Document rxYKr26JM2wJ0E4qeLDkxk2wq

1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 2 INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION 3 THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA; ) THE UTILITIES SERVICE BOARD OF ) 4 BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA; andMONROE ) COUNTY, INDIANA, 5 ) ) Plaintiffs, ) 6) vs. ) Civ Mo. 7 ) I? 33-9-C ) 8 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,) a Pennsylvania corporation; and ) 9 MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware ) corporation, 10 ) ) Dss&$aD&S*1 11 12 13 The deposition of w. B. PAPAGEORGE, 14 called for examination by the Plaintiffs, pursuant 15 to notice and pursuant to the provisions of the 16 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the United 17 States District Courts, pertaining to the taking 18 of depositions for the purpose of discovery, taken 19 before Arnold N. Goldstine, a Notary Public and 20 Certified Shorthand Reporter within and for che 21 County of Cook and State of Illinois, at 1313 22 Merchants Bank Building, Indianapolis, Indiana, 23 commencing on June 25, 1986, at the hour of nine 24 o^clock a.m. . Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029633 9 1 APPEARANCES: 2 Mr. Joseph V. Karaganis and 3 Mr. James G. McConnell ' Bell, Boyd & Lloyd 4 Three First National Plaza 70 West Madison Street 5 Suite3200 - Chicago, Illinois 60602 6 -and7 Mr. Geoffrey M. Grodner 8 Law Offices of Geoffrey M. Grodner One City Centre 9 Suite 100 . Bloomington, Indiana 47401 10 appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs; 11 12 Mr. Michael R. Fruehwald 13 Barnes & Thornburg 1313 Merchants Bank Building 14 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 15 appeared on behalf of Defendant Monsanto Company, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029634 1 IND E A 2 WILLIAM 3. PAPAGEORGE 3 Direct Examination By Mr. Karaganis 4 Continued 5 115 5 EX H IB I S 6 BLOOMINGTON DEPOSITION NOS. 7 84 85 8 86 87 9 88 89 10 90 91 11 92 93 and 94 12 95 96 13 97 98 14 99 100 15 101 102 16 103 and 104 105 17 106 107 18 108 and 109 110 19 111 112 20 113 114 21 115 116 and 117 22 118 119 23 120 121 24 122 . 103 10 3 110 115 119 124 125 127 129 ' 130 132 13 4 141 150 153 157 160 163 16 8 172 173 177 17 9 180 1 81 183 184 188 190 193 197 198 199 201 203 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029635 0 1 Parc- 3 A 2 EXHIBITS 3 4 BLOOMINGTON DEPOSITION NOS. 5 123 and 124 6 125 126 7 127 128 8 129 and 130 131 9 132 . 133 10 134 135 11 136 20 4 218 226 23 8 23 9 2 40 243 252 256 258 26 5 275 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Longoria & Golds tine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029636 A 1 MR. KARAGANIS: Would you swear tho witness. 2 (Witness sworn.) 3 Let the record show that this is the 4 deposition of Mr. William Papageorge, pursuant to 5 a 30 (b) 6 notice served upon Defendant -Monsanto 6 Company, under the Federal Rules of Civil 7 Procedure. 8 As a preliminary matter Mr. Fruehwald, we 9 served upon you a 30.(b) 6 notice for a number of 10 categories of information. And you are tendering 11 Mr. Papageorge as the person designated by 12 Monsanto in response to one or more of those 13 categories. 1 4 Could you identify which categories? 15 MR. FRUEHWALD: Well, the categories as 16 appears in the notice were exceptionally broad 17 and, to some extent, we have raised objections to 18 that in the document portion of the request. 19 We have put forth Mr. Papageorge as being 20 the employee of Monsanto who is most likely to 21 have the knowledge as to all the categories that 22 you have listed of anybody we can find. 23 What we propose to do is for you to go 24 ahead and ask the questions. We believe Mr. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco STLCOPCB4029637 1 Papageorge has the largest amount of knowledge in 2 this area. If there are areas that are identified 3 that he cannot cover within the categories that 4 you have elicited, we will have to deal with that. 5 But we are designating him as our 6 corporate representative to attempt to answer 7 questions in all the categories. 8 MR. KARAGANIS: Okay. 9 10 MR. FRUEHWALD: Off the record. 11 (Discussion had off the record.) 1 2 WILLIAM 3. PAPAGEORGE, 13 having been first duly sworn, 14 was examined and testified as follows: 15 DIRECT EXAMINATION 16 BY MR. KARAGANIS: ' 17 Q. Mr. Papageorge, would you state your full 1 8 name please? 19 A, William B. Papageorge. 20 Q. That is p-a-p-a-g-e-o-r-g-e? 21 A. That is correct. 22 Q. And where do you reside, sir? 23 A. St. Louis County, Missouri. 24 Q. What i-s that address? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029638 5 1 A. 321 Pebble Valley Drive. Mail code 2 63141 . 3 Q. And by whom are you emploved, sir? 4 A. Monsanto Company. 5 Q. And at what location? - 6 A. Their general offices in St. Louis 7 County, Missouri. 8 Q. And what is that address? 9 A. 80 0 _North Lindbergh Boulevard, St. Louis, 10 Missouri 63167 . 11 Q. Mr. Papageorge, what is your date of 12 birth? 13 A. September 7, 1922. 14 Q. And would you state your educational 15 background for us, please? 16 A. I have a bachelor of science in chemical 17 engineering from Washington University in St. 1 8 Louis, in 1943. A master of science in chemical 1 9 engineering from Washington University in 1947. 20 I have postgraduate courses in chemical 21 engineering, taken at Oklahoma State University, 22 Stillwater, Oklahoma. 23 Q. The MS was at Washington as well? 24 A. Yes. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029639 1 0. When was your BS in chemical engineer inc? 2 A. 1 943 . 3 Q. When did you begin work for Monsanto 4 Company? 5 A. 1951. 6 Q. Would you list your employment history 7 prior to coming to Monsanto? 8 A. I was employed by Phillips Petroleum 9 Company, Bartlesville, Oklahoma from 1947 to 1951. 10 Q. In what role was that? 11 A. I started as a research engineer and then 12 I became a design engineer. 0 13 Q. You say research engineer and a design 1 4 engineer. In what area or field? 15 A. Research effort was in the field of 16 secondary recovery of spent oil wells and in 17 drilling mud research. 1 8 Q. How about as a design engineer? 19 A. As a design engineer, I was involved in 20 designing equipment used in the processing of } 21 petroleum products. 22 Q. You say you left Phillips in 1951 and 23 started at Monsanto in 1951; is that correct? 24 A. Yes. ___ Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago sL STLCOPCB4029640 1 1 Q. Would you state from 1951 on your 2 employment history at Monsanto? 3 A. All right, 4 I was initially employed at the John F. 5 Queeny plant of Monsanto, located in St; Louis, 6 Missouri . 7 Q. Would you spell Queeny, please? 8 A. Q-u-e-e-n-y. 9 Q. And in what.capacity? 10 A. As a design engineer of chemical 11 processing equipment. 12 That assignment lasted about two years or 13 so, 1 4 I was then made a supervisor in chemical 15 producing units in the plant. 16 Q. At the Queeny plant? 17 A. Yes. As I recall that lasted for about 1 8 roughly three years. 19 Then I became a maintenance supervisor, 20 still at that plant. Responsible for new 21 construction and maintenance of existing equipment 22 for an assigned area within the plant, geographic 23 ar ea. 24 Q. That was at Queeny? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029641 9 1 A. That was still at Oueeny. And about 2 1955, '56, I became the maintenance 3 superintendent. 4 I was then responsible for maintenance 5 and construction for the entire plant, with 6 supervisors reporting to me. 7 Q. Kow long did you have that spot? 8 A. The best I remember, that was about two 9 or three years. . 10 Q. Still at that plant, I was then made a 11 superintendent in the plant engineering 12 department, which at that plant was called the 13 plant technical services department. I believe 14 that takes me to about 1960, '61. 15 I was then assigned as a general 16 superintendent. I don't recall the exact title. 17 But it was the services-function in the plant that 1 8 took care of receiving, shipping, steam 19 generation, steam distribution, trash pick up, all 20 the services, other than maintenance that support 21 the manufacturing activities. 22 Q. How long did you have the general 23 superintendent responsibility? 24 A. That was up to '64. At that point I was Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029642 10 1 assigned to the plant in Sauget, Illinois, 2 S-a-u-g-e-t, as a general superintendent of 3 manufacturing. 4 Q. All right. 5 A. And that assignment lasted aboux a year, 6 year and a-half, as I remember. 7 In 1965, I was assigned to the Anniston, 8 Alabama plant, as plant manager. 9 In 1970 I returned to St. Louis with the 10 title of manager environmental control with the 11 assignment of addressing my total time to the then 12 evolving pcb issue. 13 As best I recall, the job in itself 14 didn't change but the title changed, I believe, in 15 about 1971 to the manager environmental 16 protection. 17 Q. So your job didn't change but your title 18 switched to manager of environmental protection; 19 is that correct? 20 A. In about 1971 or thereabouts. 21 Q. Okay. 22 A. At about that time I began to pick up 23 assignments for products other than pcb's. In 24 roughly 1973 th-e title was again changed, this Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029643 ii 1 time it was manager of product acceptability. 2 Q. I am sorry, when? 3 A. Manager of product acceptability. 4 Q. When was that? 5 A. About 1973 . As best I recall.6 I retained that title with varying 7 product assignments until 1977. 8 Q. Okay. 9 A. My involvement with pcb's terminated in 10 1977 . 11 In 1977 I was then appointed director 12 environmental operations for an operating unit of 13 Monsanto, which was the Monsanto Chemical 14 Intermediates Company. 15 In 1983 I had the same title, but with a 16 new operating unit, the Monsanto Industrial 17 Chemicals Company. 18 Q. And from 1983 to the present? 19 A. No. 20 On January 1st this year, 1986, following 21 another reorganization, I am now manager of 2 2' occupational health for the chemical operating 23 unit, that is Monsanto Chemical Company, within 24 Monsanto Company. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaac- STLCOPCB4029644 12 1 Q. Is that your current position? 2 A. Yes . 3 Q. Recognizing that there may have been 4 changes in organizational structure over time, 5 would you describe the organizational structure of 6 Monsanto that has existed during the course of 7 your employment at Monsanto Company? 8 In other words, how is it organized? Is 9 there a parent company, different subsidiaries, 10 how is it structured? 11 A, I don't know that I am fully 12 knowledgeable. I can share with you my 13 impressions, my understandings. 14 Q. Please. 15 A. The parent company, and I don't even know 16 if that is' the appropriate word, but the entity 17 that is in my mind the controlling entity is 18 called Monsanto Company. 1 9 There are within that unit operating 20 units. In the past they were referred to as 21 divisions. Through the years, it has evolved into 22 reference to these units as companies. 23 In addition to the operating units, there 24 are subsidiaries; there have been. Currently Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029645 13 1 there are to my understanding two operating units. 2 The chemical company unit, to which I belong, and 3 the agricultural products unit. 4 There are several subsidiaries. I don't 5 claim to know them all. There is a Fisher Control 6 Company, I believe there is one called Farmers 7 Hybred Company. I am not real positive of these 8 names. 9 There is a subsidiary referred to as 10 Monsanto Reserach Corporation. And there is the 11 Searle Company, recently acquired. 12 I believe those are still considered 13 subsidiaries. 14 Q. Within the period of time that you have 15 worked for Monsanto, would it be fair to say you 16 have always v/orked for one of the operating units 17 of Monsanto as opposed to one of the subsidiaries? 1 8 A. Yes, correct. 19 Q. Would it be fair to say that the question 20 of pcb manufacture, disposal, management, et 21 cetera, health effects, was dealt with by the 22 Monsanto operating units as opposed to the 23 subsidiaries ? 24 A. Yes. . Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029646 14 1 Q. Now, you have identified two operatinc 2 units currently in place, the chemical company 3 unit and the agricultural products unit. 4 During the period of your employment, 5 have there been other organizational structures as 6 to those units, have there been more units than 7 two ? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Would you describe those and the times 10 involved? 11 A. I will try-. There have been so many 12 really through the years. 13 At one time there was a combination of 14 product and geographic designation applied to 15 different divisions. Examples are the plastics 16 division, the phosphate division, the organic 17 chemicals division. Then we had the Texas 18 division and the West Coast division. 19 Q. Excuse me. 20 Were the product divisions in existence 21 at the same time as the geographic divisions were? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. So how did the two interrelate, if at 24 all? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029647 15 1 A. Well, the geographic divisions produced 2 some of the products that were managed by the 3 product divisions. I don't know how I can make 4 tha t clea r . 5 But, for example, the Texas division had 6 plants, had a plant in Texas, at that time, that 7 manufactured chemicals. Some of them belonged to 8 the plastics division, in terms of managing the 9 business, and some of them belonged to the 10 phosphate division, as examples. 11 Q. In terms of managing raw product 12 acquisition and the manufacturing of chemical 13 products, under whose responsibility was that 14 between the geographic and products divisions? 15 A. The products divisions had the total 16 overall responsibility for planning, purchasing, 17 marketing, advertising and the like, profit 18 responsibilities. 1 9 The Texas division had, the primary 20 responsibility there was efficient manufacture of 21 products designated by the product divisions. So 22 they were a manufacturing-oriented group. 23 The western division was primarily a 24 marketing service to the product divisions. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029648 16 1 0. So would it be fair to say that the oc> geographic divisions operated under the 3 directional control of the product division? 4 A. That is a little bit firmer than I " 5 understandit. - 6 It was -- they got their guidance and 7 direction, but there was no direct reporting 8 responsibility. Reporting responsibility went on 9 up to the top officials of the company. 10 Q. So would it be fair to say that the 11 geographic divisions provided services to the 1 2 product divisions at the request of the product 13 division? 1 4 A. That is more accurate. Yes. 1 5 Q. Now, you mentioned that those divisions, 16 be they geographic or product, reported up to eh a 17 senior officials of the company? 1 8 A. Yes. 19 Q. How was the company organized above the 20 product and geographic division? 21 . A. As I understood it, they had at that time 22 vice presidents of each of the functions. 23 Q. When you say that time, what period of 24 time is involved in the description? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029649 17 1 A This is up to the middle fifties. 2 Q. So from when to when? 3 A. Oh, it was in place when I joined 4 Monsanto in *51. I don't know when it originated 5 prior to that. " 6 Q. So from '51 through the middle fifties? 7 A. Middle fifties is the organization I am 0 trying to recall here. 9 Q. Okay. . 10 You say there v/as a vice president? 11 A. There were vice presidents of different 12 functions. For example, vice president of 13 marketing, vice president of engineering, a vice 14 president of manufacturing. And the different 15 divisions had general managers. 16 Q. Let me see if I get this straight for 17 this period of time. 18 Was the general manager of the geographic 19 division such as Texas, which was manufacturing, 20 would he report to the vice president for 21 manufacturing? 22 A. I am a little -- my recollection isn't 23 clear on that. 24 I am u-nder the impression that these Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029650 13 1 general managers were assigned to one of the vice 2 presidents, either manufacturing or marketinc. 3 But I don't recall exactly which division was 4 assigned to which vice president. 5 Q. Within the structure that existed from 6 the time you joined through the mid-fifties, where 7 were polychlorinated biphenyls within this 8 structure? 9 A. They_ were in the phosphate division. 10 Q. Is there some logic to that or it just 11 happened by a historical accident or what? 12 A. There is an element of accident involved, 13 where the original polychlorinated biphenyls were 14 manufactured in and Anniston, Alabama, that plant 1 5 was a part of the phosphate division. In fact, 16 the Anniston, Alabama plant was the headquarters 17 for the phosphate division at that time. 18 The other Monsanto pcb unit in Illinois 1 9 was in a plant managed by the organic chemicals 20 division. The product itself was managed by the 21 phosphate division. 22 Q. What was that other plant? 23 A. The Sauget, Illinois plant. 24 Q. So the Sauget plant was under what Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029651 19 1 division? 2 A. Organic chemicals division. 3 Q. Am I correct that the Sauget plant did 4 not begin manufacturing pcb's until sometime after 5 the Anniston plant was manufacturing them? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. When did the Sauget plant begin 8 manufacturing pcb's? 9 A. The middle thirties. '34, '35. 10 HR. FRUEHWALD: You are talking about the 11 Sauget plant? 12 A. Yes. 13 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 14 Q. Okay. 15 Now, we are in the mid-fifties and you 16 indicated the past unit structure in the 17 mid-fifties. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Would you describe the structure that 20 existed after the change? 21 A. Again, as best I recall. There was, at 22 that time the organization consisted of the 23 organic chemicals division, the inorganic 24 chemicals division, plastics division. I believe -- Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029652 21 1 0 Now, when you say the corporate nodical 2 department, where was that within the Monsanto 3 structure? 4 A. It was physically located in St. Louis at 5 the world headquarters. And as I understand it, 6 it .dates back to the thirties. 7 In the earlier days it reported to the 8 individual responsible for personnel matters. I 9 don't know his exact.title. But it was considered 10 a personnel function. And later, about the 1950's 11 or so, it was reporting in to the vice president 12 of technology. 13 Q. Okay. 1 4 How big was the medical department? 15 A. At what point in time? 16 Q. In the period from '51 to the 17 mid-fif ties. 1 8 A. As best I recall, it consisted of the 19 director, who was a medical doctor, and an 20 industrial hygiene manager and an environmental 21 health manager and nurses. I don't know how many 22 nurses they had. 23 Q. Were the industrial hygiene manager or 24 the environmental health manager doctors as well? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029653 22 1 A. No. lM 2 Q. In the 1950's, who were the personnel o 3 the medical department, what were their names? 4 Who was the medical doctor? 5 A. Doctor R. Emmett Kelly was the "medical 6 doctor and director. J. R. Garrett, 7 G-a-r-r-e-t-t, was the industrial hygienist. And 8 Elmer P. Wheeler was the manager environmental 9 health. _ . 10 Q. I am sorry. You were going on and 11 describing your organization that was replaced in 12 the early fifties by an organization in the 13 mid-fifties which had the organic chemical 14 division, the inorganic chemical division, the 15 plastics division and the Lyon Oil operation, 16 operated as a subsidiary. 17 Can you tell me where polychlorinated 1 8 biphenyl manufacture and distribution fit within 19 that? 20 A. It was now in the organic chemicals 21 division. 22 Q. Again, I am not trying to jump around 23 any, but it used to be in the phosphate division? 24 A. Correct. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029654 23 1 Q. To whom did the phosphate division 2 report, when it was in existence? 3 A. I just don't remember the name. 4 Q. But it would have been a vice president 5 of some function; is that correct? 6 A. Yes . 7 Q. When it was reorganized in the organic 8 chemical division, to whom did the peb manufacture 9 and distribution operation report? 10 A. The general manager was a Robert Morris. 11 0. That is the general the manager of the 12 organic chemical division? 13 A. The organic chemicals division. I just 14 do not recall who he reported to. I don't 15 r e m e m-b e r . 16 Q. With respect to peb manufacture, both in 17 the old phosphate division as well as later in the 18 organic chemical division, who was responsible 19 within those respective divisions for the 20 manufacture of peb? 21 A. I don't recall the names of the plant 22 manager or his director of manufacturing, prior to 23 the early fifties. 24 Beginning in the middle fifties, the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029655 oi 1 plant manager at Anniston was a Desmond Hosmer. 2 D-e-s-m-o-n-d . H-o-s-m-e-r. 3 Q. Do you recall who the plant manager at 4 Sauget was? 5 A. In the mid-fifties, I can't place him at 6 the moment. I don't recall. 7 Q. All right. 8 A. It could be. It was Joseph Cresce. 9 C-r-e-s-c-e. _ . 10 0. From the standpoint of plant control of 11 pcb releases at the- manufacturing facilities at 12 that time, I am talking about the early fifties 13 and then the mid to late fifties, who was 14 responsible for pcb emission control or waste 1 5 disposal? 16 A. It was the supervisor of the ooeratinc 17 unit, and his superintendent and the plant 1 8 manager. 1 9 Q. Was there anyone within the company who 20 had pcb environmental control responsibility at 21 that time? 22 A. Pcb's were not handled any differently 23 than all the other chemicals at the plant. 24 Q. From a marketing standpoint and from the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029656 25 1 standpoint of instruction to customers, as to the 2 handling and characteristics of pcb products, who 3 was responsible in the early and mid-fifties for 4 that? 5 A. I don't know the names of the - 6 individuals. But certainly the medical department 7 was responsible for any health messages that are 8 applied to labels or to the product literature 9 that was issued. . 10 Q. Let's go on with regard to the 11 organizational structure, the structure you have 12 described was organic chemical division, inorganic 13 chemical division, plastic division. How long did 14 that structure last? 15 A. About 1971, there was another 16 reorganization. 17 At that time they referred to the units 18 as companies instead of divisions. There was the 19 Monsanto Industrial Chemicals Company. The 20 Monsanto Agricultural Chemicals Company. The 21 Monsanto I think it was Polymers and Resins 22 Company or it could have been Plastics and Resins, 23 P and R Company. Monsanto Textiles Company. I 24 believe that is< the organization. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029657 Oo 1 Q. In that organization, where cid the 2 organic chemical division, in particular neb's, 3 fit in terms of the manufacture and distribution? 4 A. Most, if not all, went in:o the 5 industrial chemicals company and peb's became a 6 part of the Industrial Chemicals Company. 7 Q. And above the individual companies, were 8 the individual companies then headed by presidents 9 or general managers or what? 10 A. They were managing directors and vice 11 presidents. 12 Q. So the managing directors, that 13 terminology was used to replace general managers? 1 4 A. Cor rect. 15 0. From the standpoint of peb manufacture 16 and distribution, who was the managing director 17 after the '71? 1 8 A. It was C. Pres Cunningham. C. Preston, 19 P-r-e-s-t-o-n, Cunningham. 20 Q. To which vice president did Mr. 21 Cunningham report? 22 A. Well, he himself was a vice president. 23 Q. I am sorry. 24 A. Managi.ng director, vice president, that Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029658 27 1 is a dual title. 2 Q. All right. 3 A. Also as a vice president he reported to 4 the chief operating officer of the company, 5 president, Edward Bok. B-o-k. 6 Q. And Mr. Bok reported to whom, who was the 7 chief executive officer? 8 A. The board directors. 9 Q. Ther.e was no senior executive above Mr. 10 Bok at that time? 11 A. That is correct. 12 Q. So he was both chief operating officer 13 and - 1 4 A. And chief executive. 15 Q. And chief executive. 16 Prior to the 1971 organization, directing 17 your attention back to the organization that 1 8 existed from the mid-fifties to 1971, you have 19 identified the general manager of the organic 20 chemical division as Mr. Robert Morris. 21 You indicated you could not recall to 22 which vice president he reported? is that right? 23 A. Thats correct. 24 Q. But it ` is correct that there was a vice Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029659 2q 1 president to whom he reported? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. To whom did that vice president report:? 4 A. I believe at that tine the chief 5 executive official, CEO, was Charles Sommers. 6 S-o-m-m-e-r-s , 7 Q. Was that true for the whole period? 8 A. No. My memory is not that good. I don't 9 recall who Mr. Sommers replaced. But in that 10 period of time, Mr. Sommers did serve as the 11 president, chief executive, chief operating 12 official. 13 Q. Below, I am now the directing your 14 attention to the mid-fifties period, the 15 mid-fifties to '71, you mentioned the general 16 manager Robert Morris. Was Mr. Morris also 17 responsible for the marketing and distrubition of 18 pcb ? 1 9 A. Ultimately responsible, yes. Mot 20 personally and directly. 21 Q. Under Mr. Morris, within the organic 2 2 chemical division, would you describe the 23 structure that existed in the mid-fifties for the 24 manufacturing, `marketing and distribution of Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029660 27 1 pcb's, who was in charge? 2 A. As best I recall, the manufacturing 3 director was Howard Minckler. M-i-n-c-k-l-e-r. 4 Q. He was manufacturing director of what, 5 pcb's? " 6 A. And all the other chemicals assigned to 7 the organic chemicals division, yes. 8 Q. Under Mr. Minckler? 9 A. Mr. Minckler had the plant managers 10 assigned to that division reporting to him. 11 Q. That would- be Mr. Hosmer for Anniston and 1 2 Mr. Cresce possibly for Sauget? 13 A. Yes, among others. 14 Q. Well, the only two plants that did pcb 15 manufacture were those two; isn't that right? 16 A. That's right, for pcb's. 17 Q. Was there any intermediate official 1 8 between Minckler and the plant managers to your 19 recollection? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Was Mr. Minckler responsible also for the 22 marketing and distribution of pcb's? 23 A. No. Marketing, for a period of time a 24 Monte Throdahl . M-o-n-t-e, T-h-r-o-d-a-h-1. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029661 30 1 Q M-o-n? 2 A. Monte, M-o-n-t-e, Throdahl. 3 T-h-r-o-d-a-h-1, Throdahl, was director of 4 marketing. 5 Q. Within the organic chemical division? 6 A. Correct. And also in that period of 7 time, Mr. Throdahl was director of research. I 8 don't recall which assignment came first. 9 I don't recall who succeeded him c-r 10 preceded him. 11 0. You don't know what period of time he was 12 involved as director of marketing, other than it 13 was at some point between the mid-fifties and '71, 14 but do you recall the period? 15 A. Not exactly. No. I do know that Mr. 16 Throdahl had both assignments, reporting to Mr. 17 Morris. 18 Q. In the period the fifties to '71, curing 19 that organizational structure, who had 20 responsibility for medical effects, customer 21 instructions as to medical effects, customer 22 instructions as to how to properly dispose of pcb? 23 A. The responsibility for medical effects 24 rested with the- medical director and his staff of Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago ^ STLCOPCB4029662 31 1 two 2 Q. That would have been again, the period in 3 the mid-fifth toes to '71, was that Kelly as 4 medical director, Garrett as industrial hygienist, 5 and Wheeler as environmental health? 6 A. Yes. You mentioned 1971. From the 7 middle sixties to '71, there were additions to the 8 staff. 9 Q. Let's talk from mid-fifties to 10 mid-sixties? 11 A. To mid-sixties. That was the staff. Mr. 12 Wheeler, Mr. Garrett and Dr. Kelly. 13 Q. Then in approximately when? 14 A. About 1965. As I remember, Dr. Kelly had 15 another medical doctor assist assisting him. I 16 have forgotten his name. And also at about that 17 time, a toxicologist was added to the staff, 18 William Hunt. 19 Q. As to the medical effects, was there 20 anybody else at that time? 21 A. That is all I recall on medical. 22 Q. Let's talk about who was responsible for 23 giving customer warnings $s to either handling or 24 disposal practi-ces with regard to pcb's from Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029663 33 1 understanding that is conveyed in discussions, 2 informal or even the formal type, when you talk to 3 a customer regarding a potential sale. 4 I wasn't personally present in the room 5 when these discussions were held. So I can't 6 speak for the exact words that were exchanged. 7 But, the state of the science and state of the art 8 in industry at the time, as it applied to all 9 chemicals, was be careful with them. That is the 10 message that was generally conveyed. 11 But there is no specific piece of 12 literature or piece of advice that was offered 13 there. 14 Q. Was there any instruction given as to 15 whether it was appropriate to pour pcb's down the 16 sewer ? 17 A. No. No different than for sulfuric acid, 18 battery acid, just understand those things. You 19 don't talk about them specifically. 20 Q. So would it be fair to say that to your 21 knowledge there was a general understanding that 22 you didn't pour pcb's down the sewer? 23 A. Or any other chemical. Motor oil, you 24 don't pour down1 the sewer. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029664 34 1 Q. Was there any understanding with respect 2 to placement of pcb's or other chemicals in 3 landfills? . 4 A. The understanding was one of put it in a 5 permitted landfill, permitted by local 6 authorities, generally, at that time. 7 Q. Was there any understanding with respect 8 to the kind of landfill, without arguing with you 9 about what was permitted and what did permitted 10 mean; was there anything with respect to the 11 engineering characteristics of the landfill, the 12 geologic characteristics of the landfill? 13 A. The state of the art was not -- had not 14 reached that point at that time. 15 Q. Based on this general understanding that 16 you had, would you put industrial chemicals in a 17 gravel pit? 1 8 A. No, I wou1dn't. 19 . Q. Why not? 20 A. Most gravel pits have fractures and 21 breaks in them and water will percolate throucn 22 them and get out of control. 23 Q. So you wouldn't put it in a place where 24 the water could reach the chemicals and move the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029665 35 1 chemicals away from the landfill; is that right? 2 A. That's right. 3 Q. So that would be true of gravel pit or 4 would it also be true with respect, for example, 5 to a sink hole; is that right? - 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. So you wouldn't put industrial chemicals 8 in a landfill that was characterized with sink 9 holes; is that right? 10 A. That is correct. 11 Q. Was that communicated to Monsanto 12 customers from the fifties to the late sixties, 13 dont' put things where there can be a release, 14 where it can get into the water or where there are 1 5 such things as gravel pits or sink holes or 16 fractured material? 17 A. Not to that degree. No. That was not 1 8 common. 19 Q. What was not common? 20 A. Discussions of that kind in the fifties 21 just were uncommon. If anybody brought that 22 subject up, it is most unusual. 23 Q. Did you ever inquire -- I am sorry, when 24 I say you, did .Monsanto ever inquire of its Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029666 36 1 customers where they were putting pcb's? 2 A. I can't speak. I don't know. 3 Q. I am asking you this, Mr. Papageorge, not 4 only in your personal role, but you have been 5 identified as a what is called by lawyers a 30 (b) 6 6 witness. So you may not have the personal 7 knowledge, but Monsanto is tendering you as 8 someone who might, or who represumably does. And 9 if you don't ,somebody else will have to testify. 10 A. I understand. 11 Q. With respect to the fifties to 1971, you 1 2 have identified Kelly, Wheeler and Garrett as 13 having responsibility for medical effects. And 14 you indicated that a doctor was added in 1965. 15 Did any other individuals have 16 responsibility or a role during this period of 17 time in controlling the release of pcb's or 1 8 checking with customers and seeing what they were 19 doing, making sure they weren't being released? 20 A. .Starting in the late sixties, '69 or 21 thereabouts, our marketing representatives, who 22 were the normal customer contact, began to talk 23 along the lines of disposal and better control. 24 Q, Whose -direction, under what circumstances Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029667 37 1 did they begin to talk about better disposal and 2 control? 3 A. Well, beginning in the middle to the late 4 sixties, Monsanto began to receive information 5 that these pcb's were discovered in environmental 6 samples. 7 By 1968, '69, we had established that 8 these reports had some validity to them. The 9 reports centered on two of our products. And the 10 message then began to be sent out to our customers 11 regarding the discovery of these two materials in 12 environmental samples. The fact that the effects 13 on the environment were unknown, but, in any 14 event, we should all prevent their discharge into 15 the environment. 16 That was the initial message that was 17 beginning to be sent out in the late sixties. 18 Q. You indicated before that before the 19 message went out, it was generally understood 20 practice, you can't recall the specific 21 conversations, but in the trade, in the chemical 22 manufacturing and use trade, that you didn't dump 23 industrial chemicals down the sewer and you didn't 24 put them in places like landfills that would leak; Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029668 33 1 is that correct? 2 A. That is the general practice. Yes. 3 Q. But to your knowledge, at least to your 4 personal knowledge, Monsanto did not prior to the 5 late sixties actually check up on its customer to 6 see what they were doing? is that right? 7 A. That is correct. 8 Q Did Monsanto prior to the late sixties 9 have any system in place for the reprocessing of 10 pcb's that had been sent to customers and 11 returned? 12 A. The only reprocessing I am aware of is 13 the situation where a shipment of Monsanto 14 material was rejected by the customer, because it 15 did not meet specifications. That shipment would 16 be returned to the source plant and be reprocessed 17 to the point where it did meet specifications. 18 Q. So this is where the shipment sent to the 19 customer would be tested by the customer, found 20 that it did not meet the customer's purchase order 21 specifications or contract specifications, and 22 rejected prior to use? is that correct? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. But I am sorry. Longoria- & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029669 39 1 A. This covers the period late sixties. 2 Q. Well, from -- 3 A. As I remember your question said prior to 4 * 69 . 5 Q. Well, let's go back to mid-fifties to the 6 late sixties, before this awareness developed, or 7 communication program developed. 8 I asked you whether or not there was a 9 program for the return of pcb's to Monsanto. As I 10 understand your answer, the only program that 11 existed was for the return of material that failed 12 to meet specifications of the customer, the 13 customer would test it, say it didn't meet 14 specification, and return it to you prior to its 15 use; is that correct? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. Mow, can you tell us from the standpoint 18 of personnel involved with advising customers as 19 to methods of disposal and advising customers of 20 return and possible environmental effects, you 21 have identified Kelly, Wheeler and Garrett. You 22 have identified a Mr. William Hunt who was a 23 toxicologist and a doctor. 24 Do you- recall the doctor's name, was it Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029670 40 1 Levinskis? 2 A. Dr. Levinskis didn't join Monsanto until 3 1971 is when Dr. Levinskis joined the staff. 4 Q. So you don't remember the name of the 5 specific doctor? - 6 A. There was another medical doctor 7 assisting Dr. Kelly with human medical problems or 8 issues. 9 Q. Othe_r than Kelly, Wheeler, Garrett, Hunt 10 and this other doctor, who at Monsanto was 11 involved in identifying the health and 12 environmental effects and essentially warning 13 customers, developing a policy with regard to 14 warning and supervising what customers, were doing 15 with pcb's? 16 You mentioned some marketing people. Who 17 in specific? 1 8 A o It. would be a Mr. Paul Benignus, who was 19 manager of marketing for the pcb's. 20 B=e_n-i-g-n-u-s. 21 Q. So we have our timing straight, we are 22 now dealing with the period from the mid-fifties 23 to '71, prior to the '71 reorganization. 24 You ha*d indicated that the marketing Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029671 41 1 manager was a Mr. Throdahl? 2 A. He was director of marketing. 3 Q. Director of marketing. 4 Did Mr. Benignus work under Mr. Throdahl? 5 A. We are getting our dates all messed up 6 here I am afraid. 7 Q. I am now in the period from the 8 mid-fifties to '71. 9 A. Mr. _Throdahl was director of marketing in 10 the fifties. 11 Q. Okay. 12 A. I do not recall who followed Mr. Throdahl 13 in the period mid to late fifties on to 1971. 14 Q. Okay. 15 A. There were several individuals there in 16 that period of time. 17 But Mr. Benignus was with pcb's 18 throughout that total period. 19 Q. From beginning when to through '71, 20 mid-fifties to '71? 21 A. At least, if not earlier. 22 Q. And you can't recall exactly when. But 23 it was earlier than the mid-fifties? 24 A. To the* best of my recollection, yes. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029672 43 1 0. Now, to whom did he report? 2 A. To Mr. Benignus. 3 Q. So he was in the marketing branch? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. Okay. " 6 Anybody else? 7 A. All right. 8 Now, in pcb uses other than dielectrics, 9 there were others involved. 10 Q. Such as? 11 A. Mr. Walter Schalk was the director of 12 marketing for plasticizers and reporting to him 13 was Dr. Cumming, C-u-m-m-i-n-g, Paton. P-a-t-o-n. 14 Q. Pcb usage other than dielectrics was? 15 A. In the plasticizer application, we had 16 Mr. Walter Schalk as director of marketing and 17 working under him was Dr. Paton. 18 Q. Under him was was that a medical doctor 19 or just a PhD? 20 A. Chemist doctor. 21 Q. Chemist doctor, Cumming? 22 A. Cumming Paton. P-a-t-o-n. 23 Q. P-a-t-t-o-n? 24 A. Single T. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029673 44 1 Q. Single T? 2 A. Yes: 3 We had a hydraulic fluids application, v;e 4 had a manager of marketing for that application, 5 Norman Johnson, which was late sixties, I don't 6 know who preceded Mr. Johnson. 7 Also in the heat transfer applications 8 there was another individual whose name escapes me 9 at the moment. . 10 Q. With regard to - 11 A. I cannot remember the name. It would be 12 the marketing manager for heat transfer 13 applications. 14 Q. Any other individuals involved in the 15 question of how to control pcb release; 16 A. These names that I just mentioned are 17 involved. 18 Q. Yes. 19 A. And, in addition, there was a Roger 20 Hatton, H-a-t-t-o-n, who was associated with the 21 hydraulic fluids applications. A Don Rausch, 22 R-a-u-s-c-h, associated with the heat transfer 23 applications. 24 Q. These *are all marketing people? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029674 1 A. Yes. They are part of the marketing, 2 customer service, technical service team. 3 Of course, in 1970, I start becoming 4 involved. If we are talking about 1971, that 5 includes me in there. - 6 Q. In terms of customer warnings and any 7 limitations imposed upon customer utilization, 3 restrictions and supervision of customer disposal, 9 in the late sixties were there any other 10 individuals other than the individuals you have 11 mentioned? 12 A. I don't recall any others. 13 I recall the name of that manager whose 14 name I couldn't recall. Jack Fallon, F-a-l-l-o-n. 15 He was the heat transfer marketing manager. 16 Q. You have mentioned people essentially 17 from marketing and from medical up through your 18 getting involved in 1970. 1 9 . Were there any people, any personnel 20 above them, who were involved in decisions as to 21 warning customers or restricting customer 22 application or use or disposal, controlling 23 disposal? 24 A. Involving decisions, yes. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaao STLCOPCB4029675 45 1 Q. Yes. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Who were they? 4 A. There was Mr. Bergen, the director of the 5 business group that had responsibilities for 6 functional fluids. 7 Q. You have got to go back. 8 A. I am sorry. 9 Q. You got to go back. Is that Harold 10 Bergen? 11 A. Howard. Howard Bergen. 12 Q. B-e-r-g-e-n? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. And he was what was his title? 15 A. He was the director of the business croup 16 that was responsible for functional fluids, which 17 included dielectric, hydraulic fluids, heat 18 transfer fluids. 1 9 Q. So I just want to see if we get our 20 organization here. 21 We had the organic chemical division, the 22 general manager of which was Robert Morris. And 23 you indicated that under that person for 24 manufacturing was Mr. Minckler, and for marketing- Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029676 47 1 but for a undefined period of tine in the fifties 2 you don't remember the names, but there was a "r. 3 Throdahl. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. How did Mr. Bergen fit into that 6 organizational structure? 7 A. Sometime in the early sixties, the 8 organic chemicals division was organized into 9 business groups. These groups were managed by a 10 director, who reported to the general manager of 11 the organic chemicals division. 12 Now, within each of those business 13 groups, there were individuals assigned the 14 different functions, marketing, manufacturing, 15 research, planning, distribution and the like. 16 Q. So, am I correct that in the early 17 sixties, then, within the organic chemical 18 division you developed subdivisions called 19 business groups? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. One of those business groups was called 22 functional fluids? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. Is that right? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029677 4O 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And during this period of time from the 3 early sixties to 1971 was Mr. Bergen the director 4 of functional fluids? 5 A. That's right. " 6 Q. Now, under Mr. Bergen, was Mr. Bergen 7 then responsible for both manufacturing and 8 marketing of functional fluids, including pcb's? 9 A. That's right, correct. Yes. 10 Q. Did Mr. Bergen report directly to Mr. 11 Robert Morris? 12' A. Yes. Up until Mr. Morris left Monsanto. 13 Q. In what year? 14 A. That was '65. 15 Q. Who replaced Mr. Morris, do you remember? 16 A. Mr. Minckler. 17 Q. So, from the mid-fifties to '65, the 1 8 organic chemical division had a general manager 19 named Robert Morris who was replaced in 1965 by 20 Mr. Howard Minckler? is that right? 21 A. That is the best of my recollection. 22 Q. Mr. Minckler was general manager of the 23 organic chemicals division until the next 24 reorganization,, at least, in '71? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029678 49 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Who replaced Hr. H i n c k 1 e r as 3 manufacturing director? 4 A. Each of the business groups had their own 5 manufacturing director now. 6 Q. Allright. 7 A. Instead of one for the whole division, 8 there was one for each business group. 9 Q. How was the.functional fluids business 10 group organized? 11 A. Mr. Bergen was its business director. 12 Don Olson was the director of marketing, and he 13 was he placed in about 19 -- late seventies I 14 recall by Thomas Gossage. 15 Q. Late sixties or late seventies? 16 A. Late 1970. 17 Q. Late 1970. I thought you said late 18 seventies, late 1970? 19 A. Late 1970, as I remember. I am still 20 looking in '71 as the end point here. 21 Q. Right. 22 A. James Savage, no, wait. Let me back off. 23 I am not real clear on this. But I believe the 24 director of manufacturing initially was William Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029679 50 1 Kuhn, K-u-h-n. Followed by Janes Savage, 2 S-a-v-a-g-e. But I don't know when that change 3 took -- I don't recall when that change took 4 place. 5 The director of research was W i-Ilian 6 Richard. 7 Q. The director of research, was that a 8 director of research for functional fluids? 9 A. Y e s ._ . 10 0. And was there anybody within the director 11 of research office responsible for peb's in 12 particular? 13 A. No. 14 Q. In this functional fluids business groan, 15 the market section you said there was Olson, later 16 replaced by Gossage. 17 Where did Benignus fit within that 18 structure? 19 A. Benignus reported to Olson, as did Nr. 20 Fallon and Mr. Johnson. 21 , Q. Fallon and Johnson, what tasks did they 22 have ? 23 A. Mr. Fallon had the heat transfer 24 applications, M-r. Johnson had the hydraulic fluids Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029680 1 applications. Mr. Benignus had the electrical 2 applications. 3 Q. Mr. Fallon, was he transfer? 4 A. Heat transfer, yes. 5 Q. During this period of tine, from the 6 early sixties to '71, you indicated the two 7 directors of manufacturing, who was below them? 3 Who was below Kuhn or Savage? 9 A. They had no.staffs. 10 Q. Did they supervise the plant managers at 11 Sauget and Anniston.? 12 In terms of reporting responsibility, 13 they were responsible for manufacturing for a 14 number of chemicals; is that right? 15 A. The business groups at that time did not 16 have plants assigned to them. The plants reported 17 over to Mr. Minckler. 18 Q. So the plants - 19 A. The plants provided the product, and 20 these business groups decided how much to make and 21 where it is sold, and what to sell it for and so 22 on. 23 Q. So the business group was more of a 24 marketing entity as opposed to a manufacturing Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029681 1 entity; is that right? 2 A. Well, it is not only marketing. They had 3 the research responsibility as well as the 4 marketing and manufacturing technology 5 responsibility. " 6 Mr. Savage, for example, would concern 7 himself with the technical matters regarding 8 manufacturing and see to it that these projects 9 were developed and installed at the plants. 10 Q. But would he route his directives through 11 Mr. Minckler, is that it? 12 A. No. He would deal directly with - plants. 13 But he did not have responsibility for the plants 14 in terms of administering, managing them, and the 15 like. 16 Q. Now, above Mr. Minckler, am I correct, 17 that - I am sorry. 18 Let's just see if I can recite the 19 players in the late sixties. 20 A. It is complex. .21 ; Q. In marketing. 22 A. The late sixties. 23 Go In the late sixties for pcb's. 24 In the- dielectric fluids end of it we had Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029682 53 1 Benignus, who was manager of marketing for 2 dielectric fluids; is that right? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Working for him were Bryant and Randall 5 Graham? ... 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. And then he reported to Olson and chon 8 later Gossage; is that right? 9 A. Correct. . 10 Q. And they in turn reported to Howard 11 Bergen, is that right? 1 2 A. Right. 13 Q. And Bergen reported in the late sixties 14 to Minckler; is that correct? 15 A. Cor rect. 16 Q. And Mr. Mincklerreported to whoa? 17 A. The president, Mr. Bok. 1 8 Q. Mr. Bok. 1 9 Do you know when Bok became president? 20 A. I believe it was '67, as best I recall. 21 Q. To your knowledge, in the period from let 22 me break this down in increments, the mid-fifties 23 to 1971, other than your own involvement, have we 24 identified everybody who was involved in pcb Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029683 54 1 control, communications to customers with regard 2 to pcb control, pcb hazards, pcb sales? 3 A. I suspect we haven't found everybody. 4 There were many, many salesmen out there 5 who I don't recall at the moment. 6 Q. Let's talk about the dielectric industry. 7 A. Dielectric, all right. 8 With respect to the sale of dielectric 9 fluids to the electrical industry, I think we have 10 covered everyone. 11 There were discussions between customers' 12 representatives and Monsanto's research people 13 that could have involved discussions regarding 1 4 disposal and handling and the like. 15 Q. Monsanto's research people would be again 16 whom ? 17 A. They were people reporting to Dr. Richard 18 and more specifically it is one key person. Dr. 19 Ralph Munch. He was in contact with our 20 customers' technical people. 21 Q. Dr. Munch is M-u-n-c-h-e? 22 A. M-u-n-c-h. 23 Q. M-u-n-c-h. All right. 24 A. Now, i*n addition to Dr. Munch in Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029684 D0 1 research, we had other researchers who began to 2 get involved in assisting in the analysis of 3 PCB's. 4 I don't know if you want to include 5 those. . 6 Q. By the analysis, do you mean chemical 7 analysis? S A. Chemical analysis of pcb's in wastewaters 9 and soil and so on. . 10 Q. Yes, who were those? 11 A. Dr. Keller, Robert Keller, K-e-l-l-e-r, 12 and reporting to him was Dr. E. Scott Tucker. 13 Q. And where were those gentlemen in the 14 organizational structure, were they in research? 15 A. They were in research, in a group 16 independent of Dr. Richard, providing research and 17 analytical support. 1 8 I would appreciate a break. 19 Q. A break. You are more than welcome to a 20 break. 21 (Whereupon a short recess was had.) 22 Mr. Papageorge, we were talking about the 23 period prior to the reorganization of '71, where 24 we started in the late sixties, different people Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029685 55 1 became involved in the question of distribution 2 and disposal of pcb's. 3 In terms of the control of pcb's released 4 into the environment, you identified a number cf 5 people, let's see if I can again summarize. 6 Within functional fluids, we had the 7 director of research, Mr. Richard assisted by Dr. 8 Ralph Munch; is that right? 9 A. Yes, for dielectric fluids. 10 Q. For dielectric fluids. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Was there anybody who was a director of 13 research for pcb's in other applications, for 14 plasticizers? 15 A. Yes . 16 Q. Who were those people? 17 A. Dr. Martin Farrar. F-a-r-r-a-r. 18 Q. Did he have any staff? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Director of research for plasticizers? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. Who worked for him? 23 A. I don't remember his team. 24 Q. How about for heat treatment, heat Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029686 57 1 treating fluids or heat transferring fluids, 2 rather ? 3 A. What about it. 4 Q. Was there a director of research for heat 5 transferringfluids? ~ 6 A. That cones under Dr. Richard, who was 7 director of research for functional fluids. 8 Plasticizers is another business group. 9 Q. Okay. . 10 That is in a totally different business 11 group? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. I am sorry. 14 So all functional fluids research for 15 pcb's were under Dr. Richard's? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. And you are saying that pcb use in 18 plasticizers 'was under a different business group? 1 9 A. Yes. 20 Q. Still within organic chemicals? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. What was that business group? 23 A. The plasticizers business group. 24 Q. Were there any other business groups that Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029687 1 involved the manufacture and sale of pcb's? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Who was the head of the plasticisers 4 group? 5 A. James E. Springgate. 6 S-p-r-i-n-g-g-a-t-e. 7 Q. Who was head of the marketing activity 8 within the plasticizers group? 9 A. That is Walter Schalk that we referred to 10 earlier. 11 Q. All right. 12 And he had assisting him Dr. Cummine 13 Pa ton; is that correct? 14 A. Correct. 1 5 Q. Then in addition to research, you had 16 manufacturing in the business group which was "uhn 17 and Savage; is that right? 18 A. In the functional fluids group. 19 Q, I am sorry, in the functional fluids 20 group. 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. Who was in charge of manufacturing in the 23 plasticizer group? 24 A. I don '*t recall. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029688 59 1 Q. We had Richard and Munch in research. 2 Then we had Benignus, Johnson and Fallon reporting 3 to either Olson or Gossage in marketing; is that 4 right? 5 A. Correct. ~ 6 Q. And Olson and Gossage in marketing. 7 Do you know - - or, Savage in 8 manufacturing and Richard's in research reported 9 to Benignus as director of functional fluids, 10 correct? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. Let's go over these individuals in 13 discussing' individual documents. 14 Let's move on for a mome.nt to the 15 organizational structure that existed or took 16 place in 1971. 17 Can you describe what the new 18 organization was? 19 A. There were many changes that took place 20 immediately following the '71 reorganization. I 21 don't know that I will get them all correct and in 22 the right sequence. 23 But, at one point in time, I believe "r. 24 Wendel Corey, W-e-n-d-e-1, Corey, C-o--r-e-y had Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029689 responsibility for functional fluids. Q. He took Bergen's job? A. Mo. Mr. Bergen, let me think. Q. Let me go back to how the companv was organized as a whole first, and we will'work down to functional fluids. A. All right. At that time there was the Monsanto Industrial Chemicals.Company. The Monsanto Agricultural Chemicals Company. The Monsanto Plastics and Resins Company. The Monsanto Textiles Company. Q. The pcb activities were within which company, Monsanto Industrial Chemicals? A. Industrial Chemicals. Q. The president of the company after the '71 reorganization, the president and chief executive officer was Edward Bok still; is that correct? A. Yes. I believe Mr. Bok was still there then, yes. Q. And the managing director and vice president for Monsanto Industrial Chemicals was C. Preston Cunning>ham? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029690 51 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. Then how did the manufacture and sales of 3 pcb's fit in organizationally under Mr. 4 Cunningham? 5 A. Under Mr. Cunningham, there' was F. J. 6 Fitzgerald. I believe his title was general 7 manager, functional fluids and specialty 8 chemicals, or something like that. 9 Q. Then under Mr. Fitzgerald? 10 A. Under Mr. Fitzgerald. As best I remember 11 Mr. Corey, who I mentioned earlier, I have 12 forgotten his title. Director of some sort. 13 Q. But you said he was responsible for 14 functional fluids? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Under Mr. Corey? 17 A. Mr. Bergen and his team that we talked 18 about earlier. 19 . Q. The same group of people we talked about 20 earlier ? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Were they organized in any different 23 fashion? ' 24 A. Not that I recall. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029691 1 Q. How long did that reorganizationa 1 2 structure remain in place? 3 A. Until about 1973. 4 Q. Okay. 5 Then what happened? " 6 A. I forgot many of the details, but the 7 functional fluids and specialty chemical business 8 groups were combined. 9 Q. What was the distinction that existed 10 between functional fluids and specialty chemicals 11 prior to that time? 12 A. They were two separate business groups. 13 The specialty chemicals group managed such 14 chemicals as water treating chemicals, paper 15 chemicals, fire fighting chemicals. 16 Q. The specialty chemicals prior to this 17 reorganization, did they have anything to do with 18 peb? 19 A. No. 20 Q. All right. 21 They combined the functional fluids with 22 specialty chemicals? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. In terms of the personnel that we have Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029692 1 described before having responsibility for 2 functional fluids and pcb's, did they change at 3 all? 4 A. Not really. 5 Q. A n d - - .- 6 A. It is just, the significant change there, 7 Mr. Bergen reported to different individuals. 8 Q. Who did he report to? 9 A. As I remember he reported to Mr. Corey 10 now . 11 Q. You indicated that in the '71 12 reorganization he also reported to Corey. 13 A. All right. '71. Let me think. 14 I cannot recall the details of that. But 15 as far as pcb's are concerned, Mr. Bergen 16 continued to be responsible. 17 Q,, And from the standpoint of the personnel 18 involved, would the personnel have stayed the same 19 as far as pcb's go, for marketing, research, 20 manufacture? 21 A. Yes. Except that Mr. Graham left 22 Monsanto in about 1972, as I recall. Either late 23 '71 or in '72, Mr. Graham left. 24 Q. Do you- know where Mr. Graham resides Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029693 54 1 today? 2 A . No . 3 Q. Any other changes, was he replaced? 4 A. And Nr. Bryant replaced to a great degree 5 Mr. Randall and his activities, Mr. Randall 6 Graham. i 7 Q. This organization that you have 3 described, this '73 organization, how long was 9 that in place, the organizational structure? 10 A. I can't fix the year. Sometime between 11 '73 and '76, there was another restructuring of 12 the business groups. I don't recall what year 13 that was. 14 Q. Was there a restructuring of the 15 functional fluids group? 15 A. Not basically. 17 But some of the individuals had nov; been 18 reassigned, though. 19 Q. All right, 20 A. Mr. Fallon and Mr. Johnson were no longer 21 involved, Mr. Benignus was still involved. Mr. 22 Bryant was still involved. 23 Of course, at that point in time the 24 plasticizers team was not involved with peb's in Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029694 65 1 any way. 2 Q. When did you pull pcb's out of 3 plasticizers? 4 A. It was finally completed in 1971. 5 Q. So that after 1971, the only manufacture 6 and distribution of pcb's related to dielectric 7 fluids; is that correct? 8 A. After 1971, that is correct. 9 Q. Go ahead. . 10 Were there any other personnel changes in 11 this period of '73 to '76 that are relevant to the 12 manufacture, distribution of pcb's? 13 A. Not that I can recall. I can't recall 14 any others. 15 Q. And again organizationally. That took us 16 to '76. 17 Was there another reorganization in '75? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. What was that? 20 A. In 1976, the operating units were 21 reorganized. There was still a Monsanto 22 Industrial Chemicals Company. There was still a 23 Monsanto Textiles Company and a Monsanto 2 4 Agricultural Chemicals Company. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029695 65 1 There was a new unit called the Monsanto 2 Chemical Intermediates Company. And and a new 3 Monsanto Plastics and Polymers Company. 4 Q. Were pcb's still within the Monsanto 5 Industrial Chemical Company? " 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. Were there still business croups? 8 A. In the Industrial Chemicals Company, yes, 9 there were still business groups. 10 Q. And where were pcb's within the business 11 groups? 12 A. It was referred to as a specialty 13 chemicals business group. 14 Q. That included functional fluids? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. But now it was called the specialty 17 chemicals business group? 1 8 A. Correct. 19 Q. And who was in charge of that business 20 group? 21 A. I can't recall. 22 Q. Who was in charge of pcb's within the 23 specialty business group? 24 A. Was th-at still Corey? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029696 1 A '76 That would be Robert Potter. 2 Q. Pie had replaced Corey? 3 A. Yes. It was not a like-for-like 4 replacement. But the responsibilities for neb's 5 were now Robert Potter's. " 6 Q. And who worked under Potter? Was Bererc-n 7 still there ? 8 A. No. 9 Q. When did Bergen leave? 10 A. About 1974. 11 Q. Who had replaced Bergen? 12 A. I don't remember. 13 Q. So after 1 974 you don't know v/ho was 1 4 directly in charge of functional fluids; is that 15 right? 16 A. I just don't remember. 17 Q. Was Gossage still head of marketing for 18 peb's ? 19 . A. Gossage was still head through 1975. 20 don't recall after that. 21 Q. Was Benignus still in charge of peb 22 dielectrics for marketing? 23 A. Benignus retired in 1974. 24 Q. Did anybody replace him? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029697 67 1 A. Yes, A David 17 ood. 2 Q. And who reported to Mood, if anybody? 3 A. No one. 4 Q. So whereas prior to under Benignus you 5 had Randall Graham and James Bryant, Wood had 6 nobody under him; is that right? 7 A, That is true, , 8 By that time the pcb business had shrunk 9 considerably._ And Mr. Wood would use the other 10 Monsanto field salesmen, there was no salesman 11 specifically assigned pcb's, dielectric fluids. 1 2 Q. Where had Bryant gone? 13 A. He had left Monsanto. 14 0. Do you know when? 15 A. Abo u t 1 9 7 5 . 16 Q. When we talked about the period and who 17 was involved in pcb marketing and control of 1 8 disposal decisions in the late sixties, and you 19 said you came aboard in '70. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Within the organizational structure that 22 you described, to whom did you report? 23 You were manager of environmental 24 control. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029698 Dr O 1 A. Yes, to Hr. Bergen initially. And that 2 continued up through 1973. At that time I 3 reported to Hr. Corey. 4 Q. And after Corey? 5 A. After Corey, during the organization, 6 reorganization that I couldn't place in tine, T 7 was reporting to Lee Hiller. Dr. Lee Hiller. 8 Q. What was his organizational slot, where 9 didhefitin? . 10 A. He was the business director of the 11 process chemicals business group. 12 Q. So with respect to pcb control, you were 13 reporting out of the specialty products, specialty 14 chemicals business group? 15 A. It was an unusual situation, where I was 16 reporting to a business group that had nothing :o 17 do. with pcb's. But I retained that pcb contact 1 8 until 1976. 19 Q. To whom were you reporting with regard to 20 pcb's after Corey? 21 A. To Robert Potter. 22 Q. Directly to Potter? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. So you*r chain of command on pcb's was Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029699 70 1 direct reporting to Bergen, then to Corey, then *t-or\ 2 Potter; is that correct? 3 A. Right. 4 Q. Until you got out of peb's in '76; is 5 thatright? - 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. When you say you got out of peb's, do you 8 recall, was there a reason why you got out of 9 peb's, no longer had.any contact with peb's? 10 A. Well, I went to Mr. Potter and expressed 11 a desire to change assignments. I had been on 12 peb's for seven years and was getting 13 intellectually fatigued, I guess is the word. And 14 he arranged for someone else to take over peb's in 15 ' 76 . 16 Q. Who was that? 17 A. J. C. Webber. 1 8 Q. And how long did Mr. Webber have 19 responsibility for peb's? 20 A. A couple years. About two years. 21 . Q. And then what was done with respect to 22 peb control? 23 A. Then Mr. Wood. 24 Q. David .Wood? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029700 71 1 A. David Wood assumed that role. 2 Q. Environmental control of pcb's? 3 A. Yes. As well as the marketing and 4 anything else that was still needed. 5 Q. That was in 1978? 6 A. About '78. Yes. 7 Q. And how long did'Mr. Wood keep those 8 responsibilities? 9 A. Another couple years.. About 1 9 80 . It 10 was assigned and is today with Dr. John Craddock. 11 C-r-a-d-d-o-c-k , ' 12 Q. And to whom did Mr. Webber report during 13 the time he was there? 14 A. Mr. Potter. 15 Q. To whom did Mr. Wood report? 16 A. That is the individual that I couldn't 17 recall earlier as to who was the functional fluids 18 business director. I don't remember. 19 . Q. The individual who replaced Potter. 20 A. There was an individual. Yes. He would 21 have to replace Bob Potter. I don't know who that 22 is. I don't remember. 23 Q. But it is still in functional fluids? 24 A. I don't think I understand. You used the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029701 72 1 present tense 2 Q. I am sorry. 3 Mr. Webber reported to fir. Potter. Then 4 you said Mr. Wood reported to an unidentified 5 individual. That was that individual in. charge of 6 functional fluids? 7 A. It is now specialty chemicals. 8 Q. But v/as there a subcategory for 9 functional fluids under specialty chemicals? 10 A. I don't believe that word was officially 11 used at the time. 12 Q. So it was to the - 13 A. Industrial fluids group within the 14 specialty chemicals group. 15 Q. It might just save time. 16 Are you aware of any historical 17 organization chart or charts that would describe 18 where these people fit within the company? 1 9 A. I am aware that periodically charts were 20 published. 21 Q. Showing who was who? 22 A. Showing all the changes with each change. 23 Yes. That happens, as a routine business. 24 Q. Do you- have any? Longoria & Golds tine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029702 1 M R . F R U E nT-7 A L D : W e collected those back in 2 '82. In response to your interrogatory, we 3 started to collect them. I7 hen the lav; suit closed 4 down, we never -- at least I think v/e maybe 5 offered them, but they never got around-to being 6 seen. 7 We have a collection of them. They are 8 not complete, but for certain periods of time 9 throughout this period we have organizational 10 charts. 11 MR. KARAGANIS: I would request that those be 12 produced. Do you have them today? 13 MR. FRU EHWALD: Yes. 14 MR. KARAGANIS; May I have those? 15 MR. FRUEHWALD: Sure. I have them right here. 16 I figured this was going to come up. 17 But these are complicated. They are the 10 entire company type things. So in terms of what 19 you want to find or focus on, you have to figure 20 out which pages in them are related to what you 21 ha ve. 22 But they are here for that period of 23 t ime. 24 MR. KARAGANIS; Okay. " Longoria sGoldstine 2361030 Chicaco . STLCOPCB4029703 1 We will look at them at a break anc come 2 back to them. 3 Q. Mr. Papageorge, let's go back to 1070. 4 When in 1970 did you assume your 5 responsibilities? 6 A. The 1st of January. " 7 Q. So you were plant manager at Anniston 8 from '65 to '70. Then on January 1 you returned 9 to St. Louis? is that right? 10 A. Yes. 11 0, Would it be fair to say that from January 12 1, 1970 to sometime in 1976 you were responsible 13 for environmental control for pcb's at Monsanto; 14 is that right? 15 A. Yes. 16 O. Would it be fair to say that you were 17 also responsible for pcb control in terms of 18 anything Monsanto did with its customers during 19 that period of time? 20 Ao I am having some difficulty with your 21 understanding and my understanding of 22 environmental control. 23 I don't know that we both see it the sane 24 way. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029704 75 1 Q. We will go back and take it apart line by 2 line. 3 A. Okay. 4 Q. Would it be fair to say that as to the 5 activities of Monsanto's customer, regar-ding the 6 disposal of pcb's, that any role that Monsanto had 7 with regard to customer disposal of pcb's, you 8 were in charge of from January 1, 1970 to 1976? 9 A. I was not io charge of. I was advising. 10 My assignment was advisory, not -11 Q. Who was responsible at Monsanto for 1 2 activities of customers regarding disposal of pcb 13 material from January 1, 1970 to `76? 14 A. I am not aware of anybody at Monsanto 15 being responsible for our customer's behavior. Ws 16 were responsible for communicating. 17 Q. Prior to 1970, you indicated that the 1 8 only materials that you took back to Monsanto were 19 those raw products which had not been used by the 20 customers which failed the specification test; is 21 that correct? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q, How, did you begin a program for taking 24 back spent or other pcb materials other than Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chic a q c STLCOPCB4029705 75 1 material that had not met the specification test? _2 Am I making myself clear? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Did you begin such a program? 5 A. Y e s. ~ 6 Q. Who devised the program and who was 1 responsible for it? 8 A. The ultimate responsibility would be the- 9 business director, Mr. Bergen at that time. And 10 it was implemented by his staff. 11 Q. Let's talk.specific individuals. You had 12 the ultimate responsibility. ' 13 Who had responsibility for or who was 14 involved, let's put it that way, as opposed to 15 responsibility, in setting up the program of 16 having customers check and return peb material 17 other than that which had failed the 1 8 specifications? 19 A. Those involved included research people, 20 manufacturing people, and medical people. 21 . Q. Let's be specific, when you say those 22 categories. Let's be specific. 23 A. Okay. 24 Of Dr. Richard, Elmer Wheeler. I was " Longoria & Goldstine 2361030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029706 1 involved . Public relations through Mr. Ed John, 2 J-o-h-n. And depending on the time period, e ichor 3 Mr, Olson or Mr. Gossage, Mr. Savage. And, of 4 course, attorneys. 5 Q. Which attorneys? 6 A. Let's see, who would it be at that time. 7 Mr. Park, Phocian, P-h-o-c-i-a-n, Park. 3 Q. Was he with the corporate counsel's 9 office of Monsanto? . 10 A. Yes. Mr. Bergen. 11 Q. Anybody above Mr. Bergen? 12 A. Well, Mr. Bergen's superior would be 13 informed of the consensus opinion of this group 14 and he would approve the action. 15 Q. Who was that? 16 A. It would be Mr. Minckler again depending 17 on the point in time. 1 8 So this group would deliberate, discuss, 19 come up with a consensus. Really advising Mr. 20 Bergen what action should take place. 21 Mr. Bergen then would look to his 22 marketing staff, which is the primary contact with 23 the customers, to implement. To communicate to 24 customers, what our approaches were and how we Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029707 7 PU 1 would label material and who thev sent the 2 material to. And on and on. 3 Q. So let's just get this straight. Has 4 there a term used for the material, a term of art 5 used for the material other than pcb's that had 6 failed to meet customer specifications? 7 A. I think we called it scrap pcb's or scrap 0 askarel, scrap Araclor, the word scrap comes to 9 mind. . 10 Q. Would it be fair to say that when the 11 word scrap is used, it does not describe 12 polychlorinated biphenyl product that had simply 13 failed customer specs? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. So scrap Aroclor would be Aroclor that 16 had not prior to 1970 been returned to Monsanto; 17 is that right? 1 8 A. That's correct. 19 Q. Now, where was that scrap Aroclor prior 20 to 1970 being disposed of? 21 A. I don't know. 22 Q. You had no idea? 23 A. I can only speculate. 24 Q. Please* do. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029708 79 1 A. Some of it could have q o r. e down ssv.'cr 2 systems. Some of it was buried in different kinds 3 of landfills. Some chemical landfills, seme4 sanitary landfills. 5 Some of it was probably sold into the 6 used oil market by dealers in this kind of 7 material. That is about it. 8 Q. Would it be fair to say that in 1970 this 9 group that you have described and the individuals 10 you described advised corporate leadership at 11 Monsanto that it was not a sound environmental 12 practice to dispose of scrap Aroclor in sewers and 13 landfills? 14 A. Yes. 1 5 Q. And would it be fair to say that that 16 group advised Monsanto corporate leadership to 17 have the scrap Aroclor returned to Monsanto for 18 processing or destruction? 19 A. Not for processing. Destruction. 20 Q. Who would have been responsible for 21 making the corporate decision to construct a 22 destruction device? 23 A. The approval to construct the device was 24 given by the corporate management committee, which Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicano STLCOPCB4029709 consisted of the chief executive officer and his staff of vice presidents. Q. And who was the staff of vice presidents, how many are we talking about? A. Yes. ` There was Mr. Throdahl was there, of course, Mr. Bok who was the chief executive. Mr. Gilles, G-i-l-l-e-s, I believe is the way he spelled his name. Mr. Bible. Q. Gilles was vice president of what? A. Marketing. Q. Okay. ' Throdahl was vice president of what? A. I believe at that time he was vice president of technology. Q. Okay. Who else? A. And Mr. Harold Bible. B-i-b-l-e. I believe he v/as vice president of manufacturing. Q. All right. A. I don't recall the other members. Q. How many members on the corporate management committee? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029710 31 1 A. I just don't remember. 2 Q. About six or eight. There v/as a room 3 full. 4 Q. We will go back and go into detail on 5 this. '" 6 Who within Monsanto within the corporate 7 leadership --first of all. 8 Who within Monsanto gave corporate 9 leadership the advice to restrict the sale of 10 pcb's to only certain applications in 1969 or '70? 11 A. This group- of individuals I listed 12 previously. 13 Q. Richards, Wheeler, Olson, Savage, Bergen? 14 A. Right. 15 Q. Would Mr. Benignus have been involved in 16 that? 17 A, Yes. 1 8 So would Mr. Schalk, Mr. Springgate. 19 They, as a group -- 20 Q. Would advise corporate manager? 21 A. On pcb matters. 22 Q. I am now talking about the specific 23 decision to withdraw pcb's from certain 24 applications and to limit its sale to certain Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029711 32 1 specified applications in 1969 or 1970. 2 A. That group advised Mr. Dergen. Mr. 3 Bergen advised Mr. Minckler. 4 Q. Minckler was the general manager? 5 A. General manager of the organic chemicals 6 division. And Mr. Minckler then advised the 7 corporate management committee. 8 Q. So the decision was made by the corporate 9 management comnittee; is that right? 10 A. Ultimately. Yes. 11 Q. Who made the decision I believe in 1971 12 to only continue to sell to customers such as 13 Westinghouse who would provide an indemnification 14 agreement? . 15 Who recommended that? Let's go tc 16 recommendation first. 17 A. I personally wasn't involved in than 18 particular activity. But I have an understanding 19 I will share with you. 20 It started with the marketing people 21 represented by Mr. Gossage. And the attorneys, 22 represented by John Stapleton, the attorney, who 23 advised Mr. Bergen, who in turn advised Mr. 24 Minckler, and a-s I understand it that is where the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029712 33 1 decision was made 2 Q . By Mr. Minc k1e r ? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Do you recall any discussions as to what 5 the reason for requesting the indemnification was? 6 A. No. 7 Q, Throughout the period of time that we arc 0 talking about now, late sixties, early seventies, 9 who was responsible within Monsanto for 10 identifying, evaluating, analyzing, and 11 investigating effects of pcb's on human or animal 12 life? 13 A. It would be Dr. Kelly. 14 Q. Dr. Kelly still with the company? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Is he retired? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Where does he reside? 19 - A. The last I knew in the St. Louis area. 20 But I don't know specifically. 21 Q. Did you have any communication or any 22 activities in the area I have just described, 23 investigations of pcb's as to their impact on 24 human or animal* life? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029713 1< 1 A. I was kept informed, yes. 2 Q. Did you participate in the activities? 3 A. I need help on the word participate. 4 Q. Did you engage in supervision, direction, 5 communication of any research, or investigation 6 into impact on human and animal life from pcb's? 7 A. I participated in communication of the 8 status of the studies. 9 Q. Who was involved from Monsanto's end with 10 the studies? 11 A. Elmer Wheeler was the project manager and 12 represented Monsanto. 13 Q. Did anybody work with him? 14 A. . He was assisted briefly by Dr. Hunt. 15 Q. Anybody else? 16 A. Not to my knowledge. 17 Q. Dr. Levinskis involved in that? 18 A. Not initially. Dr. Levinskis became 19 involved with pcb's about 1975 or so. 20 Q. '75? 21 Yes 22 Q. A Mr. Paul Wright? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Where -was he within the Monsanto Longoria & Goldstine 235 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029714 n; 3-- 1 organization? 2 A. He was part of the medical department and 3 joined it in about '74. Somewhere in there. 4 Q. Is that the first time he became mart of 5 Monsanto or became employed by Monsanto? 6 A. No. I understood, although I didn't hncv; 7 the man, I understood that he was a part of 8 Monsanto's agricultural company prior to that or 9 at some time before that. 10 Q. He left Monsanto and then joined bac!c 11 into the medical department; is that right? 1 2 A. That is my understanding. Yes. 13 Q. Do you have a scheduled retirement at all 14 at Monsanto, when are you scheduled to red r e? 15 A. We can retire from 55 on. 16 Q. All right. 17 , Is there any mandatory retirement dan? 18 A. It is the federal one, 70 for 19 .nonexecutives. 20 Q. Do you have any anticipated retirement? 21 A. For me, personally? 22 Q. Yes. 23 A. Well, I haven't thought about it, 24 frankly. . Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Ch i cacc STLCOPCB4029715 35 1 Q. Mandatory date would be when? 2 A. 1970, for me -- not 70. 3 Q. Age 70? 4 A. It would be '92. 5 Q. So you have got some time. - 6 Do you have any plans to retire new? 7 A. Yes. Probably in '08, v/hen I'm 65. 8 Is that relevant? 9 O. Well, it i s. in terms of where you will be 10 at the trial date, and under whose employment you 11 w i 11 be. 12 A. Oh, I am sorry. 13 Q. Mr. Papageorge, have you had occasion to 14 have your deposition taken in any other 15 litigation? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Could you describe what litigation that 18 has been? 1 9 A. I will try to remember them all. 20 There is a case in North Carolina, I am 21 going to refer to these by common terminology. I 22 don't know. 23 Q. All right. 24 A. The Ho-lly Farms case, chicken and egg Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029716 3 ! 1 case There was up in New Hampshire, the 2 Bethlehem mink case. Up in Chicago, the Taukegar. 3 harbor case. In Knoxville, Tennessee, there was a 4 transformer case. In South Carolina, there is 5 the -- I don't even know what the terminology is, 6 it has to do with with a capacitor plant and water 7 effluent in a creek or a river contaminated near 8 Greenville. Pickens. Pickens, South Carolina. 9 QOkay. . 10 A. There is a case in Florida that had to do 11 with replacement of transformers in an insurance 12 building. Independent Live versus General 13 Electric. 14 There is a New Bedford , Massachusetts 15 harbor pollution case. A case in Montana. Pierce 16 Packing. P-i-e-r-c-e. I don't remember any' 17 others. But I don't know that I got them all or 1 8 not. 1 9 Q. I would request for purposes of 20 inspection and possible copying, copies of Mr. 21 Papageorge's deposition transcripts in the cases 22 that he mentioned and any others that he may have 23 forgotten. 24 MR. FRUEHWAfLD: I will note your reacest. I Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029717 37 1 will reserve judgment on it. 2 A. I recall another. The Halley case, ir. 3 Michigan. Oh, yes. And there is a dairy case 4 here in Indianapolis, 5 BY MR. KARAGANIS: - 6 Q. In preparation for your deposition, have 7 you had occasion to review any documents? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Can you tell me which documents you have 10 reviewed ? 11 A. It was a collection of documents about: 12 three inches thick that I was told were copies of 13 documents already submitted in this case. 14 Q. Can you tell me which ones you looked at? 15 I will ask, Mike, to disclose which documents the 16 witness looked at? 17 A. There were copies of 'Jestinghouse 18 memoranda. Copies of Monsanto's letters to 19 customers. Copies of, as I remember, some 20 invoices. 21 . MR. KARAGANISs Again, I will request for 22 purposes of continuing this deposition to examine 23 the documents that the witness has looked at in 24 preparation for- his deposition. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029718 i r, 1 MR. FRUEHWALD: I will note your request:. 2 At this time I am not inclined tc produce 3 that. 4 MR. KARAGANIS: You have shown the 'witness 5 some documents to presumably refresh his 6 recollection. I am entitled to look at the 7 documents that he is seen. 8 MR. FRUEHWALD: State your position. I 9 disagree. . 10 At least Mr. Papageorge has been shown a 11 selection of documents made by counsel from the 12 documents produced by Monsanto and !Jestinghouse in 13 this case, that are already available to you. 14 The selection of those documents I think 15 is attorney work product and is protected. I 16 don't think the foundation has been laid for your 17 need to see them. 18 MR. KARAGANIS; I think if it was attorney 19 work product perhaps, and I say perhaps, until you 20 showed them to Mr. Papageorge. 21 MR. FRUEHWALD: Mr. Papageorge is representing 22 Monsanto in this case. The advice to Mr. 23 Papageorge by Monsanto's counsel is advice to 24 Monsanto and is- protected by privilege under the Longoria & Golds tine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029719 1 law 2 HR. KARAGANIS: W ait a minute. Let's get cur 3 assertions of grounds for withholding clear. 4 Certainly, it is not work product if veu 5 showed it to the witness. It can no longer be 6 encompassed within the work product exemption; or, 7 to the extent there is an exemption for work 3 product, to the extent that they are facts which 9 were not communicated to you in a lawyer-client 10 relationship, you cannot assert a lawyer-client 11 privilege with respect to those. 12 And again, I will reiterate my request to 13 see the documents for the purposes of taking Hr. 14 Papageorg.e ' s deposition. 15 Are you asserting a lawyer-client 16 pr i vilege? 17 HR. FRUEHWALD: Yes, I am asserting work 18 product, I am asserting privilege. 19 MR. KARAGANIS: Which privilege? 20 MR. FRUEHWALD: Attorney-client privilege. I 21 am also asserting that you have not laid a 22 foundation for any evidentiary reason to discovery 23 them. 24 MR. KARAGAN.IS: Foundation is that I am ; Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029720 o1 1 entitled to inquire into any material that is 2 relevant to a 30 (b) 6 notice or anyth inn that is 3 relevant to the issues in this case. 4 MR. F RUE II WALD: You have made your speech. 5 have made our record. Do you want to mo've on to 6 questions. . 7 MR. KARAGANIS: Well, I will tell you that 8 asserting a lawyer-client privilege under these 9 circumstances without establishing the recruisitc 10 foundation facts for the assertion of such 11 privilege, we will probably seek costs. 12 MR. FRUEHWALD: We will see. 13 ' You have made -- we have both stated our 14 position. Now we are here to answer questions. 15 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 16 Q. These documents were presented to you by 17 Mr. Fruehwala? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Do you have them in your possession? 20 A. Right here? 21 Q. Yes. 22 A. No 23 MR. FRUEHWALD: They are here in this office. 24 BY. MR. KARAGANIS : Longoria & Golastine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029721 oo 1 Q. Did you have occasion to have any 2 conversations with any attorneys and/or personnel 3 of Westinghouse prior to taking your deposition? 4. A. Ho . 5 Q. Did you have occasion to have any 6 conversations with Monsanto personnel o r 7 ex-Monsanto employees or consultants prior to 8 taking your deposition? 9 A. I have talked with Monsanto pe r sonnel 10 regarding dates and schedules. 11 0. To whom did you talk? 12 A. Attorney Thomas Bistline. 13 B-i-s-t -1-i-n-e. 14 Q. M-e-i-s ? 15 A. I am sorry. 16 Q. How did you spell that? 17 A. B-i-s-t-l-i-n-e. 18 Q. Okay. 19 A. His secretary, Gale, I don't know her 20 last name. And a paralegal individual. Gale 21 Turner, regarding dates and schedules e 22 Q. By dates and schedules, you mean date 23 and schedules relative to the area of inquiry 24 we have set for-th in our deposition notices or Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029722 93 1 dates and schedules with respect to when your 2 deposition is going to be taken? 3 A. With respect to the deposition, when can 4 I be available. 5 Q. Did you have any conversations "with 6 respect to the historical material that is the 7 subject of deposition notices with any Wonsan to 0 employees, either existing or ex-Monsanto 9 employees? . 10 A. No . 11 Q. Did you have any occasion other than 12 the -- you indicated a stack, am I correct, about 13 three inches thick; is that correct? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. Other than the stack of documents three 16 inches thick provided to you by Mr. Fruehwalc, 17 have you had occasion on your own to conduct any 13 investigation or request that any investigation as 19 to documents be done in response to the 30 (b) 6 20 request? 21 A. No. ' 22 Q. Have you had any occasion to review any 23 of the pleadings in this case prior to coming to 24 your deposition., by that I mean the complaint, Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029723 1 Monsanto's answer? 2 A. I have seen cccunsr.ts I think covering 3 the complaint, but I have not seen Monsanto 4 answers. 5 (Discussion had off the record.) 6 Q. Mr. Papageorge, do you recall the 7 specifications that Westinghouse used or Monsanto 8 used in specifying the pcb product used at the 9 Bloomington plant? . 10 Did they use a number code or 11 specification? . 12 A. If I understand you correctly, you are 13 asking me do I recall the specification for the 14 material Monsanto delivered to Westinghouse? 15 Q. Yes. To the Bloomington facility. 16 A. I don't recall the specifics of the 17 specification. 1 0 Q. Do you recall the type that was used, she 19 type of polychlorinated biphenyl or the 20 classification used? 21 A. Yes. 22 Pcb that we sold them was initially 23 Aroclor, the equivalent to our Aroclor, to 24 Monsanto's Aroclor 1242. Later it was replaced Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029724 05 1 with Monsanto's Aroclor 1016. 2 Q. Is there a difference between Aroclor and 3 askarel? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Would you describe what the'difference 6 between Aroclor and askarel is? 7 A. Aroclor is Monsanto's trademark for 8 chlorinated aromatic chemicals. Askarel is the a electrical industry's generic term to describe 10 fluids used in electrical equipment that are fire 11 resistant. 12 Q. Would it be correct to say that there can 13 be askarels that do not contain peb's? 14 A. That is possible. Yes. 15 Q. But all Aroclors contain peb's; is that 16 right? 17 A. No. 1 8 Q. No? 19 . A. That is not correct. 20 Q. Aroclor is a broader term than peb's; is 21 that right? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. And what other materials -- I am sorry. 24 What Aroclor products do not contain Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4029725 1 pc b's ? 2 A. Monsanto had a series of Aroclors that 3 were designated by four digit numbers in the 5,000 4 and 5,000 series that did not contain pet's, " 5 Q. Would it be correct to say that- all of 6 the Aroclors sold to Westinghouse for use at its 7 Bloomington facility were Aroclors containing 3 peb's ? 9 A, I am not kn<?wledgeable of everything that 10 Westinghouse at Bloomington purchased from 11 Monsanto. They could have purchased the other 12 Aroclors. 13 Q. Would it be fair to say that the 14 largest -- and we will get into the figures -- the 15 largest quantity of Aroclor sold to Westinghouse 16 between the opening of the plant in 1957 and the 17 cessation of the peb manufacture - 18 When was that? Excuse me. 19 A. 1977. 20 Q. So between 1957 and 1977, that at a 21 minimum the large majority of Aroclors sold for 22 use at the Bloomington plant contained peb's? 23 A. That would be very likely, yes. 24 Q. And wi.th respect to those Aroclors, you Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029726 97 1 are saying that up until you switched tc 1013, trio 2 primary Aroclor sold to the Bloomington plane a c 3 Aroclor 1242? A A. Yes. 5 Q. Was there an Aroclor 1232? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. What was that; do you recall what 1232 3 was? 9 A. Yes. It was another mixture of pcb's 10 sold by Monsanto. 11 Q. Was it a blend of anything? 12 A. Yes. Aroclor 1232 was a blend of Aroclor 13 1221 and 1242. 14 Q. As sold to We s tin g h o u s e, did it have any 15 other major chemical component? 16 A. Not to my knowledge. 17 Q. Do you recall selling them an Aroclor 1 8 product containing chlorobenzene as a major 19 component? 20 a. To which site? 21 Q. To Bloomington. 22 A. Not to my knowledge. 23 Q. Did Monsanto to your knov/ledge produce 24 any publications, documents that would describe Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029727 n 1 how to handle the dielectric fluids? 2 Let me go back a step -- strike that 3 question. 4 Would it be fair to say that dielecrric 5 fluids and askarel are synonymous? - 6 A. No . 7 Q. No. Okay. 8 A. An askarel is a dielectric. All 9 dielectrics are not necessarily askarels. 10 Q. An askarel is the generic description in 11 the industry for heat-resistant fluids used for 12 insulating purposes; is that correct? 13 A. Fire resistance. 14 Q. Fire resistance? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And all askarels are dielectric fluids? 17 A. Yes. 1 8 Q. Would it be fair to say that when we are 19 dealing with fluids sold for manufacture of 20 capacitors, that those fluids are both askarels 21 and dielectric fluids? 22 A. It is my understanding there were some 23 fluids sold for capacitors that were not askarels. 24 They were not f-ire resistant. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029728 99 1 Q. To your knowledge, were those materials 2 sold to the Bloomington Westinghouse facility? 3 A. Mo, not to my knowledge. 4 Q. Would it be fair to say that all the 5 materials sold to the Bloomington W esc i-r. a house 6 facility for capacitor manufacture were both 7 askarels and dielectric fluids? 3 A. Those fluids that Monsanto sold them, n can't speak for other. 10 Q. That Monsanto sold them. 11 A. Yes. 1 2 Q. Did you ever publish documents -- v/hen I 13 say you, the company -- that relate to the 14 handling of Arodors? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. What documents were those? 17 . A. Oh, I can recall a brochure designed for 1 8 the dielectric applications. And I forgot rhe 19 title of that brochure. But the word askarel 20 appears in it. 21 Q. Was that called askarel inspection and 22 maintenance guide? 23 A. Yes, that is it. 24 There -is another brochure that was out . Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029729 IOC , 1 together for the plasticizer, primarily the , 2 plasticizer applications. 3 And there was a third brochure, I recall, 4 that was a very general kind of document " 5 describing Aroclors in general. - 6 Q. Are you familiar with a document 7 entitled, "The proper handling of Aroclors and 8 their mixtures in the electrical industry"? 9 A. That title,.I don't recall by that tide. 10 No. 11 ' 12 Q. Do you recall Mr. Benignus writing any documents or publishing any documents with respect , 13 14 to the proper handling of Aroclors? A. Mr. Benignus' office was responsible for 1 5 preparing these booklets and brochures and 16 literature. 17 I don't recall any one document that won. t 18 out under -- with his name attached to it. 1 9 MR. KARAGANIS: I am going to request at this 20 time, we will go through some individual examples 21 of these documents as we go along, but 22 specifically, because we want them as trial 23 exhibits, that these titles may be slightly 24 incorrect or they may be exact, I don't want to be -- -- Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029730 1 ^1 1 held to my description. Hut, one is all editions 2 of the document entitled, "Proper handling of 3 Aroclors and their mixtures in the electrical 4 industry." 5 MR. FRUEHWALD: Is that supposedly a- book by 6 Benignus, you understand to be? 7 MR. KARAGANIS: It is our understanding that 8 at least one version of it was dated in 196 0 an d 9 was authored _by Paul.Benignus. 10 MR. FRUEHWALD: I understand he wrote a bock 11 and that may be the book, the name of -.he bock 12 that he wrote. 13 MR. KARAGANIS: We would like that in its 14 original version and any editions thereof, as in 1 5 is our understanding that as the handling issue 16 became more to the forefront, there were chances 17 in that edition. 1 8 We have also asked for production, and v 19 would like them in original form so that they can 20 be -- by originals, I mean not xeroxes -- handed 21 to a jury as an exhibit. 22 We also would ask for production of a 23 booklet called, "The Aroclors physical properties 24 and suggested applications." We have a reference Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4029731 i no 1 as to a data bulletin P 115, which we would ask for. 3 MR. FRCJEHWALD: Instead of reading these 4 things into the record, Joe, and having me copy 5 them down by hand, why don't you write out a list 6 of those things that you want from me, and I will 7 deal with it rather than taking the reporter's 8 time. 9 MR. KARAGANIS: What I am trying to get at, 10 this is something that we have, we would like the 11 finished, published copies and the various 12 editions thereof of any application booklets or 13 bulletins regarding Aroclors, their physical 14 properties and appropriate handling 15 characteristics. 16 By giving the names of individual titles, 17 we were not trying to be limited in our reouest. 18 MR. FRUEHWALD; What I just requested is that 19 you go ahead and give me a generic description, 20 but list any of them that you are aware of that 21 you want to make sure are included. 22 We have, as I understand it, produced 23 many of these, maybe in xerox copy form, as a part 24 of our producti-on. And I understand you are Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029732 10 3 1 looking for a printed form. 2 But if you can give me a handwritten list 3 of a generic description and the individual titles A you are aware of, I will respond to that. I don^t 5 believe there is any problem from a. legal point 6 of view. It is a matter the of identifying if 7 these things still exist in printed form and 8 identifying the various editions. 9 So if you can give me the list, I will 10 respond to it. 11 MR. KARAGANIS: Mr. Reporter, would you mark 12 this as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 34. 13 For the record, it is a document 14 entitled, "The proper han-dling of Aroclors and 1 5 their mixtures in the electrical industry." 16 The logo on the cover is Monsanto 17 Chemical Company, the apparent author is ?. G. 18 Benignus, revised January 1960. 1 9 And as I have indicated before, we would 20 want a finished copy, as well as any revisions in 21 finished form. 22 (The document above-referred to 23 was marked Bloomington Deposition 24 Exhibit Mo. 84 for identification.) Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029733 10 1 Q. Mr. Papageorge, I am showing you 2 Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 04 for 3 identification, have you seen that document 4 before? 5 A. N o, s i r . - 6 Q. In the course of your work in 7 environmental control or environmental management 8 of peb's and relationships with customers, die you 9 cause to be distributed any written material 10 relating to Inerteen or peb disposal and control? 11 A. I personally did not cause that material 12 to be distributed. But I participated in 13 revisions or drafting. 1 4 0, What material was that? 15 A. There was a brochure on Aroclors which 16 was revised and I think carried the number L 306. 17 Monsanto publication L 306. There was another 13 document that was a revision of the earlier 19 version on the proper handling of askarels. Those 20 are the only two. 21 , MR. KARAGANIS: I would request Monsanto to 22 produce the various editions or versions of the 23 documents that have been referenced by Mr. 24 Papageorge. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029734 1 MR. FRUEFIT'JALD: I expect that we already 2 I do recall those type of documents being 3 in our production long ago. But we will note your 4 updated request. 5 While I am speaking, I notice "that 6 Exhibit 84 is not -- does not appear to be a 7 complete copy of this document, in that there arc8 pages in the table of contents that "go beyond the 9 40 pages that are attached to the exhibit. 10 MR. KARAGANIS; Believe me, I am not trying to 11 shorten the document. 12 Please, if you have a correct original of 13 Exhibit 84, we arc making that request. Thar is 14 one of our difficulties. 1 5 MR. FRUEHWALD: For the record, so the record 16 will know there is not something lost later cn, 17 that at the time of its admission or 18 identification today, it only had to page 40 and 19 didn't have the rest of it. So the reporter 20 didn't loose it, or it didn't get lost in the 21 mail. 22 HR. KARAGANIS; All right. 23 Q. Mr. Papageorge, are you aware of any 24 communications,. I am asking you this personally Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029735 1 and as a witness designated by Monsanto as a 30 2 (b) 6 . 3 Are you aware of any communications 4 between Monsanto and its customers as to the 5 proper methods for disposing of polychlorinated 6 biphenyls prior to your coming in as head of 7 environmental management in 1970? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Have you be?n shown any such 10 communications? 11 A. No . 12 Q. Would it be fair to say that your earlier 13 statements that this was how to dispose of them 14 properly was kind of a general knowledge within 15 the industry? 16 A. That is my understanding, yes. 17 0. Is Mr. Wheeler still with the company? 1 8 A. No. 19 Q, Is he retired? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And Dr. Kelly is retired, you indicated? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Based on what you know, isn't it correct 24 that Monsanto would send tankcars of pcb produce Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029736 107 to "estinghouse Bloomington in Monsanto ca.nkcars; is that correct? 3 A. To bo technically correct, it is either 4 Monsanto-owned car or a Monsanto-leased car. 5 Q. By Monsanto-leased car, Monsanto would 6 lease it from the railroad or the car owner? 7 A. Yes, and dedicate it to -that service. 8 Q. So that .Monsanto would either be the 9 owner or the lessee of the car; is than right? 10 A. Right. 11 Q. Did the cars come down labeled with 12 Monsanto's name on them? 'v,. 13 14 A. Mot always, no. Q. Under some circumstances, did they come 15 down ? 16 A. If it was a Monsanto-owned car, it would 17 have the Monsanto logo on it. If it were a lease 18 car, it would have the lessor's logo. 19 Q, Do you know if Monsanto had any role in 20 producing a document entitled, "Hygienic guide 21 series for the American Industrial Hygiene 22 Association on chlorobiphenyls"? 23 A. I am of the understanding that Monsanto' 24 role was the sh-aring of some test data they had Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029737 i n -3 1 performed for Monsanto with the panel or committee 2 that put together this document. 3 Q. When you say you are informed, who 4 informed you of that? 5 A. Elmer Wheeler. 6 Q. So, you don't know of your own personal 7 knowledge, you are referring to what Wheeler tola 8 you and you are here as the 30 (b) 6 witness; is 9 that correct? . 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. Did you inquire of Wheeler as part cf 12 your preparation for this deposition? 13 A. Not for this deposition. 14 Q.. You have inquired of him in other 15 circumstances? 16 A. In the past, yes. 17 MR. KARAGANIS: Mr. Reporter,, would you mark 18 the following exhibit as Bloomington Deposition 19 Exhibit 85. I am just looking for a stapler. 20 MR. FRUEHWALD: I will go get one for you. 21 (The document above-referred to 22 was'marked Bloomington Deposition 23 Exhibit No. 85 for identification.) 24 BY MR. KARAGANIS: Longoria & Goldstine 235 1030 Chic ac-o STLCOPCB4029738 "V . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. Hr. Papageorgc, I show you what has been marked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 05 for identification. For the record, it is a letter dated January 11, 1966 from H. L. Gray of Monsanto Company to Westinghouse Electric in Blooningtcn, enclosing a tankcar lease dated January 11, 19C5. For the record references it is Monsanto documents stamped 14 and 15. Are you familiar with that document? A. No. Q. Are you familiar with the kind of car leasing arrangement that is described in the attached document? A. Yes. Q. Would it be fair to say based on using Deposition Exhibit 85 as an example, that Monsanto would use its cars for the transportation, cars either owned or leased by it, for the transportation of the product, the pcb product to Bloomington, and that that would be done on a trip lease with Monsanto as the lessor and Westinghouse as the lessee? A. Okay. Yes. Q. And that basically the lessor hac title ___ Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago si-.:" STLCOPCB4029739 110 1 to and control of the car, but would lease it to 1 Westinghouse for the trip and Westinghouse agreed 3 to indemnify; is that right? 4 A. That's right. 5 (The document above-referred to 6 was marked Bloomington Deposition 7 Exhibit No. 86 for identification.) 8 Q. Hr. Papageorge, I show you v/hat has boon 9 marked for the record as Bloomington Exhibit P 6 . 10 For the record it purports to be a 11 memorandum to Mr. Gardener of Monsanto from Mr. 12 Williams of Monsanto, dated July 19, 1966. For 13 the record reference Monsanto production document 14 numbe r 2 4. 15 Are you familiar with the incident, 16 described'in that memorandum? Ana I will let you 17 take your time. 1 3 MR. FRUEHWALD; Do you want to repeat the 19 question? 20 MR. KARAGANISs Yes. 21 . Q. Are you familiar with the incident 22 described in Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 36? 23 A. I recall the incident after reading the 24 document. Yes.* Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029740  111 1 Q. Would you describe what it was? 2 A. It was an examination of pcb's with 3 mineral oil that occurred at the Bloomington 4 Westinghouse site. And Westinghouse was seeking 5 Monsanto's help in trying to recover if vr-e could 6 the pcb's from this contaminated material. 7 Q. If you recall our earlier discussion - 8 this is not in lawyer's terms a trick question, in 9 our earlier discussions normally the only material 10 Westinghouse Bloomington would send back to you 11 was material that hadn't met specs, isn't that 12 cor rect ? 13 A. That was the normal, yes. 14 Q. Prior to 1970? 1 5 A. Yes. 16 Q. And they did not use Monsanto as a method 17 of. disposing what we defined as scrap Aroclor, 1 8 isn't that correct? 19 A. That is correct. 20 Q. Okay. 21 ; This was not what would be called a scrap 22 Aroclor situation, would it? It was a special 23 problem with contamination of a large batch; isn't 24 that right? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029741 113 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 2 INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION 3 THE CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA; ) THE UTILITIES SERVICE BOARD OF ) 4 BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA; and MONROE ) COUNTY, INDIANA, )_ 5) Plaintiffs, ) 6) vs. ) Civ H o. 7 ) IP 7 3 -9 -C ') 8 NESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,) a Pennsylvania corporation; and ) 9 MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware ) corporation, ) 10 ) _____________ _______________________________________2 11 12 13 The continued deposition of w. B. PAPAOEQRGE, 14 called for examination by the Plaintiffs, pursuant 15 to notice and pursuant to the provisions of the 16 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the United 17 States District Courts, pertaining to the taking 18 of depositions for the purpose of discovery, taken 19 before Arnold H. Goldstine, a Notary Public and 20 Certified Shorthand Reporter within and for the 21 County of Cook and State of Illinois, at 1313 22 Merchants Bank Building, Indianapolis, Indiana, 23 commencing on June 25, 1986, at the hour of one 24 o'clock p.m. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029742 114 1 APPEARANCES: 2 Mr. Joseph V. Karaganis and 3 Mr. James G. McConnell Bell, Boyd & Lloyd 4 Three First National Plaza 70 West Madison Street 5 Suite 3200 - Chicago, Illinois 60602 6 ' -and- 7 Mr. Geoffrey M. Grodner 8 Law Offices of Geoffrey M. Grodner One City Centre 9 Suite 100 . Bloomington, Indiana 47401 10 appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs; 11 12 Mr. Michael R. Fruehwald 13 Barnes & Thornburg 1313 Merchants Bank Building 14 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 15 appeared on behalf of Defendant Monsanto Company, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029743 115 1 meeting? 2 A. Well, as I remember, the Westingbouce 3 people at Bloomington were having some problems 4 with their employees and this was considered a 5 good opportunity to offer a visit to the plant 6 which was part of Monsanto's customer relations 7 program, anyway. 8 And this was an opportunity also to 9 address a specific problem that Meetinghouse had 10 at that time. 11 Q. Was there any discussion at that time by 12 Monsanto, direction or instruction or advice to 13 Westinghouse as to how to handle Inerteen? 14 A. Yes. 1 5 Q. What was said with respect to Inertoe-r. 16 handling? 17 A. The essence of the discussion is one of 18 don't be sloppy, treat it with respect. Don't 1 9 spill it all over. Don't get it on your clothes. 20 Change clothes when appropriate. Otherwise you 21 are going to see problems with dermatitis, or 22 respiratory irritation. The other effects that 23 they were told of before. 24 Q. Now, when you say they were told of Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029744 117 1 before, who told them of other effects before? 2 A. This is via the labels, primarily, one: 3 the product literature. 4 Q. With respect to the agenda on Exhibit 07, 5 the discussion of Inerteen handling, are Fauptz, 6 HacPherson and Ward people who worked for veu? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. When you said, described earlier that it 9 was generally known jin the industry that you don't 10 spill this kind of material don't the drain; did 11 you have a drainage control program at the 12 Anniston plant or a spill control program to avoid 13 peb's from getting in the drain? 14 A. Yes. 15 We had -- the primary feature of that 16 system that we had was two pits, depressions in 17 the ground, in which we had crushed limestone. 18 And any water, effluent from the peb process, went 19 first to these pits, so that if there were a snill 20 it would have been trapped in the pits; it would 21 not have overflowed into the city sewer system. 22 Q. So you had a mechanism at your plant to 23 prevent the discharge of peb's into the city sewer 24 system; is that right? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029745 1 A. That's right. 2 Q. Then what would you do with the eateriai 3 that was trapped in these pits? 4 A. The free pcb's would be stored in our 5 Anniston plant landfill, which was on plant 6 property. Eventually the sludge would be scooped 7 out from the pits and also be put in containers 8 and deposited in that landfill. 9 Q. That landfill on your Anniston facility, 10 did that involve a geologic situation where there 11 were sink holes or cracked rock strata or any 12 other mechanisms which could allow travel of pcb's 13 into the water? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Did you design the landfill or locate it 16 so as to avoid that kind of leak situation? 17 A. Yes. 1 8 Q. Would it be fair to say, then, that in 19 your plant practices at Anniston you designed the 20 situation whereby for waste pcb's, you prevented 21 them from getting down the sewer, and of the waste 22 that you did collect, you put them in a landfill 23 that was located in a geologic structure that 24 wouldn't leak o-r wouldn't allow leakage? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029746 11 9 1 A. Thatiscorrect. 2 And the question, when you use the words 3 is it fair to say, I am assuming - 4 Q. Isitaccurate? 5 A. Isitaccurate. Very good. - 6 Q. Is it accurate to say, then, based on 7 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 87, that you were 8 aware as early as September of 1957 that the 9 Bloomington plant had problems with sloppy control 10 of pcb's or Inerteen in their operation of the 11 facility 12 A. Yes. But not -- the sloppiness that 13 affected their people. We had no way of knowing 14 what it did to the sewers. 15 Q. Well, you knew it was sloppiness in the 16 sense that they were allowing it to spill? 17 A. Yes. 1 8 Q. You didn' t know at the time whether they 19 allowed it to leak into the sewers; is that right? 20 A Correct. 21 (The document above-referred to 22 was marked Bloomington Deposition 23 Exhibit No. 88 for identification.) 24 Q. The next document is a letter dated Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029747 12 0 1 November 1, 1967 from Garrett of Monsanto to 2 Spiecher, S-p-i-e-c-h-e-r, of Nestinghouse, 3 purporting to enclose a copy of the In or teen 4 label. The reference is Monsanto document 113 5." 5 Mr. Papageorge, are you familiar with 6 that letter? 7 A. Yes. 3 MR. KARAGANIS: I will make a specific recuest 9 on this, that we do not appear to have a copy of 10 the label that is referenced in the letter and 11 purports to be enclosed in the letter, and we 12 would request a copy of that label. 13 MR. FRUEHWALD; I will note the request. Ne 14 produced a set of labels, I know. I am not sure 15 if we have not matched one up with this particular 15 letter. I wil identify and see if I can find a 17 copy of the letter that goes with it. 18 It was not, for example, 1137 you are 19 telling me in the production? 20 MR. KARAGANIS; Not to my knowledge. 21 Q. Mr. Papageorge, directing your attention 22 to the period of 1967 to '68, were you aware of 23 governmental concern with respect to pcb's, were 24 you personally .aware of governmental concern with Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaao STLCOPCB4029748 9\L _ ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 121 respect to pcb's? A. Mo. Q. Were you made aware of that by any official within Monsanto? A. N o. Q. When did you first become aware of the concern about pcb's as a contaminant going out into the environment? A. I am confused by your questioning. You mentioned the government's concern and now you are asking for concerns- in general or Monsanto's concerns? Q. Let's start from the general to the specific. When did you first become aware of concern over release of pcb's into the environment? A. Whether it be the government's or Monsanto's or anybody's? Middle of 1969. Q. And how did you be could become aware of it? A. My supervisor informed me that he in turn had been told about some studies and results of these studies, -the presence of pcb's in the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029749 ] O') 1 environment. 2 Q. Who was your supervisor? 3 A. Raymond J. Stratmeyer. 4 S-t-r-a-t-m-e-y-e-r. 5 Q. And where was he located? ' ~ 6 A. He, in St. Louis. 7 Q. What division did he work for? 8 A. The organic chemicals division. 9 Q. What was his title? 10 A. Director manufacturing. 11 Q. I am going back to our hierarchy. Tc 12 whom did he report? 13 A. Mr. Minckler. M-i-n-c-k-l-e-r. 14 Q. Who was general manager? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. He reported around Bergen, he didn't 17 report directly to Bergen, did he? 1 8 A. That is correct. 19 Q. And where did he say he had gotten the 20 information from? 21 A. I don't recall him mentioning any 22 specific names. So I don't know. 23 Q. What specifically did he say to you wish 24 regard to the question of environmental Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029750 12 3 1 contamination by pcb's? 2 A. I don't recall the exact words. "ut the 3 essence of what he told me went something like 4 this. 5 I understand that there is some6 laboratories that are analyzing for pesticides, 7 DDT particularly. And these laboratories keep 8 finding an interfering chemical, that looks like 9 that chemical may be.our Aroclors. It looks like, 10 we are not sure just yet, but we are trying to gee 11 the methodology and do our own studies and I'll 12 keep you posted as to what all this means. 13 In essense, that is what he told mo. 14 Q. All right. 15 What was the next communication you had 16 from Mr. Stratmeyer or anybody else regarding 17 environmental contamination of pcb's, to the bcsa 18 of your recollection? 19 A. In November, 1980, he, Mr. Stratmeyer, 20 was again at the Anniston plant. 21 . MR. FRUEHWALD: You mean 1970? 22 A. I am sorry. 1970. November 1970. 23 He was again at the Anniston plant. Me 24 reminded me of out earlier conversation. Then he Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029751 1 24 1 added that apparently the situation is becoming 2 more involved. We need someone in St. Louis - c *3 coordinate Monsanto's efforts. Some of us chink 4 that you are the guy for the job. Would you min'd 5 interviewing for it? And I said well, -if you 6 think I can help. I'll interview. 7 ' MR. FRUEHWALD: That appears to be November of 8 '69 then you came out? 9 A. I am sorry,.November '69. I will gee 10 that date right yet. 11 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 12 Q. So your first contact with Stracmayor was 13 in mid-1969? 14 A. The first contact on the peb issue? 15 Q. On the peb issue. 16 A. Correct. 17 Q, When mid-1969? 1 8 A. About June, July of '69. 19 (The document above-referred to 20 was marked Bloomington Deposition 21 . Exhibit Ho. 89 for identification.) 22 Q. I show you what has been marked for 23 identification as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 24 No. 89, which i*s a letter dated January 16, 1968, Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4029752 1 from Richard A. Wi1son to Monsanto Company, 2 Richard A. Wilson being a research chemist with 3 the United States Department of Interior. 4 For record reference Monsanto document: ' 5 3 3 90 . ... 6 Are you familiar with that document? 7 A. I don't recall seeing this one. 8 Q. So that there is correspondence at least 9 as early as 1968, January of 1953, by the 10 government making inquiry v/ith respect tc pcb 11 contamination; is that right? 12 A. That is what this would indicate. Yes. 13 Q. Would you marl: this as Exhibit 2 0, 14 Bloomington Exhibit 90. 1 5 (The document above-referred to 16 was marked Bloomington Deposition 17 /.Exhibit No. 90 for identification.) 18 The next document is Bloomington 19 Deposition Exhibit 90 for identification, which, is 20 a letter from Cumming Paton of Monsanto to N. R. 21 Richard of Monsanto. 22 Mr. Papageorge, are you familiar v/ith 23 that document? 24 A. No. . Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029753 12 5 1 Q. Just so we have our material correctly 2 identified, Cumming Paton would be someone in 3 sales ? 4 A. Yes. IIe was plasticizers marketing. 5 Q. Allright. .- 6 And Richard would be head of the groun, 7 the business group research department, right? 8 A. The functional fluids research. o Q. Functional fluids research department? 10 A. Not the plasticizers research. 11 Q. All right. 12 Mr. Papageorge, are you familiar during 13 the period from January of '68 to the time that 14 you came to St. Louis in 19 - 15 January 1 of '70? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Are you familiar with any communications 18 between Monsanto and Westinghouse regarding the 19 handling of pcb's; that is, from '58 until you 20 came back to St. Louis on January 1 of '70? 21 A. I seem to recall a memorandum that Elmer 22 Wheeler wrote. 23 In that memorandum Mr. Wheeler described 24 the Swedish pcb* findings and mentioned the known Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chic. STLCOPCB4029754 1/ 1 toxicity information. As I remember, cautioned tn. against discharge to the environment. I think 3 that was about that period of time. 1969 or 4 thereabouts. 5 Q. I would make a specific request for any 6 memorandum by Mr. Wheeler. 7 This is a communication to Westinghouse 8 or the customers? 9 A. To customers 10 Q. To customers . 11 MR. FRUEHWALD: Who wrote the March '59 12 letter? Maybe that is the one he is referring to 13 MR. KARAGANIS: We will get to it. 14 ' (The document above-referred to . 15 was marked Bloomington Deposicior. 16 Exhibit No. 91 for identification.) 17 Q. Mr. Papageorge, I show you what is 18 identified as a Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 91 19 which purports to be a contract between 20 Westinghouse and Monsanto for the sale of Aroclor 21 1242 electrical grade for the period January 2, 22 1967 through December 31, 1967. 23 Are you familiar with that document? 24 A. I don '*t recall this specific document. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029755 1o 1 Q. This for purposes of both clarification 2 and exhibits, we would like Monsanto's copies 3 specifically now of each contract? those contracts 4 are either on a yearly basis or on a multi-year 5 basis, of sale for peb's to the Bloomington 6 facility. 7 MR. FRUEHWALD: I believe we have already 3 produced those. q MR. KARAG_ANIS: Uhat I am asking for is a 10 specific set of the contracts. 11 Culling your documents to get each and 12 every contract, thus far we have not been able so 13 do it. I`7e have got specific pieces of contracts. 14 I am talking now about going back to 1S57, those 15 have not been produced. 16 MR. FRUEH1JALD: I don't find any, Joe. *'c 17 have produced all we could find in your previous 18 request for such contracts. If they weren't 19 produced, we couldn't find them. You have got all 20 we can find. This is twenty years ago and some 21 documents don't stay that long. 22 MR. KARAGANIS; Let's get some dates down. 23 24 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029756 i ?n 1 (The document above-referred to " 2 was marked Bloomington Deposition 3 Exhibit No. 92 for identification.) 4 Q. I show you what as been marked as 5 Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 92 for 6 identification, which purports to be, it is 7 entitled, "A statement from Monsanto Company, St. 3 Louis Missouri. March 3, 1969." Purports to be 9 something like a press release, relating to peb's. 10 Are you familiar with that press release? 11 A. I am familiar with the contents of this 12 document, but not in this press release form. 13 Q. How did you become familiar with the 14 contents of that document? IS A. This reads to me very much like the 16 letter I had mentioned earlier that I recalled 17 Elmer Wheeler preparing and sending to customers. 1 8 Q. Now, with respect to the Bloomington 19 Deposition Exhibit No. 92, dated March 3, 1959, 20 were you aware of this in 1969? 21 A. No. 22 Q, Would it be fair to say that up until -- 23 or accurate to say that up until you came on board 24 in January of 1.970 , that your only knowledge of Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029757 i33 1 pcb's as an environmental problem came from your 2 two communications with -- Mr. Stra theimer v.'us i;? 3 A. Stra tmeye r. A Q. Stratmeyer? 5 A. . As well as the interview's I had u'ith Mr. 6 Bergen and Hr. Springgate in December, when I 7 interviewed for that opening for that position. 3 Q. What did they tell you in those q interviews; that would be December of '59, is char 10 correct? 11 A Yes. 12 Well, they repeated the information than 13 Mr, Stratmeyer had given to me, and added chat - 14 from their perspective, they were getting more 15 questions from customers. 16 There were requests for samples, requests 17 for analytical methodology, much more interest. 1 8 This is one of the reasons they gave mo for 19 needing someone to help coordinate the effort. 20 (The documents above-referred to 21 were marked Bloomington Deposition 22 Exhibit Nos. 93 and 94, 23 respectively, for identification.) 24 Q. I show you what have been marked as Longoria SGoldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029758 131 1 Bloomington Deposition Exhibits 93 and 94; 93 is"a 2 letter from a Mr. Meyer of Monsanto to Keith 3 Kelly, number 9 4 is a letter from Beni gnus of 4 Monsanto to Mr.Innis of Meetinghouse. Exhibit 33 5 is dated November 5, 1968. Exhibit 94 is December 6 26 , 1968 . 7 Are you familiar with those documents? 8 A. No . 9 Q. Just for clarification of the record, 10 take your time in examining those documents, but 11 from our reading of the documents, it appears that 12 prior to that letter, or prior to those two 13 exhibits, that Monsanto was not shipping from 14 Sauget to Bloomington, but began shipping after 15 those letters. 16 Is that an accurate statement? 17 A. This statement is accurate. 1 8 Q. Just for record purposes for our 19 information, can you tell me where Kummrich, 20 K-u-m-m-r-i-c-h, is? $1 A. That is the name of the plant at Sauget, 22 Illinois. 23 Q. Where is Findett? 24 A. Findefct is located in St. Charles County, ___ Long.oria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago -i.il STLCOPCB4029759 13 2 1 Missouri. 2 Q. And what does it do? 3 A. It is a small chemical company. A (The document above-reforred to 5 was marked Bloomington Deposition 6 , Exhibit Mo. 95 for identification.) 7 Q. I snow you what has been marked as 8 Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 95, a letter from 9 W. Richard to Paul B<?nignus, dated 2/28/69. 10 Are you familiar with that letter? 11 A. No. . 12 Q. Apparently, I say apparently, that is why 13 we have asked for a 30 (b) 6 witness, that 14 Westinghouse had begun to ship some form of 15 contaminated Aroclor back to Monsanto as early as 16 February 28, 1969. 17 Is that a correct statement based or. your 18 interpretation of Exhibit 95? 1 9 A. Yes. 20 Q. Nov;, what were they sending back to 21 Findett and what was Findett doing with it? 22 A. From reading this document, I interpret 23 it as indicating that Aroclor -- 24 Q. Was th-ere a program in place at that time Longoria & Goldstine 736 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029760 133 1 for disposing of the Aroclor? 2 A. I'm not aware of any. 3 Q. That material would be as we described iz 4 before, what you called scrap Aroclor, wouidn'c' 5 it? ... 6 A. I can only speculate. By scrap Aroclor, 7 I am talking about unusable liquid that results 8 routinely from an operation and is gencraned at a 9 predictable rate. . 10 Q. Drips off the operation; is that right? 11 A. That kind of thing. I can't tell from 12 this letter whether this material occurred due to 13 some unforeseen incident that was different than 14 routine. 15 Q. Than routine waste? 16 A. Right. I can't tell that from this. 17 . Q. I would simply ask, and we don't have 18 this, there is a reference in here to 19 correspondence by fir. Benignus to Westinghouse , 20 relating to this scrap and to the procedures. 21 : And we would ask for a copy of the 22 Benignus correspondence and related correspondence 23 to the drum shipments that are referenced in 24 Exhibit 95. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029761 13 4 1 MR. FRUEHWALD: What reference are you talking 2 about here? I don't understand. 3 MR, KARAGANIS: There is reference to despite 4 your very fine letter to Westinghouse on 5 procedures, some of the materials are being 6 returned in contaminated old ball drums. r!e don't 7 have whatever correspondence took place. 3 MR. FRUEHWALD: We may not either, but I will 9 take another look. . 10 (The document above-referred co 11 was marked 31oomington Deposition 12 Exhibit Mo. 96 for identification.) 13 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 14 Q. Directing your attention to Bloomington. 15 Exhibit Mo. 96, which is a letter dated March 3, 16 1969, without addressee, but indicates that one of 17 the addressees was Robert T. Innis of Wesoinghouse 1 8 Electric . 19 Are you familiar with that document? 20 A. Yes, sir . 21 Q. Now, did you have anything to do with the 22 deliberations that went into the drafting of this 23 letter? 24 A, No. Longoria & Goldstine 235 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029762 13 5 1 Q. Or to the policies developed? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Who did? 4 A. There was the group consisting of Nr. 5 Wheeler, Dr. Richard, Bill Kuhn, Ed Joh'n, the 6 public relations man, Dr. Keller. 7 Q. Keller was research, right? 3 A. Medical research. 9 Q. All right. . 10 A. And Mr. Park, the attorney. That was 11 meeting informally, that participated in, as I 12 understand, the development of this document. 13 Q. When you say as you understand, who told 14 you of this? 15 A. Mr. Wheeler told me when I arrived or. the 16 the job in January, following that. 17 Q. Now, I want to direct your attention to 18 the exhibit. 1 9 Who told you, directing your attention :o 20 page 2, of the work of the Swedish scientists 21 Wiedmark and Jensen? 22 A. Well, I first heard it from Mr. 23 Stratmeyer. It was retold to me by both Mr. 24 Bergen and Mr. .Springgate. And when I was finally Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chic a no STLCOPCB4029763 136 1 assigned the job on January 1st, a few w ee !: s later 2 when I sat down with Mr. Nheeler for a tutorial or 3 status report, he repeated it to ne. 4 Q . Directing your attention to page 3 of the 5 letter, it says additionally Monsanto will 6 continue to exercise the highest degree of control 7 in its manufacturing, shipping and storage of . 8 peb's. Then the letter mentions that we have 9 carried out a program for several years for the 10 reclamation of used peb's to avoid disposal of 11 these various materials. 12 What program was that? 13 A. This was a program that was associated 14 with hydraulic fluids and heat transfer business, 15 where the material would be, if possible, cleaned 16 up and reused for the customer. 17 Q. So the heat transfer customer 'would senh 13 it back, it would be cleaned up and sent back to 1 9 the heat transfer customer; is that right? 20 A. It wouldn't come back to Monsanto. It 21 would go to the service companies, like the 22 Findett Company, we mentioned earlier. 23 Q. Findett was not a Monsanto Company? 24 A. No. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029764 137 1 Q. I am sorry. I was not clear on than. 2 A. That is an independent little company 3 that does chemical work for anybody. And he was 4 trying to recover not only pcb's, but: other 5 chemicals. .~ 6 Q. So Monsanto, let me go back to that i 7 exhibit, if I may. 8 Directing your attention to Exhibit 95, 9 Exhibit 95 reflects $ relationship between 10 Monsanto and Westinghouse, to ship materials to a 11 third party, Findett, is that right? 12 A. I don't know what role Monsanto played in 13 this arrangement. 14 Q. But the materials were -- she materials 15 originally came from Monsanto? 16 A. Correct. 17 0. Went to Westinghouse and now are being 18 shipped to a third party; is that right? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. Okay. Just so I have it clear. 21 Now, when you say that in the heat 22 transfer field you had a program where the heat 23 transfer fluids, the used heat transfer fluids, 24 would be sent t-o a third party reclaimer and then Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029765 i3 3 1 back to the heat transfer customer; is that right? 2 A. There was an attempt to get such a 3 program going and parts of it were in place t h e n , 4 yes . 5 Q. Would it be correct to say for clar i ty 6 purposes that you did not have a program in place 7 as of at the time of Exhibit 96 with regard t 0 3 taking used capacitor dielectric fluid back either 9 to Monsanto or to a third party orocessor? 10 A. For recovery as a capacitor fluid? 11 Q. For recovery as a capacitor fluid or for 12 disposal 13 A. That is cor rect. 14 Q. Okay. 15 As we went over this this morning s o w e 16 are clear on this in the record. 17 A. Right. 13 Q. Prior to your coming on in January c f 19 1970, the only material that Monsanto would take 20 back would be raw product from the capacitor 21 customer that failed to meet specification; isn' 22 that right? 23 A. Right. That is one example. 24 Q. Mas th-ere any other product that they Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029766 13 9 1 took bade? 2 A. Of all the thousands of products that arc 3 sold? 4 Q. Mo. I am talk about peb products. ' 5 A. I'm not aware of any peb produet that 6 came back to a Monsanto plant on a routine basis 7 as a result of customers' operations. 8 Q. As part of a disposal program? 9 A. As part of $ disposal or recycle procrar 10 Q. Would it be correct then that the -- or 11 to a third party, such as Findett? 12 A. For dielectrics? 13 Q. Yes. 14 A. That's right. 15 Q. A possible exception to that is Exhibit 16 95, but you don't knov; the details of that? 17 A. That is correct; 18 Q. All right. 19 A. I am talking about a program. This nig' 20 be a specific incident. 21 . Q. So that for the layman reading this 22 document just so we have it clear, I am now 23 referring to document 96, where it says in the 24 functional fluids market we have carried out a Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029767 1 program for several years for the reclamation of 2 used pcb's to avoid disposal of these valuabl: 3 materials. 4 That doesn't apply to Bloomington or to 5 the capacitor manufacturing industry, does it? 6 A. That is my understanding, yes. 7 Q. So my statement is correct? 8 A. That's correct. 9 (A short recess was taken.) 10 Q. Going back on the record. 11 Mr. Papageorge, you had earlier 12 referenced in the period from '68 zc '70 that you 13 recall a memorandum being written by Elmer 14 Wheeler, regarding what to do about pcb's. 15 I direct your attention to Bloomington 16 Deposition Exhibit 9, which is the March 3, 1959 17 letter by Mr. Wheeler to various customers. 18 Is that the memorandum you are referring 19 to? 20 . A. Yes. 21 Q. Okay. 22 When you came back to St. Louis, were you 23 given a file on what was being done with respect 24 to the scrap Ar.oclor or what was being done with Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029768 n 41 1 respect to environmental containment of pcb's? 2 A . No. 3 Q. So you didn't have access or did you cver 4 investigate anybody else's files -- let me 5 withdraw that question. ~ 6 Who was in charge of the program prior to 7 you coming? 3 A. No one in particular. 9 Q. Who had been working on it? 10 A. A group of people. 11 Q. Who were they? 12 A. Dr. Richard and his subordinates. Nr. 13 John, Mr. Park, Mr. Bergen, Nr. Schalk, Paul 14 Benignus, Jim Bryant, Bill Kuhn. 15 (The document above-referred io 16 was marked Bloomington Deposition 17 Exhibit No. 97 for identification.) 18 Q. I show you what has been marked as 19 Bloomington Deposition Exhibit No. 97 for 20 identification, which is a memorandum dated July 21 24, 1969, from -- can you toll me who that is 22 from, or is it from Bryant to a list? 23 A. Yes. 24 0. So it *is from J. G. Bryant to a list of, Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029769 1 A9 1 people, is that correct? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. All right. Now, take your time and examine the 5 document. But then see if you can tell"'me what 6 the scrap Aroclor program was and when it began? 7 Are you familiar with that document? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Having had a chance to examine it, can 10 you tell me what the scrap Aroclor program "as, 11 prior to your arrival? 12 A. It appears from reading this document, 13 that an opportunity was given to some dielectric 14 peb customers for returning their scrap material 15 to the Findett Company, who would attempt to 16 recover the material and produce a peb of a 17 quality that was acceptable for use other than 18 dielectric uses, primarily in the hydraulic fluids 1 9 application. 20 Q ,, Okay. 21 . Tell me this in simple terms, in layman's 22 terms, who was paying what to whom? 23 A. I'm not qualified to explain the 24 accounting. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029770 14 3 1 Q. Let's see if I can summarize it, because 2 it appears, I will ask you if this statement: is 3 accurate, for the basis of Exhibit 97. 4 A customer would be allowed to return 5 scrap Aroclor for which the customer- would be 6 paid, or, alternatively, a credit against the 7 customer's bill would be issued for the value of 3 the scrap Aroclor? Q A. For the acceptable scrap. 10 Q. For the acceptable scrap. Is chat 11 correct? 12 A. That is my understanding. 13 Q. So Westinghouse was in effect buying 14 scrap back from the customer, isn't that right, 15 acceptable scrap -- I am sorry. * 15 Monsanto in effect was buying scrap back 17 from the customer, isn't that correct? 1 8 A. Right. 19 Q. Now, what was acceptable Aroclor, 20 acceptable scrap? 21 A. Acceptable in that Findett had the 22 facilities and capabilities technically to improve 23 the quality of that scrap to a usable form. 24 Q. What would Findett do? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029771 1 A. The best I can tell here is that they 2 were able to separate free water and they were 3 also able to filter and remove particle matter, 4 particulate matter, and that is about the extcr.z 5 of it. 6 Q. What would they filter with? 7 A. Generally with a clay. 0 Q. They would ship the acceptable finisher. 9 Aroclor over to the Monsanto plant, right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And where would the material that 12 couldn't be reclaimed go? 13 A. It looks like it went to this disposal 14 company that is mentioned by name. Where die I 15 see that? 16 They paid a company for disposing of the 17 unrecyclable material, they are on page with the 18 stamped number in the lower righthand corner of 19 2 5 5 5 . 20 Q. Reference to scientific chemical 21 treatment? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Based on this memorandum, was 24 Westinghouse charged back with the cost of the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029772 1 disposal? 2 A. That would be my interpretation of th.'o. 3 yes. 4 Q. Let's just talk about the timing. " 5 Directing your attention to. the. first; 6 page of Exhibit 97. Is it a fair conclusion from 7 reading this first sentence that the scrap Aroclor 3 recycle program started up in 1969? 9 A. That is what it says. 10 Q. Now, it essentially was a recycle program, 11 where Monsanto sent product down to Bloomington 12 Westinghouse, and Westinghouse sent scrap Arcelor 13 back to Monsanto for further processing and 14 disposal of the material that wasn't capable of 15 processing; isn't that correct? 16 A. That iswhat it says. 17 Q. And let me just see if I get this 18 straight. Did anyone tell you when you signed or. 19 for the job or were interviewed for the job that 20 this program was underway? 21 . A. This is my first awareness of it. 22 Q. The memo I am just showing you -- 23 A. That's right. . 24 MR. KARAGANIS: Mr. Fruehwald, maybe you can Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029773 146 1 get me a 30 (b) 6 witness who is aware of t h e 2 program. 3 And I am not in any sense, Hr. 4 Papageorge, who has been very forthright - 5 MR. FRUEHWALD: Can you tell me w.hat. sore you 6 need to know more than what the memo states 7 describing the program? 8 MR. KARAGANIS: The memo obviously exists and 9 does describe the program that was underway. Hue 10 I need to know more about the program. 11 MR. FRUEHWALD: It is a problem in finding 12 somebody from that far in the history, to find cue 13 what details you want to know that are not covered 14 by the memo. 15 Can you clue me in on that? That 16 precisely do you want to know? 17 MR. KARAGANIS: I want to know the date it 1 8 began, the exact date it began. I am assuming, sc 19 there is no hidden agenda here, that the referen.ee 20 to the 20 drums at Findett that we saw in the 21 earlier exhibit is part of that program. But I 22 don't know. 23 MR. FRUEHWALD: It appears to be. 24 But ag<ain we are talking about things Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029774 1 *7 1 that are over fifteen years old and it is hard to 2 find a current employee who was involved at than 3 period of time. 4 So we will see what we can do. 5 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 6 Q. Mr. Papageorge, just so we have it clear. 7 Prior to this program, prior to this scrap Arcelor 3 program described in Exhibit 97, to your 9 knowledge, obviously. I/estinghouse Bloomington 10 wasn't sending it back to Monsanto prior to this 11 program, were they? 12 A. Not to my knowledge. 13 Q. And based on this memorandum, they 14 weren't sending it back prior to the institution 15 in 1969 of the program; isn't that right? 16 A. That's the way it reads. 17 Q. Now, with regard to that, the memorandum, 1 8 indicates that they were generating 1 5 , 0 0 0 -- I am. 19 now directing your attention to this is 20 unnumbered, but it is the stamp number 2556; stamp 21 number 2556 indicates that Bloomington was 22 generating 15,000 pounds of this material a month. 23 Isn't that right? 24 A. That's right. Longoria S Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029775 1 Q So prior to coming to you it had to bo 2 going out somewhere, right, either down the drain 3 or out to a landfill; isn't that right? 4 A. Assuming their operations were -at tho: 5 rate, and they hadn't changed anything, either 6 their process or their fluids or the amounts of 7 capacitors produced and the types and so forth. 8 Q. Assuming they were at the same rough 9 level of production,.they had been disposing of 10 prior to your recycle program about 15,000 pounds 11 a month; isn't that right? 12 A, I would assume that, yes. 13 Q. That is 15,000 pounds a month of liquid, 14 isn't it? 15 That is 15,000 pounds a month of liquid, 16 isn't it? 17 A. Yes. 1 8 Q. After the institution of this program, 19 you essentially had a recycle program underway, 20 isn't that right, of the scrap Aroclor program; 21 you had a recycle program underway, did you not? 22 A. This implies that, yes. 23 O. Now, just as a follow-up, you came aboard 24 within six months of this program. Did the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029776 149 1 program continue under your supervision or 2 participation? 3 A. Mo. 4 Q Was it ongoing when you came aboard? 5 A. No not to my knowledge. We were talking 6 about incinerating when I arrived. 7 Q. You didn't have an incinerator in place Oo when you arrived? 9 A. No. __ But we.were actively pursuing a 10 design of one. 11 Q. What was happening in the meantime, -where 12 was this stuff going? 13 A. My visits to the plants indicated to me 14 that they were sending it to landfills. 15 Q. You didn't know whether they were 16 participating in this program to Findett? 17 A. No one mentioned this program in the 18 middle of 1970. 19 Q. So either this program came to an abrupt 20 halt or it was ongoing without your knowledge? 21 isn't that right? 22 A. That's right. 23 Q. But at least for a period of time in 196? 24 Monsanto was in' a recycle program, were they not? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029777 1 A. It appears to be, yes. 2 Q. When did you cone aboard, January 1 , 3 1 97 0? A. Ye s . 5 (The document above-referred cc 6 was marked Bloomington Deposition 7 Exhibit Mo. 98 for identification.) 8 Q. Directing your attention to what has been 9 identified as Bloomington 90, which is a 10 memorandum dated January 12, 1970 from P. G. 11 Benignus to H. S. Bergen. Take your time and see 12 if that refreshes your recollection. 13 Are you familiar with the document 14 identified as Bloomington Exhibit 98? 1 5 A. I have not seen it before. 16 Q. Directing your attention particularly to 17 paragraph 2. 18 A. I see that. 1 9 Q. Okay. 20 That paragraph indicates again that 21 throughout 1969 Monsanto took back 130,000 pounds 22 of liquid scrap pcb, did they not? 23 A . Yes. :\ 24 Q. And pa*id Westinghouse for that material, Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029778 1 did they not? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Now, that material prior to that recovery 4 program as we have indicated had to either be 5 going down the sewer or into a landfill-; isn't 6 that right? 7 A. One can speculate so, yes. 3 Q. It had to be going somewhere, aid it net? 9 A. Unless they.stored it somewhere. 10 Q. But if they didn't store it, it was down 11 the sewer or into a landfill, was it not, isn't 12 that correct? 13 MR. FRUEHWALD: I am going to object to the 14 question. This is asking for speculation on 15 behalf of any witness as to what was actually 16 happening to the stuff. The possibilities have 17 been discussed, and speculation is all that is 18 left. 19 BY MR. KARAGANIS; 20 Q. Let1s go back . 21 ; Short of sending it back for this kind of 22 reclamation and reuse in industrial fluids or heat 23 transfer fluids, isn't that what the recycle 24 program was all. about? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029779 1 ~0 1 A All right. 2 Q. Short of doing that, short of sendine in 3 back for reprocessing through tlonsantc, the only 4 place to dispose of it for Westinghouse was ei drier 5 down the sewer or into a landfill of some kind? 6 A. Or to a scrap dealer. 7 Q. Or to a scrap dealer who might dispose of 3 it; is that right? 9 A. I don't k n o y where it would go to. 10 Q. But it wasn't coming back to Monsanto; 11 isn't that right? 12 A. That I am sure of. 13 Q. Prior to 1969, isn't that right? 14 A. That is my understanding. 15 MR. KARAGANIS: I would ask for and there 16 appear to be not only deletions as to names, I am. 17 willing to go along with the protective order, but 13 also deletions to numbered paragraphs. 19 If you look at the page you just goo, 20 that's in Exhibit 97, I believe, it goes E, C, D 21 blank and then starts over G. 22 MR. FRUEHTJALDs These documents v/ere produced 23 with the deletion of other customer's names and it 24 obviously refers to some other customer. All the -- Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029780 153 1 Westinghouse customers are listed and the otu remaining non-Westinghouse customers are deleted. 3 We deleted from these documents, under 4 our objection, information about other customers 5 that was not we felt then and believe now relevant 6 to the issues. 7 The deletions you are pointing out arc 8 references to other customers and w c are going to 9 stand by that deletion. 10 We did not delete as far as I can recall 11 and can see from the document anything other than 12 details about other customers. 13 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 14 Q. Directing your attention to, I am sorry, 15 mar k this as 99. 16 (The document above-referred co 17 was marked Bloomington Deposition 18 Exhibit No. 99 for identification.) 19 I am sorry, Mr. Papageorge, is there 20 something with respect to 98 that explains some 21 kind of procedure? 22 MR. FRUEHWALDs We were just discussing the 23 absence of his name on the route list as of 24 January of 1970% He did not appear to get a copy Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029781 i3M 1 of this one at this stage of the game. 2 BY HR. KARAGANIS: 3 Q. Direct your attention to Bloomington 4 Exhibit No. 99. You did gat a copy of eh at, but 5 you are still listed as being in Annistcn. 6 Were you physically up in St. Louis'at 7 that time ? 3 A. Yes. 9 Q. Mow, just tell me this. 10 Exhibit No. 99 is from Bryant to a list, 11 again re the scrap Aroclor program. It references 12 a letter dated 12/8/69. 13 We would make a specific request for 14 that. From RMK. Is that R. M. Kountz? 15 A. I would guess so. 16 Q. Who is R. M. Kountz? 17 A. He is the -- I forgot his official title. 1 8 But he was the engineer from Monsanto's corporate 19 engineering department assigned to do engineering 20 for this business group. 21 Q. And the definition is "RKOUN," it says R. 22 M. Kountz, "RKOUN," what does that mean? 23 First of all, how do you spell it, and 24 what does it stand for? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029782 HR. FRUEHWALD: That is R-K-O-U-M. A. That is the initial of his first name plus the first four letters of his last name. BY MR. KARAGANIS: Q. I s e e . - It doesn't indicate his location? A. No, no. You will notice under Mr. Mounts it is the same kind of arrangement as for Mr. Richard. . Q. If I am reading this memorandum correctly, Bryant is talking about a recycle- program for approximately a million pounds a year of scrap Aroclor, is that right, v/ith 200,000 pounds coming from Bloomington? A. That is what it talks about. Q. Now, who had made the arrangements with Findett? A. That I don't know. Q. Well, was it Westinghouse or Monsanto? A. I don't know. Q. Let me see if we have got this straight. On the second page of this memorandum. the reference here is to 85,000 pounds of Westinghouse BLoomington that Findett services Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029783 1 needing distillation. 2 Again, the information is that ic is 3 accumulating from Bloomington at 15 ,000 oounr..; a 4 month . 5 Do you know what they mean by nc-ocinc 6 distillation or cutting with no distillation 7 3 A. Nell, to me that says that unless he 9 installs another piece of equipment to distill 10 this material and get a purified product, he woulo 11 be forced then to mix it with good product to 12 dilute the contamination that may be present and 13 get it down to an acceptable level. 14 That is what he means by cutting. 15 Q. This would again be for reuse; is that 16 right? 17 A. For reuse, yes. 18 O. Now, then, 15,000 pounds of what is 10 called junk, this is liquid junk, is it not? 20 A. I would expect it to be liquid. Yes. 21 Q. Of liquid junk at Findett from 22 Westinghouse Bloomington has been dumped in a 23 landfill; is that right? 24 A. That i<s what he says. ~~ Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago ^- STLCOPCB4029784 ID 1 Q. You were in a process where you woulc 2 either recycle what you could, and then dispose ci 3 the remainder in a landfill of your choice ana 4 selection; is that right? 5 A. Y e s . ~ 6 Q. I am sorry? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Now, it also mentions that samples nave 9 been sent to .Mr. Pete Miller for evaluation of 10 their incineration process. What incineration 11 process ? 12 A. I don't know. 13 Q. Who is Bryantaddressing this memorandum 14 to, Kountz ? 15 A. Yes . 16 Q. Mark this as 100. 17 (The document above-referred to 1 8 was marked Bloomington Deposition 19 Exhibit No. 100 for identification.) 20 For the record Exhibit No. 100 is a letter 21 dated January 29, 1970 from J. G. Bryant of 22 Monsanto to the C. L. Cough of the State of 23 Indiana. " 24 We would ask for, to the extent Monsanto Longoria & Golastine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029785 15 3 1 has it, a copy of the original of this coco-cno. *> MR. FRUEHMALD: I car. tell you we have looted 3 for this one and cannot find it in Monsanto's A. records. 5 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 6 Q. Mr. Papageorge, are you familiar with 7 Exhibit 100? 3 A. Mo. 9 Q. Was Bryant working under your direction 10 and control at the time? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Who was he working for? 13 A. Mr. Beniqnus. 14 Q. Let me get this straight. 15 You were in charge of the environmental 16 control program with respect to peb's and this 17 letter refers to a waste recovery program aimed a a 1 8 pollution abatement. 19 Now, who was in charge? 20 A, I was the advisory, in an advisory 21 capacity. 22 Q. To whom? 23 A. To Mr. Bergen. 24 Q . Okay. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029786 ID:' 1 A. I had no authority over Fir. Bryant and 2 his actions. 3 Q. Who had authority over Bryant and the 4 whole scrap Aroclor recycle program that we have 5 just described? 6 A. Mr. Bergen. 7 Q. And he is where now? 8 A. The last I heard, he is with the Georgia 9 Pacific Company. . 10 Q. Based on the recycle program we have just 11 described in the last exhibit and in this letter, 12 Monsanto had an active pollution control program 13 going with Bloomington, did they not, for the 14 control of pcb releases in the Bloomington plane? 15 A. It appears so, yes. 16 Q. I would like, I can't find it, if you 17 can't find the letter, maybe to the extent that 18 there are enclosures referenced, this goes to my 19 earlier request, the fact that the Monsanto 20 askarel inspection and maintenance guide was being 21 rewritten. 22 I want the earlier version and the 23 current version, that is why I asked about the 24 different versions before. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029787 i ^o 1 Can v/ e have a stipulation which weals 2 speed things up, that the booklet Monsanco askarol 3 inspection and maintenance guide, that the 4 guidance contained therein or the directions 5 contained therein also apply to capacitor 6 manufacture, per the first paragraph of Bryant's 7 letter ? 8 MR. FRUEHWALD: Well, I haven't; looked at the 9 book recently to see.what it says. So, I will 10 consider that stipulation after having viewed the 11 document. 12 But based upon just the title of the 13 thing, I can't at the present enter intc such 14 stipulation. But it it could very well be and 15 after I a take a look at the document, we will see 16 if I .can stipulate to that. 17 It is probable, but I can't do tha: 1 8 without looking at the document, Joe. 19 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 20 Q. All right. The attachments therein ore 21 what we want. 22 (The document above-referred co 23 was marked Bloomington Deposition 24 Exhibit No. 101 for identification.) Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029788 16 1 1 Q. Directing your attention to Exhibit No. 2 101. Are you familiar with that document? 3 A. Yes. A Q. Now, that again refers to the scram 5 Aroclor program, does it not? 6 A. Yes, it does. 7 Q. Nov;, so at least by March 16 , 1 970 you 8 were aware of the existence of a scrap Aroclor 9 recycle program, were you not, now that your 10 recollection has been refreshed? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. I am sorry? i 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Directing your attention to the 15 memorandum on the first page, the lease number 2, 16 the customer is unidentified? is that right? I am 17 sorry, item number 2, the customer is 1 8 unidentified? is that right? 1 9 A. Yes. 20 MR. FRUEHWALD: That is what has been deleted 21 from the document, customer. 22 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 23 Q. As to that particular customer, you were 24 taking the mate.rial that couldn't be processed Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029789 1 back and you were paying half the cost of 2 disposal, were you not? 3 A. The top line. That is what it says, yes. 4 Q. You were treating the disposal of char 5 material as not only your customer's 6 responsibility, but your responsibility as well, 7 is that right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Directing your attention to the secono 10 paragraph, paragraph 3, Westinghouse Bloomington, 11 it indicates that you have got a 75,000 gallon 12 tank at Findett. You had a total of 31 drums 13 which you land filled, did you not? 14 A. That is what it says. 15 Q. And that you have got 141 drums sieting 16 of questionable material; isn't that right? 17 A. Right. 1 0 Q. This again relates -- and, again, the 19 correspondence between Benignus and the company 20 with respect to how to maintain their scrap in 21 clean drums or otherwise is missing and we would 22 like that, we are requesting it. 23 The reference on quality control on scram 24 goes back to th*e earlier letter reference from Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029790 15 3 Bryant, in which he referenced a letter by Benignus to the company. 3 There is a reference here to the efface 4 that you had to -- let's go back a steo. 5 See the reference there to your letcer, 6 or the letter of 2/2/70 to you? 7 A. Yes. 8 (The document above-referred to o _ was marked Bloomington Deposition. 10 Exhibit No. 102 for identification.) 11 Q Having examined Exhibit 102, does that 12 refresh your recollection or do you need more 13 time? 14 A. I need more time. 15 O. Are you familiar with Exhibit 102? 16 A. Yes. As I read it, I recall receiving 17 i t. 10 Q. 102 for the record is a memorandum dated 19 February 2, 1970 from Bryant to you. Is it not? 20 A. Yes. 21 . Q. Now, let's just follow this through. 22 Do you recall a request for Howard Bergen 23 to get all the customers on a paying basis for 24 disposal of the* scrap Aroclor? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029791 1 A. Mot until I reread it. 2 Q. Now having refreshed your recollection, 3 what wa s Bergen saying to you? 4 A. He was trying to minimize his coses. 5 Q. In what way? 6 A. By reducing the cost of this disposal 7 program. 8 Q. All right. 9 You were conducting a disposal program of 10 actually not totally disposal, it was also recycle 11 as well, where you would recycle what you could 12 and dispose of the rest; isn't that right? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. All right. 15 And this opening line of Exhibit No. 10 2 16 is to get the costs of that program down; isn't 17 that right? 18 A. That is my understanding. 19 Q. All right. 20 Now, what they are saying here is that, 21 this is Bryant's memo, that there are two kinds of 22 scrap Aroclor that come back; isn't that right? 23 A. Yes. 24 0. And th-at the Aroclor that you are getting Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco STLCOPCB4029792 i )D 1 back from the capacitor manufacturer, such as 2 Bloomington, is usually pretty good; isn't that: 3 right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. In terms of good being available for much 6 of it to recycle; isn't that right? 7 A. Yes. 8 0. Nov;, it talks about Westing house shipping 9 again 200,00 0. pounds-of liquid scrap Arc cl or a 10 year to you, is that right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. What do you understand this memorandum :c 13 be saying, Exhibit 102? 14 MR. FRUEHWALD: I am going to object to -he 15 form of the question. The memorandum is a 16 multi-page document. It says what it says. I 17 don't understand what the question is. 10 BY MR. KARAGANIS ; 19 O. From a sequential business 20 decision-making perspective, that is, you go: the 21 scrap Aroclor program going along as you 22 described; you are getting, among other things, 23 200,000 pounds a year from Bloomington, 24 Westinghouse Bl*oomington. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029793 IS S 1 MR. FRUEIIWALD: I think the memo describee it 2 as what was expected from Bloomington as cones c h 3 to what has arrived. 4 MR. KARAGANIS : If we need to go back v; e will 5 go back. 6 The other memos give the explicit amounts 7 that have come in from Bloomington, do they net, 0 Mr. Papageorge? 9 MR. FRUEHWALD: They are less than 20 0 , QCH 10 pounds a year. 11 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 12 Q. Do they not, Mr. Papageorge, they giv; 13 the amounts? 14 A. There are two sets of numbers. One is 1 5 actual receipts, the other is predictions fer the 16 future. Are you asking me what this nemo says? 17 Q. What 102 says from the standpoint of 18 company decision making on the handling of waste 19 pcb`s from its customers. 20 A. To me this memo is summarised in the lass 21 sentence where it says can you please help us 22 obtain the items listed and the additional systems 23 used to meet future needs, which is on the top of 24 page 3. And th-ere are four items that I vividly Longoria s Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029794 1 57 1 recall addressing. 2 Q. All right. 3 what are they? . 1 A. We need a location to ship all the waste: 5 which is set up to accommodate the various 6 containers. 7 Q. Should that be containers or c u s : c m. era? 8 A. I read it as containers. 9 0. To accommodate the various containers, 10 what do you mean? 11 A. Drums, as well as tankcars. 12 Q. Okay. All right. 13 A. Trucks, whatever. We need processes tc 14 recover the various scrap materials. 15 Q. All right. 16 A. He is talking here about recycling 17 process. 1 8 And the last two refer to incineration, 19 one of waste solids the other of solid waste, the 20 waste fluids and the other of solid wastes, 21 Q, Nov/, from the standpoint of the material 22 that was coming in in drums, that was liquids, wa: 23 it not? 24 A. Yes. *It was intended to be licruids. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029795 15 0 1 Some of them had rags and old shoes end natcsr, 2 all kinds of things. But it was intended to be 3 liquid. . 4 Q. You were talking about liouid control, 5 were you not? 6 A. Yes. 7 MR. KARAGAMIS: 103 and 104. ' 8 (The documents above-referred zc _o/ . were marked Bloomington Deposition 10 Exhibit Nos. 103 and 104, 11 respectively, for identification.) 12 Q. Directing your attention to documents 13 which have been marked Bloomington Exhibit 103 and 14 Bloomington Exhibit 104, Bloomington Exhibit 102 15 being a memorandum from R. M. Kountz dated 16 December 8 , 1969, and a memorandum from R. M. 17 Kountz dated December 8, 1969 to Vodden, which is 18 Exhibit 104. Exhibit 103 is from Kountz to 19 Johnson, 20 Are you familiar with those documents? 21 A. I do not recall either of these 22 documents. 23 MR. FRUEHWALD: Let me indicate that this 2 4 document appears to be the one you asked me for Longoria Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029796 1 earlier, reference to a 12/8/69 letter th 2 Bryant was responding to. 3 MR. KARAGANIS: Which one, Bloomington 4 Exhibit? 5 MR. FRUEHWALD: Exhibits 99 refers to a 12/7 6 letter to Johnson and others, and this appears to 7 be the document referred to. So that has -beer, 3 produced. 9 MR. KARAGANIS: Fine. 10 Q. Now, Mr. Papageorge, why' was there a 11 desire to get into 'incineration, why not jus- 12 landfill the stuff? 13 A. Well, it was the considered opinion 14 amongst those that were trying to manage tho pcb 15 issue that landfilling at best would, not only for 16 peb's for all chemicals, would be temporary, short 17 lived. 18 Q. Why? 1 9 A. Because even under the best of 20 conditions, and that means the best technology 21 available today, may in the future appear to be 22 improper, just as many of the actions that we took 23 in the thirties were considered improper in the 24 seventies. 1 Longoria & Goldstine. 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029797 17 0 1 Q. w as there about landfillinc that v o 2 didn't want to put liquid pc b wastes i a. t o 3 landfills? 4 A. The geologists could not assure us thau 5 the material would never, underlined never, 6 migrate. 7 0. The geologists couldn't assure you that 8 landfills wouldn't leak; isn't that right? 9 A. That's right. 10 ' Q. All right. 11 So from the standpoint of a risk of 12 leakage, landfills were not a good alternative; 13 isn't that right? 14 A. Correct. And we - - 1 5 Q. You (wanted to incinerate? 16 A. Ua to this day believe incineration is 17 the ultimate, the best known technology. 1 0 Q. Okay. 19 - I w.aj11 to show you what has been marked 20 as Bloomingtop Deposition Exhibit 11, which is a 21 letter dated February 18, 1970 from Olson to 22 various Monsanto customers. Are vou familiar wit 23 that? 24 A. Yes. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029798 17 1 1 Q. Can you tell us what the purpose of uhau 2 letter was? 3 A. This letter was intended to make certain 4 that the customers on record with Monsanto of " 5 pcb's were aware of the discovery of pc-b's in -he 6 environment; that Monsanto was aware of it, and to 7 let them know that we were going to pursue the 8 issue . 9 Q. Did you have a hand in drafting it? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. So you believed at the time, I take it 12 you still believe, that the statement on page 13 1140, page 2 of the letter, is correct; i.e., I 14 quote: 15 "Ue feel that all 16 p.ossible care should be taken 17 in the application, processing 18 and effluent disposing of 19 these products to prevent them 20 from becoming environmental 21 contaminants. " 22 A. Oh, yes. 23 Q. You also believe, I quote: 24 "This article Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029799 172 1 "reflects that good 2 manufacturing practice in the 3 future may require that no 4 product used by any company 5 should find their way into 6 wate rways . " 7 Is that correct? 3 A. Yes. o Q. Now, mark this as the next one. 10 (The document above-referred to 11 was marked Bloomington Deposition 12 Exhibit No. 105 for identification.) 13 directing your attention to Bloomington 14 Deposition Exhibit, what has been marked as 15 Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 105, which is 16 entitled, "A brief summary of pcb meeting, I'arch 17 17, 1970." 1 8 Are you familiar with that? 1 9 A. I believe I recognize the document. 20 O. All right. 21 It indicates that you attended a meetinc 22 at I believe this was up at the FNPCA lab in 23 Deluth on March 17, 1970; that one of the 24 attendees was William B. Papageorge? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029800 i73 1 A. Yes. Q. Do you recall attending that meeting? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. It indicates Hr. Jack Garrett discusse d 5 the toxicity of pcb's with respect to rats and 6 beagles. 7 Who was tlr. Garrett, did we describe hi::: 3 before? 9 A. Yes,_ he was.Honsanto's managed of 10 industrial hygiene. A part of Dr. Kelly's medical 11 department. 12 . (The document above-referred to 13 was marked Bloomington Deposition 14 Exhibit Mo. 106 for identification..) 15 Q. Let the record show that Bloomington 16 Exhibit Mo. 106 is a memorandum dated April 1, 17 1970 from D.A. Olson to U. B. Papageorgc, re pet 1 8 electrical customers. 19 Mr. Papageorge I show you that document 20 and ask you whether you are familiar with it? 21 Are you familiar with Exhibit 106? 22 A. Yes. ' 23 Q. V7ere you consulted in describing or 24 establishing what was described as the following Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029801 1 Jl. policy in the memorandum. In other words, the 2 policy articulated in the memorandum? 3 A. ho. You mean points 1, 2 and 3 in hue 4 memor andum? 5 Q. Y e s. " 6 A. No, those were Mr. Olson. 7 Q. Mr. Olson one was in charge of sales, is 8 that right? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. So he was above you; is that right? 11 You weren't at the same lateral level, 1 2 were you, or were you? 13 A. We were both reporting to Mr. Bergen. 1 4 Q. All right. 1 5 A. We could both appeal to Mr. Berger.. 16 Q. Well, up until this time, as we ee seriate, 17 it, Monsanto was taking the scrap Aroclcr, based 1 0 on the scrap Aroclor recycle program, described and 19 actually crediting Westinghouse, was it not, for 20 the material, isn't that right? 21 A. That is what the documents reflect. Yes. 22 Q. All right. 23 And Monsanto officials such as .Mr. Olson, 24 and such as we -have described in the previous Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029802 175 1 memoranda, wanted to reverse that process if th:-v 2 could and get it on at lowest, a zero-cost basis 3 or reduce the cost; isn't that right? 4 A. Right. . 5 Q. To get them, in effect, on a paying 6 basis, if you could? 7 A. Right. 8 Q. Instead, you were paying them for the 9 material at that poipt, were you not? 10 A. That is correct. 11 Q. Is it correct that the policy described 12 in 106 was that in dealing with incineration - 13 which you have previously described as being the 14 optimum method of disposal, is that right? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. That Monsanto would take the lead in 17 investigating incineration, is that correct? 18 A. That's correct. 19 . Q. That was going to be taking the lead in 20 the investigation on behalf of Monsanto and 21 Westinghouse, is that right, to take the lead, 22 taking the industry lead or whatever lead you 23 wanted to talk about in pursuing incineration, 24 isn't that righ-t? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco ^ STLCOPCB4029803 1 1 A. That's right. 2 Q. And, did you agree, were you in acree n e n c 3 with Mr. Olson that the two alternatives wore 4 either incineration or recovery of the produce; 5 isn't that right? 0r A. Right. 7 Q. That landfill was not going to be a 8 viable alternative in the long-term, is that 9 right? . 10 A. Right. 11 Q. For the reasons we discussed previously, 12 isn't that correct? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Now, I don't want to, I am not being 15 flattering, I am just referring to the language in 16 the memorandum, what was it about your background 17 that Hr. Olson was saying that you would be 18 Bloomington's savior or Westinghouse's savior? 1 9 A. Well, of course, I can't speak, directly 20 for what Mr. Olson was thinking. But, I can only 21 look back on my education, my industrial design 22 experience, my maintenance experience, my 23 operating experience, my knowledge of the 24 chemical, pulli-ng that all together, he felt that Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029804 37 1 I was in a good position to be able to help. 2 Q. In this memorandum in the las:, par acre nnh , 3 he specifically asl'.s you to visi: the three : j o r 4 Westinghouse locations; that is, Sharon., Scut:-. 5 Boston and Bloomington, and to investigate hew 6 they handled peb's, how they collected them anc to 7 give them suggestions as to clean up. Is that 0 right? 9 A, Yes._ . 10 Q. The next document. 11 (The document above-referred to 12 was marked Bloomington Deposition 13 Exhibit IIo. 107 for identification.! 14 Directing your attention to what has bran 15 marked as Bloomington Exhibit 107, which is dates 16 April 6, 1970, entitled, "Scrap Aroclcr disposal 17 status," from Bryant to Papageorge. 18 Are you familiar v/ith that document? 19 A. I recall it. Yes. 20 Q. Now, if you look at Westinghouse, it 21 saysthe disposal for the last two weeks has been 22 as follows; Number 1 is 102,000 pounds was 23 disposed of at Queeny. 24 What does that mean? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029805 17 3 1 A. To me that says that 10 2 , 000 pounds v:h:ch 2 came from Westinghouse was located at the Ouscnv 3 plantinSt. Louis, Missouri. . 4 Q. Does that mean that this had gone through 5 Findett and was ready for use at the Oueeny plant 6 or was it being disposed of at the Queeny plant or 7 in storage or what? 0 A. I interpret that as it is located at cha 9 Oueeny plant for further action. 10 Q. All right. 11 Mow you notice that item 3, is chat the 12 New Jersey dump, right? 13 A. Right. 14 Q. And item 6 was at Humarich? . 15 A. That is the plant at Saugc-t, Illinois. 16 Q. Sauget, for incineration? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. By that time was the incinerator in 19 place? 20 A. No. 21 . Q. When did the incinerator finally go on 22 line? 23 A. 1971. 24 Q. At the- bottom it says research has a Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029806 173 1 target date, this is as to transformer scran of 2 6/1/70 to set up an except or reject policy for n0 scrap returns. 4 Do you know what that means? 5 A. I don't know what they specifically were 6 looking for. But it has to to deal with the 7 degree of contamination of the material. And some 3 criteria which would determine whether it is 9 recyclable, salvageable or can only be discarded. 10 Q. Directing your attention to -- I am 11 sorry. Would you mark this. 12 (The document above-referred to 13 was marked Bloomington Deposition 14 Exhibit No. 108 for identification.) 15 Directing your attention to what has been 16 marked as Bloomington Exhibit 103, which is a 17 letter from Congressman Ryan dated April 0, 1970 13 to Edward J. Bok of Monsanto. 19 . Are you familiar with that document? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And -- I withdraw the question. 22 (The document above-referred to 23 was marked Bloomington Deposition 24 Exhibit No. 109 for identification.) Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029807 1 .2 0 1 Next document is Exhibit, Bloomington 2 Exhibit 109, which is an April 7 letter from 3 Benignus to Olson, April 7, '70. 4 Are you familiar with that document? 5 A. I recall it. Yes. ~ 6 Q. That letter was setting up or discussing 7 a proposed meeting in St. Louis set for April 21, 3 was it not? 9 A Yes v . 10 (The document above-referred to 11 was marked Bloomington Deposition 12 Exhibit Mo. 110 for identification.] 13 Q. Directing your attention to what has bean 14 marked as - 15 MR. FRUEHWALD: Excuse me. 16 MR. KARAGAMIS: Excuse me. That is a blank 17 page that should just be pulled out. 18 n. Directing your attention to what: has beer, 19 marked as Bloomington Exhibit 110, it. is a letter 20 of April 7, '70 from Mr. Olson of Monsanto to 21 Kelly of Westinghouse. - 22 Are you familiar with that letter? 23 A. I believe I recall this. Yes. 24 O. You were raising your prices for pcb's to Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco STLCOPCB4029808 11 1 testinghouse Bloomington in part because of the o costs of responding to environmencal control; 3 isn't that right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. That included the whole program or much 6 of the program that we have been describing up to 7 this point; isn't that right? 3 A. Yes. 9 . (The document above-referred co 10 was marked Bloomington Deposition 11 Exhibit No. Ill for identification.) 12 Q. Directing your attention to what has been 13 marked as Bloomington Exhibit Mo. 111. Arc you 14 familiar with that document? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Did you have a hand in its preparation? 17 A. I was one of several reviewers. 18 Q. All right. 19 Who prepared this document and who 20 reviewed it? 21 A, Mro E. B. John was the person who 22 prepared the various drafts. And it was reviewed 23 by Mr. Bergen and me, Dr. Richard, Mr. Wheeler, 24 Mr. Springgate,1 Mr. Park. That is all 1 can Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029809 1 C* 0 1 remember at the moment. 2 Q. Nov;, is the element of your program in 3 which you were taking back and actually -paying for 4 the customer's scrap Aroclor, is that referred -e 5 in that 'press release? 6 A. I can't find it. 7 Q. So you didn't describe to the press in 8 response to Congressman Ryan's letter the recycle 9 program and your disposal of that which coulrn'e 10 be recycled in landfills of your selection; is 11 that cor rect? 1 2 A. That's correct. 13 0. I won't take the time with making this an 14 exhibit, but I just want to confirm. 15 As the 30 (b) 6 witness of Monsanto, is 16 it correct that Monsanto was the sole producer of 17 polychlorinated biphenyl in the United States? 18 A. I had a difficult time establishinc that. 19 I had some information at one point in time that 20 there were others. Coastal Chemical Company, anc. 21 at least one more company was mentioned. 22 Monsanto nor the government was able to 23 demonstrate one way or the other that that 24 information was- factual. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029810 1 Q. So to the best of your knowledge, in 2 terms of confirmed fact, Monsanto is the solo 3 producer of peb's in the United States, isn't the; 4 correct? 5 A. Peb's in the United States or the 6 manufacturing units in the United States? 7 Q. The manufacturing units in the U n i t ; t 8 States. 9 A. Yes.. . 10 (The document above-referred sc 11 was marked Bloomington Deposition 12 Exhibit No. 112 for identification.) 13 Q . Mr. P a p a g e o r g e , I s h o w you what has beer, 14 marked as Bloomington Exhibit 112, which is a 15 February 1 970 issue of Environment, I am not creing 16 to ask you to strain your eyes trying to read that 17 copy. If Monsanto has a clean copy of that, we 18 would appreciate a copy. 19 . But directing your attention to page 26 20 of the article, there is a section which says, 21 "Monsanto's statement on pcb." 22 Did you have a hand in developing that 23 statement? 24 A. No. This was -- you had previously Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029811 1 submitted as an exhibit a Monsanto statement. 2 Q. Yes. 3 A. This is the statement. 4 Q. All right. 5 Who prepared it? 6 A. Elmer Wheeler was the author, assisted by 7 Richard, Keller, Olson, Park, Schalk. OO (The document above-re fcrrcci to 9 was marked Bloomington Deposition 10 Exhibit Mo. 113 for identification.) 11 Q. I show you what has been marked as 12 Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 113, which is a 13 letter of 4/27/1970 from Papageorge. And I would 14 ask that the enclosures to that letter be 15 supplied. 15 Would it be fair to say chat what you are17 sending -1 3 MR. FRUEHWALD: I think one enclosure aopcars 19 to be Monsanto's press release, which has already 20 been marked as Exhibit 111. 21 MR. KARAGANIS: All right. Just so we have it 22 clear for the record which one it is. It just 23 says press releases. It could be any number of 24 press releases.* If it is agreed that the Monsanto Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029812 oD 1 press release referred to in 113 is the press 2 release referred to in 111, I have no problem. o Q. Is that correct? 4 A. Correct. 5 MR. FRUEHWALD: As far as Congressman Ryan's 6 press release, I will see if we have a cony of it. 7 I don't know. 8 BY HR. KARAGANIS: 9 Q. Now,_ directing your attention, Hr. 10 Papageorge, to what has been marked as Exhibit 10, 11 Bloomington Exhibit 10. It is an agenda of a 12 meeting of April 21, 1970. If your counsel can 13 show you his copy. 14 Does looking at Exhibit 10 refresh your 15 recollection as to what occurred at that nesting? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And do you recall what you said, what 1 8 what Dr. Wheeler said and then what you said v/itr. 1 9 regard to -- I am sorry, it is Hr. Wheeler, and 20 what you said regarding both the overall peb 21 pollution problem and current foreseeable, future 22 status of the pollution problem? 23 A. Do I recall what I said then? 24 Q. Yes. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029813 1 1 A. Not specifically. Other than Nr. "'healer covered the activities prior to my arrival in mv 3 new assignment then. And later I got up and 4 talked, and this covered the Swedish work, she Or. 5 Risebrough's report out of California and the 6 like . 7 And I got up then later in the day that 3 morning and spoke on, as I remember, our plans to 9 pursue this information personally by going to .10 Europe, and also our plans in visiting our11 customer sites and our review of Mor.santo1s 12 marketing policies, as to which of the Aroclors to 13 sell and to whom. 1 4 So I was kind of forecasting what we !:now 15 then as to what we might be doing. 16 Q. Let me see if I can have a summary of the 17 status at that time. You had this program 1 8 underway where you were taking back scrap liguio 19 Aroclor, sending it to Findett for reprocessing. 20 Any material that couldn't be reprocessed was 21 being disposed of in landfills by Monsanto, isn't 22 that correct? 23 A. Yes o 2 4 Q. And because you were paying for that, Longorias Gold stine 236 1030 Chicago -toL STLCOPCB4029814 1 Monsanto was paying for that, you didn't like chat 2 program and wanted to go to a program where your 3 costs would either get reduced or get down co 4 zero, is that right? 5 A. That was an objective. 6 Q. And your ultimate goal, recognizing chat 7 landfills were not a long-term solution, was to 8 either recycle it or incinerate it; is that righe? 9 A. That's right. 10 Q. Was that sequence of reasoning and v;hat 11 you had done and where you were going explained to 12 Westi.nghouse at that time? 13 A. Let me think. That was assigned to Dr. 14 Richard on the agenda. 15 0. Okay. 16 A. And he did touch on that. 17 Q. Did he touch on - 13 A. Yes. 19 .. Q. -- the whole idea of trying to keep as 20 much out of the environment as possible? 21 . A. Yes. 22 Q. So he was saying to Westinghouse, try and 23 keep it from being discharged into the 24 environment; is* that right? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029815 H 1 A. Y e s . - 2 Q. Did ho do thatrelatively strongly? 3 A. Yes. Dr. Richard is good at that. 4 Q. Is he still with Monsanto? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Is he retired? 7 A. He retired. 8 (The document above-referred to 9 was marked Bloomington Deposition 10 Exhibit No. 114 for identification.) 11 Q. Directing your attention to what has been 12 marked as Bloomington Exhibit 114, memorandum 13 dated 4/29/70 from Graham to Olson and Benignus, 14 with copies to Olson and Papageorge. 15 Do you recall seeing this memorandum? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Again, have you had a chance to look at 18 it? 1 9 Am I correct that the memorandum again 20 reflects the program of sending the scrap Aroclcr 21 to Monsanto or Findett for reprocessing and/or 22 disposal of the scrap that couldn't be 23 reprocessed? 24 A. It doe.s reflect that, yes. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029816 1 33 1 0. I would make an information request at 2 this time. 3 I am directing your attention to S:-:h ibit 4 10, reflecting the minutes of the April 21st 5 meeting. Indicating that Mr. Wheeler gave out a 6 booket 8 inches by 11 inches and about two inches 1 thick. That there were other booklets given to 8 Westinghouse covering the studies on rats and 9 dogs. _. 10 We would like all the material 11 distributed at the April 21, 1970 meeting. 12 MR. FRUEHWALD: Okay. 13 I believe this was one of the numerous 14 request of this nature that you served on us 15 several years ago and that we looked for. 16 I believe our conclusion was we could no: 17 identify what those materials were, but I will 18 make a note to recheck that. But this type of 19 request was made in a multi-page, numerous 20 requests for reference documents and I believe we 21 responded to that request back then. But I will 22 check again. 23 24 Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029817 1 nn 1 (The document above-referred so 2 was marked Bloomington Deposi cion. 3 Exhibit No. 115 for identifier, tic n.. ) 4 BY MR. KARAGAMIS: 5 Q. Directing your attention to what has beer, 6 marked as Bloomington Exhibit 115. It is dated 7 Hay 26, 1970. It is Monsanto reference document 8 341. A letter from Hr. Papageorce to .Mr. 9 Gelberman. _ . 10 Are you familiar with that letter? 11 A. I recall it. Yes. 12 Q. Take your time to read it, because I want 13 to ask about it. 14 Directing your attention to Exhibit 115, 15 as we have described, you did have a method, cic 16 you not, of the waste Aroclor or waste peb 17 returned to your manufacturing plants for 1 8 attempted reuse? 19 .. A. That was the intent. Yes. 20 Q. And you state that, "where recovery," b'r 21 "recovery" you mean bringing it back up to product 22 grade, do you not? 23 A, That was the intent. Yes. 24 Q, Okay. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 China a a STLCOPCB4029818 91 1 So that then selling it again as 2 product; isn't that right? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. You say here in those instances yhere 5 recovery, i.e., bringing it up to product grade, 6 is impractical, you are storing the material until 7 you can install an incinerator; isn't that right? 3 A. Right. 9 Q. In fact, you weren't storing the 10 material, you were sending it off to landfills, 11 were you not? 12 A. No. Not this program. 13 Q. Which program is this? 14 A. This- program was the inventorying of 15 scrap material for incineration. 16 Q. All right. 17 You were getting scrap from the capacieor 18 manufacturers? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Okay; 21 You were setting that up for incineration 22 if you could, is that right? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Why weren't you storing the material for Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029819 1 O1 1 the scrap manufacturers -- I am sorry, from cn.e2 capaciror manufacturers? 3 A. W e w e r e . 4 Q. You weren't landfilling at that rime; is 5 that right? 6 A. Starting in about this time in 1970, our 7 program was to receive the material, store it ir. 3 storage tanks or in sound drums, until oho 9 incinerator could be.installed and wo can burn in. 10 Q. So you stopped landfilling; isn't than 11 right? 12 A. To my knowledge, yes. In fact, it is 13 only recently I was tuned into this landfilling 14 bit. I had missed that somehow. 15 Q. So you stopped landfilling because you 16 didn't think it was a good practice; isn't chat 17 right? 18 A. That is true. 19 . MR. FRUEIIWALD: You are talking about lieu ids 20 here? 21 A. Yes, liquids. 22 MR. KARAGAHIS: Yes. 23 Q. As a matter of fact, if you could 24 incinerate solrds, you would have incinerated the Longoria & Goldstine 2361030 Chicago >suL STLCOPCB4029820 1 solids isn't that right? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Your main reason for not pushing lor 4 landfilling or not pushing for incineration of 5 solids was a question of what was then -porceivoc 6 to be feasibility. Isn't that right? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. If you could have incinerated the solids, 9 you would have wanted to incinerate them as well; 10 is that right? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And not put them in landfills, isn't chat 13 correct? 1 4 A. Yes. 1 5 (Whereupon a short recess was had.) 16 (The documents above-referred to 17 were marked Bloomington Deposition 10 Exhibit Hos. 115 and 117, 19 respectively, for identification.) 20 Q. Directing your attention to what has been 21 marked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 116, 22 which is a letter dated Apr.il 8 , 1 970 from Emmett 23 Kelly to Herbert Bloomenthal of the Food and Drug 24 Administration.. Are you familiar with that Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029821 1 document? 2 A. I have not seen it before that I rccr. 11. 3 Q. Okay. . 4 Do you agree, as w e described the- 5 program, that as of April 3, 1970 Monsanto, quote, 6 "was committed to a program which would allow the 7 future use of our Aroclors only in those 8 applications where escape to the environment car. 9 be prevented"? . 10 A. Yes. 11 0. Directing your attention to what has been 12 marked as Exhibit 117, which is a June 5, 1970 13 letter from Papageorge to Oilburn of 'Jcstinchousc, 14 are you familiar with that document? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Am I correct, that the first paragraph of 17 this letter is dealing with the proper disposal 10 standards for -- I am sorry, the proper standard 19 for incineration of pcb's? 20 A. It deals with only one standard, that is 21 the temperature -- 22 Q. I am sorry. 23 A. required . 24 Q. The minimum temperature? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029822 17 5 1 A, Correct. 2 Q. And with respect to the n ini nun O-1 temperatures, where did you get this informatics 7 4 A. We had within Monsanto conducted sc:.c 5 studies to determine the minimum temperatures for 6 destruction, and we arrived at 300 degrees 7 centigrade, which equates roughly to the 1600 8 Fahrenheit. And to build in a little bit of a 9 safety factor, we were recommending 2,000 degrees 10 Fahrenheit. 11 Q. Okay. 12 Would it be correct that in the second 13 paragraph, one of your other programs was to 14 recognize that from the standpoint of disposal 15 that incineration of solid waste was also 16 desirable, isn't that correct? 17 A. Yes. 1 8 Q. And pending construction of a solid waste 19 incinerator, you were either storing it or using 20 authorized landfills; is that correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. By authorized landfills, you meant a 23 landfill that had some protection from leakage 24 into the envi ro.nment; isn't that right? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029823 1 O 'Z 1 A. It is presumed that that prc-ectior, -./as 2 considered when the authorities granted the 3 permits for landfills to operate at that site. 4 Q. fell, nov/, you know that the authority 5 grants permits for municipal refuse, for"example? 6 A. Yes, but these are chemical landfills. 7 Q. You were talking only about authorised 3 toxic chemical landfills, is that right? 9 A. I he_sitate using the word toxic, because 10 I don't believe it v/as common in those days. It 11 was authorized chemical landfills. 12 Q. So you were only talking about use of 13 those relatively limited number of landfills where 14 authorities had authorized them for disposal of 15 industrial chemical wastes; is that correct? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. But not simply the typical landfill? 10 A. That is correct. 1 9 . Q. You didn't want them going to the typical 20 landfill; isn't that right? 21 A. That is cor rect. 22 Q. That again is because of our concern 23 about leakage into the environment; isn't that 24 right? Longoria & Goldstine 235 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029824 1 97 1 A . Correct. 2 0. Even as to the so-called author i sec. 3 industrial chenical landfill, you only wanted 4 those until you could develop incineration; i sr.'s 5 thatright? ~ 6 A. That is the target yes. Than was and is 7 the target. 8 (The document above-referred to 9 . was marked Bloomington Deposition 10 Exhibit Mo. 118 for identification.) 11 Q. Mr. Papageorge, I show you what has been 12 marked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 118 which 13 is from Keller of Monsanto to Mr. Tabri of che 14 Federal Mater Pollution Control Administration, 15 dated June 4, 1970. 15 Are you familiar with that document? 17 A. Yen . 18 Q. Now, attached to it is the letter that 19 Mr. Tabri sent requesting information. It says in 20 the.letter from Keller of Monsanto - 21 Mr. Keller was who again, just for the 22 record, what was his post? 23 A. Dr. Keller was in charge of the 24 analytical cheiiristry group that did research on Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029825 1 analytical methods. 2 Q. It mentions, Dr. Keller's letter me n t ions 3 that ouestions of the toxicity of pcb's had b:en A referred to Dr. Kelly and yourself, isn't that 5 correct? " 6 A. That's right. 7 Q. Do you have any knowledge or expertise or 8 did you work with the development of toxicity 9 information on pcb's? 10 A. No. I was in the possession of summaries 11 prepared by Mr. Wheeler. Therefore, I could mail 12 them to individuals requesting that information. 13 Q. Do you have any knowledge of the data 14 that is contained in those studies and their 15 interpretation? 16 A. I have an understanding of what that a a t a 17 is indicating, yes. 18 Q . All right. 19 We will get to that, thank you. 20 (The document above-referred to 21 ; was marked Bloomington Deposition 22 Exhibit No. 119 for identification.) 23 Directing your attention to what has been 24 marked as Bloonvington Exhibit 119, memorandum Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029826 19 9 1 dated 6/5/70 from Benignus to Mr. Day. 2 Can you tell me who Mr. Day was? 3 A. !:r. Day was a member of the organic 4 chemicals division, responsible for production 5 planning of the group of products, amongst -which 6 were the pcb's. 7 Q. Exhibit 119 lists the amount of pcb's 8 sold to the various Uestinghouse facilities, dees 9 it not, in 1970? . 10 A. As I read this, this is the predicts c. 11 needs for 1970 for that site. 12 Q. I see. Okay. 13 A. In drums and tan hears of the different 14 Aroclors. 15 (The document above-referred tc 15 was marked Bloomington Deposition 17 Exhibit Mo. 120 for identification.) 18 Q. Directing your attention to Exhibit 120, 1 9 Bloomington Exhibit 120, did you have a hand in 20 drafting this letter? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Now, directing your attention, first of 23 all, could you describe, directing your attention 24 to 120, could you describe what your role was? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029827 200 1 A. I was asked to comment on a draf- 2 prepared by Mr. Mason, which I did. 3 Q. Who is Mr. Mason? 4 A. He was an assistant general manager 5 reporting to Mr. Minckler. ~ 6 Q. Assistant general manager of what group? 7 A. The organic chemicals division. 3 Q. Okay. 9 How _did he relate to the functional 10 fluids products group? 11 A. I don't recall at the moment whether the 12 functional fluids group reported directly to Mr. 13 Mason or in this instance Mr. Minckler asked Hr. 14 Mason to respond to the congressman on this 15 matter, in Mr. Minckler's behalf. 16 I believe this was a special assignment 17 to Mr. Mason. 1 8 Q. Mr. Mason's normal duties we re what, hew 19 did he relate to peb manufacture and control? 20 A. I don't think he had any relationship. 21 Q So, other than drafting a letter .for Mr. 22 Minckler, he really didn't have any active role cf 23 any kind in the peb manufacture and control, did 24 he ? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4029828 201 1 A. True. The role Mr. Mason played was 2 limited to -3 Q. Writing the letter? 4 A. Communication with Mr. Rvan. Re wrote 5 this letter and visited Mr. Ryan. 6 (The document above-referred to 7 was marked Bloomington Deposition 8 Exhibit Mo. 121 for identification.) 9 Q. Directing your attention to what has been 10 marked as Bloomington Exhibit Mo. 121, '.which is a 11 letter dated July 6, 1970 from Papageorge to 12 Wilbur, are you familiar with that document? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Now, regarding this Exhibit 121, you 15 first describe -- in the first paragraph you hava 16 reviewed their process specification for she Mouth 17 Boston plant, haye you not, for disposal? 1 8 A. Yes . 19 Q. And you are basically saying that it is a 20 good document and -it meets with your approval; 21 isn't that right? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q o Now, the second paragraph, the discussion 24 with respect to. incineration, your concern is tha Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco STLCOPCB4029829 1 if the temperature is not high enough, you could 2 generate dioxins or furans; isn't that righ. a? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Would it be based on your experience an 5 acceptable procedure to engage in open burning of 6 liquid and solid peb contaminated materials? 7 A. I need help with your definition of open, 8 burning. 9 0. Okay. , 10 Stacking a bunch of capacitors, capacitor 11 parts and capacitor innards, on a pile, pouring 12 liquid peb's over them and lighting them up? 13 A. Yes, I would be concerned. 14 Q. Would you consider that an acceptable 15 practice? 16 A. No. 17 Q. And that could result in the generation 18 of dioxins and furans; isn't that right? 19 A. My understanding, yes. 20 Q. How, you also went through the plant, did 21 you not, the South Boston plant? 22 A. Yes. 23 0. Essentially check on their various 24 measures for co*ntrolling the discharge and Long;oria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029830 23 3 1 spillage and leakage of pcb's; isn't that right? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And your basic response was that you 4 believe that they could achieve a bone-dry p 1 a r.: ; 5 isn't that right? 6 A. Yes. . 7 Q. And was that the goal that you were 3 espousing? 9 A. Yes._ . 10 Q. Now, if you recall, we talked about a 11 letter that I believe Mr. Gossage or one of the 12 salespeople wrote, in which you were described as 13 the potential savior, in which he asked you to 14 visit three plants? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Was the visit mentioned in Exhibit 121 17 one of those visits? 13 A. Yes. 19 (The document above-referred to 20 was marked Bloomington Deposition 21 Exhibit No. 122 for identification.) 22 Q. Directing your attention to what has been 23 marked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibit 122, a 24 letter dated July 8 , 1 970 from yourself to Mr. 7. Longoria SGoldstine 236 1030 Chicago ^ STLCOPCB4029831 0^-1 1 Pool. Are you familiar with that letter? 2 A. Yes. u5 ' (The documents above-referred to A were marked Blooming ton Depot! tier. 5 Exhibit Nos. 123 and 1'24," 6 respectively, for identification.) 7 Q . Nr. Papa geor ge , I show you v:hat navc boo 8 marked as Bloomington Deposition Exhibits 123, 9 which is a letter dated 6/18/1970 from Fyan to 10 Nason, Congressman Ryan to Mason, and 124 which is 11 a letter dated 6/30/70 from I believe Nr. -'`anon 12 again. 13 A. Yes . 14 Q. To Congressman Ryan. 1 5 Are you familiar with those? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Can you tell me, would you describe to me 18 what program Monsanto was describing in its June 1 9 30 letter? 20 A. This was the program approved by the 21 corporate management committee in early Nay, which 22 had several points to it. I will try to recall 23 what they were. 24 One was that the sale of peb's to those Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029832 1 uses that led to easy entry into the environment 2 would be terminated, beginning August 30, 12 7 C. 3 And as quickly as feasible, they v: cul 4 be -- that program would be completed. 5 Q. Allright. - 6 A. The sale to closed, sealed systems would 7 continue . 3 We would pursue the studies of w c b1 s, 9 both as to their toxicity and improving the 10 analytical methodologies. 11 We would make certain that our operatic ns 12 are run as tightly controlled as we can, to 13 prevent escape of pcb's into the air or into ths 14 water effluent. 15 We would share all information we nr.d 16 with our customers. This program would be 17 world-wide as far as Monsanto was concerned. 1 8 I believe those are the key points. 1 9 Q. How, was this policy, what did you call 20 it the management committee? 21 , A. The corporate management committee. 22 Q. Was that submitted to the management 23 committee by any group within Westinghouse, or was 24 there a written* proposal to the management Longoria SGoldstine 236 1030 Chicago ^ STLCOPCB4029833 1 committee or presentation? 2 A. This was a presentation to the management 3 committee. 4 Q . By v/hon? 5 A. I made one in late April that covered all 6 of those points. 7 Management committee was dissatisfies 3 with some of the dates that I had proposed and 9 asked that we review.the situation and accelerate 10 the program. 11 So the second presentation was made ay 12 Mr. Mason in my absence. Mr. Minckler asked Mr. 13 Mason to make it. And this was done in early May. 14 And received approval from that corporate 15 committee at that time. 16 Q. You presented it initially what, in 17 April? 1 3 A. I presented it in late April. 19 Q. Who developed the proposal? 20 A. I worked on the initial draft and with 21 the assistance of this, I am going to call it ad 22 hoc committee, consisting of Dr. Richard and Mr. 23 Olson and Bergen and Springgate and Schalk and Mr. 2 4 John, Mr. Park,* Mr. Wheeler, Dr. Kelly, Dr. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029834 207 1 Keller. They all had a role. 2 Q. So you drafted a document v; h i c h was she 3 basis of your presentation to the management 4 committee? is that right? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. We would like all copies of all drafts cf 7 that document. 0 MR. FRUEIIWALD: I will note your request. 9 MR. KARAG.ANIS: Note it and I must say tc you 10 that in going through the Monsanto documents than 11 have been produced, I don't note any documentation 12 with respect to the presentation to the management 13 committee. 14 MR. FRUEHWALD: I do not believe that has hoc n 15 produced and I believe the reason is because it 16 wasn't requested, but it has now been requeste:: sc 17 I will note it. 1 8 MR. KARAGANIS: I thought I requested and, 19 indeed, the subsequent 30 (b) 6 notice covers a all 20 aspects of control of peb's and their release to 21 the environment. 22 MR. FRUEflWALD: Well, - I disagree or. your 23 initial request way back when. If the new request 24 has come in, we" objected to further production -o Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029835 -5 o o 1 that is where that stands 2 I will inquire about whether this exists 3 and respond to it. But as far as I know, it -was 4 not produced back in '32 because it was not 5 requested. . 6 MR. KARAGANIS: I don't want to launch into 7 any strong language at this point. But we believe 8 that there was a comprehensive recruest beck in 9 ' 82 . . 10 We think that a document as critical as 11 the proposal to the management committee, -we v.'nnr 12 all documents reflecting communications and 13 deliberations, communications to and deliberation 14 by their management committee. This is cne 15 specific example. 15 And I am more than a little bit am. as sec; 17 that Monsanto has not produced these prior to an.is 1 8 time. 19 MR. FRUEHWALD: I am more than a little bio 20 amazed that you didn't request them prior to this 21 time. You have made requests now that you didn't 22 make originally, Joe. 23 MR. KARAGANIS; You go back at look at one 20 24 (b) 6 notices that are outstanding just in the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaoo STLCOPCB4029836 20 ) 1 last eight months. 2 MR. FRU SHWALB: I understand. I have no ires 3 your request, we will respond to it. 4 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 5 Q. Mr. Papageorge, just so I can refer to 6 the program which is reflected in the letter to 7 Ryan of June 30, 1970, is that right? 3 A. What about the program? . 9 Q. The .program, that you were proposing. 10 A. Yes. 11 0. Okay. 12 I am directing your attention now, let's 13 see if I have this sequence down right. 1 4 In the plasticiser application you just 15 essentially cancelled sales of plasticizers. In 16 those plasticizer applications "where disposal of 17 th.e end products cannot be controlled;" is that 18 right? 19 A. Right. 20 Q. So you didn't close off all sales of 21 peb' s' to the plasticizer market, only those where 22 the end product could not be controlled, is that 23 right, in terms of disposal? 24 A, Well, *by Monsanto's definition, the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago ; STLCOPCB4029837 "> i n 1 plasticizer applications were perceived to be she 2 kind that eventually that material is going sc one3 up in the environment. That plastic article or 4 that floor tile or that coating, that paint, 5 eventually gets into the environment'. " 6 Therefore, by our definition, those were 7 the uses we were discontinuing. 8 Q. Tore there other uses of the plasticizer 9 applications .which continued? 10 A. The only one that continued for a brief 11 spell because we could not find a suitable 12 alternative quickly enough was the carbonless coov 13 paper application, which eventually was terminate.': 14 in early '71. 15 Q. So basically you thought that the 15 products containing the peb's would get out into 17 the environment and, therefore, that your sale of 1 8 the peb's for such applications had to be stopped; 19 is that right? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. Mow, with respect to the second part, .she * 22 second part of your program where applications of 23 chlorinated biphenyls were used as hydraulic 24 fluids, you say-, and I quote; Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4029838 211 1 "We are not satisfied 2 that it is possible to control 3 their usage and eventual 4 disposal to insure that there 5 is no possibility of escape to 6 the environment. We have 7 therefore have taken the 8 decision to reformulate such 9 fluids and.we are currently 10 working with our customers co 11 change over to these new 12 formulations. " 13 MR. FRUEHWALD: You are reading from Mr. 14 Mason's letter. 15 A. Yes, 16 BY MR. KARAGANIS; 17 Q. That was the program that you had 1 8 recommended, is it not? 19 . A. Yes. 20 Q. Would it be fair to say, then, chat you 21 were cutting off sales of chlorinated biphenyls in 22 the hydraulic market, because you could not be 23 satisfied that it was possible to control usage 24 and eventual disposal to insure that there is no Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029839 91 9 1 possibility of escape to the environment? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. Nov/, in the area of transformers, 4 capacitors and heat transfer fluids, I take it vcu 5 felt that it was possible to control their usage 6 and eventual disposal to insure that there is no 7 possibility of escape to the environment; is th:: 8 correct? 9 A. Yes,. . 10 0. That's the distinction between she two 11 areas, is it not? 12 A. Yes. 13 V-r~1 14 Q. I am sorry? A. That's correct. 15 Q. And I take it the way you were savins 15 that you control it was by collecting the scrap 17 Aroclor and either reprocessing it or incinerating 18 it; isn't that right? 19 A. That is one facet. 2 0 .Q. Okay. 21 A. The other is maintenance of equipment 22 using the material. 23 Q. Allright. 24 A. And it* was perceived by tionsanto with our Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 nicaqo STLCOPCB4029840 213 1 knowledge of the uses, that control of the 2 hydraulic fluids, and by control now I hope we 3 have the same definition here. Let me give you 4 Monsanto1 S 9 5 Control is very much the way th'b 6 government regulatory people control discharges 7 into the environment. It is not intended to be 8 zero. It is a feasible control. 9 0. It is that which you could do? 10 A. What is technically and economically 11 feasible to control. 12 Q. You knew that you could prevent it 13 from -- as you described your Anniston facility, 14 you could prevent this stuff from running down 15 sewer drains by collecting it; isn't that right:? 16 A. True. Rut this does not mean that a 17 molecule of peb didn't get away from us. 18 Q. But it does mean that you had control 19 devices in place, did you not? 20 A Q True. 21 . Q e Okay. 22 That you just didn't let it run down the 23 sewer; isn't that right? 24 A. That's- right. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4029841 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 0 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 21 Q. And, indeed, one of the principal control devices used for, first of all, the nhvsicn1 collection of the pcb's and any material than might actually get into the sewer would be ' subjected to a treatment device; isn't -that right? A. Yes. Q. And that treatment device typically included carbon filtration, didn't if? s A. Mot necessarily. Q. Some kind of filtration to catch the pcb's; isn't that right? A. The treatment device in a municipal treatment system was really the bacterial action. activated sludge system, and that is what -- Q. Which winds up contaminating one sludge; isn't that right? A. Well, there arc two things which happen. Some of the pcb's are destroyed by these bacteria. Q. And the rest are? Ao And the rest are entrapped in the sludge. Q. Which then becomes? A. And the proper disposal of the sludge becomes the next step. Q. Which .becomes a major problem, does io . -- Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029842 _j . 'i' ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 O1 D no t ? A. It is a challenge. I don't know, it in major only if it is mishandled. Q I'Jou 1 d you say that disposal of PC'? s 1 u dg a containing several hundred parts per' million is a problem in the sense that it creates a cost and a problem for the person having to dispose of the sludge ? A, It i^s an economic challenge. Cost, yes. Q. And an environmental cost, is it not? A. And environmental if it is put in the wrong place. Q. It can be a major environmental problem if put in the wrong place; isn't that right? A. Correct. Q. So would it be fair to say, then, than if you had the plasticizer industry, you felt you couldn't control the end product disposal, you cancelled sales to the plasticizer industry, if not immediately, with the carbon paper within a year; isn't that right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. With respect to the hydraulic fluids Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029843 21 ' 1 industry, you told them to switch over and you 2 essentially cancelled sales to she hydraulic 3 fluids industry because, in your wcccis, you could 4 not control the usage of the pcb fluics and 5 eventual disposal to insure that there was no 6 possibility of the escape to the environment; 7 isn't that right? <OJ A. That is true. Coupled with the 9 availability of a fire resistant replacement:. 10 Q. Now, with respect to the transformer 11 capacitor industry, we have already described thac 12 you had a basic program which said instead of 13 dumping your liquid Aroclor into the sewer or cue 14 into a landfill, we want it collected, and we wane 15 it brought back to Monsanto for either recycling 16 or destruction; isn't that right? 17 A. That's right. 1 3 Q. And that was a major requiremenc of your 19 program; isn't that right? 20 A. Yes. 21 MR. FRUEHWALD: It would be helpful if this 22 got slowed down a little bit so there was an 23 exchange rather than you jumping on the last 24 answer, Joe Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4029844 BY f'R . K A R A G A H IS : Q. With respect to the solids, you previously agreed that with respect to the solids the ideal goal was to incinerate the solids, but in the meantime the solids should hot go to any landfill, but should only go to landfills chat were licensed for talcing chemical industrial wastes; isn't that right? A. That's right. Q. So your program essentially was to continue sales if you could capture, recycle cr destroy the liquids and ultimately destroy the solids, solid waste products, but in the meantime store them at best ip a chemical waste landfill; isn't that right? A. And no acceptable alternative was available. That is important. Q. But even though there was no acceptable alternative available, you would only continue sales in those situations where you could recover the liquid, either recover it and process it or destroy it, and as to solids ultimately to destroy it; but in the meantime to licensed chemical waste landfills; isn'*t that right? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029845 1 A. That's right. 2 0. You didn't want it going down rowers; 3 isn't that right? 4 A. That's right. 5 Q. And just so I have this clear. 6 From a technological standpoint, in 1770 7 or any other time, it was possible, was it net, 8 prevent the material from going down sowers, 9 recovering the liquids and putting the solids at a 10 minimum in a licensed chemical waste landfill; 11 isn't that right? 12 A. It was technically feasible. Yes. 13 Q. And the whole idea, if we go through each 14 of those terms, the idea of the continued sales 15 was with this program of capturing the liquids, 16 recycle or destruction of the liquids, preventing 17 discharge down to the sewers, and only temporarily 1 8 in chemical waste landfills, the whole goal '..'as no 19 prevent the release of this material i;uo the 20 environment; isn't that right? 21 A. That's right. 22 (The document above-referred to 23 was marked Bloomington Deposition 24 E-xhibit No. 125 for identification.) Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029846 ~^ o 1 0. Directing your attention back to 122. 2 you recall writing to fir. Pool and asking for 3 information regarding requirements as to 4 landfills? 5 A. Ye s. - 6 Q. fir. Papageorge, I don't have, I am in 7 possession of the document from one source or n another, but I don ' t have it with me , but my 9 records s h o w that on. July 16, 1970 the State of 10 Indiana responded to you . If you have a copy of 11 that, Mike, I would- appreciate a copy. 1 2 MR. FRUEHWALD: I have one, I don't know if it 13 is in the room. 14 MR. KARAGANIS: But I am requesting it. 15 Q. Which basically stated that in response 16 to your letter, that liquid or hazardous wastes 17 are not acceptable for disposal by the landfill 18 method. 1 9 Do you recall getting that response? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Now, directing your attention to what has 22 been marked as Bloomington Deposition E:: h i b i a 125, 23 dated 7/22/70. Is that a memo from Randall 24 Graham? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chic are STLCOPCB4029847 20 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And it indicates that l'r . Orsha- and 3 yourself visited the Bloomington plane on .7/22/70. A Is that right? " 5 A. Y e s. ._ 6 Q. And would this be correct, that this was 7 a visit like the visit you made to South Boston., 0 that you had promised to come out and look n: oho o plant and recommend clean-up procedures? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. The memorandum, Exhibit 125, indicates 12 that you would follow up with correspondence- 13 concerning that matter. 14 Did you follow up with correspondence? 15 A. I don't recall. In some instances I was IS able to. In every case I intended to. In some 17 instances I was able tc. I don't recall this 1 8 specific one. 19 Q. It is correct, is it not, that you did 20 tour she plant and make recommendations regarcing 21 clean up? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Now, I want you to the best of your 24 recollection, d.id you have occasion to review Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029848 221 1 documents prior to your deposition or do you 2 recall documents reflecting what you saw and w h a t 3 recommendations you made? 4 A. I don't recall documents that help me 5 recall. But I do remember some of the points the: 6 I made to those. 7 Q.Allright. 8 VIhat do you recall seeing when you w er. t 9 through the plant? . 10 A. Well, I saw the unique use, unique in 11 terms of comparing to other similar plants of saw 12 dust on the floor. 13 Q. Unique use. 14 Let's describe, when you say unique use 15 of saw dust, what was happening in the 16 impregnation facilities, in the cleaning 17 facilities from the impregnation facilities? "hn: 1 8 was happening with regard to release of oeb's and 19 waters, for example, in the rooms themselves, in 20 the F 30 room? 21 A. I don't quite know how to answer chat. 22 There was a loss of peb fluid from the 23 conveying system, where the basket in which the 24 filled capacito-rs were conveyed to the point in Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029849 01 1 the process, where they are sealed. 2 It was apparent to me that at one time 3 their every intention was that the drip oar. a 4 underneath the conveyors was to collect eh e 5 material. And these drip pans in some places were 6 missing. In others they were shifted just enough 7 so that all of the oil wasn't trapped. 8 And even at the very end of this 9 collection system, the oil would just celiver tha10 trapped liquid on to the floor. 11 The entire area under the conveyors had 12 several inches of saw dust to help absorb aha free 13 liquid. Their washing step, anything that stands 14 out there in my mind is -- my great concern in 15 mixing water, peb's, further complicated by the 16 use of detergent, which would make recovery of 17 peb's extremely difficult, if not impossible. 18 Q. Well, as a matter of fact-, they had r.c 19 recovery system, did they, in the washing system? 20 A. I wasn't shown any recovery system. I 21 was shown where it entered a sewer inlet. I was 22 not told where that sev/er went. 23 Q. But the peb's in the washing water in the 24 waste went d i r e.c 11 y down into a sewer, did they Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029850 ' J .5 1 not? 2 A. Into a sewer . 3 Q. There was no treatment or capture A procedure at all, was there? 5 A. Not that I saw or was told. ' " 6 Q. Now, did you make any recommendation? 7 A. Yes . 8 My recommendation was to conduct their 9 operations in such a.way that their concrete floor 1 0 appeared to the everyday observer as bone dry. 11 And I knew it would take some doing, but I was 12 confident it can be done and, if necessary, revise 13 your drip systems in such a way that none of it 14 escapes onto that concrete floor. 1 5 Q, It wasn't bone dry when you visited, '..-as 16 it? 17 A. All I saw w a s soggy saw dust. 13 0. And to get soggy, there had to be peb's 1 9 on the floor to get the saw dust liquid, right? 20 A. Some liquid. 21 Q. There was clearly liquid dropping over 22 the capacitors over the conveyor belt on to the 23 floor; isn't that right? 24 A. That's* right. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029851 1 And outside they had bo::cars of saw use 2 ready. So that is why I call it unique. 3 I have never seen that. I hadn't seen in 4 before. I hadn't seen it since. So it is from my 5 vantage point unique. 6 Q. Now , just from your vantage point being 7 unique, that is a nice euphemism. 8 A. That is a euphemism? 9 Q. Let's put it this way. 10 Do you find it to be acceptable 11 environmental practice to soak up peb's with saw 12 dust that you drop on the floors and then cake 13 that saw dust out to an unlicensed chemical v: a s t o 14 landfill, a landfill chat isn't licensed fer 15 chemical waste? 16 A. No. I cannot support that. 17 Q. Do you find that acceptable to take out, 1 8 to soak it up with saw dust and to take it cut :c 19 a landfill that is built on sink holes and 20 fractured limestone? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Isn't it a fact that that is the practice 23 that had been followed by Westinghousc? 24 A. I hadn*'t heard the reference co sink Longoria & Goldstinc 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029852 225 ]_ holes. I recall some reference to fractures. ~ 2 Q. The problem with sink holes and fractured 3 limestone is it allows water to leak, does it? 4 A. Most likely, yes. \. 5 Q. So it is bad environmental practice to do 6 that; isn't that right? 7 A. That's right. 3 0 . Did you inquire where they '..'ere t a k i n g 9 the material? 10 A. We had discussions. 11 In fact, I recall some correspondence 12 regarding one of the landfills where-I expressed 13 my concern. I don't recall the specific location. 14 Q. The landfill that they were using? 15 A. It was referring to a quarry. 16 Q. If you have such correspondence, we would 17 ask for copies of it. 18 MR. FRUEHWALD: I don't know what that is. I 19 have no - 20 I have never seen what that describes, at 21 least as far as Westinghouse plant. Maybe some 22 other plant, we have not focus on. But I have 23 seen nothing of that nature. 2 4 A. I may .have confused my -- _ Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029853 226 1 BY HR. KARAGAHIS: 2 Q. it is very possible you didn't cor.fuse 3 it. That is why I would like you to go back ant 4 check your records. 5 A. All right. I am a little fuzzy" on chat. 6 But I remember a discussion about the kinds of , 7 landfills to look for, and I personally relict an 8 awful lot on the local authorities who issued 9 permits to establish.the proper geological 10 environment. 11 Q. If there wasn't a proper geologic 12 environment, by that you meant a proper geological 13 environment for a chemical waste landfill; is that 14 right? 15 A. Yes. A chemical waste landfill. Pot a 16 municipal sanitary landfill. 17 Q. That would be unacceptable for these 18 materials, isn't that correct? 19 A * That is correct. 20 21 . (The document above-referred to was marked Bloomington Deposition 2 2 Exhibit No. 126 for identification.) 23 Q. Directing your attention to a document 24 which has been -marked as Bloomington Exhibit No. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029854 1 125, da tc-d July 27 , 1270, 2 Are you familiar with that d o come r. t ? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Now, when you are talking about landfills 5 here, you would agree, would you not, that if 6 solids incineration were technically feasible, is 7 would be preferable to incinerate as opposed co 3 putting in the landfills; isn't that right? 9 A. Y e s . 10 Q. I am sorry? 11 A. Yes. ' 12 Q. And with respect to landfills, even as a 13 temporary solution, those would have to be 14 landfills that wore geologically designed chemical 15 waste landfills? isn't that right? 16 A. That's right. 17 Q. Mow, in the trade sometimes the worm 1 8 sanitary landfills is used synonymously wich 19 municipal landfills. 20 A. That1s right. 21 Q. Are you referring to municipal-type 22 landfills or are you talking specifically lie on. sod 23 chemical waste landfills? 24 A. In my *mind it is licensee industrial ' Longoria & Goldstine 235 103C Chicago STLCOPCB4029855 o2 1 waste landfills. 2 Q. Industrial for chemical wastes; is that 3 right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. So when somebody in the trade might say a 6 sanitary landfill, a local municipal landfill, you 7 would not be talking about that, 'would you, as OJ being acceptable? 9 A. No.. - 10 It is not the landfill to which household 11 garage is taken. 12 Q. It is a special landfill, is char, rignt? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And you agree that these chemical waste 15 landfills should not be near water systems, near 16 any groundwater situation where there could be- 17 leakage into the groundwater; is that right? 13 A. That is true and that is what I intended 19 with the first paragraph. 20 Q. Let me just ask you something. 21 I know some people will take this 22 perspective. Why couldn't you just find a local 23 sandy stretch of land and take liquid peb's and 24 just pour it on* to the sand and hope that, in your Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029856 1 words, the pcb's will cling to the solids 2 tenaciously? 3 A. I wan t to be assured that sa nd won' z 4 move, taking the pcb with it. It will cling 5 tenaciously. But there is nothing to keep char 6 sand particle front being moved by wind or water or 7 excavation. 8 Q. Indeed, in fractured subsurface material o that sand particle could moved in fractured 10 subservice cavities, could it not? 11 A. Water could come along, pick up that 12 grain of sand with pcb and move it somewhere. 13 Q. And the fact is also that pcb's will a 1s a 14 release as a soluble component, will they not, 15 from the soil? 16 A. I don't understand. 17 . Q. If I have a grain of sand sitting in 1 8 water and it has a molecule of pcb adsorbed onto 19 that grain of sand, is there any potential for 20 release or resolubilization of that pcb? 21 A. The potential is there, but unlikely. 22 Q. Well, then, if your theory is correct, 23 and if if you poured pcb's on top of a mound of 24 soil, you shouldn't find pcb's in solution below Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029857 1 the mound; isn't that right? 2 A. I would have to know more about tha z 3 whole system. Pcb' s will dissolve in wstar uc to i\ a given point. 5 Q. Do you recall that 1 242 has a tolub.il icy 6 limit of 200 parts per billion? 7 A.. About: that. Yes. \nj So if I had sand with pcb1 s attached zo 9 it, then ran water through, it, I could, under a h c 10 right conditions of time and temperature and all, 11 some of that pcb will find its way innc that 12 water. 13 And if the water moves on and, of course, 14 it will go with it. The chances, however-, arc 15 that if the water moves, it will more likely sake 16 that sand particle v; i t h it, with she higher 17 concentration of pcb. 18 Q. So it can take the contaminated solid 1 9 particle as well as the soluble fraction, isn'e 20 that right? 21 A. That's correct. 22 And find its way in the environment, 23 where some creature, fish or what have you, might 24 live in it and .digest it. Longoria &Goldstine 2361030 Chicago - STLCOPCB4029858 "7 1 1 Q. Or into a public water supply or veil 2 water supply or whatever, is that right? 3 A. Whatever. 4 0. So for those reasons it was important so 5 prevent the liquid from getting out into"the 6 environment and put the solids on a temporary 7 basis in well designed industrial chemical waste 8 landfills; isn't that right? 9 A. That's right. 10 Q. Let me show you what has previously beer, 11 marked as I believe Exhibit 77, Bloomington 12 Exhibit 77, which is a sales contract dated June 13 22, 1970. Signed by Donald Olson of Monsanto and 14 Kenneth Tyson of I'Jestinghouse. 15 Did you have any hand in drafting the 15 language or coming up with the concepts involved 17 in. this contract? 1-8 A. No. 19 . Q. Are you familiar with contract clause 20 that was added in this contract? 21 A. No. I first saw this document recently, 22 in preparation for this deposition. 23 Q. Consistent with the policy that was 24 announced in or. adopted in May of 1970, by the Longoria SGoldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029859 management committee, did the you limit your future sales in these systems h: r you could control release to a contractual be sis where you could terminate the contract if voi: 5 found that you couldn't control the release? 6 A. No. 7 Q. What would you do about what I will call 8 the bad actor? Let's assume that there was 9 someone who w_as continuing to release, this is a 10 capacitor manufacturer or transformer 11 manufacturer, that Had very sloppy plant practice1 2 ana was continuing the release in the environment 13 Isn't this what Exhibit 77 was intordcc 14 to protect against? 1 5 A. That is what it indicates, yes. Yes. 16 You asked me what I would do. 17 Q You beina Nonsanto 18 Monsanto 1 9 Q. So Exhibit 77, based on your knowledge, 20 is a mechanism to control the situation, if she 21 customer did not clean up its act, was operating 22 using sloppy practices and you observed this, you 23 could pull the product? isn't that right? 24 A. That i*s what it does, yes. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 ^r.icaci STLCOPCB4029860 23 3 1 Q. Mow, you indicated that you made c o r t::n 2 recommendations to the Bloomington plant wish 3 respect to getting the drips taken care of. 4 Did you make any recommendation w i c h 5 respect to the washer system? - 6 . A. Yes. 7 The recommendations there were to avoid 8 any contact with water, to seriously consider 9 using an organic solvent, v/hich can be inciner: :;c. 10 along with any pcb's that it extracts or wash:-.; 11 off of the units as it degreases. 12 0. Did you talk about any program, for - 13 Did you talk about any proqram than would 14 involve filtration of the wash water? 15 A. We had a discussion as I remember on 16 possible techniques that could be tested to sea if 17 their wash water could be treated adequately. 18 We discussed the possibility of 19 considering carbon bed treatment. The though a 20 chat perhaps using mechanical means like 21 centrifuges might help. But we could not, of 22 course, in one day's time come up with solutions. 23 These v/ere some thoughts that we loft with them no 24 pursue. . Longoria & Golastine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029861 9 7 ,4 1 0. Was there to be follow up on this as to 2 what they did? ' 3 A. Yes. We both offered cc continue :i:;; . 4 dialogue. 5 Q. And to your knowledge, when did you G follow up? 7 A. Oh, I don't know that there is n v fl specific date. Randy Graham had the nssionm. cnt 9 for the primary contact. 10 There were some discussions between cur 11 analytical people and the Wes tinghouse to owle 12 regarding the effectiveness of centrifuging, where 13 our laboratories analyzed some of their samples. 14 We indicated to them that we dien't think 15 it was good enough. I remember that kino of 16 dialogue occurring. 17 I believe we sent them copies of a 1 3 Monsanto report on how effective carbon beds might 19 be in treating water. And, as I remember, at on- 20 time they changed their way of charging the lieu in 21 into their units. 22 Q. Did you ever go back and see whether they 23 used a different method of charging on a permanent 24 basis? ` Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chie a go STLCOPCB4029862 1 A. I didn't personally see it. 3o. 4o Q . Did you ever go back e o see whenever eh. o y 3 installed at the plant? 4 A. No. I didn't get the chance. I her': ' 5 every intention to, but-\ 6 Q. You never got back? - 7 A. I never got back. OO Q. So you wanted to go back and sac w h cm o r 9 or not they had followed your r e c emme nda a i c n a , bur 10 you never had a chance to get back there, is chat 11 right? 12 A. Thatistrue. 13 Q. Did you know that they never did a ny a nin g 14 with the washer system? 15 MR. FRUEHNALD: I am going to object: to that:. 16 That question is assuming a fact not in 17 evidence. 10 MR. KARAGAMIS: Sure. It is discovery. I am 19 going to put that fact in evidence, 20 MR. FRUEHWALD: I don't believe it is a fact. 21 I believe it is as contested fact. So you are 22 assuming a fact. 23 MR. KARAGANISs So let's find out. 24 Q. Is there any evidence that they ever did Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029863 1 anything with the washer system? 2 MR. FRUEHWALD: I believe there is. 3 MR. KARAGANIS: What? There would be a A revelation to me. 5 MR. FRUEHWALD: I am not going to go through 5 this at this time. But the documents indicate 7 that there were things done. We don't have zc Oc argue this on the record. I am just objecting to 9 your assuming^, telling the witness that ncching 10 was done as if it were a fact. 11 MR. KARAGANIS: I asked about a specific 12 facility. The washer system. Are you saying for 13 the record that they did something with the washer 14 system? 15 MR. FRUEHWALD: The documents indicate they 16 did. 17 MR. KARAGANIS: I must confess -18 MR. FRUEHWALD: If you haven't r ead. If y o u 19 .can't see it in the documents, then I am noc going 20 to try to convince you about it. I am stating my 21 obj ection. 22 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 23 0. Mr. Papageorge, when you talked :o the 24 you talked abou-t a program that would take them Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029864 1 down to low levels with carbon filtration, o not, in the washer system? 3 Low levels of wha t ? 4 Low levels of peb emissions with resnect 5 tocarbonfiltration? '" 6 A. That was the intent. Yes. 7 0. Do you know if they ever installed earner, n'j filtration? 3 A . I was not t p 1 c! that they had. 10 Q. I would like to make a request for a 11 document relating to this time period which 12 relates to a press release that would have- been on 13 or about July 15, 1970 by Monsanto doscribinc :ho 14 program that was announced to Mr. Ryan. 15 MR. FRUEHWALD: I will note your requeue. 1 16 will check. 17 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 13 Q. I am sorry. 1 9 Mr. Papageorge, you indicated earlier 20 wnen the incinerator finally got into operation. 21 Do you recall when that was? This is at the 22 Kummrich plant. 23 A. Yes. 1971 . 24 (The document above-referred to Longoria SGoldstine 2361030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029865 23 ? 1 '.fas marked Bloomington Deposition 2 Exhibit Mo. 127 for identification.) 3 Q. Directing your attention to what has been . 4 marked as Exhibit 127, do you recall w r i t i r. g ah-at 5 document? - 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Would I by correct in saying that your 3 advice then and today would be,"dumping into 9 sewers or in the waste water systems muse to 10 avoided " ? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And that turning to page 2, would it be 13 correct that you did have an incineration program, 14 underway for the destruction of solid materials, 1 5 you had a research program? 16 A. Research program. Yes. 17 Q. And indeed research, and let's take i: 1 3 further, you had an engineering program under'..ay, 19 did you not? 20 A. Well, I don't know how, what you mean by 21 engineering. 22 Q. It says a research and engineering 23 program underway. But a solution is not 24 anticipated for. a year. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029866 23 n 1 A. All right. Yes. 2 Q. Did you ever develop a solid v; a s t e 3 destruction system? A A. V a 3 5 0. Is it in operation now? 6 A . No. 7 Q . T7hy not? 0 A . lie could not find enough support for the 9 use of that unit to justify building it. 10 Q. Not enough customer base? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. But it is technically feasible, is it 13 not? 1 4 A. lie demonstrated it. Yes. 15 Q. So that the goal of destroying solid 16 wastes through -- peb contaminated solid wastes 17 through incineration, has been demonstrated cc 18 technically feasible, isn't that correct? 19 A. Yes, 20 (The document above-referred to 21 was marked Bloomington Deposition 22 Exhibit No. 128 for identification.) 23 Qo Directing your attention to what has been 24 marked as Exhibit 128, which is a trip report Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago ^7 STLCOPCB4029867 _J ) ' - ' ... 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 r e g a r d i ng a meeting in Washir.gton. o f Sent om b a r 15, 1 970 . "emor ancum bcing of fopton b c r 22, 127". Do you recall attending that r. : i n *' ? A. Yes Q. This was a discussion with the PDA wish regard to the health studies; isn't that right? A. Correct. Q. Would it be fair to say that one of purposes of the studies of the rats and the was' to decide whether or not if they had adverse effects, that that would be an indicator of adverse effects on humans; isn't that right? A. Yes. (The documents above-referred . - c were marked Bloomington Penosit ion Exhibit Mos. 129 and 130, respectively, for identification.) Q. Directing your attention to what has beer, marked as Exhibit 129, Deposition Exhibit "c. 122, which is a letter from Randall Graham to Hanson of Westinghouse, dated October 12, 1970. Are you familiar with that document? A. I don't recall seeing this document:. Q. Do you* recall, was there a switch as Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chisago STLCOPCB4029868 n 41 1 which point you stopped paying Uc stinghouse bun 2 continued to accept their wastes but new charge b 3 then for it? 4 Vie had described a program up through ' 5 and part of '70, where Westinghouse was shipping 6 its recoverable Aroclor, scrap Aroclor; you weald 7 pay them for the scrap Aroclor? 8 A. I recall that, yes. 9 Q. Did that program ever shift into a 10 program where Westinghouse had to pay you? 11 A. Yes. . 12 About mid-1970, when the plans for 13 building an incinerator were approved and final, 1 4 firm, we informed all customers, inducing 1 5 Westinghouse, that the fee would be the 3 cents a 16 pound mentioned in this memo. 17 Q. Okay. 18 So up until this time you had been using 19 the Findett mechanism to control the peb's through 20 partial recovery, and then you indicated you wore 21 storing material that couldn't be recovered? 22 A. That is true. And the Findett 23 application was not used by all customers. It was 24 limited to a'fe.w. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 STLCOPCB4029869 _J 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 n 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 o*o Q. Monsanto was using or, I an sorry. Westinghouse Bloomington was using the Pine!err application, wasn't it? . A. From the letters we saw, yes. Q. So with regard to the -- as of the October 12, '70 date, was the Findctt mechanism still in operation? A. I don't think so. Mo. Q. Directing your attention to the nc:;: exhibit, Exhibit Mo. 130, which is also dared October 12, 1970, from Papngeorge to Stalling. Did you write that letter? A. Yes. Q. Again, we are talking about the con or cl program you previously described, which is to o e c all the liquids back, and the only way chat che solids should be taken care of is temporarily through industrial chemical waste landfill and ultimately with incineration, isn't that correct? A. That's right. O. You didn't want it being released into the environment; isn't that right? A. That is correct. (The document above-referred to Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane ^ STLCOPCB4029870 OA 1 was marked Bloomington Deposition 2 Exhibit Mo. 131 for i cl a n t i f i c r. i c r.. ) 3 Q. Directing your attention to w h a c ha:; been 4 marked as Exhibit 131, Blooming ton Exhibit: Me. 5 131, dated October 16 , 1 970 from Rar. da'll Graham 6 enclosing a letter sent to Monsanto customers. 7 Are you familiar with that document? 3 A. I recall this document. Yes. 9 Q. Directing your attention to the first 10 letter, that is attached to the Graham cover 11 memorandum. The first letter reflects the fact 12 that Monsanto will deal with the disposal pr obi am 13 by means of an incinerator at a charge per pour.-;; 14 isn't that right? 15 A. That's right. 15 Q. The second letter is a letter saving that 17 no. longer can you dump scrap or spent transformer 18 askarel down the sewer. For this reason, Monsanto 19 is building an incinerator; is that right? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. All right. 22 The fact is, is it net, this whole 23 program that you developed of collection and of i 24 the liquids, storing them until the incinerator Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029871 1 could be ready, sending the solids to a c her, lea I o waste landfill as a prelude to having an "W5> incinerator ready, there was nothing that 4 prevented that from being installed earlier, i:: n ' z 5 that right? 6 There was no technical limitation, to 7 having done that several years earlier, is the c 8 right? 9 A. To prevent installation of what? 10 Q. Of either the incinerator of the liquids 11 or the incinerator for the solids. There is r.c 12 technical problem with that, is there? 13 A. No. But - 14 0. Nobody did it, isn't that right? 1 5 A. Nell, first of all, no one perceive'.'; aha 16 need for it. 17 And, secondly, until we conducted ahe 18 tests, we didn't -- we weren't sure that it was 19 technically feasible. 20 Q. The fact is that had you gone out and 21 tested, you proved that it was technically 22 feasible; isn't that right? 23 A. That is true. 24 Q. You co*uld have gone out and done the Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029872 t40 1 tests earlier; isn't that right? 2 A. That is hindsight. Yes. 3 Q. But in hindsight, you could have cor.e 4 earlier, isn't that correct? 5 A. Y e s . - 5 Q. There was no technical burden or 7 impossibility or hurdle that prevented you from 8 either conducting the tests or demon strati .nc t h 9 feasibility; _isn't that right? 10 A. In hindsight, there was none, yes. 11 Q. Again, as I would say to you, let's ta 12 liquids alone, liquids at a minimum could have- 13 been stored and solids could have gone to liter, 14 chemical waste landfills, isn't that correct? 15 A. As a minimum? 16 Q. Ye: 17 A. Yes 10 Q. Even without incineration, isn't that 19 right? 20 A. Yes . 21 , Q. Had that program been installed earlier, 22 either storage of the solids or storage of the 23 liquids or sending the solids to chemical waste 24 landfills, that- material would not have been Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chica ac STLCOPCB4029873 1 poured down sewers and disposed of in m u n i c i a 1 2 landfills, isn't that correct? 3 A. That is true. Once the need to or evens, 4 than from happening was understood. Yes. 5 Q. Well, let me ask you something from one 6 standpoint of Monsanto's policy. 7 Did you ever recommend or allow people :: 3 dump either liquid or solid pcb contaminated 9 material in local municipal landfills, was that an 10 accepted practice at any time by Monsanto? 11 A. No. Rut then it was never discussed. 12 Q . 77 ait a minute. 13 Let's go back a minute to discussion in 14 terms of the general industry or specific cui.. anas 1 5 by Monsanto in terms of the disposal of Aroclors 16 or askarels. 17 Did Monsanto ever give advice with 18 respect to disposal? 1 9 A. At what point in time? i 20 Q. At any time. I mean prior to the 1963 21 period. 22 A. NO. 23 Q. Never gave advice? 24 A. No. Longoria & Golds tine 23 6 1 0 3 0 Chicago STLCOPCB4029874 2 47 1 Q. To ycur knowledge? 2 A. That's right. 3 Q. Okay. 4 And had it given advice, based on '..'hat 5 you have known after thirty years or forty years 6 in this business, would it have been in sound 7 practice at any time, even what was known at that 8 time, to pour peb's down the drain? 9 A. Uo. _ It wou1d not have been sound 10 practice. ' 11 Q. All right. 12 Would it have been sound practice to 13 contain those liquids; isn't that right? 1 4 A. Just like all industrial chemical a, yea. 15 0. And it would not have been sound practice 16 to send industrial chemicals such as peb's over to 17 the local municipal landfill; isn't that right? 1 8 A. That is true. 19 . Q. That was true at any state of knowledge 20 with respect to peb's at any point in time in its 21 manufacture; isn't that right? 22 A. That is true. 23 Q. Let me direct your attention to Frchibit 24 No. 50. Do you* recall attending a meeting -- I on Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4029875 243 1 sorry. 61 . 2 Do you recall attending a meeting wits 3 Nestinghouse personnel in St. Louis on October 4 29th and 30th of 1970? 5 A. Yes. '" 6 Q. And do you recall the discussions -.h:: 7 took place at that meeting? 3 A. In a general way. Yes. o Q. What was discussed? . 10 A. Oh, peb's and pollution problems and the 11 need to control and the new peb 1016 that ;.'as- 12 going to be introduced. 13 And, of course, the technical people- 14 talked about other scientific matters relating :c 15 capacitors. 1 5 Q. Did you discuss the need to control and 17 the fact that Honsanto could pull the product if 1 8 there wasn't adequate control under the contract 19 that came in in June of 70? 20 A. That did not come up at this meeting. 21 Q. The contract didn't come up or the need 22 to control didn't come up? 23 A. No. The contract wording that says if 24 you don't control we will stop selling. That was Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029876 1 not raised 2 Q . You did discuss the fact chat vou had 3 initiated a program among other things of clans 4 visitations to initiate control procedures, si; 5 you not? - 6 A. Yes, sir. These folks knew it. They 7 were part of that. 3 Q. Directing your attention to 3:: hi hit 9 How, the existing contract, are you 10 familiar with Exhibit 44, which is a letter cate-:. 11 November 9, 1970 from Gossage to Kelly? 12 A. I saw it here recently in preparation for 13 this deposition. 14 Q. Do you recall that the contract, the then 15 existing contract, was expanded from 1242 t: 16 include 1232? 17 A. That is what it says and this confirms it 13 it, yes. 1 9 Q. This letter indicates there was 20 discussion of the contract at the meeting in St. 21 Louis on October 30, is that right? 22 NR. FRU E HT'J ALD; That is Nr. Gossage' s meeting 23 with Mr. Kelly. 24 BY MR. KARAGAN IS: Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029877 n~ 1 -as there a meeting or. October the 3 C t h 2 with a number of individuals which include-: 3 0ossago arc. Kelly? 4 A. 7e can speculate. 5 I would submit to you cnis topic, if if 6 did come up, as indicated by this letter, nrc'oably 7 came up at the dinner the night before :ho 8 meeting, which would have been the more 9 appropriate audience. 10 Q. Mow, is it correct, would this be 11 Monsanto policy as to 1232, that Mostingheune w:a 12 required to, quote, "prevent the product from 13 entering into the environment through spills, 14 leakage, disposal vaporisation or otherwise, " 15 directing your attention to the second parsers-:h ? 15 A. Yes. 17 You say is it Monsanto's poliev. 18 Q. Was it Monsanto's policy at tree time? 19 A. I personally can't speak to that. 20 Q. Was it your policy at the time? 21 A. No. 22 Q. But it was Monsanto's policy in the 23 November 9, 1970 letter, was it not? 24 A, That i*s Mr. Gossage's policy. I do Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chico STLCOPCB4029878 ]_ know that I can call it Monsanto's. I have nc 2 information to tell me that. 2 Q. 17e 11, this v/as an official document k A Monsanto with respect to the conditions on:.or 5 which they would sell the product; isn't that 6 right? 1 A. Yes. 8 Q. This is corporate policy as to the sale 9 of the product, is it not from the seller to the 10 customer? isn't that right? 11 A. I don't know that it is corporate polic; 12 Q. It is the company position, is it not? 13 A. Yes. 14 0. Thank you. 1 5 By it, I mean the correspondence from. 16 Gossage to Kelly. By it I mean the Exhibit 44. 17 A. Yes. 1 8 Q. Okay. 1 9 Me talked about you visiting the 20 Bloomington plant in I believe it was July of 21 1970. Isn't that correct? 22 A. Yes, 23 Q. Do you recall visiting again? 24 A. No. I* did not go back. Longoria & Goldstine 235 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4029879 _J . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 (The document shove-referred to was marked Bloomination Poposiricn Exhibit Mo. 132 for identification.) Q. Directing to your attention no whet hoc been marked as Exhibit 132, which is dated 11/4/70 and is a handwritten memorandum from Pickett to Rissinger. I am now reading the first paragraph.. I quote : __ "Monsanto personnel associated with Inerteen control are visiting Westinghouse on Tuesday, November 10. They wish to "tour the F 30 area and see control conditions at Bloomington." Do you recall seeing the memorandum, not the memorandum, do you recall the visit? . A. I believe I know which visit they arc referring to, yes. Q. Did you participate in that visit? A. No. Q. Who attended that visit? A. Randal'l Graham, I believe Paul Per. ignus. .-to Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane ^ STLCOPCB4029880 1 M R. FRUEI"TALD: I thin!; you have- a repo:: cn o that visit. 3 I think it is [Jr. Graham and hr. G :s:r.r , 4 instead of Mr. Benignus. 5 MR. KARAGANIS: It indicates that ,'!r". Benignus 6 was there as well. 7 Q. To your knowledge the attenuoes wera whom 8 again? 9 A. Randall Graham for sure, and he had I 10 thought Mr. Benignus with him. But it could have 11 been Mr. Gossage, who had just recently been civ an 12 that assignment and was making visits to many 13 customers to become acquainted with them.. 14 Mr. Gossage could well have been there 1 5 also. . 16 Q. Do you recall what the recommendations 17 that were made were with respect to the Ir.crtc :r. 1 3 control? 1 9 A. As I recall, the report came back to :? 20 that improvement had been made since the July 21 visit, and that the plant still had a way to go 22 and was actively working on better control of 23 escaped peb's into the environment. 24 Q. You used some terms that I would like so Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicaco STLCOPCB4029881 1 ask a bo u 2 Improvement from whac? r7hat w a s beater 3 in November of '70 than had existed in July? "r. r. r 4 was wrong in July that had been improved upon in 5 November? ~ 6 A. Well, the saw dust was no longer being 7 used, was not visible. On Q. You didn't consider the saw dust a good 9 practice, did you? . 10 A. That is correct. 11 0. Okay. 1 2 A. The drip pans were maintained better, 13 such that they performed the function they w o r e 14 intended to perform. 15 0. Anything else? 16 A. I can't recall a specific. 17 They still had a way to go regarding 18 their wash water system. And there was still seme 19 .questions regarding the land disposal sites. 20 Q. Was that reflected at all in a memorar.c.a 21 or was that in an oral report to you? 22 A. I certainly got a telephone report from 23 Mr. Graham. I think I recall a call report. If 24 not a call repo-rt, it was a letter from a Monsanto Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029882 n 1 Q. Were there continuing inspection:' to 2 whether there was progress on their goal cr a 3 to go? A A. I believe so, yes. 5 Q. And were there reports on that progress 6 written up? 7 A. I do not remember the specific reports. 3 (The document above-referrsc :o a was marked Bloomington Dupe si tier. 10 Exhibit Wo. 133 for identification.) 11 Q. Directing your attention to Exhibit 13 12 which is a memorandum from Seifert to Mounts and 13 Papageorge. 14 Can you tell me who Seifert was? 15 A. Robert Seifert was a Monsanto engin.ee-r 16 working in Monsanto's corporate engineering 17 department, reporting to Robert Mounts, his 13 supervisor. 1 9 Q. And is it correct that this memo 20 basically concludes with successful incineration 21 of solid wastes? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. By solid wastes, I mean solid wastes 24 contaminated wi.th peb's? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Ch ii STLCOPCB4029883 1 A. That's right. T Q. So that's consistent again with your 3 earlier testimony that solid waste incineration or 4 peb contaminated materials was feasible cr is 5 feasible? " 6 A. That's right. 7 Q. Are you familiar with a paper by Lire :: 3 and Vadden of Monsanto entitled "Askarels, environmental pollution"? 10 A. Yes. !7e had a copy of it this nor n i ng . 11 It is one of che exhibits, I believe. 12 0. I don't think so. 13 MR. FRUEHT7ALD: There is something in hero, 1 4 but I don't think it was that. Me have looked 15 through the statement of documents. That - a mar is 16 not amongst them. 17 MR. KARAGANI5: Our copy of the Ligett a au 10 Vadden paper comes from Westinghouse and it is a 1 9 bad film copy. If you have a good copy, I would 20 appreciate a copy of it. 21 MR. FRU EIIWALD; I have a good copy. I think 22 Mr. Papageorge was remembering that in this room 2 3 yesterday I showed him that document, so I third: 24 that is maybe t-he connection he is making. Longoria & Goldstine 236 193 0 C k i c r. : e STLCOPCB4029884 1 MR. KARAGANIS: Again I woulc reiterate r.y 2 request that the documents that Hr. Papaceorr.-. has 3 seen in preparation for a 30 (b) 6 deposition br. 4 shown to us. 5 MR. F R U E H !7 A L D : I hear you and my response is 6 the same. 7 MR. KARAGANIS: 7hat is your response? You 8 said you would consider it or you are denying ia o or refusing? . 10 MR. FRUEHUALD: I am refusing at this sine. 11 BY MR. KARAGANIS: 12 Q. Mr. Papageorge, directing your atte 13 to what has been marked as Exhibit 134, which is a 14 memorandum dated January 26, '71 from Randall 15 Graham to Papageorge, are you familiar wish than 16 document? 17 A. Yes. 1 0 (The document above-referred to 1 9 was marked Bloomington Deposition. 20 Exhibit Mo. 134 for identification.) 21 Q, And directing your attention to page 2, 22 with respect to the scrap, would you describe what 23 it says with respect to the Bloomington sgrao? 24 A, Scrap?. Longoria & Goldstine 235 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029885 1 A. Underneath the designation :ic stir, g h o u n e , Bloomington, there are six categories of scran 3 listed. Number 1 is reclaieablc, high purity, A. shov/n as 9 , 90 0 gallons as liquid. 5 Under 2 is nonreclaimable, 3,300 callcns. 6 Number 3, Puller's earth, listed under solids, 7 42,000 pounds. n Nr. Papageorge, my ouescion is in terms o of available disposal techniques, this is a list 1 0 here with respect to Bloomington; docs the 11 reclaims ble mean that it can go through something 1 2 like the Findett process to be used again? 13 A. That is the way I would interpret that. 14 Yes . 15 Q. Nonreclaimable would be liquid for 16 storage and ultimate incineration, right? 17 A. Correct. 1 3 Q. And then as to the solids, you wculu 19 agree that on all of these solids you had 20 demonstrated the feasibility of solid incineration 21 technology, is that correct? 22 A. That's right. 23 0. That even if you didn't incinerate, if 24 .was improper to. send solids, contaminated solids Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4029886 1 to a typical municipal landfill, but should 2 instead go to a licensed industrial w a n a e 3 landfill? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Here you ever informed prior to this 6 deposition today or prior to preparing for this 7 deposition today, that you, as the person in. 3 charge of environmental control, peb q contamination, had the authority or that the 10 company had the authority to cease supplying 11 product to Westinghouse, if they continued to loaf, 12 into the environment? 13 A. No. 14 f). But you do acknowledge, having seen, tar. 15 contract, that you did have such authority? 16 MR. FRUEHWALD: Let me interpose, that is a 17 legal question which I think even a 30 Co) 3 1 8 witness does not have to answer. 19 . So I am going to impose an objection and 20 instruct the witness to not answer chat quo scion. 21 . Whether the company had authority 22 pursuant to a contract is a legal matter. 23 MR. KARAGANIS: Forget what the legal 24 implications ar*e. Longoria & Golastine 236 1030 Chicane: STLCOPCB4029887 ) 1 1 In layman's terms, we r e v o u ever zoic 2 that the company, Monsanto, had oh e a u th o rit t to 3 cancel sales of peb's if you, as head, of neb environmental management, dotorminch char 5 Westinghousc was not preventing the release into 6 the environment? 7 A. I was never told that. 'To. q Q. As a layman, having seen the document, 9 would it be ycur interpretation as a layman, r.c t 10 as a lawyer, that that document, the contract, 11 gave you the authority to cease selling peb's? 12 HR. PROEIIWALDs Okay. 13 I am going to interpose the objection. 1 4 His layman's opinion about a document of that 15 nature is irrelevant. It can only have level 15 significance and as a result the question cocs not 17 need to be answered. 18 I will instruct him not to a n s v: c r , a 19 layman's opinion as to that document. 20 MR. KARAGANIS: I would suggest to you that at 21 Texaco recently found out, and as this jury is 22 going to find out, that document is going to go to 23 the jury as to whether or not Monsanto had the 24 ability. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029888 ~ 'T 1 1 NR. FRUEHWALD: . Indiana questions of con. trace 2 interpretation are for the court. We '/ill see. 3 But at any rate, this witness is net qualified to state opinions on that. 5 HR. KARAGANIS: Give me a 30 (b) 5 who is. 6 HR. FRUEHWALD: I am not going to give you anv 7 witness who is going to testify about the local 8 authorization of a document. 9 M R . KARAGANIS: You developed a contrac 10 clause and you said you are the one who tea 11 i t to be in the contract . And we have sent 12 30 (b) 6 notice to tell us whose was th ere. 13 MR . FRUEHWALD: Tell us what? 1 4 MR . KARAGANIS: Who was there, wh c c o n " 15 had knowledge of, the sales practices, the l-o distribution practices, the disposal p r a c t i c : s. , 17 the pollution control practices. 18 That contract happens to be one of ycur 19 key pollution control practices. It is the hears 20 of your program. 21 . HR. FRUEHT7ALD: In your opinion. 22 HR. KARAGANIS: Well - 23 MR. FRUEHWALD: That's not Mr. Papagcorcs's 24 opinion or necessarily the company's opinion. Longoria & Goldstine 235 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029889 1 MR. KARAGANIS Ok 2 It just happened to be and accidental 3 afterthought that somebody scribbled on a oiecec 4 paper. 5 MR. FRUEH67ALD: I am not here to argue about 6 these things, Joe. Mr. Papageorge is c.oing who t 7 he can to do. tO/ MR. KARAGARIS: I agree. n MR. FRUEH17ALD: ye can't bring witnesses in 10 minute by minute. 11 Cover what you you can with him.. '? o v; i 12 see what is left. That was Monsanto, remember. 13 Don't get mad at me or Mr. Papageorge because h : 14 doesn't know everything. 15 MR. KARAGANIS: I am not getting mad at Mr. 16 Papageorge. I will say I am more than a bit 17 surprised at the company's position that that 13 contract was not a significant part of its 19 program. 20 MR. FRUEHWALD: That may not be the company': 21 position. But it is not this witness' capability, 22 to tell you that. 23 (A short recess was taken.) 2 4 BY MR. KARAGANIS: Longoria & Gcldstine 236 1030 Chic: :o STLCOPCB4029890 u`\ A 1 Q. M r Papageorgo, directing your attention 2 to what has been marked as Exhibit S3, Flooninctc r. 3 Exhibit 63, are you familiar with that document?, 4 This is the letter of April 5, 71 from "c r g e n to 5 r> e 11 v . 6 A. I don't recall it. 7 0. Directing your attention to the roferonc"; rOv in the second paragraph, "Enclosed for your 9 confidential ^information is an internal draft of 10 policies and procedures for environmental 11 compatibility. " ' 12 Do you recall what those were? 13 A. No, I don't. I don't know what he is 14 referring to there. 15 MR. KARAGANIS: Again, I believe we have 16 requested these before, Mike. 17 MR. FRUEHWALD: I believe w looked and c o u 1 8 not determine what they './ere, or locate a n y t h i n 19 that would fit that description Sol',./ill mak 20 nooe that you have renewed the request, but I 21 believe we have looked and can' t find a nv thine 22 that fits that description, or that we can 23 identify to be the document referred to. 24 Your request is forever memorialised op Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029891 1 the exhibit 2 MR. KARAGAMI5: Yes. 3 (The document abova -referred :c 4 v/ as marked R looming ton Deposition 5 Exhibit No. 135 for identification.) 5 Q. Directing you are the attention cc what 7 has been marked as Exhibit No. 135. I would ask 8 if you have in your files a clean copy of the 9 Chemical Week, Exhibit 135, which is a Chemical 10 Week article from April 21, 1971? . 11 Would it be fair to characterize your 12 work as that have a pollution cop? 13 A. Not if it means I had authority to arrest 1 4 anyone. 1 5 Q. Your job was to check on the Non sen to 16 customers to whom you were still selling peb's to 17 make sure that their environmental control 10 practices were consistent with ycur policies; 1 9 isn't that right? 20 A. My job was to advise other Monsanto 21 people on how they in turn could relate to their 22 customer s. 23 Q. And to see whether or not they wore 24 releasing peb's- into the environment; isn'c than Longoria & Goldstine 236 103G Chicago - STLCOPCB4029892 _J 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 ' . 24 right? A. I did not personally have to worked through a team of people. 0. All right. . But you were in charge of a ream that wa checking to see whether the customers to whom you continued to sell peb's were releasing inco th;environment, is that right? A. I was not in charge of ;hac ream.. 0. You were part of the team; is that cor ract? A. Yes. Q. Mould it be fair to say that you v c r part of a team at Monsanto whose job it was ;c a: whether or not the customers to whom vou wore still selling peb's were releasing peb's ir.ee ;no envir onment? A. At unacceptable levels. Q. And you have already agreed, have you not, that pouring peb's or allowing PCB's to leak dov/n the sewer was not an acceptable practice; isn't that right? A. That* s right. Q. You hawo already agreed that senci;:c Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chic age: STLCOPCB4029893 1 liquid and/or solid pen's to municipal 1 a n o f i 11 e /0,, or landfills that yore based c n sink no1 vs :r 3 fractured rock strata were 'not a c c e p t c..; 1 o A practices; isn't that right? 5 A. Thar's right. 6 Q. fir. Papageorge, do you have any knoulctc; 7 that the City of Bloomington allov;ed We r einchcust 8 and/or Monsanto to contaminate che Lemon Lane c, landfill and/or the Winston Thomas sewage 10 treatment plant with peb's? 11 A. I don't have personal knowledge, no. 12 0. Do you have any knowledge that t.sey so 13 allowed? 14 A. Knowledge of any facts that demonst rata 15 that the City of Bloomington allowed Mens a not 16 and/or West inghouse to contaminate the Lemon Lar. : 17 landfill with peb's. 1 3 I don't have any knowledge c f chat. 19 0. Do you have any knowledge that the City 20 of Bloomington allowed Westinghouse and/or 21 Monsanto to contaminate the Winston Thomas sewage 22 treatment plant? 23 A o No 0 24 0. Do you* have any knowledge that the- Ciov Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029894 1 of Bloomington was informed by Monsanto or 2 'Besting ho use that the Lemon Lane landfill ve s 3 being contaminated v/ith pcb's? A A. Mo. 5 Q. Do you have any knowledge that the lit'- 6 of Bloomington was informed by W e s t i n c h o u s e trior 7 to late 1975 that it was contaminating the T'ir. ctc.n S Thomas sewage treatment plant with neb's? n A. Ho. _ . 10 Q. Do you have any knowledge that any Inch 11 of care by the City of Bloomington or its 12 employees contributed to or caused the 13 contamination of the Lemon Lane landfill? 14 A. No. 1 5 0. Do you have any knowledge that lac): of 16 care by the City of Bloomington or its employee.-, 17 contributed in any way to the contamination cf :hc 13 Winston Thomas sewage treatment plant? 1 9 A. No. 20 Q. Would it be fair to say that the control 21 program that has been described in your testimony 22 today was the control program you used from 1970 23 through the cessation of peb manufacture in 1 9 7 7 ? 24 A. Would -you repeat the question? Longoria & Go1d s tin e 236 1 03 0 Chicago STLCOPCB4029895 Q. I will rephrase it T7e have described the control proqrnr where you stopped selling pen's tc sore applications, and continued selling rcb's :c certain applications where you could control car. release of peb's into the environment, through collecting the 1iquids , preventing the licui: : from being released and ma Icing sure shat z.. * c solids were sent to licensed chemical ;a: landfills; isn't that correct? A. Right. Q. Mow, did that control program s; * r 7 n place from when it was announced in 1970 t n r o u - ;; the cessation of peb manufacture in 1977? A. Yes . Q. So basically you were requiring your customers to follow this kind of procedure if they wanted to continue to get peb's; is that right? . A. I'm not aware of a requirement that :h:y met any kind of standards to continue gcctinc peb's. Q. I am talking about, the procedures that we have outlined. If they didn't follow thoseprocedures, you- had announced a pc lie.' to she Longoria Goldstine 235 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029896 1 nation that you weren't going to sell p c b ' s ; i . 2 that right? o A. No. Ne didn't announce chat pc 1 i cy . 4 Q. Didn't you have a press release and a 5 letter to Congressman Ryan? '" 6 A. You show me a press release where it c. 7 we won't sell unless they control. Z it c: 3 will sell where it is possible to control ana 9 where we have, evidence that efforts arc being c.n 10 to control. 11 Q. So you are saying that the policy ins to 12 of saying we won't sell unless there is control, 13 is we will sell if they can control and wo -..'ill 14 continue to sell even if they don't control, it 15 that right? lias that Nonsanto's policy? 15 A. No. 17 e didn't say that either. 17 0 . Did you say that you v; c u 1 ci n ' t sell i. f 13 they failed to control? 1 9 A. 17e never said that. 20 Q. So did you say that you would sell ever, 21 though they didn't control? 22 A. No. That was left silent. 23 Q. It was left silent? 24 A. Yes, s*i r . Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029897 27 1 1 Q. So that as far as you were concerns '!, y j u 2 were announcing a policy to the Congressman 7yen 3 and the nation and the press release for the "ov 4 York Tines that left silent the question if your 5 applications to which you were continuing to sell 6 continued releases to the environment, that t r. c y 7 could have eliminated, could have controlled, that 3 you were not announcing any policy with respect t a 9 your sales ? . 10 A. We were not in the re gulacory bus! 11 Q. You con 't know of the formation of 12 contract or th e discuss ions of she contract 13 Westinghouse? 14 . A. That is true. 15 Q. Would it be fair to say that -- strike 16 tha t. 17 Hr. Papageorge, do you have any kncwlo .g IS or information that peb's do not cause cancer or 19 cannot cause it? 20 A. It is hard to prove the negatives. 21 Q. I asked the question to you. 22 Do you have any knowledge or inf or mat ion 23 that peb's cannot cause cancer? 2 4 A. No one has. I don't have. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Cnion-'- STLCOPCB4029898 O -J n 1 Q. All right. 2 Are you aware of a;ny knowledge or -) information that they go indeed or can cause . 4 cancer? 5 A. I am aware of one study in whi cn iha 6 investigators reported they saw evidence of 7 cancer . 3 Q. What study is that? 9 A. It is the study conducted by Dr. Rannt:. 10 Kimbrough, who at that time was with the center 11 for disease control in Atlanta, Georgia. 12 Q. And was the finding of that study, char 13 the test with peb's did show the potential for 14 causing cancer? 15 A. Yes. 15 0. Would it be correct co say chad in 17 studies of cancer, the potential cancer-causing 1 3 capabilities of chemicals, that animal stucics are 19 regularly used because it is not proper co rest 2 0 cancer-causing agents on humans? 21 A. That1s right. 22 Q. So would it be fair to say that as a 23 basic scientific practice, we inject animals, test 2 4 animals, with s-uspected cancer-causing agents as a Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029899 1 proxy for injecting it into humans? 2 A. I don't know about the useful none of the 3 word proxy. It is an indicator of potential. . A Q. It is an indicator of cancer risk to 5 humans, is it not? 6 A. Of possible human cancer, yes. 7 Q. All right. 8 And we base our decisions as to wha ahrr 9 or not we allow a food product to go cut end : 10 sold, whether we allow a drug to be sold, w h t h e r 11 we allow a chemical to be released into the 12 environment, based on animal studies, do wc net? 13 MR. FRUEHWALD: Let me interpose an. object icn. , 14 Who is the "we" you were referring to there? ais 15 is no longer Monsanto. 16 BY MR. KARAGAMIS: 17 Q. Are you aware when Monsanto puts a 1 8 chemical out into the environment, a new product, 19 it has to go through various product 20 registrations, does it not, whether it be a drug 21 or a new industrial chemical? 2 2 A. Yes. 23 0. Is it correct that such chemicals are 24 tested on animals for their potential to cause Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicatt STLCOPCB4029900 27 4 1 cancer in animals? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And is it correct that based on cha 4 results of those animal tests, a deci.sion is ms 5 as to whether or not to allow human exposure :c 6 those chemicals? 7 A . Yes . un Q. And is it not correct that one of the 9 reasons we do it with animals, is because v; a o c n' a 10 want to test it with humans; isn't that: right? 11 A. That's right. 12 Q. And that the animals arc the best 13 alternative given the fact that the other 14 alternative is to test the chemical on a human 15 subject; isn't that right? 16 A. That is correct. 17 0. Are you familiar with the iudomn i f i caaicn 1 3 policy of Monsanto? 19 A. Ye s. 2 0 Q. Can you describe the events char led no 21 that? 22 A. I am not familiar with the events c.nac 23 led to it. 24 I am aware that beginning in 1^97 2 , Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4029901 1 continued sale to the dielectric industry v? ~ ~ 2 contingent upon the purchaser signing nr. 3 agreement, which was referred to as a special 4 undertaking. 5 I was not part of that group that 6 developed that. 7 Q. VI ho was part of the group than devoi c r-c 8 tha t ? 9 A. As best I can tell, it was Nr. I'ergcr., 10 Mr. Gossage, and several attorneys. 11 Q. The attorneys within Monsanto? 12 A . Ilo n sa n t o . 13 0. 77ho were they, to the beat of your 14 knowledge? 15 A. I only know of one, John Stapleton. : ::: 16 I understand others were involved. 17 (The document above-referred rc 18 was marked Bloomington Deposition 19 . Exhibit No. 136 for identification.) 20 Q. Directing your attention to what has beer, 21 marked as Exhibit No. 136, which is a memorandum 22 dated I believe July 22, 1971 from Benignus to 23 Curtis, that relates to a change in the askarel 24 inspection and -maintenance guide, does it not? Longoria & Golds tine 23 6 10 3 9 Cnicnyo STLCOPCB4029902 .: / > 1 A. Yes. 2 NR . I'A RAG AN I;3 : Again, I have a n c u t s r a request for all versions of than guide NR. FRUEHNALD: As far a s I knov;, yon h 5 already got them, but I will check to sec i 5 are any more. 7 NR . CARAGAN IS: I am spe c i f i c a 11 v 1 c c i n publication quality, sc v;c can out then in r\ exhibits. Ne. would as!; similarly for those lino: . 12 as warning labels, because we are going re be 11 putting in exhibits to the jury anc! w o wane rhet 12 to see what it looks like instead of a xerox. 13 Q. The group that you were a pare of who 14 examined whether customers were controlling tae 1 5 release of pcb1 s into the environment, d i :ht: 16 group ever compile any kind of an evaluation, coo:', 17 plants versus bad plants? 1 3 A. No. There was no standard. Couldn't; coo 1 9 any. 20 Q. The question is, you can wall-; into a 21 plant and, as you say, a plant had a way no 2 2 demonstrate that it was releasing more char, it 23 should; isn't that right? 2 4 A . Ho . I*t was releasing more th a n i r. h a h Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chic;, r; STLCOPCB4029903 7 7? 1 to. It could control the root. o i. 0. And isn't it correct chat if it w a _ 3 technically feasible to contain it, as c u po c a *Ax release it, it was your engineerinc and t e c h nic 11 5 position that it should be contained rather tear, 6 released? 7 A. Yes. But don't misunderstand. It w - s 3 never intended that there would be zero release. n Q. I didn't ask you that. 10 I asked you whether or not if it was 11 capable of being contained, that which could he 12 contained should be contained; is that correct? 13 A. That's correct. , 1 4 0. You walked in that plant in July of 1773 1 5 and saw material that could have been contain a., 16 going down the sewer; isn't that right? 17 A. Yes. 1 3 Q. From your engineering position and fro::, 1 9 your official position with Monsanto, in terms of 20 this group, allowing that material to go down :c 21 the sewer as opposed to containing that which 22 could be contained was against Monsanto policy, 23 isn't that correct? 24 A. It was* against our recommendations. Longoria & Goldstine -2 35 103C Chicane STLCOPCB4029904 I 1 Q. And, therefore, against your r-c-1 icy i tn 2 regard to sales; isn't that ric'ht? 3 A. You mis understand, sir. - 4 The policy says we will sell peb's to 5 those applications that are controllable. It cays 6 nothing about a specific plant or a specific 7 customer. OO Q . Did you not have a program v; h c- r e y c: u : c r _ s going to make specific customer inspections anc 10 plant inspections and cid you not, indeed, do :c 11 with respect to Tostinghouse? 12 A. Mo. Those were not inspections in me 13 light that I think you are thinking of. The s o 14 were inspections as an aid to a good customer, to 15 share with them what we had gone through n a 16 perhaps they could use it. That was the intent. 17 Q,, Just think carefully of this as your 3* 1 8 (b) 6 a n s w e r . 1 9 If you had walked in and made a 20 determination on your first visit and your cecor. a 21 visit and your subsequent visits that Testinghcus; 22 was not controlling peb releases to the 23 environment to the extent they were capable of, 2 4 would that have- been a satisfactory action by Longoria s Golds tine 23 6 10 3 0 Chic a STLCOPCB4029905 1 Westinghouse? 2 A. No. 3 Q. IJould you have reported that w i t h A recommendations to your superiors? 5 A. Yes. 6 0. Did you ever do so? 7 A. Yes. ort 0. In what form and to whom? 9 A. It would g o.t o G o s s a g e, to the direct :: 10 of marketing, or to Mr. Bergen, whoever happens 11 be available. 12 Q. What exactly did you say to either of 13 those gentlemen? 14 A. I will try to remember a specific. 15 It was along the lines of this customer 1G is not doing all he- can and appears to be 17 disinterested. We suggest that you take action.. 1 3 Q. Did you do so with respect to the 1 9 Bloomington plant? 20 A. Mo. 21 . 0. So you felt the Bloomington plant was 22 doing what it should be doing? 23 A. It was making progress. 24 0, I didn't ask you that. Longoria & Goldstine 23G 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4029906 O^n 1 Did you feel che Oloomincton plane a 2 doing what it should bo doing with respect r c 3 controlling that which it could control? . 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. You did. 6 A . Because I don't know- what technical 7 challenges they were facing. I don't k now th e no details of that operation. 9 All I got was reports that chines '.era- 10 improving, the attitude was good. 11 0. Mr. Papageor go, you have said ycu w -? n t 1 2 through the plant once in July of 1970. 13 A. Right. . 14 Q. You never cane back? 09 < O' 15 That's right. 16 So you knew what the plane did, she g 1 n c 17 dripped onto floors? 1 8 A. Yes. 1 0 - Q. And it toured contaminated wash water 20 down the sewer, is that right? 21 A. Yes. 2 2 O. Did you ever check as to whether or non 2 3 it reduced by putting treatment controls in of a 24 kind, reduced the amount of contamination it Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chics - c STLCOPCB4029907 1 sending down the sewer? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Or controlled the amount of 4 contamination? 5 A. Yes, I hac some numbers I could loch at, 6 analytical results that were reported to mo. And 7 I had frequent telephone calls from. Randall UO Graham. I had -- 9 Q. I se e. _ 10 Go .ahead . 11 A. I had other indicators that that 12 particular site was improving. I heard nothing 13 that said they will not try. 14 Q. What specific indications did you hav; 1 5 that the site was reducing the amount of pen's it 16 was putting down the sewer? 17 A. I remember, I don't remember the enact 18 dates, but I remember a report out of ilonsantc's 1 9 laboratory that had analyzed some water samples. 20 And the amounts of peb's reported were to me 21 acceptable. 22 They were in the parts per billion range, 23 as I remember. 24 Q o The pa.rts per billion range. Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029908 i ~ -> 1 17 hat would be an a c cep cable level of o pcb's to you going down the sower? 3 A. I don't know of an acceptable level. 4 0. You said than they wore to you 5 acceptable. 6 A. Parts per billion. 7 0. Belov/ the parts per million range? 8 A. Parts per billion. 9 0. So they would be acceptable in parts per 10 billion but not in parts per million, is choc 11 correct? 12 A. I would go along with that. Bvcr. though 13 the low parts per million v/ould concern me. 14 Q. The low parts per million are several 15 thousand parts per billion, are choy not? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Ue are talking, are v/e not, of a sc rear- 18 standard that was ultimately adopted of .1 parts 19 per billion, are v/e not? 20 A. NO. 21 Q. Discharge standard? 22 A. I am not aware of that. 23 Q. Are you familiar with the discharge 2 4 standard on the. City of Bloomington's treatment Longoria & Goldstine 236 103C Chic:. - c STLCOPCB4029909 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 22 23 24 plant? A. Mo, I am not. Q. Established by state and federal authority. MR. FRUEHWALD: In what year, Joe, r7 P , 'll, after Mr. Papageorge has left this area; is th = " what you are asking? BY MR. KARAGANIS: Q. Are you familiar with the fact chat tv. ry imposed a .1 parts per billion range? A. Mo, in fact that is the first I haveheard of it. That is an emotional number. It is net based on facts. Q. Are you familiar with the fact that ycu could have put in a control system that would have achieved 10 parts per billion? MR. FRUEHWALD: At Westinghouse? MR. KARAGANIS: At Westinghouse. MR. FRUEHWALD: Do you represent that as a fact? I am not familiar with that. BY MR. KARAGANIS: Q. Did you not discuss or did not Monsanto representatives, discuss putting in a control Longoria & Goldstine ' 236 10 3 0 C n i e a ga STLCOPCB4029910 I system, a carbon system that would have res ale;' d 2 in 10 parts per billion? 3 MR. FRUEHWALD: At what location 4 MR. KARAGAHIS: For che washinc 5 Westinghouse washing systems. 6 A. I don't recall any such discussion. 7 0. Do you recall any Monsanto O'! representatives saying that? 0 A. No,. I co not. 10 Q . Wou 1 d you consider that tc be a li reasonable number to expect off of a carbon filter 1 2 system? 13 A. Yes. But I don't remember that th a 14 effluent from that plant could be created with 15 carbon to that low a level. Because of the 16 presence of detergent in it. I don't know abac it 17 could reach 10 parts per billion. IS O. Was it ever tested, the carbon? 19 A. I don't recall. I just don't remember. 20 I remember some centrifuge tests, but I don't 21 remember any carbon results. 22 O. Who did the analysis as to what 23 Bloomington could achieve? 24 A. Could `achieve? Longoria & Oolastine 236 1030 STLCOPCB4029911 1 0. Yes. 2 A . I don't kncv; than any bod y a n a lyse c. 3 anything to determine what the plane coo .Id 4 achieve. 5 77e analyzed samples sent to' us "and 6 reported back some numbers. I don't know where 7 those samples came from or whether thev o represented a typical outfall or whether it v;a s 9 treated or came from a laboratory experiment. 10 Q. But you considered, let me just say this, 11 you considered that what Bloomington achieved at 12 some point was acceptable to you; is them right:? 13 A. I was not in the job at a point where 14 Bloomington said we are there or indicated that 15 they had finished. So I don't know what thev 16 finally achieved. 17 All I know is that while I was involved, 10 they were making progress toward a lower and lower 1 9 effluent level. I don't know where they 20 uicimately ended up. 21 Q. Let me ask you as an engineer, dr. 22 Papageorge, prior to the recycle program of 23 Monsanto being in place, you agreed, did you non, 24 that the liquid wastes had to be going one of Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029912 1 three places, down the rawer, :c a landfill or of: 2 to an oil rcprocessor ; i s : h a t rig n ? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Is that a fair statement, an accurate 5 statement? 6 A. It had to go to one of those three, all 7 right. 3 0. Nov;, would you agree that if it was : o i n c 9 down the sewq.r, it was not an acceptable practice? 10 A. That's right. 11 MR. FRUEHWALD: We have been through this 12 about a half dozen times today, Joe, the same13 questions, the same answer. 11 MR. KARAGAMIS: Okay. Just a second. 15 MR. FRUEHWALD: How many tines car. yea say it? 15 T3Y HR. KARAGAMIS: 17 o. if the amount of I nor teen or pen's that 13 went down the sewer were sufficient to cause 19 sludge concentrations from several hundred to 20 several thousand parts per million, would that be 21 an acceptable level of peb's going down the sewer? 22 A. I would have to know how long that had 23 been going on, one-year accumulation or on.e-nay 2 4 accumulation or* twenty-year accumulation. Longoria & Golds tine 2 36 1 03 0 Chica-o STLCOPCB4029913 1 Q. Is it an acceptable phenomenon to have a 2 sludge lagoon that at the end of result of a 3 number of years has several thousand parts per 4 million peb's in it? Is that environmentally 5 acceptable? 6 MR. FRUEHWALD: Acceptable? 7 HR. KARAGAHIS: From an engineering n t standpoint. O-/ fIR. FRUEHT7ALD: From an engineering 10 standpoint. li MR. KARAG AN IS : 1 And an environment star, d ocir.:.. 12 MR. FRUEHWALD: Is there such an engineering 13 standard of such matters? I don't k.nov/. 14 A. I don't feel qualified and I don't i;no:.' 15 that anybody else can answer that for you. 16 You have to know what effect that is 17 having. Just presence alone is not a good 18 indicator. You would have to know what impact is 1 D that having on the environment that it is 20 associated with. 21 BY HR. KARAGAHIS: 22 Q. So it is all right to pour peb's into any 23 location, as long as it is not having an effect on 2 4 the immediate environment, and you don't make Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicane STLCOPCB4029914 1 decision as to not to put it in until it has a 2 demonstrated effect; is that right? n A. That is true of any chemical. That's A l right. 5 Q. So you can keep pouring it in wire r c vo r 6 you pour it in as long as you don't fine a 7 demonstrated effect immediately? is that right? 3 A. Well, you h a v a - t o watch what you pour it 9 in. Because -- . 10 Q, Pouring it down the sewer? 11 A. Well, there you don't know where it is 12 going to end up. 13 0. So it is not good to pour it dow n the 14 se w e r ? 15 A. But if you know where it is going to end 16 up and you know there is no impact, there is no 17 problem. 18 If I put peb's in a steel tank, and it 19 stays there for eons, there is no problem. If I 20 put those peb's in a natural clay formation, it is 21 the equivalent of that steel tank. There is no 22 problem. It is not going to go anywhere. 23 Q. But if you put peb's in a fractured 24 geographic or g-eologic strata? Longoria & Goldstine 236 1030 Chicago STLCOPCB4029915 1 A. Then I introduce an unknown. I don't A 2 know where it is going to go. Therefore, I dor.'t 3 know what problem it is going to cause. . 4 Therefore, I don't want to take that risk. 5 Q. So let me just say from an engineering 6 environmental standpoint, if you don't know where 7 it is going to go, it is improper to let it o c u 8 in the environment? is that right? a A, That's right. 10 MR. KARAGANIS: I have no further questions. 11 MR. FRUEIIT7ALD: Good. 12 (thereupon the deposition w a s 13 recessed to June 26, 1936.) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Longoria & Golcstine 236 1030 C h i c a <" s STLCOPCB4029916