Document n9Ne0z545e9x09zYLERa3brL8

ORIGINAL Superior Court of the State of California For the County of Los Angeles TRANSWESTERN PIPELINE ) COMPANY, ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) vs. ) ) MONSANTO COMPANY and ) DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, ) Defendant ) ) Case No. BC 026959 July 9,1992 Deposition of JAMES RICHARD SAVAGE, taken on behalf of Plaintiff. GORE REPORTING COMPANY Boatmen's Tower, Suite 1175 -100 North Broadway St Louis, Missouri 63102 (314) 241-6750 HARTOLDMONO010726 1 Superior Court of th State of California 2 For the County of Los Angeles 3 4 TRANSWESTERN PIPELINE ) 5 COMPANY, ) 6 Plaintiff, ) 7) 8 v. ) No. BC 026959 9) 10 MONSANTO COMPANY and ) 11 DOES 1 through 200, ) 1 2 inclusive , ) 13 Defendants . ) 14 15 16 17 1 8 Deposition of JAMES RICHARD 1 9 SAVAGE, taken on behalf of Plaintiff, at the 2 0 offices of Bryan, Cave, McPheeters & 2 1 McRoberts, 500 North Broadway in the City of 2 2 St. Louis, State of Missouri, commencing at 2 3 12:00 p.m. on the 9th day of July, 1992, 2 4 before J. Bryan Jordan, certified shorthand 2 5 reporter and notary public. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI '2 HARTOLDMONO010727 1 APPEARANCES: 2 3 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: 4 Ms. Dana K. Welch 5 Shearman & Sterling 6 555 California Street 7 San Francisco California 94111-2514 8 (415) 986-4200 9 1 0 FOR THE DEFENDANTS: 1 1 Ms. Janine Simerly 1 2 Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon 1 3 505 Montgomery Street 1 4 San Francisco, California 94111-2514 1 5 (415)986-4200 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI '3 HARTOLDMONO010728 I 1 INDEX 2 PAGE 3 EXAMINATION BY MS. WELCH 6 4 5 6 EXHIBITS 7 8 Plaintiff's Exhibit 427 ........................................... 37 9 Plaintiff's Exhibit 428 ....................................... ... 57 1 0 Plaintiff's Exhibit 429 60 1 1 Plaintiff's Exhibit 430 63 1 2 Plaintiff's Exhibit 431 65 1 3 Plaintiff's Exhibit 432 72 1 4 Plaintiff's Exhibit 432-A 75 1 5 Plaintiff's Exhibit 433 86 1 6 Plaintiff's Exhibit 434 92 1 7 Plaintiff's Exhibit 435 100 1 8 Plaintiff's Exhibit 436 104 1 9 Plaintiff's Exhibit 437 106 2 0 Plaintiff's Exhibit 438 117 2 1 Plaintiff's Exhibit 439 128 2 2 Plaintiff's Exhibit 440 134 2 3 Plaintiff's Exhibit 441 136 2 4 Plaintiff's Exhibit 442 142 25 GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 4 HARTOLDMONO010729 1 EXHIBITS (CONTINUED) 2 3 Plaintiff's Exhibit 443 152 4 Plaintiff's Exhibit 444 154 5 Plaintiff's Exhibit 445 156 6 Plaintiff's Exhibit 446 158 7 Plaintiff's Exhibit 447 ........................................... 161 8 Plaintiff's Exhibit 448 ........................................... 166 9 Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 4 9 ........................................... 1 6 8 1 0 Plaintiff's Exhibit 450 ........................................... 171 1 1 Plaintiff's Exhibit 451 ........................................... 182 1 2 Plaintiff's Exhibit 452 ........................................... 184 1 3 Plaintiff's Exhibit 453 ........................................... 186 1 4 Plaintiff's Exhibit 454 ........................................... 190 1 5 Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 55 ........................................... 1 9 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 5 HARTOLDMONO010730 1 Whereupon. . . 2 JAMES RICHARD SAVAGE, 3 of sound mind, having been first duly sworn 4 to tell the truth, the whole truth, and 5 nothing but the truth in the case aforesaid, 6 testified upon his oath as follows, to-wit: 7 EXAMINATION 8 QUESTIONS BY MS. WELCH: 9 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Savage. My 1 0 name is Dana Welch, and I represent 1 1 Transwestern Pipeline Company. 1 2 (Discussion off the record.) 1 3 MS. WELCH: Back on the record. 1 4 BY MS. WELCH: 1 5 Q. As I said, I represent 1 6 Transwestern Pipeline Company and this 17 deposition is being taken in a case in which 1 8 Transwestern Pipeline Company has sued 1 9 Monsanto. 2 0 Have you ever heard of 2 1 Transwestern Pipeline Company before this 2 2 case? 2 3 A. Before the case? No. 24 Q. Okay. ' 2 5 A. Not that I recall. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 6 HARTOLDMONO010731 1 Q. Okay, have you ever been deposed 2 before? 3 A . Yes. 4 Q. And how many cases? 5 A. It appears, three others, although 6 I don't remember them all. 7 Q. Okay, approximatelywhen were 8 those cases? 9 A. Most recent, I guess, two or three 1 0 years ago. It's not something I have done 1 1 very much. 1 2 Q. Okay, did those casesinvolve 1 3 products that contained PCBs? 1 4 A. Yes. 1 5 Q. When I use the word Aroclors, do 1 6 you understand that to mean Monsanto's 1 7 version of PCBs? 1 8 A. Yes. 1 9 Q. So I can use those words and 2 0 you'll understand that? 2 1 A. Yes. 2 2 Q. Okay, a few things about the 2 3 deposition process, in case you need 2 4 refreshing. We need to be considerate of the 2 5 court reporter here, so I would like to GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI '7 HARTOLDMONO010732 1 complete a question and have you answer that 2 just so that he can get it clearly on the 3 record, and likewise I will wait for you to 4 answer your question before - - answer my 5 question before I askanother one. You 6 understand that you are under oath, and even 7 though this is a casual setting, it's as if 8 you are in a courtroom of law? 9 A . Yes. 1 0 Q. And so you are obligated to tell 1 1 the truth. When the deposition transcript is 1 2 finished, you will have a chance to review it 1 3 and make any corrections that you deem 14 necessary. I should comment to you now, 1 5 though, that I or another attorney for 1 6 Transwestern may take that opportunity to 17 comment on any changesthat you make to your 1 8 transcript, but you will have that 1 9 opportunity. 2 0 If you answer a question that I 2 1 ask, I will assume that you understood the 2 2 question and I never mean to confuse or 2 3 obfuscate, so if there's anything that I say 2 4 that's confusing to you, please ask me to 2 5 rephrase it and I will. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI '8 HARTOLDMONO010733 1 I want your best recollection of 2 the events that happened during the years 3 that I ' m going to ask you about.. I don't 4 want you to speculate or guess, but I just 5 want t o know what you knew, and what you know 6 and what you remember. 7 Is that clear? 8 A . Yes. 9 Q Okay. So you testified in about 1 0 three other cases , the first was two or three 1 1 years ago. Do you recall when the others 1 2 were? 1 3 MS . SIMERLY: That 1 4 mischaracterizes. "The last was two or three 1 5 years ago," is what he said. 1 6 A. The last I recall. 1 7 Q. Do you recall when the others 1 8 were? 1 9 A. No. In fact, until we prepared 20 for this yesterday, I didn't remember that 21 there were that many. 22 Q. Okay, and were you represented by 2 3 counsel in those depositions? 2 4 A. Yes. 2 5 Q. Could you please tell me what your GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI 9 HARTOLDMONO010734 1 educational background is? 2 A . I have a B . S . in chemical 3 engineering from the University of Wisconsin. 4 A little bit of course work after that, but 5 no other degree. 6 Q And wh a t year did you obtain that 7 degree? 8 A . 1 9 57. 9 Q And when did you first start to go 1 0 to work a t Monsanto? 1 1 A . Yes, here i n St. Louis. 1 2 Q What year was that? 1 3 A . In 1957. 1 4 Q What was your first job? 1 5 A . My title was assistant engineer. 1 6 I was at the J. F. Queeny plant on South 17 Second Street. 1 8 Q. What were your job 1 9 responsibilities as assistant engineer? 2 0 A. I was part of a department called 2 1 Technical Services and our job was to make 2 2 modest improvements in the processes in the 2 3 various operations that were in the plant. 2 4 Larger projects were done by another 2 5 organization. . GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 10 HARTOLDMONO010735 1 Q What products did J . F . Queeny 2 plant produce? 3 A . At that time, the J . F . Queeny 4 plant was v e r y large and made more than a 5 hundred products. I don't remember what they 6 all were. 7 Q. Did it produce any of the products 8 that contained Aroclors at that time? 9 A. Notto my knowledge. 1 0 Q. At that time, as assistant 1 1 engineer did you work on any products that 1 2 contained Aroclors? 1 3 A . No . 1 4 Q. And how long did you spend as 1 5 assistant engineer? 1 6 A. I stayed at the Queeny plant for 1 7 just over a year and was transferred to the 1 8 Anniston plant at that time, with the same 1 9 title . 2 0 Q. Did the Anniston plant at that 2 1 time, which I assume was 1958, produce any 2 2 products that contained Aroclors? 2 3 A. Yes, Anniston produced Aroclors. 2 4 Q. Did it produce all of the products 2 5 that contained Aroclors at that time? GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 11 HARTOLDMONO010736 1 A . Yes. 2 Q. What was your -- 3 A. Excuse me. Anniston produced each 4 of the Aroclor products but was not the only 5 producing site. It didn't make all the 6 Aroclor . 7 Q. Which other plant made Aroclors? 8 A. The Krummrich plant. 9 Q. Any others? 1 0 A. Yes. We had a plant at Newport in 1 1 Wales . 1 2 Q. That's in Great Britain? 1 3 A. Yes. 1 4 Q. Anyothers? 1 5 A. I think those were t he on1y ones. 1 6 Q. And this was in 1958, all three 1 7 plants were involved in the production of 1 8 Aroclors? 1 9 A. Yes. 2 0 Q. What were your job 2 1 responsibilities at that time? 2 2 A. I was working in the Parathion 2 3 Department, which was on the opposite side of 2 4 the plant from Aroclors, doing process 2 5 improvement work. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 12 HARTOLDMONO010737 6 1 Q. Do Parathion, does Parathion 2 contain Aroclors? 3 A . No . 4 Q. How long did you stay on that job? 5 A. Three years in that responsibility 6 in the Parathion Department. 7 Q. That takes us up to approximately 8 1961; is that correct? 9 A. That's right. 1 0 Q. Okay, what happened in 1961? 1 1 A. I was transferred to the 1 2 production department, running -- as 1 3 production supervisor for the Chlorine 1 4 Department . 1 5 Q At the Anniston plant? 1 6 A . At the Anniston plant. 1 7 Q What was the chlorine that you 1 8 produced used for? 1 9 A . 11 was all transferred by pipeline 2 0 to the Aroclor department. 2 1 Q Any other uses for the chlorine? 2 2 A. Chlorine was also consumed in 2 3 making Parathion but nearly all of that was 2 4 purchased chlorine. 2 5 Q. Who did you report to? GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 13 HARTOLDMONO010738 1 A. As a production supervisor, I 2 first reported to Carl Edelblut. Later, Carl 3 transferred and was replaced by Bob Moody. 4 Q. Do you know what year that was? 5 A . No . 6 Q. What were your job 7 responsibilities as production supervisor? 8 A. I was responsible for the 9 production of chlorine, caustic soda, caustic 1 0 potash, for worker safety, supervision of the 1 1 workforce, quality control. The full span of 1 2 first-line production supervision. 1 3 Q. How long did you stay as 1 4 production supervisor? 1 5 A. I was production supervisor for a 1 6 total of two years. 17 Q. At the time that you were 1 8 production supervisor at the Anniston plant, 1 9 that's in Alabama? 2 0 A. Right. 2 1 Q. Were you told anything about 2 2 Aroclors? 2 3 A. Well, yes. For the first year, 2 4 they were my customer. After that, I had 2 5 more direct responsibility. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 14 HARTOLDMONO010739 i 1 Q. Were you told that Aroclors could 2 be toxic? And we're talking about the time 3 period of 1961 to 1963. 4 A. I think that we were, we were told 5 that Aroclor was an industrial chemical which 6 would be treated in the way that industrial 7 chemicals are normally handled. 8 Q. Which is what? 9 A. There was not -- there was no 1 0 highlight that it was, had any particular 1 1 unusual toxicity. 1 2 Q. And when you say that it should be 1 3 treated as industrial chemicals should 1 4 normally be treated, what does that include? 1 5 A. Well, ordinarily, one avoids 1 6 getting those materials on the skin or 1 7 inhaling vapors, avoids unnecessary contact. 1 8 Q. Were you told the contact with 1 9 Aroclor may cause chloracne? 2 0 A . No . 2 1 Q. Were you told that contact with 2 2 Aroclor may cause liver damage? 2 3 A . No . 2 4 Q. Were you told that contact with 2 5 Aroclor may cause liver atrophy? . GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 15 HARTOLDMONO010740 t 1 A . Well, your questions are leading 2 in a, intoa kind of strange context, because 3 there was no formal forum in which I would be 4 told such things. As a supervisor, I had 5 responsibility to find out those things about 6 the chemicals that I worked with, and there 7 were materials available for me to find those 8 thingsout. 9 Q . When you first -- 1 0 MS. SIMERLY: Let me interject an 1 1 o b j e c t i o n . I assume w e are reserving all 1 2 o b j e c t i o n s except as t o the form o f the 1 3 quest ion until the use at trial; i s that a 1 4 fair assumption? 1 5 MS . WELCH . Yes. 1 6 MS . SIMERLY: Okay. 17 BY MS. WELCH: 1 8 Q Was there a normal training course 1 9 that you took when you became production 2 0 supervis or that introduced you to the 2 1 products that you were working with? 2 2 A . No . 2 3 Q So any information that you 2 4 gathered about the products, including the 2 5 Aroclor , would b e from your own GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 16 HARTOLDMONO010741 J 1 investigation; is that correct? 2 A. It was readily available in the 3 files that were given to me when I took over 4 the shop. 5 Q. But nobody took you aside and said 6 you've got to be careful around this material 7 because it may cause chloracne, for instance? 8 A . No. 9 Q. Were you, at this time, 1 0 responsible for, or let me back up. Was 1 1 there any particular concern at that time, 1 2 and this is '61 to '63, about pollution 1 3 control with respect to the Aroclors? 1 4 A. Nothing special. 1 5 Q. Was there any concern about the 1 6 effluent from the plant, at this time? 17 MS. SIMERLY: With reference to 1 8 PCBs ? 1 9 MS. WELCH: Yeah, the Aroclors. 2 0 A. Well, there was a general concern 2 1 about effluents from the plant. Each 2 2 operating department had its own 2 3 characteristic effluents, and- it was expected 2 4 that there would be suitable control measures 2 5 nor any, any of them. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 17 HARTOLDMONO010742 i 1 BY MS. WELCH: 2 Q. What did those control measures 3 consist of? Again, talking about the time 4 period '61 to '63. 5 A. Well, they were specific to each 6 produc t . 7 Q. Were they specific to each 8 Aroclor? 9 A . Oh, no. 1 0 Q For instance, what were -- I'm 1 1 focusing on the Aroclors . Were there 1 2 specific concerns about effluent or Aroclor 1 3 effluent? 1 4 A. Yes. The main effluent from the 1 5 Aroclor department was a waste water stream 1 6 which had to be handled properly. 1 7 Q. How did the Aroclors get into the 1 8 waste water stream? 1 9 A. I didn't say there was Aroclors in 20 the waste water, I said there was an effluent 2 1 stream. It was a water stream whose main 2 2 contaminant was HC1 . 2 3 Q Were Aroclors also in that stream? 2 4 MS. SIMERLY: Are you asking him 2 5 if at the time, he knew if there were GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 18 HARTOLDMONO010743 1 Aroclors in that stre a m , or if,, with 2 present-day knowledge i n 1 9 9 2, he understands 3 that there were Arocl o r s in addition to the 4 HC1 in that stream? 5 MS. WELCH: I'm restricting the 6 time period. I think we'll walk through each 7 of the time periods so to be clear, from '61 8 to '63. 9 A. To my recollection, we didn't 1 0 know. 1 1 BY MS. WELCH: 1 2 Q. You didn't know that at the time? 1 3 A. We didn't consider it an issue at 1 4 the time. 1 5 Q. Did that become an issue at some 1 6 time in the future? 1 7 A. Oh, sure. 1 8 Q. Approximately when did that become 1 9 an issue? 20 A. Oh, approximately 1968 or '69. 2 1 Q. And at the time that that became 2 2 an issue in '68 or '69 that was with 2 3 reference to the Anniston plant? 2 4 A. Well, I was not at the Anniston 2 5 plant at that time, and in fact, had very GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 19 HARTOLDMONO010744 1 little involvement with, with Aroclors at 2 that time, but it's my understanding that 3 that's when the concern arose. 4 Q . Do you know how the Aroclors got 5 into the waste water stream, and people 6 became aware of it? 7 A. Based upon later knowledge, yes. 8 Q. Can you explain that to me? 9 A. There's a by-product from making 1 0 Aroclor, a by-product -- the immediate 1 1 by-product is HC1 gas, and the normal 1 2 disposition of the HC1 gas was to absorb it 1 3 in water, which forms muriatic acid, which is 1 4 an article of commerce and we would sell that 1 5 muriatic acid. Its absorption was not 1 6 perfect, and so there was a small amount of 1 7 HC1 left in tail gas from absorption. That 1 8 water was scrubbed with water (sic) and that 1 9 water was discharged to the sewer. There 2 0 was, it turns out, a small amount of Aroclor 2 1 in that tail gas stream. 2 2 Q. So that was in the normal course 2 3 of business that that occurred or the normal 2 4 course of production that those kind of 2 5 things occurred? . GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 20 HARTOLDMONO010745 1 A . Yes. 2 Q. Did any leaks in the equipment 3 cause Aroclors to get into the waste water 4 stream? 5 A. Not directly. If equipment 6 leaked, it would leak on to the floor, of 7 course. Aroclors are very viscous liquids, 8 some of them are solids at room temperature 9 and they simply make a sticky mess on the 1 0 floor, they don't flow to a sewer, so that 1 1 the -- if any did get to a waste water stream 1 2 it would be because of rain before we were 1 3 able to clean it up. And even then that 1 4 would be very small because it's not very 1 5 soluble in water. 1 6 Q. Back to the time period of '61 to 1 7 '63, did you have any understanding relevant 1 8 to that time that you should be concerned 1 9 that PCBs got outside the plant? 2 0 A. I'm not sure -- well, we shipped 2 1 it all. 2 2 Q. I'm talking about effluent. 2 3 Should you be concerned about PCB effluent at 2 4 thatpoint? ' 2 5 A. Nothing specific to PCBs. It was GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 21 HARTOLDMONO010746 v* ' 1 generally known that one should minimize the 2 loss of materials to the sewer. 3 Q. Okay, what happened in 1963? What 4 was your next job? 5 A. I was transferred to the Krummrich 6 plant in Illinois. 7 Q. What was your job there? 8 A. My first assignment was as a 9 supervising engineer in the Technical 1 0 Services Department. 1 1 Q. What were your job 1 2 responsibilities? 1 3 A. I had a small group of engineers 1 4 and we were responsible for process 1 5 improvements in a certain group of assigned 1 6 departments . 1 7 Q. Did you work with Aroclors at that 1 8 point? 1 9 A. Yes, during my time at the 2 0 Krummrich plant. 21 Q. How long were you at the Krummrich 2 2 plant? 2 3 A. Two years, I think. 2 4 Q. What do you mean by process 2 5 improvement? GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 22 HARTOLDMONO010747 i 1 A. Let me, let me think about that 2 for a second. No, it was longer than that; 3 it was three or four years. 4 Q. So until approximately 1966? 5 A. '67, I think. 6 Q. *64 to '67? 7 A. Something like that. 8 Q. What did you mean when you said 9 process improvement? 1 0 A. We would make improvements in 1 1 production capacity, product quality, various 1 2 economic things like raw material 1 3 consumption, some projects in pollution 1 4 control . 1 5 Q. Could you give me an example of 1 6 what an improvement in process capacity would 1 7 include? 1 8 A. Typically, the plant, plant 1 9 projects for improving capacity would be 2 0 so-called debottlenecking projects; that is, 2 1 finding the restriction that held back the 2 2 capacity and making a small engineering 2 3 change to do something about that. 2 4 Q. So in other words, making the 2 5 plant more efficient? GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 23 HARTOLDMONO010748 1 A . Right. 2 Q. Okay. When you mentioned 3 pollution control, what were your 4 responsibilities in that area? 5 A. We worked on anassignment basis 6 where the production people would propose 7 projects for improvements to meet whatever 8 particular goals they had so that if there 9 was a pollution problem in one of the 1 0 operating departments, they would write up a 1 1 work request and we would study the problem 1 2 and propose changes to the plant to, to 1 3 correct the problem. 1 4 Q. Were youparticularlyconcerned at 1 5 this time about pollution from Aroclors, '64 1 6 to ' 67 ? 1 7 A. No. There was -- I don't remember 1 8 from that time any specific emphasis on 1 9 Aroclor pollution. 2 0 Q. During this time, '64 to '67 at 21 the Krummrich plant, were you or did you ever 2 2 gain any knowledge that exposure to Aroclors 2 3 could lead to chloracne? 2 4 A. Not that I recall . 2 5 Q. During this time, did you ever GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 24 HARTOLDMONO010749 1 receive any information that exposure t o 2 rs could lead to liver damage? 3 A . No . 4 Q. Did you ever receive any 5 information that exposure to Aroclors could 6 lead to liver atrophy? 7 A . No . 8 Q. Okay, who did you report to during 9 this period? 1 0 A. First,Bill Taffee, T-a-f-f-e-e, 11 then, due to various reorganizations, John 1 2 Mullendore, M-u-1-1-e-n-d-o-r-e , then Bill 1 3 Wilson, and finally, Homer Carder, 1 4 C-a-r-d-e-r . 1 5 Q. What happenedin 1967? 1 6 A. I was transferred to the Queeny 1 7 plant . 1 8 Q. Where is the Queeny plant? 1 9 A. South 2nd Street here in St. 2 0 Louis . 2 1 Q What was your job title? 2 2 A . I was general superintendent o f 2 3 Technical S ervices and laboratory. 2 4 Q What were your job 2 5 responsibil i t i e s ? GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 25 HARTOLDMONO010750 i 1 A. Part of it was similar to what I 2 had done at the Krummrich plant only with a 3 larger scope. I had a total of about 80 4 engineers, but I also had the analytical 5 laboratory which was responsible for process 6 control analysis. 7 Q. What is processcontrol analysis? 8 A. In operating chemical process, 9 samples are taken to either determine the 1 0 quality of the finished product or to track 1 1 the performance of the process. Samples are 1 2 taken to the laboratory, the laboratory runs 13 ananalysis and reports it back to the 1 4 production department. 1 5 Q. Do you know if the, the process 1 6 control or the analytical people had use of a 1 7 gas chromatography at that time? 1 8 A. Certainly. It was a standard 1 9 tool. 2 0 Q. Are you familiar with one, a gas 2 1 chromatograph? 2 2 A. I'm generally familiar with it. 2 3 Q. When did it first become 2 4 available, to your knowledge? 2 5 A. I don't know. At the time, for GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 26 HARTOLDMONO010751 1 instance, that I went to the Anniston plant. 2 gas chromatography was already being used for 3 somethings. 4 Q An d what was it being used 5 A . All kinds of analysis . 6 Q Was it used to analyze the 7 Aroclors? 8 A . No t a t the time I was at Anniston 9 Q * Was i t a t the time you were at 1 0 Krummrich? 1 1 A. Probably not. I don't remember. 1 2 Q. How about when you went to Queeny? 1 3 A. Well, at Queeny, I had almost 1 4 nothing to do with Aroclors so I wouldn't 1 5 know. 1 6 Q. What were your responsibilities at 1 7 Queeny? For what products, rather? 1 8 A. Well, the Queeny plant still had 1 9 more than a hundred products, and our 2 0 department had the responsibility for 2 1 technical improvements in all of those. 2 2 Q. You say you weren't -- you had no 2 3 responsibility or little responsibility for 24 Aroclor.Did you have any responsibility for 2 5 Aroclor during this time at Queeny? GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 27 HARTOLDMONO010752 1 A. Well, Aroclors were processed in 2 one operation at the Queeny plant at that 3 time. We had an operation called central 4 drumming which did blending operations to 5 make a number of different things and some of 6 those were blends that contained Aroclor. 7 Q. Now, I know that there are various 8 Aroclors. For instance, there's Aroclor 9 1221, Aroclor 1232, Aroclor 1242, and then 1 0 there are products like the Pydrauls, like 1 1 Turbinol, and my understanding is that they 1 2 consist of, or the products consist of blends 1 3 of various Aroclors. Is that correct? 1 4 MS. SIHERLY: Exclusively, or - 1 5 MS. WELCH: No, not exclusively, 1 6 but they consist of -- 1 7 A. That's true, arochlors were sold 1 8 per se, and also in various blended products. 1 9 BY MS. WELCH: 2 0 Q. Okay, where was the blending 2 1 primarily done? Which plant? 2 2 A. The blending of products 2 3 containing Aroclor? 2 4 Q. Yes. Were they done at all the 2 5 plants or were they done at one particular GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 28 HARTOLDMONO010753 1 plant? 2 A. At Irecall it, there were 3 actually four different plants where Aroclors 4 were blended. We did some blends at 5 Anniston, we did some at Krummrich, we did 6 some at Queeny and we did some at Newport. 7 Q. If I used the product terms MCS 8 153 or Turbinol 153, do you know what I'm 9 talking about? 1 0 A. Generally. 1 1 Q. Okay, where was thatblended? 1 2 A. I don't remember. 1 3 Q. Where was Aroclor 1242 made during 1 4 this period in the 1 96 0 ' s? 1 5 A. Both Anniston and Krummrich, and 1 6 at Newport. 17 Q. How long did you stay at the 1 8 Queeny plant? 1 9 A. Three years. 2 0 Q. In the same position? 21 A. Yes. 2 2 Q. So that will take us up to about 2 3 1970? 2 4 A. Righ t . 2 5 Q. And earlier you said that during GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONO010754 1 this time period, you became aware of a 2 concern, a special concern about PCB 3 pollution and PCB effluent? 4 A. That's right. 5 Q. How did you become aware of that 6 concern? 7 A. I'm not sure where I first heard. 8 The only vivid memory I have is an article 9 that appeared in Scientific American Magazine 1 0 by Dr. Risebrough where he described some 1 1 work that he had done originally related to 1 2 DDT but which identified PCB as a problem. 1 3 Q. What was the problem that was 1 4 described, as you recall? 1 5 A. He was studying reproductive 1 6 problems in peregrine falcons, as I recall. 17 Q. And what do you recall that he 1 8 found? 1 9 A. He was analyzing tissue to try to 2 0 identify the chromatographic fingerprint of 2 1 DDT. This is a long time ago, but as I 2 2 recall, what he found instead was a somewhat 2 3 different fingerprint which he eventually 2 4 determined was PCB. 2 5 Q. What wasyour reaction when you GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 30 HARTOLDMONO010755 i 1 read the article? 2 A. Surprise. 3 Q. Why surprise? 4 A. Well, simply bee ause it was a 5 product that I was somewhat familiar with and 6 had never heard of any, any problem with i t 7 before . 8 Q. And did you have any discussions 9 with anybody at Monsanto about this article? 1 0 A. Well, I did at some time but I 1 1 don't know whether I immediately had any 1 2 discussion with anybody. 1 3 Q. Did Dr. Risebrough's article raise 1 4 concerns in your mind about what he had 1 5 found? 1 6 A . Yes. 1 7 Q. Why was that? 1 8 A. Well, of course, on hearing of 1 9 something like that, a scientific subject for 2 0 the first time, I wasn't sure whether it was 2 1 true or not, but if it was true, it obviously 2 2 had implications for, for the product that we 2 3 made. 24 Q. Did you bring that article to 2 5 anybody's attention at the time? GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 31 HARTOLDMONO010756 1 A . No, that wasn't necessary. It was 2 well known. 3 Q. Do you subscribe to Scientific 4 American? 5 A. Yes. I have for forty years. 6 Q. So you didn't get it from 7 Monsanto, you got it through a subscription? 8 A. I just happened to read it. 9 Q. Anything else that you can recall 1 0 from that time period that raised concern for 1 1 you about PCB effluents or pollution? 1 2 A. Well, yes. At some, some time 1 3 during my time at Queeny, we began to get 1 4 instructions from, from the general office to 1 5 begin analytical efforts to find out whether 1 6 we had any PCBeffluent from the Queeny 1 7 plant . 1 8 Q. Who in the general office gave you 1 9 those instructions? 20 A. I don't remember. 21 Q. And what did you do when you got 2 2 those instructions? 2 3 A. Well, the pollution control people 2 4 worked for me, so I simply passed it along. 2 5 Q. Do you know what they did? GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 32 HARTOLDMONO010757 I 1 A. I don't remember. 2 Q. What happened in 1970? 3 A. I was transferred to the general 4 office, became manufacturing manager. 5 Q. How long did you stay in that 6 position? 7 A. Five years. 8 Q. So from '70 to '75, you were - 9 A. Manufacturing manager. 1 0 Q. Manufacturing. And did that place 1 1 you on any management committees at Monsanto? 1 2 A. Well, I was part of the management 1 3 team in the Specialty Products Business 1 4 Group. 1 5 Q. What did specialty products 1 6 include? 17 A. Well, Aroclor, Skydrol, which is 1 8 an aircraft hydraulic fluid, I think part of 1 9 the time it included paper chemicals, and a 2 0 number of other products. 2 1 Q. What were your responsibilities as 2 2 manufacturing manager? 2 3 A. It was a staff-type position in 2 4 that the manufacturing at the plants did not 2 5 report directly to me, but I had GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 33 HARTOLDMONO010758 1 responsibility for seeing to the 2 manufacturing interests of all the products 3 of the business group. 4 Q . And what did that include? 5 A. Production schedules, capital 6 projects, pollution issues, quality, cost. 7 Q. Did that include assessment of 8 inventories? 9 A. Could you rephrase that? I don't 1 0 know what you mean by "assessment." 1 1 Q. Well, were you aware, as a 1 2 manufacturing manager, of the level of 1 3 inventory of the various products? Would 1 4 that be one of your responsibilities? 1 5 A. It was one of my responsibilities 1 6 but it was not a matter where I would be 1 7 intimately aware of or familiar with. There 1 8 were some other people who saw to the details 1 9 of inventory . 2 0 Q. How about production forecasts? 2 1 Were you responsible for that? 2 2 A . Yes. 2 3 Q For all of the A r o c 1 o r products? 2 4 A . Let me , let me modify that. The 2 5 production plan was derived from a sales. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 34 HARTOLDMONO010759 1 forecast that came from the marketing 2 department, and we had a group of people 3 whose job was production planning so they 4 would translate the market forecast to a 5 production plan and I was responsible for 6 seeing that the plants carried out the 7 production plan. 8 Q. So you had an oversight 9 responsibility over the production plan? 1 0 A . Right. 1 1 Q. And you had a responsibility of 1 2 interfacing with the plants to make sure that 1 3 they carried that out? 1 4 A. That's right. 1 5 Q. Who did you report to during this 1 6 time? 1 7 A. At the beginning, I reported to 1 8 Fred Holzapfel who was director of 1 9 manufacturing. That's H-o-1-z-a-p-f-e-1 . 2 0 Q . And did that change later? 2 1 A . Yes . It was a kind of matrix 2 2 organization and I, at the beginning, had a 2 3 dotted line relationship to Howard Bergen who 2 4 was the business director and then after a 2 5 couple of years that dotted line was made GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 35 HARTOLDMONO010760 1 solid . 2 Q. Did that last till 1975? 3 A. Right. 4 Q. W h o reported to you during this 5 period of time? 6 A. I didn't have any direct reports. 7 It was all dotted-line relationships to 8 various people a t the 9 Q At all o f 1 0 A . A t all o f 1 1 products for our b u s i 1 2 Q And which 1 3 A. Anniston, Krummrich, Newport, some 1 4 operations at some -- Delaware River in New 1 5 Jersy, there was a plant near Boston, one 1 6 near Montreal. I'm sure I've skipped some 1 7 but there were quite a few. 1 8 Q. Okay . 1 9 A. Nitro, best Virginia. 2 0 Q. Which plants made Aroclors? 2 1 A. Same ones. Anniston, Krummrich, 2 2 Newport . 2 3 Q. How about a plant by the name of 2 4 S auge t ? 2 5 A. Sauget, Illinois, is the name of GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 36 HARTOLDMONO010761 i 1 the town where the Krummrich plant is 2 located. 3 Q. Okay. Going back to the time when 4 you first became involved with the production 5 of Aroclors, which was, I guess, '61 to '63, 6 is that correct? Were you provided with any 7 information that described the manufacture of 8 Aroclors? 9 A. Certainly. 1 0 Q. I want to show you a document 1 1 and -- 1 2 MS. WELCH: Off the record for a 1 3 minute. 1 4 (Discussion off the record.) 1 5 MS. WELCH: I'm going to Introduce 1 6 this exhibit as Exhibit 427. It is a 17 multipage document that is entitled "Monsanto 1 8 Company, Aroclors, Department 246" process 1 9 description from the manufacturers of 2 0 Aroclors dated December 17, 1962 and it says, 2 1 "Issued 7/20/64." Bates stamp numbers are 2 2 TRAN 009192 to 009324. And could you please 23 mark this and show it to the witness. 2 4 (Plaintiff's Deposition 2 5 Exhibit 427 marked for GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 37 HARTOLDMONO010762 1 identification.) 2 BY MS. WELCH: 3 Q. Now, I note, here, Mr. Savage, 4 that your name is not on this document, but 5 do you recall ever seeing this document? 6 A . I '' v e seen lots of such documents. 7 I just don't know as to whether I ' v e seen 8 this particular one, I don't know . 9 Q. What do you mean by lots of such 1 0 documents? 1 1 A. The standard manufacturing process 1 2 was a standard format that was used across 1 3 the entire chemicals division, and it was our 1 4 policy that we would have such a document for 1 5 every one of our operations. 1 6 Q. The date that this was issued, 1 7 July 20th, 1964, where were you at that time? 1 8 What plant, in your job history? 1 9 A. I would be, I would be at the 2 0 Krummrich plant at that time. 2 1 Q. Okay, so you may have seen this 22 particular document or a document like it? 2 3 A. It's quite possible. 2 4 Q. Okay. I'd like you to turn to 2 5 TRAN 009208. There are numbers at the GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 38 HARTOLDMONO010763 1 bottom. 2 There's a line at the bottom of 3 this page that I'd like to get your insight 4 on. 5 This is a synopsis of process and 6 I assume that it's the process of the 7 manufacture of Aroclor. Is that correct? Am 8 I correct? 9 A. That's correct. 1 0 Q. Okay, there's a line which says 1 1 "many isomers are formed." 1 2 A. Right. 1 3 Q. Okay. What does thatmean? 1 4 A. Well, you'll observe in the 1 5 schematic representation below there, a 1 6 picture of a biphenyl molecule which is two 1 7 hexagons connected together. There are five 1 8 corners of each hexagon that are not occupied 1 9 in this diagram, meaning that there are ten 20 different sites on that molecule that would 21 be chlorinated. And in fact, there is some 2 2 probability that each one of them will be 2 3 chlorinated so that when the chlorination 24 proceeds, the first chlorine will go on one 25 of those ten spots, thesecond will go on GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST . LOUIS , MISSOURI 39 HARTOLDMONO010764 1 another, and there are actually hundreds of 2 combinations by which the chlorines can 3 occupy the various active sites on the 4 molecule and all of them happen to some 5 extent. 6 Q. Okay. Do the different Aroclors, 7 for instance, the Aroclor 1242 versus the 8 Aroclor 1221, have a different composition of 9 isomers? 10 A. Certainly. 1 1 Q. Why do you say "certainly"? 12 A.The more chlorines that are added 1 3 to the molecule, the more possibilities there 14 arefor different combinations, and so while 1 5 comparing 1221, did you say 1221 and -- 1 6 Q. 1242. 17 A. 42? Each one of them would 1 8 probably contain the same total set of 1 9 isomers. The relative abundance would 2 0 drastically change as more chlorine was 21 added. 2 2 Q, By relative abundance, you mean 2 3 the abundance of the higher-ch1orinated 2 4 isomers? ' 2 5 A. Yes. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 40 HARTOLDMONO010765 1 Q. Okay, by higher-ch1orinated , what 2 do you mean by higher -- I said higher- 3 chlorinated. What does that mean to you? 4 A. Well, again with reference to the 5 diagram, just the number of those positions 6 that are occupied, and on the average, 1242 7 has three of those positions occupied. 8 Q. And what does that mean? 9 A. Well, some molecules will have 1 0 fewer and some will have more, but even with 1 1 three occupied, there are many possible 1 2 combinations of those different positions. 1 3 Q. Okay. Have you ever heard of the 1 4 term, the terms "pentachlorinated biphenyl" 1 5 or "hexachlorinated biphenyl," for instance? 1 6 A. I don't know if I've heard those 1 7 terms or not, but they mean something. 1 8 Q. Okay. How about the term five 19 chlorine atoms or sixchlorine atoms. Is 2 0 that with reference to what you are talking 2 1 about? 2 2 A. Right, but it's -- if you are 2 3 referring to a specific Aroclor product, 2 4 that's just the average. All of the 2 5 different species are still present. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 41 HARTOLDMONO010766 1 Q. Okay. So 1221 would include 2 chlorine atoms 1 through 10? But in 3 different percentages than a 1242; is that 4 what you are telling me? 5 A. Yes, but there's a need for a 6 little perspective. The ten chlorinated 7 molecule is very rare and probably would be 8 hard to find analytically, whereas the lower 9 ones are much more common. 1 0 Q. What do you consider lower 1 1 chlorinated when you say the lower ones are 1 2 more common: Six and below, five and below? 1 3 A. Well, it depends on the Aroclor 1 4 product. In the case, for instance, of 1242, 1 5 the three-chlorine predominates, but it's not 1 6 only thing there. 1 7 Q What else i s there? 1 8 A . Again, all o f the possibilities 1 9 Q Okay. Do you know if gas 2 0 chromatography was being used as of 1964 to 2 1 analyze the Aroclors? 2 2 A . No , I don't know . 2 3 Q Okay. Were you aware in 1964 when 2 4 this document was produced, of the existence 2 5 of various isomers in 1242? GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 42 HARTOLDMONO010767 -,,K> 1 A. Certainly. 2 Q. Were you aware that 1242 contained 3 mostly the three chlorinated isomers at that 4 time? 5 A. Not mostly. There's more of that 6 than anything else, but -- 7 Q. Okay. 8 A. But certainly, that was known. 9 Q. Okay. Were you aware at the time 1 0 that it contained some percentage of 1 1 five-ch1orinated isomers? 1 2 A. I don't think -- I can't remember 1 3 that point having beenraised, but it's -- 1 4 that's generally the pattern you would 1 5 expect. 1 6 Q. Why is thatgenerally the pattern 17 you would expect? 1 8 A. Because of the nature of this kind 1 9 of a chlorination, it's just to be expected 2 0 that all these different isomers will form in 21 some relative abundance, and in fact, the 2 2 physical properties of the product are what 23 they are because it's a mixture. The fact 24 that it's a mixture is desirable. 25 Q. Okay. Maybe you canexplain to me GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 43 HARTOLDMONO010768 i 1 the nature of the process of making an 2 Aroclor, in terms that even I can understand, 3 if possible. 4 A. It's a very simple process. 5 MS. SIMERLY: If you are a 6 chemical engineer. 7 A. Biphenyl is a waxy solid under 8 room temperature conditions. It's easy to 9 melt, it's reasonably fluid when it's melted, 1 0 and chlorination takes -- doesn't take place 1 1 at all anymore but when it did, it took place 1 2 in vertical tanks which were packed with 1 3 steel turnings, iron chloride is the 1 4 catalyst, and the way we insured that there 1 5 was plenty of iron chloride present was to 1 6 pack the chlorinator with steel turnings 17 which, in fact, were scrap from a 1 8 manufacturer of railroad car wheels. So the 1 9 tank was packed with these iron turnings, the 2 0 tank would be filled with molten biphenyl to 21 which a small amount of additional ferric 2 2 chloride had been added, and then chlorine 2 3 would be bubbled through that mass of 2 4 biphenyl from the bottom, and we would 2 5 continue to add chlorine until the average GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 44 HARTOLDMONO010769 i 1 chlorination level reached the point that we 2 wanted. The reaction proceeded vigorously in 3 the presence of the catalyst. By the time 4 the bubbles got to the top of the 5 chlorinator, they were no longer chlorine, 6 they were CHL (sic) . That, the product of 7 that step was crude Aroclor, which then would 8 have to be cleaned up and refined. 9 BY MS . WELCH : 1 0 Q. Now, earlier you said that the 1 1 nature of the process leads to the 1 2 development of many isomers. Am I correctly 1 3 characterizing what you said? 1 4 A. That's right. 1 5 Q. What in the process leads to the 1 6 development of many isomers? 1 7 A. That's more difficult. 1 8 Q. Oh, no. I guess I asked for it. 1 9 MS. SIMERLY: We're all in trouble 2 0 now . 21 A. This is Organic Chemistry 101. 2 2 BY MS. WELCH: 2 3 Q. I flunked that. 2 4 A. I nearly did. 2 5 MS. SIMERLY: I nevertook it. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 45 HARTOLDMONO010770 1 MS. WELCH: Off the record. 2 (Discussion off the record.) 3 MS. WELCH: Back on the record. 4 A. In the presence of a ferric 5 chloride catalyst, the, what I've described 6 as the corners in this diagram, the 7 convention in drawing that kind of a picture 8 of a molecule is each corner actually is a 9 carbon atom, and in the presenceof that kind 1 0 of catalyst, those carbon atoms become more 1 1 reactive, and a chlorine molecule will react 1 2 with the carbon. Each of those carbons 1 3 starts out with a hydrogen attached to it, 1 4 the hydrogen leaves and is replaced by a 1 5 chlorine. The hydrogen and the other half of 1 6 the chlorine molecule become HC1. Now, in 1 7 the presence of catalyst, all ten of those 1 8 atoms have become activated to where they can 1 9 react and which one reacts is a matter of 20 probability. Some of them are probable to 2 1 react because of matters of geometry and 2 2 where the electrons are, and so forth, but 2 3 they all have some probability of reacting 24 and so the outcome is entirely a matter of 2 5 probabilities. Because there are a huge GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 46 HARTOLDMONO010771 1 number of molecules involved, it always comes 2 out the same, but it's a matter of 3 probabilities. 4 BY MS. WELCH: 5 Q. Okay, but a 1242 will always, one 6 batch of 1242, would you say, would always 7 have generally the same composition of 8 isomers as the next batch of 1242? 9 A. That's certainly true. 1 0 Q. And it would have approximately 1 1 the same percentage of chlorinated biphenyls? 1 2 A. Yes, from the standpoint of 1 3 product quality, we try to be very consistent 1 4 from batch to batch. 1 5 Q. And how did you test that 1 6 consistency, at this time? 1 7 A. There were both in-process 1 8 controls and laboratory controls. The 1 9 in-plant controls, in-process controls were 2 0 relatively simple. We determined the level 2 1 of chlorination by determining the specific 2 2 gravity of the crude Aroclor, because the 2 3 specific gravity increased rapidly as 2 4 chlorine was added, so we could determine 2 5 pretty precisely the correct end point. But GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 47 HARTOLDMONO010772 1 then there were, there was a large battery of 2 tests performed in the analytical laboratory 3 to be sure that the product passed the 4 specifications of the customers. 5 Q And what tests did those include? 6 A . I ' m sure I don '1 t remember all of 7 them at this point. The Aroclors were used 8 in different kinds of applications and so 9 there were different specifications for 1 0 different applications. The most demanding 1 1 specifications were for the electrical 1 2 applications, where a very high purity was 1 3 necessary in order to get good electrical 1 4 performance from the apparatus that the 1 5 Aroclor was used in, so we attempted to make 1 6 all of our product to electrical 1 7 spec ifications because we were sure that 1 8 then , it would also be okay for other 1 9 applications. 2 0 Q . Did the end process controls or 2 1 the lab controls that you descr ibe enable you 2 2 to determine what percentage of chlorine 23 atoms were in each batch? 2 4 A . No . 25 Q. Were there any tests that enabled GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 48 HARTOLDMONO010773 l 1 you to determine that at that time that were 2 used? 3 MS. SIMERLY: Are you asking him 4 if he knows what that - 5 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure what 6 time we're talking about. 7 MS. WELCH: We're talking about 8 around '64, I'm talking about around the time 9 period of this document. 10 MS. SIMERLY: And are you asking 1 1 if he knows if the testing could do that, or 1 2 ifthe testing was used for that? 1 3 MS. WELCH: Let me clear it up. 1 4 BY MS. WELCH: 1 5 Q. What I'm asking is, earlier you 1 6 testified that you knew at this time or it 1 7 was generally known at this time, and you 1 8 knew that any particular Aroclor would 1 9 include a whole range of isomers. 2 0 A. That's right. 2 1 Q. And now my question to you is, 2 2 when you determined the quality of a 2 3 particular batch of, say, 1242, was part of 2 4 that to determine the composition of isomers? 2 5 A . No . GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 49 HARTOLDMONO010774 1 Q Why not? 2 A. First, because that wasn't subject 3 to direct control. If we ran the process 4 consistently, we could expect that it would 5 come out reasonably the same, but the other 6 reason was simply that that was a very 7 complicated subject. If the chromatographic 8 methods at the time had been applied, it 9 would have come out with such a complex 1 0 output that it would have been very 1 1 difficult, from the standpoint of plant 1 2 control, to attach any meaning to the 1 3 results . 1 4 Q. Do you know at what point in time 1 5 the chromatographic methods became able to 1 6 analyze the isometric composition of a 1 7 particular Aroclor? 1 8 A. No, I don't know. 1 9 Q. How, then, did you know the 2 0 particular isometric composition of an 2 1 Aroclor at that time? 2 2 A. We didn't, really. We knew that 2 3 there was a wide variety of isomers present, 2 4 but we didn't, we didn't ever know precisely 2 5 what the isomer's distribution was in those GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 50 HARTOLDMONO010775 1 days. 2 Q. Did you know which isomers were 3 present? 4 A. Well, again, we were pretty sure 5 they were all present, but some in very small 6 quantities . 7 Q. Okay, earlier you testified that a 8 mixture was desirable in a particular 9 Aroclor. Why is that? 1 0 A. Because the products were used as 1 1 fluids, and materials with molecular weights 1 2 this high would be crystallin if they were 1 3 pure, and therefore, would not be useful 1 4 fluids . 1 5 Q. So is that a matter of viscosity? 1 6 A. Well, it's more than viscosity. 1 7 It's -- crystallin means solid chunks. 1 8 Q. So it's desirable to have the 1 9 presence of many isomers in order to make the 2 0 product liquid; is that correct? 2 1 A. That's correct. 2 2 Q. Okay. In this document, I'd like 2 3 you to turn to the page that's stamped TRAN 2 4 0029291, which is Page 46 of the document. 2 5 Under Appendix J -- GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 51 HARTOLDMONO010776 1 MS. WELCH: Are we on the same 2 page? 3 MS. SIMERLY: Yes. 4 BY MS . WELCH : 5 Q. Where it says, "Other hazards"? 6 A. Mm-hmm. 7 Q. Are we on the same page? 8 A. Right. 9 Q. Please read that to yourself, that 10 one paragraph. 1 1 A. Pardon me? 1 2 Q. Please read that to yourself, the 1 3 one paragraph. 1 4 A. The first paragraph? 1 5 Q. Yes. 16 A. It says "Other hazards, this 1 7 material -- " 1 8 Q. Just read it to yourself. I'm 1 9 going to ask you some questions about it. 2 0 (Witness peruses said 21 document . ) 2 2 BY MS. WELCH: 2 3 Q. Do you recallever seeing this 2 4 paragraph during that time period? 2 5 A. No, I don't remember. GORE REPORTING COMPANY -ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 52 HARTOLDMONO010777 1 Q So you never read anywhere that 2 the material could cause a dermatitis, 3 systematic poisoning from the fumes or yellow 4 atrophy of the liver? 5 A . I don't remember. 6 Q In terms of the specific Aroclors, 7 is the 1242 that's used in one product, for 8 example, Pydraul, different from the 1242 9 that's used in another product, for instance. 1 0 Turbinol? 1 1 A . No . 1 2 Q So the difference comes in with 1 3 the other materials that it's blended with? 1 4 A . The difference is the reason that 1 5 Turbinol is different than other materials is 1 6 because every what's in the blend. That's 1 7 right . 1 8 Q. So the 1242 that's used in 1 9 dielectrics or in plasticizers is the same 20 1242 that's put into Turbinol, just blended 21 with different materials to produce the 2 2 product . 23 A . It's made in the same way. The 24 specifications may be a little different. 2 5 Q. The 1242? GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST . LOUIS , MISSOURI 53 HARTOLDMON0010778 I 1 A . Right. 2 Q. Which specifications would be 3 different? 4 A. Well, as we mentioned before, the 5 most stringent specifications were those for 6 electrical products. We essentially operated 7 to satisfy the electrical specification so 8 that the material could be used in any of the 9 applications, but those specifications didn't 1 0 really apply if the material was used in some 1 1 other way. 1 2 Q. Okay, but the material would start 1 3 out the same, then there would be more 1 4 specifications for the electric applications? 1 5 A. Well, as I said, there were more 1 6 specifications for electrical grade but we, 1 7 our normal procedure was simply run it 1 8 against electrical specifications so that we 1 9 didn't have to keep track of different 2 0 inventories. 21 Q. Okay. To your knowledge, was the 2 2 manufacturing process for Aroclors a trade 2 3 secret? 24 A. Yes. 2 5 Q. Why was that? GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS , MISSOURI 54 HARTOLDMONO010779 I 1 A . All of our processes are trade 2 secrets. 3 Q Was there a patent on the 4 Aroclors? 5 A . No . 6 Q Do you know why? 7 A . There might have been some patents 8 a long time ago but the product had been made 9 since the Thirties, so they would have 1 0 expired long before this time. 1 1 Q. So your understanding, it was 1 2 because it was in the public domain or just 1 3 that the patents had expired? 1 4 A. I'm not sure there ever were any 1 5 patents. ' 1 6 Q. Was Monsanto concerned with 1 7 competitors getting ahold of the technology 1 8 to make Aroclors? 1 9 A. Well, just as a general policy, we 2 0 were concerned about competitors getting hold 2 1 of technology to make any product and we 2 2 would always have security measures. 2 3 Q. What did those security measures 2 4 consistof? . 2 5 A. Well, as you can see, this GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ` 55 HARTOLDMONO010780 1 document is marked "Company Confidential." 2 We 3 had some strict procedures which would 4 control the release of any company 5 confidential information to anybody outside 6 the company, we had security measures to 7 control access to the plant and to our 8 offices and laboratories. 9 Q. In terms of 1242, was it used in 1 0 many produc ts ? 1 1 A . Yes . 1 2 Q. Was it the predominant kind of 1 3 Aroclor that was in production during the 1 4 time period that you are familiar with? 1 5 A . We made more 1242 than any other 1 6 Aroc1or . 1 7 Q Where was 1242 made? 1 8 A . Anniston, Krummrich and Newport. 1 9 Q . Where were products that contained 2 0 12 4 2 blended? 21 A . Anniston, Krummrich, Newport, 2 2 Queeny. 2 3 MS. WELCH: I'd like to have this 2 4 marked as Exhibit 428 , and I'm showing a copy 2 5 to counsel for Monsanto. Exhibit 428 is a GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 56 HARTOLDMONO010781 1 one-page document with theidentifying figure 2 of TRAN 055800 that's entitled "Work proposal 3 WGK plantTechnical Services," and Mr. Savage 4 is cc:'d on this document. 5 (Plaintiff's Deposition 6 Exhibit 428 marked for 7 identification.) 8 (Witness peruses said 9 document.) 1 0 BY MS. WELCH: 1 1 Q. Have you read the document? 1 2 A. Yes. 1 3 Q. Okay. WGK stand for Krummrich 1 4 plant? 1 5 A. Ye s . 1 6 Q. And were you at a Krummrich plant 17 in 1965? 1 8 A. Yes. 1 9 Q. Do you remember concern about 20 fumes from Aroclor at this time? 2 1 MS. SIMERLY: I'm going to object. 2 2 There is absolutely nothing on -- oh, excuse 2 3 me. I didn't see the Aroclor designation. 2 4 Excuse me. I'll withdraw the objection. 2 5 MS . WELCH : Okay . GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 57 HARTOLDMONO010782 I 1 BY MS. WELCH: 2 Q. Do you need the question read rack 3 back? 4 A. Pardon me? 5 Q. Do you need the question read 6 back? 7 A. Yes, please. 8 THE COURT REPORTER: 9 "Q. Do you remember concern about 1 0 fumes from Aroclor atthis time?" 11 A. Iremember the problem that this 1 2 document refers to. 1 3 BY MS. WELCH: 1 4 Q. Okay, can you describe for me that 1 5 problem? 1 6 A. In disposing of still bottoms from 1 7 the distillation of Aroclor, it was necessary 1 8 to package the tarrystill bottoms and since 1 9 this material was very hot, some fumes came 2 0 off which were unpleasant to the people doing 2 1 the work. 2 2 Q. I note, here, that it also says 23 "Leaks from pumps"? ' 2 4 A. Yes, it says that. 2 5 Q. Okay, do you remember what pumps GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 58 HARTOLDMONO010783 1 they are talking about, here? 2 A . No . 3 Q Do you remember what the 4 complaints about the fumes were ? 5 A . Not in any, anymore detail than 6 what you see there. 7 Q. What was done to correct the 8 problem? 9 A. We did a small improvement project 1 0 to make the druming of the still bottoms 1 1 easier and more remote from the operators. 1 2 It did include a fume hood. 1 3 Q . Have you ever or did you hear in 1 4 the 1968-1969 time period in addition to the 1 5 Risebrough report, any reports from Swedish 1 6 scientists about PCBs in the environment? 1 7 A. I didn't hear anything during that 1 8 time period, no. 1 9 Q. Did you hear later about reports 2 0 from Swedish scientists about persistence in 2 1 the environment? 2 2 A. Yes. 2 3 Q. What time period, approximately? 2 4 A. During my time as manufacturing 2 5 manager. I don't know exactly when. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 59 HARTOLDMONO010784 1 Q . So after 1970? 2 A . Right. 3 Q . Okay. 4 MS. WELCH: I'd like to have thi s 5 marked as Exhibit 429. I'm showing a copy t o 6 counsel for Monsanto. This is a multipage 7 document that has the identifying stamp of 8 TRAN 058842 to 058845. It's dated 9/22/69 9 and the title of it is "Water Pollution 1 0 Aroclor Control." 1 1 (Plaintiff's Deposition 1 2 Exhibit 429 marked for 1 3 identification.) 14 MS. SIMERLY: Just for the record, 1 5 I would note that this document doesn't have 1 6 a check by Mr. Savage's name, and my 1 7 understanding is that that would indicate 1 8 that it was not, in fact, routed to him. 1 9 MS . WELCH : Well, I want to get 2 0 his testimony about it, rather t h an your 2 1 testimony about it. That's the first 2 2 question I was going to ask him, which is, - 2 3 what does the check marks mean by the names? 2 4 A. This is a standard cover, cover 2 5 sheet that was used for all progress reports. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 60 HARTOLDMONO010785 1 This was in 1969, so I was already at the 2 Queeny plant, and so over in the right-hand 3 column, there is a standard distribution for 4 other locations, and I'm -- it's hard t o 5 read, but I'm listed under JFQ . If I was to 6 receive a copy, there would have been a check 7 in that box, and there is not. 8 BY MS. WELCH: 9 Q. So it's your belief that you did 10 not receive a copy of this? 1 1 A. I would not have been included in 1 2 the original distribution. I have no way of 1 3 knowing whether I might have later seen it. 1 4 Q. Okay. I'd like you just to turn 1 5 to the background page, or the second page, 1 6 which says "Background," and I want to ask 17 you questions about that paragraph, with it 1 8 duely noted that you are not checked off on 1 9 here, so you may not have seen this document. 20 Okay? 21 (Witness peruses said 22 document.) 2 3 A . Okay. 24 Q. Okay, do you recall concern at 2 5 this time, which is September 1969, that PCBs GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 61 HARTOLDMONO010786 1 would not degrade? 2 A. Well, by 1969, of course, I had 3 already seen the Risebrough article and we 4 had, also at the Queeny plant, received some 5 instructions from the general office to do 6 some sampling and determine whether we had 7 any, any Aroclor losses at the Queeny plant, 8 so yes, I was aware by then of the 9 sensitivity of the subject. 1 0 Q. Do you remember, besides the - 1 1 you testified earlier that you read the 1 2 Risebrough report. Do you remember other 1 3 concern that Aroclors would be hazardous to 1 4 wildlife and birds? 1 5 A. Not at that time. 1 6 Q. Were you involved in any meetings 17 about this issue during this time period, 1 8 September 1969, before you became 1 9 manufacturing manager? 2 0 A. Quite possibly, but I don't 2 1 remember . 2 2 MS. WELCH: Please mark this as 2 3 Exhibit 430. I'm showing a copy to counsel 2 4 for Monsanto. This is a one-page document 2 5 with the identifying figure of TRAN 059631, GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 62 HARTOLDMONO010787 i 1 entitled "PR&D Work Plan," dated April 27th, 2 1970. Mr. Savage is cc:'d, along with 3 numerous other people, and this is a document 4 that's authored by somebody by the name of 5 Ishmael Ransaw. 6 THE WITNESS : Right . 7 (Plaintiff's Deposition 8 Exhibit 430 marked for 9 identification. ) 1 0 BY MS. WELCH: 1 1 Q. Okay, do you recall knowing about 1 2 this time, which is April 1970, that repeated 1 3 exposure to Aroclor could cause a condition 1 4 of chloracne? 1 5 A . I don't remember. 1 6 Q Who is Ishmael Ransaw? 17 A . Ishmael Ransaw was a chemist 1 8 working at the Anniston plant, process 1 9 improvements . 2 0 Q. And process improvements was to 2 1 increase efficiency in the production 2 2 process? 2 3 A. Actually, his main assignment, to 2 4 my recollection, is the work referred to in 25 this work plan, which was studies on . GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONO010788 .t 1 absorption of Aroclors from waste water. 2 Q. And what does that mean? 3 A. He was attempting to, to work out 4 a waste treatment plant -- excuse me, a waste 5 treatment process which would remove any 6 trace of Aroclor from waste water. 7 Q. Do you know what happened to that 8 study? 9 A. It was carried much further than 1 0 the imp1icationss of this, of this plan. 1 1 This plan only speaks to ten man days, and in 1 2 fact, he spent a number of months working on 1 3 it, attempting to scale it up. 1 4 Q. Do you know what the conclusions 1 5 were? 1 6 A. The conclusion was that it was 1 7 technically feasible to remove Aroclors from 1 8 waste waters using at least some of these 1 9 schemes. We were not successful in 2 0 developing a process that would be considered 2 1 cost effective. 2 2 Q. So the process, any process that 2 3 he developed was never put to use? 2 4 A. As far as I know, it was never 2 5 implemented anywhere. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 64 HARTOLDMONO010789 1 MS. WELCH: Please mark this as 2 Exhibit 431. I'm showing a copy to counsel 3 for Monsanto, and this is, Exhibit 431 is a 4 one-page document with theidentifying stamp 5 of TRAN 061773, dated December 7th, 1970. It 6 appears to be a document from 7 W. P. Papageorge to J. R. Savage. 8 (Plaintiff's Deposition 9 Exhibit 431 marked for 1 0 identification. ) 1 1 A . Okay. 1 2 BY MS . WELCH : . 1 3 Q. Okay, do you recall seeing this 1 4 document before? 1 5 A. I don't remember this specific 1 6 document. 1 7 Q. Do you remember theissue that's 1 8 raised here? 1 9 A. In general, yes. 2 0 Q. Okay, can you describe for me what 2 1 the issue was? 2 2 A. Well, Mr. Papageorge quotes the 2 3 waste water targets that had been set, and as 24 of the date of this memo, those targets had 2 5 not been satisfied, and it was his job, part GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST.LOUIS,MISSOURI 65 HARTOLDMONO010790 1 of his job to pressure me to get these 2 problems solved as quickly as possible and 3 that's what he does here. 4 Q. W h at was his job? 5 A. I don't remember his job title, 6 but he was in charge of coordinating all the 7 efforts related to PCB issues. 8 Q. Was this level of detection of 9 PCBs high, to your mind? 1 0 MS. SIMERLY: Which level are you 1 1 talking about? Are you talking about the 1 2 Newport level, the Krummrich level, the 1 3 average of the levels that are cited in here 1 4 BY MS. WELCH: 1 5 Q Let's start with Newport. M 2 4 6 1 6 PPb , " i s that parts per billion, "ppb"? 1 7 A . That's right. 1 8 Q Is that a high level, to your 1 9 mind, for this time? 2 0 A . Well, 1400 ppb, in fact, i s a -- 21 excuse m e . Is that -2 2 Q. I'm looking at 246 first. 2 3 A. 246. That, in fact, is a very 2 4 tiny amount. We had set a very tough target, 2 5 very low concentrations that were, in fact, GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 66 HARTOLDMONO010791 1 very difficult to measure, and as I recall, 2 theissues at this time, which was shortly 3 after I had become manufacturing manager, is 4 we, in fact, were having great difficulty 5 with our measurements and our sampling, the 6 samples that we were taking were not really 7 giving us valid results. 8 Q.Why were you having difficulty 9 measuring? 1 0 A . It's technically a very 1 1 challenging thing to do because waste water 1 2 typically has suspended solids contained in 1 3 it, and Aroclors are attracted to solids in 1 4 water, and therefore, to get an adequate 1 5 measurement, it's necessary to sample in a 1 6 way that precisely represents the amount of 1 7 solid present, and that's hard to do. 1 8 Q. Okay, what instruments were used? 1 9 A. The taking the samples did not 2 0 involve instruments, it involved arrangements 2 1 of tubing in pipes and so forth, so as to get 2 2 a sample in exactly the right way. 2 3 Q. But how were you able to measure 2 4 the level of PCB? 2 5 A. The samples would be periodically GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 67 HARTOLDMONO010792 i 1 taken to the laboratory and analyzed. 2 Q. And what would they be analyzed 3 with? 4 A. I don't remember; standard tool 5 would be a chromatograph, but I don't 6 remember that as a fact. 7 Q. Mr. Papageorge refers to the, 8 quote, "Seriousness of the PCB problem" in 9 his memo. What was your understanding as of 1 0 this time, which is December 1970, as to the 1 1 seriousness of the PCB problem? 1 2 A. It was the most urgent matter for 1 3 our business group to deal with, certainly. 1 4 Because it was clear that the nature of the 1 5 problem with wildlife was the entrance of 16 Aroclorsinto waste water streams, which 1 7 could then be subject to biomagnification to 1 8 the food chain, that we want to intercept in 1 9 any way in which Aroclor was getting out into 20 the water streams and the environment, and we 2 1 set about doing the best we could. 2 2 Q. Okay, have you ever heard of the 2 3 concept of vapor transport? 2 4 A. I'm not sure I know what it means 2 5 inthoseterms. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS , MISSOURI 68 HARTOLDMONO010793 i 1 Q. Have you ever heard that the 2 primary transport mechanism of PCBs is in the 3 vapor phase? 4 MS. SIMERLY: In waste streams? 5 MS. WELCH: No, no, I'm not 6 referring to waste streams, I'm just 7 referring to a transport mechanism. 8 A . That doesn't mean anything to me 9 without a context. 1 0 BY MS. WELCH: 1 1 Q. Okay, the reason I raise it is 1 2 that one of the articles that Dr. Risebrough 1 3 wrote during that time period analyzed the 1 4 transport mechanisms of PCBs, and he 1 5 concluded in 1970 that the primary transport 1 6 mechanism was through the vapor phase, and 1 7 I'm wondering whether you ever heard that 1 8 during this time period. 1 9 A . No . 2 0 Q So your primary concern was with 2 1 waste water at that point? 2 2 A . That's right. 23 Q What did you do in response to 2 4 thismemo? ' 2 5 A. I don't know specifically. During GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 69 HARTOLDMONO010794 1 all that period, we were working on this, on 2 this issue and continued to work on it. 3 Q. How did you get the level down, 4 how did you try to get the level down? 5 A. We did pretty well. Once we had 6 sampling methods that we could believe, that 7 we could get consistent results, we were then 8 able to continue the sampling program and 9 work our way upstream and identify the 1 0 sources in the process and correct those. 11 Q. And what were some of those 1 2 sources? 1 3 A. I'm sorry, I can't, I can't 1 4 remember very clearly. It was related to the 1 5 way we scrubbed off gas streams, but I don't 1 6 remember the details. 17 MS. WELCH: Okay, why don't we 1 8 take a break. 1 9 MS. SIMERLY: Sure. 20 MS. WELCH: Take a five, 2 1 ten-minute break. 2 2 (Recess) 2 3 MS. WELCH: Okay, back on the 2 4 record. . 25 BY MS. WELCH: GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 70 HARTOLDMONO010795 i 1 Q. Before we get into another 2 document, do you still work for Monsanto Mr. 3 Savage? 4 A . Ye s . 5 Q And what's your position 6 currently? 7 A. I'm called Director, Technology 8 Licensing and Acquisition. 9 Q And how long have you had that 1 0 position? 1 1 A . I've been in licensing since 1978, 1 2 although the title has changed from time to 1 3 time. 1 4 Q From 1975 to 1978, what did you 1 5 do ? 1 6 A . I was on some special assignments 1 7 involving personnel work. 1 8 Q. And as director of technology, 1 9 service and licensing, are you on any 2 0 management -- are you in a management 2 1 position at Monsanto? 2 2 A. That -- yeah, that would be 2 3 considered a management position. 2 4 Q Are you in any management groups? 2 5 A . Well, I'm in the major subdivision GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 71 HARTOLDMONO010796 I 1 of Monsanto called the Chemical Group which 2 is about half the corporation. I'm inside 3 that group, and within that group there's 4 something c a 1led advance performance 5 materials and I'm part of that. My position 6 is the Vice-President, Technology, for the 7 Chemical Group. 8 MS. WELCH: Okay, I'd like to 9 introduce this document as Exhibit432. This 1 0 is a three-page document which consists of an 1 1 excerpt from a deposition of James Richard 1 2 Savage in the United States of America versus 1 3 Outboard Marine Corporation. 1 4 (Plaintiff's Deposition 1 5 Exhibit 432 marked for 1 6 identification.) 1 7 BY MS. WELCH: 1 8 Q . Please take a few minutes to read 19 theexcerpts. There's a two-pageexcerpt in 2 0 there . 2 1 (Witness peruses said 2 2 document. ) 23 THE WITNESS: Okay. 2 4 BY MS. WELCH: 2 5 Q. Okay, was this one of the GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 72 HARTOLDMONO010797 1 depositions that you were deposed in or one 2 of the cases you were deposed in, to your 3 recollection? 4 A. Yes, although I didn't recall it 5 until you brought this to my attention. 6 Q . Okay, and it's the United States 7 of America versus Outboard Marine Corporation 8 and Monsanto Company? 9 A. Yes. 1 0 Q. Okay, I'd like to have you -- 1 1 MS. SIMERLY: Did you say "a 1 2 Monsanto Company" or "and Monsanto"? 1 3 MS. WELCH: And Monsanto Company. 1 4 MS. SIMERLY: I'm sorry, I thought 1 5 I heard you say "a Monsanto." 1 6 MS. WELCH: "And Monsanto." 1 7 BY MS. WELCH: 1 8 Q Okay, I'd like to have you turn to 1 9 the page that's numbered 28 and 29, starting 2 0 from the question of Mr. Schink, which says, 2 1 "You are now talking about preventing 2 2 Aroclors from getting into the waste water," 2 3 and the a ttorney who is asking the question 2 4 says "Yes ," and could you read your response 2 5 now into therecord? . GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 73 HARTOLDMONO010798 i 1 A. "I would say the principal 2 precaution was maintenance of equipment to 3 prevent leaks." 4 Q. And the next question was, "Were 5 there leaks in the equipment?" Your response 6 is "Sometimes," and the next question is, 7 "Would they occur during the normal course of 8 using the equipment," and your response was 9 "Yes." 1 0 The reason I'm showing you this 1 1 transcript now is, earlier you were looking 1 2 at the memo from Mr. Papageorge and you said 1 3 that you didn't recall what the steps you 1 4 took consisted of in reducing the possibility 1 5 of the PCBs getting into the waste water 1 6 rather, and I'm wondering if this refreshes 1 7 your recollection of any steps that were 1 8 taken during that time period. 1 9 A. Well, I'm sorry, I don't quite 2 0 understand the context of this excerpt, and I 2 1 don't know whether it refers to my time at 2 2 Anniston or later. 2 3 Q. Okay. Well, let's assume that it 2 4 refers to Anniston. Would this be an 2 5 accurate reflection of what steps you would GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 74 ` HARTOLDMON0010799 1 have taken to prevent Aroclors from getting 2 into the waste water? 3 MS. SIMERLY: I need to object. 4 First of all, you are asking him to assume 5 that this testimony relates to Anniston, and 6 I don't know, without checking my deposition 7 transcript, whether it does or not. 8 MS. WELCH: Well, I don't know 9 that it does or not, either. I'm going to 1 0 ask him about both because I want to know if 1 1 there was a difference between Anniston and 1 2 Krummrich. 1 3 MS. WELCH: Okay, maybe I can 1 4 clear this up because the next page in the 1 5 transcript, which I only have one copy of, 1 6 speaks of the Anniston plant, and I will have 1 7 this attached as 432-A. 1 8 You can mark that and show it to 1 9 the witness. 2 0 (Plaintiff's Deposition 2 1 Exhibit 432-A marked for 2 2 identification. ) 2 3 MS. WELCH: Sorry for that 2 4 confusion, but I believe that this makes it 2 5 clear that it's talking about the effluent GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 75 HARTOLDMONO010800 1 from theAnniston plant into the waste water, 2 so that's what thereference of leaks is to, 3 so actually, I'm going back to the Anniston 4 plant, which precedes Mr. Papageorge's memo. 5 MS. SIMERLY: So what you are 6 asking is if this testimony that he gave in 7 1982 with reference to the fact that on 8 occasion PCBs might get into the waste water 9 through leaks in equipment refreshes his 10 recollection as to whether in 1970, when he 1 1 was supervising attempts to keep PCBs out of 1 2 the waste water, whether one of the steps 1 3 that he took would have been with reference 1 4 to stopping leaksof the equipment? 1 5 MS. WELCH: That's correct, that's 1 6 my initial question. Thank you for the 17 clarification. 1 8 A. Well, I think I can connect this 1 9 answer to something I said earlier, that 20 Aroclors are very viscous, sticky materials, 21 sometimes solid, and that if there are leaks, 2 2 they wind up on the floor, they don't just 2 3 flow into a sewer. 2 4 BY MS. WELCH: 2 5 Q. Okay, how does that correspond to GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 76 HARTOLDMONO010801 vp*> 1 this testimony, which says that the principal 2 precaution, as I understand it, and correct 3 me if I'm wrong, the principal precaution to 4 prevent Ar odors from getting into the water 5 waste was the prevention of leaks in 6 equipment? 7 A. Well, good maintenance practices 8 will either prevent leaks altogether or else 9 correct them very quickly and if that ' s done, 1 0 then there's nothing to clean up . 1 1 Q Okay, but how does it get from 1 2 leaks on t o the floor into the waste water , 1 3 which is what your testimony was, here. 1 4 A. Could be from rain or washed down 1 5 or whatever. 1 6 Q. Okay, do you agree that I'm 1 7 correctly characterizing this testimony that 1 8 you testified that the primary way it got 1 9 into waste water at the Anniston plant was 2 0 through leaking, leakage of equipment? 21 MS. SIMERLY: Wait. You are 2 2 asking, you are asking him to agree with your 2 3 characterization of his testimony? 2 4 MS. WELCH: I'm trying to 2 5 understand how I can reconcile the testimony GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 77 HARTOLDMONO010802 1 that came out earlier today about how PCBs 2 primarily got into the waste water, with this 3 testimony. 4 A. To fit this into the context at 5 the time, this represents our understanding 6 at the time that I was supervising the 7 Aroclor department of the Anniston plant 8 which would have been in the early Sixties. 9 Obviously our understanding changed a lot 1 0 later on, but that's what we understood at 1 1 the time. 1 2 BY MS . WELCH : 1 3 Q. Okay, so you understood at the 1 4 time in 1962 that it was the leaks that was 1 5 causing the effluent to get into the waste 1 6 water? 1 7 A. We were not aware in 1962 that 1 8 Aroclor was getting into the waste water. 1 9 Correct pollution precautions were to prevent 2 0 leaks but we were not aware of Aroclor in 2 1 waste water at that time. 2 2 Q. But would you agree with the 2 3 statement that at that time, that leaks in 24 the equipment would occur during the normal 2 5 course of using the equipment? GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 78 HARTOLDMONO010803 1 A. There is no perfect equipment, and 2 prevention and correction of leaks is part of 3 good practice in any chemical production 4 oper a tion . 5 Q. Okay, thank you. Now, getting 6 back to the Papageorge memo in 1970, let's 7 turn back to that exhibit, which was Exhibit 8 431. Any recollection at this point of what 9 steps you took to reduce the amount of PCBs 1 0 that were found in the effluent? 1 1 A. Well, as I mentioned earlier, the 1 2 initial effort was to get valid samples-and 1 3 good analysis that we could first find out 1 4 what the level of losses was and then to work 1 5 upstream and find the sources, and a, a lot 1 6 of time has passed, and so I can't say 17 exactly how far we had progressed during the 1 8 time referred to in this memo, but what we 1 9 did was to identify the process sources of 2 0 Aroclor getting into the waste water and then 2 1 do engineering corrections of those sources. 2 2 Q. And did that involve correction of 2 3 leaking equipment? 2 4 A. That was not the primary issue, it 2 5 turned out. They were, there were aspects of GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 79 HARTOLDMONO010804 i 1 the process, itself, that it turned out were, 2 were sources of Aroclor getting in the waste 3 water. 4 Q. That the process that you 5 describedearlier, of the process of 6 hydrochloric gas? 7 A. I did not describe the entire 8 Aroclor production process at that time, I 9 described the reaction step which actually 1 0 formed crude Aroclor. After that there were 1 1 some other steps and those, as I recall, were 1 2 where we found the losses. 1 3 Q. Okay. And was this occurring 1 4 through vapor or was it occurring through a 1 5 stream of water? ' 1 6 A. Well, it was a combination. 1 7 Obviously, it wound up in waste water, but it 1 8 was related to scrubbing of some process 1 9 streams, and that would have been the 2 0 scrubbing of vapor process streams. 2 1 Q. Do you recall a decision that was 2 2 made in approximately the time period of 1969 2 3 to 1970 to develop a more biodegradable 2 4 version of Aroclor 1242? 2 5 A. Yes. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 80 HARTOLDMONO010805 1 Q Were you involved in making that 2 decision? 3 A. I was not one of the decision 4 makers but I'm sureI provided information 5 that contributed to that decision. 6 Q. Okay, do youknow who the decision 7 makers were? 8 A. It would have been Howard Bergen 9 and people he reported to, perhaps Jack 1 0 Fitzgerald. 1 1 Q. Who is Jack Fitzgerald? 1 2 A. Here, I'm not sure I can construct 1 3 various transfers and so forth that occurred 1 4 at that time. That -- at the time that I 1 5 joined the business group, Howard Bergen's 1 6 boss was -- a guy from England. I can't tell 1 7 you his name right now. He then was replaced 1 8 by a man named Wink Corey, C-o-r -- 1 9 Q. Are you talking about John 2 0 Mason -- 21 A. John Mason, that's right. 2 2 Q. -- was Howard Bergen's boss when 2 3 you first joined the group? 2 4 A. Right. After that, a man named 2 5 Wink, called Wink Corey, I don't remember his GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 81 HARTOLDMONO010806 I 1 real first name but -- 2 MS. SIMERLY: Winthrop. He was 3 called -- 4 A. He was called Wink. 5 MS. SIMERLY: Winthrop. 6 A.(Continuing) And then after that. 7 Jack Fitzgerald was in the chain of command. 8 Jack Fitzgerald later became president of the 9 corporation, but he was somewhere in that 1 0 line of command, and those were the people 1 1 who made the decisions. 1 2 BY MS. WELCH: 1 3 Q. Do yourecall when this decision 1 4 was made? 1 5 A . No . 16 Q. Okay. You said that you 17 contributed information that would have 1 8 helped in the decision. What information are 1 9 youreferring to? 20 A. Well,research developed a process 21 for fractionating Aroclor 1242, and as 2 2 manufacturingmanager, I participated in 23 supplying the costparameters, how much 2 4 investment would be required to put that 2 5 process into effect and what it would cost to GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 82 HARTOLDMONO010807 1 operate. 2 Q. What do you mean by fractionating 3 1242? 4 A. Fractionation refers to a 5 multi-stage distillation operation. It's a 6 purification process; well-known. 7 Q. And when did this process become 8 available? Do you know? 9 A. I don't remember. 1 0 Q. When did Monsanto start using this 1 1 process? 12 A. I don't remember. It was after 1 3 1970, because it began after I got there. 1 4 Q. Okay. What was your understanding 1 5 of the basis for the decision to develop a 1 6 biodegradable substitute or alternative to 17 1 2 4 2 ? 1 8 A. Well, I think I need to supply a 1 9 bit of a definition for the word 2 0 "biodegradable" because biodegradable 2 1 popularly means biodegradable in the sense 2 2 that detergents, and so forth, are supposed 2 3 to be biodegradable that implies a very short 2 4 time span of a few hours or a few days. When 2 5 we use the term "biodegradable" with respect GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST . LOUIS, MISSOURI 83 HARTOLDMONO010808 1 to Aroclor, we are making distinctions in 2 years. 3 Q. What do you mean by that 4 distinction is in years? 5 A. Biphenyl with three or four 6 chlorines on the molecule biodegrades very 7 slowly, and I don't recall the exact time 8 span, but it's months or years, rather than 9 days. But a biphenyl molecule with more 10 chlorines on it than that, could be a number 11 of years, so I just want to make clear that 1 2 we're not talking about quick . 1 3 biodegradabi1ity in the usual popular sense. 1 4 Q. Okay, thank you. Okay, with that 1 5 in mind, I'd like to find out what your 1 6 understanding was about why the decision was 17 made to develop a biodegradable substitute 1 8 for 1242. 1 9 MS. SIMERLY: Okay, and at that 2 0 point I want to object. I think it 2 1 mischaracterizes his testimony in that I'm 2 2 not sure that the decision was ever made to 2 3 develop. I think a decision was made to look 2 4 into developing, and that might seem like a, 2 5 a minor distinction, but I'm not sure that a GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 84 HARTOLDMONO010809 - 1 biodegradable 1242 was ever developed. 2 MS. WELCH: Okay. Well, that's 3 fine. I mean, it's not material to my 4 question. 5 MS. SIMERLY: Okay . 6 MS. WELCH: So that's fine. 7 BY MS. WELCH: 8 Q. With that understanding, when was 9 the decision made to start developing, or 1 0 investigating, or thinking about a 1 1 biodegradable? 1 2 A. Aroclor? I don't know. It 1 3 probably was about the time that I joined the 1 4 business group, but I don't know. 1 5 Q. Excuse me. My question was, what 1 6 was your understanding of why the decision 1 7 was made? 1 8 A. Why the decision was made -- 1 9 Q. Mm-hmm. 2 0 A. -- to pursue that topic? It was 2 1 evident from the earliest work, even, of Dr. 2 2 Risebrough, that the more highly chlorinated 2 3 isomers survived in the environment longer 2 4 than the 1ower-ch1orinated materials, so it 2 5 seemed possible, by fractionation, to make a GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 85 HARTOLDMONO010810 1 product that contained less of the materials 2 that survived longer. 3 Q. Okay, did 1242 contain those 4 higher isomers? 5 A. As I mentioned before, every 6 Aroclor contained all of them in some degree 7 and so yes, 1242 had some of those higher 8 materials . 9 Q. Do you know if, in the '69-'70 1 0 time period, Monsanto was using gas 1 1 chromatography to analyze 1242? 1 2 A. Yes, we were. 1 3 MS. WELCH: This is Exhibit433. 1 4 I'm showing a copy to counsel for Monsanto. 1 5 Exhibit 433 is a two-page document with the 1 6 identifying figure of TRAN 007185 to 007186, 17 datedApril 6, 1970, from R. L. Neary to a 1 8 number of people and Mr. Savage is cc:'d 1 9 along with others. 2 0 (Plaintiff's Deposition 2 1 Exhibit 433 marked for 2 2 identification.) 2 3 (Witness peruses said 2 4 document.) 2 5 THE WITNESS: Okay. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 86 HARTOLDMON0010811 1 BY MS. WELCH: 2 Q Okay. What, first of all, in 3 terms of names, who is Mr. Neary? 4 A . I don't remember. I recognize the 5 name but I don't know. 6 Q Okay, who is Mr. Kountz? 7 A . Bob Kountz was engineer manager 8 for our group. 9 Q And what group is that? 1 0 A . The Specialty Products Group. Let 1 1 me comment on the date of this memo, this is 1 2 almost precisely when I joined the Business 1 3 Group. 1 4 Q What month did you join the 1 5 Business Group? 1 6 A . In April 1 9 7 0 . 1 7 Q Are all of those people who are 1 8 c c: 'd in the Business Group, as far as you 1 9 know? 2 0 A . Howard Bergen was, of course, the 2 1 director of the Business Group. R. E. Howard 2 2 was Bob Kountz's direct boss in Engineering. 23 You know who Papageorge and Richard are. 2 4 Q Okay. How about Mr. Bernhardt? 2 5 A . Idon'tknow. . GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 87 HARTOLDMON0010812 I 1 Q. Mr. Bright? 2 A. Jim Bright was a -- hehad some 3 kind of engineering management position. I 4 think he did' an economic evaluation at that 5 time. 6 Q. Mr. Mueller? 7 A. That's Dr. Norm Mueller. He was 8 inresearch. 9 Q. What kind of research? 1 0 A. I don't -- he was in Research, but 1 1 I don't know exactly what his responsibility 1 2 was. 1 3 Q. How about Mr. Silver? 14 A. Mr. Silver was a specialist in 1 5 distillation, but I don't remember his 1 6 organization affiliation at the time. 17 Q. Was he a chemist? 1 8 A. Pardon me. 1 9 Q. A chemist? 2 0 A. Idon'tknow. 2 1 Q. What is 1142? 2 2 A. 1142 is a designation for crude 2 3 Aroclor that is processed later to make 1242. 2 4 Q. So it's one of t he steps in the 2 5 production of 1242? GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 88 HARTOLDMON0010813 I 1 A. Just part of our standard 2 nomenclature, 11 referred to crude and 12 3 referred to finished goods. 4 Q. Okay is this the 5 fractionization -- fractionation work that 6 you were referring to? 7 A . Yes. 8 Q Under the, next to the number 4, 9 it refers to the higher boiling isomers. 1 0 What's a higher boiling isomer? 1 1 A. That corresponds to more 1 2 high1y-ch1orinated materials. 1 3 Q And -- 1 4 A . The boiling point is raised by 1 5 addition ofchlorine. 1 6 Q . So that would be, for instance, 1 7 the five--chlorine, the six-chlorine or 1 8 higher? Would those be considered higher 1 9 boiling isomers? 2 0 A . Yes. 2 1 Q. Okay. What does the Column 2 2 bottoms" refer to? Is that part of the gas 2 3 chromatography? 2 4 A . No.. 2 5 Q What is that? GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 89 HARTOLDMON0010814 1 A. The, the column referred to in 2 this case is a fractionation column, and 3 column bottoms means the higher boiling 4 materials that leave the bottom of the 5 column. The nature of a fractionator is such 6 a lower boiling materials go out the top and 7 higher boiling materials go out the bottom. 8 Q. So there's actually an instrument 9 that's called a fractionator? 1 0 A. No, a fractionator is a process 1 1 device. The term "fractionator" and term 1 2 "distillation column" mean the same thing. 1 3 Q . What does i t mean that the higher 1 4 boiling isomers will b e taken as a side 1 5 stream and processed t o Aroclors 1254 and 16 1260? 1 7 A. Aroclor 1254 and 1260 are more 1 8 highly chlorinated materials. Corresponding, 1 9 I think, to the five and six-chlorine levels, 2 0 and so the idea was that the higher boiling 21 materials could be utilized in, in the 2 2 products 1254 and 1260 which were, in turn, 2 3 used for transformer blends. 24 Q. Okay. Paragraph 5, it says, "The 2 5 project will be based on blocked operation at GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 90 HARTOLDMON0010815 I 1 one plant." What is your understanding of 2 what blocked operation of one plant means? 3 A. Well, one plant simply means that 4 we won't duplicate facilities at Anniston, 5 and Krummrich, and so forth, we'll simply 6 select one location. Blocked operation 7 usually refers to an operation whereby 8 equipment is utilized for only a portion of 9 the time and for other portions of the time 1 0 something else is going on. 1 1 Q. What does the next sentence mean 1 2 to you, "No provisions are planned for 1 3 co-product manufacture of 1242 and 1242-B"? 1 4 MS. SIMERLY: I want to object to 1 5 the extent that you are asking this witness 1 6 to explain a sentence that was written by Mr. 1 7 Neary . 1 8 MS. WELCH: I don't want him to 1 9 explain the sentence. I guess I should 20 rephrase my question as, what is your 2 1 understanding of -- well, let me phrase it 2 2 thi s way . 2 3 BY MS. WELCH: 24 Q. Was 1242 being produced at the 2 5 same time that 1242-B was being produced? GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 91 HARTOLDMONOOIO8I6 1 A. What this sentence means to me is 2 that engineering is describing the scope of a 3 possible product -- project and that they 4 will not provide for simultaneously making 5 both products, but rather, for blocked 6 operation . 7 Q. So does that mean that there was 8 no more production of 1242 as of this date? 9 A. No, it would mean that sometimes 1 0 you'd make one and* sometimes you would make 1 1 the other but you wouldn't make them 1 2 simultaneously. 1 3 Q. So there would be more alternate 1 4 production dates? 1 5 A. Right. 1 6 Q. Okay.Where wasthe existing 17 plant 1242 unit? 1 8 A. Well, atthis timewe were making 1 9 Aroclor 1242 in all three of those places 2 0 that I mentioned before: Anniston, Krummrich 2 1 and Newport. 2 2 MS. WELCH: Please mark this as 2 3 Exhibit 4 3 4 . 2 4 (Plaintiff's Deposition 2 5 Exhibit 434 marked for . GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 92 HARTOLDMON0010817 l 1 identification.) 2 MS. WELCH: Exhibit 434 is a 3 one-page document bearing the stamp TRAN 4 005572. It appears to be a memorandum from 5 Mr. J. R. Savage to Mr. Bergen, dated May 6 4th, 1970. 7 (Witness peruses said 8 document . ) 9 BY MS. WELCH: 1 0 Q. Okay, do you recall authoring this 1 1 document? 1 2 A . No . 1 3 Q Looking a t the initials "md," Are 1 4 the initials o f your secretary on the 1 5 bottom left-hand corner? 1 6 A. Well, that's what that normally 1 7 means, but -- 1 8 Q It doesn't bring to mind a 1 9 secretary you had during the time period? 2 0 A . No . 2 1 Q. Okay. Is this your -- 2 2 A . But I'm sure that's what it is. 2 3 Q Is this your handwriting, this 24 marginalia here? ' 2 5 A . At the top? It looks like Howard GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 93 HARTOLDMONOOIO8I8 I 1 Bergen's handwriting. I can't be sure. 2 Q. Was Mr. Bergen your boss at this 3 time? 4 A. He was the source of business 5 direction; it was a dotted line relationship, 6 but I considered him one of my bosses. He 7 later became my direct boss. 8 Q. Do you have anydoubt that you 9 authoredthis memorandum? 1 0 A . No 1 1 Q. Do you recall what this memorandum 1 2 was written in response to, if anything? 1 3 A. No. From the context, it just 1 4 seems to be a brainstorming document of some 1 5 ideas. 1 6 Q. Okay. Why did yourecommend that 1 7 Monsanto release production figures? 1 8 A. Pardon me? 19 Q. Why did yourecommend that 2 0 Monsanto release to the scientific community 2 1 an estimate of production figures? 2 2 MS. SIMERLY: Well, I think, in 2 3 fairness, you need to take that entire 2 4 sentence, "An estimate of production figures 2 5 along with the percentage in contained sealed GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 94 HARTOLDMON0010819 t ,e> 1 applications." 2 MS. WELCH: That's fine. 3 BY MS. WELCH: 4 Q. Why did you make the 5 recommendation in the first paragraph? How 6 about that? 7 A. I really have to just interpret it 8 from reading it. I don't remember. 9 Q. You have no recollection? Do you 1 0 have any recollection of what the response 1 1 was to this recommendation at this time in 12 1970? 1 3 A. No. I don't know if we ever did 1 4 that. 1 5 Q. Okay, do you remember that being a 1 6 source of a lot of debate within Monsanto, 1 7 this issue? 1 8 MS. SIMERLY: You are talking 1 9 about the issue of releasing production 2 0 figures? 2 1 MS . WELCH : Yes . 2 2 A. I don't remember any particular 2 3 debate about it. 2 4 BY MS. WELCH: 2 5 Q. Reading the marginalia that you GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI HARTOLDMONO010820 1 said looks like Howard Bergen's handwriting, 2 it appears to me that part of it says, "After 3 CMC presentation." 4 A. Yes, and there's a date there. 5 Q. 5/1 presentation. Were you 6 present at the CMC 511 presentation? 7 A. No, I think "CMC" stood for 8 "Corporate Management Committee." It would 9 be a very high level meeting that I would 1 0 normally not ha 1 1 Q What 1 2 A . Heat 1 3 context? 1 4 Q The 1 5 A . Yes, 1 6 Q Were 1 7 products being to heat transfer 1 8 A . This 1 9 think they were being considered, but I don't 2 0 know if they were being developed at the 2 1 time. Obviously, my comment is fairly 2 2 light-hearted. 2 3 Q. Which comment? 2 4 MS. SIMERLY: Facetious. 2 5 A. Naming it "BFR" for barely fire GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 96 HARTOLDMONO010821 i 1 resistant . 2 BY MS . WELCH : 3 Q. I see. I took that seriously. 4 What was the normal Aroclor that 5 was used in heat transfer fluids at this 6 time? 7 A. We had three grades which we 8 called FR-1, and FR-2 and FR-3. FR-1, as I 9 recall, was Aroclor 1242 and was by far the 1 0 most popular. FR-2, I think, was 1248, and 1 1 so forth, but I don't remember for sure. 1 2 Q. So the most widely sold was the 1 3 FR-1 ? 1 4 A. That's my recollection. 1 5 Q. Why were you concerned that the 1 6 five and six-chlorine atoms appear -- appear 1 7 in the fire resistant Therminol at that time, 1 8 if that's an accurate characterization of 1 9 Paragraph 2? 2 0 A. Well, I propose here that we make 21 something called Aroclor 1237. There was no 2 2 such product, of course, but that implies a 2 3 somewhat lower level of chlorination which 2 4 would be, as I imply here, less fire 2 5 resistant, but since the incidence of the GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 97 HARTOLDMONO010822 I 1 higher chlorinated materials increases as the 2 average a chlorination level is increased, 3 there should be a substantial difference in 4 the amount of such things. 5 Q. Is the idea was to lower the 6 incidence of the higher-ch1orinated isomers? 7 A. That was the objective. We never 8 did tha t . 9 Q. Why did you never do that? 1 0 A. It probably wasn't a very good 1 1 idea. 1 2 Q . Why not? 1 3 A. I can only speculate. What we 1 4 really did, of course, is stop selling any 1 5 kind of chlorinated material for heat 1 6 transfer fluid, to avoid any issue at all, 17 and that, that was a better decision. 1 8 Q. Do you recall when that, you 19 stopped selling? 20 A . No . 2 1 Q . In the sentence, it says, "Also 22 used is a blend stock in 1232 instead of 2 3 1242." Was 1242 used as a blend stock in 2 4 1242? ' 2 5 A. Yes, 1232 could not be made GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 98 HARTOLDMONO010823 i 1 directly so, we made it by blending 1242 and 2 1221. That was onlybecause 1232 made 3 directly would have crystalline materials in 4 it. 5 Q. Okay, why did you recommend 6 reclamation disposal, a reclamation disposal 7 process? 8 MS. SIMERLY: And at this point, 9 are you asking him what his recollection is 1 0 or are you simply asking him to interpret the 1 1 document . 1 2 MS. WELCH: No, I'm asking for his 1 3 best recollection, and -- 1 4 A. I really cannot interpret the 1 5 document, because I don't remember writing 1 6 it, but theidea of a reclamation service 1 7 would simply be thatthat would make sure 1 8 that, that used or contaminated materials 1 9 that customers had was not improperly 20 disposed of. 2 1 BY MS. WELCH: 2 2 Q. And do you know what happened with 23 any of these recommendations? 2 4 A. I don't know whether any of the 2 5 actions we took were as a result of my GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 99 HARTOLDMONO010824 i 1 recommendation, but we did begin to take 2 some, some fluid back from some of our 3 customers. 4 Q. Do you know which customers? 5 A. The electrical customers. We 6 already had reclamation programs in place for 7 hydraulic fluids. 8 Q. Okay. Have you ever heard of 9 Texas Eastern Transmission Company, 1 0 Corporation? 1 1 A . I've heard of it. 1 2 Q Prior to this case 1 3 A . I don ' t know. 1 4 Q Okay, do you know 1 5 back from them? 1 6 A . I have no idea. 1 7 MS. WELCH: Please mark this as 1 8 Exhibit 435. I'm showing a copy to counsel 1 9 for Monsanto. This is Bates stamped number 2 0 TRAN 005571. It's from H. S. Bergen to W. R. 2 1 Richard and Mr. Savage is cc:'d. It's 2 2 entitled "Aroclor 1232 Replacement," dated 2 3 May 20th, 1970. 2 4 (Plaintiff's Deposition 2 5 Exhibit 435 marked for GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 10 0 HARTOLDMONO010825 1 identification.) 2 (Witness peruses said 3 document . ) 4 BY MS. WELCH: 5 Q. Okay, were there concerns about 6 the biodegradability of 1232 in 1970? 7 A. I don't remember anything specific 8 to 1232, but just as part of our general 9 concern , I would think s o . 1 0 Q And was that because of the 1 1 presence in 1232 of the 1 2 4 2 ? 1 2 A . Well, it was because o f the 1 3 presence of higher chlorinated materials 1 4 which mostly got there from 1242 but some 1 5 would have got there from the 1221. 1 6 Q. Okay, and this reference to 1 7 crystallization is what you referred to 1 8 earlier; is that correct? 1 9 A. Right. 2 0 Q. What happened to the development 21 of an alternative to 1232, as far as you 2 2 know? 2 3 A. I don't know if we ever did this 2 4 or anything. 2 5 Q. Are you aware of the GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 10 1 HARTOLDMONO010826 1 biodegradation studies that were conducted 2 both at RUE-a-bon and St. Louis in 1969-1970? 3 A . Rue -AW-bon. 4 Q. Ruabon ? 5 A. Ruabon. Would you state the 6 question again, please? 7 MS. SIMERLY: Are you aware of the 8 biodegradation studies going on at Ruabon -- 9 MS. WELCH: You did it wrong, too. 1 0 A. North Wales. Yes, I became aware 1 1 of them at some time. Whether or not I was 1 2 aware in 1 9 7 0, I'm not sure 1 3 Q Do you have any idea when they 1 4 commenced p 1 5 A . No , I don't. 1 6 Q D o you know the purpose of t h o 1 7 studies? 1 8 A. Yes, we wanted some controlled 1 9 information, information developed in a 2 0 controlled way on the rate of degradation of 2 1 various isomers. 2 2 Q. When you say controlled way, what 2 3 doyoumean? . 2 4 A. Where we knew the time, the time 2 5 parameters and so forth so that we had data GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 10 2 HARTOLDMONO010827 1 that could be reproduced and later on used to 2 interpret other information. 3 Q. So in other words, this would be 4 in contrast to Risebrough's studies where he 5 just looked in the environment at large? 6 A. Yes. That's after-the-fact 7 inf ormation, and so it's difficult to 8 i n t erpret how long those materials had been 9 i n the environment or how long it took them 1 0 t o come through the food chain. 1 1 Q. Okay. Do you know who headed 1 2 those studies? 1 3 A. I don't remember. 1 4 Q. Do you remember who was 1 5 responsible or who worked on them? 1 6 A . No . 1 7 Q. Okay. Can you generally 1 8 characterize for me the results of the 1 9 studies? 2 0 A. Just in broad, general terms that 2 1 we confirmed that biodegradation rates were 2 2 very slow and that the lower isomers 2 3 biodegraded more high rapidly than the higher 2 4 ones, but I can't remember any more detail 2 5 than that. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 10 3 HARTOLDMONO010828 1 Q. Well, that's fine. Would you say 2 that this confirmed what people suspected, or 3 was it new information? 4 A. It was not, not a surprising 5 result. I think the important point is that 6 by having some numbers to attach to 7 biodegradation rates, it was possible to 8 interpret other data that -- and understand 9 other data that was taken in less controlled 1 0 ways. 1 1 Q. What do you mean by some numbers 1 2 attached? Are you referringto time periods 1 3 or amounts? 1 4 A. Yes. Yes. 1 5 Q. Anything else that you mean by 1 6 "some numbers"? 1 7 A . No . 1 8 MS. WELCH: Okay, please mark this 1 9 as Exhibit 436. 2 0 (Plaintiff's Deposition 2 1 Exhibit 436 marked for 2 2 identification.) 2 3 BY MS. WELCH: 2 4 Q. Exhibit 436 is a one-page document 2 5 with the identifying stamp of TRAN 008623 GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 10 4 HARTOLDMONO010829 1 from Mr. Benignus to D. A. Olson. 2 A . Right. 3 Q And Mr. Savage is amongst the 4 5 (Witness peruses said 6 document . ) 7 BY MS. WELCH: 8 Q. Okay? 9 A. Okay. 10 Q. Do you recall thatAroclor 1242-B 1 1 was at some point changed into MCS 1016? 1 2 A. Yes. 1 3 Q. The nomenclature was changed, 1 4 rather? 1 5 A . Ye s . 1 6 Q. Do you know why that nomenclature 1 7 was changed? 1 8 A. I can't tell you from 1 9 recollection. I can infer it from the 2 0 meaning of the words, that's all. 2 1 Q. Why was it referred to as 2 2 capacitor Aroclor 1242? 2 3 A. Because it was the product that 2 4 was sold to, to the electric equipment 2 5 manufacturers for making electrical products. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 10 5 HARTOLDMONO010830 i 1 Q. Okay, 1242 was used invarious 2 applications; is that correct? 3 A. Yes, and it was all made the same 4 way . 5 Q. Do you have any idea or do you 6 know whether 1016 was everused or sold to 7 anybody other than electrical manufacturers? 8 A. I don't remember. 9 MS. WELCH: This is Exhibit437. 1 0 (Plaintiff's Deposition 1 1 Exhibit 437 marked for 1 2 identification. ) 1 3 BY MS. WELCH: 1 4 Q. Okay, Exhibit 437 has the 1 5 identifying stamp of TRAN 037172 through 4, 1 6 dated July 17th, 1970, from W. P. Papageorge 1 7 to Mr. Bergen, with a number of people cc:'d, 1 8 including Mr. Savage, and please take a few 1 9 minutes to read this document. 20 (Witness peruses said 2 1 document . ) 2 2 THE WITNESS: Okay. 2 3 BY MS. WELCH: 2 4 Q. Okay. Do you recall a meeting you 2 5 had with Mr. Papageorge on the biodegradation GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 10 6 HARTOLDMONO010831 1 studies? 2 A . No . 3 Q. Okay, who is Mr. Emory? 4 A. Ed Emory was in research. 5 Q. Research of what what? 6 A. I'd almost be guessing. I know 7 he's in Research, but I don't remember. 8 Q. I don't want you to guess. 9 Referring to the first paragraph, 1 0 what are homologs? 1 1 A. Oh, that's a way of grouping 1 2 isomers, and the group of isomers that 1 3 represent three chlorines would be one 1 4 homolog, the next homolog up would be the 1 5 group of isomers that have four chlorines per 1 6 molecule, and so forth, so it's a kind of 1 7 simplified way of categorizing isomers, 1 8 because there are hundreds of isomers but 1 9 only a few homolog levels. 2 0 Q. Okay, for purpose of the lay 2 1 person, would it be another way of saying a 2 2 group of isomers? 2 3 A . Sure. 2 4 Q. Okay, what are river die-away 2 5 studies? GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 10 7 HARTOLDMONO010832 1 A. A river die-away study is a 2 particular kind o f biodegradation test. The 3 meaning is kind o f evident in the words. The 4 ideal would b e that one would analyze an 5 effluent stream going into a river and then 6 measure at various points downstream and it 7 would disappear over a certain distance. 8 That's what's meant by die- away. 9 Q So it's not that the material in 1 0 the river all dies? 1 1 A . No 1 2 Q S o it apparently wasn't evident. 1 3 So do you recall knowing that the river 1 4 die-away studies indicated that while Aroclor 1 5 1221 disappeared, Aroclors 1242, 1248 and 1 6 1254 were undegraded? 1 7 A. I don't remember that detail. A 1 8 river die-away test, of course, is to measure 1 9 rapid biodegradation, so the findings here 2 0 are consistent with my general understanding, 2 1 but I don't remember the specifics. 2 2 Q. Okay. In the second paragraph 2 3 under number 1, it refers to peaks normally 2 4 present in Aroclor 1221, and 1242 and 1248. 2 5 A. By "peak," it's, the readout from GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 10 8 HARTOLDMONO010833 1 a chromatograph is a chart with a bunch of 2 peaks on it, and each peak represents a 3 specific isomer, and so if a peak disappears, 4 it implies that that isomer has been 5 biodegraded. 6 Q. By isomer, you would mean a three7 chlorine atom, or four-ch1orine atom, or a 8 five-ch1orine atom? 9 A. Yes. Well, more specific than 1 0 that; specific instructional isomer. 1 1 Q. What do you mean by "specific 1 2 instructional isomer"? 1 3 A. One of these hundreds of different 1 4 forms . 11 doesn't ref er to a homolog. i t 1 5 refer s to a particular chemical compound 1 6 w hi c h is an isomer . 1 7 Q Okay. In a broad categorization. 1 8 could that be fit into the category of three 1 9 c h 1 o r i n e s , or four chi orines, or five 2 0 chlorines? 21 A. Well, that's broadly true except 2 2 that the point that's being made is that 2 3 certain ones are biodegraded and others are 2 4 not even at the same chlorination level. 2 5 Q. And what do you mean by that? GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 10 9 HARTOLDMONO010834 l 1 A. That certain isomers are 2 disappearing and others are not, and that it 3 is specific to the isomer and only generally 4 related to the chlorination level. 5 Q. Okay. My understanding was 6 that -- and correct me if I'm wrong, but my 7 understanding was that the biodegradation 8 studies showed that chlorine atoms with four 9 or less generally degraded and with five or 1 0 more did not generally degrade? 1 1 A. That's broadly true as a trend. 1 2 Q. Okay. 1 3 A. But at the detailed isomer level, 1 4 there are exceptions to that. 1 5 Q. Okay, but the trend is, 1 6 nonetheless, true? 1 7 A. Right. 1 8 Q. Okay, under Paragraph 2, "Monsanto 1 9 U.K. Studies," I see some figures that have 2 0 "2,4," et cetera. What do those figures 2 1 refer to? 2 2 A. That's the nomenclature to 2 3 describe a specific isomer. 2 4 Q. Okay, in the terms that you were 2 5 just talking about? GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 110 HARTOLDMONO010835 i 1 A. Yes. 2 Q . I see. 3 A. The numbers refer to positions on 4 the rings. 5 Q. Okay. What is Aroclor 1130? 6 A. It's a crude Aroclor, but it 7 doesn't relate -- I don't remember any 8 relationship to a commercial product. 9 Q. Okay, so it's the same as we 10 discussed, 1142is crude Aroclor for 1242. 1 1 The nomenclature implies crude Aroclor 1 2 chlorinated to 30 percent. 1 3 Q. Okay, the isomers that are 1 4 referred to in Paragraph 2, are those isomers 1 5 that are generally found in 1242? 1 6 A. Yes. 17 Q. Let me rephrase that. They refer 1 8 to some isomers that degrade radially. Are 1 9 those isomers found on 1242? 2 0 A. Well, again they're all found on 2 1 all of them. 2 2 Q. Okay. 2 3 A. But for -- if you see three 2 4 numbers like 2,2,3 or 2,3,4, that implies 2 5 that there are three chlorines on each . GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 111 HARTOLDMONO010836 1 molecule, so that would be characteristic of 2 1 2 4 2. 3 Q. But theones that are referred to 4 in the sentence where it says "Do not 5 degrade," are those also found in 1242? 6 A. Yes, but it happens each of those 7 is a dichlor, so it's a lower-chlorinated 8 material . 9 Q. What is a dichlor? 1 0 A. Two chlorines per molecule. 1 1 Q. Do youknow which peaks had 1 2 persisted in biodegradation tests with 1242? 1 3 A. I don't know. I don't know if I 1 4 ever knew, but I certainly don't know now. 1 5 Q Okay . Turning to the paragraph 1 6 which says MCS 1016 -- 1 7 MS . SIMERLY: The next page. 1 8 BY MS . WELCH: 1 9 0 Page 2 . 2 0 A. Okay. 2 1 Q. Okay, the last sentence says, "We 2 2 must establish if the less controllable 2 3 hydraulic fluids applications can materially 2 4 benefit from the use- of MCS 1016." First of 2 5 all, why were hydraulic fluids less GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 112 HARTOLDMONO010837 1 controllable than capacitor fluids, if you 2 have an understanding of that? 3 A. Yes, I -- the electrical 4 applications, transformers and capacitors 5 were sealed pieces of equipment, and one 6 would expect that whatever inventory of, of 7 fluid was put in them at the time they were 8 manufactured would remain there for the 9 useful life of the piece of equipment, and 1 0 hydraulic systems are controlled in the sense 1 1 that the direct use of the fluid doesn't 1 2 place it in the environment, but on the other 1 3 hand, they are active systems that can leak, 1 4 and where some fluid makeup is common. 1 5 Q. What do you mean by fluid makeup? 1 6 A. I mean that we would continue to 1 7 supply the customer with additional 1 8 quantities of fluid after his initial fill. 1 9 Q. Okay, and that's not generally the 2 0 case with capacitor customers? 2 1 A. Certainly not. 2 2 Q. So that in that case, there would 2 3 be one sale, and it would be put inside the 2 4 capacitor, and that would be it? 2 5 MS. SIMERLY: Well, with reference GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 113 HARTOLDMONO010838 i 1 to that lot of capacitors, but there would be 2 continuing sales for new capacitors. 3 MS. WELCH: Of course. 4 A . But the way a capacitor is made, 5 it's sealed, and the fluid that's in it, when 6 it's sealed up and the manufacture is 7 completed, that's, that's it. 8 BY MS. WELCH : 9 Q. Okay, so if you see production 1 0 figures and continuing sales over a course of 1 1 time and no new equipment being produced, 1 2 would the conclusion you would draw as a 1 3 manufacturing manager be that it's because 1 4 there is some, as you characterize, makeup of 1 5 thefluid? 1 6 MS. SIMERLY: I'm going to object. 17 That question assumes that he, as the 1 8 chemical manufacturer, knows if there is new 1 9 equipment being manufactured that's using 2 0 this fluid. That assumes a fact that's not 21 in evidence. The question lacks foundation. 2 2 BY MS. WELCH: 2 3 Q. You can go ahead and answer the 2 4 question. Do you remember it? 2 5 A. Our hydraulic fluid customers were GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 114 HARTOLDMONO010839 1 people like die casters, and so forth, and we 2 would continue to supply them fluid on a 3 regular basis. 4 Q. And from that, you concluded that 5 they were needing makeup fluid? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Do you know whatever happened to 8 the proposal or the question of establishing 9 if the 1ess-contro11 ab1e hydraulic fluids 1 0 applications could materially benefit from 1 1 the use of MCS 1016? 1 2 A . I don't think we ever did that. 1 3 Q. Do you know why not? 1 4 A. Because we reformulated the fluids 1 5 to take the biphenyl-based Aroclors out of 1 6 them entirely. 1 7 Q. And you are speaking of the 1 8 Pydrauls? 1 9 A. Yes. 2 0 Q. Do you have any idea if MCS 1016 2 1 could have worked in the hydraulic system? 2 2 A. I don't know of any reason why 2 3 not, but I'm not an expert on formulating 24 fluids . 2 5 Q Okay. Did it have the same GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 115 HARTOLDMONO010840 1 properties as 1242, as far as you know? 2 A. Not exactly. 3 Q. What were the differences? 4 A. Just differences in physical 5 properties. I don't remember exact, but 6 since it was a mixture of asomewhat 7 different set of isomers, it was not 8 precisely the same. 9 Q. Was it materiallydifferent? 1 0 A. That would depend on what one 1 1 intended to do with it. For the application 1 2 in electrical equipment, which is what it was 1 3 designed for, i t , it was, performed 1 4 substantially the same a s 1 2 4 2. 1 5 Q Do you have any recollection o f 1 6 what products o r what new products were b e 1 7 tested at this time, which is July 1970? And 1 8 by "new products," I'm referring to 1 9 replacement products for the, for the 2 0 Aroclors . 2 1 A. It's been a long time, and I 2 2 cannot tell you when I was aware of work on 2 3 replacement products, but during the time 2 4 that I was manufacturing manager, there was 25 intense activity on replacement products for GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 116 HARTOLDMONO010841 i 1 essentially all of that time, but whether I 2 was aware of it exactly at this time, I'm not 3 sure. 4 MS. WELCH: Okay. This is Exhibit 5 438. I'm showing a copy to counsel for 6 Monsanto . 7 (Plaintiff's Deposition 8 Exhibit 438 marked for 9 identification.) 1 0 BY MS. WELCH: 11 Q. Exhibit 438 is a one-page document 1 2 with the identifying stamp of TRAN 037811, 1 3 dated August 6, 1970, from Mr. Heinze, 1 4 H-e-i-n-z-e -- Hines (Phonetic)? 1 5 A. Hines (Phonetic), I think. 1 6 MS. WELCH: To three people, 1 7 including Mr. Savage. 1 8 (Witness peruses said 1 9 document.) 2 0 THE WITNESS: Okay. 2 1 BY MS. WELCH: 2 2 Q. Okay, who is Mr. Heinze? 2 3 A. Mr. Heinze was in Engineering. 2 4 Q. Do you know what his 2 5 responsibility was? GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 117 HARTOLDMONO010842 i 1 A . No , I don'1 t remember. 2 Q How about Mr . McCutcheon? 3 A . Bob McCutcheon at that time was 4 the produ ction supervisor at the Krummrich 5 plant . 6 Q How about Bill Young ? 7 A . I don't know. 8 Q. Bailey Williams? 9 A. I think the Bailey Williams was at 1 0 the Anniston plant, but I don't remember what 1 1 his job was. 1 2 Q. Chuck Devine? 1 3 A. I don'tknow. 1 4 Q. What is a Scope report? 1 5 A. That's a formal document' produced 1 6 by Engineering that's circulated to get 1 7 concurrence of everybody involved with the 1 8 project that we all agree that that's what's 1 9 to be done. 2 0 Q. So it's a document that's 2 1 circulated before a product is put into 2 2 production? 2 3 A. Before an engineering project is 24 commenced. . 2 5 Q. So does this indicate to you that GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 118 HARTOLDMONO010843 1 1016 is in its beginning stages as of this 2 date? 3 A. Before a project, before a Scope 4 report canbe properly written, the process 5 has to be reasonably well defined, so the 6 existence of a Scope report implies a certain 7 stage, but clearly, nothing yet has been 8 designed in detail or built. 9 Q. By "a certain stage," what do you 1 0 mean? Do you mean that it's beyond the 1 1 brainstorming stage, or it's beyond, or it's 1 2 fairly well along, or it's in the beginning 1 3 stage? 1 4 A. Well, certainly beyond 1 5 brainstorming. 1 6 Q. Is it near to final initiation of 1 7 production? 18 A. No. It's quite a long time before 1 9 production, because the Scope report is 2 0 written to get agreement on what will be 2 1 built, and it then has to be designed and 2 2 built before production can begin. 2 3 Q. Do you recognize this handwriting? 24 A. No. It's not mine. 25 Q. Okay. As far as you know, does GOREREPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 119 HARTOLDMONO010844 1 this accurately describe the process for the 2 production of MCS 1016, the handwriting? 3 MS. SIMERLY: You are talking 4 about the handwritten - 5 MS. WELCH: The handwritten note. 6 A. It's generally descriptive of what 7 I recall. 8 BY MS. WELCH: 9 Q. Do you know if, by this time, the 1 0 process for the production of MCS 1016 had 1 1 been developed? 1 2 A. I can't state it for a fact. 1 3 That's -- it was at some point, but whether, 1 4 whether the Scope report was based on a 1 5 complete process definition or whether it was 1 6 a bit prophetic is hard to tell. It was a 17 crash project that we tried to move very 1 8 rapidly, so it could be that a Scope report 1 9 was prepared earlier, and that would be 2 0 normal . 2 1 Q. Why was it a crash project that 2 2 you decided to move quickly? 2 3 A. Because everything related to the 2 4 12 -- excuse me, to the Ar -- to the PCB 2 5 issue was urgent. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 12 0 HARTOLDMONO010845 i 1 Q . Why was that? 2 A. Because we recognized it as a 3 problem that had to be solved quickly. 4 Q . And why was that? 5 A. It was an environmental issue, and 6 we expected concern from regulatory agencies, 7 and we just generally recognized that any 8 product that had an adverse effect on 9 wildlife was -- had to be corrected. 1 0 Q. Do you disagree with this 1 1 handwritten statement, here, which says that 1 2 there is no direct evidence of the 1 3 biodegradabi1ity of any of the PCBs? 1 4 A. Well, that's, that's a fairly 1 5 careless characterization, I would say. I'm 1 6 not no -- since I don't know who wrote it, I 1 7 don't know how well informed that person 1 8 might have been. 1 9 Q Why is it careless? 20 A . P ardon me? 2 1 Q Why is it careless? 2 2 A . Well, because at that time. there 2 3 was evidence that some isomers were 2 4 biodegradable, and of course, more evidence 2 5 developed later on. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 12 1 HARTOLDMONO010846 1 Q. Okay, were you involved in the 2 decision in 1970 to reformulate the Pydrauls? 3 A . Yes. 4 Q How were you involved in it? 5 A . The research people were 6 developing new formulations, and doing fire 7 testing, and so forth. As they came up with 8 new formulations, they would communicate the 9 new formulations to me and I would provide 1 0 cost estimates and comment on any particular 1 1 difficulty in carrying out that particular 1 2 reformulation. It was a matter of providing 1 3 guidance in the reformulation activity. 1 4 Q What are you referring to when you 1 5 talk about the difficulties in the process? 1 6 A . Some of these formulations are 1 7 fairly complicated, with a long list of 1 8 ingredients, and in the case of the Pydraul 1 9 blend, the only real issue would be whether 20 some ingredient was proposed which was not 2 1 readily available. 2 2 Q. So you were familiar with the 23 ingredients and could make recommendations on 2 4 thatbasis? ' 2 5 A. Well, I, either I was already GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 12 2 HARTOLDMONO010847 1 familiar with the proposed ingredients or if 2 I wasn't, I'd have to find out. 3 Q. What was your understanding of why 4 the decision was made to reformulate the 5 Pydrauls? 6 A. Because they were not considered 7 to be totally sealed, used in totally sealed 8 systems, and therefore, we wanted to, to get 9 rid of the components in the Pydrauls that 1 0 were not, not biodegradable. 1 1 Q. Okay, is there any system that's 1 2 totally sealed, to your knowledge? 1 3 A. Well, beyond the philosophic point 1 4 that no system is perfect, a capacitor comes 1 5 close, in that a capacitor is, is literally 1 6 sealed, and until it finishes its useful 1 7 and is destroyed in some way, i t remains 1 8 sealed. 1 9 Q. Why was more biodegradable 1242-B 2 0 developed for capacitors if it was a 2 1 fundamentally sealed system? 2 2 A. Well, that was in the early days 2 3 of thinking about products the way we 2 4 routinely think about them now, but we were 2 5 thinking about the ultimate fate of a used GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 12 3 HARTOLDMONO010848 1 capacitor which might wind up in a landfill 2 or something, and the concern was that the 3 Aroclor that was in the capacitor should 4 sooner or later biodegrade. 5 Q. Because it might ultimately end up 6 in a landfill? 7 A . Yes. We were thinking about the, 8 the fate of the capacitor after it had ended 9 its useful life. 1 0 Q. Are you familiar with gas 1 1 compressors? 1 2 A. As a generality. 1 3 Q. Would you consider that a closed 1 4 system? 1 5 A. I don't think I can make a very 1 6 general answer. My familiarity with gas 1 7 compressors is small reciprocating 1 8 compressors that are used in chemical plants, 1 9 and those I would describe as, as a closed 2 0 system, but I, I'm not familiar with other 2 1 kinds of compressors. 2 2 Q. Okay. Where were the small 2 3 reciprocating compressors that you had 2 4 contact with? Which plants? 2 5 A. Typically, air compressors, and so GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 12 4 HARTOLDMONO010849 l 1 forth, used in plants to provide a utility 2 service of compressed air on the plant. 3 Q. So these are air compressors. 4 rather than gas compressors? 5 A. Well, air i s gas. 6 Q . True, and i n your experience, did 7 these air compressors ever leak? 8 A. Well, they leaked air, but no, not 9 in ter m s of any lubricant that was in them or 1 0 a n y t h i ng like that. 1 1 Q Earlier, you testified that there 1 2 is no perfect machinery, there is no perfect 1 3 equipment that -- 1 4 A. That was a philosophical 1 5 statement, not a technical one. 1 6 Q. Well, everything has its bearing 1 7 in the real world; agreed? 1 8 A. I suppose. 1 9 (Discussion of the record and 2 0 short break.) 2 1 MS. WELCH: Okay, back on the 2 2 record. 2 3 BY MS. WELCH: 2 4 Q. We were talking about the 2 5 reformulation of the Pydrauls in 1970. Do GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 12 5 HARTOLDMONO010850 1 you know what was in the formulation of the 2 Pydrauls in 1970? 3 A . The reformulated Pydrauls. 4 Q Yes, what was in the reformulated 5 Pydrauls 6 A. They were similar to, to the 7 previous Pydrauls except that the chlorinated 8 material was chlorinated terphenyl, rather 9 than chlorinated biphenyl. 1 0 Q . Was there a second reformulation? 1 1 A. Yes. 1 2 Q. And what did the second 1 3 reformulation involve? 1 4 A. That involved getting rid of 1 5 chlorinated materials entirely and making 1 6 products based on phosphate esters. 17 Q. Why was the second reformulation 1 8 carried out? 1 9 A. The first reformulation 2 0 represented something that we could do very 21 quickly, and the testing was very simple. 2 2 The second reformulation required, required 2 3 us to develop a new, a new basic raw 2 4 material, a new phosphate ester. Developing 2 5 a process for it took longer. . GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 12 6 HARTOLDMONO010851 1 Q. Were you planning to do the second 2 reformulation at the time there was the first 3 reformulation? 4 A. I don't think we were specifically 5 planning it. We were studying the 6 possibility of all phosphate ester fluids, 7 but we took the decisions one at a time. 8 Q. Do you recall when Monsanto first 9 started working on the phosphate esters? 1 0 A. Monsanto's experience with 1 1 phosphate ester fluids goes back many years, 1 2 because we had made hydraulic fluid for 1 3 aircraft, the Skydrol products, for a long 1 4 long time, and those are based on, on 1 5 phosphate esters. 1 6 Q. How long is a long, long time? 17 1950 ' s , 1940 ' s? 1 8 A. Before the Fifties. 1 9 Q. Skydrol is based onphosphate 2 0 esters? 2 1 A. Right. 2 2 Q. So what was -- what were the new 2 3 developments that were necessary or were 2 4 there new developments that were necessary to 2 5 develop the phosphate esters to replace the GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 127 HARTOLDMONO010852 i 1 Pydrauls? 2 A. The phosphate esters that are used 3 in aircraft hydraulic fluid are not 4 appropriate to industrial hydraulic fluids, 5 because of physical properties. It was 6 necessary to develop a new phosphate ester 7 that had the appropriate physical properties. 8 Q. Do you have any recollection of 9 when that process began? 1 0 A. I don't remember. 1 1 Q. Introducing Exhibit 439, I'm 1 2 showing a copy to counsel for Monsanto. 1 3 (Plaintiff's Deposition 1 4 Exhibit 439 marked for 1 5 identification. ) 1 6 BY MS. WELCH: 1 7 Q. Exhibit 439 is a multipage 1 8 document bearing Bates stamp TRAN 039104 1 9 through 111, dated August 18th, 1970, from 2 0 W. P. Papageorge to a number of people, 2 1 including Mr. Savage, and I'm going to ask 2 2 you questions about isolated paragraphs in 2 3 here, so the first question I have i s , 24 simply , what is Pydraul F9A 2 5 A . I don ' t remember . It's just -- we GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 12 8 HARTOLDMONO010853 1 had at least adozen Pydrauls at that time, 2 and I don't remember which one that is. 3 Q. Okay. Do you know if it was one 4 of the Pydraul --reformulated Pydrauls? 5 A. The "A" implies that it is, but I 6 don't know that. 7 Q. Okay, page 2, under "MCS 1016 8 Distillation," please read that paragraph. 9 (Witness peruses said 1 0 document.) 1 1 A. Yes. 1 2 Q. Okay, is this the project, same 1 3 Project Scope or the same thing that we were 1 4 talking about before? 15 A. Yes . . 1 6 Q. Okay. Do you know if 1016 was 1 7 then in production at this time in August 18 1970? 1 9 A. No. Just on the face of this 2 0 paragraph, the preparation of preliminary 21 Project Scope is the same thing we were 2 2 talking about in the earlier document. 2 3 Q. Okay. Page 4 of the document, 2 4 "Aroclor 1242 replacement for NCR," what was 2 5 the Aroclor 1242 replacement for NCR? GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 129 HARTOLDMONO010854 1 A. There were two. One referred to 2 here is monoisopropyl biphenyl, which we did 3 manufacture for a period of time, not 4 internally, but through a contract 5 manufacturer, and then later on, there was 6 another one. 7 Q. And what was the next one, the 8 second one? 9 A. The second product provided to 1 0 NCR, the second replacement was called 1 1 Santisol 100. It was a hydrocarbon product 1 2 that was specifically designed for that 1 3 purpose. 1 4 Q. Did either of those products, 1 5 either the MIPB or the Santisol 100 contain 1 6 PCBs ? 1 7 A . No . 1 8 Q. Okay, turning to the paragraph of 1 9 MCS 1016, the bottom of the page, please read 20 that paragraph to yourself. 2 1 (Witness peruses said 2 2 document . ) 2 3 Q. Okay, does this paragraph imply to 2 4 you that there were test runs being done of 2 5 MCS 1016 at this time? GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 13 0 HARTOLDMONO010855 , v-'' ' i 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Okay. Would you agree with the 3 statement that, in this paragraph, that the 4 electrical properties of MCS are 5 indistinguishable from those of Aroclor 1242 6 and there are only minor differences in other 7 properties? 8 A. Yes, that proved to be so. 9 Q. The next page, page 5, I think we 1 0 have our answer, here, about Pydraul F9A, 1 1 that it was reformulated to reduce, avoid the 1 2 use of chlorinated biphenyl. Do you know if 1 3 this was the formulation that included the 1 4 terphenyl? 1 5 A. Given the time of this, I would 1 6 say that's likely to be so. 1 7 Q. Okay. What was the N-C phosphate 1 8 ester being developed for? 1 9 A. The NC was a special phosphate 2 0 ester that we were attempting to develop to 21 make an all-phosphate ester fluid. 2 2 Q. And do you know if this was being 2 3 developed for all industrial fluids, or just 2 4 simply for Pydrauls? 2 5 A. Well, I -- to me, the term GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 131 HARTOLDMONO010856 1 "industrial fluid" and Pydraul are more or 2 less synonymous. 3 Q Do you consider Turbinol a 4 Pydraul? 5 A . Certainly, from a manufacturing 6 standpoint, it was just a special case of 7 Pydraul . 8 Q And why is that so? 9 A . We made it and blended it in the 1 0 same way we made Pydraul, from very similar 1 1 materials. It happened to go into a 1 2 different kind of application. 1 3 Q. Okay, so in your mind, if somebody 1 4 talks about industrial fluids, it includes 1 5 Pydrauls which could also include Turbinols? 1 6 Is that correct? 1 7 MS. SIMERLY: I'm going to object. 1 8 He said that from a manufacturing standpoint. 1 9 BY MS. WELCH: 2 0 Q. From a manufacturing standpoint, 2 1 that's fair? 2 2 A. From my viewpoint, I wouldn't make 2 3 any market distinction. 2 4 Q. Between Pydraul and Turbinol? 2 5 A. Right. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 13 2 HARTOLDMONO010857 1 . Q. So did you know whether the N-C 2 phosphate ester was being developed for the 3 application for which Turbinol was being 4 used? 5 A . No . 6 Q. Namely, the gas compressor? 7 A. I don't know whether we had ever 8 attempted that or not. 9 Q. Page 6, under the 1 0 "Biodegradation - Ruabon," what is HB-40? 1 1 A. HB-40 is a product that we made at 1 2 both Anniston and at Newport by hydrogenating 1 3 terphenyl. We still make it. 1 4 Q. Okay, what's the application? 1 5 A. HB-40 is sold under several 1 6 different names for different purposes. 1 7 HB-40 is sold as T h erminol 66, which i s a 1 8 heat transfer fluid . It, from time to time 1 9 has been sold as a plasticizer. I don ' t 2 0 remember what other uses, but I think there 2 1 was more than one. 22 Q Does it contain Aroclors? 2 3 A . No . 2 4 Q What is Pyralene 1500? 2 5 A . No idea. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 13 3 HARTOLDMONO010858 i 1 Q. What is a more refined -- or, was 2 a more refined GLC analytical technique ever 3 developed, to your knowledge? 4 A . Pardon me, I - 5 MS. SIMERLY: Where are you? 6 MS . WELCH : Under 7 "Biodegradation -- Ruabon," where it says, 8 "Priority has been given to the development 9 of more refined GLC analytical techniques." 1 0 A. I don't know. 1 1 MS. WELCH: This is Exhibit 440. 1 2 (Plaintiff's Deposition 1 3 Exhibit 440 marked for 1 4 identification.) 1 5 MS. WELCH: Exhibit 440 is 1 6 identified with a stamp TRAN 036358. It 17 appears to be a memo from J. R. Savage to Mr. 1 8 A. E. Peterson of the J. F. Queeny plant. 1 9 (Witness peruses said 2 0 document . ) 21 THE WITNESS: Yes . 2 2 BY MS. WELCH: 2 3 Q. Do you recall authoring this 2 4 document? 2 5 A. No, but I'm sure it's authentic. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 13 4 HARTOLDMON0010859 1 Q. You are sure it's - 2 A. I'm sure it's authentic. I don't 3 remember writing it. 4 Q. Do you recall anyone issuing an 5 edict to eliminate all PCBs from industrial 6 fluid? 7 A. This is me speaking to the plant, 8 and I'm speaking in rather dictatorial terms. 9 It was a decision we had made. 10 Q. Okay, do youknow who made the 1 1 edict, or do you consider yourself -- 1 2 A. It was a decision made at Howard 1 3 Bergen's level and probably higher. 1 4 Q. Were you told anything at that 1 5 time about eliminating PCBs from Turbinol, 1 6 September 1970? 17 A. I don't remember. 1 8 Q. What is TSC1? 1 9 A. TSC1 is toluenesulphonyl chloride. 2 0 That's a department that we, at that time, 2 1 had at the Queeny plant. 2 2 Q. And why did you want to convert to 2 3 1221, rather than 1232? 2 4 A. Well, again, I don'tremember the 2 5 memo, so I can only interpret what I've said GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 13 5 HARTOLDMONO010860 , 1 here, and it would have to stand on its face, 2 I guess. 3 Q. But you had an understanding that 4 1232 contained a certain percentage of 1242 5 which contained the persistent isomers; is 6 that correct? 7 A. Yes. We discussed that earlier. 8 MS. WELCH: Okay. This is Exhibit 9 4 4 1. 1 0 (Plaintiff's Deposition 1 1 Exhibit 441 marked for 1 2 identification.) 1 3 MS. WELCH: I'm showing a copy to 1 4 counsel for Monsanto. Exhibit 441 is a 1 5 multipage document bearing the stamp TRAN 1 6 036828 through 036837, dated December 29th, 1 7 1970. It's from the J. F. Queeny plant to 1 8 several people, including Mr. Savage. 1 9 BY MS. WELCH: 2 0 Q I ' m going to ask you a f ew 21 questions about the document , so you don't 2 2 need to, unless you want to, you are 2 3 certainly welcome to read the document, 2 4 but-- ' 2 5 A. Go ahead. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST . LOUIS , MISSOURI 136 HARTOLDMONO010861 1 Q. Okay. On Page 2 of the document, 2 it says, "Priority one, TSC1 Nash pump." Do 3 you know what the TSC1 Nash pump was? 4 A . A Nash pump is a notary compressor 5 which uses a seal fluid. 6 Q What is a seal fluid? 7 A . A Nash pump is what's called a 8 liquid drain compressor, where fluid moves up 9 and down in a chamber, and in moving up and 1 0 down, compresses a gas, and the seal fluid is 1 1 the liquid that's used for that purpose. 1 2 Q. It's used for the purpose of 1 3 sealing? 1 4 A. It's called a seal fluid, but it's 1 5 actually the motion of the liquid that 1 6 compresses the gas. Its acts like a piston. 1 7 Q Okay. Here, it says the source of 1 8 the loss is the seal fluid. Do you have any 1 9 understanding why the seal fluid could have 2 0 beena source of loss? 21 A. I'm not familiar with this 2 2 particular application of a Nash pump. I 2 3 know about Nash pumps, but I don't know about 2 4 this particular application. 2 5 Q. Well, let's talk about your GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 137 HARTOLDMONO010862 1 general understanding of Nash pumps. Do you 2 have an understanding of how a seal fluid 3 could be a source of a loss? 4 A. Th e seal fluid enters 5 the Nash pump and leaves it downstream of a 6 Nash pump. There's a gas liquid separator, 7 and the liquid that is separated from the gas 8 is then returned to the intake of the Nash 9 pump 1 0 And how does that contribute to 1 1 loss? 1 2 A. Well, if the separator is not 1 3 working at 100 percent efficiency, then there 1 4 will be some seal fluid in the discharge from 1 5 theseparator. 1 6 Q. And where does the discharge go? 1 7 A. That depends on the process. 1 8 Q. Okay. 1 9 A. I've just described the system 2 0 that a Nash pump represents. 2 1 Q. What is "Sep. and demist, drains"? 2 2 Do you know what that means? 2 3 MS. SIMERLY: Does it mean 2 4 anything to you, under "Seal fluid"? 2 5 A. Take the line before that: "Seal GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 13 8 HARTOLDMONO010863 1 fluid separator and demister drains. 2 BY MS. WELCH: 3 Q. That's all together, then? 4 A. That's one expression. 5 Q. Can you tell me what that means? 6 A . Well , the separator is that gas 7 liquid s eparator described earlier 8 Demis ter , again, I don't know this particular 9 a p p 1 i cat ion, but in the application of a Nash 1 0 pump , i t would be fairly normal to have a 1 1 d e m i s ter as part of the separator, t o 1 2 i n c r e a s e its efficiency. 1 3 Q Was, were any Aroclors used in 1 4 Nash pumps? 1 5 A. Well, obviously, from the context 1 6 of this report, it was used in that one, but 1 7 that would be unusual. 1 8 Q. Thatwould be unusual? 1 9 A. Yes. 2 0 Q. What's normally used as a 2 1 lubricant in a Nash pump? 2 2 A. It's a seal fluid. It's not a 23 lubricant. It's entirely specific to the 2 4 application. My personal experience was in 2 5 compressing chlorine; in that case, sulphuric GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 139 HARTOLDMONO010864 1 acid was used as a seal fluid. 2 Q. Going down to line 4, where it 3 says "Vapors and pump leaks phthalyl 4 chlor ide" - - am I pronounceing that right? 5 A . fe-THAL-il chloride, very good. 6 Q Do you know what -- were there 7 pump s that were u sed in the process o f 8 p h t h a lyl chloride production? 9 A . No. I don't know the process. I 1 0 don't know. 1 1 Q Okay. The next page, in priority 1 2 6, W Building yard unit, it talks about the 1 3 source of the losses from vapors, pump leaks 1 4 and steam out of jackets, do you know what 1 5 pumps existed in the W Building yard unit? 1 6 A. I don't know about the pump. The 1 7 W Building yard unit was a heat transfer 1 8 unit. Just a heater. 1 9 Q. Was there a pump in that heat 2 0 trans f er unit ? 2 1 A. There usually would be a pump in 2 2 such a system. I don't know anything 2 3 specific. 2 4 Q. Number 7, where it says "CLHS-2 5 A. That was another name for central GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 14 0 HARTOLDMONO010865 1 drumming. I think it stood for central 2 liquid handling system. 3 Q. Okay, it states here, "Possible 4 actions," "PCB containing Aroclors will be 5 eliminated from all blends by 4/1/71," and it 6 refers to your memo which we saw earlier of 7 9/23/70. What products were manufactured in 8 the drumming unit? 9 A. That facility did -- made blends 1 0 of, for plasticizers, Skydrol, Pydraul, and 1 1 possibly some other things I don't remember, 1 2 but those were the principal ones. 1 3 Q. Okay, do you know if Turbinol was 1 4 blended there? 1 5 A . It might have been, but I don't 1 6 know. 1 7 Q. Okay, page 6, under "TSC1," the 1 8 "Nash Compressor - HC1 system," where it 1 9 says, "Aroclor 1232 is used as a sealing 2 0 fluid for the Nash compressor in the HC1 2 1 system. Losses are estimated at 6,000 pounds 2 2 annually," is that a large amount of loss for 2 3 a Nash compressor, as far as you are 2 4 concerned? ' 2 5 A. I guess I don't know. My GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 14 1 HARTOLDMONO010866 i 1 experience was with much larger compressors 2 that were sealed with sulphuric acid, and 3 there were, there were losses in that days, 4 but for probably different reasons. 5 Q. Why do you say for different 6 reasons? 7 A. It's just a totally different 8 application. 9 Q. Were the losses as large as 6,000 1 0 pound s annually? 1 1 A. I don't know. 1 2 Q. But did you have any familiarity 1 3 with this compressor? 1 4 A . No . 1 5 MS. WELCH: Please mark this as 1 6 Exhibit 442. 1 7 (Plaintiff's Deposition 1 8 Exhibit 442 marked for 1 9 identification.) 2 0 MS. WELCH: I'm showing a copy to 21 counsel for Monsanto, and this is marked as 22 TRAN 039080 to 090. It's dated December 7th, 2 3 1970, from W. F. Papageorge to a list of 2 4 recipients, including Mr. Savage. 2 5 (Witness peruses said GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 14 2 HARTOLDMONO010867 i 1 document 2 BY MS. WELCH: 3 Q. Okay, again I'm going to ask you a 4 very few specific questions. Page 2, under 5 "MCS 1016 - Krummrich," the document says, 6 "Customer trials of the pilot plant product 7 indicated an undesirable high level of low 8 boilers." What are lowboilers? 9 A. Well, low boiler in general, when 1 0 referring to a fractionated product, means 1 1 materials that have a lower boiling point 1 2 than the average of the mixture. 1 3 Q. Does thisrefer to the lower1 4 chlorinated isomers? 1 5 A. In this context, those would be 1 6 lower chlorinated. 17 Q. Why would it beundesirable to 1 8 have a high level of those? 1 9 A. I don't know. 2 0 Q. Is there any concern as to the 2 1 biodegradability, or do you think there's 2 2 some other concern? 2 3 A. Probably notbiodegradabi1ity, 2 4 because the lower ones typically were more 2 5 biodegradable. It must have been some other GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 14 3 HARTOLDMONO010868 1 reason having to do with the application. 2 Q Okay. 3 Under the paragraph "N-C 4 phosphate, Queeny" 5 A . Yes. 6 Q -- do you know if N-C phosphate 7 was being developed at the Queeny plant? 8 A . N-C phosphate was being developed 9 for later production at the Queeny plant. 1 0 Queeny is in there as a designation to 1 1 indicate that that's the, eventually, home of 1 2 the product, but the work wasn't being done 1 3 at Queeny. 1 4 Q What does a pilot plant study 1 5 mean? 16 A . Pilot plant, a pilot plant is 17 typically a very small-scale production unit 1 8 where a product is made in small quantities, 1 9 primarily to develop process data, rather 2 0 than to, than to make a significant number, 2 1 amount of product. 2 2 Q. Okay, so this indicates to you 2 3 that the development of N-C phosphate is 2 4 somewhere in its early stages? 2 5 A. Out of the lab and into scale-up, GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 14 4 HARTOLDMONO010869 i 1 is what that means. 2 Q. What's the next stage after 3 scale-up? 4 A. As I recall, the next step in this 5 case, after pilot plant, was a trial run in 6 the plant production equipment, but I don't 7 remember when that was done, 8 Q. Okay, how long does that usually 9 take, or how long did it take in this case? 1 0 Do you recall? 1 1 A. To actually carry out a test run 1 2 in the Queeny plant phosphate ester facility 1 3 would be a matter of four or five days, I 1 4 suppose, but the preparation for it would go 1 5 on for considerably longer than that. 1 6 Q. How much longer? 1 7 A. Well, in this particular case, to 1 8 make a trial run making N-C phosphate, the 1 9 preparation was to get some special raw 2 0 materials made. N-C phosphate required a raw 21 material that was not commercially available, 2 2 small P-cumyl phenol. That was a special raw 2 3 material that was needed to get the physical 2 4 properties that we wanted in N-C phosphate. 2 5 It was not an article of commerce, so I .had GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 14 5 HARTOLDMONO010870 1 to arrange to have it made in, by a contract 2 manufacturer. 3 Was that same product used in the 4 Skydrol? 5 A . No . 6 Q. It wasdifferent because of 7 different applications? 8 A. Right . 9 Q. Have you everheard of Stauffer's 1 0 phosphate ester called Fyrquel? 1 1 A. Yes . 1 2 Q. Okay, do you know if they used 1 3 that product in the Fyrquel? 1 4 A . No . 1 5 Q. No, they don't? 1 6 A. N-C phosphate was aproduct that 1 7 we invented for this purpose and was, as far 1 8 as I know, never used for anything else. 1 9 Q. Okay, so it's a different, 20 different composition, as far as you know, 2 1 than the Fyrquel? 2 2 A . Yes. 2 3 Q. And when did you get to the trial 2 4 run? Do you know? 2 5 A. I don't remember. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 14 6 HARTOLDMONO010871 1 Q. What's the step after the trial 2 run? 3 A. If it's successful, then 4 continuous production or continuing 5 production . 6 Q. Do you need to have tests with 7 customers before you get into continuing 8 production? 9 A. Well, certainly. 1 0 Q. So you have a trial run, then you 1 1 take it out for testing with customers, and 1 2 then you have a production run? 1 3 A. Well, the hydraulic fluids were a 1 4 somewhat different case, in the sense that we 1 5 have a fairly large number of different 1 6 customers for Pydraul, and we would attempt 1 7 to establish that the, that the products 1 8 would perform well by doing pump testing and 1 9 fire testing of our own and then perhaps 2 0 trying it out with one or two large 2 1 customers. We wouldn't try it with all the 2 2 customers before we made a decision to go 2 3 commercial. 2 4 Q. Okay, were you ever aware that 2 5 phosphate ester was developed as an GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 14 7 HARTOLDMONO010872 1 alternative to Turbinol 153? 2 A. I don't know whether it was or 3 not. 4 Q. Okay, turn to Page 4 of the 5 document. Under "Biodegradation testing - 6 St. Louis," the sentence reads, "The percent 7 disappearance rates, based on a feed level of 8 1 milligram/cycle, were as follows:" And 9 then it refers to a number of products. MCS 1 0 1043, what's MCS 1043? 1 1 A. The "MCS" designation is simply a 1 2 long series of research identifications, and 1 3 1043 is just somewhere in the sequence. It 1 4 could have been anything, really. 15 Q. Okay,does -- . 1 6 A. I know what 1016 is,obviously, 17 because of its special significance, but I 1 8 don't remember what 1043 was. 19 . Q. Does this sequence indicate to you 2 0 that 1043 is the most biodegradable of the 2 1 products that are listed? 2 2 A. This data indicates that, yes. 2 3 Q. And the next most biodegradable, 2 4 according to here, would be Aroclor 1242? 2 5 A. That's what this says. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 14 8 HARTOLDMONO010873 1 MS. SIMERLY: You might read the 2 next sentence before you comment on that, 3 (Witness peruses document.) 4 BY MS . WELCH : 5 Q. The next sentence says, "However, 6 the observed degradation rates are still 7 highly scattered, indicating that the units 8 have not reached a steady state yet." 9 A. Yeah, this data is inconsistent 1 0 with our later understanding. 1 1 Q. What was that later understanding? 1 2 A. That MCS 1016 was considerably 1 3 more biodegradable than 1242. 1 4 Q. Okay. Okay, on Page 6, please 1 5 read the section to yourself, which says, 1 6 "Environmental Studies -- Ruabon." Just the 1 7 environmental studies, Ruabon, not the 1 8 biodegradation. 1 9 A. Oh, excus e me . 2 0 (Witness peruses said 2 1 document . ) 2 2 BY MS. WELCH: 2 3 Q. Okay, what is your understanding 2 4 of how feeding 1242 to pidgeons and quails 2 5 could end up with residues that resembled GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 14 9 HARTOLDMONO010874 i 1 1254 and 1260? 2 A. Well, the only plausible 3 interpretation of that is that the lower 4 isomers, lower-chlorinated isomers of 1242 5 had been metabolized in some way and that 6 what's left looks like 1254 and 1260. 7 Q. Were you aware of that at the time 8 of this finding? 9 A. Not this particular one. 1 0 Q. Is this consistent with your 1 1 general understanding of this time? 1 2 A . Yes. 1 3 Q Okay, page 7, there's a list o f 1 4 products that starts with MCS 1016. Do you 1 5 know wh a t MCS 717 is? 1 6 A . No . 17 Q How about MCS 7 6 2 ? 1 8 A . No . 1 9 Q Page 8. What is Turbinol 15 3 -A? 20 A . The "A" implie s it's a 2 1 reformulation, but I don' t know wh a t i t i s . 22 Q. Why does the "A" imply to you that 2 3 it's a reformulation? 24 A. That was simply a way that we 2 5 distinguished the earlier products from .the GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 150 HARTOLDMONO010875 1 later ones, tacking the "A o n . 2 Q. That was a general practice at the 3 time? 4 A. Yes. I don't know if it was 5 universal, but it was a general practice. 6 Q What is MCS 1063? 7 A . I don ' t know. 8 Q Do you know who worked on Turbinol 9 15 3 -A or MC S 10 6 3 ? 1 0 A . It was in Lou Stark 's group, I 1 1 suppose , but I don 't know who worked on it. 1 2 Q Why do you say that it was in Lou 1 3 Stark's group? 1 4 A . Because industrial fluids were his 1 5 responsibility. 1 6 Q. Okay. Do you know what happened 17 to the development of this product? 1 8 A . No . 1 9 Q. Do you know if it was ever brought 2 0 tofruition? 2 1 A. No. I'm sure that the earlier 2 2 version was phased out because we 2 3 reformulated everything, but whether we 2 4 actually introduced this particular product, 2 5 Idon'tknow. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 151 HARTOLDMONO010876 I 1 Q Do you have any knowledge of 2 whether an alternative fluid was ever 3 developed for Turbinol 15 3? 4 A . No , I don't know . 5 MS . WELCH: I'd like to have 6 marked as Exhibit 443. 7 (Plaintiff's Deposition 8 Exhibit 443 marked for 9 identification.) 1 0 MS. WELCH: Exhibit 443 is a 1 1 multipage document bearing the Bates stamp 1 2 number TRAN 037621 to 037633, and it's 1 3 entitled "Tentative process for Aroclor 6037 1 4 (MCS 1057-1.)," and Mr. Savage is listed as, 1 5 on the distribution list inside the document 1 6 BY MS. WELCH: 1 7 Q. Please turn to the page that has 1 8 "1" at the top of it, which says 1 9 "Introduction." What is 5460? 2 0 A. Aroclor 5460 was a so-called solid 2 1 Aroclor. It's a terphenyl, chlorinated to 60 2 2 percent chlorine, and then distilled. 2 3 Q. So it's different than a 2 4 polychlorinated biphenyl? 2 5 A. Yes. The "5" at the beginning GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 152 HARTOLDMONO010877 1 implies terphenyl, rather than biphenyl, as 2 the raw material. 3 Q. Do you know why 1242 was being 4 replaced for Radiator Specialty Company? 5 A. Radiator Specialty, as I was told 6 at the time, was making a product that was 7 used in some kind of automotive preparation 8 that was sold for stopping leakage in, in 9 transmissions, and that was considered to be 1 0 a sort of open application in the sense that 1 1 a personwouldn't buy it unless the 1 2 transmis s i o n was leaking , and therefore, it 1 3 didn't s e e m like a very good idea that 1 4 Aroclor 12 4 2 b e in that product. 1 5 Q. Okay. So Radiator Specialty 1 6 Company was actually using the Aroclors in 1 7 their own product? 1 8 A. That's what I was told. 1 9 Q. Do you know whatever happened to 2 0 this product? Was it developed? 2 1 A. I don't know whether we ever made 2 2 it or not . It would have been very easy to 2 3 make, s o we might have. but I don't know. 2 4 Q Okay. This document is entitled 2 5 "Tentative Process for Aroclor 6037." Where GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 153 HARTOLDMONO010878 i 1 along the chain of getting to final 2 production status would a tentative process 3 plan be or is a tentative process plan? 4 A. The transmittal of a tentative 5 process by Research essentially means 6 Research believes their job is finished and 7 is ready for Engineering or Manufacturing to 8 do whatever is needed to put the process into 9 effect. 1 0 Q. And what's the next step? 1 1 A. That would be dependent on the 1 2 circumstances. This being a simple blend, 1 3 the next step would only be a decision as to 1 4 whether it was desirable to make it or not 1 5 because no, no investment was required to put 1 6 it into effect. 1 7 MS. WELCH: This is document 444. 1 8 (Plaintiff's Deposition 1 9 Exhibit 444 marked for 2 0 identification. ) 2 1 MS. WELCH: I'm showing a copy to 2 2 counsel for Monsanto. 2 3 BY MS . WELCH : 2 4 Q. Exhibit 444 is a two-page document 2 5 bearing the stamp TRAN 0 4 3 0 1 4 to TRAN 0 4.3 0 1 5. GOREREPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 154 HARTOLDMONO010879 1 It's dated June 1st, 1971. It's from 2 R. H. Munch to Mr. Savage. 3 (Witness peruses said 4 document . ) 5 BY MS. WELCH: 6 Q. Okay, turning to the paragraph 7 which says, "One new specification must be 8 added. That is penta and hexach1orobipheny1 9 content," is that a specification, to list 1 0 what the content of the various isomers is? 1 1 A. Until the introduction of 1016, 1 2 that was not part of our specifications, 1 3 because it was not routinely measured. I 1 4 don't really know whether we normally added 1 5 the specification, as Ralph proposes here, or 1 6 not. I don't remember. 1 7 Q. Was it your understanding that 1 8 1016 had a content of less than .3 percent of 1 9 the higher-ch1orinated biphenyls? 2 0 A. I don't remember, remember 2 1 quantitatively; I just know it was a lot 2 2 lower than 1242. 2 3 MS. WELCH: Please mark this as 2 4 Exhibit 445. 2 5 (Plaintiff's Deposition GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 15 5 HARTOLDMONO010880 1 Exhibit 445 marked for 2 identification.) 3 (Witness peruses said 4 document. ) 5 MS. WELCH: Exhibit 445 is 6 one-page document bearing a number of 7 identifyi ng stamps, but I will use the 8 the bottom right, which says "300 2628," and 9 it appears to be a memo from W. P. Papageorge 1 0 to G. Robert SIDE-oh (Phonetic) or SEED-oh 1 1 (Phonetic), with Mr. Savage as part of the 1 2 distribution list. 1 3 BY MS. WELCH: 1 4 Q. Okay, do you recognize the 1 5 handwriting on this? ' 1 6 A . No . It's not mine. 1 7 Q Okay, who i s Robert Sido? 1 8 A . He was in our Shipping-Material 1 9 Handling Group, responsible for packaging and 20 labels . 2 1 Q. Were you aware of this label 2 2 change at the time? 2 3 A. Yes. 2 4 Q. Okay. Was this a different label 2 5 than had been previously used for the GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 15 6 HARTOLDMONO010881 1 Aroclors? 2 A . It was an additional label 3 Q. Do you have any recollection of 4 what the previous labels stated? 5 A. We had always had the normal, 6 standard Monsanto label. I don't remember 7 what it said. We decided to put this 8 additional label on. 9 Q. Okay. Do you know if the previous 1 0 label contained any environmental warnings? 1 1 A. I don't remember. 1 2 Q. Okay. 1 3 A. I remember it was a separate 1 4 label. I'm not sure it was, but that's the 1 5 way I remember it. .' 1 6 Q. Did all of the products, all of 1 7 the Aroclor products have the same label? 1 8 A. To my recollection, this warning 1 9 label was put on every product that had 2 0 Aroclor in it, bipheny1-based Aroclor. We, 2 1 of course, used the name, trade name 2 2 "Aroclor" for so-called solid Aroclors which 2 3 were based on terphenyl. 2 4 Q. Well., I'm -- my questions are 2 5 restricted only to the polychlorinated GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 157 HARTOLDMONO010882 1 biphenyl, rather than terphenyl. 2 A. Yes, it's my recollection that 3 when we decided to use this label, we decided 4 to use it on all products that contained 5 those Aroclors. 6 Q. And including blends? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. That contained Aroclors? 9 A. Yes. 1 0 Q. So not only the pure Aroclor? 11 A. Yes. 1 2 Q. Like the Aroclor 1442, but the 1 3 Turbinol? 1 4 A. Yes, because it said it contains 1 5 polychlorinated biphenyl, not just that it 16 is . 1 7 MS. WELCH: Okay, this is Exhibit 1 8 4 4 6. 1 9 (Plaintiff's Deposition 2 0 Exhibit 446 marked for 2 1 identification.) 2 2 MS. WELCH: I'm showing this to 2 3 counsel for Monsanto. 24 MS. WELCH: Exhibit 446 is 2 5 identified with a stamp TRAN 060812, and it's GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 15 8 HARTOLDMONO010883 1 a one-page document that appears to be from 2 W. P. Papageorge to Mr. Savage. 3 (Witness peruses said 4 document.) 5 BY MS. WELCH: 6 Q . In this memo to you, Mr. 7 Papageorge asks you to see that the plants 8 order their supply of the labels and 9 immediately begin using them on the new 1 0 packaged Aroclors. Did you implement his 1 1 suggestion? 1 2 A. Yes. 1 3 Q. Okay, did you put it on all -- did 1 4 you make sure that you -- the labels appeared 1 5 on all Aroclor products? 1 6 A. Well, I gave thoseinstructions. 1 7 I didn't do it myself. 1 8 Q. Okay, who did you give the 1 9 instructions to? 2 0 A . Well , t o the plant people . 2 1 Q And who were the pi ant people? 2 2 A . Well , I ' m not sure I can tell you 2 3 by name, but it would have been production 24 person, the production person at each plant 2 5 that was responsible for, for GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 159 HARTOLDMONO010884 I 1 Aroc1or-containing products that were 2 packaged. 3 Q. Do you know if you memorialized 4 those instructions in any writing or were 5 they oral instructions? 6 A. I really don't know. 7 Q. Was your general practice at that 8 time to communicate orally or to issue 9 written instructions? 1 0 A. No, I -- my general practice would 1 1 have been to just make xerox copies of this 1 2 to the plant people and, with a written 1 3 instruction to let's get on with it. 1 4 Q. Okay, and that went to all plant 1 5 people who -- at the plants which produced 1 6 Aroclors? 1 7 A. Well, I don't remember the 1 8 specific memo, so exactly what I did, I don't 1 9 know, but in some routine way, I'm sure I 2 0 gave instructions to all the plants. 21 Q. Okay, and didthat include the 22 plants that blended the Aroclors, as well, 2 3 into final products? 24 A. Yes. ' 2 5 Q. Do you notice, do you have any GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 160 HARTOLDMONO010885 1 idea of what happened after that? Did anyone 2 report back to you on whether this plan had 3 been carried out? 4 A. Well, I observed personally they 5 had been carried out. I'm fairly confident 6 that we did. 7 Q. How did you observe it personally? 8 A. I visited the plants regularly. 9 Just in touring around through the 1 0 operations, I would observe all kinds of 1 1 things, including how we're packaging 1 2 products. . 1 3 Q. So it would be a spot check on 1 4 your part? 1 5 A . Yes. 1 6 Q Were you confident that this label 1 7 was put on all final products? 1 8 A . Yes. 1 9 Q Okay. Would it surprise you if I 2 0 told you that this label didn't appear on the 2 1 Turbinol product? 2 2 A . Yes. 2 3 MS. WELCH: This is Exhibit 447. 2 4 (Plaintiff's Deposition 2 5 Exhibit 447 marked for GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 161 HARTOLDMONO010886 1 identification.) 2 BY MS. WELCH: 3 Q. First, I have one more question, 4 one last question on the Aroclor labels. 5 MS. SIMERLY: Yeah, go ahead. 6 MS. WELCH: I thought you had a 7 question, too. 8 MS. SIMERLY: Okay, just pulling 9 it out. 1 0 BY MS. WELCH: 1 1 Q. My question is, did you have a 1 2 specific time frame on when this was supposed 1 3 to be accomplished? This is dated April 1 4 30th, 1970. 1 5 A. It was to be done immediately; as 1 6 soon as the labeled arrived, they should be 1 7 used. 1 8 Q. Okay, Exhibit 447 is a one-page 1 9 document with a date of April 7th, 1970, from 2 0 P. G. Benignus to D. A. Olson, and Mr. Savage 2 1 is on the distribution list. 2 2 (Witness peruses said 2 3 document.) 2 4 MS. WELCH: The identifying stamp, 25 amongst others, is T 091821. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 162 HARTOLDMONO010887 1 (Witness peruses said 2 document. 3 BY MS . WELCH: 4 Q. Okay, do you recall this meeting 5 with Westinghouse? 6 A. I remember several such meetings 7 with customers on this kind of topic. I 8 don't remember this particular one. 9 Q. Okay, which meetings, which 1 0 customers do you recall meeting with? 1 1 A. Well, I remember meeting with 1 2 General Electric and probably with one or two 1 3 others, but I, the only one I remember 1 4 specifically is General Electric. 1 5 Q. Do you remember when the meeting 1 6 with General Electric occurred? 1 7 A. No, but it would have been in the 1 8 same time frame; within a couple of months, I 1 9 would say. 2 0 Q. Do you recall who else from 2 1 Monsanto attended that meeting? 2 2 A. Papageorge and Benignus, and some 2 3 technical people, but I can't be more 2 4 specific than that. 2 5 Q. Do you recall what was said about GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 16 3 HARTOLDMONO010888 1 the PCB problem at this meeting with GE? I'm 2 not referring to this document anymore, 3 because you have no recollection of that. 4 A. These were pretty practical 5 working-1eve1 meetings. It was, we discussed 6 things like sampling techniques and control 7 procedures. 8 Q. By control procedures, do you mean 9 control of the Aroclors? 1 0 A . Right. 1 1 Q. Do you recall if you informed GE 1 2 at this meeting that the PCB would be 1 3 withdrawn? 14 A. I wouldn't think so. The decision 1 5 to withdraw Aroclor from electrical 1 6 applications was considerably later. 1 7 Q. Was considerably later? 1 8 A. Yes. 1 9 Q. So you wouldn't have informed them 2 0 at this time because it wasn't a 2 1 consideration? 2 2 A. Not that the products would be 2 3 completely withdrawn from the market, no, 2 4 because it wasn't done in this time frame. 2 5 Q. Was GE a user of the -- did t.hey GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 164 HARTOLDMONO010889 -.fi 1 use them for transformers 2 A . Both. 3 Q Okay, so were 4 MCS 1016 ? 5 A . Yes . 6 Q Do you recall 7 discussi on of MCS 1016 at 8 A . I don't -- no, 9 when we first described it to G E. I would 1 0 not have been involved in telling G E ft b o U t 1 1 that , anyway. 1 2 Q. Why would you have attended a 1 3 meeting with GE? 1 4 A. To share some practical experience 1 5 at the plant, to the degree it might be 1 6 applicable to their own situation. 1 7 Q. Didthey blend their own products, 1 8 using the Aroclors? 19 A. I think they did.I don't know it 2 0 for a fact. Obviously, what we shipped is 2 1 what we shipped, but I think they did. 2 2 Q. Okay, do you know what you shipped 2 3 to them? 24 A. We shipped GE, Aroclor 1242 --I'm 2 5 really speaking from Anniston plant GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 165 HARTOLDMONO010890 i 1 experience when I was a production person -- 2 we shipped 1242, 1254. I think 1260. 3 Q. So you didn't ship them a blended 4 product, but rather, the straight Aroclors? 5 A. We made the Pyranols, some of the 6 Pyranols which were General Electric blends, 7 but what exactlywe shipped to General 8 Electric, I'm not sure. I suppose we shipped 9 those things to General Electric. 1 0 Q. What was the primary Aroclor in 1 1 Pyranol? 1 2 A. Well, we used the term "Pyranol" 1 3 to imply blends that were used in 1 4 transformers, and the Aroclors that were used 1 5 in those blends were 1254 and 1260, and one 1 6 of those was predominantly General Electric 1 7 and one was predominantly Westinghouse, but I 1 8 don't remember which was which. 1 9 Q. The predominant Aroclor used in a 20 capacitor was 1242? 2 1 A. Right. Right, almost exclusively. 2 2 MS. WELCH: Please mark this as 2 3 Exhibit 44 8 . 2 4 . (Plaintiff's Deposition 2 5 Exhibit 448 marked for GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST . LOUIS , MISSOURI ' 16 6 HARTOLDMONO010891 I 1 identification. ) 2 MS. WELCH: Exhibit 448 is a 3 multipage document bearing -- it's a 4 handwritten document bearing Bates stamp TRAN 5 066864 to 066870, and first of all, do you 6 recognize this handwriting? 7 A. No. It's not mine. 8 Q. Okay. Have you ever seen this 9 before? 1 0 A . I don't recognize it. 1 1 Q Does this document look familiar 1 2 to you as a kind of document that you know 1 3 about? 1 4 A . No . 11 seems to b e a res e a r c h 1 5 document, j u s t because "OR" i s used on the 1 6 designation o f the samples, and that means 1 7 Organic Res e a r c h . 1 8 Q And you are referring to 1 9 "Subject," where it says "OR 173711"? 2 0 A . And so forth, yes. 2 1 Q. And "OR" refers to Organic 2 2 Research; i s that correct, sir? Is that 2 3 correct? 2 4 A . That's my recollection. 2 5 Q Turning to Page 5 of the document GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 16 7 HARTOLDMONO010892 1 which is TRAN 066868, under the date 2-8-71, 2 or across from there is a subject which 3 refers to "Summary of Agway work - part of," 4 and there is a list, your name is on that 5 list, what is Agway? Do you know? 6 A. It's a company, but I don't know 7 anything about it. 8 Q. Do you know whether it's a company 9 at which some PCBs were found in any 1 0 material? 1 1 A. I don't know. 1 2 Q . No idea; okay. 1 3 MS. WELCH: This is Exhibit 449. 1 4 (Plaintiff's Deposition 1 5 Exhibit 449 marked for 1 6 identification.) 1 7 MS. WELCH: Exhibit 449 is a 1 8 two-page document bearing the stamp TRAN 1 9 085106, dated September 20th, 1971, from 2 0 W. R. Richard to C. W. Roos, R-o-o-s, and Mr. 2 1 Savage is listed as one of the recipients 2 2 MS. WELCH: I might note for the 2 3 record that the second page of the document 2 4 is not Bates stamped in sequence. It's Bates 2 5 stamped TRAN 0851106789. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 16 8 HARTOLDMONO010893 1 THE WITNESS : And it doesn't 2 appear to be the same subject matter, either. 3 MS. WELCH: I don't know - 4 THE WITNESS: I don't understand 5 why these are attached to one another. 6 MS . WELCH : I don't know, either . 7 BY MS . WELCH: 8 Q . Who is Mr . Roos, R-o-o-s? 9 A . Bill R o o s was a research director 1 0 I think he had some broad oversight 1 1 responsibility, which included Bill Richard's 1 2 activities . 1 3 Q Do you know if he is still alive? 1 4 A . I think so. but I don't know. 1 5 Q I s he still at Monsanto? 1 6 A. I don't think so. 1 7 Q. Were you aware that Turbinol 153 1 8 was an exception to the reformulation of 1 9 chlorinated biphenyls from Pydrauls? 2 0 A . No . 2 1 Q* So I take from that you have no 2 2 idea why that exception was made? 2 3 A . No . 24 Q On the next page , which, as you 2 5 said , doesn't seem to bear any relationship GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 16 9 HARTOLDMONO010894 1 to the first page but is, nonetheless, 2 stapled together, what is this document? Do 3 you know? Is it a familiar document to you? 4 I mean the form of the document. 5 A. It's some kind of shipping 6 document, but it's not anything that I have 7 ever worked with routinely. 8 Q. Okay, do you have any idea why 9 Turbinol 15 3, w hic h this document s e e m s to 1 0 refer to, is being shipped to the S a w - G E T 1 1 (Phonetic ) plant? 1 2 A . S a w - J A Y (Phonetic). 1 3 Q Or the Sauget plant? 1 4 A . No . 1 5 Q Do you have any idea whe ther there 1 6 is any transfer of production of th is product 1 7 at this time? 1 8 A . No . I don't know where -- I don't 1 9 remember where we blended Turbinol 153. It 2 0 may have been the Krummrich plant, but I 2 1 don't know. 2 2 MS. SIMERLY: There's a date 72. 2 3 MS. WELCH: Yes, the date appears 2 4 to be December 2 5-th,' 1972. 2 5 BY MS. WELCH: GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 17 0 HARTOLDMONO010895 1 Q Was this, as far as you know 2 subsequent to the termination of the 3 production of Turbinol 153? 4 A . I think so. 5 Q. And you have no idea why the 6 shipping was taking place? 7 I can only speculate. I don't 8 know. 9 Q. I don't want your speculation. 1 0 MS. WELCH: See, I'm doing your 1 1 work for you. 1 2 MS. SIMERLY: I appreciate it, 1 3 Dana. 1 4 MS. WELCH: Okay, Exhibit 450. 1 5 (Plaintiff's Deposition 1 6 Exhibit 450 marked for 17 identification. ) 1 8 MS. WELCH: Exhibit 450 bears a 1 9 couple of distinguishing identification 20 marks, including BIR 007996, and the last 2 1 number is BIR 008008. It's a multipage 2 2 document from Mr. Papageorge to a number of 2 3 people including Mr. Savage, dated October 6, 2 4 1970. . 2 5 MS. SIMERLY: Can I make an GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 17 1 HARTOLDMONO010896 1 interruption first and make an observation? 2 I think this is, in fact, in sequence. The 3 number 4 -- 4 MS. WELCH: What are you referring 5 to? 6 MS . SIMERLY: I'm referring to the 7 second page of document, Exhibit 4 4 9 . The 8 number 4 in t h e right lower corner suggests 9 to me that that's the fourth of a series of 1 0 copies of the identical document, and if you 1 1 look at TRAN 085106 and 085110, if there had, 1 2 indeed, been three other carbons of this 1 3 document, 1, 2, 3 and 4, that could account 1 4 for the number. It doesn't make a whole lot 1 5 of sense to me, either, but the 1, 2, 3 and 4 1 6 would have been absolute duplicates. I don't 1 7 know. 1 8 MS. WELCH: Well, if I could 1 9 request -- 2 0 THE WITNESS: Now you are 21 speculating. 2 2 MS . WELCH : Yes , that's 2 3 speculation, and you haven't been sworn, in 2 4 either. 25 MS. SIMERLY I'm just trying to GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 17 2 HARTOLDMONO010897 I 1 help out, Dana. 2 MS. WELCH: I appreciate that, but 3 if I could ask you, Miss Simerly, if you 4 could check why there is missing Bates stamp 5 numbers between 106 and 110, I would 6 appreciate that. 7 MS. SIMERLY: Sure. It's on my 8 notes to myself right there. 9 MS. WELCH: On the list of things 10 to do; good, ! 1 1 (Discussion off the record.) 1 2 MS. WELCH: Okay, back on the 1 3 record. 1 4 BY MS. WELCH: 1 5 Q. Okay, I'm going to ask you a few 1 6 questions about this document, and again, if 17 you'd like to take the time to read it, if 1 8 not, we can go through the sentences that are 19 of most interest. 2 0 A. Go ahead. 2 1 Q. The first sentence says, 2 2 "Performance against the PCB plan was 2 3 reviewed with the CMC on September 14." Were 2 4 you present at the meeting with the CMC on 2 5 September 14th? GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 17 3 * HARTOLDMONO010898 1 A . No . 2 Q. Please read to yourself the 3 sentence which begins with "However, it was 4 emphasized" in that paragraph. 5 (Witness peruses said 6 document . ) 7 BY MS. WELCH: 8 Q. Okay, did you have any contacts 9 with customers in the normal course of your 1 0 business? 1 1 A. Not in the normal course of my 1 2 responsibilities. It was only in the -- in a 1 3 special meeting like the one we described 1 4 earlier with GE. 1 5 Q. Okay. Were you aware of this 1 6 general policy of fully documenting warnings 1 7 to customers at this time? 1 8 A. I was generally aware of that, but 1 9 since it was not part of implementing of 2 0 that, I wouldn't -- I would not have have 21 been involved in a significant way. 2 2 Q. Okay, in paragraph 2, where it 2 3 says, "Two variances from the original plan," 24 at paragraph 2, it says, "It was recognized 25 that good progress is being made in , GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 17 4 HARTOLDMONO010899 1 reformulating industrial hydraulic fluids and 2 that it was not easy to completely replace 3 PCBs with alternate material." What was your 4 understanding of why it was not easy to 5 replace the PCBs with alternate material? 6 A. PCBs are fairly remarkable and 7 unique materials. They are unusual in that 8 they are so stable and fire resistant and yet 9 fluid, decent lubricants. It is very 1 0 difficult to find another material that has 1 1 that balance of properties. 1 2 Q. Do you know if there was any 1 3 problem with discovering that there were 1 4 traces of PCBs in the terphenyl reformulated 1 5 Pydrauls? 1 6 A. Well, we did realize that there 1 7 was, that there was chlorinated biphenyl in 1 8 the chlorinated terphenyl, just because there 1 9 was some biphenyl in the terphenyl. 2 0 Q. Did you realize that at the time 2 1 that the Pydrauls were originally 2 2 reformulated, or did you find that out later? 2 3 A. It was an interesting issue in 24 that the question was simply not raised. We 2 5 were in such a hurry to reformulate, to move GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 17 5 HARTOLDMONO010900 1 toward terphenyls, that no one stopped to 2 ask , "Is there any biphenyl at all in it?" 3 Once the question was asked, the answer was 4 readily answered. 5 Q. Did that have anything to do with 6 the decision to reformulatethe Pydrauls a 7 second time? 8 A. The decision to reformulate the 9 second time happened for two reasons. One 1 0 was that the phosphate esters were ready by 1 1 then, or at least getting ready, and the 1 2 other was that there was a feeling that if we 1 3 wanted to be able to say that the products 1 4 were totally free of PCBs, we were unable to 1 5 make that, that statement. ' 1 6 Q. And when were the phosphate esters 17 ready, approximately? 1 8 A. Oh, I don't remember. It was 1 9 another rush project. 2 0 Q. Okay, turning to the paragraph 2 1 under "Marketing," the statement is made 2 2 that, "Our distributors are well on their way 23 to zero inventories of the Aroclors . " And 2 4 that's on Page 2. Excuse me. 2 5 MS. SIMERLY: Where is that on GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 17 6 HARTOLDMONO010901 1 Page 2 ? 2 MS. WELCH: Under the marketing, 3 it's the second sentence under "Marketing," 4 or the third sentence. 5 THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. 6 (Witness peruses said 7 document.) 8 BY MS. WELCH: 9 Q. Were the blended products made for 1 0 inventories, or were they produced on a batch 1 1 basis, as a general rule? 1 2 A. Yes. 1 3 Q. Yes? The answer to that is yes. 1 4 Okay? 1 5 A. They are made batch-wise, but 1 6 some, some products, and particularly certain 1 7 Pydrauls, were used by a number of smaller 1 8 companies, and it would be impractical to 1 9 make, to order in, so we would hold an 2 0 inventory of drum product. Some blends, for 2 1 instance, transformer for General Electric, 2 2 were shipped in bulk and would be made to 2 3 GE's orders . 2 4 Q. Okay. Do you know what the -- 2 5 whether Turbinol 153 was made to batch? GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI . 1?7 HARTOLDMONO010902 1 A. I don't remember. 2 Q. Is there any way of ascertaining 3 that? 4 A . On 1 y from inventory records. 5 Turbinol 153 was a relatively small product 6 and you won ' t -- it would be hard to find 7 anyone who would remember exactly what our 8 production plant was. 9 0 Why do you say that it was a 1 0 relatively small product? 1 1 A. My recollection is it's a small 1 2 volume compared to the Pydraul family, which 1 3 we considered to be the total industrial 1 4 fluids business. 1 5 Q. Could you estimate what percentage 1 6 of the Pydraul business it was? 1 7 A. I have no idea. I'm sure it's 1 8 somewhere in our records, but I don't 1 9 remember. 2 0 Q. Was there a general practice of, 2 1 during this period of reformulation when the 2 2 new products were coming out, for instance, 2 3 reformulated Pydrauls, to your knowledge, was 2 4 there a practice of selling out the existing 2 5 inventory before there was the beginning of GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 17 8 HARTOLDMONO010903 i 1 the sale of the new product? 2 A. It was pretty carefully 3 orchestrated, in that we wanted to have a 4 clear ending and beginning, partly because 5 when we introduced the new products, it would 6 be necessary to shut down the equipment for 7 awhile and clean it out to make sure that the 8 new beginning of the new product was very 9 precise and that newproduct was just the new 1 0 product and it didn't have any of the old 1 1 product mixed with it, so we would plan 1 2 fairly carefully so that the inventory would 1 3 be down to zero or as close to zero as we 1 4 could get it when the new production became 1 5 available, but it wasn't exactly a matter of 1 6 selling out inventory, it was more a matter 1 7 of planning. We would set a target date for 1 8 when we would start the new product and then 1 9 we would plan production of the old one so 2 0 that the inventory would run down by then. 21 Q. Turning to Page 3, under "N-C 2 2 phosphate" -- 2 3 A . Yes. 2 4 Q What does this indicate to you 2 5 the process was in terms of getting it GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 17 9 HARTOLDMONO010904 1 ready for a production run? And this is 2 in -- 3 A . October? 4 Q October 1970. 5 A . It's not completely consistent 6 with the document we talked about earlier 7 that spoke of pilot plant. Bench scale 8 usually means laboratory, something smaller 9 than pilot plant, but proving it out in the 1 0 EE Building, the EE Building was the full1 1 scale production plant, and so that 1 2 represents a full-scale demonstration in a 1 3 production plant, rather than a pilot plant, 1 4 so it appears that there's been some switch 1 5 in nomenclature between the two documents 1 6 we've talked about, and I don't know which 1 7 one is right. 1 8 Q. On Page 5, under "Industrial 1 9 hydraulics," there is a statement, "The 2 0 removal of Aroclor 1242 from all Pydrauls 2 1 will require a reformulation," and there's a 2 2 variety of products, including MCS 153. Is 2 3 it your understanding that MCS 153 and 2 4 Turbinol 153 were different nomenclature for 2 5 the same product? GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 18 0 HARTOLDMONO010905 I 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Okay. Do you know whatever 3 happened to the reformulation of MCS 153? 4 A . No . 5 Q. The next paragraph - 6 A. My recollection is that we did 7 them all, but I can't tell you anything 8 specific about one product. 9 Q. The next sentence in the first -- 1 0 the first, next paragraph, first sentence, 1 1 "It will be desirable to make a hydraulic 1 2 fluid applications into a closed loop 1 3 system." What does "closed loop system" mean 1 4 to you? 1 5 A. Well, closed loop implies that 1 6 it's a system which, even though it involves 1 7 some circulation of fluid, there is nothing 18 getting out. , 1 9 Q. Well, the next sentence says, "We 2 0 cannot expect to stop leaks but we can expect 2 1 to minimize contamination of water by," 2 2 there's a number of suggestions. So does 2 3 that, looking at that, does that help refresh 2 4 your recollection about how to make -- about 2 5 what a closed loop system meant? GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 18 1 HARTOLDMONO010906 1 A. Well, I think it means basically 2 what it says: It's closed, that there aren ' t 3 any, any pathways for fluid to routinely 4 leave the system. 5 Q. But the sentence says that, "We 6 cannot expect to stop leaks ," so that would 7 mean that it's not a closed system; correct ? 8 A. That's a rather pessimistic 9 statement, I guess. 1 0 Q. Do you disagree with that 1 1 statement? 1 2 A. In the abstract , I don't disagree 1 3 with it, but good practices can certainly 1 4 minimize leaks. 1 5 MS. WELCH: This is document 451. 1 6 I'm showing a copy to counsel for 1 7 Monsanto . 1 8 (Plaintiff's Deposition 1 9 Exhibit 451 marked for 2 0 identification.) 21 BY MS. WELCH: 2 2 Q. Document 451 is a multipage 2 3 document bearing the identifying figure of 2 4 TRAN 003508 to 11, and it's just, it's dated 2 5 October 1971 from Howard Bergen to a number GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 18 2 HARTOLDMONO010907 1 of people, including Mr. Savage, and please 2 turn to the first page of the text, under 3 "Hydraulics and Lubricants," and read to 4 yourself the second paragraph. 5 (Witness peruses said 6 document . ) 7 BY MS. WELCH: 8 Q. Were you aware at the time -- and 9 this is October 1971 -- that Monsanto was 10 still actively selling Turbinol153 that had 1 1 not been reformulated? 1 2 A. No, but this is, this is a 1 3 marketing report for the month, and Tom 1 4 Gossage is reporting to his boss what our 1 5 sales were. Since he calls it Turbinol 153, 1 6 it sounds like it's an unreformu1 ated 1 7 version, but I don't have any recollections 1 8 about that. 1 9 Q Did you need to know what the 20 sales were i n order to project production? 2 1 A . Not after the fact. I needed a 2 2 sales forecast . If it had been sold, I must 2 3 have made it already. 24 MS. WELCH: This is document 452. 2 5 (Plaintiff's Deposition . GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 18 3 HARTOLDMONO010908 1 Exhibit 452 marked for 2 identification.) 3 BY MS. WELCH: 4 Q. Document 452 is a three-page 5 document bearing the identifying figure TRAN 6 003080 to 082. It's dated 10/4/71, and the 7 title on it is "Department 259," and it 8 appears to be a document about the mix of 9 Turbinol 153. 1 0 Does this document look familiar 1 1 to you? 1 2 A. Not really. It's a plant 1 3 document. It would have been used within the 1 4 Krummrich plant to record the making of a 1 5 blend . 1 6 MS. SIMERLY: Do you see his name 17 anywhereon this? 1 8 MS. WELCH: No, his name is not on 19 it . 2 0 MS . SIMERLY: Okay . 2 1 MS. WELCH: But it's a production 2 2 document, so I assume it's a production 2 3 document. 2 4 BY MS. WELCH: 2 5 Q. So this reflects the making of a GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 18 4 HARTOLDMONO010909 i 1 blend of Turbinol 153? 2 A. Well, number one mix tank was a 3 blend tank at Krummrich that was associated 4 with the Aroclor Department. 5 Q. Can you tell from this document 6 what quantity of Turbinol 153 is being mixed 7 here? 8 A. Well, it would take a bit of 9 interpretation. 1 0 Q. No, I don't want you to spend a 1 1 lot of time on it. It's not a very important 1 2 point. 1 3 Is there anything on this document 1 4 which indicates to you that as of October 1 5 19 7 1, at least, this mix of Turbinol 153 had 1 6 had the PCBs formulated out of them? 1 7 A. One of the components that's shown 1 8 here on the bill of materials is 1242, so 1 9 presumably, that's Aroclor. 2 0 Q. So the Aroclor has not been 2 1 reformulated out of this mix? 2 2 A. That's what this document tells 23 me . 2 4 MS.. WELCH: This is Exhibit 453. 2 5 (Plaintiff's Deposition GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 18 5 HARTOLDMONO010910 I 1 Exhibit 453 marked for 2 identification. ) 3 MS. WELCH: Okay, Exhibit 453 is a 4 one-page document that bears a stamp TRAN 5 003085. It's from a Mr. Dykstra -- 6 A . DYKE-stra . 7 Q . Dykstra to Don Mayer, and it has 8 Jim Savage's name up in the left-hand corner, 9 written in handwriting. And at the bottom, 1 0 it says "F.Y.I. Earl." 1 1 (Witness peruses said 1 2 document . } 1 3 BY MS . WELCH: 1 4 Q. Do you recall seeing this document 1 5 before? ' 1 6 ' A. No . 1 7 Q. Who is Earl? 1 8 A. Earl is Earl Potter. That's his 1 9 handwriting . 20 Q. What's his position or was his 21 position? 2 2 A. Earl Potter was our production 2 3 planner at the general office who gave 24 instructions on production plans to the 2 5 production plan people at the plants, and Don GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 18 6 HARTOLDMON0010911 .I 1 Mayer was the production planner at the 2 Krummrich plant. Bob Dykstra was the 3 production planner at the Queeny plant. 4 Q. Do you know why production of 5 Turbinol 153 had been transferred to the 6 Krummrich plant at this time? 7 A. I wouldn't know. I didn't even 8 know it was formulated or I didn't remember 9 where it was, where it was blended. 1 0 Q. Okay. Do you know why this 1 1 product was still being produced in November 1 2 19 7 1? 13 MS. SIMERLY: Well, now, I'mgoing 1 4 to object. I think that assumes facts not in 1 5 evidence. 1 6 BY MS. WELCH: 1 7 Q. I direct your attention to the 1 8 last paragraph, which says, "It is also 1 9 requestedthat you order this material" - 2 0 which refers to FH-139, which is an additive 2 1 in the Turbinol 153 formulation, "to be sent 2 2 to your plant and retain it for future 2 3 MCS-153 production." And I direct your 2 4 attention also to the first paragraph, which 25 says, "Production of Turbinol 153 has been GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 187 HARTOLDMON0010912 I 1 transferred t o the WGK plant , " and m y 2 question t o you is, do you know why - - 3 A . Bob, in f a c t , it' s kind o f 4 ambiguous in this lett e r bee a u s e in the 5 middle paragraph, he says that, "Plan either 6 to blend it off or incinerate it, based on 7 direction from the Business Group," so the 8 destiny of this small inventory apparently 9 had not been decided at that time, which is 1 0 not exactly consistent with continuing to 1 1 make it. 1 2 BY MS. WELCH: 1 3 Q Is this a small inventory that i s 1 4 referred to here? 1 5 A . Yes. 1 6 Q Why do you call it a small 17 inventory? 1 8 A. Well, two drums and six five- 1 9 gallon -- 55-pound cans, in industrial terms, 2 0 is not much stuff. 2 1 Q. Okay. So -- but you have no 2 2 independent recollection of whetherthere 2 3 were plans still to produce the Aroclor -- 2 4 the Turbinol 153 at this time? 2 5 A. No . . GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 18 8 HARTOLDMON0010913 1 Q. Do you know who was responsible 2 for the development of the phosphate esters? 3 MS. SIMERLY: Do you mean a 4 person, as opposed to a department? 5 BY MS. WELCH: 6 Q. If there was a person who was 7 responsible for the development of phosphate 8 esters. 9 A. Well, in research, that 1 0 responsibility ultimately was Bill Richard's, 11 but he had two, two group leaders involved. 1 2 Lou Stark was the expert on, on formulation 1 3 of fluids in performance testing. John 1 4 Herber (Phonetic) was responsible for process 1 5 development, and the development of the 1 6 process to make the N-C phosphate was done 1 7 under John Herber. 1 8 Q. So he would develop the actual 1 9 implementation of the process? 2 0 A. Well, the phosphate ester base 21 stock was needed before the new phosphate 2 2 ester fluids could be developed, so John 2 3 developed a process to make that base stock, 2 4 and then Lou Stark developed the blends based 2 5 on that base stock in the formulations. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 18 9 HARTOLDMON0010914 1 MS. WELCH: Would you please mark 2 this as Exhibit 454? 3 (Plaintiff's Deposition 4 Exhibit 454 marked for 5 identification.) 6 MS. WELCH: Exhibit 454 is a 7 multipage document bearing theidentifying 8 marks of TRAN 002492 to TRAN 002508 dated 9 December 8, 1971, from C. L. Bradford and 1 0 J. H. Davidson to T. L. Gossage, and Mr. 1 1 Savage is listed as on the distribution list. 1 2 BY MS . WELCH : 1 3 Q. Okay, I'm going to ask you very 1 4 specific questions, so maybe we can just turn 1 5 our attention to specific paragraphs. 1 6 The second paragraph says, "Our 1 7 position is changing," and then I want to 1 8 skip to a line which says, "This leaves us 1 9 with a line of resale water glycol fluids 20 available now, a straight phosphate ester 21 available shortly, and a lower cost 2 2 oi1-phosphate ester blend promised for the 2 3 first quarter of 1972." 2 4 What are resale water glycol 2 5 fluids? GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 19 0 HARTOLDMON0010915 1 A . There's a completely different 2 kind of industrial hydraulic fluid which is a 3 blend of water and glycols. I think e t h y 1 e n e 4 glycol , it's' almost like antifreeze. They ' r e 5 very low cost and they can be fire resistant 6 if they are maintained correctly, but they're 7 more troublesome for a customer at a very low 8 cost, and we did not make those materials 9 ourselves. We bought them from somebody else 1 0 and put our label on them and sold them. 1 1 Q. Okay. Does this document refresh 1 2 your recollection about the state of 1 3 production of phosphate ester in December 1 4 19 7 1? 1 5 A. Well, ithelps to define the time 1 6 parameters . 1 7 Q. How so? 1 8 A. Well, just from the context, we 1 9 had not yet introduced a phosphate ester 2 0 fluid, but apparently, we were going to do so 21 pretty soon. 2 2 Q. Okay, and how about the lower cost 2 3 oil-phosphate ester blend? What is that? 2 4 A. That was simply formulation, the 2 5 kind of thing that Lou Stark did. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 19 1 HARTOLDMON0010916 1 Q. Do you know what applications that 2 was for? 3 A. I don't remember, but we did 4 introduce oil-phosphate ester blends. 5 Q. Page 3. Under "Capacity," do you 6 see that paragraph that says "Capacity"? 7 A . Hmm. 8 Q. There's a reference to the new 9 phosphate ester plant. Do you remember a new 1 0 phosphate ester plant? 1 1 A. Well, we never built a new 1 2 phosphate ester plant. 1 3 Q. Where was phosphate ester 1 4 ultimately produced? 1 5 A. We had existing phosphate.ester 1 6 facilities at the Queeny plant and also at 1 7 the Delaware River plant in New Jersey. When 1 8 we, in fact, made the N-C phosphate, we made 1 9 it by adding some equipment to the phosphate 2 0 ester plant at Queeny. It was not a new 2 1 plant. 2 2 Q. Turning to Appendix F on the page 2 3 that's stamped TRAN 002504, I note that there 2 4 are two Appendix F's, but this is the first 2 5 Appendix F, which says, "1972 Financial GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 19 2 HARTOLDMON0010917 1 Results," and it says -- are we all on the 2 same page, where it says TRAN 002504? Okay, 3 is this a sales forecast? 4 A. It's a budget. It's -- to be a 5 sales forecast would require a little more 6 detail by month, and so forth. It's kind of 7 a generalized forecast for budget purposes. 8 Q. Okay, would you base your 9 production on figures like this? 1 0 A. No, I would, I would expect more 1 1 detail for production purposes. 1 2 Q. Now, this document is dated 1 3 December 1971, so this is some kind of sales 1 4 forecast for 1972; do you agree? 1 5 A. Yes, or perhaps a summary of the 1 6 sales forecast. 1 7 Q. Okay. Directing your attention to 1 8 about halfway down, it says, "Turbinol 153" 1 9 and it lists volumes, sales, and gross 2 0 profit . 2 1 Does this indicate to you that 2 2 there's an expectation of production of 2 3 Turbinol 153 for the coming year? 2 4 MS. SIMERLY: I'm going to object 2 5 at this point. This is a document that was GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 19 3 HARTOLDMON0010918 i 1 prepared by Jerry Davidson and Larry 2 Bradford. Mr. Bradford, I know, was deposed 3 two days ago. Mr. Savage had absolutely no 4 input into this, and I think asking for his 5 interpretation of Mr. Bradford and Mr. 6 Davidson's inclusion of Turbinol 153 in this 7 list is just inappropriate. He can answer 8 the question, but I do want an objection on 9 the record. 1 0 BY M S . WELCH: . 1 1 Q. Okay, do you remember the 1 2 question? 1 3 A. Maybe you better state it again. 1 4 MS . SIMERLY: Sorry. 1 5 MS. WELCH: That's okay. Just 1 6 doing your job. 1 7 THE COURT REPORTER: 1 8 "Q. Okay. Directing your 1 9 attention to about halfway down, it says, 2 0 "Turbinol 153" and it lists volumes, sales, 2 1 and gross profit. 2 2 "Does this indicate to you that 2 3 there's an expectation of production of 2 4 Turbinol 153 for the coming year?" 2 5 MS. SIMERLY: Same objection. GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 19 4 HARTOLDMON0010919 1 A. Well, it says the writer is 2 expected to sell something. Presumably, that 3 meant that somebody was going to make 4 someth] ri g . 5 BY MS. WELCH: 6 Q. Okay. 7 A. But I don't know how to draw any 8 further conclusion than that. 9 MS. WELCH: Okay. This is Exhibit 1 0 4 5 5. 1 1 (Plaintiff's Deposition 1 2 Exhibit 455 marked for 1 3 identification.) 1 4 MS. WELCH: Exhibit 455 1 5 is a multipage document bearing the stamp 1 6 TRAN 003025 to TRAN 003035, and it's from Mr. 1 7 Papageorge to a number of recipients 1 8 including Mr. Savage. It's dated February 19 10th, 1972, and it's entitled PCB/PCT Action 20 Plan." 21 I'd like to turn your attention to 2 2 Page 4 of this document, under the title, 2 3 "Turbinol . " 2 4 Do. you recall being aware that an 2 5 alternative fluid was being presented to GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 19 5 HARTOLDMONO010920 i 1 Texas Eastern on January 31st, 1972? 2 A. I have no idea. 3 Q. Okay. Would that be something 4 that you would know in the normal course of 5 your business? 6 MS. SIMERLY: That he would have 7 known back then? 8 MS. WELCH: Yes, that he would 9 have known back then that would have been 1 0 important to you to know. 1 1 A. If a new product introduction was 1 2 being proposed, I would generally know about 13 it . 1 4 BY MS. WELCH: 1 5 Q. Okay. What is Turbinol 30E/50E? 1 6 Do you know? 1 7 A. 30E and 50E were used in 1 8 connection with Pydrauls as designations for 1 9 grades of a 11 -phosphate ester fluid. 2 0 Q. So would this be a phosphate 2 1 fluid? 22 A. I would assume that, from the 2 3 nomenc1 a ture . 2 4 MS. WELCH: I have no further 2 5 questions . GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI ' 19 6 HARTOLDMONO010921 i 1 MS. SIMERLY: I have none. Off 2 the record. 3 MS. WELCH: I assume that you want 4 him to review and sign. 5 MS. SIMERLY: I do. 6 (Whereupon, at 5:00 p.m., the 7 deposition was concluded.) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 197 HARTOLDMON0010922 1 COMES NOW THE WITNESS, JAMES 2 RICHARD SAVAGE, and having read the foregoing 3 transcript of the deposition taken on the 9th 4 day of July, 1992, acknowledges by signature 5 hereto that it is a true and accurate 6 transcript of the testimony given on the date 7 hereinabove mentioned. 8 9 10 1 1 JAMES RICHARD SAVAGE 12 13 1 4 Subscribed and sworn to before me 15 thisday of ____________________ , 1 9 9 2. 16 1 7 My Commission expires: 18 19 20 21 2 2 Notary Public 23 24 25 GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 19 8 HARTOLDMONO010923 t 1 STATE OFMISSOURI ) 2 SS : ) 3 CITY OF ST. LOUIS ) 4 I J. Bryan Jordan, notary public 5 in and for the State of Missouri, duly 6 commissioned, qualified and authorized to 7 administer oaths and to certify depositions, 8 do hereby certify that pursuant to agreement 9 in the civil cause now pending and 1 0 undetermined in the Superior Court of the 1 1 State of California, to be used in the trial 1 2 of said cause in said court, I was attended 1 3 at the offices of Bryan Cave, in the City of 14 St. Louis, State of Missouri, by the 1 5 aforesaid witness and by the aforesaid 1 6 attorneys, on the 9th day of July, 1992. 1 7 The said witness, being of sound 1 8 mind and being by me first carefully examined 1 9 and duly cautioned and sworn to testify the 2 0 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 2 1 truth in the case aforesaid, thereupon 2 2 testified as is shown in the foregoing 2 3 transcript, said testimony being by me 2 4 reported in shorthand and caused to be 2 5 transcribed into typewriting, and that the GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 200 HARTOLDMONO010924 1 foregoing pages correctly set forth the 2 testimony of the aforementioned witness, 3 together with the questions propounded by 4 counsel and remarks and objections thereto, 5 and is in all respects a full, true, correct 6 and complete transcript of the questions 7 propounded to and the answers given by said 8 witness; that signature of the deponent was 9 not waived by agreement of counsel. 1 0 I further certify that I am not of 1 1 counsel or attorney for either of the parties 1 2 to said suit, not related to nor interested 1 3 in any of the parties or their attorneys. 1 4 Witness my hand and notarial seal 1 5 at St. Louis, Missouri, this day of 1 6 ___ , 1992. 1 7 My commission expires July 20, 1 8 1 9 9 4. 19 20 2 1 J. Bryan Jordan 2 2 Notary Public in and for the 2 3 State of Missouri 24 25 GORE REPORTING COMPANY - ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 201 HARTOLDMONO010925