Document zdp7JKeqyexv930GQgVqVr1w6

A IN THE UNITED STATES DISTJ FOR THE^EASTERN )N| Le t al M O N S A N d n COMPAN1 Nc F 8 4 - 1 1 0 3 - C A VOLUME II V I D E O D E P O S I T I O N OF W ILL! AM P A P A G E O R G E Ml 1987# 1300 Post* >ulei loustcn, f j ;i 0I (:v T v 7 '/! v ^ ^ nv ^ \ *f :ry ley7 Court Reporter! ^ ^ y \ Nell^&ofiaVTum & Associates Inc. Smith, Suite 104 A Houston, Texas 77006 T' (713) 523-3767 NELL MC CALLIIM r, accnr A-rr~ *$-4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I! i14 I15 16 17 i |18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [How* f requentl y ~ w e f eH:.hVs^^unYf[ o j ^ ^ j p r o v i ded? j \ ^ [A] As needed. They were issued several sets of clothing that were laundered. When the individual would place.-them in the dirty laundry baskets and in their -V lockers, they always had at least one clean set. & 'Q So that as the worker chose he could wear a m brand-new uniform each day or he could wear a uniform for a week at a time if he wanted? cha n g e ^ y e s . . ________; __________ _ ^ N o y ^ ^ ^ e g a j ^o^the^u^you-said.propt footwear. tl |Ai What is the proper footwear? The normal footwear would consist of a fcfl steel-toed, leather-top shoe or boot, or high-top shoe, with ari oil resistant sole. Some jobs, such as entering t ' a tank 'or a railroad tank car or tank wagon, where the sj surface was oily, they would wear a bootee, which was an oil-resistant overshoe over that leather shoe, or the Sr:-3 leather shoe would be removed and a more substantial .^7^5 rubber boot would be used. Q, The bootees were designed to be oil resistant? &1 ;aj Yes. t:Qj plant? And were those worn in all departments in the They were available to anyone. & 0 No difference again between the PCB M department and any other department? A 1^ - The difference wnn1 A K ^ --*------ 1 a p p r o p i f l a t e s s ^ o f ; o t h e r > r t y p e s i,no f T f b ~ E w e a r ^ l n * o t h e rro 2 locations in the plant. 3 VQ 11 Can you explain what you mean? M 4 L*A' There were available to some individuals the 5 more flimsy plastic vinyl like a Saran Wrap -- that's 6 exaggerating a little bit -- that could be put over 7 theirlshoes and tied for some operations, but that would 8 not be appropriate in PCBs, because it would not . B4 9 withstand the effects of PCBs. 10 Would it eat it up? 11 It would literally dissolve and disintegrate. 12 So in the PCB area you had a bootee that was it:*A* 13 more substantial than supplied in at least some other 14 areas' of the plant? 15 tf A, Yes. &J 16 What about with regard to these shoes? Were 17 those supplied by Monsanto? 18 18 there any particular t'ypes of gldvesk 19 that|were required in the PCB department and others that 20 were'^considered inappropriate for that particular 21 department? 22 The gloves that were required in that 23 department were the oil resistant, liquid resistant . :J4 24 '.types e1rvl^*iVfKT^97i3;rT.mT.'m.tecmlVear # ,then#..wrhen.e--ver^ i^body'vwuld b^cloing work where but for the glove -:1 I covering their hands they might come into contact with M. PCBsy*they _were .required tcTwear^the oil-resistant gloves^Jto *:icee^ t h T ^ CB s ^ f r ^ ^ ^ f t a c t T n ^ t i ^ r r ^ s ' if??i. r A Certainly# yes. Q* Okay. And with regard to the clothing that i 6i r was issued# was that also true that if they were doing M job where PCBs might come into contact with their clothing that is when they would then wear the rubber-coated clothing that would keep the PCBs from coming into contact with their regular clothing? r-a A! Yes. & And with regard to their footwear# if they mwere doing a job where their shoe or any part of it might come into contact with PCB oils# is that where f .< they were required to wear these oil resistant bootees or rubber boots? 207 1 2 Q , ?^ f .tt^emplpyee^were.going to be-<in a" 30b. v4 3 where PCB oils might contact them on the head, were they 4 required to wear a type of head cover that would keep tail 5 the oils from coming into contact with the skin? 6 tA Yes, there were rubber-coated skull caps that 7 could be used. And should be used. f>S * 8 If there was any possibility of the oils $ 9 contacting the skin? : * 10 f A Yes. 11 Q Did you have available in the PCB department 12 materials that employees could put on the portions of >u* 13 their-skin that they could not cover with some type of fr. 14 rubberized material in order to protect from the 'I 15 possibility of PCB exposure to the skin? tri Vp-'-s 16 It was available. B 17 shQ And what was this material that was m 18 available? H 19 A I don't recall the trade name. It was a 20 H lotion, skin lotion that repelled most oils for limited 21 periods of time. 22 The purpose or the way you use that is if you My 23 thought you might have exposed skin that would come into rt 24 contact with PCBs, you would put the lotion on. M 25 *C So,-1 hat.r:it "would"keed* the^oils^rom"~sl5&k ing into the skin, then you remove both the lotion and the v-jj oils that got on it at the same time? Si.j That was the intent, yes. And that was made available by Monsanto to its employees in the PCB department? ..x, ui* msfC rm- .jjr i , ,,|||m j, Jr vQi What steps did you -as^the-plant 'raariager-take to ensure that the employees in the PCB department always wore the necessary protective equipment to keep - -|r1^._ therijfrbm being exposed to PCB materials? '89--- * NELLMC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES,INC. 209 1 fcd mak e^spot'-c^e cicT^w h e n ^ \ 2 was aware that a particular activity was to be \ 3 performed. I would visit the area and make my personal 4 observations. But for the constant surveillance, I 5 relied^on the supervisor, the superintendent, the 6 supervisor and the foreman, as well as the chief 7 operators. All of us had responsibilities in this area'. 8 [q . Yo u recognized, I take it, that it was 9 important to have some mechanism in place to ensure that 3 10 individual workmen actually used the protective *1 11 equipment in order to protect themselves? ?I 12 A Certainly. u 'A 13 IQ-af And you viewed that as part of your job? 14 H Y e s . 15 >rQ It was not sufficient to you to simply say. 16 I've made the materials available to the people to U i'- 17 protect themselves, and whether they use them or not is m 18 not my concern?. 19 fA That's not sufficient, you are right. 20 9 Okay. Is it your opinion that during the 21 time that you were the plant manager at the Anniston, 22 Alabama, plant you were generally successful in 23 enforcing the rules so that workers in the PCB unit were .m 24 not exposed to PCBs? 25 NELL MC CALLUM & A.^nriATCp C IO 1 C a n ^ o u * recall _any Instances where your? 2 worker^ were actually exposed to PCBs -- and by that I 3 mean where they had them, for example, come into contact 4 with'their unprotected skin, no barrier creams, no 5 rubberized clothing to keep it out. 6 fA In the five years I spent there, I recall 7 vividly only one incident. 8 Tell me about that one incident. n 9 X One of the long-time employees, chief r:i 10 operator, working alone on the night shift, apparently :4 11 was -- :-in a moment of poor judgment decided to p e r f o r m -1 4 . 12 some duties loading up a tank car with PCBs, did not 1 `A 13 wear his gloves, and he sheepishly confessed to me the <;'4 14 following day or so, after he had gone to see the doctoi r ' Xl 15 with severely reddened skin on his hands and admitted 16 that h should have worn gloves but the job was dirtier '>? 17 than he thought it would be and he didn't get around to C ;''J 18 washing his hands soon enough. That is the only m 19 incident I personally -- I saw the hands and I recall 20 the*incident'vividly\ 21 22 23 24 25 NFt f Mo n a i i tn ~ take action to enforce the work safety rules? V- w w MlKf*ry*rrp<*1'^r 'mlyrg**J*yt*'yxjftv**^ a f ^ ^ O n ^ certainly^^The^foreman^did/too. d did yoiP'frequentiy^ensure*'that^yourv g i f t ~ i ' -v~ mur ii< i< supervisors reminded employees of the reasons behind the * .s work rules, that is, the personal precautions were there m for a^purpose? A* Yes. So that it was brought home to the employees that these work rules were not just unnecessary rules hX'i -4-c> and regulations, but designed for their personal protection? MA j ( M . Q ; And as plant manager did -- as plant manager m did you feel that constantly reminding the employees of the reason behind the work rules and the adverse things res. that.could happen to them personally if they ignored them helped to ensure that they were generally followed? vM  at - 10 ^ JI~\take;'it 1*!iv1!:his -case7;of';this?pnek ^ b 11 employe you've described for me he didn't follow 12 through p n those instructions. 13 A"'*1 That is correct. m 14 Q 4 And as a result he had some problem develop? m 15 A^;i Yes. i *.s f.-. 16 ra.s''^*5 Okay. But that's the only incident you are 17 aware of^in five years as plant manager? 18 A HS Y e s . 19 Were you generally aware of any significant 20 exposureJby your employees to PCBs? 21 A If ritlhTd^ccu rred ^'would^ha v"beenV # 219 1 Was^it* mandatory that -your workers 2 snower ,at the end of each shift in the PCB department? 3 A*. No. S&| 4 Q 1 Were workers given paid time in which to take 5 a shower at the end of the shift? ^ 6 &re^;a-?getting vat ^ ^ T -you ^aidn^|i 16 mandatory requirement that 17 they take showers before they left, you didn't give them yia 2*5 18 paid time, and so nobody tried to enforce any 19 recommendation that they take showers before they leave. < 20 Is:that correct? n 21 I A That is correct. Now, the possibility v 22 existed, and I don't know how many, where an individual 23 might get material on him near the end of his shift. At 24 that point it was mandatory, wash up. At that point he 25 would1wash up a n d vwe would pay "thennan "overtime. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES,INC. 220 1 So that-if someone did get?anymatergal^on 2 them, they would then be paid for taking a shower, 3 including overtime, if that were necessary? 4 Correct. I Tl 5 In the locker room area of the plant the m S'ia 6 ' *** employee, I take it, would wear his street clothes to 7 work'll 8 0 Yes. 9 Change into the company-supplied uniform at 10 the beginning of the day. 11 A Yes. 12 At the end of the day he would change out of 13 his company-supplied uniform and back into his street 14 clothes and go home? 15 A .Most employees. ';*-9i 16 What did some employees do? S' d17 Some wore their work clothes home. ^ a 18 :Q Oh, okay. So some employees would actually jj % 19 wear .the work clothes to work and not have to make the \ 20 chang| in the locker room, and then wear them back home? 21 !A- Some would do that, yes. 22 Q. Was that permissible? 23 Aj As long as the garment hadn't been .m 24 contaminated. 25 ,1 1,,.have beenlpermissible -for an NP! ! M r r * n- 21 1 employee to^eaT^hdme'a' work garment supplied by\ 2 .Monsanto that had any PCB product on it whatsoever? 8! 3 5 id ~ydu*'eve r^ isif" the V'PCB ~prod cti^rTlinit at 6 the Krummrich plant in Sauget or East St. Louis, M 7 Illinois? m 8 Yes. fa 9 What differences existed between those two r'7: 10 departments with regard to work practices? ?}-i 11 A I don't know that there were any basic l'V*S 12 differences. There were differences in types of v *5 13 clothing, for example. The Krummrich plant employees . -..V 14 had the single-piece coverall jumper-suit type. As far 15 as their operating practices and the objectives, they >v.i i 16 were,:as far as I could tell, identical or simil m a17 The PCB department at the Krummrich pl^! 18 a toxic department, was it not? m ill19 -No. I don't know what you mean by toxic 20 department. v-i 21 |Q I see. 22 A There is no such terminology in Monsanto. M 23 Q Okay. The employees at the Krummrich plant 24 were permitted paid time to take a shower at the end of I,IM .iron,.......... I. -- 25 e a c n ^ h i f t ,.werethey...not? NFM M P cai ! ~Dicflthe employe esTa tTthe^.K rummrlc^i 'pj.an|ihaveTthe~aame rubberized gloves for working with M .PCBs/^rubberized shoe coverings/ rubberized head coverings and the like? m Yes. m So that the possibility of an employee at.the --VI Krummrich plant coming into contact with PCBs was no felj greater'- than the possibility of an employee at the Anniston plant coming into contact with PCBs. Is that correct? , A i ^ T h a t is correct . 3 Q ld^the^einployees^at ^the Kruramrich plant also^ NELLMC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES,INC. 2 iiii ~rnji m iji 1 ^a^e^ayajLlab 1 ej..to~them these lotions or creams that they 2 could put on their unexposed -- or on their exposed skin 3 injorder to keep PCBs from getting to the skin and being 4 absorbed? 5 Yes. $3 6 So, then, the level of protection at the 7 Krummrich plant was fully as great as the level of 8 protection at the Anniston plant? i-4 -1 9 '-'`A Yes. 10 And possibly the exposure at the Krummrich 11 plant might be lessened to the extent that there's som - '*! 12 unnoticed quantities of PCBs that got on the skin at t* :*y 13 Krummrich plant, those would be washed off in the 14 mandatory shower, whereas in the Anniston plant they 15 might not be. Is that correct? 16 & 'A. It's only correct if you assume that the 17 Anniston employees did not shower at the end of the 't hyJpaTd^t th^TimeT^A d ^ h T ^ ^ 1 1'^^r th e'l'*u* --m*~b IrI *of iT'"ii n i i w"mf iritii 'nut**'~es"**J**t<*h>--a*f" c ,,,r -t they showeredr-they.Lhad tO-shower? '^ h-%#sl forget-iJthejietailsT^but that sounds_like; verv^coselltolwhat^IrcalX^ _____ ___j k J S l Ti SI *J tG *& Z O u _ Q '-.'v r Any problem* of'toxicity with mineral oil? T ' - ..- '- - ?f A S2ESot;.. thatTfjcnow*'of f r lS Z K - T tO Q ^,A4=t.;i The mineral^oi'l^is.-r--I ^-^i seem'tov'recall* " - -- =*--- J sometime back that mineral oil was used in some products w'*A^ like baby oils and things like that. Hoil? ?* Is that mineral That is a mineral oil. It's a highly refined v3 mineral oil. That is an example of a mineral oil. Used .. as a medication that you.buy in a drugstore. It's the ' idi same source. It's a matter of degree of distillation. 3 So the thing we think of as baby oil, if we can HI use the trademark, I guess, Johnson 6 Johnson's baby PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL UNDER SEPARATE COVER NELLMC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES.INC. J& 3 Z 1 PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL UNDER SEPARATE COVER 2 3 Yes. m- 4 And there are other types of mineral oils 5 that have medicinal uses of some sort or another. :n 6 A The mineral oil used as a laxative -- 7 Q Okay. 8 va* -- is an example of something used by humans. 9 0 i And is that the same type of mineral oil that 10 went into these Pydrauls? 11 A ,4 It's the same basically, but I don't believe* J 12 it was refined to the degree that it would be for human 13 use and consumption. 4 - ;'3 14 Q j Had more impurities in it? i 15 Yes. '1 . 16 The same thing, would that be true for the 17 mineral oils that was used in transformers as well, that A 18 it was .the same type of mineral oil that goes into ... I 19 Johnson & Johnson's baby oil but not quite as highly M 20 refined? 21 ^^'3SSi^^;That,'sr^y^unde rstand\jjg. 22 23 24 25 PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL UNDER SEPARATE COVER NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES INC. 235 2 hygiene at.Mo n santowas a matter .that - -- ^ -- -- .axas;**.: , 3 province of the medical department and the industrial uj 4 hygienists there? JP 5 |?-A Correct. Mi 6 Q And what the company's view, so to speak, m 7 from the industrial hygiene perspective is a matter Ki>4- * 8 industrial hygienists would have to speak to? 9 A Yes. '1 10 Q Not you? 11 . A ' ^ ^Thatls^cor rect - J' rwwivj^.i, ^ <lLHn - -,-- 18 ^And let_me.direct.your attention-now to^ 19 another type document that we've previously 20 d iscussed.^Le t me show you a document that is titled 11 21 Process for^the Manufacture of Diphenyl and Santo Wax, 22 dated November 1950, Document No. 11085 through 11229, 23 and ask youpif that's the type of manufacturing process 24 document that we talked about yesterday that gave 25 informatio|y.on~how one wou 1 d a o about-gin^t h e p lant 247 w *1 manuf acturing''a^articljlar^^ter^al"^prl^rde^'ra'iffring^r 2 material or reference material in the plant, and contain^ $ 3 information about the safe handling of the product that (I 4 was-being manufactured. 5 This would be representative of a type of ft 6 document that would convey that information. 7 Qi And those were standard documents that 8 Monsanto had on its various manufacturing processes? il 9 A j Yes. V\ li10 It was customary to have a document like that 11 for every manufacturing process of Monsanto? 12 A Yes. 13 Q :,1 And those types of documents would be from 14 time to.time reviewed and updated to have the 1 15 appropriate information as it was then in compliance 16 with what was being done and what needed to be done? 17 Yes. 18 Let me show you another document, entitled -- 19 let me show you the document entitled Process for the 20 Production of Aroclor, Pyranol, et cetera,.at the '4 . 21 Anniston and Krummrich plant, dated April 1955, Document 22 No. 11238 through 11714, and ask if that's the type of 23 operating manual that would be operative for the *?1| 24 manufacture of PCB products and contain in it the 25 information about how particular steps were^to.be.done?*I NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES. INC. 248 1 advise new'people o r ^ t r a m new peopleTTprovide refresher %| 2 material for existing operators and the like. H 3 ;^A` This document is the technical document *a 4 describing the process for making the chemicals you 5 described. It is not the document used in training or Pi i 6 is it the document available to the operating personnel. -* 7 That-is a separate document. $ 8 */Q Is it a smaller document? fj A 9 A It's generally smaller and in laymen's 10 language rather than highly-technical language, and does 11 not.Jfontain rail of the''specif ics -this extensive document 12 contains^ -Jet me direct your attentionIspecifically- to'V' Page 12565 of this process manual that was available to M all the workers in the PCB department. Under the Section E or) that document number, where it refers to B bathing, that specifically provided that everybody who worked in the PCB department at the Krummrich plant was reauired to ,bathe^,before leaving \the_plant each day? 1 C \* 2 And that was one of the differences or would i i3 have been one of the differences between the manual that ^ 4 was in force in your plant and the manual that was in ft * '> 'V 5 force at the Krummrich plant? 63 *XS '> 3 e s e .typs^of documentsLci-bc_ t h e y lp 4 form o r short form, didn't get out in the public domain, f|:| 5 so to speak, within Monsanto? And that's what I'm 6 talking about. They didn't get beyond the aut h o r 's 7 draft and into a final form unless and until they had 8 been reviewed by whatever people Monsanto thought were * 9 appropriate higher-ups to review them? ;110 A Correct. 11 Q And after they had been reviewed and the i 12 accuracy had been confirmed and the proper coverage of 13 each topic had been confirmed, then they would be 14 actually made available for use? 15 - i ` .That ^ s ^ c o r r e c t w -^&en_and^TMo^ I The^f aae^name by General Electric and Westinghouse for dielectric fluids };that-eitherrconai J* ,. cu wnoxxy o f -.or..contained - NELLMC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES,INC. 265 1 PCBs CX-'^x 2 A- That is correct. M 3 .Q- And Monsanto would actually in that 9 4 Department 246 -- subdepartment A, is it? 5 Yes, sir, 6 Actually either put the PCBs into a container 7 that1 had an Inerteen label on it or blend it, if it was 8 a blended Interteen, and then put it in a drum or H 9 container, whatever it might be, that had the Inerteen 10 label on it? 11 A-* Yes. H12 And some of the Interteens were pure PCBs. 13 Correct? C 14 a ] Correct. :r:i 15 Q j Some of them were -- were a mixture of PCBs [V-pl 16 and other chemicals? 17 A/1 Correct. 18 The same thing is true for Pyranols, is it u'i;l19 not? 20 A That is correct. 21 0 Okay. Let me get those back for just a 22 moment fif23 Did the Anniston, Alabama, plant have a 24 similar situation where they both manufactured PCBs and 25 then aisp2ha'd PCBs they packaged ^under^ahd ^did^whatev^r 1 ?Pa ry" ^ " s e n d out~Interteensand PyrSnoTs? 2 r*._____ _ hPPIWHPWlS <3 l*af' Did .Ithe ;same,safety precautions*---rand I'm talking about now, we described the rubberized . 1A g l o v e s 'and head coverings and all this sort of thing z that would be used by workmen if they were in a position "J to have PCBs come into contact with them -- did the same zl safety precautions apply for workmen who might have : & Inerteen or Pyranol come into contact with them? applied to.workmen who might be exposed to PCBs and to v} workmen who might be exposed to Inerteen or Pyranols % V \ also apply to workmen who might be exposed to Pydrauls? | 5 Yes. '% So the safety precautions within Monsanto ^ that related to workmen who were handling any * -t PCB-containing dielectric fluid or any PCB-containing m hydraulic fluid were the same? ; `Let "meTshow *you *ahotherT^document r^entitleds Sl* Srw'wrlfiTi-- itli" n i ^ m Standard Manufacturing Process, Aroclors, and it's got a parenthesis, Take Over Distilled, closing parenthesis. Department 246, Document No. 12972 through 13150, and ask iffihis is another one of those documents that would 3 m NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. 270 1 ? h a v e 7contained a technical descTiption.of^the^proceVa ) 2 and the handling of the chemicals involved in it at 3 Monsanto. ii ) 4 Yes, this is another example of such a ,JI 5 document. i mVr 6 That's a 1976 version, is it not? 7 S34 Yes. 3 8 Q And is that -- that is the longer form, I -\\ 4 9 take itT from the fact it has standard manufacturing 10 process, on it. -1 11 Yes A i4 -r 1 12 Q 1 Now, again, like with the technical i 13 bulletins, I haven't shown you all the copies of these Hi 14 types of documents I have. You appreciate and can 15 understand there would be many more such documents that .? M 16 Monsanto would have regarding its PCB processes over the 17 y e a r s i t manufactured it? 18 x'l Yes. 19 Qj And each of those documents would be a 20 document that was prepared at the time it was prepared i 21 by somebody who was assigned that task and reviewed by 22 the appropriate levels in the company before it was 23 issued. Correct? . -1 24 A Yes. 25 .Q f*iHVit`\would, have been issued for~the purpose o i NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES. INC. 271 1 .providing-informaCToF^to^pa'rticular" people in Monsanto' 1 "'W"'`"**"* ^ .-------- n . - i - i U c i W "**-*-'*" ' i.y 2 to'assist them in doing their jobs and to do them safely y** 3 amnd properly? i*.v/ 4 11 Let^me ^ s h o w ^ y o u ^ ^ ^ m^d ated ,,'Sep tembe'r^flst?4* 12 1967, trom P. G. Benignus. Do you know who Mr. Benignus 13 is? 14 Yes, I do. 15 Who is Mr. Benignus? .1 t16 He's a former Monsanto employee who was /< 17 involved with the marketing of PCBs in dielectric fluids i 18 and -in hydraulic -sys tems 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 3 4 5 Q'v^^cKDoes that~'memo^elate"'to 'this .visit that you ; recalled people from Westinghouse making to the Anniston plant while you were the plant manager there? ________ _____ ________ ... -,V V3!-- -T***!-,,-- A rZg E l t appears to b e , _yes. -:ft And it s e e m s vto Kindicate^thatTthoae^ peoplej came from Bloomington to the plant. the Anniston plant? CM ) g; 20 *Hhat*you"supplied _,to .Westinghouse as capacitor_^Inerteep 21 was Aroclor 1242? 22 A i Yes. 23 Q Were they a customer who typically bought by 4 24 railroad car quantities? J I25 A -30*5?Are you"referrll^to'Westinghouse~in general -w .vt ' 1 or.WestjjiqhouseBloomlngton?% ?7< 2 Westinghouse Bloomington in particular. 3 Yes. 4 And those rail cars would leave the Anniston lia 5 plant^and travel as a sealed car until they got to the 6 plant'where the entire car would be unloaded to 7 Westinghouse? 4 8 3 ^ ^ ^ S a ^ W e s tinghouse^a s a pu rch ser'of PCB^inaterfe \ 4 from Monsanto was looking to Monsanto to acquire 5 information about proper handling or to protect the 6 safety of its workers. Correct? y. 7 a :I Yes. * i8 And you saw nothing inappropriate as the 9 plant manager about having people at your plant as the 10 manufacturer and seller of those PCB materials to 11 Westinghouse give information to Westinghouse on thoseT :4 12 matters? j13 A Correct. 414 Q j And in fact it was logical and made sense to 15 you that the Westinghouse people would look to Monsanto 16 as the.manufacturer and seller of the PCBs for !; 17 information on toxicology and safe handling. I s n 't that i 18 correct? 19 ^ 00^ Yesr*325 /** xJcty _ 2 T p M r ^ B enig^^'noFeV^Tiryis^mem^ t^ the-^fa^Tt ^ 3 that Westinghouse had been handling PCBs in a sloppy f. 4 fashion. Correct? 5 A ; He does# yes. Jt 6 Q i Would Mr. Benignus be in a position to know 7 that type of information? m 8 A i Yes. I to 9 ^ In fact, he goes on to detail some specific j 10 information he had with regard to the Westinghouse "3 11 handling of PCBs# does he not? 'I 12 A i Yes. . 13 Q What specifically does he indicate he knew ./j 14 about Westinghouse's handling of PCBs? 15 Well# in the memo Mr. Benignus refers *t`o * ::'A 16 spills.soaking in the workmen's shoes and clothing, no 17 change of shoes or clothing are practiced. He refers to :`"H 18 Westinghouse as considering the use of# to quote the. 19 memo# Vitron gloves# aprons and the like. m 20 IQ So Mr. Benignus# at least as of the date of 21 that memo in 1967# was aware of the fact that the PCBs ';J 22 sold by Monsanto to Westinghouse were being allowed to rsi ---j 23 get in contact with Westinghouse workers in a way that 24 Monsanto would think was totally inappropriate. 25 Correct? NELL MC CALLUM fc, A ^ n r t atpc iw r 279 1 ^Correct 2 There's no doubt in your mind that what Mr. 3 Benignas describes is totally inappropriate? Correct? 4 A3 That is correct. 45 Q'j And potentially very hazardous to the workmen 6 who are being exposed in that fashion. Wouldn't you 7 agree?.| 8 AA** I don't know about very hazardous, but 9 potentially harmful. <4*i 10 Well/ Monsanto had had the experience itself 11 of having workers who had/ when they had substantial ~r 12 exposure before Monsanto enacted its work rules in the r .I 13 mid-Thirties or late Thirties had yellow atrophy of the 14 liver/ had it not? 15 A 1 Yes/ there was some experience before * 16 Monsanto acquired the facility/ yes. m 17 When work practices were sloppy/ as they had ZJ 18 been at Swann. Correct? --i 19 A i All right. The degree of sloppiness is what 20 1 don't]know. I21 I understand. But I mean what I -- the point 22 I want to make is that Monsanto knew in the history of 23 the plant that it had acquired from Swann that when ^ 24 there were some sloppiness in the work practices there i;$ _________ 25 had /^ t y 'whatever'degree, -that workmen had developed j-- N F ! ! Mf P A I f I IM , A c c n n i A T r o %* * 280 1 some^of them .had"developed yellow atrophy of the i v e ^ 2 as a result. Correct? 3 That's correct. 4 And that's very hazardous, is it not? 5 Yes. 6 You can die from that, can't you? 7 Yes. 8 Okay. 9 Now, Mr. Benignus then was aware -- and I 10 guess 'you became aware of this memo when you got your 11 copy of it -- 12 r'A Yes, sir. 13 .0 -- that Westinghouse's work practices had 14 been very sloppy and that, for example, people were 15 contV....i.v..rnt)uing or allowed at Westinghouse to work in soaked . 16 work clothes. Correct? P 17 T A That's what it indicates. m*>& 18 A practice that you certainly would not 19 support at all. 20 'A That is correct. . 21 Q That would be a matter that you would 22 consider very serious, would it not? `4 23 : A Yes. <* 24 Q And from the standpoint of worker safety a 25 practice that should be'changed immediately.rTCorrect? * NELL MC CALL DM & ASSOPf t c Kir Now, this visit provided an opportunity for Vi Monsanto to impress upon Westinghouse personnel the importance of safe work practices, did it not? fj|A % iQ M Yes. They were going to spend the day at your ni contact with PCBs. Correct? ii-'A Correct. ! -1 A visit of this type was an opportunity forr 2' -'*S Monsanto to put together a well-prepared and S*n***i well-presented program to meet the customer's needs, was r il t not? l plant: wherePYyeosu could talk to them about the importance ?* of gooQdmppWr^aNcotwi^c^eKrt^ojPkeeenpigntuhse^i.rnowtoersk-eirns''hifsr^oTmneicnoom^ithnagt5i51hnet*o thinks this visit provides some opportunities to pass along some other information, doesn't he? i s^a^sa 1 esma nT^wa sn\ t/hf? I would more correctly describe Mr. Benignus as marketing manager. Well, okay. Let me -- he was responsible for salesmen selling the product? I 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Q i ? ^ ~ A n d at ;this'point in time he is responsible h i" for getting the PCBs that Monsanto manufactured sold to ''3 customers as dielectric fluids. Si n q: That is correct. And one of the things that you're interested .^ in doing when you're a salesman is touting the quality - -`j of your product. Right? "A Certainly, yes. Q And he saw an opportunity to use this meeting to tout the quality of the product? Correct? ;:i1 A Yes. n And Mr. Benignus was simply suggesting, of Ui course, to the people at the plant what he thought the opportunities were. It was up to the plant people to decide how actually to allocate the time and what to do. ?4 Correct? -v-4 irl That;, is. c o r r e c t . ^ 21 lowT^let m e"show you ^another^document,V 22 Document 25282, which is a September 27th, 1967, memo 23 written by Mr. Bryant to a variety of people, including 24 yourself. That memo is the agenda for this proposed 25 visitT^is it. not?* 1f NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. jg&Now I t h e p u r p o s e ^o f ^ t h e ^v i s i t ^ a g a ih ^ w a s ^ to learn about the safe handling of PCB products. Correct? A ^ [No reply] Si Q | That's why Westinghouse was coming? A v A Correct. Q And Monsanto was fully aware of the fact that Westinghouse had been handling the products poorly so . 'A that it's workmen in Bloomington were being exposed to :'v| PCBs in a way that Monsanto would think unsafe. 1 Correct?^ . 4A 1 Yes. d How much time did Mr. Bryant allot out of the agenda for the discussion of the matters that Westingtouse^as coming to alkabout? f A W I t-ppeaTs^he^^d'i'ere^ha i f a n ' h o u r The remainder of the time allotted in the r-i* agenda'was allotted to discuss and have things that s related to the sales interests that Hr. Benignus suggested might be accomplished at this meeting, was it *-\a not? M *a A^ ' The item that Mr. Benignus suggested, as I read this schedule, was scheduled for half an hour from 10:00 to 10:30. The remaining items were not suggested in Mr. Benignus's letter. And I have no way of knowing *3 - today who proposed the remainder of the agenda. But they're in Mr. Bryant's memo? es i* '* Q -y^ D o ^ you. recalllwhe therjthis'> meeting went off .;.f . * * * * * * - -- -- * f as scheduled? & a j a g B S T T r a o n t .% SoyotLjeannot tell_usVwhetheridi Westinghouse people did arrive late on that day. M Correct? 0& o That is correct. You cannot tell us what portions of the *.V-j'jS agenda were scrubbed if the Westinghouse people arrived late, .jIs that correct? I That is correct. **} And you don't have any personal recollection about "what happened other than that there was this 7! visit? Correct? * f . -r^*<raT!>'CW*v**wyr, at;is correct. % - i*Q ^-You .don't ^recall^any of the ^topics..that^were < - ^ t ^ r I, m x W -*.. . -- a im V W t'r f f r f t fiy ....I ^ .. discussed at the visit? t> 5 jffv-Qy a ^ "**D o you know' whether or not _wh-a-te,'v***e--r`'^may^Fa^e k% L *vft 6 been said at this meeting, if anything, about safe fr>3. 7 handling of Aroclors was followed up with any written N 8 communication with Westinghouse? 9 *A? I don't recall any. 10 Prior to this visit, would Westinghouse have r*:yt>j 11 had any source of information about the proper handling 12 of PCBs other than the technical bulletins and customer 13 literature supplied to it by Monsanto? !< 14 i A Normally they would have the information 15 reinforced by discussions with Monsanto's sales ,W & 16 representatives? 21 "ere they to relay Jtnat^inforraation it h-4 22 terminology that was consistent with the terminology m 23 used in the technical bulletins? 24 A Yes. 25 Q -h* So if.the" tichnca~bu 1 etins 'said avoid NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. 293 1 jrprolonged skin ?contac?t11thleyn,;what*^theSsales 2 representative should be saying is avoid prolonged skin n 3 contact. Correct? 4 A Or words to that effect, yes. 5 Q Yes. In other words, they weren't authorized 6 to give far more detailed warnings than the warnings or 7 the.^safe handling recommendations contained in the 8 product literature, were they? 9 & A That is correct. 10 And in fact from the time that Dr. Kelly 11 became the medical director at Monsanto there was a -- 12 specific directive, was there not, that questions 13 concerning toxicology and safe handling had to go >*i 14 through the medical department, and all things provided ivi . 15 to others about toxicology and safe handling had to be t;*r 7 16 approved by the medical department? ?!17 That is correct. -H 18 And so it would not be within the province of 19 a sales representative to be saying something to the ,J 20 customer about safe handling and toxicology of a ;r*y 21 chemical that it did not come from or was inconsistent 22 with the specific directions from the medical 23 department? 24 That is correct* 25 .j^Q ,,'SaSs And that'was true 'ev en for.you .as a plant^ NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCITF iw r i1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ^ m a n a g e r_? & Yes. It was true for you as people at this meeting with Westinghouse? A' Yes. Q You-all were not authorized to tell .yfi Westinghouse more or go beyond what the medical department had already said about safe handling and toxicology. Correct? '1 j j ^ T h a t^is oc o jjc e c t ^ . ^vilSo you wereUn_.that.situation where!what:7T'i needed to be conveyed or what was authorized by the medical department to be conveyed to Westinghouse was t h e ^ u t h o r i z e d ^ e r sion^that was already setjforth in the, -atechnical sbul 1 et ins?.^ Yes. *Q" And if there were to be something more I y detailed or more specific than what was set forth in the vy technical bulletins, that would have to come from the 'H professionals in the medical department to professionals at Westinghouse? P F`A Yes. a & Did you make any contact with the medical department about this visit and the problems that , existed at Westinghouse? JC* ,2% f S Qf ^as far as y o u ^know,-from..the^anforination that'Mr. Benignus sent out, the information that -transpired at the meeting, nobody at the medical tt) department was made aware of the extent of the problem B that existed at the Westinghouse plant in Bloomington, Indiana. r/H :A Correct? That is correct. s S ^ A n d .therefore nobody in the medical J department^would have known of any need or any^reasonj^p call any of their technical counterparts at Westinghouse .1 and read them the riot act, so to speak, about safe i1'<AU handling of PCBs? - `A"J That is correct. 'y I Q Are you aware of anybody in this time frame '53 in the'medical department contacting a technical -:;v*' Tf counterpart at Westinghouse to set them straight on the properfhandling of PCBs? ^ - "SSRSNo.' ,2 9 8 `rever<j?ersoriaTlyTvisit'"the'-capacitor -plant that.v 7"^ .' 9 Westinghouse had in Bloomington, Indiana? 10 Yes. 11 When did you first visit that plant? 12 I believe it was June or July 1970.13 And is that the only visit you made to that 14 15 Yes. 16 What was the purpose of the visit? 17 To share with the management of the plant 18 Monsanto's understanding of the PCB issued -- issue and 19 to g i v e sthe management of that plant a status report on 20 Monsanto's research studies, toxicity studies, 21 analytical methodology, development. H-:l 22 The toxicology studies that you were giving a 23 report on, were those the IBT studies? m 24 25 What analytical methods were you givinj N ELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. tft1S8^Did''you,,fnquire-Oflth'em whether* or not they?* 'i,*i ....... .-- had cleaned things up? A Yes. li Of whom did you inquire? ,9i 5 Of the room full of individuals. ` r* -V 3S conference room full of eight or ten people. It was a J (#.> line? \ And what was your specific inquiry in that I do not recall the exact words but the essence was:- Have you instituted any new practices ,} -1 . . regarding control of spillage on your employees' aTt clothing washing and the like? And I was assured they had. ''hrJ Q there? Did,you tour;the facility while you^were .. ' --------- - " NELLMC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES,INC. 300 1 ' 2 What portions of the facility did you tour? 3 I recall a -- other than their offices, I 4 recall 'a -- a large enclosed area consisting of what I raj 5 believe was a chamber in which the capacitors were ' 4 6 impregnated with liquid and a rather complex conveyor 7 system that carried the baskets of capacitors to the 8 points where the employees were performing the next step - .-*5 9 in the process. And I also recall an outdoor area with 'i 10 a railroad siding. 11 Q Is that where the railroad cars with PCBs i 12 a r r i v e . d.* * and were unloaded? '1 13 A j In some parts of that siding, yes. 14 Q ' Did you see any of the employees actually y 15 working with PCBs? i 16 Av There were a few individuals. But the line 17 on that day was not actively producing capacitors. For =1 18 some reason, it was idle. 19 So you actually weren't able to determine 20 whether in the production operation things had in fact 21 been cleaned up? ' 22 t~-A That is true. r 23 k Q Did you learn whether the plant had started ^ 24 issuing plant clothing to the employees? 141 ... 25 A ^ ^ 1 'do^notTr emembe rr NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES INC. 301 # 1 . ^ y Did you learn whether the plant provided paid, 2 showers at the end of a shift? 3 -.A* I do not know. e \ ! 4 Q Did you learn whether the plant provided 5 laundry and cleaning services for the clothing worn by i 6 employees at the plant? 7 I don't remember. t 8 Q Did you learn whether or not the plant 9 provided impermeable shoe coverings to keep PCBs off of 10 the shoes if they were going to be in an area where they 11 could come into contact with PCBs? -- 12 A I do not remember. 13 Q Did you learn whether the plant provided 14 impermeable trouser and torso coverings over their 15 regular clothing if they were going to be in an area 16 where they could come into contact with PCBs? w 17 A I do not remember. 18 Q Did you learn whether the plant provided .. .*/t 19 impermeable hand coverings for the employee, gloves or M 20 something like that? 21 A I do not remember. .a 22 Did you learn whether or not the plant 23 provided impermeable head coverings of the sort that :vi* 24 Monsanto had for its employees where they might come 25 into contact witlTPCBs?* -- NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. 30 1 -A^ i n ^ r ' d o n ' rt'Jrecll l7*> i 2 Did you learn whether the plant provided any "i 3 barrier creams that could be applied by the employees to 4 4 the bare skin if they were going to be in an area where 5 they might come into contact with PCBs? 6 A a S S S ^ i ^ o n `'T^recal 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 specif icailyll^nqir^ 14 other matters, the clothing, the protective coverings, $15 the barrier creams and the like, and just not remember . 16 today yhat you found out? Or did you inquire at all? & 17 A i I recall inquiring about that those items.] >3 -18 The answer given me seemed satisfactory. And the 4 19 concentration then concentrated on environmental 20 matters. The rest of the day was spent on those "I 21 matters. 22 Q 3 The primary purpose of your trip was 23 environmental? 24 A' Yes. 25 q The 1otherwas "incidental:to theTtrip?^* 1 MCI! MP r l l liM o * a . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 ri visit j-- ^ >nw M w r . w 1' i * ' ow^many ,othe r^customersj^ p l a n t s d i d y o i ^ I'm looking just for an estimate at this point 7 " during this period of time? A 2 I never made a count. As best I recall, m there were about a dozen plants at that point in time. Q j Now I'm talking about from '70 through the ih '76. Is that the time you're talking about? . AJ 1 Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you meant the summer?of 1970. I< Q ^ No*,rno^5l'm . s o r r y . m e a n t the entire time ^that you held .this responsibility, j A ; I don't know the number. Couple dozen u <T Somewhere on the order of 25? a! like-that* 6Y 3 t 317 1 5Q''!93F*!*Nc>Wf-Monsanto -was willlhg~fo'r"and even S i t " .... 2 suggested to the companies that were its customers/ that 3 is, that were big enough to provide an indemnity 4 Monsanto could rely on and who did sign one that they 5 could in turn sell dielectric fluids to companies that 6 Monsanto would not sell to direct. Correct? 7 Correct. 8 Did you, for purposes of your job, consider #u5 9 companies to whom Monsanto delivered dielectric fluids, 10 even though they weren't the technical purchaser, to be 11 customers? 412 A " Did I personally? No. 13 Q : Okay. There were definitely situations, were 14 there *n. ot, in the 1970s where, for example, if you were 15 going.to sell PCB materials to Westinghouse and they t $ 16 were to provide for a resale or whatever you might call 17 it to somebody that Monsanto wouldn't sell to directly, 18 what would actually happen is Westinghouse would place 19 the order but direct that the materials be shipped to 20 the third party? 21 1 - Yes. V* 22 And you did not consider those third parties '-74 23 to whom the materials were shipped directly by Monsanto 24 to be;a customer on whom you should make a visit or a 25 ca NELL MC CAI M im 3, a c c n r iatcc iM r 7i----- ~jrl * ' iM~~TmrT--r r 'Ei-- rw im w l w --, -> ^ 15 What effort .'was.made^to^pri^idejany ^technical '.V 16 bulletins or other information on safe handling and y!i 17 toxicology to the locations to which PCBs were shipped? 18 The environmental statements issued in early i. 19 1970 with some followups in subsequent years went to all 20 entities listed on our ship-to, bill-to lists. *4 21 Q When you talk about environmental statements, 22 are you talking about the sort of technical bulletins !; 23 that we looked at earlier today? 24 No. These were the memoranda designed to :1\ 25 updateTalI T ofj^hMe^cbmpanies ^regarding the Win ** 1M'|wyr(! IIJIftWI I I l, 1 -- envirornnental^presence of^PCBs^and our cautioning: 2 not let it get to the environment. Those letters. 3 Q ; But not the documents that contained ;-i 4 information on safe handling? 5 h : \ The safe handling documents, I do not know -i 6 who got;them and who in Monsanto supplied them. "I7 So you don't know whether or not they went to 8 people' who were ship-tos but not the technical purchaser } sri 9 under .the purchase order? 10 ^^*That*'is^correct^ 322 1 2 3 4 5 Let me'hand y o u 5what has-been marked^.by-tne fc!6 court reporter as Exhibit No. 6 and ask if it's an 7 exhibit consisting of three pages, ask if you recognize 8 the letter that is dated February 2nd, 1972, from N 9 Mr. R. T. Richards at Texaco to you and the response t' .T-iIl 10 that you wrote on February 4th, 1972. 11 I Now that I've read them, I recall the -- the 12 two documents you refer to. 13 Q " Okay. I'll tell you what. To make it 14 convenient, let me have the reporter mark the letter yi( 15 that Mr. Richards wrote to you as Exhibit 6 A, and then 16 we can,,distinguish between your response as Exhibit 6 17 and the Richards' letter 6 A. t 18 ~r;l [Exhibit 6 A marked] Si19 MR. LACEY: 20 Q J Let me hand it back to you. Now the reporter M 21 has marked Mr. Richards'.letter to you as Exhibit 6 A. 22 It was part of your function to receive letters of the 23 type that Mr. Richards wrote to you which is marked as 24 Exhibit 6 A? ` f2 25 A rsgg&Yea > POP! ! M r r a .... QigSir.'w-This" letter :was written in February^of^i97-2. ^ r... -, K . j g t *" Correct? I .1 A Correct. r`J Q And by that time had your position at ,-i Monsanto become one that was somewhat well-known around -I the country as being associated with responsibility for ?! PCBs at Monsanto? yI^believe sqTlyes. So i t w a s n 11 :at all-surprising_tojfind peopl who knew your name as the person to write to with questions about PCBs by this time, was it? A A That is correct. i Did you know Mr. Richards personally? A No. A Q Had you ever visited the Texaco facilities? 1 A No. Q They were not a customer that you went to? ~~ 'A a ', That is correct. Q1 In Mr. Richards' letter he asked for certain ! information about PCBs. Correct? correct copy, then, of the file copy you kept of that letter? A. Yes. *Q And what we have as Exhibit 6 A is a correct :i copy of the letter that you received from Mr. Richards -.1 to which you responded? 'M _ ,w J k ;&3-Yes. ^ Q - ^ l g A n d it* is.obvious from .the way t h a t -le written that Mr. Richards was under the impression Monsanto Aroclors had no PCBs in them Correct? ;,Yes js s e t & \ " Q ^ ^ I n y o u ^ r e s p o n s e letterTyou Jtalk about^in^the$ ">$ * * * * * * .. ' last paragraph of the first page disposal of scrap "i fluids by incineration. Correct? ..1 A, Correct. . .J Q And you reference a temperature exceeding !V^| 1600 degrees Fahrenheit. Why is that particular ;;.vf temperature so important? M A '<$3 It takes very close to that temperature to achieve -- to achieve the total destruction of PCBs to reach three stable chemicals, one being water, the other 3j` being carbon dioxide and the third being hydrochloric gas. m Q j If PCBs are burned at a lower temperature :*wf J3L. instead of creating those three chemicals other I 1 Tchemic......a.....l......s caI n -b----e---- - - i i ici i U rO e mi alilMltrtiM'ien dr if ccl/l`a* l"n" u i'* i *t>-h e y not? 2 A;t Yes. 1% 3 Q* In particular, burning of PCBs at lower 4 temperatures can lead to the production of .ji * 5 dibenzofurans. \ 6 A j I am told that, yes. 7 Q \ And can lead to the production of V^ 8 dibenzodioxins. 9 I do not understand that is possible. 10 You do not? 1 1 That is not. 12 I see. 13 I'm told it's not feasible. 14 By whom have you been told that? 15 ^ Organic"*1: esearch"7chemi s t V ^inTMonsa n ^ . w t**'mmm t*wmm*'*twm*ip -- -r-- 8 J-- 'your/opinion nthat^JLn,the^inggn; 9 combustion of PCBs, PCBs can be converted into 10 chlorinated dibenzofurans. Correct? 11 A'] Correct. 12 Q ? But it is your opinion that in incomplete 13 combustion of PCBs they cannot be converted into \ 14 chlorinated dibenzodioxins. Correct? 15 A'] Correct. 16 Qli And that opinion is held in part based on m 17 your knowledge of chemistry. Correct? 5*: 18 A* Correct. 19 Q 1 How long have you held the opinion that as a Mj 20 matter of chemistry chlorinated PCBs cannot be converted 21 into chlorinated dibenzodioxins? 22 A 1 I don't know that it happened on any 23 particular day. It evolved to my present understanding 24 at about -- it's after I was removed from PCB 25 assignments./VAnd, at .the^moment it seems .to..me somewhere NELLMC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES,INC. 339 * 1 n " T O ' 8>^'tha<f Perio<3 .of^t im e .y:f , Q Did you hold a different opinion about the principles of chemistry prior to your removal of -- from --j . the PCB area, and in specific I mean did you at that time hold the opinion that chlorinated PCBs could be converted into chlorinated dibenzodioxins by incomplete V* combustion? H .Aj I had a suspicion based upon the presence of the benzene ring, chlorine and oxygen that under i4 conditions that might be present those three types of i chemicals could form the right combination to form th" pi chlorodioxins. This was not based on any exotic science n other, than the presence of those three entities. And I i followed very closely any research in those areas for - several years until I reached this other point of m ii y understanding -which.ex ists'today. 6 Q ^ ^ ^ L e t ~ m e ;show you^andther" document'^/dated *Junn 7 13th, 1975, written by you regarding PCB furans, 56289, 8 and ask you i that helps you recall what these meetings 1. i 9 with the FDA about furans were all about. -f > 10 A I recall now some of the discussion. This 11 } was in response to an FDA inquiry regarding: Are there* v,/i 12 any chlorinated dibenzofurans in your PCBs? And this vA 13 meeting was called to develop a program to get the right 14 answers to that question. \J 15 Q And in fact it was when Monsanto undertook .1 16 that investigation in response to the FDA request that 17 ' it found furans in its PCBs? \ -:-.j18 A. Eventually, yes. ; 19 Q Prior to that time Monsanto had been of the -4 20 opinion it had no furans in its PCBs. Correct? 21 A Based on earlier analytical results with less 22 sophisticated methodologyTTyesv 23 Q And part of the reason that the meeting 24 called for the development of a more sophisticated 25 analytical methodology was that Monsanto was concerned NELLMC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES.INC.  rrect. t me^^^wjrvou ,a memo dated November 10th, n by you to Dr. Calandra. -M Biotest. ^Correct? V.5 $ Correct. *fk He was with Dr. Roush and J. C. Weber. Document 1487, .i': I recall the document. That memo sets forth the agenda for a visit v: by y o ^ and Dr. Calandra, Dr. Roush and I'm not sure,. Wjber, I guess, to Washington, D.C., to meet with a number of federal agencies. Q At the time that that meeting was undertaken ou already reached the opinion that Monsanto should 24 cease the production of PCBs? 25 A I personally had in my own mind reached that (Y \V tC .'SO *A , % S XZ. ^ Jo T - js> Jt\* C orJt* J-. i w ( ' , / i irdLw flc jL fc \ , t 12 "''iTirii*;4Qlu<.5S^Thoisiiem^^v'i~s`it-**s+**r+-e**lated in part to presenting 13 Monsanto's position to these various agencies and in 14 trying to influence them not to back the provisions in 15 the proposed Toxic Substances Control Act that would ban . .i * 16 the manufacture and sale of PCBs. Isn't that correct? 17 A I did not personally view it as that being 18 the objective*. The objective here was to respond to the 19 findings of Dr. Renate Kimbrough and present a 20 Dr. Calandra's and Dr. Poor's opinions regarding the 21 findings of the Industrial Biotest studies and their '-i 22 interpretations. 23 Q Dr. Renate Kimbrough had done studies with jj 24 Monsanto PCB products on rats. Correct? ;<!i 25 A She -- I d o n 't know that she was -- many 355 Tl v4 1 product a product. 14- 2 q Okay. Dr. Kimbrough had taken a particular 3 Monsanto PCB and undertaken a study of its toxicity on 4 rats..Correct? i /*> 5 A ' Correct. Kl 6 Q i And the results of her study found that that 'j 7 PCB caused cancer. Correct? *r*i` 8 A I think it's more correct to say that the 9 pathologist who helped Dr. Kimbrough in the evaluation 10 of the tissue samples concluded that he observed 1 1 precancerous cells in the liver tissues. `y 12 Q To a layman, can you say that they caused 13 cancer? Or you don't agree that's what the bottom line 14 was? ! 15 A If in truth he saw precancerous cells, then a 16 layman.could rightfully say that cancer could form. . .. 17 *:Q Okay. z: i 18 k The question is: Did he really see that? r-? 19 And that's the discussion. 20 All right. Now, in that regard, Monsanto was '4 . . 21 obviously as a manufacturer of PCBs not pleased with the V*f, 22 suggestion that its products caused cancer. Correct? -i 23 A Correct. Because it had no confirming 'ij . . . 24 reports from anywhere to support that. 4 25 Q Well, the only studies that Monsanto had done MPI I MP CAI IM e. a c c o n aTCP mir 356 1 that related in any way to whether PCB compounds could 2 cause cancer in rats were the studies that Monsanto had *2 3 commissioned at IBT. Correct? 34 . At this point in time? H d5 q : Yes. 6 A- Yes. ,3 7 Q, And, of course/ those studies had come back 8 giving" PCBs a clean bill of health in that regard. 9 Correct? 10 If by your expression "in that regard" in y 'i* 11 terms of cancer findings. Otherwise they were not given 12 a clean bill of health. 13 Q The Industrial Biotest study reports that | 14 were written/ the final reports after revisions to the 15 drafts, concluded that PCBs were not carcinogenic. 16 Ri9 >, 17 Correct. 18 Okay. And that was at odds with what 19 D r .^Kimbrough had found. Correct? 20 Correct. &W21 Obviously that creates some amount of 22 confusion and question in people's minds about what to 23 conclude and how to understand it. Correct? vi! . 24 A Correct. 25 And at this point in time the problems at I; ti NELL MC C ALLU M & ASSOCIATES. INC. 357 : .7 . . '-`. 1 Industrial Biotest have not yet come to public light. ; ii 2 Correct? * 3 A* 1975. That is correct. < .i 4 `Q I mean you wouldn't have been taking Dr. 5 Calandra with you to influence government agencies after 6 he had been indicted for his conduct at Industrial 7 Biotest, would you? 8 iA Probably not. 9 t. That wouldn't be very persuasive? r r-`> 10 A That is correct. 11 Q In fact, after the indictment and the -- 12 conviction of certain principals in Industrial Biotest, .-fV 13 that work is of very questionable scientific r .* 14 reliability. Correct? v< < 15 A In some quarters, yes. 16 a Well, can't you agree with me that work done 17 by a scientific laboratory where the principals have 18 been convicted of falsifying test results and submitting K.i'i W>;Jj 19 false.reports to the government would not be the type of y* 20 material that scientists would ordinarily rely on in 21 forming opinions about matters? 22 rlA It would certainly cast a doubt on the data. 23 But if the data were reviewed, audited for flaws, it's 24 conceivable that some of these studies were not affected Wv/ 'M 25 by whatever the individuals were accused of. MCI i r*a i i o *t+r 35 1 ?Q5 Well, if the falsification involved 2 substituting new animals in place of dead animals, f:1 3 writing down measurements that did not exist and the f4 4 like, then that would make the entire body of the matter 5 suspect, would it not? 6 6 ^ Q ^ ^ S g ^ p W 7^ y ; t h i s point in time, when you are % *s-' 7 takingiDr. Calandra to Washington with you, there is no 8 such.pall over Industrial Biotest's work, because this M 9 hasn'tt]] yet happened? 10 A Correct. j-vi ' 1 1 < Q Now, before Dr. Calandra and you and M 12 Dr. Roush went to Washington to talk about the proper f-.|j 13 interpretation of the Kimbrough work, Monsanto arranged 14 for Industrial Biotest personnel to review y 15 Dr. Kimbrough's slides, pathological slides, did it not? .16 14 Yes. 17 I Q And that was done in order to determine 18 whether or not the pathologist's reading of those slides 19 that was associated with Dr. Kimbrough's work was a y 20 reading that was accurate or inaccurate. Correct? im 21 IA* I don't know that, this type of science lends 22 itseif^to a black and white accurate/inaccurate 23 ----- f 360 1 THE,WITNESS i J u st based on what I know, the ,W| "" ---- 2 individuals asked to review the slides so that they 3 could onfirm that in truth the pathologists that looked 4 at them originally was interpreting the way they, too, 5 would interpret them. Dr. Kimbrough's pathologist was 6 also permitted to look at Monsanto tissue slides. The 7 FDA in the meantime had been given Monsanto Industrial 8 Biotest slides long before this point in time, but for 9 reasons unbeknownst to me had not reviewed them. And .. . i' i 10 this is the situation that we faced at that visit. 11 MR. LACEY: "< . 12 Q Okay. Well, I take it you are not in 13 agreement that one can be correct or incorrect about 14 pathological results, then. 15 A I was privileged to look through a microscope V* 16 set up.in my hotel room when some of these slides were N 17 reviewed. I'm not a toxicologist. But it strikes me as 18 a very subjective distinction of various shades of pink rK- -**1 19 that the pathologist tries to interpret. I can readily ,4 20 see where a difference of opinion can easily exist. 21 ivQ Let me try to ask it this way: After the i-% 22 Industrial Biotest personnel or whoever they arranged to 23 have.review the slides reviewed Renate Kimbrough's 24 slides, did they conclude that the pathologist who had U . , .. - 25 done the work for Dr. Kimbrough's study reached a l4 N ELL MC C A LLU M & ASSOCIATES, INC. 361 .1 .* *. J j 1 conclusion that they, too, would reach? -I 2 A No. 43 And from whom did you get that report? 4 A I believe Elmer Wheeler described to me the 5 findings of those discussions. 6 Q Did Monsanto receive a report from Industrial 7 Biotest pathologists that gave their review of those 8 slides? 9 :A I recall a report signed by Dr. Calandra 10 which'summarized the findings. I do not recall seeing a j. 11 report where slide by slide the evaluation was -- I. 12 described, nor did I see a summary of all those 1 13 observations. 14 Was Dr. Calandra a pathologist? - - 1\ 15 Yes, I understand he's a medical doctor 16 majoring in pathology. 17 uf-.-tr\ Was it Dr. Calandra who reviewed those slides 18 of Dr; Kimbrough and concluded that there was no 19 evidence of cancer? \A 20 A 1 I don't know. :1 21 Were you present at the meetings where 22 ? Dr. Calandra presented the Industrial Biotest view on r-1 H23 the Renate Kimbrough study? 24 A 3 Yes. 25 But you don't recall whether Dr. Calandra v'l r N ELL MC C ALLU M & ASSOCIATES, INC. 362 1 indicated it was his own work as a pathologist that hj 'ifA , 2 was reporting on or the work of others? ,V \ 3 A* I recall it's the work of several. I don't ,i 4 know-if Dr. Calandra is one of the pathologists M 5 involved. M 6 Q I see. Did he report that all of those 7 several pathologists were in agreement that the slides 8 did mot show anything that we as laymen would call 9 cancer? 10 That is correct. 11 And were people within the medical department -m 12 at Monsanto aware of the opinions that Dr. Calandra was 13 going-ito render on behalf of Monsanto in these meetings ii 14 with .the various government agencies? i \1 15 A Yes. 16 I'Q : Did anyone in the medical department advise 17 you of any concern about Dr. Calandra rendering the 't 18 opinion that the pathologist who had reviewed those 19 slides on behalf of Monsanto were of the opinion that 20 they did not show any cancer or precancer or anything -it 21 that we as laymen would refer to as cancer? &/ ' 22 A That is correct. 23 And that had been approved by the appropriate 24 people within the medical department? a 25 8G5BS i. .n -i N E LL MC C ALLU M & ASSOCIATES INC.  15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Okay. :. .-{ 1970, from you -Zi-- *-' .sho^y o u ^ a ^ e predated .-./ * * .r *r-. . * . . . - r to a Mr. Sprouse with -- I June 2nd * VW W guess it's with the TVA. It's not quite clear. Document 16741, 16742.1 I have read it. I ;Qi Do you recall writing that letter? A n Q zi . Monsanto? Yes, sir. As part of your job and responsibilities at g p ^ j r e s . -- 1 f g ^ y ^ l n tha O e t t O o u : ~ t alk about the disposal c I 3 2 U>v^;l1 ' PCB-containing dielectric fluids. Correct? 3 A* Correct. 4 You sent that letter to the TVA because you .1. t: 5 recognized that they used PCB-containing dielectric i:4 6 fluids. Correct? 7 tSoTThe^le 11e r.was'~sent "to -the^TVA ^'rrn" *^ ^ 22 because^Monsanto las-aware of a^problenrbf^leaks^pf 'PCB, ------- 23 dielectric fluid in and among the electrical equipment 24 they had? 25 4 . jO Okay. In this ^letter-did you provide any 5 information'to the TVA about what measures it should H 6 take to protect its workmen from exposure to these 7 leaking PCB dielectric fluids? \tA 8 A 1 NO. 9 Q 3 Do you know whether or not technical 10 bulletins and the like had previously been supplied by 11 Monsanto to the TVA which would contain that -- 12 information? 13 a ;2 n o . - 14 Q . So it is possible that at the time you wrote 15 this letter TVA had no information from Monsanto about 16 how tov safely handle PCB-containing dielectric'fluids, 17 Correct? 18 9 "^T Did M o n santo ever supply Congressman Ryan 3S3\ 10 with all the information that he requested about PCBs? 11 i t e No. 12 Q That second letter went to several people at 13 Monsanto, including the lawyers that were part of this ''? 14 policy team that you were involved with. Correct? 15 A It's a single person. The 16 q J One person? The lawyer? 17 J Yes, sir. v-* 18 q_-.i1| Mr. Park? 19 A Yes. - 20 q ' What was M r . Park's role on ."'1 21 there some legal proceeding that he was involved in? 22 A No, Mr~ Park was part of the task force that 23 addressed PCB issues of all types, and he was a regular 24 member|and no particular issue legally was involved. He 25 was our legal consultant for all matters. .ii *" ; 1 ;>Q` And that involved in the committee's work 2 many general business considerations of a nonlegal 3 nature? 4 s v f Was it?thought'"that the policies that 22 the company was developing had legal implications for -I 23 the company? w 24 igne f O W k n ^ L e t me ask you with regard to the business c h a n g e s -- and I'm talking now about contractual \: business changes that Monsanto engaged in in the early .1 Seventies where it modified the contracts with its customers to whom it sold PCBs and required the execution of indemnity agreements, who was responsible V'i for developing that idea? Was that you? A No. Q Who within Monsanto came up with thatidea? A I don't know. Q Did you review theproposed language of the indemnity agreement form? .Ai.-v- :N o . J -fQ Did Monsanto, to .your knowledge, ever stop -j selling PCBs to any customer because of their use in such a^ way as to bring a hazard to the environment? * ni A Not to my knowledge. *i ! i __ Did Monsanto ever stop selling PCBs to a ; *>- *i customer because of their use of \the product in such a way as'to cause a hazard to health? ^ knowledge. 9 And that 'was a response to the fact that your 10 group had recommended getting out of all the other uses 11 and they wanted to get out of those uses as quickly as~~ 12 possible, but your group had not recommended getting out 13 of the dielectric uses of PCBs. Correct? 14 t:A That is correct. 15 Q The decision of that committee was to get out UV 16 of whatever it was that was recommended to be given up *e 17 in PCB use as soon as possible? 18 -A Correct. " -it 19 Q And the only reason that there w a s n 't a 20 similar effort with regard to dielectrics is because 21 your group didn't recommend it? 22 ;A Correct. 'i 23 Q And it was not until you yourself personally 24 reached the decision in November of 1975 that the wheels 25 started rolling at Monsanto on getting out of the PCBs 1 as dielectrics. Correct? $i 2 ;A Well, the timing was uch that it coincided & 3 with iny discussions with Mr. Fitzgerald. I have no way i'iij 4 of knowing if Mr. Fitzgerald and others had also arrived 5 i^ t t^tTje^ same^decYi>ibn more or less coincidently. '23 Let me show you a memo dated July 14th, l! 24 wri you to Messrs. Bergen, Mason -- is it Mason? 25 Mason. 1 Q Mason and Springate, Document 25625. 2 moment to review that, if you would. 3 A* I have read the document. 23 hat you report that you told ; 24 Mr. Schwindt that Monsanto would not voluntarily ;l 25 abandon this business without some protection by proper 1 authorities regarding imports. Isn't that right? 2I 11 ^ ^ ^ ^ y ^ ^ H o n s a t i t o ^ a s jgoing to continue to sell PCBs- * lO 12 to its customers, would not voluntarily stop producing, r n . ' 13 as long as other companies who made PCBs were prepared . -;v.:.1! ' 14 to import it if Monsanto didn't sell it. Correct? 15 A All right. What this says is that if PCBs 16 are permitted in the dielectric and heat transfer rI 17 systems and someone is going to supply that need, *'fj ; , 18 Monsanto would be the supplier. If we terminate the 19 sale of PCBs to those two principal and remaining uses, 20 me would do so if no one else would supply that PCB. 21 Because if somebody is going to supply it, we might as {i T\ . 22 well supply it. The problem is not solved. ,13 23 Isn't it true that one of the reasons m 24 Monsanto decided in December of 1975 to stop selling 25 PCP* f o r rti p ! pct:r \ n n*p* 401 'J.r/-'S I 1 Substances Control Act was going to pass, they could see i .ri 2 the handwriting on the wall, and /therefore finally it A' 3 had come to pass that there was going to be a * `A 4 restriction on other companies selling PCBs in the 5 United States and thus Monsanto was finally prepared to 6 voluntarily abandon the market? 7 :A I don't recall that our thought process was y *I 8 that sophisticated. 9 Q Well, isn't that exactly what you were f-i\ 10 suggesting right there? If Congress would pass a law 4 ` *i ' . 11 banning the import of PCBs in 1971, then Monsanto m i g h T 12 consider voluntarily ceasing production? ft 13 fA Yes. I 14 IQ And the whole point of that was, Monsanto 15 didn't: want to give up the competitive position it had ,| 16 in the.market voluntarily? 17 fISSBSThat's-true. 'iet-.me show.you a fetter dated March 18th, -A ::-3 . 1975, written by you to a Dan Albert with Westinghouse j which has attached to it certain questions that he ' 'I asked, along with answers to them, and some reference material, Documents 16416 through 16423. Do you recall .-ithat letter? . Yes, I do. .j Q You had received from Mr. Albert a list of questions that dealt with the hazards to humans of PCBS. 1 Correct? 2-*'1 t; '.9i Correct. ; -:V And he on behalf of Westinghouse was asking for Monsanto's information with regard to the answer of those questions. Correct? TvA Yes. i M '.v 3 ` Q Did you provide the answers to the questions? :-'-A I provided them to Mr. Albert. But I got the 'Ml ^nsw^gitroB-.Hr^^eler. . ^ ! ! 15 16 17 18 19 - 20 21 22 23 24 25 And did"youjsupply -verbatim 1 --- -A . -i -**.: !.- f w Westinghouse the^answers to th^ questions drafted by Mr. Wheeler? Sri/ ipA Yes. !; .:Q You didn't have any part in actually >.1 ; - developing the answers, then? _ A That is correct. , Q And that again was consistent with the policy of the company that questions ^bout the adverse ,i i consequences of PCBs on human health were to be answered by the medical department? iA *h Correct. 424 1 Was there any thought on your part that it '$1 2 was inappropriate for Westinghouse to look to Monsanto % 3 as the'manufacturer and seller of PCB-containing 4 dielectric fluids for answers to questions like that? i 5 A No. I didn't consider it inappropriate. J 6 This would be a step in the right direction, in my 7 opinion. S; 8 Q Okay. And certainly some evidence of the 9 fact that Westinghouse was looking to Monsanto for .i 10 information on the hazards of PCBs? 11 A 1 Well, certainly. But it would also indicate 12 that their professionals would be playing a role in what] 13 eventually is done at Westinghouse. 14 Q So you viewed what Monsanto knew as a part of r.j 15 at least what Westinghouse would look to for their ..T 16 decisions on health effects of PCBs? 17 a ] Very definitely. 7 18 Q And t h a t 's typical for a customer of a "i 19 chemical company to look to the chemical company for 20 information on the products that the company supplied? 21