Document n7ndv5byJBG1G6BzOKKnJGL6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE COLUMBIA DIVISION KATHERINE JOYCE BREWER, ) et al . , ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Nos. 1-83-003 and 5 ) 1-88-0014 through -vs- ) 1-38-0368 5 ) Judge W i seman MONSANTO CORPORATION, ) 7 et al., ) ) 3 Defendants. ) 9 10 11 1 2 DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE 13 Taken on behalf of the Plaintiffs De ce mbe r 2 1, 19 8 8 14 15 16 17 ORIGINAL 18 19 20 21 22 KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY Registered Professional Reporters 2 3 408 Olive Street, Suite 316 St. Louis, Missouri 63102 2 4 (314) 621-8883 25 KARPOW ICZ REPORTING COMPANY i STLCOPCB4029444 1 -I-N--D--E---X- !I i Direct examination by Mr. Cuker .................... ....... Page 3 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit No. 1 marked ...... Page 56 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit No. 2 marked ......................... Page 69 Papageorge Deposition Exhibits Nos. 3-5 marked . . . . Page 73 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit No. 6 marked ......................... Page 35 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit No. 7 marked ......................... Page 89 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit No. 3 marked ......................... Page 91 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit No. 9 marked . .................... Page 95 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit No. 10 marked ......................... Page 96 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit No. 11 marked ......................... Page 93 Papageorge Deposition Exhibits 'Nos. 12-15 marked . . . Page 99 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit No. 16 marked . .................... Page 1Q5 Papageorge Deposition Exhibits Nos. 17-18 marked . . . Page 106 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit No. 19 marked ...... Page 108 Cross examination by Mr. 3uster.................................................. . Page 111 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit No. 20 marked ......................... Page 116 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit No. 21 marked ......................... Page 119 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit No. 22 marked ......................... Page 123 Redirect examination by Mr. Cuker......................... .... . . . . Page 136 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit No. 23 marked ...... Page 144 Further cross examination by Mr. Buster ................................... Page 154 Parties stipulated to attachment of first and last pages only of lengthy exhibits. STLCOPCB4029445 9 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 2' COLUMBIA DIVISION 3 KATHERINE JOYCE BREWER, ) et al . , ) 4) Plaintiffs, ) Nos. 1-88-008 and 5 ) 1-88-0014 through -V3- ) 1-88-0368 6 ) Judge Wiseman MONSANTO CORPORATION, ) 7 e t al . , S Defendants. FOR THE COURT 9 DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE produced, sworn and examined on the 21st day of December, 193S, 10 between the hours of eight o'clock in the forenoon and six o'clock in the afternoon of that day, at the 11 Karpowicz Reporting Company Conference Room, 314 North Broadway, 11th Floor, in the City of St. Louis, 1 2 State of Missouri, before Gwen A. Huffman, a Registered Professional Reporter, and Notary Public 13 within and for the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri, in a certain cause now pending in the 1 4 United States District Court, for the Middle District of Tennessee, Columbia Division, between Katherine 1 5 Joyce Brewer, et al., Plaintiffs, and Monsanto Corporation, et al.. Defendants, taken on behalf of 16 the Plaintiffs. 1 7 APPEARANCES 18 SLAP, WILLIAMS & CUKER One Franklin Plaza, Suite 960 19 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102-1227 BY: Mark R. Cuker, Esq., .... For the Plaintiffs. 20 SMITH, HELMS, MULLISS & MOORE 21 500 NCNB Building P.O. Box 21927 22 Greensboro, North Carolina 27420 BY: David M. Moore, II, Esq., . For the Defendant 23 Monsanto Corporation. 24 25 KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029446 3 KING & SPALDING 2500 Trust Company Tower Atlanta, Georgia 30303 BY: Richard A. Schneider, Esq. J. Kevin Buster, Esq., . . . For the Defendant Duracell 4 International. 5 DEARBORN & EWING One Commerce Place, Suite 1200 6 Nashville, Tennessee 37239 BY: M. Clark Spoden, Esq., . . . For the Defendant 7 Emhart Industries, Inc. 8 9 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and 10 between Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Counsel for 11 the Defendants, that this deposition may be taken in 12 shorthand by GWEN A. HUFFMAN, a Registered 13 Professional Reporter and Notary Public, and 1 4 afterwards transcribed into typewriting, and that the 1 5 signature of the witness is not waived. 16 17 WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, 18 of lawful age, being produced, sworn and examined on IS behalf of the Plaintiffs, deposes and says: 20 DIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. CUKER: 22 Q. Mr. Papageorge, my name is Mark Cuker. 23 I represent a group of workers and families of 2 4 workers at the P. R. Mallory & Company plant in 2 5 Waynesboro, Tennessee. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029447 I'm going to be asking you about your work at Monsanto in the area of PCBs and relationship between Monsanto and Mallory during the years 1969 to 1978. If at anytime you don't understand any of my questions, will you let me know and i'll rephrase the 6 question? 7 A. I will. 8 Q How old are you, sir? 9 A. Sixty-six. 10 Q Okay. And where do you live? 11 A. You want the specific address? 12 Q Yeah. 13 A . Or just the area? 321 Pebble Valley 14 Drive, St. Louis County, Missouri 63141. 15 Q Okay. Are you retired? 15 A. Yes. 17 Q How long have you been retired? 18 A. Since the end of '86. 1 9 Q What was your position at the time of 20 retirement? 21 A. Manager of occupational health for 22 Monsanto Chemical Company, an operating unit of 23 Monsanto Company. 24 Q . Okay. Was Monsanto Chemical Company 2 5 once called Monsanto Industrial Chemical Company? KA R POW I CZ REPORTING CO MPAN Y | I Iii STLCOPCB4029448 ___________________________ D 1 A. Parts of it. "2 Q . Okay. How long did you hold the 3 position of manager of occupational health? 4 A.. One year. 5 Q .. What was your position before that? 6 A.. Director - Environmental Operations for 7 Monsanto Industrial Chemicals Company. 8 Q ., Was there a reorganization between '85 9 and '86? 1 0 A. Yes. 11 Q How long were you director of 1 2 environmental operations? 13 A. For that particular operating unit? 14 Q Yeah. 15 A. From 1983 through 1985. 16 Q 17 that? Okay. What was your position before 1 8 A. Director - Environmental Operations for 19 Monsanto Intermediate Chemicals Company. 2 0 Q Was the intermediate chemicals company 21 separate from the industrial chemicals company? 2 2. A. Yes. 23 Q. What was the difference? 2 4 A. The intermediate chemicals company made 2 5 chemicals that were the starting materials for other : KARPOWICZ REPOSTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029449 o 1 chemicals used either within Monsanto or to 7" customers. 3 Q. How long did you hold that position? 4 A. From 1977 to 1983. 5 2. Is my understanding correct that 6 Monsanto stopped making PCBs in 1977? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Do you remember -- do you know what 9 month it was in '77? 1 0 A. September of '77. 11 Q. Okay. 12 A. I'm sorry, no, they stopped selling it 13 in September, stopped making it in July of 1977. 1 4 Q. Okay. When in 1977 did you become 15 director of environmental operations for the 16 intermediate chemicals company? 17 A. I believe it was August of 1977. 1 8 Q. And what was your position before that? 19 A. I was manager of product acceptability 2 0 for intermediate chemicals company. 21 Q. Okay. Was the intermediatechemical 2 2_ company involved with PCBs? 23 A. Mo. 2 4 Q. And how long were you manager of product 2 5 acceptability for the intermediate chemical company? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029450 A. As best I remember, it was about September, October of 1976 until I was named director of environmental operations in 1977. Q. 5 of '77? So it would be October of '76 to August 5 A. Yes. 7 Q. During that period, did you have any 3 involvement at all with PCBs? When I say 9 involvement, I mean in terms of communications with 10 outside people, be they customers, government, public 11 groups. 12 A. I attended a committee meeting. It was 13 a review committee meeting called by NIOSH in 1 4 November of 1976 to critique a document they had 15 drafted on PCBs. 16 On rare occasion, I would get telephone 17 calls from many types of individuals seeking 18 information on PCBs, which I would direct to those 19 people who were still active with that issue. 2 0 Q. Okay. So you would refer that to people 21 in the industrial chemical company? 22 A. Yes. 2 3 Q. All right. Which people would you refer 2 4 that to? 2 5 A. Oh, individuals such as Mr. Cole Weber, KARPOWIC2 REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029451 3 1 Mr. David Wood. They were the two key people. Or if 2 it was a medical inquiry, I'd direct it to someone in 3 the medical department. 4 Q . Anybody in particular? 5 A. In '75, Dr. Roush, George Roush, Jack 5 Garrett. I don't recall if Mr. Wheeler had retired 7 by then or not, but if he were there, I certainly 3 v/ o u 1 d . 9 Q Mr. Wheeler still alive? 10 A. Yes, to my knowledge, he is, yes. 1 1 Q You know where he lives? 12 A. Somewhere in the Carolinas. I don't 1 3 know if it's South or North Carolina. 14 Q. Okay. Before October 1976, what was 15 your position? 16 A. Octobe r '76. 17 Q That is, before becoming -18 A. I was manager, product acceptability for 1 9 special --- let me think. For specialty and process 2 0 chemicals. 21 Q . Did that include PCBs? 2 2_ A. No. 23 Q . Okay. How long were you manager of 24 product acceptability for specialty and process 25 chemicals? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029452 I A. I believe it was about a year. 2 Q. So that would be from about October '75 3 to October '76? 4 A. Those may not be the exact months, 'out 5 it'sclose. _ 6 Q. Was specialty and process chemicals 7 within the industrial chemical company or the - 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. And that's the same companythat 10 was making PCBs? 11 A. Yes. 1 2 Q. What was the name of the division that 13 was making PCBs? 1 4 A. I don't remember. 1 5 Q. Did you ever hear of a name of aspecial 16 chemicals division? 17 A. Yes. 1 8 Q. Was there a division by that name 19 between October '75 and October '76? 20 A. I think the word specialty chemicals and 21 special chemicals were used interchangeably. I don't 2 2 recall which was the formal title. 23 Q. Was the manufacture of PCBs within the 2 4 special chemicals division? 25 MR. BUSTER: Talking about the ' 7 5 -- ' 7 6 KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029453 10 1 time frame? 2 MR. COKER : Yeah. 3 THE WITNESS: I honestly don't 4 remember. It could well have been, but I don't 5 remember. 6 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Okay. Before October 7 1975 -- well, let's say between October '75 and 8 October '75, were you involved -- and that is when 9 you were manager of product acceptability for the 1 0 specialty and process chemical division, were you 11 involved with handling inquiries or making 1 2 communications to outside parties about PCBs? 13 A. Yes. 1 4 Q. How much was that part of your job? 15 A. Well, from the -- from about October '75 16 to February '75, I was fairly actively involved with 17 Mr. Cole Weber joining me in many of the activities. 1 8 He was more or less taking over the baton during 19 about a six-month period, the transition of the 20 assignment. 21 Q. Okay. And would these activities 22 include communications with customers? 2 3 A. Yes. 2 4 Q. Communications with governmental or 25 other public agencies? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029454 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. The media? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. When would that six months be during the 5 October '75 to October '76 period? . . 6 A. When would it be? 7 Q . Yeah. 8 A. I don't understand the question. 9 Q. Okay. I think you said you were fairly 10 actively involved with Mr. Weber between October '75 11 and '76, and I think you said there was a six-month 12 period of transition where your activity was greater, 13 is that -- am I correct? Is that your testimony? 1 4 A. No, I don't -- I didn't mean that. 15 Q. Okay. 16 A. In the period wetalked about,October 17 '76 to August '77, I believe that was your initial 1 8 question. 19 Q . Yeah. 20 A. When I wasproduct --or manager of 21 product acceptability for special chemicals and 22 process chemicals, the first six months of that 23 period, I was joining Mr. Cole Weber in the PCB 24 activity, turning over the whole assignment to him in 25 February of 1976. KAR POWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029455 1 Q . Okay. 2 MR. BUSTER: Let me point out that I 3 believe Mr. Papageorge said late '75 to early '77 at 4 the beginning of his answer, and I believe that 5 should be late '75 to late '76. 6 THE WITNESS Did I 7 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Mr. Papageorge, I 8 believe your testimony was that between October '75 9 and October '76, that was when you were manager of 1 0 product acceptability in the special and process 11 chemicals. 12 A. That is correct. 13 Q. So it would be about the first six 1 4 months of that period that you were more heavily 1 5 involved with Mr. Weber in dealing with PCB issues. 16 A. That is correct. That is what I meant 17 to say. 1 8 Q. Okay. What was your position before 19 Octobe r 1 7 5? 2 0 A. Going backward, from '75 back to about 21 mid '73, I had the title manager of product 22 acceptability. During that period -- 23 Q. Which division? 24 A. It was all in the industrial chemicals 25 division. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029456 13 1 Q. All right. The industrial chemicals 2 company? 3 A. Company, yes. The division -4 Q. Was it the whole company? 5 A. The divisions were initial 1-y -- it was a 5 functional fluids division. And at one time it was 7 paired up with specialty chemicals, so it was 8 functional fluids and specialty chemicals. 9 Q. Functional fluids did include PCBs? 1 0 A. Yes. That's as best I recall all these 1 1 titles, but the job title was manager, product 1 2 acceptability. The divisions were being reorganized 1 3 on some frequency and -1 4 Q. Okay. 1 5 A. Assigned to me . 15 Q . Okay. And before '73. 1 7 A. Before '73, as best I remember, I had 18 the title of manager, environmental protection in the 1 9 functional fluids business group, which, as best I 20 recall, was part of the organic chemicals division of 21 Monsanto Company. 2 2 Q. How long did you hold that position? 23 A. That goes back to about 1971 when I hoi 2 4 a different title but the same assignment. The title 2 5 then was manager, environmental control. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029457 I4 1 Q. Okay. Let's talk about '73 to '75. 2 A. '73. All right. 3 Q. Okay? You're manager of product 4 acceptability in the industrial chemical company. 5 A. Right. -- 6 Q. What were your duties in terms of 7 communicating with customers about PCBs? 8 A. Well, I guess I can best define it, I 9 served as an information hub. This information 1 0 related to PCBs in just about every way imaginable, 11 from chemistry to manufacturing technology to methods 12 of transportation, labeling, even medical. Although 13 I was limited in many of these areas because of my 1 4 particular background, I at least served as a 1 5 starting point. 16 Q. Were you the primary information hub in 17 the company during that period for PCBs? 1 8 A. For PCBs? For broad, general 19 information, yes. 2 0 Q . Okay . How about specific information 21 environment and in health? 2 2 A. Well, if it ' s a health question, that 23 would be quickly turned over to the medical 24 department. 25 Q. Environmental. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029458 1 A. Environmental depended on the particular 2 question. If it had to d o ' i t h analyzi ng for PCS s 3 the environment, I would r e 1 ay that que stion, if it 4 got bey ond my expertise, t 0 the individual s in the 5 analytical services section of Monsanto 1. ,G~.- research 6 depa r tment. 7 Q Was that a Mr . Tucker? 3 A. That was -- D r . Tucker was a mem be r of a that group, yes. 1 0 Q Was there anyone else who you would 11 refer those questions to? 12 A. Dr. Keller was the supervisor of that 13 group. 1 4 Q . Robert Keller? 1 5 A. Robert Keller. 1 5 Q Okay. How about on issues 0 f plant 17 housekeeping and employee safety? 1 8 A. Plant housekeeping, I would answer those 19 since I had that particular personal experience. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. Again, on employee safety, if it related 2 2 to specific medical questions, I would ask our 2 3 medical department to respond. 2 4 Q. How about if it related to industrial 25 hygiene measures? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029459 1 Well, that would be that was under 2 our medical department 3 Q. You would refer those to the medical 4 department? 5 A. If it got beyond a point that I just had 6 no personal knowledge, I would say now, wait, this is 7 getting a little too deep. 8 Q. Okay. So it got to a certain level of 9 sophistication where you were not comfortable with 10 providing an answer, you would refer the question? 11 A. Yes. 1 2 Q. All right. Now, between '71 and '73, 13 did you serve as an information hub? 1 4 A. Yes. 15 Q. With regard -- was there any change in 16 your informational duties between '71 and '73 and '73 1 7 and '75 or was it basically the same? 18 A. It was -- there was no change as it 19 relates to PCB s. 20 Q. How about before '71? 21 A. No change from '71 back to January '70. 22 Q. What was your title in that period? 23 A. That was the manager, environmental 2 4 control title. 25 Q. As opposed to manager of environmental KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029460 1 protection? 2 A. That is correct. 3 Q. Was that also for the -- I'm sorry, the 4 functional fluids company, a division, group? *- 5 A. It was --yes. ___ 6 Q. Okay. And before January 1970. 7 A. I was plant manager at the Monsanto 3 plant located in Anniston, Alabama. 9 Q. Which made PCBs? 1 0 A. Yes. 11 Q. They make other chemicals there, too? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. About how many workers inAnniston were 14 working in the PCB area? 1 5 MR. MOORE: What period of time, Mark? 15 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Okay. How long were yo: 17 plant manager? 18 A. About five years. '65 through '69. 19 Q. Okay. During that period, was it a 20 drastic variation in numbers? 21 A. I need some help on defining how many 22 employees -- there were individuals who were there 23 full-time. 2 4 Q. Full-time employees then. 2 5 A. Full-time employees working with?C3s, X A R P 0 WIC Z REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029461 1 the number will not be exact as I don't remember it, 2 but it will be about thirty individuals. 3 Q. Okay. Did the PCB process have its own 4 building in Anniston? ' 5 A. No, this is an outdoor, s t r.u c t u r e . 6 Q. An outdoor structure? 7 A. Well, I don't know how to describe it. 8 There is a room about the size of this room in which 9 the controls and instruments, gauges and meters are 1 0 located, but the facility is out in the open steel 11 structure. 12 Q. Okay. Was it an enclosed -- I mean was 13 it like a barn or something? 1 4 A. No, it's open. 15 Q. Okay. 16 A. You could see it from the street. You 17 could look and see the tanks and pipelines. 1 8 Q. And you could watch theprocess from 19 the re? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. When was Anniston closed? 22 MR. MOORS: You mean when was the 23 airborne unit closed? 24 MR. CUKER: Yes. Thank you. 25 THE WITNESS: I believe it was 1971. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029462 1Q 1 early '72. 2 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) When did you start 3 working with Monsanto? 4 A. 1951. 5 Q. What was your educational., txa c k g r o u n d 6 before that? 7 A. I have a master's degree in chemical 8 engineering from Washington University - St. Louis. 9 Q. Any postgraduate work? 10 A. Yes, I have some earned credits with - 11 at that time it was Oklahoma A&M. I believe now it's 12 referred to as Oklahoma State. Those were credits 13 toward a doctorate in chemical engineering. 1 4 Q. Okay. Between -- when did you get out 15 of school? 16 A. Which time? Which degrees? 17 Q. Okay. Let's say '50 -- well, after you 1 8 got your master's at Washington. 19 A. 1947. 20 Q. Okay. Between '47 and 1965, did you 21 have any training? By training I would include, you 2 2 know, employer sponsored seminars and courses in the 23 area of occupational health. 24 A. No. 2 5 Q. Okay. Whattraining did you - - KARPOvVICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029463 1 A. I -- I better ask for a clarification. 2 Q . Uh- hun . 3 A. You mean a formal course in which the 4 principles of industrial hygiene were taught, is that 5 what you mean by a course? Or do you mean training 5 on how to handle chemicals? 7 Q. I mean a formal course. 8 A. Huh? 9 Q. A formal course. 10 A. A formal course? No. 11 Q. Before becoming manager of occupational 12 health for Monsanto in '86, what training did you 13 have in occupational health? 14 A. No formal training. 15 Q. What informal training did you have? 16 A. I would call it on-the-job experience. 1 7 Q. Okay. And was that from working with 18 other people who were formally trained in 1 9 occupational health? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Such as - 22 A. Part of it. 23 Q. Okay. Such as which people? 24 A. Well, throughthe years, the earliest 25 contact of course was with the medical doctors at the KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029464 O] 1 plant. And early on, the individual at each plant 2 who was assigned the safety matters was also assigned 3 industrial hygiene matters. I would work with them. 4 Mr. Jack Garrett served as Monsanto'- s 5 key industrial hygienist. Later, as the need for 6 more professionals increased, I was working with many 7 individuals who had formal training. I don't 8 remember all of their names by any means. 9 Mr. Garrett eventually ended up with a team of 1 0 industrial hygienists. 11 Q. This team was - 1 2 A. Almost a dozen of them, located in 13 St. Louis. 1 4 Q. The team, they worked under him? 1 5 A. They worked under him. And they in turn 16 were assigned different manufacturing sites that they 17 would serve as consultants to and advise the plants 1 8 on matters as appropriate because each plant had 19 different chemicals that they were handling. 2 0 Q. Just so I'm clear, Mr. Papageorge, your 21 service as the informational hub for PCBs, did that 22 begin in January 1970 when you were the manager - 23 became manager of environmental control? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And that continued until at least KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029465 1 1 October '75 when you left the position of manager of 2 product acceptability within the industrial chemical 3 c om pa ny ? 4 A. Yes. I would extend that October over 5 into February. ___ 5 Q . Okay. 7 A. Because until February, I wasstill it. 8 Q. Okay. Now, have you testified in other 9 PCB litigation? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Approximately how many cases? 12 A. In depositions, in discovery -- 13 Q. Yeah. 14 A. Or in trial? 15 Q. Well, we'll take it one at a time. In 16 depositions. 17 A. Depositions. I have never kept score. 13 I believe it's hit about twenty, twenty-four, a 1 9 couple dozen. 2 0 Q. Okay. I'm going to show you an exhibit 21 marked Roush Exhibit 5, which is a sixteen page list 22 of PCB cases involving Monsanto. 23 A . U h-h uh. 24 Q. And I wonder if you'd go through it and 25 simply check off or write your initials next to the KARP0WIC2 REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029466 1 cases in which you've given depositions. 2 A. I'll try to remember them. 3 MR. 3rJSTER: Could I make a suggestion 4 that maybe we allow Mr. Papageorge to do this at "some 5 break or something like that so we don't-have to take 6 up deposition time? 7 MR. CUKER: That's fine with me. 3 MR. MOORE: Suits me all right. Is that 9 okay with you. Bill? 10 THE WITNESS: Sure. 11 MR. MOORE: At some break later in the 1 2 day ? 13 THE WITNESS: I'd be happy to. 1 4 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Mr. Papageorge, how 1 5 about at trials? How many trials have there been at 16 which you've testified? 17 A. I believe it's five. 18 Q. Okay. Can you remember those? 1 9 A. I'll try. I may not refer to these by 20 the proper title, but I call them -- I'll use my 21 te rminology. 22 Q. Sure. 23 A. There was the Bethlehem Mink case in 24 Hampshire. There was a transformer spill case 2 5 involving General Electric Company in Tennessee. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029467 2J I There was a silo case in Michigan. There was an 2 employee exposure case in Texas. 3 Q . Is that the Scott case? A *1 A. Yes. And then there was a site cleanup 5 case in Bloomington, Indiana. ... 5 Q. Was that the case that was brought by 7 the U.S. government or by private parties? 8 A. This was brought by the city of 9 Bloomington. 10 Q. City of Bloomington. Thank you. 11 Now, can you recall any specific 12 involvement with P. R. Mallory & Company as an 13 informational hub responding to questions submitted 1 4 by P. R. Mallory & Company related to PCBs? 15 A. Yes. 15 Q. Okay. What can you just generally 17 recall about the communications you had with P. R. 1 8 Mallory Company? 19 A. I recall a visit to their plant in 2 0 Tennessee. I recall at least one, and I'm sure it's 21 more than one, visit to the Indianapolis office. I 22 recall several discussions with representatives of 23 the company. In particular, a Mr. Dibble and a 24 Dr. Doty. 25 Mr. Dibble and Dr. Doty were the KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029468 25 1 principal individuals, at least from where I was 2 sitting, and with whom I had the most frequent 3 conta ct. 4 Q . 0 k a y. ' 5 A. That about describes --.I. h-a-d some 6 correspondence, as I remember, in responding to 7 inquiries, I would prepare letters back trying to 8 respond to the inquiries. 9 Q. Did you review any of those documents 10 before today? 11 A. I reviewed some, yes. 12 Q. Did you meet with Mr. Buster and 13 Mr. Schneider before today? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. For about how long? 15 A. About two hours. 17 Q. Okay. And when was that? 18 A. About a week ago. 19 Q. Okay. What were your discussions with 20 Mr. Buster and Mr. Schneider? 21 A. We reviewed a collection of documents 22 that I was led to believe had been introduced in thi 23 case. 2 4 Q. Okay. Did you discuss with them your 25 recollection of your meetings with Mallory personnel KAR POWICZ REPORT IMG COMPANY STLCOPCB4029469 1 i n Tennessee and Indianapolis? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q Okay. And what were those dis cussions? A A. About 1 ike I just described to you. ' 5 Q Can you recall the subject -o-f discussion 6 at the Indianapolis visit, the one Indianapolis visit 7 that you specifically remember? 8 A. I can recall some of it. Not all the 9 details. 1 0 Q. What can you recall about it? 11 A. I recall meeting in a room with several 12 representatives of P. R. Mallory Company. Mr. Dibble 13 was present. He, in fact, served as sort of a 1 4 chairman, if you will. I recall reviewing with that 1 5 group Monsanto's knowledge of the PCB environmental 16 issue as it was known at that point in time. 17 Q. What point in time was this? 1 8 A. 1970, '71. I reviewed with them the 19 status of Monsanto's attempt to develop analytical 20 methods that would give accurate answers. I reviewed 21 with them Monsanto's program for determining whether 22 PCBs would degrade in the environment. 23 And also reviewed with them the animal 24 test studies that Monsanto had placed and were under 25 way at that time and the results that were reported KARPOW ICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029470 27 1 to me up to that point. 2 Q. Okay. The analytical methods, did that 3 include methods of analysis and sampling the air for 4 airborne PCBs? 5 A. Yes. ... 6 Q. Okay. What was the state of the 7 analytical methods at that time? 8 A. By today's standards, I would call it 9 rather crude. I'm trying to recall what level they 1 0 could detect. It was still in the low parts per 11 million range. And they were trying to reach parts 1 2 per billion and parts per trillion, if they could. 1 3 That was the objective of the Monsanto program. 1 4 Q. Okay. What was the status of the 15 environmental test studies at that time? I'm sorry, 15 the animal test studies. 17 A. The animals? In '70 and '71, the 1 8 studies were still under way. There were indications 19 that the -- in the rats that the high dose level, 20 which was a hundred parts per million in the daily 21 diet of the higher chlorinated mixtures, this is what 22 Monsanto called Aroclor 1254 and 1260, was resulting 23 in a decrease in the weight gained by the animals. 24 As they got older, they were not growing as fast as 25 the controls. There appeared to be a showing of KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029471 23 1 enlarged livers. 2 In the reproduction studies, as I 3 r emembe r at that point in time, there was some hint, 4 although it wasn't confirmed yet, that the rats were 5 having some reduction in the size of the Jitters, 6 Not as many pups were born as the controls. 7 Q . Was that, the reproductive effect, more 8 c ommon with the lower chlorinated mixtures? 9 A. Not with the rats. It was the higher 1 0 chi orinated. 11 Q. Okay. 12 A. Now, with the leghorn chickens, it 13 appeared that the lower chlorinated mixtures, as we 1 4 used to call the lower chlorinated mixture used in 15 this test as Aroclor 1242, that particular material 16 seemed at fairly low levels, somewhere between one 1 7 and ten parts per million, the eggs that were laid 1 8 had hatchability problems and some of the shells were 19 thinner than normal. So that test was later rerun at 20 lower levels. 21 I forget just the point in time this was 22 done, but eventually we demonstrated with further 23 testing that about three parts per million of the 24 Aroclor 1242 affected egg hatchability and egg she!' 2 5 thickness. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029472 9Q 1 The dog study at that point in time 2 wasn't showing anything that was obvious. 3 Q. What was their reaction to this 4 information? " 5 MR. BUSTER: The dogs or ^----- a v MR. CUKER: No, the information about 7 the animal study. . 8 THE WITNESS: The information? I -- a 9 lot of interest. Just total attention. This was, 1 0 for most of us laymen, laymen in terms of medical 11 kinds of studies, it's kind of fascinating 1 2 information. And it was not something that's normal 13 to most of our businesses. 1 4 So this was a totally new kind of 15 subject and they were very interested. They asked, 16 of course, to be kept up-to-date in terms of the 17 final results. And, of course, I offered to send 1 8 them copies of summaries that I had arranged with the 19 laboratory to send me every six or eight months. And 20 that was done. 21 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Okay. You did that as 22 time went on? 23 A. Yes, uh-huh. 2 4 Q. Mr. Papageorge, did you have any 2 5 involvement with any of the activities of the KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029473 3n 1 American Industrial Hygiene Association? 2 A. Involvement in -- in later years, I 3 attended their meetings. 4 Q. Okay. Did you participate in those ' 5 meetings from any type of a leadership, point of view, 6 serving on committees or things like that? 7 A. No. 8 Q. How about theAmerican Conference on 9 Industrial Hygienists? 1 0 A. No. 11 Q. Did anybody atMonsanto participate in 12 those organizations from an active service point of 13 view with regard to PCBs? 14 A. Oh, yes. I don't know the extent of 1 5 their involvement, but I do know that Mr. Garrett and 16 his members of his team, some of the plant industrial 17 hygiene individuals in Monsanto participated. In 18 fact. Dr. Roush was a member of a panel, as I recall, 1 9 that helped establish exposure levels for ACGIH. 20 Q. Helped establish the TLV? 21 A. TLV s, yes. 22 Q For ACGIH? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q When did he do that? 25 A. In the '80s. I don't know KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029474 31 1 timing. 2 Q. Okay. Do you know of anybody at 3 Monsanto who served on a TLV committee before the 4 '80s for PCBs? 5 A. Not to my knowledge. - 6 Q. Let me show you a document that's 7 already been marked Roush Exhibit 2. Have you seen 3 that document before - 9 A. Yes. 1 0 Q . -- Mr. Papa geor ge ? 11 A. Yes, I have. 12 Q. You see a reference i n the 1 owe r 1 3 left-hand corner to Jack Garrett and Elmer Wheeler? 1 4 A. Yes, I do. 1 5 Q . Do you know what their involvement was 16 with the preparation of that document? 1 7 A. I understood that they shared with the 18 panel that reviewed all this information data from 1 9 Monsanto's animal testing studies that had been 20 conducted through the years starting in the '40s, the 21 '50s, and into the '60s. 22 Q. Do you know if they shared with that 23 panel the industrial hygiene practices that Monsanto 2 4 employed ? 2 5 A. I'm told they did, yes. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029475 i 1 Q. Toldby whom? 2 A. By Mr. Wheeler, yeah. 3 Q. Okay. Were you familiar with the 4 practices at the Krummrich pi ant between say January 5 1970 and February 1976? .. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. How far is the Krummrich plant 8 from here? 9 A. Gosh, it's about four or five miles. 10 Q. It's four or five miles outside of 11 St. Louis? 12 A. Right across the river and -13 Q. How often did you go there? 1 4 A. At what point in time? 15 Q. Let's say between January of '70 and 1 16 February of '76. 17 A. About every six months. 18 Q. Okay. Were you familiar with the 1 9 industrial hygiene practices that were employed at 20 that plant? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. I want to go through the I 23 practices laid out in Roush Exhibit 2, and I'm going 24 to ask you for each one, whether that was employed 25 for Krummrich between January 1970 and February KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029476 33 1 1976. Let me just ask you, were you familiar with 2 the practice s after February '76 at Krummrich? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q - Okay. 5 A . U h-h uh. .. . -- - 6 Q All right. For what period of time 7 would you be familiar beyond Febr ua ry of '7 6? . 8 A. Until I retired. 9 Q. Okay. 10 A. For other chemicals, too. I mean the 11 whole plant. 12 Q. Okay. Let me ask you for the period 13 January 1970 until July 1977. That was the date they 1 4 stopped making PCBs. 15 A. All right. 16 Q. Whether these practices were followed at 1 7 K r umm rich. 1 8 A. Uh-huh. 1 9 Q. I want you to turn to -- let's see, 20 start with Roman Numeral III, letter three. Okay? 21 A. Roman Numeral III, letter three. 22 Q. I'm sorry, excuse me, C. 23 MR. MOORE: C, the subheading under 24 Roman III. All right. Entitled Hazards And Their 25 Recommended Control, is that right? KAR POWICZ RE PORT ING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029477 34 1 MR. C U K E R: Yeah. 2 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) "Concentrations in the 3 workroom atmosphere should be maintained below the 4 recommended levels." Was that done at Krummrich?" 5 A. Yes. .. 6 Q. Okay. Now, I'm just going to skip a 7 sentence. "When these materials are subjected to 8 elevated temperatures, the process either should be 9 completely enclosed or other adequate mechanical 10 exhaust ventilation must be provided to reduce 11 concentrations to safe levels." Was that done at 1 2 K r umm rich? 13 A. Yes. 1 4 Q. What did Krummrich or what did Monsanto 1 5 interpret elevated temperatures to mean? 16 A. Oh, in the neighborhood of -- these are 17 not exact. Three hundred and fifty degrees 1 8 Fahrenheit and above. 1 9 Q. Okay. Did they ever consider elevated 20 temperatures to mean fifty-five degrees centigrade or 21 above? 22 A. That's pretty low.No, that's - 23 fifty-five would be about a hundred Fahrenheit. No, 2 4 that would be considered low for PCBs. 2 5 Q. Okay. Was it ever considered to be a KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029478 35 1 hundred degrees centigrade or above? 2 A. That would be moderate. I would not 3 call it high. 4 Q. Okay. When the materials were subjected 5 to elevated temperatures, was the pr.oces-s either 6 completely enclosed or other adequate mechanical 7 exhaust ventilation provided to reduce concentrations 8 to safe levels? 9 A. Yes. I thought I answered that. 10 Q. Were the employees informed of the need 11 of that, of doing that? 12 A. Yes. 1 3 Q. Okay. I'm goingto skip asentence. 1 4 Were special gasket materials and pump seals provided 1 5 to prevent leakage? 16 A. Yes. 1 7 Q. Were theemployees informed of the need 18 of that? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Was the reservoir tank kept airtight 21 except for vent to the outdoors? 22 A. Yes, definitely. 23 Q. Were the employees informed of the need 2 4 of that? 2 5 A. Yes. KARPQWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029479 1c 1 Q. Okay. In the event of spills or leaks 2 of hot fluids, were chemical cartridge respirators o 3 gas masks approved by the rJ.S. Bureau of Mines for 4 protection against organic vapors, were those 5 provided? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And were the employees informed of the 8 need of that? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. Number two, skin contact, were 11 operations and handling procedures designed such as 1 2 to avoid the possibility of prolonged or repeated 13 skin contact? 1 4 A. Yes. 1 5 Q. Were the employees informed of the need 16 of that? 17 A. Yes. 1 8 Q Was contaminated clothing required to be 19 laundered before reuse? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q . Were employees informed of the need of 22 that? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Did the employees wear eye protection 2 5 where there was a possibility of liquid splashes? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029480 1 A. Yes. 2 Q Were they informed of the need of that? 3 A. Yes . 4 Q Okay. I ' m going to just skip down t"o 5 Roman Numeral IV under medical inf orma.ti-on. Were the 6 employees informed that skin surfaces exposed to 7 chlorodiphenyls should be thoroughly washed with soap 8 and water at once? 9 A. Yes. 1 0 Q. Were the employees informed that if 11 clothing has been contaminated, it should be removed 1 2 promptly? 13 A. Not quite. If the contamination was 14 such that skin was being involved, skin exposure, 15 yes. But if the contamination was such that the skin 16 of the individual, whether leg, arm, or the rest of 17 the body was not immediately involved, they could 18 wait until the end of the shift to discard that 19 clothing. 20 Q. Okay. Were the employees informed that 21 if exposure to a high vapor concentration occurs, 22 that is in the case of spills at elevated 23 temperatures, they should leave the area? 24 A. Yes, this was left to -- it was a 25 judgment call on the part of the employee as to what KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029481 33 1 was excessive. 2 Q. Okay. What did they base that judgment 3 on? 4 A. Primarily, adiscomfort factor, really. 5 It gets so bad they leave. -- 6 Q. Okay. Just going back to your answer on 7 the clothing - 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. -- did thatvary at all between '69 and 1 0 '70 -- between '70 and '77? The answer on the 11 removal of contaminated clothing. 12 A. Not to my knowledge. 13 Q So you think that was kept the same? 1 4 A. That's correct. 1 5 Q . Did this area include Aroclor 1242 or 16 1 2 54? 17 A. No. 1 8 Q Were the employees informed that eyes 19 contaminated with chiorodipheny1 should be i r r i g a t 20 with water for at least fifteen minutes and they 21 should be seen by a physician? 2 2 A. Yes. 23 Q Were persons who are regularly o r 24 repeatedly exposed to chi orodiphenyls examined 2 5 periodically by physicians to detect early evidence KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029482 39 i 1 of skin irritation and/or liver damage? j 2 3 yes. A. They had the annual medical examination, j Ij 4 Q. Okay. Did that examination also examine 5 them to detect early evidence of skin, --..of liver - 6 of skin irritation? 7 A. Well, certainly if it was evident, the 8 physician would see it. On the other hand, if the 9 employee appeared at the dispensary with red hands or 10 red spots on their legs, certainly the doctor would 11 look at it. 1 2 Q. Was the annual examination designed to 13 detect early evidence of liver damage? 1 4 A. To my knowledge, it was, yes. 15 Q. In what way? 15 A. As I understood it, the blood samples 17 would help determine how the liver was functioning. 1 8 And then also the -- I don't know what the doctors 19 call it, but they feel for an enlarged liver when 20 they check us. 21 Q. Did the doctors customarily do tests of 22 1iver function? 23 A. Yes. To my knowledge, yes. 2 4 Q. Okay. Did Monsanto expose persons with 2 5 known liver disease to repeated contact with KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029483 40 1 chlorodiphenyls? 2 A. Not knowingly, no. 3 Q. Did you ever submit this Roush Exhibit 2 4 to customers of Monsanto as a guideline for their5 usage? 6 A. Upon request, yes, but -- to me. It's 7 my understanding, however, that this document back in 8 the '60s when it was available was widely circulated 9 by Monsanto's medical department. I came along in 1 0 1970 and then this was already in place. 11 Q. Okay. When you say upon request, would 12 that be a specific request if someone said I want the 13 AI HA guide, or would it be I want some information on 1 4 industrial hygiene? 15 A. It would be more close to the latter; 16 give me any information you have, which is the broad 17 question. Then this would be included. Or give me 18 information on employee exposure that you have. This 19 would be part of it, yes. 20 Q. Okay. Did you communicate in words or 21 in substance theseprinciples to theMallory Company? 22 A. Yes. 2 3 Q. When? 24 A. Well,certainly when Italked to the 25 assembled groups in Indianapolis and also in KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029484 41 1 Waynesboro. 2 Q. Which assembled group did you speak to 3 in Waynesboro? 4 A. It was the plant staff. I don't ~- 5 remember all the individuals. 6 Q How many people? 7 A. It was like half a dozen or so. 8 Q Okay. 9 A. Something like that. It was a good 1 0 group. 11 Q . Do you remember the name of any specific 12 people you spoke to in Waynesboro p 13 A. I believe there was a Mr. Lewis. And I 1 4 remember him only because his name was similar to a 15 Monsanto employee. I believe Mr. Dibble was present. 16 Q. In Waynesboro? 1 7 A. I believe he was. It's been eighteen 18 years. But, anyway, I think that's where I first met 1 9 Mr. Dibble. There were other members of the staff, 20 but I -- their name escapes me at the moment. 21 Q. Okay. Were you -- do you recall if you 22 were still submitting this AIHA guide to users of 23 PCBs in 1975? 24 A. It was certainly the document of 25 relevance at the time. I don't remember any specific KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029485 1 case where in 1975 anybody asked for it because in 2 '75 the remaining couple dozen customers were really 3 well versed on this subject. 4 Q. 5 in 1 97 6? Was it still the document of relevance . .. 6 A. Yes. 7 MR. BUSTER: Object to the form as to 8 what you mean by document of relevance. 9 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Well, Mr. Papageorge, 10 that's your phrase. I assume you understand what's 11 meant by that. But can you explain that to 12 Mr. Buster? 13 A. What I really had in mind was that the 14 recommended exposure levels in this document and the 1 5 suggested approaches were still appropriate in '75 16 and in '76 as compared to the '60s when this was 1 7 first put out. 1 8 Q. How about as of August 1977? 19 A. I believe it's still pertinent, yes. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. Nothing has shown up to change it. 22 Q. All right. I want to go into some other 23 aspects of the Krummrich plant procedures. What type 24 of environmental monitoring was done at Krummrich 2 5 between '70 and '77? And if the answer changes with KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029486 43 1 the time period within those six years, please let me 2 know. 3 MR. MOORE: Are you talking about air 4 1 ev e1 s , Ma r k ? - 5 MR. CUK2R : Yeah. . .. 6 MR. MOORE: Okay. 7 THE WITNESS: Well, there were certainly 8 changes in the analytical methodology. In early 9 1970, before the -- 10 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Mr. Papageorge, I don't 11 want to cut you off, okay? Let me break that down. 1 2 Let me talk about the -- let me ask you first about 13 the frequency of air monitoring done in the places 1 4 where it was done. And then afterwards, we can get 15 into the methodology, unless you really feel it's - 1 6 you can't discuss one without the other. 17 A. The f r eq uency. 1 8 Q. How often they would sample the air, 19 where they would sample the air. 2 0 A. They would sample the air in the 21 periphery of the manufacturing unit, up wind and down 22 wind. Remember, this is an outdoor structure. 23 Q. Was Krummrich an outdoor structure, toe? 24 A. Yes. Yes. They would sample it at 2 5 the -- what we call the drumming station. That's KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029487 1 when the material is introduced into the drum, the 2 package. They would sample it at the equipment 3 during the step when lime is added to the process. 4 This is when the vessel is opened and the powdered 5 lime is dumped into the reactor. . . ... 5 The frequency is not great because it 7 was found that the levels were acceptable. They -were 8 within the guidelines. Once that's established, then 9 the next opportunity or the next need for resampling 1 0 is when someone who manages the operation decides 11 that a significant change has been made, either a new 1 2 drumming station lab installed or a new way to 13 introduce the lime. So, then, again, these sample 1 4 points are checked out. 1 5 Q. Mr. Papageorge, what did it -- okay. 1 6 How many repeat tests would be done before they were 17 satisfied that they were within the level? 1 8 A. I don't recall any repeat tests. It's a 19 single test taken and the answer is developed and 20 someone looks at it and said okay, it's acceptable. 21 Q. They would do one sample in each area, 22 and if they were within the level, they would not 23 repeat unless there was a process change? 24 A. Oh, I don't know about the one sample. 25 Q. Okay. KARPOtoICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029488 45 1 A. At least one sampling effort was made. 2 I don't know if they had several units out there 3 picking up samples. 4 Q. Oh, okay. Now, and was that the " 5 practice through '76? - . ., -- 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. That unless there was a process change, 8 they would not do repeat sampling? 9 A. That is right. 1 0 Q. How frequently were there process 11 changes during that period? 12 A. Not too often. ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT FOR THE COURT 13 Q. Once a year? 1 4 A. No, I'd say -- huh. I don't know 1 5 exact. A couple, three years. 16 Q. Okay. Was there monitoring of all vents 17 and traps at the Krummrich plant? 18 MR. MOORE: What kind of monitoring are 1 9 you talking about? 2 0 Q. (BY MR. CUKER)Monitoring for release 21 of PCBs. 22 A. As I remember, there was a program to 23 monitor vents and traps as it related to escape into 24 the environment, not related to worker exposure. As 2 5 best I recall, this was done once to establish what KAR POWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029489 1 PCBs were entering the environment. " 2 Q. Okay. Now, where were these vents and 3 traps located? 4 A. All over the unit. There 'were vents;, 5 for example, off of the devices that pull_ a vacuum on 6 the reaction so that the temperature can be kept 7 lower as the chemical is being made. 8 There are vents, of course, on all the 9 storage tanks. The tanks have to breathe. 10 Otherwise, they would collapse or would burst. There 11 were vents, when they fill tank cars, that hook up a 1 2 pipe to release the vapor higher up. 1 3 There were, of course, vents at the 1 4 drumming station. There was a hood over the unit 15 that would suck the air upward away from the worker. 16 Q. Now, these vents would vent airborne 17 PCBs, is that right? 18 A. That's what a vent does,uh-huh, yes. 19 Q. Okay. You have to forgive my 20 engineering ignorance here. 21 A. I'm sorry. 22 Q. How about the traps, was that airborne 23 or liquid discharge? 24 A. Well, it's both. 2 5 Q. Okay. Can you -- KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029490 1 A. As the liquid is discharged and it's hot 2 enough, it could release airborne p C 3 s . That depends 3 there on the temperature of that particular liquid. 4 Q. Okay, fine. And was there monitoring of 5 thosetraps, also? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. Now, was this one timemonitoring 8 or a daily monitoring? 9 A. I would call it -10 Q. Or something in between that? 11 A. It was not daily. It was done -- that's 12 a judgment call. Has anything changed to require new 13 information or is it like it was last year. Is last 1 4 year's data still applicable. 1 5 Q. Okay. But it's yourtestimony that this 16 monitoring of the vents and traps was solely on the 17 environmental purposes and did not have any 18 industrial hygiene purpose? 1 9 A. The one effort that I'm aware of, yes. 20 I am not aware of any others that were made. 21 Q. Okay. Were the pumps checked for 22 leakage on every shift at Krummrich? 23 A. What point in time? 2 4 Q. '70 to '76 or within that period, if 25 it's a smaller period. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029491 1 A. Starting in 1970, the frequency of check 2 was increased such that about 1971, it was checked 3 certainly once a shift, and more often, if 4 practical. If the worker had a chance to walk by- and 5 check, he was encouraged to do so. 6 Q. Okay. And would that be to -- what was 7 the surface, the work surface in this outdoor 8 structure, the floor, if there was a floor? 9 A. The upper levels are steel grating. 1 0 Under the pumps we had mounted steel pans with lips 11 on them to contain any small leakage. These pans in 1 2 turn had a drain, a pipe that would lead down to a 1 3 collecting point. So the employee was expected to 1 4 look and see if this pan was dry or whether it had 15 evidence of oil. 16 Q. And how were the floor spills cleaned up 17 when there was a spill? 18 A. I didn't finish. 19 Q. I'm sorry. 20 A. The upper levels were steel grating. 21 The bottom level, the ground level was a concrete 22 surface with eventually concrete curbs. Any drippage 23 that collected from all the levels above it would ecu 24 up in a sump, which was underneath this concrete 25 floor. And the PCBs were collected, disposed of. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029492 49 1 Q. How were spills cleaned up off the floor 2 when they were on the floor and did not collect in 3 any container? 4 A. If they were large enough, the attempt 5 was made to collect it as a liquid, squee.gee it, and 5 by some means, either a suction pump or something, 7 collect it. 8 If it was too small to be collectible by 9 that means, an absorbent material would be used, 1 0 absorbent clays or sawdust or rags. And these 11 materials would be put in steel drums and taken to a 1 2 landfill. Now, this, of course, is after 1970 as we 13 learned more about -1 4 Q. Would that have started in '71? 1 5 A. It would have been in place in '71, 16 uh-huh. 17 Q. Okay. Did the workmen who did this 18 cleanup job wear protective clothing against skin 1 9 contact? 20 MR. MOORE: You mean something other 21 than the normal cotton work clothes? 22 Q. (BY MR. COKER) Well, do they wear 23 gloves, for instance? 2 4 A. Well, they always wore gloves for 25 operating and they had a chance of getting exposed. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029493 50 1 They always carried them in their back pockets and 2 were encouraged, taught -3 Q. Did they -- my understanding from 4 Dr. Roush is that the employees wore coveralls that 5 were supplied by the company, is that .correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. Did the employees do any 8 protective -- I'm sorry, the cleanup wear anything in 9 addition to the coveralls in clean up of spills? 1 0 A. That would depend on the magnitude of 11 the cleanup. Normally, no. But if it's a major 1 2 cleanup -- I don't recall any involving PCBs, but if 13 it were major, they were -- they had access to rubber 1 4 suits or whatever was appropriate. They could go 1 5 check one out and use it. 16 Q. I'm talking about a cleanup where 17 they're trying to conserve the liquid in bulk as 18 opposed to sop it up with rags or with sawdust. 1 9 A. Normally, they would not have anything 20 unusual. 21 Q. Okay. Did Monsanto at anytime, going 22 back as long as you were working with PCBs, use 23 trich1orethy1ene to clean up PCBs? 24 A. Not to my knowledge. 2 5 Q. Did you ever recommend against the use KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029494 51 1 of TCE as a vehicle to clean up 2 A . NO. 3 Q. -- spills? 4 A. NO. ~' 5 Q. You never made a r e comme n.dalt i o n one way 6 or the other? 7 A. No. In fact, I did recommend the use of 8 materials like TCE to customers for - 9 Q To clean - 1 0 A. For cleanup and what we call degreasing, 11 deoiling. 1 2 Q. Okay. I'm talking about for cleaning up 13 spills on the floor. 1 4 A. Oh. No, I never referred to any solvent 15 for cleaning up spills. 16 Q. Okay. Youonlyreferred to what 17 Monsanto is using at Krummrich? 1 8 A. Right. 19 Q. Were there mist eliminators used to 2 0 collect PCB -- airborne PCB ointment -- excuse me, 21 airborne PCBs at Krummrich? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And how were they used? 2 4 A. To put it simply, they are put literally 25 at the end of the vent. That's the last piece of KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029495 52 ]_ equipment. And the intent there is for the cooled 2 gases to condense and collect on these surfaces 3 inside these mist eliminators and drip on back into a 4 collecting point so that the air that's finally 5 released has a minimum amount of chemical- or PCBs, in 6 this case. 7 Q. Was that put on all the vents? 8 A. No, not all vents. 9 Q. Okay. What determined whether it was 10 put on a vent or not? 11 A. It was -- generally, a mist eliminator 12 is put on a piece of equipment that is connected to 13 the high temperature part of a process and which 14 would be most likely to involve periods when the 1 5 amount of vapors is greater than other periods. It's 16 a fluctuating kind of need. And that's to 1 7 distinguish between a vent that's tied into a storage 18 tank where the material is at ambient temperatures. 1 9 Q . Okay. Would a vent in a tank where the 20 PCBs would be heated, would that vent have a mist 21 eliminato r ? 22 A. Depends on the temperature of heating. 23 Q. Okay. 2 4 A. Again,- in the hundreds of degrees 25 Fahrenheit. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029496 "3 1 Q. Okay. Well, at two hundred degrees 2 Fahrenheit. 3 A. I don't recall any of Monsanto's process 4 thathadtwohundred. - 5 Q. It was either ambient or three fifty? 6 A. It was three fifty, four hundred, five 7 hundred. 8 Q. Okay. 9 A. They were cooled down to about the three 1 0 hundred and then pumped into a tank and then were 11 allowed to cool to ambient temperatures. I just 1 2 don't remember. It could be, but I don't remember. 13 Q. Okay. Did you ever hear the term of 1 4 a -- hear of a Brink mist eliminator? 1 5 A, Yes 16 Q. Is that the type that they used? 17 A. That was a Monsanto patented unit, yes. 1 8 Q. Okay. Was there a procedure to route or 19 reroute any ruptured lines to tanks or settling 20 bases? 21 A. I'm confused by the expression ruptured 22 lines. 23 Q . Ruptured disk lines? 2 4 A. Oh, oh. Yes. 2 5 Q What's a ruptured disk line? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029497 1 A. A ruptured disk is a device that's 2 inserted in a pipeline to prevent the flow of liquid 3 until a certain pressure is reached. And then this 4 disk deliberately is designed to rupture to release 5 the pressure so that the tank isn't damaged. 6 Now, when it ruptures and the liquid is 7 forced through that new opening, now, at one time, 8 these would be discharged freely onto the ground or 9 into the air. And we decided this was not 1 0 appropriate. 11 And the intent there was to direct this 12 line into a -- some tank or other reasonable 13 collecting point so it wouldn't get out of control. 1 4 Q. Okay. Was the worker's clothing 1 5 laundered at the plant site? 15 A. No. 17 Q. Was it laundered by the company? 18 A. It was laundered by a laundry contracted 1 9 by the company. 2 0 Q. Okay. And that was done routinely? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. Who provided the shoes? 23 A. The company. 24 Q. Okay. Did it sell it to the workers at 25 a subsidized price or did they just -- KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029498 55 1 MR. MOORE: Are w e back talking about 2 '71 to '76 at Krummrich? 3 MR. CUKER: ' 7 9 t o 1 76 . 4 MR . MOORE : ' 7 0 t 0 '76 at Krummrich 5 Okay. . . .-- 6 M R. CUKER: Yes. 7 THE WITNESS: Shoes are provided to all 8 the employees at the plant at least once a year. 9 This is part of the labor contract for all chemicals, 1 0 all operations from telephone operator to the 11 chemical worker. 12 Q . (BY MR. CUKER) Was this a union 13 collective bargaining agreement? 1 4 A. Yes. 15 Q . Okay. Who's the union? 16 A. It's FS International Chemical Workers. 17 Q. Is that part of the OCAW at all? 18 A. No. 1 9 Q. I take it then that the company did not 20 sell the shoes to the worker? 21 A. No. 22 Q . Okay. 2 3 A. They were given a pair a year unless the 2 4 shoes were damaged while in use at the job, and then 2 5 they would replace the damaged shoe. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029499 1 Q . What was done with the cleaning fluid 2 that was used to wash this clothing? 3 A. I don't know. 4 Q. Was it incinerated? - 5 A. I don't know, ... ... 6 Q. Let me show you a article from Chemical 7 Week Magazine dated April 21st, 1971. It's been 8 stamped number 500009 through 11. I'll have it 9 marked -- this will be the first Papageorge. 10 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit No. 1 was 11 marked by the court reporter for identification.) 1 2 (A discussion was held off the record.) 13 THE WITNESS: I've looked at it. 1 4 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Okay. 1 5 A. I recall it. 16 Q. Okay. There's areference here that - 17 MR. BUSTER: May I look at the document, 18 piea se? 1 9 MR. CUKER: Oh, sure. 20 (A discussion was held off the record.) 21 (A break was taken.) 22 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Mr. Papageorge, I want 23 to call your attention to some specific things on 2 4 page 500011. 25 MR. MOORE: Referring to the bate stamp KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029500 1 in the lower right-hand corn er of the third pa 3 r^T.l '^*' 2 the exhibit. Okay . 3 Q (BY MR. COKER) You see here wher e it 4 says "Monsanto even provides clothing for all t h e" 5 workers, and after the cloth es are cleaned all the 6 cleaning fluid is collected for destruction in the 7 incinerator. " You see that? 3 A. I see that. 9 Q Now, first of all, do you provide the 1 0 information -- were you the pr ima ry source of the 11 information contained in thi s article? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q . Okay. Does that refresh your 14 recollection as to how that cleaning fluid was 1 5 handled? 1 5 A. It refreshes my recollection. I 17 discussed my objective regarding the hope that we had 1 8 at the time as to go to the laundry company and 19 institute this approach. I do not recall if that was 20 ever done. And this is why my answer previously, I 21 don't know. 22 Q. Just so I'm clear, is it that you don't 23 recall that it was actually incinerated or you don't 2 4 recall whether Monsanto made the offer to the laundry 25 company? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029501 1 A. I don't recall either one of those. 2 Q . Okay. Now, there's another reference in 3 here. You see where it says "All tanks are," quote, 4 'buttoned up,' unquote, "so that operators don't "-have 5 to look in." You see that? S A. Yes. 7 Q All right. What does that mean? 3 A. At one time, there was a large circular 9 opening on each tank which was provided with a lid, 1 0 but for the convenience of the operator, that lid 11 would be removed and set off to the side. And that 12 practice was condoned up until this point in time, 13 the 1970s. We insisted then -1 4 Q. Mr. Papageorge, when you said this point 1 5 in time, you pointed to the article which is dated 16 April 21, 1971, is that correct? 17 A. Yes, that's why I said the 1970s. 18 Q. All right. 1 9 A. Instead of a cover plate, which would be 20 bolted to this opening, we provided what is known in 21 the industry as a sight glass, which is just what it 22 is, it's a glass cover such that the operator car., 2 3 with the aid of either a fixed light or a flashlight, 2 4 can look into the reactor. 25 Q. Okay. So that when they had the plate KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029502 co 1 bolted on there, when anyone removed that plate, it 2 was just a hole, there was no glass cover? 3 A. That is right. 4 Q . Okay. And was that glass plate pro v-i d e d I 5 to reduce PCB emissions? 5 A Cl Yes. -- 7 Q . Where did the workers eat at that plant? 8 A. We're talking still the Krummrich plant. 9 Q Yeah. 1 0 A. The reason I'm hesitating is there was a 11 change made . I believe -- in the '70s, there was a 1 2 centrally located cafeteria and the employees went to 13 that site either with their lunch that they brought 1 4 from home or purchased at this -- in this separate 1 5 building. 1 6 Q. It was a separate building? 17 A. Yes. 1 8 Q. To get from the PCB area to the lunch - 19 to the cafeteria, excuse me, they would have to go a 20 certain distance? 21 A. Yes. 2 2 Q. Approximately how far? 23 A. About three or four city blocks. 24 Q. Good size complex. 2 5 A. Yes. KARPOVvICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029503 1 Q. Were they instructed to clean up before 2 eating? 3 A. Yes. A Q . Were they told that that was a ' 5 hygiene - - an important hygiene measur.e?--- 5 A. That's true for industrial chemicals, 7 wash up, wash your hands, wash your face. .8 2 Were they told - 9 A. Go eat. 1 0 2 Were they told what to use in washing 11 PCBs off? 1 2 A. Other than the soap and water that's 13 available throughout the plant. 1 4 2. Okay. Now, I want to direct your 1 5 attention to a different section of the article. 1 6 Under the heading of educating customers, it says "W 17 tell our customers that if they ignore us, we may be 1 8 forced to stop selling them PCBs." Was that your 19 prac -- let me go back for a second. Ignore us with 20 rega rd to what? 21 A. At that time, we were encouraging all 22 our customers to avoid the release of PCBs to the 23 environment by tighter and tighter controls. And we 24 said you may not believe this is necessary, but we 2 5 assure you that if we don't tighten up, some KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY J STLCOPCB4029504 61 i government agency or agencies are going to force us 2 to tighten up and they're going to force us to stop 3 using the material or stop selling it. That was the 4 message we tried to convey. 5 Q. Okay. Was it part of the mgssage that 6 Monsanto would on its own scop selling it to 7 customers who did not tighten up? 8 A. It was not a Monsanto stated formal 9 policy, but some of our marketing people implied 1 0 that, yes. 11 Q. Do you know if that was implied to P. R. 12 Mallory? 13 A. I do not know. 14 Q. Mr. Papageorge, what were you doing 1 5 between -- before 1965? 16 A. I was a general superintendent of 17 manufacturing at the Krummrich plant. 1 8 Q. And that included manufacturing of PCBs 1 9 and the other chemicals made at Krummrich? 20 A. No, I was not involved with 21 manufacturing PCBs at that time. 22 Q. Okay. How long were you general 2 3 superintendent at Krummrich? 2 4 A. One yea r. 2 5 Q. Okay. From '65 -- from '64 to '55? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029505 C. "1 1 A. Yes. 2 Q . Before '64. 3 A. I was at the John F. Queeny plant of 4 Monsanto located in St. Louis. And I was general" 5 superintendent of distribution, shipping--,- 6 warehousing, utilities, et cetera. 7 Q. How long did you hold that position? 8 A. As best as I remember, something like 9 1961 to 1964, or '62 to '64. 1 0 Q. What did they make at thatplant? 11 A. I don't think I canremember all the 12 chemicals. About a hundred different chemicals. 13 Q. Okay. I won't ask you to give me the 1 4 names of them, of any of them. How about in '50, 1 5 1 96 0? 16 A. About 1960, I was a superintendent in 17 the plant, that same plant, Queeny plant, St. Louis, 1 8 superintendent of technical services, which was the 19 engineering department in the plant. 20 Q. Okay. Let me show you a document that 21 was marked yesterday as Weber Exhibit 3. Have you 22 seen that before? 23 A. Yes, I have. 24 Q. Okay. As you can see, it's apparently 25 authored by Paul Benignus in 1960. i KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029506 63 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Did you work with Mr. Benignus? 3 A. When? 4 Q. Not --at anytime. 5 A. Yes, I have. __ 6 Q. Okay. Was that during the time you were 7 the informational hub for PCBs? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. All right. Well, did you work with him 10 around 1960? 11 A. No. 1 2 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with the 13 circumstances under which that document was 1 4 distributed by Monsanto? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Okay. But you have seen it before? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Do you rememberwhether that wasused at 19 all by Monsanto in the '70s, that particular 20 document? 21 A. There was adocument in existence in 22 1970 that I believe was a revision of this one with a 23 later date. 2 4 Q. Was it the same format? 25 A. It appears to be. I'm assuming that __________ __________________________________ _____ __ _________ [ KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029507 64 1 these dash lines down the left-hand edge is a spiral 2 bound? All I remember is a black cover that referred 3 to the electrical industry and Aroclors, and it was 4 an updated version. ' 5 Q . Okay. 6 MR. CUKER: I'm going to ask that that 7 be produced. I'll send a formal letter. 8 MR. MOORE: Okay. We'll take a look at 9 it when we get it. 1 0 MR. CUKER: Okay. 11 THE WITNESS: This may be a copy of the 1 2 original, but it just looks different because it is a 13 copy. 1 4 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Okay. I want you to 1 5 turn to page ninety-nine. All right. I just want to 1 6 read one paragraph. I'll read it out loud. 17 On page ninety-nine it says "Capacitor 1 8 impregnations may be done at temperatures as high as 19 two hundred sixty-six degrees Fahrenheit, one hundred 20 and thirty degrees centigrade. Following 21 impregnation and draining the chamber, exhaust 22 ventilation should be supplied to the chamber to 23 prevent askarel vapors entering the work room." 24 MR. MOORE: Just one slight thing, Mark, 2 5 I think it says applied to the chamber rather than KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029508 1 supplied to the chamber. 2 MR. COKER: Okay, applied to the 3 chambe r. 4 Q. (BY MR. CCJKER) "Also, when opening a 5 heated capacitor impregnating chamber,, tiie workmen 6 should wear a respirator during this short interval 7 of exposure." 8 Was that instruction applicable in the 9 1970s, Mr. Papageorge? 10 A. It is applicable, but it's dependent 11 upon the amount of fumes that would billow out of the 1 2 unit. If the unit was allowed to cool down for an 13 extended period of time, such when you opened the 1 4 chamber nothing happened in the way of fumes, it 15 would just not be appropriate to ask the man to go 16 get a respirator and put it on. So there's a 17 judgment call required here. 1 8 Q. So if the Aroclor had cooled completely 19 or near completely, that would not be indicated? 20 A. That is true. 21 Q. If the Aroclor were still hot and giving 22 off fumes, that would still be appropriate? 23 A. Yes. 24 MR. CUKER: Off the record. 25 (A discussion was held off the record.) KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029509 55 1 Q. (BY MR. CUKES) All right. 2 Mr. Papageorge, let me go back to asking about the 3 air sampling. What were the sampling methods and 4 analysis methods used by Monsanto during the period 5 from '70 to '77? _ 6 A. Sampling method, without getting into an 7 awful lot of detail, which I don't remember a good 8 bit of, it was primarily a method for sucking the air 9 through a series of glass bubblers, as it's called in 10 the trade, which are simply glass vessels in which 11 solvents are present. 1 2 And the air is -- as it passes through 13 the solvents, the material in the air is trapped in 1 4 that solvent so that by the time that air goes 1 5 through a series of these glass vessels and it comes 16 out the other end, there should be no chemical in it, 17 no industrial chemical. These solvents are then put 18 through analytical procedures to determine what 19 materials are present. 20 In early 1970, the method available to 21 the plant for determining PCBs was very crude. 22 Although back in the research department there were 23 attempts made to use the modern gas chromatography 2 4 and electron capture and mass spectrophotometer, the 25 methodology was not available to the work site. That KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029510 1 was in the early '70s. 2 About 1972, the methodology had been 3 developed to the point where the plant was able to 4 use it and, as I remember, the appropriate equipment 5 was purchased for the plant to be able ts. conduct 6 this. So the entrapment device was essentially the 7 same. The analytical method was the one that was 8 improving with time. 9 Q. You mean in terms of gas chromatography? 1 0 A. Yes, and the electron capturer and the 11 mass spectrophotometer for verification. 1 2 Q. Okay. Let me go with these solvents 1 3 kept in vessels. Was there a series of vessels, one 1 4 after another after another? 1 5 A. Yes, as I remember, most commonly, about 16 three will do it. 1 7 Q. They used three in series? 18 A. Most of the time. 1 9 Q. Did they ever use less than three? 20 A. I personally never saw less than three. 21 Q. Ever use more than three? 22 A. Yes, on occasion, if you suspect that 2 3 three doesn't get it all, you add a couple more just 2 4 to make sure that the last one, when analyzed, shows 2 5 zero. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029511 1 Q. Okay. 2 A. Which assures you that four, three, two, 3 and one captured it all. 4 Q. Did they -- you recall what type of' 5 solvents they used? . 6 A. Hexane was the preferred solvent. 7 Q. They use toluene, also? 8 A. That could be used. In any case, the 9 analyst must assure himself that the solvent used 1 0 doesn't have the material you're looking for in it to 11 start with. 12 Q. That it's not already contaminated. 13 A. That is true. So it in itself is 1 4 analyzed to start with. 1 5 Q. Are these vessels, do you know if they 1 6 were called impingers? 1 7 A. The word -- to me the word impinger is 18 the device through which the air is introduced and is 1 9 caused to disperse to form the bubbles through the - 20 it's a sort of a -- it's made of glass. 21 Q. Uh-huh. 2 2 A. It's almost like a shower head, if you 23 can imagine that, underneath the surface of the 2 4 liquid, and it causes the air to disperse to get 2 5 better mixing in the column of liquid above it. i KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029512 59 1 Q. Is the impinger then a mechanism within 2 the vessel? 3 A. That's my use of the word, yes. 4 Q . Okay. And if you had three ves selsr 5 you'd have three impingers 0 6 A. Yes, uh-huh. . .. 7 Q . Did Monsanto ever com pa re the e f f i c a c y 8 of this hexane impinger or the vessel method with 9 other collection methods for air sampling? 10 A. I don't know. 11 Q . Did they ever try orga nic vapo r tubes or 1 2 carbon tubes as a method of sampling? 13 A. Not to my knowledge. 1 4 Q. Do you know why they didn't? 1 5 A. I don't know that they did not. 16 Q. Oh, okay. So then you don't know why 17 they didn't? 1 8 A. That' s right. 1 9 Q. Okay. 20 MR. CUKER: Can we have this marked as 21 Papageorge 2? 22 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit No. 2 was 23 marked by the court reporter for identification.) 24 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Mr. Papageorge, I've had 2 5 marked as Papageorge Exhibit 2 the American National KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029513 70 1 Standard Guidelines For The Handling And Disposal Of 2 Capacitor And Transformer Grade Askarels Containing 3 PCBs. It was produced by Monsanto in the Paoli 4 Railroad. And it also bears the bate stamp numbers 5 PRR 002919 through 2954. ... 6 You were the chairman of that -- the 7 committee that issued that standard, Mr. Papageorge? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Mr. Papageorge, I want to call your 10 attention to page ten of that document. In the 11 right-hand column of page ten, the first full 12 paragraph, it says there "Breathing vapor or fumes 1 3 from heated askarel should be avoided. Provisions 14 should be made for adequate ventilation and 1 5 regulation of manufacturing operations to avoid open 16 exposure to askarel," parenthesis, "especially at 17 temperatures of fifty-five degrees C or higher," end 18 pa renthe sis. 1 9 Why was it determined that these 20 precautions should be taken especially at 21 temperatures of fifty-five degrees C or higher? 22 MR. BUSTER: Object to form. Lack of 2 3 foundation. 24 THE WITNESS: I don't know the reason 25 personally for selecting fifty-five centigrade. It's KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029514 71 1 just the -- my understanding is that this is the 2 consensus of the representatives of capacitor 3 manufacturers that this was a reasonable, practical 4 kind of temperature that might be encountered in'the 5 work place, and they felt that this .was...a pretty good 6 control temperature. 7 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Okay. Well, what do you 8 mean by a pretty good control temperature? 9 A. Well, they could have set it say at a 10 hundred degrees centigrade, but in order to be on a 11 conservative side, drop it down. And then they 1 2 discuss well, how far do we drop it. And the 13 consensus of the group ended up at fifty-five. How 14 they arrived at fifty-five and not sixty or fifty, I 1 5 don't know. 16 Q. Okay. I just want to know, how do they 17 arrive at the concept of beneath a hundred? 1 8 A. I don't know that. 19 Q. Did you participate in their 20 discussions? 21 A. No. 22 Q. How -- was that -- were they their own 23 subcommittee? 24 A. Yes, there was two committees, one on 25 capacitors, one on transformers. They would go back KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029515 /i 1 and have work sessions. 2 Q And you would only participate in the - 3 A. In the plenary meetings, when the two 4 groups got together. \. 5 Q So you did not have any input into that 6 particular guideline? 7 A. No, that particular one, no. 8 Q. The same if you turn to page 11, under 9 the second paragraph, it also says there "Enclosed 10 systems of sealed piping, properly gasketed joints, I 11 valves, containers, and processing chambers should be 12 used for any portion of the processing where askarel 13 temperatures may exceed fifty-five degrees C." Is 14 your answer the same with regard to that guideline? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. You know if anyone fromMonsanto sat in 17 or participated in the -- with the capacitor 1 8 subcommittee? 19 A. Not as an active member, no. We - 20 Monsanto people were ex officio. 21 Q. What does that mean in this context? 22 A. We were there primarily to provide a 23 status report on the results of our Monsanto testing 24 programs that I described earlier and also to bring 25 the groups up-to-date on PCS information that I might KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029516 73 1 get from other laboratories and from government 2 agencies. That was our primary role in this. 3 Q. Okay. 4 MR. CUKER: Off the record. ' 5 (A discussion was held off--the record.) c (A lunch break was taken.) 7 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) During the lunch break, 8 were you with Messrs. Buster and Schneider? 9 A. Yes. 1 0 Q. Okay. Did you discuss anything about 11 the relationship between Monsanto and the Mallory 1 2 Company during the lunch break? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Okay. 15 MR. CUKER: Let's mark these Papageorge 16 Exhibits 3, 4, and 5. 17 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibits Nos. 3 18 through and includin-g 5 were marked by the court 1 9 reporter for identification.) 20 THE WITNESS: I've looked them over. 21 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Okay. Mr. Papageorge, 22 did you have anything to do with composing a lan ymm 23 on any of those Aroclor labels that are marked 3, 1, 24 and 5? 2 5 A. I was involved in the wording associa^d KARPCWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029517 7 .1 1 with environmental contamination and wording that 2 referred to storing away from food, pharmaceuticals, 3 animal feedstuffs. Ax Q . Who was involved with the wording of" 5 let's say the industrial hygiene type wordings? 5 A. That is initiated by the representatives 7 of the medical department. 8 Q. Do you know specifically who in the 9 medical department was involved in composing these 1 0 labels? 11 A. Exhibit 5, the references to avoiding 12 contact and prolonged breathing of fumes were 13 principally the work of Dr. Emmet Kelly, assisted by 14 Mr. Elmer Wheeler. 1 5 Q. Dr. Kelly leave the company in 1975? 16 A. He retired in 1973, as I remember, late 1 7 '73. 1 8 Q . Okay. 19 A. Exhibits 3 and 4 references to 20 indust rial hygiene matters were similar to the 21 wording of Exhibit 5 but were reviewed by Mr. Elmer 22 Wheeler. 23 Q. Were reviewed by Mr. Elmer Wheeler in 24 connection with the composition of Exhibit 5 or were 25 they reviewed by Mr. Wheeler when Exhibits 3 and 4 KARPQWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029518 77 1_ were composed? 2 A. Mr. W heeler was involved in the 3 preparation of Exhibit 5, assisting Dr. Kelly. A Q . 0 k ay. ' A. When Exhibits 3 and 4 w.er.e-be ing 5 prepared, Mr. Wheeler reviewed the wording that did 7 appear on 5 to see if it was still relevant to the Q situation as it existed in the '70s when Exhibits 3 9 and 4 were prepared. 1 0 Q. Can you tell what the -- can you 11 determine a date for Exhibits 3, 4, or 5? 1 2 A. Not from looking at the exhibits. 13 Q. Is there any other source of information 1 4 that Monsanto would have that would indicate the 1 5 dates on which these labels were used? 15 A. That I don't know. I would refer to the 17 cataloging number at the lower right-hand corner and 1 8 see if that led me to further information. 19 Q. But it is your testimony that Exhibit 5 2 0 was prepared by Dr. Kelly presumably before his 21 retirement? 22 A. Oh, yes, this -- the wording on 23 Exhibit 5 has been in existence since the '50s, if 2 4 not earlier. 2 5 Q. Okay. KAR POW ICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029519 1 MR. MOORE: Mr. Papageorge is referring, 2 for clarification, to the cautionary language 3 regarding handling, right? 4 THE WITNESS: The industrial hygiene- 5 message has been in existence since the late '40s, 5 maybe even earlier. 7 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Okay. 3 A. But I know it's '4 0s, '50s, ' 6 0s, on to 9 the present. 10 Q. Okay. Now, the Exhibits 3 and 4, are 11 they more recent or less recent than Exhibit 5? 12 A. Exhibits 3 and 4, if I remember 1 3 correctly, date from about 1973. 14 Q. Okay. 1 5 MR. MOORE: For the record, too, 16 Mr. Cuker, I might point out that the exhibits that 17 you've marked are copies of documents that were 1 8 produced in discovery. 1 9 MR. CUKER: Sure. 20 MR. MOORE: They're in black and white. 21 The originals were in color. And page two of both 22 Exhibit 3 and 4 are in reduced size for convenience 23 in producing the documents. 24 MR. CUKER: Okay. Can either of you 2 5 inform me as to what the size of the reduction is? j KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029520 1 MR. MOORE: I can tell you that the 2 actual label might be fifty percent to a hundred 3 percent larger than this. Mr. Papageorge can check 4 meonthat. 5 THE WITNESS: The messages shown on the 5 second page of Exhibits 3 and 4 appear -- they are 7 lithographed on steel drums and cover the 8 circumference of the drum, the whole circle. So I 9 would suggest that these are about a fourth of the 10 original size, roughly. 11 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) When you say 12 lithographed on steel drums, they're put on -- go 13 ahead. 1 4 A. It's a yellow painted drum and this 15 wording is printed right on that yellow paint, and 16 it's a permanent part then of that drum. 17 Q. I understand. 1 8 A. The first page, which identifies a 19 specific type of Aroclor, is a paper label, which 20 affixes to the drum, and it refers to the message 21 already on the drum. 22 Q. Now, in situations where Aroclor was not 23 transported by drums but in bulk by tank car, what 24 kind of measures did Monsanto take to see to it that 25 the people using the chemical were informed of these ______________________________________________________________J KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029521 ]_ warnings? 2 A. The purchaser of the material had 3 already been given the information that's on the 4 label. ' 5 Starting in 1972, copies o.L. the labels r0 were folded and inserted in plastic envelopes that i/ were attached to the dome of the tank car or the tank 8 truck, if that was the mode of transportation, such 9 that an employee approaching that dome to open it, 1 0 the first item he would see would be this tag and 11 would have to remove the tag to break the seal on the 12 dome to get to the contents. 1 3 Q. Okay. What is the dome of the tank 14 truck? 15 A. Well, it's usually a -- it's a 15 misnomer. It's really the valve. And the cover - 17 some of these are covered so that the valve itself is 18 not damaged by any accidental bumping, knocking. 1 9 Q. Okay. I'm trying to visualize a valve 20 on the truck. So was there a paper label placed on 21 this valve so you couldn't open the valve without 22 dealing with the label? 2 3 A. No, the label was in a plastic envelop? 24 which in turn had a wire that was fastened onto tn? 2 5 valve handle for the drum. I'm sorry, for the KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029522 1 trucks. 2 Q In situations where -- okay. Now, were 3 these situations where Monsanto transported the 4 Aroclor by tank car? 5 A. Monsanto? Yes. 6 Q Okay . 7 A. Yes. i 8 Q In other words, it was a Monsanto 9 driver , a Monsanto truck? 1 0 A. No, no, no. i 11 Q Okay. 12 MR. MOORE: You might clarify that in 13 the '70s, the material was sold FOB Monsanto's 1 4 plant. Isn't that right, Mr. Papageorge? 1 5 THE WITNESS: That is correct. 16 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Okay. 17 A. To clarify, the truck movements were 1 8 few. But they were of the type where the purchaser 19 would arrange for a truck to arrive at the Monsanto 2 0 plant to receive the load. Monsanto was not involved 21 in arranging for that truck or providing drivers or 22 anything. 23 Q. Was Monsanto involved with assuring that 24 this label would be connected to the valve of the 25 truck? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029523 3O 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. So that would mean when the person - 3 when the truck pulled up to the plant and when they 4 pumped the Aroclor onto the truck, the tank truck', 5 they would -- they closed the valve, . t.h ay would put 5 this label there? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with how PCBs 9 were transported to the Waynesboro plant? 10 A. I think I am, yes. 11 Q. Okay. Do you know how they were 12 transported? 13 A. Tank car. 1 4 Q. Railway tank car? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. You know how -- toLawrenceburg, 17 Tennessee? 1 8 A. Lawreneeburg? 19 Q. Yes, sir. 20 A. I have never heard Lawrenceburg. 21 Q. Okay. Do you know where the railroad 22 tank car went to? 23 A. I assumed it was Waynesboro. I don't 24 think the switching arrangements or -25 Q. Okay. Were you aware that they were KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029524 1 transported by railway tank carrier to Lawrenceburg 2 and then transferred to a truck tank in Lawrenceburg? 3 A . No, I wa s n1t. 4 Q. Okay. Did Monsanto advise its customers 5 to relay the information, the warnings contained in 6 these labels, to their employees? 7 A. Yeah. 3 Q. In situations where the delivery was in 9 bulk as opposed to by drums. 10 A. We advised the customer of the proper 11 way to handle these materials. Now, we did not look 1 2 them in the eye and say now, you go tell your 13 employer. We assumed that that was the practice. 1 4 Q. Okay. That was your expectation? 1 5 A. Yes. 16 Q. Was that your expectation with P. R. 17 Mallory? 1 8 A. Yes. 19 Q. And that istrue of theperiod 1970 20 through 1 97 7? 21 A. Yes. 22 MR. CUKER: Off the record. 23 (A discussion was held off the record.) 24 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Mr. Papageorge, I'm 25 going to show you an exhibit that's already been KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029525 1 marked Weber Exhibit 2, and I'm going to as!", yon 'some 2 questions on -- about page seventeen of the exhibit. 3 A. , I have read it. 4 Q. Okay. Did you help prepare any of the 5 information that's contained on that page seventeen? /" A . No . 7 0. Okay. Now, you note there is a 8 reference to lower chlorinated Aroclors being more 9 volatile. You see that? 1 0 A. Well, I'd like to not correct, but 11 amplify a little. 12 Q. Sure. 13 A. You'll notice the references to 1 4 polychlorinated polyphenyls. Now, that covers more 15 than just biphenyls. 16 Q. Okay. 17 A. And thisthen sentence says that the 18 lower chlorinated ones, I'm assuming that's 1 9 polyphenyls, being -- yes. The statement is true as 20 it applies to the polyphenyls. 21 Q. Is it not true as applied to biphenyls? 22 Or let me ask you this, was Monsanto's thinking in 23 1971 when this document was prepared that it was not 2 4 true as it applied to biphenyls? 25 A. That'strue, they were more volatile. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029526 1 Q. By - c0* A. It's a matter of degree. 3 Q . I understand. 4 A. It's more dramatic for the polypheny! 5 family than it was just biphenyls. . -- 5 0 . So the lower chlorinated biphenyls were 7 more volatile? Qo A. Correct. 9 Q. And was it also Monsanto's position that 10 being more volatile, they presented more of a 11 potential problem from the standpoint of both 12 inhalation -- 13 1 4 says. MR. MOORE: And skin contact is what it j 1 5 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) And skincontact? 16 A. That's true. 17 Q. Okay. Now, and then later on it says 18 here "Inhalation tests on animals indicate that the 19 maximum safe concentration of vapor is in the range 20 of 0.5 to 1.0 milligrams of the lower chlorinated 21 Aroclor compounds per cubic meter of air," is that 22 right ? 23 A. That is correct. 24 Q. Now, lower chlorinated ones could be 25 Aroclor 1242? Would that be one of the lower KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029527 C -1 1 chlorinated ones? 2 A. Yes . In fact, that is specificall V 3 mentioned. 4 Q Okay. 5 A. As it refers to the one. milligram r-) o r L ^~ 6 cubic meter. 7 Q . Okay. Was A r o c1o r 1015 in product ion 8 November '71 g 9 A. Yes. 10 3 . Okay. Would that also be one of the 11 lower chlorinated? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q . Okay . Now, it then says that the t r T t 14 set by the - - I guess it's the ACGIH, or really h 9 15 it's just called the ACGH, are 1.0 milligrams of the 16 lower chlorinated compound and 0.5 of the more highly 17 chlorinated compounds. Okay? 18 Now, was Monsanto of the opinion that it 1 9 was desirable to keep the lower chlorinated compounds 20 below 0.5 milligrams per cubic meter of air, 21 notwithstanding that the ACGH had a TLV of 1.0? 22 A. I never understood it that way. There 23 was a difference between 1 and .5, and it was applied 24 selectively. 25 Q. I don't think I understand your answer. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029528 Q^ 1 A. If the material present in the working 2 environment was classified by practice as lower 3 chlorinated, then the 1 milligram per cubic meter 4 standard would be the guideline. ' 5 If on the other hand and---that would 6 be -- Aroclor 1242 would fit that. If the material 7 were an Aroclor 1254, which was used in transformers, 0 then the .5 would apply. 9 Q. 1254 was not used in capacitors? 1 0 A. Not to my knowledge. 11 Q. But didn't Monsanto recommend to its 1 2 customers that even with 1242, they should try to 13 keep it below 0.5 milligrams per cubic meter? 1 4 A. I don't remember that. I -- I didn't 1 5 suggest that. Otherwise, the guideline is 16 meaningless. 17 MR. CUKER: Well, let's have this marked 18 Papageorge 6. 19 (Papage orge Deposition Exhibit No. 6 was 20 marked by the court reporter for identification.) 21 THE WITNESS: I've reviewed the 22 doc ument. 23 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Okay. Mr. Papageorge, 24 this is obviously a letter from you to Gene Lewis at 25 the Waynesboro plant dated July 7th, 1970. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029529 1 For the record, it's produced by 2 Monsanto, stamped 3 RW 001374 through 1876. 3 Now, there in the fourth paragraph you 4 state "Aroclors, being chlorinated hydrocarbons, 5 should not be permitted to exceed 0.5 t.o,,. 1.0 5 milligram per cubic foot of air in the work area." 7 Did you mean meter of air? 3 A. I should have said meter. That's a 9 typographical error. Also, in hindsight, this should 1 0 have been or on. Then I should have elaborated on 11 the types. 12 Q. You knew that Mallory was using Aroclor 13 1242? 1 4 A. Correct. 1 5 Q. Not 1254. Now, you testifiedearlier 16 today that you had a -- you do recall one meeting at 17 the Waynesboro plant at which you discussed hygiene 18 practices with a group of about six people, you 1 9 said. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Was that meeting on or aboutthe time of 22 this letter? 23 A. It was -- this letter is in response to 24 my observations of that meeting. 2 5 Q. Okay. So you talked with them and then KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029530 1 you sent this letter? 2 A. And then I went back to my desk and 3 prepared this letter. 4 Q. Okay. Now, I assume that there were" no 5 air samples taken during your trip down .to 6 Waynesboro? 7 A. That is correct. 8 Q. How were you able to determine that the 9 levels were in excess of 0.5 to 1.0? 10 A. I wasn't. I was just really reminding 11 them of something that I felt they already knew. 12 Q. Did you suspect that the levels were in 13 excess of those amounts based upon what you saw and 1 4 felt there? 15 A. I don't know that I suspected, I just 16 wanted to make sure that they didn't exceed it. I 17 knew I could smell the material, but that doesn't 18 tell me how much is there. And I could visually see 19 something there in the room. 20 Q. Did you see -- well, can you recall that 21 visit other than what's in this letter? Can you 22 remember that today? 23 A. Yes, I do, uh-huh. 24 Q. Okay. Can you see fumes coming out of 25 the impregnation tanks? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029531 1 A. NN Oo.. No, in fact, I don't know that th 2 opened a tank while I was there. No. 3 Q. So the fumes were just in the plant 4 itself? a 5 A, Yes 5 Q. Were they throughout the plant? 7 A. As I remember, it's a large area, big 8 bay, and I could see across, and the lights to 9 illuminate the area had a rainbow effect around them, 10 sort of a bluish haze. 11 Q. Okay. Was the fact that the - - you use 12 the term in there, "The amount was high enough to 13 cause eye irritation which persisted for several 14 hours after the exposure." Did that suggest to you 15 that the levels might be in excess of those 16 recommended levels? 17 A. No, it suggests to me that this is more 18 than I had witnessed anywhere else. 19 Q . Okay. 20 A. I didn't know the level. There was no 21 way -- I had nothing to judge it with. 22 Q. Anywhere else meaning? 23 A. Monsanto's experience. And then I had 24 been to a few other capacitor plants before this 25 visit. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029532 oo 1 Q. Okay. Did you ever visit levels -- did 2 you ever visit -- was that more than you were to 3 visit anywhere else in the future? 4 A. I saw a few others after that, also," 5 similar, uh-huh. 6 Q. Okay. Were those Mallory plants? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Do youremember Mr. Pat Boo of the 9 Mallory Company? 10 A. I recall the name, but I don't -- I 11 don't remember what the man looked like. 12 Q. Okay. Did you ever tell Mr. Boo that 13 there were no hazards involved in the use of Aroclor 14 1016? 15 A. I don't recall that. That wouldn't be a 16 correct statement. 17 Q. Was anybody at Monsanto authorized to 18 make that kind of a statement to a customer? 19 A. No. No, because you have to describe 20 the conditions a little better. 21 Q. Okay. That would not have been a 22 correct statement in 1972? 23 A. No. 24 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit No. 7 was 25 marked by the court reporter for identification.) KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029533 1 Q. (BY MR. COKER) Mr. Papageorge, Exhibit 2 7 is a document stamped 3RW 003381, a letter from yon 3 to Donald Wilson at P. R. Mallory, January 25th, 4 1972. Is the commissioner referred to in that letter 5 the FDA commissioner? . .-- 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And were thosethe information -- that 8 information relayed to FDA guidelines or rules 9 related to PCB composition in food? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Was that --would thatinformation have 12 been the actual regulations themselves or something 13 else? 1 4 A. No, this was a report of what Charles 15 Edwards was divulging to the press as to the thinking 16 of FDA regarding the presence of PCSs as an 17 adulterant in foods. And they were considering 1 8 making formal guidelines and publishing them in the 19 federal register and going through the formal process 20 of establishing a guideline. 21 Q. Is an adulterant the same as a 22 contaminant? 23 MR. MOORE: Well, that's a legal 24 question. 25 MR. CUKER: Excuse me, I honestly didn't KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029534 1 know . 2 MR. MOORE: Yeah. 3 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) what's an adulterant? 4 MR. MOORE: To Mr. Papageorge's 5 understanding. 5 MR. CUKER: Sure. 7 THE WITNESS: To my understanding, this 8 is a material that's present in food that is either 9 deliberately or nondeliberately added. And it adds 1 0 nothing to the value of that food. 11 MR. CUKER: Okay. 12 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit No. 8 was 13 marked by the court reporter for identification.) 14 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Mr. Papageorge, I'll 15 show you Papageorge Exhibit 8. It's a document 16 stamped BRW 003382, your letter to Arnold Doty of 17 June 15th, 1972. 1 8 A. I have reviewed the document. 19 Q. Oka'y. Mr. Papageorge, what is the - 20 what is meant by a sample of Aroclor 1016? 21 A. This is a small quantity of the material 22 that is typical of what is produced and shipped. 23 Q. So it actually is the oil? You actually 24 senthimtheoil? 25 A. Yes. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029535 OT 1 Q . Okay. 2 A. And that's what the laboratory uses to 3 run through their analytical system to prepare their 4 standard chart. And then they run an unknown sample 5 through which prepares the other chart, and the two 6 charts are compared. 7 Q. And that's how they determine the level 8 of Aroclor? 9 A. The type of Aroclor and the level, yes. 1 0 Q. Okay. Now, you also refer to enclosing 11 Monsanto's analytical procedure. Would the 12 analytical procedure have included information about 13 sampling methods or simply have gone into the methods 14 of analysis of the sample? 15 A. Analysis of a sample. 16 Q. Okay. It would not have gone into 17 sampling methods itself? 18 A. No. 19 Q. And you described in -- I think in 1970, 20 you described Monsanto's analytical procedure as 21 crude due to the early stage of the technology at the 22 time. 23 MR. MOORE: Well, that's not really an 24 accurate characterization. I think you need to 25 specify just what techniques you're talking about KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029536 93 1 when you characterize it as that. 2 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) well, let me -- I just 3 really want to know, you did use the word crude to 4 apply to some technique which Monsanto used in 1970. 5 I just want to know, was that also true--in 1972? 6 A. No, by 1972, it became quite 7 sophisticated. 8 Q. Just so the record is clear, what is the 9 technique that you described as crude? 1 0 A. It amounted really to converting all of 11 the chlorine that's present in the sample to a solid 12 material. Generally, it was silver chloride in the 13 laboratory. And then weighing that silver chloride 1 4 to see how much you determined. Now, that's -- 15 Q. That's crude. 16 A. It picks up chlorine of all kinds and is 17 subject to the errors that are prevalent in weighing 1 8 solid materials and transferring them to the proper 19 container with which it can be handled and weighed 20 and then such. 2 1 MR. MOORE: I think, if I can shortcut 22 this - 23 MR. CUXER: Sure. 24 MR. MOORE: And I apologize if I'm 2 5 interfering, Mark. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029537 94 1 MR. CUKER: That's okay. 2 MR. MOORE: Mr. Papageorge was just now 3 speaking of the techniques that were available in the 4 plant by 1970. By 1972, gas liquid chromatography 5 had reached the point where it could' be "put in the 6 plant aw ay from the very sophisticated analytical 7 laboratories, as such. If I'm expressing myself 8 clear. 9 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Let me just ask you one 1 0 thing. You talked about the sampling procedures 11 before and these glass vessels. You know what a flow 12 rate is? 13 A. Flow rate? 14 Q. Yeah. 15 A. Yes, sir. 16 Q . Do you recall what the recommended flow 17 rate was for sampling of Aroclor in air when Monsanto 1 8 did it? 19 A. No, I don't. I don't know the number. 20 But there i s an optimum flow rate which assures 21 capture of the unknown material in the solvents. 22 Otherwise, it's pulled through so fast that it 23 becomes inefficient. 2 4 Q. Right. 2 5 A. I'd like to also, if I can.^dd, this KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029538 1 memorandum does not really tell me which analytical 2 procedure was provided here, whether it's for air, 3 water, or solid material. 4 Q. That's true, yeah. I assume you have no 5 recollection of what it was? -- 6 A. No, I don't, not in this case. 7 Q. Okay. Who was Carl Clay? - 3 A. A Monsanto salesman. 9 Q. Did he cover Waynesboro? 10 A. For a while, yes. 11 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit No. 9 was 12 marked by the court reporter for identification.) 13 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Mr. Papageorge, Exhibit 1 4 9 is your letter to J. R. Wood of P. R. Mallory dated 15 February 22nd, 1973 stamped BRW 003384. 16 A. I've read it. 17 Q. Okay. What's a request for a sample? 1 8 A. It was a form that Monsanto instituted, 19 as I recall, in late '72. I don't recall the exact 20 wording, but it -- the intent was to assure that the 21 recipient of the sample understood that it was not to 22 be mishandled and that it could be an environmental 23 contaminant and the like. And the individual was 24 asked to sign that he had read the above and it would 25 be returned to me. And that would then be sent to KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029539 35 1 the laboratory for a sample to be shipped. 2 Q. Was this sample -- can you tell from the 3 context of this letter whether this is also a sample 4 being sent for analytical purposes like the sample 5 that you sent to Mr. Doty? '' 6 A. That is the intent of these samples, 7 yes. 8 Q. Okay. 9 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit No. 10 10 was marked by the court reporter for identification.) 11 Q . (BY MR. CUKER) Mr.Papageorge, Exhibit 12 10 - 13 MR. BUSTER: I'd like to see that for a 14 second, please. 1 5 MR. CUKER: I'm sorry. 16 THE WITNESS: I've read it. 17 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Okay. This is a call 18 report dated -- the date it was typed would be 1 9 8/7/73, stamped BRW 003117. 20 MR. MOORE: The best I can tell from a 21 quick review, Mark, there is no indication that this 22 was sent to Mr. Papageorge, is that correct? 23 MR. CUKER: You're asking me? 24 MR. MOORE: Well, obviously you've - 25 studied it and I've just looked at it. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029540 1 MR. CUKER: No, his name does not appear 2 on the document. 3 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Do you know what it 4 refers to where it says "I understand that the fire 5 results were filmed and that this film' may be 6 available for showing to customers?" 7 A. I think I do. 8 Q. Can you tell me? 9 A. In the program for finding alternative 10 capacitor fluids, the laboratory, in testing out 11 these potential alternatives, exposed the material to 12 a standard fire test. I don't know the specifics of 13 it, but as I understand it, it is a test that the 14 underwriters laboratories have established decades 15 back. 16 These materials, as they're being 17 tested, are filmed. And they're referring here to 18 the film that was obtained when this particular 19 material, MCS 1475/1480, was tested for fire 20 resistance. 21 Q. So that is a test for MCS 1475 and not 22 for Aroclor 1016? 23 A. That is true. 24 Q. Okay. Did Mallory do any of that 25 testing or was that just done by Monsanto in its KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029541 98 1 product development? 2 MR. MOORE: If you know. 3 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) If you know. 4 A. I don't know what Mallory tested. I do 5 know that Monsanto, when they tested tho'S'e materials, 6 did perform this test. 7 Q. And did you -- are you familiar with 8 this film? Have you seen this film? 9 A. I have seen several films. I don't know 10 today which product was being tested. 11 Q. Okay. 12 A. I don't remember which product was being 13 tested. 14 Q. Okay. I asked you earlier about flow 15 rates, and I think you said you couldn't recall the 16 exact recommended flow rate. Do you recall whether 17 the recommended flow rate was less than one liter per 18 minute for an air sample? 19 A. I just don'tremember a number. 20 Q. Okay. 21 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit No. 11 22 was marked by the court reporter for identification.) 23 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Mr.Papageorge, marked 24 as Exhibit 11 is your letter to Mr. Doty of 3/19/74 25 stamped BRW 003605 and 6. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029542 99 1 A. Did you say this was my letter? 2 Q. I'm sorry, excuse me, Mr. Papageorge, 3 that's Scott Tucker's letter. You're just copied in 4 on it. ' 5 A. Ihavereadit. 6 Q. Do you remember -- do you recall the 7 background of why a chromatogram was sent to 8 Mr. Doty? 9 A. The only background I recall is that 10 Dr. Doty was interested in what the standard solution 11 graph looked like and what each of these peaks - 12 which peaks for 1242 matched the peaks in Aroclor 13 1016. I don't recall anything other than that. 14 Q. Standard solution meaning the same as 15 what you've -- as the sample analysis that you 16 described earlier? 17 A. Yes, unused material. 18 Q. Okay. 19 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibits Nos. 12 20 through and including 15 were marked by the court 21 reporter for identification.) 22 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Mr. Papageorge, Exhibits 23 12 and 13 appear to relate to a visit by Mr. George 24 Smith to Monsanto, Exhibit 12 being a memo dated 25 10/29/74 stamped BRW 003604, and Exhibit 13, I guess KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029543 10 0 1 is that also in the form of a memorandum? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay. Andthat's dated 11/6/74 stamped 4 BRW 0003602 and 3. Do you have any present 5 recollection of that visit at all? ' 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. What do you recall about the 8 visit? 9 A. P. R. Mallory was attempting to become 10 self-sufficient, I guess is the word, in doing their 11 own PCB analyses. And they had set up the facilities 12 to do that and then asked Monsanto for advice and 13 some guidance, which we were glad to offer them. 14 And these documents reflect the 15 correspondence that set up the meeting and 16 Dr. Tucker's, a Monsanto analytical chemist, analysis 17 of the total situation resulted from that visit. 18 Q. Okay. Were they going to be 19 self-sufficient in terms of analysis of both water 20 and air? 21 A. That was my understanding. 22 Q. Okay. Was there a time -- was there 23 anytime that there was such a thing as certifying a 24 lab as qualified to do PCB analysis? _ 25 A. Not to my knowledge. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029544 101 1 Q. All right. Now, there's a reference in 2 paragraph two to where it says -- you see the 3 sentence says "The check sample was spiked with five 4 ppm," that means parts per million? " 5 A. Parts per million. .. -- 6 Q. "Aroclor 1016 and he found only fifty 7 percent of the amount added." Is that an indication 8 that they're not detecting all of the Aroclor? At 9 least in that particular sentence, they did not 10 detect all the Aroclor 1016 that they would expect to 11 be there? 12 A. That is right, but they don't know what 13 happened to it. They don't know if it's in the 14 analytical or if it plated out on the equipment, just 15 where it went. All they know is what he saw was half 16 of what he expected to see. 17 Q. Okay. And then it says -- I guess this 18 is Mr. Tucker's words. "It appears that with more 19 experience and some guidance they should be able to 20 accurately and precisely measure PCB levels in 21 effluent samples." Do you know specifically what 22 type of experience that would be? 23 A. Well, those of us involved with PCBs 24 learn the hard way that the more samples a laboratory 25 looks at> the more proficient it becomes and just KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029545 10 2 1 learns from its mistakes. 2 Q. Okay. Now, on the second page it says 3 "We will send him literature information on 4 adsorption of PCBs with polyurethane foam and 5 internal information, which has been'previously 6 released, on the best air sampling techniques." 7 The part about adsorption of PCBs with 8 polyurethane, does that apply to air sample or water 9 sample or both? 10 A. I think this applies to polyurethane 11 foam in these glass chromatograph tubes. There are 12 many -- several materials that could be used. 13 Q. And what does adsorption mean? 14 A. Adsorption means that the chemical 15 attaches itself to the surface of the material as 16 distinguished from absorption which means it goes 17 internally like water in a sponge. 18 Q. So, in other words, the foam would be 19 used to distract the chemical from the sample? 20 A. To capture the chemical as it's run 21 through. And then they send a solvent through to 22 wash that chemical off that foam to concentrate it. 23 Q. Oh, okay. 24 A. That's one use that can be made of it. 25 Q. Okay. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029546 103 1 A. U h-h uh. 2 Q. And that is -- okay. But is that used 3 after the sample has been taken? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. To remove the chemical from--the sample? 6 A. It could be used either point. It could 7 be used to concentrate a sample that's already been 8 taken by some other means, or it can be used in the 9 field to substitute for this bubbler train that we 10 talked about earlier to capture a PCB from the air. 11 Q . Right. 12 A. For the original sample. 13 Q. Okay. Now, do you know what the 14 internal information previously released on the best 15 air sampling techniques, you know what that was? 16 A. That was Monsanto's developed method. 17 Q. And was that -18 A. It had to do with these impinger tubes 19 and the bubblers and the trains and the flow rate we 20 talked about, all of these features. That's the 21 internal -- what he calls the internal method. 22 Q. Okay. Now, I'm just going to skip ahead 23 to Exhibit 15, which is dated 11/25/74, stamped BRW 24 003132. You are copied in on that letter, 25 Mr. Papageorge. Would this -- would that -- well, KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029547 10 4 1 there's a reference here to copies of literature 2 articles on air sampling. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. Would that be any different from 5 what you just described? .. -- 6 A. I would suggest that that implies there 7 were articles of systems or methods other than 8 Monsanto's. 9 Q. Uh-huh. 10 A. Because it refers to literature articles 11 as distinguished from the in-house Monsanto -- the 12 internal, what he called the internal method earlier. 13 Q. Okay. Do you know what those articles 14 would be? 15 A. I don't remember them now, no. 16 Q. All right. Can you recall whether the 17 Monsanto internal method of air sampling was 18 disclosed to Mallory? 19 A. Yes, yes. 20 Q. It was? 21 A. Definitely. 22 Q. Would it have been on the '74 visit or 23 before then? 24 A. I think following that. 25 Q. Okay. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029548 10 5 1 A. Dr. Tucker mailed it to them, but I have 2 no evidence of that in front of me. 3 Q. Okay. Now, Exhibit 14 involves another 4 sample request form. Is that really the same as what 5 you've already described? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. For therecord, it's a letter -- Exhibit 8 14 is a letter dated 11/20/74, stamped BRW 003129. 9 Scott Tucker was copied in on thatletter. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. 12 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit No. 16 13 was marked by the court reporter for identification.) 14 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Mr.Papageorge, Exhibit 15 16 is your letter to George Wallis, W-a-l-l-i-s, 16 dated January 7th, 1975, bates -- numbered BRW 17 003130, and it refers to an article by Dr. Kenneth 18 Price. Do you remember anything about that article? 19 A. No, I don 11. 20 Q. Was it -- whether it was an article in 21 an established journal or a -- it's actually -- I'm 22 sorry, I should say -- it says a report, not an 23 article. Whether it was in the form of an article or 24 a report? . 25 A. I just don'tremember that. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029549 106 1 Q. You know who Dr.KennethPrice was? 2 A. If my memory serves meright, he's a 3 member of EPA. But I'm not certain of that. 4 Q. Okay. You have any -- recall how long 5 it may have been? ' 6 A. No. 7 Q. 0 kay. 8 A. I just -- 9 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibits Nos. 17 10 and 18 were marked by the court reporter for 11 identification.) 12 THE WITNESS: I've read the documents. 13 Q. (BYMR. CUKER) Okay. For the record, 14 Exhibit 17 is a memo from David Wood dated 6/17/75 15 stamped BRW 002816, and Exhibit 18 is your letter to 16 John Burney of June 19th, 1975 stamped BRW 003131. 17 Can you recall today any discussions 1 8 with Mr. Burney about the methodology for Aroclor? 19 A. Nothing that's unique other than his 20 request for copies of the latest methodology and -- 21 Q. Would this Exhibit 18 have been your 22 sending him the Monsanto methodology for sampling an 23 air? 24 A. Very likely. 25 Q. I know it doesn't say that in the KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029550 10 7 1 letter, but judging from the context of Exhibit 17, 2 you think that's what it was? 3 A. Well, more specifically, whenever 4 customers, representatives ask for the Monsanto ' 5 methodology, I would send them all three--, air, water, 6 and sediment and solid, all three. 7 Q. Now, in Exhibit 17, there is a reference 8 to the NIOSH collection method. Were you familiar 9 with the NIOSH collection method? 10 A. I was at one time, yes. 11 Q. Do you recall the use of fluorsil, 12 f-1 -- I'm sorry, f-l-u-o-r-s-i-1, as a medium for 13 collection in the NIOSH method? 14 A. No. 15 Q. You know what fluorsil is? 16 A. Yes. I don't recall it as a medium for 17 collecting a sample, I recall it as a medium used in 18 analyses. 19 Q. Oh, okay. What is fluorsil, is it a 20 solvent? 21 A. No, it's a solid material. I don't know 22 how to describe it. It's got silicone in it. 23 Q. Was fluorine in it, too? 24 A. Yes. I don't know that. 25 Q . All right. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029551 108 1 A. I don't know about the fluorine. 2 Q Did it -- how is it used, as you can 3 recall, is it used the same way as polyurethane foam 4 was used? 5 A. Yeah. 6 Q. In tubes to absorb the material? 7 A. Yeah, absorb, trap. 8 Q. Now, you see a reference here to ASTM 9 D3304 in Exhibit 17. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. What isthat? 12 A. ASTM stands for the American Society of 13 Testing Materials, which is an industry supported 14 group that develops and promotes the use of standard 15 testing methods of all kinds. 16 Q. Okay . 17 A. And this, if I can reference here, this 18 relates really to Monsanto's methods that were 19 offered to ASTM for their consideration and final 20 adoption. 21 Q. Okay. And the number refers to the ASTM 22 adopted method? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. Okay. 25 (Papageorge Deposition Exhijoit No. 19 KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029552 10 9 1 was marked by the court reporter for identification.) 2 MR. MOORE: Mark, as to Exhibit 19, I 3 would note that this document doesn't bear 4 Mr. Papageorge's name either. ' 5 MR. CUKER: Correct. - ........ 6 THE WITNESS: That's from you. 7 MR. MOORE: Go ahead, Bill. . 8 MR. BUSTER: I'd like to see it, 9 pi ease. 1 0 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Mr. Papageorge, there's 11 a reference here, also, in this letter, which is a 12 letter from David Wood to a Mr. Tuttle of Aerovox 13 Corporation with a copy going to Bud Dibble at 14 Mallory, a letter dated January 19th, 1976 and 15 stamped 035232 , a reference there to "The ASTM method .16 for collection of samples from air which should be 17 read in conjunction with ASTm D3304 is D1605." What 18 was ASTM D1605? 19 A. That described the sampling method that 20 was recommended. 21 Q. Was that also an ASTM adoption of a 22 Monsanto sampling method? 23 A. I don't know if that was a Monsanto 24 sampling method. 25 Q. Okay. Do you know what kind of method KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029553 110 1 it was? 2 A. No, I don't. 3 Q. Now, you've looked at documents in the 4 last week relating to a meeting between Monsanto and 5 Mallory in March 1976? . 6 A. March '76. I saw references to a 7 proposed meeting and -- huh. I'm aware that a 8 meeting took place, but I don't remember if I saw it 9 in the document or -- 10 Q. Okay. Do you have any recollection of 11 that meeting taking place other than having reviewed 12 documents about it recently? 13 A. No, I wasn't involved. 14 Q. Okay. Were you consulted by anybody at 15 Monsanto in the preparation of the meeting? 16 A. No. 17 Q. You recall any conversations with 18 anybody at Monsanto, Mr. Weber or anybody else about 19 that meeting? 20 A. Well, before the meeting was scheduled, 21 I received a call from someone at Mallory Company and 22 suggested that since the questions appear to be 23 medical in nature, that Dr. Roush would be the 24 appropriate Monsanto person to contact. 25 And I did talk to George Rctush and gave KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029554 111 1 him phone numbers and names suggesting that he 2 contact them. From that point on, I was left out of 3 the final arrangements. 4 Q. Okay. As of 1976, what was your " 5 understanding of the conditions under wh-ich dioxins 6 were formed on heating PCBs? 7 MR. MOORE: I object. There's no basis 8 for that question. 9 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) You can answer. 10 A. It's my understanding that PCBs do not 11 lead to the formation of dioxins. 12 Q. Okay. Was it your understanding that 13 dioxins could not be formed? 14 A. That is my considerate opinion, yes. 15 MR. CUKER: Okay. I have no other 16 questions of this witness. 17 MR. BUSTER: Let's take a break. 18 (A break was taken.) 19 CROSS EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. BUSTER: 21 Q. Mr. Papageorge, I'm Kevin Buster of the 22 law firm of King & Spalding. I represent Duracell 23 International, Inc. in this litigation and I want to 24 ask you a few questions in follow-up to Mr. Cuker's 25 questions today. If you don't understand any of my KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029555 112 1 questions, please feel free to ask me to rephrase it 2 and I'll be happy to do that. 3 Mr. Cuker asked you some questions today 4 about the annual employee physicals that were given 5 to workers at the Krummrich plant of Mon-s-anto. Do 6 you recall those questions? 7 A. Ido. 8 Q. Were those annual physicals limited to 9 any particular type of employee at Monsanto? 10 A. No, all employees at the sites would get 11 that medical examination. 12 Q. In other words, all employees company 13 wide at Monsanto received annual physicals? 1 4 A. No, at theplants involved with PCBs, 15 all employees at those plants, from the plant manager 16 down to the newest hiree, would get annual physicals 17 because some Monsanto plants had physicals every two 1 8 years, some had physicals that depended on age. 19 Reach a certain age, you hit the annual point. 20 Q. Uh-huh. 21 A. And the younger people didn't get it as 22 often. So there was some difference when you speak 23 of all of Monsanto. 24 Q. All right. Atthe Krummrich plant, 25 approximately how many chemicals were manufactured KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029556 113 1 there? 2 MR. MOORE: Talking about '70 to '76 3 now? 4 MR. BUSTER: Yes. 5 THE WITNESS: I don't recall the exact 6 number. I would -- it also depends how you classify 7 them. I think you could list over a hundred 8 different chemical entities. 9 Q. (BY MR. BUSTER) Didthe employees who 10 worked in the manufacture of all those chemicals 11 receive periodic physicals? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And at the Krummrich plant, were they 14 all on an annual basis? 1 5 A. Yes. 16 Q. Without regard to what the chemical was? 17 A. That is correct. 18 Q. Were thoseannual physicals required as 19 a part of any labor contract? 20 A. No. 21 Q. All right.Was there anything special 22 about the physicals of the PCB employees as opposed 23 to the workers who worked in the manufacture of other 24 chemicals at Monsanto? 25 A. No. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029557 114 1 Q. So when Mr. Cuker asked you about the 2 physicals designed to detect skin rashes, for 3 example, for liver abnormalities, for example, that 4 applies equally to workers in all of the chemicals 5 manufactured at the Krummrich plant and B-ot just 6 PCBs, correct? 7 A. If those symptoms were apparent, yeah, 8 everyone was looked at the same. 9 Q. All right. In that connection, based 10 upon your experience at Anniston and then your later 11 experience in your various other positions from 1970 12 through 1977, how was the PCB job assignment viewed 13 in comparison to the assignments with respect to 14 other chemicals? 15 MR. CUKER: Objection. 16 THE WITNESS: Well, in my experience, it 17 was one of the preferred positions in the plant. The 18 senior individuals would, when an opening existed, 19 bid to be considered for that opening. 20 Q. (BY MR. BUSTER) Do you know why that 21 was? Why was the PCB detail considered to be more 22 desirable than the other details with other 23 chemicals? 24 A. Well, it involved the less hazardous 25 materials. It involved lighter work physically. It KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029558 115 1 was not demanding in many ways stressfully, and there 2 weren't high temperatures involved. And many other 3 undesirable features just were not present. 4 Q. How would you characterize the 5 hazardousness of PCBs relative to the oCher 6 chemical -- to other industrial chemicals? 7 MR. CUKER: Objection. Let me just ask, 8 you mean today? How does he characterize it today? 9 MR. BUSTER: In the period '70 to '77. 10 We'll start with that. 11 THE WITNESS: Well, when you consider 12 the full spectrum of chemicals, I would suggest that 13 PCBs -- let's limit this to industrial chemicals, 14 because that's what PCBs were. Thinking of 15 industrial chemicals, I would say that PCBs are 16 probably the least harmful if, of course, all these 17 chemicals are handled properly. When you think of 18 cyanides and acids and gases of all kinds, PCBs just 19 don't fit those frightening kinds of categories. 20 Q. (BY MR. BUSTER) Did Monsanto have 21 certain chemical manufacturing areas that they 22 denominated toxic and others nontoxic, to your 23 recol1ection? 24 A. N o. 25 Q. All right. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029559 116 1 MR. BUSTER: I'd like to mark this as 2 whatever the next Papageorge exhibit is. 3 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit No. 20 4 was marked by the court reporter for identification.) 5 THE WITNESS: I've read the------ or 6 reviewed the article. 7 Q. (BY MR. BUSTER) All right. For the 8 record, this is a copy of a letter from Elmer Wheeler 9 to Jerry Rowe dated March 3, 1969 and has number 10 stamps BRW 000442 through 445. The addressee page 11 shows that Mr. Rowe was plant manager at P. R. 12 Mallory's Indiana plant at the time it was sent. 13 You've had a chance to review this, 14 Mr. Papageorge? 15 A. Yes, I have. 16 Q. Now, tell us once again who -- is it 17 Dr. Wheeler or Mr. Wheeler? 18 A. Mr. Wheeler. 19 Q. Mr. Wheeler. Who is Mr. Wheeler? 20 A. Mr. Wheeler was a member of Monsanto's 21 corporate medical department and at that time was 22 manager of environmental health. 23 Q. And you had an occasion to work with 24 Mr. Wheeler? 25 A. Yes. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029560 117 1 Q. Turning to page two of the letter, 2 directing your attention to the very last paragraph, 3 it says "Compared to the thousands of industrial 4 chemicals and home products, PCBs are not toxic 5 unless they are mishandled or misused, -fluring more 6 than thirty years of CJ. S. production and use, cases 7 of any toxic effect have been extremely rare, and 8 then only where the simple precautions recommended 9 for use were not followed." Do you agree with that 10 statement? 11 A. Yes, if the word toxic is defined as 12 ha rmf ul. 13 Q. All right, sir. You stated that you 14 agree with that. Was that your -- did you agree with ! 15 that statement at the time it was made and through 16 the period of 1977? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. All right. If a customer had asked you 19 about the toxicity of PCBs, is that the type of 20 answer you would have provided a customer? 21 A. Yes. 22 MR. CUKER; Objection. i 23 THE WITNESS: Not in those -- maybe | 24 those words, but that thought was expressed, yes. * _j i 25 Q. (BY MR.BUSTER) All right, sir.j KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY It ' STLCOPCB4029561 118 1 Mr. Cuker questioned you about your first visit to 2 the Waynesboro plant and you recounted that you 3 noticed the smell of Aroclor on that visit, correct? 4 A. Ye s. ' 5 Q. And you saw some haze, a -bl-nae haze 6 around the light fixtures, is that correct? 7 A. Ye s. 8 Q. Did you or representatives of Monsanto, 9 to your knowledge, follow up to see whether 10 conditions at the plant were or were not improved? 11 A. Oh, yes, Monsanto representatives did 12 follow up. 13 Q. And what were the results of that 14 foilow-up? 1 5 MR. CUKER: Objection. 16 THE WITNESS: The reports that I 17 received as part of my job, to stay tuned in, is that 18 considerable improvement had been made and the 19 response from Mallory was encouraging. 20 Q. (BY MR. BUSTER) How would you 21 characterize the timeliness of Mallory's response? 22 MR. CUKER: Objection. 23 THE WITNESS: I can compare that to 24 other capacitor manufacturers, and they were as quick 25 as anybody in responding and making corrections. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029562 119 1 Q. (BY MR. BUSTER) Well, to your 2 knowledge, did Mallory take care of the problems or 3 did they not take care of the problems that you noted 4 on your visit to Mallory in 1971? 5 MR. CUKER: Obj ection. . .., -- 6 MR. MOORE : Excuse me. What was the 7 date of the visit? 8 MR. SCHNEIDER: 1970. 9 MR. BUSTER: 1970. 10 Q. (BY MR. BUSTER) I'm sorry? 11 A. 1970? 12 Q. Yes. 13 A. They took care of theproblems that 14 existed in 1970 as best as I can recall. There was 15 no reason to think that they did not address and take 16 care of the problems. 17 Q. All right. 18 MR. BUSTER: Let'smark this,please. 19 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit No. 21 20 was marked by the court reporter for identification.) 21 THE WITNESS: I have read the letter. 22 Q. (BY MR. BUSTER) For the record, we've 23 marked for identification purposes Papageorge Exhibit 24 21, which is a January 12, 1971 memo apparently from 25 Mr. Papageorge to a Mr. Graham. Number stamp is BRW KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029563 120 1 003457. Do you recognize this document, 2 Mr. Papa ge o r ge ? 3 A. Ido. 4 Q. What is it? 5 A. It's a letter that I sent to Randy 6 Graham, a Monsanto salesman, back in early -- January 7 of 1971. It refers to P. R. Mallory and their 8 efforts to control pollution by PCBs. 9 Q. All right. I direct your attention to 10 the third paragraph where you state he, I assume that 11 means Mr. Rowe, is that correct? 12 A. That is correct. 13 Q. "He stated that he followed your advice 14 concerning closing impregnating chambers for final 15 dry-out and was successful in improving the amount of 16 fumes in the building. He asked for design 17 information for reducing the fumes leaving his 18 ventilating system. I promised to send him any 19 information I could get together and that I was 20 attempting to find information that would result in 21 good fume control but would not be very costly to 22 install and operate." 23 Do you recall the conversation with 24 Mr. Rowe that's referred to in that paragraph? ... 25 A. I do, yes. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY i STLCOPCB4029564 121 1 Q. Who is Hr. Rowe? 2 A. He was the -- as I remember, the plant ; 3 manager. 4 Q. 5 A. In Waynesboro? In Waynesboro atthat --at--this time. | i j ! j 6 Q. For Mallory? 1 A. Yes. J ! 8 Q. All right. Do you recallfurnishing any j i 9 design information relating to the ventilation system | 10 in Waynesboro? j 11 A. I was not able to give the Mallory | 12 people specifics, primarily because after I discussed | 13 ventilation design withMonsanto'sengineering j 14 department, they told me that they were in a very 1 5 poor position to suggest specifics because they 16 didn't know the conditions that existed at the 17 Mallory plant regarding volume, concentration of 18 fumes, ability of the existing equipment to move the 19 air through the system. | 20 They needed to knowmuch morebefore ; 21 they could sit down and specifically recommend types | 22 of blowers, types of -- the size of the duct systems, i 23 all of the details that go. ; 24 And I forwarded that through Monsanto 25 marketing department. And, as I remember, the answer i KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029565 122 1 came back, they said thanks, but we're going to take 2 care of that with some engineering firm locally. 3 Q. This is what Mallory communicated to - 4 A. Mallory back through Monsanto field 5 contacts back to me. So the request wasn't 6 fulfilled, but they in turn suggested that I need do 7 no more. They were not willing to give me the 8 specifics, apparently, to conduct any kind of 9 engineering design. 10 Q. In other words, after Mallory, through 11 Monsanto representatives, requested you to provide 12 such information, you later found out that they were 13 receiving such design assistance from an outside 14 party? 15 A. From somewhere. 16 MR. CUKER: Objection. 17 THE WITNESS: I don't know outside or 18 inside. Someone else was working on it. 19 Q. (BY MR. BUSTER) All right. Well, why 20 did you send Mr. Graham this memo? 21 A. Mr. Graham had called me and suggested 22 that the Waynesboro facility people needed more 23 support, more help. Could I call them and see what I 24 could do for them. So I went to the telephone and 25 made the contact. And this was my way of telling KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029566 12 3 1 Randy Graham what had transpired. 2 Q. All right. 3 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit No. 22 4 was marked by the court reporter for identification.) 5 THE WITNESS: I've read.it___ 6 Q. (BY MR. BUSTER) All right. For the 7 record, what's been marked for identification 8 purposes as Papageorge Exhibit 22 is a one page call 9 report. The date of the call is 6/14/71. It's 10 prepared by a Mr. J. G. Bryant. The number stamp on 11 the document is BRW 001987. 12 Mr. Papageorge, do you recall receiving 13 this call report in 1971? 14 A. I do, uh-huh. 15 Q. You are shown as a cc on the report, is 16 that correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Who is Mr. Bryant? 1 9 A. Mr. Bryant is a Monsanto chemist who 20 worked in the marketing department of the group that 21 sold PCBs, and he served as the technical support 22 person to help the field salesman with technical 23 problems as they related to PCBs in dielectric use. 24 Q. All right. Down in the bodyof this 25 memo there's a heading that says results.Do you see KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029567 12 4 1 that? 2 A. Ido. 3 Q . Along about midway inthat section, 4 Mr. Bryant says "About one year ago Bob Vaught and 5 the writer designed degassers, towers, rrriscel 1 aneous 6 handling equipment to improve the performance of 7 their," that is Mallory's, "operation." Do you see 8 t hat ? 9 A. Yes, Ido. 10 Q. Was Mr. Bryant, by virtue of his 11 training, qualified to do that sort of thing for 12 customers? 13 MR. CUKER: Objection. 14 THE WITNESS: Yes. 15 Q. (BY MR. BUSTER) All right. He goes on 16 to say "This equipment was ordered and had been 17 installed. In addition to sealing the system, 18 Mallory is installing an in-line analyzer to close 19 the loop on handling Aroclor." Do you know what 20 Mr. Bryant means by sealing the system? 21 A. That's the expression used to denote 22 that as few opportunities for the release of the 23 liquid to the work area as possible are designed in 24 the system or is maintained so that not many of these 25 opportunities occur. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029568 125 1 Q. When you say to stop the liquid from 2 getting into the work area, does that include fumes 3 as well? 4 A. Yes. Yes. 5 Q. All right. He then says -"Tire re is 6 considerable improvement in the conditions. " Was 7 Mr. Bryant qualified to render such an opinion as 8 that? 9 MR. CUKER: Objection. 10 THE WITNESS: Oh, yeah. Yeah. 11 Q. (BY MR. BUSTER) As part of his 12 day-to-day business, did he have occasion to report 13 to you about other customers, conditions regarding 14 PCBs with respect to other customers? 1 5 MR. CUKER: Objection. 16 THE WITNESS: Yes, he did. 17 Q. (BY MR. BUSTER) Did you rely onthose 18 reports of Mr. Bryant? 19 A. Certainly. 20 Q. Now, he's got a little bullet down here 21 that says "Attention Bill Papageorge: The grey haze 22 and the Aroclor wet floors are gone. The operation 23 is greatly improved. There is still room for some 24 cleanup improvement." Do you recall him telling you 25 that ? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029569 126 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Is this report from Mr. Bryant the type 3 of communication that you typically relied upon to 4 determine whether a customer had cleared up any 5 problems that you might have seen? ' 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Do you know what he was referring to 8 when he talks about this in-line analyzer? 9 A. I believe I do, yes. 10 Q. And what is that? 11 A. It's a device that determines the 12 quality of the liquid and whether it's suitable for 13 use, in this case in capacitors. So they don't have 14 to open a spigot and catch a sample and thereby 15 releasing fumes, running chances of a spill, and then 16 disposal of the liquid. 17 So as this liquid flows through the 18 line, this in-line analyzer tells the operator that 19 it's acceptable or it isn't for use in the intended 20 service. 21 Q. All right. In addition to what's set 22 forth in this memorandum from Mr. Bryant, are you 23 aware of the various steps that Mallory took in the 24 months following your visit to alleviate the problems 25 thatyouhadnoted? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029570 127 1 A. I'm not aware of the specifics. I am 2 aware in general that they tightened up the 3 operations as they were -- as they existed at the 4 time. In the meantime, they bought the necessary 5 equipment to do even better. ' 6 And they -- the big step, as I 7 understood it, was one of sensitizing all employees 8 not to tolerate an oily floor anymore, to look for 9 what I refer to many times as a bone dry floor. 10 That's the best signal you have that things are going 11 your way, as they should be. 12 Q. And did you have an impression or an 13 understanding about whether Mallory had talked to 14 their employees on that subject? 15 A. Yes, I did. 16 Q. And what was that understanding? 17 A. My understanding was that there was 1 8 emphasis placed on this. I got that from Mr. Doty in 19 particular, Dr. Doty, and Bud Dibble. 20 Q. All right. Did you at anytime back in 21 this time frame, '70 through early '72, learn about 22 any other changes in process to reduce Aroclor fumes 23 and emissions such as reduction in temperatures in 24 the process or keeping chamber doors closed longer or- 25 improvements in the ventilation system or anything KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029571 12 8 1 like that? 2 A. I heard of all of those. 3 Q. Based upon what you heard, was Mallory 4 doing what you felt it should have been doing to take 5 care of the problems that you noted?- ' 6 MR. CUKER: Objection. 7 THE WITNESS: I had an impression that 8 they were doing what should have been -- should be - 9 what they should be doing and were achieving the 10 results they were seeking, uh-huh. 11 Q. (BY MR. BUSTER) Were you aware of any 12 steps that Mallory was not taking that you felt they 13 should have been taking? 14 A. No, I don't recall any. 15 Q. And based on your practice, had you 16 known about such steps, would you have communicated 17 those to Mallory? 1 8 MR. CUKER: Objection. 19 ' THE WITNESS: Oh, definitely. 20 Q. (BY MR. BUSTER) Based upon your 21 knowledge of the Mallory plant at Waynesboro and the 22 process going on there, both from your visits and 23 from your reports from Mallory representatives, was 24 there anything about that process that caused you to ... 25 think that the workers at the Mallory plant in KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029572 12 9 1 Waynesboro were being subjected to any health hazards 2 as a result of PCBs? 3 MR. CUKER: Objection. 4 THE WITNESS: Assuming you have the same 5 definition I have of health hazards.' 6 Q. (BY MR. BUSTER) And what is that 7 definition? I think you said before dangerous to 8 use ? 9 A. Well, I was thinking of a level of 10 exposure that results in some harm to the worker. 11 Q. That's a fair definition. I'll accept 12 that for my question. 13 A. And the harm I have in mind would be 14 certainly something undesirable. But whether it be 15 red skin or chloracne or other kinds of symptoms, I 16 didn't see anything that I think would have caused 17 tha t. 1 8 I did see, though, this haze I talked 19 about, and I thought that this is something that 20 could be easily corrected without too much in the way 21 of cost. And it did create, at least for some 22 people, an eye irritation that ought to be removed, 23 and they understood that and they did take care of 24 it. 2 5 Q. All right. Mr. Papageorge ,^_in any of KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029573 13 0 1 Monsanto's operations where chemicals are 2 manufactured, are any of the workers paid premiums 3 because of working with dangerous chemicals? In 4 other words, hazard pay? Is there any concept like 5 that at Monsanto? 6 A. I am personally not aware of any such 7 practice in Monsanto. 8 Q. After your initial visit to Waynesboro 9 and your follow-up with respect to Waynesboro, did 10 you have any other continuing contact with Mallory 11 personnel? 12 A. Yes, I did. 13 Q. Who were your primary contacts at 14 Mallory? 15 A. My primary contacts were Dr. Doty and 16 Bud Dibble. They were the key contacts. 17 Q . 18 contacts? Over what time period were these 19 A. I would say starting from my plant visit 20 until about 1974 or so. 21 Q. And I know it's difficult to summarize, 22 but what were the nature of those contacts by and 23 large over that time period? 24 MR. CUKER: Objection. 25 THE WITNESS: It was primar-4ly one of KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029574 131 1 they asking what's the latest on the PCB issue. I 2 tried to respond by bringing them up-to-date. And 3 during the conversation, I would probe a bit as to 4 how they were doing at their site. And the reports 5 would come back that things were improving all the 6 time. 7 Q. (BY MR. BUSTER) Would they tell you, 8 you know, steps that had been taken to effectuate 9 improvements? 10 MR. CUKER: Objection. : 11 THE WITNESS: I don't remember them, but | 12 they did, yeah, they talked about we followed your 13 idea about curbing and venting and these kinds of j 1 4 things. I don't remember the exact specifics, 15 however. It's too long ago and there are too many 16 similar plants. And with Dr. Doty, the contact was 17 fairly frequent because of his participation in 1 8 committee work, the ANSI committee. 19 Q. (BY MR. BUSTER) All right. One 20 moment. Mr. Cuker was going over some AIHA 21 guidelines this morning, and I believe he asked you a 22 question about the use of respirators. And I'm not 23 trying to characterize your testimony, but my i 24 recollection is you said that that was an area that.,.. ! 25 called for judgment by the employees. Do you recall i KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029575 13 2 1 that testimony? 2 A. Yes, I do. > 3 Q. How often were respirators used in 4 Monsanto's PCB manufacturing process, if at all? " i j 5 A. I have no count, frankly-, it-- happened so 6 infrequently. To give some measure of the frequency, 7 I would suggest that in my five years in Anniston, I 8 recall one incident that involved respirators because 9 of chlorine emission, which was used in making PCBs. 10 Now, that's a different -- definite kind j 11 of respirator. And I would suggest that one incident 12 that might have called for the respirator that would 13 be against PCB fumes with an overflow tank, as I 14 remember, to spill over the edges, a very hot batch, 15 and the fellows had to grab respirators to go turn 16 off the valves and the pumps and so on. 17 Q. . All right. 1 8 A. That's about a once in five year kind of 19 frequency. 20 Q. And in the manufacturing process of j j 21 PCBs, that did involve a heat process, correct? 22 A. Oh, yes, yes. 23 Q. Mr. Cuker mentioned several items such 24 as coveralls, gloves, change of shoes annually, those_ 25 sorts of things that were provided by Monsanto to its i KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029576 13 3 1 workers. Do you recall that? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Was that special to the PCB workers or 4 was that applicable to all the chemical manufacture 5 employees at Monsanto? ' 6 A. All the employees could get the 7 necessary shoes, gloves, booties depending on the 8 activity they're involved in. 9 Q. How long prior to 1970 had Monsanto been 10 engaged in the manufacture of PCBs? 11 A. Monsanto is a company that became 12 involved with the manufacture of PCBs in about 1934 13 when they bought an existing unit from another 14 company that had been making PCBs since '29, 1929. 1 5 Q. Was that Swan Chemical? 16 A. Swan Chemical, yes. 17 Q. And where was Swan's manufacturing 18 facility located? 1 9 A. Anniston, Alabama. 20 Q. And was -- in the early years, in the 21 '30s through the '50s or '60s, was there any 22 difference in the type of PCBs manufactured then as 23 opposed to the type manufactured in the '70 through 24 ' 77 time period? - 25 A. Well, through the years, additional KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029577 13 4 1 commercial mixtures were put together and offered for 2 sale. And the major change in PCBs occurred when 3 1016 was introduced to the dielectric applications 4 which involved an additional processing step. " 5 Otherwise, they're pretty much al i ke th r-o u gh the 6 years. 7 Q. Were the earlier years -- did the 8 earlier years typically involve the higher 9 chlorinated types of PCBs? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. 1260 and 1254? 12 A. That is correct. 13 Q. And did you come to know, based upon 14 your time at Anniston, that in earlier years, and I'm 15 talking 1930s, 1940s, maybe up into the 1950s, worker 16 contact with the PCBs was higher, more frequent than 17 it was in the later years, '60s through '70s? 18 MR. CLJKER: Objection. 1 9 THE WITNESS: It's my understanding 20 that's true. In fact, the difference between '70s 21 and the '60s was quite evident to me, which I saw 22 with my own eyes. It was a different emphasis with 23 respect to industrial chemicals, which apply not only 24 to PCBs but all the other chemicals in the plant. So 25 you could see a change occurring in the PCB KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029578 13 5 1 de pa r tmen t. 2 Q. (BY MR. BUSTER) Is it fair to say in 3 the earlier years, employees more frequently breathed 4 Aroclor fumes and more frequently came into dermal 5 contact with the Aroclor? ` -~ 6 MR. CUKER: Objection. 7 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's -- yes, I 8 would say so. 9 Q. (BY MR. BUSTER) In all of Monsanto's 10 history or manufacture of PCBs, are you aware of any 11 significant health effects to the workers of 12 Monsanto? 13 A. Of course, this depends on your 14 definition of significant. I'm not aware of any 1 5 serious health problem with that population of 16 employee s. 17 I personally saw only one case of 18 severely red hands to the point where blood was 19 oozing out. The employee told me personally that he 20 was just careless and should have known better. And 21 after about a ten-day or two-week period, that 22 disappeared, he put his gloves back on. 23 Q. Did you ever see any incident of 24 chloracne -- - 25 A. NO . KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029579 136 1 Q. -- at Monsanto or hear of one at 2 Monsanto involving a Monsanto worker? 3 A. Relating to PCBs? 4 Q. To PCBs, correct. 5 A. I never seen that. --- 6 Q. Did you ever know or hear of any liver 1 abnormality regarding usage of PCBs by a Monsanto 8 employee? 9 A. No. 10 MR. BUSTER: That's all. 11 MR. SPODEN: Emhart has no questions. 12 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 13 BY MR. CUKER: 1 4 Q. Mr. Papageorge, you have that letter 15 from Dr. Wheeler in front of you? 16 A. Doctor who? 17 Q. Wheeler. 1 8 A. Wheeler ? 19 Q. Did I incorrectly call him a doctor? 20 A. That's Mr. Wheeler, uh-huh. 21 Q. Mr. Wheeler. Sorry. Going back to this 22 sentence Mr. Buster asked you about, "Compared to 23 thousands of industrial chemicals and home products, 24 PCBs are not toxic unless they are mishandled or . 25 misused," by mishandled or misused, do you consider KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029580 13 7 1 that to be used in violation of the guidelines, the 2 American Industrial Hygiene Association, already 3 marked as Roush Exhibit 2? 4 A. I see this Exhibit 2 as applying to 5 referring to handling and mishandling. ... ... 6 Q . Yes. 7 A. As distinguished from misused. 8 Q. Okay. Let me just call -- let me just 9 use the term mishandling then. 10 A. Mishandling. 11 Q. Would mishandlinginclude mishandling in 12 violation of Roush Exhibit 2, the AIHA guide? 13 A. I see the guideline asa very 14 conservative approach to assuring that you don't even 15 approach seeing any of the symptoms that would result 16 from mishandling. 17 The red hands should never occur if this 18 is followed. The chloracne, the damaged livers, all 19 these things we hear about would never happen if you 20 follow these guidelines. 21 And these guidelines, of course, are 22 based on some animal studies, as you can read, and 23 there was the attempt to translate to humans, which 24 is always an estimate on the part of the people 25 involved. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029581 13 8 1 So I find, in my own thinking, that 2 mishandling is a true abuse of the material as 3 distinguished from the guideline approach which 4 assures you'll never see the symptoms. 5 Q. What do you consider a true"abuse, 6 drinking it? 7 A. Well, obviously drinking it would be. 8 But I'm referring to a case of the red hands approach 9 to the point where the individual that goes beyond 10 the red hands and shows up his chloracne on the 11 person's -- let's say his cheeks. 12 Q. Well, that's a symptom, Mr. Papageorge. 13 A. That's a symptom. 14 Q. What's the mishandling that leads to 1 5 that? 16 A. The mishandling is the dunking the hands 17 in day-in and day-out so long that eventually the 1 8 symptom shows up. Or I see an abuse where the fumes 19 are breathed by the individual who is maybe for some 20 reason reluctant to put on his respirator. Next 21 thing you know, he ends up with a respiratory 22 condition which resembles a severe chest cold. And 23 it hurts. It's very painful. That I call a severe 24 abuse. 25 Q. Okay. Talking about respirators, was KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029582 13 9 1 the reason that you saw respirators used so 2 infrequently at Monsanto, was the reason for that was 3 there were so few spills of hot PCBs? 4 MR. BUSTER: Objection. Leading. " 5 THE WITNESS: I don't know, --how to 6 describe so few. 7 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Well, you said there was 8 one - 9 A. One major spill. It was the size of the 10 spill. Because we have a lot of minor spills that 11 create some local fume problems where the intelligent 12 employee doesn't go into that area unless he has to 13 to, so he doesn't need a respirator. 14 Q. Can you give me some idea of a local 15 spill and a major spill? ! 16 A. Well, I would define a failed pumping j 17 gland, which is the device around the rotating shaft i 18 that seals the liquid, that fails and it sprays out J j 19 some liquid maybe a distance of six to ten feet from J 20 the pump, creating some fumes because the liquid is 21 hot, I would call that a local spill. As compared -- j 22 local, yes. As compared to this tank incident where j 23 it overflowed and I don't know how many pounds of 24 material got away. j I _: 25 Q. Can you define local in the size of the ; KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029583 140 1 area effected by the spill? 2 A. Oh, gosh, that's hard to do because -- 3 Q. Approximately. I know we're dealing 4 with subjective terms. " 5 A. Gee, I don't know how to -de-fine that 6 because it depends really on the size of the tank, 7 say. Could be a ten foot diameter tank and might 8 affect a twenty foot area. 9 Q. Okay. 10 A. I just don't know how to define that. 11 Q. I think you said in your testimony you 12 considered PCBs to be among the least harmful of 13 industrial chemicals if handled properly. Would you 14 consider improper handling to be handling in 15 violation of the AIHA guide, Roush Exhibit 2? 16 A. Oh, I guess technically speaking, if you 17 exceed those numbers, you're in violation. 1 8 Q. Well, I'm not just talking about the 19 numbers, I'm talking about the other provisions in 20 there. 21 A. The other provisions? If you don't 22 follow them, you're not abiding by them. Therefore, 23 I guess you could technically say you're violating 24 them. 25 Q. Would you consider improper handling to KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029584 141 1 include handling in violation of the ANSI standards, 2 Papageorge Exhibit 2? 3 A. Yeah, I think so. Subjectively. 4 Q. You referred to some fright -- I think 5 you used the term frightening chemicaIs ,--cyanide, 6 some other chemicals like that. Does Monsanto make 7 those ? 8 A. Certainly we use them. Chlorine itself 9 is a World War I gas that's used to make PCBs. I 10 Q. What else does -- of the ones you 11 mentioned -- you mentioned cyanide. What were the I | j 1 2 others you mentioned? Let me just ask you, were all | 13 of those chemicals that Monsanto makes or uses in its j 14 processes? 1 5 A. Those that I mentioned? 16 Q. Yeah. 17 A. I believe so, yeah. 18 Q. So within Monsanto, PCB was considered 19 less harmful than certainly cyanideand fluorine gas? 20 A. And benzene. 21 Q. Benz ene. 22 A. And many, many chemicals, phosphorus, 23 phosphorus trichloride and thiram and parathion, the 24 boll weevil killer. _ 25 Q. in the 1970s, did you consider PCBs to KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029585 142 1 have the potential of causing liver damage to humans? 2 A. Yes, that was one of the points that was 3 discussed with the workers and the supervisors and 4 all. ' 5 Q. With workers where? 6 A. At our pi ant s. 7 Q. Did you also discuss that with the 8 Mallory people? 9 A. I believe so. It was in some of the 10 literature that they received. 11 Q. Did you -- in the 1970s, did you 12 consider PCBs to having the potential of being fatal 13 in humans if not used properly? 14 A. Oh, yeah, there is a point beyond 1 5 which -- 16 Q. And did you discuss that with the 17 Mallory people? 1 8 A. Yes. 19 Q. And when I say 1970s, I mean the early 20 period between '70 and '77. 21 A. I understand. 22 Q. You would not have haddiscussions with 23 them after 1977. 24 A. Sure. 2 5 Q. Now, do we have -- where is thatexhibit KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029586 143 1 that's dated 7/25/71? Actually, let me ask you 2 another question before that. On this issue of the 3 compensation of Monsanto workers, do you recall what j 4 Monsanto workers in the PCB process were paid between j 5 '70 and '76? .- j 6 A. No, I do not. 7 Q. You were plant manager in Anniston. Can 8 you remember what they were paid back in Anniston? 9 A. No, I don't. 10 Q. All right. Mr. Papageorge, part of this 11 Exhibit 22 that Mr. Buster did not read where it says 12 "The Waynesboro location was at best a real," quote, 13 "'slop shop' which grew out of equipment salvaged 1 4 from the Crawfordsvil1e, Indiana location which 15 burned," is that description consistent with your 16 impression of the plant from your visit in '71? 17 MR. BUSTER: In '70. 1 8 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) '70, that's right. 19 A. I personally would not use that 20 expression That's Mr. Bryant's terminology. 21 Q. This is an internal -- this was an 22 internal memo, Mr. Papageorge. 23 A. I understand. 24 Q. Obviously, this was not going out. 25 A. That's right. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029587 144 1 Q. Would you use that expression internally 2 within the company? 3 A. No, I -- no. That' s a subjective term 4 that doe sn1' t c ome easy for me. I wouldn't use i t. 5 MR . CUKE R: Can we mark- thi-s document? 6 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit No. 23 7 was ma r ke d by the court reporter for identification 8 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Mr. Papageorge, I have 9 marked a document as Exhibit 23, a document -- 10 actually, a memo from N. T. Johnson which attaches 11 summary sheets prepared by Randy Graham. I believe 12 he was one of the people you dealt with? 13 A. Yes. 1 4 Q. Okay. And it's -- the cover sheet is 15 dated March 25th, '71. It's bate stamp number BRW 16 003411 through 3418. Your name does not appear on 17 the document. 1 8 I want to call your attention to page 1 9 003414 and, in particular, one sentence underneath 20 where it says Mallory Capacitor Company. You see 21 where it says -- well, let me just ask you, were 22 these -- under what circumstances would Mr. Graham 23 prepare summaries like this? 24 MR. MOORE: If you know. Bill. _ 25 MR. BUSTER: I object to the form of the KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029588 145 1 question. I don't think it's clear that Mr. Graham 2 prepared this summary. j 3 Q. (BY MR. CCJKER) All right. Well, let me j _i 4 just ask you, you want to take your time and look'at j 5 the document and you can tell from looki-n-g at it j 6 whether it's of a nature that Mr. -- of a document | 7 that Mr. Graham would prepare. 8 A. Looking over the document, this appears 9 to me like a special effort made by Mr. Graham 10 because he was leaving Monsanto's employ, employment. 11 Q. Were these documents that salesmen 12 typically prepared when they were leaving the company 13 to brief their successors on the accounts? 14 A. I don't know. 15 Q. Who would know? 16 A. I guess the marketing supervisors 17 would. It depends on their style of supervising and 18 how they conduct their turnover of jobs. 19 Q. You see there where he says, and I 20 quote, "The Waynesboro plant is one of the worst in 21 the industry," end quote? Was that consistent with 22 your opinion of the plant when you were there in 23 1 97 0? 24 A. It's one of those that needed a lot of 25 correction, yeah. l ! KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029589 146 1 Q. Now, I think you said that your main 2 source of information on the processes that they were 3 developing at that plant to tighten up their 4 operation were Mr. Dibble and Mr. Doty, Dr. Doty,- is 5 t ha t r i gh t ? ... 6 MR. MOORE: Objection. I don't believe 7 that fairly characterizes the testimony. 8 MR. BUSTER: I don't either. I join in 9 that objection. He mentioned several other 10 individuals. 11 THE WITNESS: My main contacts were the 12 two individuals mentioned. In terms of main source 13 of information, I would suggest that I got as much 14 out of the Monsanto representatives in terms of total 1 5 substance as I got out of the discussions with 16 Mr. Dibble and Dr. Doty. 17 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Now, when Monsanto 18 representatives would visit the plant, how were those 19 visits arranged? 20 A. Oh, I don't know the details of the 21 a r rangement. 22 Q. Did they normally -- were they normally 23 made by appointment? 24 A. That is the normal way, although 25 sometimes they happened to be in the neighborhood and KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029590 147 1 drop by. 2 Q. Is there anything in the neighborhood of 3 Waynesboro, Tennessee that they would happen to be 4 in? ' 5 A. Well, by neighborhood, lVm,-fcalking about 6 the part of the country, the northwest or the 7 northeast or so on. 8 Q. And they would just drop by Waynesboro 9 and -- 10 A, Or they might call the night before and 11 say I'm in town, can I drop by tomorrow morning. And 12 usually it was with the purchasing man, the buyer. 13 Q. Now, are you speaking from your personal 14 recollection or are you hypothesizing, 15 Mr. Papageorge? 16 MR. BOSTER: I'll object. 17 MR. MOORE: You asked about the 18 practices. 19 MR. BUSTER: And you don't like the 20 an swe r . 21 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) You mean they would 22 happen to be in Waynesboro, Tennessee and drop by? 23 A. That's what Mr. Graham's job was. 24 Q. To just happen to be in Waynesboro and 25 drop by? I KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029591 14 8 1 A. Well, I don't know that it happened for 2 him. He planned to be in that area. 3 Q. Are there any Monsanto customers that 4 you're aware of within a twenty-five mile radius of 5 Waynesboro, Tennessee? . 6 A. Not twenty-five, but that's too short a 7 distance. 8 Q. Well, what kind of radius were they 9 within? 10 A. I don't remember the close -- well, a 11 day's drive is sort of typical. 1 2 Q. A day's drive, meaning how many driving 13 hours? 14 A. Eight or ten. 15 MR. MOORE: Mark, listen, it's late in 16 the day. This witness has been very responsive to 17 your questions. Now, let's not get into this kind of 1 8 nitpicking. 19 MR. CUKER: I'm entitled to know what he 20 means by a day's drive. 21 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) I'm sorry, did you say? 22 A. Eight to ten hours, sometimes. It 23 varies. 24 Q. Okay. Now, were you informed of the 25 levels in the air, PCB levels in the air at that KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029592 149 1 pi a nt ? 2 A. I don't remember any numbers mentioned. 3 Q. All right. Assuming that the air test 4 taken in 1976 showed levels in excess of the TLV'at 5 the Waynesboro plant, would you consider-- that to have 6 been taking care of the problem? 7 MR. BUSTER: Object to the form of that 8 question. That's a hypothetical. 9 THE WITNESS: Doesn't tell me enough. 1 0 MR. BUSTER: Asks for opinion 11 testimony. 12 THE WITNESS: Doesn't tell us how your 13 sample was prepared, and the employees in that area, 14 were they exposed for that eight hours day-in and 15 day-out. 16 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Let me refine the 17 question. Would you consider a sampling on a - 1 8 personal sample on a worker -- you know what a 19 personal sample is? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. In excess of the TLV in 1976, six years 22 after you visited the plant, approximately, would you 23 consider that to have been taking care of the 24 pr obiem? 25 MR. BUSTER: Are you paying KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029593 150 1 Mr. Papageorge an expert witness fee? 2 MR. CUKER: You asked him whether 3 Mallory took care of the problem in his opinion. 4 MR. BUSTER: I asked him for his ' 5 knowledge. . ,-- 6 MR. CUKER: I'm entitled to clarify his 7 opinion. 8 MR. BUSTER: Object to form. 9 Hypothetical question. 10 THE WITNESS: I would be interested in 11 that particular incident and would like to know are 12 others involved and did this employee have anything 13 unusual happen during his shift coverage and so on to 14 try to evaluate the total. 15 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) So you can't give an 16 opinion as to whether you'd consider that taking care 17 of the problem? 18 MR. BUSTER: Based on your hypothetical. 19 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Based on my 20 hypothetical. 21 A a I can't go one way or the other on that. 22 MR. MOORE: That's as far as we're 23 going. 24 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) But can you give an 25 opinion to Mr. Buster as to whether they did take KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029594 151 1 care of the problem based on what he told you? 2 MR. BUSTER: Object to the form of 3 that. It's entirely argumentative and 4 mischaracterizes his testimony. ' 5 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Based on w.h-a-t you 6 hea rd? 7 MR. MOORE: I don't understand the 8 question. 9 THE WITNESS: I don't either. 10 MR. CUKER: Okay. 11 THE WITNESS: Would you rephrase it? 12 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) What is your basis for 13 your opinion that Mallory was taking care of the 14 problem as quickly as anyone in the capacitor 1 5 industry? 16 MR. BUSTER: Asked and answered. 17 THE WITNESS: It's based on reports made 18 to me by Monsanto representatives and it's compared 19 to similar operations of other customers and reports 20 by the same individuals so there's a uniformity 21 involved as to the kinds of input I'm getting. 22 And then when I compare the progress 23 being made, I can only arrive at a conclusion that 24 these people are doing what is possible and 25 practical. And improvement was being made. There's KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029595 152 1 no reason to believe otherwise. 2 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Would a person -- would 3 personal samples showing readings in excess of the 4 TLV in 1976 be reason to believe otherwise? - 5 MR. BUSTER: I object to. thg. form of the 6 question. It's an incomplete hypothetical and 7 therefore incapable of meaningful response, and it 8 seeks an expert opinion testimony from 9 Mr. Papageorge. 10 MR. MOORE: Well, and even more to the 11 point, Mark, he told you that that doesn't give him 12 enough to answer the question, so I don't think it's 13 fair. 1 4 MR. CUKER: The only issue is is it 15 reasonable to believe otherwise. 16 MR. MOORE: He already said he didn't 17 consider any basis for answering the question. 18 MR. CUKER: I'd like an answer to the 19 question. 20 MR. MOORE: Put the question to him 21 again. 22 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Would readings of PCBs 23 in air above the TLVs in 1976 in the Waynesboro 24 plant, including readings on personal samples in 25 excess of the TLV, be reason for believing KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029596 153 1 othe rwise? 2 MR. BUSTER: Same objection. 3 MR. MOORE: Otherwise than what? 4 MR. CUKER: Otherwise that they were 5 doing the best that could be done under -t-he 6 circumstances. 7 MR. BUSTER: Same objection. 8 MR. MOORE: I'm going to ask 9 Mr. Papageorge if he feels he has enough information 10 to answer that question. 11 THE WITNESS: I have many more questions 12 than I have answers to that. 13 MR. MOORE: All right. So that's a 14 hypothetical question, inadequate information, and I 15 don't think it's fair to require him to answer that 16 question. 17 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Did Mr. Buster's 18 question, the -- you're quite certain your only visit 19 to Waynesboro was in 1970? 20 A. Yes. 21 MR. CUKER: That's all I have. 22 MR. MOORE: Thank you. Any other 23 questions? 24 FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION 25 BY MR. BUSTER: KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029597 154 1 Q. Mr. Papageorge, on your visit to the 2 Waynesboro plant in 1970, was it your understanding 3 or impression that Mallory had made any special 4 preparations or cleanup for your visit there? " 5 A. No. They were unique in a. jay that they 6 had not made special preparations compared to other 7 plants I visited. 8 Q. Now, Mr. Cuker asked you aquestion j 9 whether under some conditions it might be possible i 10 for PCBs to be fatal. Do you recall that question? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. What kind of conditions are wetalking j 13 about there, Mr. Papageorge? 1 4 A. I can only pass on to you what the | ii 15 medical department told me at one time, and this 16 amounts to a very serious exposure, way beyond what 17 had been experienced by Monsanto's forty years in the 1 8 business. But the potential was always there. 19 Therefore, those of us in charge of the 20 operations were tutored to be aware of the potential 21 for if you really don't do this right, you could end 22 up, God forbid, but it could end up with a fatality. 23 But the conditions that existed I'm led 24 to believe would never approach those con -- that 25 condition where damaged liver could not -- I forget KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029598 1^5 1 the expression. Where it could recover once the 2 exposure was removed. 3 Q. (BY MR. BUSTER) Are you referring to 4 the conditions at Mallory? - 5 A. Or similar, yeah. 6 MR. CUKER: Objection. 7 THE WITNESS: They're part of this. 8 Q. (BY MR. BUSTER) Now, Mr. Cukerpointed 9 your attention to the language that referred to the 10 Waynesboro operation as a slop shop and to one of the 11 worst in the industry, correct? 12 A. Yes, I remember that. 13 Q. And, in fact, in your letter to -- was 14 it Mr. Lewis? 1 5 MR. SCHNEIDER: Lewis, yeah. 16 Q. (BY MR. BUSTER) Mr. Lewis, youreferred 17 to the Mallory problems in Waynesboro as being 18 challenging, correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Was it those conditions that,based upon 21 what you -- the information that you acquired over 22 the next several months, were improved? 23 A. Certainly. 24 MR. BUSTER: No further questions. 25 MR. CUKER: I'm done. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029599 156 1 MR. MOORE: Thank you. Bill. 2 3 WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE . 4 Subscribed and sworn to before me on 5 this _______ day of , 1 989. 6 My commission expires 7 8 NOTARY PUBLIC 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 - J 17 0 OO 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 !I i I i KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029600 1 57 1 NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE 2 STATE OF MISSOURI 3 COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS ) ) ) 4 I, Gwen A. Huffman, a Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public duly commissioned and 5 qualified in and for the County of St.. L.aui s, State of Missouri, do hereby certify that, pursuant to 6 agreement between Counsel, came before me on the 21st day of December, 1988, at the Karpowicz Reporting 7 Company Conference Room, 314 North Broadway, 11th Floor, St. Louis, Missouri, WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE, 8 who was by me first duly sworn on his oath to testify to the truth and nothing but the truth of his 9 knowledge touching and concerning the matters in controversy in this cause; that he was thereupon 10 carefully examined upon his oath, and his examination reduced to writing under my supervision; that the 11 deposition is a true record of the testimony given by the witness. 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have ereunto .s-^t my 13 hand and affixed my seal this day of 1989. 14 My commission will expire January 27th, 1991. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 | 24 25 KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029601 15 8 1 KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY 408 Olive Street, Suite 316 2 St. Louis, MO 63102 3 J anua ry 11 , 198 9 _ 4 Mr. William B. Papageorge 5 321 Pebble Valley Drive - St. Louis, MO 63141 6 In Re: Katherine Joyce Brewer, et al. vs 7 Monsanto Corporation, et al. 8 Dear Mr. Papageorge: 9 This letter, incorporated as the last page of your deposition taken on December 21, 1988, will serve as 10 notice to you that your testimony is now ready for your reading and signing of same. 11 I would appreciate your contacting my office by 12 calling 314/621-8883 so that arrangements can be made to accomplish this. 13 This letter is being mailed to you, as you know, by 14 Certified Mail with return receipt requested. If we have not heard from you within thirty days after 15 receiving your return receipt, this testimony will be filed with our indication of this offer of submission 16 to you and your refusal to sign. 17 I would appreciate hearing from you at your earliest convenience and appreciate your cooperation in this 18 regard. 19 Sincerely yours, 20 21 Gwen A. Huffman, RPR 22 CERTIFIED MAIL: P 714 737 468 23 MAILED ON: January 11, 1989 24 25 KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY ' ' we STLCOPCB4029602 15 9 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 2 COLUMBIA DIVISION 3 KATHERINE JOYCE BREWER et al . , 4 Plaintiffs 5 -v s - 6 MONSANTO CORPORATION 7 e t al . , Nos. 1-88-008 and 1-8 8-0.01-4- through 1-88-0368 J udge Wiseman 8 Def endants 9 AFFIDAVIT 10 I, GWEN A. HUFFMAN, a Registered 11 Professional Reporter and Notary Public within and 12 for the State of Missouri, do hereby certify that 13 under Certified Mail No. P 714 737 468 14 WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE 15 was duly notified that his deposition taken in the 16 above matter had been transcribed and could be read 17 and signed; that signed receipt was returned showing 18 signature date of 19 That over thirty days have elapsed since the sending 20 of the aforementioned Certified Letter; that there 21 has been no response from this party or counsel; that 22 therefore, said deposition is herewith filed. 23 My ' ''' ' ~ ""1991 24 25 KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY STLCOPCB4029603