Document Xz2kL3dnaNLMNadjXEjLE544G

In The Matter Of: Tolbert, et al. v. Monsanto Company, et al James G. Bryant June JO, 2003 VA RALLO Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 FAX: (215) 561-2221 Original FileJBO63003. VI, 197 Pages Min-U-Script File ID:3278439598 Word Index included with this Min-U-Script HARTOLDMON0039044 Tolbert, et al. v. Monsanto Company, et at lU 12] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [3] NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA [4] SOUTHERN DIVISION [5] [6] ANTONIA TOLBERT, et al : CIVIL ACTION [7] vs. : [8] MONSANTO COMPANY, : PHARMACIA COMPANY, INC., and [9] SOLUTIA INC. [10] : : NO. CV-01-C-1407-S [11] [12] Newark, Delaware Monday, June 30,2003 [13] [14] [15] Deposition of JAMES G. BRYANT held at the [16] Hilton Wilmington/Christiana, 100 Continental Drive, [17] on the above date, beginning at approximately 9:12 [18] a.m., before Madalene Foster Rohde, a Registered [19] Professional Reporter and Notary Public. [20] [21] [22] [23] VAFtALLO Incorporated Litigation Support Specialists [24] 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 [25] 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 Page 1 [1] [2] APPEARANCES: [3] DAVID B. BYRNE, III, ESQ. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, [4] PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 200 Coosa Street [5] Post Office Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 [6] Counsel for Plaintiffs [7] PI JACKSON R. SHARMAN, III, ESQ. [9] LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building [10] 400 20th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 [11] and MICHAEL E. KELLY, ESQ. [12] SMITH MOORE LLP P.O. Box 21927 [13] Greensboro, NC 27420 [14] Counsel for Defendant Solutia [15] PRESENT: [16] Gerard Alfe, [17] Videotape Specialist [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] (Index at end of transcript) James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 2 V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (3) Page 1 - Page 2 HARTOLDMON0039045 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 3 Page 5 [1] [2] THE VIDEOTAPE SPECIALIST: This Pi videotape deposition is now beginning.The date, [4] June 30,2003; the time, 9:12. HI Bryant - direct H three years back in like 1970 to '74, in that era. p] Q: Yes, sir. Now, at the time that you retired [4] in 1996, what company had you been working for? H Counsel will now introduce [6] themselves. H A: I'd been working directly for Standard [6] Chlorine. [7] MR. BYRNE: David Byrne for the [8] plaintiffs. H MR. SHARMAN: I'm Jack Sharman with [7] Q: Is that a company that's based here in [8] Delaware? PI A: That's a company that's defunct, but it was [10] Lightfoot, Franklin & White in Birmingham for [11] Solutia. [12] MR. KELLY: I'm Michael Kelly, with [13] Smith Moore in Greensboro, North Carolina, for [10] here in Delaware. [11] Q: Since you retired from Standard Chlorine in [12] 1996, have you taken on any other kind of work? [13] A: Just consulting for different aspects, but [14] Solutia. [15] [H] not necessarily -- not at all in the PCBs except for [is] one project. I formed a joint venture called Unison [is] ...JAMES GILMORE BRYANT, after [i7] having been duly sworn, was examined and testified [is] as follows: [is] DIRECT EXAMINATION [16] Transformer Services in conjunction with Union [17] Carbide, McGraw-Edison, and Standard Chlorine. What [is] we did, we were after retrofitting PCB transformers [19] in buildings, hospitals, and general places where [20] BY MR. BYRNE: [21] Q: Mr. Bryant, good morning again. I'm David [20] PCBs transformers were used. And also the entire pi] mass transit fleet on the East Coast. [22] Byrne. It's a pleasure to meet you here. [23] A: Good morning. [22] Q: I see. And when you did that work, were you [23] coming in and removing hazardous PCBs -- [24] Q: Thank you for coming out today. I [25] understand that you have given a deposition in the [24] A: Right. [25] Q: -- from transformers and then replacing it Page 4 Page 6 [i] [i] Bryant - direct H past, so I'll keep my opening instructions very [zj with some other -- [3] brief. [3j A: Correct. W I'll be asking you questions today, [4] Q: -- heat transfer fluids? [5] of course, while you're under oath, and if at any [5] A: We had a proprietary blend that we were [6] time I pose a question to you that you don't [6] supplying, and we also supplied proprietary blend [7] understand or you need me to repeat, please don't [7] for Carbide or Unison Transformer Services Division. [8] hesitate to ask me to do that. I'll be glad to. [8] And we retrofitted with those fluids. PI From time to time I may have to ask you to repeat an [9] Q: Did this particular transfer fluid or heat [10] answer that I don't understand, so I hope you'll [10] transferring fluid, did it have a name or a trade [11] bear with me if I have to do that. [12] A: No problem. [11] name? [12] A: Yes.The carbide -- well, yes, the as [13] Q: Mr. Bryant, where do you currently live? [13] Standard Chlorine name was FR-15, FR-15 low temp, [U] A: 104 Savannah Drive in Bear, Delaware. [U] and Unison fluid wasTF-1 andTF-2. [is] Q: How long have you been a resident of Bear, [is] Q: Have you done any other kind of consulting [16] Delaware? [16] work since 1996 other than that? [17] A: Oh, I've been here about 23 years. [17] A: Yes. I've been consulting on -- it's not [18] Q: Mr. Bryant, are you currently employed? [is] related to PCBs directly but to chlorinated [19] A: I'm retired. [19] hydrocarbons in general, here in Delaware City [20] Q: Okay. Whendid you retire? [21] A: 1996. [20] because they have got major pollution problems with pi] elemental mercury chlorobenzenes, PCBs, dioxins and [22] Q: What kind of work -- I'm sorry. [22] furans. But essentially none of them other than [23] A: Let me correct that residence. I've been [24] here at this time 24 years. I was here for Monsanto [23] incidental are related to -- none of them are [24] related to PCB manufacture direct.They are all, if [25] three years prior to that, not consecutive years but [25] PCBs are involved are incidental PCBs formed. V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-S cript (4) Page 3 - Page 6 HARTOLDMON0039046 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 7 Page 9 [i] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct H Q: Okay. In other words, customers who may [2] not my forte, but we'll try it. P] have purchased PCBs at some point in the past may P] Q: Well, we'll treat it like a golf match: If 14] have used those PCBs in the manufacturing of other [4] you get it close, we'll just pick up and move on to p] goods which may in turn have created some pollution [5] the next hole. is] issues? [6] But you mentioned that you were P] A: In the sense of the retrofit, yes. In the [7] working with titanium oxide? [8] sense that what I've been working on since [8] A: Well, it's titanium dioxide,Ti02, PI retirement, no. Because these are incidentally PI manufactured, Paint Pigment is a trade name. [10] manufactured during the production of the concerned [10] Q: Paint Pigment? [11] chemical, or the major product chemical, or what we [11] A: Paint Pigment, right. [1?] call incidental by-product. [12] Q: And what department at Johns Hopkins were [13] Q: Okay.Tell me a little bit about your [13] you working with? Was this the polymer science [14] educational background, starting in high school? [14] department or something like that? [is] A: Starting where? [is] A: No. It was -- actually I was directly [16] Q: Starting with your high school years. lie) working for Professor Holsher, who was the head of [17] A: High school was Country School High School [i7] the chemical engineering department. And it was [is] in Virginia, central Virginia, in the mountains, [is] basically just on high-temperature combustion. [19] where I grew up and was my home for probably some 25 [19] Q: And what were your specific contributions to [20] years. I went from there to Virginia Military, [20] the project with American Cyanamid? What did you pi] received a bachelor's in chemistry. And then from pi] bring to that project? [22] there I went directly worked for American Cyanamid [22] A: Actual design of the combustion units. [23] and was liaisoned withjohns Hopkins on special [23] Q: And what were the combustion units designed [24] combustion projects. And although I didn't receive [24] to do besides combust things? [25] the degree, they gave me credit in their management [25] A: Designed to control the particle size of Page 8 Page 10 [1] Bryant - direct [i] Bryant - direct [2] system equivalent of a Master's degree because I was H this pigment and convert it from a liquid to a p] working with the head of the department on joint Air p] solid. [4] Force combustion projects which were confidential. [4] Q: Do you remember some of the major -- I mean, [5] Q: Okay. And American Cyanamid was your first [5] every project has obstacles, I'm sure.What were [6] job out of college? [6] some of the big obstacles involved in that project [7] A: Right. [7] that you faced? [8] Q: And tell me a little bit more about what you [B] A: Oh, that project -- at that time, because in [9] did at American Cyanamid? PI later life I realized there were other problems that [10] A: It was titanium dioxide produced there by a [10] I wasn't aware of at that time. But at that time [11] totally different process.They normally used [11] the major obstacle was getting the proper combustion [12] sulfuric acid type digestion of rutile ore, and this [12] to control the particle size. And nucleating [13] was used in chlorination technology. [13] agents, what chemicals could be added to produce the [14] Q: I hate to interrupt your flow, but if you [H] desired properties in terms of catalysts and this [is] could, I know our court reporter today is hearing [is] type of thing. [is] some technical terms that neither she nor I have [16] Q: Did the project end successfully? [i7] ever heard before in our lives, so from tune to [17] A: The project, to my knowledge, is operating [is] time, I may ask you to spell a technical term or [is] in Savannah, Georgia, currently. [19] two, just so we're sure that our court reporter has [19] Q: Can you give me some sort of time frame when [20] a clear understanding of what you said. [20] this work would have been going on? [21] A: Okay. [21] A: 1958 to 1964. [22] Q: Because these are unusual terms that you're [22] Q: And were you employed by American Cyanamid [23] using, that the nonscientific community is not [23] during that entire time period that you just [24] familiar with. [24] mentioned? [25] A: Well, I may blow that because spelling is [25] A: Correct. V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-S cript (5) Page 7 - Page 10 HARTOLDMON0039047 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Pag 11 [1] Bryant - direct [2] Q: And did you perform work for any other p] company during that time period? [4] A: No. [5] Q: In 1964,1 assume you left Cyanamid and [6] moved to -- [7j A: Correct. [8] Q:--a new job? PI A: To Anniston. [10] Q: Okay. And when you say you moved to [11] Anniston, I'm assuming -- [12] A: Monsanto. [13] Q: -- you were employed by Monsanto -- [14] A: Correct. [is] Q: -- and they dispatched you to Anniston at [16] some point? [17] A: Correct. [is] Q: Now, I'm assuming you were hired out of the [19] St. Louis office, the home office of Monsanto at the [20] time? [21] A: Actually, to my knowledge I was hired out of [22] Anniston. I'm sure, you know, St. Louis gave [23] approval but actually the interviews and everything [24] was conducted right at the plant site itself. [25] Q: Who interviewed you in Anniston? Page 13 [1] Bryant - direct [2] was a Mr.-- was the plant manager, McClain? [3] A: McClain. W Q: Did Mr. Larkin and Mr. McClain give you any [5] background about the plant? Did they talk to you [6] about some of the products that were manufactured at [7] the plant? [8] A: Yes. [9] Q: And what products did they say were being [10] produced in Anniston back in 1964? [11] A: Well, the thing they were excited about was [12] the parathion process, which was a new process, [13] which was an insecticide. And that was right [14] towards when cotton was king and the boll weevil was [is] tearing the cotton crop all to pieces, so there were [16] sales of this stuff just through the roof. And all [17] the efforts, the major efforts, were going at trying [is] to get this plant on stream and going -- that plant [19] had blown up in Nitro, West Virginia, and killed po] five or six people, and the city fathers would not [21] let it be rebuilt in Nitro. [22] Q: Nitro, West Virginia? [23] A: Nitro, West Virginia. And there were a lot [24] ofVirginia Nitro and West Virginia people down [25] there. In fact, McClain was from West Virginia. Page 12 Page 14 [1] Bryant - direct [i] Bryant - direct [2] A: Jim Larkin. H Q: And so when operations wrapped up in Nitro, [3] Q: Who was Jim Larkin? pi WestVirginia, did Mr. McClain transfer to Anniston [4] A: He was the technical service director.And K] and built or developed a parathion production [5] John McClain, the plant manager. K facility in Anniston? [6] Q: And were you interviewed at all in St. Louis [6] A: I'm not aware exactly when he was [7] with any of the home office -- [7] transferred down, but I know he was there. I know [B] A: No. [8] the chief chemist, a guy by the name of Owen Dolan, [9] Q: What position -- and I'm assuming you took a p] was brought down from Nitro because of familiarity [10] position with the Anniston -- [10] with the process.They also explained to me that [11] A: Correct. [11] they had this aroclor production facility.There [12] Q: -- Monsanto plant? [12] had been an old stable product and they were [13] A: Correct. [13] converting benzene to biphenyl by a new technique [14] Q: And what was the first position that you [14] which was a Selas furnace rather than the old lead [is] held with Monsanto? [is] box that they had used I think back in the early [16] A: Research and development. [16] '60s. I was never aware of the lead pots, other [17] Q: Did you have some sort of an official title [17] than just seeing the residual equipment that was [18] that came with the job? [is] left in the building. [19] A: Research chemist. [i9] Q: What type of equipment was left in the [20] Q: When you were interviewed for the job in po] building from the lead pot manufacturing -- [21] Anniston, did Mr -- you said Landweir -- [21] A: There were just some -- [22] A: No; Larkin. [22] Q: Let me finish, that way it will look clean [23] Q: Larkin? [231 on the record. [24] A: Correct. P4] A: Okay. [25] Q: And then the other gentleman you mentioned [25] Q: What equipment was still remaining in the VARALLO Incorporated Min-U-Script (6) Page 11 - Page 14 HARTOLDMON0039048 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 15 Page 17 [i] Bryant - direct [i] Bryant - direct H plant from the lead pot production process for K to the mid to early 1960s? PI aroclors? PI A: Now, you jumped ahead of me because I didn't [4] A: All as I recall were the pots themselves, [4] discuss producing aroclor. We were talking about [5] and the building was sort of charred or burned [sj biphenyl in the Selas furnace. [sj inside, which from tales that I got from old timers [6] Q: Yes, sir, I'm sorry, I meant -- I'm talking [7] were they would have fires in these things. But [7] about the biphenyl, biphenyl component of aroclor [8] when I observed what was going on in that plant, [8] manufacture. p] they used these natural gas torches to heat the PI A: Right. Only that biphenyl was a starting [10] pipelines, which scared me to death because I had [10] material. [11] come from where you couldn't smoke within 25 feet of [11] Q: Yes. [12] the building, and these guys walking around with a [12] A: Yes. Oh, yes, it was a much more efficient [13] pipe with a fire on the end of it. And I don't know [13] system, more efficient and safer all around, a [14] how much of that char affecting that building come [14] tremendous process improvement. [is] from that type of thing more than from the pots. [is] Q: The system that was in place for creating [is] But there's no reason to ever investigate it because [is] biphenyl at the Anniston plant in 1964, did it [i7] they were inoperative. [i7] create less waste than the previous system as you [is] Q: As you understood it, the lead pot process [is] understood it? [19] involved heating pots of lead to very high [19] A: No comparison.Yes. po] temperatures? [20] Q: What were some of the design features of the [21] A: To my knowledge it was molten lead, and [21] new biphenyl production process as of 1964 that [22] benzene was bubbled under this as an atmospheric [22] caused it to produce less waste, less emissions [23] seal, and the temperature gave you the conversion to [23] perhaps, if that's the case, than the old system [24] die biphenyl or split the hydrogen off. How they [24] with the lead pot process? [25] separated that and what they did with it and what [25] A: The furnace was a completely sealed unit, Page 16 Page 18 [1] Bryant direct [1] Bryant - direct [2] was coming off of it, I don't have any direct [2] high temperature, and recovery of off-gases, namely p] knowledge. [3] hydrogen, was much more efficient, purification was [4] Q: So the molten lead that was used in the [4] much better. In fact, that hydrogen was used for [s] pots, did you understand that it was just an [5] hydrogenation of biphenyl and terphenyl further down [6] efficient heating system for the benzene? [6] the stream. And it was just an entirely different m A: Technically it was the only production [7] process. It was the state of the art technology at [8] process that I know of for converting to biphenyl at [8] that time. [9] that time. Well, now, it was not operative and I [9] Q: Was it your understanding that the old lead [10] never saw it operate. [10] pot process created more leaks and spills inside the [11] Q: Did anyone ever describe die process that [11] plant facility? [12] the plant went through to convert from that old lead [12] A: It was my impression that the operators per [is] pot system to the newer system that was in place [13] se were afraid of the old lead pot process, and I [i4] when you arrived in 1964? [14] think it was a physical danger they were afraid of. [is] A: There was never any interest to even review [is] I don't think they knew enough about chemical or [16] the old process because they were so excited about [16] residual toxicology and this type of thing, I know [17] diis new Selas furnace, and from all appearances it [17] they didn't. But they were just physically afraid, [is] was doing a very efficient job and very neat [18] like I was, of fire and stuff like this. [i9] operation or closed operation versus the pots. And [19] Q: Was there a danger of hazardous air po] I never questioned how they operate because, to be po] emissions being created in this old lead pot [21] honest with you, I really wasn't interested. pi] process? [22] Q: Was it your understanding that die new [22] A: I don't think anyone would have known if it [23] process for creating aroclors that was in place at [23] was or wasn't other than maybe some of the medical [24] least as of 1964 was a better and safer way of [24] people. I honestly don't think they knew. [25] producing aroclor than what had been in place prior [25] Q: Okay. V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (7) Page 15 - Page 18 HARTOLDMON0039049 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et al. James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 19 Page 21 [1] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct p] A: The only person would have known would have [2] Q: Sure. p] been Dr.Jack Francis, who was the company doctor on [3] A: If it's hydrogenated, it makes a product [4] the premises, and he was an old -- oh, what do you [4] called -- I think they call it HB-40, which was a [5] call the baby doctor, I can't think of the name. [5] plasticizer, which is totally different 16] Q: Pediatrician? [6] characteristics. So biphenyl was no more of the 17] A: Pediatrician, right. And he had gone into [7] aroclor process than benzene would be of the aroclor is] general practice, and he was the company doctor, [8j process. p] And I don't think he recognized any of the health [9j Q: I see. So the lead pot process for creating [io] dangers. He knew about parathion and stuff like [10] biphenyl may have been part of the overall aroclor in] that because obviously St. Louis had educated him on [11] production process and perhaps the production [12] that. [12] process for other products that were produced at the [13] Q: Was the old lead pot process facility, was [13] plant? [14] there, did it include ventilation of some sort to [14] A: Oh, yes. [is] protect workers? [15] Q: Okay. How many products that were being [16] A: As I recall, those old buildings had vent [16] used or being created at the plant in 1964 required [17] shafts in the top of them, but my recollection is [17] biphenyl as a component element? [is] not really clear on that. I'd say nothing other [is] A: It would have -- again, if you say aroclor, [is] than natural ventilation. [i?l if you say aroclor, it could be plasticizer or it [20] Q: And ventilation from that building would [20] could be electrical. [21] just be to the outside air? [21] Q: I see. [22] A: Correct. [22] A: And if you want a list of all the products, [23] Q: What type of vapors would be emitted to the [23] I couldn't give them to you. But the electrical [24] outside atmosphere from that particular building, [24] ones were pretty easily identified, although most of P5] the old lead pot process building? [25] the plasticizer grade I was familiar with, too.But Page 20 Page 22 ID Bryant - direct [i] Bryant - direct [2] A: I never got in to examine that because we H the difference is in the plasticizer grade, you p] had so many other problems that were more important [3] could have hydrogenation, which was totally a [4] in their eyes in those days. But any type of air [4] different product. But in the electrical, there was [5] emissions that you would normally expect off of [5] no hydrogenation in those days, and later on, years, [6] molten lead, I would expect in that system. But as [6] there was hydrogenation, because I bought the [7] far as investigating, I never investigated anything. m material from Monsanto in this retrofit program that [8] And anything that I would say would be speculation [8] we were doing after I left General Electric in the [9] because I never saw anything. [9] mid '80s. But that wasn't true '64 to '68 in the [10] Q: I see.To your knowledge did the new [10] plant. [11] manufacturing process for aroclors, did it produce, [11] Q: Okay.Well, I've taken us a little far [12] at least as of 1964, less in the way of wastewater ii?] afield. I'll get back to the original series of [13] emissions? [13] questions I was talking with you about, and that was [14] A: Let me correct you again. [14] the types of products manufactured at the plant [is] MR. SHARMAN: Just object to the [is] overall. And I think you mentioned parathion was a [16] form. I think you said aroclor again, David, and I [16] new operation that had moved from the Nftro plant in [17] just wanted to -- [17] West Virginia to Anniston; is that correct? [is] THE WITNESS: Right. [is] A: That's correct. [19] MR. BYRNE: I apologize. [19] Q: Do you know when Monsanto shut down [20] BY MR. BYRNE: [20] parathion production at the Nitro, West Virginia, [21] Q: The old lead pot process was a part of the pi) plant? P2] overall aroclor production process at the plant; is [22] A: No. I really don't know the date they shut [23] that correct? [23] it down, but it was shut down with an explosion. So [24] A: Well, yes and no. We didn't consider -- [24] I'd say it was in the late '50s. [25] because biphenyl can be used for other purposes. [25] Q: What did you hear or learn about the V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (8) Page 19 - Page 22 HARTOLDMON0039050 Toibert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 23 Page 25 [i) Bryant - direct [i] Bryant direct PI explosion? What had happened? H numerous.Just a matter of setting a priority of [3] A: Oh, we knew what had happened in the Pi what I wanted to work on. I pretty much had [4j explosion.They had a chlorine leak in the chlorine [4] flexibility to work on what I wanted to, but my [5] feed line and it overchlorinated the intermediate to H criteria was that whatever would return the most [6] the point of instability. And that set of series of [6] investment for correcting, that was a major concern m tests for us in the plant that we ran in the [7] that I worked on. That's pretty much a premise I p] laboratory to check the stability of these different [8] went on the whole time I was there. p] batches, because we did not at that time understand [9] Q: What were the major problems or concerns [10] the technology, but we knew the conditions that [10] that they brought to your attention when you first [11] created it, and we were purposely trying to avoid [11] started? [12] those conditions. [12] A: Oh, their problems were numerous.You had [13] Q: Okay. [13] two separate categories: you had the agricultural [14] A: And basically the rule of the game was, you [14] chemical, which was the parathion; and you had the [is] know, if we tried this in the laboratory and we had [is] organic chemical, which was the aroclor. And both [16] a test where we'd check the temperature increase [is] processes had very unique problems. As I said, the [17] with a sealed ampule of aroclor, we would add heat [17] main concern was trying to, for the process [is] at a constant rate, and if that heat all of a sudden [is] engineers, to justify their cost savings because [19] started going up, then obviously that was a heat of [19] that determined their pay and also their job [20] reaction. And instructions were to sewer that to [20] responsibility.And I pretty much supported them in [21] the bug pit to let the bugs biodegrade it and not [21] whatever they wanted to do. And I never questioned [22] use it for the intended purpose. [22] too much their economics. If they made some [23] Q: I see. What other products other than [23] sense -- I mean, if they were wild guesses, yes, [24] parathion and aroclor were being made or produced at [24] then I did question that. But most of the engineers [25] the Anniston plant when you interviewed in 1964? [25] were well trained from reputable schools, and you Page 24 Page 26 [i] Bryant - direct [i] Bryant - direct H A: Well, they sold intermediates of those H didn't get wild guesses. [3] processes.You had thioacid, which was sold to some PI Q: I may be making too much of an assumption [4] of the people for other purposes from parathion M here, but let me see if 1 can float this assumption [5] process.You had sales of caustic, hydrochloric [5] by you to see if it will save some time. Were most [6] acid.And I don't think they ever sold any [6] of the concerns that were brought to your attention [7] chlorine; that was an intermediate product. I don't [7] and that you were asked to work on, did those [8] think they had facilities to compress it and load [8] concerns involve the loss of product in various p] it, to be honest with you. [9] plant waste streams and the desire on the part of [10] Q: But they did produce chlorine? [10] management to recover as much of that product or raw [11] A: They produced chlorine, yes, for internal [11] material in some cases as possible to save money? [12] use. [12] A: Yes. [is] Q: And that was for use in the creation of [13] Q: And let's take the two products that you [H] parathion, aroclor, that sort of thing? [14] mentioned a moment ago and try to break down [is] A: That's correct. [is] individual problems like that with each one. tie] Q: Was paranitrophenol a product that was being [16] With parathion, were there waste or [i7] made at the plant as of 1964? [17] pollution or loss issues associated with that [is] A: Not as of 1964, but shortly thereafter, [is] product at the plant that you can tell us about? [19] probably '65. [19] A: Parathion wasn't as concerned with loss of [20] Q: When you interviewed at the Anniston plant, [20] revenue because it was a very profitable product, [21] what research and development tasks did the plant pi] The major concern with parathion was toxicity. It [22] managers want you to look at and take on? [22] was extremely toxic and there was every effort to [23] A: Basically what I had to do was work with the [23] try to control any discharge of parathion, even to [24] process engineers and manufacturing engineers, the [24] small bits in the laboratory. [25] problems they brought to me. And the problems were [25] Q: And what problems then had the plant been VARALLO Incorporated Min-U-Script (9) Paae 23 - Pace 26 HARTOLDMON0039051 Tolbert, et ai. v. Monsanto Company, et al. James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 27 Page 29 [1] Bryant - direct [i] Bryant - direct [2] experiencing with lost parathion or waste or [2j parathion waste bug pit? [3] emissions of parathion? p] A: People over in west Anniston. [4] A: Well, what I mentioned previously, we had [4] Q: Are you talking about people in the [5] the stability test and you had batches that would go H community? [6] bad.And we didn't understand why.Then that would [6] A: Yes. We had a monitoring system, telephone 17] have to be destroyed, and it in itself was very [7] system, where they would call in, I don't know is) toxic. And we had a big bug pit, we called it, [8] whether it was an 800 number, probably just a local Pi biodegradation pit, one of the first of a few in the [9] number. But they would call in and as the shift [10] country at that time. And we aerated the stuff with [10] supervisor, which we would occasionally fill in that [11] air and had bugs in there that would chew up the [11] position, we'd listen to the conversation and tell [12] residue. And there was a lot of effort that went [12] the chief operator who spoke in the same local [13] into keeping that system going, the conditions which [13] accent and all that the people did, you know, what [14] made it necessary to operate -- conditions which [14] he thought the problem was. [is] facilitated operating the thing. [is] Q: What kind of complaints would you hear of [16] Q: When you came to the plant in 1964, the bug [16] from the local residents? [17] pit, as you have described it, was that already in [17] A: Just the odor. [is] place? [is] Q: And I'm assuming they were smelling I guess [19] A: It was already in place. [19] vaporous emissions from the bug pit; is that [20] Q: Where was it located? Was it outside the [20] correct? [21] plant? [21] A: Yes, the smell of discharges -- basically in [22] A: No. [22] retrospect, I think it was dead bugs, that they [23] Q: By itself? [23] weren't getting enough oxygen, and I think that's [24] A: It was in the back of the parathion plant, [24] what was creating the major odor problem. [25] which was a fairly new section in the -- gosh, I [25] Q: I see. Now, the bug pit would operate Page 28 Page 30 [1] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct [2] don't know what my directions were. It was in the [2] winter and summer, I assume? p] corner where the parathion production unit was, pi A: Uh-huh. [4] which at that time was the main gate area. I would K] Q: And in the summer months would it give off a [5j guess it's probably north corner, but there I'm [5] stronger odor? [6j guessing on the direction. [6] A: I won't say it was weather related. Yes, in [7] Q: Okay. Using downtown Anniston as sort of a [7] hot weather, the air is denser, it would tend to [B] reference guide, would the bug pit have been on the [8] hold closer to the ground. I'd say. But the major pi side of the plant farthest away from downtown or [9] problem was when they would get the lack of air flow [10] closest? [10] for support of die bug life. [11] A: No.About medium away, I'd say, directly -- [11] Q: I see. [12] I thought it almost faced the railroad tracks, [12] A: I think we later corrected that problem. By [13] because the Southern Railroad tracks went through [13] the time I left, I don't know whether they stopped [14] there. I guess it was Southern, or some railroad [14] all the community complaints or not. [is] track went up along tire Old Birmingham Highway [is] Q: Were there chemicals in the waste pit and in [16] there, and a couple of founders and things in the [16] the parathion waste that were volatile? [17] junk yard down there. [17] A: Oh, yes. [is] Q: What did the plant management tell you about [is] Q: What kinds of chemicals in the parathion [19] their experiences with the bug pit and die paiathion [19] waste were volatile in nature? [20] waste that was put in there? ' [20] A: Breakdown products of parathion which could pi] A: They were getting a lot of odors off of that [21] vary from alcohols to ketones to esters, phosphorous [22] bug pit and complaints of odors. And they told me, ,, [22] compounds. [23] you know, that this was die type of generally PR [23] Q: And when those volatile compounds would warm [24] relationship that we had. [24] up or mix with other chemicals, would it move into P5] Q: Who was complaining about the odors from the [25] some sort of vaporous phase that could off-gas from V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-S cript (10) Page 27 - Page 3C HARTOLDMON0039052 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 31 [1] Bryant - direct [2] the waste pit? Pi A: Oh, yes. I think you certainly had some of [4] that. I don't even know whether we had the [5j analytical capability at that time of tracing it. [6] Apparently they had done enough work where they felt [7] that this was a reasonable safety system. In fact, [8] to my knowledge there was a state of the art PI treatment system at that time and a lot of [10] municipalities have since adopted that same system. [11] But we never did any strict analytical work of what [12] was the off-flow of that thing. [13] Q: Now, municipal waste systems don't accept [H] parathion type products into them, do they? Open [is] air systems now, do they? [16] A: No, I don't think that one down there did [17] either because, as I understand the practice was, if [is] we had a failure in that system, that they would [19] open the gates and let it go. And I don't think [20] Anniston even had the capability at that time of [21] doing anything with it. [22] Q: Tell me what you mean by that, if there was [23] a failure in the bug pit system, there would be [24] just, you just what, release the stuff -- [25] A: No. We had, I know one incident, maybe two, Page 33 Ii] Bryant - direct Pi Q: Did they just open up and let it pass Pi through so as not to overload the system at the [4] municipal waste system? [5j A: What I would say would be hearsay. I don't [6j physically know that they did. All I know is what [7] was fed back to me from the guy that was running the [8] whole system, that was Gene Coley. [9] Q: But to even get to the municipal waste [10] system, that parathion release would have traveled [11] through an awful lot of the west Anniston area, [12] wouldn't it, to have gotten to that municipal [13] treatment center? [14] A: I guess it would have had to have gone [is) through Snow Creek. [is] Q: Yes, before it ever reached the waste [i7] treatment plant? [is] A: Yes. [19] Q: Did the plant managers, to your knowledge, [20] ever make some effort to notify local residents of [21] the release of the parathion waste that you know of? [22] A: No. [23] Q: You said there was another incident you [24] recall. What was the other incident involving the ps] parathion waste pit that you recall? Page 32 Page 34 [1] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct [2] where the retainer wall on the pit collapsed, tire [2] A: It was a collapse of something. I don't [3] concrete, and released a fair liquid volume, and the PI know whether it was another retainer wall or pump [4] stuff went down in a slug. [4] failure or something. But the worst one was the [5] Q: Okay. Where did it go from there? [s] wall collapsing that I remember.The second one I [6] A: Eventually wound up in Choccolocco Creek. [6] don't know whether the instructions were to open the [7] Q: And this was parathion product? [7] gates and let her go. [8] A: Uh-huh. [8] Q: How large was the bug pit in terms of the [9] Q: Waste? [9] volume of product or waste product that it could [10] A: Parathion waste. [10] hold? [11] Q: Do you remember approximately how many -- I [11] A: That thing was probably 100 by probably 75, [12] guess we're talking hundreds of gallons? [12] maybe 100 by 200, maybe, as I recall. Pretty good [13] A: Oh, yes, it was a fairly sizable amount. [is] size pit. [14] Q: Were there any recovery efforts made by the [i4] Q: Do you have a judgment as to how many [is] plant to try to -- [is] gallons of fluids it could hold? [16] A: No. Ii6] A: No. My guess was it was probably 3 or 4 [17] Q: -- reclaim some of it? [17] feet deep, but, again, I'm just guessing. No, I [is] A: No recovery of that stuff.The only [18] don't have any direct idea what volume it had. [19] secondary catch would be the waste treatment plant, [19] Q: When you were interviewed at the plant in [20] and as I say, my understanding was their [20] 1964, or perhaps even shortly thereafter, were you [21] instructions were to open the door and let it go. [21] asked by any of the plant managers to address [22] Q: Do you know if there was some communication [22] problems related to the bug pit? [23] between the plant and the municipal waste treatment [23] A: Yes, probably from the manager or I guess he [24] facility managers for the city over that? [24] was environmental chemist, Gene Coley.We talked [25] A: Oh, yes. [25] about it quite a bit, and I personally had a VAR ALL O Incorporated Min-U-Script (11) Page 31 - Page 34 HARTOLDMON0039053 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et al James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 35 Page 37 [i] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct PI friendship with Gene, and I would go with him -- [2] that Mr. Sharman may be concerned about. [3] that's where I reviewed the bug pit, the only time I P) The stuff that was in the pit, the [4] ever really spent any time looking at it. And we [4] bug pit, I mean, it was toxic, wasn't it? [5] just talked in general terms of trying to, like I [5] A: Correct. [6] say, increase air flow to it and different things we [63 Q: And toxic to humans, I assume? [7] could do.To be honest with you, I didn't [7] A: Correct. [s] understand too much about a bug pit in those days [] Q: And what kinds of problems could the waste P] myself. p] in the bug pit cause a human, as you understood it? [10] Q: You've mentioned a couple times the idea of [10] A: Causes death. [11] air flow. Why was air flow important to the -- [11] Q: Does it kill aquatic organisms, I assume? [12] A: Air flow was critical. [12] A: Oh, yes. Kills everything. [13] Q:-- to the bug pit? [13] Q: Now, parathion was banned at some point by [H] A: Uh-huh. [14] the federal government for that very reason, wasn't [is] Q: Why is that? [15] it? [16] A: Because just like a human, you don't get [16] A: Not to my knowledge, but I think it was. [17] enough air, you die. Bugs were the same way. H7] You guys would have a better input on that. I think [ib] Q: What kind of bugs, I mean, are we talking [ib] malathion replaced it, which was less toxic. But [19] about literally insects that lived in -- [19] parathion in the '64-'68 era was a known [20] A: No. We're talking about microorganisms. [20] insecticide, deadly. But you got to realize that [21] Q: I see.That needed air to live and react [21] we're replacing DDT, which had residual effects. [22] with the waste product that was poured into it? [22] Parathion did not have residual effects; it [23] A: Correct.And you also had to condition them [23] biodegraded. But it also killed on contact. [24] to feed them, they had to be conditioned to the feed [24] Q: So the need to persist in the environment [25] system after you were feeding them. [25] really wasn't an issue with parathion because it did Page 36 Page 38 [i] Bryant - direct [i] Bryant - direct H Q: Was the bug pit a fairly safe distance from Pi its job and then -- p] the plant in terms of being a safe distance from the Pi A: That's right. [4] workers, I mean? H] Q: -- there was no other need for it to hang [5] A: Yes, it was isolated to itself. [5] around? [6] Q: Were there any concerns that you knew of [] A: That's right. And it did it -- in fact, we F] about keeping workers I guess downwind of that bug [7] would not purposely advise customers of the short [B] pit? [8] life of it because it was only like three or four [9] A: No, not to my knowledge. [9] hours, and if you advise them they would say, [10] Q: Workers who did their jobs, if in fact their [10] "What's tire use of spraying something if it's not [11] jobs involved being around the bug pit, were they [11] going to be effective any longer than that?" [12] given any kind of protective gear back in the 1964 [12] But the thing about it is it killed [13] time frame? [13] everything it came in contact within that period of [14] A: Not that I was aware of. [14] time. So there was no reason to have residual. But [is] Q: Well, I mean, did they need to have [is] that's hard to sell that to somebody that's paying [is] protective gear on or wear gloves to work around lie] the price they were paying for parathion. [i7] that pit? [17] Q: Were there other features of the parathion [is] A: They wore gloves, I'd say, most of the time, [ib] production process that you were -- well, strike [19] not all the time. [19] that. Let me go back. [20] Q: What kind of toxic effects could the waste [20] And you may have already answered [21] in the parathion bug pit have on a person? [21] this for me and if you have, please forgive me. [22] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [22] Were there any specific things that you did to [23] BY MR. BYRNE: [23] address any problems that existed with the bug pit? [24] Q: If indeed, I mean, let's just start with [24] A: No. [25] this question. I think this will cure the issue [25] Q: Okay. Were there any other waste or V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (12) Page 35 - Page 38 HARTOLDMON0039054 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 39 [1] Bryant - direct [2] production-related issues with the parathion pi manufacturing process at the plant that you were [4] asked to examine and try to correct or fix? pi A: Yes.The most major problem that they had [6] that I was working on -- and you've probably picked [7] this up in other depositions from Ishmael Ransaw -- [B] I was assigned to work on sulfur recovery, which was [9] a nasty problem for that process, because in '64 [10] when I went there, they were operating on the old [11] philosophy that the solution to pollution is [12] dilution. So they just kept building the stack [13] taller aiid taller and burning the stuff in an [14] incinerator and kicking the S02 into the [is] environment. And I was very opposed to this because [16] S02 is very detrimental to the environment. [17] Q: You mentioned a phrase, that the solution to [is] pollution is dilution? [is] A: Oh, that he was the old textbook philosophy [20] back in the old days, when I went to school. [21] Q: And was that philosophy still in practice [22] from what you could see at the Monsanto plant in [23] Anniston in 1964? [24] A: Well, the fact that they built the stack up [25] to like 200 feet, yes, it was. . [1] Bryant - direct [2] down in the community around the plant? P] A: Oh, no question about it. [4] Q: The area outside of the plant, that was a [5] residential area, was it not? [6] A: Right. [7] Q: And it was pretty heavily populated even [8] back in the time that you were there; is that [9] correct? [10] A: Correct. [11] Q: Let me ask you something.The Nitro plant [12] in West Virginia, I've never seen it and I don't [13] know anything about the community that it was [14] located in, but was it near a populated area? [is] A: No. I was only there one time myself. It [16] was a big industrial complex along the Kanawha [17] River, and I'd say it wasn't a heavy populated area. [is] It was mostly industrial down that river. [19] Q: You mentioned, though, that the city fathers [20] in Nitro, West Virginia, had some issues with the [21] plant and asked them to move their parathion [22] production somewhere else? [23] A: It was my knowledge they would not allow it P4] to be rebuilt there. But, see, you had Union [25] Carbide stacked up there with them right on the Page 41 Page 40 Page 42 [i] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct 12] Q: Was the idea that the area emissions [2] river; in fact, part of that explosion went into tire [3] released at that height would just simply dilute p] Union Carbide plant and shut down different [4] into a larger body of air? Hi facilities. And it was a pretty dramatic experience H A: Correct.That was the theory.That's what [5] for those people.Alcor had a big reduction mill [6] I meant by the solution is dilution, that the [6] there.There was just industries lined up all the [7i pollution at that elevation would dilute by the time [7] way down that river. In those days that river was a [8] it got to ground level. [8] sewer line. [9] Q: And what observations did you make about [9] Q: Did anyone in St. Louis ever tell you why [10] that back in 1964, when you saw the stack and you [10] the decision was made to move parathion [11] looked it over, what was your reaction to that? [11] manufacturing operations from Nitro, West Virginia, [12] A: Oh, I immediately started to work on the [12] which would have been a less populated area, to a [13] sulfur trying to recover it from the process and [13] more populated area in Anniston? [H] come up with some technique to eliminate that [14] A: Nobody from St. Louis told me anything about [is] system. [is] that process.The only people that told me about [16] Q: Did you advise plant management back in the lie) the explosion were the people that were there when [17] '60s that that was a bad idea they had there at the [i7] it exploded. [is] plant? [is] Q: Some of whom had moved to Anniston? [19] A: They advised me it was a bad idea.They [19] A: Yes. I think they knew why they moved it [20] wanted to get rid of it.The problem we had was [20] out of there. [21] inversionally, as atmospheric changes, that dilution [21] Q: Did they say? Other than what you have told [22] was a bad idea because it would come down and puffs [22] me? [23] to the ground and concentrate.And it was very [23] A: Their feeling was that Anniston was more lax P4] objectionable. It would choke you. [24] than West Virginia would be in their environmental [25] Q: And would emissions from that stack come [25] regulations. I assumed -- I didn't know this, but I V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (13) Page 39 - Page 42 HARTOLDMON0039055 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 43 Page 45 [i] Bryant - direct [i] Bryant - direct pi assumed that's the reason it was there. [23 simply discontinue the production operations that [3] Q: You visited -- well, you have worked in a [3] created these S02 emissions until it could be solved [4] number of different places over the years, I assume. H] or did they just keep right on producing while you [5j And I would just ask you as an aside to tell me what H worked behind the scenes to try to solve it? [6j your impressions were of overall environmental [6j A: Keep on producing. m regulation in Alabama when you were at the Monsanto [7] Q: And so from the time that you were first [B] plant? Did you find it to be lax or extremely [a] told by plant management that they recognized that PI tight? [9] it was an emission problem and might be creating [io] MR. SHARMAN: Object to form. [10] issues for the community, how many years elapsed [i i] A: Well, it was lax all over the country at [11] from then until the time when you left the plant? [12] that time.And I don't say it was any worse than [iz] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [13] anywhere else or any better. In feet, the EPA had [is] BY MR. BYRNE: [14] not even been formed when I was there. [i4] Q: If you arrived in 1964 -- [is] Q: I see. [is] A: Four years, '68. [ie] A: And it was only towards my latter year [16] Q: Four years? [i7] there, say '67, that I even heard of an Alabama [17] A: Yes. [is] Environmental Department or whatever it was called. [is] Q: And at the end of your four years in [19] And they got into it with the fish kills and this [19] Anniston, was anything done to the 200-foot stacks [20] type of thing. And that was the only part of it I po] or were they still there just as they were when you pi] was aware of. I never remember any other stringent [21] arrived in 1964? [22] state controls on it. And I think they felt like [2?i A: To my knowledge, the groundwork had been [23] the difference between Nitro and Anniston was [23] done in the laboratory to correct that situation. [24] Anniston was more of a kind of a rural area, and it [24] But how much of the actual field engineering had [25] was from a standpoint of industrialization. Except [25j been done, I don't know. St. Louis had their own Page 44 [i] Bryant - direct Pi once I got to Anniston, I realized it had all those [3] pipe foundries and things all over the town. I K] don't know, it's got to have been something in the H lax environmental control or something for them to [6] move that plant down there, because it wasn't all m that different from West Virginia. [8] Q: The sulfur dioxide issue that you worked on, [9] did you ever implement some new system there diat [io] replaced the 200-foot stacks? [ii] A: I had worked on the system and then I [12] assigned it to Ish about the time I was leaving, [13] because I got involved in market service problems [14] and things progressively more than I was in plant [is] activity. And that was the reason I transferred to . [16] St. Louis, because I was spending more time on the [17] road than I was spending in the plant. But he did, [is] to my knowledge, work out a system that was [19] satisfactory. po] Q: When do you recall plant management in [21] Anniston first bringing the sulfur dioxide problem [22] to your attention? [23] A: Oh, that was brought to my attention as soon [24] as I got there. [25] Q: Did plant management decide that they would Page 46 [1] Bryant - direct [2] corporate engineering would take those projects. [3] And to what stage that was when I left, to be quite [4] candid, I had no way of knowing nor I had any [5] interest in it because my primary concentration was [6i in the electrical area on the aroclors at that time [7] and not the parathion. [a] Q: Were S02 emissions measured back then? [9] A: Oh, I'm sure they were. I didn't measure [10] them, but Gene Coley would have. [11] Q: He did measure them? [12] A: Yes. And they should have been recorded in [13] the laboratory because they had a pretty good [14] recordkeeping on that type of thing. [is] Q: And did plant management, did they publish [16] those air emission readings to, I guess to the [17] community or to the city ofAnniston? [is] A: No. [is] Q: The parathion process, were there any other po] issues that you were asked specifically to address pi] other than those that you have mentioned so far? [22] A: Oh, I addressed periodically some of the [23] intermediate compounds and this type of thing of the [24] parathion that they were selling to other [25] manufacturers, but they were the hot issues that V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (14) Page 43 - Page 46 HARTOLDMON0039056 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 47 [i] Bryant - direct p] I've mentioned, and die major concern, pi Q: Any other parathion pollution issues that [4] you were asked to look at or address? [5] A: Oh, every time they had a problem on the [6] road -- not every time, but die majority of die [7] tune, I was asked to physically go there. And we [8] had things varying from train wrecks, truck wrecks, [9] to overheated trucks and this type of diing, you [10] know, trailer tractors sitting in die sunshine, this [11] type of diing. And whenever they had a problem diat [12] did involve, I'd say liability, or potential [13] liability, I was fired in diere on it to try to [H] squelch it and get it cleaned up as quickly and [is] silendy as possible. [16] Q: And did there come a time when there was a [17] spill or two or truck wreck that you went and [is] handled for the company? [19] A: Oh, yes. [20] Q: And did plant management ask you as part of pi] that process to speak with residents that may have [22] lived near the spill site and give them any [23] instructions about what tiiey should do? [24] A: No. Most of the problems I had were related [25] in out of state and other locations, in particular Page 49 [1] Bryant - direct [2] some problems diere. I stopped them from taking it [3] to the landfill to dump, because it's a different [4] system in Mexico. And you had people in there [5] pilfering the dumps for food. And that upset, [6] bothered me.And we took precautions there and [7] instructed not so much the local people -- because [8] one diing, we didn't speak die language -- but the [91 other thing, the people, the management people we [10] alerted- them that, you know, they should not just [11] put the stuff in the municipal waste. It should be [12] buried. [13] Q: And the local residents diat may have been [14] digging around in the dump, did you visit them and [is] talk to them? [16] A: No.As I said, we couldn't speak dieir [17] language, anyway. [is] Q: Did St. Louis give you any specific [19] instructions about whetiier or not to go and try to [20] visit or talk to individuals about the dangers of [21] rummaging around in that spill area or in the waste [22] area? [23] A: No. Nothing that I'm aware of. I don't [24] think St. Louis would have had any control over [25] diat.And I don't think they would have even Page 48 [1] Bryant - direct [2] train wrecks and truck wrecks.There were never any [3] around the immediate area of the plant. [4] Q: Did St. Louis or the Anniston plant have any [5] procedure in place whereby at a train wreck or a [6] spill site you would visit local residents and talk Pi to them about die type of chemical that had spilled? [8] A: Towards the end of my stay there, I'd say PI '67, early '68, yes. We developed a team diat we [10] would send out, and particularly on wrecks. And [11] this stemmed out of a wreck, I believe it was in [12] Magee, Mississippi, that a train derailed and burst [13] a carload of diese pellets diat were impregnated [14] with parathion and spilled it all over die Curtis [is] Candy car, loaded with Baby Ruth, Butterfingers and [16] this type of thing. By the time we got diere, [17] scavengers had gone in there and pilfered the candy, [is] of course, taken them. We did get on local radio [19] and newspapers and warned people. And they were [20] pretty attentive in correcting and bringing the . pi] stuff and piling up. We gave them insttuctions [22] where to pile it, and basically took a bulldozer and [23] buried die stuff. [24] Q: I see. [25] A: I had the same problem down in Mexico with Page 50 [i] Bryant - direct H entertained doing that type of thing, because it was Pi a different culture we were dealing with diere. And [4] it's just like in diis country where you dp after a [5] meal. Down there, if you're going to do business, [6] you tip before the meal.And it's a cultural -- [7] Q: Or you don't eat? [8] A: That's right. It's a cultural difference in [9] die two countries. [10] Q: Did liability concerns -- I dunk you may [ii] have already answered this -- did liability concerns [12] drive the work you did in handling the various [13] spills and -- [H] A: No question. Absolutely. [is] Q: Were you directed by St. Louis when a [16] particular spill would happen or were you directed [17] by die Anniston plant? [is] A: No. I was directed by the manager of [19] manufacturing, a guy by the name of Art Lizey, who [20] ran that operation.You had basically two main [21] managers: one for die aroclor, the organic type [22] products; and one for the ag products underneadi the [23] plant manager. And I'd say 95%, 98% of the [24] instructions I got were from diat manager of that [25] department. He had complete control of that V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (15) Page 47 - Page 50 HARTOLDMON0039057 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 51 [ij Bryant - direct 12) department. And Lizey, who had the ag department, Pi was extremely sensitive to liability, for obvious W reasons, he had the most toxic product to our [5] knowledge at that time, 16) Q: Do you ever remember that particular manager 17] telling you to visit or not visit individuals that [8] may have been affected by a spill area? What [9] instructions were you given by him as far as [10] addressing people that might have been in the [11] immediate vicinity of a spill? [12] A: Every time implicit instructions, don't get [is] us in a liability and don't talk to anybody. [i4] Q: Just get in, clean it up -- [is] A: And get out. [16] Q: Did those instructions ever vary or change [17] much over time? [is] A: In West Palm Beach, Florida, carrying out [19] those instructions changed a little bit because I [20] had a truck where the drum had been punctured inside [21] and the truck driver had driven right down a beach [22] road with it. In fact, when I came in from the [23] airport, I followed his tire tracks in the highway [24] right to the place where he told me he was sitting, [25] and I walked right up to the Uuck. It was leaking; Page 53 [1] Bryant - direct [2] A: Yes. [3] Q: Where was it being scrubbed to, just to the [4] sewers on the side -- [5] A: Well, we were neutralizing with soda ash. [6] Once you put the soda ash on lye, if we couldn't get [7] ahold of soda ash from a chemical supply place, I'd Pi go to the grocery store and buy lye. But you had to [9] be careful on that because if you put down too much [10] lye, it was dangerous to people, it would burn their [11] skin and stuff like that. It wouldn't kill them, [12] but it would give them some physical damage. [13] So I was very cautious about using [14] just store-bought lye. And then whatever was swept [is] up or washed up would just go in the vents, the [16] sewer vents on the side. It was water soluble. It [17] would go down the storm drains.To my knowledge in [is] those days it didn't cause any harm.The main thing [19] was to get proper mixing to get the sodium to react [20] with the parathion. Once you broke die paradiion [21] apart, it was like when you applied it. It only had [22] a half life of a few hours. And widiin an [23] environment of caustic, you didn't have a half life [24] a matter of a few seconds. [25] Q: You mentioned earlier a subject that I want Page 52 Page 54 [1] Bryant direct [ij Bryant - direct [2] that's how bad it was. It was all over the street. [2] to go back to, you mentioned a complaint hotline of Pi And people had been walking in and out of it during Pi sorts that was set up by the plant. Was that [4] the day. And I had a -- I hired a city crew [4j compliant hotline in place when you first came to [5] after -- yes, it was before midnight, but it was [5] Anniston in 1964? [6] dark.And I took a street sweeper and had a pickup [6] A: I can't say for sure whether it was or [7] truck in the front and throwing down soda ash on the [7] wasn't. It was in place there very shortly after if [8] street and had the street sweeper scrubbing behind [8j it wasn't. I think it was in place at that time. PI it to try to neutralize it. And the city cops [9] Q: What was the purpose of the hotline? [10] stopped me, wanted to know why I was throwing this [10] A: Pick up complaints from the neighborhood on [11] stuff down on the street. So it got a little [11] the west side of the plant. How had the plant [12] publicity. [12] dealt -- well, let me ask you this: Were complaints [13] But I did keep it out of the [13] from local residents new thing or is that something [14] newspapers and held it down to a minimum, because I [14] that had gone on a while and it was just a matter of [is] told them how toxic this material was. And I said, [is] coming up with a new system to deal with it? [16] "You guys got to forego the feet that I'm throwing [16] A: I assume that it was installed when they [17] stuff down on the street and believe me that I'm [17] came there. [is] trying to neutralize this." And they said, okay, [is] Q: Okay. [19] they gave me a patrol car in front with the flashing [19] A: I never had any reason to really question [20] lights, which I didn't want because that was giving [20] it. [21] the publicity I didn't need. But we scrubbed the [21] Q: What were the complaints about? [22] street, and to my knowledge they never had any [22] A: Odor. [23] problem with it. [23] Q: Did they follow a pattern? [24] Q: Where were you scrubbing this -- this was [24] A: Odor. I'd say 99% odor. [25] parathion waste? [25] Q: And did anyone know where the odor was V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (l6) Page 51 - Page 54 HARTOLDMON0039058 Tolbert, et al v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. bryant June 30, 2003 Page 55 Page 57 [i] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct K coming from or did you know where it was coming [2j and be blown out to the atmosphere and that was Pi from? [3] allowed to just settle. And one thing that used to K] A: Well, the two sources of odor, one would be [4] concern me in that area was Aroclor 1268, because it [5) the -- yeah, I knew where it was coming from. The [5] was a powder. And I don't know what the analysis tej bug pit was the major source. But another source [6] have shown around that plant, but I wouldn't be m was if they had to drop a batch because of [7] surprised if it showed a high concentration of 1268 [8] instability.These batch reactors were in [8] versus the other aroclors, because the other aroclor [9] three-sided cubicles, and one side was intentionally Pi is not water soluble. [10] left open so if you had an explosion, it would [10] They would have been emitted to the [11] direct it away from the operator in the area. [11] atmosphere and carried by the trade winds.That was [12] Q: And vent it to the atmosphere? [12] the problem with transformer electrical material. [13] A: Yes, wide open. [13] And I don't think Anniston would have been any [H] Q: Okay. [Hi exception, because it's the same product. But I [is] A: And fortunately we never had that occasion, [i5i would not be surprised if you didn't see higher [16] but also unfortunately we sewered them, when we saw [is] concentrations of 1268 around the neighborhood than [17] there was instability in them, where I think we [17] you do of the other aroclors. [is] would have that problem. [is] Q: And air emissions of that kind at Anniston [is] Q: And did that somehow create an odor that -- [19] could have caused those, I guess, PCB materials to [20] A: Oh, that stuff had an odor to it. [20] have settled -- [21] Q: And would the sewering of those bad batches, pi] A: No question. [22] would that create an odor throughout the [22] WIR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [23] neighborhoods down from the plant? [23] Q: -- all over die city? You may answer. Is [24] A: Yes.The neighborhood would get more of an [24] that true? [25] odor than the operating people, because the ps] A: No question. Air emissions going up a stack Page 56 [1] Bryant - direct [2] operating people were behind that retainer wall and p] the wind direction would have deflected it from pi Bryant - direct [2] would have setded in the surrounding areas. Pi Different elevations in relation to the plant, some Page 58 [4] them, but the neighborhood would have got more of [5] that odor. [6] Q: At the time that you were at the Anniston [4] places lower than the plant, some higher, really [5] wouldn't have mattered at the release heights we're [6j talking about.Totally dependent on the wind [7] plant, as for as air emissions went, was the chief [8] aim to get hazardous air emissions away from m direction and velocity. But that was an accepted [8] standard in those days. Not today. [9] workers? [10] A: Yes. Pi Q: Well, were any particular precautions made [10] by the plant to reduce air emissions of aroclors or [11] Q: And to the outside atmosphere? [12] A: Yes. Almost exclusively, with the exception [13] of parathion process, and, as I said, that was so [14] dangerous that there were concerns. [is] Q: Other than trying to get potentially [16] hazardous air emissions away from workers, do you [17] know of any steps that were taken to try to prevent [is] those air emissions from releasing into the [19] neighborhoods at that time or at any time that you [20] were connected to the Anniston plant? [21] A: I'd say the rule for all industry in those [22] days was ventilation for the workers, and Anniston [23] was no exclusion. And the release, to me, to the [24] environment, which was a problem when you get into, [25] say, a powdered material, that would go up the vent [11] PCBs because of the nature of the surrounding area [12] being a populated area? [13] A: Not as long as I was there.That's not to [14] say that they didn't start taking some actions after [is] '68 because I was screaming in the marketplace to [16] customers all over the world that we needed carbon [17] filtration and this type of thing on the [is] ventilation. But at that time tiiere was, to my [19] knowledge, there was no carbon filtration, this type [20] of thing, because it wasn't required. [21] Q: Well, at the time that you were talking to [22] customers about those air emission issues, had [23] Anniston, to your knowledge, gotten PCB or aroclor [24] air emissions under control at their plant, or was [25] that still an issue at Anniston? YARALLO Incorporated Min-U-Script (17) Page 55 - Page 58 HARTOLDMON0039059 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 59 Page 61 [1] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct [2] A: Really, I have no direct knowledge of what [2] Q: Or would you assume that some places in PI they were doing.The knowledge was available to p] Anniston other than this guy's ice house store were [4) them, I'll say that. But the corporate structure [4] affected by that spill? Pi was such that I didn't have any direct dealings [5] A: Yes. I'd say the guy was more affected Pi after I'd say '69. Pi because of wind direction. But there's certainly no Pi Q: During the time that you were in Anniston, [7] reason to think that somebody else wouldn't have had [8] did you observe any efforts by the plant management Pi the same exposure. [9] to notify the local community about possible air H Q: Did plant management speak with any other [10] contamination? [10] people around the area where the ice house may have [11] A: No. [11] been located? [12] Q: Did plant management measure air emissions [12] A: Not to my knowledge. [13] at the Anniston plant, to your knowledge? [13] Q: The folks that would call in on the hotline [14] A: I would guess there was some measurement. [14] and complain of odors, what information was the [is] It wasn't very sophisticated. Let me expand that [is] plant giving out to those callers that you know? [16] statement. Did they notify? Yes. When they [16] A: We tried to answer the complaint to the best [17] brought the PNP in, PNP contamination would be [17] of our ability, what we thought the problem and what [is] yellow orange type, and I do remember one incident [is] we were doing to correct it, and thank them for [19] in an ice house there right down Birmingham Highway [19] calling in. [20] from the plant, the guy's ice came up orange. And [20] Q: Did the plant managers have a position one [21] they asked about the toxicity, and I told the guy, I [21] way or another on whether toxicity could be [22] said, "I don't really know," but I said, "I don't [22] discussed with local residents or was that discussed [23] think you're going to have very easy time selling [23] with local residents? [24] orange ice, not with their flavor." [24] A: No. I think the major concern in those [25] Q: What year would this have been? [25] days, I'm guessing what somebody else thought, but Page 60 [1] Bryant - direct [2] A: This would have been around '65, '66, along PI in that area. [4j Q: And paranitrophenol, I'm assuming, is toxic; [5] is that right? pi A: To my knowledge it is.They had blown a [7] rupture disk on a reactor. I don't know exactly Pi what chemical it was, but it was a yellow chemical, [9] might have been sodium phenate or something like [10] that. [11] Q: How did the ice house operator know to call [12] die plant, do you know? [13] A: Because he saw the orange ice. [14] Q: And had there been some press release to the [is] public about the -- [16] A: No. We went in there and saw what he was [17] talking about, and to my knowledge they destroyed [is] the ice. Although to my knowledge Monsanto bought [19] the ice. [20] Q: I'm assuming the paranitrophenol leak or [21] blast or whatever would have caused air emission [22] issues for other parts ofAnniston, not just where [23] this guy's ice house was located; correct? [24] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [25] BY MR. BYRNE: Page 62 [i] Bryant - direct H my major concern was on the parathion intermediate, Pi because if you got too much exposure on this stuff [4] not only did you have an odor problem, but it tended is] to blister the eyeball, and you had a medical [6] problem that somebody needed to address. And we had PI a number of workers who had this exposure. And that [8] would come from when we would leak or drop one of [9] these batches until it got to the bug pit. Once it [10] got to the bug pit and got chewed around with the [11] bugs, it was no problem. But down that sewer from [12] the reactor to that bug pit was a real problem. [13] Q: What would the plant managers do with [14] workers who were exposed? [is] A: Put them in first aid and treat the eyes. [16] Actually, I think they had to peel a layer of skin [17] off the eyeball. I don't know medically exactly [is] what they did. I know one thing, it was just [19] something you tried to avoid. [20] Q: Were there any tests that were run, I mean, [21] were blood tests taken from the workers? [22] A: Yes.That was mainly for parathion or [23] cholinesterate level. [24] Q: What is cholinesterate? [25] A: It's for blood level.You get the same V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (18) Page 59 - Page 62 HARTOLDMON0039060 ToiDert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James <j. nryant June 30, 2003 Page 63 Page 65 [i] Bryant - direct [i] Bryant - direct H adverse effect if somebody drinks too much.Test pi A: Because I'm not saying that Monsanto had -- p] wasn't that useful because the majority of the [3] Q: No, no. M people drink.You had to establish a baseline and H] A: -- hired Nazis. [5j then you could measure the deviation from this [5] Q: I didn't mean to infer that there was any [s] baseline. [6] connection between the two. But chemically [7] Q: Would checking cholinesterate levels, would [7] speaking, Zyklon B, you're saying would have had [8] that give the plant managers or plant doctors some [s] similar chemical makeup to parathion? [9] insight into the effect of a leak on a worker's [9] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [i'o] liver? I'm saying that because of the reference to [icq That is what he's inferring. [ii] drinking. I didn't know if that was what you were [ii] You can answer. [is] looking for, was the liver effects? 112) A: Major research people were Germans.That's [13] A: I would assume the same thing. But I don't [13] all, as far as I know, about it. They were well [14] know that for a fact. [14] versed on the chemistry. And I relied heavily on [is] Q: Okay. [is] them, on the technical knowledge. [is] A: I carried the atropine injections for [16] Q: The supervisors and the managers that would [17] exposure to parathion with me on these spills, [17] talk to the customers that would call the hotline, [is] because we had instructions on howto use that.No [iB] what would they tell them? I mean, how would they [19] different from military, you just jab the needle in [19] explain the odors, or did they explain the odors? [20] your leg and then you get to the hospital as fast as [20] A: Yes. We would just wing it, really, pi] you can because overexposure to lead is as dangerous pi] depending on what the complaint, how the complaint [22] as parathion. But I don't know of many people that [22] was. I mean, how can you satisfy somebody who is [23] had to use that, hi fact, I don't know of any that [23] complaining about a terrible, you know, stench [24] had to use that that, including myself. [24] because obviously they smell it or they wouldn't be [25] Q: Atropine injections, I guess, are still used [25] complaining. And trying to explain to them that Page 64 [i] Bryant - direct PI by the military today to deal with exposures to PI chemical nerve agents? [4] A: Nerve gas, uh-huh.That's all parathion [s] was, truthfully. pi Q: Okay. And so I guess atropine would have m been given out to the soldiers that just went over [8] to Iraq; is that correct? [9] A: Uh-huh. [10] Q: And some of the nerve agents that military [11] leaders in our country may have been fearful of over [12] in Iraq may have had some similar properties to [13] parathion? * [14] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [is] BY MR. BYRNE: [is] Q: Is that accurate?The chemical structure of [i7] what the general -- [is] A: I don't remember the exact agent that they [19] used for the annihilation of the Jews, was the same [20] gas.The only difference is was the alcohol.They [21] use isonathal alcohol, where we use ethanol. [22] Q: You're referring to Zyklon B? I believe [23] that's the chemical they used -- [24] A: Is that the one? [25] Q: -- that was used by the Nazi government. Page 66 [1] Bryant direct [2] it's a mishap or, you know, it's not an ordinary pi tiling, we're doing thus and so and it should [4] diminish. And sometimes it would, sometimes it [5] wouldn't. [6] Q: Did St. Louis know about the hotline or was [7] it -- [B] A: Oh, I don't know how they could have PI avoided, to be honest with you. [10] Q: Do you know if there were any subjects or [11] issues that St. Louis ruled was off limits for the [12] hotline staffers? [13] A: No. I don't know of any St. Louis [14] participation other than if they participated [is] through the manager of that department. See, I [16] wouldn't have been privileged to that conversation. [17] They had meetings, constant meetings with him. But [is] the personality of this guy was he only would tell [19] you what he wanted you to know. [20] Q: Who is this? [21] A: Alt Lizey. And nice guy, good guy to work [22] with.And very concerned with liability and worker [23] safety. But on his own terms. [24] Q: Did he ever impose any rules or restrictions [25] relating to information dispensed to the public via V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (19) Page 63 - Page 66 HARTOLDMON0039061 Tolbert, et aJL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 67 Page 69 [i] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct [g the hotline? [2] cans -- p] A: Oh, I don't think he wanted any information Pi MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [4] given out to the public, if it was in any way [4] BY MR. BYRNE: [5] incriminating. [5] Q: Go ahead, sir. [6] Q: And did that attitude change at all with [6] A: As far as I know.The only one that [7] plant management during the time period you were [7] bothered me from that standpoint, and I got to be [8] there, or did you see some change in that stance? [8] candid with you on this, is the solid aroclor [9] A: No, I didn't see any change in that. [9] powder, the 1268, that stuff was a powder and it [10] Q: We've talked really about parathion and some [10] went up the exhaust stack, and that was different [11] of the issues you were asked to address with respect [11] from the other aroclor.There was no shoveling [12] to that process.Were you asked to examine any [12] this. If that was spilled on the floor, it [13] issues or particularly waste pollution issues with [13] solidified, made it hard, you could walk on it. But [14] the aroclor production facility? [14] it wasn't that much of it spilled on the floor, but [is] A: Oh, yes. In fact, that's a division that I [is] as far as the dust and this type of thing from it, [16] actually worked for. Anything on the ag division [16] yeah, if that stuff had liver problems, it bothered [17] was liaison, but, unfortunately, it took up a good [17] me, because there was mechanical ventilation for the [18] portion of my time because of the crucial problems lie] operator. But, like you say, once it gets outside, [19] that they had and the economic aspects of that to [19] where does it go. I don't know. It was free to go [20] the overall business plan. [20] anywhere it wanted to. [2D Q: Did you understand when you came to the pi] Q: 1268, that name for that type of aroclor is [22] plant in 1964 that the plant had and was still [22] descriptive of its chlorine content; is that [23] experiencing significant aroclor waste issues? [23] correct? [24] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [24] A: Yes, 68% chlorine and chlorinated biphenyl. [25] A: I wouldn't say major aroclor waste issues [25] Q: Was that the most highly chlorinated product Page 68 Page 70 [1] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct [2] other than from the standpoint they probably didn't [2] manufactured at the plant? [3] understand what the aroclor waste issues were. I p] A: Routinely.They had a 1272, which was a W mean, it wasn't slopping aroclor on the floor and [4] decachlorobiphenyl, but to my knowledge that wasn't [5] this type of thing, because, in the first place, the [5] routinely manufactured. Now, they had some other [6] stuff is so slick you can't stand up in it. So they [6] higher molecular weight things mixed with Santo Wax [7] were pretty good at putting down particulate matter [7] called 4465 and this type of thing, I didn't think [8] and stuff like that just for mechanical safety. [8] any of those were higher chlorinated, but they were [9] Q: You're talking about sand? PI different blend of raw materials and they had [10] A: Sand, and in some cases Speedy Dry, if it [10] different characteristics. But the physical form of [11] was available. [11] those were more of a resin than the powder. The [12] Q: I know we're kind of moving into a [121 only one was a solid powder in any production scale [13] housekeeping subject here, but when sand or other [13] was 1268. [14] absorbants were put down on spills of PCB in the [14] Q: Were any efforts made by plant management to [is] plant, what would be done with the sand? Would it [is] measure the level of PCB air emissions that left the [16] be swept somewhere? [16] plant, air emissions like from 1268? [17] A: They would shovel it up, and as far as I [17] A: Nobody thought of it ever being a problem. [is] know put it in the trash, in the municipal dump, I [is] I'd say the answer is no. [19] guess is where the stuff went. Sometimes up on the [19] MR. BYRNE: Let's take a quick break. [20] hill, mountain, to that thing, which I thought it [20] THE WITNESS: Okay. [21] was just a plant dump. But it may have been pi] THE VIDEOTAPE SPECIALIST: Now going [22] municipal stuff dumped in there. It was just a [22] off the videotape record; the time, 10:38. [23] known dump site. [23] (Short recess.) [24] Q: And the stuff that went to the trash would [24] THE VIDEOTAPE SPECIALIST: We are now [25] have just gone out with the rest of the paper and [25] back on the videotape record.This commences V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (20) Page 67 - Page 70 HARTOLDMON0039062 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 71 [1] Bryant - direct [2] Videotape No. 2.The time, 11:02. p] You may continue. W BY MR. BYRNE: [5] Q: Mr. Bryant, when we left off before the [6] break, we were talking about various PCB waste and [7] pollution issues that the Anniston managers wanted [8] you to focus on. And with respect to air emissions, PI which is one of the tilings we touched on, were you [ioj asked by the management at the Anniston plant to [11] address any specific air pollution issues that [12] touched on PCBs? [13] A: No. [14] Q: Do you know if anyone else connected to the [is] Anniston plant was investigating or looking into PCB [16] wastes created through air emissions? [17] A: Not to my knowledge. [is] Q: The plant was experiencing air emissions of [19] PCBs but there were just other issues that the plant [20] was focusing on; is that the idea? [21] A: Yes. And I'd say the emphasis in this time [22] frame was not so much on air emission other than to [23] get it out of the workers' presence. [24] Q: Were you asked to look into any PCB [25] pollution issues created through discharges of PCB Page 73 [1] Bryant - direct [2] process, how about entrainment, this type of thing, [3] where the products were being entrained in the acid. Hi And there was a lot of concern about this. [5] Q: You mentioned about fish studies or fish [6] traps. Do you know when the process of fish [7] sampling began at the plant? [8] A: I think it started around '65, '66. [9] Q: And -- [io; A: That's when Ferguson was brought on board. [11] That's really the start of it, when they hired the [12] consultant from Mississippi State. [13] Q: This was a scientist out of Mississippi [14] State University? [is] A: Right. [16] Q: What was his name? [17] A: Denzel Ferguson. [is] Q: And how was it that he came to work in [19] Anniston? I mean, I don't mean how is it that he [20] came, meaning how did he drive from Mississippi [21] State University to Anniston; but I mean, did [22] Monsanto hire him to come to Anniston to do some [23] studies or did he just come to Anniston and do some [24] studies on his own? [25] A: Gerald Miller was taking over as chief Page 72 Page 74 [1] Bryant - direct [ij Bryant - direct - [2] into or through the plant waste streams? pi chemist at that time from Owen Dolan, and Gerald was P] A: No. Pi acquainted with Dr. Ferguson at Mississippi State. [4] Q: When you interviewed with the plant in 1964 [4] Gerald was a graduate of Mississippi State. And I H shortly before coming on board, were you briefed on [5] had always assumed it was through that personal [6] Anniston waste discharges -- [6] relationship that he was hired by Monsanto. But I [7] A: No. p] don't have any knowledge and direct contract, this [B] Q: -- into Snow Creek? [8] type of thing. I know he wasn't in there on his [9] A: No. pi own. [10] Q: During the time that you worked in the [10] Q: And did Mr. Coley work with Dr. Ferguson or [11] Anniston plant, did you make any observations of [11] did Mr. Coley's fish study work operate independent [12] waste discharges of PCBs to Snow Creek? [12] of Mr. Ferguson or Dr. Ferguson? [13] A: Oh, yes. [13] A: I think Coley was independent of Ferguson, [14] Q: Tell me a little bit about what you observed [14] although he certainly was appraised of the [is] or what you learned with respect to PCB discharges [is] information that Ferguson generated and they [is] to Snow Creek? [16] mutually exchanged information, to my knowledge. [17] A: Well, as I've said previously, I was [17] Q: Where was Ferguson doing his tests? Do you tie] personal friends with Gene Coley; in feet, we [is] know where he was putting out fish? [19] operated right out of the same office. And, yes, on [19] A: I thought it was along Choccolocco Creek, [20] occasion I would go with him and check fish traps [20] but he could have been upstream of that. [21] and this type of thing that he had. And we'd talk [21] Q: Just so it will be clear to the members of [22] about streams coming out of the plant, like the [22] the jury, where is Choccolocco Creek in relation to [23] ditch that they put the limestone in was going to [23] the plant? [24] Snow Creek and diis type of tiling. And, yes, I [24] A: Well, stuff flowed down a ditch, most of it, [25] asked him, you know, these acids are coming off the [25] to Snow Creek, and then from Snow Creek to VARALLO Incorporated Min-U-Script (21) Page 71 - Page 74 HARTOLDMON0039063 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. bryanx June 30, 2003 Page 75 Page 77 [1] Bryant - direct ID Bryant - direct [2] Choccolocco and from Choccolocco to the Coosa River, H Q: Acid would leave the plant -- Pi along with Mountain Lake, to my knowledge. P) A: Hydrochloric acid. W Q: Snow Creek was a ditch network that ran K) Q: And acid would leave the plant and discharge [5] throughout the western portion ofAnniston; is [5] into Snow Creek; is that correct? [6] that -- [6] A: Yes. [7] A: Snow Creek went on down through town. m Q: Hydrochloric acid was toxic, was and is [8] Q: And then it eventually emptied into [8] toxic to humans; is that correct? Pi Choccolocco Creek; is that correct? [9] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [10] A: Right. I thought it was down somewhere [io] A: That's correct. [11] around Oxford, but I could be wrong on that. [i i] Q: What else would leave through the waste [12] Q: And then the Choccolocco Creek eventually [12] outfalls besides acid? Would PCBs go through the [13] merged with what body of water? [13] waste outfalls? [14] A: Logan Martin, Coosa River, Alabama Project, [14] A: From a standpoint it's pretty difficult, but [is] I guess that is all Logan Martin Lake. [is] the answer is yes, they could.The quantity would [is] Q: And from the plant wastewater outfalls to [16] be restricted for two reasons: one is PCBs are not [i7] the confluence of Choccolocco Creek and the Coosa [17] soluble in water; and two is they tend to accumulate [is] River and Lake Logan Martin, what kind of distance [is] on particulate matter. And both of those [19] are we talking about from the waste outfall to the [19] characteristics are true in a ditch stream. [20] confluence of those two bodies of water? [20] Q: As I understand it, during the time frame of [21] A: I'd say down Snow Creek was probably a [21] tire mid-'60s when you came to the Anniston plant, [22] couple of miles, and Choccolocco Creek was probably, [22] plant management knew it was having PCB losses to [23] I'd say what, 15 miles. [23] Snow Creek; is that a fair statement? [24] Q: That sounds accurate to me. [24] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [25] A: It was a pretty good ways down. South of [25] A: I can't honestly say -- well, I don't know Page 76 [1] Bryant - direct [2] Lincoln down on Interstate 20 on the Birmingham [3] Highway. M Q: How far downstream from the plant wastewater [5] outfalls did Dr. Ferguson cany out his fish tests, [6] to your knowledge? [7] A: To my knowledge I don't know. [8] Q: Okay. [9] A: I have reason to believe his tests were [10] fairly close to the plant, because the way the [11] conversation came up, he put a cage of fish in the [12] river and fried them in a matter of seconds -- not [13] the river, but he put it in, I assumed it was Snow [14] Creek. [is] Q: And did he report that result to plant [16] managers in Anniston? [17] A: Oh, yes, he reported it. lie) Q: And what reaction if any did you observe [19] from plant management after that report was made? [20] A: As I said, that came up in personal ' pi] conversation with Gene Coley, and I don't know what [22] the plant reaction was. It certainly indicated to [23] us that what was flowing there was pretty bad as far [24] as aquatic life. But that could have been acid and [25] not toxicity from other things. Page 78 [i] Bryant - direct H how they could have not known there were losses to [3] the creek. [4] Q: Okay. [5] A: As I said, the two conditions as far as [6] losses, I don't know how much they realized that tire [7] particulate matter trapping the material was a [8] factor. But they used to scoop sand out of that [9] neutralization pit, which was obviously the [io] limestone decomposing from the acid. And I don't [i i] think there were any precautions as to what they did [12] with that sand, and therefore I don't think they [13] recognized the fact that there could be other tilings [14] other than hydrochloric acid. [is] Q: What would be done with the sand when it was [16] taken out of the limestone pit? Would it be used [17] for other purposes -- [is] A: I don't know what they did with that stuff. [19] Q: Do you know if they gave it away? [20] A: No reason it couldn't have been. [21] Q: Do you know if they gave it away or did [22] they -- [23] A: I don't know. [24] Q: They didn't landfill die sand, did tiiey? [25] A: No, to my knowledge, they didn't. V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (22) Page 75 - Page 78 HARTOLDMON0039064 Tolbert, et al v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 79 Pags 81 [1] Bryant - direct [i] Bryant - direct [2] Q: Was it just sent out with the waste trash, [23 were losing 250 pounds, then they could back it up. pj as far as you know? pj Q: Were you -- I mean, that kind of figure K] A: No. I don't think they carried it to the [4j doesn't surprise you, does it? I mean is that -- [5] same trash setup. But as far as what they did with [5] MR. SHARMAN: Object to form. [6] it, I don't know.They had a place out there on the [s] A: No. I had no feeling on those numbers other m Coosa River called the Circle M Ranch owned by [7] than the fact that I felt that the engineers were [8] employees, and stuff like that would have probably [8] being candid. Because his pay was based on that. PI found its way to that operation. I don't know how [S3 Q: Yes.The hydrochloric acid releases through [10] many acres that was. It was a fairly good size kind [10] the waste outfalls, those were monitored, I'm [11] of a club they had. [11] assuming? [12] Q: What's the Circle M Ranch? [12] A: Probably in the sense of pH, I think would [13] A: It was owned by employees. It was kind of [13] have been about the only thing. [14] a -- not a country club, it was just a place that [14] Q: Would PCB losses -- well, let's put it this [is] they could go for recreation. [is] way. Prior to the advent of some of the higher end [is] Q: Was it a social club that the plant [ie] gas chromatography work drat came in in the mid to [i7] employees had access to? [i7] late '60s, what types of tests were in place to [is] A: Yes. [is] measure, say, gross losses of PCB or acid or such [19] Q: Was it near the creeks or anything like [19] from plant outfalls? [20] that? [20] A: Acid would have been pH. PCB would have [21] A: Oh, it was right on the Coosa River. [21] just been physical observation of those two layers, [22] Q: So sand, for instance, may have been hauled [22] one crawling along the bottom, heavy layer, and to [23] to that, to the Circle M Ranch? [23] my knowledge they never had any observation, any [24] A: It may have been. I can't say it was or [24] kind of thing. [25] wasn't. I never physically saw it there, but it was [25] Q: Were you aware that the plant was carrying Page 80 Page 82 [1] Bryant - direct [i] Bryant - direct [2] a kind of thing where they do community projects and [2j out a thing called an extraction, using an P) certainly they could have used the sand for [3] extraction technique to measure gross losses of PCBs [4] formulation of concrete, for pouring a patio or K] in the late '50s and early '60s? Were you aware of [5] pouring a floor, driveway, or something like that. [5] that? [6] That I don't know. [6] A: That's possible.That would have been done [7] Q: Well, do you know if employees ever did any [7] in the control laboratory. I never was specifically [8] community projects that involved using the sand [8] asked to do work in that area. [9] to -- [9] Q: I guess what I'm getting at is this: If the [10] A: No. [10] plant wanted to measure gross losses of PCB back in [11] Q: -- do anything? No. Do you recall a time [i i] the '50s, it could have done so through some sort of [12] when you were associated with the Anniston plant [i2] extraction analysis in the lab, couldn't it? It had [13] when waste outfalls were monitored for PCB losses? [is] that technology, didn't it? [14] A: Not while I was there. [i4] A: Yes, it would have been -- [is] Q: Do you ever recall hearing reports that at [is] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [is] least say in 1968 or '69 that the plant was losing [16] A: -- gross, though.They would have probably [i7] 250 pounds of aroclor products through the waste [17] seen something to move them in that direction. [ib] outfall systems daily? [is] Q: But if you were losing, say, hundreds of [19] A: A report like that would have come out of [19] pounds of PCBs in waste outfall every day, wouldn't [20] the tech service department or the manufacturing [20] that be something that the extraction analysis would [21] department. And they were all graduate engineers pi] have picked up? [22] from local -- well, not all of them local, but from [22] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [23] schools from Auburn, Alabama, LSU, and places like [23] BY MR. BYRNE: [24] that. And I always relied and had a lot of [24] Q: That kind of gross loss? [25] confidence in their work. And if they said they [25] A: That would have been done in a control V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (23) Page 79 - Page 82 HARTOLDMON0039065 Tolbert, et aJL v. Monsanto Company, et al. James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 83 Page 85 [ij Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct H laboratory. And I don't know any tests of that [2] with this approach, was that a lot of the tanks and P) type. But certainly it would have been possible. [3] lines were over gravel, and I'd say in those days, [4] Q: If one had had a mind to test PCB losses, [4] if it leaked or if you broke a pipeline that ran [5] gross losses, to the plant, waste discharges into [5] down in the gravel chat, then it went to the sewer [6] Snow Creek back in the '50s, there were techniques [6] eventually. Because that would catch the spill. Pi available to measure those gross losses; am I [7] But where the spills presented a problem were on rej correct? [8] concrete or steel because they were slick. And I'd [9] MR. SHARMAN: Object to die form. [9] say in those areas they did put down stuff to absorb [10] You can answer. [10] it. But I'd say if it fell in the gravel, I don't [11] A: Well, you could have done it the way that [11] recall any collection of the material. [12] you're talking about, but they would have had to [12] Q: Well, were PCB spills that occurred in the [13] have been pretty gross, and you would have to make [13] drumming areas and the collection stations, were [14] some type of physical observation to even question [14] those, those were swept to the sewers, too, weren't [is] that type of thing. I mean, the insolubility is so [is] they? [16] great, I don't think anyone would have posed that as [16] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [17] a risk. [17] A: The drumming area, I'd say you didn't have [is] Q: Could you have taken a gallon jar and filled [is] that much spillage. I mean, if you had a guy that [19] it up with water from the waste outfall and measured [19] was drumming and he spilled a lot of material, he [20] that for the presence of PCBs via the extraction [20] didn't stay on the drumming station very long. pi] technique in the '50s? [21] Q: Because he was losing profit? [22] A: It would have been pretty difficult. [22] A: Uh-huh. [23] Q: Could it have been done? [23] (Memo, 11/14/69, to Papageorge from [24] A: Possible. [24] Wright marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.) [25] Q: Do you know if Monsanto tried to do that? [25] Page 84 Page 86 [1] Bryant - direct [i] Bryant - direct [2] A: They probably took samples;and looked at it. 12] BY MR. BYRNE: p] Q: What type of gross loss would it take to PI Q: I'm going to show you a number of documents, m have shown the presence of PCBs through extraction [4] Mr. Bryant, just to see if this brings to mind any [5] techniques back in the '50s? [5] issues that were going on at the plant in the late [6] A: You'd have to have two-phase observation. [6] '60s with respect to measurements of PCB losses to [7] Q: One, you would have to know you had lost n the Snow Creek ditch network. [8] some PCBs? [8] I'm going to hand you first what I'm [9] A: You would have to have some reason or [9] marking as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. [10] suspicion, and, of course, then you can do a [10] MR. SHARMAN: David, may I take a [11] physical, you know, centrifuge or something like [11] look -- thank you. [12] that, because there is a tremendous difference in [12] BY MR. BYRNE: [13] the gravity between PCBs and water; the higher [13] Q: This appears to be a memo dated March 6, [14] chlorinated, the more. [14] 1969, authored by E. G. Wright to a Mr. Papageorge. [is] Q: I see. [is] And this may have been after the time that you were [16] A: But it would have been a pretty crude test. [16] with the plant, but there is a reference in [17] Everything was crude in those days. [17] Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 to a loss of approximately [is] Q: There were PCB spills, though, at the plant [is] 1,500 gallons ofAroclor 1242 to the acid sewer. Do [19] that made their way to Snow Creek when you were in [19] you remember that particular incident that's [20] Anniston, were there not? [20] described in this memo? [21] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [21] A: No. I had no knowledge of this whatsoever. [22] A: I can't recall any actual spills that were [22] In fact, I think I was probably in South America [23] noteworthy to the creek.You say, you know, you [23] when this happened. [24] asked me if there were spills.The only thing, as [24] Q: Okay. Did you ever hear about this [25] far as the drainage system, how that would fit in [25] particular incident? V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (24) Page 83 - Page 86 HARTOLDMON0039066 xoiDert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et a1 James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 87 Page 89 [1] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct [2] A: No. I hired Wright, and he just took over [2] Q: Okay. Pi this responsibility when I left. So I don't dispute [3] A: It kind of reads like he was a process [4] that what he's saying here is probably true. M engineer from the distribution you got on this [5] Q: Okay. H thing. I'd say that's what it was. [6j A: But I have no knowledge one way or the [6] Q: In about the third sentence of this memo P] other. [7] there's a reference to the plant having -- [8] Q: Okay. [8] THE VIDEOTAPE SPECIALIST: Going off PI A: Other than I know where he's talking about. [9] the video record, 11:27. [10] That is the neutralization pit with the limestone [10] (Discussion off the record.) [11] tliat he's talking about. [11] THE VIDEOTAPE SPECIALIST:Back on, [12] Q: When was the limestone pit brought into the [12] 11:27. [13] Anniston plant? [is] BY MR. BYRNE: [14] A: As far as I know, it was there when I got [14] Q: Turning back to Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, [is] there in '64. [is] there's a reference in the third sentence to a loss [16] Q: Do you know how long it had been in place? [16] of about 80 pounds of PCB into Snow Creek on a [17] A: No, I don't. [17] particular day in September? [is] Q: The limestone pit hadn't been there since [is] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [19] the beginning of aroclor production by Monsanto at [19] BY MR. BYRNE: [20] the plant, had it? [20] Q: There's a reference to 80 pounds of PCB [21] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [21] being lost somewhere in September of 1970. Were you [22] A: I assumed it had. But I have no knowledge [22] ever briefed on this kind of information once you [23] whether it was or wasn't.They had to neutralize [23] moved to St. Louis? . [24] the acid coming out of there some kind of way, or I P4] A: No.At this time I was running up and down [25] assume they did. But to my knowledge, I don't know [25] the East Coast here -- in fact, my family was still Page 88 Page 90 [1] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct [2] whether they did or didn't. [2] in St. Louis -- trying to get a handle on the market E3] (Memo, 8/18/70, to Bell from Hodges p] situation and losses. And I would not have been [4] marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 2.) [4] appraised that they had problems there for any [5] BY MR. BYRNE: [5] reason. [6] Q: Let me show you what I'm going to mark as [6] Q: Okay. [7] Plaintiff's Exhibit 2.This appears to be a [7] A: My recollection doesn't tell me exactly, but [8] September 18,1970, memo from Mr. Paul Hodges to [8] Hodges I think was with the legal department. PI Toby Bell, and I'm showing you this for two reasons: [9] (Memo, 8/7/70, to Bergen from St. . [10] one, I need to ask you questions about the people [10] Louis General Offices marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 3.) [11] who were writing and receiving this e-mail -- excuse Hi] BY MR. BYRNE: [12] me, this memo. Who is Mr. Paul Hodges? Do you know [12] Q: Let me show you another memo that I'm going [13] who that is? [13] to mark as Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 to this deposition. [14] A: Yes. He was in St. Louis. I don't know [14] This appears to be an August 1970 memo to a [is] exactly what his title was, but he had been involved [is] Mr.Bergen. Who was Mr. Bergen? [16] as a superintendent of something in that Anniston lie] A: He was the head of the whole group, I forget [17] plant years before. [i7] what his title, director of functional fluids. lie] Q: And what would he have been doing in [is] Q: Was he based in St. Louis? [19] St. Louis for the company as of 1970? [19] A: St. Louis. [20] A: I think he would have been looking at it [20] Q: And I guess was he tire president or pi] from a legal aspect. I don't know whether he was in pi] executive vice-president for that division of [22] the legal department or not at that time. [22] Monsanto? [23] Q: Who is Toby Bell? He's the one this memo [23] A: Yes. He ran that whole division. [24] was sent to. [24] Q: This memo was also authored apparently by [25] A: Toby Bell, I'm not aware who he was. [25] Paul Hodges, who signed at the last page, and the YARALLO Incorporated Min-U-Script (25) Page 87 - Page 90 HARTOLDMON0039067 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 91 [i] Bryant - direct [21 only reason I band this to you is because of the Pi reference in the first numbered paragraph to the [4] Anniston plant discharging to Snow Creek about 16 [5] pounds a day of PCB, and then there's a [6] parenthetical next to that that says, "Down from 250 Pi pounds per day in 1969." Do you see that reference? [8] A: No.What page? PI Q: I'm on Page 1 of Exhibit 3, and under the [10] heading or subheading called "Status." [11] A: Okay. [12] Q:You'll seethere's a numbered paragraph. [13] A: Okay. [14] Q: And that sentence reads, "We are presently [is] discharging to Snow Creek about 16 pounds per day of [16] PCB (down from 250 pounds per day in 1969.)" Did I [17] read that sentence correctly? [is] A: I have no knowledge of those numbers. But [19] this does bring back my recollection of who Paul [20] Hodges is. Paul Hodges was the environmental guy in [21] charge of it in St. Louis. I don't know whether all [22] Monsanto or just the division. [23] Q: Were you in Anniston in 1969? [24] A: Only on short trips. [25] Q: Okay. Well, were you ever alerted to the Page 93 in Bryant - direct [2] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. 13) BY MR. BYRNE: [4] Q: You may answer. [5] A: I have no knowledge, but I think it would [6] have been worse. I don't think they even realized [7] the problem. I think in 1969,1 know they were [8] aware of some of the problems, major problems. And [9] I think they were trying to take what action they no] could at that time to at least minimize if not [11] eliminate the problem. [12] Q: As of 1969 was there any question that [13] losses in the range of 250 pounds a day directly [14] into Snow Creek, those are heavy losses? [is] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [is] BY MR. BYRNE: [17] Q: Even in 1969 terms; would that be fair to [is] say? [19] A: Oh, yes. I can only speak to that from the [20] standpoint of the customers. And we had customers [21] that were losing this quantity, but we were putting [22] every effort we could to restrict it. And I'd say [23] the plant should have been doing it, and according [24] to this memo they probably were doing the best they [25] could to try to eliminate that. Page 92 Page 94 [i] Bryant - direct [i] Bryant - direct H fact that the plant was apparently losing 250 pounds H Q: In 1969 was Monsanto telling its customers [3] of PCB into Snow Creek on a daily basis that year? p] that if they had gross losses of 250 pounds a day [4] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. w into some wastewater stream leaving their plant, H A: No. My only interest would have been in [5] that they needed to stop it? [6] Alabama in '69 was obtaining, getting that mercury [6] A: Oh, yes, no question. m out of there from dismantling that chlorine plant [7] Q: In fact, even in 1969, wasn't Monsanto [8] and getting it to St. Louis, into the operation [8] telling its customers if they were even losing a few [9] there. Pi pounds of PCB into wastewater leaving their plant, [10] Q: We'll talk about that in just a moment. [10] they needed to stop it? [11] 250 pounds a day, assuming that's [11] A: That's correct. [12] correct, as of 1969, what would that roughly [12] Q: Did you ever have any interaction with Joe [13] translate into on a yearly basis? You're probably [13] Crockett, who was the secretary of the Alabama Water [14] better at math than I am. Would that translate into [14] Improvement Commission? [is] a large loss of PCB into Snow Creek for that year? [is] A: No. [is] A: 250 times 365, I'm not being sarcastic, but [16] Q: Do you know if Mr. Coley ever had any [i7] that's a fairly good number of pounds. [17] interaction with Mr. Crockett? [ib] Q: Those would be gross losses on almost a [is] A: He probably did.The name somewhat rings a [19] daily basis, would it not? [19] bell with Gene Coley, but I don't know to what [20] A: Well, that equates to about 20 gallons, [20] extent. pi] Q: And even in the -- well, let me ask you [21] Q: There's a reference in the paragraph or [22] this: Do you have any reason to suspect that the [22] subparagraph that has a number 3 designation next to [23] Anniston plant was doing a better job in the '30s, [23] it, still on the first page of Exhibit 3, to Joe [24] '40s, or '50s of controlling PCB discharges into [24] Crockett, secretary of the Alabama Water Improvement [25] Snow Creek than it was, say, in the late 1960s? [25] Commission trying to handle the problem quietly V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (26) Page 91 - Page 94 HARTOLDMON0039068 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 95 Page 97 [1] Bryant - direct [i] Bryant - direct [2] without release of the information to the public at Pi and oversee. We were sending a bunch of junk up to p] this time. Was that in your experience a real Pi St. Louis. 14j concern for the management at the Monsanto Anniston [4] Q: When you returned to St. Louis and worked Pi plant, this idea that information about PCB losses [5] with various departments on PCB-related issues, did [6] to Snow Creek, releases of other waste materials [6] you have any interaction with the medical t7) into Snow Creek getting to the public, was that [7] department' [8] something that the plant was concerned aoubt? [8] A: Yes. [9] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [9] Q: Who did you interact with in the medical [10] A: Like I say, my responsibility was the other [10] department that you can remember by name? [11] side of the plant at that time.The attitude in the [11] A: Dr. Kelly, Dr.Wheeler, and Dr. Garrett. [12] plant had been to try to eliminate informing the [12] Q: Did you ever talk to Dr. Kelly, Mr. Wheeler, [13] local people of these kind of problems because it [13] or Mr. Garrett about the effects of PCBs on the [14] would raise concern they felt unnecessarily, because [14] environment and on humans? [is] I don't think the people even doing it quite [is] A: Yes, quite a bit. [16] understood the impact or total impact of the [16] Q: What did those gentlemen tell you about the [17] problem. But I wouldn't be surprised that this [17] effects of PCBs on humans, at least as they [is] attitude didn't exist at that time. [is] understood it, back in that time frame? [19] Q: Having worked in both St. Louis and Anniston [19] A: Well, they were pretty certain on liver [20] in the late 1960s and early 70s, did you ever get [20] effects, like any chlorinated hydrocarbon, they were pi] the sense that St. Louis had a better handle on the pi] aware of kidney, tiiyroid. And as far as cancer and [22] effect of PCB pollution on the environment and on [22] areas like this, it was quasi-knowledge. It was [23] human beings back in that time frame than the local [23] something to be concerned about and be alerted to, [24] plants did? [24] but I'd say it wasn't a major concern. But the [25] A: Oh, yes, no question about it. Because I [25] liver was a concern. Page 96 [1] Bryant - direct [2] got exposure firsthand to the information pretty [3i much when Monsanto really developed a program into [4] it, and this would have been in late '68. In fact, [5] I moved to St. Louis in the spring of '68, and the [6] expression we used, I hit the ground running, [7] because we had major problems. I didn't realize in [8] the plant that the problems were as extensive as [9] they are, or were. [10] And I'd say the knowledge in [11] St. Louis is much greater than the plants. We were [12] trying to carry on a two-front program. We were [13] trying to inform the customers to contain this thing [14] and also trying to do housekeeping in the [is] manufacturing operations. And as far as what those [16] manufacturing operations did, I had no [17] responsibility other than to relate the problems to [is] them, which I did. And if the management structure [19] did not inform the plants, I'm not aware of it. [20] Q: You returned to St. Louis in 1968, is that [21] correct, or 1969? [22] A: '68. [23] Q: Then briefly you returned -- [24] A: I was briefly back just like one week to get [25] the chlorine -- get the mercury out of that facility Page 98 [1] Bryant - direct [2] Q: And during die time that you were in Pi St. Louis, did you ever observe any efforts by die [4] medical department to reach out and brief die local [5j community around die Anniston plant about those [6] health concerns relating to PCB exposure? [7] MR. SHARMAN: Object to die form. [8] A: No.The medical department operated I'd say [9] similar to what I did.They informed the management [10] of the problems and depended on them to disperse [11] diis information to where they saw fit. And I got [12] it from die medical department because I happened to [13] be there in St. Louis. I'd say they did an [14] informative job of informing the people there in [is] St. Louis to try to disperse it, to get it to the [16] customers and die manufacturing operation. But the [17] customer standpoint is die only one I can answer [is] from because that's the only responsibility I had. [19] Q: Well, did you ever observe any effort, [20] either in the home office or locally in Anniston, [21] management trying to alert community residents about [22] these bealtii effects that you described that are [23] associated with PCB exposure? [24] A: I had no knowledge of it.They certainly [25] came to St. Louis, and I had different friends who V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (27) Page 95 - Page 98 HARTOLDMON0039069 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et al. James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 99 Page 101 [i) Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct [z] were there in the Anniston that were in the [2] I know they were upset. p] St. Louis home office on visits, as far as I know p] Q: What do you understand happened to people W were informative visits on the effects, the toxicity [4] involved with Industrial Biotest as a result of some [s] of these products. But, you know, they could have [5] of these studies? What became of some of those [6j had something entirely different. I wasn't [6] people? pi privileged to be in the meetings, so I don't know. n A: I think some of those people lost their [s] Q: And whether those discussions about the [8] jobs. Pi various human health effects of PCBs ever filtered [9] Q: Were you ever aware that the federal [10] down to the community outside the Anniston plant or [10] government prosecuted certain people connected with [11] not, you don't know? [11] Industrial Biotest as a result of fraudulent data [12] A: No. I have no way of knowing that. [i2j submissions to the government? [13] Q: Do you remember Dr. Kelly or Mr. Garrett or [13] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [H] Mr. Wheeler ever expressing the view that people in [14] A: There was a lot of controversy at the time. [is] these communities, in Anniston, these neighborhoods, [is] See, that was about the time the EPA was being [16] needed to know about potential health effects of PCB [16] organized. And they gave all kinds of motivation to [17] exposure? [17] have an Environmental Protection Agency. And I [is] A: Yes -- not so much Dr. Kelly, but [is] think Monsanto was supportive of that program as [is] Dr. Wheeler and Garrett, because they sat in on a [19] much as anybody else. go] lot of the test reviews that we had on biotests for [20] Q: Well, were you aware that Industrial Biotest [21] toxicity in animal exposure. Kelly was a very high [21] scientists were prosecuted over some of their [22] level medical department guy. He sat in on [22] fraudulent data? Did you ever become aware of that? [23] top-level technical discussions. But just the [23] A: I just heard rumors. I was never exposed. [24] routine laboratory testing or contractor testing, I [24] Monsanto never made an issue out of that.The only [25] don't think he was in many of those meetings. He [25] issue I got out of tiiat, the instructions I were Page 100 Page 102 [1] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct [2] delegated most of it to Kelly and Wheeler. [2] given was disregard the Biotest data. And basically [3] Q: What did you understand Monsanto's [3] I did. I never mentioned it to a customer. [4j objectives to be with respect to die Industrial [4] Q: The folks at Industrial Biotest were asked [5] Biotest lab studies? [5] to review data submitted by other scientists not [6] A: The ones out in Chicago? [6] hired by Monsanto who were working on the PCB healdi pi Q: Yes, sir. [7] effect issue at the time; is that true? And the [8] A: They were terrible. [8] time period I'm talking about is the late '60s, p] Q: Do you know what Monsanto's objectives were? PI early '70s. [10] Was it to try to -- [10] A: Yes. I think die origin of the PCB problem [11] A: They weren't reliable.The data basically [11] came from out of overseas and also Reisboro in [12] was fudged, and they tended to try to look like give [121 California on the Paragon Fountain. I think Sweden [13] Monsanto data that they wanted rather than the data [13] was the first fish studies that became aware there [14] that they got. It just wasn't reliable. [14] was a problem. [is] Q: Do you remember feeling whether that was [is] Q: As I understand it, when those studies came [16] something that Monsanto was looking for, was data [16] out, there was a lot of concern in upper management [17] that would disprove some growing medical evidence of [17] about die effect those studies might have on sales [is] PCB healdi effects in humans? [iB] or continued sales of PCB; is that correct? [19] MR. SHARMAN: Object to form. [19] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [20] A: No.That was done by die medical [20] A: Hint? [21] department. And I think they physically wanted to [21] Q: Yes, sir. [22] know the effects, because diey could control whedier [22] A: Yes, that's correct. [23] or not the information got out. But they wanted to [23] Q: That it would in fact hurt sales? [24] know technically. And I think they were upset [24] A: In feet it would ruin the market. We were [25] because they didn't get the true technical answer. [25] the only manufacturer -- Monsanto was sole V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (28) Page 99 - Page 102 HARTOLDMON0039070 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 103 Page 105 [i] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct PI manufacturer in the United States.That wasn't true [2] BY MR. BYRNE: p] for the world, because there were two other [4] manufacturers in the world. But for the United P] Q: And in this memo, Dr. Kelly states the [4] following in the final paragraph on Page 1 of this [5] States Monsanto was sole manufacturer. [5] memo. He says "MCC's position can be summarized in [6] Q: But even before the Reisboro studies came [6] this fashion. We know aroclors are toxic but the m out, before the studies came out of Sweden, isn't it [7] actual limit has not been precisely defined, It is] fair to say that at least the medical department for [8] does not make too much difference, it seems to me, [9] Monsanto was aware that PCBs could damage the human [8] because bur main worry is what will happen if an [10] liver? [10] individual develops any type of liver disease and pi] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [12] ' BY MR. BYRNE: [11] gives a history of aroclor exposure. I am sure the [12] juries would not pay a great deal of attention to [13] Q: Is that a fair statement? [13] maximum allowable concentrations." [14] A: That was the information back in the [14] I read diat to you for this reason: [is] archives of Monsanto research and development, that [15] The medical department clearly understood, did it [16] there were liver problems. I think that ties back [16] not, prior to the publication of the Jenson and [17] to even Red Ellenberg and those guys, who were much [17] Reisboro studies, that PCBs affected the human [is] ahead of me at Anniston. [18] liver, did it not? [19] Q: Dr. Simone -- [20] A: Yes. [19) MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [20] A: Emmett Kelly, Dr. Kelly, was firmly [21] Q: -- do you remember Dr. Simone? [21] convinced of it, no doubt in my mind on that. [22] A: I don't remember him, but I remember his [22] Q: And hadn't the medical department folks from [23] articles. [23] Monsanto been talking about PCB exposures leading to [24] Q: Do you remember a Dr. Von Weddle and a [24] systemic toxic effects as far back as the 1930s? [25] Dr.William Hola? [25] A: Obviously, since I was born in 1936,1 can Page 104 Page 106 [1] [2] A: No. Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct [2] only recollect from that time on. P] Q: Dr.James Denton? [3] Q: Okay. i [4] A: No. [4] A: But I'd say there was information in the [5] Q: Do you remember the Dr.J. W. Barrett, I [5] archives, something to this effect. Dr. Kelly got [6] think he may have been based out of London? [6] his belief from somewhere. m A: Yes. [7] Q: Okay. [8] Q: Do you recall ever hearing that he was [8] A: And I also respected him because he was PI carrying out some studies on the maximum allowable [10] toxic concentrations of PCBs in the workplace back [9) older than I, and I assumed I could learn something [10] from what he had been exposed to. I never did know [11] in the '50s? HI) exactly why he was so strong on liver, but I [12] A: Yes. He would have been actually a separate [12) accepted the fact that it was a liver toxin because [13] operation out of Monsanto, Limited, out of Robin [13] 1 don't think he would have been as outspoken as he [14] Wales, or he could have been out of London. [14] was had it not been. [is] (Memo, 9/20/55, to Barrett from Kelly [15] Q: Well, sitting here today, do you feel like [16] marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 4.) [16] it's pretty well established even today that one of [17] BY MR. BYRNE: [17] the health effects involved in being exposed to PCBs [is] Q: I'm going to hand you a document that I'm [18] is possible liver damage? [19] going to mark as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4.This is in [19) MR. SHARMAN: Objection to form. [20] fact a memorandum that was submitted to Dr. Barrett [20] A: No doubt in my mind on that or any pi) in September of 1955 from Dr. Kelly and -- [22] MR. SHARMAN: David, do you have a [21] chlorinated hydrocarbon. And I think he's on track [22] in this memo where he says the increased [23] copy, please? [23] chlorination level, because I think that is true. P4] MR. BYRNE: Yes. [24] Q: In other words, the higher die chlorine [25] MR. SHARMAN: Thank you. [25] content in the aroclor product, die more toxic it is V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (29) Page 103 - Page 106 HARTOLDMON0039071 Tolbert, et aJL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 107 Page 109 [i] Bryant - direct [i] Bryant - direct 12] to the human liver? . H pollution issues? PI A: Right, right. Because we found in later [3] A: The process engineer, Lamar Faulkner. 14] work that some of the lower chlorinated materials, [4] Q: And what did he tell you about mercury [5] particularly the mono, di, and tri, were [5] pollution at the plant? [s] biodegradable, where the higher chlorinated, the 5 16] A: He had an amalgam, which I believe came off in and 6 chlorine rings, are definitely not degradabel. [7] of the filter gate for caustic recovery from that [8] Q: Do you ever recall during the time that you [B] process.And there was question if we could somehow PI were in St. Louis, or in Anniston, whether any [9] by adjusting the pH get this emulsion to settle or [10] effort was made by management to inform -- well, [10] get it out where it would cut down on his mercury [11] strike that. We've talked about that, so let's move [11] losses. And I'm not sure if those losses were lost [12] on from there. [12] so much to the sewer as they were to the waste. I [13] When you interviewed with the plant [13] don't know where this filter media went. I assumed [14] in 1964, did management discuss their chlorine [14] it was some kind of control on it, but physically I [is] operation with you to any extent? [is] don't know where it went. [16] A: Only from the standpoint of the process [is] Q: Well, you understood that mercury was [17] engineer and probably the supervisor of that [17] discharged into Snow Creek from time to time, wasn't [is] department, which would have been a guy, the tech [18] it? [is] service guy would have been an engineer by the name [19] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [20] of Bill Voss, and the process engineer would have [20] A: Yes. In the sense that the drain went [21] been Lamar Faulkner, and the actual operation was pi) through the same system that the waste acid drain [22] under Robert Moodis, production manager's control. [22] went. In fact, the plants were side by side.Yes, [23] Q: How long had chlorine been manufactured on [23] mercury would have gone, entrained in the liquid or [24] site at the Anniston plant? [24] spillover from the plant into the drain and would [25] A: 1 have no idea. It was manufactured there [25] have gone into Snow Creek. Page 108 Page 110 [1] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct [2] when I came diere in '64, so presumably would have [2] Q: And that would be the same area where acid [3] been much longer than that.The plant looked pretty PI and PCBs would discharge into Snow Creek; correct? [4] old. [4] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [5] Q: Okay. It was an older facility, was it not? [5] A: That's correct. [6] A: Yes, it was. [6] Q: So to the extent that there were losses of [7] Q: Did you find during your time at Anniston p) PCB and acid into Snow Creek, the same potential at [8] that the feet that it was an older facility [Bj that waste outfall point existed for mercury losses? [9] contributed in some ways to some of the waste pi MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [10] discharges occurring around the plant? [10] A: That's correct. [11] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [11] Q: At the time when you were first asked to [12] A: Manufacturing chlorine by that old -- that [12] take a look at this matter, I mean, it was clear, [13] technology, the neurocell, was the leading [13] was it not, that mercury was not a healthy thing for [14] technology in that day. But it was pretty sloppy [14] human beings to be exposed to; correct? [is] operation, mercury anode, had a lot of problems with [is] A: Correct. [16] emulsion, particularly on a caustic by-product, and [16] Q: Are you familiar with the effects of mercury [17] this stuff led to mercury emissions from a process [17] on humans? [is] which eventually changed the technology to membrane [is] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [19] type cells in most cases. Still some mercury that's [19] A: Yes. [20] running around the country. [20] Q: What types of problems do mercury exposure pi] Q: Were you asked to address mercury pollution [21] situations present for humans? [22] issues at the plant during the time you were in [22] A: I can't list them right off, but major [23] Anniston? [23] concern I got is neurological, but it's pretty [24] A: Yes. [24] widespread and well known that it's a bad exposure. [25] Q: And who first spoke with you about mercury [25] Q: Okay. V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (30) Page 107 - Page 110 HARTOLDMON0039072 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 111 [i] Bryant - direct H A: In fact, to the point where the City of Pi Philadelphia is even collecting household personal [4] thermometers. That's not to say it's still not a ts] fair amount of -- in feet, that's an old neurocell [$] plant operating in Delaware City. But those things m in Europe are on five-year phase out plan, I think [8] by 2006 they will be gone there. PI Q: Part of the fish studies that Monsanto [10] carried out in the '60s along the Choccolocco Creek, [11] in that area, were designed to determine the amount [12] of mercury -- [13] A: Uh-huh. [14] Q: -- that was making its way from the Monsanto [is] plant into the area where fish feed; is that [16] correct? [17] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [is] A: So for as I know. [19] Q: Did you ever observe any efforts by plant [20] management in Anniston to alert the local community pi] about some of their findings in these fish studies [22] or -- [23] A: No.To my knowledge there was no effort [24] to -- in fact, quite to the contrary. [25] Q: Well, do you think there should have been, Page 113 [i] Bryant - direct H related to some of those chemicals? P] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form, and [4j asked and answered. [5] BY MR. BYRNE: [6] Q: You may answer. [7] A: Up to the time that I left, I'd say -- I was [8] part of that same movement, not to inform people any PI more than they had to know. But as the public has [10] got more sophisticated and more knowledgeable and [11] more understanding of problems, knowledge doesn't [12] hurt.You got that under the Freedom of [13] Information; otherwise we wouldn't have the Freedom [14] of Information Act. [is] Q: Do you think if Dr. Kelly had made a visit [16] along with other medical staffers from St. Louis [17] to -- if they had made a visit to Anniston back in [is] the '50s and '60s and talked with community members [19] about some of the health effects that they felt were [20] associated with PCB wastes and mercury and whatnot, [21] do you think that it would have caused local [22] residents to have altered the way they consumed fish [23] or grew gardens or did any number of things? [24] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [25] A: Yes, I think it would. And I think an Page 112 Page 114 [1] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct [2] given what you know about mercury toxicity and acids [2] example I would give you is, that on the parathion [3] and PCBs and the like? [3] process we had a problems with exposure and how fast [4] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [4] we could get medical attention. And I had them one H . A: Well, I have mixed emotions because a lot of [5] day, I said, we don't have to say anything, keep [6] times you can create a problem by doing that because [6] arguing about this, just run an ambulance from the m of lack of knowledge of the public.You got to be [7] plant to die hospital and let's time it. [a] very careful when you inform the public and you got [8] And the next day die union struck [9] to make sure what you inform them is true. [9] because diey wanted hazardous duty pay. And their [io] Certainly in tire sense that it's going to be [10] approach was that if this process is so dangerous [i i] detrimental to your product line, you better be darn [11] you got to make dry runs to the hospital, it's [12] careful. But even from the standpoint -- [12] obvious we need more pay for it. [13] Q: Or you will end up in a situation like this [13] And I think in a sense that if Kelly [i4j lawsuit here? [14] come in there and talking a lot about these diings, [is] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [is] it would have made that more of a problem. It's a [16] A: Yes. [16] very delicate operation. I mean, you want to inform [17] Q: Okay. And that was a concern in the time [17] people, but you can't inform them too much.And you [is] that you were in Anniston; is that true? [18] certainly don't want to give them misinformation, [19] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [19] either way. [20] A: That's true. [20] But I don't think the plant was aware [21] Q: But sitting here today, do you think that pi] of this information, like Barren and people like [22] the plant, in all fairness, should have had more [22] that, I know I wasn't aware of it from '64 until I [23] interaction with the community about not only what [23] got to St. Louis. Now, that information I did [24] was being discharged frorii the plant into their [24] realize was available back in the '50s and even [25] environment, but also the potential health effects [25] earlier. And knew of data back in the '30s. And VARALLO Incorporated Min-U-Script (31) Page 111 - Page 114 HARTOLDMON0039073 Tolbert, et al. v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 115 Page 117 ii] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct [2j Benignus, the guy I worked for, he was aware of [2] ask you some questions. Do you recall there being p] problems with military operations in World War DL Pi some study out of the St. Louis office into whether [4] But he always led me to believe he thought it was W polychlorinated dibenzofurans were mixed up in one [5] chlorinated naphthalene, including problems with [5] or more of the aroclor products that were being [6] anthrax, which he felt, you know, that the [6] produced by Monsanto? 17] chlorinated naphthalene was the culprit and not m A: Yes. That came, originated out of the Yosha [8] PCBs. But Kelly didn't share that enthusiasm on [8] incident in Japan on rice oil, I believe. And at Pi aroclor. [9] the time, I'm not quite sure on my timing on this, [10] Q: Do you ever remember a discussion in the [10] we were concerned with the stability in electrical [11] medical department about data being developed that [11] 1242 aroclor, and it turns out that Konica Fuji in [12] indicated the presence of chlorinated naphthalene in [12] Japan had a better stability, and later it was [13] things like the Santo Wax that was manufactured at [13] revealed that the stability was attributable to [14] the Anniston plant? [14] dibenzofurans, which is something we were trying to [is] A: No, not in the sense that -- you mean in the [is] obtain and probably to our advantage we didn't [16] manufacture of the Santo Wax itself? [16] obtain it because we had a more unstable product but [17] Q: Yes, sir. [17] we had a safer product. I don't want to say it was [ib] A: No. I don't think -- I'm not aware of any [is] by design; it was by accident. [19] major concern on that. [19] Q: Do you know what St. Louis eventually [20] Q: Do you remember a Mr.J.R. Savage? [20] concluded about the presence of polychlorinated [21] A: Yes. pi) dibenzofurans in their various products? [22] Q: Who was Mr. Savage? [22] A: So far as I know, the manufacturing process, [23] A: Savage was a process engineer, and then he [23] they didn't have any problem with it. It was the [24] was a manufacturing manager when I came there.And [24] heating of these things tinder extreme conditions and [25] he left about the same time I came in. [25] with oxygen, and I was concerned from a customer Page 116 Page 118 [i] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct Pi Q: And who was Mr. R. E. Keller? Do you [2] standpoint in making sure that, for example, in the [3] remember who that was? [3] electronic devices when they solder, to seal the [4] A: Keller was in corporate research, I believe. w unit up, to make sure that those burn materials on [5] Analytical? [5] top of the units were safe to handle because of [s] Q: HowaboutJ. P. Mieure? [6] possibility of dioxin furans. [7] A: He was definitely in research and [7] Q: Well, did you ever observe or conclude that [8] development, Dr. Mieure. [8] the production of aroclors at the Monsanto plant in [9] (Memo, 10/20/70, to Keller from pi Anniston generated polychlorinated dibenzofuran [10] Mieure marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 5.) [io] releases into the environment? [11] BY MR. BYRNE: [i i] A: To my knowledge, the only ones that would [12] Q: Let me hand you an exhibit that I'm going to [12] have been producing furans would have been in the [13] mark Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 to your deposition.This [13] Santo Wax combination because they were distilled at [14] appears to be an October 20,1970, memo from Dr. or [14] a much higher temperature. And because of the [is] Mr. J. P. Mieure to R. E. Keller, and I want to turn [is] nature of these chlorinated materials, they have to [16] your attention first of all to the second full [16] be at an elevated temperature with oxygen for the [17] paragraph, and in particular beginning with the [17] formation of furans. I'm not surprised that, as he [is] first sentence. It reads "Low levels (about 25 [is] says in here, 5442 appears to contain, that's [i9j parts per million) of polychlorinated dibenzofurans [19] exactly where I would have expected from the [20] were confirmed in Phenoclor D.P. 6, a competitor to [20] physical characteristics. [21] Aroclor 1260 from Prodelec, France.Aroclor 5442 [21] Q: Is there Aroclor 5442 Santo Wax? [22] appears to contain about two parts per million [22] A: Yes. . [23] polychlorinated dibenzofurans; none were detected in [23] Q: And Santo Wax was produced at the Anniston [24] any other aroclor study." [24] plant? [25] I read that to you because I want to [25] A: Right. On the same unit as biphenyl. It YAK ALL O Incorporated Min-U-Script (32) Page 115 - Page 118 HARTOLDMON0039074 Tolbert, et al v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 119 Page 121 [1] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct [2] was just a higher molecular weight material, [2] Q: Okay. Are polychlorinated naphthalenes P] terphenyl. [3j toxic, to your knowledge? [4] Q: And were wastes from the Santo Wax [4] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [5] production process, were they, did they leave the IS] A: They've been reactor as far as chloracne, [6j plant, either through the air or through waste [6] yes. I'd say they're equally as bad, just not that m streams, to your knowledge? [7] many of them. [8] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [8] Q: What is anthracene and phenanthrene? 19] A: Oh, they could have left through the air. [9] A: Different molecular weight benzene [10] But they weren't very volatile.They were very low [10] derivatives. [11] volatility. And they would have the same effect as [11] Q: Are they toxic? [12] aroclors -- well, they are aroclors, they have the [12] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [13] same effect as chlorinated biphenyls but they would [13] A: No.Those guys, like biphenyl and [14] elute in a gas chromatographic column at a higher [14] terphenyl, until you put a chlorine on them. [is] temperature, so they elute in an entirely different [is] Q: Okay. All right. [16] region. But physically they would have pretty much [is] A: It's not something you would eat, but I mean [17] the same effects as the chlorinated biphenyl. [i7] it depended on the degree of toxicity. [iB] Q: Now, I'm reading on in Plaintiff's Exhibit [is] Q: Did mercury pose an air contamination threat [19] 5, I'm now in the middle of the second paragraph. [19] or was the main route of discharge through the waste [20] That sentence reads, "However, each of the Aroclor [20] streams? [21] 1200 series contains polychlorinated naphthalenes at [21] A: Only for the operators. [22] varying levels." Did I read that correctly? [22] Q: How would the use of mercury and chlorine [23] A: Well, wait a minute, I'm not with you on [23] production at the plant have created a potential air [24] that. [24] hazard for operators? [25] Q: I'm in the, I think the third sentence in [25] A: You would have a certain amount in the Page 120 [1] Bryant - direct [2] the second paragraph of Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, it P] reads, "However, each of the Aroclor 1200 series [4] contains polychlorinated naphthalenes at varying [5] levels." Do you see that sentence? [6] A: Yes. m Q: And first off, the Aroclor 1200 series was [8] produced, of course, in Anniston; correct? [9] A: Right. [10] Q: And what do you recall being discussed in [11] St. Louis over this subject of polychlorinated [12] naphthalenes being in the entire Aroclor 1200 [13] series? [14] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [is] A: I didn't realize, I never realized that they [16] were contained to any degree in that. I don't know [17] here what degree he's talking about here. But in a [is] sense that, were they possible, yes, because of the [19] very nature which we've discussed earlier, the way [20] they produce naphtha -- biphenyl, certainly you've [21] got some free radicals and cracking in that biphenyl [22] production to make naphthalenes and anthracene and [23] other derivatives of benzene, which would chlorinate [24] at the same time that the PCBs, but it should have ps] been a very minimal amount. Page 122 [1] Bryant - direct [2] arcing of the anodes and this type of thing that p] would release probably some mercury vapor. I'd say [4] chlorine and hydrogen were more of a concern. And [5] chlorine obviously being the product, hydrogen being [6j the by-product, which was extremely dangerous and [7] flammable. But it's possible. [8] Q: Everybody understood during the time you [9] were in Anniston that chlorine was a hazardous [io] chemical; correct? [i i] A: Yes. Because if you got any kind of [12] ignition it would blow the top off the cell and blow [13] the top off and release all the chlorine. [14] Q: How was chlorine gas vented from the plant'' [is] I'm assuming it was vented to get it away from the [16] workers, wasn't it? [17] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [is] A: Just normal ventilation system. [19] Q: To the outside air? [20] A: Yes. In all those plants it's always a [21] faint odor of chlorine around. [22] Q: Now, did that chlorine odor ever spark [23] complaints or questions from the community on this [24] hot line that you know of? [25] A: No. I don't think it was that strong in the VARA.LLO Incorporated Min-U-Script (33) Page 119 - Page 122 HARTOLDMON0039075 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 123 Page 125 [i] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct H community. [2] the ground. P) Q: How much in the way of chlorine air pi Q: What kind of problems would that sort of w emissions would it take to cause somebody some W spillage cause once it entered the ground? Pi pretty serious harm? is] A: Well, mercury pollution would just continue Pi MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form, [6] to go down till it hit the water table. And what m BY MR. BYRNE: [7] they were trying to do was contain it in the top Pi Q: Wouldn't take much, would it? [8] layer of ground and try to recover it. In fact, we [9] MR. SHARMAN: Same objection. [9] would try to clean it up and send it to St. Louis. [10] A: Yes, it takes a fair amount, a heavy [10] Q: Mercury that might have been lost to Snow [ill concentration, because the amount doesn't make any [11] Creek back in the 1950s and '60s, where would it [121 difference if you got enough dispersion. [12] have gone? Would it have just gotten into sediment [13] Q: Do you ever remember any chlorine, serious [13] and gravitated downward? [14] chlorine gas releases? [14] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [is] A: No, I never remember any chlorine problem at [is] A: It would have been in the sediment. [16] all. [16] Q: If one wanted to try to conduct a sampling [17] Q: Do you remember any of the workers ever [17] program to try to determine the amount of mercury [is] relating incidents involving chlorine releases? [is] that's an issue around the Snow Creek and [19] A: Unh-unh. [19] Choccolocco Creek area today, what would you have to [20] Q: Okay, What did you try to do to correct the [20] do to get a handle on the past exposures? Would you pi] mercury waste issues at the plant? [21] have to dig deep cores? Would you have to check the [22] A:. I tried playing around with the pH, the [22] water table? What would you have to do? [23] emulsion, and trying to see if we can get the [23] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [24] mercury to precipitate out of the -- kind of a froth [24] A: No, I don't think you'd have to do a deep [25] like it formed on the filter gate, but I never could [25] core. I'd say a reasonable core into sediment Page 124 Page 126 [1] Bryant - direct [i] Bryant - direct [2] do anything with it. H representing the time that you're concerned with, P] Q: Okay. pi Q: Would a one-foot core or two-foot core [4] A: I don't know whether that's where their [4] sample give you an accurate view of mercury or would [5] losses were.That was a source of loss. But they [5] you have to go a little deeper? [6] could have been losing it in liquid as well. I [6] A: I would think it would. But it depends on Pi wouldn't have known it. Other than they did have m how silty the water is and how much sediment you Pi traps on the system trying to camp it physically. [8] would get out of it. Something like the [9] Q: When were the traps put in place? 19] Mississippi, it would be probably, would not be [10] A: Oh, they were I'd say from a design on the [io] acceptable. But -- [11] plant. pi] Q: Because of its ability to move downward? [12] Q: Okay. How long did you work on the mercury [12] A: Suspended matter. I know in New York with [13] waste issues at the plant? the entire time you were [13] GE, the problem I had with wood pulp in the stream [14] there? [14] would absorb the PCBs, which was good because it was [is] A: No. I'd say maybe a month or so. Very [is] trapped in that area. But from a standpoint of [16] little. [16] somebody came along and wanted to dig it all up, [17] Q: And did you present any recommendations to [17] that was bad, and it was even worse when they had [is] the plant management or management in St. Louis [is] nowhere to go with it. So for that reason you got [19] about how to deal with mercury waste? [is] to be careful in -- what they were trying to do [20] A: The only time was right before the shutdown [20] there was pinpoint what caused it, and what happened pi] they were talking about ground contamination being [21] is, it settled on the particulate, which was the [22] so bad. And I said this stuff was just spillage [22] wood chips, and I would expect in Choccolocco Creek [23] from a process, because the bottom of the chlorine [23] it would be particulate which would be basically [24] plant was kind of slat floors, and that was [24] soil. . P5] obviously that way to let the spillage go through to [25] Q: Okay. How deep would you sample there to VARALLO Incorporated Min-U-Script (34) Page 123 - Page 12( HARTOLDMON0039076 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 127 Page 129 [i] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct [2j try to figure out historical impacts of mercury [2] just one pass for the anode, it's true. And it's p] waste? Pi reused, it's got to, for the economics of the [4] A: I think in a foot or so would be reasonable. [4] process. But in the sense that there was no loss of [5] Q: Okay. [5] mercury from the process, I don't think it's true. is] A: But I'd take a couple deeper just to make [6] Q: And isn't that how you read that particular [7] sure. [7] statement that Solutia makes, that they're [B] MR. BYRNE: We'll take a break after [] suggesting to this environmental agency that mercury p] this exhibit, we've been going a little while, we'll p] was not a contaminant of concern that was leaving [10] take a brief break because we're trying to get [10] that plant? [11] everybody to their planes. [11] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [12] (Solutia Inc./Anniston report marked [12] The statement speaks for itself. [13] Plaintiff's Exhibit 6.) [13] A: Well, again, I don't know in what sense they [H] BY MR. BYRNE: [14] meant -- that statement is true from a common sense [is] Q: I want to hand you a report that I'm going [is] standpoint, because nobody can afford to run a [i6i to mark Exhibit 6.This is a filing that Solutia [16] process and not recycle the mercury. But from the [17] made with the Alabama Department of Environmental [17] standpoint that that means that there were no [is] Management -- I don't think I have a copy of this [ib] losses, no, the statement is not true. [19] for defense counsel, but I can show it to him -- [19] Q: There were significant losses that the [20] back in February of 1999. And I want to read a [20] company wanted you to address when you came to [21] statement to you that Solutia made to ADEM in that [21] Anniston, wasn't there? [22] filing and get your response to it. [22] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [23] Turn, if you would, to Page 1 of [23] A: The engineers recorded considerable losses. [24] Exhibit 6, and if you look a little more than [24] Q: And certainly in that respect mercury was [25] halfway down the page, you will see a section that [25] not recycled or reused, it was gone? Page 128 Page 130 [1] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct [2] begins "Response." Do you see that? [2] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form, [3] A: Uh-huh. p] BY MR. BYRNE: W Q: Let me read this statement to you. It says, [4] Q: True? [5] "During the RCRA facility assessment and the [5] A: True. [6] preparation of the on-site work plan, we reviewed [] Q: So whether or not the system was designed on [7] our records on mercury usage at the Anniston [7] paper to be a closed one or not, it would not have is] facility and were able to determine that mercury was [8] been closed in the sense that losses of mercury were [9] used in the manufacture of chlorine at the facility. [9] occurring at the plant; is that correct? [io] While the records are not clear, it appears that [10] A: That's correct. tin chlorine was manufactured between 1952 and 1969 [11] MR. BYRNE: Let's do this, let's take [i2] using a mercury cell process. No records could be [12] just a short break and then we'll come back and kind ti3] located describing the consumption of mercury, [13] of move into the home stretch. I know we're going [14] although it is noted that the process is a closed [14] through the -- we can go off record. [is] one in which mercury is recycled and reused." [is] THE VIDEOTAPE SPECIALIST: We're now [16] My question to you, after having read [is] going off the videotape record.That concludes [17] that, is this, based on your experiences at [17] Videotape No. 2.The time, 12:24. [is] Anniston, what do you make of that statement that [is] (Short recess.) [19] Solutia made to the department just a few years ago? [19] THE VIDEOTAPE SPECIALIST: We are [20] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [20] now back on the videotape record.The date, June pi) A: No records, I find that hard to accept, [21] 30,2003-The time, 12:43.This is Tape No. 3. [22] because I think there are some records in the '60s [22] You may continue. [23] range. But as far as the closed process, it depends [23] BY MR. BYRNE: [24] on your definition of closed process. In the sense [24] Q: Mr. Bryant, I want to pick up on the time [25] that they recycled the mercury, they didn't have [25] that you spent in Anniston in 1969. As I understood V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (35) Page 127 - Page 13C HARTOLDMON0039077 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 131 Page 133 Ml Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct H your earlier testimony, you left for St. Louis in [2] Anniston. Some of the best water I ever tasted. Pi 1968 and came back a few times -- PI No.That was absolutely no concern of getting into [4] A: That's right. [4] that water system. t5] Q: -- in 1969; correct? [5] Q: So the concern was it getting into Snow tq A: Correct. [6] Creek and then perhaps -- [7] Q: And tell me again, what was or what were the [7] A: Uh-huh. [8] purposes for the visits in 1969 to Anniston? [8] Q: -- some surface runoff going into the Pi A: The purposes in 1969 was basically removal [9] neighborhoods and such? [10] of the mercury out of that chlorine plant and shut [10] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [11] that operation down and then discuss the [11] A: Well, it would go down through the [12] possibilities of cleanup of the earth underneath the [12] neighborhood, but it would make its way to the Logan [13] plant. [13] Martin complex. [14] Q: What did you understand was the situation [14] Q: I see. [is] with mercury underneath the plant? [is] A: Which was a big waterway, recreation. [16] A: I understood the ground was saturated with [16] Q: The work that you did to shut down the [17] mercury from spillage from the plant from years of [17] plant, obviously you were successful in shutting [is] operation. [is] down the chlorine production plant; correct? [is] Q: And what dangers if any did that present to [19] A: Uh-huh. [20] the public health or to the environment? [20] Q: Were you successful in recovering all the pi] A: Well, they didn't want it to get into the [21] mercury that had been lost5 [22] drainage system in the plant. And from the [22] A: No. [23] standpoint that this all went basically through the [23] Q: But you were able to recover some percentage [24] ditch that we're talking about, and they wanted to [24] of it? [25] try to avoid getting as much mercury as they could [25] A: They were giving us suggestions on what to Page 132 Page 134 [1] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct [2] get through there. [2] do. Now, I don't know what they did and if they pi Q: In other words, spills around the plant [3] recovered anything. That's about the time we lost a [4] could eventually migrate to Snow Creek? [4] whole truckload and my interest then was in trying [5] A: Uh-huh. [5] to recover that. [6] Q: And that the plant had some evidence, I'm [6] Q: What percentage of the mercury spilled in [7] assuming, in 1969 that that had been going on and p] the ground around the plant was recovered, to your [8] needed to be stopped? [8j knowledge? PI MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [9] A: I have no knowledge. [10] A: They had evidence that -- well, I'd say from [10] Q: Did you have any goals in mind for the [11] Ferguson work, yes, they had information that it had [11] recovery? [12] been going on. But they had information that the [12] A: No. I wasn't directly responsible for that. [13] stuff would migrate.That had been known for some [13] I was basically the person that tried to determine, [14] time. [14] you know, what we could do in short order and assign [is] Q: And would migrate into the community outside [is] a priority in comparison with everything else. And [16] the plant? [16] like I said, mercury wasn't my main concern because [17] MR. SHARMAN: Object -- [17] it didn't have enough dollars associated to it. It [is] A: Not necessarily, but migrate down through [is] was an expensive product, but I assumed the losses [19] the ground structure. [19] were small, plus the fact that that was something I [20] Q: Did it get into the drinking water or [20] couldn't do much about anyway. [21] groundwater? [21] Q: Parathion and aroclor were more expensive [22] A: No, to my knowledge it didn't.The drinking [22] losses? [23] water, all of it I thought came from Cold Water [23] A: Parathion was the top priority, no question [24] Spring, which was like an artesian, a huge thing. [24] about it. [25] In fact, I think it supplied the whole city of [25] Q: Because the losses were so expensive to the V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (36) Page 131 - Page 134 HARTOLDMON0039078 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et al James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 135 Page 137 [1] Bryant - direct [i] Bryant - direct [2] plant in terms of lost sales? H MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. p] A: No. Because the product was so expensive in Pi A: Oh, yes.Yes. Hi terms of market. [4] Q: Okay. From your interaction with the [5] Q: Right. [5] medical department at Monsanto, wasn't that clearly [6i A: It supported anything that you could do to [6] something that they communicated and understood at [7] improve the process as well as control losses. [7] least internally that it could to that? [B] Q: And I think we're talking about the same [8] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. Pi thing. I mean, it was a good selling product and PI A: Yes. We didn't communicate that to [10] losing it through the plant waste streams that left [10] customers.The primary test ground for that I dunk [11] the plant wasn't a smart way to do business? [11] was Denver, Colorado, they had had problems with it [12] A: No. Another concern was the toxicity of it. [12] there. And that was pretty well known feet. [13] I mean, it wasn't smart business to kill people out [13] Q: When were those cow studies going on? [14] in the community or animals or anything else. So we [14] A: The cow studies? [is] were very conscious of that. And I'd say that [is] Q: Yes, sir, with Westinghouse. [is] stemmed over into the PCB as well. Now, we didn't [16] A: It would have been in the, I think it was in [i7] do any outside analysis that I know on PCBs and [17] the '60s. [is] stuff while I was there. I've heard they did some [is] Q: And Monsanto in St. Louis at least knew of [19] after we left, I'm sure they did. [19] the studies; correct? [20] Q: What do you mean by outside analysis? [20] A: Well, Anniston knew of them because we had [21] A: Community analyzing animals and things that [21] the guys in for -- in fact, I had the guys in for [22] possibly would have been exposed. [22] interviews, discussions on PCB pollution problems. P3] Q: St. Louis had been conducting studies on [23] Q: There are a lot of farms, are there not, [24] chickens and rats and poultry and things like that [24] along Choccolocco Creek; correct? PS] for a long time in the '50s, '60s, that time period? [25] A: Uh-huh. Page 136 Page 138 [1] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct [2] A: Rats and dogs mainly is what we used.The [2] Q: And some of those farms had cows and pigs [3] customers did a lot of chicken testing, not [3] and poultry and things like that; true? [4] intentional, but down in his neck of the K] A: (Witness shakes head.) [5] neighborhood, North Carolina, they did a bunch of it [5] Q: Do you remember that? [6] inadvertently. [6] A: Uh-huh. [7] Q: Was there any discussion in St. Louis about [7] Q: Did anyone to your knowledge from the plant [8] possibly testing some of the cows and poultry in the [8] ever go and speak to some of those farmers about [9] Anniston area? [9] issues with their milk cattle, or dairy cows or [10] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [10] chickens or hogs or things like that? [11] A: No.The only area of discussion we got into [11] A: Some of those formers worked at Monsanto and [12] was in Bloomington, Indiana, with Westinghouse. [12] they knew of them. Whether or not they were related [13] They had that cow fed on organic grass grown from [13] that to the community, I don't know. But they were [i4j city sewage, and the city sewage was loaded with [14] aware of it, some of them. [is] PCBs, and die net result is Old Bessie, the organic [is] Q: Do you remember anyone in the plant [16] fed cow, the milk was blue but it wasn't blue from [16] management in Anniston speaking with the workers [17] lack of cream. It was blue from -- it physically [17] that had forms that they needed to stay away from -- [is] wasn't blue, but it was just totally highly [is] A: No. [19] contaminated with PCB. It had to have passed [19] Q: -- cow milk if the cows graze near the [20] through the metabolism of the cow. It accumulated [20] creeks? pi) where we thought it would, in die fatty tissue, or [21] A: No. I don't think they would have given [22] fatty product which was the milk. [22] that advice out from what I knew -- what they knew [23] Q: And the medical department, I'm assuming, [23] at the time. [24] understood that PCBs also had the potential to [24] Q: If cows grazing on organic material in [25] accumulate in human breast milk; correct? . [25] Bloomington, Indiana, from just a municipal waste V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (37) Page 135 - Page 138 HARTOLDMON0039079 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 139 Page 141 [i] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct H facility was getting high levels of PCBs, is there [2] interested to go back. pi any doubt in your mind that livestock grazing in the Pl Q: Did anyone ever report to you, at least W Choccolocco Creek and Snow Creek area, that they [4] anecdotally, what became of some of the mercury P) were picking up tremendous amounts of those same [5] spillage? Pi contaminants? Pi A: No. Most of the thing reported back to me [7] MR. SHARMAN: Object to die form, [7j at that time, because we had lost a whole truckload p] A: Not to the same degree that Bloomington, Pi that we had taken out of the process, and we spent a PI Indiana, was. But physically could they? Yes. Pl couple of years trying to find that. [10] Q: Okay. Now, the cows in Bloomington, [10] Q: Did you ever have any involvement in work at [11] Indiana, that was a one-time exposure issue, wasn't [11] the Anniston plant related to the dump sites? [12] it? [12] A: Two dump sites, and I never actually worked [13] A: Yes. [13] related to them. One was called Clagon or Clayton's [14] Q: That wasn't a constant -- [14] Lake, which was apparently a pit over in the back [is] A: No. [is] side of the plant where they dumped the montars from [16] Q: Okay.There weren't constant PCB waste [16] the aroclor manufacturing, stuff like this in. And [17] issues in the Bloomington, Indiana, study like you [17] the other was on top of the mountain directly across [is] would have in an area like, say, Anniston where [is] the Birmingham Highway from the plant, where every [19] waste may be a continuous thing over many years? [19] kind of waste went into it. [20] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form, po) And the only thing I ever had with pi] BY MR. BYRNE: pi] that was, I used to get on some of the people in the [22] Q: Is that fair? [22] parathion department for spillage of PNP, this type [23] A: I'd say you're correct. P3] of thing, that would give you a yellow color, and [24] Q: How much mercury was recovered during the [24] when it would rain it would run down the ditch on [25] shutdown of the chlorine plant? PS] the highway. And I didn't like that from a Page 140 [1] Bryant - direct [2] A: 28,000 pounds, I believe, was what was taken Pl out of the plant. [4] Q: 28,000 pounds? Pi A: Uh-huh. P] Q: And do you have some -- well, obviously that [7] wasn't all the mercury that had been lost. I mean. Pi you didn't recover 100% of it; correct? p] A: They wouldn't generally recover in the sense [10] that, did we recover this from any leakage or [11] spillage? No. Zero.This was recovered from the [12] process. [13] Q: Oh, I see. I got you. Taken out of the [14] equipment and -- [is] A: Yes, exacdy. [16] Q: Okay. [17] A: I'd say it didn't contain anything that was [is] spilled or waste otherwise. [19] Q: What about efforts to collect spilled [20] mercury and the like; did that yield any kind of pi] recovery? P2] A: I don't know what happened on that because, P3) like I say, I made the suggestions and cleared out [24] of there back to St. Louis. I had so many other [25] problems I was working on, I never even, I never was Page 142 [1] Bryant - direct [2] liability standpoint because it was obvious [3] pollution. [4j Q: Because it was so visible? [5] A: Yes. [6] Q: You mentioned a Clagon or Clayton Lake? m A: Clagon, and I don't know how you spell that, [8] but C-L-A-G-O-N, I guess, lake. Apparently he was a [9] supervisor or something in that plant and people [10] would laugh about, you know, as to where they dumped [11] the stuff and they called it his lake. [12] Q: It was just a pit for waste? [13] A: As far as I know, it was just a pit along [14] the back corner of that plant. [is] Q: What was put into that? [16] A: Old montar, they call it, residue, [17] limestone, carbon from distillation of PCB. [is] Q: Well, first, describe what is a montar? [i9] A: Montar is the bottoms from distillation of po] aroclor. It basically was a carbonaceous limestone pi] type of -- generally was a solid material. It could P2] be a resin. - p3] Q: But it was a highly chlorinated product? p4] A: Yes, it had highly chlorinated products in P5] it. But it was predominantly limestone from _. V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (38) Page 139 - Page 142 HARTOLDMON0039080 Tolbert, et al. v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 143 Page 145 M) Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct H neutralization for die acid. And carbon from [2] materialized or not. pi breakdown of the aroclors. p] Q: Was it a sludge pit or, I mean, is that a [4] Q: How would it be dumped into Clagon's Lake? [4] different kind of -- H Would it just be poured in after it came off of the [5] A: No. It was pretty much solid, it was like a ts] production line or how would it work? [6] rock. Backhoe could chip it. m A: It came off of the thing hot. As I recall, [7] Q: What other wastes were put into Clagon Lake [8] they catch it in old open top drums and this type of [8] that you know of? p] thing, clip the down onto it, get over there and [9<3 A: I don't know of any other. [10] just turn it up and dump it in that pit. [10] Q: What was taken up to the landfill, you [11] Q: Pour the liquid? [11] said -- [12] A: Pour the liquid while it was hot, because [12] A: Anything else was taken up there that wasn't [13] once it got cold it wasn't liquid. [is] like that. On the aroclor department it would be, [14] Q: And when you pour that kind of stuff into a [i4] you know, floor waste and it would be drums of [is] pit, what would happen? Would that create fumes [is] montar that got too cold, solidified on them. [is] or -- [i6] Q: Anything else that was put up there? [17] A: Yes. P7] Obviously, paranitrophenol -- [is] Q: -- things of that nature? And what were the [is] A: Oh, they would put the PNP -- everything [19] fumes, just vented into the open air? [19] that I know of as far as the chemical nature was put [20] A: Yes. I mean, some of it, if it solidified, [20] up there. [21] it probably went up on that mountain dump, drum and [21] Q: Were you asked to address any issues with [22] all. [22] respect to runoff coming down from that landfill? [23] Q: Just a matter of how quickly you could get [23] A: Only thing I would do would be my personal [24] it from one spot in the back -- [24] interest in something I saw that was an obvious [25] A: That's right. If it set diere too long, you [25] exposure that we didn't want. Page 144 Page 146 [1] Bryant * direct [1] Bryant - direct [2] just put it in the dump. [2] Q: And the paranitrophenol runoff was an Pi Q: What else was put in Clagon Lake, to your p] obvious liability issue? [4] knowledge? [4] A: Uh-huh.That's the same type of appearance [5j A: As far as I know, that's all it was. [5] I'd get when I'd neutralize a parathion spill. It is] Q: Do you know how long Clagon Lake operated? [6] bothered me from the standpoint of if -- I never had [7] A: It operated as long as I was there, four [7] one, but if I had a parathion spillage and had to [8] years at least. [8] neutralize it, the people would see it's the same PI Q: Any parathion or paranitrophenol waste go in [9] thing that was coming down off that mountain.Then [10] there? [10] the question is how toxic can it be or is the stuff [11] A: No. [11] coming off the mountain always as toxic as the stuff [12] Q: Do you know why not? [12] we're dealing with now.That was the reason I was [13] A: Toxicity. [13] opposed to it. [14] Q: This Clagon Lake pit, is there anything [14] Q: Was parathion waste running off of the dump [is] special about its design or was it just a pit -- [is] area up on the side of the hill above Highway 202? [is] A: As far as I know -- [16] A: Intermediates, not parathion per se. [17] Q: -- that was backhoed out? [17] Q: Okay. [ib] A: Just a pit, yeah.They would occasionally [is] A: Sodium PNP type things. [19] go over with a backhoe and dig some of it out, try [19] Q: Toxic chemicals like -- [20] to crack it up, sieve it and package it.They were [20] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. , [21] trying to sell it as an extender for asphalt, on pi] A: Oh, yes, it would have been toxic. [22] particularly the southeastern highways where the sun [221 Q: What would happen? You would have a [23] would get so hot in the summertime, it would be [23] rainstorm and -- , [24] higher melt and improve the melting point of the [24] A: Rainstorm, rundown on water. Most of that [25] asphalt. But I don't know if that project ever [25] stuff is water soluble. V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (39) Page 143 - Page 146 HARTOLDMON0039081 Tolbert, et al v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 147 Page 149 in Bryant - direct [i] Bryant- direct [2] Q: Where would the runoff go to? H mind -- did anybody ever talk to you at the plant Pi A: Out of the ditch probably to Snow Creek. [3] about lead air emissions -- W Q: How long as you understood it had that been [4] A: Unh-unh. [5] going on, this taking stuff up on the mountain, [5] Q: -- connected to the lead pot process? [6] rains would come, runoff would happen, that sort of [6] A: Unh-unh. See, the lead pot process was gone m thing? m by the time I got there, even by the time I [s] A: It got worse because of manufacturing [8] interviewed. So there was never any reason for it [9] demands were great, I'd say around '65, '66, '67, in [91 to come up. [10] there. I didn't notice it as bad when I first went [10] Q: Had you ever seen a molten lead -- [11] there. It may have been I wasn't that observant of [11] A: No. [12] it. I don't think that was the case because the [12] Q: -- operation like that before? [13] road to that dump went right behind what I used as a [13] A: No. [14] laboratory and office. And that's where I would [14] Q: Had you earn encountered it or read about [is] pick it up, just physically looking out the window [is] it? [16] at the highway and I see this stuff running down the [16] A: No, never even read about it. [17] drainage ditch.And they stopped that. [17] Q: Do you have any idea about what kind of [is] It took some management from St. [18] temperatures the lead was being worked on in these [19] Louis, guy by the name of Mulindore called a meeting [19] pOtS? [20] and chewed them out, and for the most part that [20] A: No. [21] stopped. I'd say '67. But for a couple of years it pi] Q: I guess by virtue of it being molten lead it [22] got bad. [22] had to be pretty high temperature; is that true? [23] Q: The time period after 1967, did you observe [23] A: Yes, it had to be at least above the, like P4] any effort by plant management in Anniston to go out [24] you said, the melting point of lead. I wasn't [25] and explain what had gone on with that dump site up [25] overly upset with lead, to be honest with you, Page 148 Page 150 [1] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant direct [2] on the mountain? [2] because I didn't know enough about it. But I PI A: No. [3] remember in World War n as a kid, you know, you [4] Q: Is the dump, did it contain any other W couldn't buy toys.The military took everything. [5] wastes? Lead, asbestos, anything like that? [5] And I did have the advantage of my father had a blow [6] A: That dump, as I understnad it, had been up [6] torch and we had lead chunks -- I don't know why he [7] there for years. I don't know what that thing [7] had the stuff, but I could buy molds that you make [s] contained. [8] little toy soldiers and this type of thing, and my [9] Q: Okay. PI brother and I would heat that stuff in the furnace [10] A: It just was a general dump. [10] or heat it with that blow torch and pour the molten [11] Q: Was that where spent or used lead was hauled [11] lead up and mold those things to play with, and then [12] to? [12] we'd play with them. [13] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [13] Q: That was back in what time frame, '30s and [14] A: I have no way of knowing. [14] '40s? [is] Q: Did anybody at the plant ever say -- [is] A: In the '40s.That's probably that's wrong [is] A: No one ever said -- [16] with me today, but we didn't know it at the time. [i7] Q: -- that started at the place where we would [17] Q: Well, molten lead gives off air emissions, [is] take used lead from the lead pot process? [is] would it not? [19] A: All I can tell you is that when I arrived [19] A: Yes. [20] there, I was made aware that this was a plant dump. [20] Q: And do you know where air emissions, at [21] And, as I say, you know, the standard in those days [21] least in that old lead pot process facility, would [22] was different from now. Having a plant dump wasn't [22] have been vented to? [23] that unusual. [23] A: Oh, that, in that lead pot process, the [24] Q: Did anyone at the plant -- I'm moving to the [24] residual equipment I saw left there, which couple, [25] ail- emissions end of the game again, if you don't P5] several years after it was shut down, would have VARALLO Incorporated Min-U-S cript (40) Page 147 - Page 150 HARTOLDMON0039082 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 151 [i] Bryant - direct [2j been just a conventional open windows, open doors, Pi maybe they had a roof ventilation type system, but I [4] don't even think it was a fen propulsion or [5] anything. [6j Q: Based on your background in chemistry, if [7] molten lead produces air emissions of lead, do you [8] have some idea of how fer can that stuff travel? [9] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [10] A: Oh, that, it's like anything else, it [11] depends on the velocity and the characteristics of [12] the wind. Can be scattered all over the place. [13] Q: Do you have reason to suspect that during [14] the time that process was in place that lead would [is] have been emitted into the atmosphere and perhaps [i6] into the neighborhoods around the plants? [it] MR. SHARMAN: Object. [is] A: Not a doubt in my mind, if they're emitted. [19] I don't know whether they were the only ones emitted [20] because you got lead associated with a lot of pi] different processes in those days. [22] Q: But if you're operating molten lead pot [23] processes? [24] A: There's a good chance you're going to have [25] losses, you're exactly right. Page 153 [1] Bryant - direct [2] scientist one day and as a salesman the next day. Pi Because I used to say I couldn't sell you a glass of [4] water if you were in the desert, but at least I [5] could find out what you were doing with it.This is [6] what I was trying to do. m Q: And I hate to skip around, I've got to [8] backtrack one moment. How was the decision made to [9] close the Coming plant in Anniston? [10] A: Economic. [11] Q: Economic? [12] A: Uh-huh. [13] Q: Tell me about that? [14] A: It just wasn't economical for the amount of [is] chlorine, it was too small a facility for the amount [16] that they manufactured.And they didn't have any [17] sales of chlorine to my knowledge. It was totally [is] consumed internally and they could bring it in from [19] another location, produce it much cheaper and [20] freight it in in the tank cars. [21] Q: So it was a cost issue, not a pollution [22] issue? [23] A: Exactly. Well, I'd say the pollution may [24] have figured in in the feet that the thing might [25] cost them more long range, they probably weighed Page 152 Page 154 [i] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct H Q: All right. You indicated that when you [2] that part of it, too.They already had the p] returned to St. Louis, that you worked with the [3] exposure, particularly at Krummich, in other areas. [4] marketing department? [4] There was one exposure they could eliminate. [5] A: Uh-huh. [5] Q: What had gone on at Krummich with respect to [6] Q: And you also had some interaction with the [6] chlorine production or mercury pollution? [7] medical department; is that correct? [7] A: Just a big chemical complex. And the [8] A: That's correct. [8] typical problems they had, they had all kinds of [9] Q: Were those two departments working hand in [9] problems with chemical migration into the [10] hand during that time period? [10] environment, wastewater, personnel.Just was a [11] A: Correct.Correct. [11] sloppy operation, the whole industry was in the '60s [12] Q: And why was that? Why was there sort of [i21 and '50s. [13] that close relationship between those two [13] Q: Did Krummich have problems with the health [14] departments in St. Louis once you returned there in [14] of employees? [is] say '68 and '70? [is] A: Yes, but I don't know what it was related [16] A: Because the environmental data was coming in [16] to.Nitro even had problems with that. But [17] through the medical department, being screened by [17] Monsanto was doing some background work on I think [is] the medical department, and it was being dispersed [is] it was some type of amine that they were exposed to [19] to the customer complex through the marketing [19] that caused tumors of the bladder. And a lot of [20] department. And I actually varied contacts in the [20] people, particularly central engineering and in fact pi] marketing department. I would be a salesman, I'd be [21] my boss, marketing guy was involved in it.They [22] a tech service, and I finally wound up in research. [22] would do physical exams on them every year, and I [23] But it depends on the objective of what we were [23] guess pay their medical expenses or at least [24] trying to find out. I was always in the marketing [24i insisted that they got it, medical operation or [25] department, but I may be posing, you know, as a [25] whatever they needed for the tumors to remove them. VARALLO Incorporated Min-U-Script (4l) Page 151 - Page 154 HARTOLDMON0039083 Tolbert, et al v. Monsanto Company, et al. James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Pag 155 Page 157 [1] Bryant - direct [i] Bryant - direct [2] And that was an ongoing project, been going on for Pi manufacturing sites." Did 1 read that correctly? Pi years. And it was still going on. p] Is that the title of that memo? [4] Q: Was that project connected to Anniston or [4] A: Uh-huh. [5] Krumniich or both? [5] Q: Now, various people are copied on this memo, [6] A: Only in the sense that those people in [6] one of them is Mr. Benignus? pi Anniston had been in West Virginia, and you say were [7] A: Benignus. [8] there were any problems at Krummich, I don't know if [8] Q: Benignus? [9) they had some problems like that because I wasn't [9] A: Right. . [10] privileged to their medical records. But I would [10] Q: You worked quite a bit with Mr. Benignus -- [11] say they had some chemical problems with operators. [11] A: I worked directly for him. 1123 Q: What chemical did they attribute the bladder [12] Q: Did you ever participate in or assist in [13] cancer problem to? [13] gathering information for any of the meetings on the [14] A: Some triaryl amine, I believe, A-R-Y-L for [14] aroclor manufacturing sites that were going on? [is) aryl, amine, I think was a product. [is] A: Yes. [16] Q: Do you remember the plant or the medical [16] Q: And were you a participant in the December [17] department at least ever instituting employee blood [17] 4,1970, meeting that's described in this memo [is] tests or screens for PCBs? [ib] marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 7? [19] A: No. [19] A: I don't think I -- no, I wasn't a direct [20] Q: Was that ever suggested or considered -- [20] participant in this meeting. [21] A: No. [21] Q: Were you briefed on the results of that [22] Q: -- at Monsanto? [22] meeting or -- [23] A: No. [23] A: Yes. I had the input to that meeting from [24] Q: Do you know if any liver studies were ever [24] the field and also got information back. [25] undertaken of plant employees? [25] Q: Just to help summarize here, what was your Page 156 Pag 158 [1] Bryant - direct [i] Bryant - direct [2] A: No, not to my knowledge. H understanding as to why the decision was made to Pi Q: Do you know if any liver studies were ever p] discontinue aroclor production at Anniston in 1971 [4] undertaken at Krummich for some workers? [4] and consolidate production in Krummich? [5] A: I don't know. [5] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [6] Q: Now, aroclor production at the Anniston [6] A: Krummich was an old facility that needed to [7] facility ceased in 1971; is that correct? [7] be upgraded to begin with. [8] A: I believe so. I was actually out here at [8] Q: Krummich was an old facility -- PI that time. [9] A: Yes. [10] Q: You were in Delaware at that time? [10] Q: -- or Anniston was an old facility? [11] A: Right, the first time. [11] A: No; Krummich was an old facility. In fact, [12] Q: And were you involved in any of the [12] we had just built a new facility, expansion at [13] committees that met to discuss the future of aroclor [13] Anniston while I was still there in the mid '60s. [14] manufacturing at the various Monsanto plants? [14] But Krummich had a bunch of equipment [is] A: Yes. [is] that was available -- I know one thing we did was [16] Q: Okay. [16] fractionate the aroclors into capacitor grade and [17] A: From a manufacturing standpoint. [17] transformer grade, and Krummich had the only [is] (Memo, 12/9/70, to Gossage, et al, [is] facility that we could do that with, and that was [19] from Savage marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 7.) [19] available. [20] BY MR. BYRNE: [20] But to be honest with you, I think it [21] Q: I'm going to hand you a memo that I'm pi] would have cost too much to get Anniston in [22] marking as Plaintiff's Exhibit 7.This appears to [22] condition that they thought they needed for it to be [23] be a December 9,1970, memorandum marked [23] worthwhile; and Krummich, they had to spend a lot of [24] "Confidential," and the subject line reads "Minutes [24] money because that was a major chemical complex with [25] for the December 4,1970, meeting on aroclor [25] a lot of other products. And I think they realized VARALLO Incorporated Min-U-Script (42) Page 155 - Page 158 HARTOLDMON0039084 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 159 Page 161 [i] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct H that life of parathion was short-lived, so the [2] threats are more imminent and the problems more [3] product profile at Anniston didn't have a lot of Pi visible." [4] future if they lost the aroclor. w Based on your contacts and working [5] Q: I take it from your comment, you tell me if [5] with and for the members of that committee, what do [6] I'm wrong, that one of the concerns about Anniston [6] you understand that to mean? pi was that the pollution control issues were just too P] A: I think what they're saying is that the [8] expensive and too costly to justify continued [B] Illinois environmental control was more lax than Pi production at that plant? [so that ofAlabama, on probably less subject to [10] A: I think that's correct. [10] liability exposure, so they put their efforts to [11] Q: There appear to be estimates in this memo on [11] where they had the least exposure. [12] the second page in Item 4 that the capital for [12] Q: Well, it says that legal threats are more [13] Anniston PCB pollution control would have been [13] imminent at Anniston. What was that referring to? [H] estimated in 1970 dollars somewhere between 280 [14] Was there some threat of legal action by some [is] million and 1 billion dollars. Have you heard those [is] governmental agency in Anniston at the time? [16] figures before? [16] A: Not that I'm aware of, but, see, this is [17] A: Uh-huh. [17] about the time that the marketplace was getting [is] Q: And was that the general consensus among the [ib] heated on PCBs.And this was what, 1970? [19] folks that were either working on or participating [19] Q: Yes, sir. [20] in these meetings, that to get the Anniston PCB [20] A: See, '70, '71 is when I moved from St. Louis [21] pollution under control, it would take somewhere pi] here to the East Coast, but I was running all over [22] between a quarter of a billion and a billion [22] the United States. And politically this thing was [23] dollars? [23] getting heated. And this may have been reference -- [24] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [24] we got into problems with vacuum pump oil in [25] A: 1 have no basis of that number, but that's [25] Pensacola, at the Pensacola fibrous plant which was Page 160 [1] Bryant - direct [2] the type of number that I've heard, that I did hear. P] Q: And is that referenced in Paragraph, [4] numbered Paragraph 4 under the heading "Can we get [5] capital for Anniston pollution"? Look in the first [6] sentence of that paragraph. [7] A: Uh-huh. [8] Q: If you see the reference to Anniston PCB PI pollution control cost estimates being between 280 [10] million and 1 billion dollars? [11] A: Yes. [12] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [is] BY MR. BYRNE: [14] Q: I want you to turn, if you would, to Page 3 [is] of Plaintiffs Exhibit 7, and up at the top there is M6] a section entitled "Do legal/PR considerations [17] dictate?" Do you see that? [is] A: Right. [19] Q: And under that it reads that "The answer [20] seems to be 'not quite.'While recent Illinois pi] regulatory activity indicates some threat that PCB [22] control at Krummich would become politically hot, P3] Bill Papageorge stated that the law and medical [24] departments and others would welcome a decision to [25] shut down Anniston liquid aroclor since the legal Page 162 [i] Bryant - direct H a huge facility, p] Q: Yes. [4] A: And traced this PCBs back up the Escambia [5] Bay to the Pensacola plant. And that area was [6] sensitive to this type of exposure. And that's [7] possibly what could have been meant in this [8] paragraph, unless they had something else I didn't [9] know about. But they had exposure, man, PR was [10] terrible. In fact, that's the reason I was out [11] here. M2] Q: How were Anniston PCBs tied in to the [13] Pensacola plant? [14] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [is] A: Through vacuum pump. [16] Q: Tell me what you mean by that? [17] A: The diffusion pumps, using diffusion pump [is] for diffusion to create vacuum.The case there, [19] with chloronitriol, or whatever they were making in [20] that plant. But it was commonly sold for that [21] purpose. [221 Q: And what was happening to the PCB involved [23] in that product or products? [24] A: Oh, it was getting into the river, down into [25] the bay and killing shrimp. V ARALLO Incorporated Min-U-Script (43) Page 159 - Page 162 HARTOLDMON0039085 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. bryaat June 30, 2003 Page 163 Page 165 [i] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct pi Q: Was any PCB waste ever stored in or around [2] did you understand that to mean? [3] that plant in Florida? For instance, were there any PI A: Chlorinated teiphenyl we got into later. In [4] deep recovery wells that were put in place down [4] fact, we just had a memo from Mieure, he was a H there? H research guy, accidentally left a chromatograph on is] A: No.They were in Florida with purely [6] one night and terphenyl eluted way downstream from [7] entrainment in the air, pulled off die vacuum [7] the biphenyl, chlorinated biphenyl.And in looking [B] system.There was no question about waste. It was [B] at animal studies on terphenyl it was just as bad or [9) just straight Araclor 1254, which was diffusion pump K worse than chlorinated biphenyl. And that's what he [10] oil. [10] was referring to here, trying to get out of the [11] Q: Would you agree that the bottom line reason [11] chlorinated teiphenyl. [12] why PCB production at Anniston at least stopped, why [12] Q: Which was being produced in Anniston? [13] all PCB production was consolidated into the [13] A: Yes. [u] Krummich plant, was because the Anniston pollution [14] Q: And what kind of -- [is] problem had gotten too big and too cosdy for. [is] A: Now, that type of tiling wasn't produced at [16] St. Louis to justify spending the money on? [16] Krummich. [17] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [17] Q: That was not produced at Krummich? [is] A: It was big and it had gotten publicity from [is] A: No. [19] the time I left, particularly with Ferguson's work. [19] Q: How long was it produced in Anniston? [20] There was a lot of pollution problem and I'd say the [20] A: As far as I know, it was there, you know, pi] Krummich facility didn't have that kind of problem [21] when I came there. [22] for two reasons: one is it was a big chemical [22] Q: And what capital expenditures were being [23] complex and people were kind of used to chemical [23] made to reasonably control chlorinated teiphenyl? [24] exposure. And there wasn't a lot of farming [24] A: I don't know. [25] community around. Really for three reasons. And [25] Q: What's the chlorine composition of Page 164 Page 166 [1] Bryant - direct [i] Bryant - direct [2] also it sat right on the Mississippi River, which is pi chlorinated teiphenyl? PI very silty, and it would discharge ahead there, I [3] A: It can vary. Usually around 60%. [4] defy anybody hardly to do a residue analysis in the [4] Q: Are there any other by-product chemicals [5] silt and find anything. Or in the case of H that come from the manufacture of chlorinated [6] St. Louis, find everything, probably, from Chicago. [6] terphenyl that you don't necessarily see with [7] But, no, I don't know of any. It was very difficult [7] chlorinated biphenyl? [B] to determine pollution in that setup. [B] A: No, but I don't think the inverse can be [9] Q: So Anniston was a more complicated [9j said. Chlorinated terphenyl is a plasticizer, and [10] situation? [10] chlorinated biphenyl can be a hydraulic fluid, [11] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [11] electrical fluid, plasticizer. I don't know of any [12] BY MR. BYRNE: [12] chlorinated teiphenyl. Usually fairly high [13] Q: In terms of pollution, pollution control, [13] performance plastics. [14] pollution expenditures, that sort of thing? [14] Q: What was the idea behind keeping PCB [is] A: I think this memo speaks for itself. I [is] pollution capital atAnniston to a minimum? [16] think, you know, they recognized the expenses of [16] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [17] cleaning up that facility and Savage was the guy [17] BY MR. BYRNE: [is] that would have been in the position to make that [is] Q: And I ask that because at the time of this [19] decision. Very competent guy. [19] memo, the plant was still producing PCBs at the [20] Q: Under the conclusions section there's a [20] plant, so what was the justification for minimizing [21] statement that it's marked Item 3 or Paragraph 3 [21] pollution capital expenditures when the plant was [22] that reads, "PCB pollution capital atAnniston [22] still producing PCBs, at least for another year? [23] should be held to a minimum consistent with the [23] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [24] timing of the phase-out and reasonable control of [24] A: I think what was behind this was the feet [25] chlorinated terphenyl." What did that mean? What [25] tliat -- reason for having two production facilities V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (44) Page 163 - Page 166 HARTOLDMON0039086 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 167 Page 169 [i] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct [21 on chlorinated biphenyl was to answer requests -- [2] Monsanto's strategy to continue supplying the market Pi not a request, a requirement by General Electric PI while protecting themselves from the contamination Hi that they have two sources of supply. And I don't M issues -- [5] think from a production standpoint that they needed [5] A: Exactly. [6] both facilities. And if you consolidated, and [6] Q: -- that these customers were creating? Pi business is shrinking, then you do it in one m MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. Pi location that you can figure is the best location to [8] A: Pardon? [si do it in. I think that's what they did. [9] Q: In other words, was that Monsanto's [io) Q: Did General Electric at around this time [10] strategy, as you understood it, that would enable [ill give the okay for Monsanto to consolidate all of its [11] them to keep supplying a valuable product to the [i21 production in one facility? [12] market without being at risk for liability -- [i3j A: General Electric was running in so many [13] A: Yes. [i4] different directions at that time from exposure I [14] Q: -- for the waste that the customers were [is) don't think they cared where they got it from. [is] causing? [16] Q: Exposure, what do you mean by that? legal [16] A: Exactly. [17] exposure? [17] Q: Was one of the ideas behind this customer [is] A: Legal exposure in the marketplace from [iB] education program to try to distance Monsanto was [19] customer, from public response, electronic devices [19] some of those pollution issues that the customers [20] and things. Every research in the country was [20] had? [21] attacking them. [21] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [22] Q: And attacking Monsanto as well or just -- [22] BY MR. BYRNE: [23] A: No. Monsanto was isolated from that. In [23] Q: In other words, by alerting them to the [24] '60 -- oh, God, in 71,1 believe, maybe 72, [24] problem, they could wash their hands of it? [25] Monsanto had the customers sign a hold harmless [25] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. Page 168 Page 170 [1] Bryant - direct [1] Bryant - direct [2] agreement in the electrical aroclors, that they [2] A: Yes, I think this is true because Monsanto Pi could not phase out of it because it was needed for p] had experience with saccharin, to where they ceased [4] the economy of tire country. And if people wanted to [4] manufacture.And the government made them continue, [5] buy this, they had to have an equivalent insurance [5] resume manufacturing because of the diabetics, they [6] of 50 million or 100 million or a net worth of that. [6] had no substitute for it. And with that experience, P] And the reason, they originally came out with the [7] and also they had sold a cyclamate business off to [8] net worth, but the antitrust people, we convinced [8] Eli Lilly, and gotten out of that before the PI St. Louis that that would never fly, because then PI cyclamate hit the market, because it hit them later [10] we'd get in trouble with antitrust people because we no] in acrylic bottles and things like this. But I [11] would only manufacture, and it would eliminate [11] think those experiences were dictating in particular [12] everybody else except GE and Westinghouse, and it [12] to Tom Gossage, who was the director of marketing at [13] would get us into restraint of trade. [13] the time that, hey, let's distance ourselves from [14] So we had to work some system that a [14] the liability problems. And I think it was done for [is] small manufacturer could also participate in this [is] pure liability. In fact, I know it was done for [is] market. And that's where the insurance policies or [16] pure liability. Because anybody that didn't sign [i7] liability insurance of 50 and 100 million came in, [17] that agreement didn't buy it. [is] depending on the production quantity that they used. - [is] Q: And as you understood it, it was the idea [19] Q: And when you were doing work for the [19] then to isolate the liability issues to just the [20] marketing department in the early 70s, one of your [20] locations where the company had historically [21] jobs was to carry these hold harmless agreements to [21] produced aroclor and PCB products, and that the [22] customers and have them sign them? [22] customers deal with whatever liability issues came [23] A: Yes, for the life of the industry, I carried [23] from their waste at their plants? [24] them all. [24] MR. SHARMAN: Object to the form. [25] Q: And that was, as you understood it, [25] A: The liability was strictly the customer's. V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (45) Page 167 - Page 170 HARTOLDMON0039087 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 171 [i] Bryant - direct [23 That's I think the reason Anniston was protected per P] se for so many years because I don't think anybody [4] in GE certainly didn't make reference that the H product only came out ofAnniston. At one time [6] Anniston was the only place GE would take product [7] from. But because as environmental issues, Pi developed then they had to start taking some out of p] the Krummich, and eventually took it all out of [10] there. [11] Q: Is it your understanding that the whole [12] reason behind the development of the Krummich plant [13] was to take some of the load off Anniston? -- in [14] terms of production? [is] A: It essentially took -- yes, I think it took [16] all the load offAnniston with the exception -- [17] well, yes, it would have taken it all off because it [is] still made Santo Wax at Anniston but there wasn't [is] enough chlorinated in -- yes, I'd say all of that po] chlorination operation there, no chlorine in plant, pi] no reason to produce these thing. [22] Q: IfAnniston had continued to be seller, [23] supplier, and producer of PCBs to industry in the [24] United States and, heck, in other places as well, [25] was there some concern that die pollution issues Page 173 [i] Bryant - cross [2j get everybody out.And as you were with Mr. Byrne, [3] just so we'll have a nice clear record, be sure and [4] let me get my question all the way out, even if you [5] know the answer, and then you respond so we can read [6] it real clean later on. [7] Earlier today you were talking about [8j the bug pit and an incident when a portion of a [9] retaining wall collapsed or fell away. Do you [10] remember that discussion? [11] A: That's correct. [12] Q: And you mentioned something to the effect, I [13] believe, that there was some instructions or [14] directives to let it go, that is, the material [is] released from the failure of that retaining wall, to [16] bypass the normal Anniston public treatment works; [17] is that right? [is] A: That's correct. [i9] Q: That instruction was a decision or po] instruction by the city ofAnniston folks rather [21] than a Monsanto instruction? [22] A: That's correct. [23] Q: At the time the bug pit was in place in [24] Anniston, that was a fairly new, cutting edge type ps] of technology, wasn't it? Page 172 Page 174 [i] Bryant - cross [1] Bryant - cross H that that would have caused would have been too much [2] A: No question, correct. p] to handle? Pi Q: In diat context we had also heard you talk a Hi MR. SHARMAN: Object to die form. [4] little bit about parathion and the way parathion [5] A: They had a greater base to charge off the [5] wastes were handled. At any time while you were in [6] costs if they had diat situation, but I'd say dieir [6] Anniston, Mr. Bryant, did you hear of anybody [7] pollution problems would have been as great or [7] complaining of any illnesses or injury from exposure [8] greater if they had more volume production. Pi to parathion other than that occasion or occasions I [9] MR. BYRNE: I don't think I have any [9] think you mentioned where there was some eye [10] more questions. These gentleman may. [10] irritation experienced by some workers, anything [11] MR. SHARMAN: Why don't we take a [11] besides that? [12] eight- or nine-minute break, let me consult with my M2] A: That's the only tiling that I was aware of. [13] counsel here, and we'll try to get this done. M3) Q: Same question with regard to PNP. While you [14] MR. BYRNE: Okay. [14] were in Anniston, did you ever hear of anybody [is] THE VIDEOTAPE SPECIALIST: We're now [is] complaining of any sort of illness or injury from [16] going off the video record.The time, 1:37. [16] PNP exposure? [17] (Short recess.) [17] A: No. [is] THE VIDEOTAPE SPECIALIST: Back on, [is] Q: You also mentioned a few occasions when you [19] 2:06. [i9] and others responded to a variety of spills and po) CROSS-EXAMINATION po] upsets mainly, I believe you said, in places other !2i] BY MR. SHARMAN: [21] than Anniston; Palm Beach, for example, and [22] Q: Mr. Bryant, my name is Jack Sharman, as we [22] Mississippi with the candy bars was another example. [23] discussed earlier, and I represent Solutia. I'm [23] Do you remember that little discussion? [24] going to ask you a few followup questions, and I'll [24] A: Yes. ps] try to do so in as efficient a manner as possible to ps] Q: In any of those response actions that you V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-Script (46) Page 171 - Page 174 HARTOLDMON0039088 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et aL James G. brya: June 30, 20( Page 175 Page 17 [1] Bryant - cross [1] Bryant - cross [2] took, was there ever anybody, at least as far as you [2] Q: Outside of the government warehouse in San p] were aware, that complained of any illness or injury [3] Diego and outside of what sounds like a horrible [4j from any of those events? [4] situation with the mentally unstable person in [5] A: Only one was in San Diego, California.And [5j Florida, anything else where you had a response is] there I think four or five Mexican kids died because [6] action to some spill or upset with parathion or any [7] of exposure to contaminated flour in a government [7] other Monsanto product where somebody complained of [B] warehouse from parathion. And that was, it was [8] an injury or an illness? PI something wrong with that setup. I had a very [9] A: No. We had one truck wreck out ofAnniston [10] difficult time getting the information, but the [10] with caustic, and it was a confusing, some people [11] government apparently had stored, and the parathion [11] said the truck was mislabeled. I don't think the [12] was leaking, and they were very tight with the [12] truck was mislabeled. I think somebody just messed [13] information because it appeared to me that the [13] up and let the guy lie in the caustic, on caustic [14] government was responsible. And as far as I know, [14] the way to counteract that is get him up and flush [15] that's the way it turned out. [is] him with water as quick as possible. And there was [16] Q: So there was parathion stored in some sort lie] some unnecessary injury to the guy because of that. [17] of facility along with some flour, and there was [17] But I think it was the Georgia State Police, I don't [ib] some sort of leak or rupture of the parathion [is] think it was a company because the truck, again, had [19] storage, and that caused the flour to become [19] warning labels and everything on it. [20] contaminated? [20] Q: You also mentioned earlier the stack at the [21] A: Correct. And the parathion carried strict [21] Anniston plant and its height, you remember that [22] warning labels not to be stored around foodstuff, [22] discussion? [23] but yet it was stored in foodstuff.The fascinating [23] A: Right. [24] thing or the disturbing thing to us was that the [24] Q: Now, I take it there's nothing per se wrong [25] flour was processed in bread and through the normal [25] with a tall stack; right? Page 176 [1] Bryant - cross [2] additives and all in bread-making, the heat, we P] would have thought the parathion would have been [4j neutralized, but apparently it wasn't. [5j Q: Other than that San Diego incident, anything [6] else as far as complaints of illness or injury from [7] any of those response actions that you described [B] earlier? [9] A: No.That's the only one I was aware of. [10] Wait a minute. I'm sorry.There was one in Florida [11] where some I think mentally disturbed person mixed [12] it with milk, farm laborer, and that killed a bunch [13] of children.That was on television here only four [14] or five -- three or four years ago.The thing [is] happened, must have been 20,25 years ago. [is] Q: You mean your understanding is that in [i7] Florida there was a person, a mentally unstable [is] person, who on purpose took -- [19] A: Uh-huh. [20] Q: -- parathion, mixed it with milk, and then [21] gave it to children? [22] A: Uh-huh. [23] Q: I'm sorry, you need to say yes or no for the [24] record. [25] A: Yes. Page 17 [i] Bryant - cross p] A: No. At that time there definitely wasn't. [3] Now you probably, they have gotten more much [4] sophisticated testing on stack emissions and this H type of thing. [6] Q: Even today it's known, for example, power [7] plants normally have pretty tall stacks, don't they? [8] A: Not as tall as that thing was.That was an [9] extremely tall stack, for the obvious reasons. [10] Q: And when you say obvious reasons, the reason [11] was to attempt to get a greater volume by the height [12] of the stack of air so that it would disperse any [13] emissions coming out of the top of the stack? [14] A: Right. Particularly the type of emissions [is] that were coming off of that thing, because [16] vegetation is very sensitive to S02 emissions, and [17] it will defoliate the whole community if it's too [is] much. [19] Q: But that didn't happen at Anniston? [20] A: No, that didn't happen, no. pi] Q: You also mentioned a couple of times what I [22] believe you referred to as a dropped batch of [23] parathion; is that right? [24] A: Dropped batch of intermediate. It wasn't [25] actually parathion. It was only half of a parathion V A R A L L O Incorporated. Min-U-S cript (47) Page 175 - Page 1 HARTOLDMON0039089 Tolbert, et aL v. Monsanto Company, et al. James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 191 [1] Bryant - cross [2] start of the Clean Air Act. But maybe they didn't t3] pass anything at that time. My experience with [4] Congress has been they don't move that fast. [5] Q: Right. [6] A: And if you say 1970 from 1948, that's m probably reasonable. [8] Q: With regard to S02, sodium dioxide, did you Pi ever see or hear of anyone complaining of any [10] illness or health effect or injury from S02 in [11] Anniston? [12] A: No. Nobody is going to stay around in it [13] that long. [H] Q: I'm sorry? [is] A: Nobody is going to stay around in an [16] environment of SC)2 that long because it's very [17] irritating. [is] Q: You would know it if -- [19] A: Yes. [20] Q: -- you get a whiff of it? [21] A: And the real danger in S02 is probably not [22] the S02 as much as S03, because the two tend to run [23] together. And because with any moisture in the air, [24] like what you got the humid climate in Alabama would [25] be sulfuric acid, and that's bad. Page 193 [i] Bryant - redirect H matter of even seconds? Pi A: Oh, yes. [4] MR. SHARMAN: Mr. Bryant, I don't [5] think I have any other questions. I appreciate your [6] time. [7] REDIRECT EXAMINATION [8] BY MR. BYRNE: [9] Q: Mr. Bryant, just a few followup questions. [10] When you were in Anniston, did you [11] have any real contact with people in the nearby [12] community, either socially or as part of your job? [13] A: Oh, socially I did, yes, I had a lot of [14] friends in town. [is] Q: In west Anniston? [is] A: No, not too many in west Anniston. Couple [17] of black guys that I was pretty friendly with that lie] cleaned my labs and stuff like that.Yes, I'd say, [i9] you know, I had general friendly conversation with go) them. [21] Q: Do you recall whether the plant managers in [22] Anniston ever instituted some sort of program where P3] they went door to door and asked people -- [24] A: No, they didn't have any program like that, ps] Q: Let me get the whole question out. Did they Page 192 Page 194 [1] Bryant - cross [i] Bryant - redirect [2] But I never knew of any complaints H ever had a program in place where they went door to [3] even on that. I had a complaint myself one time, in p] door perhaps and surveyed people with any health [4] fact, we had to finish off my own automobile, and I [4] issues they might have? is] thought it was attributed to hydrochloric acid from [5] A: No.As a matter of fact, Bill Papageorge [6] a chlorination of biphenyl. But the insurance [6j would have been the plant manager then, and Bill was [7] company didn't dispute it, so a lot of other people [7] as straightforwar a guy as you'll ever meet, but he [8] had the same problem. And I don't think that came P] did have a communication problem. He didn't like to p] from the sulfur burn; I think it possibly came from [9] talk to people.And I'd say that's the reason I'm [10] the muriatic filter, hydrochloric. [10] so positive when I say I know they didn't have any [11] Q: By the same token, just as with S02, if one [ii] program like that,because it wasn't in his nature [12] is exposed to any meaningful amount of hydrochloric [12] to want to do that kind of thing. He had to do it [13] acid, you would know that, too? [13] when he came to St. Louis, that was a different [14] A: You would know it. [14] story. He came there on the PCB problem. [is] Q: Because it's an irritant as well? [is] Q: In the various response actions that you [16] A: Exactly. [is] mentioned where spills might take place and you [17] Q: In response to some more of Mr. Byrne's [i7] would go down to trouble-shoot and whatnot, did you [18] questions about parathion, did I understand you [is] go around the neighborhoods or areas around the [19] correctly that parathion had a pretty short life [19] spill sites and survey people to, you know, maybe a [20] once it was introduced into the environment? [20] week or two after the spill to see if they had [21] A: Correct. pi] suffered any kind of health effects? [22] Q: Matter of hours, three, four, five hours? [22] A: No. My objective was to get in, clean it [23] A: Correct. [23] up, and get out. [24] Q: Then I believe you said when it was [24] Q: Okay. Did the Anniston plant, as far as you [25] neutralized, that life shortened dramatically to a ps] know, ever have any kind of program in place where V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-S cript (51) Page 191 - Page 194 HARTOLDMON0039090 Tolbert, et al. v. Monsanto Company, et al. James G. Bryant June 30, 2003 Page 195 [i] Bryant - redirect pi people with health-related issues, maybe a health PI problem, could call in from the community and speak [4] to someone at the plant about a health issue they [5j had? [6] A: No, not as long as I was, in the years that [7] I was there. p] MR. BYRNE: That's all I have. Pi MR. SHARMAN: Thank you very much. [10] THE VIDEOTAPE SPECIALIST: That now [11] concludes this videotape deposition and Tape No. 3. [i2j The time, 2:35. [13] (Witness excused.) [1) [2] CERTIFICATE [3] I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, [4] evidence, and objections are contained fully and [5] accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me [6] upon the deposition of JAMES G. BRYANT taken on [7] June 30,2003, and that this Is a true and correct [8] transcrpt of same. [91 [10] [11] MADALENE FOSTER ROHDE [12] Registered Professional Reporter [13] Notary Public [14] [15] [16] [14] (Whereupon the deposition adjourned [is] at 2:35 p.m.) [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [17] [18] [19] (The foregoing certification of this [20] transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the [21] same by any means unless under the direct control [22] and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.) [23] [24] [25] [22] [23] [24] [25] [11 [2] INDEX [3] WITNESS DR. CR. RED. RCR. [4] JAMES G. BRYANT 3 172 193 [5] [6] [7] [8] PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS [9] NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE [10] 1 Memo, 11/14/69, to Papageorge from Wright 85 [11] 2 Memo, 9/18/70, to Bell from Hodges 88 [12] 3 Memo, 8/7/70, to Bergen from St. Louis General Office 90 [13] 4 Memo, 9/20/55, to Barrett from Kelly 104 [14] 5 Memo, 10/20/70, to Keller form Mieure 116 [15] 6 [16] Solutia lnc./Ann(ston report 127 7 Memo, 12/9/70, to Gossage, et al, from [17] Savage 156 [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] Page 196 Page 197 V A R A L L O Incorporated Min-U-S cript (52) Page 195 - Page 197 HARTOLDMON0039091 Lawyer's Notes HARTOLDMON0039092