Document YGJmMQDdw8pnBN7Y50em8y5oE

STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT BRANCH 8 MILWAUKEE COUNTY STROH DIE CASTING COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. VOLUME XIX (a.m.) Case No. 639-887 MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant. pMay 10, 1991 Honorable Michael J. Barron Circuit Judge Presiding A-P-P-E-A-R-A-N-C-E-S * RIORDAN, DRIVELLO, CARLSON, MENTKOWSKI, STEEVES by DONALD CARLSON AND JOHN PENDERGAST, appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff. BORGELT, POWELL, PETERSON, FRAUEN by JOSEPH McDEVITT _ and KIRKLAND AND ELLIS by ANDREW RUNNING appeared on behalf 9 of the Defendant. *** Brown & Jones Reporting, Inc. 312 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 400 Milwaukee, WI 53202 PHONE (414) 224-9533 3317 WATER PCB-SD0000075451 1 2 3 4 5 6 *7 8 9 * 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX WITNESS William Papageorge EXAMINATION Cross (Mr. Carlson) 3318 PAGE 3319 WATER PCB-SD0000075452 1 2 3 4 5 6 *7 8 9 * 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 * 25 P-R-O-C-E-E--D--I--N--G--S THE COURT: All right. We are ready to resume the cross-examination of Mr. Papageorge. MR. CARLSON: Thank you, Your Honor. CROSS-EXAMINATION (con't) BY MR. CARLSON: Q Good morning, sir. A Good morning. Q You have before you Exhibit 21, I believe? A Yes. Q You recognize that as a May 27, 1970, memo? A I do. Q Is that from you? A Yes. MR. CARLSON: I don't have a record that this is in evidence. I would offer Exhibit 21 as a Monsanto document. MR. RUNNING: No objection. THE COURT: So received. (Exhibit No. 21, previously marked for identification, was received into evidence.) MR. CARLSON: Q Mr. Papageorge, we had talked about the concept of the kind of pressure that Monsanto had felt during the times that PCB decisions were being made. Do 3319 WATER PCB-SD0000075453 1 2 3 4 A Q 5 6 7 A Q 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Q A Q you remember that as a subject? Yes. The expression "pressure" is your term. Well, actually it was Mr. Running's term a few days ago, wasn't it? As it related to a specific type of pressure. Yes. If you would be kind enough to look at the second paragraph on Exhibit 21. At the bottom of that paragraph is there -- I'm sorry -- There's an indication that agencies in the Netherlands and Sweden are most likely to seek a ban or regulation of the use of PCBs? I see that, yes. That currently is at least a kind of pressure your company was feeling that was coming from overseas? No, sir. I don't describe it as such. Our market in those two countries was limited. It really had no great impact on our thinking. I see. So whether or not the Netherlands and Sweden were thinking about banning your product didn't have an impact on your thinking? Well, it had an impact. Not too significant. I see. I'd like to have you look at Plaintiff's 860. Would you be kind enough to identify that for us. 3320 WATER PCB-SD0000075454 1 A 2 3 4 5 6 Q A Q 11 12 13 Q 14 15 l6 A Q 17 18 19 A Q 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Q This is a copy of a Monsanto memorandum which I authored. The date of that, sir? June 10, 1971. I would offer Exhibit No. 860, Your Honor. MR. RUNNING: No objection. THE COURT: So received. (Exhibit No. 860, previously marked for identification, was received into evidence.) MR. CARLSON: In this particular document if we looked at page two, there's reference to what was occurring in Japan regarding PCBs? There is. And in Japan the response to the PCB situation was very abrupt? Yes. And the use of all Aroclor 1242 type fluids has been terminated in NCR capsules for copy paper? Yes. And then if we turn to page three we see that, "Legislation effective January 1972 in Sweden will ban the use of PCBs except under license." Yes. And then if we turn to page four, we find that 3321 WATER PCB-SD0000075455 A Q 11 12 * 13 14 15 * 16 17 18 19 A Q A Q 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q Congressman Ryan of New York had introduced a bill which was referred to the committee on interstate and foreign commerce. The bill would prohibit the introduction or delivery for introduction into commerce of the chemical compound known as a polychlorinated biphenyl, did he not? That's what it says. Now, certainly you were aware of the information that was coming out of Japan regarding the pressure not to use the PCB 1242? I was aware of the government's regulation, yes. And you were aware of the fact that the ban that you thought was coming in Sweden had, in fact, developed as referenced on page three? Yes. And now you found that in the United States Congressman Ryan was introducing a bill which would prohibit the introduction or delivery for introduction into commerce of all polychlorinated biphenyls? Yes, sir. On page four under Public Relations there's reference to the Chemical and Engineering News, and at the bottom of that paragraph it references that. 3322 WATER PCB-SD0000075456 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A 11 12 13 Q 14 15 16 17 18 19 A 20 Q 21 A 22 Q 23 A 24 Q 25 "Although the bill does not mention Monsanto, a lengthy speech by Ryan on the floor of Congress revived old charges against PCB and Monsanto made at a news conference last year. Only limited news coverage has resulted." Certainly your company thought that this was some sign of pressure to help you or guide you or influence you in making decisions regarding PCBs, didn't it? Well, these were bits and pieces of information that were taken into consideration as we developed our program. Now, even by January 15 -- I'm sorry -- June 15, 1971, if we turn to page 14, we find that the plant exit losses -- that would be total plant under Section "B" of Krummich, K-r-u-m-m-r-i-c-h, you still had plant exit losses averaging 21 pounds a day? Yes. And that was for the month of May. Right. And this is 1971? That is correct. With a range of 11 to 61 pounds a day? Yes. Another kind of pressure your company can feel when making decisions is how the public is reacting 3323 WATER PCB-SD0000075457 1 2 3 4A 5 6 7Q 8 9 10 11 A 12 Q 13 A 14 Q 15 16 17 18 A 19 20 Q 21 22 A 23 24 1 25 in terms of letters you receive regarding information about your products that's available, is that true? That's another kind of information that is considered and is part of the decision making process. And Exhibit 910 is an example of a kind of letter coming from the public which was asking you not to manufacture and sell PCBs because of their effect on the environment, isn't that also true? Well, may I take a little time to read this. Surely. I have finished reading it. And it is the kind of information that your company would receive from the public regarding what the public thought about the continued use of the chemical? This is a sample of that type of information, yes. And this particular letter was dated February 24 of 1969? It is. MR. CARLSON: I would offer Exhibit 910, Your Honor. MR. RUNNING: No objection. 3324 WATER PCB-SD0000075458  5 6 *7 Q 8 9 10 A Q 11 12 9 13 14 15 * 16 17 18 19 20 21 *22 A 23 24 25 Q A THE COURT: Did you say, "No objection"? MR. RUNNING: No objection. THE COURT: So received. (Exhibit No. 910, previously marked for identification, was received into evidence.) MR. CARLSON: In the center of the letter -- By the way, this is a letter written by a Charlene Arbogast? Yes. And she points out in the body of the letter just starting at about the middle that, "DDT drugs -- which she perceives rightly or wrongly -- is far less dangerous than PCB, and DDT have been kept off the legal market by governmental agencies. "But the control of the chemical industry is far different from the control of the drug industry. My question is this, why can't you exercise self-control and caution and remove the highly toxic products from the market until your chemists develop safe replacements?" Did I correctly read that? Yes. That's exactly what Monsanto did. After other people had pointed out the problems? Well, I don't believe that it's after. It's along with this lady's comments. 3325 WATER PCB-SD0000075459  1 2 3 *4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 * 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 You certainly didn't remove the product from the market; that is 312, from the market prior to having the replacement available, did you? No. There was no need to. The answer to that question is, no, you did not? MR. RUNNING: I object. Your Honor, this is harassment. MR. CARLSON: It's not meant to be harassment. I move to strike the voluntary comment. THE COURT: It's a little difficult to strike a comment. I can strike something from evidence, but I can't strike a comment. MR. CARLSON: I move to -- I move to strike from evidence the comment. THE COURT: What he says -- Mr. Running, that is not evidence. MR. CARLSON: I'm sorry. I was talking about the witness, not Mr. Running. THE COURT: That part of the answer after the word "no" is stricken. The balance will stand. MR. CARLSON: Mr. Papageorge, I'd like to show you what has been marked now Plaintiff's 911. Would you be kind 3326 WATER PCB-SD0000075460 1 2A 3Q 4A 5Q 6A 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Q 17 18 19 20 A 21 22 Q 23 24 A 25 enough to review that for us. I have read it. This is a memo from who? Thomas or Tom C. Ford. And who is Tom Ford? He at that time was a member of Monsanto's press relations department. MR. CARLSON: Your Honor, we would offer Exhibit 911 into evidence as a Monsanto document. MR. RUNNING: No objection. THE COURT: So received. (Exhibit No. 911, previously marked for identification, was received into evidence.) MR. CARLSON: With regards to the concept of pressure, if we look at the body of this particular letter in the third paragraph there's reference to the story that broke out in the United States? Well, there's a reference to a Dr. Risebrough's work. Would you be kind enough to read that paragraph for us. Certainly. "This story first broke in the U.S. when the work of a Dr. Risebrough at the University of 3327 WATER PCB-SD0000075461 i 1 2 3 >4 5 6 *7 8 9 * 10 11 12 * 13 14 15 16 17 18 *19 20 21 * 22 23 24 25 California in Berkeley was reported in the San Francisco Chronicle. Although the writer gave us four days to handle an inquiry, one member of the organic management panicked and started stalling on our answer, hence the February 24 story had nothing from us. "This generated a similar story in the San Francisco Examiner (clippings enclosed) and some Los Angeles media, plus three "nut" letters from the West Coast. "Since then we have handled lengthy interviews with several West Coast government agencies and a "canned editorial" based on the Chronicle story appeared in several papers (see Gainesville, Florida, clipping)." Is one of the nut letters as referenced in that paragraph one of the letters that we have introduced into evidence as Exhibit 910? Well, I don't quite know how to use the expression "nut letter" since it's not my expression. I don't find that kind of description fitting this kind of letter. I read this letter. It's a sincere letter from a concerned person. So the nut letters that Mr. Ford is referencing you're not too sure what those are? 3328 WATER PCB-SD0000075462 i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 * 10 A Q A Q A Q A 11 12 * 13 14 15 * 16 Q 17 18 19 A Q 20 21 22 A 23 24 25 Q A No, I don't. Is the letter that's Exhibit 910 from someone in California, the West Coast? Yes, it is. From Oakland, California? Yes. But her letter certainly isn't a nut letter, is it? Not to me. THE COURT: What's the date on that? MR. CARLSON: I'm sorry. The date is June 9, 1969. THE COURT: Okay. MR. CARLSON: Would you be kind enough to turn to the second page. I have it. When we look at the second page there is reference to this DDT situation that you and I discussed yesterday, is there not? I recall discussing DDT. I don't recall a situation that fits with the statement that refers to California here. No. Not in California. Now we are in Wisconsin. Oh, oh. The first paragraph. 3329 WATER PCB-SD0000075463 i *1 Q 2 3 4 A Q 5 6 *7 A Q 8 9 * 10 11 12 * 13 14 15 * 16 17 18 * 19 A 20 21 22 Q A Q 23 24 * 25 A That's right. Yes, I remember our discussion. And you recall that there were hearings in Wisconsin on DDT? Yes. And it was reported that, "After a lull the matter came up again -- that is the matter of PCBs -- came up again when the State of Wisconsin held hearings to ban the use of DDT. The pesticides opponents did not mention PCB, but our, in quotation marks "friends" from the National Agricultural Chemicals Association did drag in PCB as a red herring to take pressure off DDT." And then, "(Clippings of the testimony enclosed). Needless to say, our Ag division has thoroughly chewed out officials at NACA." Did I correctly provide that information from this exhibit to the jury? Yes, you did. You did have an agricultural division? Yes. And the agricultural division was watching what was happening to DDT? I cannot speak for that division. It seems logical that they would be interested in agricultural 3330 WATER PCB-SD0000075464 i 1 2 3 *4 Q 5 6 *7 A Q 8 9 * 10 A Q 11 12 * 13 14 15 * 16 A Q 17 18 * 19 A 20 21 * 22 23 24 25 Q A Q chemicals. I'd like to show you what's been marked Plaintiff's 2028. Would you be kind enough to review that for me. I have read it. This is again another example of the kind of letter your company was receiving from the public in 1969 asking that PCB not be manufactured? This is an example, yes. Again, that's the kind of thing -- whether or not we call it pressure, it is certainly information that your company takes into account when making a decision regarding a product,'doesn't it? Certainly. I would -- Before you do that, was the previous letter that I mentioned to you that I just showed you in your opinion a nut letter? Well, I personally don't use the expression "nut letter", sir. So I just don't know how to answer your question. There is reference in the information your company received from this individual that PCBs had been found in the milk of nursing mothers? That's what she writes here, yes. This was in February 1969? 3331 WATER PCB-SD0000075465 That's the date of the letter, yes. MR. CARLSON: I would offer Exhibit 2028 into evidence, Your Honor. MR. RUNNING: No objection. THE COURT: So received. (Exhibit No. 2028, previously marked for identification, was received into evidence.) MR. CARLSON: Have you had a chance to look at Exhibit 17, sir? Not yet. Okay. Sorry. I have reviewed it. And Exhibit 17 is a memorandum from yourself of June 30th, 1970? There are two memorandums. Okay. I'm sorry. It also has the February 29, 1970, memorandum? No, sir. I have a June 30, 1970; and a April 29, 1970. Okay. MR. CARLSON: Your Honor, I would offer Exhibit 17 as Monsanto documents. MR. RUNNING: I have no objection. THE COURT: So received. WATER PCB-SD0000075466 91 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 A Q A Q 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A (Exhibit No. 17, previously marked for identification, was received into evidence.) MR. CARLSON: Only because I have it in this order, we'll take the latest memorandum first; that is, in looking at June of 1970 and the third paragraph of it, there was reference to, HE. John, J. Mason, W. Papageorge, yourself, and E. Wheeler held press conference with D. Krantz of St. Louis of Globe Democrat on PCBs. The article which was published on June 9 was not too favorable Monsanto." Did I correctly provide that information for the jury? You did. And the information provided by the Globe Democratic on PCBs had to do with what subject, sir? I don't recall the specifics, but I do recall it was a general discussion on PCBs and their uses. And it is true that as of the date of this memorandum your company was dealing with in St. Louis -- your home office, isn't it? Yes it is. -- your corporate headquarters that is in your home city that there was adverse publicity about PCBs as of June, 1970? I only recall this one covered in this paragraph. 3333 WATER PCB-SD0000075467 1 2 3 4 Q 5 6 7 A 8 9 10 11 12 13 Q A Q 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A Q A 23 24 25 Q Certainly the information provided by the press to the public regarding PCBs was a kind of pressure your company felt to do something about PCBs, wasn't it? Well, naturally it is considered. But just one article which is attributed to one newspaper reporter doesn't necessarily have too big of an impact on the decision. It's one of several things that are considered. Sure. It isn't ignored, but it isn't that influential. But along with the problems that you're having with press out in California, information you're developing from Sweden and the Netherlands and Japan, all of these kinds of things are pressures acting on your company to make a decision regarding the product? Of course. The time is important here also. Sure. This particular article appeared after Monsanto had launched its withdrawal program, it's search for all the things that were intended to make the use of PCBs responsible. And if we look at the bottom of this memorandum, we'll see that Congressman Ryan of New York was not 3334 WATER PCB-SD0000075468  *1 2 3A 8 9 10 A Q 11 12 13 A Q 14 15 16 A 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 * 25 Q satisfied with Monsanto's or the federal governments actions regarding PCBs as of that time? Well, Congressman Ryan was dissatisfied for one specific reason; and we could not comply with a request that he made that we could not comply with. Okay. Did that request being the names of your customers using PCBs? The names, the locations, the amounts, yes. Would you be kind enough to look at Plaintiff's Exhibit 858 for us. I have read it. And this is a memorandum of yours dated April 1st of 1970? Yes. MR. CARLSON: I would offer Exhibit 858 into evidence. Your Honor. MR. RUNNING: No objection. THE COURT: So received. (Exhibit No. 858, previously marked for identification, was received into evidence.) MR. CARLSON: Just a couple of things about this. There had been some testimony earlier about a meeting in Duluth. The meeting in Duluth is referenced about two-thirds 3335 WATER PCB-SD0000075469 I *1 2 3 >4 A Q 5 6 17 A Q 8 9 * 10 A 11 12 * 13 Q 14 15 *16 A Q 17 18 * 19 A Q 20 21 * 22 A 23 24 * 25 Q of the way down? I see the reference. And in that particular reference it's noted that obviously PCBs are being investigated by many agencies. That's correct. And there's also reference that scientists present were concerned that limits on PCB in food would be established prematurely? That is correct. Now, as of April of 1970, your company was not putting any warnings or stickers or anything on any of your PCBs or your Pydraul products, were they? April 1970? No, they -- The labels were being prepared then. Yes. Not yet. I'd like to have you review Plaintiff's Exhibit 859 for us, if you would. I have reviewed it. And this particular document can be described as what? This is a copy of the July, 1971, status. And it was published or dated August 25, 1971; and I was the author. Well, let's try to set this in terms of the chronology of product development. By August of 3336 i WATER PCB-SD0000075470 ft 1 2 3 4 5 6 *7 A Q A 8 9 * 10 11 12 * 13 Q 14 15 * 16 A Q 17 18 19 20 21 * 22 A Q 23 24 25 A 1971, what was the status of 312? August '71 it was called 312-A. 312-A was your terphenyl product? It did contain terphenyl, chlorinated terphenyl. MR. CARLSON: I would offer Exhibit 859 into evidence, Your Honor. MR. RUNNING: No objection. THE COURT: So received. (Exhibit No. 859, previously marked for identification, was received into evidence.) MR. CARLSON: Would you be kind enough to turn to page three for me. I have it. And for item No. 3 -- And right now we are in an excerpt from the preceding page that was applicable to Europe? Yes. And then onpage three item No. 3 it references, "We are under increasing pressure to give assurances that our substitute products will not give similar environmental problems." First of all, the phrase "similar environmental problems" related to the environmentalproblems ofPCBs? Yes. 3337 WATER PCB-SD0000075471 ft 8 9 *10 Q A 11 12 * 13 Q 14 15 * 16 A 17 18 19 Q 20 21 *22 A Q 23 24 25 And in the 312 setting, the 312-A was a substitute product for the 312? Yes. And what premarket environmental testing of the terphenyl did your company have at the time it was put on the market? As I remember, they had some animal studies of the acute and subacute types. And then -- I'm sorry. And by this date there were biodegradation studies underway. Underway. But the market -- Strike that. But PCTs were marketed beginning where in the 312-A product? I don't recall the exact date. February, March, '71. And there were no biodegradation studies done with the PCTs prior to their being used as a substitute for the PCBs in the hydraulic fluid, isn't that true? That is correct. If you were going to market the terphenyls as a substitute product in 1977, what kind of premarket testing do you think your company should do? MR. RUNNING: Objection. Relevance, Your 3338 WATER PCB-SD0000075472  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 * 10 11 12 * 13 14 15 16 17 18 ig 20 21 * 22 23 24 25 Honor THE COURT: All right. Let's go in chambers. I'm sure Mr. Carlson wants to be heard on this. (Whereupon, the following proceedings were held outside the presence of the jury in chambers.) THE COURT: Let the record show the Court is in chambers with counsel for both sides relative to the objection made by Mr. Running. Let's hear from Mr. Running first. MR. RUNNING: Your Honor, my first and more basic objection is that premarket testing that would have been done in 1977 is not relevant to any issue in this case. The product, as we pointed out in previous chamber discussions, was first marketed in the 50's, and Stroh first bought it in 1965. And a lot happened in analytic technology and in this area of biodegradation testing. The biodegradation test for detergents were not developed until the mid-60's. Those were the first tests done for that matter. Moreover, Mr. Carlson has deliberately chose 1977 as the date for his question for a reason and that is because TSCA was passed in 1976. And we are getting then into the matter that we 3339 WATER PCB-SD0000075473 1 2 3 4 5 6 *7 8 9 * 10 11 12 * 13 14 15 * 16 17 18 19 20 21 * 22 23 24 * 25 addressed a couple of days ago and that is whether or not there's any probative value to delineating the premarket notification and testing requirements of that statute which as we pointed out was passed four years after this product was taken off the market by Monsanto. So those are our objections. THE COURT: At least taken off in the hydraulic fluid area. MR. RUNNING: Yes. This product. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Carlson. MR. CARLSON: A couple of things. First of all, with regards to the basic question on what kind of testing should be done in 1977, that has to go to a number of things, one of which is the terphenyl because I think we are going to find that by the response we'll be able to demonstrate that the terphenyl products should have gone through a series of tests that he would acknowledge prior to its being used as a substitute for the biphenyl product. The terphenyl product also contains PCBs by testimony I think from everybody that addressed the subject now. It also is a product which does not break down in the environment. We are going to 3340 WATER PCB-SD0000075474 i 1 2 3 4 5 6 *7 8 9 * 10 11 12 * 13 14 15 * 16 17 18 * 19 20 21 * 22 23 24 * 25 be able to demonstrate that Monsanto knew this, used the product as a substitute knowing that if they continued to use it for a long-term they were going to have the same environmental impact with PCTs as they had with the PCBs. So for that proposition alone, I think that it's probative. Additionally, I think we can demonstrate through this witness prior to my even referencing TSCA that there was certainly kinds of testing that could have been done during the period of time PCBs were continued to be marketed that would be tantamount to premarketing testing. That is the basic issue; that is, can a company which develops a product, develops a product years ago in the 30's continue to manufacture and market that product through time periods where there have been changes in technology, changes in awareness, and not do any testing on its product during that period of time and simply say, "I didn't -- or we didn't have to do it to start with thus we don't have to do it now?" I think that's a basic issue for the jury to resolve along with all the other issues. So it's relevant on the question of what the chemical companies can do and should have done. And I think 3341 WATER PCB-SD0000075475 1 2 3 4 5 6 *7 8 9 * 10 11 12 * 13 14 15 * 16 17 18 * 19 20 21 * 22 23 24 * 25 what we'll be able to demonstrate is they could have done that and should have done that both in the 1960's and 1970's. MR. RUNNING: I have one other point. Mr. Carlson's explanation for line of inquiry raised one other point; and that is, he's talking as if Stroh has been damaged by polychlorinated terphenyls. PCTs have never been regulated by the Federal Government. There isn't a 50 part per million ban on PCTs as there is for PCBs. Dr. Peterson has testified that there's been no testing for PCTs at the Stroh plant. So Mr. Carlson is assuming as a predicate for his relevance arguments that Stroh suffered damage from PCTs. The only arguable damage is that as a contaminant, and Mr. Papageorge testified to this. PCTs contained about 1 percent PCBs. But this line of inquiry about premarket testing certainly doesn't show they were damaged in that regard because there was a reduction 100 fold in the level of PCBs, and any arguments he would make about whether there should have been premarket PCBs testing have already been addressed in his examination. MR. CARLSON: One other point; and that 3342 WATER PCB-SD0000075476 I 1 2 3 *4 5 6 97 8 9 * 10 11 12 * 13 14 15 * 16 17 18 19 20 21 * 22 23 24 *25 is, Mr. Papageorge repeatedly has talked about the company taking the responsible approach. He testified to it orally. It shows up in writing on some of their documents. "We took the responsible approach." I suspect or submit that the credibility of that particular conclusion on the witness's part is certainly subject to challenge. And using a product, putting it on the market, that they did no testing at all on it with regards to whether or not it's going to persist in the environment or potentially cause the same problems, which their own internal documents will show later on, will demonstrate certainly that this goes to the question of whether or not they acted responsible. THE COURT: I agree with Mr. Running. There's already in admission in the last five minutes of testimony that they put PCTs on the market without premarket testing. I don't think you need anymore to go into 1977. MR. CARLSON: Okay. THE COURT: They said they didn't put labels on that stuff. There is an indication that biodegradation testing was still in the formulation stage and they marketed in February of 1971 without 3343 WATER PCB-SD0000075477 5 6 7 * * 8 9 *10 * * * 11 12 *13 * * * 14 15 *16 * * * 17 18 *19 * * * 20 21 *22 * * * 23 24 *25 * * * any premarket testing. Now to go into 1977 just doesn't make any sense. MR. RUNNING: Thank you. (Whereupon, there was a change of reporters.) 3344 WATER PCB-SD0000075478 *1 2 3 *4 Q 5 6A *7 Q 8A 9 *10 Q A 11 Q 12 * 13 A 14 15 * 16 17 18 * 19 Q 20 A 21 * 22 23 Q 24 *25 A THE COURT: The objection is sustained. MR. CARLSON: Mr. Papageorge, I'd like to have you look at Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 36. Would you be kind enough to review that for me? I have reviewed it. And it is a document dated October 19th of 1970? It is. And who is it from, sir? From Elmer P. Wheeler. And who is it addressed to? To me. MR. CARLSON: And this, Your Honor, we would offer as Exhibit No. 36. MR. RUNNING: No objection. THE COURT: So received. MR. CARLSON: One of the problems with PCBs was the fact that they did not biodegrade in the environment, isn't it? One of the characteristics of PCBs is the way you described it. They do not degrade readily. Some of the higher chlorinated. And that is what allows them to be persistent in the environment, that they don't biodegrade? Yes. 3345 WATER PCB-SD0000075479 i 1 Q 2 3 *4 A 5 6 7 Q 8 9A * 10 11 12 * 13 14 Q 15 *16 17 18 * 19 20 21 * 22 23 24 A *25 Q And if they're persistent in the environment, they can hang around long enough to be taken up by or get into the food chain? If the creatures that would eat that food were nearby, yes. Now, the question or the importance of biodegrading was known to Monsanto back in the fall of 1970, wasn't it? I need some help with the word importance. It was a known piece of information for some of the PCBs, the lower chlorinated ones. It did explain some of the findings that were being reported, so in that way, it was important. If we look at the October 19, 1970 memoranda, we'll find that about the center of the page, "The premises on which the more costly needed data include," and this goes through a list of information. No. 1 is, "The determination that the chlorinated terphenyls can and will be found in environmental samples." That was one of the things that -- one of the kinds of needed data that was important to the company? Well, keep in mind these are premises. I understand. 3346 WATER PCB-SD0000075480 *1 A 2 3Q *4 5 6 *7 A 8G 9 *10 A Q 11 12 * 13 14 A 15 * 16 17 Q 18 *19 A 20 Q 21 * 22 23 A 24 * 25 Q They were case conditions in which a program was being designed. Okay. The second thing here is "Biodegradation of the chlorinated terphenyls is virtually impossible." That is what is written here by Elmer Wheeler, isn't it? That's a premise, not a fact. But that was his premise? Yes. And that was the premise that your company operated under prior to using the terphenyl as a substitute in the 312 product, because you had not done any premarket biodegradation studies? The premise had nothing to do with the use of the material. The premise listed here had to do with designing a study program. And it's noted that biodegradation of the chlorinated terphenyls is virtually impossible? That's what the premise was. And No. 3 was "escape to the environment cannot be prevented in all proposed applications, including disposal of products containing them," correct? Again, that's a premise. And then the third thing that is referenced is "The lower chlorinated biphenyls," lower chlorinated 3347 i WATER PCB-SD0000075481 i *1 2A 3Q 4 5 6A 17 Q 8 9 * 10 11 A 12 * 13 Q 14 15 A *16 Q 17 18 * 19 20 21 A * 22 23 Q 24 * 25 A being three and four? Those are considered, yes, amongst those. "May be biodegradeable, that is, metabolized in the mammalian species." That's what he references there? That's what it says. "With more toxic effects than the higher chlorinated PCBs, or at least at lower levels of insult." That is also what Elmer Wheeler wrote as a premise as of October 19, 1970? Yes, another worst case condition. And if the lower chlorinated PCBs were biodegrading in the 312 product, that would leave the 5 and higher PCBs for detection, wouldn't it? That's what one would expect, yes. Yet with this knowledge as given to us by Mr. Wheeler in 1970, you did not tell your 312 customers that this product contained the five chlorinated PCBs that was being found to be persistent in the environment, isn't that true? You're talking about three or four percent in the products? Well, I think you can double that to 7 or 8 percent if we look at your document, can't we? No, that is the total PCB. I'm talking about five 3348 i WATER PCB-SD0000075482  1 2 3 *4 Q 5A 6 *7 Q 8A 9 * 10 Q 11 A 12 13 Q 14 15 * 16 17 A 18 * 19 Q 20 A 21 * 22 Q 23 24 or higher chlorinated. That is three or four percent. In the 1242, the five chlorinated PCB is between 7 and 8 percent in a typical run, correct? That's true. That is the PCB. That is the PCB. You have other fluids in there. You have petroleum oils and everything else? Fifty percent is other fluids, yes. As far as you know, we didn't have to clean up any problems because of petroleum oils in our premises? Oh, I don't know that. It depends where they were going. I see. Would you be kind enough to look at Exhibit 862 for us. We don't have to spend a lot of time on this one. The document is a September 8, 1970 memorandum? Yes. And this particular memorandum is written by yourself? Yes. And on the second page, it's referenced that with regard to Europe, "The Norwegian government has reportedly introduced controls whereby PCB will be placed on a restricted list. All users will have to be registered and will also need a permit to use 3349 WATER PCB-SD0000075483  1 2 3 4 5A 6Q 7 8A 9Q 10 11 A 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Q 20 21 22 A 23 Q 24 A 25 Q PCBs. We're seeking copies of the control regulations." That was information that you had available in September of 1970, correct? That is correct. And the Norwegian government did not distinguish between a 1242, 1248, 1254, 1260 Aroclor, did it? No, they did not. Nor did the Swedish government? The Swedish government didn't either, did it? That's true. THE COURT: You don't want that one received? MR. CARLSON: Oh, I do. I just lost track. I would offer Exhibit 862. Thank you. MR. RUNNING: No objection. THE COURT: Received. MR. CARLSON: I'd like to show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 906. Do you recall that there was a newspaper article regarding PCBs? I recall seeing this newspaper article, yes. You recall the incident, don't you? I believe I do. It had to do with a situation where fish meal that 3350 WATER PCB-SD0000075484 1 2A 3Q 4 5A 6Q 7A 8Q 9A 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q had PCBs in it were eaten by hens? Yes. And the PCBs were then showing up in the eggs of the hens? Yes. And the eggs had to be scrapped? They were scrapped. I don't know about had to be. A lot of them were scrapped, weren't they? Well -- THE COURT: Is that a statement or a question? MR. CARLSON: That was a question. I thought he would agree with me. THE COURT: He didn't say one way or the other. The question was, a lot of them were scrapped? THE WITNESS: I don't know how to define a lot. There must be millions and millions of eggs in this country, and 60,000 may not be alive, when compared to the total. MR. CARLSON: I'd like to show you what's been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 16. THE COURT: 16? MR. CARLSON: Yes. Thank you. I'm going to go on to this. Mr. > 3351 WATER PCB-SD0000075485  1 2 3 4 5A 6Q 7 8 9 10 A 11 Q 12 13 14 A 15 Q 16 17 18 A 19 Q 20 21 A 22 23 Q 24 A 25 Q Running points out that we probably have talked about this before. It was in June of 1968. There was indication that your company had information that PCBs had been found in Lake Michigan? That is correct. I'd like to show you what's now been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 918. This particular document is a copy of a newspaper story that was run in Dayton, Ohio, on October 30th of 1970? That's what I read here, sir. And do you recall the specific problem that is referenced here, that is, PCBs getting into the milk of dairy herd? Yes, I do. And the problems that some of the dairy farmers were having with regard to the PCBs that were present in their cow's milk? Yes. And the herds were put out of production as a result of that, weren't they? I need some help with your expression, put out of production. They couldn't sell the milk for human consumption? For awhile, yes. I'd like to show you what's now been marked as 3352 WATER PCB-SD0000075486 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 921. This is a May 8th, 1969 document? It is. Is that written by Tom Ford? It is. THE COURT: Did you want 918 in evidence or not? MR. CARLSON: Sure. I'll offer Exhibit 918. MR. RUNNING: No objection. THE COURT: So received. MR. CARLSON: Exhibit 921 was to Howard Bergen, William Richard, and Elmer Wheeler? Yes. And this particular memorandum has to do with what subject, sir? I don't recall ever seeing this before, so let me read a little bit of it. Surely. This appears to be an attempt to communicate to the people to which this was addressed, some comments regarding the hearings held in the State of Wisconsin on DDT. And it had to do also with the question, whether or WATER PCB-SD0000075487 1 2A 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Q 10 11 A 12 13 14 Q 15 A 16 Q 17 18 19 20 A 21 Q 22 A 23 Q 24 25 A not the PCBs were also being implicated? There is reference to PCBs as a result of that conference, yes. MR. CARLSON: I would offer Exhibit No. 921, Your Honor. MR. RUNNING: No objection. THE COURT: So received. MR. CARLSON: Now, Howard Bergen, what position did he hold at the company as of that time? As of that time, he was the director of the business group that was responsible for industrial fluids, some of which contained PCBs. These folks would be fairly high level management? I think so, yes. Let's take a look, if we could, sir, at some of the information that is provided. Some of these folks had apparently been over in Sweden, according to the memo? All three of them. Were they over there in Sweden on the PCB problem? Yes. And while they were over there, they had PCB problems over here? PCB was brought up as a topic of discussion, yes. 3354 WATER PCB-SD0000075488 1Q 2 3 4A 5Q 6 7 8 9A 10 11 Q 12 13 14 A 15 16 17 Q 18 19 20 A 21 Q 22 23 24 25 First of all, in the second paragraph, there is reference to the fact that Wisconsin was holding the DDT hearings, correct? Correct. And then it was felt by the company representative that the chance of the, in quote, "opposition," end of quote, bringing PCB into the picture was slim. Who was the opposition? The people that felt that PCBs should not be found in the environment. And then there is reference to what we didn't count on were our, in quotation marks, "friends," end of quotation marks. Who were your friends? I can't speak for Mr. Ford. I assume that these are people who would understand PCBs or their uses, their effects, and so on. Actually, what the friends were in this particular memorandum were the agricultural chemical group that was involved in those hearings, wasn't it? One could read that into it, yes. And then in the third paragraph, there is reference to receiving a call from a Madison advising that a Francis Coon of the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation Laboratory was testifying that a lot of the residue found in Coho salmon was really PCB, and 3355 WATER PCB-SD0000075489 1 2A 3Q 4A 5 6Q 7 8 9 10 A 11 Q 12 13 14 A 15 Q 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A 23 24 Q 25 A it was made by Monsanto, correct? That is what is written, yes. Mr. Ford, what position did he hold in the company? Mr. Ford was a member of Monsanto's press relations department. And he thought that this was a witness for the opposition, but it turned out he was testifying for the DDT task force, which was being assisted by the National Agricultural Chemical Association, correct? That's what is written here, yes. And then there were some other witnesses scheduled to testify, including people from Shell in the United Kingdom? That's what it states. And then there is reference to the fact that although they only had partial information, the development was obviously disturbing, since Minckler, Robson, and Springgate were also unavailable. He went over to the agricultural division to discuss the problem. The problem at that point was what? The association of PPB's with DDT and what effects were observed for DDT in the environment. And then Stu Daniels, who is Stu Daniels? A Monsanto employee at a high level in the 3356 WATER PCB-SD0000075490 1 2 3Q 4 5A 6Q 7 8A 9Q 10 11 12 13 14 15 A 16 Q 17 18 A 19 20 Q 21 22 A 23 Q 24 25 A organization of the agricultural division of Monsanto. Placed an immediate call to an official of NACA, National Agricultural Chemical Association? That's correct. And read him the riot act about dragging in one chemical to help defend another, etc., correct? That's what it says. And then if we take a look at the second page, there was a witness testifying for the Agricultural Chemical Association, and we find that she was saying that the high residues of DDT were not factual, since most of this was actually PCBs, right? I don't see a reference to a witness. I see -- I'm sorry. It was the person from the NACA was commenting on the strategy of a witness. Strategy of the testimony which may include many witnesses. I see. The strategy of the testimony. What does that mean? What they plan to present by their comments. Do you recall the slogan on the front of your annual report? I don't know what you're after. 3357 WATER PCB-SD0000075491 1 Q 2A 3 4 Q 5 6 7 A 8Q 9 10 11 12 * 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 A 21 22 Q 23 24 25 Strategies and action. I don't remember that. Okay. In any event, there was apparently a strategy developed by the Agricultural Chemical Group to cast blame on the industrial chemical people, and specifically PCBs. I don't read that in that comment. In looking at a particular paragraph, it references, "I talked later that evening to a PR gal from NACA who was in Madison. She said strategy of the testimony was to show that analytical methods being used were not accurate, that the high residues of DDT were not factual, since much of this was PCB, etc. She said testimony was on analysis only with witnesses drawing no conclusions on PCB," and then there is a reference, "Of course, a man on the witness stand cannot stop with just a statement. Coon was cross-examined all day Wednesday." Correct? That's what it says, sir. This is the first I've seen this document, so -- Okay. I think that is a fair comment, and that is, when you took the role that you took with regard to PCBs, even though you were given a lot of information, you certainly couldn't have been given 3358 WATER PCB-SD0000075492 1 2A 3 4Q 5 6 7 8A 9Q 10 11 A 12 13 14 Q 15 16 A 17 Q 18 A 19 Q 20 21 A 22 Q 23 A 24 25 Q everything your company had developed, right? Well, if everything means every piece of paper and every note, that is true. Nobody is trying to hold you to know everything that predated 1970, at least I'm not, but there was a lot that went on in the 1966, 1970 timeframe that you did not know about, correct? Oh, I'm sure there is. I'd like to have you look at Exhibit No. 3. This goes back to 1969, does it not, early 1969? It does. THE COURT: Let's get the exact date. MR. CARLSON: March 6, 1969, and the first thing that we find is -- May I read it first? Oh, I'm sorry, surely. I have reviewed it. Thank you. The particular memorandum was carboned on to a number of people, including an H. Bergen? Yes. Who was H. Bergen? He is the director of the business group I just described. And P. Park, who was that? 3359 WATER PCB-SD0000075493 1 A 2Q 3 4 A 5Q 6 7 8A 9Q 10 11 12 13 14 A 15 16 Q 17 18 A 19 20 21 Q 22 23 He is a Monsanto attorney. Employed by Monsanto directly, or as outside counsel? He's a Monsanto employee. Now, first of all, the reference, or there is references to the Risebrough work that appeared in 1968, correct? That is correct. And in March of 1969, we again find that your company referenced the fact that PCBs were "a pollutant, widely spread by air, water, therefore, an uncontrollable pollutant." That says March of 1969? Well, they're excerpting from Dr. Risebrough's article. And your company wasn't agreeing with that information, as of March, '69, was it? No, but it was reading it and trying to understand it. It wasn't disagreeing and wasn't agreeing, either. Well, by this time, you knew it had been found in Sweden, you knew it had been found in Britain, you knew it had been found in the United States. You knew that it was being found in fish, you knew that it was being found in birds. Don't you think that 3360 WATER PCB-SD0000075494 by that point, you agreed that it was a pollutant? Well, yes, but the sentence says widely spread by air, water, therefore, an uncontrollable pollutant. It is controllable. Well, if it gets into Lake Michigan, you can't put a boundary and say, we are only going to get out a hundred yards, can you? No, but you're not supposed to get into Lake Michigan in the first place. That's what control is all about. Nor was it supposed to get into the Mississippi River? True. Now, if we go through the information provided here, we find that the "Environmental Defense Fund was attempting to write new legal precedents in conservation law by hearings and court action. In the Wisconsin case, water quality standards are at issue. "A substance shall be regarded as a pollutant if its use results in public health problems or in acute or chronic injury to animals, plants, or aquatic life. Wisconsin is one of seven states which now have federally approved water quality standards." WATER 1 2 3A 4 Q 5 6 7 8 9A 10 11 12 Q 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 A 20 Q 21 22 23 24 25 Did I correctly read that information to the jury? You did. If we go through here -- strike that. The kind of information that is being developed by your company is certainly the kind of pressure that your company was feeling when making decisions about PCBs, wasn't it? Well, that is information that is assembled, reviewed, and every attempt is made to understand it and see how it all fits in with Monsanto's programs. And then further down, it's references "These people in EDF, Environmental Defense Fund, are saying we must not put stress on any living thing through a change in air or water environment, eagles, plant life, anything which lives or breathes." By the way, you agree with that personally, don't you? Yes. "This group is pushing hard on the extension of the word harmful. They claim enzyme inducer activity is the real threat of DDT and PCBs, and are using these arguments to prove that very small amounts of chlorinated hydrocarbons are," in quotation marks, "harmful," end of quotation marks, correct? 3362 WATER PCB-SD0000075496 1A 2Q 3 4 5A 6Q 7 8 9A 10 Q 11 12 13 14 15 Q 16 A 17 18 Q 19 A 20 21 22 23 24 25 That's what is written. And certainly, this kind of push by these groups was another kind of pressure your company was feeling when making decisions about PCBs, isn't that true? That is another source of information, yes. If we turn to Page 2, just under the center of the page, there is a section entitled "Where does this leave us?" Do you see that? I see it. Then in the second paragraph, there is a reference to steps that can be taken, and would you be kind enough to read that for us? THE COURT: out loud? MR. CARLSON: Yes. Do I have the right -- the one that says we can take steps? Yes, sir? "We can take steps to minimize pollution from our own chlorinated biphenyl plants. We can work with our larger customers to minimize pollution, we can continue to set up disposal and reclaim operations, we can work for minimum exposure in manufacture and disposal of capacitors, transformers, and heat transfer systems and minimize losses from large 3363 WATER PCB-SD0000075497 1 2Q 3 4 5A 6 7 Q 8A 9Q 10 11 12 13 14 15 A 16 Q 17 A 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q 25 hydraulic users." Now, it is true, sir, that the Stroh Company has previously been identified as not one of the large hydraulic users, isn't that true? That is correct. And it's also true that Stroh was not one of your larger customers, correct? That's correct. And in fact, for large companies like Outboard Marine -- strike that. For large companies like General Motors in the Chevrolet Division, a program was developed whereby Chevrolet in fact did drain their hydraulic machines and returned their fluids to you, isn't that true? At what point in time, sir? I don't remember. Do you? I think it's about '72. That paragraph describes the actions that could take place fairly quickly to get the bigger potential sources of losses, and it was perceived to be a big step in the right direction. Eventually, the General Motors units were drained, but it was several years after the date of this document. That's right. This was a 1969 document. It was probably about '71 or '72 when General Motors 3364 WATER PCB-SD0000075498 w1 2A 3 4 Q 5A 6 7 Q 8 9A 10 Q 11 12 *13 A 14 15 16 17 18 *19 Q 20 21 * 22 23 A 24 Q * 25 drained all of their material. I don't remember the date. You do recall that you did take back their material for incineration, though? They were listed amongst the companies that returned material for incineration, that is correct. And that was worked into a price deal with them on the price of the replacement fluid? That I don't know anything about. The account representative, do you have an account representative that specifically had as an account, General Motors, assigned to that account, only? I don't know that it had that specific title. There were several General Motors locations. Their supervisor in St. Louis was the person to whom they all reported. He would be the logical one to have the dialog necessary with the General Motors management. It was the account representative that worked out the deal with General Motors under which they were draining their hydraulic machines, die cast machines of the PCB fluids, wasn't it? I don't know that. You have seen the call reports on the Stroh Company, have you not? 3365 WATER PCB-SD0000075499 1A 2Q 3 4 5 6A 7Q 8A 9Q 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Q 19 20 21 22 A 23 Q 24 25 A I have seen some, yes. You haven't seen any which indicates that Monsanto advised Stroh that it would be appropriate for us to bring our machines back in 1970 or '71 or '72, have you? No, there was no need to do so. The question is, have you seen such a call report? No, because it never happened. That's right. THE COURT: All right. We are not going to take a full break because of going home early, but it's an appropriate time now that anyone who wishes to use the restroom, fine. Let's resume in less than 10 minutes, though. (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) THE COURT: Resume the cross-examination. MR. CARLSON: Mr. Papageorge, we go back to Exhibit 3, with reference that there was the concept to minimize losses for large hydraulic users. Do you see that section? I do. Right under that there is reference to small hydraulic users? There is a reference, yes. 3366 WATER PCB-SD0000075500 1Q 2A 3Q 4A 5 6Q 7 8 9 10 Q 11 12 13 A 14 Q 15 A 16 Q 17 18 A 19 Q 20 21 22 23 24 25 And would you just read that for us, please? The whole paragraph or just -- Just that sentence. "But we can't easily control hydraulic fluid losses in small plants." Before you took your position with regard to PCBs -- THE COURT: Excuse me. When you say you, are you talking about him, personally? MR. CARLSON: Yes, you personally. Before you personally took your position with regard to PCBs, which I believe you were appointed to help on in 1970? That's correct. Had you been in a die cast facility? Yes. Did you have studies that were made available to you on how die cast facilities handled their fluids? I don't know what you mean by studies. Well, where there had been reports to you saying we are selling fluids to die cast facilities, die cast facilities use these fluids for these applications, spent fluid is handled in these ways, here is how the companies dispose of it, here's how they collect it, were there reports that Monsanto had developed on that subject? 3367 WATER PCB-SD0000075501 w1 A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q 11 12 13 A 14 Q 15 16 A 17 18 19 Q 20 A 21 22 Q 23 24 25 There were bulletins describing the use of hydraulic fluids in systems, and the systems all had common characteristics, tanks, pipes, connections, hoses, pumps, and they were the major piece of equipment which all of this serviced, so there was a similarity between systems, but there was no one document that addressed die casting machines as such. And there was no one document that addressed the question of how die cast companies handled their fluids after or when they were disposing of it? A document specific to die casting? I don't recall one. You did sell hydraulic fluids specifically for die cast company applications, didn't you? Can you help me with the word specific? You mean the fluid was specific just for those machines? No. No, that those kinds of companies were a specific category of customer of Monsanto's? Oh, yes. Do you have Exhibit 14 up there? X think what we'll do is I'll have Mr. Pendergast do the honor of looking for that, while I ask you some questions on another document. John, would you also find Exhibit 15 up there? 3368 WATER PCB-SD0000075502 1 2 3 4 5Q 6 7A 8 9 10 11 12 Q 13 14 15 A 16 Q 17 18 ' 19 20 A 21 Q i 22 23 A 24 1 25 Q MR. PENDERGAST: That one I got. MR. CARLSON: You've got 15? MR. PENDERGAST: Yup. MR. CARLSON: Mr. Papageorge, Exhibit 15 is an October 29, 1969 memorandum? It is not what I would call a typical Monsanto memorandum. It's an executive summary. MR. CARLSON: I would offer Exhibit No. -- I'm sorry, it's in evidence. Your Honor. MR. CARLSON: Regarding this particular document, there is as a title, as a problem, "The contamination of ecosystem with polychlorinated biphenyls"? That is correct. And then it's referenced in the problem definition and the timing that Monsanto confirmed in mid 1969 that the work of Widmark and Jensen was adequate and that the PCB problem was worldwide, correct? I didn't get the middle part of your paragraph. Monsanto, by raid 1969, had confirmed Widmark and Jenson's work, as well as others? No. Widmark and Jensen confirmed their findings. Monsanto had yet to confirm. If we look at the problem definition and timing, the 3369 WATER PCB-SD0000075503 1 2 3 4A 5Q 6 7A 8Q 9 10 11 A 12 Q 13 14 15 A 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Q 23 24 A 25 last sentence reads, "Monsanto confirmed PCBs in mid 1969 and confirmed the adequacy of work by Widmark and Jensen and others." I see that now, yes. So by mid 1969, Monsanto had confirmed that PCBs were an environmental problem? Yes. But you didn't tell your customers of this until at least a year later, those customers buying your 312 fluid? I don't believe it was that much later. Well, the first time you told the customer of the 312 fluids, that there was even PCBs in the fluid was a little sticker that was put on in May of 1970? I recall a letter that went to the customers in an earlier time than that in which the Widmark Jensen work was mentioned, and it was even more specific than this paragraph. It covered the type of PCB that was discovered and present, and in that document, as I recall, the Pydraul products were mentioned. And you told the customers the Pydraul products that had PCBs were the 1254 and 1260? I don't remember the exact words. I thought it said that some of the pydrauls had the higher 3370 WATER PCB-SD0000075504 91 2Q 3 4 5 6 7 A 8Q 9 10 A 11 Q 12 13 14 A 15 16 17 18 ig Q 20 21 22 A 23 24 25 Q chlorinated, but some did not. Okay. Well, we'll go into the letter specifically later. In any event, if we continue on, the extent of the problem was in fact, or the seriousness of the problem was identified by Monsanto in this executive summary, correct? Well, there are some items under that topic, yes. And then if we go on to Page 2, we find the topic of political and public emotion? That's there, yes. And political emotion is a kind of pressure your company feels when handling decisions about what to do with marketing of a product, isn't it? Well, the political ramifications are considered, and there are many actions a company can take. One of them is to revise programs, the other is to communicate better, so that the item being discussed is better understood. And when we talk about political emotion, that can also be a kind of pressure that can lead to the discontinuing of manufacturing or making a product? Well, it depends on the extent of that political interest. All right, and in this case, that was one of the things that led you to discontinue manufacturing the 3371 WATER PCB-SD0000075505 1 2A 3Q 4 5 6A 7 8Q 9 10 11 A 12 Q 13 A 14 Q 15 16 17 A 18 Q 19 20 A 21 Q 22 23 24 25 Pydraul 312 with PCBs? No, I can't say that. One of the things that led you to stop making the Pydraul 312 that contained the PCBs was the legal responsibility that you could suffer? I have no evidence that the legal question influenced that decision. Well, at least in this document, the effect on Monsanto references, as Item No. 2, legal responsibility, does it not? It does. That is not limited just to pydrauls. I understand. We are talking about PCBs? Yes, sir. Then if you look further down on Page 2, there is reference to the effect on customers and ultimate consumers, correct? I see that, yes. And it affects die casters and other hot metal working industries, correct? That is correct. And on Page 3, we go on to possible control of contamination, and this is a subject that you and Mr. Running discussed. That is, "industrial fluids, plastics, coatings, and adhesives are very difficult, if not impossible to control, substitute 3372 WATER PCB-SD0000075506 1 2A 3Q 4 5A 6Q 7 8 9 10 A 11 12 13 14 Q 15 16 17 18 19 A 20 21 Q 22 A 23 24 25 Q products needed," correct? You read it correctly. And in fact, you did develop a substitute product for the Pydraul 312, did you not? Eventually, yes. And one of the reasons that you developed the substitute product for the 312 was because the industrial fluids were difficult if not impossible to control? I would suggest that they were more likely falling in the category of difficult, but certainly not impossible to control, as compared to paint and adhesives and plastics. With regard to the control of industrial fluids, if in fact they could be controlled, if Monsanto thought that industrial fluids could be absolutely controlled, why stop making the stuff? Why stop making 312? Well, we were fortunate in our research program to find an acceptable alternate material. That -- I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you. And the acceptable alternate material performed well, and it was available, so why not substitute, and at that point -- I'm sorry. 3373 WATER PCB-SD0000075507 1A 2 3Q 4 5A 6 7Q 8 9 10 11 12 A 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Q 20 21 A '22 Q 23 24 125 A And at that point, you don't have| the issue of PCBs any longer in the product line. If the PCBs weren't a problem, yo|i wouldn't need a substitute? Will you help me with the word pr^pblem? In what way? Any sense of the word. In the sejnse of escape, in the sense of human health problems, in the sense of environmental damage it caused. |[f in fact the 1242 wasn't a problem, you wouldn't haye to spend any j money going about making a replacement? Well, even in a well-controlled hydraulic fluid system using a Pydraul 312, for example, which prevents entry into the environment and harm to the worker, as long as one has anothey material that isn't associated with any emotion^ or misunderstandings, you might as w^ll use the new material. But the new material you used, thb terphenyl had not been tested for biodegradeability|L correct? Not yet. That's true. And in fact, you categorized the j;erphenyl simply as a stop gap, while you continued tip work on another product, right? It was a good step forward. 3374 WATER PCB-SD0000075508 1Q 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 12 13 14 Q 15 A 16 Q 17 18 19 20 A 21 ' 22 23 Q 24 1 25 So now you've got a stop gap product you used that you haven't tested for biodegradeability, you've got a situation where you recognize that the industrial fluids are at least very difficult to control, and it was the problem with the five chlorinated PCB that was causing damage to the environment. The fact of the matter is that the reason you stopped making the 1242 Pydraul 312 was because it was causing damage to the environment, isn't that right? I don't know of any evidence that definitely points out that Pydraul 312 was causing damage to the environment. Well, you know -- I just don't know that. You know that the Pydraul 312 with the 1242 Aroclor was biodegrading so that when you looked at it, in a fish, for example, it looked like 1248 to 1254, 1260, right? If it gets into an environment that has the bacteria and the oxygen and the sunlight, and all of the things it takes to degrade it. And it was the five chlorine in the 312 that was causing the problems or at least a lot of the problem? 3375 WATER PCB-SD0000075509 1 A 2 3 4 5Q 6A 7 Q 8 9A 10 11 Q 12 13 A 14 15 16 17 Q 18 19 20 A 21 Q 22 23 24 25 I don't associate the effect on birds, for example, and the presence in fish, of the higher chlorinatedbiphenyls, specifically to the Aroclor 312. You mean Pydraul 312? I'm sorry, Pydraul 312. You do associate it with one of the components, one of the component PCBs in the mixture, don't you? I associate it with the higher chlorinated components, but I don't know where they came from. Well, you know today where some of those came from. You know that it came from the degraded 1242? Some of them very likely from degraded 1242. Again, though, I can't take the next step and say it came from Pydraul 312. I don't have any information that tells me that. I guess we'll get into that a little bit later. Have you gone through the learned treatises that we had filed in this matter or a list of them? I'm confused at the expression, learned treatises. Well, I guess then you haven't. THE COURT: It's really more of a legal definition, sir, that permits attorneys without bringing in authors of a particular publication to have those admitted into evidence, assuming they're 3376 WATER PCB-SD0000075510  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 relevant, without the necessity of bringing in that author to identify them. There are certain procedural rules that have to be followed by the attorneys which I'm not going to bore you with, but suffice it to say that this case has had more than all the rest of the cases I've had combined. Usually you'll get four or five or six of them in a case. There's got to be 250 in this case. MR. CARLSON: We'll go back. All I wanted to find out was whether or not you had an opportunity to read the study that was done in 1963 and the effect of 1242, the Aroclor on a particular bird that was studied? I don't recall such a document. No. Let's go on. We've talked about this a little bit before. I've had marked as 2031, which is actuallya cut down to appropriate size, the approximate size of the Monsanto sticker. Do you recognize Exhibit 2031, sir? I do. MR. CARLSON: I'd offer Exhibit 2031 into evidence. Your Honor. MR. RUNNING: No objection. THE COURT: So received. MR. CARLSON: 3377 WATER PCB-SD0000075511 1 Q 2 3A 4 Q 5A 6 7 Q 8A 9Q 10 11 12 13 14 A 15 Q 16 17 A 18 19 Q A 20 Q 21 A 22 23 Q 24 A 25 Now that is about the size of the sticker that was used? It's close, yes. Except the lettering was red? That is correct. Now, the lettering of the label on Pydraul, itself, was red? Yes. Now, when these stickers were made up, were they made up in-house? Did you do them in your own company, in one of your -- do you have a section of the company that makes these up, or do you have them done outside? They're done by an outside printing company. And then when these were done up, did you actually see the finished product that was completed? Certainly. And were they on gum labels, is that what they were? Yes. And the gum labels, they were distributed where? They were distributed to each plant in Monsanto that packaged products that contained PCBs. These plants were located where? In the United States. It was Sauget, Illinois, Anniston, Alabama, and the John F. Queeny plant in 3378 WATER PCB-SD0000075512 2 3Q 4 5A 6Q 7 A 8Q 9 10 A 11 Q 12 13 A 14 15 16 17 18 Q 19 A 20 21 Q 22 A 23 Q 24 A 25 St. Louis. In Europe, it was in Newport, Whales. That's it. Does your company also have distribution centers where product was inventoried? Certainly. And did you have a distribution center in Chicago? I don't know. Do you know where the closest distribution center from Milwaukee was? No, I don't. I didn't hear you indicate that you had sent those stickers out to the distribution centers. The distribution centers were sent labels to cover those containers in inventory that did not have it affixed to them. After they did that, then the new material coming in had the label, the label affixed back at the plant. And where were these labels to be affixed? Close, right near the large label, with the product label. Would it cover any part of the product label? Oh, no. You put it right on the larger product label? If it did overlap a little bit, it was not to cover any message that was on the product label. 3379 WATER PCB-SD0000075513 w1 Q 2 3 4 5 6 7 A 8 9 10 11 Q 12 13 14 15 A 16 Q 17 A 18 Q 19 A 20 Q 21 A 22 23 Q 24 A #25 Q No, I didn't mean that. Was there some spot on the larger label that you could put this? In Wisconsin we have license plates, we put a tag on it every year. What I was trying to find out, did you take this little label and put it right on the larger label? We did not tell the supervisor of the packaging operation exactly where to put it. We left it up to his good judgment, just so it was visible to the user. And this particular label did not use any -- strike that. Do you know what signal words are in terms of providing warnings or cautions? I'm sorry, what was the word? Signal words? Signal words? Yes, like caution, hazard, danger? Oh. You know what those kinds of words are? Yes. In fact, that word appears on the product label. On this sticker? Not this environmental sticker, no. And the product label does not contain any 3380 WATER PCB-SD0000075514 1 2A 3Q 4 5 6A 7Q 8 9A 10 Q 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Q 24 ' 25 information about proper disposal? That's correct. And the label does not provide any -- strike that. You also developed a label for your Aroclor 1242 which was sold as a straight Aroclor, didn't you? Yes. And in that particular label, you provided specific disposal information, didn't you? At what point in time? Sometime in the early 1970s? THE COURT: I want to make sure I understand. MR. CARLSON: Sure. THE COURT: We are not talking about Pydraul 312? You're talking about Aroclor 1242? MR. CARLSON: That's right. Which is a component of Pydraul 312. THE COURT: That's what I assumed. I wanted to make sure of that. THE WITNESS: I'm trying to recall the timing. MR. CARLSON: This will probably help, because you can read your coatings. I'm going to show you what's been marked as Plaintiff's 692 and ask you to identify that for 3381 WATER PCB-SD0000075515 1 2A 3Q 4 5 6A 7 Q 8 9A 10 Q 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Q 24 25 information about proper disposal? That's correct. And the label does not provide any -- strike that. You also developed a label for your Aroclor 1242 which was sold as a straight Aroclor, didn't you? Yes. And in that particular label, you provided specific disposal information, didn't you? At what point in time? Sometime in the early 1970s? THE COURT: I want to make sure I understand. MR. CARLSON: Sure. THE COURT: We are not talking about Pydraul 312? You're talking about Aroclor 1242? MR. CARLSON: That's right. Which is a component of Pydraul 312. THE COURT: That's what I assumed. I wanted to make sure of that. THE WITNESS: I'm trying to recall the timing. MR. CARLSON: This will probably help, because you can read your coatings. I'm going to show you what's been marked as Plaintiff's 692 and ask you to identify that for 3381 WATER PCB-SD0000075516 1 2A 3 4 5Q 6A 7 8 9 10 11 12 Q 13 14 15 A 16 Q 17 18 A 19 Q 20 21 22 A 23 Q 24 A 25 US. This is copy of a label affixed to containers of Aroclor 1242, electrical grade, and as best I recall, this label was used, starting in late 1971. Late 1971? Correct. MR. CARLSON: I would offer Exhibit 692 into evidence, Your Honor. MR. RUNNING: No objection. THE COURT: So received. MR. CARLSON: With regard to this particular label, and I do want to make sure that we are careful about this. This label did not go on drums of Pydraul 312, did it? No, it did not. But this label did go on drums of Aroclor 1242, which was almost 50 percent of the Pydraul 312? That is correct. And this label for the Aroclor 1242 customer on the right side provided information about waste disposal, did it not? There is a section that covers that, yes. Would you read that to us, please? "Waste disposal. Used polychlorinated biphenyl fluids may be returned freight prepaid for proper 3382 WATER PCB-SD0000075517 1 2 3 4 Q 5 6 7 A 8 9Q 10 11 12 A 13 Q 14 A 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Q 24 25 incineration at 3 cents per pound. Ship to Supervisor Department A-246, Monsanto Company, Sauget, Illinois, 62201." Thank you. This particular label also provides specific information about some of the kinds of harm that the Aroclor 1242 can do, doesn't it? I'm having difficulty, when you say some of the kinds of harm. Okay. With regard to the statement that appears on the center of the label, why don't you just read that for us out loud? The one that starts, if clothing becomes soaked? I'm sorry. This product contains. "This product contains polychlorinated biphenyls which some studies have shown may be persistent, an environmental contaminant, and possibly injurious to certain forms of bids, aquatic, and animal life. Extreme care should be taken to prevent any entry into the environment through spills, leakage, use, disposal, vaporization or otherwise. Contact your Monsanto representative regarding reclamation of used fluid." Now, is there any information with regard to the damage that the 312 -- I'm sorry, that the 1242 Aroclor may cause that was not known to your company 3383 WATER PCB-SD0000075518 1 2A 3 4 5 6Q 7 8 9 10 A 11 Q 12 13 14 A 15 Q 16 17 18 A 19 20 Q 21 22 23 A 24 Q 25 A by mid 1969? By mid 1969, the information that was known as it affected some reported studies, was the effect of the higher chlorinated biphenyls, as best I recall. That was the state of the knowledge in 1969. There is no mistake, is there, that the Aroclor 1242, that label that we are looking at right now, is the same Aroclor 1242 that was in our Pydraul 312, correct? That is correct. And your company does say that the Aroclor 1242 can cause the kind of damage that is listed on that label, correct? Yes. In 1971. And that is because the Aroclor 1242 had the five chlorinated PCB? That's also true, isn't it? Five chlorinated and higher? By 1971, we had additional information from the chicken studies that Monsanto had conducted. By 1969, you knew that Risebrough had concluded that PCBs had damaged the, what was it, Brown Pelican or the Falcan? He suspected that that was the problem. That was his conclusion, wasn't it? Well, he also had DDT there, also, so I forget the 3384 WATER PCB-SD0000075519 w1 2 3 4 Q 5 6A 7 Q 8 9 10 A 11 12 13 14 Q 15 16 17 A 18 19 Q 20 21 22 A 23 Q 24 25 exact words that Dr. Risebrough used in his conclusions. It would be fair to say that that would be one of the studies that found that the PCBs were, could potentially damage some forms of birds? That was a study, yes. And Dr. Risebrough did not distinguish between a five chlorinated or four chlorinated or seven chlorinated, did he? I don't recall the specific reference to each of those types of PCBs. I do know five and higher. I have some difficulty remembering the reference to four chlorinated. Now, would you be kind enough to take a look at Exhibit 210, which has been received in evidence? Have you seen that particular study before? No, I haven't. Was there a department in Monsanto that had the responsibility for keeping abreast of the information being developed on the company's products that was appearing in the literature? Yes. You can go ahead and read it. I just wanted to fill in some time there. Let me perhaps move this along. Would you be kind enough to turn to Page 299. If 3385 WATER PCB-SD0000075520 1 2 3 4 5A 6Q 7 A 8Q 9A 10 11 12 Q 13 14 15 A 16 Q 17 18 19 A 20 Q 21 22 23 A 24 Q 25 A you look at the preceding page, there is reference to discussion, on Page 299, right above the word summary, there is a passage relating to chlorinated biphenyl? I see that reference, yes. Would you read that to us please? The last sentence? Yes. It states, it reads, "Chlorinated biphenyl causes extensive kidney damage and ascites is probably a secondary result." Did you have enough chance to read at least the preliminary aspects of the study, so that you understood why that work was being done? No, I didn't get a chance to read enough of that. Are you aware of the fact that there was reports of some epoxy coatings causing damage to birds that was being studied back in 1963? No, I was not. This kind of information, however, would have been available to the Monsanto people charged with monitoring the literature referencing your product? This kind of information? Yes. Normally, yes. 3386 WATER PCB-SD0000075521 1 Q 2 3A 4 Q 5 6A 7 8 9 10 Q 11 12 13 A 14 15 16 17 18 t 19 20 21 Q 22 23 24 A 25 Q Now, you have -- let's switch on. Let's go to Exhibit 14, if we could. I think you have that. I have it. And Exhibit 14 is what document, sir? Can you just identify it for us? The first page is a copy of a memorandum authored by Elmer P. Wheeler, addressed to P.B. Hodges, to which is attached a document entitled "Minutes of Aroclor Ad-hoc Committee, First Meeting." Mr. Running had asked you about some meetings that were held regarding PCBs. Is this the same committee? We talked about several committees on PCBs in Monsanto. This is certainly one of them. This is the smaller group. MR. CARLSON: Your Honor, I would offer Exhibit No. 14 into evidence. MR. RUNNING: No objection. THE COURT: So received. MR. CARLSON: Let's take a look. This was, first of all, the minutes of the Aroclor Ad-Hoc Committee First Meeting, correct? Correct. And one of the objectives that was agreed to by the 3387 WATER PCB-SD0000075522 *1 2 3A 4 5Q 6 97 8A 9 *10 Q 11 A 12 *13 Q A 14 Q 15 * 16 17 A 18 19 20 Q 21 A *22 Q 23 24 * 25 committee was to submit recommendations for action which will -- and what was the first objective? "Permit continued sales and profits of Aroclors and terphenyls." And when was this committee -- when did that first meet? Is it the same date as the date of the memorandum, September 5? The date of the minutes. So that was the first objective and the second objective was what, sir? You want me to read it? Would you please? "Permit continued development of uses and sales." Now, at the time of this particular September 5 meeting, your company had not done any biodegradation studies of the Aroclors, had you? This is certainly late in 1969. I believe the laboratory was getting underway. They may have had some underway at the time. No results? No results yet. But without the results of the studies, the committee, as an objective, wanted to find ways to permit the continued sales and profits of the Aroclors? 3388 B WATER PCB-SD0000075523 1 A 2Q 3 4 5A 6Q 7 8 9 10 A 11 Q 12 13 14 A 15 Q 16 17 18 19 20 A 21 22 23 Q 24 25 Well, that's what they had recommended. Then if we look at the background discussion of the problem, we see some information referable to the 1254 and 1260 Aroclors, correct? There is a reference. And then there is also reference to the Aroclor 1242 has not yet been incriminated for these possible reasons, and then it goes down and lists three possible reasons, correct? Yes. "The nature of uses of the 1242 minimizes environmental contamination." That was a possible reason, correct? That's what it states. In looking at the presence of the 1242 that was found in water, do you remember all of the studies that were done outside Anniston and Queeny and the Fox River, and all of that? There was a lot of 1242 being found in the water, wasn't there? Well, I wouldn't characterize it as a lot. There was some Aroclor 1242 identified in waterways near industrial plants. So that the fact that 1242 hadn't been yet incriminated, wasn't because it wasn't present, simply? It simply at that point had been degraded 3389 WATER PCB-SD0000075524 1 2A 3Q 4 5A 6 7 8 9 10 Q 11 A 12 13 Q 14 15 A 16 17 Q 18 19 20 21 A 22 23 Q 24 25 to some extent so it wasn't recognized? If it isn't present, it can't be detected. Sure. It can be detected. You may think it's something else. You may think it's 1254 or 1248. I understand if originally it was a 1242, and the conditions were such that it degraded, and a long time later, a sample is taken, it will be observed by the chemist as being similar to some higher chlorinated type of PCB. Go ahead. That is the premise on which much of this work took place, yes. And that is in fact what your company had learned, in fact had occurred? In the laboratory they demonstrated that. It has never been demonstrated out in the open environment. Although it has been demonstrated, hasn't it, that in water where 1242 has been found, you look at the fish liver and it looked like 1254, do you remember that study? Yes, that is through the fish and whatever it ate, yes. So if you looked at the fish and it has -- it looks like 1254, and it came out of water that had 1242, it would be a fairly natural conclusion that 3390 WATER PCB-SD0000075525 1 2 3A 4 Q 5 6 7 A 8 9 10 Q 11 12 13 14 15 A 16 Q 17 18 A 19 A 20 21 #22 Q 23 A 24 Q 25 something happened to the 1242 to make it look like a 1254? Under those conditions that you described, yes. And in fact, your company could have done biodegradation studies to understand this more thoroughly as early as 1962, couldn't you? I don't believe the methodology for conducting laboratory biodegradeable studies was available in 1962. In your deposition, you do recall that you testified that in the early '60s, the protocol for doing the biodegradation studies that could have been applicable to the Aroclors was available in the early '60s, correct? I said that, but I was thinking '65ish or so. Well, you said early '60s, and you actually said '62, didn't you? Yes. It's about that time. It was about that time the technology was being developed or in use. It wasn't really available for broad use in industrial chemicals. But it was being used in the detergent industry? That is true. And the protocol applicable there was also applicable to here, if you wanted to use it? 3391 WATER PCB-SD0000075526 1 A 2Q 3 4 A 5 6 7 8Q 9 10 A 11 Q 12 13 14 A 15 16 Q 17 18 19 20 A 21 Q 22 23 24 25 With modifications, yes. If your company wanted to have done the studies, you could have done the studies in the '60s? Well, that is -- they could have with knowledge that such a procedure existed and with the changes that had to be made to make it suitable, yes, they could have adjusted the whole procedure. This whole concept of what happened to 1242 could have been understood by 1966, for example? That is hindsight, yes. Chemical manufacturers, you do believe have an obligation to know the properties of its products before they put them on the market, don't you? They know some of the properties, not each and every property. Well, the concept of biodegrading was a fairly important concept because of the situation that existed with regard to detergents that got into the waterway? It developed as an important consideration, yes. But your company didn't do any degradation work with regard to your products that you knew were in the waterways as early as 1966 from Jensen, until, as I understand it, your studies were underway in September of 1969? 3392 WATER PCB-SD0000075527 i 1 A 2Q 3 4 A 5Q 6 7 A 8 9Q 10 11 A 12 Q 13 14 A 15 16 Q 17 18 A 19 20 Q 21 22 23 A 24 25 Q That is correct. Now, the biggest use of the 1242 Aroclor was in capacitors? Yes. And was your company thinking that fluid in the capacitors was getting into the water? We had no -- we had no information that these fluids were ending up in the public waterways. Well, you knew that they were getting into fish, somehow? At what point in time again? Well, we go all the way to Jensen again. He found 200 pike that he found PCBs in? I don't know that that was Aroclor 1242 or something similar. I understand that. You knew that PCBs were in the water? The higher chlorinated ones, yes, we were convinced eventually, that they were. And you knew that in die cast facilities, there was the opportunity for water and hydraulic fluids to mix? The possibility is there, and if not controlled, it would have happened, yes. And if the water and hydraulic fluid is going to 3393 WATER PCB-SD0000075528 1 2 3A 4 5Q 6 7 A 8 9 10 Q 11 12 13 14 15 A 16 17 18 19 Q 20 21 22 23 24 A 25 Q mix, there was the possibility that some would get into the waterways? If they're not controlled, no pit, sumps, or trenches are provided, certainly. Even under the clarifier systems that were used, PCBs could get into the waterways? Well, I'd have to know more details about the specific clarifier system and the opportunity to get into the waterways. In any event, knowing that water and the hydraulic fluids had the potential for mixing, your company could have looked at whether or not the hydraulic fluid was going to biodegrade in or by 1966? That is true, was it not? Just the fact that they might mix doesn't necessarily lead one to consider testing for biodegradeability. It has to get out there where it could biodegrade. That means it's out of control. And we've gone through the memos before. Your company knew that some of this stuff was getting into the sewers, being washed down the drains. Your own memorandum show that, doesn't it, that they thought it was harmless? Those small amounts. It's a matter of quantity. Sure, and now you know that the stuff is in the 3394 WATER PCB-SD0000075529 2 3A 4 5 6 7 Q 8 9A 10 Q 11 A 12 Q 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q 25 water, into the environment, and you didn't do any studies until 1969, right? Well, you make it sound like we knew there were rivers of fluid flowing into the environment. I can't accept that, and intellectually, that didn't happen. It happened in your own plant, because you had $700 pounds a day going into the river. Yes, that is about a drum. Sure. No, that is about two drums. It's about -- About 600 some pounds to the drum. And we had previously looked at Exhibit 32. I don't want to belabor it with you. In your own Engineering Department -- strike that. In your own Industrial Hygienist's Medical Department, you were corresponding with customers who were telling you they were putting the PCBs into the water? MR. MCDEVITT: What exhibit is that? MR. CARLSON: 32. (Whereupon, the above-pending question was read back by the court reporter.) THE WITNESS: I have read the document. MR. CARLSON: And in responding to an inquiry from Chicago to Maddock Tool Company, it was referenced that if 3395 WATER PCB-SD0000075530 1 2 3 4 5A 6Q 7 8 9A 10 Q 11 12 13 A 14 Q 15 A 16 Q 17 A 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 small quantities of materials are accidentally spilled into the receiving stream, there would probably be no harmful effect. It's on the bottom of the page? I see it. Yes, that's what it states. And then if on the other hand, a great deal of material is spilled, some readily identifiable damage might enuse, correct? Yes. Right above that, it indicates that toxicity on those exposed in the water really isn't known, since they have no tests on aquatic animals, correct? You have paraphrased it. Fairly, haven't I? Yes, that's what it tries to convey. And this goes back to 1960? It does. THE COURT: New area? MR. CARLSON: Yes. THE COURT: This is it. I've got a long calendar Monday, including watching a videotape all through lunch hour. Let's shoot for two o'clock and hope that we are ready for you by then. Have a good weekend. (Whereupon, the proceedings were adjourned.) 3396 WATER PCB-SD0000075531