aware that Mr. Garrett was going 23 to attend that meeting before that meeting took 24 place? . T. An n a r i a t ^Al^e44wa G. 1 A O A n-- WATER PCB-SD0000035612 310 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And how did he come to be invited to the 3 meeting, if you know? 4 A. Prom previous contact with Dr. ilcunt. I 5 think the- working relationship had been 6 ' established between Mr. Garrett and Dr. Mount. 7 Q. Okay. 8 What does the last statement in the lest 9 sentence on the first page mean to you, the thanks .: ? ` 10 ;Monsanto received at times was embarrassina? : j} " 11 A. I guess that was Mr. Garrett's reaction 12 to the many thanks that we, Monsanto ! .' i ! -. . '' 1 :; J 13 representatives at that meeting, kept getting all ' ; 1 14 ;day and the evening dinner that we had with the ; 15 attendees of that session. 16 Q. Okay. ! 17 Did you go to that meeting or that. , 18 session yourself? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Who else besides you and Mr. Garrets? 21 A. Dr. Eeller. i 22 Q. Okay. 23 What was the subject of the meeting? r 24 A. It was* the presence of peb's in the 1 . . . :r ' Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chirsnn WATER PCB-SD0000035613 311 1 environment and, more specifically from Dr. 2 Mount's viewpoint is analytical methods that could 3 be applied to water species. 4 Q. To analyze their tissues foe the presence 5 of peb's? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. 8 : There had been some controversy in the 9 late ^sixties,. I take.it, when the presence cf . .i 10 peb's in wildlife tissues was first reported about i . 11 whether the analytical methods then in use were 12 sufficient to distinguish between peb's and other 13 materials. Do you recall that? 14 A. Yes. That is correct. 15 O. And is it accurate to state that as the 15 manufacturer of peb's in the United States, 17 Monsanto was in the best position to malic 18 available appropriate analytical techniques to 19 other researchers? 20 A. Eventually we were in the best position. 21 We had to.work at it. 22 O. Okay. 23 ; Would it be accurate to say that when the 24 problem first c*ame to light, Monsanto analysts I.onnori a * flnldsl-ino " WATER_PCB-SD0000035614 312 1 were among the few who knew what the chemical 2 fingerprints of its products were? 3 A.. Yes. 4 But it took a few month after we first 5 heard of it to go to our laboratory, get the right 6 equipment assembled, work with several approaches 7 and find the best one and then confirm the 8 results. That took a few months. 9 Q. Okay. . 10 ; In other words, looking for pcb's in 11 samples of animal tissue requires a different 12 analytical approach than quality control in the 13 production process, is that an accurate statement? 14 A. Exactly. 15 Q. So you have to develop techniques to 16 detect smaller amounts of the material? 17 A. Yes. In the presence of interfering 18 materials. 19 Q. Of other? 20 A. Other unknowns, 21 d. Right. ! .i i} * 22 ' : And of the chemical components of the ij 23 animal tissues themselves? i 24 . A. That's right. Longoria & Golds tine 23 6 10 3 0 WATER PCB-SD0000035615 313 1 Q. Okay. 2 What is the technique that was ultimately 3 developed for this kind of pcb analysis of animal 4 tissues? 5 A. It involved an extraction process, 6 whereby the chemical of interest tc the analyst is 7 concentrated in a solvent, and in Monsanto's O tJ process we recommended hexane as the extractant. o Depending op the type of material used, 10 there has to be some preparation of the sample n initially. For example, putting it in an 12 osterizer. 13 Q. To chop it up? 14 A. To chop it up and make it as small a 15 particle as possible. Then there are a specific 16 number of extraction steps that are mace. From 17 experience we have learned that if you do sc man" 18 you aire going to get over 90 percent of the 19 material. I have forgotten the exact steps here. 20 The extractant then is concentrated to as 21 small a sample as you can, and that -- 22 Q. Is that done by heat? 23 A. Slow evaporation, so wc don't volatilise 24 the unknowns. . ( r.flnnnri a t finl i n n c > r\ n WATER PCB-SD0000035616 314 1 Then that extractant concentrated now is 2 introduced by hypodermic needle into a gas liquid 3 chromatograph. This is a device that has a -- I 4 am not a designer of this equipment, but this is 5 almos.t a layman's understanding. 6 There is an energy-emitting element in 1 this unit that is affected by the presence of 0 certain chemicals. And this effect is transmitted 9 into a plot on a graph paper. 10 Q. Different fractions come through the 11 column at different times, is that a layman's, a 12 good layman' s understanding of what happens? 13 A. Right. 14 O. And you get a graphic picture? 15 A. You get a reaction to that material 16 coming through, here it comes, bloop. And there 17 is a pause. Here comes the next one. Another 18 pe a k. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. So the chart then resembles pe alts anc 21 valleys. Each of the peaks isolate material 22 identified by the research analyst as being 23 associated with a specific kind of molecule. 24 Now to confirm that, there is another Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000035617 315 1 instrument called mass spectrograms, which 2 confirms that that material is of the right rise 3 in terms of its molecule, to v/eigh so much, and it 4 has so many carbons and oxygens and hydrogens. So 5 you confirm that that peak is very likely this 6 particular chemical. 7 Q. So you need the combination of gas liquid 8 chromatography and mass spectrometry to really 9 confirm the identify? 10 A. To confirm. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. 12 A. Now, those peaks and valleys that are 13 charted then are compared to a peak and valley 14 chart that is deliberately made with known 15 material. And a match is made by the analyst. 16 He then reports his findings in terns of 17 Monsanto's Aroclor products, the one that most 18 closely resembles his unknown. 19 So when we see a report from the chemist 20 that says he found so much Aroclor 1242, what he 21 is saying is that this is the best resemblance I 22 can get. It isn't a perfect match. But most c-f 23 the p|eaks and valleys seem to line up. i 24 Q. And he- can tell from the graphic Ta J 2- i. _ 1A A WATER PCB-SD0000035618 316 1 representation the quantity as v/ell as the 2 identity? A. Yes. Q. Okay. 5 ; : A. There are two methods, the height of the * .I ; i ` ; 6 .peaki or the total area under that curve for the j !| 7 ;total amount. \\ 8 Q. Are they of comparable accuracy? 9 ; A. No. ^ . 10 ; The most accurate is the total area under 11 the: curve. But that gives the total amount of 12 pcb1s. 13 If one wishes to know exactly how much of 14 a particular pcb like dichloro pcb, you look at 15 the peak that represents that material and since 16 it is not a line, the bell-shaped curve may lead 17 to some inaccuracies. 18 ; There may be other things in there that 19 create the bell. 20 Q. Right. 21 . So, in any event, it is an approximation 22 of the quantity, whether you are measuring the 23 entire area or whether you are measuring the 24 particular isoimer? Lonqoria & Goldstine 235 1030 WATER PCB-SD0000035619 A* Well, standing alone it is an approximation. Sut if it is compared to a standard, which in itself is an approximation and you know that this approximation, although you may calculate it as ,S parts per million and you put in one part per million, you adjust for that in your reporting. Q. Okay. So to the satisfaction of the analyst, then, -this is an accurate method for determining the quantity and identity of the particular pc'c mixture that is present in the animal tissues? A. Yes. ' The accuracy is also a function of the experience of the analyst, the cleanliness of the laboratory, the way the sample was taken. Was it co.ntaminated in the taking? There arc many factors that can influence the results from a laboratory. Q. In the course of, for example, the studies that Monsanto commissioned, would you wane the same analyst using the same piece of equipment to analyze the samples taken at various times during this sturdy, in order to have consistency of T. An rf A ir r j n n /* i a ^ A WATER PCB-SD0000035620 312 1 results? 2 A. That is one preferred way to do it. 3 Another is to design validation studies, to 4 establish the variation between the chemists. Sc 5 that each chemist's results are reported as plus 6 or minus rather than a rigid specific number. 7 Q. Right. 8 : I am going to show you a document that ': `i 9 'was previously marked as Deposition Exhibit 10 for 10 identification and I will ask you if you recognize j ! . . ; ;l 11 ;that? 12 For the record it is a one-page memo 13 dated April 17 , 1970 to fir. Olson from fir. 14 Benignus. 15 A. Yes, I recognize it. 16 Q. Were you present at the meeting, the 17 schedule of which is outlined in this memoranda? 10 A. Yes. 19 Q. And that was a meeting of Monsanto pc cole 20 and representatives from various We stinghouse 21 facilities; is that correct? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. 24 MR. FRUEHWALD: This memo was a subject of Lontinr i a T. Rnl no 'i 'XG. l iu/i ^ u ------------ WATER PCB-SD0000035621 313 1 testimony yesterday and questions have been ashed 2 about the meeting. 3 MR. MC CONNELL.: Okay. I thought it was. Let 4 me not repeat that. 5 Would you mark this 139, please. 6 : (The document above-referred to 7 was marked Bloomington Deposition 8 Exhibit No. 139 for identification..) 9 Q. Taking a look at what the court: reporter 10 has marked as Exhibit 139, Mr. Papageorge, I will 11 ask you if you recognize that memo? 12 A. I do. 13 Q. Did you receive a copy of that shortly 14 after the meeting that is discussed in the memo? 15 A. Yes. On or about the date cf its / 16 publication. 17 . Q. Okay. } 18 i ;j And that was a meeting with Congressman . i ^ . 19 Ryan in the ongoing dialogue between Monsanto and 20 the Congressman? 21 A. That is correct. 22 Q. Okay. 23 Were you ever involved in a face-tc-face 24 meeting with Congressman Ryan yourself? Longoria & Goldstine ^ i r> -5 n WATER_PCB-SD0000035622 320 1 A. No. 2 Q. Okay. 3 That was Mr. Mason's assignment? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Is there any particular reason that you 6 are aware of, other than the absence of the other 7 gentleman, why John Mason ended up with the 3 assignment of dealing with Congressman Ryan? o A. I can only speculate. 10 Q. Nobody ever discussed it with you? 11 A. No. 12 Q. You were just told Mason is going to take !I '" 13 care of that, or words to that effect? . 14 A. That's right. 15 Q. Okay. 16 From whom did that information come to 17 you ? IB A. Hr. Bergen. 19 Q. Okay. 20 To your knowledge, before he took on che 21 job of the dialogue with Congressman Ryan, had Mr. 22 Mason been involved in any other work on behalf of 23 Monsanto dealing with the Congress of the United 24 States? . ;i ' WATER PCB-SD0000035623 321 1 A. No. 2 Q. Okay. 3 He wasn't your house lobbyist or anything 4 like that? 5 A. No. Mr. Mason had just arrived from 6 Europe. 7 Q. Did you ever talk to hinr about how he 3 felt about being thrust into this assignment? 9 A. Yes. . 10 Q. What did he have to say about that? 11 A. He was amazed at the US way of doing 12 things compared to the European way. 13 Q. Was that favorably amazed or unfavorably 14 amazed? 15 A. Unfavorably. 16 Q. Unfavorably amazed. 17 . Had he been \vithMonsanto in Europe? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. For how long? 20 A. Oh, twenty years or more. 21 Q. Okay. 22 Is he a European citizen or was he an 23 American citizen who went over to Europe to work? 24 A. He is *a European citizen, who was brought \ T.fln n-r ria t finl dsH WATER_PCB-SD0000035624 322 1 to the United States to learn more about 2 Monsanto's United States operations. 3 Q. And this was part of his continuing 4 education? 5 ; Ai . I believe so. ' 6 j : Q. Okay. i >.i ! -f '` 7 : I When he went to meet v/ith Congressman ; i| i * ^" * 8 |Ryan^ had he been briefed on what Monsanto knew ! ] ' - -1 9 about pcb environmental contamination up to the ; - ' l 10 j time |of the meeting? j. 11 ! I A. Yes. . 12 Q. And who. briefed him? 13 A. There were several of us. He talked, of 14 course, to Mr. Bergen. He talked with me and 15 talked v/ith Dr. Kelly and Elmer Wheeler. 16 Q. Okay. 17 And did the same or similar group debrief 18 him after he came back from Washington? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. 21 ' ;f I Did you talk to him about the meeting 22 before he wrote this memorandum? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Okay. . Lonaof i a & GoldsH np I'xz lmn nu i-------WATER PCB-SD0000035625 323 1 If you know, is it customary for Monsanto 2 management employees to prepare memoranda such as 3 this whenever they have a contact with a 4 congressman or senator? 5 A. I don't know of it as a Monsanto 6 practice. This is the option of the individual 7 whether he wishes to write it up and communicate 8 with others or not. i, 9 Q. In the case.of an employee who is : :i 10 ;commissioned, I guess you could say, or assigned 11 to respond to a congressional inquiry, does that 12 person have a responsibility to let others in 13 management know v/hat happened in the course of 14 that contact' or 'that resporise? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Okay. 17 . That can be either by an oral report or a 18 memorandum such as this? 19 A. That is correct. 20 Q. Okay. 21 . : Is it accurate to say that this 22 memorandum that has been marked as Exhibit 13? is 23 a record that is kept in the ordinary course of 24 business at Monsanto? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000035626 3 24 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And it would be the ordinary course cf 3 Monsanto's business to keep track of such 4 memoranda regarding contacts with Congress or 5 congressional staff people? . 6 A, Yes. 7 Q. Okay. 8 Paragraph 3 on the second page of the 9 memorandum refers to.a request from Congressman 10 Ryan f a repeated request, that Monsanto disclose 11 its; total volume of peb manufacturing both in the 12 ;United States and in the United Kingdom. 13 And apparently up to the time cf this 14 memorandum, Monsanto had not dene that. 15 Is there some particular reason why than 16 information wouldn't be disclosed, at least to 17 Congressman Ryan? 18 A. Well, it wasn't specifically intended to 19 ignore Congressman Ryan's request. It is 20 Monsanto's policy, that exists even today, that 21 customer lists and quantities of products :i f 22 purchased are considered business trade secret and t| 23 we were willing to release them, if the recipient i' 24 would- assure us that he would treat it as such.i i. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 . WATER PCB-SD0000035627 3 25 1 Q. In other words, not give it to th 2 competition? 3 A . That is one misuse, yes. 4 Q. Okay. 5 Or I suppose there is also a cone o r n that 6 `one; customer might find out anoth er customer' s 7 volume? 8 ; A. That is true. 9 Q. Okay. . 10 Since I take it that at least wit h 11 respect to pcb's Monsanto sold those materials to 12 customers who were in competition thV/ 1 each o y 13 in the electrical industry. % 14 A. Very true. 15 Q. Okay. 16 So your position as the supplier to tw c 17 competitors, you have to be careful not to a 1 VO 18 proprietary information about one competitor to : f 19 the other competitor? . ; 20 ; ' _ 1 * il! Ai. Right. i 21 ;: ' Q1 . Is there anything that you discus se d with 22 Mr. Mason in the oral debriefing after his meeting 23 with Congressman Ryan that is not covered in 24 Exhibit 139? . WATER PCB-SD0000035628 326 1 A. Hot to my recollection, no. 2 Q. Okay. 3 Would you mark this as 140. 4 5 ; (The document above-referred to 6 was marked Bloomington Deposition 7 Exhibit Mo. 140 for identification.) 8 Mr. Papageorge, would you take a look at 9 the letter that the court reporter has marked as 10 Exhibit 140, v/hich is dated August 17, 197 0 to you 11 from Mr. Viland of Westinghouse. 12 I will ask you if you recall receiving 13 that letter? 14 A. Yes. 15 O. Did you make a response to it? 16 A. I recall I did. Yes. 17 Q. Was it a written response? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. In the letter he is essentially seeking 20 to enlist your assistance in convincing regulators 21 in Pennsylvania that it is okay to dispose of peb 22 wastes in a sanitary landfill. Is that an 23 accurate summary? 24 A. Yes. - WATER PCB-SD0000035629 327 1 Q. What was your response? 2 A. As I remember, I talked to the 3 Pennsylvania representatives. They would noc 4 approve any disposal unless someone conducted 5 tests with soils from Pennsylvania. As I remember 6 my response was along those lines back to Mr. 7 Viland. 3 Q. What type of soil tests were they ta1king 9 about? . 10 A. They were not specific. They were going 11 to allow whoever was interested to design the 12 tests. They were quite adamant that they would 13 not accept general geological data. It had to be 14 specific. 15 Q. They wanted to know that the Pennsylvania 16 landfills wouldn't leak? 17 A. That is correct. 18 Q. Okay. IS And they wanted somebody to design some ~ 20 test to convince them of that before they would 21 permit disposal of peb wastes in their sanitary 22 landfill? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. Was su-ch testing ever done? i T.nn n n r < a f. ^ ^ -- WATER PCB-SD0000035630 A. Not to my knowledge. Q. And this document/ Exhibit 140, is referring to disposal of solid wastes contaminated with pcb's as opposed to liquid pcb wastes; is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. Okay. So at the time of this letter, the Monsanto incineration program was not designee to deal with solid wastes? A. That's correct. , Q. In fact, I think I.recall your testimony `yesterday being that because of economic considerations, there never was a solid waste incineration program at Monsanto? A. That is correct. Q. Okay. Do you recall what the ultimate resolution of Mr. Viland's problem was? A. No.' . MR. KC CONNELL: Let's mark it. :, (The document above-referred to was marked Bloomington Deposition > E-xhibit No. 141 for identification.) I T. a n * i - 1 J3 -- i- 2 WATER PCB-SD0000035631 329 1 Q. Mr. Papageorgo, would you the a look at 2 the memorandum that the court reporter has- marks* 3 as Exhibit 141, which is dated November 4, 1378, 4 to Dr. Richard concerning biodegradation testing 5 of 1242 and 1016. 6 ; I will ask you if you recognise that? 7 A. I do. 8 Q. One of the concerns, one of the 9 environmental concerns with regard to pcb's was 10 their persistence in the environment. Is that 11 correct? 12 A. That is correct. 13 Q. And in looking for substitute products 14 that the electrical industry could use, one of 15 Monsanto's considerations was to fine a produce 16 that was more biodegradable, is that a fair 17 statement? 18 A. That is true. 19 Q. Okay. 20 : : Did Monsanto as a result of testing, such '\ ;. 1 ;l 21 * ;as th'e testing that is discussed in Exhibit 141, 22 ever conclude that it had sufficient data as a 23 basis for a public statement to the effect that: 2 4 its 1016 product was biodegradable? WATER PCB-SD0000035632 1 A I don't think it was described in those 2 words. It is move biodegradable, not 3 biodegradable implying totally so. 4 Q. Okay. 5 ; | More biodegradable or less persistent? :! ' 6 i A. Exactly. :1 7 Q. In fact, there v/as a time when 8 Westinghouse asked Monsanto to state, or whether 9 Westinghouse could state to its customers that 10 1016 was biodegradable and Monsanto said they 11 shouldn't say that, do you recall that? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. 14 Can you put a quantitative number on the 15 difference in either in persistence or 16 biodegradability between 1242 and 1015? 17 A. It can be described in those terms. I 18 don't personally recall the numbers. 19 But if one equates persistence v/ith 20 Aroclor 1254 , which was constantly being reportec: 21 as present, and the lack of any reports that refer 22 to 1242 as being out there, one can go back and 23 determine how many of the pcb's were removed from 24 1242 that would* have looked like 1254 . WATER PCB-SD0000035633 331 1 . And assuming the remainder would not 2 persist, one could make that calculation- I just: 3 don't remember how much was removed. 4 Q. What kind of. measurement do you use for 5 persistence, does the term half life make sense in 6 the context of environmental persistence cf a 7 substance like peb? 8 A. There are some investigators that use the 9 half life concept. Monsanto just reported the 10 absence or presence of the different peb's after a 11 given period of time during the test. 12 Q. But from that information you could 13 calculate a half life, could you not? 14 A. One could, yes. 15 There is many a discussion involving the 16 interpretation of half life, the significance, its 17 usefulness. So the industry and the regulatory 18 people never did come up with a measure that un 19 acceptable to everybody. 20 Q. Okay. 21 Half life is a concept that is really 22 more applicable to radioactive materials; is that 23 correct? 24 A. Well, .that is where the most common usage WATER PCB-SD0000035634 j ^j 2 1 is made* And it does imply that there is always 2 half of something remaining forever. 3 Q. That is the assumption? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. 6 Now, as I understand it, in the series cf 7 numerical designations for these various pcb 8 mixtures, at least in the 1200 series, where you 9 have 1221 and 1242 and 1254 and 1260, and perhaps 10 others that I don't know about, that the last two 11 digits essentially represent the percentage of 12 chlorine by weight in the mixture? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. 15 That is not true, however, in the case of 16 1016? 17 A. That is true. 18 Q. Where did the number 1016 come from? 19 A. When this particular mixture was 20 undergoing laboratory testing, it was treated like 21 all other Monsanto test materials. It was entered 22 into a logbook, the next number on that logbook 23 was 1016. It started off then you will sec some 24 literature referring to MCS 1016. That is Lonaoria fi nnl/lcH nn ^ *5 ^ 1 A O A --- WATER_PCB-SD0000035635 33 3 1 Monsanto Company Sample 1016. 2 Q. Okay. 3 A. It became so common amongst our customers 4 and ourselves to refer to it as 1016, calling it 5 an Aroclor with a percent chlorine would have lead 6 to confusion, because it was deliberately designed 7 to have about 42 percent chlorine. 8 We didn't want to confuse the new 9 material with the old. So,we just stuck with the 10 1016 and added the word Aroclor. 11 : Q. So MCS 1016 became Aroclor 1016 because 12 everybody knew it as 1016? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. Okay. . 15 , And I take it that in the course of 16 developing the 1016 product, one of the things 17 that was done was that sample lots were supplied 18 to Monsanto customers so they could test it in 19 their applications? 20 A. Yes. 21 . Q. To see if it was suitable? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q . O'k a y . 24 And some other things that were done were , | Longioria. & Goldstine 236 imn -------WATER PCB-SD0000035636 334 1 animal tests and these biodegradabiiitv tests that 2 are referred to in Exhibit 141? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. I guess you have already told me that ;ho 5 percent by weight of chlorine in 1016 is actually 6 42 percent? 7 A. Very close. 3 Q. Give or take some small -- 9 A. It is over 41 10 Q. But it is a different mixture from 1242? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. 13 . And is there a document somewhere that 14 describes the differences? 15 A. Yes. There should have been several 16 documents. One is the narrative description of 17 the various properties of the two. One can 18 compare them. 19 The other document which more accurately 20 describes the difference chemically is a 21 comparison of the two gas chromatograph charts, 22 the two fingerprints. There is a difference in 23 those two. 24 Q'. Is the*re a table, I know I have seen it WATER PCB-SD0000035637 but I don't recall if it was a Monsanto document, that describes, that compares, the side-by-side comparison of 1016 and 1242 with respect to me no, chloro, dichloro, trichloro isomers? A. I have seen such a table. Yes. I don't know if it still exists. . Q. All right. As I understand it, what was done in cre.atiing the *1016 product was to remove some portion of the higher chlorinated isomers from the mixture? . A. More accurately it is at both ends, to keep the chlorine percentage, you had to remove the higher to get rid of the persistent. Bus you had to remove the lower to keep the chlorine- percent at 42 percent. . Q. So you kind of squeezed it towards the middle from both ends? A. We cut, yes. , 0. Was there any difference detected that you can recall in the animal studies between 1242 and 1016 with respect to their effects? A. No. Q. So the* basic achievement was less WATER PCB-SD0000035638 33 S 1 persistence in the environment? 2 A. Correct. 3 MR. MC CONNELL:. Do you want to marl: this as 4 . 142. 5 (The document above-referred oc 6 ` was marked Bloomington Deposition 7 Exhibit No.. 142 for identification.) 8 : Q. Do you recall seeing that document? 9 A. Yes. ^ 10 i ; 9- Off the record. ! ' ' \ 11 : :; i (Discussion had off the record.) ( 12 ! . ; ;j Do you recall receiving that memo that 13 has been marked as 142? 14 A. I do. 15 Q. That is another somewhat more detailed 16 discussion of the relative persistence or 17 biodegradability of 1242 and 1016; is that 13 correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And on the second page of the exhibit, 21 : which is the first page of the typewritten memo, 22 there; is a confidential stamp. 23 , ; Was that stamped on there when it came to 24 you? : . Longoria & Goldsfcin r- v, j ~ WATER PCB-SD0000035639 3 37 1 A. Y e s . 2 Q. Why would that have been considered 3 confidential at the time it was v/ritten? 4 A. As a policy, formal reports out cf our 5 research function are all considered confidential. i. .: { 6 ; ' Q. It is just a regular part of the new 7 product development process? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. ,, 10 The second page of the exhibit indicates 11 that 1016 is at least ten times better than 1242 12 in terms of, it says, from an environmental 13 viewpoint. 14 I take it that means in terns o:: 15 persistence? 10 A. That is correct. 17 . Q. Okay. 18 And 75 times better than 1254? 19 A. That is correct. 20 Q. What do those numbers mean, ten tines 21 better ? 22 A. It is Dr. Tucker's evaluation of the 23 persistence in the environment and when he says 24 ten times better, he is saying that it is apt to r.AnnAi*i a f. /^/\1 A^ ^ ^ WATER PCB-SD0000035640 OJ OW OO 1 disappear in the environment ten times faster. 2 ' Q. It could only last ten percent as long, 3 is another way of saying the same thing? 4 A. All right. 5 Or only ten percent of it will remain as 6 compared to the other. 1 Q. That is probably the best way to 3 understand it, isn't it, that at any given time if \ 9 you had in the same physical and environmental 10 situation 1242 and 1016, with the passage of time 11 there would be only ten percent as much 1016 as 12 1242 at any given time? 13 A. A ten-to-one ratio, ten percent, yes. 14 Q. Okay. . 15 As of today, to your understanding, do 16 those ratios of ten times and 75 times still hold 17 up? , 18 A. I have no information that says they 19 don't. 20 Q. And again, that is a measure of relative 21 persistence and not comparative toxicity; is that 22 correct? 23 A. That is correct. 24 ' ,'i 4 i . -r WATER PCB-SD0000035641 33 0 1 (The document above-referred to 2 was marked Bloomington Deposition 3 E x hibit M o. 143 for identification.) 4 .0. Would you look at the document than has 5 been marked as Exhibit 143. I will ask you if vcu 6 recognize that document? 7 A* I: recognize it. 3 Q. Is that more or less of a status rencrc 9 to Congressman Ryan as to the steps that Monsanto 10 has! taken since the last discussion between Mr. 11 Mason and Congressman Ryan? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. 14 And to your knowledge, is the 15 information -- was the information in that letter 15 accurate as of March 24, 1971? 17 . A. Yes. 13 Q. In thesecond, page 2 of'the letter, the 19 paragraph at the top of the page numbered 3, Mr. 20 Mason makes the statement: 21 "Excellent 22 cooperation from our customers 23 has enabled us to establish 24 collection, reclaiming and , Longoria & Goldstine 236 103n WATER PCB-SD0000035642 3 40 1 "disposal of spent fluids, 2 which would make a significant 3 contribution towards avoiding 4 escape to the environment." 5 * That is a reference both to the * 6 reclamation programs and later the incineration 7 program for scrap liquid; is that correct? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. The .next paragraph, which isn't numbered, 10 refers to good progress in developing more 11 environmentally acceptable polychlorinatec 12 ^biphenyl fluids and I take it that is a reference 13 to what ultimately came to be Aroclor 1016? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. The third paragraph on that page in the 16 last sentence it says: 17 "In this area 18 referring to transformer applications 19 we have concentrated cur 20 efforts on closing the loop as 21 . ; i referred to above." 22 . ; And I take it that is a reference back to 23 the reclamation and disposal program for spent 24 liquids? WATER PCB-SD0000035643 3 41 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Was there any program or attempt tc 3 "close the loop" with respect to solid waste A contaminated with peb's? 5 A. The only attempt, the only program that 6 would be called an attempt, was the testing in a i 7 pilot unit, the destruction of some solid wastes. O O Q. Okay. 9 In other words, the efforts continued to 10 demonstrate that that was feasible and then it was 11 demonstrated to be technically feasible and 12 determined to be economically unfeasible? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. Okay. 15 The last paragraph of the letter which 16 begins on the third page and carries over to the 17 fourth page, there is a statement in the second 18 sentence: 19 "I can assure you 20 . that we are continuing to do 21 1 i everything possible to police 22 our own and our customers' 23 operations to prevent future 24 possibilities of the escane of Lonooria f. finl no k. inin - WATER PCB-SD0000035644 3 42 1 "polychlorinated biphenyls to 2 the environment." 3 Is there anything beyond what we 4 discussed yesterday that Monsanto was doing to 5 police its customers' operations? 5 A. tTo. . 7 Q. Okay. 8 And what Mr. Mason is referring to in 9 Exhibit 143 as policing was a program of technical 10 assistance and advice, plant visitations and 11 discussions to assist Monsanto's .customers in 12 whatever engineering changes were necessary to 13 control and contain pcb's within their own plants? 14 A. Yes. 15 But there were -16 Q. And the collection and incineration of 17 scrap liquids and recycling what liquids cculc. ae 18 .r ecycled? 19 A. Yes 20 Q. Anything else? 21 A. I can't think of any. 22 Q. Would the contract clause that w e loo i; e d 23 at ye sterday regarding termination of a customer's 24 supply in the e-vent that customer failed to 1 WATER PCB-SD0000035645 3 43 1 control discharges from its plant be part of a 2 policing program? 3 A. Well, it was not. from my perspective. 4 At no time did my actions or those I 5 worked with reflect that kind of an approach. 6 ! 0. As I recall/ you weren't even aware of 7 that until it was shown to you yesterday? 8 A. Well, recently. 9 Q. Okay. _ 10 In preparation for your testimony here? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. All right. 13 And correct me if I am wrong, but I think 14 you testified yesterday that to your knov/lcdge no 15 customer was ever cut off for that reason? 16 A. True. 17 . Q. Okay. 18 : In your viewf would the indemnification 19 clause in the sale contract which we looked at :i 20 yesterday be part of a policing of customers, an 21 \effort j` , to police customers? 22 MR. FRUEFIWALD: Just for a time reference, 23 this reference is as of '71 and this indemnity 24 agreement is in. the next year. Longoria & GoldsMnp WATER PCB-SD0000035646 3 44 1 So are you talking about what Mr. Mar.on 2 was referring to as policing? o** MR. MC CONNELL: No. I am just talking abcuc 4 policing generally. 5 : Obviously, the earlier letter can't have : v. } 6 : referred to something that was only put into : ;i " 7 effect later. 8 MR. FROEHWALD: Then I am going to object, 9 Jim, in the sense policing is a term that Mr. 10 Mason used, that Mr. Papageorge has said was not 11 his term. And you are having him define somebody 12 else's term in connection with later events. 13 I don't think that is either fruitful or 14 relevant. So, I object to that kind of a 15 question. 16 MR. HC CONNELL: Mr. Mason's letter, which we 17 have marked as Exhibit 143 says that the company 18 is continuing its policing efforts. That to me is 19 a reference to something in the future, and Mr. 20 Papageorge is here as a 30 (b) 6 witness, and I am 21 trying to find out if, in his view in that 22 capacity, one of the continuing policing efforts 23 that was promised by Mr. Mason in this letter to 24 Congressman Rya*n was the indemnification clause. Lflnanris flnl rlcf 1 no n i inon - j -- -- WATER PCB-SD0000035647 MR. FRUEHT7ALD: I am not sure that the continuation of efforts in March c-f *71 includes * promises as to future activities in *12. V.y objection stands, but the witness can attempt to answer, if he feels he can. A. The indemnification clause was developed and implemented before I was made aware of its existence. From my perspective and those than I worked closely with, it never came up to affect our approach regarding helping our customers and sort of monitoring their activities and their intent. * Even' when it was implemented, it didn't change anything as far as we were concerned. ::e still did what we thought was appropriate. So I don*t know that I can respond to your question directly. ~ . Q. Okay. j Let me ask it in a different -- ask essentially the same thing in a different way. ; It seems to me that one thing that might happen as a result of both the addition of the indemnification clause and the addition of the Lonaor ia & Goldsii np` tici WATER PCB-SD0000035648 j f r. 1 termination clause to the purchase contracts might 2 be an enhancement of the customer's efforts to 3 comply with your suggestions and recommendations. j A Did you perceive that it had that effect? 5 A. I didn't personally see any change. 6 The representatives of the industry wo 7 worked with on the various national committees and O <J individual plants, nothing appeared to change, in 9 terms of their involvement and commitment and 10 interest. 11 O. Those things were something that lawyers 12 threw in there to make the lawyers more 13 comfortable, is that what happened? 14 As I don't know. I can only speculate. 15 O. Did your speculation agree with mine? 16 HR. FRUEHWALD: I am going to object to that 17 kind of speculating as to what lawyers want at a ii 18 certain time as being beyond the scope of this 19 v/it ness' -- 20 MR. MC CONNELL: I will withdraw the question. 21 Q. Yesterday you described the use of saw 22 dust at the Westinghouse plant in Bloomington as 23 unique. 24 And yo.u also testified that you saw Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000035649 3 47 I boxcars of saw dust ready at the plant there. 2 Do you know how long before your visit 3 Westinghouse at Bloomington had been using boxcar 4 loads of saw dust to soak up the drips cf ocb'c 5 from their capacitor manufacturing process? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Did you ever discuss that with them? 8 A. Not in terms of when did you start. 9 I was left with the understanding that 10 this was a practice that had been ongoing for 11 quitd some time. And it was their way of keeping 12 the material from getting down the sewer. 13 Q. It was their equivalent of the gravel 14 pits that you described -- well-it wasn't 15 equivalent; it served the same function? 16 A. Well, our gravel pits at the plant were 17 intended to collect pcb's that was involved with 18 water. 19 In this case, I don't know than there a 20 a lot of water involved, on the factory floor. 21 . Q. Did you see any water on the floor when 22 you were there? 23 A. Over in the washing area, where they 24 degrees had the* units. But, not everywhere. -To. WATER PCB-SD0000035650 3n 1 Q. Did you aver make inquiry as to how-much 2 saw dust waste contaminated with pcb's they had or; 3 an annual or monthly basis? 4 A. That was discussed with the grcuo. i 5 didn't personally raise it. And an estimate was 6 offered, and I have forgotten. 1 Q. Was that ever committed to writing 8 anywhere? 9 A. Not to my knowledge. No. 10 Q. What were they doing with the sav/ dust? 11 A. It was with the understanding they were 12 taking it to a landfill somewhere. 13 Q. In drums or just loose? 14 A. I don't know. ......... 15 Q. Would you mark that. I guess we are at 16 144 . 17 (The document above-roferror to 13 was marked Bloomington Deposition 19 Exhibit No. 144 for identification.) 20 Have you seen that document before. 21 Exhibit 144? 2 2 A. Yes. 2 3 Q. That reflects that Monsanto did an 24 analysis for pc*b's of some water samples submitted ' i * i Long.pria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicacio ` WATER PCB-SD0000035651 { \ 3A9 1 by Westinghouse; is that correct? 2 ' A. Yes. 3 Q. Was that a regular practice at Monsanto 4 to" do that kind of water sample analysis for your 5 customers? 6 A. It was not regular. It was -- . 7 Q. Would you do it if the customer requester: 3 it? 9 A. Within limits. As long as they die not 10 abuse that service. 11 : 0. Okay. 12 And was one of the reasons for that that 13 not all customers were equipped to perform that 14 kind of analysis themselves? 15 A. That is one reason, yes. 16 Q. 0 k a y. 17 . What were the other reasons? 13 A. The laboratory they used may not have 19 been -- 20 Q. Up to your standards? 21 ,. -A. May not have had the experience that was ; i .j 22 necessary to get good results, and they wanted'to 23 have Monsanto serve as a check. 24 ' And even the customers1 'laboratories that * T.rtn/tAfi ^ c A^^ A ** ** ' WATER PCB-SD0000035652 350 1 were good on occasion would ask us to sample, so 2 they could compare our results with theirs. O w Q. They would give you a split sample? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And compare your results with their own 6 analyst's results, just to see if everything was 7 working as it was supposed to? 8 A. That is correct. 9 Q. Okay. . 10 Was there a charge by Monsanto for that 11 service? 12 A. Sometimes yes and sometimes no. 13 O. How was that determined? 14 A-.- Case-by-case basis. ........ ................ 15 If a customer seldom asked for this 16 service and the laboratory had the time and could 17 do the work, we would not charge. 18 On the other hand, if the request began 19 to appear unreasonable and routine to us, we would 20 quote them a price and then they would make she 2! decision on whether they were interested any 22 further or not. 23 O. Okay. 24 To you-r knowledge, was Bloomington Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000035653 T7estinghouse ever charged for water sample analysis? A. NO . Q. Did Monsanto's analytical laboratories ever perform any pcb analysis of samples from Bloomington Westinghouse other than water samples. to- your knowledge? A. Mo. 9: A. In connection -- did you ever -May I correct myself on that? Q. Sur e. A. When I said no, I am talking about environmental type samples. Water effluent. 0 *- Right. - ----- ~ ' ` A. Mot product samples. Q. That was what my question intended. Obviously, in the course of purchase and sale of the quantities you were dealing with, been you and they would regularly perform analysis of the product as you sent it to them. A. Right. .t Q. Okay. I am talking about environmental-cypo samples,. So the record will be clear on that. Longoria & Golds tine 23 6 10 30 Chicane WATER PCB-SD0000035654 352 1 A. Okay. 2 Q. Would you mark that as whatever the ne::t 3 one is. 4 (The document above-referred tc 5 .[ was marked Bloomington Deposition j; ii . 6 i Exhibit Mo. 145 for identification.) 7 Do you recognize that document the court: 8 reporter has marked as 145 which for the record is 9 a memo dated June 0, -1971? 10 A. I do, ' 11 Q. Is that a further update on thc- 12 biodegradation testing program that Monsanto had 13 underway? 14 A. Yes. ' ' ........................ ................ 15 Q. Okay. 16 And was Mr. Keller or Dr. Keller -- is it 17 Dr. Keller? 10 A. Dr. Keller. 19 Q. Was he in charge of that work? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And that particular memorandum refers to 22 elimination of pcb's by activated sludge? 23 A. Yes. 24 ' Q. Is tha.t a bacterialprocess, essentially? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaan WATER PCB-SD0000035655 353 1 A. Yes. It mimics in the laboratory the 2 typical municipal sewage treatment plant. 3 Q. Was there some problem, do you recall a 4 problem in the course of that activated sludge 5 testing at one point with regard to errors that 6 arose because the peb was adhering.to the side of 7 the flasks? 0 A. Oh, yes. o s Q. Was .take resolved before the time of this 10 memo? 11 A. Yes. . 12 Q. And how was that problem corrected, if 13 you recall? 14 A. I think agitation was the -- helped quire 15 a bit. 16 Q. Agitation of the water, peb and sludge 17 mixture in the flask? 18 A. Right. In addition to the air bubbling 19 through the introduced mechanical agitation. 20 Q. Dy means of a magnetic stirrer or 21 something of that nature, if you know? 22 A. Yes, that's right, magnetic stirrer. 23 Q. So the results that are reflected in 24 exhibit 145 cairre after that agitation was Lonqoria & Goldstinp o'xti xn->.n '",l - WATER PCB-SD0000035656 \ J 3 <J 1 introduced into the testing process? 2 A. Right. 3 CU Do you recall how much of a quantitative 4 difference that made in the results? . 5 A. Mo. I don't. But it was significant. 6 Q. Presumably we could find that out just by 7 putting the two reports next to each other? 0 A. Yes. Yes. We had an early re pc re. 9 Q. Would you mark this. 10 (The document above-referred to 11 was marked Bloomington Deposition 12 : Exhibit Mo. 146 for identification.) 13 1 Looking at the letter the court reporter 14 has marked as Exhibit 146, which is from you to a 15 doctor Robert Jasper dated July 12, 1971, do you 16 recognize that? 17 A. I recall it now that I read it. Yes. 13 Q. And that is your response to Dr. Jasper's 19 request for some technical information on the- use 20 of Aroclors in pesticide applications? 21 A. Yes. 22 O. Does Monsanto maintain an archive of what 23 I guess it would be fair to describe as outdated 24 or discontinued technical literature? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1 n 3n r v. * ^ ~ WATER PCB-SD0000035657 355 1 A. That I don't know. 2 Q. Vlho would know that? 3 A. I don't knov; the specific individual. 4 But I would start with therionsanto's research 5 library. 6 And I would also check with the people 7 responsible for ourprinting,printing department. 8 Q. You do your own printing of that type of 9 information? 10 A. Some of it we do our own. 'lost of it is 11 contracted, but there are people in Monsanto who 12 are the custodians of these documents, in a n a g o t.ir.t 13 operation. 14 Q. Whether the actual printing is done 15 inside or outside, someone is responsibl a for 16 that? 17 . A. That is true. 18 Q. Okay. :i 19 Is it the practice of Monsanto v; hen a 20 product is discontinued, to recall from its :i 21 'customers their copies of the technical literature \ hi '' 22 'v on thie i t) discontinued product !i 23 A. I have never heard that done, no. : .7 24 Q. Is it .the practice of Monsanto w hen a Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 n'nir-.m WATER PCB-SD0000035658 I product is modified or substituted, such as the 2 change, let's say, from 1242 to 10.16 to ask the 3 customers to return the old literature when they 4 receive the new materials? 5 A. No. 6 ' : Q. Such a request would strike vou as beina 7 unusual? 8 A. Extremely so, yes. 9 O. Okay. 10 Nov/, in response to Dr. Jasper's reauest, 11 did you provide him-- 12 Hell, let me ask you this. 13 I guess we have established that there 1 4 was no Konsanto.literature that recommended peb * s 15 for use in pesticides, is that correct? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. So there was nothing you could have sear 13 him, in any event? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. Other than the general material which you 21 did provide, in other words, you didn't send him 22 anything on pesticides, but you did send him 23 something on Aroclors, generally? 24 A. Yes. 4 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000035659 3 57 1 Q. Okay. 2 This has already been marked. Hr. 3 Papageorge, as Exhibit 76 and recognising that 4 that is difficult to read, I will ask you first if 5 you recall ever having seen that before? 6 A. I saw this recently in preparation for 7 this deposition. 8 Q. Okay. 9 But that was the first tine you were 10 shown that document? 11 A. Yes, sir. 12 Q. This is for the record a letter dated 13 September 22, 1977 to Dick Jones of testinghouse 14 from J. A. Aliev of Monsanto. 15 Who was Mr. Alley or is Mr. Alley? 16 . A. He is a Monsanto employee that at this 17 point in time was/involved with the pcb dielectric =l 18 customers. Pcb dielectric products. 19 Q. As a -- 20 A. Similar to the function Mr. Bryant served 21 in the early seventies. 22 Q. Technical advice and assistance? 23 A. Technical advice, yes, as part of the 24 marketing function. Longoria & Goldstine 2 36 in?n r- u i--------WATER PCB-SD0000035660 350 1 Q. T*7hat is his background, if you knew? 2 A. I don't know, 3 Cl, Is he still v/ith the company? r,1r A, I don't know. 5 Q. In this Exhibit 76 in the first paragraph 6 of the letter the last sentence in parenthesis 7 :says: # 8 "May I suggest that 9 you destroy all copies in your 10 own files and offices so we 11 don't inadvertently supply 12 obsolete information to the 13 industry." 14 And the reference is to a publication 15 entitled, "Transformer, askarel inspection end 16 maintenance, guide bulletin TIC/FF-3OR-2. 17 Do you see that statement? 18 A. I do, 19 Q. Had you ever been aware up until the time j 20 you first saw this document. Exhibit 76, of any 21 request from Monsanto to its customers that 22 technical literature on Monsanto products be 23 destroyed? 2 4 A. This i*s my first awareness. Loncoria s Rnl det-i no o's/r WATER PCB-SD0000035661 3 59 1 0. Are you aware of a similar request in 2 connection with any other Monsanto product either 3 before or since September of 1977? 4 A. No.. 5 Q. In September of 1977, was Mr. Alley in a 6 position where he could make that kind of a 7 request of Monsanto's customers on his o-vn 0 authority and volition? 9 A. From my understanding of his assignment, 10 I would say no. 11 Q. So he wrote this letter at the 12 instructions of some superior? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. To whom did he report in September 1977? 15 A. I don1t know. 16 Q. At the time of this letter as I 17 understand your earlier testimony, you were in a 18 different assignment from the peb problem; is that 19 correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 . Q. And who had taken over that from you? 22 A. Initially? 23 Q. Right. 24 A. J. C. Webber. . .1 t . Longoria SGoldstine 236 1030 n :i i n WATER PCB-SD0000035662 3 50 1 Q. Was he still in charge of that function A. in September of 1977? 3 A. No. . 4 Q. Who was? 5 A. I believe it was David Wood. 6 Q. Okay. 7 And he has still got that responsibilitv 8 today; is that correct? 9 A. Mo. , . 10 q. Mo. * 11 Who has it now? 12 A. Dr. John Craddock. 13 Q. Dr. Craddock, that's right, you gave u:: 14 his name before. 15 Mark that as 147 . 16 (The document above-referred to 17 was marked Bloomington Deposition 18 : Exhibit Mo. 147 for identification.) IS Looking at what the court reporter has 20 marked as Exhibit 147 for identification, uo you 21 recognize that document? 22 A. Yes. I do. 23 Q. And that is a memorandum dated August 1?, 24 1971 to Mr. Hei*sler from Mr. Buckley. Longoria & Goldstine in?n WATER PCB-SD0000035663 .61 1 Who are Mr. Heisler and Mr. Buckley? 2 A. Yes. Mr. Buckley, both of these 3 individuals were employees at Monsanto's w. 0. 4 Kummrich plant in Sauget, Illinois. 5 Q. Were they involved in some capacity with 6 the peb incinerator? 7 A. Yes. . 8 Q. Okay. 9 A. Mr. Heisler. was the superintendent ir. 10 manufacturing, who had responsibilities for the 11 manufacture of peb's, as well as the incinerator 12 associated with pcb's. 13 Mr. Buckley was an environmental engineer 14 at the plant concerned with environmental issues 15 throughout the plant, including those associated 16 with peb * s. 17 . Q. And with the incinerator? 18 A. Yes. ' 19 If there were any environmental issues 20 with the incinerator, he would get involved. Bur. 21 not' with the operation of it on a day-co-day 22 basis:. 23 Q. Right. 2 4 I The incinerator as I understand it, the ! ,(\ ' . . Longoria & Goldstine 236 min ' r,'-<-------- WATER PCB-SD0000035664 36 2 1 process gives off among other things hydrochloric 2 acid? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. 5 And that is scrubbed out of the whntevo r 6 you want to call it? 7 A. The stack gasses. 3 *Q. Out of the stack gas? 9 A. Yes. . 10 Q. Is that recovered in some way? 11 A. It is blended with the rest of the 12 Sauget's plant's waste, which are on the basic } 13 side. So it helps neutralize the total effluent 14 leaving the plant. " 15 Q. Okay. 16 Is there some kind of pretreatment at one 17 Sauget plant? 18 A. Mo. 19 Q. So that goes directly into the sowar? 20 A. It goes to the sewer. 21 : Q. After the neutralization process? 22 A. Yes. This is sort of a fortuitous 23 neutralizatidn. 24 Q. Okay. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chir-mo WATER PCB-SD0000035665 262 1 What else is there that night be emitted 2 into the air as a result from that incineration 3 process? 4 A. The nitrogen that accompanies toe air to 5 the unit will combine with oxygen at these 6 temperatures and get oxides of nitrogen. 7 | If there is an excess of oxygen, as there 8 is normally, you can release free chlorine, in 9 addition to the chlorine that is tied up with the 10 hydrogen chloride acid, there is free chlorine, so 11 that is possible. 12 . And, of course, you have water and carbon 13 dioxide. 14 Q. And those are the combustion products 15 from the organic material? 16 A. Yes. As well as the hydrogen chloride. 17 That is a combustion product. 18 Q. Right. Okay. 19 This I take it, this memorandum reflects 20 answers to some environmental concerns that were 21 raised by the EPA respecting the operation of that: 2 2 incinerator? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And I take it that that incinerator had Lonooria Rnl flsH na 'i'i.c. u '----------- WATER PCB-SD0000035666 354 1 all of the' appropriate SPA permits for i i. i " 2 operation? t rO > o 3 A. 4 Q. Uas it in use at the time of ch 12 C: P r 5 August 18 , 1971? - 6 A- It had been in service about a men th or 7 two. ; It was still in what I would call its 8 star t-up phases. 9 Q. Okay. . IQ ! ': And it is not uncommon for the EPA to 11 make this kind of an inquiry in the star t-up p h a s o i. 12 of an operation? 13 A. In fact, the regulations call for "PA :o 14 come back and determine whether the perm i a 15 conditions are being met. 16 (The document above-referr ed to 17 was marked Bloomington Dep o s i t i o r*i 18 Exhibit No. 148 for identi fica ti o r. . ) 19 Q. Showing you a document that has been 20 marked as Exhibit 148, which is a memo d a te d 21 September 7, 1971 to John Mason from 17. R. ' ]' 22 Richard. 23 : Do you recognize that? 24 A. I reca`ll it nov; that I see it. Longoria & Goldstine 22 6 I03n WATER PCB-SD0000035667 rjt v<* 5 1 Q. Was there a meeting with the Food one 2 Drug Administration sometime around September or 3 1971? 4 A. We had several meetings with 5 representatives of FDA. I can't place this 6 specific date. 7 Q. Did you participate in any of those 8 meeting with the FDA? o ** A. Yes.. . 10 Q. To your knowledge, did you participate in 11 all of them? 12 A. Ho. 13 Q. Did Mr. Mason participate in some c.f 14 those FDA meeting? 15 A. I don't recall John participating in any 16 of them. I just don't recall the relationship of 17 this document- to -- 18 Q. It is not clear to me that Exhibit 143 i ,t 19 necessarily means that he was at the discussion 20 with the FDA. 21 . ; Might it be that in his capacity as the 22 emissary to Congressman Ryan, he was being kept 23 apprised of discussions with the FDA? 24 A. That i*s a possibility, yes. Lonooria & Goldstine 23 6 10 3 0 r'M.w-n WATER PCB-SD0000035668 -> /" jOO 1 Q. Presumably Monsanto would expect that 2 Congressman Ryan or his staff would also be in 3 contact with the FDA? 4 A. Certainly. 5 Q. Concerning pcb's? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. The studies that are referred to in OV paragraph 4 of the memorandum, are those studies O that were performed for Monsanto by Industrial 10 Biotest Laboratories in Northbrook, Illinois? 11 A. Yes. 12 , Q. Okay. 13 A. They were underway at that time. 14 Q. As I understand it, the analysis of the 15 amount of pcb's in tissue samples that was cone in 16 connection with those studies was done by Scott 17 Tucker at Monsanto? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. 20 And he was supplied by Industrial Diciss: 21 with the tissues for analysis? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Other than the fact that pcb:s were 24 showing up in f*ish and other items that people r./Min' 1r s* * -a WATER PCB-SD0000035669 3 67 1 might eat, did the FDA have any other interest; in 2 pcb's? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. What other interest did they have? 5 A. Dairy products. 6 Okay. 7 My question v/as meant to include all 8 kinds of f ood. 9 A. Well, their.interest was -- 10 Their interest was the presence of pcb's 11 in food? L. 12 A. Presence in food and the source of that :l 13 pcb. 14 Q. Okay. , 15 And as of this September 1971 tine 16 period, what different food products had been 17 identified as possibly containing pcb? 13 A. I believe at that point in time, let mo 19 think. . At that point in time they had established 20 a guideline in -- presence in fish, poultry, milk. 21 and milk products. I believe that was it. 22 Q. Were' there any others later added tc the 23 list?; 24 A. Yes. `Later they added animal food that r.onflnri a z. f!nl na n n inon ^ ----- WATER PCB-SD0000035670 36 3 1 ttfent.into domestic animals. Food for poultry and 2 cattle and pigs. 3 ' Q. Chicken feed and things like that? 4 Aw Chicken feed and that sort of thine; v;as 5 added. Baby food was added. And they revised 6 some of the previous guidelines. This was about: 1 1973, as I recall. 3 ' Q. And the FDA's concern about levels of peb 9 in food for human consumption arises out of the 10 FDA's concern for human health, is that a fair 11 statement? 12 A. Yes. That is their mandate. 13 Q. What are the possible -- 14 , In 1971, as I understand it, 'lonsnnto had 15 discontinued sales of peb's for use as heat 16 transfer liquids; is that correct? 17 A. At about that time. Yes. ' 18 Q Okay. 19 So the materials should no longer be 20 getting into food in the food processing process? 21 A. That is true. 22 Q. In earlier incidents, that was one kind 23 of thing that happened, not necessarily in this 24 country, but el*sewhere; is that correct? : ;j T.nn n r\ r i a r. / ^^ ^ A^ * "' ` WATER PCB-SD0000035671 3 6 f) 1 A. That's right. 2 Q. Okay. 3 So the source in food would be the icb 4 that was actually in the fish or in the milk as a 5 result of something the could you eat or in the 6 chicken as a result of something the chicken ate, 7 that would be one other source? 8 A. That would be a source or sources. 9 Q. Okay. ,, .10 t ;: ; :t What other source might there be? ! i .. 11 j A. Well, it was found in recycle paper that ;*`\ . 12 .would end up as the cardboard containers of food } ;' _i 13 products. It was found in some of the still in 14 use adhesives and inks on food packaging. It was 15 still being phased out. 16 Q. It might get into the food from the 17 packaging? 18 A. That was one suspected source. 19 0. Okay. 20 A. And I believe it was about *73 when the 21 PDA also referred to the proximity of electrical 22 equipment to the food processing operations? 23 transformers. 24 i Q. In oth.er words, electrical equi P rr. 0 n t :i Lonooria & fioldsH no . onfi in^n -------WATER PCB-SD0000035672 370 1 containing pcb's? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Could be a source? A. Yes. 5 Q. Anything else? 6 A. I can't think ofanything else. 7 O. In the animal world,let's back up. 8 As I understand it, in fish the 9 persistent isomers of pcb tended to be the more :: 10 [highly chlorinated isomers; is that correct? ;\ . 11 : ; A. That's right. i 12 1 . ; Q. Whereas in birds, the opposite was true; '' i r . .' 13 is tliat correct? The lower chlorinated isomers 14 were `the ones that were found more prevalently in 15 the bird tissues? 16 A. i'don't have that under standing. The 17 lower chlorinated seemed to affect the birds. 18 Q. Okay. 19 They were more toxic to the birds? 20 A. Right. 21 Q. The higher chlorinated? ' i 22 A. The presence in tissues was still the 23 higher chlorinated. 24 . Q. Was th.at difference confirmed in the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 rhir.v-ro WATER PCB-SD0000035673 studies that were done for Monsanto to your knowledge? A. Yes. Q. Was there a shared concern in 1971 between -- well, strike that. Was Monsanto concerned in 1971 that the government might ultimately ban peb's in the United States? A. There was a.concern, but I don't know that it was a deep concern. The concern that I was aware of and shared with others in Monsanto was a precipitous decision that would affect the electrical distribution" "in' this country. O. Meaning that it was important to Monsanto to maintain the ability to sell peb's at least until a substitute could be developed? A. Yes. \. ;: I don't know that it was important to Monsanto. : - . i. * : 1i j ! It was Monsanto's understanding that 1 - .!i unless an alternate material was available, the power distribution in this country would be adversely affected. Lonooria ft finl r!i no Olfi irnfl r* u i WATER PCB-SD0000035674 372 1 And since wo were the only source of the 2 acceptable material, v/e felt wc had to keep making 3 it until something else came along. 4 Q. And while you were continuing the 5 >! :. "6 7 iproduction of pcb's, you were also, you being s,7'-*;-j! ' .i ; ' . I'. -s . ' . ?. ' I, Monsanto, were also working on the development 1 ! "- r I ' cf .alternatives for the electrical industry, is that : 8 correct? 9 A. Yes._ . 10 Q. And not only on your own, but with your 11 : customers? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. In the electrical industry? 14 A. Yes. "........................ .. .............. 15 Q. As I understand it, however, the 16 presently used alternative was ultimscely : :f 17 'developed by someone other than Monsanto? 18 v ; Si i 19 ' 20 I. I: <::: t"? * 21 22 23 | -.i A. h'v: -4 l 1 Q. !I That's right. Okay. And that is isopropyl biphenyl or at lea!st! that is one alternative? v : . !. 1 1." ' ; A. I. had heard it was one of the j ; alternatives. 24 Q. Do you* know who developed that product? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane WATER PCB-SD0000035675 373 ^ i : 1 . 2 3 A. No. ' :: Q. During the entire time that Monsanto :; . ! t . continued to produce and sell pcb's, the company 4 was making a profit on those sales, was it not? 5: 6 J; j A. Q- Yes. Would you mark that 149. 7 (The document above-refer red to 8 was marked Bloomington De position 9 Exhibit Mo. 149 for ideiit i f i c a t i o n . ) 10 Showing you what has been mark e cl a s 11 Exhibit 149, Mr. Papageorge, which is a letter 12 dated April 11, 1972, do you recognize mat 13 ' document? 14 ` MR. FRUEHWALD: First of all, it is ci a t e d 15 April of '72. ?16 MR. MC CONNELL: Oh, April of 1972, I a m 17 sorry. 18 A. I recognize it. 19 . C!. Is that a letter from Monsanto to its pcb 20 . customer s? 21 1 A. . Yes. 22 !. Q. . Do you know if there has been preserved 23 . 24 somewhere a mailing list of customer to whom that was sent? * > I ! Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicano WATER PCB-SD0000035676 37 4 1 A. No, I don *t. 2 Q. Would it have been sent to the 3 Westinghouse Bloomington facility, if you knew? 4 A. Yes. 5, Q. Is it fair to characterize this letter as 6 a warning to customers that Monsanto may 7 . ultimately be compelled by the government to 8 disclose its customer list and volumes of sales? 9 A. That was one ofthe objectives. 1 : 9* And the other objective is a reminder `i : ' 11 that! they must continue to be careful about how i 12 peb's are handled and used? . 13 ; A. That is another objective. 14 Okay. ............. ..... ........ 15 Was there a third? 15 A. Yes. FDA's proposed rules we r e 17 : published 18 ; Q. You v/an ted th em to be aware of that? 19 i: a. To be aware of this new development. 20 j Yes. 21 i ' ' i Q Did Monsanto ever request to your 22 knowledge any of its customers -- well , let me :: ' '1\ . 23 : back 'up a minute. 24 :! ! !t Monsanto ultimately commented to the FDA 1 V r - * ; i ! ^ikrr . V- V / \ V- ' .1 : '! ' Lk. j Lo.ngior ia & .Goldstine , - ,236 10 3 0 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000035677 375 1 on those proposed rules, did it not? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay. 4 Let's mark that as 150. 5 (The document above-referred to 6 was marked Bloomington Deposition 7 Exhibit Mo. 150 for identification.) 3 Looking at the document the court 9 reporter has marked as Exhibit 150, which is a 10 letter dated July 14, 1972. Is that Exhibit 150 11 the comments that Monsanto submitted in response 12 to the proposed Food and Drug Administration 13 regulations on pcb's? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And who was it that signed that? 16 A. I did. 17 Q. That was part of your job as the 18 coordinator at that time? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. 21 Besides yourself, who participated in the 22 drafting of those comments? 23 In '72. It would include Elmer Hhaelar, 24 Dr. Kelly, Dr. -Keller, a public relations Longoria & Goldstine imn WATER PCB-SD0000035678 375 1 representative and I donrt know who had the 2 assignment in '72. . 3 Q. Anybody from the legal department? 4 A. Dr. Richard. An attorney always looked 5 at these documents. It was routine. I can't 6 ;think of anyone else. 7 Q. Were there earlier drafts of that letter 8 circulated among the group that you have just 9 named? ,, 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Do you know whether they wore preserved 12 for any period of time after the letter was sent? 13 A. If they were, it depends on the 14 recipient's style of keeping documents. 15 Normally they are discarded when the 16 final version is issued. 17 Q. That was your practice, in any event? 18 A. Yes. And others. 19 Q. To your knowledge, did anyone at ''o.nsanto 20 ever request customers to also submit comments on 21 those proposed FDA regulations? ' 22 A. I don't know of any situation where a 23 customer was requested. It was encouraged and 24 suggested, but .not in the form of a request. Lonaoria fi no lie WATER PCB-SD0000035679 377 1 Q. Okay. 2 r Would it be accurate to state that 3 Monsanto made its pcb customers aware that 4 Monsanto was going to comment on the FDA i. 5 regulations? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Did you share with the customers at any 8 time before your comments were submitted 9 information concerning the nature of what your 10 comments would be? . 11 A. Not that I recall. 12 Q. But you did encourage chose customers 13 also to submit this own comments on this 14 regulation? 15 A. Yes. t 16 Q. And I take it that was because the 17 customers as well as Monsanto would be affectec by 18 the proposed regulations if they were put into 19 effect? 20 A. Yes. 21 . MR. KC CONNELL: I want to mark this as 151, 22 this as 152. 23 24 WATER PCB-SD0000035680 378 1 (The documents above-referred to 2 were marked Bloomington Deposition 3 Exhibit Nos. 151 and 152, 4 respectively, for identification.) 5 All right. 6 Showing you what has been marked as 7 Exhibit 151, which is a letter dated August 30, 8 1972 to Dr. Myronb Mehlman from yourself, I ask if 9 you recognize that document? 10 A. I recall it. Yes. 11 Q. Do you r ecall for wha t purpose Dr. 12 Mehlman r eguested the samples of the thr ee 13 Aroclor s that are mentioned in Exhibit 1 51? 14 A. These samples were to be used a s 15 standards in thei r analytical laboratory that was 16 analyzing food at the Food and Drug 17 Adrainistr ation 18 Q. Okay. 19 And that is in connection with the 20 double-ch ecking p rocess that y ou describ ed in the 21 analytical proces s? 22 A. No. No. 23 Every laboratory that conducts pcb 24 analyses needs -standards to compare the unknown to Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000035681 379 1 the known. 2 Q. Okay. 3 So that was going to be their known? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. Okay. 6 And I will show you what has been marked 7 as Exhibit 152, which is a letter dated August 30, 8 1972 from you to a Major Ralph Vosdingh. 9 V-o-s-d-i-n-g-h, of the Fifth Army Medical .. _ # 10 Laboratory in San Antonio. 11 , : Do you recall for what purpose Major 12 Vosdingh requested this sample of pcb's? 13 A. He wanted a standard that he could use in 14 his laboratories as he analyzed for pcb's. 15 I don't recall what specifically he was 16 looking for. But this was again a laboratory 17 standard. 18 Q. I understand that. 19 I am just trying to find out what 20 knowledge you may have about what the Army was 21 doing with respect to pcb analysis? 22 A. I just don't remember. 23 Q. Okay. 24 Would you mark that. Lonoorla * finldaH ni WATER PCB-SD0000035682 (The document above-referred to was marked Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 153 for identification.) Would you look at the memorandum dated September 8, 1972 that has been marked as Exhibit 153. Do you recognize that document? A. Now that I read it, I recall it. Yes. Q. And that is.a summary of a meeting between Monsanto representatives and Westinghouse representatives at Westinghouse in Bloomington, Indiana? A. Yes. Q. On August 7, 1972; is that correct A. Yes. Q. Did you talk to Mr. Benignus about that meeting before he went? A. Yes. Q. And what did you discuss with him about the meeting? . A. The fact that he had arranged for a meeting and he reviewed with me the topics that he was going to share with them and wanted to make certain that he* had his facts accurate. r. ^A1 i WATER PCB-SD0000035683 3 81 1 Q. Okay. 2 A. And I, of course^ encouraged him to 3 report back to me his observations, his findings. 4 Q. And he did that in this memo I take it? 5 A. Well, he did it with this memo and prior 6 to the memo he personally talked to me about it. 7 Q. Okay. 8 In the discussion you had with him before 9 he wrote the memo, djd he tell you anything in 10 ^addition to what is reflected in the memo? 11 A. ' No. 12 Q. The memo refers to a slide presentation 13 and I have seen what I take to be overhead 14 transparencies rather than 35 millimeter slides, 15 is that what that refers to? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Okay. 18 The second subject of the memo is leaky 19 tankcars that are use or had been used to deliver 20 pcb's to Westinghouse in Bloomington. 21 . ; Do you recall there being a continuing 22 concern about the problem of leaks not only at the 23 point where the tankcars were received by 24 Westinghouse, but also enroute? T"" "' WATER PCB-SD0000035684 382 1 A. There was a period of time when that was 2 a problem, yes. 3 Q. And was there a change made in the 4 frequency of inspection of the care by Monsanto as 5 ;a result? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. From once every ten years to annually? 8 A. I forgot the frequency. But there was a 9 dramatic change in frequency. 10 Q. Okay. 11 Onder the terms of the sales agreement, 12 Westinghouse was responsible for those cars from 13 the time they left your plant, is that correct? 14 A. Yes. Technically. 15 Q. So their concern was that you should ship 16 the cars out in a condition that they were willing 17 to undertake responsibility for? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. 20 The next subject is discussion of what I 21 understand to be then ongoing negotiations over 22 the terms of the contract between Westinghouse and 23 Monsanto for the supply of pcb's. Is that a fair 24 char acter izatio-n? Lonaoria & GoidsHn# lie mm ^WATER PCB-SD0000035685 3 83 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Was there ever put into effect a 3 long-term contract with an indexed sales price/ if 4 you know? 5 A. Not to my knowledge. 6 (A short recess was taken.) 7 Q. Back on the record. 8 Based on our previous discussion with 9 your lawyers at other depositions, do you know 10 whether the date of the meeting that is reflected 11 there', August 7, 1972/ was actually on September 12 7, 1972, as you sit here today? 13 A. No. I don't. 14 0. Okay. ' 15 Would it have been common for Mr. 16 Benignus to take a whole month to write a memo 17 like this? 18 A. This can happen. 19 Q. Okay. 20 Would you mark that as the next exhibit. 21 (The document above-referred to 22 was marked Bloomington Deposition 23 Exhibit No. 154 for identification.) 24 Before, we look at the next exhibit, who Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000035686 384 1 is Mr. Shemley? 2 - A. He was the field salesman who at that 3 time was selling pcb dielectrics. 4 Q. There any particular reason why you were 5 not included in the meeting in August or September 6 of 1972? 7 A. Normally they would invite me and it 8 depended on whether I was committed to some other 9 meeting. o . 10 Q. Taking a look at Exhibit 154, do you 11 recall that document, a letter dated September 14, 12 1972? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Did you ultimately receive a copy of the 15 study on pcb's in laying hens? 16 A. I remember it, yes. 17 Q. What did it reflect by way of results, if 18 you recall? 19 A. Very much like the results that we got 20 from Monsanto's studies. 21 Q. Thin shelled, low hatchability? 22 A. With the lower chlorinated pcb's, yes. 23 Q. Would you mark that, please. 24 ^ - - *-- -- WATER PCB-SD0000035687 3 85 1 (The document above-referred to 2 was marked Bloomington Deposition 3 Exhibit No. 155 for identification.) 4 Looking at what has been marked as 5 Exhibit 155, which is dated April 23, 1973, do you 6 recognize that? 7 A. Yes. I recognize it. 8 Q. That refers to some changes in the 9 labling of pc.b drums-and tankcars by Monsanto; is 10 that correct? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Is there preserved anywhere the versions 13 of the labels which were replaced by the labels 14 that are included in Exhibit 155? 15 A. There is a repository of labels in 16 Monsanto's labling section or department that 17 manages the label programs. 18 Q. So they could give us a history from 19 beginning when? 20 A. I think it goes all the way back to the 21 thirties on pcb's. 22 Q. Essentially to the beginning of 23 commercial production? 24 A. Yes. Lonaoria & Golds*'-In a min r*v. 4 ~~ -- WATER PCB-SD0000035688 386 1 Q. Do you know as you look at the three 2 different copies of labels that are part of 3 Exhibit 155, what part of the information was new? 4 A At this point in time the change here was 5 a color change, not a message; change. 6 Q. Okay. 7 From what color to what color? 8 A. It is in the write-up here. It talks 9 about a white, and the yellow. Where did I see it? 10 The new product is a yellow background with black 11 printing. This replaces former, which were white 12 background and black or red writing. 13 Q. And what color were the drums before they 14 changed to yellow drums? 15 A. They were black drums. 16 Q. You go from a black and white or red and 17 white label on a black drum to a black on yellow 18 label on a yellow drum? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. Was that for some communication reason or 21 was that for esthetics? 22 A. I really don't know. The yellow did 23 highlight the drum. 24 Q. But it4 would seem to me that a yellow WATER PCB-SD0000035689 387 1 label on a yellow drum would be less visible then 2 a white one? 3 A, These drums were preprinted with the 4 label the black printing was on the yellow drum. 5 Q. Okay. 6 - A. In addition to that, they had yellow 7 paper labels which could have been used and were 8 used in the tankcars. They would fold this label, 9 put it in a plastic envelope and tie it on the 10 dome of the car, where the seal is. 11 Q. So, anyone opening it -- --' 12 A. It is the first thing they do is they see 13 the label Take the label and then break the 14 seal. - 15 Q. Were you involved in a discussion that 16 led up to that change? 17 A. Briefly. Yes. 18 Q. Was -- 19 A. I was asked if I had any objections. And 20 I didn't have any. 21 Q. Did anybody advance any reason other than 22 esthetics for the change in color? 23 A. They probably did. But I just don't 24 remember. I Lonooria & Goldstine 236 103n WATER_PCB-SD0000035690 388 1 Q. The big change was from black to yellow 2 drum? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. Okay. 5 Do you want to mark that. 6 (The document above-referred to 7 was marked Bloomington Deposition 8 Exhibit No. 156 for identification.) 9 Do you recognize Exhibit 156, Mr. 10 Papageorge? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. For the record that is a letter dated 13 February 21, 1974 to Dr. Sidney Galler of the 14 Department of Commerce. i 15 Did you write that letter in response to 16 some proposed regulations on pcb discharges? 17 A. Yes. ' 18 Q. Okay. * 19 Was that in the nature of comment on 20 published proposed regulations or was that in 21 response to a specific set of questions that were 22 asked by Dr. Galler? 23 A. This was in response to questions asked 24 oy Dr. Galler, -which in turn were based on EPA's Lonaoria & ColdsHn# inon j __ WATER PCB-SD0000035691 389 1 activities at that time in considering some 2 standards. 3 Q. Had they been -- had formal standards 4 been published in the Federal Register or were you 5 provided with an internal draft? 6 A. I believe at this point in time they had 7 been published. 8 Q. Okay. 9 Did Monsanto encourage its pcb customers 10 to respond to the publication of those proposed 11 effluent regulations? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. 14 Why don't you mark this as Group Exhibit 15 157. 16 (The document above-referred to 17 . was marked Bloomington Deposition 18 Group Exhibit No. 157 for 19 identification.) 20 What I have marked as Exhibit 157 21 consists of two letters dated March 7, 1974 and an 22 attached, I guess it could fairly be described as 23 a presentation. 24 Do you* recognize those materials? Lonaoria & Col dnH no ^ i n"5 n r> k ~ ~ WATER PCB-SD0000035692 390 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Did you or other people at Monsanto 3 invite some of your pcb customers to a meeting to 4 discuss proposed pcb effluent regulations? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. When did the meeting take place? 7 A. In February of 1974. 8 Q. Did you share with your customers at that 9 meeting the contents-of the information that you 10 had already submitted to the Department of 11 Commerce which we have marked as Exhibit 156? 12 A. I don't recall that specifically. No. 13 Q. In the course of that meeting, were the 14 pcb customers encouraged to submit their own 15 comments on those proposed regulations? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Do you know whether any of them did? 18 A. As I recall, several of them participated 19 as a group. They formed a pcb committee under the 20 electronic industries association and commented 21 through that group. 22 Q. Okay. 23 I Was there subsequently some sort of 24 hearings on tho*se regulations? ! I.onanr^a C rlaf < . 1 n "a n -------WATER PCB-SD0000035693 391 1 A Yes- -------------2 Q. Do you know whether anyone at Monsanto 3 submitted either written or oral testimony at 4 those hearings? 5 A. I believe I was involved in, I know I was 6 involved in hearings, and I believe this was one 7 of them. Yes. 8 Q. Did you go to Washington and testify or 9 did you submit some sort of an affidavit? 10 A. I believe I testified and left a copy of 11 that document. 12 Q. Okay. 13 Do you know what form that document took? 14 A. It is a multi-page. It was not in letter 15 form. It was more of a report form. 16 Q. Do you know what the date of it was? 17 . A. It had to be 1974. 18 Q. You think you also went and gave oral 19 testimony; is that correct? 20 A. Yes. I remember a meeting room and a 21 committee, a panel. .i 22 (The document above-referred to 23 was marked Bloomington Deposition 24 Exhibit No. 158 for identification.) .4 /<1T.aii/ia r J-t J------ WATER PCB-SD0000035694 392 1 Q. Would you take a look at Exhibit 158, 2 which is the affidavit of James H. Wright, and the 3 heading on it is, "In re proposed toxic pollutant 4 effluent standards for 5 I have no idea what this is doing in my 6 book. 7 (Discussion had off the record.) 8 Q. The heading is, "In re proposed toxic 9 pollutant effluent standards for Aldrin/dieldrin, 10 et al." 11 And one of the et als was pcb's; is that 12 correct? 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. All right. 15 Now, was that affidavit by the 16 Westinghouse employee discussed at the meeting 17 that is reflected in Exhibit 157? . 18 A. I don't remember it. And I don't see 19 anything to refresh my memory on it. 20 Q. Do you know James Wright? 21 A. I recall the name. But I just don't 22 remember the person. ` 23 . Q. Do you know whether anyone else other 24 than Westinghou'se and Monsanto submitted Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 WATER PCB-SD0000035695 393 1 individually materials in response to those 2 proposed regulations other than the group 3 submission that you testified about earlier? 4 A. I do not know of any other. 5 Q. Let me ask you, looking at the cartoon 6 that is attached as part of Exhibit 158, and maybe 7 there is a better -- 8 Let me get the other one, because that 9 one is even less legible than what we had before. 10 Let me show you what has previously been 11 marked as Exhibit 75, which is also one of the 12 attachments to the affidavit that is Exhibit 158. 13 Have you seen that before you started 14 getting ready for this deposition? 15 A. I don't recall seeing it before then. 16 Q. I note that the cartoon character at the 17 bottom of that exhibit bears the Monsanto logo on 18 his si hirt. 19 Do you recall Westinghouse ever 20 ;requesting Monsanto's permission to use its logo 21 in connection with that cartoon? 22 1 A. I do not. 23 Q. Could such a request have been done 24 without your be.ing aware of it? Lonaoria & Cnl/laf 1 oic ~' WATER PCB-SD0000035696 394 1 A. Oh, yes. 2 Q. Okay. 3 Did you ever discuss with Westinghouse 4 their intent to publish such a cartoon to their 5 sales people? 6 A. No. 7 Q. In your estimation, is that a fair 8 depiction of your program for either recycling or 9 disposal of scrap, what you called Aroclor and 10 what they called Inerteen? 11 A. That is a good graphic way of 12 communicating that message, yes. 13 Q. Mark that the next one, will you please. 14 Before you mark the exhibit. Let me ask one more 15 question about 75. 16 Was it Westinghouse rather than Monsanto 17 that coined the term "dirty undesirable disposer"? 18 A. I don't know. 19 Q. Okay. 20 (The document above-referred to 21 . was marked Bloomington Deposition 22 Exhibit No. 159 for identification.) 23 Do you recognize that document that has 24 been marked as -Exhibit 159? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chiea a o - WATER PCB-SD0000035697 395 1 A. There are two documents in this 2 particular one. - 3 Q. Okay. Let's separate them right now. 4 A. Okay. 5 1 recognize Exhibit 159. 6 Q. That is a further update on the status of 7 the biodegradability studies or maybe that is not 8 what it is? that is on a different material? 9 A. Yes. This is a report on the 10 biodegradability of another Aroclor. 11 Q. 1221? 12 A. 1221. 13 Q. How did that compare with the ten times 14 figure and T5 times figure that we discussed 15 earlier? 16 A. I don't know that I come up with that 17 kind of number. But this is much more degradable. 18 You will note that on the first page, over 80 19 percent of the material disappeared in 28 hours. 20 Q. That was with the activated sludge? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. 1221 was not a new product at the date of 23 that? 24 A. That i-s true. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 rhiran WATER PCB-SD0000035698 396 1 Q. Is there any particular reason for the 2 ' fact that it was studied later than the 1016 and 3 1242? 4 A, Yes. 5 Initially there was little interest in 6 using 1221 by the electrical equipment people and 7 then an interest started to develop in its ' 8 possible use in capacitors. 9 And it has fill the dielectric properties 10 required. We found out from this study that it . 11 degrades rapidly. 12 What it didn't have was the equ ivalent 13 fire resistance. But in spite of that. some of 14 our customers" were interested. This is why we did 15 this work. 16 Q. Okay. 17 That was 1221 may have been an additional 18 alternative, in addition to 1016? 19 A. That's right. 20 Q. All right. 21 A. And it was. Not may have been, it was. 22 Q. Would you mark this. 23 24 ' 4 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chieacrn WATER PCB-SD0000035699 397 1 (The document above-referred to 2 was marked Bloomington Deposition 3 Exhibit No. 160 for identification.) 4 Do you recognize Exhibit 160? 5 A. I recall it now that I have read it. 6 Q. That was a letter from you forwarding 7 some questions to Westinghouse? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Oka--y . *> 10 What was the purpose for getting answers 11 to those questions? 12 A. Well, Mr. Kopp from EPA was attempting to 13 get information regarding pcb's from transformer 14 operations and he asked me if I could help get 15 those answers from General Electric and 16 Westinghouse, and this is my attempt to help him. 17 Q. Okay. 18 Do you know what he was going to do with 19 that information? 20 A. This was part of their effort to get a 21 better understanding of pcb's, the electrical 22 industry, the economic impact. The ability to 23 control, the feasibility of control. So that they 24 could come up w<ith a standard that they could Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000035700 398 1 support. 2 Q. And that was the ongoing regulatory 3 effort that we have been discussing. the initial 4 regulations that they published and you commented 5 on and Westinghouse commented on and this is a 6 continuation of the same process; is that correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. i Okay. 9 (The document above-referred to 10 i was marked Bloomington Deposition 11 4 Exhibit No. 161 for identification.) 12 :; - il Would you take a look at Exhibit 161. Do 13 you recognize that? 14 A. Yes. I do. 15 Q. That is a request from Westinghouse to 16 you for answers to some questions about pcb's; is 17 that correct? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Did you respond to that? 20 A. I recall I did. Yes. 21 Q. Would you mark that. 22 (The document above-referred to 23 was marked Bloomington Deposition 24 Exhibit No. 162 for identification.) T.nnnnr 4a C RAl/tef 11 C 1 rt 1 n nu i------WATER PCB-SD0000035701 399 LutCo- 1 Is Exhibit 162 a copy of your respon se to 2 Exhibit 161? 3 A. It appears to be, yes. 4 Q. Did anybody assist you in preparing the 5 responses which are attached to the letter th at is : ! i . 6 the first page of 161? 7 A. Yes. It would have to be Elmer whee ler 8 over in the medical department. 9 Q. Anyone else.that you recall? 10 A. Not that I recall, no. 11 Q. Is there anything in the questions o n 12 Exhibit 161 that suggested to you at the time that 13 the Westinghouse plants were less than what w e 14 described yesterday as bone dry? ......... 15 MR. FROEHWALD: You say plants plural? 16 MR. MC CONNELL: Plants plural. 17 This does not refer to the Bloomingt on 18 plant. I understand that. 19 A. The reference to shoes and their sho e 20 soles being contaminated would indicate that there 21 was a source of pcb's on the walking surfaces 22 Q. Okay. 23 You had previously visited the South 24 Boston plant, bad you not? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago WATER PCB-SD0000035702 400 1 A. Yes, 2 Q. How long before this letter, if you 3 recall? 4 A, Four or five years, 5 Q. Okay, 6 Did it trouble you at all that in four or 7 five years they hadn't been able to get the pcb's 8 off the floor of the South Boston plant? 9 A. No. . 10 Because I didn't have enough information 11 to tell me that this was a large area that was 12 covered or that the number of employees that were 13 wearing these shoes were many. 14 ` Or wTiVther or not these employees had 15 gotten it from the plant per se or did they get it 16 outside in the unloading process, on the 17 platforms. 18 I just didn't have enough to make a good 19 judgment regarding its significance. 20 Q. Did you make any inquiry of the person 21 who sent you the letter or of anyone else? 22 A. No, I don't recall doing so. 23 Q. Okay, 24 During, the time that you were visiting Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chirann WATER PCB-SD0000035703 401 1 the South Boston plant and the Bloomington plant, 2 did you arrive at any comparative evaluation of 3 the effectiveness of the controls between those 4 two facilities of Westinghouse, was one doing 5 better than the other? 6 A. Yes. South Boston was much cleaner. 7 Dryer looking than Bloomington. 8 Q. Okay. 9 Did ^that knowledge on your part enter 10 into the fact that the request didn't raise any 11 particular concern on your part? 12 A. It probably did. 13 If that plant, at least as I saw it, had 14 been one with obvious evidence of material, seeing 15 shoes contaminated I would have associated the 16 two. But this didn't fit what I saw the first 17 time around. 18 Q. In other words, if the same letter had 19 come to you from somebody at the Bloomington 20 plant, your response might have been different? 21 A. Very likely. Yes. 22 (The document above-referred to 23 was marked Bloomington Deposition 24 E*xhibit No. 163 for identification.) Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaao WATER PCB-SD0000035704 402 1 Q. Looking at Exhibit 163, which is dated 2 April 3, 1975, I will ask you if you recognize 3 that document? 4 A, I remember it. Yes. 5 Q. Was there ever any effort made to get the 6 analyses from other laboratories to compare with 7 your own? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Do you recall what the results of the 10 comparison were? 11 A. In general, the results were compared 12 favorably with Monsanto's results. 13 Q. When you say compared favorably, do you 14 mean that they were getting the same answers you 15 were? 16 A. Well, in analyzing pcb's, you don't get 17 the same answer, but you can numbers that can 18 relate to each other in a reasonable kind of way. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. Order of magnitude kind of numbers. 21 Q. Okay. 22 When you said more favorable or compared 23 favorably, the other interpretation of that would 24 be that their numbers were always lower than T.AtifA*4 a r ^^^ 1 A^A 5 -- WATER PCB-SD0000035705 403 1 yours? 2 A. No. I am talking now about the quality 3 of the data. 4 Q. It appeared to you that your laboratory 5 and the other laboratories were doing an equally 6 good job of the analysis? 7 A. That is correct. 8 Q. Okay. 9 (The document above-referred to 10 was marked Bloomington Deposition 11 Exhibit No. 164 for identification.) 12 Q. Showing you Exhibit 164, which is dated 13 August 22, 1975, I will ask you if you recognize 14 that document? . 15 A. Yes. I remember it. 16 Q. Do you recall whether Monsanto provided 17 to any of its pcb customers the assistance that is 18 referred to on the first page of the exhibit in 19 completing the questionnaire? 20 A. I do not recall. 21 Q. Who besides yourself would have been 22 involved in the providing of that assistance? 23 A. Dave Wood, the author of this request, 24 would have had `access to Monsanto records of pcb's ____________i _ WATER PCB-SD0000035706 40 4 1 that were sold to the customers' sites. 2 Q. That was part of what was under his 3 responsibility? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Was he by that nemo, which is the first 6 page of that exhibit, asking your permission to 7 provide that help or just letting you know that he 8 had been asked for it? 9 A. He is informing me that this activity was 10 underway and ongoing. 11 Q. And providing you with a copy of the 12 questionnaire so you would know what was out 13 there? 14 A. Yes. 15 MR. MC CONNELL: Okay. It is about five of 16 one. I am done with most everything for the 17 moment. 18 (Whereupon the taking of the 19 deposition was continued sine 20 dine.) 21 22 23 24 Longoria & Goldstine 236 imn WATER PCB-SD0000035707