Document rBz1vqmJ7qR0E4KL4eMJbbj9V

STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT BRANCH 8 MILWAUKEE COUNTY STROH DIE CASTING COMPANY, Plaintiff, VOLUME XVI (a.m.) Case No. 639-887 MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant. ^ May 7, 1991 Honorable Michael J. Barron Circuit Judge Presiding A-P-P-E-A-R-A-N-C-E-S RIORDAN, DRIVELLO, CARLSON, MENTKOWSKI, STEEVES by DONALD CARLSON AND JOHN PENDERGAST, appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff. BORGELT, POWELL, PETERSON, FRAUEN by JOSEPH McDEVITT and KIRKLAND AND ELLIS by ANDREW RUNNING appeared on behalf of the Defendant. *** Brown & Jones Reporting, Inc. 312 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 400 Milwaukee, WI 53202 PHONE (414) 224-9533 2661 WATER PCB-SD0000075149 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX WITNESS William Papageorge EXAMINATION Direct (Mr. Running) 2662 PAGE 2663 WATER PCB-SD0000075150 i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S MR. RUNNING: Good morning. Monsanto recalls Mr. William Papageorge. DIRECT EXAMINATION (con't) BY MR. RUNNING: Q Mr. Papageorge, you should have in front of you Defendant's Exhibit 1075. A I have it. Q Mr. Papageorge, can you identify this document, please. A It's a multi-page document entitled PCB Environmental Pollution Abatement Plan. I don't see any date on it. Q Okay. Is this one of the documents you reviewed in familiarizing yourself in your job responsibilities as manager of environmental control with Monsanto? A Yes, it is. Q And from reading the document, can you give an estimate of the time at which it was prepared? A Oh, it was done in the latter part of October, 1969. Perhaps even the early part of November, 1969. Q Do you know it was before a certain date? A It was before a meeting held that Monsanto -- On November -- 2663 WATER PCB-SD0000075151 1 Q 2A 3Q 4 5 6 7 A 8Q 9 10 A 11 Q 12 13 14 A 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 November 17th? That's the date, 1969. Mr. Papageorge, showing you the blowup of Defendant's Trial Exhibit 1082, which is the 12-point program you testified to at the start of your testimony on Thursday. I remember it. This came from what meeting? That's the November 17th, 1969, meeting we talked about. Okay. And the document you have in front of you came shortly before the November 17th meeting that resulted in the 12-point plan? Yes, it did. MR. RUNNING: I move for the admission of this document, Your Honor. THE COURT: Which one? MR. CARLSON: Exhibit? MR. RUNNING: 1075. I believe you marked an earlier draft. MR. CARLSON: I have no objection. THE COURT: So received. (Exhibit No. 1075, previously marked for identification, was received into evidence.) MR. RUNNING: 2664 WATER PCB-SD0000075152 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q A Q A Q Is this the first page of the document you've identified, Mr. Papageorge? Yes, it is. If you turn to page four -- page No. 416. I have it. THE COURT: You want the lights or not? MR. RUNNING: I think we have to go through so many documents -- No, Your Honor. I think it is better if we keep the lights on. THE COURT: Let's try two off. MR. RUNNING: Fair enough. Mr. Papageorge, can you still read it? Yes, I can see. THE COURT: Wait a minute. I got the wrong two. MR. RUNNING: Okay. That should work well. Mr. Papageorge, let me direct your attention to the first paragraph. "Analysis indicates the environmental presence of the 5 and higher chlorinated biphenyls which take the appearance of Aroclor 1254 and Aroclor 1260. We have strong indications that Aroclor 1242 or at least part of it degrades biologically. 2665 WATER PCB-SD0000075153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "Since the Aroclor 1242 contains -- it's hard to read there. Something 7 percent of the 5 chlorine biphenyl -- contains around 7 percent or higher we cannot rule out the possibility that the observations may be a concentration affect of the higher chlorinated biphenyls of Aroclor 1242." Do you see that paragraph, Mr. Papageorge? I do. What was your understanding on this matter when you assumed the position of manager of environmental control in January 1970 a month and a half later? I understood that even with the limited information that Monsanto had at the time -- and most of it was starting to come out of the Monsanto laboratory in England -- in Wales specifically -- that it seemed very likely that some of these PCBs were degrading and disappearing. But the higher the chlorine content, the more resistant they were. They were not disappearing. So at that time we thought that perhaps some of the materials that was being identified as Aroclor 1254 and Aroclor 1260 could have come from something like a 1242. But we weren't sure, but we 2666 WATER PCB-SD0000075154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q A Q A Q A thought we better consider that. Was that considered subsequently? Yes, yes. It was, yes. We'll get to that in a moment. The reference, "Since the Aroclor 1242 contains around 7 percent of the 5 chlorine biphenyl or higher, we cannot rule out the possibility..." and so on. What is 7 percent a reference to? That's the amount by weight of the 5 chlorine biphenyls and higher that's present in the original Aroclor 1242 mixture. What was the significance of the 5 chlorine biphenyl molecule, why was that singled out as being the dividing line? Because that is the type of PCB that was determined thus far up to that point as being the kind that didn't disappear. It would stay in the environment. It was persistent. Using the 5 chlorine biphenyl as a dividing line then, how much of the 5 chlorine biphenyl or higher molecules were there in Pydraul 312 at the time? Oh, Pydraul 312 contained Aroclor 1242 at about close to 50 percent, 47, 48. Somewhere in there. Close to 50. So what this says is that the 2667 WATER PCB-SD0000075155 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q A Q A Pydraul 312, the final mixture assuming it's 50 percent Aroclor 1242 and of that 1242, 7 percent is 5 chlorine or more. That tells me that about three-and-a-half percent of the total Pydraul 312 is equivalent to 5 chlorine and higher biphenyl. And what significance does that have? Well, that certainly says that almost 97 percent of that fluid is not the persistent PCB. And the next line, "To date we have no confirmed reports of finding Aroclor 1242 present in the environment except in the effluent of our plants or in the plants -- I'm sorry -- or in streams and mud below our plants at Anniston and Sauget." What was the significance of that finding? That tells us that if a sample of material is taken close to the point where PCBs are introduced and nature hasn't had time to degrade it, the analyst will be able to determine that it's Aroclor 1242. It hasn't had time to degrade into something else. Does that mean it's not biodegradable? No. That means it hasn't had enough time to biodegrade yet. 2668 WATER PCB-SD0000075156 *1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Paragraph three. "Man. There's no harmful effect known to man or other mammals after 40 years of production. Investigations are underway by various sources." What was your understanding when you assumed the position of manager as environmental control for Monsanto in January of 1970 on this subj ect? Well, I was personally familiar with the fact that Monsanto workers that made the PCBs had displayed no harmful effects. And it was true that the material had been made for 40 years and used. In terms of investigations underway, that covers many including Monsanto's animal and bird studies and fish studies that were being made as well as fish studies made by government laboratories. Was Monsanto monitoring the health of its workers? It does, yes. The next paragraph, "Political and Public Emotion. PCBs are falsely linked with DDT because PCBs show up in the analysis for DDT." Mr. Papageorge, could you explain what's being referenced here? Well, this tries to explain the confusion that existed for a period of time, late 1966 to fairly 2669 WATER PCB-SD0000075157 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q A Q late 1969, in which many, many laboratories looking for DDT kept seeing other evidence that some chose to identify as PCBs. And some chose to identify them as other chlorinated chemicals. So that it tries to describe that there were instances where PCBs were identified as PCBs when there was no real evidence. Later it was shown that it was a false identification. Turn to two other parts of this document that were referenced to yesterday. This is from page five of the same document, Mr. Papageorge. Will you turn to page five? I have it. Do you see something Mr. Damiani was read yesterday by Mr. Carlson under Legal Liability, "All customers using the products have not been officially notified about known effects nor do our labels carry this information." Mr. Papageorge, what was done on this subject after you became manager of environmental control? Well, that was my top priority item that I addressed immediately in January when I arrived at my new assignment. And how did you address it? 2670 WATER PCB-SD0000075158  *1 2 3 i4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I called together the group of Monsanto people who were to make up my PCB -- I want to call them committee or task force. They were representatives of the parts of Monsanto that were interested in PCBs. They included research people, manufacturing people, marketing people, medical department personnel, engineering people, anyone that could contribute to a discussion. And I conducted a session at which we composed a rough draft of a letter that might go to the customers. That was taken by one of the members to a -- I don't know how much detail you need. But anyway, it was finally typed up. And the marketing representatives after hearing the comments from the other professionals, the engineering, the analytic chemists, the medical personnel and all, they went back and made some comments on the rough draft. I collected all of these comments and eventually ended up with a proposed letter to be used by all the business groups. Each business group then added appropriate statements that fit their products. For example, the Pydraul marketing group had a statement that addressed Pydraul. The electrical people had a 2671 WATER PCB-SD0000075159 1 2 3 4 5 Q 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 #25 A Q A Q A Q A statement that addressed the electrical application, and so on. And that's the way we put together this letter, and it was mailed as I recall in the following month, February 1970. We'll get to that letter in a moment, Mr. Papageorge. Were there other letters involved? That was the first of several letters. What about labels? There's been a reference to labels. What was being done on that score? Yes. The labels were the second item we tackled. We looked upon it really as another way to communicate what Monsanto knew in terms of environmental impact, and it was to do two things. One is to supplement the letter that the customer already should have received, and it served as a constant reminder to those who were using it and also attempted to cover the possibility that a new customer might receive a container of this material and certainly he should be tuned in as to what could happen in the environment. Another page from the same document. This is page -- I believe it's seven, STR 29419. I have it. Do you have it, Mr. Papageorge? I have it, yes. 2672 WATER PCB-SD0000075160 1 2 Q 3 4 5 6 7 A 8Q 9 10 A 11 Q 12 A 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Mr. Carlson also read this do to Mr. Damiani yesterday. "Industrial. These fluids have generally been strayed into drains, washed down sewers and generally regarded as very harmless." Did you address this subject when you were the plant manager at Anniston, Mr. Papageorge? Yes, certainly. Certainly. Did you address it as the manager of environmental control? Yes, I did. What was your understanding on this subject? I have difficulty accepting the statement, "Generally sprayed into drains." I just have no information that says it was generally done so. As to washing down sewers, I'm aware of the washing of oil stains on work floors, that kind of washing down. But I'm not aware -- I've never had any information given to me that said large amounts of liquid were deliberately flushed into the sewer to get them out of the plant. I've never heard that. And then, "Generally regarded as very harmless." In a general way if properly used, one could say that they are not too harmful. Did Monsanto take steps to curtail the release of 2673 WATER PCB-SD0000075161 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 #22 23 24 25 A Q A Q A Q A Q Q A Q A Q A PCBs into the municipal sewers at its plants? Yes, it did. Were those steps successful? Well, as time went on they became more and more successful, yes. When you were the plant manager at Anniston for four years, did you ever discover anybody dumping PCB fluid into the sewers? No. No. Did you ever discover anybody dumping PCB fluids outside the plant? No. Mr. Papageorge, we discussed this document -- MR. RUNNING: This is Defendant's Trial Exhibit 1082, Your Honor. -- at the start of your testimony on last Thursday afternoon. I just want to -- You don't have to pull it out. I'm going to direct your attention to a couple paragraphs. This is the November 17, 1969, meeting that resulted in the 12-point plan -- It is. -- that you explained on Thursday afternoon? Yes. This is the 12-point plan again? Yes, it is. 2674 WATER PCB-SD0000075162  1 Q 2 3 4 5 6 7 A 8 9Q lO A 11 12 13 Q 14 15 A 16 17 18 l9 Q 20 21 A 22 Q 23 24 A 25 Q I want to direct your attention now to the last three paragraphs on page STR 1542. Mr. Papageorge, the first paragraph reads, "Cost of this program is estimated at approximately $400,000 SARE and $700,000 capital to change equipment." What is SARE mean? That is an acronym for Sales Administration Research Engineering. And the 700,000 capital, was does that refer to? That is the amount of money needed to buy new equipment to add to the existing equipment to control the process. Should I add those two figures together to arrive at the total costs? How should I do that? Well, you could do that. That will be the total cost -- The SARE cost is for a calendar year. The $700,000 for capital could have required more than one year to spend. Is the SARE cost in accounting terms the operating cost and the 700,000 capital cost a capital cost? Yes, it is. They have different accounting significance, don't they? Yes, they do. Total $1.1 million as of that time? 2675 WATER PCB-SD0000075163 1 A 2Q 3A 4 5Q 6 7 A 8 9 10 Q A 11 12 13 Q A 14 15 16 17 18 19 Q 20 21 22 23 24 25 For the activity that was known at that time, yes. Was the program expanded subsequently? Yes, yes. Each year something new would be added. Was $1.1 million a significant amount of money in 1969? At that time, yes, it was. Was pressure -- Was Monsanto under pressure at the time to take the steps outlined in this plan? You mean from outside of Monsanto? Yes. Absolutely -- MR. CARLSON: Objection. Repetition. I think we went through all of this, Your Honor. THE COURT: About three times. MR. RUNNING: I don't think in regard to this particular step. Your Honor. But if it's sunk in that well, I won't ask it. "Conclusions: In light of the recent and developing evidence of a possible threat to certain species of bird and aquatic life, we should plan to discontinue to manufacture Aroclors 1254 and 1260. "The division is instructed to develop a program to discontinue these products and report this to the committee." Was that construction still 2676 WATER PCB-SD0000075164  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q in place when you became manager of environmental control? It was, yes. Explain something about the procedure. Why is this group instructing the division on anything? What -- Explain the procedure. This group is the -- contains the top officials in Monsanto, and they certainly have every right to tell others in Monsanto what's expected of them. And the group was convinced that the discontinuation of manufacturing of Aroclor 1254 and 60 was appropriate, and they told the division to proceed to do what is necessary to stop the manufacture. Did the committee always in your experience accept whatever representations were entered into by the business people? Oh, no. Would it make its own investigations from time to time? From time to time it would make its own. But in most instances, they would ask the representatives of the units involved to go back and do some more work and come up with new ideas if they could. Try to give us a little more flavor to these 2677 WATER PCB-SD0000075165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 meetings. I mean was it -- What were they like? Were these corporate developmental committee or corporate committee meetings? I don't know quite where to start. Well, for example, was it -- was it like -- was it like an after dinner cocktail meeting or was it more like Kingsfield interrogating his students? Somewhere on the continuum? Can you explain what the atmosphere was like? Well, normally a prepared presentation is presented by a person who is qualified to speak. If it's a medical problem, it would be a medical person. If it's a manufacturing, it would be a manufacturing person. If it's a marketing, it would be a marketing person. The officials who make up this committee are generally given some outlines or some brief summaries that they can look at and review and comment on. As the presentation takes place, the individuals are free to ask questions and stop the discussion and pursue some point that they are interested in. Many times it's just like here. We have a projector and slides on the screen and the free discussion takes place. After the formal prepared 2678 WATER PCB-SD0000075166 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 part is finished, then there's an open discussion back and forth between these -- the president and his vice presidents and the presenters of the information. At this point then the -- generally the president of the company will make a summary of what he understood and then give instructions to change or he may give his approval. He says, "I like what I hear, proceed." And in every case that I'm familiar with, they say, "Come back in so many months and tell us how you're doing." That's roughly what takes place. Are tough questions asked? Oh, yes. These people are -- They represent a lot of experience and skills. So they know how to ask some pretty tough questions. What I'm getting at, Mr. Papageorge, if we're looking back 20 years later and trying to understand what the company was deciding on certain questions, where should we first look? Should we look to the decisions of the corporate development or corporate management committee? Should we look at the presentations made by lower level management to the committee? Should we look somewhere else? What would be the first 2679 WATER PCB-SD0000075167 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Q A Q A Q place to look? I would personally look at the decisions made by this top level corporate management committee consisting of the president and his vice presidents. They are the key people. And what -- Can you generalize based on your -- You attended these meetings, didn't you, after January 1970 from time to time? I attended and made a presentation at only one. And your superior attended the meetings? Correct. Everyone, yes, that involved the PCBs. Mr. Burgen and his boss, Mr. Minkler, and his boss Mr. Smith. All of the top level bosses were involved. Can you generalize as to the attitude of the committee towards the PCB environmental problem? Was it one of -- On a continuum from, "Let's do nothing," to, "Let's do everything possible," where did they stand one to ten? I think it boils down to from my personal observation and understanding of the instructions they do what is responsible. "Cut no corners. Let us know what you need and we'll support you." What did the committee do with proposed deadlines for reformulation of PCB product into non-PCB 2680 WATER PCB-SD0000075168 i 1 2 3 i4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 9 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 products? What was their general attitude towards proposed deadlines for reformulation? Their general attitude was it wasn't fast enough. In fact, the one presentation I made where some deadlines were proposed the corporate committee said, "This program sounds good to us, but it's not fast enough. We want you to go back and see us within a month with some deadlines that are quick and not as extended as the original proposal." Now, the last paragraph, "The status of Aroclor 1242 should continue to be tested to determine whether it contributes to this problem. Other products which might be involved should also be examined." Do you recall the testimony you just gave about the 5 chlorine and higher molecules and the percentage that was in Aroclor 1242, Mr. Papageorge? I do. Do you recall also the testimony you gave that there was some consideration being given to the possibility that there might be a concentration affect and that some of the 5 chlorine and higher molecules that were in Aroclor 1242, the 7 percent might be -- might be being found in environmental 2681 WATER PCB-SD0000075169 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q A Q A Q A Q samples and being identified as Aroclor 1254 and 1260? I remember that, yes. What was the reaction of the corporate development committee to this report? Well, their reaction was, let's conduct the appropriate studies to establish that idea or to show that it doesn't happen that way. Whatever it takes, let's find out what is really going on. And they authorized these studies even though to date no environment samples had identified Aroclor 1242? Yes, they did. Mr. Papageorge, I'm going to show you Defendant's Trial Exhibit 1009. You've testified a moment ago, Mr. Papageorge, about a letter that was sent to Monsanto customers in February of 1970. I'd like you to review this document just to familiarize yourself with it. I know you've seen it before. Then I'm going to ask you some questions really about the first page of the document first. I have reviewed it. Let's -- I'd like to first of all know your personal involvement in the mailing program. You 2682 WATER PCB-SD0000075170 2 3A 4 5 6 7 Q 8A 9 10 11 12 13 Q 14 15 16 A Q 17 18 19 A 20 21 22 23 24 25 testified you were involved in writing the first letter? I was involved in the preparation of the drafts and the final approval of the appropriate letters to each of the applications for PCBs. What decision was made regarding who would receive the letters? They were to be sent to all customers on record in Monsanto's files which covered a period of at least three years and in many cases went back as far as five years. So if Andy Running Die Casting Company bought Pydraul 312 in 1968, I would be on the list of customers to receive the letter? Yes, you would. And if I had bought it in 1964 and you still had the records of my purchase, would I get it or would I not? It depends if your -- if Monsanto's records had other references to your company associating it with Pydrauls. It might be a bill of lading in someone's file or an invoice, a bill, the accounts receivable department may have had a record of some sort that someone kept. All the files were perused looking for 2683 WATER PCB-SD0000075171 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that kind of information to go back as far as we could. Because in some cases the material was purchased many years ago, and that's the last we heard. We had no idea where it was used, how it was used, did it still exist. So we wanted to cover as many of those as we could. Was a letter finally agreed on to be sent to Pydraul customers? Yes. And were you involved in the mailing of the letter? I was -- I certainly -- I didn't do any of the typing or envelope stuffing, but I was present when the activity started. There were extra secretaries hired to help. The -- The secretaries did the typing on the letter itself, and then they prepared the labels to be attached to the envelopes. The procedure called for maintaining the proper records by each of the business groups to show if necessary that the letters did go to the customers on record. I remember vividly spending weekends watching this activity because there were thousands of letters going out and we wanted to get them out as fast as we could. We couldn't do that during a 2684 WATER PCB-SD0000075172 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q A normal workday. So we spent Saturdays and Sundays -- I forget couple, three weekends to get it all done. Did you observe the process of the mailing work underway on the weekends? Yes. Now, this mailing list -- I take it there was considerable amount of work involved in putting it together? Oh, yes. That took -- That took several weeks on the part of many people. Did you want to save the mailing list for future mailings? We did, yes. Is that one reason you kept the names and addresses of those who had received the first letter? Yes. The first page of this document that you have in front of you, it's got title Office of the President and then it has an address of a company. There's a check mark next to it. You see that? I see it. What's the significance of the check mark? That shows that the envelope was stuffed and placed in the out basket, and this is a way to keep score 2685 WATER PCB-SD0000075173 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q A Q A Q A as to how far along in the procedure had this particular letter gotten. Is it just a coincidence that we happen to be able to catch the check mark in this case, if you know? Well, I don't know so much of a coincidence. There were many copies made of a whole page of addressees. Some of those copies were used by the secretaries to check off the fact that they did complete the letter and it was ready to go. Some copies didn't have a check mark. It's just a clean copy for the record. That's what I wanted to get at. We happened to make a copy of one of the check mark in this case? Yes. Now, were there other mailing labels on this page originally? Yes, yes. Oh, yes. And in copying for this -- In other words, every mailing label on the page -- what was done with it? How was it transferred from the sheet to the envelope? Well, these are -- These labels are to -- are those that had the adhesive with them. The full pages insert in the typewriter and the addressee is typed 2686 WATER PCB-SD0000075174 i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q A Q 8A 9 10 Q 11 A 12 13 Q 14 15 16 A 17 18 19 20 21 22 Q A 23 24 25 Q on it. And when the page is completed, it is copied. Then the original labels are peeled off and affixed to the envelopes and mailed. And proper postage was put on the envelopes? Oh, yes. They go through the meter machines and they are mailed out. And were the letters mailed? Yes. Is the mailing label that appears as STR 1326 -- does it go with the attached letter? I'm sorry. I didn't hear the last part. Was the mailing label addressed on the first page of this exhibit is the attached letter that was mailed in the envelope? This mailing label was put on the envelope and the envelope was stuffed. But what I want to get at is did the secretary put this letter in the envelope? Yes. MR. CARLSON: I object to the lack of foundation for that particular -- MR. RUNNING: Was that a standard practice, Mr. Papageorge? MR. CARLSON: I don't have a problem with the second question. The first one I do. 2687 WATER PCB-SD0000075175 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q THE COURT: I would agree. Is that -- In other words, you can answer the question, was that a standard practice? MR. RUNNING: Was it standard practice to put this letter in the envelope with this mailing label? That was the practice. MR. RUNNING: I move for admission of this exhibit. MR. CARLSON: I have no objection. THE COURT: 1009? MR. RUNNING: 1009, Your Honor. THE COURT: So received. (Exhibit No. 1009, previously marked for identification, was received into evidence.) MR. RUNNING: And is this the first page of the exhibit, Mr. Papageorge? Yes, it is. There's the check mark and the mailing label. There's been previously testimony that that's a correct address for Stroh Die Casting Company, Mr. Papageorge. Is that -- Is the fact that Stroh Die Casting Company appears as a -- as one -- Does 2688 WATER PCB-SD0000075176  *1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A Q Q the mailing label indicate whether or not they were a customer of record as of 1970 in Monsanto's files? Yes, it does. That's the only place it could have come from for this purpose. Is this the letter that was sent? Is this the first page of the letter? That is the copy of the first page, yes. First paragraph Mr. Papageorge, "Recently several newspaper and magazine articles have been published indicating that polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs, have been discovered at some points in some marine, aquatic and wildlife environments. "The quantities detected are said to be in the parts per million and parts per billion categories." Let's stop on the second line. With reference to polychlorinated biphenyls, when you were at Anniston, Mr. Papageorge, was that the name you used for Aroclors? We -- Monsanto never used the acronym PCBs. We referred to our products by the trademark Aroclors, which covered the whole family of products. What about -- You were familiar with PCBs before 1965, weren't you? Yes, I was. 2689 WATER PCB-SD0000075177  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q A Q * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * You were involved in their manufacture? Not in their manufacture. In their -- In the blending? Blending and the use in the making of products and also in the use and equipment. Okay. (Whereupon, there was a change of reporters.) 2690 WATER PCB-SD0000075178 1Q 2 3 4A 5Q 6A 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Q 19 A 20 Q 21 22 23 A 24 '25 Were what we now call polychlorinated biphenyls, were they called polychlorinated biphenyls in 1965 or before, generally? Not generally, no. What were these chemicals called? It depends which group isdiscussing it. The chemist when talking to otherchemists would refer to them as chlorinateddiphenyls, d-i, orbiphenyls, as time went on. The chemist in talking to the manufacturing people in Monsanto would use the word Aroclors. That same chemist in talking to a customer would use expressions such as Pydraul and Therminol and Pyranol, all of the trademarks that were in common use at the time, but the acronym, PCBs, was the expression first proposed by Dr. Widmark and Mr. Jensen. That was in late 1966 that that started to appear in the literature. And that was in Sweden? Yes. How long did it take forthe phrase, PCBs or polychlorinated biphenylsto catch on in this country? I can't recall any specific date, if you will. It sort of evolved. I would suggest that by late 1967 it started to become a fairly common term amongst 2691 WATER PCB-SD0000075179 i i 2Q 3 4 A 5 6 7 8 9Q 10 11 12 A 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Q 23 A 24 Q 25 those who were studying it. What about the population, generally? What about industrial customers of Monsanto? Industrial customers? No. This is probably the first time most of them saw that expression, unless they happened to read the articles that were published up to that point, which were not many, but there were a few. Now, referring to the first paragraph, generally, why did you decide to include this information in the letter? Well, it was something that Monsanto perceived as being a new piece of important information. Monsanto by late '69 had its own laboratories confirm that the analytical procedures were believable, and we had established enough information to feel that this was a fact. We didn't quite know how extended it was. We j were lacking a lot of the final information we would i like to have had, but we felt that we knew enough that we should share that with our customers. Were there subsequent letters after this? Oh, yes. The next paragraph says "it is claimed that the PCBs found." What does that refer to, "that the PCBs 2692 WATER PCB-SD0000075180 1 2A 3 4 Q 5 6A 7 8Q 9A 10 Q 11 A 12 13 14 15 16 17 Q 18 19 20 21 22 A 23 Q 24 25 found"? That refers to the report, for example, from Dr. Jensen, in Sweden. Are those the reports that we had up on the screen on Thursday afternoon? Do you recall? Those, let me think. Yes, yes. That is an example of the kind of report, yes. Okay. And other reports like that? Yes. What about Dr. Risebrough's work? Yes, the University of California, Berkeley, published a paper in one of the technical journals. The San Francisco Chronicle picked up on that and had an article. It was designed for the lay person, not necessarily the scientist, describing what Dr. Risebrough and others had found. Okay. This statement, "It is claimed that the PCBs found strongly resemble chlorinated biphenyls containing 54 percent and 60 percent chlorine by weight." Was that an accurate description of the articles? Yes. And the bottom of the page reads, "PCBs with a chlorine content of less than 54 percent have not been found in the environment and appear to present 2693 WATER PCB-SD0000075181 1 2 3A 4 5 6Q 7 A 8Q 9A 10 11 12 13 Q 14 15 A 16 Q 17 18 19 20 A 21 Q 22 23 24 A 25 no potential problem to the environment." What was the basis of that statement? That is based on the results coming out of the laboratories that were looking at PCBs at that time, early 1970. Did the scientific data subsequently change on that? As time went on, it did change, yes. And did Monsanto's view on the subject change? Yes, it did, as the information became available, there was a continual review of what Monsanto was doing with these products. It did influence their programs. Was the last paragraph an accurate statement at the time? Yes, it was. Let's turn to the next page of the letter, Mr. Papageorge. Was this letter just sent to customers who bought Aroclor 1264 and 1260 products, products containing those Aroclors? No. What was the purpose for sending it to customers who were not buying products that contained 54 percent or 60 percent chlorinated PCB mixtures? Well, we certainly knew that the products they were buying contained a group of chemicals that came 2694 WATER PCB-SD0000075182 ft 1 2 3 ft 4 Q 5A 6 7 8 9 10 11 Q 12 13 14 A 15 16 Q 17 18 A ft 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q 25 under the acronyms, PCBs, and we did know that some of those, as we discussed earlier, did include the five chlorine types of PCBs. Is that the 7 percent figure you referred to before? Yes, exactly. Yes, so we felt it only responsible, really, to tell the people that the products do contain PCBs and what type, where we could, and the fact that some were being found in the environment and some had not been found yet. That was the intent. Now the letter doesn't expressly say that Pydraul 312 contains PCBs, does it, just so we are clear on that? No, it doesn't. It's implied. It does say are not formulated. That's true. Was that a conscious design on your part to be sneaky? No. In hindsight, it should have been clarified. The intent there was to show the fact that these all had PCBs in them, but not the kind of PCBs that were being found in the environment. The Therminols, the terphenyls, the Pydrauls, they all followed that category. If a customer wasn't buying a Pydraul that was formulated with Aroclor 1254 or Aroclor 1260, 2695 WATER PCB-SD0000075183  1 2 3 4 A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Q 12 13 14 A 15 Q 16 17 18 A 19 Q 20 21 22 23 24 25 received this letter, read it, and wondered why they got the letter and called you, what would you have said? Well, you are on our list of customers who bought this product. Let's say Pydraul 312, and Pydraul 312 does contain some PCBs, not the kind that are being found in the environment, but they're related, sort of in that family of chemicals, and we believe you ought to know that. That kind of response, I would expect. Was the oversight you've just referred to subsequently corrected, in terms of expressly saying point blank that Pydraul 312 contained PCBs? I didn't hear the first part. You referred to an oversight, not saying point blank directly in the letter, Pydraul 312 contains PCBs. Was that oversight corrected later on? Oh, yes, yes. Let's go to the last paragraph of this letter. "We feel that all possible care should be taken in the application, processing, and effluent disposal of these products to prevent them becoming environmental contaminants. Of interest to you may be an article in Chemical Week, October 29, '69, regarding water pollution standards set by each 2696 WATER PCB-SD0000075184 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8A 9 10 11 12 Q 13 14 A 15 Q 16 A 17 Q 18 19 20 A 21 Q 22 23 A 24 Q 25 state in the union. It is attached." This letter reflects that good manufacturing practice in the future may require that no products used by any company should find their way into waterways. Why was that paragraph written in the way it was? It's an attempt to underline the need for conducting their manufacturing procedures in such a way that the industrial chemical doesn't find its way into waterways. Just a sort of an emphasis. Was that last paragraph limited to products containing Aroclor 1254 and 1260? On, no. That is all industrial chemicals. Reference to no products, meant no products? I'm sorry. Did the reference to no products, really mean no products? No products should find their way into waterways? Exactly, yes. Is this a copy of the article that was enclosed in the letter? It is. Without going through the details in the article on all of the 50 states, the second paragraph reads. 2697 WATER PCB-SD0000075185 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Q 19 20 A 21 Q 22 A 23 Q 24 25 "All 50 states have had their water quality standards improved entirely or in part by the federal water pollution control administration. Recently a state by state summary of these standards was put together for the first time." Let me ask a few basic questions, since we are talking about something that happened 21 years ago. Was the Environmental Protection Agency in existence at this time? The date of this particular article is October, '69. The Environmental Protection Agency was approved by congress. It was in the midst of pulling together its personnel and staff and getting organized. There were a few people that knew that they were part of the EPA, but as yet, the EPA was not functioning the way it was planned and the way it was able to later. So the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration was the predecessor.to EPA? For water purposes, yes. Have you ever heard of the Clean Water Act of '72? Yes, I have. Can you describe in very general terms. We don't want to get into a digression of the statute itself, but what was the general scope of the clean water 2698 WATER PCB-SD0000075186 1 2A 3 4 5Q 6A 7 Q 8A 9Q 10 A 11 12 13 14 Q 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Q 24 A 25 Q act in 1972? The general scope was to protect our waterways from being contaminated with all kinds of materials, including industrial chemicals. Is that a federal or state law? It's a federal law administered by the EPA. Was it an important law? Very much so. Did it have anything to do with the first Earth Day? I suspect that Earth Day helped put some emphasis on the need for such an act, yes. I don't know that there is a direct connection by Earth Day organizers and the law, itself. The first Earth Day was what, in April of '70? MR. CARLSON: Objection. That is leading. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. RUNNING: This isn't really in dispute. MR. CARLSON: I don't know if you're trying to get the witness to talk about things for foundation or -- MR. RUNNING: Mr. Papageorge, do you remember the first Earth Day? I do. Do you recall when it was? 2699 WATER PCB-SD0000075187  1 A 2Q 3 4 5A 6Q 7 A 8Q 9 10 11 12 13 14 A 15 16 17 18 Q 19 A 20 Q 21 22 23 A 24 25 Q April, 1970. If you call it the 20th anniversary, I can figure out the day. Mr. Papageorge, did this letter go out before or after the first Earth Day? Before. Obviously it went out before the Clean Water Act? Certainly. Mr. Papageorge, when you were sending out this letter, this first letter, did you look for other models that you could use, other chemical companies that had sent out similar letters about environmental problems associated with their products? We looked for models and found none and discovered that we found ourselves doing things that had never been done before in this field of industrial chemicals in the environment. Is it fair to say this is a first? The first in the world, yes. And were the water quality standards as they existed in Wisconsin in 1969, summarized in the letter that was sent to Stroh? They were summarized in the article attached to the letter. And under toxic substances, the law in Wisconsin, in 2700 WATER PCB-SD0000075188  1 2 3 4 A 5Q 6 7 8A 9Q 10 11 A 12 Q 13 14 15 A 16 17 18 Q 19 20 21 A 22 Q 23 A 24 25 1969, was none in concentrations or combinations toxic to humans or of public health significance, is that right? That is correct. And also no materials producing color, taste, or odor in amounts that would create a nuisance, is that correct? That is correct. And there is various solids, temperatures, I believe also biological oxygen? Yes. The reference to dissolved oxygen, explain what that refers to, what dissolved oxygen means, in this context? That is the amount of oxygen that the chemist can detect in a sample of water taken from a natural stream, lake, river. If I put an industrial pollutant into a sample of water, will that generally raise or lower the dissolved oxygen content? Generally it will lower it. Why is the dissolved oxygen content important? Well, it takes a given amount of oxygen to support life in that waterway, aquatic life, plant life. Otherwise it becomes a stagnant pool and nothing can 2701 WATER PCB-SD0000075189 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 live in it. Did the standards get more or less strict when the Clean Water Act was passed two years later, just generally? Well, generally it picked up the more restrictive of the states, so some states had to tighten up, whereas others didn't have to do anything different. Mr. Papageorge, I'm going to show you Defendant's Trial Exhibit 1251. Take whatever time you need to review this. I'm just going to ask you about the first couple of pages and then one other page I'll direct your attention to. (Switch in Reporters.) 2702 WATER PCB-SD0000075190  1A 2Q 3A 4 5 6 7 8Q 9A 10 11 12 13 Q 14 15 A 16 Q 17 18 A 19 Q 20 21 22 23 24 25 I have read it or reviewed it. Can you identify this as a Monsanto business record? Yes. MR. RUNNING: Move for admission. MR. CARLSON: No objection. THE COURT: So received. MR. RUNNING: Mr. Papageorge, who is Mr. N.T. Johnson? Mr. Johnson at that time, early 1970, was the marketing manager for Monsanto located in St. Louis who was responsible for fluids -- fluid products sold by Monsanto for use in industrial applications. Okay. And the subject of this memo is "Pollution Letters"? That is the title, yes. One of the letters being the letter that we have just looked at that was sent to Stroh? Yes. And the first paragraph reads, "Attached is a list of questions and answers which may be asked of you by customers receiving our Aroclor-PCB letter. You can give verbal answers; no answers should be given in writing. If the customer asks a question you can't answer or if he wants an answer in writing, then send his questions to me and we will answer from here." 2703 WATER PCB-SD0000075191 1 2 3 4 5A 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Q 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 What was the reason for that decision. not to have the field sales representatives writing up written reports or letters to the customers about technical questions? The recipients of this letter, both the direct recipients and those receiving carbon copies, represented different years of experience. Some of them were quite experienced and could very likely put the answers in writing and do it correctly. We were concerned that some of the newer individuals might not quite understand exactly what should be in writing, and we were concerned of giving out the wrong kinds of information. And this is one way to make certain that the information that was being sent out was proper, and Mr. Johnson decided that his office ought to be the source, the focal point. Now, there is a reference in the next paragraph, it says, "We want to avoid any situation where a customer wants to return fluid. The new reformulated products will be available within a month. We would prefer that the customer use up his current inventory and purchase Pydraul 625A, Pydraul ACA, Pydraul ACA Winter Grade and Pydraul 540A when available. He will then top off with the new fluid and eventually all Aroclor 1254 and Aroclor 1260 will be out of his 2704 WATER PCB-SD0000075192 i t1 2 3 4A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Q 18 19 20 21 22 A 23 Q 24 25 system. We don't want to take fluid back. Sell him the replacement." What was the reason for that statement? Well, that statement refers to fresh material, unused, still in the container, as shipped from Monsanto. Some of our customers keep an inventory of that kind. The intent here is to demonstrate or to enforce the use of those -- of that inventory because under the right conditions it's still an excellent product, it does what it's supposed to do, and when controlled, it doesn't create any problems. And by "control," I'm talking now control in terms of exposing the worker in the shop, in the factory, and also control to prevent the material from getting into the environment and perhaps creating some problems there. It goes on. "We must be very positive in our approach with each customer relative to our decision to eliminate the use of Aroclor 1254 and Aroclor 1260 in our Pydraul products." Stop there. Does this memo relate to Pydraul 312 at all? No. No. Let's go on. "We, your customer and Monsanto, are not interested in using a product which may present a problem to our environment. We certainly have a 2705 WATER PCB-SD0000075193 1 2 3 4A 5 6 7Q 8 9 10 11 A 12 Q 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 A 20 21 Q 22 23 24 25 reason" -- "We certainly have no reason to be defensive or apologetic about making this change." What's the change? It's the removal of the Aroclor 1254 and Aroclor 1260 from those Pydraul products that contained it initially. "The decision to change makes good sense and our customers should commend us, not criticize our actions. No one has forced us to make this change." Stop there. Was Mr. Johnson accurate on that score? He certainly was. "We have done it to keep our customers out of possible trouble. They should appreciate our effort. and stay with us as a customer on the reformulated Pydrauls. To make this change has cost us research monies and time." It goes on to say the salesmen ought to be positive. Mr. Papageorge, was this evidence of some cover-up? Absolutely not. I don't know what he would be covering up. It goes on, "Don't let a customer or competitor intimidate you. I doubt if our competitors know whether their product could present a problem to our environment. You might ask your customer if he has ever asked Houghton or Stauffer, Carbine, et cetera, 2706 WATER PCB-SD0000075194 1 2 3 4A 5 6Q 7 8 9 10 Q 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Q 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A about the effects of their products." Was there any concern that Monsanto's competitors were intimidating its customers? Well, it was a concern because there was evidence that they were intimidating the customer. How were they doing that? MR. CARLSON: Objection, hearsay. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. RUNNING: Did you receive reports that Monsanto's competitors were capitalizing on the alleged problems with PCBs to sell their products as opposed to Monsanto's products? MR. CARLSON: Objection, leading and hearsay. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. RUNNING: It goes on, "We should also recognize, point this out to your customer, we must clean up. The Chemical Week article gives him an idea of laws in effect in his state. Read this yourself. Be familiar with the data on each state in which your customers are located. Use this in your discussions." Was that done, Mr. Papageorge? Yes, it was. 2707 WATER PCB-SD0000075195  1Q 2 3 4 5 6 7A 8 9 10 11 12 Q 13 14 A 15 Q 16 A 17 Q 18 19 A 20 Q 21 22 23 A 24 Q 25 A It goes on, "We can't afford to lose one dollar of business. Our attitude in discussing this subject with our customer will be the deciding factor in our success or failure in retaining all our present business. Good luck." Was that Monsanto's overriding policy, not to lose a dollar of business? I wouldn't call it overriding. It has to be done with responsible action. So the dollar isn't necessarily -- the two go together. If you can do it responsibly, that's very desirable. That's the purpose for being in existence in the first place. Have you ever seen salesmen use this kind of language before? Oh, yeah. This is typical marketing information. Did Monsanto try to motivate its salesmen? Certainly. Did it try to do so at the expense of the environment? Never. I show you Defendant's Trial Exhibit 1252. Can you identify this as a March 30, 1970, memorandum from Dr. Kelly to yourself? Yes. Is this a Monsanto business record? Yes. 2708 WATER PCB-SD0000075196 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Q 8 9 10 11 A 12 Q 13 14 15 16 A 17 Q 18 19 A 20 Q 21 22 23 24 25 MR. RUNNING: Move for admission. Your Honor. MR. CARLSON: Just hold on one second. No objection. THE COURT: So received. MR. RUNNING: I am sorry. Let me go back to one more question on Mr. Johnson. I'm sorry, Mr. Papageorge, let me just go back. This Defendant's Trial Exhibit 1251, do you have that in front of you? I have. It has a series of questions and answers that Mr. Johnson prepared, does it not, for the salesmen to get an idea of what the information was on PCBs at the time? Yes. Will you turn to Page STR 2323, which I have up on the screen. I have it. Now, I have highlighted Question 1 -- I am sorry, Question 3. Let me j ust read the question and answer in case the others can't read it. "Why should PCB be an environmental contaminant if chlorinated terphenyl is not?" Answer, "I don't think there is any positive answer 2709 WATER PCB-SD0000075197 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 12 Q 13 14 A 15 Q 16 17 18 A 19 Q 20 A 21 Q 22 23 24 25 A on this, and I can't give you any theories. However, I would emphasize that not all PCBs appear to be contaminants. Those such as Aroclor 1221, 1232 and 1242 haven't been identified in marine, aquatic and wildlife environments. Chlorinated terphenyls, at least those made by Monsanto, have not been identified in the environment either." Mr. Papageorge, were chlorinated terphenyls, or PCTs, used as substitutes for a period of time for PCBs in some of Monsanto's products? Yes, they were. And were they being used to substitute, at least in the plans, early 1970, when this was prepared? In early 1970, not yet. So even though this is attached, "Possible Customer Questions On PCBs," do you think that this questionnaire goes with the -- with the letter? Yes. It does go with the letter? I am sorry. No. No. This goes to the sales people. Okay. So I am just trying to get a reference in time. Had the decision been made yet to convert some of the products to polychlorinated terphenyls? There is a reference to a conversion. There is a reference to a conversion program. There 2710 WATER PCB-SD0000075198 1 2 3 4 5 6Q 7A 8Q 9 10 A 11 Q 12 13 14 A 15 Q 16 17 18 A 19 Q 20 A 21 22 Q 23 24 A 25 were studies on their way to see if the material containing the chlorinated terphenyls was acceptable. The program was well underway. But as yet it hadn't gone through all the testing and approvals necessary -- Okay. -- for final marketing. So terphenyls were a proposed substitute, but the decision hadn't been made yet? That is correct. And Mr. Johnson has written what he's written in the proposed answer to this question about the difference between terphenyls and biphenyls? Yes. He says that he didn't have any theories as to why one would be a contaminant and the other wouldn't. Do you see that? That's what he says, yes. Did Mr. Johnson know everything on this subject? I don't think anybody knew everything on this subj ect. What were the reasons, as you understood them, that terphenyls might not be an environmental contaminant? Well, there -- at that point in time we saw some of the terphenyls as containing lower amounts of 2711 WATER PCB-SD0000075199 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q 11 12 13 14 15 16 A 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q 25 chlorine, giving a lot more carbon and hydrogen associated with that chlorine, which was looked upon as favorable for degradation. Also, in the applications being considered at the time, it was becoming more and more evident that it took less in terms of pounds per gallon of material to achieve the same kind of fire-resistance that the older PCB-type products had. So these were both looked upon as a step in the right direction. I will set this up. Mr. Papageorge, I just want to walk through the reasons to make sure we all understand them. And by covering the subject now we won't have to refer back to it every time it comes up in these documents. I am going to write "Differences Between PCBs And PCTs"; is that all right? All right. MR. CARLSON: I am sorry. Have you given that an exhibit number? MR. RUNNING: I will. MR. CARLSON: I thought you just did. MR. RUNNING: I am just writing it. We'll save it, don't worry. MR. RUNNING: Okay. And the first reason was what for the chlorine? 2712 WATER PCB-SD0000075200 i 1A 2 3Q 4 5A 6Q 7 8A 9Q 10 11 12 A 13 Q 14 A 15 Q 16 17 18 A 19 Q 20 A 21 Q 22 A 23 Q 24 #25 A The chlorinated terphenyls contained less chlorine than the PCBs for which they were to substitute. Let's use a specific example, and I know this wasn't made until later in time. Um-hum. But Pydraul 312 was converted to Pydraul 312A; is that right? That is correct. I'll just write here, "Less Chlorine," first of all. Now, what was the ingredient in Pydraul 312 that provided the fire-resistance? PCBs. And what kind of PCBs? The Aroclor 1242. The 42 percent chlorine. So I'll put one column "PCT" and one column "PCB," and for Aroclor 12 -- I am sorry, for Pydraul 312A it was Arochlor 1242? Not 312A. 312 was 1242? Correct. And Aroclor 1242 means 42 percent by weight? Yes. So we put 42 percent chlorine. What was the ingredient in Pydraul 312A, the PCT product? It was Aroclor 5432. 32 percent chlorine. 2713 WATER PCB-SD0000075201 1 IQ 2A 3Q 4A 5 6 7 8 9Q 10 11 A 12 Q 13 14 15 A 16 Q 17 A 18 * 19 20 21 Q 22 A 23 24 25 Q So the PCT had 32 percent chlorine? Yes. What was the significance of that? It's significant in that at that time we related, by the information we all had, that the less the chlorine, the more the opportunity for degradation existed. It's more apt to degrade. It would not persist. Can we say the less chlorine, the greater the biodegradation? Yes. I am going to write, "The lower the chlorine percentage, the greater the biodegradation"; is that fair? That is correct. Okay. What was the next difference? The next important difference is the fact that when the PCTs were used in place of the PCBs, it didn't take as much of the material to -- to reach the fire-resistance that we were looking for. What was the consequence of that? That means that less of the chlorinated material was present, and if it did get into the environment, certainly there would be less of it out there. Okay. So let's again -- I'll just put here for the 2714 1 WATER PCB-SD0000075202 1 2A 3Q 4 5 6A 7Q 8A 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Q 16 A 17 18 Q 19 20 A 21 Q 22 23 24 A 25 Q first reason Pydraul 312A -- "312 versus 312A"? Um-hum. We'll do the same thing -- Shall we -- What -- Is what you just said the same thing as you said for reason one? Are we just repeating the same point? No. No. Let me try to explain. Okay. When making Pydraul 312, close to 50 percent of the mixture was that PCB which was 42 percent chlorine. When we made Pydraul 312A, I don't remember the exact number, it was in the 30 percent, about a third of it was the chlorinated terphenyl, which was 32 percent chlorine. So you had less material with lower chlorine. Okay. So there were two steps in what we felt was in the right direction again. If I wrote, "Less Chlorinated Material," is that a fair summary of number two? Yes. And for one column I'll put, "Pydraul 312A," and the other, "Pydraul 312." And your testimony is that in Pydraul 312 how much of the mixture was PCBs? Close to 50 percent. 47, 48, somewhere in there. So say less than 50 percent? 2715 WATER PCB-SD0000075203  1A 2Q 3A 4Q 5A 6Q 7A 8Q 9A 10 11 12 13 14 Q 15 A 16 17 18 Q 19 20 A 21 Q 22 23 24 A 25 Yes. And for Pydraul 312A, how much was terphenyl? About 30, 31, 32 percent. Okay. So it was about 32 percent? Um-hum. So a reduction basically from a half to a third? Yes. What was the significance of that? Well, as I said earlier, there was less chlorinated material present in each pound of Pydraul, and if any of it did get in the environment by some accident, the amount of chlorinated material would certainly be less. Okay. And what -- Was there a third reason? Oh, of course the -- another -- a reason, the two are compatible, which is very important to machines that are actively producing product. Mr. Papageorge, were there differences in the molecular weights of the two compounds? Oh, certainly. And did that difference have any significance -- potential significance to the environment, that one was heavier than the other? Well, it was heavier certainly. The terphenyl, being the bigger molecule, was heavier. On the other hand, 2716 WATER PCB-SD0000075204 1 2 3 4 5Q 6 7A 8 9Q 10 11 A 12 Q 13 14 A 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the fact it didn't have all those chlorines attached to it made it easy for, let's say, bacteria to get get to the hydrogen and the carbon and start eating it and destroying it. Yes. Which of the two compounds were more mobile in the environment, PCBs or the PCTs? Oh, I see. The PCBs are more mobile because they are more soluble in water, for example. Okay. So why don't we just -- For Reason 3 can we say, "Less Mobile, More Soluble"? Certainly. Have we fairly summarized the reasons why the PCTs were different than PCBs? I believe so, yes. Um-hum. THE COURT: Now that you have finished with that, we are going to take our break now. THE CLERK: All rise. (Recess had.) (Switch in reporters.) 2717 WATER PCB-SD0000075205 i *1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q 11 12 13 14 A 15 Q 16 17 A 18 Q 19 A 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q THE COURT: We'll resume the Direct Examination of Mr. Papageorge. MR. RUNNING: Your Honor, we've marked the chart Mr. Papageorge was referring to as Defendant's Exhibit 1256. I^d move for the admission of that exhibit as a summary of his testimony. MR. CARLSON: No objection. THE COURT: So received. MR. RUNNING: Now, Mr. Papageorge, on to the next document. This has already been received into evidence, Your Honor. It's 1252. Mr. Papageorge, you've identified Dr. Kelly as Monsanto's company doctor, is that correct? I have, yes. And did you receive this memorandum from him on March 30th of 1970? I did. What did you do after you received this memo? First I called Dr. Kelly and informed him that we already were considering his suggestion. It was part of an overall plan for the marketing of PCBs, so his letter arrived at my desk at a very opportune time. It showed me that he would be supportive of this particular part of the plan. And what does this memorandum refer to, what 2718 WATER PCB-SD0000075206 1 2A 3 4 5 6 7 Q 8 9 10 11 12 A 13 Q 14 15 A 16 Q 17 18 A 19 Q 20 21 A 22 Q 23 24 A 25 specific problem? This refers to the use of PCBs in coatings, paint, really, in silos, and the coating after awhile chips off, dissolves, gets into the silage, the silage is eaten by the cattle, by the cows, and it shows up in their milk. The PCBs in the silage coating, were those functional fluids, within the -- I understand there are various divisions in Monsanto. One is the plasticizer group, one is the functional fluids group, there is a dielectric group, is that correct? The dielectric is part of functional fluids. Part of functional fluids, okay. What group were these silo coatings in? This came under the Monsanto plasticizers group. So would Pydraul 312, for example, be used as a silo coater? No, certainly not. So hydraulic fluids and silo coatings were not the same product? That is correct. What decision did Monsanto make at or about this time concerning the use of PCBs in silos? The decision was not to sell PCBs for coatings used not only in silos, but anywhere. 2719 WATER PCB-SD0000075207 1Q 2A 3Q 4A 5 6 7Q 8A 9 10 Q 11 12 13 A 14 Q 15 16 17 A 18 19 20 21 22 Q 23 A 24 Q 25 A Did you agree with that decision? Certainly. Is that what Dr. Kelly was recommending? Dr. Kelly's recommendation was specific to the use of coatings that related to food, feed, and water for drinking purposes. Did Monsanto's decision go beyond those areas? They did. They covered all uses of PCBs in any kind of coatings. Now, how was this decision, how were the people informed of this decision by Monsanto? Let's take the distributors, for example? I'm sorry, take what? How were the distributors of these silo coatings, how were they informed of the decision to stop the sales? The marketing individuals in Monsanto who had the distributor as part of his territory that he covered, informed him that beginning, as I recall, in the summer of 1970, he would no longer be sold any PCBs from Monsanto. And were letters also sent out? Yes. What was the content of the letters? In essence, as of that date that I can't remember at 2720 WATER PCB-SD0000075208 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the moment, PCBs for use in coatings would no longer be available. MR. RUNNING: Your Honor, this document is already in evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit 33. If we could also admit it as Defendant's Trial Exhibit 1088, just for convenience. It's the outline of the CMC presentation, entitled "PCB Environmental Problem." Do you have any objection? MR. CARLSON: If the Court thinks that's all right, I don't have a problem with it. We are going to have two exhibit numbers on -- THE COURT: As long as the record discloses that 33 and 1088 are the same. MR. CARLSON: That's no problem. MR. RUNNING: Thank you. Your Honor. Mr. Papageorge, can you identify this document? This document is a copy of an outline presented to the top management committee in Monsanto, referred to as the CMC, and the title of the outline is "PCB Environmental Problem," and attached to it is the text of a talk that I made before that group, and included in that were copies of transparencies that were shown on the screen during the discussion. In other words, you made a presentation to 2721 WATER PCB-SD0000075209 1 2 3A 4 Q 5 6A 7 Q 8A 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Monsanto's management using transparencies, much as we are doing this morning? Yes. Referring to Item 3 under actions, the first action is "Control effluent from our plant?" I see it. . Can you describe what is involved there? That consisted of a program of many parts, really. One was the insistence that the maintenance mechanics repair leaks quickly. No. 2 is have the operators be very careful when they conducted their operations so that they didn't create spills unnecessarily, or even, for example, when they'd take a sample, be careful as you take the sample. We also helped them, speaking of samples, by providing them with a device that under the sample spigot, there was a funnel to catch any drippage, and that drippage would be collected at a central point. We introduced concrete curbs. We made really giant bathtubs so the material could not get off the concrete floor into the surrounding area or into the sewers. We then provided that there would be a catch basin underneath this, so that the material 2722 WATER PCB-SD0000075210 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q 8 9 10 11 A 12 Q 13 14 15 16 17 Q 18 A 19 Q 20 A 21 22 23 24 25 would collect, and then we'd be very careful how we transferred the material in this basin into the proper containers for disposal, proper disposal or recycling, if it was still clean enough to recycle. Those are just some examples of how we tried to control effluent from our own producing plant. Just a couple of items on this page I'd like to refer to. Under major developments, 2B, "Meetings with Dr. Risebrough and Olcutt, at Berkeley, California." Yes. What was involved there? MR. CARLSON: I object. It's hearsay at this point. THE COURT: It sounds like it. MR. RUNNING: Were you involved in meeting Dr. Risebrough? Yes, I met with Dr. Risebrough and Dr. Olcutt. What was the purpose of the meeting? Well, we knew they were conducting studies in California. We had of course seen his scientific paper and had seen the reference in the newspaper to him, so we made an appointment in, I believe it was March of '70 to visit with them and find out what their program was, what their findings were. 2723 WATER PCB-SD0000075211 i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This is where we discussed the program they had ongoing for the Brown Pelican off Southern California, and the fact that the Brown Pelican was having troubles reproducing. They were laying eggs with no shells or very thin shells, so that the mother bird couldn't sit on them without breaking them. That is the kinds of discussion we had, and we reviewed their needs for any more sample material, whatever, wherever we could help with their program. Did you discuss whether the problems were due to DDT or PCBs? Oh, yes. Their program -- MR. CARLSON: Wait. That can be answered yes or no. Your Honor. THE COURT: I agree. It sounds like it's going to be hearsay. MR. RUNNING: What did Dr. Risebrough say to you? MR. CARLSON: That is objected to as hearsay. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. RUNNING: Your Honor, I would submit that the information that Mr. Papageorge had at the time is certainly relevant to the claim by the 2724 WATER PCB-SD0000075212  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Q 9 10 11 12 A 13 Q 14 15 16 A 17 Q 18 A 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 plaintiff that the conduct was outrageous. The state of mind is relevant. THE COURT: There is nothing wrong with this gentleman testifying as to what he did as a result of his conferences, but this question asks what Dr. Risebrough told him. MR. RUNNING: Mr. Papageorge, did the information you obtained from Dr. Risebrough enter into the decisions you made subsequently about the appropriate uses for Monsanto's PCB products? That was certainly considered, yes. Now, Item C is participation with regulatory agencies in a meeting at Duluth, Minnesota. Were you involved at that meeting? I was. Could you describe the meeting? This meeting was called by the director of the water -- the Federal Water Laboratory located in Duluth. His purpose for calling the meeting was to familiarize himself and his staff with PCBs, their manufacture, their uses, and also to offer an opportunity for other laboratories that were interested to share their findings up to that point in time. This occurred in March, middle of March, 2725 WATER PCB-SD0000075213 1 2Q 3 4 A 5 6Q 7 8A 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Q 22 23 24 25 1970. What was Monsanto's policy at the time regarding cooperation with outside laboratories and agencies? Total openness. We were invited to attend, and we were delighted to do so, frankly. Item F is "Coordination with co-producers in Europe." What did that involve, Mr. Papageorge? Prior to April, 1970, there was an ongoing discussion with Monsanto representatives in Europe, with other producers of PCBs in Europe, but these were on a one-to-one type of discussion. In April of 1970, three of us from Monsanto, St. Louis joined three or four from Monsanto, Europe and met as a group, representatives from the German, French, Spanish, and Italian PCB manufacturers, and we shared with them what we had learned and done regarding PCBs and the environment, and we were hoping to get them to join us, cooperate with us and concur that what we were doing was the right way to go. Were the producers in Europe doing more to restrict the release of PCBs in the environment or less than Monsanto? MR. CARLSON: Object, hearsay, Your Honor. Personal knowledge. 2726 WATER PCB-SD0000075214 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Q 14 15 16 A 17 Q 18 A 19 20 21 Q 22 23 24 Q 25 THE COURT: It's awful difficult to make a ruling on that type of question. It's impossible without knowing what he's going to say, as to whether or not it is from personal knowledge or from what somebody told him over there. MR. CARLSON: I guess I'd object to the lack of foundation at this time, until we have that. THE COURT: Well, he's been there. MR. CARLSON: I understand, but I don't know if he's gone through the plant and looked at materials or talked to somebody. MR. RUNNING: Mr. Papageorge, did you learn what steps if any the European producers had taken to restrict or reformulate PCB uses? I did. How did you learn that information? Well, we had this review session with all of them in the room, where each one, just as I did, described their programs, and they had no programs. Turn to page number 1432. THE COURT: 1432? MR. RUNNING: 1432, Your Honor, entitled "PCB content, plant effluent," same document. 2727 WATER PCB-SD0000075215 1 2 3 4 A 5Q 6A 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Q 15 16 17 A 18 Q 19 20 A 21 Q 22 23 A 24 25 Q Mr. Papageorge, was this one of the transparencies you showed to the president of Monsanto in this meeting? It is. Can you describe what is shown here? This shows the amount of PCBs calculated as being in the plant wastewater, leaving the plant at the three Monsanto plants, the two in the United States, and the bottom one there is in the United Kingdom. It shows the amounts associated with the dates, in the left-hand column, the actual amounts, and it also shows for the future dates, the targets that we were going after in terms of losses per day. Okay. Now Mr. Carlson has referred to these numbers. I want to be clear on which ones. Do you see the numbers I'm circling in blue? I do. Let's talk about the Sauget facility, first of all. Is that a big plant? Yes, it is. Can you describe the size for those of us who haven't walked around it? You're talking about the PCB unit or the whole plant? The whole plant. 2728 WATER PCB-SD0000075216 91 A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Q 12 ^ 13 A 14 Q 15 A 16 Q 17 18 A 19 Q 20 21 A 22 23 Q 24 25 The whole plant is roughly 75 to a hundred acres. The PCB unit, itself, occupies five to ten acres. It had, at that time, close to 2,000 employees. THE COURT: Excuse me, the whole plant or the PCBs? THE WITNESS: The whole plant. The PCB unit had about 40 operators, and it had about 10 or 15 mechanics supporting it. Those are not exact numbers, but they're close. MR. RUNNING: Did the Sauget plant have a wastewater treatment facility? At that time, no. Did it feed into municipal wastewater? Yes. So these releases were not directly into the Mississippi River? That is correct. Now the reference to 3,500 parts per billion, how does that translate into parts per million? You divide that by a thousand, so that will give you 3.5 parts per million. Why hadn't Monsanto detected the presence of 3.5 parts per million PCBs in the Sauget plant effluent, prior to April, 1969? 2729 WATER PCB-SD0000075217  1A 2 3 4 5Q 6 7A 8Q 9 10 11 A 12 13 Q 14 15 16 A 17 Q 18 19 A 20 21 22 23 24 25 The analytical methods available to Monsanto to detect PCBs at that low a level were not available until late '68, early '69. (Switch in reporters.) How many pounds of PCBs approximately were produced at the Sauget plant in a year? Just generally? About 40 million pounds. What was the volume of wastewater from the plant at the municipal treatment facility just generally, if you know? I just don't know. This involved water from all of the producing units. I just don't have that number. Based on your experience at Monsanto's plants, do chemical manufacturing facilities generate a lot of wastewater? Yes, they do. How did the PCBs get into the municipal sewer at the Sauget plant or the Anniston plant? Well, it goes back to the things I described earlier regarding our program to reduce losses, the drippage from the sample procedure, the leakage, say, from a pump that's leaking at the pump seal, and the mechanic doesn't take care of it right away, and there was no pan under it to stop it, the -- the cleanup of the floor, the stains on the floor, every 2730 WATER PCB-SD0000075218 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Q 10 11 12 A 13 14 15 16 Q 17 A 18 Q 19 20 A 21 Q 22 23 A 24 Q 25 so often the supervisor would say, "I need a clean department," and they put some detergent down and then hose it into the sewer. These are the -- I am not talking now about rivers of fluid, of PCBs flowing, these are small amounts here and there, but they did add up, as you can see, to a little over -- well, a drum and a half a day from that big unit. Once the technology was available to detect PCBs at this level in the wastewater, what did Monsanto do about it? Well, it gave us a way to measure our success in lowering the losses, and then we went into our program for keeping it out of the wastewater that I described earlier. And was the program successful? Yes, it was. You can see the numbers reflect that. Now, this presentation was in mid-April of 1970; is that right? Yes. So you had three sets of data for Sauget; is that right? Yes. And the rest of these that I put in the hatch box, what were those? 2731 WATER PCB-SD0000075219  1A 2 3Q 4A 5Q 6A 7Q 8 9A 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Q 19 20 A 21 Q 22 23 24 A 25 Q Those were the targets that we told the plant they must shoot for. And did they? Yes, they did. Urn-hum. And was the program ultimately successful? Yes. Was it easy to reach this level of reduction in the wastewater effluent in the span of eleven months? I don't know how to describe ease. It didn't take space age technology, so it was easy regarding the technology involved. It did take some concerted effort on the part of the bosses and the workers, and so from that viewpoint they felt that this was an added burden we placed on them, so it wasn't easy from their perspective, but it was achievable, and it just took a concerted effort, everybody do your job well and use these techniques, and it got done. So the detection technology was space age but the control technology wasn't? That is correct. Let's go to -- The next page is STR 1433. Is this still from your presentation to the president of Monsanto, the vice presidents? I am at STR 1433. I found it. Yes. Are we still on your presentation to the president 2732 WATER PCB-SD0000075220 1 2A 3Q 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A 13 14 Q 15 A 16 Q 17 18 A 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and vice presidents of Monsanto? We are. Direct your attention to the first paragraph. It reads, "We have worked closely with our customers and have offered our technical assistance on their disposal and effluent problems. Arrangements have been made for the return and recovery of some of these fluids. Successful control is possible for those uses which utilize Aroclor in closed, sealed systems." Let's stop there. What's being described here, Mr. Papageorge? That attempts to describe the uses of -- Are you talking about the closed, sealed systems now? Yes. That -- I am sorry. I'm just talking about working closely with customers and offering technical assistance. Well, through our field representatives, in emphasizing the need for control and to keep PCBs from entering the environment, we had offered this technical assistance insofar as we were capable to do it, at the same time recognizing that we couldn't put on the hat of a consulting engineering company, not having the -- that kind of activity as part of Monsanto, but we did recognize that we had some 2733 WATER PCB-SD0000075221 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Q 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A 17 Q 18 A 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 experiences with PCBs that might be helpful with customers and their engineering staffs or their engineering consultants that they might have to help them, so we -- we tried as best we could to let it be known that we were ready and willing to help as far as possible. Okay. Let's go on. "Successful control is possible for those uses which utilize Aroclors in closed, sealed systems. In those instances where control is virtually impossible, e.g.," for example, "coatings, adhesives, pesticide uses, cutting oils, we must discontinue sales or offer, preferably, an acceptable substitute product." Stop there. Are hydraulic fluids included in the list of instances where control is virtually impossible? No. Why not? Why weren't they? Because control is possible so that it wouldn't make sense to consider them otherwise. They, again, lend themselves to some simple corrective action. Simple in terms of the kinds of technology it would take. All it requires is the kinds of things that Monsanto used in its plants, curbing, trenches, collection tanks, maintenance, good maintenance. So control is possible in that kind of system. 2734 WATER PCB-SD0000075222  1Q 2 3 4 5 6A 7Q 8A 9 10 Q 11 12 A 13 14 Q 15 A 16 17 18 19 20 Q 21 22 23 A 24 25 Were there reasons why it might have been harder for Monsanto to control spills at its plants than Stroh would have -- the trouble Stroh would have had at its plant? Let's talk about the Anniston plant. Was that an open plant? I am sorry. Was the Anniston plant an open plant? Yes, these are open structures. They have no walls around the steel structure. Why is that? Why don't chemical plants of this size have walls? Well, there is no attempt to keep the elements out; the rain and snow doesn't hurt them. Is it something like a refinery? Like a refinery that we see pictures of occasionally in the newspapers and all. Yes, that kind of thing. The only building in the whole unit is the building that houses the instruments that the operators use to control the process. Does the absence of walls around the operating area of the facility make it easier or more difficult to control spills? I don't think that the presence or absence of walls is a factor. You can still build the concrete curb to keep the spills from going where they shouldn't 2735 WATER PCB-SD0000075223 1 2 3 4 5 6Q 7 8 9A 10 Q 11 A 12 Q 13 14 15 A 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 go, you can still build the sump tank under it to catch it, you can still build these devices, like the pans underneath the pumps, so that when a pump starts to leak, you catch the material. So walls really are not a factor here. I understand they are not a factor for your use of proper spill containment procedures you have just outlined. Right. But let's talk about in the early '60s. Well -- Does it help to have walls around a facility? Does that help make it easier to prevent spills from leaking out? To a degree it does. If the spill, say, occurs on the floor, and is permitted to flow off of that floor into the surrounding area, which is generally either dirt or crushed rock, the PCBs of course find their way into that area, then you have, let's say, heavy rainfalls that not only sweep across that open area but also can drive through some portions of that upper floor in the structure, if there are any PCBs around, that rain is going to pick them up and move them. So a wall would help there. But once you put these curbs and all in, the wall's effect is not as 2736 WATER PCB-SD0000075224 1 2Q 3 4A 5Q 6A 7Q 8A 9Q 10 A 11 12 Q 13 14 A 15 Q 16 17 18 19 20 21 A 22 23 24 25 great. I take it there are a lot of pipes in a chemical facility? Oh, yes. A lot of connections? A lot of connections, a lot of flanges. A lot of rubber hoses? Hoses. A lot of pumps? Couplings, many, many pumps some with mechanical seals, some with stuffing boxes with packing. Did you have experience with spill containment as a result of your work for Monsanto? I certainly have, oh, yes. What are those items that are identified as being instances where control is virtually impossible? What do they have in common? How can you describe those uses? They're hard to read even from here. Coatings, adhesives, pesticide uses, cutting oils. What do they have in common? In common. They -- The PCBs of course are present, and the application is such that -- Pesticide uses, as one can imagine, is one where the pesticide is spread, the PCBs go with it. You can't control it once you have spread it. The adhesives, they are 2737 WATER PCB-SD0000075225 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Q 15 A 16 17 Q 18 19 A 20 Q 21 22 23 24 A 25 Q found on many, mapy cartons and tapes that end up in j packages, as an example, that find their way in all kinds of landfills, for example. Coatings, covers the whole area of the -- primarily paints and varnishes. I recall vividly the example where they were used -- PCBs were used quite extensively in making long-lasting traffic paints, the white and yellow lines that you see on highways. That kind of application, it's easy to see how it gets in the environment. After a while it wears, and it disappears, the PCBs are still with them, they're getting into the environment. You can't control it. What was done about those applications? What was done? We discontinued sales to those applications in August of 1970. You mentioned pesticide uses. Was Aroclor ever used as a pesticide itself? No. And then this is titled, "Schedule For Discontinuing Aroclor Applications." I see a reference to "Pesticide Extender." Is that how PCBs were sometimes used? Yes. How common was that usage? 2738 WATER PCB-SD0000075226  1A 2Q 3A 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q 11 12 13 14 A 15 16 17 18 Q 19 A 20 Q 21 22 A 23 Q 24 A 25 It was not a big use. I see the reference to $10,000 worth of sales a year. That's all it was It was a very small use. It was used with some pesticides, in pesticide mixtures that were intended to be sprayed on surfaces for crawling insects, and the intent there was that the PCBs would persist along with the pesticide so that the insect. when it walks across, would be exposed and would die from that exposure Now, had the deci sion been made to reformulate hydraulic fluids, some of the hydraulic fluids, as of this date, proposal? April pf 1970, j or at least was this your The decision was to reformulate those hydraulic fluids that had the Aroclor 1254 and the Aroclor 1260 and even Aroclor 1248. In other words, those with the five and more chlorines in them. Aroclor 1248 is between 42 and 54? Yes, it was in between. So it would have jaore than 7 percent of the higher ! chlorinated molecules? Yes. | Why wasn't Pydraut 312 included on this list? i Well, at that time Aroclor 1242, which was an ingredient in Pydraul 312, was not being identified 2739 WATER PCB-SD0000075227 1 2 3Q 4 5 6 7 8A 9Q 10 11 12 13 14 A 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Q 23 24 #25 A in the environment and was not considered to be an environmental -- an environmental problem. The first paragraph, I didn't highlight it, but let's just briefly refer to it. You've discussed the toxicity testing that Mr. Wheeler started up. I think we addressed that last Thursday afternoon. Was that still underway as of April of 1970? The long-term studies were underway, yes. Okay. And you wrote, "Data to date indicate that Aroclors are mildly toxic to mammals, however, it is highly unlikely that this will be a significant factor in any decision regarding the banning or restricting of the use of Aroclors." Why was that? Well, from what we had learned and sensed at the time, just the mere presence of an industrial chemical, manmade, in the environment was considered to be undesirable, and we felt that the restriction of the use of this kind of chemical would be based on its presence alone rather than on health effects, unless those health effects were very, very dramatic, so obvious that one can't ignore them. In other words, you had decided that the presence of the chemical in the environment on a persistent basis was enough to reformulate it? That's right. 2740 WATER PCB-SD0000075228  XQ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 A 12 Q 13 14 15 16 17 A 18 19 20 Q 21 22 23 24 25 The next paragraphs -- I will read the next paragraph. "A major development has been achieved by our research department in refining our analytical procedures to the level that we now possess capabilities far exceeding many laboratories and unsurpassed by any. We are actively communicating our methodology to other laboratories to improve the type of information being generated. Our objective is to be considered experts with reliable results." Is that a fair summary of the work to date? It certainly is. The next paragraph. "Biodegradation studies have, thus far, confirmed our initial beliefs that the lower chlorinated biphenyls would degrade easily." Let's stop there. What studies were you referring to? This is primarily the work conducted in the United Kingdom at the Ruabon, Wales, laboratory. Monsanto's laboratory. Let's go on. "We were disappointed in the resistance to degradation of some of the isomers in Aroclor 1242. This would tend to confirm the belief that some of the five and six chlorinated biphenyls being found in the environment could be residue from degraded Aroclor 1242." Let's stop there. What -- 2741 WATER PCB-SD0000075229 1 V 2A 3 4 5 6Q 7A 8 9Q 10 A 11 12 13 Q 14 15 16 A 17 18 19 20 Q 21 22 23 A 24 25 What were you reporting here? We were reporting the fact that the five and six chlorinated biphenyls which were present at about 7 percent in Aroclor 1242 were not degrading along with the one, two, three, four chlorines. Does that mean they would never degrade? Well, never is a long time. They wouldn't degrade in a reasonable period of time. Was this a matter of concern? Yes. Yes. Because it supports the fact that the five and six-chlorine biphenyls were found in the environment. It fits in with that. Why wasn't Monsanto satisfied that 93 percent of Aroclor 1242 is biodegradable? Why isn't that good enough? Well, it's just that the other 7 percent was still perceived to be a potential problem. Not a proven problem, but Monsanto just didn't feel it was necessarily worth the risk any longer. What alternatives were you pursuing at this time in regard to addressing that 7 percent of Aroclor 1242 that wasn't readily biodegradable? The one alternative is to remove that 7 percent from the material that was sold so that it never had a chance to get into any product and we didn't have to 2742 WATER PCB-SD0000075230 1 2Q 3 4 5 6 7 8 9A 10 11 12 *13 Q 14 A 15 Q 16 A 17 Q 18 A 19 20 21 Q 22 A 23 Q 24 25 A worry about the release to the environment. I think that's addressed in the next sentence. It says, "We are actively pursuing the possible use of distilled Aroclor 1242 with degradable components as a possible substitute with minimum loss of other favorable characteristics, for example. fire-resistance." What does this reference to distilled Aroclor 1242 refer to? "Distilled" refers to a step in a process for -- which removes the five, six, seven and higher chlorinated biphenyls from the material that originally started out as an Aroclor 1242. Was this program ultimately successful? It was. What was that product called ultimately? It was called Aroclor 1016. Okay. And what was unique about Aroclor 1016? The five-chlorine and higher biphenyls were reduced, as I recall, to less than 1 percent, but it still had predominantly the three-chlorine biphenyl. Mr. Papageorge, are all PCBs the same? They are not. And did you believe at the time that it was possible to make a biodegradable Aroclor? Yes. 2743 WATER PCB-SD0000075231 1Q 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Q 9 10 A 11 12 13 14 15 16 Q 17 18 19 A 20 Q 21 ' 22 A 23 Q 24 25 A Mr. Papageorge, I am going to hand you Defendant's Trial Exhibit 1089. Can you identify this as an April 7, 1970, PCB management plan that you prepared? THE COURT: April 7 of '70? MR. RUNNING: 1970. THE WITNESS: Yes, it is. MR. RUNNING: And was this distributed to your boss, Mr. Bergen, and to others in the company? Yes. MR. RUNNING: I move for the admission of this document, Your Honor. MR. CARLSON: No objection. THE COURT: So received. MR. RUNNING: Mr. Papageorge, I am not going to go through all of this plan. Was this a more detailed version of your presentation to the corporate management committee? It is. And on this cover memo you call it "a plan for managing the PCB problem"? Yes. And did you summarize that plan to the president of Monsanto and to the vice presidents? Yes, the previous document is a reflection of that 2744 WATER PCB-SD0000075232 1 2Q 3 4 5A 6Q 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A 17 Q 18 19 20 A 21 Q 22 23 A 24 25 summary. Okay. I do want to cover one point that's been referred to by Mr. Carlson. You see the heading "Basic Strategy," Mr. Papageorge? I do. Let me read to the end of the highlighted section. It says, "With the growing evidence of the presence of PCB and the apparent damage it can do to the world environment, Monsanto must respond as a responsible member of the business world genuinely concerned with the welfare of our environment, yet not take premature action which would compromise its responsibilities to its customers, shareholders or employees." Did you write that part of the plan, Mr. Papageorge? Yes, I did. Was Monsanto genuinely concerned about the apparent damage PCBs could do to the world's environment at the time? Certainly. Why was Monsanto also concerned about compromising its responsibilities to its customers? Well, as a responsible industry or company, we just -- we just have that responsibility built into the way we operated. 2745 WATER PCB-SD0000075233  1Q 2A 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Q 12 13 14 A 15 l6 Q 17 18 l9 A 20 21 22 23 24 #25 Q What did the customers want at the time? The customer want a product that is capable of doing what he buys it for. He wants it not to create problems beyond his control. He wants to know all he can about that material. Of course, he wants it available to fit his needs, and he wants it -- he wants so many pounds of the product at a certain price. These are the kinds of things he expects from a responsible supplier, and we were trying to fulfill all that. Were any of Monsanto's customers at the time requesting that the product be reformulated to remove PCBs? No, it was the opposite really. They didn't want to change anything. What about shareholders? Why were you concerned at the time about Monsanto's responsibilities to its shareho1ders? Well, Monsanto is a company in the business of attempting to make a reasonable profit, and that's why it has these shareholders interested in it, and any decision that's made that affects the income for any shareholders, it has to be done responsibly. You can't do it without good, sound reason. What about concern about compromising 2746 WATER PCB-SD0000075234 1 2A 3 4 5Q 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 A 22 Q 23 24 A 25 responsibilities to employees, what was that about? That directly affects really the jobs associated with any product line, from manufacture, to sales, to the whole team. Let's turn to the next page. Let's focus on "Objectives." I think we have read the comment that I have highlighted above in the presentation to the management committee. Let me read the overall objectives. The first paragraph, "The overall objective of this plan is to manage the PCB pollution problem to prevent it from adversely affecting the established return-on-investment objectives of the Functional Fluids and Plasticizers Groups, while maintaining the corporate image of Monsanto as a responsible and respected member of industry worldwide. We must assume worldwide leadership and work closely with the appropriate regulatory agencies in arriving at logical rational decisions." Let's stop there. Does this mean that Monsanto is going to be putting profits ahead of the environment? Definitely no. Why not? It does -- It refers to a return on investment, Mr. Papageorge. Well, it certainly does, but it doesn't say do it any way you can and don't be responsible. That's not the 2747 WATER PCB-SD0000075235 1 2 3 4Q 5 6 7 8A 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Q 18 19 20 A 21 22 23 24 25 point. The point is achieve the return on investment responsibly, which could well mean discontinue PCBs and find something else to replace it. Well, how could it -- how could it result in a favorable return on investment to discontinue PCBs? In the short run you're going to lose money; aren't you? Well, initially the loss of sales of PCBs will reflect a loss of money, but if a good alternative material is found, initially you have the cost of building a new plant to make that new material, but once you get an acceptable substitute, eventually it will not only pay for the new plant but make up for the losses that you had when you stopped the PCB sales. So that's just another way to still have your return on investment and do it responsibly. Mr. Carlson has referred several times to this concept, the corporate image. What did that mean to you, Mr. Papageorge? It means that Monsanto is looked upon by just about everybody, whether it be the employees, the customers, the neighbors, the -- its competitors, as a -- as a respected company, a company that's expected to do the right thing. They're very sensitive about that, that perception, and they work 2748 WATER PCB-SD0000075236 1 2 3Q 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Q 22 23 A 24 Q 25 A hard to get it. (Switch in reporters.) Mr. Papageorge, we've all seen these corporate ad campaigns. Mobile has ad campaigns, Dow has an ad campaign called "Dow let's you do great things?" MR. CARLSON: Your Honor, I object. That is -- first of all, it's leading, it's testimony by MR. RUNNING: I haven't even finished the question. Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, lawyers don't testify. MR. CARLSON: He's trying to. MR. RUNNING: I'd like to have the privilege of being allowed to complete my question before Mr. Carlson interrupts. MR. CARLSON: You may. I'm not going to argue with you. I object to the form of the question at this point, even though he's not done with it. MR. RUNNING: Mr. Papageorge, are you familiar with corporate ad campagins such as Dow's ad campaign? Yes. Is that what you were talking about, an ad campaign? No, no. The image or the perception I'm talking 2749 WATER PCB-SD0000075237  91 2 3 4 5 6Q 7 A 8Q 9 10 A 11 Q 12 13 14 A 15 Q 16 A 17 18 Q 19 20 21 22 23 A 24 25 Q about is something that is done over many, many years of time and by performing in a way that is looked upon by outsiders as responsible, favorably. I'm not talking about advertising campaigns or that type of thing, although that is done. Did Monsanto run a TV ad campaign on Aroclors? No. Nothing like Aroclors let you do great things or anything like that? No, sir. In the long-term, did you think that Monsanto could trade damage to the environment for profits? Did you think that was a viable option? Trade damage for profit? Did you think there was a trade off? At no time -- if the environment was damaged, forget the profit, get out. Why forget the profit? What would that do to the company if it was determined that the company had knowingly compromised the environment for short-term profits? What would that do to the long-term profitability of the company? It would affect the long-term profitability badly, negatively. Why? 2750 WATER PCB-SD0000075238 1 A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q 11 A 12 13 Q 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A 24 Q 25 Because all of the entities that we would be working with, whether they be customers, shipping companies, regulatory agencies, the general public, the shareholders or potential shareholders, they would have an image of Monsanto that just would not be favorable, and they would have nothing to do with this, and in the long run, that hurts more than the few dollars you might have earned up front by acting irresponsibly. Is the company's reputation an asset? Oh, it's a very precious asset. That is something they always work hard to keep and maintain. Let's look at the eight objectives. I'll read them. My question at the end, Mr. Papageorge, will be, I would like you to identify any one of these objectives that entail putting short-term profits over the environment. The first objective is, "Reduce and effectively control the PCB content of all effluent from Monsanto plants." Did that entail putting short-term profits over the environment, Mr. Papageorge? It does not. Second objective. "Inform customers of the PCB problem and the importance of preventing 2751 WATER PCB-SD0000075239 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8A 9Q 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 A 17 Q 18 19 20 21 22 A 23 Q 24 25 environmental pollution both at their plants or by their products, and encourage them to take responsible action by offering assistance on reclamation, substitute products and proper disposal." Did that entail putting short-term profits over the environment? No. Third objective. "Develop products to replace Aroclors for those uses in which Aroclors have been demonstrated to be harmful to the environment and cannot be prevented from escaping into the environment." Did that include putting short-term profits over the environment? It does not. The fourth objective. "Develop reliable analytical procedures for determining PCB content of liquids, gases, or solids." Did that entail putting short-term profits over the environment? No. Fifth objective. "Develop methods for effective disposal of wastes containing PCB without contaminating the environment." 2752 WATER PCB-SD0000075240 1 2 3A 4 Q 5 6 7 8A 9Q 10 11 12 A l3 Q 14 15 l6 17 18 19 A 20 Q 21 22 23 A 24 Q 25 A Did that entail putting short-term profits over the environment? No. Sixth objective. "Develop methods for reclaiming and reusing off-grade fluids containing PCB." Did that entail putting profits over the environment? No. Seven. "Determine effects of PCBs on birds, aquatic life, animals, and humans." Did that entail putting profits over the environment? It does not. Eighth objective. "Establish and maintain favorable relationships with our customers, the press, governmental agencies, other worldwide producers, the public, and the universities." Did that entail putting profits over the environment, Mr. Papageorge? It does not. I show you Defendant's Trial Exhibit 1090. Will you identify this as an April 17, '70 memorandum from Dr. Keller to yourself? Yes. Is this a Monsanto business record? Yes. 2753 WATER PCB-SD0000075241 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Q 8 9 10 A 11 Q 12 13 A 14 15 16 17 18 Q 19 20 A 21 Q 22 23 24 1 25 MR. RUNNING: I move for its admission. MR. CARLSON: It's previously been admitted as another number. We'll have to correlate it. I have no objection. THE COURT: So received. MR. RUNNING: Mr. Papageorge, is this Dr. Keller's first report to you on environmental sampling, or at least specific results of environmental sampling? Yes. And we heard a lot of names. Who was Dr. Keller, again? Dr. Keller is the director of the analytical research chemistry group. This is the group that looks into new analytical procedures, and this is also the group that developed the PCB testing methods. He reports as of April, '70, a total of 167 environmental samples had been analyzed? He does. Mr. Carlson has referred to the results of that sampling work. I'd like to take you through it, Mr. Papageorge. It's not a great copy. We'll do the best we can with this. I take it the results are reported on three pages that are attached to the 2754 WATER PCB-SD0000075242 1 2A 3Q 4 5A 6Q 7 8 9A 10 11 12 Q 13 14 A 15 Q 16 17 18 19 20 21 A 22 Q 23 24 25 memorandum? That is true, yes. And the sampling results are divided by categories, aren't they, Mr. Papageorge? They are. What is the significance of this title right here, non-industrial? What type of environmental samples were those? Well, as listed, you can see there is fish samples, there is a human fat sample, milk, water, silo scrapings. Are these samples taken away from the immediate vicinity of an industrial facility? Not this first page, no. I'm sorry. I think I slipped a not in there. I don't think you heard me. These sites, location of sample sites, Manitowoc River, Kewaunee River, Burns Ditch, Manistee River, source unknown, dairy farms, dairy farms. Are those in the immediate vicinity of industrial facilities using PCBs? Not to my knowledge. Okay. There we go, and does this column here, I'll try to get to a more legible part of the screen. It's not very legible. Does this column here that I've circled, does that report what kind of Aroclor 2755 WATER PCB-SD0000075243 1 2A 3Q 4 5 6A 7 Q 8A 9Q 10 A 11 Q 12 13 A 14 15 16 Q 17 18 A 19 Q 20 A 21 Q 22 23 A 24 Q 25 had been identified in the environmental sample? It does. And most people can't read this. Let me just -- this column here, is Aroclor 1242 the one on the far left? Yes. And the next column over is Aroclor 1248? Yes. And this column is what? 1254. What is the significance of the star, the stars all the way down that column? That designates that in the samples listed, the PCB identified by the chemist appears to be Aroclor 1254. Was that consistent with Jensen and Widmark's reported findings? Very much so, yes. And with the other researchers at the time? Yes. Now, is there another category of samples that were taken? Yes. And do those start at the second page of the memorandum, second page of the attachment, STR 6711? 2756 WATER PCB-SD0000075244 1 A 2 3Q 4 A 5Q 6 7 A 8Q 9 10 11 12 A 13 14 15 Q 16 17 A 18 Q 19 20 21 22 A 23 24 Q 25 Yes, but I sense that the second page and the third page have been transposed. I think you're right. The second page is a continuation of the third page. You're right. This is the end of the second category? Right. This is the industrial category. Okay. Just for the record. I'm referring to STR 6714 -- or 12. 6714. No, 6712. Industrial facilities. What is the significance of that category? This sheet describes samples taken from a waterway that is near a factory site in which we know PCBs were either manufactured or used. These facilities here were factories that you knew used PCBs? Correct. Now, the column, PCBs found, is it fair to say that the Aroclors, many, many types of Aroclors were found in those industrial samples, is that accurate? Some Aroclor 1242, some Aroclor 1248? For some of them. There were some that had just the one. Okay, but unlike the chart for environmental samples, in which they were all 1254, this one has 2757 WATER PCB-SD0000075245 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 several different Aroclors identified? That is correct. Does the fact that Aroclor 1248 -- I'm sorry, Aroclor 1242, as being identified in some of these industrial samples, did that indicate to you at the time that Aroclor 1242 didn't biodegrade? It indicated that near the source, a sample would show the product as is and nature had not had a chance to degrade. So can you say whether or not this data contradicted Jenson's finding that Aroclor 1254 was the predominant Aroclor -- MR. CARLSON: Wait a minute. That particular piece of testimony -- strike that. That statement is not in the record. Your Honor. That is, with regard to what Jensen found in terms of the kind of Aroclor or kind of PCB, there is no testimony about that in this record. There is no study of that in this record. MR. RUNNING: There is. MR. CARLSON: There is not. MR. RUNNING: I can refer to it. MR. CARLSON: If you want to go in chambers, I'd be happy to do it. There is no testimony about that in this record. 2758 WATER PCB-SD0000075246 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. RUNNING: If you think we need to go into chambers, fine. (In Chambers.) THE COURT: Let the record show the Court is in chambers with counsel for both sides relative to the objection made by Mr. Carlson. MR. RUNNING: I can respond. Mr. Carlson has asserted that there is no basis on the record to say that Jensen and Widmark reported that Aroclor 1254 was the type of PCB being found in the environment. On Thursday afternoon, I took Mr. Papageorge through Defendant's Trial Exhibit 1080, which included a series of unpublished papers by Jensen and Widmark. As an example, STR 1254 reads that "Among these 210 theoretically possible biphenyls, the most interesting for us are those that are the most likely products of a degree of chlorination corresponding to a mean of five chlorine atoms per molecule, the most usual in industrial products. Molecules fewer than four and more than eight chlorines have not been documented by analysis." It goes on to give tables indicating the peaks of the chromatographs that had been identified for 2759 WATER PCB-SD0000075247  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 environmental sampfLes. Mr. Papageorge explained in his testimony that the type of Aroclor with a mean of five chlorine ajtoms per molecule was Aroclor 1254. That is the predicate for the question. I'm not planning on extended digression on it. It was the one question to refer the witness back to these papers and to show that what Jensen and Widmark were finding is the same thing that Monsanto was finding in its environmental sampling, and that the industrial sample results that Mr. Carlson has used with Dr. Peterson and in his opening arguments are not environmental sample results, and you wouldn't expect to get the same results. That is the point of the question. MR. CARLSON: The question that I objected to was the representation that Jensen had reported that the Aroclor -- the higher chlorinated Aroclors were the ones that were found. That is not in his report. That is in the evidence that you just referenced. I don't have a problem with that. It's the question of what was reported in the literature. MR. RUNNING: I didn't say published reports. I just said reports. MR. CARLSON: There is a difference. If 2760 WATER PCB-SD0000075248 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 # 25 you want to reference the work that Monsanto obtained, which you've put as a part of your case, I don't have a problem with that, but that is not in the reported literature. MR. PENDERGAST: Actually, if I can just make an additional point, it's misleading to say that this is a discovery of Aroclor 1254. That is confusing to the jury. What are found are specific isomers that aren't present across the board that are most prevalent, perhaps in 1245, but this does not report that it was 1254 that was found, so that part of your question is misleading. You were saying, Jensen found 1254, and that is not the fact. He found the remnants of various Aroclors, no doubt. THE COURT: Well, I agree with Mr. Carlson. Can we define the question to what the Swedish people actually found, rather than transposing it to Aroclor 1254? Then we don't have a problem. MR. CARLSON: I don't have a problem with that. MR. RUNNING: Okay. THE COURT: As I understand it, these are mixtures. 2761 WATER PCB-SD0000075249  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. RUNNING: Yes. THE COURT: Of different kinds of PCBs, and I haven't heard, I don't recall the definition yet that 1254 has only five chlorines or better. We do have evidence in there that 1242 has some with five chlorines or better, but I don't recall that 1254 is confined to those with five chlorines or better, so why don't you just confine it to the five chlorine situation, and then we won't have a problem. MR. RUNNING: Just so we don't have a problem when I go. The reference is to a mean of five chlorines, not just five. That's what I'm trying to refer to. (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) MR. RUNNING: Mr. Papageorge, let me refer you back to an exhibit that you testified about on Thursday afternoon, Defendant's Exhibit 1080. There is a reference on STR 25154 to Jensen and Widmark finding that the PCBs that they were analyzing in the environmental samples corresponded to a mean of five chlorine atoms per molecule. Do you see that reference? I do. I remember it. Which of Monsanto's products, if any, correspond to 2762 WATER PCB-SD0000075250 1 2A 3Q 4 5 6 7 A 8 9Q 10 11 A 12 Q 13 A 14 Q 15 16 A 17 Q 18 19 20 A 21 Q 22 23 24 A 25 a mean of five chlorine atoms per molecule? Aroclor 1254. Was the discovery of PCBs corresponding to Aroclor 1242 in these industrial samples in 1970, was that contradictory of a report of Jensen and Widmark that I've just referred to? It's contradictory in that this is a different mixture of PCBs, yes. Different mixture. Is it also a different type of sample? Yes. Industrial versus environmental? Yes. Was it surprising to find Aroclor 1242 in an industrial sample? No. Did that change your views at the time about the potential for Aroclor 1242 to degrade in the environment? No. Is this the end of the -- in other words, the third page, second page of the industrial sample, the third page of the total samples? It is. MR. RUNNING: Your Honor, I think this 2763 WATER PCB-SD0000075251 1 2 3 4 Q 5 6 7 8 9A 10 11 12 13 14 15 Q #16 17 A 18 Q 19 A 20 21 Q #22 A 23 Q 24 25 will be a quick exhibit. THE COURT: Okay. Finish that one. MR. RUNNING: Can you identify Defendants Trial Exhibit No. 1093, Mr. Papageorge? Can you identify this as an April 22nd, 1970 letter from yourself to Mr. John Daubert, Supervisory Chemist, Pesticide Residue Section, Wisconsin State Department of Agriculture? It is. MR. RUNNING: I move for the admission of this exhibit. MR. CARLSON: No objection. THE COURT: So received. MR. RUNNING: Had Dr. Daubert requested assistance from Monsanto, Mr. Papageorge? Yes. What kind of assistance had he requested? He requested samples of Monsanto's products that went under the trademark, Aroclors. Did he also request other information? Not at that time. Do you see the third paragraph? "You also requested information concerning these compounds. Please find enclosed a copy of Monsanto Technical Bulletin." 2764 WATER PCB-SD0000075252 1 A 2Q 3 4 5 6 7 A 8Q 9A 10 11 Q 12 13 14 15 16 A 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That's true. And then the last paragraph is, "If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to write," and it is signed by you. Had Monsanto's policy changed concerning cooperation with state, federal, local officials? Changed from when? From when you've described it as of April of 1970? No, no. That is still the practice, cooperate fully. In other words, the corporate management committee on April 15th, when you informed them of the cooperation at Duluth and other areas, did they tell you to clamp down on the dissemination of information? No. Just the opposite. They want us to encourage more cooperation. MR. RUNNING: This is probably a good place to break. Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. All right. It's noon. I have three evictions and a scheduling conference starting at one o'clock, so why don't we come back at 1:45. (Noon Recess.) 2765 WATER PCB-SD0000075253