Document yg19ex0Z90eN4vOK5vmYXLM4

212 1 Cerro Copper Products, Co. 2 vs. 3 Monsanto Company 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 VOLUME II 14 15 Deposition of William B. Papageorge 16 Taken October 21, 1994 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 212 WATER PCB-SD0000048976 213 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 3 4 CERRO COPPER PRODUCTS, CO., 5 6 Plaintiff, 7 8 vs. NO. 92-CV-204-WDS 9 10 MONSANTO COMPANY, 11 12 Defendant. 13 14 Continued Deposition of WILLIAM B. 15 PAPAGEORGE, taken on behalf of the Plaintiff, 16 at the offices of Cobum & Croft, One 17 Mercantile Center, Suite 2900, in the City of 18 St. Louis, State of Missouri, on the 21st day 19 of October, 1994, before Tracey Balsitis, 20 Registered Professional Reporter and Notary 21 Public. 22 23 24 25 Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 213 WATER PCB-SD0000048977 214 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: 2 3 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Mr. Richard F. Ricci Lowenstein, Sandler, Kohl, Fisher & Boylan 65 Livingston Avenue Roseland, New Jersey 07068-1791 9 FOR THE DEFENDANT: 10 Mr. Joseph G. Nassif 11 Cobum & Croft 12 One Mercantile Center - Suite 2900 13 St. Louis, Missouri 63101 14 15 ............... 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 214 WATER PCB-SD0000048978 215 1 INDEX 2 PAGE 3 Examination by Mr. Ricci 218 4 5 6 EXHIBITS 7 8 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 11 218 9 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 12 230 10 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 13 239 11 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 14 248 12 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 15 256 13 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 16 259 14 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 17 261 15 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 18 276 16 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 19 279 17 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 20 292 18 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 21 303 19 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 22 303 20 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 23 305 21 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 24 309 22 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 25 311 23 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 26 313 24 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 27 321 25 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 28 328 Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 215 WATER PCB-SD0000048979 216 1 EXHIBITS (Continued) PAGE 2 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 29 333 3 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 30 336 4 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 31 340 5 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 32 343 6 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 33 345 7 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 34 350 8 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 35 355 9 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 36 362 10 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 37 373 11 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 38 376 12 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 39 381 13 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 40 383 14 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 41 388 15 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 42 391 16 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 43 394 17 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 44 397 18 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 45 400 19 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 46 402 20 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 47 406 21 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 48 406 22 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 49 408 23 Papageorge Deposition Exhibit 50 411 24 25 Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 216 WATER PCB-SD0000048980 217 1 REQUESTS IN THE RECORD 2 Page 347. MR. RICCI: loe, in the documents 3 that we have reviewed, we have only seen two 4 reports that talk about samples of PCB from 5 other village industries, so I'm going to make 6 a request on the record right now that any 7 additional documents that give that kind of 8 information be produced. And I will follow it 9 up in writing. 10 11 Page 368. MR. RICCI: loe, I'm going to make 12 a request at this point that if Monsanto 13 retains a copy of the 1974 Hutzinger, Safe and 14 Zitko report that's referenced in this 15 exhibit, we would ask that it be produced. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 217 WATER PCB-SD0000048981 218 1 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 11 2 marked for identification.) 3 4 WILLIAM B. PAPAGEORGE 5 of lawful age, having been previously duly 6 sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, 7 and nothing but the truth in the case 8 aforesaid, deposes and says in reply to oral 9 interrogatories propounded as follows, to-wit: 10 EXAMINATION 11 QUESTIONS BY MR. RICCI: 12 Q Good morning, Mr. Papageorge. 13 A Good morning. 14 Q This is a continuation of the 15 deposition that we began yesterday. 16 I'd like to show you a document that's 17 been marked as Exhibit 11 to your deposition 18 and ask you to take a look at it. 19 This is a document with Bates 20 No. CER 015030 and 031, M3782 and M3783. 21 A I scanned the exhibit. 22 MR. RICCI: Let's go off the record 23 for a second. 24 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, this 25 is a June 25, 1970, memo from a Mr. Engman to Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 218 WATER PCB-SD0000048982 219 1 yourself. Who is Mr. Engman? 2 A He was a superintendent in the 3 Krummrich plant technical services department. 4 Q Why was he providing this memo to you? 5 A To report on the technical activities 6 related to PCB situations in the plant. 7 Q And by the PCB situation, you mean the 8 discharge of PCBs to the sewers and the 9 atmosphere? 10 A Not only discharge but the manufacture 11 of it, the handling of it, and whatever 12 engineering it took as it related to PCBs, 13 Mr. Engman was involved. 14 Q What was his role in the PCB situation 15 as you have characterized it? 16 A He supervised the engineering effort 17 associated with PCBs. 18 Q On the second page of Exhibit 11 under 19 Roman Numeral IV, there is a discussion of 20 removal of soluble PCBs from sewer streams. 21 Can you tell me what is meant by the term 22 soluble PCBs? 23 A That's the PCBs present in the 24 streams, water streams. 25 Q Can you have insoluble PCBs present in Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 219 WATER PCB-SD0000048983 220 1 water streams? 2 A It is possible. It would be two 3 layers, however. 4 Q What about PCBs that have adhered to 5 sediments that are suspended in water streams? 6 Would that be considered a soluble PCB? 7 A Not really. 8 Q Do you know how soluble PCBs are in 9 water? 10 A I have -- yes, I have some information 11 in mind. 12 Q What is your understanding as to the 13 solubility of PCBs in water? 14 A At room temperatures, the solubility 15 -- basically the solubility will vary with the 16 particular commercial mixture. 17 Q Can you give me a range? 18 A The solubility of aroclor 1242 at room 19 temperature in water was determined to be 20 about 200 parts per billion maximum. The 21 solubility of aroclors 1254 and 1260 were less 22 than that. As I remember, about a hundred or 23 so for 54 and about 50 or so for 60. 24 Q Does that mean that the maximum 25 concentration of PCBs that you will find Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 220 WATER PCB-SD0000048984 221 1 dissolved in water at room temperature, say if 2 you are talking about aroclor 1242, would be 3 200 parts per billion? 4 A It does. 5 Q Now, the sampling results that you 6 were obtaining during this time period for 7 PCBs in your sewer streams was often times 8 greater than 200 parts per billion; is that 9 true? 10 A I don't know what you mean by often. 11 There were some samples that did measure that. 12 Q What did you attribute the results in 13 excess of the solubility of PCBs in water to? 14 A That could be due to the presence of 15 other chemicals that are solvents for PCBs. 16 It could be due to the presence of sediment to 17 which PCBs have attached themselves. It could 18 be due to an emulsion between the water and of 19 the PCBs brought about by, say, for example, 20 vigorous agitation, or it could be due to 21 actually a two-phase mixture, water in one 22 phase, PCBs in another, and the sample taken 23 got both of those layers. Those are just some 24 examples of what could happen. 25 Q Were there any materials that were a Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 221 WATER PCB-SD0000048985 222 1 solvent of PCBs that the Krummrich plant 2 regularly discharged to its sewers? 3 A I don't know about regularly. 4 Q At any time? 5 A For example, I recall a situation in 6 which a detergent was used to wash down the 7 concrete floor. That picked up a lot more 8 PCBs than water would normally dissolve. 9 You asked about other solvents. I 10 don't have any specific one in mind or 11 incident in mind. 12 Q Is benzene a solvent for PCB? 13 A Benzene, toluene, xylene. There must 14 be a thousand chemicals that would dissolve 15 it. 16 Q So the presence of benzene or toluene 17 or xylene in the sewer stream could increase 18 the concentration of dissolved PCBs in a 19 basically aqueous stream that also contained 20 those solvents? 21 A It could. 22 Q Did you ever verify or did you ever 23 look into whether that was in fact occurring 24 in the Krummrich sewers? 25 A Not personally, no. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 222 WATER PCB-SD0000048986 223 1 Q Do you know if anyone ever did? 2 A I don't know. 3 Q You mentioned as another reason why 4 the sewer streams could contain concentrations 5 in excess of the solubility of PCBs in water 6 at room temperature, that there could be an 7 emulsion caused by vigorous agitation? 8 A Yes. 9 Q What is an emulsion? 10 A An emulsion is a mixture of two 11 liquids in situations where neither of these 12 liquids will dissolve each other. And I'm 13 trying to think of an example that might work. 14 If you can picture an oil and water stirred 15 violently to the point where the resulting 16 mixture is milky looking rather than two 17 layers, that milky looking result is an 18 emulsion. I can't think of a real good 19 example. 20 Q Sort of like when you shake up a salad 21 dressing? 22 A That's a good example. For a brief 23 moment, that salad dressing is an emulsion 24 until the layers separate. 25 Q Could the turbulence of the waters Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 223 WATER PCB-SD0000048987 224 1 flowing through the sewer system create an 2 emulsion? An emulsion of PCBs in water is 3 what I'm talking about. 4 A It is conceivably possible. Your 5 sample would have to be close to that very 6 high turbulent zone. 7 Q You indicated that sediments -- the 8 presence of sediments in the sewer stream 9 could cause sampling results or analytical 10 results in excess of its solubility in PCBs? 11 A I did. 12 Q And how is that? 13 A How is what? 14 Q How is it the presence of sediments 15 can lead to analytical results showing PCBs in 16 excess of its solubility? 17 A First of all, the sediments themselves 18 have to be exposed to the PCBs somewhere. 19 PCBs have a characteristic where they 20 tenaciously, almost magnetically cling to 21 particles or surfaces. And if the two do get 22 together, those particles of sediment or solid 23 matter that are introduced into a water stream 24 will be carried along with that water stream. 25 And dependent upon how samplings are taken and Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 224 WATER PCB-SD0000048988 225 1 how the analysis is conducted, you can 2 determine the PCBs present in that total 3 sample. And much of that PCB content will be 4 really in the sediment and not in the water 5 itself. 6 Q The analytical technique that the 7 Monsanto Company was employing in the early 8 '70s would not distinguish between PCBs that 9 adhere to sediment and PCBs dissolved in 10 water? 11 A It could distinguish and the chemist 12 has to report in his results which of the -- 13 what kind of sample he looked at. 14 Q In the program for aroclor pollution 15 control that was ongoing in the early and mid 16 '70s, do you recall ever requesting that the 17 chemist offer analyst, perform that kind of 18 exercise, with respect to any of the sewer 19 samples from the Krummrich plant? 20 A No. I don't recall specifically 21 asking, no. 22 Q Did you not feel that that was a 23 relevant consideration? 24 A Certainly. I just felt I knew the 25 people involved. When they report, they would Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 225 WATER PCB-SD0000048989 226 1 report what's in the sample received in the 2 laboratory. 3 Q Okay. I don't think I understood your 4 answer, and it is possibly because it wasn't a 5 very good question so I'm going to try again. 6 Did you feel that knowing the extent 7 to which the PCBs that you were seeing out of 8 the Krummrich sewers was attributable to 9 sediments versus dissolved PCBs was a relevant 10 consideration? 11 A Yes. 12 Q If that's the case, why wasn't the lab 13 reporting that on a regular basis if in fact 14 they were not? 15 A Well, it was understood that they were 16 reporting the PCB content of the sample as 17 received in the laboratory. 18 If the sample was an emulsion, they 19 would extract the PCBs by a certain method to 20 get both -- get it all out. If it was a clear 21 water sample, they would use another 22 extraction method. If it was a cloudy sample 23 with dirt in it, they would treat it 24 differently, but the sample that's introduced 25 into the instrument contains all the PCBs the Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 226 WATER PCB-SD0000048990 227 1 sample -- the analyst was able to get out of 2 the sample as received. 3 Q I'm sorry. Go ahead. 4 A So when they reported PCBs in this 5 sample from this spot in the plant, we all 6 knew that that was the PCBs they were able to 7 determine. 8 Q So you were getting the total PCBs in 9 the sample, but you weren't getting how much 10 of it was derived from sediments and how much 11 was dissolved and how much of it was in 12 emulsion? 13 A That is correct. 14 Q Did you feel that it was important or 15 relevant to what you were trying to do to know 16 how much was coming from sediments versus how 17 much was dissolved? 18 A It was more important to me personally 19 to know how much PCBs was entering an 20 undesirable location. Whether it was an 21 emulsion or on sediment or in water or in the 22 solvent was really immaterial at that point. 23 Once you determine the amount and you 24 find that amount is unacceptable, then you go 25 back and determine exactly what was the Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 227 WATER PCB-SD0000048991 228 1 carrier, what was the method of transfer to 2 that undesirable spot. 3 MR. RICCI: I'm sorry. Could you read 4 back that last answer. 5 (The requested portion of the 6 record read by the reporter) 7 Q (By Mr. Ricci) If I understand that 8 last answer, it was your view, at least, that 9 only if you concluded that the total PCBs was 10 unacceptable, would you then look at whether 11 it was sediments or dissolved off an emulsion? 12 Is that a fair statement? 13 MR. NASSIF: Objection. Asked and 14 answered. 15 A Yes. 16 MR. RICCI: I'm just trying to clarify 17 the answer, Joe. I'm not a chemist, and I'm 18 trying to understand the testimony that he has 19 given. 20 A Yes. 21 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Did you ever determine 22 that the PCB level in the Krummrich sewers 23 were at unacceptable levels? 24 A The level in what? 25 Q In theKrummrichsewers? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 228 WATER PCB-SD0000048992 229 1 A Well, from all the documents we have 2 seen, I think we have seen that the target 3 that I had established was 10 parts per 4 billion, so there were periods before that was 5 achieved when the level did reach an 6 unacceptable point. 7 Q Did you ever go back at that point and 8 say I want to know how much of this is in 9 sediments and how much is dissolved and how 10 much is in solvents? 11 A It makes no difference to me. All I 12 want to know is what's entering the 13 environment. It is up to the plant in 14 controlling those losses, to know was it the 15 detergent wash we had or was it the sand we 16 poured on the spill that was hosed down and 17 got into the water? Whatever. It is their 18 responsibility to determine what caused that 19 high number. 20 Q Did the plant personnel involved in 21 this PCB control program ever ask the lab to 22 delineate in its analysis PCBs from sediments 23 or PCBs dissolved in water or in solvent? 24 A You will have to ask the plant people 25 that. I don't know. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 229 WATER PCB-SD0000048993 230 1 Q Under Roman Numeral V of Exhibit 11, 2 there is a discussion of PCB levels in the 3 atmosphere. Do you see that? 4 A I do. 5 Q Do you understand that to be air 6 discharges of PCBs? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Was there any method that you are 9 aware of by which PCBs released to the air 10 could be washed into the sewers either by 11 rainfall or other precipitation? 12 A Washed to the sewers, I have never 13 studied that, frankly. This was primarily one 14 of exposure to the workers breathing material. 15 I personally never approached PCBs in the air 16 as being a primary source of presence in the 17 waters. 18 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 12 19 marked for identification.) 20 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, let me 21 show you a document that's been marked as 22 Exhibit 12 to your deposition. 23 This is a document with Bates No. CER 24 011497 through 501, M4912 through M4916. Take 25 a look at it. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 230 WATER PCB-SD0000048994 231 1 A I have scanned the exhibit. 2 Q This is an October 7, 1970, memo from 3 Mr. Savage to yourself. Who was Mr. Savage? 4 A At that time Mr. Savage was the 5 manager of manufacturing of the functional 6 fluids business group. 7 Q And that was the business group with 8 responsibility for Krummrich and Anniston? 9 A Yes. 10 Q The title ofthe document appears to 11 be "September PCB Report, Manufacturing." Do 12 you see that? 13 A I do. 14 Q Is this a regular monthly report that 15 was prepared at this time? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Why was it prepared? 18 A To communicate activities associated 19 with PCB manufacture. Primarily to me so I 20 could include it in my monthly report. 21 Q So that any--1 will withdraw that. 22 In the paragraph under the heading, "PCB 23 Levels in Snow Creek" -- 24 A I see that. 25 Q -- there is a suggestion of some Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 231 WATER PCB-SD0000048995 232 1 sampling results that were obtained and an 2 identification of contributing causes. And 3 one of the contributing causes relates to the 4 limestone pit being overloaded. And another 5 of the contributing causes relates to sewering 6 of excessive amounts of muriatic acid. Do you 7 see that? 8 A I see that. 9 Q Now, in your testimony yesterday, I 10 had understood that Snow Creek only received 11 discharges from the Anniston plant by way of 12 rainfall that traversed over the plant and 13 flowed into the creek; is that correct? 14 A That is correct. I should have 15 mentioned that when the facilities at the 16 plant got overloaded, they would overflow on 17 the ground and head for the Snow Creek. 18 Q Which facilities? 19 A Like the limestone pit, which was 20 supposed to handle that muriatic acid, and so 21 on. 22 Q So ifthe limestone pit got 23 overloaded, it flowed to Snow Creek? 24 A Yes. It got on the ground and 25 eventually found its way toward Snow Creek. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 232 WATER PCB-SD0000048996 233 1 Q What about the sewers if they got 2 overloaded? Would they flow to Snow Creek? 3 A I'm not aware of any overloading of 4 sewers. But ifthe sewer did overload, it 5 would have to spill over in the department 6 across the concrete floor onto the crushed 7 rock that surrounded it and eventually work 8 its way toward the creek. 9 Q But you are not aware of that ever 10 happening? 11 A No. 12 Q In the paragraph right below the 13 number three in that first section, there is a 14 discussion of leaching of PCBs from the creek 15 bed. Do you see that? 16 A Yes. 17 Q What is meant by the term leaching of 18 PCBs from the creek bed? 19 A That's the transfer of PCBs present in 20 the soil or clay, or whatever makes the creek 21 bed bottom, into the water that was sampled. 22 Q When we were discussing the solubility 23 of PCBs, there was another issue that came to 24 mind. Would the presence of an acidic 25 environment in the sewers increase the Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 233 WATER PCB-SD0000048997 234 1 solubility of PCBs? 2 A Yes. 3 Q The leaching that's discussed in 4 Exhibit 12, would that in effect be the liquid 5 in the creek bed picking up the sediments that 6 would lead to, if the sediments were PCB 7 contaminated, higher PCB analytical results? 8 A Yes. It is the reverse of what 9 happened in the past. It picked up a PCB that 10 was deposited there in the past, and the 11 current sampling picked up that. 12 Q That would be caused by turbulence in 13 the creek? 14 A That would be a contributing factor, 15 yes. 16 Q Any other contributing factors that 17 might cause that to happen? The picking up 18 I'm talking about. 19 A Not that I can think of. 20 Q Now, the only -- well, let me withdraw 21 that. The main source of water into the Snow 22 Creek creek bed was rain runoff; is that 23 correct? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Is it correct to say then that the Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 234 WATER PCB-SD0000048998 235 1 turbulence created by the rain runoff down 2 there was sufficient to pick up sediments that 3 led to increased PCBs in your liquid samples 4 from the creek? 5 A We are both kind of speculating. I 6 would suggest that that is a major 7 contributor. 8 Q Again, under "Anniston plant," there 9 is a heading "Regulatory Action"? 10 A I see that. 11 Q And the memo documents a contact 12 between Monsanto and the Alabama Water 13 Improvement Commission. If contacts had been 14 made between Monsanto in the Illinois water 15 authorities regarding PCBs at the Krummrich 16 plant, would it have been documented in these 17 monthly reports? 18 MR. NASSIF: Objection. You asked him 19 that question yesterday, and he answered it. 20 A Not necessarily. Depends on the 21 author of the initial report, what he puts in 22 his report. 23 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Why did Mr. Savage 24 mention this contact in this report? 25 MR. NASSIF: Objection. Calls for Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 235 WATER PCB-SD0000048999 236 1 speculation on the part of the witness. 2 A You will have to ask Mr. Savage. I 3 don't know. 4 Q (By Mr. Ricci) You don't know why he 5 did it? 6 A No. 7 Q Did you talk about these reports with 8 Mr. Savage? 9 A Certainly. 10 Q Did you give him any idea of the kinds 11 of things that you felt you had to put in your 12 reports? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Did you feel that if there were 15 contacts between Monsanto and state regulatory 16 agencies regarding PCBs discharges, that was 17 something that you would want to put in your 18 reports? 19 A It was assumed that the contacts would 20 be made anyway. It was expected that they 21 would be made. Reporting them was left up to 22 the authors, and the frequency of the contacts 23 and so on. 24 Q That's what I'm asking you since you 25 were the author of a number of reports Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 236 WATER PCB-SD0000049000 237 1 regarding the PCB control program. 2 A Yes. 3 Q In preparing your reports did you feel 4 that that was something you would want to 5 include in your reports? 6 A Not always, no. 7 Q What would determine whether you would 8 want to include it or whether you wouldn't? 9 A Probably a request or demand by the 10 regulatory people that was much different than 11 what we already understood. In other words, a 12 piece of information that was totally new and 13 different. But just to sit down and talk with 14 representatives ofthe PCB situation, that was 15 considered to be routine. Nothing unusual 16 about that. 17 Q So you felt that, at least in the 18 reports you were preparing, routine contacts 19 need not be included? 20 MR. NASSIF: Objection. Asked and 21 answered. 22 A That's correct. 23 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Thank you. On the 24 last page of this Exhibit 12, there is a 25 heading "PCB Levels in Atmosphere." I'm Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 237 WATER PCB-SD0000049001 238 1 sorry. The next to the last page, page 4. 2 A I see that, yes. 3 Q And again this refers to losses to the 4 air? 5 A Yes. 6 Q How were the losses to the air 7 estimated on a pounds per day basis? 8 A The sampling device is really an air 9 pump, and the air is measured and it is run 10 for so many minutes or hours or whatever. 11 This air is bubbled through a solvent. It 12 picks up the contaminants in the air. And by 13 calculation, one can determine that if so much 14 material was found in an hour, then you 15 multiply that by 24 to get you the day number. 16 I should make a further explanation of 17 when I say 24, that assumes the piece of 18 equipment which is being sampled runs 24 19 hours. If it only runs 6 hours during that 20 period, then 6 is used as the multiplier. 21 Q Okay. Again, referring back to the 22 first page of Exhibit 12, the regulatory 23 action that Mr. Savage documents in this memo, 24 would you consider that to be a routine 25 contact as opposed to a special contact or a Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 238 WATER PCB-SD0000049002 239 1 contact that you would feel should be included 2 in a report? 3 A I would expect that to be routine. 4 That's part of their job is the way I saw it. 5 Q The contact that's referenced here is 6 part of their job? 7 A Yes. 8 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 13 9 marked for identification.) 10 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, let me 11 show you a document that's been marked as 12 Exhibit 13 to your deposition. 13 This is a document with Bates No. CER 14 011505 through 514, M4920 through M4929, and I 15 will ask you to take a look at that. 16 A I have scanned the document. 17 Q Turn, if you would, to page 4. I'm 18 sorry. You can stay where you are for a 19 second. Is this one of the monthly reports 20 that you prepared? 21 A It is. 22 Q And this is a report that you prepared 23 based in part upon the information that you 24 received from Mr. Savage? 25 A Yes. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 239 WATER PCB-SD0000049003 240 1 Q What was the purpose of this report? 2 A To communicate to the addressees, who 3 were key in this PCB business, the status of 4 the activities that had transpired in the 5 previous month. 6 Q Can you just go through the addressees 7 and identify what their positions were? 8 A Yes. I will try to recall all of 9 them. Mr. Marsh was the Monsanto 10 representative in Europe. And he was the one 11 that we looked to to take care of the PCB 12 issue there. 13 Mr. Clark represented the plasticizers 14 business group. 15 Mr. Durland was the Monsanto 16 representative in Japan. 17 Dr. Farrar was the director of 18 research for the plasticizers group. 19 Mr. John was a member of Monsanto's 20 corporate public relations department. 21 Mr. Keller or Dr. Keller was the 22 manager of Monsanto's analytical research 23 section. 24 Mr. Kuhn was a member of Monsanto's 25 corporate engineering department. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 240 WATER PCB-SD0000049004 241 1 Mr. Gossage was the director of 2 marketing for the functional fluids business 3 group. 4 Mr. Park was a member of Monsanto's 5 legal department. 6 Dr. Richard was a director of research 7 for the functional fluids business group. 8 Mr. Savage was the manager of 9 manufacturing for the functional fluids 10 business group. 11 And Mr. Wheeler represented the 12 Monsanto corporate medical department. 13 Q You indicated that Mr. Clark 14 represented the plasticizers business group? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Do you know what his title was or how 17 high up in management he was? 18 A He reported to Mr. Springgate who was 19 the director of the business group. I today 20 do not recall his title. 21 Q And Mr. Springgate is copied on this 22 memo? 23 A He is. 24 Q Who would Mr. Springgate have reported 25 to? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 241 WATER PCB-SD0000049005 242 1 A To Mr. Mason who was copied. 2 Q And what was Mr. Mason's title? 3 A He was the assistant general manager 4 of the organics chemical department. 5 Q So functional fluids was part of 6 organics chemical at this time? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And then who would Mr. Mason report 9 to? 10 A Howard Minckler,M-I-N-C-K-L-E-R. 11 Q And his title was? 12 A He was vice president and general 13 manager of the organic chemicals division. 14 Q How was this distribution list 15 determined? 16 A I just sent this to the individuals 17 involved with PCBs that I believed had a need 18 to know at least some of this information, 19 whether it be in marketing or manufacturing or 20 research. 21 Q Turn, if you would, to page 4 of 22 Exhibit 13. 23 A I have it. 24 Q There is a discussion of the 25 absorption of aroclor from plant water Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 242 WATER PCB-SD0000049006 243 1 effluent. Do you see that? 2 A I see that. 3 Q What was the purpose of this project 4 or the project that's discussed under that 5 heading? 6 A This was one of the studies being made 7 to provide Monsanto with information regarding 8 potential methods for controlling the loss of 9 PCBs to the environment. 10 Q There is a statement that these 11 columns were placed on stream 10/2 at the 12 aroclorsump. Is that 10/2 referring to the 13 date? 14 A Yes. 15 Q What is the aroclor sump? 16 A This was a pit really, a concrete pit 17 below ground level underneath the operating 18 unit which collected any material that leaked 19 onto the floor and was hosed down into this 20 sump. 21 Q Is this in Anniston? 22 A Both plants had it. There is no way 23 for me to know exactly which one they are 24 talking about here. 25 Q You don't have any recollection of Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 243 WATER PCB-SD0000049007 244 1 whether this system was installed in Anniston 2 or Krummrich? 3 MR. NASSIF: Object. He just answered 4 both plants had it. 5 MR. RICCI: No. Both plants had the 6 sump. I'm talking about the treatment system 7 that's being discussed here. 8 A My best recollection is that this was 9 installed at Anniston. 10 Q (By Mr. Ricci) This was more less an 11 experiment to determine the effectiveness of 12 this system in removing aroclors from the 13 effluent? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Why was Anniston chosen to perform 16 that experiment? 17 A No real reason. Toss of the coin type 18 of decision. Either one would have done as 19 well. 20 Q Based upon the results that are 21 recounted in this memo, did you feel that the 22 experiment was a success or that the system 23 there was achieving a desirable goal in terms 24 of its ability to remove PCBs from the 25 effluent? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 244 WATER PCB-SD0000049008 245 1 A Yes. Technically this experimental 2 system was a success. 3 Q Was it ever implemented on a 4 plant-scale basis? 5 A No. 6 Q Why is that? 7 A It was determined from the information 8 obtained from this study that the removal of 9 PCBs on carbon would amount to unmanageable 10 amounts of carbon which led to further 11 problems disposing of that carbon. So it was 12 believed that the trade-off via this route 13 wasn't responsible. You end up with a bigger 14 problem than you started with. 15 Q At the Krummrich plant, Monsanto 16 installed an incinerator to incinerate spent 17 PCBs; is that correct? 18 A That is correct. 19 Q Could the carbon that was generated by 20 a system such as this have been incinerated in 21 the Monsanto incinerator? 22 A No. 23 Q Why is that? 24 A The Monsanto incinerator handled only 25 liquid, not solids. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 245 WATER PCB-SD0000049009 246 1 Q The production of PCBs which continued 2 at this point continued to generate a solid 3 still bottom material, didn't it? 4 A Yes. 5 Q And that still bottom -- go ahead. 6 A You have described the material as a 7 solid still bottom. The material is only 8 solid when it is cooled. It is like road tar 9 when it is cooled. While it was in the still 10 pot and being agitated it is still a liquid. 11 Q Were the still bottoms generated in 12 the production of PCBs incinerated in the 13 Monsanto incinerator? 14 A Yes. 15 Q They were? 16 A They were blended with waste PCBs and 17 pumped into the incinerator. 18 Q If you turn to page 7 of the memo, I 19 have a question for you. There is a reference 20 to a meeting between the -- or a meeting held 21 with the Alabama Water Improvement Commission 22 regarding progress made at Anniston on the PCB 23 program. 24 A I see that. 25 Q Was this a nonroutine contact and Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 246 WATER PCB-SD0000049010 247 1 therefore that's why it was included in your 2 report? 3 A No. This was just a follow up from 4 that previous month's report. If you recall, 5 they mentioned that they had to cancel a 6 meeting because of some illness. This just 7 follows up on that. 8 Q By the previous report, you are 9 referring to Exhibit 12? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And the previous report was a memo 12 from Mr. Savage to yourself, correct? 13 A Correct. 14 Q And the meeting that was planned but 15 did not take place was reported to you by 16 Mr. Savage. I had understood from your prior 17 testimony that you considered that meeting to 18 be kind of a routine thing? 19 A That is true. 20 Q And this meeting that's referenced in 21 Exhibit 13, which is your report, I think you 22 have also testified was kind of a routine 23 contact? 24 A That's right. 25 Q I guess I'm a little confused because Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 247 WATER PCB-SD0000049011 248 1 you indicated previously that you didn't feel 2 that routine contacts would go in your report, 3 and yet here is one in your report? 4 A I didn't say that. 5 Q Okay. That's why I was confused. 6 Maybe you can clarify it for me. 7 A You asked me whether it was my opinion 8 whether it was of critical importance. You 9 didn't ask me if I included it in my report. 10 The report previous to this month's report had 11 that reference, and I was following up the 12 following month. 13 Q So if Mr. Savage reported it to you, 14 you included it in your report? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q Whether it was routine or not? 17 A Correct. 18 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 14 19 marked for identification.) 20 Q (By Mr. Ricci) I'm handing you a 21 document that's been marked as Exhibit 14 to 22 your deposition. This is a document with 23 Bates No. CER 015447, M3920. Ask you to take 24 a look at that. 25 A I have reviewed the exhibit. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 248 WATER PCB-SD0000049012 249 1 Q This is a November 13, 1970, major 2 spill investigation. You are copied on this 3 document; is that correct? 4 A That is correct. 5 Q Can you tell by looking at this 6 document who the author is? 7 A Yes. Mr. Rasmussen, at the very top 8 of the first page. 9 Q Okay. Who was Mr. Rasmussen? 10 A He was an employee ofthe W. G. 11 Krummrich plant that worked in the plant 12 technical services department. 13 Q Did he have some involvement in the 14 aroclor control program? 15 A Not that I recall. I just don't 16 remember. 17 Q At the bottom of the first page there 18 is an investigating committee. Do you see 19 that? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Did the investigatingcommittee have 22 any input into the preparation of this report? 23 A Oh, yes. 24 Q What would theirrole be in the 25 preparation ofthe report? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 249 WATER PCB-SD0000049013 250 1 A They prepare the rough draft really of 2 their findings. 3 Q On the first page under the heading 4 "Consequence," there is a statement, "The loss 5 of material to the sewer presents a serious 6 pollution problem with prolonged effects which 7 are difficult to follow or to control." Do 8 you agree with that statement? 9 A Not really. 10 Q Why is that? 11 A Well, first of all, the amount of 12 material really wasn't great. The area in 13 which this material was eventually found did 14 not contain any kind of wildlife, so to speak, 15 that would have been affected. And this was 16 not considered to be a situation where 17 individuals might be unduly exposed. 18 Q Did you express your disagreement with 19 that statement to anyone within Monsanto at or 20 around the time that you received this 21 document? 22 A I don't recall specifically, but it is 23 highly likely I would have, yes. 24 Q On the next page, there is a 25 statement, "However, its continued production Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 250 WATER PCB-SD0000049014 251 1 -- referring to the production of arolors -- 2 is dependent on the success of our control 3 measures to prevent loss to the environment. 4 This is because it is unaffected by biological 5 action and can become concentrated in the food 6 chain until irreversible changes in the 7 ecology occur." And food chain is in 8 quotation marks. Do you see that? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Do you agree with those statements? 11 A Today no. 12 Q Why is that? 13 A Because as evidence developed since 14 1970, that changed our understanding that was 15 assumed at that time without any hard data. 16 Q Which statements are you referring to? 17 A Reference to unaffected by biological 18 action. That was assumed at that time. In 19 other words, it was a very conservative 20 thinking at the time. 21 Since then studies have shown that 22 biological action does take place under some 23 conditions. Concentration in the food chain 24 irreversible on the ecology, I think that's 25 been dispelled, too. There are Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 251 WATER PCB-SD0000049015 252 1 concentrations, but the irreversible changes 2 have not been demonstrated. 3 Q At the time did you agree with that 4 statement? 5 A Yes. For the purposes of 6 administering my program, I took that 7 conservative approach. 8 Q In reviewing the sequence of events, 9 it is my understanding that Rogers Trucking 10 was used to -- Rogers trucks was used to take 11 Therminol out of a heat exchange unit and 12 transfer it to a storage tank. Is that your 13 understanding ofthis description as well? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Do you have any recollection of this 16 event? 17 A Yes. I remember the overall 18 situation, not the specifics. 19 Q Do you recall or have you seen from 20 this memo how much material was actually 21 released to the sewers? 22 A I would have to read it. 23 Q You know, I did, and I couldn't find 24 it, and I was thinking I just missed it. 25 A I don't see any reference to the Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 252 WATER PCB-SD0000049016 253 1 amount. 2 Q I believe you had referenced in one of 3 your previous answers that you felt that it 4 was an insignificant amount though? 5 A Yes. 6 Q What did you base that answer on? 7 A Well, I knew it was less than a tank 8 truck full. And when I think of PCBs I think 9 of billions of pounds. So relatively 10 speaking, it just did not strike me as being a 11 big amount. 12 Q The heading of this report is, "Major 13 Spill Investigation." Do you know whether the 14 company at that time made distinctions between 15 major spills and minor spills or how something 16 was identified as a major spill? 17 A It was a judgment call primarily on 18 the part of the plant manager. And the intent 19 was to distinguish between a drip out of a 20 valve onto the floor as compared to a drum 21 that might be tipped over compared to 22 something like the situation described in this 23 investigation report. So it is a call made by 24 the person responsible at the plant, the plant 25 manager. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 253 WATER PCB-SD0000049017 254 1 Q Are you aware of any other instances 2 where Rogers Trucking was used to convey spent 3 aroclors from within the plant? 4 A Not specifics, no. 5 Q Based upon the dealings that you have 6 had with Rogers over the years, would it be 7 your understanding that once this job was 8 completed, Rogers would have to wash out its 9 trailer? 10 A Well, somebody would have to wash it 11 out. 12 Q Whether it be Monsanto or Rogers? 13 A Correct. 14 Q Are you aware of any situations where 15 Monsanto washed out Rogers trailers? 16 A Yes. That was the practice 17 established after some unfortunate situations 18 with the Rogers people. 19 Q Unfortunate situations in terms of 20 what? 21 A In terms of our perception that he was 22 doing a sloppy job of dumping the washings 23 where he shouldn't be and so on. 24 Q What perceptions did you have in terms 25 of where he was dumping the washings? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 254 WATER PCB-SD0000049018 255 1 A As I understood it, it was in the area 2 that we described yesterday, Dead Creek area. 3 That general area is where he operated and 4 disposed of his washings really out into the 5 environment. 6 Q Was it your understanding that he was 7 disposing of his washings in Dead Creek? 8 A Yes. 9 Q What did you base that understanding 10 on? 11 A Well, the plant informed me of that. 12 Q Was it also your understanding that he 13 was dumping his washings in the sewers, 14 village sewers? 15 A I didn't associate it with sewers, no. 16 This was the open dumping in the creek bed 17 that bothered me as an environmental 18 perception. 19 Q So when you found out about that, you 20 recommended that -- 21 A I encouraged that they either get 22 Mr. Rogers straightened out or change haulers 23 or do something. 24 Q And what's your understanding as to 25 what was done? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 255 WATER PCB-SD0000049019 256 1 A They took on the job of cleaning out 2 the tanks, tank trucks, in Monsanto's plant. 3 Q Now, Rogers hauled other materials 4 besides PCBs from Monsanto, correct? 5 A Correct. 6 Q Did that practice of washing his 7 trucks within the Monsanto plant apply only to 8 the trucks that were used for aroclors? 9 A No. Anything. 10 Q Anything that -- 11 A That was Monsanto material. 12 Q Anything that he hauled from Monsanto 13 you wanted to have washed in the plant? 14 A Correct. 15 Q And that washing occurred at the rip 16 track? 17 A Yes. 18 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 15 19 marked for identification.) 20 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, I'm 21 handing you a document that's been marked as 22 Exhibit 15 to your deposition. 23 This is a document with Bates No. CER 24 011552, M4967. I would ask you to take a look 25 at it. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 256 WATER PCB-SD0000049020 257 1 A I have read the document. 2 Q This is a memo from yourself to 3 Mr. Savage, dated December 7, 1970; is that 4 correct? 5 A That is correct. 6 Q What was the purpose of this memo? 7 A I wanted to make certain that the 8 plant representatives understood the 9 seriousness of getting down to eventually 10 10 parts per billion in their plant effluents, 11 waste water effluents. 12 The reports I had been getting showed 13 a decrease in the amount of PCBs, but I felt 14 at the time that it wasn't happening quickly 15 enough, for me anyway, so I decided to send 16 out this memo as a reminder that I was 17 serious. 18 Q You and Mr. Savage were not in the 19 same chain of command, were you? 20 A Mr. Savage and I reported equally to 21 Mr. Bergen. 22 Q So you were kind of equal on the 23 organizational chart? 24 A Correct. 25 Q How did you -- withdraw that. Did you Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 257 WATER PCB-SD0000049021 258 1 develop these goals of 50 parts per billion by 2 January 1, 1971, and 10 parts per billion by 3 September 1, 1971? 4 A I am the one that articulated it, but 5 I didn't do it in isolation. I checked with 6 the analytical chemists, the research people, 7 the production people and eventually 8 determined that these were reasonably 9 achievable, so I decided to go on record as 10 these are the targets. And that's where they 11 really came from. 12 Q You indicated in the third paragraph, 13 "Because of the seriousness of the PCB 14 problem, this level of performance cannot be 15 allowed to continue," referring to the level 16 identified in the previous paragraph. What 17 was the seriousness of the PCB problem that 18 you were referring to? 19 A PCBs in the environment, detection, 20 the presence of PCBs in the environment. 21 Q Why did you feel that was a serious 22 problem? 23 A As I indicated earlier, the man-made 24 chemical, it is out there. There are many 25 questions raised about what is it doing to the Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 258 WATER PCB-SD0000049022 259 1 environment? I perceived that as being 2 serious enough to control entry into the 3 environment. 4 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 16 5 marked for identification.) 6 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, I'm 7 handing you a document that's been marked as 8 Exhibit 16 to your deposition, and ask you to 9 take a look at it. 10 A I have reviewed the document. 11 Q This is a December 15, 1970, report 12 from Mr. Krull; is that correct? 13 A Yes. 14 Q And you are shown as being copied on 15 this document? 16 A Yes. 17 Q That's in your capacity as the manager 18 of environmental control? 19 A Yes. 20 Q In the first paragraph under the 21 heading "Summary," there is a statement that, 22 "The losses to the sewers from Department 246 23 were measured at the beginning of 1970 to be 24 in excess of 300 pounds a day with 25 intermittent large spills of 2 to 4,000 Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 259 WATER PCB-SD0000049023 260 1 pounds." Do you see that? 2 A I do. 3 Q Now, the Krummrich plant began 4 manufacturing PCBs in approximately 1938; is 5 that correct? 6 A That's approximately right, yes. 7 Q And they manufactured PCBs 8 continuously from '38 to '77? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Based upon the information in this 11 memo and whatever other information you have 12 developed in your years of work on PCBs, is 13 there any way for you to estimate what the 14 losses to the sewers were prior to the 15 beginning of 1970? 16 A Oh, no. There is no way. 17 Q Why is that? 18 A I can't do that. 19 Q Why is that? 20 A Primarily I don't know enough about 21 the equipment in use at the time and what 22 modifications transpired over the decades. I 23 do not know their procedures for handling 24 their leaks and spills, and I have no idea of 25 how serious any of those spills were that Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 260 WATER PCB-SD0000049024 261 1 occurred. It is like throwing a dart at a 2 dart board. I just could not come up with 3 anything that I believe in. 4 Q Could you say whether the releases to 5 the sewers were more or less prior to 70 than 6 they were in 70 when you started measuring? 7 A No, I can't. 8 Q You are aware, however, of changes to 9 the production process that were implemented 10 after -- in 1970 or after 1970 that reduced 11 the discharge of PCBs to the sewers? 12 A I'm aware of the programs. At this 13 time point in time I don't recall the 14 specifics, but I do know that there was a very 15 serious effort to do what was necessary to 16 reduce that loss. 17 Q Are you aware of any similar efforts 18 to reduce losses to the sewers prior to 1970? 19 A I'm not aware of any, no. 20 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 17 21 marked for identification.) 22 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, I'm 23 handing you a document that's been marked as 24 Exhibit 17 to your deposition and ask you to 25 take a look at it. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 261 WATER PCB-SD0000049025 262 1 A I have scanned the article. 2 Q This is another one of your monthly 3 reports prepared in conjunction with the PCB 4 control program? 5 A It is a copy of that, yes. 6 Q And this one is dated January 8, 1971. 7 Under the heading "Marketing," you discuss 8 efforts to educate Therminol FR users to 9 control leakage. What is Therminol FR? 10 A It is a heat transfer fluid which 11 contains one of the commercial PCB mixtures. 12 Q Now, yesterday you testified that 13 there were three Therminols denominated as 14 one, two and three? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And one was aroclor 1242, and two was 17 aroclor 1248, and three was aroclor 1254; is 18 that correct? 19 A Correct. 20 Q Now, this document refers to a 21 Therminol FR? 22 A I should have said FR-1, FR-2, FR-3. 23 Q Were you aware of a Therminol FR-0? 24 A I vaguely recall that, yes. It was 25 not a big item. Yes, there was an FR-0. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 262 WATER PCB-SD0000049026 263 1 Q Do you know what aroclor that 2 Therminol included? 3 A I believe it was aroclor 1232. 4 Q The report discusses an effort to 5 educate Therminol users to control leakage. 6 Are you talking about in this report Therminol 7 users external to Monsanto, Monsanto's 8 customers? 9 A Well, yes. The marketing people would 10 be involved with customers. 11 Q Okay. I asked because in the next 12 paragraph you talk about consulting visits to 13 JFQ, which I assume is the Queeny plant, and 14 WGK which is the Krummrich plant? 15 A Yes. 16 Q But in the first paragraph you are 17 talking about communications to customers 18 outside of Monsanto? 19 A Correct. 20 Q What was the purpose of these efforts 21 to educate the users of Therminol? 22 A Well, of course the overall purpose 23 was to prevent the PCBs getting out to the 24 environment. The primary concern was one of 25 keeping the fire resistant characteristics of Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 263 WATER PCB-SD0000049027 264 1 these high temperature systems by continuing 2 to use PCBs. 3 It was perceived that ifthe systems 4 were not made leak proof, that use may 5 eventually not be tolerated, so it was the 6 hope then that if the system could truly be 7 described as totally enclosed, properly 8 maintained with no escape to the environment, 9 the safety feature could be kept with 10 continued use of the PCBs. 11 Q Were similar efforts made to educate 12 Pydraul users? 13 A Yes. 14 Q What did these education efforts 15 entail? Actual visits or sending them 16 literature or all of the above? 17 A All of the above. 18 Q Were efforts made for any education 19 efforts with respect to any of the Monsanto's 20 other PCB-containing products besides the 21 Therminols and the Pydrauls? 22 A Certainly with the electrical people. 23 Q So that would be the transformer 24 fluids and the capacitor fluids? 25 A Capacitor fluids. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 264 WATER PCB-SD0000049028 265 1 Q Any others? 2 A That's all that existed at the time. 3 Everything else was withdrawn. 4 Q You had taken out the paints and the 5 carbonless paper and things by then? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Turn over to page 3 of this report, 8 please. At the bottom of the paragraph under 9 the heading "Public Relations," there is a 10 reference to Monsanto being criticised for 11 refusing to release production figures on PCB. 12 Do you recall that incident? 13 A I do. 14 Q Was it true that Monsanto refused to 15 release its production figures? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Why did Monsanto refuse to release 18 those figures? 19 A Well,releasing the figures was 20 perceived by Monsanto as divulging information 21 about its customers the customer really didn't 22 want divulged. And without the customer's 23 permission, Monsanto felt it was in no good 24 position to release those numbers. 25 Q Did you consider releasing the figures Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 265 WATER PCB-SD0000049029 266 1 without identifying the customers? 2 A We considered that, but the requests 3 we were getting, the requesters were not 4 satisfied with that broad type of information. 5 Q Did you in fact release production 6 figures without identifying the customers? 7 A Eventually we did, yes. 8 Q But they still weren't satisfied? 9 A Well, initially they weren't. In 10 fact, we sent a copy to a government 11 individual, and it was never opened. It was 12 returned to us. So we then publicized it 13 through the news media. 14 Q That was to a government agency? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Which agency, do you recall? 17 A Council of Environmental Quality. 18 Q That's a federal agency? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Were you at this time releasing 21 figures as to the amount of aroclors you were 22 discharging to waterways? 23 A No. 24 Q And why is that? 25 A By releasing I'm assuming you mean Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 266 WATER PCB-SD0000049030 267 1 that in a broad way, not to specific 2 regulatory people. 3 Q Okay. Let's talk about that. Did you 4 release them to specific regulatory people? 5 A Yes. We discussed that, yes. 6 Q But not -- you weren't doing press 7 releases or anything? 8 A That is correct. 9 Q Did you ever receive any inquiries 10 from the press regarding the amounts of 11 aroclors you were discharging to waterways? 12 A I didn't receive any personally, no. 13 Q You are not aware of any? 14 A I'm not aware of any. 15 Q Would you have released that 16 information if requested? 17 MR. NASSIF: Objection. It calls for 18 speculation on the part of the witness. You 19 are asking him what he would do back in 1971 20 or 70. 21 A I just at this point in time in 22 hindsight, I just don't know what I would have 23 done if that had been asked of me at that 24 time. 25 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Turn, if you would, to Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 267 WATER PCB-SD0000049031 268 1 page 8 of the report. Under the "Krummrich 2 Plant" heading, there is a discussion of PCB 3 levels in the sewers. And under paragraph 4 three there is a discussion of sewer samples 5 taken from the effluents of other industrial 6 plants. Do you see that? 7 A I do. 8 Q Were you aware ofthe sampling efforts 9 discussed in that paragraph? 10 A Yes. In fact, this is my report. 11 Q I meant to say prior to the time that 12 -- let me go back. Is this information you 13 would have received from Mr. Savage? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Were you aware that this sampling was 16 going on prior to the time that you received 17 it from Mr. Savage? 18 A Yes. 19 Q How did you become aware ofthat? 20 A Just the normal conversations I held 21 with individuals regarding what are you up to, 22 what's going on? And this is the feedback I 23 was getting. 24 Q What was your understanding as to why 25 this sampling was being done? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 268 WATER PCB-SD0000049032 269 1 A This is a result of a follow up of 2 some samples that were taken. You may recall 3 yesterday we talked about the Mississippi 4 River, and we had some sediment samples and we 5 talked about going out in the boat and getting 6 some off shore and others and the presence of 7 PCBs in those samples. There was some 8 speculation as to where those PCBs were coming 9 from. And as a follow up on that, it was 10 decided to go and look at some other outfalls. 11 Q Did you understand these samples to be 12 from outfalls to the Mississippi River? 13 A No. I understood that these were 14 effluents that were leading to the village of 15 Sauget's treatment plant. 16 Q Do you know where the sampling points 17 for any of these samples identified in 18 paragraph three were? 19 A Not specifically, no. 20 Q Were you aware of a connection between 21 Dead Creek and the village sewer system? 22 MR. NASSIF: Objection. You asked him 23 that yesterday, and he gave you his entire 24 information about what he knew about Dead 25 Creek. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 269 WATER PCB-SD0000049033 270 1 A I did not then know the connection. 2 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Does this document 3 refresh your recollection that there was in 4 fact a connection between Dead Creek and the 5 village sewer system? 6 A It does. 7 Q Do you remember anything more right 8 now than what you see in this memo? 9 A No, I don't. 10 Q The results ofthese samplings are in 11 concentrations of parts per billion; is that 12 correct? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Now, in order to convert these 15 sampling results into a pounds per day figure, 16 you would have to know the rate of flow from 17 these sampling points? 18 A That's an important piece of 19 information, but you also have to know how 20 does this concentration vary throughout the 21 day? Does it peak? Does it valley? This is 22 just a spot sample. 23 Q The report states that the only 24 significant quantity is the PCBs from the 25 village sewer. Do you see that? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 270 WATER PCB-SD0000049034 271 1 A I do. 2 Q Since this is your report, I assume 3 that's a statement that you agreed with? 4 A Yes. 5 Q With respect to the -- let me withdraw 6 that. The report goes on to state, "This 7 amounts to about two to three pounds a day. 8 Probable source is aroclor trailer washes at 9 Rogers Terminal." Do you see that? 10 A I do. 11 Q How was the 2,110 parts per billion 12 figure for the village sewers converted to 2 13 to 3 pounds a day? 14 A Somebody had to have a flow of wastes 15 from the village to be able to make a 16 calculation based on an assumption that this 17 2,000 plus was constant throughout a 24-hour 18 period. 19 Q So that the flow would have to be 20 constant, and also the rate of PCBs would have 21 to be constant? 22 A To make that arithmetic. And this is 23 just a good guess. 24 Q Was it your understanding that the 25 aroclor trailer washes here are washes of Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 271 WATER PCB-SD0000049035 272 1 trailers used to haul aroclors for Monsanto? 2 A Yes. Well, I hesitated because I 3 don't know enough about the Rogers activities 4 to know whether they just hauled for Monsanto 5 or whether they hauled material for others. 6 Q But you knew they were hauling the 7 aroclors at least for Monsanto? 8 A At least, but I don't know if they 9 hauled transformer fluid from other companies, 10 for example. 11 Q Turn over to the next page, please. 12 Under the heading "Removal of Soluble PCBs 13 from Sewer Stream (reach 10 ppb)." Do you see 14 that? 15 A I see that. 16 Q There are a number of items listed, 17 numbers 1 through 4, as items that might 18 enable you to reach the 10 ppb level without 19 secondary or tertiary treatment. Do you see 20 that? 21 A I see that. 22 Q One of the items mentioned is to clean 23 all contaminated sewers and sewer boxes. What 24 did you understand that to mean? 25 A That implied to me that there was some Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 272 WATER PCB-SD0000049036 273 1 speculation regarding the presence of a layer 2 of heavy PCB in the bottoms of these systems 3 that until they are totally removed would 4 continue to contaminate the water that's 5 flowing through the systems. 6 Q How would the presence of that heavy 7 PCB layer on the bottom of the sewers 8 contribute to the levels in the water? 9 A Well, it served as a source of PCBs, 10 and it is transferred up to the limit of 11 solubility which would exceed that 10 parts 12 per billion. And in those situations where 13 you get some turbulence, you get some not only 14 solution of PCBs but a physical carrying. 15 Q What was the -- what would the 16 cleaning of the contaminated sewers and sewer 17 boxes entail? 18 A I find myself in a position where I 19 can't really tell you what they were thinking 20 at the time, but there are ways to handle 21 these things. 22 For example, you could go the route of 23 actually pumping out in these sewer boxes. 24 For example, sucking out the bottoms of these 25 and to go even from the -- you might want to Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 273 WATER PCB-SD0000049037 274 1 consider putting some sort of solvent in them 2 to get the last bit out. And in all ofthese 3 cases, whatever you withdraw from those 4 systems has to be carefully disposed of. 5 Q Do you recall any efforts by Monsanto 6 to actually get some cost estimates or 7 proposals of any kind as to what it would cost 8 you to clean out the sewers and sewer boxes? 9 A I just don't remember anything on 10 that. 11 Q Was it ever done? 12 A I recall some situations where they 13 did some clean outs. But I don't recall the 14 exact system or systems. There was something 15 done is all I remember. 16 Q Something done to clean out the 17 sewers? 18 A To clean out some sewers. I don't 19 know how extensive it was and the reason for 20 doing it. 21 Q AtKrummrich? 22 A At Krummrich, yes. 23 Q But you don't know how extensive it 24 was? 25 A I do not. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 274 WATER PCB-SD0000049038 275 1 Q Turn back to page 8 for a second, if 2 you would. I think you had testified earlier 3 that the problem, as you understood it, with 4 Rogers truck washing was that they were 5 discharging the wash water into Dead Creek. 6 This memo seems to suggest that Rogers truck 7 washings were going to the village sewers. 8 Does this refresh your recollection at all as 9 to where Rogers truck washings were going? 10 A I still am under the vivid impression 11 that this open area, the ditch kind of area, 12 the ground under the vehicles and so on with 13 the valve open and material drooling out of 14 it, that's the picture I have in my memory. 15 I just have a hard time associating it 16 with the village sewer system, but that's 17 because I don't know the connection between 18 that sewer system and the Rogers Terminal and 19 what he was doing at the terminal. 20 Q Do you agree that this report suggests 21 that at least some of Rogers truck washings 22 were going to the village sewers? 23 A That's what this report says or 24 implies. 25 Q But you just don't have any Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 275 WATER PCB-SD0000049039 276 1 recollection of it? 2 A I just personally don't know. 3 MR. RICCI: Why don't we take a break. 4 (Recess) 5 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 18 6 marked for identification.) 7 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, I'm 8 showing you a document that's been marked as 9 Exhibit 18 to your deposition. 10 This is a document with Bates No. CER 11 011640, M5055. 12 A I have read the document. 13 Q This is a January 29, 1971, memo from 14 yourselfto Mr. Savage; is that correct? 15 A That is correct. 16 Q In the second paragraph, there is a 17 statement, "It became increasingly obvious 18 that high levels -- referring to high levels 19 of PCBs in the sewers -- would continue 20 because of the PCBs trapped in the soil and in 21 the sewer systems. Cleanup ofthese sources 22 can be economically impractical." 23 Now, the cleanup of these sources that 24 you are referring to is the cleanup of soils 25 and sediments trapped in the sewers? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 276 WATER PCB-SD0000049040 277 1 A Yes. 2 Q How did you -- on what did you base 3 your conclusion in January of 1971 that that 4 cleanup could be economically impractical? 5 A Well, I took the very conservative 6 approach and assumed the worse scenario, and 7 this is why I used the expression can be 8 instead of will be, because I was really 9 guessing what the worst case scenario would 10 be. 11 Q Did your worst case scenario entail 12 cleaning all the sewers in the plant or simply 13 the sewers in the production area or something 14 different? 15 A I had in mind cleaning up all the 16 sewers that sampling told us contained PCBs, 17 and I also had in mind a very large area of 18 soil digging up and replacing and so on around 19 much of the manufacturing facilities, not only 20 the PCBs but the users of the PCBs, the power 21 plant, the heat exchange units and on and on. 22 So I imagined that this would be a gigantic 23 task. 24 Q How were PCB contaminated soils 25 contributing to PCBs in the effluent? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 277 WATER PCB-SD0000049041 278 1 A One could -- it was -- there was no 2 test made to demonstrate this. But one could 3 imagine that PCBs in soil would be tracked 4 onto, say, the pavement under the production 5 unit. And that pavement is hosed down, and it 6 gets into the sewer. That's just one little 7 example of the kind of thing. And trucks 8 churning it up and backing into the loading 9 docks and so on would be another source. 10 Q Was it originally your thinking that 11 the PCBs in the effluents could be controlled 12 simply by controlling the losses at the 13 production departments? 14 A That was my intent, yes. That was my 15 hope. 16 Q It appears from this memo that at 17 least by January of 71, you had come to the 18 conclusion that that controlling simply at the 19 production departments was not going to solve 20 the problem. Is that a fair statement? 21 A No. I'm describing control at the 22 production end. I'm also referring to cleanup 23 of systems and soils that were already 24 contaminated. And my last question really is 25 what can the plant do and what will it cost? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 278 WATER PCB-SD0000049042 279 1 Now, this doesn't really say do it only for 2 cleaning up soils or cleaning out sewers but 3 also to include consideration of what can be 4 done back at the operating units to prevent 5 the material in the first place rather than 6 chase it after you have lost it. 7 Q You state in the third paragraph, "It 8 appears that the PCB contamination is so 9 widespread that all ofthe plant's effluent 10 must be treated." And are you talking about 11 the Anniston plant in that paragraph? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Did that situation exist at the 14 Krummrich plant as well? 15 A No. It wasn't as widespread at 16 Krummrich. 17 Q Wasn't as widespread at Krummrich? 18 A That's correct. It is a bigger plant, 19 too, Krummrich geographically with isolated 20 production units, whereas the Anniston plant 21 was more compact. 22 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 19 23 marked for identification.) 24 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, I'm 25 showing you a document that's been marked as Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 279 WATER PCB-SD0000049043 280 1 Exhibit 19 to your deposition. 2 This is a document with Bates No. CER 3 011663 through 675, M5078 through M5090. 4 A I have scanned the exhibit. 5 Q This is another one of your monthly 6 reports relating to the PCB control program? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And this one is dated February 8, 9 1971? 10 A It is. 11 Q On the first page in the second 12 paragraph, there is a discussion of a 13 situation that arose with the State of 14 Florida. Do you recall the situation that's 15 discussed in this paragraph? 16 A I do. 17 Q What do you recall about it? 18 A Thisinvolved anair compressor 19 located on Monsanto's plant in Florida which 20 used a hydraulic fluid containing PCBs. A 21 leak -- and this particular compressor was 22 rather remotely located where employees were 23 not able to observe it constantly. A leak 24 developed, and the leaking hydraulic fluid 25 entered the drainage system and ended up in Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 280 WATER PCB-SD0000049044 281 1 the Escambia River estuary. 2 Q What was the state of -- how did the 3 State of Florida get involved? 4 A As I remember, the plant reported it. 5 Yes, they reported it. The area showed the 6 typical oily stains, and there was a rainbow 7 on the water near the plant, and the plant 8 reported it. That's how they involved the 9 state people. 10 Q Did the plant report it as an oil 11 spill or a PCB spill? 12 A The plant reported it as hydraulic 13 fluid spill. In 1969 the expression PCB 14 wasn't even known then. 15 Q Outside of Monsanto you mean? 16 A Not even Monsanto. We never used it. 17 Q Really? 18 A Aroclor is the term we used. 19 Q When did you start calling it PCBs? 20 A When the EPA picked it up, and I got 21 criticism from the electronics people. 22 Printed Circuit Board is their acronym. 23 Q I bet not anymore. 24 A No. They dropped it. 25 Q You state in the memo that the 2.5 Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 281 WATER PCB-SD0000049045 282 1 parts per billion PCBs which were detected are 2 being extracted from sediment contaminated 3 prior to the summer of'69. Do you see that? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Was this spill prior to the summer of 6 '69? 7 A No. It was during the summer of-8 well, yes. It was prior to the summer of'69, 9 yes. 10 Q When did the cleanup occur? 11 A Let's see. Shortly after that. 12 Q Shortly after the spill? 13 A Shortly after the spill, yes. It had 14 to happen within a month or two after that. 15 Q Do you know why this is being raised 16 in a report that's dated February of 1971? 17 A This is when the analysis was made of 18 those samples taken back then. 19 Q Okay. So in '69 you have the spill, 20 and you do some cleanup work and you retain 21 samples. Is that what happened? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And then in '71 you analyze the 24 samples? 25 A Yes. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 282 WATER PCB-SD0000049046 283 1 Q Okay. So when you say the 2.5 ppb 2 PCBs which were detected are being extracted 3 from sediment contaminated prior to the summer 4 of '69, you are referring to being extracted 5 from the samples? 6 A Yes. Yes. 7 Q Not being extracted from sediments in 8 the environment? 9 A That is correct. 10 Q Did Monsanto do any cleanup of 11 sediments as a result ofthis spill? 12 A I remember there was some activity 13 with sediments. They had backhoes and 14 bulldozers, and they took it to landfills. 15 Q But that was before you knew about the 16 PCBs? 17 A True. 18 Q Turn, if you would, to page12 of this 19 report. At the top under the heading 20 "Krummrich Plant, PCB Levels in Sewers," there 21 is a discussion of losses from the aroclor 22 department and losses from the treatment 23 plant. Do you see that? 24 A Yes, I do. 25 Q And the losses from thearoclor Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 283 WATER PCB-SD0000049047 284 1 department seem to be much less than the 2 losses from the treatment plant? 3 A I see that. 4 Q The treatment plant refers to the 5 village waste water treatment plant? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Did you have any explanation as to why 8 the losses at the treatment plant were greater 9 than the losses that you were showing from the 10 aroclor department? 11 A I don't know that you would call it an 12 explanation. It was really an assumption that 13 there must be other sources of PCBs entering 14 the village treatment plant. 15 Q Did you do any investigation to 16 determine what those other sources were? 17 A Well, I forget the date of that 18 previous exhibit where we had samples from 19 other effluents -- 20 Q Right. 21 A --from other industrial plants and 22 the village sewer itself. That's the kind of 23 study that was made to determine where the 24 PCBs might be coming from. 25 Q Did the sampling that you did ofthe Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 284 WATER PCB-SD0000049048 285 1 other industries in the village sewers account 2 for the difference that you were seeing 3 between what you were losing in the aroclor 4 department and what was being lost at the 5 village treatment plant? 6 A It accounted for the increase, but not 7 account pound for pound because of the time 8 the samples are taken. 9 Q The document that we have marked as 10 Exhibit 17 is the one that talks about the 11 samples from the other village industries. 12 And you state in this report, that is Exhibit 13 17, that the only significant quantity is the 14 PCBs from the village sewer. This amounts to 15 about 2 to 3 pounds a day. Probable source is 16 aroclor trailer washes at Rogers Terminal. 17 Was it your understanding then that 18 the difference, that the only significant 19 contributor to the difference between the 20 losses at the aroclor plant production 21 department and the losses at the village 22 treatment plant were these PCBs that you were 23 seeing from the village sewers that you had 24 attributed to Rogers? 25 A For this particular grouping of Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 285 WATER PCB-SD0000049049 286 1 samples at this point in time. 2 Q Were there other samples taken that 3 you are aware of of other village industries? 4 A Well, there were other samples taken, 5 as I recall, of these same kind effluents. I 6 don't remember the numbers today, but it 7 wasn't just a one-shot program. It was a 8 continuing program. 9 Q Did you ever determine that there were 10 other significant contributors of PCBs into 11 the village sewers besides Monsanto? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Who were they? 14 A Well, I would call all of these at one 15 time or other significant. 16 Q You didn't call them significant in 17 Exhibit 17, correct? 18 A That is true. 19 Q So what you are saying is you 20 recall -- 21 MR. NASSIF: For the record, he called 22 one of them significant. 23 MR. RICCI: Right. I'm sorry. That 24 is correct. 25 Q (By Mr. Ricci) You recall other Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 286 WATER PCB-SD0000049050 287 1 sampling efforts with respect to other -- with 2 respect to these village industries? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And you recall that in those other 5 sampling efforts, you identified what you 6 would call significant contributions of PCBs 7 in the sewers? 8 A Yes, relative to each other. 9 Q How about relative to Monsanto? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And which industries did you identify 12 as contributing significant amounts of PCBs? 13 A Gosh, you are asking me to remember. 14 I don't recall the specifics. I think they 15 all at one time or other appeared to be the 16 top PCB contributor for that sampling period. 17 It varied. 18 Q Were any ofthese sampling efforts 19 reduced to writing or incorporated in any of 20 your reports? 21 A I don't recall specific reports, but I 22 do recall some in writing, yes, some of the 23 plant documents. I just can't remember the 24 specifics. It has been a quarter of a century 25 ago. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 287 WATER PCB-SD0000049051 288 1 Q I understand that. Do you recall in 2 any of these other sampling efforts seeing 3 results approaching the levels identified to 4 the village in Exhibit 17 from any other 5 contributors to the sewers? 6 A Not quite that high, no. No. They 7 were not in the thousands. 8 Q In the hundreds? 9 A Hundreds, yes. 10 Q And do you recall efforts by Monsanto 11 to take the concentrations identified in those 12 sampling events and convert them to pounds per 13 day as was done in this memo? 14 A Yes. There were some of that, but we 15 recognize that it was at best a good guess is 16 what I describe it as. 17 Q Who would have been responsible for 18 taking these samples and reporting these 19 numbers up the chain? 20 A When you say responsible, it is hard 21 for me to draw the line. The plant manager is 22 ultimately responsible. He delegates these 23 duties to his team. Mr. Engman was the person 24 asked to kind of monitor and gather all that 25 data and report on it. There were, gosh, Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 288 WATER PCB-SD0000049052 289 1 several people in the plant involved with the 2 sampling, with the analyses, with the 3 calculations. No one person stands out in my 4 recollection. 5 Q Did Monsantomake any efforts to try 6 to reduce the PCB discharges to the sewers 7 from other village industries besides Rogers? 8 A No. 9 Q Why not? 10 A Well, in the industrial world, it is 11 virtually impossible for one company to move 12 in on another company and tell it how to run 13 its business. They won't even let you past 14 the plant gate guard. So Monsanto, of course, 15 was not in the regulatory business. It was 16 not in the cleanup business. All it could do 17 was inform the users of its products to keep 18 it out of the environment, and that's the 19 extent of it. 20 Q Were you aware that the village sewer 21 system was involved with an association of 22 industries that discharged into the system? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And you are familiar with the 25 association? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 289 WATER PCB-SD0000049053 290 1 A Not totally familiar, but I'm aware of 2 the existence of such a group. 3 Q What's your understanding of what the 4 group consisted of and what it does? 5 A As I understood it, it consisted of 6 representatives of the major industry in the 7 area, and they were to collectively concur as 8 to what was going on in that treatment plant 9 to operate it properly. And that's the extent 10 of my knowledge. 11 Q And Monsanto was a member ofthe 12 association? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Do you know if any of these other 15 industries identified in Exhibit 17 were 16 members? 17 A I understood they were, yes. 18 Q Did Monsanto ever raise within the 19 association the problem of PCBs into the 20 sewers? 21 A I was informed they had, yes. 22 Q Did Monsanto ever, working through the 23 association, try to impress upon the other 24 industries in the village the importance of 25 not discharging PCBs to the village sewer Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 290 WATER PCB-SD0000049054 291 1 system? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Who did that from Monsanto? 4 A As best I recall, Mike Foresman was 5 the Monsanto individual assigned to be a 6 liaison with the treatment plant. 7 Q When did those efforts occur? Was it 8 during this time period, the early '70s? 9 A Yes. The '70s, yes. 10 Q Flip over to page 13 of the memo, 11 please. This is a continuation of the 12 discussion of the Krummrich plant, and in the 13 second full paragraph on that page begins, 14 "Both main plant sewers appear contaminated 15 with PCBs (30W and 24W)"? 16 A I see that. 17 Q What does 30W and 24W refer to? 18 A I interpret that as identifying the 19 particular sewer run or sewer line. 20 Q Do you understand this sentence to 21 mean that the PCB contamination in the sewers 22 at the Monsanto plant extended beyond the 23 confines of the aroclor production department? 24 A Yes. 25 Q And that contamination that you are Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 291 WATER PCB-SD0000049055 292 1 referring to is in sediments in the sewers? 2 A Some of it is sediment. Some of it is 3 just the ability of PCBs to cling to the 4 walls, the surfaces of the sewer itself. 5 Q The presence of the PCBs in the 6 sediments created a likelihood of PCBs in the 7 effluent even if the production department 8 totally discontinued discharging PCBs to the 9 sewer; is that true? 10 A For awhile, yes. 11 Q And would the presence of PCBs on the 12 walls of the pipes ofthe sewer system also 13 create the likelihood of PCBs in the effluent 14 even if discharge from the PCB department 15 stopped? 16 A As long as the water reached that 17 surface, yes. 18 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 20 19 marked for identification.) 20 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, I'm 21 showing you a document that's been marked as 22 Exhibit 20 to your deposition. 23 This is a document with Bates No. CER 24 011681 through 693, M5096 through M5108, and 25 ask you to take a look at it. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 292 WATER PCB-SD0000049056 293 1 My questions, by the way, are only 2 going to refer to the portion of the document 3 that discusses the Krummrich plant. 4 A I have reviewed the portion referring 5 to the Krummrich plant. 6 Q On page 11, paragraph B, the second 7 paragraph, there is a discussion of a sample 8 taken from the village sewer and then it says, 9 "(Rogers Terminal) analyzed 0.033 percent 10 PCBs." Can you convert .033 percent into 11 parts per billion? 12 A Do you have a paper and pencil? It is 13 .033 over a hundred, and you add four more 14 zeros to the hundred to make a million, and 15 you shift your decimal point four places, 16 which gives you 330 parts per million. 17 Q Okay. So this is a different sampling 18 event than we saw in Exhibit 17 where it was 19 identified as 2,110 parts per billion? 20 A That's per billion. Yes. This is a 21 different sample. 22 Q And you state in this report -- by the 23 way, this document is another one of your 24 monthly reports on the PCB control program, 25 correct? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 293 WATER PCB-SD0000049057 294 1 A Yes. 2 Q And this one is dated March 9, 1971? 3 A Yes. 4 Q You state in this report, "Apparently 5 Rogers had dumped a wash the day this sample 6 was taken." What do you mean by dumped a 7 wash? 8 A It refers to the cleanout effort where 9 the Rogers people flush out their tank with 10 water and any solvents and detergents they 11 choose to use, and then they in essence open 12 the valve and release that dirt and this water 13 so to speak. 14 Q Was it your understanding that this 15 was a wash of a trailer that had been used to 16 haul Monsanto aroclors? 17 A Had been used to wash some PCBs. I 18 don't know what the source of the PCBs was. 19 Q On the next page you say under 20 paragraph F, "All aroclor trailers, including 21 Rogers trailers, are being washed at WGK's rip 22 track." 23 How did Monsanto convince Rogers to 24 allow Rogers trailers to be washed at 25 Monsanto's rip track? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 294 WATER PCB-SD0000049058 295 1 A Oh, I could speculate. I wasn't 2 involved. 3 Q You were not involved in that? 4 A Personally, no. 5 Q And nobody ever told you how that was 6 accomplished? 7 A No. 8 Q Do you know whether Monsanto in taking 9 the Rogers trailers -- let me start again. 10 The Rogers trailers that were washed at the 11 rip track, were they washed by Monsanto 12 personnel or by Rogers personnel? 13 A Monsanto. 14 Q In washing the trailer -- in washing 15 the Rogers trailers at the rip track, did 16 Monsanto wash trailers that were used to haul 17 other than Monsanto products? 18 A Yes, all of Rogers. 19 Q So basically all of Rogers trailers, 20 no matter who they hauled for, were washed at 21 the rip track? 22 A No. Just those tank trailers that 23 hauled Monsanto equipment or Monsanto 24 products. 25 Q Were washed at the rip track? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 295 WATER PCB-SD0000049059 296 1 A At Monsanto rip track. 2 Q Did Monsanto charge Rogers for that? 3 A I don't know. 4 Q You state, "All aroclor trailers 5 including Rogers trailers." Did Monsanto have 6 its own trailers? 7 A No. 8 Q Were there other haulers that were 9 used to haul aroclors? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Do you know who any of those were? 12 A I remember only one. Waggoner. 13 Q Waggoner? 14 A Yes. 15 Q That is W-A-G-G-O-N-E-R? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Do you recall if it was Harold 18 Waggoner or Wilbur Waggoner? 19 A I don't know. I don't recall. 20 Q But in any event it was a Waggoner 21 that was used to haul Monsanto aroclors? 22 A That was my recollection, yes. 23 Q Did Waggoner also engage in trailer 24 washing? 25 A He must have, yes. I'm guessing that. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 296 WATER PCB-SD0000049060 297 1 Q Okay. Do you know where Waggoner's 2 operations were located? 3 A No. 4 Q Do you know if he was in the Village 5 ofSauget? 6 A I associated him with the Illinois 7 side, but where in Illinois I don't know. 8 Q I may have asked you this yesterday, 9 and if I did I'm sure Joe will object, but I'm 10 going to ask you again. Did Waggoner haul for 11 the Queeny plant as far as you know? 12 A Yes. 13 Q I guess I didn't ask it yesterday. 14 Did Waggoner engage in any waste hauling for 15 either Queeny or Krummrich? 16 A Not to my recollection. 17 Q It was allproduct hauling? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Did the Queeny plant, when you were 20 working there at least, have any liquid waste 21 streams that were hauled off-site for 22 disposal? 23 A My answer is yes. I'm having 24 difficulty recalling just which ones they 25 were, but there were liquids hauled out, yes. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 297 WATER PCB-SD0000049061 298 1 Q Were they hauled in tank trucks or 2 drums? 3 A Both. 4 Q But you don't recall Waggoner hauling 5 any of those liquids? 6 A I don't associate Waggoner with waste 7 materials. 8 Q How about Rogers? 9 A Rogers also I do not. 10 Q Did the Krummrich plant have any 11 liquid waste streams that were hauled off-site 12 for disposal? 13 A Yes. 14 Q What were those? 15 A I don't recall the specifics, but I do 16 know they hauled to their landfill. 17 Q Okay. They were hauled to the 18 Monsanto landfill? 19 A Yes. The same thing with the Queeny 20 wastes. 21 Q They were taken to the Monsanto 22 landfill? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Were there any other haulers of 25 aroclors that you recall besides Rogers and Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 298 WATER PCB-SD0000049062 299 1 Waggoner? 2 MR. NASSIF: Objection. His testimony 3 was he could only recall one other. 4 A I don't recall any others. 5 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Turn back to page 11 6 of Exhibit 20 again, please. I'll refer you 7 again to that second paragraph under the 8 heading B. Do you understand from that that 9 at least as of January 26, 1971, Monsanto had 10 not begun washing the Rogers trailers at the 11 rip track? 12 A That's my understanding, yes. 13 Q Do you know when that practice did 14 begin? 15 A Not exactly. It is reported in the 16 February activity report. 17 Q Do you understand from that that it 18 would have occurred then in February of'71? 19 A That's the only conclusion I can 20 arrive at, yes, sir. 21 Q What did Monsanto do with the wash 22 waters that were generated from the washing of 23 these trailers? 24 A At this point in time? 25 Q Yes. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 299 WATER PCB-SD0000049063 300 1 A They were going to the village 2 treatment plant. 3 Q Did Monsanto do anything to remove the 4 PCBs from the water? 5 A Monsanto avoided introducing water 6 until they were certain they got all of the 7 free PCBs out ofthe unit, which reduced the 8 amount of PCBs that ended up in the water. 9 Q How did they -- I'm sorry. I didn't 10 mean to cut you off. 11 A It was a difference in the approach 12 taken in cleaning out the tank trailers. 13 Q What steps did Monsanto take to assure 14 that the insoluble PCBs taken out of these 15 trailers would not go to the sewers? 16 A Oh, they were drained out into drums. 17 And if they were salvageable, still fairly 18 clean, they would recycle it. If it was badly 19 contaminated, which didn't happen often, it 20 was sent to the landfill. 21 Q The material that you would take out 22 and drum would be the heel that we talked 23 about previously? 24 A Yes. Yes. 25 Q What about the material that would Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 300 WATER PCB-SD0000049064 301 1 adhere to the sides of the tanker? 2 A Well, that would not really be an 3 awful lot any longer once you allow the 4 material to drain on down, collect in this 5 heel, and then you open the valve and drain it 6 into a drum. 7 Q There would still be some residual 8 left on the side, but not a lot? 9 A There would be a fdm, yes. 10 Q And that fdm would be removed in the 11 washing process? 12 A Yes. 13 Q And that wash water was put into the 14 sewers? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And it was your understanding that 17 Rogers was just putting everything into the 18 sewers? 19 A Correct. 20 Q The aroclor that was identified as MCS 21 1016 was developed because it was more 22 biodegradable than 1242; is that correct? 23 A That is correct. 24 Q But they were both basically 42 25 percent chlorinated? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 301 WATER PCB-SD0000049065 302 1 A Correct. 2 Q What was the difference between the 3 two, 1016 and 1242? 4 A The difference in what way? 5 Q They were both 42 percent chlorine yet 6 they were different. And I'm trying to figure 7 out how that occurs. Different isomer makeup? 8 A Yes, exactly. The 1016 was distilled 9 in such a way that it accentuated the presence 10 of the three chloro type isomer and removed 11 the four and five and removed the one and two. 12 Q Okay. 13 A So you end up with still 42 percent 14 chlorine, but it is a different mixture of 15 isomers. 16 Q It was the four and five that was 17 contributing to the lack of biodegradable? 18 A The four and five were leading to the 19 difficulty in biodegradation. 20 Q How much more biodegradable was the 21 1016 than the 1242? 22 A I don't know how to express that 23 except that the studies conducted in 24 Monsanto's laboratories indicated that the 25 material left over from the end of the study Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 302 WATER PCB-SD0000049066 303 1 starting with a 1016 was considerably reduced 2 from the material left over starting with the 3 1242 and ending up with a high concentration 4 of four and five types of isomers. I don't 5 recall the exact numbers today. 6 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 21 7 marked for identification.) 8 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, let me 9 show you a document that's been marked as 10 Exhibit 21 to your deposition and ask you to 11 take a look at it. 12 This is a document with Bates No. CER 13 011764 through--I'm sorry. Did I give you 14 the right one? 15 MR. NASSIF: Yes. That's 764. 16 Q (By Mr. Ricci) I have marked as 17 Exhibit 21 the document with Bates No. CER 18 011764 through 772, M5179 through 5187, but I 19 don't have any questions on that document. 20 MR. NASSIF: That's fine. 21 MR. RICCI: I will put it in the pile. 22 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 22 23 marked for identification.) 24 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, I'm 25 showing you a document that's been marked as Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 303 WATER PCB-SD0000049067 304 1 Exhibit 22 to your deposition. 2 This is a document with Bates No. CER 3 011730through 738, M5145 through M5153. And 4 my questions to you on this document will 5 relate primarily to discussions on pages 7 and 6 8. I'm sorry. 8 and 9. 7 A I have looked at pages 8 and 9. 8 Q Under the heading for the Anniston 9 plant, there is a breakdown of the losses, and 10 there is a line for excessive rain and a 11 concentration in pounds per day figure 12 assigned to that line. How were the losses 13 attributable to excessive rain determined? 14 A I don't recall the procedure they used 15 on that. 16 Q How would excessive rain have 17 contributed to additional losses of PCBs to 18 the sewers? 19 A You mentioned the sewer. This is 20 losses from the plant. 21 Q Okay. 22 A I can only associate the rain with the 23 flow to the Snow Creek which is perceived as a 24 loss from the plant. So when you ask me how 25 did they determine that, obviously a sample Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 304 WATER PCB-SD0000049068 305 1 was taken. Now, how they calculated it, I 2 just don't know in terms of what volume of 3 water was involved and so on, but this isn't 4 necessarily just a sewer loss. It is plant 5 loss. 6 Q Okay. Could excessive rain contribute 7 to increased sewer losses by increasing the 8 turbulence with which the water flowed through 9 the sewers? 10 A That depends on -- gee, I don't know 11 how much ofthe water resulting from a rain 12 would find its way into the plant sewer 13 system. I know some of it does, but I have no 14 idea how much. And because of that, I can't 15 visualize the degree of turbulence. 16 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 23 17 marked for identification.) 18 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, I'm 19 showing you a document that's been marked as 20 Exhibit 23 to your deposition. 21 This is a document with Bates No. CER 22 015619 through 622, M4092 through M4095. And 23 I will ask you to take a look at it. And 24 while you are looking, I will be right back. 25 (Recess) Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 305 WATER PCB-SD0000049069 306 1 A I have scanned the exhibit. 2 Q (By Mr. Ricci) This is a September 9, 3 1971, memo from Mr. Savage to yourself; is 4 that correct? 5 A That is true. 6 Q And this is another one of these 7 reports from Mr. Savage that you then used to 8 prepare your reports? 9 A Correct. 10 Q In paragraph A on page 1, there is a 11 description of aroclor losses from the aroclor 12 department, and then in paragraph B there is a 13 description of total plant aroclor losses. Do 14 you see that? 15 A I do. 16 Q Where did Monsanto sample to determine 17 the losses from the aroclor department? 18 A I don't know personally. 19 Q Do you know where they sampled to 20 determine the loss, the total plant losses? 21 A Well, it is the sewer and entryway or 22 a part of the sewer system that leads to the 23 village treatment plant, but I don't know 24 exactly what point that is. 25 Q If I showed you a map ofthe sewer Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 306 WATER PCB-SD0000049070 307 1 system, do you think that might help you? 2 A Probably not. 3 Q Let me show you anyhow. On second 4 thought, I will spare you that. 5 Did you have an explanation as to the 6 difference between the losses from the aroclor 7 department and the total plant losses as 8 depicted in this memo? 9 A Well, obviously there are other 10 sources of PCBs throughout the plant. I 11 cannot tell you whether they are fresh sources 12 or sources that resulted from something that 13 happened in the past. And these would include 14 such things as heat transfer units that used 15 PCBs. 16 Q If you look at Roman Numeral II on 17 that page, there is a statement that, "All 18 Therminol units in the plant outside of the 19 operating department have been changed to 20 non-PCB fluids." So that would--would that 21 eliminate heat transfer units as a source of 22 fresh losses to the sewers? 23 A Fresh losses, yes. 24 Q What would the past losses be, to your 25 understanding, that could contribute to Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 307 WATER PCB-SD0000049071 308 1 current results? 2 A It depends considerably on the 3 location of the unit, whether the past losses 4 occurred on concrete pavement or crushed rock, 5 rock or on clay soil, and how that PCB that 6 might be there is transferred. So it enters 7 into the sewer system either by hosing it down 8 or by rain storms or by any other disturbance, 9 by vehicles and so on. 10 Q Would residual contamination in sewers 11 and sewer sediments be another example of past 12 losses contributing to current results? 13 A That is a potential source, yes. 14 Q On page 2 of the memo that we have 15 marked as Exhibit 23, at the bottom under the 16 Anniston plant, there is a discussion of a 17 contact between Monsanto and representatives 18 of the EPA and the Alabama Water Improvement 19 Commission. 20 My question is is this another -- 21 would you consider this one of the routine 22 contacts or would you consider this a 23 nonroutine contact? 24 A Well, the fact that this was requested 25 by the Washington D. C. Justice Department Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 308 WATER PCB-SD0000049072 309 1 would make it nonroutine in my opinion. 2 Q Do you know whether any requests were 3 made of the Krummrich plant similar to this 4 request that's documented here with respect to 5 the Anniston plant? 6 A I don't recall that, no. 7 Q Do you know why that was? 8 A I do not know. 9 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 24 10 marked for identification.) 11 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, I'm 12 showing you a document that's been marked as 13 Exhibit 24 to your deposition. Ask you to 14 take a look at it. 15 This is a document with Bates No. CER 16 05616 through 618, M4089 through M4091. 17 A I have read the exhibit. 18 Q Under on the first -- let me stop 19 there for a second. This is an October 8, 20 1971, memo from Mr. Savage to yourself; is 21 that correct? 22 A That is correct. 23 Q Is this another example of Mr. Savage 24 reporting to you information that you then 25 incorporated into your reports? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 309 WATER PCB-SD0000049073 310 1 A Yes. 2 Q On the first page of Exhibit 24 in the 3 second paragraph under heading "B," there is a 4 reference to sewer boxes being agitated with 5 air? 6 A I see that. 7 Q Mr. Savage's report indicates that the 8 purpose was to move any PCBs that may have 9 settled along the sewer route. How would air 10 agitation of the sewer box move along the 11 PCBs? 12 A It would approach forming an emulsion 13 with the water, and then the whole combination 14 of PCBs that had been stirred up and the water 15 would move forward in the sewer. 16 Q Why did you want to move them along? 17 A The intent was to avoid future 18 contamination of sewer water with PCBs. And 19 the intent here was to let's get once and for 20 all through the system if we can. 21 Q Was that intention actually 22 accomplished or realized in this effort? 23 A It helped. It didn't completely 24 remove the PCB from any water that still 25 traversed through there. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 310 WATER PCB-SD0000049074 311 1 Q Did you see positive results from 2 these efforts in subsequent sampling efforts? 3 A I remember, yes, it improved. 4 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 25 5 marked for identification.) 6 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, I have 7 handed you a document that's been marked as 8 Exhibit 25 to your deposition. 9 This is a document with Bates No. CER 10 012812 through 814, M6227 through 6229. 11 A I have reviewed the article. 12 Q This is a December 8, 1971, report 13 from Mr. Savage to yourself regarding the PCB 14 control program; is that correct? 15 A That is correct. 16 Q The first paragraph of this memo talks 17 about the emergence of a lower chlorinated 18 biphenyl in the sewer stream which is called 19 aroclor 1221. Why was the presence of this 20 aroclor deemed significant? 21 A As I recall, this is the first time 22 that the Krummrich plant in a long time that 23 the Krummrich plant had been asked to make 24 some of this material. 25 Q 1221? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 311 WATER PCB-SD0000049075 312 1 A 1221, yes. And this is why they first 2 spotted it in their sampling. 3 Q It was your understanding that they 4 made 1221 historically but not recently? 5 A Correct. 6 Q 1221 was the aroclor that you 7 testified yesterday did have a component that 8 was unchlorinated biphenyl? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Is that the lowest chlorinated aroclor 11 that Monsanto ever manufactured? 12 A Yes. I would say so. I don't know if 13 they made others but never marketed them. 14 Q Under paragraph B on the first page, 15 towards the end there is a statement regarding 16 a known cross-flow between the main sewer. Do 17 you see that, the last sentence in paragraph 18 B? 19 A I do see that, yes. 20 Q What do you understand that cross-flow 21 to refer to? 22 A I can't answer that because I don't 23 know. 24 MR. RICCI: Why don't we break now. 25 (Lunch Recess) Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 312 WATER PCB-SD0000049076 313 1 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 26 2 marked for identification.) 3 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, I have 4 just handed you a document that's been marked 5 as Exhibit 26 to your deposition. This is a 6 document with Bates No. CER 014761 through 7 767, M3513 through M3519. 8 A I have scanned through the exhibit. 9 Q This is an April 6, 1972, memo from Ed 10 Stewart to a Mr. A. E. Leisy? 11 A Correct. 12 Q And you are copied on this memo? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Did you receive a copy ofthis memo in 15 your capacity as the manager of environmental 16 control? 17 A I don't remember receiving it, but I 18 am listed as a recipient of a carbon copy. 19 Q Who was Mr. Stewart? 20 A He was an employee at Monsanto at the 21 W. G. Krummrich plant working in their 22 technical services department. 23 Q How about Mr. Leisy? 24 A Mr. Leisy at that time was the general 25 superintendent of manufacturing responsible Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 313 WATER PCB-SD0000049077 314 1 for the PCB department. 2 Q Turn, if you would, to the page with 3 Bates No. CER 014765. In the paragraph just 4 below the dates that are listed, there are 5 issues that I would like to raise with you. 6 First one there is a statement, "It is 7 believed the waste treatment influent 8 represents losses from the plant." Do you see 9 that? 10 A I do see it. 11 Q What do you understand that to mean? 12 A To me that means that Mr. Stewart made 13 an assumption that, for example, in December 14 '71, 12 pounds per day number represents PCBs 15 from Monsanto's plant. 16 Q Was Mr. Stewart actively involved in 17 the PCB control program? 18 A At this point in time he was, but he 19 had just recently joined the team. 20 Q Did he replace somebody else? 21 A No. No. The work load was such that 22 they needed more help, and he was one of a 23 couple three that were added to the team. 24 Q If other village industries were 25 contributing PCBs to the village sewers, then Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 314 WATER PCB-SD0000049078 315 1 that sentence that I just read you from this 2 memo would not be correct; is that true? 3 A That is true. 4 Q Do you have any reason to believe that 5 this statement is not correct? 6 A Yes. All the analytical data such as 7 those we saw previously indicated there were 8 PCBs in waste streams coming from other 9 industrial sites in that area. 10 Q Now, by the time of this memo, 11 Monsanto had taken from Rogers Cartage the 12 task of washing the aroclor trailers; is that 13 true? 14 A Yes. 15 Q So at least that source had been 16 eliminated, that source of other industry? 17 A That source of recently generated 18 losses, but does not account for any PCBs 19 still at the site where Rogers people did 20 their previous cleaning. 21 Q You are talking about residual soil or 22 sediment contamination? 23 A Yes. 24 Q There is a statement in that same 25 paragraph, "Calculations and recent plant Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 315 WATER PCB-SD0000049079 316 1 field data would indicate the major source of 2 PCB to the sewer from the aroclor department 3 to be organics present in the HCL off-gas." 4 Do you see that? 5 A I see that, yes. 6 Q How was the HCL off-gas getting to the 7 sewers at this point? 8 A There is a water scrubbing system 9 associated with that. And it is the water 10 from that I'm going to call the cleanup step 11 that was analyzed and traced back to this 12 source. 13 Q Based upon your testimony yesterday, 14 it was my understanding that the HCL off-gas 15 was actually diverted to other -- to the 16 production of muriatic acid at the Krummrich 17 plant. Do you recall that testimony? 18 A Yes. 19 Q This document seems to suggest that 20 HCL off-gas was going to the sewer. 21 A No. The intent there is to show that 22 that step in the process where the HCL off-gas 23 is recovered by a scrubbing system with its 24 auxiliary equipment to capture as much of the 25 gas as it can results in a waste stream that Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 316 WATER PCB-SD0000049080 317 1 has PCBs in it. It is not intended to show 2 the saleable muriatic acid in the source of 3 PCBs. It is the material that gets by that 4 system and is sewered. 5 Q So it is sewered after the scrubbing 6 process? 7 A Yes. That it is a residual gas still 8 left over. 9 Q And the scrubbing process that you are 10 referring to is the absorption of the HCL gas 11 into water? 12 A To make the acid. 13 Q To make the acid? 14 A That's correct. 15 Q Once that occurs there is residual gas 16 left over, and that's scrubbed, flushed to the 17 sewer? 18 A Yes. There is some gas still left 19 over and comes out ofthe top of that column, 20 and that's scrubbed again with a smaller 21 scrubber to get the last bit of any waste in 22 it, whether it be PCBs or whatever. 23 Q If there are PCBs in the off-gas after 24 it goes through the scrubbing process to 25 create the muriatic acid, wouldn't it also be Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 317 WATER PCB-SD0000049081 318 1 true that there were PCBs in the off-gas when 2 it was in that scrubbing process to create the 3 muriatic acid? 4 A Yes. And some of that is removed when 5 it goes through this condenser and demister 6 before it goes to the scrubber. So there are 7 at least two steps where it is captured. 8 Q Right. But you know it goes through 9 the condensers and the demister and then to 10 the scrubber for the production of muriatic 11 acid? 12 A Correct. 13 Q And at that point -- 14 A There is still some more gas being 15 sucked up by the vacuum jets that go to 16 another smaller type scrubber. 17 Q And that last scrubber goes to the 18 sewer? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And according to this memo, what was 21 going to the sewer through that last scrubber 22 contained PCBs? 23 A Yes. 24 Q So that thecondenser and the demister 25 were not a hundred percent efficient in Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 318 WATER PCB-SD0000049082 319 1 removing the PCBs? 2A That is correct. 3 Q And ifthere were PCBs in the last 4 scrubber, then there must be PCBs in the 5 scrubber upstream from that that creates the 6 muriatic acid? 7A Correct. 8 Q What mechanisms, if any, were in place 9 to prevent PCBs from getting into the muriatic 10 acid? 11 A Carbon treatment. 12 Q The muriatic acid went through carbon 13 treatment after it was created? 14 A The acid that was sold commercially or 15 used in some of the processes ran through a 16 carbon tower. The acid that was used in some 17 of the processes didn't have to be cleaned to 18 that degree, and it was used as is in the 19 Krummrich plant. 20 Q How was the carbon from that carbon 21 treatment system disposed of? 22 A Landfill. 23 Q When was that carbon treatment system 24 implemented? 25 A Very early days. I don't remember Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 319 WATER PCB-SD0000049083 320 1 what dates. 2 Q Prior to the PCB control program? 3 A Yes. 4 Q So prior to 1970? 5 A Oh, yes. 6 Q Was the purpose of that carbon 7 treatment to remove any organics from the 8 muriatic acid? 9 A Correct. 10 Q So Monsanto was aware prior to 1970 11 that the off-gas did contain organics? 12 A Organics, yes. 13 Q Now, if you look at the bottom ofthat 14 same page under paragraph B, there is a 15 statement, "HCL off-gas and air blow scrubbing 16 projects. Calculations and field sampling 17 would indicate losses of 14 to 31 pounds PCBs 18 per day can be present in the off-gas leaving 19 the department." Is that the off-gas that's 20 referred to there the same off-gas that we 21 have just been talking about? 22 A I believe it is, yes. 23 Q And he is estimating that to have the 24 potential to introduce between 14 and 31 25 pounds a day of PCBs into the sewer? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 320 WATER PCB-SD0000049084 321 1 A He is. 2 Q And as of the time of this memo, there 3 is no control mechanism in place to deal with 4 that discharge to the sewer; is that correct? 5 A That is correct. 6 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 27 7 marked for identification.) 8 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, I'm 9 handing you a document that's been marked as 10 Exhibit 27 to your deposition. 11 This is a document with Bates No. CER 12 014694 through 705, M3446 through 3457. 13 A I have reviewed the exhibit. 14 Q This exhibit are minutes of a meeting 15 that various Monsanto personnel had with the 16 EPA. And the minutes were prepared by 17 Mr. Hodges; is that correct? 18 A That is correct. 19 Q You are shown as having been present 20 at this meeting which apparently occurred on 21 April 13, 1972. Do you recall the meeting? 22 A Yes. 23 Q What were the circumstances that led 24 to this meeting? 25 A We had heard that the EPA was Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 321 WATER PCB-SD0000049085 322 1 seriously considering the establishment of a 2 level of PCBs in the waterways of the country 3 that they felt was appropriate and would cause 4 no effects in the environment. 5 What we had heard initially was that 6 the level that they were proposing would be if 7 not only difficult to achieve, but also 8 extremely difficult to measure reliably for 9 control purposes. 10 And we offered to sit down with their 11 EPA people and share our plant experience with 12 them. And we hoped that by so doing they 13 would perhaps get a better understanding of 14 what we felt was the real world. And that was 15 the purpose of setting up this meeting. 16 Q Attached to the minutes is the text of 17 a talk that Mr. Engman gave at the meeting? 18 A Yes, it is. 19 Q Do you recall Mr. Engman giving this 20 talk? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Did he basically just read what was 23 on -- 24 A Yes. 25 Q -- this sheet? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 322 WATER PCB-SD0000049086 323 1 A Yes. 2 Q If you refer over to the first page of 3 the text of the talk, paragraph number three, 4 there is a statement, "Five separate projects 5 were completed to the manufacturing equipment 6 and facilities themselves to bring all known 7 points of loss under tight control and to 8 reduce these losses to their absolute 9 practical minimum." Do you see that? 10 A I do. 11 Q Do you feel that statement is accurate 12 in light of the losses reflected in the 13 previous memo from the HCL off-gas? 14 A I don't see any inconsistency. The 15 previous exhibits we looked at, at least two 16 or three of them, there was a page in each 17 listing projects and their estimated dates of 18 completion and the objective of the projects. 19 You may remember those. This particular 20 paragraph is referring to those five or so 21 projects that were listed. Your reference 22 here to the off-gases was not among those 23 five. It is still an open issue that had to 24 be addressed. 25 Q Would you consider the aroclors going Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 323 WATER PCB-SD0000049087 324 1 to the sewer from the off-gas, as referenced 2 in the previous exhibit, a known point of 3 loss? 4 A True. True. 5 Q Was that known point of loss under 6 tight control as ofthe time that Mr. Engman 7 gave this talk to the EPA? 8 A That is true. 9 Q It was under control? 10 A No. 11 Q My question was was this known point 12 of loss under control at the time Mr. Engman 13 gave this talk? 14 A It was not under control. 15 Q Flipping over to the page with Bates 16 No. CER 014704. 17 A I have it. 18 Q There is a statement that begins, 19 "Although our in-plant sources of loss are 20 essentially eliminated or contained through 21 projects that have been completed," and it 22 goes on to say, "we are continuing to change 23 and modify our operation to further minimize 24 potential losses." 25 Was the loss of aroclors to the sewers Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 324 WATER PCB-SD0000049088 325 1 through the HCL off-gas as referenced in the 2 previous exhibit eliminated or contained as of 3 the time that Mr. Engman gave this talk? 4 A No. That's why the word essentially 5 eliminated and continuing to change, those 6 phrases indicate more work had to be done, and 7 modify our operations is another description 8 of what had to take place. 9 Q You have a specific recollection that 10 that's why the term essentially eliminated was 11 put in there? 12 A Not only for that, but for anything 13 else that might show up with further study. 14 Q I'd like to direct your attention to 15 the last paragraph on page three or on this 16 Bates CER 014704. 17 A I see it. 18 Q Mr. Engman refers there to the age of 19 the sewer system and the fact that the sewers 20 may have leaks. And then he says, "We are 21 confident that this situation contributes 22 significantly to the losses we see in the out23 flow to the river." Do you see that? 24 A I see that. 25 Q How would the conditions that Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 325 WATER PCB-SD0000049089 326 1 Mr. Engman is describing in that paragraph 2 contribute to losses in the out-flow to the 3 river? 4 A Well, the way I understood it is that 5 he is referring to the age ofthe operating 6 unit and its sewer system, and he felt 7 confident that that condition of the plant led 8 to losses that were noticeable in the river, 9 and that once we controlled the entry of 10 material into the system, that eventually any 11 PCB still in these sewers and in the sumps and 12 what have you would diminish with time. 13 Q What do you understand the statement, 14 "At no time do we expect that the sewers are 15 leak free," to mean? 16 A I read that to believe that 17 considering the age of the system, it was 18 unrealistic for Monsanto people to sit back 19 and feel totally assured that there are no 20 leaks. 21 Q By leaks, I guess that's what I'm 22 trying to focus on. What do you understand 23 the term leaks to mean, leaks into the sewer 24 system or out? 25 A Both directions. Flaws in the sewer Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 326 WATER PCB-SD0000049090 327 1 system leading to contaminated waters entering 2 or contaminated waters leaving at some other 3 point. 4 Q Were you aware of any contaminated 5 waters entering the sewers through leaks in 6 the sewer system? 7 A I have no personal knowledge of the 8 sources of the PCBs found in the sewer system, 9 no. 10 Q Did Monsanto ever investigate as part 11 of the aroclor control program whether there 12 were contaminated waters leaking into the 13 sewer system that weren't coming from your 14 operations? 15 A We certainly knew they were coming 16 from some of the uses like the hydraulic uses 17 in the compressor areas or the heat transfer 18 areas. We knew those sources. 19 Q But those were getting in through the 20 sewer system, correct? I mean those weren't 21 leaking in? 22 A I don't know that. 23 Q Okay. It is possible for a heat 24 transfer system to leak out on, let's say, a 25 crushed rock area, leak onto the crushed rock. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 327 WATER PCB-SD0000049091 328 1 The water from rainfall or hosing down or what 2 have you picks up some of that and finds its 3 way down the plant and finds an opening in 4 some sewer. And the pressures are such that 5 the water enters the sewer rather than coming 6 out of it because the sewer is not fully 7 loaded, and that contaminated water could 8 enter a sewer system. That's a possible 9 scenario. 10 Q Right. 11 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 28 12 marked for identification.) 13 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, I'm 14 handing you Exhibit 28 to your deposition. 15 This is a document with Bates No. CER 014773. 16 Wait a minute. I'm sorry. 17 MR. NASSIF: 770. 18 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Right, 770 through 19 780, M3522 through 3532. 20 My question with respect to this 21 document, by the way, is going to be with 22 respect to the discussion of samplers, if that 23 will expedite the review. 24 A I have read the pages on which the 25 topic of samplers is described. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 328 WATER PCB-SD0000049092 329 1 Q This document is a May 3, 1972, memo 2 from Mr. Engman to yourself? 3 A It is. 4 Q What was the purpose of this report 5 from Mr. Engman? 6 A It is in response to my continual 7 questioning of where do we stand on all our 8 projects. 9 Q Did this report by Mr. Engman replace 10 the reports that you had been getting from 11 Mr. Savage? 12 A No. It supplemented. 13 Q Mr. Engman goes through a discussion 14 of various sampling devices that had been used 15 in the PCB control program. Were you familiar 16 with these sampling devices and techniques? 17 A At the time I was to a degree 18 familiar, not to the degree that Mr. Engman is 19 of course. 20 Q He talks about four different kinds of 21 samplers. He talks about a slow speed 22 sampler, a high speed sampler, a barrel 23 sampler and a flip-flop sampler. The first 24 sampler -- let me withdraw that. 25 It appears from the memo that prior to Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 329 WATER PCB-SD0000049093 330 1 the development of the flip-flop sampler, 2 which is referred to as the latest 3 development, it was the barrel sampler that 4 you were using to take your PCB samples? 5 A Just prior to theflip-flop? 6 Q Right. 7 A Yes. 8 Q Do you know how long the barrel 9 sampler had been in use -- 10 A No, I don't. 11 Q -- prior to the time of this memo? 12 A I don't remember. And the barrel 13 sampler, as I understand it, was only at the 14 waste treatment plant because it required the 15 attention of an operator who was available. 16 Q Do you know if the high speed sampler 17 and the slow speed sampler were at times used 18 at the waste treatment plant? 19 A At times, yes. Before and after. 20 Q Before and after what? 21 A The barrel system. 22 Q Both the high and the slow speed 23 sampler were both used at the waste water 24 treatment plant after the barrel sampler? 25 A No. They had the slow and then they Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 330 WATER PCB-SD0000049094 331 1 went to high. 2 Q Right. 3 A And then they went to barrel. 4 Q Right. 5 A And then developed this flip-flop 6 which proved to be considered better than the 7 other three. 8 Q Right. 9 A And the flip-flop replaced all the 10 samplers. 11 Q So they never went back to the slow or 12 the high speed sampler after they went to the 13 flip-flop? 14 A Correct. 15 Q And they never went back to those slow 16 and high speed after they put in the barrel? 17 A Correct, the barrel at the treatment 18 plant. 19 Q At the treatment plant, that's what 20 I'm talking about. Was the barrel sampler in 21 service the longest amount of time as between 22 the barrel, the slow speed and the high speed? 23 A I don't know. 24 Q And you don't know the breakdown as to 25 when they went from the first to the second to Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 331 WATER PCB-SD0000049095 332 1 the third? 2 A Today I don't remember the dates, no. 3 Q If you look at page 4 ofthis memo, 4 Mr. Engman is taking the position that the 5 flip-flop sampler is superior to the barrel 6 sampler, correct? 7 A That's the conclusion he arrived at, 8 yes. 9 Q And as a result, he is going to start 10 using the flip-flop sampler as of May? 11 A Yes. 12 Q He says that the results, referring to 13 the results in the flip-flop sampler, will 14 tend to be higher than those in the past. Do 15 you see that? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Do you know why that was? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Why is that? 20 A The flip-flop is able to capture 21 sediment in the water which contains PCBs 22 also, so the analysis will reflect the 23 additional PCBs. 24 Q Were the slow speed sampler and the 25 high speed sampler able to capture sediments? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 332 WATER PCB-SD0000049096 333 1 A No. Some of the sediment would settle 2 out and would not be in the sample. 3 Q So that would it be correct to say 4 that the results that had been obtained at the 5 waste water treatment plant prior to May of 6 1972 in fact understated the amount of PCBs in 7 the water because of this inability to sample 8 the sediments? 9 A Yes. Assuming there was sediment in 10 that to start with and how much sediment is 11 involved. 12 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 29 13 marked for identification.) 14 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, I'm 15 handing you a document that's been marked as 16 Exhibit 29 to your deposition. 17 This is a document with Bates No. CER 18 012041 through 049, M5456 through M5464. 19 And the question I'm going to ask you 20 is basically just what you recall about the 21 project that's discussed in this document. So 22 with that question in mind, you can review it 23 as much as or little as you think you need to. 24 A I have scanned the exhibit. 25 Q Do you recall the project that's Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 333 WATER PCB-SD0000049097 334 1 addressed in this Exhibit 29? 2 A No. I'm having difficulty recalling. 3 Q The document or at least the first 4 page of the document appears to be a form. 5 Are you familiar with that form? 6 A Yes. 7 Q What is the form? 8 A This is the form used by the plant 9 technical services department to describe a 10 proposed project in an attempt really to get 11 comments regarding the appropriateness of what 12 was proposed and as a prerequisite to 13 preparing a formal appropriation request to go 14 ahead and complete the project. 15 Q Can you tell if this project was 16 designed to address the aroclor losses to the 17 sewers from the HCL off-gas? 18 A Yes. This was the -- not the HCL 19 off-gas. It is to prevent the entry into the 20 sewer system of muriatic acid which had been 21 recovered from the off-gases but which had not 22 been run through the carbon tower to remove 23 the organics. And this is the acid that is 24 used in the manufacture of chlorosulfonic acid 25 which is another product within the Krummrich Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 334 WATER PCB-SD0000049098 335 1 plant premises. 2 And as I read this, apparently there 3 were times when the system would be out of 4 control and that untreated muriatic acid would 5 find its way to the sewer. I personally don't 6 recall this specific activity. 7 Q So this would be another source of 8 PCBs to the sewers in addition to the HCL 9 off-gas that we were talking about a few 10 exhibits ago? 11 A Correct. 12 Q But you don't haveany recollection of 13 this one? 14 A I don't recall this specific one, no. 15 Q Was it your understanding that in the 16 manufacture of chlorosulfonic acid one of the 17 raw materials was muriatic acid that was 18 created from the HCL off-gas from the aroclor 19 department? 20 A Yes. 21 Q The muriatic acid that was used to 22 manufacture chlorosulfonic acid did not go 23 through carbon treatment? 24 A The chlorosulfonic acid did. 25 Q Okay. So you didn't have to put the Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 335 WATER PCB-SD0000049099 336 1 muriatic acid through it because the 2 chlorosulfonic acid would go through it? 3 A It would be treated anyway, so you did 4 it at one time. 5 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 30 6 marked for identification.) 7 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, this 8 is a document that we have marked as Exhibit 9 30 to your deposition. 10 It has Bates No. CER 013898 through 11 911,M2859 through M2872. 12 A I have scanned the document. 13 Q Exhibit 30 is a December 11, 1972, 14 memo from Mr. Stewart to a number of people 15 including yourself; is that correct? 16 A That is correct. 17 Q Attached to the cover sheet of Exhibit 18 30 is something that Mr. Stewart refers to as 19 an in-hand status report. Do you see that? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Are you familiar with that term 22 in-hand status report? 23 A I at this time do not recall the 24 report itself was referred to as in-hand, 25 although that expression in-hand is used to Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 336 WATER PCB-SD0000049100 337 1 describe the awareness of PCB in certain 2 streams. 3 Q The report itself begins on the page 4 with Bates No. CER 013900; is that correct? 5 A That is correct. 6 Q What was the purpose of that status 7 report? 8 A To let anyone that might be interested 9 know what the plant, the Krummrich plant, had 10 done in the area of keeping PCBs out of the 11 environment. 12 Q Mr. Stewart states that the report was 13 prepared, "To have a document in-hand for the 14 federal authorities in the event we are asked 15 for such a document." Do you agree that that 16 was one of the purposes of this document? 17 A That's one of the purposes, yes. 18 Q Flip over to the page with Bates No. 19 CER 013902. 20 A I have it. 21 Q Directing your attention to the second 22 paragraph, just take a moment to read that 23 paragraph. 24 A I have read it. 25 Q That paragraph has an inaccuracy in Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 337 WATER PCB-SD0000049101 338 1 it, doesn't it? 2 A It does. 3 Q What is the inaccuracy? 4 A This inclusion of the 1016 number 5 along with the 1200 series does lead to 6 confusion regarding the lower the grade 7 number, the more degradable. 8 Q And also the lower the grade number, 9 the less chlorinated? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Was this document ever provided to 12 federal authorities? 13 A I don't recall it ever being approved, 14 but -- I just don't remember it ever being 15 approved or issued to anybody -- employees, 16 customers, neighbors or government. I just 17 don't remember that. 18 Q Approved by whom? 19 A Well, you will note by the cover memo 20 that final approval was requested from me. 21 Q Okay. 22 A In order for me to get final approval, 23 I had to run this by others in Monsanto. I 24 don't recall final approval given to this, but 25 my memory may have failed me. I don't know. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 338 WATER PCB-SD0000049102 339 1 I just don't remember this. 2 Q In the first page of the cover memo 3 there is a reference to deleting the word 4 knowing in any reference to types of PCB 5 losses. Do you see that? 6 A Yes. 7 Q What was that about? 8 A You note one of the exhibits described 9 a meeting with the EPA. 10 Q Right. 11 A Where a Dr. John Buckley in EPA 12 participated actively in defining for us what 13 EPA meant by knowing quantities of PCBs, and 14 he made an attempt to describe that for us. 15 And we decided that industry didn't quite 16 understand the EPA's use of that expression 17 knowing. And we took Buckley's explanation 18 and came up with the in-hand implying this is 19 what we know is in this stream, because 20 Buckley's explanation was a little bit 21 confusing to us. 22 Q Was the knowing discharge standard 23 ever adopted? 24 A Well, it depended on your 25 understanding of the use of the word knowing. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 339 WATER PCB-SD0000049103 340 1 If by knowing you mean you have taken a sample 2 and you have analyzed it and you have a number 3 you are looking at, that is crystal clear. 4 But then there are other 5 interpretations of that expression that 6 implied you could assume without an analysis 7 that that particular stream had PCBs in it and 8 still used the word knowing, so this is what 9 created some of this confusion. And 10 Mr. Stewart chose to use the in-hand, meaning 11 in his thinking we know for sure. Our 12 instrument tells us this is the amount of 13 material in the sample. 14 MR. NASSIF: Did you get your question 15 answered, Rich? 16 MR. RICCI: I don't think so, but I 17 don't think I'm that interested in it. 18 MR. NASSIF: All right. 19 A I'm sorry I didn't make it clear. 20 Q (By Mr. Ricci) No. I think it is an 21 inherently unclear standard, and we could 22 probably spend 20 minutes trying to figure it 23 out, but it is not really that germane. 24 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 31 25 marked for identification.) Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 340 WATER PCB-SD0000049104 341 1 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, I'm 2 handing you a document that's been marked as 3 Exhibit 31 to your deposition. 4 This document has Bates No. CER 015432 5 and 433, M3 905 and M3 906. And I would ask you 6 to take a look at it. 7 A I have read the exhibit. 8 Q This is a September 24, 1973, memo 9 from Mr. Hodges to Mr. Heisler and Mr. Hippe? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And you are copied on this memo? 12 A Yes. 13 Q The memo talks about PCBs being 14 included on a list of toxic pollutants 15 published by the USEPA; is that correct? 16 A That is correct. 17 Q What was your understanding of the 18 significance of PCBs being included on that 19 list, if any? 20 A Listing a chemical in that group of 21 chemicals would then make it eligible for the 22 imposing of limitations on the amount that 23 could be present. That was the purpose of 24 that list. 25 Q Mr. Hodges refers in the next to the Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 341 WATER PCB-SD0000049105 342 1 last paragraph on the first page to background 2 losses. Do you see that? 3 A Yes. 4 Q What did you understand that term 5 background losses to mean? 6 A That means the amount of material 7 found in samples over and above the amount 8 that could be accounted for in the Krummrich 9 plant's discharges. 10 Q In the last paragraph on the first 11 page he urges the plant to commence a program 12 of monitoring to determine sources of the 13 background loss. Was any such program 14 implemented? 15 A Yes. 16 Q What did that program entail? 17 A It was really a continuation of that 18 sampling program, the results of which we saw 19 in earlier exhibits, at the various points in 20 the sewer system leading to the village 21 treatment plant. 22 Q Various points of the Monsanto sewer 23 system? 24 A No. The village treatment sewer 25 system, the village, the neighboring Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 342 WATER PCB-SD0000049106 343 1 industries including Monsanto. 2 Q So start again. The program that you 3 just described was continued in response to 4 this memo? 5 A Yes. There are two parts to this 6 program. One is the outside sampling. By 7 outside I mean external of the Krummrich 8 plant. 9 Q Right. 10 A And then there is the program through 11 control losses inside the plant, and the 12 intent there is to more clearly define where 13 these PCBs are all coming from. 14 Q Mr. Hodges states here that he is 15 urging the plant to commence a program of 16 monitoring to determine sources of the 17 background loss. Is it your understanding 18 that such a program was already underway? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Do you know why Mr. Hodges was urging 21 the plant to commence such a program then? 22 A No, I don't. 23 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 32 24 marked for identification.) 25 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, let me Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 343 WATER PCB-SD0000049107 344 1 show you Exhibit 32 to your deposition, which 2 is a document with Bates No. CER 013838 and 3 839, M2799 and M2800. Ask you to take a look 4 at it. 5 A I have read the exhibit. 6 Q This is an October 16, 1973, memo from 7 Mr. Buckley to Mr. Leisy. Who was 8 Mr. Buckley? 9 A Mr. Buckley was a member of the 10 environmental team at the Krummrich plant. 11 Q And you are copied on this memo? 12 A I am. 13 Q In the first paragraph he indicates 14 that this memo is in part in reference to Paul 15 Hodges' memo of 9/24/73. Do you see that? 16 A I do. 17 Q And that's the document that we just 18 talked about as Exhibit 31, correct? 19 A Correct. 20 Q He presents a plan that's in four 21 paragraphs on the first page of that memo. Do 22 you know why there is no mention in this plan 23 of sampling the effluent from the other 24 industries in the village? 25 A I do not. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 344 WATER PCB-SD0000049108 345 1 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 33 2 marked for identification.) 3 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, let me 4 show you Exhibit 33 to your deposition. 5 This is a document with Bates No. CER 6 014855 through 858, M3607 through M3610. Ask 7 you to take a look at it. 8 A I have reviewed the article. 9 Q This is a January 4, 1974, memo from 10 Mr. Buckley to Mr. Savage regarding the PCB 11 environmental control program. And you are 12 copied on this memo, correct? 13 A Correct. 14 Q And the memo at least in part reports 15 PCB levels in the sewers, correct? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Including the waste treatment plant 18 influent? 19 A Yes. 20 Q The memo doesn't contain any data on 21 PCB losses from other industries in the 22 village, does it? 23 A I don't see any reference to others, 24 no. 25 Q If such information was available for Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 345 WATER PCB-SD0000049109 346 1 the time period covered by this memo, would it 2 have been appropriate for Mr. Buckley to 3 include it in this memo? 4 MR. NASSIF: Object. Calls for 5 speculation. 6 A I don't know what Mr. Buckley was 7 asked to do, so I can't -- I don't know. 8 Q (By Mr. Ricci) This memo is 9 identified as having a subject, "Status of the 10 PCB Environmental Control Program," right? 11 A Correct. 12 Q You were the director of environmental 13 control at this point, correct? 14 A Manager of environmental control. 15 Q Manager. I'm sorry. As manager of 16 environmental control, would you have been 17 interested in seeing data regarding PCB 18 discharges from other village industries for 19 that time period if it were available? 20 A Certainly. 21 Q Did you ever ask Mr. Buckley or 22 Mr. Savage why that information wasn't 23 included in this memo? 24 A I don't recall that. At this point in 25 time, I just don't remember how that other Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 346 WATER PCB-SD0000049110 347 1 information was made available to me. 2 Q Do you recall receiving any regular 3 periodic reports that set forth PCBs being 4 discharged to the village sewer from other 5 industries? 6 A Not periodic, not regular. 7 Q Do you remember seeing any written 8 reports other than the two that we have 9 already looked at today? 10 A Oh, there are others. 11 MR. RICCI: Joe, in the documents that 12 we have reviewed, we have only seen two 13 reports that talk about samples of PCB from 14 other village industries, so I'm going to make 15 a request on the record right now that any 16 additional documents that give that kind of 17 information be produced. And I will follow it 18 up in writing. 19 MR. NASSIF: Fine. We produced to you 20 what we had. 21 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Under Roman Numeral 22 III on the first page of Exhibit 33, paragraph 23 one talks about HCL off-gas? 24 A Yes. 25 Q It says the sewering valve opened Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 347 WATER PCB-SD0000049111 348 1 about 18 times through 12/30. What does that 2 mean? 3 A I don't remember that. I don't 4 remember the significance of that. 5 Q Do you remember the sewering valve? 6 Does that ring a bell? 7 A No, it doesn't. 8 Q Flip over to the second page ofthis 9 Exhibit 33, please. 10 A I have it. 11 Q Under the heading"Investigations," 12 there is a statement that it is reasonable to 13 assume that the most representative sample is 14 obtained at the waste treatment plant influent 15 point where there is the greatest turbulence 16 at the sampling point. Do you see that? 17 A I see that. 18 Q What is meant by the most 19 representative sample? Most representative of 20 what? 21 A In the opinion of the author's, it 22 would be most representative of the waste 23 stream leaving the Krummrich plant going to 24 the municipal treatment plant. 25 Q So according to the author, they are Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 348 WATER PCB-SD0000049112 349 1 saying the place where you get the most 2 representative sample of the Krummrich plant 3 effluent is the influent point of the waste 4 water treatment plant? 5 A No. The influent of the Krummrich 6 plant's waste, not the composit from the 7 village and neighboring industry. 8 Q You understand this reference to the 9 waste treatment plant influent to be the point 10 whereby the Krummrich plant waste stream 11 enters the village sewer system? 12 A Yes, the composit from the Krummrich 13 plant, which is close to the producing unit, 14 as well as all these other streams. 15 Q Was there a single point where the 16 Krummrich plant effluent from all areas of the 17 Krummrich plant entered the village sewer 18 system? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And were there any waste streams from 21 any other industries that were in the line at 22 that point? 23 A Downstream. 24 Q Not upstream? 25 A Not upstream. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 349 WATER PCB-SD0000049113 350 1 Q So there was a single point entering 2 the village sewer system that brought together 3 all of the waste streams from the Krummrich 4 plant? 5 A Correct. 6 Q Where was that point? 7 A Gosh, I don't remember physically, no. 8 Q Why would the turbulence of the 9 sampling point contribute to its value as a 10 representative sampling point? 11 A The turbulence was more apt to pick up 12 the PCBs associated with sediments and the 13 free PCBs ifthere were any, what we talked 14 about earlier, this mixture approaching an 15 emulsion, that kind of thing. 16 MR. RICCI: Why don't we take a break 17 now. 18 (Recess) 19 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 34 20 marked for identification.) 21 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, let me 22 show you a document that's been marked as 23 Exhibit 34 to your deposition. 24 This is a document with Bates No. CER 25 015519 through 521, M3993 through M3994. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 350 WATER PCB-SD0000049114 351 1 My only question is on the first page 2 of the document. This is a February 4, 1974, 3 memo from Mr. Buckley to Mr. Savage that you 4 are copied on, correct? 5 A Correct. 6 Q In the first section he describes PCB 7 levels in the sewers. Do you see that? 8 A I do. 9 Q And the document indicates a much 10 lower level of loss from the aroclor 11 department than it does with the losses 12 measured at the waste treatment influent. Is 13 that true? 14 A That is true. 15 Q And the reference to thewaste 16 treatment influent in this document, do you 17 understand that to be the influent point of 18 the village treatment plant? 19 A It is the influent from the Krummrich 20 plant to the village treatment plant. 21 Q To the village sewer system? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Not to the village treatment plant? 24 A Correct. Eventually it gets there, 25 yes. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 351 WATER PCB-SD0000049115 352 1 Q Just bear with me for one second. 2 Mr. Papageorge, let me refer you back for a 3 moment to Exhibit 28. This was the exhibit 4 that we had looked at with respect to the 5 issue of samplers? 6 A Yes. 7 Q And I believe you testified that the 8 barrel sampler was installed at the influent 9 point ofthe waste water, the village waste 10 water treatment plant, correct? 11 A That's my understanding. 12 Q And that's the influent of all flows 13 from the village into the waste water 14 treatment plant, correct? 15 A That's my understanding, yes. 16 Q And the reason it was installed there 17 is because they had an operator, correct? 18 A Correct. 19 Q And this memo that is Exhibit 28 20 indicates that the flip-flop sampler is going 21 to replace the barrel sampler, correct? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And it is going to replace the barrel 24 sampler at that same influent point to the 25 waste water treatment plant? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 352 WATER PCB-SD0000049116 353 1 A That is true, yes. But it is also 2 supposed to replace the samplers at other 3 points which were not barrel samplers. 4 Q Okay. And from that point forward, 5 samples taken from the waste water treatment 6 plant influent point are going to be with the 7 flip-flop sampler? 8 A Correct. 9 Q Because that sampler wasfelt to 10 provide more accurate results than the barrel 11 sampler? 12 A Correct. 13 MR. NASSIF: Objection. Asked and 14 answered. 15 Q (By Mr. Ricci) If you look at Exhibit 16 33, it is my understanding of your testimony 17 that where it gives results of the waste 18 treatment influent, that's not a sample taken 19 at the point of the influent into the waste 20 water treatment plant? 21 A That was my understanding. 22 Q Do you see anything in this memo 23 giving sampling results for the point of the 24 influent into the waste water treatment plant? 25 A I don't. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 353 WATER PCB-SD0000049117 354 1 Q In the document that we have marked as 2 Exhibit 34, which is the February 4, 1974, 3 memo from Mr. Buckley to Mr. Savage, there is 4 again a statement of sampling at waste 5 treatment influent. Do you see that? 6 A I do. 7 Q And, again, it is your understanding 8 that this is not the sampling point of the 9 influent into the waste water treatment plant? 10 A That's my understanding. 11 Q Do you see any sampling results in 12 this memo from the influent point to the waste 13 water treatment plant? 14 A No, I don't. 15 Q Was it your understanding that once 16 the flip-flop sampler was installed at the 17 influent point of the waste water treatment 18 plant, they were going to continue to take 19 samples with it? 20 A Certainly. 21 Q And they were going to continue to 22 analyze those samples for PCBs? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Do you know of any reason why those 25 samples wouldn't be included in either the Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 354 WATER PCB-SD0000049118 355 1 memo that we have marked as Exhibit 34 or the 2 memo that we have marked as Exhibit 33? 3 A I believe we touched on that earlier. 4 I was asked the question why Mr. Buckley 5 didn't include samples other than Monsanto 6 samples, and I indicated I don't know why 7 because I didn't know what instructions he was 8 given as to what to address as part of his job 9 as compared to someone else's assignment. 10 Q As we look at Exhibit 33 and Exhibit 11 34 in conjunction with Exhibit 28, does that 12 refresh your recollection at all that perhaps 13 the references in 33 and 34 to the waste 14 treatment influent sampling point is in fact 15 the influent point to the waste water 16 treatment plant? 17 A Not necessarily. 18 Q No? 19 A It doesn't. 20 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 35 21 marked for identification.) 22 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, let me 23 show you a document that's been marked as 24 Exhibit 35 to your deposition. 25 This is a document with Bates No. CER Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 355 WATER PCB-SD0000049119 356 1 013748 through 766, M2709 through M2727. 2 A I have scanned the exhibit. 3 Q This is a February 21, 1974, memo from 4 Mr. Stewart to Mr. Heisler. Who is 5 Mr. Heisler? 6 A At that time Mr. Heisler was the 7 general superintendent in charge of the 8 environmental matters at the Krummrich plant. 9 Q Was that a new position? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And you were copied on this document; 12 isn't that correct? 13 A That is correct. 14 Q Now, if you flip over to the page with 15 Bates No. CER 013752, there is what's 16 described on the previous page as a simplified 17 drawing of the sewer system where PCB 18 contamination is possible at present. Do you 19 see that? 20 A I see that. 21 Q And the description is on the page 22 before that. I don't know if you noticed that 23 when you scanned the document. On this 24 sketch, samplers are indicated with an S in a 25 circle. Do you see that? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 356 WATER PCB-SD0000049120 357 1 A I do. 2 Q Are any of these same samplers 3 depicted on this sketch the sampler that you 4 testified sampled the Krummrich plant effluent 5 as it entered the village sewer system but 6 that did not include effluent from other 7 industries in the village? 8 A As I look at this diagram, I see a 9 sketch that shows the direction of flow of 10 streams from the producing unit and from the 11 incinerator and so on, the separate streams. 12 What I have difficulty understanding 13 is what some of these arrows pointing to those 14 flow lines are referring to, but as I read 15 this and tie it into the previous exhibits 16 which inform us of the PCBs in pounds per day 17 that were determined, I see the three S's that 18 I have in mind. S is representing the 19 location of a sampler. And I don't know how 20 to describe this for the record, but there is 21 two samplers showing the material from the 22 producing unit. 23 Q Right. 24 A And there is a sampler that comes off 25 the line that's tied into the incinerator. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 357 WATER PCB-SD0000049121 358 1 Q Right. 2 A And I see a sampler just before this 3 rectangle representing the Sauget waste 4 treatment system as being a combination of 5 those two from the plant. 6 Q Uh-huh. 7 A I do not see anything on the sketch 8 that shows me flows from neighboring 9 industries or from the village itself. 10 Q Of the sampling points that are 11 depicted on this sketch, the only sampling 12 point that would sample all of the effluent 13 from the Krummrich plant is the one -- let me 14 rephrase that. 15 On the sketch, the only sampling point 16 upstream from the block that's marked Sauget 17 waste treatment that would sample all of the 18 effluent from the Krummrich plant is the 19 sampling point just above the box that's 20 marked Sauget waste treatment; is that 21 correct? 22 MR. NASSIF: Object. I will object to 23 the form of the question. 24 MR. RICCI: Can you explain it? 25 MR. NASSIF: Yes. There were other Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 358 WATER PCB-SD0000049122 359 1 discharges from the Krummrich plant that 2 didn't go to the south that aren't indicated 3 on this exhibit, that went north and to 4 Route 3 in a different direction that there 5 has been testimony in this case about. 6 MR. RICCI: Could you read the 7 question back. 8 (The requested portion of the 9 record read by the reporter) 10 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Can you answer the 11 question? 12 A I will try. I don't see in this 13 diagram anything that tells me that the waste 14 stream from the rest of the Krummrich plant 15 independent of the PCB-related activities are 16 shown. 17 Q Okay. Let me try it a different way. 18 There are four sampling points depicted on 19 this map, correct? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Okay. There is a sampling point just 22 to the right of Department 246? 23 A Correct. 24 Q That sample point is not accepting all 25 of the effluent from the Krummrich plant Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 359 WATER PCB-SD0000049123 360 1 that's depicted on this map, correct? 2 A That is the way I read it, yes. 3 Q There is a sampling point on the solid 4 line just to the left of the block marked 5 repair track; is that correct? 6 A I see that, yes. 7 Q Okay. That sampling point does not 8 accept effluent from all of the lines that are 9 depicted on this map, correct? 10 A That is correct. 11 Q Then there is a sampling point down 12 from there on the line that leads out of the 13 incinerator and then down towards the bottom 14 of the page, and that sampling point also does 15 not accept all of the effluent from all the 16 lines that are depicted on this map, correct? 17 A Correct. 18 Q Now, there is a sampling point on the 19 line that goes into the Sauget waste treatment 20 plant, correct? 21 A I see that, yes. 22 Q That sampling point samples all ofthe 23 flows that pass through the other three 24 sampling points that we just described, right? 25 A That's what this diagram indicates, Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 360 WATER PCB-SD0000049124 361 1 yes. 2 Q And then from that sampling point, the 3 line seems to indicate that the flow goes into 4 this block marked Sauget waste treatment. Do 5 you know what that Sauget waste treatment 6 indicates? 7 A Well, I interpret that as indicating 8 the village treatment facility. 9 Q The treatment plant? 10 A Plant. 11 Q Is it your understanding then that 12 this sampling point just above the Sauget 13 waste treatment plant is the one where the 14 flip-flop sampler was that was described in 15 the previous exhibit that we discussed? 16 A That's one of the places I understand. 17 I understand that that flip-flop was used. 18 Q In each of those three cases? 19 A All of these locations in the later 20 dates, the latest samples. 21 Q Right. There is no other sampling 22 point depicted on this map upstream from the 23 waste water treatment plant that accepts flow 24 that passes through the other three sampling 25 points; is that correct? Did you understand Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 361 WATER PCB-SD0000049125 362 1 the question? 2 A I think I do. I don't see any 3 indication, that's true. 4 MR. NASSIF: For the record, counsel, 5 you said there were four sampling points on 6 the map. There's actually five. 7 MR. RICCI: Right. One downstream 8 from the waste water stream plant which I was 9 not asking about. 10 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 36 11 marked for identification.) 12 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, let me 13 hand you a document that's been marked as 14 Exhibit 36 to your deposition. 15 This is a document with Bates No. CER 16 014830 through 842, M3582 through M3594. 17 A I have scanned the document. 18 Q This is a December 1, 1975, letter 19 from a Vincent DeCarlo ofthe USEPA to 20 yourself; is that correct? 21 A Correct. 22 Q Who was -- did you know Mr. DeCarlo? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Who was he? 25 A He is anemployee of the Environmental Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 362 WATER PCB-SD0000049126 363 1 Protection Agency, and I associated him with 2 an information center. He is the person that 3 had access to many reports all generated both 4 within EPA and elsewhere. 5 Q Relative to PCBs? 6 A Relative to PCBs as well as many, many 7 other materials. 8 Q He indicates in his cover letter that 9 he is attaching a copy of a paper of 10 environment levels of PCBs. And that paper is 11a document that begins on the page Bates No. 12 CER 014831? 13 A Yes. 14 Q And it continues over to 014835? 15 A That is correct. 16 Q He says he is also attaching a 17 contractor's report describing PCB levels in 18 soil samples taken from the area surrounding 19 your facility in St. Louis. Is that the 20 document that begins on the page with Bates 21 No. CER 014836? 22 A That's what he is referring to, yes. 23 Q And it continues to the end of the 24 exhibit? 25 A Correct. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 363 WATER PCB-SD0000049127 364 1 Q Do you have any recollection of 2 receiving these documents from the EPA? 3 A I remember the document but not the 4 details in the document. 5 Q Do you know who the contractor was 6 that prepared the report that's at the end of 7 this Exhibit 36? 8 A I don't remember today, no. 9 Q Do you recall reviewing these 10 materials when you received them? 11 A Certainly. 12 Q Do you recall what your reaction was 13 as you reviewed them? 14 A I guess overall I describe it as not 15 surprising in terms of presence, but I recall 16 feeling rather comfortable at the very low 17 levels after decades of operation in that 18 area. 19 Q Turn over to 014836. 20 A Oh, may I add not surprising. I was 21 surprised by the decachlorobiphenyl reference. 22 The rest of the information I understand. I'm 23 sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt your 24 question. 25 Q That's all right. We will get to Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 364 WATER PCB-SD0000049128 365 1 that. The first question I have is at the top 2 of this page, second sentence, it says, "PCB 3 mixtures ranging from 16 percent chlorine to 4 68 percent chlorine have been produced over 5 the years." That's really not accurate, is 6 it? 7 A No. The 16 percent I don't know. I 8 believe, now I'm guessing, I think I know 9 where it came from. 10 Q That stage of the aroclor 1016? 11 A That's my interpretation of that. 12 Q Was there an aroclor 1268? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Was that produced at the Krummrich 15 plant? 16 A Yes. That was one of the solid ones 17 we talked about yesterday. 18 Q Do you know when production of 1268 19 ceased? 20 A Not specifically. Sometime in the 21 middle to the late '60s. 22 Q Prior to'69? 23 A Correct. 24 Q In the next paragraph there is a 25 discussion of decachlorobiphenyl. And the Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 365 WATER PCB-SD0000049129 366 1 author of this report says, 2 "Decachlorobiphenyl has been reported as a 3 component of only one aroclor mixture, aroclor 4 1268." Do you agree with that statement? 5 A Well, not knowing what he means when 6 he says been reported in the composition, I 7 find that hard to agree or disagree. 8 The ability to detect the isomers in 9 the PCBs was not available until the late 10 '60s, early '70s. I don't know who analyzed 11 the material such as aroclor 1268 to be able 12 to detect the decachlorobiphenyl in that 13 period of time when the capability was 14 available. 15 Q So the capability to analyze for the 16 individual isomers only came about after you 17 stopped making 1268? 18 A That is my understanding, yes, sir. 19 Q So you would have had to have some of 20 this 1268 sitting around in order to be able 21 to analyze it for decachlorobiphenyl? 22 A True. 23 Q Do you know if Monsanto ever analyzed 24 aroclor 1268 for its individual isomers? 25 A I don't recall seeing an analysis of Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 366 WATER PCB-SD0000049130 367 1 aroclor 1268. 2 Q The reference for the statement in 3 this report is Hutzinger, Safe and Zitko, 4 1974. Are you familiar with any work with 5 that reference? 6 A Yes. Those three investigators were 7 quite active in analytical work relating to 8 PCBs. At the moment I have forgotten which 9 laboratory they are associated with, but they 10 were active. 11 Q Are you familiar with a particular 12 report that is being referred to in this 13 exhibit? 14 A Not this particular aroclor, no. 15 Q It looks to me like that parenthetical 16 is almost in the nature of a footnote citing 17 to a source. And I'm just wondering if you 18 are aware of any particular publication by 19 those three individuals in 1974 dealing with 20 PCBs? 21 A Yes. I don't remember specifically, 22 but I do know they were very active and they 23 published several reports. 24 Q Do you have any of those reports? 25 A No. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 367 WATER PCB-SD0000049131 368 1 Q Do you know if Monsanto maintains any 2 of those reports? 3 A I don't know. 4 MR. RICCI: loe, I'm going to make a 5 request at this point that if Monsanto retains 6 a copy of the 1974 Hutzinger, Safe and Zitko 7 report that's referenced in this exhibit, we 8 would ask that it be produced. 9 MR. NASSIF: My comment on that is I 10 will bet that that is an article that's 11 generally available in the literature, and it 12 is equally available to you as it may be to 13 Monsanto. So you can go get it if you want 14 it. Other than that, I will check and see if 15 we have it, and then we will respond 16 consistent with the federal rules of 17 discovery. 18 Q (By Mr. Ricci) What were the uses for 19 1268? 20 MR. NASSIF: Objection. It was asked 21 and answered, and he testified to it 22 yesterday. 23 A I don't claim to know all the uses, 24 but the principal use that I'm aware of is an 25 ingredient in plastic type materials as a fire Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 368 WATER PCB-SD0000049132 369 1 retardant ingredient. 2 Q (By Mr. Ricci) This was the aroclor 3 that you indicated was in a powder form? 4 A Yes. 5 Q And that powder was incorporated in 6 the plastics? 7 MR. NASSIF: Objection. Asked and 8 answered. 9 A Yes. And it wasn't really a powder 10 such as talcum powder. It was more grittier 11 like table salt. 12 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Would you consider the 13 use of that aroclor in plastics manufacturing 14 to be an open use as we have used that term in 15 this deposition? 16 A We did for purposes of our withdraw 17 program, yes, sir. 18 Q That was withdrawn -- 1268 was 19 withdrawn from the market as a result ofthe 20 control program? 21 A Well, it wasn't manufactured when the 22 program was instituted. 23 Q Okay. 24 A And it would not have been available 25 to any customer who requested it. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 369 WATER PCB-SD0000049133 370 1 Q Do you have any knowledge of whether 2 PCBs could be released from plastics that had 3 incorporated 1268 into it? 4 A Yes. 5 Q And would the PCBs leach out or 6 otherwise be released from that plastic? 7 A I don't have any information that 8 would say that the PCBs such as the 68 we are 9 talking about would evaporate or leach out of 10 the plastic in which it was incorporated. 11 Q Were you aware that an EPA contractor 12 was taking soil samples around the Krummrich 13 plant for PCBs at the time that the samples 14 were being taken? 15 A No. 16 Q So you didn't have anybody with them 17 submitting samples or anything like that? 18 A No. 19 Q Were you ever able to ascertain the 20 exact locations of the sampling points that 21 are depicted on page CER 014839? 22 A No. 23 Q Did you try? 24 A Yes. We tried getting it from EPA, 25 and they would not release it. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 370 WATER PCB-SD0000049134 371 1 Q Did you know they were taking samples 2 from the influent and effluent of the waste 3 water treatment plant? 4 A No. 5 Q On page CER 014838, the authors of 6 this report suggest that the pattern of 7 contamination may suggest an airborne 8 transport of the PCBs from the facility. 9 Did you ever do any investigation of 10 whether PCBs were being transported through 11 the air and deposited in areas in and around 12 the plant? 13 A No. 14 Q Did you do any follow-up to the 15 statements in this report? 16 A No. 17 Q Why not? 18 A Because the amounts that were reported 19 were considered to be tolerable or acceptable. 20 Q To you? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Did the EPA ever tell you that those 23 amounts were acceptable to them? 24 A Not in those terms, no. 25 Q In words to that effect? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 371 WATER PCB-SD0000049135 372 1 A Well, I had the opposite reaction 2 where they didn't think it was a problem so 3 they didn't say we accept. We don't think 4 there is a problem, so it implied acceptance. 5 Q Does the degree of chlorination of an 6 aroclor affect the likelihood that it would be 7 released into the air in any way? 8 A Yes. The lower the chlorination, the 9 more apt it is to vaporize. 10 Q Once Monsanto stopped manufacturing 11 PCBs, do you know what the company did with 12 the manufacturing operation at the Krummrich 13 plant? 14 A They dismantled it. 15 Q Do you know what they did with the 16 sewers in the PCB department? 17 A Not in detail, no. 18 Q Did Monsanto continue to sample its 19 effluent for PCBs once it stopped 20 manufacturing PCBs at the Krummrich plant? 21 A At that time I wasn't involved with 22 the PCB situation. I don't remember any 23 reports of that type. 24 Q Were you involved in any decision to 25 continue to sample or not to continue to Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 372 WATER PCB-SD0000049136 373 1 sample for PCBs after the -- 2 A No. 3 Q -- manufacture was discontinued? 4 A I was not. 5 Q Did you ever hear of any decisions in 6 that regard or get any information any other 7 way? 8 A No. 9 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 37 10 marked for identification.) 11 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, let me 12 show you a document that's been marked as 13 Exhibit 37 to your deposition. 14 This is a document with Bates No. CER 15 008621 and 622, M2390 and M2391. 16 A I have read the exhibit. 17 Q In September of 1980, you were 18 director of environmental operations for 19 Monsanto intermediate chemicals? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Exhibit 37 is a memo from Mr. Molloy 22 to three individuals, including yourself, 23 dated September 5, 1980. Was Mr. Molloy the 24 plant manager of the Krummrich plant at that 25 time? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 373 WATER PCB-SD0000049137 374 1 A Yes. 2 Q And who was Mr. Brasfield? 3 A He was the general manager of 4 manufacturing for the Monsanto intermediate 5 chemicals company. 6 Q And how about Mr. Flint? 7 A I'm having difficulty recalling 8 Mr. Flint's title at the time, but he was the 9 former plant manager and moved to the general 10 offices and was involved with manufacturing as 11 it related to Monsanto chemical intermediates 12 company. 13 Q Also copied on this memo are a J. J. 14 Spano. Who is that? 15 A He is a member of Monsanto's corporate 16 public relations department. 17 Q How about J. R. Thurrott? 18 A Thurrott, Mr. Thurrott was the general 19 manager of personnel for the Monsanto chemical 20 intermediates company. 21 Q There is a handwritten note in the 22 upper, right-hand comer, "XC:SGC, DRB." You 23 see that? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Do you recognize that handwriting? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 374 WATER PCB-SD0000049138 375 1 A I believe I do. 2 Q Whose do you think it is? 3 A That's Mr. Spano's. 4 Q Do you know who SGC and DRB are? 5 A SGC is Sarah Collins who reported to 6 Mr. Spano. 7 Q Also in public relations? 8 A Public relations. And DRB is another 9 public relations person. Barton, I think it 10 is Don Barton or Dan Barton also in public 11 relations. 12 Q Do you recall the incident that is 13 discussed in this memo of the smoking ditch? 14 A This is the one I had referred to 15 earlier about the dog that was injured because 16 of its exposure to this area. This is what I 17 associate with this situation described in 18 this letter or memo. 19 Q Part of the same incident? 20 A Correct. 21 Q And do you understand this ditch 22 referred to in this memo to be Dead Creek? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Does this memo refresh your 25 recollection with respect to any discussions Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 375 WATER PCB-SD0000049139 376 1 you may have had on the situation that's 2 described here in Dead Creek? 3 A Of course I did have recollection of 4 the incident. I don't think it really brought 5 to mind any more details than my memory 6 allowed me to remember. 7 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 38 8 marked for identification.) 9 Q (By Mr. Ricci) This is Exhibit 38 to 10 your deposition. 11 This is a document with Bates No. CER 12 008115, M1916. 13 A I have read the memorandum. 14 Q The memo is dated September 18, 1980, 15 and it is from Mr. Mieure? 16 A Mieure. 17 Q Mieure to yourself regarding the 18 analysis of soil from Dead Creek. Does this 19 memo relate to the incident that was described 20 in Exhibit 37 that we just looked at? 21 A Yes. 22 Q The smoking ditch? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Who was Mr. Mieure? 25 A Mr. Mieure was in Monsanto's corporate Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 376 WATER PCB-SD0000049140 377 1 analytical research laboratory in charge of a 2 team that did what I'm going to call 3 sophisticated analytical work as compared to 4 routine plant analytical work. 5 Q Why was Monsanto analyzing these 6 samples? 7 A To answer the question that was 8 raised. Were any of Monsanto's materials 9 involved with this situation? 10 Q And you felt that the analysis that he 11 was performing could assist in answering that 12 question? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Who selected the materials that were 15 going to be analyzed for? 16 A I don't think it was any one person. 17 It was a consensus of the plant people, and I 18 contributed and the research people as to the 19 kinds of materials that were present at the 20 Krummrich plant. Therefore, it was decided to 21 look for them. 22 Q What's the difference between total 23 phosphorous and elemental phosphorous? 24 A Elemental refers to phosphorous in its 25 purist state. I don't know how else to Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 377 WATER PCB-SD0000049141 378 1 describe it. It is just phosphorous itself. 2 Q Okay. 3 A It is the material that bums when you 4 expose it to air. You have to keep it under 5 water. The total phosphorous includes not 6 only this free standing phosphorous but also 7 phosphorous that is found, say, in baking 8 powder and in soap detergent and the phosphate 9 esters and so on. It is chemically combined. 10 Q Why were you analyzing for both 11 elemental and total phosphorous? 12 A Because the plant referred to 13 elemental phosphorous as a raw material and 14 used it to make the phosphorous esters, as an 15 example. 16 Q So that either elemental phosphorous 17 or total phosphorous results could be 18 indicative of Monsanto involvement in this 19 contamination? 20 A That is possible, yes. 21 Q What are phosphate esters? 22 A They are chemicals made by combining 23 -- I will try to keep it simple -- a phosphate 24 acid with an alcohol. So esters are a 25 combination of alcohols and acids, and the Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 378 WATER PCB-SD0000049142 379 1 acid in this case is phosphorous based. 2 Q Were phosphate esters manufactured at 3 the Krummrich plant? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Do you know what the raw materials 6 were in that manufacturing process? 7 A If memory serves me, phosphorous 8 oxychloride, P0C03, plus one of several 9 alcohols, either ethyl alcohol or butyl 10 alcohol or isopropyl alcohol and some other 11 alcohols. 12 Q Do you know whether a material by the 13 name of cresylic acid was used in the 14 manufacture of phosphate esters? 15 A Yes. Tricresyl phosphate was made 16 from that, yes. 17 Q And that's a phosphate ester? 18 A The TSP is a phosphate ester, yes. 19 Q TSP? 20 A TCP, I'm sorry. Tricresyl phosphate. 21 Q Is one of the phosphate esters? 22 A Correct. 23 Q Is it your understanding that methyl 24 phenols are components of cresylic acid? 25 A Methyl phenol, my recollection of Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 379 WATER PCB-SD0000049143 380 1 chemistry is fading. I don't know. I would 2 have to study it a bit. 3 Q That's okay. Thank you. Why were the 4 26 metals included in this analysis? 5 A There is an analytical procedure that 6 was developed, used by many competent labs to 7 scan and search for these 26 metals. And 8 rather than go through the process of picking 9 out any one metal, like led or mercury or 10 cadmium, the idea was to just use that 11 procedure and scan for all of them. As long 12 as you are going through the motions of 13 analysis, look for all of them. 14 Q I'm sorry. Go ahead. 15 A That's I have all. 16 Q Were there particular metals that you 17 felt were suggestive of a Monsanto 18 involvement? 19 A Well, certainly the mercury that's 20 used in the chlorine generation plant was 21 present in the plant. That's the only metal 22 that I'm aware ofthat would have been of 23 significance. 24 Q Is it your understanding that that's 25 why the metals analysis was included in this Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 380 WATER PCB-SD0000049144 381 1 analytical regime? 2 A I don't know that mercury itself was 3 the reason. It was part of this metal group. 4 And as long as you are going to analyze for 5 it, see what else happens to be there. 6 Because that information, although it may not 7 be related to Monsanto, may help determine 8 other sources of these materials. 9 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 39 10 marked for identification.) 11 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, let me 12 show you a document that's been marked as 13 Exhibit 39 to your deposition. 14 This is a document with Bates No. CER 15 037285 through 287, M7321 through M7323. 16 A I have glanced the document. 17 Q Do you recognize this document at all? 18 A I have seen it before. 19 Q You have? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 Q When did you see it? 22 A I guess the other day when I was 23 talking with Mr. Nassif. 24 Q Do you know who prepared it? 25 A I do not. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 381 WATER PCB-SD0000049145 382 1 Q Do you know why it was prepared? 2 A I would be guessing. No. 3 Q On the second page of this document 4 there is a statement, "'60 to 72 Waggoner 5 trucking was major trucking for WGK plant 6 products, including oil additives and some 7 PCBs." Do you see that? 8 A I do. 9 Q Is that consistent with your 10 recollection of the Krummrich plant's use of 11 Waggoner Trucking? 12 A The hesitation I have, I didn't know 13 that he was the major trucker. I knew he was 14 one of the truckers for these kinds of 15 materials and the examples listed. 16 Q So other than describing Waggoner as a 17 major trucker, this document is consistent 18 with your recollection? 19 A Correct. 20 Q On the first page, there is a 21 statement, "31 to '33," and then across from 22 that it says, "Overflow from WGK went to Dead 23 Creek for excessive rain and flood water." Do 24 you have any knowledge of that situation 25 that's described in this memo? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 382 WATER PCB-SD0000049146 383 1 A I do not. 2 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 40 3 marked for identification.) 4 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, let me 5 show you Exhibit 40 to your deposition. 6 This is a document with Bates No. CER 7 000002 through 08, M0852 through M0858. And I 8 would ask you to take a look at that. 9 A I have reviewed the exhibit. 10 Q Mr. Papageorge, Exhibit 40 is an 11 October 2, 1980, memo from Mr. Spano to a 12 number of people including yourself regarding 13 the redraft of background sheet on Krummrich 14 waste disposal. Why was that background sheet 15 on Krummrich waste disposal being developed? 16 A This is typical of the kinds of 17 information that the public relations 18 departments like to have on hand in the event 19 the subject arises, becomes of general 20 interest. 21 This reflects Mr. Spano's attempt in 22 essence to do some homework before he has an 23 urgent need for this kind of information. 24 Q Do you know what kind of homework he 25 did to develop this document? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 383 WATER PCB-SD0000049147 384 1 A I know he talked to plant people and I 2 know he perused some old files. And he wrote, 3 as I remember, several drafts that he 4 circulated for comments, and this is 5 representative of one of those attempts to 6 circulate and get feedback from the readers. 7 Q What old files did he review? 8 A Well, I don't know how to describe 9 them. They are just old historical kinds of 10 files that are available, that were available 11 to Mr. Spano. 12 Q Historical files from the plant? 13 A From the plant, yes. 14 Q Did you have occasion to see any of 15 the old files that he looked at? 16 A I did not. 17 Q Why were you being provided a copy of 18 this memo? 19 A Because he knew I was involved with 20 waste and environmental issues. And in 1980, 21 as director of environmental operations he 22 felt I should be supplemented and tuned in. 23 Q Was this document prepared in response 24 to the concerns that had arisen regarding Dead 25 Creek? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 384 WATER PCB-SD0000049148 385 1 A That was -- yes. That was a factor in 2 triggering the action that you see here, yes. 3 Q There is a statement at the bottom of 4 the first page of, "Bill Papageorge probably 5 already contacted you about a map to explain 6 the WGK information." Do you see that? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Do you know what that reference is to? 9 Do you have any recollection as to contacting 10 Heisler regarding a map? 11 A From earlier drafts, and I don't 12 remember just which one, I suggested to John 13 that perhaps a map would help the readers of 14 these kinds of documents orient themselves and 15 relate the plant to the Dead Creek site. And 16 Mr. Spano felt that that might be worth 17 looking into, and he asked Mr. Heisler, who 18 was the environmental contact back at the 19 plant, for a copy of such a map. 20 Q What kind of a map were you talking 21 about? Just the street map, aerial map, or 22 map of the sewers? 23 A Well, I was hoping to get a map of the 24 terrain really showing, if possible, the 25 original Dead Creek as it went from Granite Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 385 WATER PCB-SD0000049149 386 1 City into the Mississippi River and then the 2 present appearance of that ditch or creek. 3 Q Was the purpose of this background 4 sheet to equip the public relations department 5 to respond to inquiries? 6 A Yes. 7 Q From the outside? 8 A Yes. 9 Q On the first page of the background 10 sheet, second page of the exhibit, there is a 11 description in the paragraph under the heading 12 "Background" on water runoff. There is a 13 description of some of the history of Dead 14 Creek. Do you agree with the description 15 that's set forth in this paragraph? 16 A Yes. I have no reason to disagree. 17 Q Flip over to the next page, please. 18 The second sentence of the first paragraph 19 states, "After 1933, all effluent from the 20 plant flowed into the village sewer system." 21 Do you see that? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Do you know if in preparing this 24 report anyone from Monsanto did any 25 investigation as to whether after Monsanto's Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 386 WATER PCB-SD0000049150 387 1 effluent got into the village sewer system it 2 ever escaped from the village sewer system 3 into Dead Creek? 4 A I don't know of any such activity. 5 Q Are you familiar with an individual 6 who worked at Monsanto in the engineering 7 department by the name of J. W. Caskey? 8 A I recall the name. I can't picture 9 the person. That's all I really remember. 10 The name is familiar, and I associate it with 11 some technical engineering effort. 12 Q Are you familiar with an individual by 13 the name of C. N. Stutz? I think the first 14 name might be Cliff. 15 A Cliff Stutz, yes. Yes. 16 Q Who was Cliff Stutz? 17 A I associate Mr. Stutz as an engineer, 18 as a sanitary engineer I think was his 19 training. I associate him with Monsanto's 20 corporate engineering department relating to 21 waste water treatment engineering. 22 Q Are you aware of any reports prepared 23 which Mr. Caskey or Mr. Stutz in the 1960s 24 that talk about discharges from the village 25 sewer system into Dead Creek? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 387 WATER PCB-SD0000049151 388 1 A No. 2 QDo you know if any such reports were 3 reviewed or evaluated in the course of 4 preparing the document that we have marked as 5 Exhibit 40? 6 A I do not know. 7 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 41 8 marked for identification.) 9 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, I'm 10 handing you a document that's been marked as 11 Exhibit 41 to your deposition. This is a 12 document with Bates No. CER 008156 through 13 159, M1956 through M1959. 14 A I have reviewed the exhibit. 15 Q This is an October 3, 1980, memo from 16 an R. H. Sinise to Mr. Heisler. Who was R. H. 17 Sinise? 18 A He was a member of Mr. Heisler's 19 environmental team at the Krummrich plant. 20 Q And you were copied on this memo? 21 A Yes. 22 Q The memo is minutes of a meeting with 23 the IEPA in Springfield. Were you aware that 24 this meeting was taking place prior to the 25 meeting? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 388 WATER PCB-SD0000049152 389 1 A Yes. 2 Q And what was your understanding as to 3 the purpose of the meeting? 4 A For the two parties to communicate 5 with each other regarding this Dead Creek 6 situation and sampling program involved. 7 Q If you flip over to the second page of 8 the document, right above the word Kelty 9 towards the bottom, the paragraph states, "We 10 stated Monsanto stopped manufacturing 1248 in 11 1970." Is that an accurate statement to the 12 best of your understanding? 13 A Yes. No. Wait. No. 1248 was still 14 sold as a heat transfer fluid after 1970, so 15 it was being manufactured. 16 Q Why did Monsanto ultimately stop 17 manufacturing 1248? 18 A Well, the only remaining use after 19 1970 was heat transfer systems which were 20 eventually phased out. 21 Q Prior to the time that you stopped 22 manufacturing all PCBs? 23 A Correct. 24 Q There is a statement on the next page 25 of the document attributed to Renkes. And Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 389 WATER PCB-SD0000049153 390 1 Renkes, I believe, is with the IEPA. Is that 2 your understanding? 3 A Yes. 4 Q It says, "Now that we have concluded 5 the sample discussions, do you have any 6 knowledge of a landfill east of Dead Creek and 7 300 yards south of Sauget City Hall?" 8 And the response from Heisler is that 9 he does not know of any of our products that 10 were landfilled on that site. Do you see 11 that? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Is that an accurate statement by 14 Mr. Heisler, to the best of your knowledge? 15 A I don't know. 16 Q If you look at Exhibit 40, which was 17 the background information document on 18 Krummrich waste disposal, there is a statement 19 that, "It is known that in the early times, 20 1917 to the 1930s, the plant disposed of its 21 wastes in a commercial landfill operated by 22 Leo Sauget in the area around the Sauget 23 Village Hall near Queeny and Nickel Avenues." 24 Does the description of the landfill 25 that I just read to you, to the best of your Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 390 WATER PCB-SD0000049154 391 1 knowledge, comport with the description of the 2 landfill in the statement attributed to 3 Mr. Renkes in Exhibit 41? 4 A Well, there is the common reference to 5 the nearness ofthe Sauget Village Hall. In 6 one case it is referred to as village hall and 7 the other one is Sauget City Hall. 8 Mr. Renkes' question included reference to 9 Dead Creek. 10 The summary by Mr. Spano to that 11 particular part of the report does not relate 12 to this landfdl operated by Mr. Sauget with 13 Dead Creek, so I can't interpret that any 14 different than any other reader can. 15 Q Okay. 16 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 42 17 marked for identification.) 18 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, let me 19 show you Exhibit 42 to your deposition. 20 This is a document with Bates No. CER 21 008280 through 008290, M2080 through M2090. 22 And my question is only going to relate to the 23 first page of the document. 24 A I have read the first page. 25 Q This document is an October 28, 1980, Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 391 WATER PCB-SD0000049155 392 1 report prepared by a Mr. Kaley. And you are 2 on the distribution list; is that correct? 3 A That is correct. 4 Q The document refers to sampling an 5 analysis of materials from Dead Creek; is that 6 correct? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And in the heading under the abstract 9 section, there is a description of the 10 materials that were analyzed for. Do you see 11 that? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Were you aware that this sampling was 14 taking place? 15 A Certainly. 16 Q Do you know how the compounds that 17 were analyzed for were determined? 18 A We discussed that earlier in that 19 previous memorandum. 20 Q This is the same sampling that was 21 referred to in the previous memorandum? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q Because I don't think that the 24 previous memorandum referred to chlorobenzenes 25 and chlorophenols. And I was wondering -- Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 392 WATER PCB-SD0000049156 393 1 let's see if I can find it quickly. 2 A It does not do that, but this is the 3 same program. 4 Q Do you know why chlorobenzenes and 5 chlorophenols were added to the sampling 6 regime? 7 A Those are products manufactured at the 8 Krummrich plant, and since they are 9 chlorinated materials, it was decided to look 10 for them. 11 Q Their presence in Dead Creek would 12 also suggest a connection to Monsanto? 13 A If they are there, yes. 14 Oh, if you look at Exhibit 41 on 15 page -- 16 Q What's the date on 41? 17 A October 3, 1980. 18 Q Okay. 19 A This is the meeting with the Illinois 20 state authorities representatives. On page 21 CER 008158 just above Mr. Sinise's signature, 22 the paragraph refers to the additional 23 materials that would be analyzed, and that 24 covers the materials we found on this Exhibit 25 42. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 393 WATER PCB-SD0000049157 394 1 Q Does that suggest to you that these 2 additional compounds, the chlorobenzenes and 3 chlorophenols were added as a result of 4 meeting with the IEPA? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Do you know if they were added at 7 Monsanto's suggestion or the IEPA's 8 suggestion? 9 A I cannot tell. 10 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 43 11 marked for identification.) 12 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, let me 13 show you Exhibit 43 to your deposition. 14 This is a document with Bates No. CER 15 008252 through 255, M2052 through M2055. 16 A I have read the exhibit. 17 Q This is a November 10, 1980, memo from 18 Mr. Sinise to Mr. Heisler regarding a meeting 19 with the IEPA on Dead Creek. Were you aware 20 that this meeting was taking place? 21 A Yes. 22 Q If you turnover to the third page of 23 the exhibit, there is a discussion of PCBs. 24 Do you see that? 25 A I do. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 394 WATER PCB-SD0000049158 395 1 Q There is a statement, "Paul further 2 stated that the sewer effluent of our plant 3 since 1932 could not have gone into Dead Creek 4 since the creek is 1.9 feet higher than the 5 sewer system." 6 Do you know what information 7 Mr. Heisler based that statement on? 8 A I do not. 9 Q Did you have any discussions with 10 Mr. Heisler regarding whether Monsanto's sewer 11 effluent could have gotten into Dead Creek? 12 A No. 13 Q If in fact sewer effluent emanating 14 from Department 246 did get into Dead Creek, 15 would Monsanto be a likely source of the PCBs 16 found in Dead Creek? 17 MR. NASSIF: Objection. Are you 18 asking him to speculate? 19 MR. RICCI: I'm asking him to answer 20 the question if he can. 21 A I don't know. 22 MR. NASSIF: I will stay with my 23 objection. 24 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Were you aware that 25 the IEPA asked Monsanto as a good neighbor to Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 395 WATER PCB-SD0000049159 396 1 participate in the mitigation of the Dead 2 Creek problem? 3 A As a result of receiving a copy of 4 this memorandum I was made aware of that, yes. 5 Q Did you have any discussions as to 6 what Monsanto's response should be? 7 A I personally wasn't involved in those 8 discussions. 9 Q Why is that? 10 A Primarily because it is a top 11 management kind of decision that goes through 12 the manufacturing ranks and involves their 13 resources. 14 Q What was your title again in November 15 of'80? Manager or director? 16 A Of environmental operations, yes. 17 Q And your responsibilities did include 18 the Krummrich plant, didn't it? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q But you had no input into the decision 21 as to how to respond to the IEPA's inquiries 22 on Dead Creek? 23 A I had no input regarding the decision 24 on whether or not we would participate in a 25 cleanup. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 396 WATER PCB-SD0000049160 397 1 Q Turn over to the last page of the 2 exhibit, please. In the next to the last 3 paragraph there is a reference to Renkes' 4 questioning as to whether Monsanto had records 5 concerning PCB disposal and whether the agency 6 could review these records. 7 And my question to you is do you know 8 whether as a result of this meeting or these 9 questions by Mr. Renkes, Monsanto ever gave 10 the IEPA access to its documents regarding 11 PCBs disposal? 12 A They did not. 13 Q And why not? 14 A You will have to ask the legal 15 department. 16 Q I don't think they would tell me. 17 MR. NASSIF: Objection. Calls for 18 speculation on the part of counsel. 19 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 44 20 marked for identification.) 21 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, I'm 22 handing you a document that's been marked as 23 Exhibit 44 to your deposition. 24 This is a document with Bates No. CER 25 009054, M2652. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 397 WATER PCB-SD0000049161 398 1 A I have read the memorandum. 2 Q This is a November 18, 1980, memo from 3 a Mr. Cunningham to a Mr. Mahoney. And you 4 are shown as having been copied on this memo? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Do you recall receiving a copy of this 7 memo? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Who was Mr. Cunningham? 10 A He was vice president and managing 11 director of Monsanto chemical intermediates 12 company. 13 Q And who was Mr. Mahoney? 14 A He was the chief executive -- I'm 15 sorry. He was president of Monsanto at the 16 time. 17 Q Monsanto Company? 18 A Yes. Reporting to Mr. Hanley who was 19 the chief executive officer. 20 Q And who was Mr. Fernandez? 21 A Fernandez was the senior vice 22 president representing manufacturing. 23 Q Why was this memorandum prepared for 24 Mr. Mahoney? 25 A Mr. Cunningham wanted to communicate Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 398 WATER PCB-SD0000049162 399 1 with the top bosses. 2 Q Did you have any input into the 3 preparation of this memo? 4 A No. 5 Q There is a statement towards the 6 middle of the first paragraph, "There were 7 many other materials found in the samples, and 8 since this creek, or more appropriately named 9 ditch, has been sealed off from the Krummrich 10 plant and is approximately a half mile away, 11 it is reasonable to expect that we were not 12 the responsible parties for placing the PCB in 13 this area." 14 Do you know what is meant by the 15 reference to the Krummrich plant being sealed 16 off from the ditch? 17 A Well, there was reference to 18 backfilling and leveling off the surface. The 19 creek itself is not physically visible as it 20 used to work its way through the plant side. 21 Q So you understand this reference to be 22 to the filling of the creek on Monsanto 23 property? 24 A Correct. 25 Q The last paragraph -- in the last Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 399 WATER PCB-SD0000049163 400 1 paragraph, Mr. Cunningham generously offers 2 you to put on a 15 minute show-and-tell on 3 this subject. Do you see that? 4 A I do. 5 Q Did you ever put on any kind of 6 show-and-tell for Mr. Mahoney or anybody else 7 in upper management? 8 A No. Not on this subject. 9 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 45 10 marked for identification). 11 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, I have 12 just handed you Exhibit 45 to your deposition. 13 This is a document with Bates No. CER 14 008091, M1893. And I will ask you to take a 15 look at it. 16 A I have read the document. 17 Q What is this document? 18 A This is a copy of a--I'm going to 19 call it a note that was made following an 20 inquiry by a newspaper reporter of a Monsanto 21 individual. 22 Q The individual is Sarah Collins? I 23 was focusing on the bottom where it says 24 "handled by." 25 A Oh, yes. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 400 WATER PCB-SD0000049164 401 1 Q She was with the public relations 2 department? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And under the heading "Source of 5 Answer," your name appears? 6 A She called me and asked me how to 7 respond, yes. 8 Q So you did have some input into this 9 response? 10 A Yes. 11 QThe question fromthe press appears to 12 be, "Does Monsanto make chlorobenzenes and 13 chlorophenols at Sauget." Is that correct? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Now, the response is, "Monsanto does 16 manufacture some members ofthe families such 17 as dichlorobenzene and dichlorophenol. 18 However, also keep in mind that the analyses 19 showed materials present from the families 20 that are not manufactured at the plant. 21 Chemicals such as trichlorobenzene and 22 tetrachlorobenzenes, materials that are found 23 in transformer oil in the way PCBs are found." 24 Now, Monsanto did at one time 25 manufacture trichlorobenzenes and Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 401 WATER PCB-SD0000049165 402 1 tetrachlorobenzenes at the Krummrich plant, 2 didn't it? 3 A Not that I'm aware of. 4 Q Monsanto did manufacture transformer 5 oil at the Krummrich plant; is that correct? 6 A Well, they blended ingredients 7 resulting in a transformer oil, yes. 8 Q And one ofthe ingredients blended 9 into those transformers was trichlorobenzene, 10 correct? 11 A A mixture of trichlorobenzenes and 12 tetrachlorobenzenes. 13 Q Did you advise Ms. Collins when she 14 made this inquiry of you that Monsanto had in 15 the past blended transformer oils at the 16 Krummrich plant using trichlorobenzene and 17 tetrachlorobenzene? 18 A I don't remember that. I don't know 19 today. 20 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 46 21 marked for identification.) 22 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, I'm 23 showing you Exhibit 46 to your deposition, 24 which is a document with Bates No. CER 008455 25 through 462, M2224 through M2231. And I would Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 402 WATER PCB-SD0000049166 403 1 ask you to take a look at it. 2 Mr. Papageorge, Exhibit 46 is a report 3 on some sampling that was performed on the 4 Krummrich plant; is that correct? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And that's a document dated 7 February 27, 1981. On the first page after 8 the title page, the first paragraph, the 9 introductory paragraph indicates that the 10 samples were taken from the bed of Dead Creek 11 that had been filled in on the Monsanto 12 property? 13 A Yes. 14 Q And as I understand, the purpose of 15 this sampling was to determine whether you 16 would see results in the filled-in creek bed 17 on the Krummrich plant property similar to the 18 results that were found in the sampling of 19 Dead Creek south of the plant. Is that 20 correct? 21 A The purpose was to establish whether 22 the PCBs determined to be present in the Dead 23 Creek site by the EPA analysts came from 24 Monsanto's activities. 25 Q So you were sampling Dead Creek on Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 403 WATER PCB-SD0000049167 404 1 Monsanto's property? 2 A Yes. 3 Q And the theory was that if PCBs flowed 4 down Dead Creek to the point where the EPA 5 found them, then they would also show up on 6 the portion of Dead Creek on Monsanto's 7 property? 8 A It could be. That would be one area 9 to look into, yes. 10 Q That's why you were sampling this 11 particular area, correct? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Now, as I understand from previous 14 documents, Dead Creek was filled in on the 15 Monsanto property prior to the time that 16 Monsanto began manufacturing PCBs; isn't that 17 true? 18 A True. 19 Q Given that, why would sampling of the 20 creek bed, the filled-in creek bed on 21 Monsanto's property, be indicative of anything 22 relative to PCB samples found where the IEPA 23 found them? 24 A Well, the thought was that if 25 Monsanto's activities resulted in mishandling Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 404 WATER PCB-SD0000049168 405 1 of PCBs over the filled-in part of Dead Creek, 2 then it happened over a period of decades that 3 the operation was ongoing. Eventually that 4 material may have found its way at the site 5 that the EPA had looked at. They were trying 6 to connect the two geographically located 7 sites. 8 Q In taking these samples, they had to 9 core down through the fill to get to the creek 10 bed, correct? 11 A Yes. That's right. 12 Q And so all of the sampling results 13 were from the 12 to 19 feet below grade 14 interval? I think that's what's indicated in 15 the paragraph. 16 A Yes. Yes. 17 Q If you turn over to the page with 18 Bates No. CER 008458. 19 A I have it. 20 Q Under the sample with log number 21 1012108, the document indicates that that 22 sample is in the 17 to 19 foot interval, 23 correct? 24 A It does. 25 Q And then if you flip over to the next Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 405 WATER PCB-SD0000049169 406 1 page, under that sample number it gives the 2 results. And it indicates that the top 3 portion analyzed for 200 parts per million -- 4 A Yes. 5 Q --ofPCBs. Do you see that? 6 A Yes. Yes. 7 Q How would PCBs have migrated 17 feet 8 below grade to get into this sample? 9 A Oh, it would take a solvent action 10 like a chlorobenzene dissolving it and 11 carrying it forward to move it where the other 12 samples were found. 13 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 47 14 marked for identification.) 15 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, let me 16 show you Exhibit 47 to your deposition. 17 This is a document with Bates No. CER 18 008105 and 106, M1906 and M1907. 19 A I have read the letter. 20 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 48 21 marked for identification). 22 Q (By Mr. Ricci) I'm also going to show 23 you Exhibit 48, which is a document with Bates 24 No. CER 008113, M1914, and ask you to take a 25 look at that, too, and then you can handle Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 406 WATER PCB-SD0000049170 407 1 them together. 2 A I have read the memorandum. 3 Q Mr. Papageorge, Exhibit 47 is an 4 April 8, 1981, letter from the Illinois 5 Attorney General to Monsanto requesting 6 information regarding, among other things, 7 Dead Creek. Have you ever seen this document 8 before? 9 A I don't remember it. 10 Q And Exhibit 48 appears to be a 11 response to the document that we have marked 12 as Exhibit 47. 13 Have you ever seen Exhibit 48, which 14 by the way is an April 21, 1981, letter from 15 Mr. Phocion Park to a Mr. Reed Neuman at the 16 Attorney's General Office? Have you ever seen 17 Exhibit 48 before? 18 A I just don't remember it. 19 Q Do you know whether you had any 20 involvement in either reviewing the 21 information request or putting together the 22 response? 23 A No. Since I don't remember these, the 24 information there of course I had known 25 before, so I don't associate that with this Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 407 WATER PCB-SD0000049171 408 1 particular -- these two exhibits. 2 Q In the position that you held with 3 Monsanto in April of 1981, would you normally 4 be advised of governmental information 5 requests on environmental issues for the 6 plants that you were responsible for? 7 A Normally, yes. 8 Q But you just don't recall this one? 9 A I don't remember this one. 10 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 49 11 marked for identification.) 12 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, let me 13 show you Exhibit 49 to your deposition, which 14 is a document with Bates No. CER 055310 15 through 312, Ml 1944 through Ml 1946. 16 A I have reviewed the exhibit. 17 Q This is a memo from a Mr. Boehm; is 18 that correct? 19 A Elmer Boehm. 20 Q To a number of individuals including 21 yourself regarding a tunnel cleanup. Who was 22 Mr. Boehm? 23 A In 1984, Mr. Boehm was assigned to the 24 Monsanto industrial chemicals company 25 manufacturing group reporting to Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 408 WATER PCB-SD0000049172 409 1 Mr. Matteucci, the director of manufacturing. 2 And he was a technical assistant. 3 Q Do you recall the tunnel cleanup 4 that's referred to in this memo? 5 A Yes, I do. 6 Q Where was this tunnel located? 7 A It is near the plant utilities 8 department or the steam plant. 9 Q What kind of a tunnel was it? 10 A Hard to describe. 11 Q Could you walk in it? 12 A Yes. It connected two underground 13 facilities. 14 Q What kind of facilities? 15 A Transformer vaults. 16 Q Do you recall how big it was? 17 A About as long as this room and about 18 half as wide, roughly. I don't know. About 19 20 feet by 10 or something like that. 20 Q What was the cleanup that's discussed 21 here to entail? 22 A Well, some PCBs were found. 23 Q In sediments? 24 A Just a lot of accumulation of debris, 25 dirt, all kinds of trash, if you will. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 409 WATER PCB-SD0000049173 410 1 Q Did this tunnel have any connection to 2 the sewer system at the plant? 3 A No. 4 Q The second page of the document refers 5 to cleanup of PCB contaminated (125 ppm) 6 sludge. Was the 125 parts per million the 7 highest concentration that you found in the 8 tunnel? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And you felt that that concentration 11 warranted cleaning the tunnel out? 12 A Yes. 13 Q It says, "Source of the PCB 14 contamination is unknown, but likely occurred 15 during past manufacture of aroclor in an 16 adjacent block or past use of the PCB 17 materials in the powerhouse." 18 Did you have any understanding as to 19 how PCBs might have migrated from the 20 manufacturing department into this tunnel? 21 A No, I didn't. 22 Q How were PCBs used in the powerhouse? 23 A They are an ingredient in transformer 24 oils. 25 Q And there were transformers in the Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 410 WATER PCB-SD0000049174 411 1 powerhouse? 2 A In those vaults connected by this 3 tunnel. 4 Q Those were PCB laden transformers? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Were you aware of a project to study 7 and analyze the ground water beneath the 8 Krummrich plant? 9 A Yes. I recall such a study being 10 discussed. 11 Q Do you know whether the study was in 12 fact implemented? 13 A I remember a contractor being hired to 14 do that, yes. 15 Q Did you have any involvement in that 16 study? 17 A Only that I was made aware of it and I 18 supported it, but the details as to which 19 contractor to hire and what to do and what to 20 look for was the plant responsibility. 21 (Papageorge Deposition Exhibit Number 50 22 marked for identification.) 23 Q (By Mr. Ricci) Mr. Papageorge, let me 24 show you Exhibit 50, which I believe will be 25 the last exhibit to your deposition. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 411 WATER PCB-SD0000049175 412 1 And it is a document with Bates No. 2 CER 053223, Ml 1624. 3 A I have read the memorandum. 4 Q This is a November 22, 1985, memo from 5 Mr. Smull to a J. H. Craddock? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Who was Mr. Smull? 8 A Mr. Smull was the, at this time, the 9 plant environmental manager. 10 Q At the Krummrich plant? 11 A At the Krummrich plant. 12 Q And who was Craddock? 13 A Dr. Craddock was the individual at 14 corporate Monsanto who was associated now with 15 the PCB situation. Similar to the kind of 16 association I had at one time. 17 Q The document states, "The only PCBs on 18 site are those generated incidental to the 19 production of chlorobenzenes." Do you see 20 that? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Were you aware that PCBs were 23 generated in the production of chlorobenzenes? 24 A As a contaminant, yes. There was a 25 small amount made as we made chlorobenzenes. Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 412 WATER PCB-SD0000049176 413 1 Q How are -- are they created in the 2 manufacture of any particular chlorinated 3 benzene compound or isomer? 4 A No. They are present in all of them. 5 Q Does their creation occur during the 6 reaction of chlorine with benzene? 7 A Yes. During that phase at the right 8 temperature and particular temperature, you 9 can form the biphenyl from the benzene, and 10 the chlorine that's therefore intended for 11 benzene attaches itselfto the biphenyl and 12 creates a contaminant. 13 Q How were these PCBs handled, at least 14 as of 1985? 15 A They were -- they ended up in the 16 still bottoms, the residue, and were 17 landfilled. 18 Q Now, Monsanto was manufacturing 19 chlorinated benzenes at the Krummrich plant 20 during the time of the PCB control program in 21 the early '70s, correct? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Was PCB material from the production 24 of chlorinated benzenes ever identified as a 25 potential source of PCBs to the sewers? Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 413 WATER PCB-SD0000049177 414 1 A No. 2 Q Why is that? 3 A It doesn't come into contact with any 4 water. 5 Q It is just taken straight from the 6 still bottom? 7 A Still bottom. 8 Q And loaded into drums? 9 A Drums and hauled away. 10 Q Do you know if there were any sewers 11 in the vicinity of the chlorinated benzene 12 distillation columns? 13 A Not specifically, but there are always 14 sewers in every department. 15 Q Were the chlorinated benzenes still 16 bottoms liquids or solids as they came out of 17 the still? 18 A As they came out of the still they 19 were hot liquid like a hot tar. 20 Q Do you know if that liquid was ever 21 dripped or spilled onto the ground in the 22 course of emptying those spills? 23 A Occasionally it was solidified and 24 would be scraped up. 25 Q It wouldn't run into the sewers? It Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 414 WATER PCB-SD0000049178 415 1 would solidify too quickly? 2 A It would not run very far. 3 MR. RICCI: That's it. That's all I 4 have. Any questions? 5 MR. NASSIF: You want to talk about 6 schedule? 7 (Disscussion off the record) 8 ......... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 415 WATER PCB-SD0000049179 416 1 COMES NOW THE WITNESS, WILLIAM B. 2 PAPAGEORGE, and having read the foregoing 3 transcript of the deposition taken on the 21st 4 day of October, 1994, acknowledges by 5 signature hereto that it is a true and 6 accurate transcript of the testimony given on 7 the date hereinabove mentioned. 8 ____________________ 9 William B. Papageorge 10 11 Subscribed and sworn to me before this______ 12 day of, 1994. 13 My Commission expires: 14 15 16 17 Notary Public 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 416 WATER PCB-SD0000049180 417 1 State of Illinois 2 SS. 3 County of Madison 4 I, Tracey Balsitis, a Notary Public in and 5 for the State of Illinois, duly commissioned, 6 qualified and authorized to administer oaths 7 and to certify to depositions, do hereby 8 certify that pursuant to Notice in the civil 9 cause now pending and undetermined in the 10 United States District Court, Southern 11 District of Illinois, to be used in the trial 12 of said cause in said court, I was attended at 13 the offices of Cobum & Croft, in the City of 14 St. Louis, State of Missouri, by the aforesaid 15 witness; and by the aforesaid attorneys; on 16 the 21st day of October, 1994. 17 The said witness, being of sound mind and 18 being by me first carefully examined and duly 19 cautioned and sworn to testify the truth, the 20 whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the 21 case aforesaid, thereupon testified as is 22 shown in the foregoing transcript, said 23 testimony being by me reported in shorthand 24 and caused to be transcribed into typewriting, 25 and that the foregoing pages correctly set Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 417 WATER PCB-SD0000049181 418 1 forth the testimony of the aforementioned 2 witness, together with the questions 3 propounded by counsel and remarks and 4 objections of counsel thereto, and is in all 5 respects a full, true, correct and complete 6 transcript of the questions propounded to and 7 the answers given by said witness; that 8 signature ofthe deponent was not waived by 9 agreement of counsel. 10 I further certify that I am not of counsel 11 or attorney for either of the parties to said 12 suit, not related to nor interested in any of 13 the parties or their attorneys. 14 Witness my hand and notarial seal at St. 15 Louis, Missouri, this 7th day of November, 16 1994. 17 My Commission expires January 24, 1995. 18 19 Notary Public in and for the 20 State of Illinois 21 22 23 24 25</Transcript> </TRN> Wm. Papageorge, 10/21/94 Page 418 WATER PCB-SD0000049182