Document jgmNqxLOOq0q7dBVmK7bKe0jR

7?7^ 677 1 THE COURT: Well, we will be having a recess in 20, 30 2 minutes. Why don't we do it then. 3 MR. KARAGANIS: Okay. 4 WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS, SWORN 5 DIRECT EXAMINATION 6 QUESTIONS BY MR. KARAGANIS: 7 Q. State your full name. 8 A. William B. Papageorge. 9 Q. Mr. Papageorge, where do you reside? 10 A. In the western part of St. Louis County, the suburbs of St. 11 Louis. 12 Q. And by whom are you employed, sir? 13 A. I am retired. 14 Q. When did you retire? 15 A. January 1st, 1987. i 16 Q. And prior to your retirement, by whom were you employed? 17 A. Monsanto Company. 18 Q. Are you currently engaged in employment for pay, either 19 consulting or otherwise? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And for whom do you work on a consultant basis? 22 A. I have an agreement with Monsanto Company to help them. 23 Q. Is that an hourly rate? 24 A. Yes, sir. 25 Q. And could you tell us what that hourly rate is? WATER PCB-00046269 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 678 1 A. $100.00 an hour. 2 Q. And you say you retired in 1987? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Would you tell the jury where you worked when you first 5 came to Monsanto? In other words, give your work history. 6 A. My first assignment in Monsanto was as a design engineer in 7 a plant located in St. Louis, working on the design of 8 equipment that was used later to make chemicals. The second 9 assignment -- 10 Q. When was that? 11 A. That was from 1951 until about 1953. I was then made a 12 supervisor of a unit in the plant that produced chemicals, and 13 that lasted for about a year or year and a half. Following 14 that I was assigned as a maintenance supervisor in the 15 department at the plant that repaired and built chemical 16 equipment. That lasted about two years, or so. I think that 17 takes me up to about 1956. I was then made the superintendent 18 of that maintenance department, whereby the entire maintenance 19 operation reported to me. Following that -- and that 20 assignment lasted about two years. I returned back to the 21 Engineering Department as a superintendent responsible for the 22 activities of anywhere from six to a dozen engineers, and that, 23 I believe, would terminate about 1963. At that point in time I 24 was made the general superintendent of utilities, warehousing, 25 distribution. In other words, the miscellaneous kinds of WATER PCB-00046270 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 679 1 operations in this plant in St. Louis. 2 Q. Okay. Then what did you do? 3 A. I was then assigned to the plant in Illinois, in Sauget, 4 Illinois, as a general superintendent of manufacturing. I was 5 one of four such positions responsible for the manufacture of a 6 given set of chemicals at that plant. That assignment lasted 7 until 1965. I was then assigned as a plant manager to the 8 Monsanto plant in Anniston, Alabama, and that assignment lasted 9 until the end of 1969. 10 Q. What did you do then? 11 A. In January of 1970 I was assigned to a new position 12 entitled Manager Environmental Control, with the responsibility 13 for coordinating the activities that were arising from an issue 14 that was associated with PCBs. ` 15 Q. What was your title? 16 A. It was Manager Environmental Control initially. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WATER PCB-00046271 DIRECT-PAPAGEORGE 680 1 ^ It was manager, environmental control initially. 2 And that was manager, environmental control for PCBs? 3 \ Correct. 4 So you were in charge of environmental control for single 5 chemical product line; is that correct? 6 ^ For a period of time, yes. 7 How long was that? 8 ^ Until about 1973, where I maintained the responsibilities 9 related to PCBs. But I also was assigned other chemicals so 10 that I could overview what activities where appropriate for 11 those additional chemicals. 12 3 Then after -- from 1973, how long did you stay in charge of 13 environmental control for PCBs? 14 A My association with PCBs ended in February of 1976. 15 3 And then what did you become in terms of your occupation at 16 Monsanto? 17 A In 1976 I was still -- I still had the title of manager of 18 product acceptability, but I was associated with a whole new setj 19 of Monsanto products. No longer PCBs. 20 Q Now, when you came aboard in St. Louis in 1970 as manager o^ 21 environmental control, isn't it correct that Monsanto Company 22 had been aware of a problem of contamination of certain 23 environmental media by PCBs for some time? 24 A Yes. 25 Q And when you came to St. Louis as manager of environmental WATER_PCB-00046272 DIRECT-PAPAGEORGE 681 1 control, wasn't one of your tasks to kind of coordinate and 2 manage the various aspects of the PCB problem, to have one 3 person in charge? 4 k Responsibility was defined as one of coordination. I was 5 never given the total management of the product lines. 6 2 Were you given the ability to say to a customer if the 7 customer was not complying with your pollution control requests 8 Dr directives, we're not selling you the product? 9 k No. 10 2 You didn't have that authority? 11 k That is correct, sir. 12 2 Now, with respect to your work when you came there in 1970 13 as coordinator of various PCB efforts, did you have occasion to 14 review the files of Monsanto with regard to PCBs and 15 environmental problems? 16 k I had occasion to review several files. I don't know that 3] 17 saw all of the files. 18 2 All right. Mr. Papageorge, I would like to direct your 19 attention to Exhibit 238 in evidence. That's the September 27, 20 '67 visit to Anniston, Alabama. 21 Mr. Papageorge, I show you what's been marked as Plaintiffs'| 22 Exhibit 238 in evidence which is a cover memorandum enclosing a 23 memorandum by Mr. Benignus indicating a visit by Mr. Pickett anc 24 **. McNally to the Anniston plant. Have you seen that document? 25 k Yes, I have. WATER PCB-00046273 DIRECT-PAPAGEORGE 682 1 Were you present when Mr. McNally and Mr. Pickett visited 2 he plant? 3 Yes. 4 Were you aware at the time that they visited the plant that, 5 uoting Mr. Benignus, "Westinghouse admits to not being as 6 areful as they should be. Frankly, I believe there are 7 lements of sloppiness such as allowing the Inerteen to spill 8 nd soak into workmen's shoes and clothing without then changing] 9 he shoes and clothing"? 10 . I was aware after I had read Mr. Benignus's note. 11 ! Did you read that at the time of the visit or shortly 12 hereafter? . 13 , I read that before the visit. 14 i All right. So, you're not reading it recently, you read it 15 oughly about the time of their visit in 1967? 16 l Yes. 17 > Okay. So would it be a fair statement that you knew that irj 18 .967 that the practices at Westinghouse were "sloppy"? 19 1 Yes. 20 2 Now, directing your attention to -- excuse me for a moment, 21 Directing your attention to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 314 in 22 jvidence. Plaintiffs' Exhibit 314. Strike that. Plaintiffs' 23 exhibit 313 in evidence. I'm sorry. The instructions for the 24 lisposal of Inerteen at Westinghouse. 25 Were you aware in 1968 that there were instructions by WATER_PCB-00046274 DIRECT-PAPAGEORGE 683 1 tfestinghouse as to the dumping of Inerteen and, I quote, "It is 2 permissible to dump Inerteen and paint thinner out of containers] 3 in the approved location so long as the liquid dumped soaks 4 completely into the ground leaving no pools. When the ground isj 5 saturated, this location must be backfilled to a minimum depth 6 cf one foot." 7 Were you aware that that was the policy and practice of the 8 Bloomington plant at Westinghouse? 9 \ As best I remember, I first recall that paragraph read here 10 in previous testimony in this trial. 11 3 That's the first time you heard it? 12 h Yes, sir. 13 2 I see. Mr. Papageorge, when you gave a deposition in this 14 case, is it not correct that you were tendered to the plaintiff 15 as what's known as a 30(B)(6) witness? Do you recall? 16 fv Yes. 17 Q A representative of the corporation? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 MR. KARAGANIS: All right. Judge, I wonder if I could 20 ask the Court to instruct the jury as to what a 30(B)(6) witnes^ 21 is. 22 THE COURT: I'm not sure I know what is a 30(B)(6). 23 MR. KARAGANIS: Your Honor, it's a witness that is 24 tendered by a corporate defendant as a representative of the 25 corporation. WATER_PCB-00046275 DIRECT-PAPAGEORGE 684 1 THE COURT: Corporations, members of the jury, 2 obviously can only speak through their officers, agents and so 3 Dn. And for purposes of taking depositions of corporations, thej 4 Federal Rules provide that the corporation in question upon 5 request designate someone to speak on its behalf. And that was 6 lone in this case. Mr. Papageorge is being designated by the 7 lefendant. 8 Mr. Papageorge, you do recall that you in previous testimony] 9 in deposition spoke as a representative of the corporation 10 having knowledge of the corporation's acts; is that correct? 11 h Yes, sir. 12 Now, to your knowledge when did the Westinghouse plant in 13 Bloomington open up? 14 h 1957. 15 2 And what period of time did Monsanto sell PCBs to the plant?| 16 |A Starting in 1957, terminating in September 1977. 17 |Q Now directing your attention from the period 1957 to 1968, 18 to your knowledge did Monsanto Company ever inspect the 19 Westinghouse Bloomington plant as to either its landfill 20 disposal practices or as to its procedures for dumping of any 21 polychlorinated biphenyls down the sewer? 22 A I do not have any information that informs me that such 23 inspections did take place. 24 Q Now directing your attention to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 328 -- 25 I'm sorry -- Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4592, have you ever seen that WATER_PCB-00046276 DIRECT-PAPAGEORGE 685 1 before? 2 MR. FRUEHWALD: Is that document in evidence? 3 MR. KARAGANIS: Yes, that is in evidence. 4 MR. FRUEHWALD: What's the date on it so we can find it 5 in the books? 6 MR. KARAGANIS: That date is 11-4-68. 7 I have never seen this document before. 8 Mr. Papageorge, I show you what's been marked as Plaintiffs' 9 bit 424 for identification. Have you ever seen that 10 iment before? 11 MR. FRUEHWALD: Would you want to give the the date so 12 we can look it.up? 13 MR. KARAGANIS: Certainly. That is dated July 24th, 14 1969. 15 A I have seen this document before. 16 Q Let's see if we can go through this document for the Court 17 and jury together. Isn't it correct that the title of the 18 document is "Scrap Aroclor Disposal?" Now, what was meant by 19 scrap disposal in Monsanto in customer terminology was waste PCE 20 materials; is that correct? 21 A I need some help with your definition of the word waste. 22 Q Material that was otherwise disposed of by customers. 23 A No. The word scrap in use at that time referred to material 24 that had a potential for cleanup and recycle. It did not 25 include waste until it was demonstrated to be unusable. WATER_PCB-00046277 DIRECT-PAPAGEORGE 686 1 2 If the customer didn't send it back to Monsanto for recycle, 2 ^he customer had been treating it as waste prior to this time, 3 lad it not? 4 \ I don't know what the customer called it at his plant. 5 2 Let's go back to the period prior to the scrap disposal 6 program, Mr. Papageorge. Isn't it correct that as part of the 7 scrap disposal program the two major sources of Aroclor, General] 8 Electric and Westinghouse Bloomington, began sending waste PCBs, 9 PCBs from their factory that they weren't going to use back to 10 Monsanto? 11 \ That is correct. 12 2 . All right. And where had they been disposing of the 13 material that they were now sending to Monsanto prior to 1969? 14 ^ Landfills. ' 15 2 Directing your attention to the Plaintiffs' Exhibit 424 for 16 identification, isn't it a fact that Monsanto was actually 17 paying Westinghouse for the liquid? 18 h Monsanto was reimbursing Westinghouse for that liquid which 19 was usable. It was not paying for material that could not be 20 recovered. 21 Q So for the material that used to go, up until 1969 used to 22 go out in the local landfills by Westinghouse, as of 1969 some 23 of that material was coming back to Monsanto and if Monsanto 24 could use it, Monsanto was paying Westinghouse for the reusable 25 material; is that correct? WATER PCB-00046278 DIRECT-PAPAGEORGE 687 1 ft That is correct. 2 2 And as to the material that Monsanto could not reuse, what 3 </as Monsanto doing with that? 4 ft At that point in time it was sent to chemical landfills. 5 2 So let me get this straight. As of 1969, Monsanto was 6 taking what Westinghouse used to dump out in landfills, at least 7 some of it, taking it back to Monsanto, that material which they 8 could clean up and reuse they did so, that material which they 9 couldn't, Monsanto then arranged for the disposal of that 10 material; is that correct? 11 ft. That is correct. 12 Q Directing your attention to the notation as to the status o^ 13 the scrap, Westinghouse Electric was generating about 15,000 14 pounds a month of this material; isn't that right? 15 A That's what the document says. 16 Q 15,000 pounds of liquid PCB material; isn't that right? 17 A Yes. 18 Q That's 15 thousand pounds that prior to the initiation of 19 this program was going into landfills; isn't that right? 20 A I don't have enough information to tell me exactly where all) 21 of it went. And I don't know whether the collection system 22 changed to account for more or less of the material. 23 Q Mr. Papageorge, based on your experience in this area, isn'tj 24 it a fact that it either went to landfills or down the sewer? 25 A Or up the stack. WATER PCB-00046279 DIRECT-PAPAGEORGE 688 1 Or up the stack. All right. Most of the liquid was going 2 to either the landfills or to sewers, was it not? 3 I can only speculate, yes. 4 What did you call the stuff that you :-- I shouldn't use the 5 tford stuff -- what did you call the material that you sent to 6 the toxic dumps? What was your term? 7 k My personal term was waste PCBs. 8 2 Did Monsanto call it junk? 9 A Some individuals in the company referred to it as junk, yes. 10 2 As a matter of fact, let's see if we can get the -- Mr. 11 Bryant is the author of the July 24th, 1969 memorandum, is he 12 not? 13 A That is correct. 14 2 Mr. Bryant, what department did he work in? 15 A In 1969 he worked in the marketing department of the group 16 that sold PCBs. 17 Q So he was part of the sales force; is that correct? 18 A He was the technical support person helping the marketing 19 people. 20 Q He refers to the material that is not recycled as junk; is 21 that correct? 22 A The word junk appears in quotes, but Mr. Bryant had another 23 thought in mind. 24 Q When he was referring to junk? 25 A Yes. Many drums arrived labeled as containing PCBs but the^j WATER PCB-00046280 DIRECT-PAPAGEORGE 689 1 would contain kerosene, diesel fuel, paint thinner, all sorts of] 2 material that the word junk refers to here. 3 3 It also refers to PCBs that could not be reclaimed; isn't 4 that right? 5 A I don't read that from this reference. 6 2 Directing your attention to the listing of the Westinghouse 7 capacitor plants on Plaintiffs' Exhibit 424 -- I'm sorry -- the 8 Westinghouse facilities, for which Westinghouse facilities were 9 you performing this service? 10 THE WITNESS: Do you want me to read them from there? 11 MR. KARAGANIS: Either from that or from your 12 recollection. 13 A It's the capacitor plant in Bloomington, Indiana, and the 14 transformer plant at Sharon, Pennsylvania, and a transformer 15 plant at South Boston, Virginia. 16 Q Now, directing your attention again to Exhibit 424, the Jul^ 17 memorandum, the July 1969 memorandum, this memorandum 18 essentially describes a recycle program whereby Monsanto sent a 19 product down to Bloomington Westinghouse and Westinghouse sent 20 scrap Aroclor back to Monsanto for further processing and 21 disposal that it wasn't capable of processing; isn't that 22 correct? 23 A That is correct. 24 Q And directing your attention to the first line of the July 25 24th, 1969 memorandum, just so we can date it for the jury, the WATER PCB-00046281 DIRECT-PAPAGEORGE 690 1 program began early in 1969, did it not? 2 k Yes, it did. 3 THE COURT: Well, we've seemed to have lost a little 4 momentum. Why don't we take a ten minute recess. Maybe you canj 5 get that stuff in order. 6 (The Court recessed from 2:45 o'clock p.m. to 3:05 7 o'clock p.m.) 8 Q Mr. Papageorge, I show you what's been marked as Exhibit 51 ij 9 for identification. It's dated January 14th, 1970. Can you 10 tell the jury what that is? 11 MR. FRUEHWALD: 511? 12 MR. KARAGANIS: Yes. It's dated January 14th, 1970. 13 A This is a copy of a Monsanto intra-company memorandum 14 composed by J. G. Bryant addressed to R. M. Kountz on the 15 subject, "Aroclor Waste Disposal." 16 Q Directing your attention to this exhibit, January 14th, 17 1970, what is the problem that Mr. Bryant is referring to -- I 18 believe it's Mr. Bryant, isn't it? -- referring to with respect 19 to Westinghouse waste? 20 A Well, I see a problem mentioned on page 2. 21 Q What is that problem? 22 A It refers to the fact that material from Westinghouse cannot| 23 be used, and I'm quoting, "cannot be reused in Pydraul blend 24 stock." 25 Q Would you tell the jury what blend stock was? WATER PCB-00046282 DIRECT-PAPAGEORGE 691 1 h Pydraul blend stock refers to a Monsanto fire resistant 2 hydraulic fluid and one of the ingredients in that fluid is a 3 4 2 All right. Isn't it a fact that the problem being talked 5 about there -- 6 THE COURT: Pardon me. You're discussing with the 7 witness the contents of the memo but you haven't offered the 8 memo. May I suggest that we establish this procedure: The 9 number of the exhibit, the date of the exhibit, the 10 identification, then the offer, then you can talk about about 11 12 MR. KARAGANIS: Yes. I apologize. I would like to 13 offer at this time what's been previously discussed Plaintiffs' 14 Exhibi t 424 for identification. 15 THE COURT: It's 511, wasn't it? Are you backing up? 16 Becaus e this one is supposed to be 511. 17 MR. KARAGANIS: I'm sorry, this one I would like to 18 offer, it has not been admitted, is 424. Okay. 19 THE COURT: And 511? 20 MR. KARAGANIS: And 511, Your Honor. 21 MR. FRUEHWALD: No objection. 22 THE COURT: They'll each be received. 23 (Plaintiffs' Exhibit Nos. 424 and 511 were received in , 24 evidence.) 25 Now, Mr. Papageorge, with respect to the so-called blended WATER PCB-00046283 DIRECT-PAPAGEORGE 692 1 Pydraul, the blended Pydraul involved material that hadn't been 2 listilled; isn't that right? In other words, you could blend it| 3 without distilling it, blend some of the product in without 4 listilling it? 5 ^ I find your question difficult to answer. When making the 6 Pydraul hydraulic fluids from fresh PCB as one ingredient, that 7 PCB is distilled. 8 Right. But when making it from waste PCBs -- 9 From waste PCB it can could go one of two routes. One is 10 jsing the PCB after a simple filtration to remove solid 11 particles and the like; or the other is a possible cleanup using] 12 listillation. 13 2 Isn't what Mr. Bryant is talking about there, the fact that 14 the Westinghouse waste required distillation and you have a 15 shortage of distillation facilities? 16 h That is correct. 17 2 So they are piling up, isn't that what the memo says? 18 h Yes. 19 2 They're piling up back at Monsanto, aren't they? 20 A No. They are piling up at Findett Company in St. Charles, 21 Missouri. 22 Q Findett Company was a company that Monsanto paid to do the 23 filtration; isn't that right? 24 A That is correct. 25 Q And if I may, directing your attention to page 2 of this WATER PCB-00046284 DIRECT-PAPAGEORGE 693 1 iocument, in addition to the material that/s piling up at 2 Findett, you also dumped 15,000 pounds of junk from Westinghousej 3 Bloomington, isn't that right, in the toxic landfill? 4 k That is correct. 5 2 Mr. Papageorge, the date on this memo is January 14th, 6 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 511, that's written by Mr. Bryant on January] 7 14th, 1970, is it not? 8 k That is correct. 9 2 Directing your attention to the next exhibit which is 10 already in evidence as 530 which is a January 29th, 1970 letter 11 by the same Mr. J. G. Bryant to the head of the industrial waste] 12 section of the Indiana State Department of Health, I would like 13 to direct your attention to the following language: "As we 14 discussed on the phone, Westinghouse Electric Company in 15 Bloomington is a large user of our capacitor Aroclor. We have 16 been actively working with Westinghouse developing a waste 17 recovery program aimed at pollution abatement. At present 18 Monsanto is taking back waste Aroclor from the capacitor 19 operation at Bloomington. Further, we know Westinghouse are 20 making quite an effort to collect all the waste PCBs from their 21 operation. This program has been underway since the fall of 22 1969. Thus far it appears very successful at controlling their 23 waste fluids." 24 Have you ever seen Plaintiffs' Exhibit 530 before? 25 A I have seen this document as it relates to this case. WATER PCB-00046285 DIRECT-PAPAGEORGE 694 1 All right. Now, would it not be correct that 530, the 2 program referred to in 530 that Mr. Bryant is talking to the 3 State of Indiana about, is the program that's reflected in your 4 'vroclor waste disposal program; namely, recycling it back to 5 Monsanto? 6 \ That is correct. 7 2 Based on the recycle program we have described in the 8 January 14th Bryant memo to Mr. Kountz, and the January 29th, 9 L970 letter, isn't it true that Monsanto had an active pollution) 10 control program going with Bloomington for the control of PCB 11 releases in the Bloomington plant? 12 ^ I find your description of that activity rather broad, 13 rhere was a program to enable the Westinghouse Bloomington plan 14 to send to Monsanto some liquid PCBs that could possibly be 15 recycled and reused thereby reducing the amount that had to be 16 disposed of. This has nothing to do with material involved with) 17 water systems or material involved with solid absorbents or 18 irags or any of that. 19 2 Mr. Papageorge, in your deposition taken on June 25th, 1986 20 at page 159, did I ask you the following question and did you 21 give me the following answer; 22 "Q. Based on the recycle program we have just 23 described in the last exhibit in this letter, Monsanto 24 had an active pollution control program going with 25 Bloomington, did they not, for the control of PCB WATER PCB-00046286 DIRECT-PAPAGEORGE 695 1 releases in the Bloomington plant?" 2 "A. It appears so, yes." 3 Did I ask you that question and did you give me that answer? 4 If it's in the document, you probably did; yes, sir. 5 Thank you. Now, Mr. Papageorge, again, getting the date 6 traight here, I direct your attention to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 7 88 for identification. Can you tell us what that is? 8 THE COURT: Did you give the date? 9 MR. KARAGANIS: I'm sorry. December 8th, 1969. 10 It is a memo by Mr. Kountz. Are you familiar with that? 11 This is a copy of a Monsanto memo authored by R. M. Kountz 12 addressed to N. T. Johnson, P. B. Benignus and J. R. Fallon. 13 he subject is "Aroclor Waste Disposal." 14 MR. KARAGANIS: All right. I move the admission of 15 xhibit 488, Your Honor 16 MR. FRUEHWALD: No objection. 17 THE COURT: It will be received. 18 (Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 488 received in evidence.) 19 Who was Mr. Kountz? 20 At that time Mr. Kountz was the manager in the engineering 21 irtment who was assigned engineering projects that related tc 22 23 All right. Now, Aroclor that could not be made into Pydraul 24 e either through distillation or blending was considered 25 iclaimable, was it not? WATER PCB-00046287 DIRECT-PAPAGEORGE 696 1 ^ Yes. 2 As we have just described at this period of time, Monsanto 3 would take that waste Aroclor that it got back from Westinghousej 4 and Monsanto and would dump in it into a local toxic landfill; 5 Isn't that right? 6 A Yes. 7 I would like to read the following language from this 8 nemorandum, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 488. "There is a strong feeling 9 in some parts of our business group that incineration facilities 10 are needed for disposal of the contaminant Aroclor. A serious 11 question and doubt do exist as to whether landfill is the proper] 12 disposal method." 13 Do you recall receiving that information? 14 A Yes, sir. 15 2 Now, Mr. Papageorge, isn't it a fact that in 1969 Monsanto 16 was disposing of liquid PCBs in landfills? . 17 A Yes. 18 Q And isn't it a fact that you decided in 1970 to stop 19 landfilling those liquid PCBs? 20 A That's not correct. 21 Q It's not correct? Mr. Papageorge -- 22 MR. KARAGANIS: Your Honor, I would like to show the 23 witness Plaintiffs' Exhibit 743 for identification, a letter 24 dated June 5, 1970 to Mr. Garlington Wilburn, Manager, 25 Engineering, Westinghouse. WATER_PCB-00046288 DIRECT-PAPAGEORGE 697 1 THE COURT: Is it in evidence? 2 MR. KARAGANIS: No. It's for identification. 3 Are you familiar with that document, Mr. Papageorge? 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WATER PCB-00046289 698 1 Q Are you familiar with that document, Mr. Papageorge? 2 A Yes, I am. 3 MR. KARAGANIS: I move the admission of 743, Your 4 Honor. 5 THE COURT: Could we have a date, please. 6 MR. KARAGANIS: June 5th, 1970. 7 MR. FRUEHWALD: No objection. Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: It will be received. t 9 (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 743 received in evidence.) 10 Q Directing your attention to the following language, on the 11 June 5th, 1970 letter to Mr. Wilburn and I quote, "They are 12 actively seeking answers to PCB disposal problems and at 13 present are concentrating on the design of units to effectively 14 incinerator liquid waste. We will shortly focus our attention 15 to the more challenging problem of disposing of solid material 16 of all types contaminated with PCBs." I will skip a line. 17 "Until proper units are installed, we have continued to use 18 authorized landfills or storage scrap material for eventual 19 incineration." 20 Do you recall sending that message to Mr. Wilburn? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q Mr. Papageorge, in your deposition on Page 192, did I ask 23 you the follow questions about the Wilburn letter and did you 24 give me the following answers: 25 Q You weren't landfilling at that time; is that WATER PCB-00046290 PAPAGEORGE 699 1 right? 2 A Starting at about this time in 1970, our program 3 was to receive the material stored in storage tanks or in 4 sound drums until the incinerator could be installed and 5 we can burn it. 6 Q So you stopped landfilling; isn't that right? 7 A To my knowledge, yes. In fact, it was on only 8 recently I was tuned into this landfilling bit. I had 9 missed that somehow. 10 Q So you stopped landfilling because you didn't think 11 it was a good practice; isn't that right? 12 A That is true. 13 Q You are talking about liquids here? 14 A Yes, liquids. 15 A That is correct. 16 Q So you stopped disposing of liquids into landfills in 1970 17 because you didn't think it was safe; isn't that right? 18 A That is correct. At what point in time? 19 Q Some point in 1970. 20 A Correct. 21 Q Now, with respect to the landfills that you continued to 22 use, you continued to store solid material in landfills, did 23 you not? 24 A That is correct. 25 Q And wouldn't it be correct to say that you only used WATER PCB-00046291 PAPAGEORGE 700 1 specialized industrial waste landfills, chemical waste 2 landfills? 3 A Will you help me with the definition of "you". Is this 4 Monsanto? 5 Q Well, if Monsanto disposed of PCB waste, where did it 6 dispose of it? 7 A Monsanto had its own landfill on Monsanto property. 8 Q And if Monsanto had to dispose of solid waste, any solid 9 waste that at Findett or had come back from the customer, where 10 did it dispose of those wastes? 11 A If Monsanto had possession of that material, it would go 12 into its own landfill. I do not know where the Findett Company 13 went with its material contaminated with PCBs. 14 Q Mr. Papageorge, directing your attention to the Wilburn 15 letter, if you could have incinerated solids at that time, you 16 would have wanted to incinerate solids as well; is that right? 17 A Certainly. 18 Q Pending the construction of a solid waste incinerator you 19 were either storing it or using authorized landfills; is that 20 right? 21 A No. We were not storing solid material contaminated with 22 PCBs. 23 Q What was your recommendation in 1970 with respect to solid 24 materials contaminated with PCBs? 25 A My recommendation was to find a permanent chemical landfill WATER PCB-00046292 PAPAGEORGE 701 1 properly managed that wasn't near any water, surface water or | 2 groundwater. 3 Q Even as to a temporary solution of storage, the landfills 4 you were speaking about were especially designed chemical waste 5 landfills,; isn't that right? 6 A That was the intent, yes. 7 Q In the trade, the word sanitary landfills is not used for a 8 chemical waste landfill, is it? 9 A Not after I would say the middle 1960's. 10 Q The term sanitary landfill is typically used for a 11 municipal landfill; is that right? 12 A That is correct. 13 Q And when you were talking about a chemical waste landfill, 14 this would not be a local municipal landfill where household 15 waste was taken; is that correct? 16 A That is correct. 17 Q Now, at any time during 1970 when you had stopped, because 18 of safety reasons, dumping liquid PCBs in your operation, in 19 other words, the material you got back from GE and Westinghouse 20 that you couldn't process, you dumped--you had previously been 21 dumping in landfills. You stopped that and stored it; is that 22 right? 23 A That is correct. 24 Q You stopped it and stored it because you didn't think it 25 was safe to put in landfills; is that right? WATER PCB-00046293 PAPAGEORGE 702 1 A That is correct. I 2 Q Mr. Papageorge, at any time during that year when you made 3 that decision back at Monsanto, did you ever tell the City of 4 Bloomington that it was not a good practice to put or have put 5 liquids in a landfill? 6 A I did not. 7 Q When you say you did not, to your knowledge, nobody from 8 Monsanto ever told them that; isn't that right? 9 A That is correct. 10 Q This is after you knew what a problem it was; isn't that 11 right? 12 A That's correct. 13 MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor, there is no evidence that 14 any such landfill was being used at that time in Bloomington. 15 The testimony is to the contrary. It was taken to Owen County 16 at that time. There is no reason to telling the City of 17 Bloomington at that time, and the evidence is clear this is 18 argument. 19 THE COURT; Well, it is argument. So I think you have 20 labored that point enough. 21 Q Mr. Papageorge, in 1970, when you learned that putting 22 liquids was not a good idea in landfills, liquid PCBs, did you 23 tell anybody in the Bloomington area--county, city, 24 anybody--that putting liquids in the landfill was not a good 25 idea? WATER_PCB-00046294 PAPAGEORGE 703 1 A I did not. 2 Q Did anybody at Monsanto? 3 A Not to my knowledge. 4 Q Mr. Papageorge, isn't it a fact that Westinghouse, even as 5 late as 1972, was putting capacitors containing liquids in 6 landfills in the Bloomington area? 7 MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor, the evidence is to the 8 contrary. I don't think Mr. Papageorge can know that. 9 THE COURT: If he doesn't know, he can so state. I 10 will overrule your objection. 11 A I don't know. 12 MR. KARAGANIS: The next exhibit is dated April 1st, 13 1970. 14 Q Mr. Papageorge, I show you what has been marked as 15 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 388--I'm sorry, 588--for identification. 16 Can you tell me what that is? 17 A This is a Monsanto memorandum sent by D.A. Olson to me. 18 The subject is PCB-Electrical Customers. 19 MR. KARAGANIS: I would like to introduce exhibit 588 20 in evidence, Your Honor. 21 MR. FRUEHWALD: My notes indicate it's already in. 22 Your Honor; and it has been read. 23 MR. KARAGANIS: If it is, it is. Your Honor. My 24 oversight. 25 Q Mr. Papageorge, Mr. Olson refers to--and I read the WATER PCB-00046295 PAPAGEORGE 704 1 following. This is after a visit to GE and Westinghouse. "I I 2 told them that we wanted to work with them in specifics to help 3 them evolve the least costly method of disposal. In this 4 respect, I told them about you, your present position, your 5 background, and your potential as their savior. I feel it 6 would be most beneficial if during one of the next one or two 7 months you could visit the three major locations of 8 Westinghouse and the three major locations of General Electric 9 to learn the facts of their individual situations and to begin 10 evolving any suggestions you can as to collection and disposal. 11 I am asking Randy Graham to contact you soon to set up possible 12 trips at your convenience." 13 Do you remember seeing that memorandum? 14 A Yes, I do. 15 Q Did you make such visits? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Directing your attention to what is in evidence as Exhibit 18 743, your letter to Mr. Wilburn, does that reflect a visit to 19 the plant? 20 A I don't believe so. 21 Q Directing your attention to Exhibit 779 dated July 6, 1970, 22 can you tell the Court what that is? 23 A This is a letter that was addressed to Mr. Garlington 24 Wilburn of South Boston, Virginia, Westinghouse Plant. And it 25 was signed by me. WATER PCB-00046296 PAPAGEORGE 705 1 MR. KARAGANIS: I move the admission of Exhibit 779, 2 Your Honor. 3 MR. FRUEHWALD: No objection. 4 THE COURT: It will be received. 5 (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 779 received in evidence.) 6 Q Mr. Papageorge, 779 does show the fact you visited South 7 Boston Plant sometime prior to July 6, 1970; isn't that right? 8 A Yes. 9 Q And I quote, "I found our discussion and plant tour last 10 week very interesting and informative. Your plant has 11 excellent housekeeping and with continued emphasis on 12 controlling loss of PCBs to the air and sewer, I am confident 13 you can succeed in achieving a 'bone dry plant' in which the 14 leakage spills, et cetera are a rarity." 15 Did you write that letter? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q Directing your attention to the Westinghouse Bloomington 18 Plant, did you have occasion to visit that plant? 19 A Yes. 20 Q When did you visit that plant? 21 A About the third week of July, 1970, second or third week. 22 Q I show you what has been marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 795 23 in evidence. Is that a trip report of your visit to the 24 Westinghouse Plant in Bloomington? 25 A Yes. WATER PCB-00046297 PAPAGEORGE 706 1 Q Was your goal at the visit to the Westinghouse Plant to 1 2 inspect that plant and to try to assist them in whatever way 3 you could in achieving a bone dry condition? 4 A Can you help me with your definition of "inspect"? 5 Q Examine, walk through, surmise, look, gaze upon. 6 A Yes. 7 Q And as you walked through the plant, did you come across 8 any evidence that material was going down the sewer? 9 A I saw what I thought were oil stains near their sewer entry 10 points which led me to believe the material very likely entered 11 that sewer at that point. 12 Q Isn't it a fact you saw there was clearly liquid dropping 13 from the conveyer system onto the floor? 14 A I don't see how that could have been. There were no--the 15 operation was shut down when I visited plant. 16 Q Mr. Papageorge, in your deposition previously given in this 17 case, on Page 221, did you give the following answers .to the 18 following questions: 19 Q What do you recall seeing when you went through the 20 plant? 21 A Well, I saw the unique use, unique in terms of 22 comparing it to other similar plants, of sawdust on the 23 floor. 24 Q Unique use? Let's describe when you say unique use 25 of sawdust what was happening in the impregnation WATER PCB-00046298 PAPAGEORGE 707 1 facilities and the cleaning facilities from the 2 impregnation facilities, what was happening with regard 3 to release of PCBs in waters for example in the rooms 4 themselves, in the F30 room? v 5 A I don't quite know how to answer that. There was a 6 loss of PCB fluid from the conveying system where the 7 basket in which the filled capacitors were conveyed to 8 the point in the process where they are sealed. It was 9 apparent to me that at one time their every intention was 10 that the drip pans underneath the conveyers was to 11 collect the material. And these drip pans in some places 12 were missing, and others they were shifted just enough sc 13 that all of the oil wasn't trapped. And even at the very 14 end of this collection system, the oil would just deliver 15 the trapped liquid onto the floor." 16 Do you recall giving that testimony? 17 A Yes, I do. 18 Q Was that simply from the point that the production wasn't 19 taking place but you were able to deduce this from past 20 conditions? 21 A That's correct. 22 Q Isn't it a fact that you were also showed several washers? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Do you recall what those washers were? 25 A Yes. WATER PCB-00046299 PAPAGEORGE 708 1 Q What were they? 2 A They were a detergent scrubbing system. Like a car wash 3 system I guess is the closest I can come to it. 4 Q A car wash system, that was a one washer. What were the 5 other two? 6 A I don't remember two others. 7 Q When you go--let's see if we can go back a step. Wasn't it 8 a fact at a minimum you were planning on touring the plant and 9 making recommendations regarding cleanup? 10 A Yes. 11 Q So when you tour a plant to make recommendations regarding 12 cleanup, you look at the sources of the facilities that could 13 cause contamination, do you not? 14 A I do, yes. 15 Q Now, when you undertake your inspection, do you normally 16 make a report? Isn't it common practice for an engineer 17 undertaking an evaluation to take notes as to what that 18 engineer sees? 19 A I don't know what you mean by common practice. This was 20 not an inspection of the formal type with a clipboard and boxes 21 to check. This was a tour guide, no papers in hand. And we 22 were escorted to the plant at the discretion of our escort who 23 explained what took place in each of the rooms. And I would 24 respond with my reaction. 25 And then at the end of the tour, we met in the conference WATER PCB-00046300 PAPAGEORGE 709 1 room. And I spoke from memory as to my observations and gave 2 my recommendations. 3 Q Did you try to identify what the sources of PCB 4 contamination were in the operation of the plants, in other 5 words, what machinery was causing PCB contamination? 6 A Well, it was quite obvious to the people there. They knew 7 it was a pump or a conveyer drip pan or an impregnating oven or 8 unloading dock. They knew these things. 9 Q Did they tell you the pumps were leaking down the sewers? 10 A No. 11 Q Did you ask? 12 A I asked what that oil stain that I observed was leading to. 13 And they would point to the grating in the floor, the sewer 14 opening. 15 Q What did that tell you? 16 A It told me it entered a sewer system. 17 Q Did you ever ask where that sewer went? 18 A No, I didn't. I just told them it shouldn't go into any 19 public waters. That was my suggestion. 20 Q With respect to the washing system, did you ever look and 21 see whether or not there was a washing system for the capacitor 22 trays? 23 A I don't remember that detail. 24 Q Did you ever look and see whether there was a washer system 25 for the funnels that were used to fill the capacitor cans? WATER PCB-00046301 PAPAGEORGE 710 1 A No, this was all described as a PCB washing station. 2 Q Was there more than one station? 3 A There may well have been. I only saw, as best I remember, 4 just the one as an example of the kinds of washing they do. 5 Q The PCBs in the washing water, whether they be at the rinse 6 station or the wash stations, even on the capacitor washers, 7 those PCBs went right down into a sewer, did they not? 8 A They went into a sewer, yes. 9 Q Was there any treatment or capture procedure at all at that 10 time? 11 A I don't recall any treatment. I do not know about a 12 capture system. That didn't come up. 13 Q Isn't it a fact your recommendations to them was to conduct 14 their operation in such a way that their floor appeared to an 15 everyday observer to be bone dry? 16 A That was my strong recommendation, yes. 17 Q He let's talk about what you know about engineering and 18 what you know about keeping a plant bone dry. Do you know what 19 Westinghouse uses today to avoid discharging liquid that is 20 filled into the capacitors and then flows on the sides of the 21 capacitors to keep that from going down the sewer? 22 A I do not. 23 Q Have you ever been back to the plant--let's let me ask the 24 question. Have you ever been back to the Bloomington Plant 25 other than your one visit on July 22, 1970? WATER PCB-00046302 PAPAGEORGE 711 1 A I have not. 2 Q So in the entire course of the operation of the plant with 3 PCBs, from 1957 to 1970, you hadn't been there. After then the 4 July 22nd visit, from 1970 until 1977, you never visited; is 5 that correct? 6 MR. FRUEHWALD: He was there one time. I think that 7 has been established. That means other dates he was not there. 8 THE COURT: Yes, I think that's true. We are getting 9 into argument again. 10 Q Mr. Papageorge, you do recall talking about an evaporative 11 degreaser, do you not? 12 THE WITNESS: At what time? While I was there? 13 MR. KARAGANIS: Yes. . 14 THE WITNESS: We talked about degreasing using 15 solvents. The expression evaporative degreaser was not common. 16 I don't remember that expression. 17 Q A degreaser using solvents? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Isn't that a process where you take a contaminated object 20 that has a chemical that you are worried about, you want to 21 clean that chemical off the object. You dip the object into 22 a--or put the object into a facility that has a solvent vapor 23 in it? 24 A Well, you could dip it or you can spray it. You can wipe 25 it with rags soaked in it. There are various ways. WATER PCB-00046303 PAPAGEORGE 712 1 Q What happens to the solvent? 2 THE WITNESS: At what point in time? 3 MR. KARAGANIS: After it's cleaned off the contaminant 4 you are concerned about. 5 A Many years ago, it was common practice to dump in 6 landfills. Recent years, the common practice is to attempt to 7 recover the solvent by distillation. 8 Q That is by after the solvent has taken the material off to 9 redistill the solvents and recover the material? 10 A You recover the solvent and then you have the residue which 11 contains the unwanted material that must be disposed of. 12 Q Now, from the standpoint of the--let's just take a look at 13 the Westinghouse plant. From the standpoint of the 14 Westinghouse Plant, it was possible, was it not, to make that 15 plant free from any contact with water; isn't that right? 16 A Possible, yes. 17 Q With respect to the washing lines, it was possible to keep 18 all the capacitors and all the trays and all the funnels free 19 from contact with water that would go down the sewer, was it 20 not? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And that was possible in 1970, was it not? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Now, Mr. Papageorge, did you ever tell the City of 25 Bloomington when you saw these sewers there, you saw the WATER PCB-00046304 PAPAGEORGE 713 1 sewers-- 2 MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor-- 3 THE COURT: I will sustain the objection. He has 4 already testified neither he nor anyone else from Monsanto ever 5 told Bloomington anything. 6 MR. KARAGANIS: I thought he heard about landfills. 7 Your Honor. I'm sorry. 8 THE COURT: I think anything would include anything. 9 Q Mr. Papageorge, I would like to direct your attention 10 to--Mr. Papageorge, later on when you got into contamination 11 problems with various materials such as fish meal--do you 12 recall that? 13 A I recall the fish meal incident, yes. 14 Q When you discovered the fish meal incident, did you inform 15 the impacted governments? 16 A Yes. 17 Q When you later had instances of contamination, would it be 18 your practice to inform the government that was impacted that 19 there was contamination present? 20 THE WITNESS: Can you give me examples? 21 Q Fish meal was one example. Wasn't there also an incident 22 with chicken meal? 23 A That's the same incident. 24 Q Were there any other incidents where there was 25 contamination of a food supply and you told the impacted WATER PCB-00046305 PAPAGEORGE 714 1 government there was contamination? 2 A I don't recall any other instance of contamination in which 3 the government knew it before Monsanto did. So there was no 4 other incident to my knowledge. 5 Q With respect to your plant visits when you saw 6 contamination--let me go back a step. 7 Isn't it a fact that Monsanto, after it began its recycle 8 program and its plant visitation program, went out and 9 inspected the environmental conditions at various customer 10 plants, undertook studies to see what the environmental 11 conditions were like? 12 A We went out and made observations of our customers' plants 13 primarily at their invitation in hopes we could help them. 14 Q I am talking about around the plants, in other words, to 15 determine whether or not the customers' activities had 16 contaminated the surrounding environment. Do you recall ever 17 doing that? 18 A I don't recall any such incident, no. 19 Q You certainly didn't do it around Bloomington, did you? 20 A That is true. 21 Q Mr. Papageorge, I would like to show you what is in 22 evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 770 which is a letter to 23 Congressman Ryan. Did you have a hand in writing that? 24 A I saw a draft of a proposed letter to Congressman Ryan. 25 And it was shown to me by the author John Mason before he sent WATER PCB-00046306 PAPAGEORGE 715 1 this finished draft to the Congressman. 2 Q Let's see if we can parse the Monsanto program. We have 3 already read to the jury the sections that deal with Monsanto's 4 communication to the Congressman regarding their assumption of 5 responsibility. Let's talk about the individual items in the 6 program. 7 Item one was a decision not to sell chlorinated biphenyls 8 to plasticizer applications; is that correct? 9 A That is correct. 10 Q That was because--that was an application where disposal of 11 the end product cannot be controlled; isn't that right? 12 A That is correct. 13 Q And the second category of activity were applications where 14 "We are not satisfied that it is possible to control their 15 usage and eventual disposal to ensure there was no possibility 16 of escape to the environment;" isn't that right? 17 A You didn't mention this referred to hydraulic industrial 18 hydraulic fluids. 19 Q All right. 20 A That's correct then. 21 Q So on the industrial hydraulic fluids you were cutting out 22 plasticizers altogether, right, in that part of the program. 23 Let's go back to step one. 24 A Okay. 25 Q Plasticizers were cut out? WATER PCB-00046307 PAPAGEORGE 716 1 A Yes. 2 Q Industrial hydraulic fluids, what were you doing with 3 those? 4 A We were cutting them out as we developed alternative fire 5 resistant substitutes. 6 Q So in this case, you were cutting them out because "We are 7 not satisfied that it is possible to control their usage and 8 eventual disposal to ensure that there is no possibility of 9 escape to the environment and you were going to provide 10 substitutes;" is that right? 11 A That is correct. 12 Q With respect to the item three, chlorinated biphenyls used 13 in closed system applications--transformers, capacitors, heat 14 transfer fluids, et cetera--that's what we were talking about 15 with capacitors, were you not? ' 16 A That is correct. 17 Q Now, when you say a closed application, you are talking 18 about the can being closed; isn't that right? 19 THE WITNESS: By can, you mean-- 20 MR. KARAGANIS: The container. 21 THE WITNESS: The capacitor itself? 22 MR. KARAGANIS; The can. 23 A That's right. 24 Q The closed can, the closed can emissions were if somebody 25 were to open a can out in a customer application; isn't that WATER PCB-00046308 PAPAGEORGE 717 1 right? 2 THE WITNESS: I don't understand. 3 Q You put a capacitor up on an electrical pole, do you not? 4 A That's right. 5 Q And it's closed up there, is it not? 6 A Correct. 7 Q Let's talk about back home at the customer's plant. That 8 wasn't a closed system at all, was it? 9 A That depended on how the owner of that piece of equipment 10 set up his maintenance programs to drain the units, flush them, 11 refill them, and how carefully he controlled that waste 12 material, what he did with it. 13 Q The fact is at Westinghouse Bloomington, you could walk in 14 there and tell immediately it was not a closed system; isn't 15 that correct? 16 A Closed system refers to the end use, not to the 17 manufacturer of the capacitor. 18 Q Did you ever tell Congressman Ryan or anybody else that the 19 plants of your customers were dumping materials down sewers and 20 putting liquids in landfills? 21 A The discussions were held with Congressman Ryan. And the 22 subject of better control of what was going down the sewers and 23 up the stacks and in landfills was raised. And he was told 24 that efforts would be made to control this better to minimize 25 entry into the environment. So the subject did come up. WATER PCB-00046309 PAPAGEORGE 718 1 Q By Monsanto? 2 A By Monsanto representatives. 3 Q To Congressman Ryan? 4 A Yes, sir. 5 Q There is no mention you can control plants with respect to 6 keeping them free from environmental contamination in this 7 letter, is there? 8 A Well, I would have to read the whole letter. 9 Q All right. Take your time. And what I am thinking of 10 specifically is there is no mention of the customer's plants 11 are leaking into the environment; isn't that right? 12 Mr. Papageorge, let me try and speed it along. 13 A Okay. I can't find it at the moment. 14 Q Isn't it a fact at the time you wrote Congressman Ryan on 15 June 30, 19 30, you knew that your customer's plants were 16 dumping things down the sewers and dumping things in landfills? 17 A That is correct. 18 Q Isn't a fact there is no mention of that in the letter to 19 Congressman Ryan? 20 MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor, the exhibit speaks for 21 itself. 22 Q Mr. Papageorge, I show you what has been marked as 23 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 753 in evidence, the sales contract between 24 Westinghouse and Monsanto. Are you familiar with that 25 document? WATER PCB-00046310 PAPAGEORGE 719 1 A I have seen something like this or similar during my 2 deposition. 3 Q As a matter of fact, that's a standard clause or very 4 similar to a standard clause put in as of 1970 in all of 5 Monsanto's contracts with its electrical customers; is that 6 right? 7 A That's what I understand. 8 Q Would you read that contract clause regarding termination 9 to the jury. 10 A "It's understood that the products sold hereunder contain 11 polychlorinated biphenyls which some studies have shown may be 12 an environmental contaminant. Buyer agrees to use its best 13 efforts to prevent such product from entering into the 14 environment through spills, leakage, use, disposal, 15 vaporization, or otherwise. In the event seller determines 16 that in order to prevent contamination of the environment it is 17 necessary to discontinue the sale to buyer of polychlorinated 18 biphenyls for the applications contemplated by buyer, seller 19 may terminate this agreement at any time by giving the buyer at 20 least 90 days prior written notice." 21 Q Mr. Papageorge, this contract gives Monsanto the authority 22 to terminate sales to Westinghouse in the event that Monsanto 23 determines that Westinghouse is contaminating the environment, 24 does it not? 25 MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor, the contract terms speaks WATER PCB-00046311 PAPAGEORGE 720 1 for itself. 2 THE COURT: Yes, it does. Sustain the objection. 3 Q Mr. Papageorge, with respect to Monsanto's program to try 4 and keep contaminants out of the environment, PCB contaminants 5 out of the environment, you do agree they had such a program, 6 did they not? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Now, what did Monsanto do about the bad actor? I would 9 like you to assume that someone was continuing to release, in 10 this case, a capacitor manufacturer or transformer 11 manufacturer, that had very sloppy plant practices and was 12 continuing to release into the environment. 13 MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor, I think this is a 14 hypothetical question which really has nothing to do with the 15 Bloomington situation and is, therefore, irrelevant. 16 MR. KARAGANIS: Judge, if I can tie up there was 17 sloppy practice-- 18 THE COURT: Well, I think you can ask if they 19 terminated anybody. 20 Q Did you ever terminate anybody for sloppy practices? 21 A No. 22 Q Not once, not out of all your customers? 23 A That is correct. 24 Q Wasn't the contract a mechanism by Monsanto that if a 25 customer did not clean up its act and was using sloppy i WATER PCB-00046312 PAPAGEORGE 721 1 practices for Monsanto to pull the product? 2 MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor-- 3 THE COURT: Sustain the objection. The contract 4 speaks for itself. 5 Q Mr. Papageorge, let's go to the overall program that 6 Monsanto had with its customers. Program number one, element 7 number one, was to reduce the amount of waste being dumped in 8 local landfills or out of the plant by getting the waste back 9 to Monsanto for recycling; is that correct? 10 THE WITNESS: You are referring to liquid waste? 11 MR. KARAGANIS: Yes. 12 A That is correct. 13 Q And with respect to the effect of that program by Monsanto, 14 it was to reduce the amount of material that was going into the 15 environment? isn't that right? 16 A That was the intent, yes. 17 Q So as opposed to before the program was initiated and when 18 the program was initiated, customers like Westinghouse 19 Bloomington would have reduced the amount of material they were 20 sending to local landfills or to the sewers; is that correct, 21 liquid materials? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And that was as to liquid control. As to solids control, 24 there was a question of bringing solids to licensed chemical 25 landfills; isn't that correct? WATER PCB-00046313 PAPAGEORGE 722 1 A I don't know about a question. That was the available 2 acceptable practice. 3 Q And you contacted the various state authorities on behalf 4 of the Westinghouse plants to see about whether or not that was 5 an acceptable practice; is that right? 6 A That is correct. 7 Q You would agree that putting the landfill or putting 8 material in a landfill that was based on a sinkhole or 9 fractured rock would not be a good practice; is that right? 10 A That is my understanding. 11 Q That would have been your understanding at any time during 12 the operation of the Westinghouse plant; isn't that right? It 13 wasn't a good idea to put PCBs on top of a sinkhole in 1957, 14 was it? 15 A That is correct. ' 16 Q It wasn't a good idea in any period of operation of the 17 Westinghouse plant to put it on fractured rock; isn't that 18 correct? 19 A That is correct. 20 Q Did you ever check on Westinghouse--forget what you told 21 the city. Did you ever check on Westinghouse to see what their 22 practices were on the landfills at any time? 23 A Well, I talked to Westinghouse representatives discussing 24 the characteristics of the landfill that would be suitable for 25 industrial chemicals like PCBs. There were many discussions of WATER PCB-00046314 PAPAGEORGE 723 1 that type. 2 At no time was I informed of exactly where and what type of 3 landfills Westinghouse was using. That was their prerogative. 4 That was their decision. 5 Q Did you ever ask? 6 A No. That's not a normal question to ask a customer. 7 Q I am talking about when you come in in 1970. You know that 8 PCBs are a major environmental problem, don't you? 9 A In 1970, there was a potential environmental problem. 10 Q Would you agree that Monsanto was worried about them 11 getting out into the environment? 12 A That is correct. 13 Q Would you agree that Monsanto is telling Congressman Ryan 14 they have got a program which they will restrict uses to those 15 where it can be controlled? ` 16 MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor, again this is more windup. 17 I think the question can be stated. 18 Q Mr. Papageorge, given that information, did you ever check 19 on Westinghouse Bloomington and say, "Look. Where is this 20 material going and what kind of control conditions do you have 21 in place"? 22 A No, I am not a regulator. 23 Q So as far as you knew, they could be dumping it in a 24 street, in a hole, or anywhere? 25 A We were dealing with a world class company, Westinghouse. WATER PCB-00046315 PAPAGEORGE 724 1 They won/t dump in the street. 2 Q Will they dump it down a sewer? 3 MR. FRUEHWALD: I will object. 4 THE COURT: I will sustain the the.objection. And we 5 will take a ten-minute recess, members of the jury. 6 Counsel will remain in the courtroom. 7 (The was not present at 4:05 p.m.) 8 THE COURT: Now, Mr. Karaganis, I think you are a 9 pretty good lawyer. You write good paper and so on. So I take 10 it for granted that you must know how to present a case within 11 the rules. 12 And one rule is you don't make an argument in your 13 questions. You don't repeat the same question over and over 14 again. You don't fragment a thing so that you get to--after 15 someone says we never did it, you don't get to ask a dozen 16 times did you do this, that, and the other thing. And I am 17 getting tired of it. 18 MR. KARAGANIS: I apologize. Your Honor. - 19 THE COURT: Now, there are two ways, at least two 20 ways, that a Court may enforce the rules in a courtroom. One 21 is to sanction the attorney. I have never done that very much. 22 The other one is to declare a mistrial. 23 Now, I don't want to try this case a second time. And I 24 doubt you do either. 25 MR. KARAGANIS: You are right. Your Honor. WATER PCB-00046316 PAPAGEORGE 725 1 THE COURT: But if you think I won't declare a 2 mistrial, you just keep this up a little bit longer; and you 3. will find out. 4 MR. KARAGANIS: I apologize. 5 THE COURT: And you may refer to local counsel and see 6 whether I am capable of doing that or not. 7 MR. KARAGANIS: I am sure you are, Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: Okay. Let's take a 9 seven-and-a-half-minute recess. 10 (The Court recessed from 4:07 p.m. to 4:15 p.m.) 11 MR. KARAGANIS: May I proceed. Your Honor? 12 THE COURT: Yes. 13 Q Mr. Papageorge, I show you what has been marked as 14 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 506 for identification dated January 12, 15 1970. Can you tell me what that is? 16 A This is a copy of a Monsanto in-house memorandum authored 17 by P.G. Benignus addressed to H. S. Bergen. The subject is 18 Technical Sales Report, Westinghouse Electric, Bloomington, 19 Indiana. 20 Q Directing your attention to the paragraph entitled The 21 Pollution Problem, would you read that first sentence. 22 A "Westinghouse are grateful to Monsanto for taking off their 23 hands all scrap Aroclor 1242." 24 Q Now, Mr. Papageorge, Monsanto was Westinghouse's only or 25 sole supplier of PCB, was it not? WATER PCB-00046317 PAPAGEORGE 726 1 A To the best of my knowledge, yes. 2 Q As a matter of fact, Westinghouse considered that Monsanto 3 and its products represented their lifeblood, did they not? 4 A I suppose so for that product at that plant, yes. 5 Q Directing your attention to the second paragraph on Page 2, 6 under the heading The PCB Problem, Mr. Benignus quotes or Mr. 7 Benignus says he told Mr. Kelly of Westinghouse about how they 8 would deal with his lifeblood, did they not? 9 THE WITNESS: Starting with the second sentence? 10 MR. KARAGANIS: Yes. 11 A I advised Keith Kelly that looking ahead we foresee 12 possibility of a price increase of Aroclor 1242--perhaps next 13 summer. His face steeled, and he said, "Oh no." I told them 14 that it's our responsibility as supplier of his lifeblood to 15 appraise him as far ahead as possible of significant economic 16 changes and that this was exactly my purpose in order to avoid 17 any short term surprises and instead give him ample opportunity 18 to plan ahead." 19 MR. KARAGANIS: May I offer 506 at this time. 20 THE COURT: It will be received. 21 (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 506 received in evidence.) 22 MR. KARAGANIS: 4-21-71 is the next exhibit. 23 Q Mr. Papageorge, I show you what has been marked as 24 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1093 for identification. Can you tell the 25 Court what that is? WATER_PCB-00046318 PAPAGEORGE 727 1 MR. FRUEHWALD: 4-21-71? 2 MR. KARAGANIS: Yes, 4-21 3 A This is a copy of an article that appeared in the trade 4 journal, the Chemical Week dated April 21, 1971. The article 5 is entitle "Pollution Cop's lot not 'appy." 6 Q Who is the pollution cop to which they refer? 7 A They are referring to me in this article. 8 Q And would you read the jury under the legend under that 9 article-- 10 MR. FRUEHWALD: I think the legend under the 11 article--the article should be in for a limited purpose, if at 12 all. Whatever some newspaper said about Mr. Papageorge-- 13 MR. KARAGANIS: Mr. Fruehwald is correct. I withdraw 14 the question. 15 Q Mr. Papageorge, did you tell Chemical Week magazine that 16 you made inspections to help check loss of PCB to the 17 environment? 18 A Not in those words, no, sir. 19 Q Did you tell them that you made inspections to try to 20 prevent PCB loss to the environment? 21 A I didn't use the word inspection. 22 Q Did you tell Chemical Week the following: We tell our 23 customers that if they ignore us, we may be forced to stop 24 selling them PCBs and the message usually gets through adds 25 Papageorge. To back up the message, Papageorge makes personal WATER PCB-00046319 PAPAGEORGE 728 1 inspections of customers unloading facilities to make sure 2 spilled-prevention programs are working. 3 MR. FRUEHWALD: Wait a minute. Is part of that a 4 quote and part not a quote? 5 MR. KARAGANIS: Part of it was quoted and then a 6 statement by the magazine. 7 MR. FRUEHWALD: Can you distinguish what of Mr. 8 Papageorge is quoted and what is not. 9 Q Did you tell the manager either of the following 10 statements: "We tell our customers that if they ignore us, we 11 may be forced to stop selling them PCBs. And the message 12 generally gets through, "adds Papageorge. Did you tell them 13 that? 14 A That I told them, yes, sir. 15 Q When did you tell Westinghouse that if they ignored your 16 recommendations, you may be forced to stop selling to them, 17 selling them PCBs? 18 A I don't know that I used the word if they ignore my 19 recommendations. If they didn't prevent loss to the 20 environment, the whole industry would be treated just like the 21 plasticizer industry would be treated. We would have to cut 22 them off. 23 Q We are talking about individual customers, Mr. Papageorge? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Isn't it true that the contract allows Monsanto to WATER PCB-00046320 PAPAGEORGE 729 1 terminate an individual customer who is releasing into the 2 environment. 3 MR. FRUEHWALD: The contract again says what it says, 4 and it doesn't say that. It says what it says in any event-- 5 THE COURT: Yes. How many times must we go over that? 6 MR. KARAGANIS: I'm sorry. Judge. 7 Q Mr. Papageorge, did you ever tell any individual customer 8 that if they ignore you, we "may be forced to stop selling you 9 PCBs"? 10 A I told customers individually and collectively many times 11 this message. 12 Q Did you ever tell Westinghouse this message, Westinghouse 13 Bloomington? 14 A I suspect I did, but I don't recall the exact situation 15 when I did it. 16 Q Do you recall to whom you made that statement for 17 Westinghouse Bloomington? 18 A I believe I told them when I visited their plant. There is 19 a group in the conference room. I don't recall who was in that 20 group. 21 Q So on July 22, 1970 you told the group at Westinghouse 22 Bloomington if you don't--if you ignore us, we may be forced tc 23 stop selling you PCBs; is that correct? 24 A That is correct, words to that effect, yes. 25 Q Turning to the next statement, to back up the message, WATER PCB-00046321 PAPAGEORGE 730 1 Papageorge makes personal inspections of customers unloading 2 facilities to make sure spilled-prevention programs are 3 working. 4 Did you tell Chemical Week magazine that? 5 A I told the journalist who interviewed me that I made visits 6 to facilities. And one of the points that I try to cover was 7 the unloading of the material by the customer. 8 Q Did you tell the journalist that you looked at other 9 facilities at the plant to see whether there are spills? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Did you use the word inspections? 12 A No, sir. To me, an inspection is a different caliber of 13 observation. 14 Q What is the caliber of observation an inspection is what 15 would you do if you wanted to do a good inspection? 16 A Well, I would first of all assemble a team representing all 17 kinds of skills and talents. I would coach that team as to 18 what we are going to achieve when we make an inspection. 19 I would prepare a list of the things to look for and how tc 20 score our observations. That would be the clipboard approach. 21 It would be very much like the white glove inspection in the 22 military or safety checks made in chemical plants or what we at 23 Monsanto call housekeeping inspections that are made annually, 24 very in-depth. 25 It would take more than an hour and a half walk through a WATER PCB-00046322 PAPAGEORGE 731 1 plants. It may we will take a week depending on the size of 2 the facility and the depth and scope of the inspection. That's ' 3 what I call an inspection. 4 Q Let's take each of those things at a time. You would 5 assemble a team of technical experts; is that right? 6 A Well, some technical depending on what we are inspecting 7 for. 8 Q Let's assume you were inspecting the Bloomington Plant. 9 What kind of team would you assemble? 10 A Well, this is all hypothetical.. Shall I describe that? 11 MR. KARAGANIS: Yes. 12 A I would consider a person that knows something about 13 loading and unloading tank cars and railroad spurs and how cars 14 are moved and bumped and connected and disconnected. I would 15 have a person who knew something about the capacitor industry, 16 how capacitors are made. I would also have a person that knows 17 something about waste handling internally and also over the 18 road. 19 I think that's the minimum. I think I could do a good 20 inspection with those three skills. 21 Q Is it the person with the experience in the capacitor 22 industry you would have inspect F30, the capacitor impregnation 23 area? 24 A Yes, I would like to think the person I selected would 25 understand that operation, yes. WATER PCB-00046323 PAPAGEORGE 732 1 Q When you said a checklist, what would you employ in such a 2 checklist to see they are not polluting the environment? 3 A Such things as what is the concentration of PCBs in this 4 work area or that work area or at the unloading dock and so on. 5 I would actually have an instrument that might gather a sample 6 for me and send it to a laboratory. 7 Q Would you have a checklist to see what equipment is 8 relieving PCBs into the environment? 9 A Yes, that would be an appropriate listing. 10 Q So you would go down and checklist to say this pump is 11 releasing PCBs and that pump is releasing PCBs or this washer 12 is releasing PCBs? Would you go through that kind of list? 13 A Yes, for a very thorough inspection, yes. 14 Q And you feel an inspection would be necessary in order to 15 determine whether or not there was adequate control of the 16 PCBs; isn't that right? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And you indicated that when you are looking at a Monsanto 19 plant to see whether the Monsanto plant is protecting the 20 environment or not releasing unnecessarily into the 21 environment, you do what you called a white glove inspection? 22 A I don't do it. There is a team that does it. 23 Q How many people--if you were the pollution cop, how many 24 other policemen worked for you? 25 A Well, I filled that role of coordinating information. I ( WATER_PCB-00046324 PAPAGEORGE 733 1 had help from the marketing team as an extension of my eyes and 2 ears so to speak. 3 Q Mr. Papageorge, as far as your office goes and your job of 4 making sure that customers were doing whatever you were doing, 5 how many staff did you have? How many other inspectors did you 6 have? 7 A Nobody. 8 Q It was just you? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q And you had to take care of all the GE plants; is that 11 right? . 12 A Well, I don't know what you mean by taking care of. 13 Q You were going to look and see what the GE plants were 14 doing with respect to pollution control? 15 A To those plants I was invited, yes. 16 Q You were invited to all the three GE plants that Monsanto 17 was selling to; isn't that right? 18 A Wait. I only went to two. Wait a minute. Three GE 19 plants. I don't know how many Monsanto--Monsanto was selling 20 to more than three GE sites. 21 Q We went through the Olson memorandum of April 1st, 1970. 22 He told you there were three GE facilities and three 23 Westinghouse facilities? 24 A I suggested going to three. There are more. I picked the 25 three largest. WATER PCB-00046325 PAPAGEORGE 734 1 Q So you had the job of looking at the three largest GE 2 facilities; is that right? 3 A Correct. 4 Q And you had the job of looking at the three largest 5 Westinghouse facilities? 6 A Correct. 7 Q What other facilities did you have the job of looking at? 8 What other users of PCBs did Monsanto send you to look at? 9 A I can't remember all of them. There was a P.R. Mallory in 10 Tennessee, Spraque Electric up in the New England area, Cornell 11 Dubilary, Arovox, Jard. These are all up in New England. 12 Maloney Electric in St. Louis, Federal Pacific. I forgot 13 where they are located. 14 Q Let's take them individually. Arovox, did you go and 15 inspect the Aravox facility? 16 A Yes, I did. 17 Q Did you find they were containing their pollutants, their 18 PCBs? 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WATER PCB-00046326 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 735 1 MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor, I don't know what the 2 ignificance is of going through all the other plants. There 3 ust be 15 or so that he's mentioned and having cases about 4 hem. This is about the Bloomington situation, what was done 5 here. I don't see the reasoning for this or the relevancy. 6 MR. KARAGANIS: The relevance of this is that this man 7 s put out as an inspector of various facilities. 8 THE COURT: He just got through telling you he was not 9 nspecting and I fail to see the relevance of a plant in 10 ennessee or wherever. 11 Mr. Papageorge, directing your attention again to the top 12 rticle, did you tell Chemical Week the following, 13 Nevertheless" -- under the legend "Clamping Down" -- 14 Nevertheless, Monsanto insisted it is taking vigorous steps to 15 top accidental distribution of PCBs into the environment so 16 igorous that some customers have complained"? 17 k Yes. 18 > Did you tell Chemical Week that you had the following 19 irogram: One, eliminating open system applications of PCBs such) 20 ls coatings and plasticizers? 21 Yes. 22 Did you tell them that item two was controlling spillage or 23 >ther loss from closed system operations? 24 Yes. 25 All right. When you say controlling spillage or other loss WATER PCB-00046327 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 736 1 rom closed system operations, you were talking about the 2 apacitor industry, were you not? 3 That's one of the industries, yes. 4 All right. Three was developing a less persistent type of 5 CB? 6 Yes. 7 And four was eliminating loss or contamination during 8 ianufacture; is that right? 9 Yes. 10 All right. So let's see if we can nail down the program, 11 limination of open system operations you said was coatings and 12 lasticizers, right? 13 Correct. 14 Okay. Item two, controlling spillage or other loss from 15 dosed system operations including the Westinghouse Bloomington 16 ilant, did it not? 17 Correct. 18 Three was a less persistent type of PCB and four was 19 diminating loss from your own manufacturing plants? 20 Correct. 21 Okay. Now, in 1970 when you cut off plasticizers, you left 22 >ther applications as customers, did you not? You cut off 23 )lasticizers, you said you cut off hydraulic fluid? 24 Well, in 1970 we were in the midst of a program for phasing 25 >ut of hydraulic fluids. WATER PCB-00046328 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 737 1 Had you cut off heat transfer fluid? 2 \ Not in 1970. 3 Would you tell the jury what happened that led you if at 4 all -- I'm sorry -- strike. 5 In 197 0 had you concluded that you could continue to sell to) 6 the heat transfer market because that was a market where 7 releases to the environment could be controlled? 8 k That was one of the reasons. The other was that we did not 9 know of any alternative material that was fire resistant that 10 sould be used in lieu of the PCBs. 11 Let's see if we can get something straight. 12 THE COURT: Why don't we ask a question without the 13 windup? 14 MR. KARAGANIS: I'm sorry. 15 2 Mr. Papageorge, even if a product is essential, let's assume) 16 it was essential to the national defense, that doesn't make it 17 necessary to dump it down sewers, does it? 18 THE COURT: That's argument and if you do that one more) 19 time -- 20 MR. KARAGANIS: I'm sorry. Your Honor. I thought that 21 was a legitimate question. 22 Q Mr. Papageorge -- 23 THE COURT: If you said "dump down sewers" once during 24 this trial, you have said it 50 times and I'm tired of listening) 25 to it. WATER PCB-00046329 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 738 1 MR. KARAGANIS: Your Honor, I said -- strike. 2 Mr. Papageorge, is it necessary, assuming a product is 3 lecessary for the national defense or for commerce, is it 4 lecessary to place the waste from such products in landfills 5 Dased on fractures or sinkholes? 6 A I find that question very confusing. I don't know what 7 nakes it necessary. This implies there is no alternative, 8 rhere are better ways. 9 To dispose? 10 \ To dispose. 11 So that if we have a useful product that we want to keep it 12 DUt in the environment, keep it out in commerce, that it's 13 lecessary to the society, there are better ways of disposal of 14 the waste from that product than by putting them into sinkholes 15 ar fractures; is that right? 16 k I believe so, yes. 17 2 So the fact that it is a useful product doesn't mean that 18 the methods of waste must go in a certain way; isn't that right?) 19 Methods of waste disposal? 20 A Let me try to reword my understanding. A very needed and 21 useful product can certainly be justified if the proper methods 22 of disposing of a product when it's finished its usefulness or 23 the raw materials that the byproducts are made as a result of 24 that manufacture, the important product, so as long as 25 everything else is associated with that product is done WATER PCB-00046330 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 739 1 esponsibly, certainly that useful product must be supported and] 2 ontinued. 3 And am I correct that the disposal of the waste in a 4 esponsible fashion goes hand in hand in keeping the product in 5 he stream of commerce; isn't that correct? 6 I would suggest that's true of all products. 7 Thank you. Mr. Papageorge, would it be safe to say that you] 8 ere part of a team at Monsanto whose job it was to see whether 9 r not customers to whom you were still selling PCBs were 10 eleasing PCBs into the environment? 11 Yes. 12 All right. And with respect to that job, so I have these 13 oints firm, as part of that seeing whether or not customers to 14 horn you were still selling PCBs were releasing PCBs into the 15 nvironment, placing the PCBs -- I don't want to use the -- 16 ilacing the PCBs down the sewer or allowing PCBs to leak down 17 he sewer was not an acceptable practice; isn't that right? 18 That is correct. 19 And placing the PCB liquid or solid in municipal landfills 20 :hat were based on sinkholes or fractured rock strata was not ar| 21 icceptable practice; isn't that right? 22 That is correct. 23 And that would not have been an acceptable practice at any 24 joint during the time 1957 to 1977; isn't that correct? 25 THE WITNESS: Are you combining the water effluent with) WATER PCB-00046331 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 740 1 :he landfill disposal? 2 MR. KARAGANIS: Yes. 3 \ I would suggest that in the '50s and '60s the use of 4 Landfills that would not contain the material would not be 5 normally acceptable for industrial chemicals. The presence of 6 some chemicals in sewage effluence at that period of time was 7 rather common in the chemical industry, so I don't know that I 8 can call it unacceptable. Under the knowledge available at the 9 time it was acceptable. 10 2 All right. Did Monsanto ever tell customers not to pour 11 PCBs down sewers during the time -- during the '50s or '60s? 12 \ I'm not aware of any such message to the customer. 13 2 Now with respect to heat transfer fluids, you indicated thatj 14 was one of the utilizations by which you had determined that 15 control of its disposal or release into the environment could bej 16 maintained and that therefore in 1970 Monsanto decided to 17 continue selling for heat transfer applications? 18 k That is correct. 19 Q Would you tell the jury under what circumstances that 20 changed? 21 A There was an incident that occurred in 1971 in which PCBs 22 used to transfer heat to sterilize fish meal leaked into the 23 fish meal, contaminated the fish meal, the fish meal in turn 24 found its way into poultry feed, animal feed, and contaminated 25 poultry, eggs, and the food chain, in other words. WATER_PCB-00046332 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 741 1 That experience taught us that no matter how well 2 Intentioned we were, that it was extremely difficult to keep the| 3 PCBs away from other materials, so we decided then to withdraw 4 from that application. 5 So this was a situation no matter how hard you tried, PCBs 6 still got out into the environment and to protect the 7 environment you decided to pull out of the application; is that 8 correct? 9 k In that application, yes. 10 And with respect to that, did Monsanto change its policy at 11 that time as a result of the leakage from heat transfer 12 application -- strike -- would it be correct that in 1971 upon 13 the incident that occurred -- where was that incident? 14 k The incident occurred in North Carolina. 15 2 Is that called the Holly Farms incident? 16 A Yes. That's the common term used, yes. 17 2 Now, that incident occurred in the summer of 1971, did it 18 not? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And based on that incident, it was in 1971 that you cut off 21 heat transfer fluids? 22 A Yes. 23 Q All right. Based on the incident in which despite your 24 concern PCBs were still being released into the environment, didj 25 you change your policy with respect to your other customers? WATER PCB-00046333 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 742 1 THE COURT: Are you talking about heat transfer 2 customers or what kind of customers? 3 MR. KARAGANIS: Capacitor customers. Capacitor and 4 :ransformer customers, the other customers you were still 5 selling to. 6 ^ When you say did you, you are talking Monsanto obviously? 7 MR. KARAGANIS: Yes. You as a representative of 8 Monsanto. I am referring to Monsanto. 9 I was not and to this day I'm not personally aware of any 10 change in policy. We would still work with our electrical 11 customers to keep the escape to a minimum, offer all the help wej 12 sould in disposing of the unusable material. I just don't 13 remember any changes regarding the electrical application. 14 2 Directing your attention to what's been marked as 15 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1435 dated January 15th, 1972, are you 16 familiar with that contract document? 17 A I believe I first saw this document during my deposition. 18 2 So you're saying that you did not -- you were not aware of 19 it during the 1972 to '77 period? Strike that. Your Honor. Letj 20 me move its admission, 1435. 21 MR. FRUEHWALD: No objection, Your Honor. 22 THE COURT: It will be received. 23 (Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1435 received in evidence.) 24 Q Are you saying that you were not aware of the January 15th, 25 1972 contractual agreement between Westinghouse and Monsanto, WATER_PCB-00046334 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 743 1 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1435? 2 \ I was not aware of that specific document. I was aware of 3 the practice reflected in that document. 4 2 All right. Would you tell the jury what the practice that 5 was reflected in that document? 6 k Starting in January 1972, Monsanto insisted that those 7 customers still buying PCBs for electrical equipment would agreej 8 bhat in the event any problems arose regarding the use, misuse 9 Df those PCBs, that the customer would hold Monsanto harmless 10 and would take full responsibility for the problem that might 11 arise. Those aren't the legal words but that's the intent. 12 2 All right. Mr. Papageorge, with regard to that policy, 13 would Monsanto sell the PCB product which was necessary for fire) 14 retardation as I understand it; is that correct? 15 & That's the principal benefit, yes. 16 2 Would Monsanto continue to sell the product to a customer 17 that did not give the contractual commitment that is 18 demonstrated by the exhibit? 19 A It would not. 20 Q Were there customers that Monsanto cut off from this 21 necessary product in the absence of the indemnity commitment? 22 A I understand there were, yes. 23 24 25 WATER PCB-00046335 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 744 1 Q. Mr. Papageorge, was it Monsanto's intention to continue the 2 sale of PCBs to those customers that exhibited, and I quote, 3 "the right attitude and understanding of the issues," close 4 quote, related to the environment and PCBs and were capable of 5 conducting the necessary programs and whatever is required to 6 make certain the PCBs do not become an environmental 7 contaminant? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Was the intent of the contractual commitment of January 10 15th, 1972, to sell to those customers who, if there were any 11 problems, would have the resources to correct the problems? 12 A. Yes. - 13 Q. And if the customers didn't have the resources to correct 14 the problems, Monsanto didn't want to continue to sell the 15 product, isn't that right? 16 A. That is correct. 17 Q. Despite its utility as an electrical fire retardant? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. What did the indemnity have to do with the appropriate 20 attitude of the customers with respect to safe handling of 21 PCBs? 22 A. Monsanto thought that by signing the indemnity it reflected 23 the attitude of the management of the company that was willing 24 to stay in the business that involved the use of PCBs. 25 Q. Let's talk about the attitude of the customers. How did WATER PCB-00046336 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 745 1 the indemnity agreement relate to the attitude of the customer 2 to prevent PCB pollution? What was its purpose in relationship 3 to the customer's attitude? 4 A. It would seem that if a customer didn't believe, for 5 example, that PCBs could harm the environment and had no 6 intention of controlling it going down the sewer, forcing him 7 to give it a second thought and signing an agreement of this 8 nature might change his attitude. That was one of the hoped 9 for benefits of such a program. 10 Q. Did you have evidence that your customers did not have the 11 right attitude, and in imposing an indemnity would help them 12 get the right attitude? 13 A. Not hard evidence, but grumbling. . 14 Q. What kind of grumbling? 15 A. Well, some customers were accusing Monsanto of 16 overreacting, not being responsible, not really cooperating 17 with some of them. These are individuals speaking now. I'm 18 not saying they reflected their top management's thinking, but 19 these are the individuals we were working with. 20 Q. And your feeling was at Monsanto that if you had the 21 indemnity agreement, that would force the customer to have 22 second thoughts before that customer discharged unnecessarily 23 into the environment, is that correct? 24 A. That was one of the hoped for benefits, yes. 25 Q. Now, Mr. Papageorge, as long as the customer paid the cost WATER PCB-00046337 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 746 1 with regard to the cleanup, paid the cost to correct 2 environmental contamination, I believe your words were, the 3 problem, Monsanto would continue selling that customer PCBs, 4 isn't that right? 5 A. That was one of the features of this agreement, yes. 6 Q. So, with this new agreement, if Monsanto saw that the 7 customer was using improper landfills, using improper disposal, 8 as long as the customer paid for the problem Monsanto would 9 continue to sell them PCBs, isn't that right? 10 A. Not if the customer's actions would jepardize the whole 11 industry. 12 Q. Let's just talk about the customer and the environment -- 13 THE COURT: Well, I don't believe you let him finish 14 his answer. 15 MR. KARAGANIS: I'm sorry. 16 Go ahead, Mr. Papageorge. 17 A. The intent all along was to help the electrical 18 distribution industry and the apparatus that was made for that. 19 If any one customer abused the use and disposal of this J 20 material it would affect all of them, and Monsanto was in a 21 position to be able to observe that as an overall impact. j 22 Q. I'm talking -- I'm sorry, are you finished? I didn't want 23 to -- j 24 A. Finished for the moment, yes, sir. 25 Q. Mr. Papageorge, let's just deal with one customer. If WATER PCB-00046338 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 747 1 after the January 15th commitment there was a problem, the 2 customer would pay for the cleaning up of the problem? 3 MR. FRUEHWALD: I object to dealing with one customer. 4 This is a case dealing with Bloomington, and hypotheticals 5 about other customers is not helpful to the resolution. 6 MR. KARAGANIS: Judge, it is a company policy that he 7 said -- 8 MR. FRUEHWALD: Application to Bloomington is what is 9 at issue here, not some other company. 10 THE COURT: First let's find out if he set the company 11 policy. 12 Q. Mr. Papageorge, did you set the company policy? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Did you have a hand in enforcing the company policy? 15 A. I had the responsibility for reporting to management any 16 observations that appeared to me to jepardize or violate the 17 understanding. 18 Q. The indemnity? 19 A. Yes. I did not have any other role in enforcing it. 20 Q. Mr. Papageorge, if Monsanto, after the indemnity agreement, 21 saw a customer polluting the environment, would it cut the 22 customer off? 23 MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor, I think Mr. Papageorge has 24 testified he had no authority to make that decision, and it is 25 a hypothetical situation -- WATER PCB-00046339 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 748 1 THE COURT: You can ask him what he would have 2 recommended. I don't know if he can tell you what the 3 president of the company would have done. 4 Q. As manager of environmental control -- that was your title, 5 wasn't it? 6 A. At what point in time? 7 Q. From 1970 to 1973. 8 A. By 1973 it was changed to Manager Environmental Protection. 9 Q. I'm sorry, Manager Environmental Control, Manager 10 Environmental Protection, if you saw a customer contaminating 11 the environment would you cut the customer off? 12 A. I would not. 13 Q. If you had the authority, would you? If the customer - 14 refused to clean up his act, would you cut him off? 15 A. It depends on how hard I tried in reaching the top managers 16 of that company. I would have to give it a good, hard try and 17 time to perform. These things do not happen overnight. 18 Q. Mr. Papageorge, let's take you personally. You see a 19 customer in 1970 polluting the environment, not acting 20 responsively with respect to discharge -- 21 MR. FRUEHWALD: Excuse me. Maybe I can help out. The 22 indemnity is in 1972. Are you talking about that program? 23 Q. Let's take it in 1972. You see a customer in 1972 24 polluting the environment, and you go to the customer's top 25 management and you say, "clean up. We must have you clean up. WATER_PCB-00046340 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 749 1 We must have you protect the environment," and they refuse. 2 Would you cut that customer off? 3 A. I would go to the upper management within Monsanto and 4 report the reaction I got from my suggestions. 5 Q. What would your recommendation be? 6 A. My recommendation would be to seriously consider depriving 7 that customer of anymore PCBs. 8 Q. We know as of January 15, 1972, if the customer refused to 9 sign the indemnity agreement Monsanto cut them off anyway, 10 didn't they? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. So, if the customer refused to take the financial 13 responsibility, Monsanto cut them off, whatever their needs 14 were? 15 MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor -- 16 THE COURT: That has been asked and answered at least 17 twice. Sustain the objection. 18 I once again admonish you to quit asking the same 19 question over and over again. You are making an argument and 20 it is unfair. 21 Members of the jury, this is not the type of -- 22 MR. KARAGANIS: I apologize. Your Honor. 23 Q. Mr. Papageorge, did there come a time when it became 24 apparent that Monsanto's pollution control program, nationwide 25 program of trying to contain discharges into the envirnoment WATER PCB-00046341 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 750 1 had not been successful? 2 A. I don't know of any evidence that shows the program was not 3 successful. 4 Q. Did there come a time in 1975 when significance -- strike 5 the word significance. 6 Did there come a time in 1975 when contamination of 7 the Hudson River at the GE --: below what I think is called the 8 GE Hudson Falls plant received wide publicity? 9 A. That is true. 10 Q. And that GE contamination of the Hudson received publicity 11 in such magazines as Sports Illustrated? 12 A. That's true. 13 Q. And that was by PCBs, was it not? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. Did that event in 1975 lead to the sucession of PCB sales? 16 A. No, because that contamination occurred in the '40's and 17 '50's. 18 Q. Talking now about the announcement or disclosure of the 19 event. Did that have anything to do with the sucession of PCB 20 sales? 21 A. No, sir. 22 Q. Not at all? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. The disclosure of the discharges from GE -- public 25 disclosure of the discharges from GE, did that have anything tc WATER_PCB-00046342 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 751 1 do with the ultimate phaseout of PCBs? 2 A. I cannot speak for Congress and what thoughts they had in 3 passing the act. 4 Q. Mr. Papageorge, prior to the passage of the act had 5 Monsanto decided to phase out PCBs? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. So, before the Federal Congress acted, Monsanto had 8 unilateral decided to phase out PCBs, isn't that right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Now, if the pollution control program was working, why did 11 Monsanto choose to phase out PCBs? 12 A. I don't claim to know all the reasons. I can share with 13 you some of my understandings. 14 Q. Go ahead. 15 A. One was the continual criticism of the material and the 16 emotions associated with it, and the fact that it was no longer 17 a large product for Monsanto. The costs of research and 18 incineration and all the controls were just becoming 19 uneconomic. At the same time we were willing to continue 20 making it until our customers said they were ready with 21 substitute materials, and that was the message given out in 22 1975, '76. 23 Q. And when did you terminate sales? 24 A. September, 1977. 25 Q. Mr. Papageorge, directing your attention to the year 1969. WATER PCB-00046343 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 752 1 Did you have occasion to hear of -- I'm sorry, when you came to 2 Monsanto, Monsanto headquarters in 1970, did you have occasion 3 to review the documents with respect to a task force -- do you 4 recall seeing documents with respect to a task force? 5 A. There were some documents that were generated by a task 6 force, yes. 7 Q. Directing your attention to Plaintiff's Exhibit 4312, which 8 I believe is in evidence. 9 MR. FRUEHWALD: I didn't get the number. 10 Q. 4312. Have you ever seen that document before? 11 A. I had seen it either in preparation for depositions or in 12 preparation for trial. 13 Q. Now, do you recognize the handwriting? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Would you know Mr. Hodges' handwriting if you saw it? 16 A. I would not know his handwriting. 17 Q. Who is Mr. Hodges? 18 A. Mr. Hodges was a Monsanto employee who was, at that time, a 19 Manager of Environmental Protection. 20 Q. Is that your position? 21 A. No, it was more related to Monsanto plants, not to 22 products. Not to groups of products. 23 Q. Now, Mr. Papageorge, is it not correct that one of 24 Monsanto's actions in 1969 was to initiate a series of studies 25 with regard to the toxicology of PCBs? WATER PCB-00046344 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 753 1 A. That is correct. 2 Q. And wasn't one of the purposes of those toxicological 3 studies to prove that PCBs were toxicologically safe for man? 4 A. No, the purpose was to find out if PCBs caused any harm to 5 test animals. 6 Q. Mr. Papageorge, would you read line 2 of Mr. Hodges' 7 memorandum to the jury? 8 MR. FRUEHWALD: I think this has already been read to 9 the jury. 10 THE COURT: Yes, when it was introduced. 11 MR. FRUEHWALD: This is not Mr. Papageorge's document. 12 Q. Do you disagree with Mr. Hodges that one of the objectives 13 was to prove it was toxicologically safe to man? 14 A. Well, I personally would not look upon that as an 15 objective, since no one has any control over the results of a 16 test. The results would tell you whether it is safe or unsafe 17 and in what amounts. 18 Q. The results would tell you whether it was safe or unsafe 19 and in what amounts? 20 A. The results will tell the reader of that data whether a 21 material is safe or unsafe, but to have a target to prove it is 22 safe is unrealistic. 23 Q. What is unrealistic about it? 24 A. Well, one does not know the end result until the test is 25 complete. WATER PCB-00046345 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 754 1 Q. So -- 2 A. So, the target is really to test the material, not to prove 3 it is safe. 4 Q. So, if one were to say the goal is to prove it is 5 toxicologically safe, there is an element of prejudgment in 6 that? 7 A. I see some prejudgment involved, yes. 8 Q. Now, Mr. Papageorge, is it true that animal studies -- 9 based on your knowledge of the animal study programs by 10 Monsanto in this area, were animals studies the best 11 alternative for testing chemicals on human beings which we 12 could do in this country? 13 A. Best alternative to human testing, yes. 14 Q. Now, Mr. Papageorge, would you describe to the jury just 15 briefly in summary fashion what studies did Monsanto undertake 16 to prove -- strike that. 17 Would it be a fair statement that Monsanto undertook 18 animal studies to address whether or not PCBs were toxic to 19 man? 20 A. That was one of the objectives. Also are they toxic to any 21 creatures. 22 Q. But one of the objectives was whether or not they were 23 toxic to man? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. It is common practice, is it not, to use animal studies to WATER PCB-00046346 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 755 1 make that analysis, isn't that correct? 2 A. To help make it, along with other data. 3 Q. But they do use animal studies regularly, do they not? 4 A. Yes. 5 THE COURT: Well, I think we are overtime. 6 So, members of the jury, I once again admonish you not 7 to form or express any opinion about this case until it has 8 been submitted to you for your verdict. Do not discuss it, 9 even among yourselves or with others. Do not permit anyone to 10 discuss it with you or talk about it in your presence. Refrain 11 from news media accounts of this trial. 12 We will be adjourned until 9:15 in the morning. 13 MR. KARAGANIS: Could I have a moment after the jury 14 leaves? 15 THE COURT: Sure. 16 Goodnight. 17 (Jury out) 18 (Discussion outside the record) 19 (The court adjourned at 5:10 P.M.) 20 I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A CORRECT TRANSCRIPT FROM THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABOVE MATTER. 21 22 23 THOMAS A. RICHARDSON GLEN L. CUNNINGHAM 24 LARRY SMITH OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS 25 DATE WATER_PCB-00046347 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 759 1 MR. KARAGANIS: Good morning. Your Honor. 2 THE COURT: Good morning. 3 MR. KARAGANIS: Good morning, Mr. Papageorge. 4 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 5 Mr. Papageorge, when you came to the St. Louis headquarters 6 f Monsanto, you were involved in preparing various 7 resentations to be made to senior executives, were you not, 8 ith respect to the PCB problem? 9 Yes, sir. 10 Did you make a presentation on April the 20th -- I'm sorry, 11 r. Papageorge, would it be correct that one of the principal 12 bjectives of the PCB control program -- strike that -- would it 13 e correct that one of the principal objectives of your PCB 14 ollution activity was to prevent an adverse effect or impact on 15 eturn on investment for Monsanto? 16 That is correct. 17 Mr. Papageorge, is it not also correct that it became common 18 or Monsanto to refer to the program as defense of Aroclor? 19 ave you heard that term used before? 20 The term was used by one individual at Monsanto. It was not 21 ommon throughout Monsanto. 22 Who was that individual? 23 Dr. William Richard. 24 Who was Dr. William Richard? 25 At that time he was Director of Research for the functional WATER PCB-00046348 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 760 1 Luids business group at Monsanto. 2 So he was Director of Research for PCBs; isn't that correct? 3 That is correct. 4 Directing your attention to what is in evidence as 5 Laintiffs' Exhibit 384. It's dated April 14th, 1969. Mr. 6 apageorge, is that memorandum by Mr. Richard or Dr. Richard? 7 Yes. 8 Just so the jury knows, the author of the memorandum under 9 anto protocol has put the author at the top; is that right? 10 That is correct. 11 Then the addressee here is Mr. Benignus; is that correct? 12 That is right. 13 He was Marketing Director? 14 Marketing manager for dielectric fluids. 15 Would that be for the capacitor industry? 16 Yes. 17 MR. FRUEHWALD: What':s the date? 18 MR. KARAGANIS: April 14th, 1969. 19 MR. FRUEHWALD; Thank you. 20 Now, you indicated that it was Dr. Richard who used the term 21 o defend the Aroclor position; is that right? 22 That is correct. 23 No one else at Monsanto? 24 Not to my knowledge, no. 25 And pursuing Dr. Richard's memorandum of April 14th, 1969, I WATER PCB-00046349 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 761 1 fould it be correct that Monsanto did not manufacture 2 'ananihnrs? 3 ^ That is correct. 4 2 Monsanto is not a capacitor manufacturer? 5 ^ That is correct. 6 2 All right. Would it be correct that in the first sentence 7 of his memorandum he's talking about "We", being Monsanto, 8 'should provide for disposal and incineration of off-grade 9 fluid"? 10 A That's what it says. That's correct. 11 2 The "we" here refers to Monsanto, does it not? 12 ^ That is correct. 13 Q "We should work with Westinghouse and blank on the disposal 14 of the off-grade capacitors as well"; is that correct? 15 A That's correct. 16 <2 I take it the blank is General Electric? 17 A I believe so. 18 <2 The next sentence, "I think we can foresee that control of 19 :he total material balance for Aroclor will be important for 20 future operation." 21 What does he mean by material balance? 22 A That the amount produced for the capacitor industry and the 23 mount eventually used in the capacitors and the amount returned 24 for disposal or the amount that is vented up the stack is all 25 iccounted for. WATER_PCB-00046350 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 762 1 So that it would be important to control the material 2 alance, meaning the raw product, the use of the product in the 3 anufacture, any releases by the product during manufacture, and 4 isposal of waste product; is that correct? 5 That is correct. 6 And his last sentence the "we" here is Monsanto, is it not? 7 That is correct. 8 Now, Dr. Richard was head of -- not head of -- but a 9 rincipal member of an ad hoc task force that was commissioned 10 y Monsanto to look into how to handle the PCB problem, was he 11 12 Yes. 13 All right. Directing your attention to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 14 575A, is that exhibit also a memorandum by -- 15 MR. FRUEHWALD: What's the date again? 16 MR. KARAGANIS: September 9th, 1969. 17 Is that also a memorandum by Dr. Richard? 18 Yes. 19 All right. And would you read the title for the jury? 20 "Defense of Aroclor-F Fluids." 21 Functional fluids meant, among other things, Aroclor; 22 roclor was a functional fluid, was it not? 23 Well, Aroclors were used in functional fluids. 24 But within Monsanto the functional fluids organization had 25 esponsibility for Aroclors, did they not, for the sale of WATER PCB-00046351 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 763 1 roclors? 2 For those Aroclors used in functional fluids. 3 All right. Now, with respect to -- this is dated 1969. And 4 ould it be correct that this memorandum outlines a series of 5 tiings that Monsanto ought to do? 6 MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor, the witness should be shown 7 lie entire exhibit including the cover sheet to be able to 8 nswer a question like that. 9 MR. KARAGANIS: Absolutely. 10 Mr. Papageorge, if you will bear with my yellow marks. I'll 11 et you use my copy. Is that all right with you? 12 That's all right. 13 MR. FRUEHWALD: As long as it gets the cover memo, it 14 ays what might be done, what should be done, the cover memo. 15 MR. KARAGANIS: All right. I will give you my copy. 16 17 I show you what's been marked as -- 18 MR. FRUEHWALD: I would like to follow on. 19 -- as 4575. Have you seen that document before? 20 Yes, I have. 21 Now is it correct that Dr. Richard is making recommendations 22 to what should be done to address the defense of Aroclor? 23 That is right. 24 And would it be correct that one of the things that Dr. 25 :hard is saying is that Monsanto "prove bioharmless, safe WATER_PCB-00046352 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 764 1 evel for man, mammals and fish via rats, chickens and fish"? 2 Yes. 3 That refers to those animal studies we were talking about 4 esterday, isn't that correct, that Monsanto sponsored animal 5 tudies? 6 It includes those studies, yes. 7 We're using again the rats, chickens and fish to serve as 8 ndicators for toxicity to man, mammals and fish? 9 That is correct. 10 Directing your attention to page 3 of that memorandum. Dr. 11 ichard then goes through the various functional fluids markets 12 nd looks for sources of possible pollution by customer plant 13 peration, does it not? 14 Yes, he does. 15 And he notes that capacitor fluids leakage from plant and 16 crap materials; is that correct? 17 Listed under possible pollution, yes. 18 All right. Now, directing your attention to page 5 of the 19 efense of Aroclor memorandum, would it be correct that among 20 he actions -- first of all, who is Kuhn? Who is Kuhn? 21 Mr. Kuhn at that time was manager of manufacturing for 22 unctional fluids. 23 All right. Now, the term "Switch to Therminol 55 or 24 herminol 66 ahead of pollution problems in customers' plant," 25 hat's he referring to? Is that heat transfer fluid? WATER PCB-00046353 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 765 1 Those are heat transfer fluids, non-PCB types. 2 So would it be fair to say that under Kuhn he's representing 3 e switch away from PCBs, Monsanto switch away from PCBs for 4 hose markets before there's a problem? 5 Yes. 6 Now, Kunh again and Fallon, the memo says, "Findett already 7 et up to rework." Findett was the contractor for Monsanto, was 8 t not, that reworked the material coming back from customers? 9 That is correct. 10 "Need to make them a manufacturing arm. We get sale of 11 ecycle-rework fluid." 12 Isn't it a fact that one of the things, one of the 13 oals that Monsanto executives had was to make the cleanup 14 rogram a profitable business, a pay-as-you-go at a minimum 15 usiness? 16 As a minimum it would not be --- it would pay for itself, 17 es. 18 It wouldn't harm Monsanto, it would pay for itself? 19 Yes. 20 Now, with respect to capacitor fluids, capacitor plants have 21 epurification and recycle systems but up to five percent of the 22 roduct can be lost" . . . "five percent of production could be 23 million pounds a year. This is a big loss for the type of 24 ollution we are trying to guard against, "We" being Monsanto? 25 That is correct. WATER PCB-00046354 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 766 1 "Monsanto must start to work with capacitor people to clean 2 p plant practices." Is that Monsanto's plants or the customer 3 lants? 4 Customer plants. 5 Next item, "Monsanto must help plant cleanup of customer 6 lants." Again, that's customer plants; isn't that right? 7 Yes. 8 And the reference at the bottom is to things like treatment 9 ystems like decantation, coalescing, adsorpsion, disposal of 10 bsorbent or recycle of absorbents? 11 Yes. 12 Those are various treatments that might be employed with 13 espect to customer plants; is that right? 14 Yes. 15 The studies that were referred to at the beginning, the 16 oxicity studies, Richard is recommending that Wheeler and 17 eller and Indiana Bio-Test continue studies to establish FDA 18 ype of limitation on toxicity on Aroclor 1242, 1254 and 1260; 19 s that right? 20 Yes. 21 Those are the studies we referred to in yesterday's 22 estimony, the Bio-Test studies? 23 Yes. 24 ; Mr. Papageorge, I show you what's been marked for 25 dentification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4620. Tell me what that WATER PCB-00046355 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 767 1 s. It is a document which appears to be dated 2-71 by E. S. 2 ucker, confidential, entitled "Aroclor Defense," 1970 PCB 3 upport analysis. That's not in our book. We just got it a few] 4 ays ago. 5 MR. FRUEHWALD: May I take a look at it? 6 MR. KARAGANIS: Sure. Sure. I would move its 7 dmission. Your Honor, 4620. 8 THE COURT: It will be received. 9 (Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 4620 received in evidence.) 10 Mr. Papageorge, can you tell us who wrote Exhibit 4620? 11 This was written by Dr. E. S. Tucker of Monsanto. 12 All right. That's somebody else in Monsanto, is it not, 13 ther than Dr. Richard? 14 That is correct. 15 Would you tell the jury what words Dr. Tucker used at the 16 op of the memorandum? 17 "Aroclor Defense." 18 Thank you. Mr. Papageorge, so somebody, other than Dr. 19 ichard used the term Aroclor defense? 20 Apparently. 21 Mr. Papageorge, I show you what's been marked for 22 dentification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4133 for identification, 23 t's dated November 23, 1970, a memorandum by Mr. Papageorge. 24 >o you recognize that document? 25 I do. WATER PCB-00046356 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 768 1 MR. KARAGANIS: Your Honor, at this time I would move 2 he admission of Exhibit 4133. 3 MR. FRUEHWALD: No objection. 4 THE COURT: 4133 is received in evidence. We're 5 orgetting to give the dates of these things. 6 (Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 4133 received in evidence.) 7 MR. KARAGANIS: This is November 23, 1970, Your Honor, 8 iy Mr. William B. Papageorge. 9 Mr. Papageorge, would you read the first sentence of that 10 ixhibit? 11 "I plan to assemble all expenses relating to our Aroclor 12 Lefense effort for 1970 and I need from you your estimate for 13 he medical department's costs which are attributable to the PCB 14 roblem. " 15 ! So you also used the term Aroclor defense, didn't you? 16 I had forgotten that I did; yes, sir. 17 > Thank you. Mr. Papageorge, Monsanto in 1969 knew that 18 :ustomers were putting liquid waste down the sewers, were they 19 lot? 20 i I don't know if Monsanto representatives literally saw and 21 :new or whether they assumed that PCBs would go into sewers. 22 I Mr. Papageorge, I show you what's been marked for 23 identification as 4318. It is a document dated November 10th, 24 L969, Your Honor, entitled "Outline PCB Environmental Pollution 25 Abatement Plan. Are you familiar with that document? WATER PCB-00046357 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 769 1 I have seen it before, yes. 2 MR. KARAGANIS: All right. Your Honor, at this time we 3 ould move the admission of Plaintiffs7 Exhibit 4318 into 4 svidence. 5 MR. FRUEHWALD: No objection. Your Honor. 6 THE COURT: It will be received. 7 (Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 4318 received in evidence.) 8 Directing your attention to page number 7 of Exhibit 4318 in 9 he category entitled VIII, "Sources of Contamination." Under 10 hat subject, the subject was "A, Open Pollution." 11 I would like you to direct your attention to subparagraph 2 12 or electrical customers. Would you tell the jury what that 13 ixhibit says with respect to electrical customers? 14 "Electrical customers have in the past sewered their 15 rastes." 16 When you say electrical customers, you're referring to -- 17 lonsanto is referring to its capacitor and transformer 18 :ustomers? 19 MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor, this is not a document 20 jrepared by Mr. Papageorge or whatever and the document says 21 /hat it says. Mr. Papageorge is not the author or recipient, 22 a result, the questioning about what he thinks it means -- 23 THE COURT: I will sustain the objection. Mr. 24 3apageorge is not -- you're just asking him to interpret words 25 :ontained in a document. The jury can interpret the document as WATER PCB-00046358 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 770 1 ell as Mr. Papageorge. 2 Mr. Papageorge, you made a presentation to the Corporate 3 anagement Committee on April the 20th, 1970, did you not, in 4 hich you told your Corporate Management Committee that Monsanto 5 as controlling PCB pollution from its own plants and those of 6 ts customers' plants? 7 I made a presentation at that time. I don't know if those 8 re the exact words, but the thought is there, yes. 9 Wasn't one of the basic premises of the program that you 10 resented to the Corporate Management Committee was Monsanto's 11 bility to retain sales and in those areas where Monsanto could 12 xercise, I use the quoted terms "tight control over customers' 13 lants"? 14 I don't recall that tight control quote. 15 Directing your attention to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4324 in 16 vidence which is entitled "Presentation of PCB Management Plan" 17 o CMC on 4-20-70. Tell me what that document purports to be. 18 This document is the text that I used when I made my 19 resentation in April 1970. 20 Mr. Papageorge, directing your attention to the last chart 21 hat you used, "Aroclor business to be retained," under the 22 ubject of, "Capacitors," would you read the first and second 23 entence of that section on capacitors? 24 "In sealed units. Can exercise tight control at customer 25 lants and repair facilities." WATER PCB-00046359 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 771 1 Now, Mr. Papageorge, you now recall using the words "can 2 txercise tight control"? 3 Yes, but that's not Monsanto tight control. That was never 4 :he intent. 5 I see. You didn't want to exercise control? 6 You can't. 7 You can't. 8 No matter what we want. 9 So what you said when you told the CMC that same day that 10 lonsanto was controlling pollution at its plants and its 11 :ustomers' plants, you are misspeaking on that date; is that 12 :orrect? 13 l . The intent was not to misspeak or mislead. Monsanto can 14 :ontrol its plants. Monsanto can advise its customers to 15 :ontrol their plants. 16 Directing your attention to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4388 for 17 .dentification which is an outline for CMC presentation PCB 18 invironmental problem, I believe it's an outline of a 19 presentation made to the CMC or prepared for the CMC on April 20 '0th, 1970. Do you recognize that document? 21 I believe I recognize it. 22 That is a Monsanto business document that was prepared as an 23 putline of the presentation to the CMC, is it not? 24 Yes. This is the document that was given to the attendees 25 it the meeting as I was speaking from the previous document. WATER PCB-00046360 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 772 1 MR. KARAGANIS: All right. I would move at this time, 2 our Honor, into evidence Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4388. 3 MR. FRUEHWALD: No objection. Your Honor. 4 THE COURT: It will be received. 5 (Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 4388 received in evidence.) 6 ! Mr. Papageorge, would you read the summary of Plaintiffs' 7 Ixhibit 4388 to the jury slowly, please? 8 . "We are making progress in controlling contamination from 9 iur plants and our customers' plants. We are now leaders in 10 nalytical methodology. We are learning more about PCBs and 11 heir effects on the environment. We are aggressively seeking 12 eplacement products and removing some Aroclors from uses which 13 :annot be controlled." 14 Thank you. Mr. Papageorge, did you attend a meeting on 15 >ctober the 30th, 1970 in which you and other Monsanto 16 executives explained Monsanto's program to Westinghouse? 17 Yes. 18 ) Didn't Monsanto tell Westinghouse at the October 30th, 1970 19 meeting that Monsanto's program included initiating strict 20 :ontrol procedures at customers' plants? 21 ^ I don't recall the exact words. The topic was discussed, 22 res. 23 It was discussed in those terms, was it not? 24 V I would have to see the reference in context. 25 Didn't Monsanto tell Westinghouse on 10-30, didn't Monsanto WATER PCB-00046361 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 773 1 all Westinghouse at the 10-30 meeting that the Monsanto program] 2 as based upon control of usage and disposal? 3 Yes. 4 We talked about -- 5 THE COURT: Can we eliminate the wind up, please? 6 MR. KARAGANIS: Yes, sir. Excuse me. 7 Mr. Papageorge, after your visit on July 22nd, 1970 to the 8 estinghouse plant, did any other personnel go to the 9 estinghouse plant to see what progress was being made on 10 Dilution abatement? 11 Yes. 12 Can you recall the circumstances of their visit? 13 I would -- I need some help on the expression circumstances, 14 his was a visit to the plant by a Monsanto representative at my 15 equest to observe the status of PCB control. 16 Directing your attention to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 919 in 17 vidence, have you ever seen that document before which is a 18 andwritten memorandum entitled "Inerteen Control Project" 19 ovember 4th, 1970 by Mr. John Pickett? 20 I was shown this document recently by attorneys. 21 Counsel for Monsanto? 22 Yes, sir. 23 All right. Would you read the jury the first sentence of 24 hat memorandum? 25 MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor, this exhibit has already WATER PCB-00046362 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 774 1 een read into evidence. 2 THE COURT: Sustain the objection. 3 MR. KARAGANIS: I will withdraw the question. 4 Mr. Papageorge, I was asking you about a meeting on October 5 :he 3 0th, 1970. 6 Yes. 7 Directing your attention to what is in evidence as 8 'laintiffs' Exhibit 915, which is a memorandum dated 11-4-1970. 9 (irecting your attention to the paragraph that begins 10 Controlled usage of Aroclors," does that paragraph refresh your 11 ecollection as to Monsanto talking about initiating strict 12 :ontrol procedures? 13 I see the reference to strict control procedures, but just 14 >efore that there's reference to customers and users. 15 Yes. And it says, "Plant visitations have been used to 16 ilert customers and to initiate." Again, I don't want to argue 17 lith you about the English language, but it was the plant 18 visitations which were the mechanism for initiating strict 19 :ontrol procedures? 20 MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor, this is a document written 21 ay a Westinghouse employee that Mr. Papageorge has not seen. 22 Jhat the author meant -- 23 THE COURT: It's been read into evidence. Sustain the 24 abjection. 25 Mr. Papageorge, I show you what's been marked for WATER PCB-00046363 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 775 1 dentification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4424, a memorandum dated 2 uly 27th, 1970 from you to Mr. Graham. Are you familiar with 3 hat document? 4 Yes, I am. 5 MR. KARAGANIS: At this time. Your Honor, I would move 6 he admission of Exhibit 4424. 7 THE COURT: It will be received. 8 (Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 4424 received in evidence.) 9 ! Mr. Papageorge, would you read the -- 10 MR. KARAGANIS: It's a fairly brief memorandum. Your 11 [onor. It's significant. Can he read it? 12 THE COURT: He can read it, the whole thing, of course. 13 > Can you read it to the jury, please? 14 l "Our recent visits with your major capacitor and transformer 15 :ustomers have been very worthwhile for both the customers and 16 is. It is obvious that all customers are concerned and each has 17 ixpressed a desire to take appropriate action to comply with our 18 recommendations to close the loop. Some of the customers' 19 )lants have a long way to go to achieve the standards we believe 20 /ill be acceptable. It would behoove us to call on these 21 rustomers frequently to assure that substantial progress is 22 jeing made and that interest is maintained. Time will not be 23 ivailable for me to visit the remaining smaller customers in the 24 lear future. I am certain that you know the 'PCB story' and can 25 3o an effective job of sharing it with your customers. You WATER PCB-00046364 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 776 1 hould arrange to visit the remaining customers as soon as 2 ossible. I suspect many of the smaller customers will be more 3 ifficult to convince that the problem is serious and urgent." 4 igned by me. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WATER PCB-00046365 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 777 1 Q. Mr. Papageorge, was the Bloomington plant one of the plants 2 that had a long way to go? 3 A. No, the Bloomington plant was average. 4 Q. Mr. Papageorge, in your deposition previously given in this 5 case did I ask you the following question and did you give me 6 the following answer: 7 "Question: So, the Bloomington plant was one which 8 would fall within the category, 'some of our customers' plants 9 have a long way to go to achieve the standards we believe will 10 be acceptable close'." 11 "Answer: Yes." 12 Did I ask you that question and did you give me that 13 answer? 14 A. You probably did, yes, sir. 15 Q. Now, Mr. Papageorge, when the Monsanto program for 16 continued sale and use of PCBs was developed, is it not correct 17 that a discharge goal, or a treatment goal, of ten parts per 18 billion was established back in April and May of 1970? 19 A. That was a goal, yes. 20 Q. And isn't it a fact that that goal of ten parts per billion 21 can be achieved by use of carbon filters? 22 A. Carbon filters could help achieve that, yes. 23 Q. As a matter of fact, you previously indicated that it is 24 feasible to achieve ten parts per billion with carbon filters, 25 isn't that correct? WATER_PCB-00046366 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 778 1 A- Technically feasible, yes. ' 2 Q. So, from a doing it standpoint, it can be done? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now, at the time you began your plant visits, or after your 5 plant visits, did you have occasion to prepare a document 6 listing various pollution control procedures and practices 7 entitled "Polychlorinated Biphenyls Waste Control and 8 Disposal?" 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. I show you what has been marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 11 4175, dated August 31, 1970, by W. B. Papageorge. Is that the 12 document to which I have referred? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Now, Mr. Papageorge, so we can move fairly quickly through 15 this document, your first recommendation was to make every 16 effort to avoid mixing PCBs with water, is that correct? 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. Your second effort was to make sure that all liquid 19 handling systems be designed to assure that leaks and spills 20 were a rarity, isn't that correct? 21 A. That is correct. 22 Q. That all areas in which spills and leaks could occur should 23 be paved, curbed, and properly drained, isn't that correct? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. And that if PCBs are present in waste water streams, those WATER_PCB-00046367 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 779 1 streams must be treated before released to the environment, 2 isn't that correct? 3 A. That is correct. 4 Q. As to the treatment of those streams, it would be a 5 multi-step process that would first involve breaking the 6 detergent emulsions and then taking the PCB -- removing the 7 PCBs after phase separation and then dissolve PCBs to be 8 reduced by absorption on activated carbon, is that correct? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. And that, indeed, is the technology we talked about that 11 one would use to achieve ten ppb, isn't that right? 12 A. It is a technology that could be used. Monsanto did not 13 use it and still achieved ten ppb. 14 Q. It could be achieved by a variety of means, but the 15 technology you recommend in Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4175 could also 16 do it? 17 A. Correct. 18 MR. KARAGANIS: I move to admit 4175, if I haven't. 19 THE COURT: It will be received. 20 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 4174 received in evidence) 21 Q. Mr. Papageorge, that memorandum, Exhibit 4175 in evidence, 22 is what you considered to be sound practice with respect to 23 pollution control for PCBs, isn't that right? 24 A. Sound practice in 1970, the date of that memo, yes. 25 Q. Isn't it a fact, Mr. Papageorge, that everything in this WATER PCB-00046368 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 780 1 memo could have been done in the period '57 to '70? 2 MR. FRUEHWALD: I request that Mr. Papageorge be shown 3 the memo when he is asked the question. 4 MR. KARAGANIS: Sure. 5 A. There are some suggestions in this memo that are based on 6 information that was not available in earlier years. 7 Q. What suggestions are those? 8 A. For example, we did not know until it was tested that 9 activated carbon could do as good a removal job as it turned 10 out to. Another example, we did not know that liquid PCBs 11 could be destroyed by incineration under the right conditions. 12 Those are just two that come to my attention. 13 Q. Let's take carbon filters. They were not a new technology, 14 were they? 15 A. As a technology, no. But as it relates to PCBs, yes. 16 Q. Isn't it a fact that you could have put that technology on 17 without regard to whether it is ten ppb, or otherwise, at any 18 time during the period '57 to '70? 19 A. You could if the thought occurred to you. 20 MR. KARAGANIS: Directing the Court's attention to 21 paragraph C -- 22 (Discussion held outside the record) 23 Q. Mr. Papageorge, you say that other people visited the 24 plant, is that right, to see whether or not there had been 25 improvement? WATER PCB-00046369 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 781 1 A. Other Monsanto people, yes. 2 Q. Would they inspect the plant? By the plant, I mean the 3 Bloomington plant. 4 A. Yes, they -- I know they made a plant tour and made 5 observations, yes. 6 Q. I don't want to quibble with words on you. Didn't they 7 inspect the plant? 8 A. Not an inspection -- my idea of a good inspection. 9 Q. What we described yesterday as a good inspection -- what 10 you described as a good inspection? 11 A. That type of inspection was never made. 12 Q. Are there other kinds of inspections that could have been 13 done? 14 A. Observations, discussions. 15 Q. Are there other kinds of inspections that could be done? 16 THE COURT: I think you are quibbling about the word 17 "inspections." He has given you his definition. 18 MR. KARAGANIS: I'll move on, Your Honor. 19 Q. When did you become satisfied, if ever, that the 20 Bloomington plant was engaged in satisfactory performance? 21 A. The latter part of 1970, as best I recall. 22 Q. And what, if anything, was the basis for you becoming 23 satisfied with Bloomington's performance? 24 A. There were two sources of information. The Monsanto 25 individual who visited the plant in November told me by WATER PCB-00046370 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 782 1 telephone that the plant had come a long way in controlling PCE 2 leakage and loss. That was encouraging. That was really 3 reenforced when I saw a report, as best I remember, shortly 4 after that from Monsanto's laboratory of the analysis of water 5. samples sent to our laboratory in which the PCB contents were 6 extremely low, very much like the ten part per billion that we 7 were recommending as a target. 8 Q. As of this time, as of 1970, at least, carbon filters could 9 be used to achieve ten ppb, isn't that right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. So, ten ppb was an achievable goal in 1970? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Now, did you say you recall the date when you got that 14 information? 15 A. It was after the November visit, as best I recall. It was 16 a report from Dr. Tucker. 17 Q. Directing your attention to what has been marked as 18 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4621 for identification, which is a 19 memorandum dated May 7th, 1971, from E. S. Tucker to W. B. 20 Papageorge. Is that the memorandum to which you referred? 21 A. Yes. 22 MR. FRUEHWALD: Two copies of it. 23 MR. KARAGANIS: Two copies of the same document? 24 MR. FRUEHWALD: One page document. 25 MR. KARAGANIS: Your Honor, I would move -- WATER_PCB-00046371 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 783 1 THE COURT: It will be received. 2 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 4621 received in evidence) 3 Q. Mr. Papageorge, directing your attention to Plaintiffs' 4 Exhibit 4621. Is this the PCB analysis that led you to 5 conclude that Westinghouse was progressing on its pollution 6 cleanup? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. We had said before that based on your pollution control 9 recommendations that ten parts per billion was feasible. Would 10 you explain to the jury what you see there with respect to 11 sample results which led you to conclude that Westinghouse was 12 performing satisfactorily? 13 A. There are eight samples listed, and the parts per billion 14 of PCBs found, the highest was 12 parts per billion. Next 15 highest is 2.5, and the others are .1, .8, .5, .6, .4, .3 parts 16 per billion. 17 Q. So, you were seeing results that were literally less than a 18 part per billion coming from Westinghouse, is that correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Was that encouraging to you? 21 A. Yes, very good. 22 Q. Now, Mr. Papageorge, based on that report did you conclude 23 that Westinghouse had essentially cleaned up? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Mr. Papageorge, just so we have the -- Mr. Papageorge, at WATER_PCB-00046372 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 784 1 this time in 1970 we know of at least two technologies that 2 Westinghouse could have used to achieve these -- 3 THE COURT: That is the wind up. 4 Q. Is it not correct that the two -- two of the technologies 5 that were available in 1970 to achieve these kinds of results 6 were, one, carbon filters on the end of the wash system? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And another technology which would have gotten zero 9 discharge to the water system would have been use of a what you 10 referred to yesterday as a solvent degreaser, is that correct? 11 A. The two are not related, sir. 12 Q. If instead of using the washer they used a solvent 13 degreaser there wouldn't be any discharge to the sewer? 14 A. Depends on how careful they are. 15 Q. If they are careful they don't use water? 16 A. Or they don't hose down the floor or let any amount dribble 17 into other waters, the water from the restrooms, and so on. 18 Q. Isn't it correct that as of 1970 one of the things that 19 Westinghouse did was seal the floor drains? 20 A. That is the report I got, yes. 21 Q. So, if they sealed the floor drains it can't drip into the 22 sewer anymore and in the floor drain because it is sealed, 23 isn't that right? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. So, if you put in an evaporative solvent device in lieu of WATER_PCB-00046373 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 785 1 a washer, you couldn't have any PCBs going to the sewer from 2 that removal device, isn't that right? 3 A. If the floor drains are in that area, yes. 4 Q. But the solvent evaporator doesn't discharge waste water, 5 isn't that right? 6 A. That is correct. 7 Q. So, from the standpoint of pollution control one might call 8 that a zero discharge to waste water system, isn't that right? 9 A. It lends itself to zero discharge. 10 Q. Now, Mr. Papageorge, what, of the various pollution control 11 technologies available to get down under ten parts per billion, 12 what after 1970 did Westinghouse install on their washer 13 system, either in replacement or at the end of the pipe 14 treatment, in order to get down to the numbers you have just 15 testified to? 16 A. I was under the impression that they were studying solvent 17 degreasing, and I later heard that they were using a new 18 filling method directly introducing the PCBs inside the 19 capacitors without wetting the outside surfaces. 20 Q. Now, let's turn to the time period in which you made your 21 recommendations to clean up their wash water, or made your 22 suggestions. It was 1970, was it not, July 22nd? 23 A. In July I suggested don't mix PCBs and water, yes. 24 Q. And to clean up their waste water with a pollution control 25 system of some kind, isn't that right? WATER_PCB-00046374 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 786 1 A. Whatever it took. 2 Q. And the goal was ten ppb, or less? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Isn't it a fact that Westinghouse continued to use the 5 washer throughout the period of 1970 to 1976 and never 6 installed a pollution control treatment system on that washer? 7 MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor, I don't know that this 8 question - 9 MR. KARAGANIS: If he knows. 10 THE COURT: If he knows he may answer the question. 11 If he knows of his own knowledge. 12 MR. FRUEHWALD: If he knows now or knew then? 13 ' THE COURT: Of course, if he knew then. 14 A. At that time I did not know exactly how Bloomington 15 Westinghouse was degreasing their capacitors. 16 Q. Mr. Papageorge, isn't it a fact that you now know that 17 Bloomington Westinghouse did not put on an evaporative 18 degreaser until 1976? 19 A. I don't know the date. I do know that eventually they did 20 install such a system. 21 Q. And you are just not aware of the specific date? 22 A. That is correct. 23 Q. And if you would accept -- accept, Mr. Papageorge, if you 24 would, that it was 1976, that the record shows it was 1976, 25 that is a six year wait, is it not? WATER_PCB-00046375 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 787 1 A. Obviously. 2 Q. Now, Mr. Papageorge, isn't it also a fact that the washer 3 system was in use, the washer system to which you refer, while 4 the manifold filling process was in place? 5 MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor, these are facts which 6 Westinghouse can testify about. 7 THE COURT: Yes, I'll sustain the objection. He 8 doesn't know except by hearsay. That has been since the 9 lawsuit started. 10 MR. KARAGANIS: No, Your Honor, it was during the 11 period -- 12 THE COURT: Well, in any event, I sustain the 13 objection. 14 Q. Mr. Papageorge, I show you what has been marked as 15 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1973, which is a memorandum dated October 16 4, 1972, by Mr. W. M. Mees to Mr. William Papageorge. Do you 17 recognize that document? 18 A. I do. 19 Q. Mr. Papageorge, who is Mr. Mees? 20 A. Mr. Mees was a Monsanto analytical chemist working for Dr. 21 Scott Tucker. 22 Q. And the Exhibit 1973 is a report by Mr. Mees with respect 23 to a sample analysis from the wash water from the Westinghouse 24 Bloomington plant, isn't that right? 25 A. That is right. WATER_PCB-00046376 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 788 1 MR. KARAGANIS: Your Honor, at this time I move the 2 admission of Exhibit 1973. 3 MR. FRUEHWALD: No objection, Your Honor. . 4 THE COURT: It will be received. 5 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1973 received in evidence) 6 Q. Mr. Papageorge, would you tell the jury what the test 7 results from the washer show? 8 A. You want me to read all three? 9 Q. Yes. 10 A. There is a 79 part per million, 16 part per million, and 11 214 parts per million. 12 Q. Mr. Papageorge, isn't it correct that a part per million is 13 1,000 times more than a part per billion? . 14 A. That is correct. 15 Q. So that for each part per million that is being discharged, 16 it is -- excuse my arithmetic -- it is 100 times greater than 17 your ten part per billion limit? 18 A. This doesn't say these are discharges. 19 Q. It is coming from the washer, isn't it? 20 A. Yes. It doesn't say it is being discharged. 21 Q. It is coming from the washer, is it not? 22 A. Yes, sir. 23 THE COURT: These are two different things, Mr. 24 Karaganis. 25 Q. Would you agree that these are discharges from the washer? WATER PCB-00046377 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 789 1 Whether they are going to the sewer, or not, sir, they are 2 discharges from the washer? 3 I'll tie it up. 4 A. These are samples of water involved in the degreasing of 5 capacitors. 6 Q. When you say degreasing, so there is no confusion, these 7 are samples from washing? This is not a degreasing? 8 A. It is the same thing, sir. 9 Q. Same end goal? 10 A. Yes, sir. 11 Q. Okay. Directing your attention to the next exhibit. 12 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2452 for identification, dated June 22nd, 13 1976, from Westinghouse Sharon to Mr. G. L. Hogetts of 14 Pittsburg. Do you recognize that document? 15 MR. FRUEHWALD: What is the date? 16 MR. KARAGANIS: The date of that is June 22nd, 1976. 17 MR. FRUEHWALD: '76? 18 A. I don't recall ever seeing this document. 19 Q. I would like to show you for identification Plaintiffs' 20 Exhibit 2435. Are you familiar with that document, which is 21 June 9th, 1976? 22 A. I don't recall having seen this document before. 23 Q. I would like to direct your attention to Plaintiffs' 24 Exhibit 2533, dated August 24th, 1976, a memorandum from a Mr. 25 Kurz to a Mr. Sawyer. Have you ever seen that exhibit before? WATER PCB-00046378 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 790 1 A. I have not. 2 Q. These are samples of water samples, are they not? 3 MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor, Mr. Papageorge can't 4 answer that. 5 THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. He has 6 already said he can't identify them, so you can't talk about 7 them. 8 MR. FRUEHWALD: They are business records of 9 Westinghouse, so I have no objection on -- 10 THE COURT: Well, do you have any objection on any 11 basis? 12 MR. FRUEHWALD: No. 13 THE COURT: They will be received in evidence and you 14 can read them. 15 (Plaintiffs' Exhibits 2452, 2435, and 2533 received 16 in evidence) 17 Q. Mr. Papageorge, I show you what has been marked as 18 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2533 in evidence. Would you tell the jury 19 what the sample results show and where they are from? 20 MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor, if Mr. Papageorge doesn't 21 know anything about it -- 22 THE COURT: As I have previously advised you, 23 gentlemen, before we started this trial, I want the lawyers to 24 read the exhibits. 25 MR. KARAGANIS: I'm sorry. "The following analysis of WATER PCB-00046379 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 791 1 recent -- the following are the analyses of recent water 2 samples from the Bloomington main sewer: ppm Aroclor 1016, 3 A.M. 830, P.M. Aroclor 1016 sample 7.75 ppm." 4 Q. Does that indicate to you that the washer -- 5 THE COURT: What do you mean 830? Eight hundred 6 thirty? 7 MR. KARAGANIS: No, 8.3. 8 THE COURT: You read it that way. 9 We will be in recess for ten minutes. 10 (Jury out) 11 THE COURT: Mr. Karaganis, I'm reluctantly coming to 12 the conclusion that you are one of these individuals that would 13 rather steal a quarter than make a dollar on the square. Now 14 you quit fudging or this case goes to the absolute bottom of my 15 docket and we will try it again in 1992. Now, is that plain? 16 I don't want anymore of this cheating, fudging, or elbowing 17 or you are dead as far as this case is concerned. 18 MR. KARAGANIS: I'm sorry, Your Honor. 19 20 (The court recessed at 10:30 A.M.) 21 22 23 24 25 WATER_PCB-00046380 792 1 (Court in session at 10:45 a.m.) 2 MR. KARAGANIS: Your Honor, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2533, 3 7-29-76 (AM sample) PPM Aroclor 1016 8.30; 7-29-76 (PM sample) 4 PPM Aroclor 1016 7.75. 5 These are the analyses of recent water samples from the 6 Bloomington main sewer date August 24, 1976. 7 Mr. Papageorge--2533 I believe is in evidence. Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: Yes, it is. 9 Q Would you tell the jury what in parts per billion the 10 values on Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2533 represent. 11 A You multiply each of these numbers by a thousand. So the 12 8.3 becomes 8,300. 13 Q 8,300 parts per billion? 14 A Yes. The 7.75 becomes 7,750 parts per billion. 15 MR. KARAGANIS: At this time, I would like to identify 16 and move into evidence three other exhibits which are water 17 samples of what purport to be sewer effluent. 18 Exhibit 2061 is May 2nd, 1975. 19 2217 is October 27th, 1975. 20 2003 is 11-10-74. 21 MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor, I have no objection to 22 them coming into evidence. I do object to interrupting Mr. 23 Papageorge's examination with documents that have no relation 24 to him as if they do. 25 I think those can be read into evidence at a later time, WATER_PCB-00046381 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 793 1 but they have no relation to Mr. Papageorge. They are 2 Westinghouse documents. I have no objection to them being 3 authentic business records and admissible in that sense. 4 THE COURT: We will receive them in evidence. 5 (Plaintiffs' Exhibits 2061, 2217, 2003 received in 6 evidence.) 7 MR. KARAGANIS: I will move on. Your Honor. I will 8 read them in later. 9 Q Mr. Papageorge, it was one of your recommendations, was it 10 not, that liquids be drained from capacitors prior to their 11 disposal; is that correct? 12 A That was a recommendation, yes. 13 Q Are you aware of the fact that the Bloomington Westinghouse 14 Plant capacitors were still being put in landfills as late as 15 1972 undrained? 16 MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor, there is no evidence in 17 the record of that. It assumes a fact not in evidence. 18 THE COURT: I will sustain the objection. Does this 19 have to do with the Lemon Lane Landfill? 20 MR. KARAGANIS: I will move on. Your Honor. 21 Q Mr. Papageorge, in your work in pollution control for 22 Monsanto, one of the subjects that you had to deal with is 23 whether or not PCBs are toxic to man, was it not? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Isn't it a fact that Monsanto knew as early or certainly WATER_PCB-00046382 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 794 1 before 1957 that PCBs were a toxic chemical, a hazardous 2 chemical? 3 THE WITNESS: Well, sir, toxic and hazardous are two 4 different words. Would you help me. 5 Q Well, let's start with toxic to man. Did Monsanto know 6 prior to 1957 that PCBs were toxic to man? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q Is it not correct that during the thirties, forties, and 9 fifties, Monsanto knew that exposure to PCBs could cause 10 serious liver injury? 11 A Prolonged exposure could cause liver damage, yes. 12 Q And as a matter of fact, experience at the Swann Company 13 which Monsanto bought had showed that workers in the middle 14 thirties or late thirties had developed yellow atrophy of the 15 liver; is that correct? 16 A That is my understanding. 17 Q And that's very hazardous, is it not? 18 A Yes. 19 Q You can die from that, can't you? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Mr. Papageorge, as to the chemical composition of various 22 PCB compounds, directing your attention to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 23 4178 for identification dated January 29, 1971, did you prepare 24 that exhibit? 25 A Yes, that is that is a copy of a letter I wrote to Mr. WATER PCB-00046383 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 795 1 Casey. 2 HR. KARAGANIS: Your Honor, at this time I would move 3 Exhibit 4178 into evidence. 4 MR. FRUEHWALD: 1-21-71? 5 MR. KARAGANIS: 1-29-71, Papageorge to Casey. 6 THE COURT: It will be received. 7 (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4178 received in evidence.) 8 MR. KARAGANIS: I would like to read the following 9 statement to the jury, "A large percentage of our production 10 has had a chlorine content of less than 54 percent. However, 11 since our Aroclor products are mixtures of many isomers, the 12 higher chlorinated versions have been present in virtually 13 every mixture in varying amounts. These higher chlorinated 14 isomers are very resistant to degradation; therefore, we will 15 continue to build up in the environment unless controlled." 16 Do you remember writing that? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Now, you had or Monsanto had a product called 1242 which 19 was 42 percent chlorine; is that correct? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And it then developed in the mid seventies or 1972--is that 22 the right date--1016? 23 A It developed during 1970 and sold in mid 1971, 1016. 24 Q 1016 was 41 percent chlorine? 25 A 41 plus, almost 42. WATER_PCB-00046384 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 796 1 Q So it had the same level of chlorine as 1242 or roughly the 2 same level but a different isomer mixture? 3 A That is correct. 4 Q Would it be correct, based on your recommendations for 5 pollution control, the ones you phased out in the summer of 6 1970, you would apply those same recommendations with respect 7 to 1016 as you would to 1242, would you not? 8 A Sure, yes. 9 Q Now, Mr. Papageorge, is it not correct that the most 10 important data which had led government agencies to permit the 11 continued but restricted use of polychlorinated biphenyls were 12 the extensive animal toxicity studies which Monsanto had 13 completed by Bio-Test? 14 A I don't think so. 15 Q Mr. Papageorge, Mr. Wheeler, who was he at Monsanto? 16 A He was manager of industrial health, a member of Monsanto's 17 medical department. 18 Q Was he a medical doctor? 19 A No. 20 Q But he was manager of what, occupational health? 21 A Well, no, he was environmental health which covered both 22 occupational and environmental. 23 Q Would it be fair to say Mr. Wheeler was involved in the 24 Monsanto/Bio-Test studies? 25 A Yes. WATER PCB-00046385 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 797 1 Q Directing your attention to Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4360 for 2 identification dated February 23, 1973, do you recognize that 3 document? 4 A I recall seeing this previously. 5 MR. KARAGANIS: Your Honor, I would move the admissionj 6 of Exhibit 4360. 7 MR. FRUEHWALD: May I see it? 8 MR. KARAGANIS: Yes. 9 MR. FRUEHWALD: No objection. Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: 4360 is received in evidence. 11 (Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4360 received in evidence.) 12 MR. KARAGANIS: I would like to read the following 13 paragraph. 14 MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor, again this is a document 15 which does not have any relation to Mr. Papageorge. It can be 16 read at some later time. 17 MR. KARAGANIS: I am about to get into the--Your 18 Honor, I would like to read it at this time as a prelude to my 19 examination of Mr. Papageorge on another subject. 20 THE COURT: Does this have to do with your last 21 question to him? 22 MR. KARAGANIS: Yes, it relates to the toxicity 23 studies. 24 THE COURT: Well, it has been received in evidence. 25 So I suppose you can read it. WATER_PCB-00046386 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 798 1 MR. KARAGANIS: This is a letter from Kelly to 2 Speicher of Westinghouse. "You are probably aware that the 3 most important data which has led the government agencies to 4 permit the continued but restricted use of polychlorinated 5 biphenyls are the extensive animal toxicity studies which we 6 have completed in the last two years." 7 THE COURT: Well, what is the purpose of that? Is 8 that supposed to impeach Mr. Papageorge? 9 MR. KARAGANIS: No. I asked him as a prelude. 10 THE COURT: You asked him if in his opinion thus and 11 so and thus and so. He said no. Now you read something from 12 two other people. For what purpose? 13 MR. KARAGANIS: The purpose is to go into or set the 14 stage for the Bio-Test studies. Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: Well, it's not to be considered as any 16 anything to do with Mr. Papageorge, members of the jury, what 17 he just read. 18 Q Mr. Papageorge, limiting to your knowledge of the Bio-Test 19 studies, isn't it true that in the studies of rats, beagles, 20 and dogs that Bio-Test did show the exposed animals developed 21 enlarged livers while the unexposed did not? 22 A That is true for the high feeding levels for the higher 23 chlorinated types, yes. 24 Q In the studies with regard to chickens, isn't it true there 25 was a reproductive problem observed at exposure to Aroclor WATER_PCB-00046387 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 799 1 1242? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Isn't it true that later studies by others confirmed these 4 findings, confirmed that PCBs were toxic? 5 A I am not aware of any studies that were exactly like those 6 studies in order to confirm the results. 7 Q Mr. Papageorge, the studies that Bio-Test performed, would 8 it not be correct that Bio-Test was providing Monsanto this 9 information during the period '69 to '72 and beyond? 10 A Yes. 11 Q You were getting regular interim reports, were you not? 12 A Yes. 13 Q And the information you have just testified to that 14 enlargement of the livers of the exposed animals, that 15 information was coming in to you during the period '69 to '71, 16 was it not? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Mr. Papageorge, do you know who Otis Fancher was? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Who was he? 21 A He was an employee of the Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories. 22 Q It was Dr. Fancher, was it not? 23 A Correct. 24 Q And Dr. Fancher was at various times in his career the 25 director of the laboratory; is that right? WATER_PCB-00046388 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 800 1 A Yes. 2 Q And who was Mr. Paul Wright? 3 A Paul Wright is or was formerly an employee of Monsanto and 4 an employee of Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories. 5 Q Mr. Wright first worked for Monsanto; is that correct, 6 before he went to Bio-Test? 7 A That is correct. 8 Q And he went to Bio-Test and then came back to Monsanto? 9 A That is correct. 10 Q And Bio-Test was performing independent laboratory 11 experiments; is that right? They were an independent lab? 12 A That is correct. 13 Q Mr. Papageorge, directing your attention to what has been 14 marked for identification as Plaintiffs7 Exhibit 4622, a report 15 to the Monsanto Company on your Chronic Oral Toxicity Study 16 with Aroclor 1254 in Albino Rats, are you familiar with that 17 document? 18 MR. FRUEHWALD: Date, please? 19 MR. KARAGANIS: The date, I'm sorry, is November 12, 20 1971. 21 A Yes, I have seen this document before. 22 Q Was that a study that was being done to investigate the 23 hazards of cancer in animals and humans, to investigate whether 24 or not PCBs represented a cancer hazard? 25 A No, it was a study to determine the effect of Aroclor 1254 WATER_PCB-00046389 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 801 1 on white albino rats. 2 Q That's it? 3 A That's the purpose of the study. 4 Q Did it have anything to do with making an assessment as to 5 whether or not PCBs represented a threat to human health? 6 A Those who make those risk assessments use this data as one 7 piece of information in arriving at their conclusions, yes. 8 Q Thank you. And the report was signed by Paul Wright; is 9 that correct? 10 A Under the section report approved by, I see a signature 11 that looks like Dr. Wright's, yes. 12 Q Were there other cancer studies? I'm sorry, this was a 13 study to see whether or not PCBs induced tumors in rats, was it 14 not? It was a feeding study? 15 A That was not the design of the test, no. 16 Q What toxicological or endpoint were they looking to? 17 A Anything observable: tissues, blood, behavior, the full 18 gamut of the protocols that were common at that time. 19 Q And this is called IBT Study 9278? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q Did Monsanto commission Bio-Test to do any other studies on 22 cancer, if you know? 23 A I don't recall any study placed by Monsanto involving PCBs 24 that was specifically designed to detect cancer. 25 Q Do you recall whether there were any studies whether they WATER_PCB-00046390 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 802 1 were specifically designed or not, that related to the subject 2 of cancer? 3 A The reports referred to observations and whether they are 4 cancerous or precancerous or not, yes. 5 Q Which reports were those, if you remember? 6 A As I recall, they were reports dealing with rat feeding 7 studies similar to the one in that last exhibit. 8 Q In 1971, to your knowledge, did Monsanto know that other 9 investigators had indicated a finding of cancer in animals, if 10 you know? 11 MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor, I object to that. I think 12 that's a fact not in evidence. 13 MR. KARAGANIS: I am asking if he knows. 14 THE COURT:. Sustain the objection. You are assuming 15 that was true; your question does. 16 Q Mr. Papageorge, just so we are clear, after Dr. Wright 17 signed the report--this is report Exhibit 4622--the report to 18 Monsanto Company to your Chronic Oral Toxicity Study with 19 Aroclor 1254 in Albino Rats, Dr. Wright went back to work for 20 Monsanto, did he not? 21 A Sometime after that, yes. 22 Q Now, let's see if we can put the information in 23 perspective. I'm sorry. Mr. Papageorge, regardless of whether 24 Monsanto had discovered cancer or could have discovered cancer 25 in a study, there was sufficient information known about PCBs WATER_PCB-00046391 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 803 1 and their toxicity, their potential toxicity in humans, to 2 justify not dumping them in a landfill; is that right? 3 A It depends on the type of landfill and the proximity to 4 humans and the probability of exposure of humans to that 5 situation. 6 Q If it were a leaky landfill, there was enough known about 7 the toxicity of PCBs prior to the Bio-Test studies to say don't 8 put them there because they could harm humans; is that right? 9 A If that leak occurred in waters that were potable waters or 10 waters used by people, yes. 11 Q Mr. Papageorge, are you familiar with the amount of sludge 12 that is contaminated in the Winston-Thomas lagoon, the amount 13 of contaminated sludge? 14 A I am not. ' 15 Q Mr. Papageorge, would it be fair to say during the course 16 of the pollution program, the PCB pollution program by 17 Monsanto, that Monsanto continued to make a profit with PCBs? 18 THE WITNESS; When you say would it be fair-- 19 Q Is it accurate? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Is it correct that one of the things that Monsanto did to 22 assure its revenue in this area was to raise the price to the 23 remaining customers to take care of a market plus share? 24 A That is true. 25 MR. KARAGANIS: No further questions. I'm sorry, Your WATER_PCB-00046392 PAPAGEORGE-DIRECT 804 1 Honor. I believe the exhibit in Chemical Week, Exhibit 1093, 2 is not in evidence. May I move it? 3 MR. FRUEHWALD: We object to that exhibit except to 4 the extent it quotes Mr. Papageorge as being hearsay and for 5 some--if it's offered for a limited purpose, I guess we might 6 consider that. 7 THE COURT: I will sustain the objection. He was 8 asked about the quoted part. 9 MR. KARAGANIS: If I may. Your Honor, the IBT report 10 which is 4622, I move its admission. 11 THE COURT: It will be received. While we are at it, 12 I am sustaining the objection to the item which I inspected in 13 camera. 14 CROSS-EXAMINATION 15 QUESTIONS BY MR. FRUEHWALD 16 Q Mr. Papageorge, would you tell us your educational 17 background. 18 A Yes, sir. I have a Bachelor of Science in chemical 19 engineering in 1943, a Master of Science in chemical 20 engineering in 1947, both from the Washington University 21 located in St. Louis, Missouri. 22 In addition, I earned as best I recall about 12 or 15 23 credits toward a doctorate degree at Oklahoma State University. 24 Q During your direct, your jobs up through 1976 were listed. 25 Can you take us forward from February of 1976 as to what jobs WATER PCB-00046393 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 805 1 you have held with Monsanto prior to retirement. 2 A In 1976, up to about November of that year--let me think; 3 it was November of 1977 as best I recall--I was appointed 4 Director of Environmental Operations for one of Monsanto 5 Company's operating units. 6 I held that title for different units of Monsanto until the 7 end of 1985 at which time I was made Manager Occupational 8 Health for the Monsanto Chemical Company which was a unit of 9 Monsanto Company. 10 Q And that took you up to your retirement date? 11 A Retirement which was the last day of 1986. 12 Q And to refresh us all, when was the first time you started 13 working for Monsanto? 14 A November 1951. . 15 Q When was the first time during your employment for Monsanto 16 that you came into contact with or worked with PCBs? 17 A My first significant involvement occurred in about 1958. 18 Q What was that involvement? 19 A At the Monsanto plant when I was the superintendent of the 20 maintenance department. And in that department was a team of 21 electricians whose duties at times would expose them to 22 equipment containing PCBs. 23 And it was my responsibility to make certain that their 24 supervisor, their foremen, and they, themselves, understood the 25 best ways to handle PCBs: to wear gloves, not to breathe the WATER_PCB-00046394 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 806 1 fumes, get it on their clothing, and so forth. 2 Q Were those instructions made known to you as a 3 superintendent or a supervisor of these employees? 4 A Yes. 5 Q What was the next occasion that you had responsibilities 6 for or were involved with PCBs? 7 A The next occasion occurred at the same plant when I was a 8 general superintendent of that miscellaneous group that I 9 described yesterday. In that group, we had two activities that 10 related to PCBs. One of them was the utilities department. 11 That's the department that generates steam, electricity, clean 12 water, and so on. 13 In that electrical distribution system were transformers 14 and capacitors and other electrical gear that had PCBs. So the 15 operators of that equipment had to know--and it was my 16 responsibility that they follow--the instruction regarding the 17 proper exposure or avoidance of exposure to the PCBs. 18 The other unit was the unit which received PCBs from the 19 producing plants and blended it with other chemicals to make 20 the industrial fire-resistant hydraulic fluids. These were 21 operators blending and packaging and shipping the industrial 22 hydraulic fluids. 23 Q What instructions were given to those employees about 24 handling PCBs? 25 A Again similar: avoid breathing the fumes, don't get it on WATER_PCB-00046395 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 807 1 your clothing, wash your hands, change clothing, and so on. 2 Q What was the next occasion which you had some 3 responsibilities in connection with PCBs? 4 A The next significant one was, of course, as plant manager 5 of the Anniston, Alabama plant where PCBs were manufactured. 6 Q During what period were you plant manager there? 7 A 1965 up to 1970. 8 Q How big was the Anniston plant you were manager of? 9 A Oh, in terms of people, when I first arrived, there were 10 about 200 employees. When I left it had reached 350 employees, 11 an area of about 50 acres of ground, a typical kind of chemical 12 facility on that land. 13 Q How many products were made at the Anniston plant while you 14 were plant manager? . 15 A As best I remember, about 25 or so. 16 Q Did you become familiar with the PCB product line of 17 Monsanto at that time? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Which products or PCBs were made at the Anniston plant? 20 A These products that Monsanto called Aroclors were 1221, 21 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, 1260, occasionally a 1268. 22 Then we made the nonPCB Aroclors which were the 5000 23 series--there are about four or five of them--Aroclor five 24 thousand something, 5041, and the like. 25 We made a material which we called HB 40 which was a WATER_PCB-00046396 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 808 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 plasticizer to put in plastics to make them flexible. We made chlorine. We made an insecticide, Parathion, and Niran which is a cousin to it. We made phosphorous pentesulfide, hydrochloric acid, biphenyl of course. We made mixtures of electrical fluids using PCBs which we labeled with customer trademarks like Inerteen and Pyranol. Q Inerteen was a trademark for what company? A Westinghouse Company. Q And Pyranol? A The General Electric trademark. We also made the heat transfer fluids under the trade name Therminol with different numbers to designate the different types. Q What were the various applications that the PCB products were sold for at the time you were plant manager? A I will try to remember all of them. All of them to some degree or another were added to plastics to give them flexibility instead of being brittle like the old-time phonograph records. They were added to rubbers to make them more resistant to other chemicals. You had rubber hoses of a special design. They were added to adhesives, both types, the type that was the so-called hot melt which takes heat to melt and then they solidify when cooled or the typical tacky room temperature type adhesives. WATER_PCB-00046397 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 809 1 They were used in calking materials for sealing around 2 windows in the skyscraper buildings, that type of calking. 3 They were used, as I mentioned earlier, in hydraulic fluids 4 that were fire-resistant so they could be used in factories 5 where they handle hot molten metal to cast automobile engines 6 and the like. 7 They were used as heat transfer fluids for use in those 8 areas where it was dangerous to have an open flame. So you 9 located the open flame in a safe area, heat the PCB fluid, 10 transfer that hot fluid to the area where you need the heat to 11 perform a duty like cooking varnish or some other operation, 12 and return the cool fluid back to be reheated and cycled 13 through. 14 Of course, we have heard about the use in electrical 15 equipment as a fire-resistant fluid that conducts electricity 16 and yet carries away the heat generated in the unit as it's 17 being used. 18 Another popular application was as a solvent in the 19 carbonless duplicating paper. This is the paper where the 20 ballpoint pen breaks the little capsules on the back of the 21 page and transfers the ink to the second page. That was a 22 popular use. 23 High quality paints, a lot of the traffic paints, the 24 yellow stripe and the white stripe we used to see on highways 25 contained PCBs. They were long lasting. You don't see that WATER_PCB-00046398 PAPAGEORGE-CROS S 810 1 these days. 2 I can't recall any more. 3 Q Which of these applications you have described were the 4 most profitable for Monsanto? 5 A On a--if you look at it on a pound base, those specialty 6 uses in paints, lacquers, paper coatings, plasticizers were 7 more profitable on a pound-per-pound basis. But the volume in 8 the electrical heat transfer, the functional fluids, because of 9 their greater volume, the net result was that more of the 10 profit came from that business than it did from the paint 11 coating and miscellaneous business. 12 Q How did the profitability of the PCB line of products 13 compare to the other products you were manufacturing at the 14 Anniston plant? . 15 A I would call it down the middle, sort of average. 16 Q How were PCBs made at the Anniston plant? What was the 17 production procedure? 18 A The two principal starting materials were benzine which 19 comes from crude oil, petroleum, and chlorine which we made at 20 the plant from salt. 21 The benzine is exposed to high temperatures. And, as a 22 result, biphenyl is formed which at room temperature is like 23 white candle wax. So it must be heated to be kept in a liquid 24 form. 25 Chlorine is then funnelled through this biphenyl. And with WATER_PCB-00046399 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 811 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 time, the chlorine attaches itself to the biphenyl and kicks off or removes a hydrogen which combines with other chlorine. I hope I am not getting too complicated. And the result is hydrogen chloride is formed which is the gas that eventually is absorbed in water and then makes what is commonly called muriatic acid that's used in many uses. The chlorine attaches itself randomly. But we found that for a given period of time under the conditions, we knew that after so many hours of bubbling chlorine, we would get a certain PCB mixture, the one we were looking for for that particular operation. So we knew that after so many minutes of bubbling, you could reach the point where you want to make Aroclor 1242. If you want to make Aroclor 1260, you bubble chlorine longer. It takes a little longer. The batch, after the chlorination is finished, is distilled to give the clean product. And the tars then are sold separately. Q Was there any patent that Monsanto had to prevent others from entering this market to sell PCBs? A The only patent I recall was a patent referring to a special device for efficiently introducing the chlorine into this molten bath of biphenyl. That's the only patent that Monsanto had. Q If Monsanto had stopped making PCBs at any time, would WATER_PCB-00046400 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 812 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 other companies be able to initiate the production? A Very easily. It's very basic chemistry. Anybody with the necessary pots and pans can do it. Q What kind of capital investment would be required to enter the PCB market if Monsanto had stopped THE WITNESS: At that time? MR. FRUEHWALD: Yes. A Very modest. I am going to say for $50,000, you could put together a unit to make PCBs. Q Could a company like GE or Westinghouse have made their own PCBs if Monsanto had stopped supplying them? A Very easily, yes. Q In connection with the PCBs used for dielectric uses, who had the patents on that usage? ' A General Electric Company. Q Did you make the PCBs for dielectric uses to specifications? A Yes. Q Who supplied the specifications? A The customer. Q What kind of elements were in the specifications supplied to you, for example, by Westinghouse? A I don't recall them all. But there was specifications reflecting what is called the dielectric constant. This is a measurement that tells you how good an insulater is that WATER_PCB-00046401 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 813 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 liquid. Does it conduct electricity or doesn't it? Of course, we don't want it to conduct electricity. So that's a very key measurement. It's color is designated. It must be a certain color. If it's, too dark a hue of yellow or amber, that would imply there are impurities in that material that are undesirable. The specific gravity which is really the weight of the material is another indicator of how good it might be or might not be depending on whether it met the specification. There were many others. I don't recall them although. Q In the experience you have had with PCBs that you have described in the maintenance and in your miscellaneous supervising group and in your time as plant manager at Anniston, did you have any experience with any of the employees having any adverse health effects from their exposure to PCBs? A I recall only one incident in which an experienced longtime employee, a chief operator, had forgotten and lost respect for the material I would say where he handled PCBs without wearing gloves for several shifts. And he showed me his hands. And I remember they were very red and chafed and sort of bleeding in spots. And he admitted that he did something stupid. He should have worn his gloves. I do not recall any other incident watching workers through those years. Q There has been admitted in evidence an exhibit--rather than plowing through to find it on the stack, let me show you what WATER_PCB-00046402 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 814 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 is a part of Plaintiffs7 Exhibit 238. It is a memo from Mr.Benignus to Mr. Miller and others at the Anniston plant dated September 21, 1967. Were you a recipient of that memo? A Yes. Q This memo deals with an impending visit by Westinghouse Bloomington employees to the Anniston Plant? A Yes. Q And why did you receive a copy of that memo? A As plant manager, I was the host. I had to make certain the proper arrangements were made and that the program was put together properly. Q There is a reference in Mr. Benignus7 memo--and it7s in quotes--to "sloppiness". Do you see that reference? A I do. Q Did you understand as a recipient of that memo what kind of sloppiness was being referred to? MR. KARAGANIS: Objection, Your Honor. That7s double hearsay. The business record is to Benignus. Benignus is the one who heard the communication from the Westinghouse employees, not this witness. MR. FRUEHWALD: Mr. Papageorge is a recipient of the communication. He has to act upon it. I am asking what he did basically in response to it. THE COURT: I will overrule the objection. A The sloppiness referred to here had to do with the WATER PCB-00046403 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 815 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 employees properly handling the material and wearing the appropriate protective equipment such as gloves and changing their clothes and shoes that were contaminated with the material. Q Did the sloppiness referred to there have anything to do with disposal of wastes of PCBs? A Not to my understanding, no. Q What was Monsanto doing in response to this report of sloppiness at the Westinghouse Bloomington Plant? A Well, we shared with the representatives of the plant the kinds of things we did at our plant, the kinds of gloves we used and where we purchased them and the kinds of shoes and the rubber booties we provided and something about our clothing program and the laundry service we had. We shared all we knew regarding the appropriate way to handle these materials. Q Thank you. Can you describe, please, for the jury at what various plants Monsanto produced PCB products and during what periods. A At Anniston, Alabama, PCBs were initially produced by a company called the Swann Chemical Company which was bought by Monsanto in the early 1930's. So that was the first PCB plant. Later, as best I recall, roughly about World War II time or maybe shortly thereafter, a second producing unit was constructed in Illinois just east of the Mississippi River from WATER_PCB-00046404 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 816 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 St. Louis in a small village called Sauget, S-A-U-G-E-T, Sauget, Illinois. A third plant constructed after World War II also was built in the United Kingdom in Wales at Newport. Those were the three Monsanto units. Q Some of the documents referred to a Krummich K-R-U-M-M-R-I-C-H, I believe? A That is correct. Q Which of those plants is Krummich? A The Krummich plant is located in Sauget, Illinois. Q You have described in 1970 beginning the position of Manager of Environmental Control. Can you tell the jury how you came to have that job? A I was in Anniston, Alabama as plant manager. And in the earlier part of 1969, my supervisor, in one of his frequent visits, informed me that there was a PCB issue, environmental issue. He didn't know all the details. But he would keep me informed. Then in November in another visit of that same year, 1969, he said that this PCB environmental issue I had talked to you about seems to be getting bigger and bigger. We need some help. Would you like to be considered for a job in that area? I took the position personally if I can help, I will give it a try. So in December of 1969, I went to St. Louis and was interviewed by the two business group leaders, Mr. Bergen and WATER_PCB-00046405 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 817 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 Mr. Springate. As a result of that interview, shortly thereafter I was offered the assignment; and I accepted. WATER_PCB-00046406 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 818 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 After you accepted the job in St. Louis, Mr. Papageorge, hov^ id you go about becoming familiar with the situation in order o fulfill your job? I had one-on-one discussions with individuals in Monsanto ho had been closer to the environmental issue, people such as he directors of research, the marketing managers, the medical epartment, the medical director and his team. Anybody that I ould corner I would sit down and spend as many days as it took o share, so I could pick their brain, so to speak. And as I ad those discussions, I would also pick up documents, iterature, newspaper articles, anything that related -- and ven material that wasn't directly related such as material on DT which was sort of interwoven in the early days of PCBs. As result of that, I felt that I had a good understanding of the eneral issue. Okay. Let me show you what's been marked as Exhibit 5032 hich is a letter dated February 18th, 1970. This version has o addressee. It's "Dear sir" and it has an attachment to it. :an you tell us, is that an exhibit you've seen before? Yes, I have. Did you participate in its creation? Yes, sir. MR. FRUEHWALD: At this time. Your Honor, let me move :he admission of Exhibit 5032. MR. KARAGANIS: Let me see it, Mike. What is the date?] WATER_PCB-00046407 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 819 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 ebruary 18, 770? No objection. THE COURT: It will be received. (Defendant's Exhibit 5032 received in evidence.) What was your involvement, Mr. Papageorge, in Exhibit 5032? This was the first activity I got involved with when I eported to the new assignment, and this was to coordinate the ifforts of composing a letter to our customers to share with hem what we knew in early 1970 about the PCB issue. Okay. And what was that -- what was done with that letter fter it was composed? This copy is the form letter that was mailed to the :ustomers on record at the time who had bought or were buying [ielectric fluids containing PCBs. . THE COURT: Are you going to read it? MR. KARAGANIS: Not at this time. The jury can read it ater, Your Honor. THE COURT: We're going to have an awful lot of -eading. You don't have to read it fully. MR. FRUEHWALD: Let me see if I can find the most relevant parts of it. It's dated February 18th, 1970 on Monsanto letterhead. It's Signed by Don A. Olson, Director of Sales, Functional Fluids Sroup. "Dear Sir: Recently several newspaper and magazine articles lave been published indicating that Polychlorinated Biphenyls, WATER_PCB-00046408 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 820 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 PCBs) have been discovered at some points in some marine, quatic and wildlife environments. The quantities detected are ;aid to be in the parts per million and parts per billion :ategories. It is claimed that the PCBs found strongly resemble ihlorinated biphenyls containing 54 percent and 60 percent ihlorine by weight. Products which are sold by Monsanto under he trade names of Aroclor 1254 and 1260 do contain chlorinated dphenyls. In addition to Aroclor 1254 and 1260, Monsanto sells :ertain functional fluids containing Aroclor 1254." And they Lre listed. "As your supplier of Aroclor 1254 and 1260 in formulated >roducts containing 1254, we wish to alert you to the potential iroblem of environmental contamination as referred to in the magazine and newspaper articles. "We feel that all possible care" -- this is skipping down -- 'We feel that all possible care should be taken in the ipplication, processing and effluent disposal of these products :o prevent them becoming environmental contaminants. Of Interest to you may be an article in Chemical Week October 29, L969, regarding water pollution standards set by each state in :he Union. It is attached. This article reflects good nanufacturing practice in the future may require that no product ased by any company should find their way into waterways." Mr. Papageorge, you testified about a presentation to the :MC in April of 1970. When did you come -- how did you come to WATER_PCB-00046409 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 821 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 ake that presentation? I was asked by the general manager of the division which had esponsibility for PCBs to present a program regarding the iiture sale and limitations of PCBs to the principal corporate ommittee at the high levels of the company. Let me ask you to refer to, if I can find it, Exhibit 604. MR. KARAGANIS: Have you got a date, Mike? MR. FRUEHWALD: That's the April 7, 1970 paper that Mr. 'apageorge wrote. MR. WHITE: Here. THE COURT: Do you have some of the original exhibits? MR. WHITE: These are the ones we've just been eferring to in the course of the presentation. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Papageorge, I refer you to Exhibit 604. Various parts >f it have been read in evidence previously. I'm going to refer rou to parts that haven't been read. - What is this paper? Is it a paper you wrote? Yes, sir. Okay. Was this document the one that was handed out to the members of the CMC as part of your presentation? Not exactly. This was circulated to the people who are indicated thereon? That is right. Let me refer you to the section called "Action Plan" WATER_PCB-00046410 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 822 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 tarting on page 3 and the various objectives thereunder. This s in April of 1970. Objective number one is to "Reduce and ffectively control the PCB content of all effluent from onsanto plants." And under "Status," "A tentative target of 10 ppb of PCB in lant liquid effluent has been established." How was that ten ppb tentative target established? It was perceived to be achievable within reason, feasibly -- easible both economically and technically. And it also epresented a level that most laboratories that did PCB analysis ould detect with accuracy. Why was not the target zero? Because in the real world we just could not perceive that ero would ever been achieved, especially in the older plants. You have a target date indicated here of achieving 10 parts ier billion by September of 1971. That would be approximately .4 or 16 months after April of 1970. Why was the target so far .n advance of the time of this presentation? The time was required for, first of all, conducting the lecessary audits of the conditions that existed, to design the >roper equipment and approaches that would help control the jurchase of these materials and any equipment and the .nstallation and the demonstration. And although this appears :o be a long time, actually this was a pretty tight schedule to force people to act with high priority. WATER_PCB-00046411 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 823 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 Objective number 2 is, "Informing customers of the PCB roblem." I believe we've previously had that read in. Objective number 3 deals with developing products to replace roclors, and I take it that is related to the plasticizer and ther uses besides dielectric; is that correct? That is correct. In addition to dielectric. Objective number 4 is, "Develop reliable analytical rocedures for determining PCB content of liquids, gases and olids." Why did reliable analytical procedures need to be eveloped at that time? . Well, the use of the sophisticated instruments and the evelopment of a -- the method to get the right sample and oncentrate the PCBs in that sample and to analyze the results as evolving. There were many, many laboratories that did not iave this expertise. Monsanto was fortunate enough to be at the orefront and we were anxious to not only develop procedures but :o share the procedures we developed with other laboratories and lemonstrate whether the procedures that Monsanto had developed rere indeed the best available. If not, we were willing to .isten to comments and criticism from other laboratories and fine tune the methodology. And the methods also differed to a considerable degree when inalyzing clear water, water with silt in it, soil samples, inimal tissue, each of these methodologies required special procedures. They had to be developed. WATER_PCB-00046412 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 824 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 Objective number 5 was to, "Develop methods for effective lisposal of wastes containing PCB without contaminating the snvironment." What if anything was done after this April '70 lemo to fulfill that objective? Well, we developed a PCB mixture that could be used in :apacitors and remove from that new mixture were those PCBs that] re thought would persist in the environment. And the purpose :here is that in spite of the tight control that we hoped could >e achieved, in the event there was still an accidental release >f this material, nature could cope with it and eventually the >acteria or the bioda would destroy it. It would not be >ersistent. The other program involved determining the best ways to| .ncinerate and completely destroy PCBs once and for all in a safe manner. Was not the technology to incinerate PCBs already present in) L97 0? We sure didn't know about it, no, because PCBs had an image 3f -- a reputation of being fire resistant, and normally you lon't associate fire resistant liquids in burners and burning freely and easily. The next objective on your list was number 6 to, "Develop nethods for reclaiming and reusing off-grade fluids containing PCB." What if anything was done to further that objective? \ There were many great efforts made to try to reclaim PCBs WATER_PCB-00046413 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 825 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 hat were considered to be scrap or waste. We did not -- rankly, we did not really achieve a method that could take a crap PCB and refine it good enough to be used back in lectrical equipment so the program really was not successful. Number 7, the objective is, "Determine the effects of PCBs m birds, aquatic life, animals and humans." I believe you estified about the industrial Bio-Test studies as being a part if that effort? Yes, sir. Number 8, the objective is to, "Establish and maintain avorable relationships with customers, the press, governmental gencies, and other worldwide producers, the public and the miversities." What was done to fulfill that objective? We communicated with our customers as much as we could. Any lew information that was available to Monsanto was immediately shared with the customer. The same approach was made with the jovernment agencies. At the same time with both customers and governmental agencies, we tried to make a two-way street where :hey would share information they had and we would compare the information we had. I guess the key word there was an honest -- just letermined effort to be kind of open about this. It's a serious natter that anyone involved ought to communicate freely. Did this effort to deal with various groups in society Include groups associated with protection of the environment? WATER_PCB-00046414 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 826 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 Oh, certainly. Yes. Let me show you what's previously been identified as Exhibit| i230. It's a letter from Roderick A. Cameron, Executive )irector of the Environmental Defense Fund addressed to Pierre rilkins. Press Relations, Public Relations Department at [onsanto dated August 24, 1970. Mr. Papageorge, did you see that letter at or about the timej .t was sent and received by Monsanto? Yes. MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor, at this time let me offer Exhibit 52 30. THE COURT: It will be received. You may read it. (Defendant's Exhibit No. 5230 received in evidence.) Again, this is from the Executive Director of the environmental Defense Fund dated August 24, 1970, addressed to ir. Pierre Wilkins, Manager Press Relations at Monsanto. The first paragraph -- I will read the whole thing. Dear Mr. Wilson: I am in receipt of your letter dated August L3th to Mr. Robert Marston of Robert Marston Associates, Inc. four letter expresses concern about a newspaper article written oy Joe Wing which asserts that Monsanto makes DDT at Anaheim, California. We are sorry for whatever distress this factual arror has caused you. Apparently your name got confused with that of the Montrose Corporation which does operate a very large manufacturing plant at Torrance, California. I do not know what WATER_PCB-00046415 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 827 1 .he source of that confusion is. 2 "At EDF we have been most impressed by Monsanto's 3 'illingness to be responsible where the environment is 4 :oncerned. We have closely watched the development of 5 nformation concerning the environmental impact of Monsanto's 6 iroduct, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). What impressed us 7 lost was Monsanto's attitude and finally its action to lessen 8 he environmental degradation caused by its product. We 9 :ontinue to watch your PCB cleanup program to be sure that your 10 ction is as good as your word but, in the meantime, we are 11 mpressed by your sensitivity and responsibility. Indeed, in 12 lany informal conversations, we have signalled out your company 13 s being one capable of acting in its own long-term interest and| 14 :hat of society rather than its short-term economic interest. 15 le have great respect for you. Sincerely, Roderick Cameron." 16 Did Monsanto have contacts with other environmental groups 17 .n connection with its plans in 1970? 18 Yes. 19 What other groups did you deal with? 20 Oh, I made presentations before the Michigan -- I don't know] 21 ;he official title -- Associated Garden Clubs of Michigan, the 22 [saac Walton League, the Natural Resource Defense Council, the 23 fildlife Federation people. The Audubon Society. I forgot 24 :hem. 25 What was the reaction of those groups to the presentations WATER PCB-00046416 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 828 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 ou made? Very favorable. At the end of the exhibit -- is Exhibit 604 still in front f you? Yes, sir. The last page of the exhibit talks about the costs for the rogram and indicates a total of $675,000 budgeted for 1970; is hat correct? That is correct. Did it turn out that was the amount of expenditures that onsanto made in 1970 to fulfill these objectives? The actual expenditures were somewhat more than that. Why was that? Two things happened. We did more than the activities isted. And in addition to that, of course, we were faced with ome inflation. Our estimates were too low. Do you know how much Monsanto spent in 1970 to fulfill these: bjectives? I think it approached a million dollars. In addition to the written materials that were distributed o the Corporate Management Council, I understand you made an ral presentation? Yes, sir. And, in fact, wasn't that very similar to what Mr. Karaganis iid in your place here to the jury last Friday? WATER PCB-00046417 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 829 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 Yes. Rereading your script? Yes, sir. I refer you to what's been marked or entered in evidence as laintiffs' Exhibit 4324 which has been read in evidence and herefore I will not read again. I want to refer to certain ages and certain questions. MR. KARAGANIS: What was the date, Mike? MR. FRUEHWALD: That's your exhibit. That's the iresentation on April 20, 1970 that you just referred to. Page 3 of the oral presentation refers to a meeting with Dr. lisebrough and Olcutt in Berkeley, California. First of all, rho were Drs. Risebrough and Olcutt and why were you going to lee them? Dr. Robert Risebrough was an analytical chemist at Berkeley iniversity and very interested in environmental impact of :hemicals. Professor Olcutt was his superior at the university. )r. Risebrough had made some studies of the pelicans in the .slands off of southern California to determine why the birds /ere not reproducing properly, why the eggs in the nest had either soft shells or no shells, and the reproduction rate was /ery, very low and disturbing. He made analyses and in his analyses he saw not only )DT but he saw PCBs. And his conclusion was at that time that PCBs were the cause of the brown pelican's inability to WATER_PCB-00046418 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 830 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 eproduce. We wanted to talk to Dr. Risebrough personally and ;ee what else he was finding. And that's why we made the trip :o Berkeley. On that page is also a mention of a meeting in Duluth, [innesota in early 1970, March. What was that meeting? How did] rou come to attend it? The Director of the water laboratory located in Duluth, Dr. lount, had heard of PCBs in waterways because of his activities regarding the Great Lakes. Lake Michigan in particular. He ranted to become more familiar with PCBs. He called Monsanto and asked for an audience, somebody to :ome by and talk with him, and had hoped to make it a small ronference in his office with a couple people from his staff and] ;ome Monsanto people. Very shortly, however, he found that :here was much interest in other laboratories, both within the jovernment and universities. So, he ended up with about 50 participants. It was rather informal where individuals would --| :hose who had anything to contribute were given an opportunity :o get up and speak. Monsanto was represented by three of us. I was one of the attendees. Mr. Jack Garrett representing industrial hygiene was] present, and Dr. Robert Keller who represented the analytical chemistry effort was also present. Each of us shared with the audience our understanding of PCBs. 2 On page 6 of the presentation is described a meeting with WATER_PCB-00046419 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 831 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 eneral Electric in late January. Did you attend that meeting? Yes. Who attended that meeting besides yourself? Oh, there were representatives from research, marketing, the] edical department. From Monsanto, that is. What occurred at that meeting with General Electric in anuary of 1970? We shared with General Electric the status of the PCB issue s we knew it at that point. They also shared with us the kinds] f things they saw from their part of the business. And I ecall that meeting because this is the meeting where they were ery adamant, very, very strongly said that we need PCBs in lectrical systems in this country, this country is too . ependent on PCBs, we cannot have PCBs arbitrarily banned. Did they tell you what they thought would happen if PCBs ere denied? They forecasted blackouts and brownouts and total disruption] f the power distribution system in this country. As a result of your -- if the recommendations you had made n your presentation to the CMC had been adopted, what would ^ave been the effect on the volume of PCBs manufactured and sold) >y Monsanto? It would have reduced it by half. Did the CMC adopt the recommendations that you had made in rour presentation? WATER_PCB-00046420 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 832 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 ^ They adopted the program but were anxious to speed up the :iming so they asked the management of the groups that were responsible to go back and come up with a faster timetable and report back to them. 2 Did you make the report back to the CMC that was requested Ln the April meeting? ^ No. I couldn't. 2 Who made that presentation? Mr. John Mason from Monsanto. '2 Who was Mr. Mason in the heirarchy? How did he fit in? A Mr. Mason was the assistant general manager under whom the ?CB functional fluids group reported. Q Why didn't you make the presentation? A I was in Europe discussing PCBs with the European customers and authorities. <2 Were there European producers of PCBs during this period of :ime? A Yes. '2 Who were they? A Oh, there's Bayer, this is not the official German name, we called them the Bayer Company in Germany. There were two companies in France, Kuhlman and Prodelac. There's a company in Spain, Flick Company, Kafaro Company in Italy. I have never met chem but I understand that there were PCB manufacturers east of :he Iron Curtain, Czechoslovakia, Russia. WATER PCB-00046421 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 833 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 Were imports from these European producers possible into onerica during the period of time we're talking about here, the sarly '70s and late '60s? Yes. Are you aware that imports did occur? I have seen no documents to support that. Before Mr. Mason made his presentation to the CMC in May of .970, did you have any input into that presentation? Well, Mr. Mason in a telephone conversation to Europe where re shared with him our observations and information that we had fathered informed us of the key points that he was going to :over at this presentation. So I was aware of the direction he ras going to suggest. THE COURT: I think we'll break for lunch at this joint. Members of the jury, I want to once again remind you not| :o form or express any opinion about the case until it's been submitted to you for your verdict. Don't discuss it among yourselves or with others or permit anyone to discuss it with rou or talk about it in your hearing or presence. Don't read. Listen to or watch news presentations. We'll be recessed until L: 15. (The Court recessed from 12:00 o'clock p.m. to 1:15 s'clock p.m.) WATER_PCB-00046422 834 1 (Trial resumed, 1:15 P.M.) 2 (Jury present) 3 MR. FRUEHWALD: If it please the Court. 4 THE COURT: You may proceed. 5 CROSS EXAMINATION (Resumed) 6 QUESTIONS BY MR. FRUEHWALD: 7 Q. Mr. Papageorge, before lunch ve were talking about a 8 presentation made by Mr. Mason to the Monsanto CMC in May of 9 1970. I put before you what has been marked as Exhibit 686. 10 Can you take a look at that and confirm for me that you have 11 seen it before. This was the slides, or the overheads, that 12 Mr. Mason supposedly used during his presentation to the CMC. 13 A. That is what it is. I have seen it before. 14 Q. I refer you to the second page of the exhibit, which is the 15 first page of the overheads. I don't believe that section was 16 read to the jury earlier. It is already in evidence. Let me 17 do it at this time preparatory to a question. 18 The overhead reads: "Cost of rapid phase out of all 19 chlorinated biphenyls, except dielectrics, 1970 loss in sales 20 5.4 --" and that M is a million? 21 A. M with a bar over it is a million. 22 Q. "5.4 million loss in gross profits. 2.6 million in 23 additional COGS --" I think that is cost of goods sold -- 24 "would increase, giving a total loss of gross profit of 2.75 25 million. 1971 loss in sales, 12 million. Total loss in gross WATER PCB-00046423 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 835 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 profit, 6.1 million, plus possible writeoff of some 2.6 million, Krummrich Aroclor facilities." Mr. Papageorge, did this loss of profit which Mr. Mason has projected here occur in connection with the steps taken to phase out PCBs, except for dielectrics? A. Close to these numbers, yes. Q. There is a reference to writing off the Krummrich Aroclor facilities. Was that done? A. No, the decision was changed to write off the Anniston, Alabama facilities instead of the Krummrich facilities. Q. Let me refer you to, I guess, the fifth page of the exhibit, the diagram called the closed loop. A. I see it. Q. Have you seen that diagram before? A. Yes, I have. Q. Do you understand it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you explain to the jury what each of the boxes in the closed loop diagram is and what it means in terms of the closed loop? A. The box here on the left is designated as PCBs production. That represents the Monsanto plants that manufacture the PCBs, and control within that box is Monsanto/s responsibility. The material is then shipped to the center box, which is designated as PCBs usage. This box represents the WATER PCB-00046424 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 836 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 customers, and proper handling and control of PCBs within that box is perceived to be the responsibility of the customer. They are in the best position to control it. There is some opportunity to go to the upper box, which is referred to as regeneration and recycle. Some of that is done within the customer's plants, some of that was attempted at Monsanto, and, as I mentioned earlier, it wasn't as successful as we had hoped, but at that time it looked like it was quite possible. Further to the right there is a box designated as incinerate. That represents the capability to incinerate, which included a unit that Monsanto was preparing to design and install and operate, as well as any contract incinerating services that might exist elsewhere in the country. There is an arrow showing to the box to the lower right, absorption from air and water. This reflects the attempt to control the emission from both the -- from the customers' units, in terms of collecting PCBs that were collectible in such a way that they could be sent to an incinerator for destruction. And finally at the very bottom of the page is a box referred to as biodegradation. Now, that is put in there to reflect a thought that goes something like this: No matter how responsible everyone is in this total loop, as we started to call it, wherever human beings are involved there is going to WATER_PCB-00046425 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 837 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 a slip up, there is going to be some of the PCBs that just will not be captured, they will enter the environment. If that happens the idea was to have it in such small quantities and of the type that they could degrade with reasonable time. This is why Monsanto, for example, designed the PCB we call Aroclor 1016. If it does get away from the capacitor usage, somehow, somewhere, nature can cope with it. That is the intent of that bottom box that represents that part of the loop. Q. Did the closed loop, as used by yourself and in Monsanto, mean that Monsanto controlled its customers' plants? A. Never. Q. Why not? A. It is not feasible; it is impractical. We are just -- first of all, we are not there all the time. Secondly, we don't have enough information regarding what else is going on in a customer's plant to be able to understand it properly to be able to take the proper actions. And in every instance we must be invited into a plant. We don't have the authority to just walk in like a regulator might. So, it is just not practical for any company to assume another company's responsibilities. This is not only the customer, it is also the railroads and the trucking firms that ship the material. If they have an accident it is their responsibility. And it goes on into the final use in the utility company or the factory, and so on. WATER PCB-00046426 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 838 1 Q. In using the terminology "closed loop," was it intended by 2 you and other Monsanto officials who used that term to control 3 a customer, and later, user plants? 4 MR. KARAGANIS: Objection, Your Honor. The witness 5 can testify as to what he knows. 6 THE COURT: The question was, was it it his intention, 7 I thought. 8 Read the question. 9 (The reporter read the pending question) 10 THE COURT: He can speak as to his own intent. 11 A. It was never the intent to control the customer's 12 activities. 13 Q. Did the closed loop mean zero escape to the environment? 14 A. Never. That is impractical also, unfeasible. 15 Q. Thank you. That's all for that exhibit. 16 You have mentioned the introduction of a new PCB 17 chemical that had some changes to it. Let me show you what has 18 been marked as Exhibit 5047, and it is a letter from Mr. P. G. 19 Benignus, Market Manager, Dielectric Fluids, to Don McClain at 20 Westinghouse in Bloomington, dated May 26, 1970. Let me go 21 ahead and move the admission of 5047. 22 MR. KARAGANIS: No objection. 23 THE COURT: It will be received. 24 (Defendant's Exhibit 5047 received in evidence) 25 MR. FRUEHWALD: I'll go ahead and read it. WATER_PCB-00046427 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 839 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 To Donald McClain. "Dear Don: Attached are preliminary properties of Aroclor 1242B as compared against our regular Aroclor 1242 Electrical Grade. The markedly superior biodegradability of Aroclor 1242B is also indicated." "We expect to have prepared 500 gallons of Aroclor 1242B by the middle of June, at which time we look forward to sending a standard 55 gallon drum to your attention for capacitor impregnation and life testing." "We realize it may take about six months time before your life test studies have been completed, especially as your summer vacation shut down period will be involved." "When we have the pilot plant material in hand we will, of course, make complete analysis and send you those data, as well. If we can be of further assistance about this we would be glad to help in every way we can." And attached is a chart showing various biodegradation information. This particular exhibit also has some notes apparently by the Westinghouse employee regarding that. The cover letter of Exhibit 5047, does that refresh your recollection as to the time in which the new chemical was introduced to the dielectric customers? A. Yes, it does. Q. Why was not the new -- excuse me. Is the 1242B referred to here what eventually became 1016? A. Yes. WATER_PCB-00046428 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 840 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Can you explain for the jury how that numbering occurred and why? A. We tried to stay with the Aroclor designation because that is what all our customers were accustomed to. The new material still had almost 42 percent chlorine in it. We thought at first we would use the expression Aroclor 1242B, B being biodegradable, but that became rather confusing when it came to records, and the like, because that B many times would not be included and we were afraid that it might cause much confusion. In the meantime when we were testing this new PCB we were using a designation in the laboratory, MCS 1016. That came from a log in which the researchers would take the next number available and assign it to a new study. A new product, MCS, stood for Monsanto Company sample. Monsanto Company sample 1016, and that is the terminology, the word we used to communicate to customers when we put labels on samples, referred to it in the discussions or in writing. It became so entrenched that we decided we might as well just continue using the 1016 and just call it Aroclor instead of MCS. Q. Why was not Aroclor 1016 sold in volume in 1970 if it was beginning to be produced at that time? A. We needed a large piece of equipment to be installed, and that installation was taking place in 1970. It was not completed. Q. Were the customers ready to accept 1016 as a replacement in WATER_PCB-00046429 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 841 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 1970? A. After they had tested the 500 gallons we gave each of them; that is, ten drums each that they were testing, after about six months of testing all of them were ready to accept it. Q. And in what year did 1016 become the principal or only impregnant sold to the capacitor makers like Westinghouse Bloomington? A. 1971. Q. You mentioned earlier a product call Aroclor 1221, which, as you pointed out, I think, has pretty good degredation ability. Why was that not sold to the electric industry? A. It had 21 percent chlorine in it; therefore, it was not fire resistant. And one of the benefits of PCBs in capacitors was the fact that they were fire resistant. Therefore, 1221 was not acceptable. Q. You mentioned previously the building of an incinerator. When was the incinerator built by Monsanto to destroy PCBs? A. As I remember, the construction was completed in 1971. Q. Where was that facility built? A. It was at the Sauget, Illinois plant. Q. And approximately how much did it cost to build that incinerator? A. Somewhere around a quarter of a million dollars. Q. Are you familiar with the term ANSI C-107 committee? A. Yes, I am. WATER_PCB-00046430 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 842 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Can you describe for the jury what that was? A. This was a committee formed under the auspices, the umbrella, of the American National Standard Institute, which is a group that helps industry establish standards on many, many items of commerce. This particular group was formed to put together some guidelines on how to handle and properly dispose of PCB type dielectric fluids. The members consisted of representatives of the industry that made the equipment, the transformer industry and the capacitor industry. It included representatives from government agencies that were interested, it included representatives from Monsanto, included representatives from companies that serviced transformers that go'around and check transformers and top them off and change the oil. That type of company was represented. Also the utilities industry was represented, and the electronics industry was represented. I'm sure I didn't get everybody, but that -- it was a mixed group of people, all of them interested in PCBs. Q. Who from Monsanto participated in the C-107 committee? A. Mr. Benignus and I were the Monsanto participants. Q. Was there a participant from the Westinghouse Bloomington plant? A. Yes. Q. Who was that? A. Don McClain. WATER PCB-00046431 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 843 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. What was Mr. McClain's role within the committee? A. Mr. McClain served on the capacitor subcommittee, and he was the principal editor or the composer of the guidelines for that group, served as secretary for that group. He was sort of an assistant chairman. So, he played a very active role. Q. What was the result of the work of the ANSI C-107 committee? A. The result was a document which contained the guidelines on the safe handling of PCB dielectric fluids, initially issued under the National Electrical Manufacturer's Association label as a draft in January, '73. Then it came out as an American National Standard -- this is the group I just referred to -- as a final document in January of 1974. Q. Let me show you what has been marked as Exhibit 5130, which bears the cover page "American National Standard, Guidelines for Handling and Disposal of Capacitor and Transformer Grade Askarels Containing Polychlorinated Biphenyls." Can you identify that, Mr. Papageorge? A. Yes, I can. This is the document I just mentioned. MR. FRUEHWALD: At this time I move the admission of 5130. MR. KARAGANIS: No objection. THE COURT: It is received. (Defendant's Exhibit 5130 received in evidence) Q. Mr. Papageorge, can you refer to that document in the WATER_PCB-00046432 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 844 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 section entitled "Forward," and can you tell me has -- at the bottom it has a list of organizations represented, does it not? A. Yes, it does. Q. Can you tell me what governmental organizations participated in the ANSI proceedings? A. Environmental Protection Agency, the General Services Administration, the National Bureau of Standards, the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This is the Rural Electrification J Administration. And the U.S. Department of the Army. Q. Besides the government participation that is evidenced in the ANSI proceedings, were you aware of an interdepartmental task force by the Federal Government? A. Yes. - Q. Can you describe for the jury what that was? A. This was an informal group of representatives of governmental regulatory agencies called together by an official from the executive offices of the President to address chemicals of interest in any given period. A group was formed to address the PCB environmental issue, and included representatives from the Department of Agriculture, the EPA, the Department of Interior with their Fish and Wildlife Services, the Commerce Department, with its Commercial Fisheries Laboratories represented, the National Institute of Environmental Health. I believe that is most of them. Q. Did Monsanto have any input into the work of this task WATER_PCB-00046433 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 845 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 force? A. Yes, we did. Q. Can you describe that, please? A. In the early days of its organization Monsanto was asked by the chairman of this group. Dr. Ed Berger, to send someone to Washington to attend one of the early meetings to help the group understand what PCBs were, how they were manufactured, where they were manufactured, what types there were, what we knew about their health effects, what uses they were put to. And this occurred, as I remember, in early '71, something like that. Q. Was there a further contribution by Monsanto to the task force's work? A. Yes. Our second discussion with this group occurred in early 1972 where Monsanto asked for an audience because we were ready then to share with them some thinking, some thoughts that Monsanto people had involving degradation and presence of the environment, and to share with them Monsanto's current program, where we stood regarding sales or no sales. Q. Let me show you what has been marked as Exhibit 5101. Can you identify what that is, please, dated May 15, 1972, entitled "Presentation to the Interdepartmental Task Force on PCBs, Washington, D. C., May 15th, 1972?" A. Well, this looks like two documents. The first part appears to be a copy of the report put out by the inter-agency WATER_PCB-00046434 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 846 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 task force. The back part is the material Monsanto presented to them earlier. Q. Let me check to see if the exhibit is properly assembled. MR. KARAGANIS: Talking about Monsanto's presentation? MR. FRUEHWALD: I think this is what this is. THE WITNESS: Oh, I misread that. Q. Would you comment again, Mr. Papageorge? j l A. My apologies. This is Monsanto's presentation to the task ! force, dated May 15th. Q. Were you one of the participants in that presentation? A. Yes, sir. Q. Who else made a presentation? A. Dr. Munch, who was a Monsanto research employee. Dr. Cumings Paton, and Dr. Scott Tucker. MR. FRUEHWALD: I think at this time I'll offer Exhibit 5101, if I haven't already. MR. KARAGANIS: Object to that. If he was a participant he can testify live as to what he said. THE COURT: Overrule the objection as to 5101. (Defendants' Exhibit 5101 received in evidence) Q. What was the result of the task force's work? A. They finally put out a report. Q. Did you receive a copy of the report at Monsanto? A. Yes. I | j I ! Q. Did you read it? WATER_PCB-00046435 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 847 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes. Q. Did it have anything to do with the way you operated your business thereafter? A. No. It supported Monsanto's program. Q. Let's me show you what has been marked as Exhibit 5102. Can you identify what that is, please? It has got the title 'Polychlorinated Biphenyls in the Environment, Interdepartmental Task Force on PCBs, May, 1972.*' A. Yes, this is the report put out by the Interdepartmental Task Force. MR. FRUEHWALD: At this time I'll over Exhibit 5102. MR. KARAGANIS: No objection. THE COURT: It will be received. (Defendant's Exhibit 5102 received in evidence) MR. FRUEHWALD: At this time I would like to read various portions from the findings and conclusions of the task force. THE COURT: You may. MR. FRUEHWALD: First of all, from the preface, which describes the task force. "The task force included operating units of five executive branch departments; Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, The Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health WATER_PCB-00046436 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 848 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 Education and Welfare, Food and Drug Administration, and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Interior, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife." "The report which follows represents the results of the task force's review and reflects the position of the operating agencies of the Federal Government which have major responsibilities concerning such chemicals as PCBs in food and the environment." Turning over to the section entitled "Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." It starts off, "Polychlorinated Biphenyls, PCBs, have been used in the United States and elsewhere for the past 40 years for many industrial and consumer applications. During the past three years evidence has accumulated to indicate that PCBs are widely dispersed throughout the environment and they can have adverse ecological and toxicological effects." "The principal uses for PCB fluids are in the electrical industry. PCBs have superior cooling, insulating, and dielectric properties, and, hence, are widely used in various electrical devices. Transformers and capacitors filled with PCBs can be used inside locations where failures of oil-insulated equipment would present a potential danger to life and property. Because PCBs are relatively non-flammable, apparatus containing them is essentially free from fire and WATER PCB-00046437 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 849 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 explosion hazards associated with oil-insulated and oil-cooled electrical devices. Stability at high temperatures is another major factor in the attractiveness of these compounds. The principal advantage of PCBs over substitutes is the relative freedom from flammability in some applications that previously have been plagued by serious fires." There are a number of conclusions reached by the committee. I'll read, in most cases, just the underlined portion. "1. PCBs should be restricted to essential or non-replaceable uses which involve minimal direct human exposure, since they can have adverse effects on human health." "2. PCBs have been used so widely over such a long period that they are ubiquitous." "3. PCBs were first identified as potential food contaminants in 1966. Three principal sources or routes of contamination of food have been identified." "4. The sole domestic producer of PCBs, government agencies, and key user industries are taking appropriate steps to cut off further introduction of PCBs into the food supply and to reduce the current levels of PCBs as food and environmental contaminants." "5. Housekeeping is particularly important in the manufacture, use, and disposal of PCBs." I'll read that entire paragraph. WATER PCB-00046438 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 850 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 "Under a program of limitation on the sale of PCBs the electrical industry will continue to be the principal user of PCBs. It, as well as industries now holding inventories of PCBs, have a special responsibility for monitoring and controlling their wastes. In this connection the Environmental Protection Agency will restrict industrial liquid discharges of PCBs from PCB users. To keep levels in fish as low as possible, and in any case below FDA's interim action level of five parts per million, concentrations in rivers or lakes from all sources should not exceed 0.1 parts per billion." "6. The use of PCBs would not be banned entirely. Their continued use for transformers and capacitors in the near future is considered necessary because of the significantly increased risk of fire and explosion and disruption of electrical services which would result from a ban on PCB use. Also, continued use of PCBs in transformers and capacitors presents a minimal risk of envirnomental contamination. The Monsanto Company, the sole domestic producer, has reported voluntarily eliminating from its distribution of PCBs to all except manufacturers of electrical transformers an capacitors." Number 7. I'll read this entire paragraph. "Most capacitors presumably have been disposed of in landfills. PCB containing material buried in soil is not expected to migrate, but should remain in place. In the past, many fluids containing PCBs have begin disposed of in sewers. WATER_PCB-00046439 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 851 1 More appropriate means of disposal, such as high temperature 2 (at least 970 C) incineration must be used in instead." 3 "8. PCBs are manufactured in countries other than the 4 United States." 5 "9. More scientific information about PCBs is needed, 6 and several government agencies are seeking it through 7 research." 8 Q. Mr. Papageorge, during the time that Monsanto continued to 9 sell PCBs, did the position of the U.S. Government change as to 10 the necessity for continued sale to the capacitor and 11 transformer industry? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Did you, on later occasions after 1972, receive ' 14 communications or hear statements made by government officials 15 to the effect that PCB sales to capacitor manufacturers should 16 be continued in the national interest? 17 A. I did, yes. 18 Q. Can you tell me the occasions on which that occurred? 19 A. Well, the one I recall mostly was statements by the 20 administrator of the EPA, Mr. Russell Trane, at a hearing 21 before Congress. 22 23 24 25 WATER PCB-00046440 852 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Why did you happen to hear that congressional testimony? A I was part of a program and was in the audience when Mr. Train spoke. Q Did you also testify that day after Mr. Train? A I did, yes. MR. FRUEHWALD: I would like to have Mr. Papageorge identify something from a transcript. Your Honor, I don't know if you want to have it marked as an exhibit or you don't. Whatever the Court's pleasure. MR. KARAGANIS: I think the testimonial transcript, unless it's a sworn deposition, is not admissible. THE COURT: I am not sure I understand quite what you are doing. MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor, this is a sworn statement by Mr. Train of the EPA to Congress in a hearing Mr. Papageorge participated in stating the Government's position in 1976 on the sale of PCBs to the capacitor industry. At a minimum, Mr. Papageorge heard it; and it affected the way Monsanto continued to operate. I think it's also an admissible statement of a federal official in a federal record as to the position of the government. THE COURT: Let me see it. MR. FRUEHWALD: We purport to read certain sections which are marked here, Your Honor. j j I WATER_PCB-00046441 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 853 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 MR. KARAGANIS: It's apparently congressional testimony. I have never seen congressional testimony introduced in a trial proceeding before. It comes in as pure hearsay. THE COURT: Well, it's obviously hearsay. I think I will sustain the objection. MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor, may I offer it for the limited purpose of reflecting on the state of mind of Mr. Papageorge in continuing to sell PCBs after that period of time? MR. KARAGANIS: state of mind. Mr. Papageorge can testify as to his I I I MR. FRUEHWALD: The jury is going to be judging the state of the mind. I think the-- THE COURT: You can ask him what his state of mind was and how he got that way. Q Mr. Papageorge, after these hearings in 1976, did your j state of mind as to the continued sale of PCBs to the electrical customers change from what it had previously been? ! A It did not. I Q Did anything Mr. Train said during these hearings support or deny your thoughts about the PCBs in the continuing sale to the electrical industry? MR. KARAGANIS: Objection to that, Your Honor. THE COURT: I will overrule the objection. WATER_PCB-00046442 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 854 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A They strongly supported my understanding of the need for PCBs in dielectric fluids. MR. FRUEHWALD: Your Honor, is the objection sustained to the limited offer of the portions I indicated to be read? MR. KARAGANIS: Your Honor, I would continue my objection if he is intending to read in portions. THE COURT: I have sustained the objection. He has stated what he heard influenced his opinion. Q Mr. Papageorge, what was it that Mr. Train said that affected your decisions with continuing to sell PCBs to the j | I j electrical industry? THE COURT: I will admit that for the limited purpose of showing what influenced the witness7 thinking and not for the truth of the statement. ! MR. KARAGANIS: May I just record my objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Certainly. A Mr. Train's comments reinforced my understanding-- THE COURT: The question was what was the comment? Q The best evidence of what that is what the transcript says. But what is your recollection? THE COURT: Not necessarily. The best evidence of what he thought is what he thought. MR. FRUEHWALD: Yes, sir. A Mr. Train understood the need for continued use of PCBs in WATER PCB-00046443 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 855 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 dielectric equipment. MR. KARAGANIS: May I object? THE COURT: That's not responsive to the question. I will sustain the objection. Q I believe the question is, Mr. Papageorge, what did Mr. Train say that you considered important in your decisions about PCBs the best you can recall what he said. MR. KARAGANIS: Again objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overrule the objection. THE WITNESS: I thought I was responding. MR. FRUEHWALD: Limit to it what he said. A I don't remember the man's exact words. I don't know how to answer your question, sir. Can you help me. MR. FRUEHWALD: I am afraid I can't. The transcript would help you, but the Judge has ruled it in inadmissible. THE COURT: You can use it to refresh his memory, I suppose. Q Mr. Papageorge, would you take a look at the transcript and see if it refreshes you as to what Mr. Train said that day on January 1976 about sale of PCBs to capacitors that affected your decisions as to continued sale. Has your recollection been refreshed? A I recall it, yes. Q What did Mr. Train say on that day in your presence? A He said he did not believe any short period of time leading WATER_PCB-00046444 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 856 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 to a ban of PCBs was appropriate because the alternative materials wouldn't be available, something to that effect. Q Did you have other occasions to deal with Mr. Train during that period of early 1976, late 1975? A Yes. I did. Q What was that occasion? A Mr. Train had called a meeting in early--well, there were two situations involving Mr. Train and his department. One was a national symposium on PCBs in Chicago in late 1975. Q Would you describe what that was. A This was an attempt to gather together all of the individuals who had new information regarding PCBs, the analysis thereof, the health effects thereof, their presence in the environment. And that was accomplished in a one-day symposium. The next recollection I have where Mr. Train took an active part was to call--he called a meeting in Washington of Monsanto representatives and representatives of the PCB dielectric equipment industry at which he encouraged the industry to continue their efforts to find alternatives and try to hasten the program. Q Going back to the symposium in the late part of 1975, did Monsanto participate in that symposium? A Yes. Q Who were the participants, and what was the participation? WATER PCB-00046445 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 857 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A As I remember, we had an individual speak on the biodegradation studies on PCBs. I served on a question-and-answer panel at the end of the session. Q Who attended the second meeting you are talking about where Mr. Train asked Monsanto and other industry representatives to meet? A A vice-president of Monsanto and I were the attendees. Q Did Monsanto or the vice-president issue a statement that day? A Yes, he did. Q Let me show you what has been marked as Exhibit 5142. Can you identify what that is, please. A This is a copy of a Monsanto memorandum prepared by Mr. David Wood who was a marketing representative and addressed to two Monsanto individuals who were field marketing salespeople. Q The date on that is January 19th, 1972? A 1976. Q Excuse me, 1976. What is attached to this? A Attached to it is a draft of the vice-president, Mr. Jack Fitzgerald's comments that were made at Mr. Train's meeting in Washington. MR. FRUEHWALD: At this time, I would offer Exhibit 5142, Your Honor. MR. KARAGANIS: I would object. I have no objection to the cover memorandum. But what it closes with is a speech. WATER PCB-00046446 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 858 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 The speech is not a business record. THE COURT: May I see it, please. Well, this is a communication from Monsanto to its customers, I presume including Westinghouse. Since they emphasize all capacitor and transformer manufacturers, I will overrule the objection and receive it in evidence. (Defendant's Exhibit 5142 received in evidence.) MR. FRUEHWALD: I will read it at this time. The cover memo is from Mr. Wood to Mr. Petrilli and Mr. Alley of the marketing department January 19th, 1976. "I attach copies of the comments that J. Fitzgerald made at the EPA meeting in Washington on January 14th. Will you please ensure that copies are sent to all our capacitor and transformer manufacturer customers in order that they can see firsthand exactly what was said and not become confused by mis-reports of Monsanto's position." I will read the remarks of Mr. Fitzgerald at the meeting, "Good afternoon, my name is Jack Fitzgerald. I am a vice-president of Monsanto Company, a member of its Corporate Administrative Committee and Managing Director of Monsanto Industrial Chemicals Co., an operating unit of Monsanto Company. "Since I am responsible for the operating unit which manufactures polychlorinated biphenyls dielectric fluids, John Hanley, our President, has asked me to represent him today and WATER_PCB-00046447 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 859 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 reaffirm to you Monsanto's commitment to continue working with the EPA and the electrical industry in finding solutions to the PCB issue. "Let me state at the outset that Monsanto agrees wholeheartedly with EPA's desire to work toward the goal of eventually eliminating all uses of PCBs. "Monsanto has already taken several steps designed to restrict the entry of PCBs into the environment. "First, Monsanto began restricting the use of PCBs solely to closed electrical systems, for which not only viable alternates existed, back in 1970. It should be noted this voluntary program was fully implemented prior to the completion of the study done on PCBs by a Federal Interagency Task Force in 1972. "Secondly, Monsanto has been working for a number of years on non-PCB replacement products. These materials, designed to replace PCBs fluids, in capacitors and transformers, are currently being evaluated by the major electrical manufacturers in the United States. "While the PCB issue is a tough one to handle, the difficulty does not nor will not in the future stem from any lack of cooperation on the part of Monsanto. The problems that we face, collectively are rather rooted in the unique characteristics of PCBs and the irreplaceable role they have served in our electrical-industrial environment for the past 45 WATER_PCB-00046448 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 860 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 years. The challenge: Replacing them in an orderly manner without creating another hazard of equal or potentially greater consequence, while at the same time avoiding serious power and transportation disruption. Let me emphasize that we have no desire to remain in the PCB manufacturing business any longer than is necessary. By this I mean as soon as we are satisfied that the electrical power supply industry's needs for usable, acceptable alternate dielectric fluids have been met by whomever, Monsanto will voluntarily shut down its PCB manufacturing unit. In the interim, we will continue to work with industry and government to ensure that the restrictive measures and controls we implemented in the early 1970's remain in force and are diligently pursued." Q Mr. Papageorge, this statement of Mr. Fitzgerald in January of 1976, was that a change of Monsanto's policy? A Not really. Q How long had Monsanto had this policy that's reflected by Mr. Fitzgerald? A Oh, I would suggest that as early as early 1970 when the withdrawal program was considered, withdrawal from dielectrics was discussed. And the intent to eventually withdraw was expressed as soon as the alternative material was found. That was the intent from the very beginning. Q And did there come a time when Monsanto did terminate the WATER PCB-00046449 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 861 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 production of PCBs? A Yes. Q Let me show you what has been marked as Exhibit 5154 which is a letter from R.G. Potter to Keith Kelly, R.G. Potter of Monsanto to Keith Kelly of the Westinghouse Bloomington Plant dated October 4, 1976. MR. FRUEHWALD: Let me move the admission of this Exhibit 5154, Your Honor. MR. KARAGANIS: No objection. THE COURT: It will be received. (Defendant's Exhibit 5154 received in evidence.) MR. FRUEHWALD: I will go ahead and read it to the jury. "To Keith Kelly: We are writing to advise you Monsanto will cease manufacture at Sauget, Illinois all polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) products used as dielectrics, effective August 31, 1977. We will cease sales and delivery of these products, effective October 31, 1977. "This decision is consistent with our commitment to exit this business while responsibly taking into account your need to establish replacement products. "Our marketing department will be contacting your company shortly to discuss our decision in detail and to answer your questions. We will work with you to accommodate your specific plans and needs within our phase-out program." Q Mr. Papageorge, why did Monsanto give a notice like this to WATER_PCB-00046450 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 862 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 its customers in 1976? What had happened at that time? A We were informed by the large users of PCB dielectric fluids they thought they had materials, although weren't quite as good, that were acceptable. They were ready to start using the new materials. Q Why was a year given or the notice given approximately several months or almost a year in advance? A Well, in any changeover in a manufacturing process, there are many things that must be done. And this year gave the customers time to convert their factories to new materials, new methods of handling, a total new approach in design and whatever it took. Q Mr. Papageorge, did you have any involvement in the labeling of Monsanto's Aroclor products as sold to various customers? A Yes. Q When did that responsibility start? A In 1970. Q I show you what has been marked as Exhibit 5043 which is a memo from W.B. Papageorge to Mr. Sido, S-I-D-0, dated April 28th, 1970. I will move its admission at this time. Your Honor. MR. KARAGANIS: No objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: It will be received. (Defendant's Exhibit 5043 received in evidence.) WATER_PCB-00046451 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 863 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 MR. FRUEHWALD: I will go ahead and read it. This is again from Mr. Papageorge to Mr. Sido dated April 28, 1970. "With amounting interest in polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and their possible harmful effects on the environment, we are very interested in adding the following statement on products containing PCBs." I will read you the typed portion and I will ask Mr. Papageorge about the handwriting. It's block quote, "This product contains polychlorinated biphenyls which some studies have shown may be an environmental contaminant. Care should be taken to prevent any loss into the environment through spills, leakage, disposal, vaporization or otherwise." That's the end of that quote. "This additional wording is intended for packages containing Aroclors 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, 1260, 1262, 1268, and 4465 and Hontar, H-O-N-T-A-R, 1. "We also plan to use this statement on Pyranol and Inerteen labels, but we will discuss with General Electric and Westinghouse since the trademarks belong to them. "We are very anxious to make this change quickly. May I have your comments?" Q Mr. Papageorge, this typed portion of this memo I take it is what you wrote? A Yes, sir. Q There is some handwritten changes in the text of the WATER_PCB-00046452 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 864 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 warning. Can you explain what those are about? A Those are comments offered by one of the four recipients. I don't recall just who. But one of the four suggested use of these words, and they were acceptable to me. And that was relayed to Mr. Sido. Q And then the label that eventually appeared had your text plus the additional words? A That is correct. Q Mr. Papageorge, are you familiar with the history of the various labels used by Monsanto on its Aroclor products from the time you were plant manager on through until the time PCBs were stopped? A Yes, sir. Q I am going to show you what has been marked as Exhibits 5207 through 5214 which appear to be various labels. MR. FRUEHWALD: Right now I will move their admission into evidence, Your Honor. MR. KARAGANIS: No objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. What numbers? MR. FRUEHWALD: 5207 through 5214, Your Honor. There are however many exhibits that make up those numbers. MR. KARAGANIS: They are all labeled? MR. FRUEHWALD: Yes. THE COURT: Each of the exhibits will be received in evidence. WATER PCB-00046453 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 865 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 (Defendants Exhibits 5207-5214 received in evidence.) Q Mr. Papageorge, are these exhibits that I have just put in front of you the various labels that were used by Monsanto over the years? A These are examples, yes. They appear to be examples of the different labels through the years. MR. KARAGANIS: Could we get dates on the labels. Q That was my next question. Could you take us through the history of these labels as to which labels were used in various periods and what changes occurred? A I will try. Q Maybe I can help you. A The first two I am looking at are very short paragraphs. They have the same wording. And the words are as follows: "Caution! Contains chlorinated hydrocarbons. Avoid prolonged breathing of vapors or mists. Avoid contact with eyes or prolonged contact with skin. If skin contact occurs, remove by washing with soap and water. Following eye contact flush with water. If clothing becomes soaked with fluid, launder before wearing again." Q During what period were those labels used? A Those labels were in use in the thirties, the forties, and into the fifties, middle fifties. They were placed either on drums or the smaller label would be put on the five-gallon pails, the smaller containers. But the message is identical. WATER PCB-00046454 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 866 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q What was the next label then used? A The next label now includes-- Q The first two labels you were referring to were exhibits 5208 and 5207, were they not? A Yes. Q The next label you are referring to is Exhibit 5209? A Yes. The label now contains the identical message in bigger print. The trademarks for the product that7s in the container as well as the references to Monsanto and its location and the gross net and tare weight of the package. This label was in use through the latter part of 1955 through 1960 up to early 1970. Q And the next label in the stack is Exhibit 5210. Is that the next label chronologically? A Yes. This label now has all of the features of the preceding one. Except at this time, it includes a message regarding contamination of the environment. This was added in early 1970, about April or May. Q And is this the text that's been added to the label--is that the same text that was the subject matter of that memo we just talked about? A Yes. THE COURT: For the record, how does it read? A "This product contains polychlorinated biphenyls, which some studies have shown may be an environmental contaminant. WATER PCB-00046455 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 867 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 Extreme care should be taken to prevent any entry into the environment through spills, leakage, use, disposal, vaporization or otherwise." Q All right, sir. The next one? A This label was used until about 1971 as I remember. Q All right, sir. What is the next label? A The next label is an example of--is Exhibit 5211. It's an example of a product packaged for the customer under the customer's trademark. In this case, it's Inerteen, a Westinghouse product. The messages on the label include the first one we read regarding exposure to the employees. It also includes the environmental paragraph that I just read. In addition, it includes information regarding the return of scrap material back to Monsanto for incineration. This disposal information was added about 1971. Q When was the next label used? A Exhibits 5212 and 5213 really represent the information on a package of the material. This was used starting in 1973. It contains the information that we talked about before. In addition to that, it has a little bit more information on a seven-language label that was printed on a yellow drum, in the periphery around the drum, all the way around the drum. Q The exhibit, itself is basically a xerox copy, attempted color xerox copy. Was that the color of the actual label, or WATER_PCB-00046456 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 868 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 was it different than is presented? A It was a brighter yellow on the drum with black lettering to highlight the drum- So these colors are not true. Q This in fact is on two pages, but it was in reality one continuous document as it existed on the barrels? A Around the surface of the barrel, yes. Q And this is in several languages. The English portion is on the first page of Exhibit 5213. Was there additional language added at that time to the prior labels? A There was additional language, yes. And some modification, slight modification of the original language. Q Let me refer you to the last exhibit. Exhibit 5214. Could you tell me what that is, please? A This is.again information that applies to PCBs. It is the type of label that was affixed to bulk shipments such as a tank car or tank truck movement. Q Can you tell me, please, what of the information on here was added from the prior labels that you have read? A The prior labels had virtually all of this information: the disposal statement, the environmental statement, and the worker protection statement. Q Okay. Thank you. And was this series of labels at the end here--Exhibits 5212, 5213 and 5214--used up until the termination of sales? A Yes. WATER_PCB-00046457 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 869 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Now, the memo we talked about earlier where you had some suggested language referred to consulting about Inerteen something with Westinghouse about the usage of this terminology on Inerteen labels. Was that in fact done? A Yes. Q Why was that done? A Well, Inerteen is a Westinghouse trademark. And it's a Westinghouse product made to their specifications. So it's only proper that they approve what goes on the label. Q Did they eventually approve that language on their labels? A Yes. Q Did the statements that you had in your memo about environmental contamination, did they go in other documents to the customers besides the labels? A Yes. Q Let me show you what has been marked as Exhibit 5114 which is a--well, you can describe what this is. It's a notice to the carrier as it appears to be. It's a particular one, an example dated September 4th, 1972. Can you identify what that is, Mr. Papageorge? A This looks like a bill of lading. MR. FRUEHWALD: I move the admission of Exhibit 5114. MR. KARAGANIS: No objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: It will be received. (Defendant's Exhibit 5114 received in evidence.) WATER_PCB-00046458 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 870 1 Q And was there certain language put on bills of lading 2 regarding the environmental contaminant possibilities of PCBs? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Does that language appear? Why don't you read that 5 language to the jury? 6 A "This product contains polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 7 which some studies have shown may be persistent, an 8 environmental contaminant and possibly injurious to certain 9 forms of bird, aquatic and animal life. Prevent any entry into 10 the environment through spills, leakage, disposal, 11 vaporization, reuse of containers, or otherwise. Spills 12 leakages and waste product must be collected. During shipment 13 avoid spills and leakage into inland waterways and the sea. 14 Keep away from food, animal feedstuffs and pharmaceuticals." 15 Q Why was this terminology added to this type of a document? 16 A It's just a continuation of our effort to communicate 17 widely. 18 Q Likewise, let me show you what has been marked as Exhibit 19 5125. Can you identify what that is, please. 20 A This is a copy of an invoice, a Monsanto invoice, to 21 Westinghouse Electric in Bloomington, Indiana. 22 Q The particular one is dated January 5th, 1973. Let me move 23 the admission of Exhibit 5125. 24 MR. KARAGANIS: No objection. Your Honor. 25 THE COURT: It will be received. WATER PCB-00046459 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 871 1 Q Rather than reading it again, does not the same text you 2 just read also appear on the invoice that was sent to 3 Bloomington? 4 A Very close, yes, sir. 5 Q Why was this material put on the invoice that was sent to 6 Bloomington? 7 A Again to make sure that the message was read by the right 8 people. 9 Q Let me direct your attention, Mr. Papageorge, to the 10 Bloomington Plant. There has been prior testimony about a 11 visit you made there on July 22, 1970. 12 I believe you were in the presence or accompanied by Mr. 13 Randy Graham at that time? 14 A Yes. . 15 Q Who was Mr. Graham? 16 A At that time, Mr. Graham was Monsanto's field sales 17 representative for dielectric fluids. 18 Q Mr. Graham still with Monsanto? 19 A No. 20 Q When did he depart? 21 A I believe he left in 1972. 22 Q Another name that's appeared in the documents is Jim 23 Bryant. Who was Mr. Bryant? 24 A Mr. Bryant in the late sixties, early '70 and '71 was the 25 technical representative in the marketing department located in WATER_PCB-00046460 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 872 1 St. Louis who supported Mr. Graham's field activities with 2 technical backup. 3 Q Is Mr. Bryant still with Monsanto? 4 A No. 5 Q When did he depart? 6 A I am not too sure. 1973 or 1974. 7 Q Did you make any notes of your visit to the plant on July 8 22, 1970? 9 A No. 10 Q Did you make any memos when you got back or record of that 11 visit? 12 A No. 13 Q I show you what has been marked as Exhibit 5055. 14 MR. KARAGANIS: State the date, please. 15 MR. FRUEHWALD: Just a minute. 16 Q Which is a memo from Robert D.--I think it's Don McClain at 17 Westinghouse to others at the Westinghouse plant. It appears 18 to be an internal Westinghouse document dated July 23, 1970. 19 MR. FRUEHWALD: Let me at this time. Your Honor, go 20 ahead and move the admission of Exhibit 5055. 21 MR. KARAGANIS: No objection. Your Honor. 22 THE COURT: It will be received. 23 (Defendant's Exhibit 5055 received in evidence.) 24 Q Mr. Papageorge, this is an internal memorandum in the 25 Westinghouse organization. Did you see this document anywhere WATER PCB-00046461 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 873 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 back in the seventies? A No. Q Have you seen it recently? A Yes. Q Have I asked you to take a look at the description on the second page of the exhibit under the heading No. 5 and to review that? A You have. Q This purports to be Mr. McClain's description of the meeting with you and Mr. Graham on July 22, 1970. From your recollection, do you believe it is an accurate description of things that were said at that meeting? A It's a pretty good understanding of what transpired. MR. FRUEHWALD: At this time. Your Honor, let me read that section of it to the jury. Again this is a memo from Robert D. who we have been referring do as Don McClain to several others at the Westinghouse Plant dated July 23, section No. 5. "Messrs. Randy Graham (Sales) and W. Papageorge (formerly Anniston Plant Manager and now in charge of efforts to control environmental contamination by PCBs) of Monsanto met with Messrs. Tison, Shoaff and McClain on 7-22-70. Monsanto's assessment of national and international interests in this problem was reviewed and their corporate response was stated: "a) An urge to totally abandon further manufacture of PCBs WATER PCB-00046462 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 874 1 was put down in favor of continued manufacture and supply of 2 the lower molecular weight (1242, 1232 Aroclor) to industries 3 where exposure may be controlled. (It was acknowledged that 4 withdrawal of higher molecular weight 1248, 1254, 1260 Aroclors 5 is forcing some materials formulators out of business; and it 6 was further stated that Monsanto refused to sell even 1242 to 7 customers they regard as irresponsible or careless in their 8 control and handling of the material). 9 "b) Aroclor 1242 with fractions of 1248, 1254, etc. 10 completely removed, will be offered shortly for evaluation as a 11 suitable material for capacitor impregnation. This material 12 will be designated 'MCS-1016'. It is felt that the absence of 13 1242 in any reported environmental problem, to date, will allow 14 continued use of this material under controlled conditions. 15 Costs are expected to be higher than for present Aroclor 1242. 16 nc) Monsanto has wording with John Zink Co. (Division of 17 Singer) of Tulsa, Okla. to develop an incinerator for Aroclor 18 fluid. This is being installed at Sauget, Illinois and they 19 expect to be able to receive fluid in drums or cars for 20 incineration at a cost of about three cents a pound plus 21 packaging and shipping charges. 22 "d) Kiln methods for incineration of saturated solids is 23 under study, but Monsanto is dubious as to the economic 24 feasibility of shipping such materials to them for disposal. 25 At present, they recommend consideration of disposal in WATER PCB-00046463 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 875 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 suitable landfills. "e) Return of 'clean' scrap Inerteen for credit (on the basis of reprocess and resale) is expected to be discontinued. Phasing out the resale market (hydraulic fluids) by December 31, 1970 was cited as the reason. "f) Monsanto has proceeded on an extensive program to control escape of any Aroclors to the environment from their Anniston and Sauget operations. It was stated that they have reduced losses from 300 pounds a day to less than 10 pounds a day with the goal of 0.1 pounds per day. (It must be assumed that they will expect a similar effort on the part of their customer-users). "g) Monsanto expects the greatest governmental pressures to develop in Canada first. U.S. federal pressure is expected to increase, and they anticipate investigation by a congressional committee this year. They do not discount the possibility that they may be forced to cease manufacture because of governmental action. Intensity of emotional factors may be more critical than consideration of real danger, in this respect." I will read the last paragraph, which is Mr. McClain's, separate from the report: "6. In consideration of the above situation and the action being taken, strong efforts to establish procedures and control of Inerteen during manufacture must be continued." Q As I understand it, Mr. Papageorge, you did not go back to WATER_PCB-00046464 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 876 1 the plant; but Mr. Graham went back to the plant at your 2 instruction later in the year? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Did you receive a report from Mr. Graham as to what he 5 observed at the plant on that return visit? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Can you tell the jury what his report was. 8 MR. KARAGANIS: Objection, Your Honor. It is a | 9 memorandum of something that reflects it as a business record, j 10 What Mr. Graham told him-- 11 MR. FRUEHWALD: That was asked on direct examination 12 and just wasn't completely filled out, Judge. He has already 13 asked it on direct. 14 THE COURT: Well, is this exhibit in evidence or not? 15 MR. FRUEHWALD: I thought this one was. 16 MR. KARAGANIS: I believe we agreed to it. 17 MR. FRUEHWALD: 5055. 18 THE COURT: Yes, that's in evidence. 19 MR. FRUEHWALD: There is no exhibit. That's why the 20 conversation was a phone conversation and as a result only oral 21 testimony can give the results of Mr. Graham's report. That 22 was what was asked about. 23 MR. KARAGANIS: That is classic hearsay. 24 THE COURT: Did you ask about it or not? 25 MR. KARAGANIS: I didn't ask about any conversation WATER_PCB-00046465 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 877 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 with Mr. Graham. I asked whether or not he received any reports. Your Honor, to my recollection. I don't recall asking about any telephone conversation. MR. FRUEHWALD: Mr. Papageorge said he had received a report from Mr. Graham and it was to this effect. I am asking him now to fill out what else Mr. Graham said. THE COURT: Overrule the objection. Q Mr. Papageorge, can you tell me please what Mr. Graham reported to you about his return visit to the Westinghouse plant. A He reported to me over the telephone that he had just been to the plant and was very encouraged by what he saw; that the conditions had improved dramatically; that sewers were sealed; that some curbing had been installed. Sawdust was used only for spills rather than as a way, a daily way, of operating. Those are not his exact words. But that's what I recall from that conversation. All in all the report, as I understood it, was the plant was trying its best and achieving good results. Q Did Mr. Graham report anything about the washers in the plant? A He told me kn extensive study was being made regarding different ways of handling wash waters or changing the washing operation. Q And who was doing that study? WATER_PCB-00046466 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 878 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Westinghouse, the plant. Q Mr. Papageorge, there was previously referred to or introduced in evidence a document entitled Polychlorinated Biphenyl Waste Control and Disposal attached to a memo you circulated around within Monsanto. Do you recall that? A Yes. Q Let me show you what has been marked as 5075. It is a letter from Mr. Papageorge to Keith Kelly, Manager of Purchasing, at the Westinghouse/Bloomington Plant dated November 23, 1970, with the attachment being what is called a rough draft of the Polychlorinated Biphenyl Waste Control and Disposal paper. MR. FRUEHWALD: I move its admission at this time. Your Honor. MR. KARAGANIS: No objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: It will be received. (Defendant's Exhibit 5075 received in evidence.) MR. FRUEHWALD: This was not previously read when this portion was offered earlier. I don't think I will--I will just read the cover letter. :Dear Keith, Attached is a copy of a very rough draft of suggestions for the effective containment of Askarels which I promised to send to you. "We are actively seeking more detailed information and plan to improve the draft before we issue it. In the meantime, it WATER_PCB-00046467 PAPAGEORGE-CROSS 879 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 may be of some help to you. "If you have any suggestions of your own on how we can improve it, I would appreciate hearing from you." WATER PCB-00046468 880 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 MR. KARAGANIS: Your Honor, I would like the entire instruction be read, the suggestion that Mr. Papageorge include it. MR. FRUEHWALD: I am very pleased to read it again, Judge. THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. FRUEHWALD: I was just going to save some time. It's called a "Rough Draft, Polychlorinated Biphenyl Waste Control and Disposal." "With increasing evidence that some polychlorinated biphenyls are being found in the environment and indications that some species of birds and marine animals are being affected, extreme care must be taken to prevent any entry into the environment of these materials through spills, leakage, use, disposal, vaporization or otherwise. Suggestions are offered below for effective containment of PCBs. "Liquids. Number 1. Every effort must be made to prevent the mixing of PCB with water, thereby measurably reducing the opportunity for PCBs to enter a water system; e.g., sewer, creek, river or lake. "Number 2. All liquid handling systems must be designed and maintained to assure that leaks and spills are a rarity. If they do occur, corrective measures should be taken immediately and the PCBs be properly contained. "Number 3. All areas in which spills and leaks could occur WATER PCB-00046469 881 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 should be paved, curbed and properly drained. In some instances such as under pumps or sampling points, drip pans or catch basins may be appropriate. These, however, must be drained properly into waste collection systems. "Number 4. Drainage systems should contain interceptor basins to trap the heavy PCB for subsequent recovery. "Number 5. If PCBs are present in waste water streams, these streams must be treated before release to the environment. Detergent emulsions must be broken, free PCB must be removed after phase separation and dissolved PCB can be reduced by absorption on activated carbon. "Number 6. Waste liquid PCBs can be destroyed by incineration at temperatures above 800 degrees centigrade" or Celsius. "Temperatures below this level will result in vaporization to the atmosphere, or in the possible formation of severely toxic oxygen-containing materials. The stack gases from incineration must be scrubbed to remove the resulting HCl gas and then neutralized before disposal to plant effluent. If incineration facilities are not available, waste liquid containing PCB may be shipped to Monsanto for disposal. Cost has been tentatively set at three cents per pound of material to be disposed and does not include container and freight costs. Material returned to Monsanto should be addressed to: Attention, Supervisor Department 246, W. G. Krummrich Plant, Monsanto Company, Sauget, Illinois." WATER PCB-00046470 882 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 The next heading is vapors. "Number 1. Vapor generation should be reduced by limiting the heating of PCB to the lowest temperature required for the process. "Number 2. The vapor handling facility should be designed and maintained to assure no vapors escape to the atmosphere. The use of liquid vent seals, condensers and entrainment separators are recommended. Interconnection of vent lines to contain vapors within the system helps." The next heading is solids. "Number 1. Solids contaminated with PCB must be segregated from other plant solid waste. "Number 2. Disposal may be made in a properly operated landfill which is not located near any water system. "Number 3. Ordinary burning of these materials must be avoided. Steel or copper waste may be reclaimed in high temperature furnaces. "Number 4. Steel drums which contained PCB should not be reused for any other material." End of exhibit. THE COURT: Let's take ten. (The Court recessed at 2:35 p.m.) MR. FRUEHWALD: May it please the Court. THE COURT: You may proceed. Q Mr. Papageorge, I show you what was previously marked in WATER PCB-00046471 883 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 your direct examination as Exhibit 4621. When you were -- would you redescribe what that was for the jury for reference purposes? A That was a letter from Dr. E. S. Tucker in Monsanto addressed to me in which he reports the analytical resolution of some water samples received from Westinghouse. Q Let roe show you what's been marked as Exhibit 5087 which is a letter from a Mr. Kleinvehn of Westinghouse Aquatechnics to Mr. Scott Tucker dated April 16, 1971. MR. FRUEHWALD: Let me offer that in evidence, Your Honor, Exhibit 5087. MR. KARAGANIS: No objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: It will be received. (Defendant's Exhibit No. 5087 received in evidence.) Q Mr. Papageorge, was Exhibit 5087 the letter which transmitted the samples, the results of which were given in the memo you've just referred to? A Yes, sir. Q I'll read this to the jury at this time, Your Honor. It's a letter on Westinghouse stationary from Lynn Kleinvehn of Aquatechnics, Consulting Engineers, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, to Mr. E. S. Tucker, Monsanto Chemical Company, St. Louis. Subject, "Westinghouse Electric Corporation Distribution Apparatus Division, Bloomington, Indiana, Industrial Waste Treatment Facilities, PCB Samples. Our file WATER_PCB-00046472 884 1 numbered DAB01. 2 "Dear Mr. Tucker: As per direction of Mr. W. B. 3 Papageorge, we are shipping eight water samples for your 4 analysis to determine the PCB concentrations. These samples 5 were taken at the Bloomington plant prior to discharge to the 6 sanitary sewer system. If you have any questions, please 7 contact the undersigned." 8 Mr. Papageorge, had you heard of Aquatechnics prior to 9 this contact? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q What had you heard about them? 12 A I had heard that Aquatechnics was involved in a major 13 environmental study of Chesapeake Bay in '69, 1970, in that 14 period of time. 15 Q Did you have any opinion as to their capabilities in the 16 area of analyzing of plants such as the Bloomington plant? 17 A Oh, I think they are world class. It's a capable company. 18 MR. FRUEHWALD: I have nothing further. Your Honor, 19 except I would like to dictate an offer to prove with regard to 20 the Congressional testimony, but if the Court pleases, I will 21 do that sometime during the recess. 22 THE COURT: Yes, that would save time. 23 MR. FRUEHWALD: That7s all. 24 REDIRECT-EXAMINATION 25 QUESTIONS BY MR. KARAGANIS: WATER PCB-00046473 PAPAGEORGE-REDIRECT 885 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Mr. Papageorge, other than the Aquatechnics/ samples that you looked at, the one set of samples with the one letter, did you ever see any other samples from discharges to the Bloomington sewers in the period 1971 to 1976? A Yes. Q So you did look at other samples? A I recall another set of samples, yes. Q One other set. What date was that? A I believe about 1975 some samples were taken. It's kind of fuzzy in my recollection. Q Do you have those samples with you, sample results or does your counsel? MR. FRUEHWALD: I don't know. A I don't even remember if a report was sent to me but I knew the activity was taking place. Q You knew sampling was taking place? A Sampling was taking place, yes. Q Mr. Papageorge, did you know that Aquatechnics had never built a facility -- never did build a facility at Westinghouse? A No, I did not. Q Mr. Papageorge, you were asked to describe on I believe it was the May 10th presentation to the CMC where Mr. Fruehwald took you through the closed loop? A Oh, yes. Yes. Q Okay. You spoke earlier with regard to the contract, sales WATER PCB-00046474 PAPAGEORGE-REDIRECT 886 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 contract between Monsanto and Westinghouse. A Yesterday, yes. ! Q Was that part of the closed loop program? A Well, that contract was a device communicating the intent of the closed loop. I never thought of it as part of the closed loop, but it might be considered so by some people. Q In your earlier deposition did I ask you this question and did you give me this answer: I "Q Now as part of the closing the loop program, the contract term that is set forth there, is that part of closing the loop, making sure that there was a minimization of the release of PCBs into the environment? 'A Yes." Do you recall making that statement? A Yes. Q Mr. Papageorge, directing your attention to your list of recommendations, the list that was just read to the jury, you know what I'm talking about, it's Defendant's Exhibit 5075, Polychlorinated Biphenyl Waste Control and Disposal. A Yes, I remember that. Q Mr. Papageorge, I ask you for the moment to consider whether -- to assume that the incinerator was not available. would like to go through very briefly your other I i j recommendations. "Number 1. Every effort must be made to prevent the WATER PCB-00046475 PAPAGEORGE-REDIRECT 887 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 mixing of PCB with water, thereby reducing the opportunity for PCBs to enter a water system." That's pretty much a common sense recommendation, isn't it? A I don't know how common sense it is. One has to know the characteristics of the chemicals involved and how they behave in the environment. Q In order to make the decision to restrict its use that way? A Correct. Q Okay. And wouldn't it be true that if you knew the characteristics of the chemical that your recommendation number one there under liquids would have been a practice that would have made sense and was available from 1957 to '70? A If the persistance in the environment were known then, yes. Q I am talking about the feasibility of the recommendation. A The feasibility? Yes. Q With respect to "All liquid handling systems must be designed and maintained to assure that leaks and spills are a rarity. If they do occur, corrective measures should be taken immediately and PCBs be properly contained," isn't that also something that could have been implemented from '57 to '70? Feasible? A It's feasible, yes. Q Your recommendation with respect to paving and curbing and properly draining, that's again something that could have been done between 1957 and 1970; isn't that correct? WATER PCB-00046476 PAPAGEORGE-REDIRECT 888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Yes. Q Your recommendation that drainage systems should contain interceptor basins to trap the heavy PCB for subsequent recovery," again, a drainage trap is something that could have been developed between '57 and '70; isn't that correct? A That's correct. Q At any point in that time? A Yes. Q Now with respect to the recommendations that you made, I take it your earlier testimony is that you don't feel that the carbon treatment, carbon treatment was feasible, but you didn't know whether you could reach 10 ppb; is that correct? THE COURT: Is there anything about this on redirect? MR. KARAGANIS: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Carbon, did Mr. -- MR. KARAGANIS: This is the exhibit he brought out on redirect, Your Honor. He showed it to the jury. THE COURT: I don't think there was any testimony on redirect -- not redirect, but whatever it is. MR. KARAGANIS: On cross. THE COURT: On cross-examination. MR. KARAGANIS: I will move on. Your Honor. THE COURT: I wish you would. Q Mr. Papageorge, with respect to the recommendations on the incinerator, wouldn't it be correct that the incinerator that WATER PCB-00046477 PAPAGEORGE-REDIRECT 889 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 say you constructed could have been built in an earlier time? A That's difficult to answer. In order to build an incinerator, information that was lacking was required. It's a step wise process. Q You had to test; is that right? A That is true. Q The fact that you had not gone out and tested was what made it technically unfeasible; isn't that correct? A That's true. Q Isn't it also correct that you could have gone out and conducted those tests earlier? A That's true of any new development on any piece of equipment. Q Is it not also correct there was no technical burden or impossibility or hurdle that prevented you from either conducting the test or demonstrating the feasibility of the incinerators at an earlier date? A Well, without this test, the technical hurdle did exist. We could not have gone to any machine shop and asked them to build us an incinerator. You have to have data. Q There was no technical hurdle to having performed the test which would have 'demonstrated the project? A To perform the test, you're right. Q And had you performed the test, they proved out to be WATER PCB-00046478 PAPAGEORGE-RE DIRECT 890 1 feasible, did they not? 2 A Very likely. 3 Q Now, Mr. Papageorge, with respect to your earlier testimony 4 with respect to General Electric and the desire -- the concern 5 about blackouts or brownouts -- 6 A I remember it. 7 Q There was nothing about the concerns about blackouts or 8 brownouts which would have prevented the implementation of your 9 recommendations for safe waste control; isn't that correct? 10 A That is correct. 11 MR. KARAGANIS: No further questions, Your Honor. 12 MR. FRUEHWALD: I have nothing further. 13 THE COURT: That's all. Thank you. 14 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 15 (Witness excused.) 16 MR. KARAGANIS: Your Honor, I anticipate at this time 17 reading some deposition testimony from some witnesses not 18 available. 19 THE COURT: You may. 20 Members of the jury, you heard the other day some 21 interrogatories read and the answers thereto. There's still 22 another way of getting evidence before you which is to take the 23 deposition of a witness. Now in a civil case such as this one, 24 the attendance of a witness may not be compelled if he lives 25 more than a hundred miles away from the courtroom. WATER PCB-00046479