DAY AGENT ORAN G E TESTIMONY M OYER V DOW U N I T E D •STATES D I S T R I C T C O U R T 'EASTERN DISTRICT' OF. N E W YORK — X In re M DL No. "AGENT ORANGE" 38Ï (All Cases) P ro d u c t L ia b ility L itig a tio n s AW x f i l e d IN CLERK’S O t !CE, •' ' d. S.D' " COIIRI e.D N.Y. * ■ NOV 18 ¡1983 * •TIME A.M P.M N OT I C E OF CONFIDENTIALITY^ A N D UPDATED INDEX OF £ CON F I D E N T I A L DOCUMENTS OF DEF E N D A N T THE D O W C H E M I C A L COM P A N Y ' ■ R ivkin,L e f f , S h e r m a n & R a d l e r At t o r n e y s a n d C o u n s e l l o r s a t L aw IO O G a r d e n C ity P l a z a , Ga r d e n C ity, N. Y. 11530 H 1 ■* a ■ JLJi j_ Q UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NOTICE OF C O N F I D E N T I A L I T Y AND UPDATED INDEX OF C O N F I D E N T I A L DOCUMENTS OF DEFENDANT THE DOW C HEMICAL COMPANY In re "AGENT ORANGE" Product Liability Litigat i o n MDL No. 381 (All Cases) Defendant The Dow Ch e m i c a l Company ("Dow"), pursuant to the Protective Order regarding P r o d u c t i o n of Confidential Documents by Defendants dated February 6, 1981 (the "Confidentiality Order"), hereto a Notice of C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y C o nfidential Documents annexes (Exhibit A) and an Updated Index of (Exhibit B) for those documents which Dow has designated as "CONFIDENTIAL." In accordance with the C o n f i d e n t i a li t y Order, documents produced pursuant to Procedure B are designated by asterisks herein. All documents produced pursuant to Procedure B are also produced pursuant to P r o cedure A of the C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y Order. In accordance with paragraph 14 of the C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y Order Dow reserves its right to prepare and d istribute further notices of c o n ­ fidentiality and indexes as the need arises, and to avail itself of the procedures set forth in the C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y Order for the documents identified therein. Dated: Garden City, New York November 16, 1983 RIVKIN, LEFF, SHERMAN, & RADLER BY: ____ A MemDer or m e rm u At t o r n e y s for the Dow C h emical Comp a n y 100 G a r d e n C i t y P laza G a rden City, New York 11530 (516) 746-7500 TO: Attached Service List 49 N O TIC E OF C O N F I D E N T I A L I T Y AND U P D AT E D INDEX OF C O N F I D E N T I A L DOCUMENTS OF THE D O W CHEMICAL C O M P A N Y _______________ _ NOTICE OF C O N F I D E N T I A LI T Y Dow Number Date Author 0424112- 641006 Dow 0424114* 04241220424124* C a m p b e ll, 650302 Recipient CA Dow C a m p b e ll, CA Page 1 Distributees General Subject Matter Campbell, CA Dow Ballman, DK Barstow, ED Bennett, EW Bennett, RB Beutel, AP Boundy, RH Branch, CB Calvin, M Doan, HD Doan, LA Doan, LI Dow, AB Dow, HH Gerstacker, CA Griswold, ND Lyon, HH Weaver, CF Whiting, M Dow Directors' Meeting-Tuesday, 641006 Campbell, CA Dow Ballman, DK Barstow, ED Bennett, EW Bennett, RB Beutel, AP Boundy, RH Branch, CB Calvin, M Doan, HD Doan, LI Dow, AB Dow, HH Gerstacker, CA Griswold, ND Lyon, HH Weaver, CF Whiting, M Dow Directors' Meeting-Tuesday, 650203 Dow Number Date Author 04241340424136* 650706 Dow 04241370424139* 650707 Dow 04241570424159* 651102 Dow 04241880424190* 670606 Dow 04241910424192* 670505 Dow Page 2 Distributees General Subject Matter Dow Directors' Meeting-Tuesday, 650706 Summary of Executive Committee Minutes - (650707 650711) Dow Directors' Meeting-Tuesday, 651102 Dow Directors Meeting-Tuesday, 670606 Summary of Executive Committee Mi nutes-670505 670512 670519 Dow Number Date 11249771125002* 670420 Author Recipient Page 3 Distributees General Subject Matter Dow Kennett, WW Putnam, MS Staehling, EC Defense Dept. Orange Project Bases for Dow Proposal Page 4 Dow Number Date 17263311726333* 000000 H4 H* Ol C'T Author Recipient D1strlbutees General Subject Matter Consequences of Overexposure For Tordon; 597 Building Dow Number Date 1784663* 000000 1784664* 000000 1 784665* 000000 Author Reci pfent Page 5 D1stributees General Subject Matter Vinyltoluene-Tar Collection System and Furnace Reboilers (M-32052M) 245 - Trichlorophenol - New Facility 245 - Trichol orophenol - New Production Facilities Dow Number Date Author 20223982022406* 706217 Liening, EL 20224072022488* 66000 Dow 20224892022503* 710324 Dow Kennedy, TL Tree, RM Dow Bosscher, H 20225042022519* 65101 2 Anderson, RE Harris, JS Anderson, RE Lueck, AF Schmidtke, DJ Wehn, WE 20225202022528* 651012 Anderson, RE Harris, JS Anderson, RE Lueck, AF Schmidtke, DJ Wehn, WE 20225292022537* 650518 Wehn, ViE Anderson, R.E. DeLisle, NG Leuck, AF Georgen, G 20225482022571* 700400 ■\ OT I Recipient Page 6 Distributees General Subject Matter Gorgacz, SM Hicks, GM Stone Review of Materials Experience at the Trichloropenol Plant, 804 Building, for 1973, 1974 and 1975. 2, 4, 5-Trichlorophenol New Plant - 1966 Trichlorophenol Plant Cooling Tower, In-Plant Portion (M-700498) Trichlorophenol Project-Process Engineering Trichlorophenol Project-Process Engi neeri ng New 245-Trichi orophenol Plant Arteberry, DG Barton, JT Bauman, WC Bechtold, RF Bellow, RE Organic Chemicals Department-TS&D Hi ghli ghts Dow Number h4 OT GO Date Author I Recipient Di stributees Bernstein, MK Blair, EH Blue, RD Bremmer, BJ Brown, TE Brown, WE Bryant, F Burgert, BE Butcher, BB Byrd, GW Carlson, RG Carmouche, LN Cessna, OC Chamberlain, M Christian, CA Coker, WP Coon, ET Davis, RH Davis, RM Derby, RL Dii ley, R Dreyer, JW Dunn, EE Fay, BW Fischback, BC Friedli, H Gold, WL Grabiel, CE Hanners, HW Hansen, R Hanson, AW Heitz, RG Hickner, RA Hoblit, LD General Subject Matter Dow Number CK CD Date Author Recipient Distributees Honea, CR Johnson, J Jones, GD Karns, RE Kelly, ME Kuchinic, RM Langner, RB Lindy, LB Litherland, LO Leavitt, FC Look, AT Maasberg, AT Mackenzie, GF Mackey, JC Madison, NL Marklewitz, WE Marks, CD McClure, HH McCoy, CE McDuff, JM Me Inti re, OR Munden, BJ Nelson, DL Nielson, JT Nielson, WH Neumann, FW Ohlmann, EO Palmer, T Parsons, CP Pearson, KS Peterson, LR Potts, WT Prince, AK General Subject Matter Dow Number Date Author 20226162022666* 700600 Dow ^•uiA |*wSi CD O Recipient Page 9 Distributees General Subject Matter Rogers, WA Ruh, RP Sarge, TW Schuhmann, JG Sheehan, TJ Sheetz, DP Sienknecht, P Snyder, IJ Sorenson, RH Sparta, TA Stehling, EC Trapp, WB Tucker, JC Tuttle, FC Warren, GW Yocum, RH Yoshimine, M Mummy, WR Maasberg, AT Ettinger, MB Busk, RS Blue, RD Peterson, NR Johnson, JE Bauman, WC Boyer, RF Lindsav, RA Look, AT Struthers, JA Rausch, DA McCoy, E Prince, AK Kimmel, CE Biochemical Research Laboratory. Quarterly Report April-June 1970 Dow tyumber h—fi, CD Date Author -i-- Recipient Di stributees Westveer, WM Schwarz, AJ Harrison, RP MeInti re, OR McIntyre, HH Gordon, HL MacCutcheon, SM Kelly, ME Dumb, RR Dean, PE Johnson, RL Lake, DE Meyer, FJ Erratt, RL Cheney,GW Schaefer, HL Graham, DL Flynn, JM Johnston, RV Dowell, FH Sauriedel, WR Blair, EH Howe, RG Barrons, KC Hymas, TA Johnston, Chas. Moss, RD McCollister, DD Reifschneider, W Smith, GN Osborne, DW Strycker, SJ Dunbar, JE Dorman, LC General Subject Matter Dow Number Date Author Recipient Distributees Young, AE Bjork, CK Johnson, MR Yates, WM Post, T Holder, BB Kramer, CG Morse, DB Shannon, ES Brower, FM Englibous, DL Kiley, LR Bearner, WW Muelder, WW Rabold, GP Kagel, R Frevel, LK Alfrey, T Burgert, BE Houtman, T Murdoch, PG Leavitt, FC Pumpelly, CT Jezic, Z DeMott, DN Jones, GD Axe, FD Boeckler, WH Branson, DR Charm, JB Chenoweth, MB Dunn, EE Dunn, FL Gerguson, JT General Subject Matter Dow Number !* 03 CO Date Author Recipient Di stributees Flores, GH Gehring, PJ Gooch, RM Hinman, CW Holmsen, TW Hoover, WE Hoyle, HR Humiston, CG Kociba, R Leong, BK McCarty, LP McCollister, SB McDermott, RD Moyle,CL Neely, WB Norris, JM Oriel, PJ Piper, WN Riley, WH Rodia, RM Rov/e, VK Schneider, CW Schneider, EJ Schwetz, BA Silverstein, LG Sparschu, GL Spencer, HC Torkel son, TR Ts'o, TO Wolf, MA Wolf, PA Wyse, HA Milch, LJ Renzi, AA General Subject Matter Dow Number h* OD Ui* Date Author Recipient Distributees Barnhart, JW Robinson, VB White, HC Hake, Cl Daniels, ME Miner, NA Steward, D Kilian, DJ Edwards, HN Barton, JA Pruitt, ME Brown, JH Ludwig, PD Heitz, RG Kagy, JF Goring, CAI Lloyd, BH Staehling, EC Biggers, MW Tobey, SW Hillary, BB Skory, L DeGesero, R Rinzema, L Schaffer, A Thompson,C Naranjo, P Maffii, G Sensi, P Zeller-Celso, L Lanci ni, G Arri goni-Martel! i, E General Subject Matter Dow Number Date Author 20226742022701* 700600 Dow Recipient Di stributees General Subject Matter Johnson, JE Nummy, WR Barrons, KC Hymas, TA Kagy, JF Goring, CAI Heitz, RG Bail es, RH Johnston, H Johnston, RV Gowell, JH Popoff, FP Dowell, FH Holmsen, TW Reifschnei der, W Getzendaner, ME Lynn, GE Bjork, CK Blair, EH Schwarz, AJ Ludwig, PD Moss, RD McCollister, DD Osborne, DW Seymour, KG Winquist, ME Gum, W Busk, RS Cheney, GW Flynn, JM Kelly, ME McCoy, CE MeInti re, OR Prince, AK Agricultural Department Quarterly Progress Report April - May - June 1970 Dow Number Date Author 2022702202274* 700727 Dow Recipient Distributees General Subject Matter Schwarz, AJ Struthers, JA Peterson, LI Johnston, C Blair, EH Hinman, CW Gaska, R Frevel, LK Potts, WL Friedli, HR Kelly, ME Bowman, C Stall, DR MeInti re, OR Johnson, JE Blue, RD Nummy, WR VanWestenberg, JA Prince, AK Maasberg, AT Peterson, LI Brower, F McCay, CE Engibous, DL Busk, RS Sheetz, DP Cook, P Hanson, AW Struthers, JA Mackenzie, F Leavier, FC White, LW Schwarz, AJ Eastern Research Lab Quarterly Progress Report - April - June 1970 Dow Number > Date Author 20227622022801* 691200 Dow - 03 - Recipient Page 16 Distributees General Subject Matter Burgert, BE Novak, RM Flynn, JM Alfrey, T Morocci, PG Houtman, T Bearne, WH Bache, AF Griffii, JD Rosene, R Biggers, r-IW Blake, CL White, HC Quinn, H Thompson, CF Brown, JH Ludwig, PD McClure, HH Rogers, WA Pruitt, ME Heitz, RG Kagy, JK Bail es, R Brown, CF Mackey, JC Johnson, JE Nummy, WR Barrons, KC Hymas, TA Kagy, JF Goring, CAI Heitz, RG Bail es, RH Agricultural DepartmentQuarterly Progress Report October - November - December - 1969 Dow Number Date Author 20228312022849* 700200 Dow 20228592022891* 700300 Dow h- a OD Recipient Page 17 Di stributees General Subject Matter Johnston, H Johnston, RV Gowel1, JH Popoff, FP Dowel 1, FH Holmsen, TW Reifshneider, W Getzendaner, ME Lynn, GE Spalding, JL Blair, EH Schwarz, AJ Ludwig, PD Jones, GD Moss, RD McCollister, DD Osborne, OW Seymour, KG Winquist, ME Organic Chemicals Production Research - Monthly Summary February 1970 Johnson, JE Nummy, V/R Barrons, KC Hymas, TA Kagy, JF Goring, CAI Heitz, RG Bailes, RH Johnston, H Agricultural Department Quarterly Progress Report - January - February March 1970 Dow Number Date Author 20228922022972* 700600 Dow Recipient Page 18 Distributees General Subject Matter Johnston, RV Gowell, JH Popoff, FP Dowel 1, FH Holmsen, TW Reifschneider, W Getzendaner, ME Lynn, GE Bjork, CK Blair, EH Schwarz, AJ Ludwig, PD Jones, GD Moss, RD McCollister, DD Osborne, DW Seymour, KG Winquist, ME Gum, W Busk, RS Cheney, GW Flynn, JM Kelly, ME McCoy, CE MeInti re, OR Prince, AK Schwarz, AJ Struthers, JA Radiochemistry Research Laboratory - Quarterly Progress Reports - April - May - June 1970 Dow Number Date Author 20229732023110 700600 Dow Recipient Page 19 Distributees General Subject Matter Milch, LJ Brunton, AM Dacquisto, MP Hake, CL Marshall, FN Miller, BH Munden, BJ Renzi, AA Robinson, VB Schell, K Stavropoulos, WS White, HC Shea, PJ Barnhart, J Trepanier, DL Kulkarni, A Eble, J Abdallah, A Wagner, E Lewis, JE Miner, N Steward D Kenny, M Torney, H Taylor, H Sargent. R Broersma, R Anderson, JT Kammeraad, A Zoccolino, R Johnson, JE Hinman, CS McIntyre, OR Peterson, NR Semi-Annual Progress ReportHuman Health Research and Development Laboratories - January June 1970 Dow Number Date Author 20231732023219* 700900 Dow Reci Page 20 Di stributees General Subject Matter Reifschneider, W Nummy, WB Schwarz, AJ Rampy, LW Johnson, MR Blair, E Strycker, SJ Johnston, RV Chenoweth MB Neely, WB Moss, RD Champlain, CE CRI Peterson, L Johnson, FE Kagy, JF Heitz, RG Mul hoi land, RS Zelter-Celso, L Sensi, P Maffii, G Nicoli as, FB Furesz, S Naranjo, P Blair, EH Hinman, CW Hinman, CW Gaska, R Frevel, LK Potts, WJ Friedli, HR Kelly, ME Bowman, C Eastern Research Laboratory Quarterly Progress Report July - September 1970 Dow Number Date Author Recipient Di stributees Stull, DR Mclntire, OR Johnson, JE Blue, RD Nummy, WB VanWestenburg, JA Prince, AK Maasberg, AT Peterson, LI Brower, F McCoy, CE Engibous.DL Busk, RS Sheetz, DP Look, AT Hanson, AW Struthers, JA MacKenzie, GF Leavitt, FC White, LW Schwarz, AJ Burgert, BE Nowak, RM Flynn, JM Alfrey, T Murdock, PG Houtman, T Beamer, WH Griffin, JD Roche, AF Rosene, R Biggers, MW Hake, CL General Subject Matter Dow Number Date Author 20232562023336* 701200 Dow Reel plent Page 22 Distributees General Subject Matter Quinn, H Thompson, CF Brown, JH Ludwig, PD McClure, HH Rogers, WA Pruitt, ME Heitz, RG Kagy, JF Bailes, R Brown, WE MacKey, JC Milch, LJ Brunton, AH Dacquisto, MP Hake, CL Marshal 1 ,FN Miller, BH Munden, BJ Renzi, AA Robinson, VB Schel1, K Tedeschi, R Stravropoulos, WS White, HC Shea, PJ Barnhart, J Trepanier, DL Kulkarni, A Foie, J Abadallah, A Wagner, E Lewis, T Human Health Research and Development Lanoratories Semi-Annual Progress Report - July - December 1970 Dow Number Date Author Recipient Distributees Steward, D Kenny, M Turney, H Taylor, H Sargent, R McCarthy, J Jackson, J Warner, S Emerson, J Mol el lo, J Gerbig, C Boerman, R Anderson, JT Kammeraad,A Zoccolino, K Johnson, JE Hinman, CW McIntyre, OR Peterson, NR Reifschneider, W Nummy, W Schwartz, AJ Rampy, LW Bjork, CK Blair, E Strycker, SJ Johnston, RV Chenoweth, MB Neely, WB Moss, RD Champlain, E Reitz, R Dorman, L Chow, R General Subject Matter Dpw Number Date Author 20233872023478* 701200 Anders, 0U Atchison, GJ Blanchard, FA Doorenbos, HE Harmer, DE Himes, RP Jewett, GL Kamp, AJ Kawahara, Y Kocher, CW Logan, RA Mani, I Muelder, WW Powers, JB Babold, GP Takahaski, IT Wass, MM 20235572023578* vU 700615 Dow Recipient Page 24 Distributees General Subject Matter Frei ter, E Wysong, D Tobey, SW Johnson, FE Mul hoi land, RS Zeller Celso, L Sensi, P Maffii, G Nicol is, FB Arri goni-Martel 1i, E Nathansohn, G Silvestri, L Naranjo, P Progress Report Covering October, November, December 1970 and Yearly Summary Barrons, KC Blair, EH Agricultural Department Research and Development Dow Number -a œ Date Author Reci pient Di stributees General Subject Matter Bremmer, BJ Carlson, RG Dowell, FH Gantz, RL Getzendaner, ME Goring, CAI Kagy, JF Gowel1, JH Hanson, RG Hymas, TA Jantz, OK Johnston, C Johnston, RV Laning, ER Library, JC Little, JC Ludwig, PD Shaver, RJ MacLean,GJ McCollister, DD Lynn, GE Moss, RD Naegele, RE Nyman, FA Osborne, DW Seymour, KG Sheldon, HW Gehring, P Frevel, LK MeInti re, OR Johnson, RB Nummy, WR Kelly, ME Peterson, LI Staff Meeting - June 15, 1970 Dow Number Date Author Recipient 20235792023975* 690000 Hess, TM Nummy, WR Frevel, LK Potts, WJ Department File 20239762024000* 691200 20240012024014* 700109 H4 Distributees General Subject Matter DeMott, DN Prince, AK Nichols, JL Schwarz, AJ Sheetz, DP Bremner, NW Kuyper, CK Ferguson, RH Saunders, ES Dalman, G Leavitt, FC Cheney, GW Bjork, K Jones, P Spalding, J Flynn, JM Jones, IC McClure, HH Pruitt, ME Bailes, RH Johnston, H Thompson, C Chemical Physics Research Laboratory, Yearly Progrès Report and Fourth Quarter Summary Organic Chemicals Production Research Monthly Summary Johnson, JE Chamberlain, LC Summary of Activities of the Electrochemical Dow Number ‘« -A 00 Date Author Recipient Page 27 Distributees General Subject Matter Busk, RS Bauman, WC Blue, RD Klesney, SP Jowanovitz, LS Burgert, BE Jones, GD Jeitz, RG Brubaker, RI Nei pert, MP Myers, JC Hickey, JR Roll wage, WA Williams, EJ Frevel, LK Dale, EM Houtman, T Corey, JW Lindsay, RA Blackney, WC Guebert, KW Hotchkiss, RL Anderson, DL McCoy, CE Nei echter!ein, DC Drake, LR Murdoch, PG Wilcox, AC Engibous, DL Groves, KO Gaska, RA Stuart, GA Gilbert, JF Hillary, BB and Inorganic Chemical Research Laboratory (Midland) for the months October - November - December 1969 Dow Number Date 20240152024023* 700100 Author Recipient Page 28 Distributees General Subject Matter Matheson, LA MeIntire, OR Beamer, WH Lowry, BS Stenger, VA Pumpelly, CT Sarge, TW Jones, IC Mod, WA Bothwell, MR Thompson, CF Nelson, DL Ogden, SO Parizek, E Peterson, LI Prince, AK Pumpelly, CT Putnam, MW Roche, AF Ruh, RP Rausch, D Skochdopole, RE Sheetz, DP Struthers, JA Sutherland, S Wegner, ER Wing, MW Woodward, GE Woodward, RE Hultin, R Nielsoh, WH Hanmond, D Chase, F Hydrocarbons and Monomers Research Laboratory - Inorganic and Hydrocarbons Research Department 1969 Fourth Quarter Progress Report - October -November December - 1969 Dow Number Date Author 20240242024042* 700100 Dow 20240812024139* 700216 20241402024163* 691200 Recipient Page 29 Distributees General Subject Matter Shannon, F Zheitoun, M Ilgenfritz, BM Deline, D Pfrommer, C Organic Chemicals Production Research Monthly Summary Chemical Physics Research Laboratory Summary -Progress Report - October - November December - 1969 Alexander, HC Baker, RL 3ek, CM Brosier, JS Colbry, RJ Daniele, SL Davis, RD Fox, RD Hall, JR Hall, SD Hamilton, CE Hintz, MJ Ilgenfritz, EM Kraut, DE Krienke, ME Lynch, JE Novak, RG Pfrommer, C Putnam, MS Reinker, RE Waste Control Progress Report October - November - December 1969 Dow Number Date Author 20241672024186* 700300 Dow 20241872024204* 700416 Recipient Page 30 Distributees General Subject Matter Sawinski, RJ Sercu, CL Shannon, ES Shively, JF Teal, JL Terryah, GG Wass, WE Weburg, AW Wilson, JD Zillich, JA Bublitz, DW Bauer, DL Bremner, F Batchelder, TL McClure, HH Mclver, JH Smith, DH Strahan, JM Skory, LK Organic Chemicals Production Research - March 1970 CRI Blair, EH Kiley, LR Hinman, C Gaska, RA Bowman, CM Maasberg, AT Nummy, W Kelley, M Henson, W Jones, GD Radiochemistry Research Laboratory - Quarterly Summary Progress Report - January February - March, 1970 Dow Number Date 20242202024239* 700400 20242402024261* 700500 Author Dow Recipient Page 31 Distributees General Subject Matter Tobey, S Vanwestenburg, JA Hemwall, J Johnson, RC Peterson, LI Brower, F McCoy, GE Engibous, D Csaky, E Smith, RA Bothwell, M Busk, RS Bauman, W Drake, LR Pumpelly, C Burgert, W Rieke, J FI ori a, V Flynn, JM Murdoch, PG Prince, AK Wright, ER Larson, W Brown, JH Pruitt, ME Prophet, H Heitz, RG Kagy, JF Organic Chemicals Production Research - Monthly Summary April, 1970 Organic Chemicals Production Research - Monthly Summary May, 1970 Dow Number Date 20242642024275* 700600 Author Recipient Page 32 Distributees General Subject Matter Arcangeli, M Bosscher, H Brubaker, RI Chase, FI Clark, GA Coulter, KE Deline, DD Engibous, DL Ettinger, MB Fletcher, WH Griffin, JD Gunkler, AA Hammond, DD Hillary, BB Jacob, E Johnson, JE Kline, C Kline, PE Leathers, JM Leavitt, FC Look, AT Lueck, AF Maasberg, AT Mcllhemy, WF McKennon, KR Nielsen, WH Otis, CE Peterson, NR Pfrommer, CP Prince, AK Pumpelly, CT Putnam, MS Rector, MR Reinker, RE Environmental Research Laboratory - Monthly Summary June 1970 Dow Number Date Author 20242762024288* 700600 Dow 20242802024359* 700400 Dow GO Recipient Page 33 Distributees General Subject Matter Sanders, ME Sercu, CL Shannon, ES Sheetz, DP Shelton, LG Sienknecht, PJ Smart, RC, Jr. Syyder, RE Staehling, EC Struthers, JA Teal, JL Tree, RM. Jr. Wilcox, AC Woodward, RE Wuckasch, RF CRI(4) Research and Development Monthly Summary June, 1970 Crummett, WB Kiley, LR Bowman, CM Pumpelly, CT Johnson, JE Bauman, WC Nummy, WR Blue, RD Nussbaum, E Rosene, RB Tobey, SW Hinman, CW Coker, WP Vanwestenburg, JA Chemical Physics Research Laboratory - January - April 1970 Dow Number Date 20243602024381* 701100 GO a\ Author Recipient Page 34 Distributees General Subject Matter Peterson, LI Engibous, DL Look, AT Sheetz, DP Leavitt, FC Burgert, BE Nowak, RM Hillary, BB Spettigue, TE Griffin, JD Wright, ER Pruitt, ME Yeaman, MD Heitz, RG Arcangel i, M Bosscher, H Brubaker, RI Bugg, DA Chase, FI Clark, GA Coulter, KE Daigre, GW Davis, RM Deline, DD DeMott, D Engibous, DL Ettinger, MB Gunkler, AA Hammond, DD Hillary, BB Hinman, CW Jacob, E Johnson, JE Environmental Research Laboratory - Monthly SummaryNovember 1970 Dow Number Date Author Recipient Di stributees Kearney, JK Kenaga, EE Kennedy, TL Kline, C Laman, JD Leathers, JM Leavitt, FC Lichy, C Look, AT Maasberg, AT Matheson, LA McClure, HH Mcllheny, WF McKennon, KR Nielsen, WH Otis, CE Pankratz, PM Pavlick, J Peterson, NR Pfronmer, CP Prince, AK Pumpe!ly, CT Putnam, MS Rector, MR Reinker, RE Rogers, W Sanders, ME Schultz, WD Sercu, CL Shannon, ES Sheetz, DP Shelton, LG Sienknecht, PJ Smart, RC, Jr. General Subject Matter Dow Number Date Author 20243822024405* 701100 Dow 20244062024420* 701100 Dow 20244302024439* 701200 Dow Reel Page 36 Distributees General Subject Matter Sy.yder, RE Staehling, EC Struthers, JA Teal, JL Tree, RM. Jr. Van Westenburg, J Wilcox, AC Woodward, RE Wuckasch, RF CRI(5) Organic Chemicals Production Research Monthly Summary November 1970 Reserach and Development Monthly Summary - November 1970 Arcangeli, M Bosscher, E Brubaker, RI Bugg, DA Chase, FI Clark, GA Coulter, KE Daigre, GW Davis, RM Deline, DD DeMott, DN Engibous, DL Ettinger, MB Gunkler, AA Hammond, DD Dow Number ;- i GO 05 Date Author Recipient Di stributees Hillary, BB Hioman, CW Holiday, Al Jacob, E Johnson, JE Kearney, JK Kenaga, EE Kennedy, TL Kline, CW Laman, JD Leathers, JM Leavitt, FC Lichy, C Rector, MR Look, AT Maasberg, AT Matheson, LA McClure, HH Rodgers, W Mcllheny, WF McKennon, KR Nielson, WH Otis, CE Pankratz, PM Pavlick, JE Peterson, NR Pfrommer, CP Prince, AK Pumpe!ly, CT Putnam, MS Reinker, RE Sanders, ME Schaffer, AW Schultz, WD General Subject Matter Dow Number -1— * D a te Author 20244412024454* 701200 Dow 20244552024479* 701200 Dow 20244802024518* 701200 Dow Recipient Page 38 Distributees General Subject Matter Sercu, CL Shannon, ES Teal, J . Sheetz, DP Shelton, LG Sienknecht, PJ Smart, RC Schuessler, RG Snyder, RE Staehling, EC Tree, RM VanDusen, G Van Westenburg, JA Wilcox, AC Woodward, RE Wukasch, RF CRI Research and Development Monthly Summary December 1970 Organic Chemicals Production Research Monthly Summary December 1970 Alexander, HC Baker, RL Bek, CM Brosier, JS Bosscher, H Colbry, RJ Daniels, SL Davis, RD Waste Control Progress Report October - November - December 1970 Dow Number Date Author 20245192024553* 701200 Dow V -Jk •. cp o Recipient Page 39 Distributees GeneralSubject Matter Fox, RD Gaska, RA Hall, SD Hamilton, CE Hintz, MJ IIgenfritz, EM Kaut, DE Krienke, ME Lynch, JE Novak, RG Pfrommer, C Putnam, MS Reinker, RE Sawinski, RJ Shannon, ES Shively, JF Stielstra, C Teal, JL Terryah, GG Wass, WE Weburg, AW Wilson, JD Zil 1ich, JA Ludwig, RC Johnson, JE Nummy, WR 3arrons, KC Hymas, TA Kagy, JF Goring, CAI Heitz, RG Bailes, RH Johnston, H Argicultural Department Quarterly Progress Report October November - December 1970 Dow Number Date Author 20245542024601* 701000 Dow .s & 'cp Recipient Page 40 Di stributees General Subject Matter Johnston, RV Gowell, JH Popoff, FP Dowel 1, FH Holmsen, TW Reifschneider, W Getzendaner, ME Lynn, GE Bjork, CK Blair, EH Schwarz, AJ Ludwig, PD Moss, RD McCollister, DD Osborne, DW Seymour, KG Winquist, ME Gum, W Busk, RS Cheney, GW Flynn, JM Kelly, ME McCoy, CE Mclntire, OR Prince, AK Struthers, JA Peterson, LI Johnston, C Dishburger, JH Gehring, P Pruitt, ME Arcangeli, M Bosscher, H Process Engineering Progress Report - September - October Dow Number CD CO pate Author Recipient Di stributees General Subject Matter Briggs, RL Brower, FM Cermak, RW Chisholm, DS Copeland, RA Costa, JE Deline, DD Engibous, DL Gaska, RA Graves, HE Griffin, JD Jacobs, CE Kehde, H Kennett, WW Larsen, PE Leathers, JM Leavitt, FM Look, AT Sheetz, DP Ioranger, HR Maasberg, AT Maier, RW Miller, RE Murdoch, PG Otto, KA Pumpelly, CT Rousch, WE Schorr, JF Scovic, JM Petrunia, G Sheffield, PH Stagg, DM Szymanski, L Treibilock, J 1970 Dow Number Date Author 20246022024613* 700800 Dow 20246242024641* 700600 Dow 20246422024651* 700700 Dow CP CP Recipient Page 42 Di stributees General Subject Matter Wilcox, AC Biggers, MW Dehaven, ES Herron, RE Research and Development Monthly Summary August 1970 Organic Chemicals Production Research - Monthly Summary June 1970 Arcangeli, M Bosscher, H Brubaker, RI Bugg, DA Chase, FI Clark, GA Coulter, KE Daigre, GW. Deline, DD Engibous, DL Ettinger, MB Fletcher, WH Griffin, JD Gunkler, AA Hammond, DD Hillary, BB Holder, BB Jacob, E Johnson, JE Kearney, JK Kennedy, TL Kline, C Monthly Summary July 1970 Dow Number Date Author 20246522024680* 700300 Dow CD Recipient Page 43 Distributees General Subject Matter Kline, PE Leathers, JM Leavitt, FC Look, AT Maasberg, AT Mcllhemy, WF McKennon, KR Nielsen, WH Otis, CE Peterson, NR Pfrommer, CP Prince, AK Pumpelly, CT Putnam, MS Rector, MR Reinker, RE Sanders, ME Sercu, CL Shannon, ES Sheetz, DP Shelton, LG Sienknecht, PJ Smart, RC, Jr. Syyder, RE Staehling, EC Struthers, JA Teal, JL Tree, RM. Jr. Wilcox, AC Woodward, RE Wuckasch, RF CRI(5) Alexander, HC Baker, RL Waste Control Progress Report January - February - March 1970 Dow Number Date Author Recipient Page 44 Distributees Bek, CM Brosien, JS Colbry, FJ Daniels, SL Davis, RD Fox, RD Hall, JR Hall, SD Hamilton, CE Hintz, MJ Filgenfritz, EM Kraut, DE Krienke, ME Lynch, JE Novak, RG Pfrommer, C Putnam, MS Reinker, RE Sawinski, RJ Shannon, ES Shively, JF Teal, JL Terryah, GG Wass, WE Weburg, AW Wilson, JD Zillich, JA Bublitz, DW Bauer, DL Bremner, F Batcheider, TL McClure, HH Mclver, JH Smith, DH General Subject Matter Dow Number Date Author 20246812024692* 700700 Dow 20246932024730* 700600 Dow CD CH Recipient Page 45 Di stributees General Subject Matter Strahan, JM Skory, LK Halphen, CE Research and Development Monthly Summary - July 1970 Alexander, HC Baker, RL Bek, CM Brosier, JS Colbry, RJ Daniels, SL Davis, RD Fox, RD Gaska, RA Hall, JR Hall, SD Hamilton, CE Hintz, MJ Ilgenfritz, EM Kraut, DE Krienke, E Lynch, JE Novak, RG Pfrommer, C Putnam, MS Reinker, RE Sawinski, RJ Shannon, ES Shively, JF Stielstra, C Teal, JL Waste Control Progress Report April, May, June 1970 Author pow Number Date 20247312024745* . 700700 Dow 20247462024756* 700800 Dow CJ3 -J Recipient Page 46 Di stributees General Subject Matter Terryah, GG Wass, WE Weburg, AW Wilson, JD Zi 11 ich, JA Bublitz, DW Bauer, DL Bremner, F Batcheider, TL McClure, HH Mclver, JH Smith, DH Strahan, JM Skory, LK Halphen, CE Organic Chemicals Production Research - Monthly Summary July 1970 Arcangeli, M Bosscher, H Brubaker, RI Bugg, DA Chase, FI Clark, GA Coulter, KE Daigre, GW Deline, DD Engibous, DL Ettinger, MB Fletcher, WH Griffin, JD Gunkler, AA Environmental Research Laboratory - Monthly Summary August 1970 Dow Number Date Author Recipient 11198 Distributees Hammond, DD Hillary, BB Holder, BB Jacob, E Johnson, JE Kearney, JK Kennedy, TL Kline, C Kline, PE Laman, JD Leathers, JM Leavitt, FC Lichey, C Look, AT Maasberg, AT Mcllheny, WF McKennon, KR Nielsen, WH Otis, CE Peterson, NR Pfrommer, CP Prince, AK Pumpelly, CT Putnam, MS Rector, MR Reinker, RE Sanders, ME Sercu, CL Shannon, ES Sheetz, DP Shelton, LG Sienknecht, PJ Smart, RC, Jr. Snyder, RE General Subject Matter Dow Nuijiber Date Author 20247572024775* 700800 Dow 20247762024797* 700800 Dow 20247882024799* 700900 Dow Recipient Page 48 Di stributees General Subject Matter Staehling, EC Struthers, JA Teal, JL Tree, RM. Jr. Wilcox, AC Woodward, RE Wuckasch, RF CRIÍ5) Organic Chemicals Production Research - Monthly Summary August 1970 Research and Development Monthly Summary August 1970 Arcángeli , M Bosscher, H Brubaker, RI Bugg, DA Chase, FI Clark, GA Coulter, KE Daigre, GW. Deline, DD Engibous, DL Ettinger, MB Fletcher, WH Griffin, JD Gunkler, AA Hammond, DD Hillary, BB Hinman, CW Jacob, E Environmental Research Monthly Summary - September 1970 Dow Number Date Author Recipient Page 49 Distributees Johnson, JE Kearney, JK Kennedy, TL Kline, C Kline, PE Laman, JD Leathers, JM Lichy, C Look, AT Maasberg, AT Matheson, LA Mcllheny, WF McKennon, KR Nielsen, WH Otis, CE Peterson, NR Pfrommer, CP Prince, AK Pumpelly, CT Putnam, MS Rector, MR Reinker, RE Sanders, ME Sercu, CL Shannon, ES Sheetz, DP Shelton, LG Sienknecht, PJ Smart, RC, Jr. Snyder, RE Staehling, EC Struthers, JA Teal, JL Tree, RM. Jr. General Subject Matter Dow Number Date Author 20248002024811* 700900 Dow 20248122024831* 700900 Dow 20248322024855* 701000 Dow 20248562024868* 701000 Dow Recipient Page 50 Distributees General Subject Matter Wilcox, AC Woodward, RE Wuckasch, RF CR 1(5) Research and Development Monthly Summary - September 1970 Organic Chemicals Production Research Monthly Summary September 1970 Organic Chemicals Production Research Monthly Summary October 1970 Research and Development Monthly Summary - October 1970 UPDATED INDEX OF C O N F I DENTIAL DOCUMENTS Dow Number Date Author 00883470088348* 701217 Dow Hoyle, HR Morris, JM 00883490088350* 701217 Dow Norris, JM 00886490088650* 590122 Dow Hoyle, HR McCollister Wolf, MA 0088651 * 590500 Dow 00889110088913* 660506 Dow Hoyle, HR McCol1ister Olson, KJ 00889140088916* 771001 Dow 00889300088962* 661209 Dow 00889690088972* 670316 Dow Hoyle, HR Olson, KJ Oyen, F 00889730089003* 690515 Buerge, TE Dow Norris, JM Torkel son to o co Recipient Page 1 Distributees General Subject Matter M-3592 (Data sheet of properties, health hazards, and precautions for safe handling of materials) M-32592 (Medical information) Forron Brush Killer (Data sheet of properties health hazards and pre­ cautions for safe handling of materials) Forron Brush Killer M-1368, Safety data sheet M-2993 (Data sheet of properties, health hazards, and precautions for safe handling of materials) Tordon 155 Mixture Brush Killer (Material safety data sheet) 2M0-3083-1 (Request for screening or application testing) Tordon 105 Mixture (Data sheet of properties, health hazards, and precautions for safe handling of materi als ) Toxicological properties and industrial handling hazards of Tordon 225 Mixture herbicide (M-3199X) Dow Number Date Author 00911730091176* 670316 Buerge, TE Dow Lynn, GE Olson, K Oyen, F 670227 Dow Hoyle, HR Olson, KJ Oyen, F 00911770091178* to o • Recipient Page 2 Distributees General Subject Matter Boundy, RH Dean, P Dow Elshere, D Holder, BB Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Moss, RD Sheetz, DP Shrader, SA Wilson, AW Wright, N Toxicological properties and industrial handling hazards of Tordon 105 Mixture (T2.M031-3132-1) (CRI 123032) Boundy, RH Dean, P Dow Elshere, D Holder, BB Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Moss, RD Sheetz, DP Shrader, SA Wilson, AW Wright, N Tordon 105 Mixture data sheet of properties, health hazards, and precautions for safe handling of materials (T2.MO-3132-1) Dow Number Date Author Recipient 02010200201021* 670213 PI etcher, DE Barnes, EB 0201023 * 660428 Carlson, R Staehling, EC BJC 3 Illegible 0201024 * 660800 Dow 0201025 * 660425 Kennett, W 0201026 * . 660523 3osscher, H 0201027 * 660422 Anderson, RE Coppage, JS 0201031 * 660422 Carlson, RG Bosscher, 0201032 * 660421 Beck, RH Coppage, J 02010340201035* 660425 REA Ford, FE 02010380201039 660315 Anderson, RE Comer, WL to o CJX Key, M Page 3 Di stributees General Subject Matter Bosscher, H Staehling, EC Goergen, GG Dixon, WR Henske, JM Gill New Tetrachlorobenzene fácil ity Cost of Tetrachlorobenzene expansion Tetrachlorobenzene cost capacity Tetrachlorobenzene economic summary Tetrachlorobenzene expansion Tetrachlorobenzene project scope summary Beginning Tetrachlorobenzene expansion Streeter, LE Manpower request Tetrachlorobenzene expansion cost estimate Tetrachlorobenzene plot plan Dow Number Date Author 0201040 * 670529 Carlson, R Staehling, EC Bosscher, H EBB CBB BJC 0201041 * 670529 Carlson, R Staeling, EC BJC 0201042 * 670700 Dow 0201043 * 670622 Woodward, EE 0201044 * 670608 Bosscher, H Barnes, EB 0201045 * 670608 Nummy, WR Barnes, EB 0201046201048* 670526 Anderson, RE Baltusis, M 0201049201050* 670531 Carlson, RG Bosscher, H 0201051201052* 670531 Tacey, WJ Carlson, RG 0201053 * 660421 Beck, RH Coppage, J Recipient Page 4 Distributees General Subject Matter Capital authorization for Tetrachlorobenzene expansion Expense authorization for Tetrachlorobenzene expansion Tetrachlorobenzene expansion Economic summary for Tetra­ chlorobenzene expansion Tetrachlorobenzene expansion Bosscher, H Staehling, EC Carlson, RG Dixon, WR Tetrachlorobenzene expansion Tetrachlorobenzene project scope summary Tectrachlorobenzene expansion Tetrachlorobenzene capacity Streeter, LE Manpower request Dow Number Date Author 0201054 * 670526 Brauer, AR Wappenhensch, 0 0201055201056* 670526 Brauer, AR Wappenhensch, 0 Anderson, RE 02010570201058 660315 Anderson, RE Comer, WL 0201080 * 670000 Dow 0201081 * 670418 Staehling, EC Goergen, GG Bosscher, H B •J .C . 0201082 * 670501 Bosscher, H Barnes, EB 0201083 * 670412 Lueck, AF Bosscher, H 0201084 * 670320 Wehn, WE O.A.W. Jacobs, CE 0201085 * 670320 Wehn, WE Jacobs, CE jp s a A ro o Recipient Page 5 Distributees General Subject Matter Tetrachlorobenzene expansion cost estimate Tetrachlorobenzene expansion expense estimate Tetrachlorobenzene plot plan 245-Trichlorophenol (Board of Dir. agenda) (authorization request M-32063A) 245-Trichlorophenol 804-7 Bldgs, production facilities 245-Trichlorophenol plant return of funds (authorization M-32063A) Staehling, EC Putnam, MS Goergen, GG 245-Trichlorophenol plant Staehling, EC Putnam, MS Goergen, GG Bosscher, H Leuck, AF 245-Trichlorophenol plant 804-7 Bldg, cost estimate Staehling, EC Lueck, AF 245-Trichlorophenol plant 804-7 Bldg, cost estimate - changes and Dow Number Date Author Recipient O.A.W. 0201086 * 000000 Dow 0201087 650000 W.C.T. 0201088 * 651006 Hutchenreuther, C Goergen, GG Bosscher, H M.K. B .J .C . 02010890201090* 551021 Bosscher, H Timm, WC 0201091 * 651020 Dixon, WR Key, M 0201092 * 651011 Bosscher, H Key, M 0201093 * 651027 Goergen, G 02010940201097* 651027 Wehn, WE ro O' CO Page 6 Pistributees General Subject Matter Putnam, MS Goergen, GG Bosscher, H alterations Staehling, EC Lueck, AF Bosscher, H Putnam, MS Goergen, GG 245-Trichlorophenol authorized spent differences capital New 245-Trichlorophenol (Dow Bd. of Dir. authorization request M-32063) 245-Trichlorophenol additional funds Review of Trichlorophenol job Bosscher, H Henske, JM Pletcher, DE Position on the Midland division Trichlorophenol plant New 245-Trichlorophenol plant M-32063 245 Trichlorophenol plant 660000 Trichlorophenol plant cost reduction Dow Number Date Author 0201098 * 650707 Goergen, G 02010990201101* 651021 Bosscher, H 02011020201104* 650927 Delfsie, NG Wappenhensch, 0A Stuart, GA Goergen, GG 0201105 * 651007 Goergen, GG Bosscher, H 02011060201107* 651004 Vanarsdale, JD Timm, W Dimmick, D Doedens, J Hutchenreuther Staehling, E Gill, W Perry, R Goergen, G Lundquist, J Saphier, L 0201108 * 651001 Vanarsdale, JD Goergen, GG 0201109 * 650929 Taylor, N Delisle, NG 02011100201111* 651012 Churchman, JW Bosscher, H K-* k > o CÜ Recipient Branch, CB Page 7 Distributees General Subject Matter New Trichlorophenol plant Key, M Trichlorophenol authorization New 245-Trichlorophenol plant project scope summary (job 50175) 245-Trichlorophenol 245-Trichlorophenol expansion Delisle, NG Domick, D Trichlorophenol requirements Manning of new Trichlorophenol plant Hutchenreuther, C Timm, WC Goergen, GG Mitchel, JE Moore, HJ Overrun 245-Trichlorophenol new facility Recipient Dow* Number Date Author 0201112 * 651018 Churchman, JW 02011130201114* 651000 Wehn, WE Wappenhensch, 0 0201115 * 000000 H.A.S. 0201116 * 650526 Churchman, JW 0201117 * 650608 Bosscher, H Branch, CB 0201118 * 650622 Henske, JM Doedens, JD Branch, CB 02783950278390* 540106 Dow Wolf, MA 02783900278392* 531230 02783930278395* 540106 02783960278404* 540106 0424112- 641006 - -, - - 0424114* Dow Campbell, CA Page 8 Distributees General Subject Matter 245-Trichlorophenol new facility (economic summary 39458-65) 245-Trichlorophenol (cost estimate) 245-Trichlorophenol new facility (Dow Bd. of Dir. agenda) 245-Trichlorophenol new facility economic summary 245-Trichlorophenol new facilities 245-Trichlorophenol new facilities M-213 (Acute oral toxicity) M-213 (Acute oral toxicity) M-213 M-213 (Skin irritation) Campbel 1, CA Dow Ballman, DK Barstow, ED Dow Directors' Meeting-Tuesday, 641006 Dow Number Date Author 04241220424124* 650302 Dow Campbell, CA Recipient Page 9 Distributees General Subject Matter Bennett, EW Bennett, RB Beutel, AP Boundy, RH Branch, CB Calvin, M Doan, HD Doan, LA Doan, LI Dow, AB Dow, HH Gerstacker, CA Griswold, ND Lyon, HH Weaver, CF Whiting, M Campbell, CA Dow Ballman, DK Barstow, ED Bennett, EW Bennett, RB Beutel, AP Boundy, RH Branch, CB Calvin, M Doan, HD Doan, LI Dow, AB Dow, HH Gerstacker, CA Griswold, ND Lyon, HH Dow Directors' Meeting-Tuesday, 650203 Dow— Number --i— Date Author 04241340424136* 650706 Dow 04241370424139* 650707 Dow 04241570424159* 651102 Dow 04241880424190* 670606 Dow 04241910424192* 670505 Dow 05012850501288* 701111 Hoerger, FD USDA ARS 05012890501291* 701110 Hoerger, FD USDA ARS 0501292 * 700615 Gladstone, MM Hoerger, FD 0501356501360* 651105 Dow 0501415 * 660105 Dow 0501418 * 660105 Dow ?\D Recipient Page 10 Pistributees General Subject Matter Weaver, CF Whiting, M Dow Directors' Meeting-Tuesday, 650706 Summary of Executive Committee Minutes - (650707 650711) Dow Directors' Meeting-Tuesday, 651102 Dow Directors Meeting-Tuesday, 670606 Summary of Executive Committee Minutes-670505 670512 670519 Brush Killer LV2-2 Brush killer LV2-2 Product registration Brush killer LV 2-2 composition statement Brush killer X confidential state­ ment of formula Brush killer X confidential statement of formula Dow Number Date Author 0501659 * 691015 Turner, WF 05016600501668* 700629 Parsey, ES Van Horn, RL 0502357502358* 650613 Sachs, SD 0502631 * 660630 Dow 0502740 * 690108 Dow 0503722 * 670111 Dow 0503890 * 630910 Dow 0503923 * 000000 Dow 0504055 * 660721 Dow Recipient Downard, GM Page 11 Di stributees General Subject Matter Registration of economic poisons Butyl 400 evaluation Rutherford, RE Sunderland, WW Hammer, OH DMA-6 confidential ingredient statement Esteron brush killer OS complete ingredient statement Alford, HG McCollister, DD Davidson, JH McCoy, WJ Sunderkland, WW Talcott, AT Hammer, OH Esteron 3-3 weed and brush killer production specifications Esteron 67-33 OS confidential complete statement of ingredients and sources of raw materials Esteron 76BE production speci fication Esteron 76BE Downard, GM Sachs, SB Hammer, OH Sunderland, WW Production specifications for Esteron 76E and sources of raw materials Dow Number Date Author 0504056 * 667021 Dow 0504060 * 640422 White, LC, Jr. Delong, HC Highhill, CA Hudberg, RN Loucks, MF Ouellette, FE Korsmeier, KB 05040900504093* 000000 Dow 0504094 * 620521 Hoi deman, GE * 0504438 * 700619 05044390504447* 700519 0505582 * 000000 05256600525661* 660427 Dow 0526601 * 671030 Dow 05266020526603* 671030 Dow Van Horn, RL Parsey, ES Recipient Gil dart, CM Page 12 Distributees General Subject Matter Downard, GM Sachs, SB Hammer, OH Sunderland, WW Production specifications for Esteron 76E and sources of raw materials Sheddel, RJ Higgins, HS Production specifications for Esteron 76E Information on inert ingredients used in Dow pesticides Vanvalkenburg, JW Carl isle base 5136 Carlisle chemical works Esteron 99 concentrate, com­ position and raw materials Esteron 99 concentrate - eva­ luation of revised formulation Formula 40, ingredient statement M-3060 specifications Composition and raw materials for Tordon 2S weed killer Composition and raw materials for Tordon 202 mixture Dow Number Date Author 05266040526605* 671030 Dow 05266060526607* 671030 Dow 05266080526612* 671103 Dow 05381710538172* 710114 Dow 0538173 * 710114 Dow 0538174 * 710114 Dow 0538175 * 710114 Dow 0538176 * 710114 Dow 0538177 * 710114 Dow 0538178 * 710114 Dow 0538179 * 710114 Dow 0538180 * 710114 Dow 0538181 * 710114 Dow 0538182 * 710114 Dow Recipient Page 13 Distributees General Subject Matter Composition and raw materials for Tordon 212 mixture Composition and raw materials for Tordon 225 herbicide Composition of formulations used in experimental work for registration Brush killer LV 4T specifications Brush killer T specifications Brush killer TX specifications Esteron 3-3 specifications Esteron 245 specifications Esteron 245 specifications Esteron brush killer specifi­ cations Reddon specifications Tippon 2-2 specifications Tippon T6 specifications Veon 245 specifications Dow Number Date Author 05541250554176* 680613 Seidel, M Brown, M. Highhill, C 05648500564851* 000000 Dow Hoyle, JMN 07066490706659* 650518 Dow 07248390724844* 000000 Dow 07248450724872* 631104 Seidel Recipient Page 14 Distributees General Subject Matter Bleiweiss, J Beauchamp, R Crummett, W Deline, D Delong, H Dosser, R Fernandez, J Highhill, C Hoff, D Seidel, M Schwark, J Snodgrass, B Woodward, D A technological review of phenoxy and Tordon formulation Tordon 225 herbicide (Data sheet of properties, health hazards, and precautions for safe handling of materials) 245T plant operations course P.O.C. 6020-Unit 13 General process description new processes for 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T Chase, FI Seidel, EM Dosser, RC Amstutz, FC Dylewski, SW Deline, DD Delisle, NG Crose, WL Fernandez, JB Preliminary economics in alter­ nate 245T ester process Dow Number Date Author 07248730724885* 640309 Seidel, EM 07248860724892* 640104 Seidel 0724963 * 000000 Dow 07250720725075* 000000 Dow 07250760725078* 000000 Dow 07251070725112* 000000 Dow 0725134 * 000000 Chase, 07251350725136* 660608 Dow 07251370725144* 000000 Dow Page 15 Distributees General Subject Matter Sculati, JJ Sei del, EM Dosser, RC Amstutz, FC Dylewski, SW Deline, DD Delisle, NG Grose, WL Highhill, CA Fernandez, JB Sculati, JJ Chase, FI Economic evaluation of alternate 245T ester process Analysis of two processes for producing phenoxy esters 245T process block flow chart Direct ester operating instructions Transfer of raw materials to H, E & C Procedures Switching pumps, instructions Column flush Operating instructions Dow Number Datç Author 0725145 * 000000 Dow 07251790725184* 650615 Dow 07251900725191* 000000 Dow 07252180725224* 000000 T.A.G. 0725503 * 640810 White, LC, Jr. Delong, HC Highhill, CA Amstutz, FC Hudberg, RN Loucks, MF McCoy, WJ Ouellette, FE Hoi deman, GE 0725504 * 640810 White, LC, Jr. Delong, HC Highhill, CA Amstutz, FC Hudberg, RN Loucks, MF Corbin, WL Ouellette, FE Hoi deman, GE Ü0 Recipient Page 16 Distributees General Subject Matter Instructions Pulsafeeder test sheet hydroch­ loric acid Instructions, procedures Direct Ester reaction information 489 Bldg. Dichlorophenol Dowanol White, LC, Jr. Delong, HC Highhill, CA Amstutz, FC Hudberg, RN Loucks, MF McCoy, WJ Ouellette, FE Hoi deman, GE Scheddel, RT Higgins, HS Product spécification for Veon 245 White, LC, Jr. Delong, HC Highhill, CA Amstutz, FC Hudberg, RN Loucks, MF Corbin, WLN Ouellette, FE Hoi deman, GE Scheddel, RT Higgins, HS Product specification for Veon brush killer Dow Number Date Author 0725505 * 601101 Dosser, RC Highhill, CA Luce, EN Loucks, MF Nyman, FA Smith, HL Ouellette, FE 0725508 * 660406 Highhill, CA White, LC, Jr. Delong, HC Amstutz, FC Hudberg, RN Loucks, MF McCoy, WO Talcott, AT Holdeman, GE 0725509 * 670413 Falkenstein, WJ Amstutz, FC Hudberg, RN Loucks, MF McCoy, WJ Talcott, AT Holdeman, GE 0725510 * 690227 Matuska, RJ Murphy, RW K* Ï-O |nn>^ GO Recipient Page 17 Distributees General Subject Matter Dosser, RC Highhill, CA Luce, EN Loucks, MF Nyman, FA Smith, HL Ouellette, FE Product specification for 245T Amine weed killer Highhill, CA White, LC, Jr. Delong, HC Amstutz, FC Loucks, MF McCoy, WJ Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE Scheddel, RP Higgins, HS Product specifications for weed killer LV4 Falkenstein, WJ Amstutz, FC Hudberg, RN Loucks, MF McCoy, WJ Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE Scheddel, RT Higgins, HA Richardson, HA Skory, L Brown, R Product specification for Verton T Matuska, RJ Murphy, RW Product specification for Verton 4D Dow Number Date Author Loucks, MF Fraser, JM Hawley, HM Sheldon, HW Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE 0725511 * 680416 White, LC Falkenstein, WJ Hawley, HM Corbin, WL Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE 0725512 * 670708 Falkenstein, WJ Scoi es, GW Amstutz, FC Hudberg, EN Scheddel, RT Luce, EN McCoy, WJ Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE 0725513 * 730223 Blosser, KC Gill, HH Chase, FI Recipient Page 18 Distributees General Subject Matter Loucks, MF Fraser, JM Hawley, HM Sheldon, HW Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE McCoy, WJ White, LC Falkenstein, WJ Hawley, HM Corbin, WL Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE Scheddel, RT Reigler, PT Product specification for Verton 2D Falkenstein, WJ Amstutz, FC Hudberg, EN Scheddel, RT Luce, EN McCoy, WJ Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE Wiffin, EE Richardson, HA Skory, L Brown, R Butler, A Product specification for Verton CE Blosser, KC Gill, HH Chase, FI Product specification for Dow Butyl 400 24D weed killer Dow Number Date Author Woodward, R Hoff, RC Fraser, JM Seymour, KG Hanson, KY Flannery, RF Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE 0725514 * 630507 White, LC, Jr. Delong, HC Highhill, CA Amstutz, FC Niehoff, BR Loucks, MF Korsmeier, RB Ouellette, FE Hoi deman, GE 0725515 * 720316 Flannery, RF Seymour, KG Chase, FI Woodward, R Gill, HH Blosser, KC Hoff, RC Scoles, GW Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE 0725516 * 630507 White, LC, Jr. Delong, HC Highhill, CA Amstutz, FC K> ro Recipient Page 19 Distributees General Subject Matter Woodward, R Hoff, RC Frazer, JM Seymour, KG Hanson, KY Flannery, RF Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE White, LC, Jr. Delong, HC Highhill, CA Amstutz, FC Niehoff, BR Loucks, MF Ouellette, FE Hoi deman, GE Product specification for Dow Butyl 400 Flannery, RF Seymour, KG Chase, FT Woodward, R Gill, HH Blosser, KC Hoff, RC Scoles, GW Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE Product specification for lawn weed killer White, LC. Jr. Delong, HC Highhill, CA Amstutz, FC Product specification for Reddon Dow Number Date Author Niehoff, BR Loucks, MF Korsmeier, RB Ouellette, FE Hoi deman, GE 0725517 * 640213 White, LC, Jr. Delong, HC Highhill, CA Amstutz, FC Niehoff, BR Loucks, MF Korsmeier, RB Ouellette, FE Hoi deman, GE 0725518 * 630415 Highhill, CA Amstutz, FC White, LC, Jr. Niehoff, BR Loucks, MF Korsmeier, RB Ouellette, FE Hoi deman, GE 0725519 * 730822 Seymour, KG Blosser, KC Hodges, KL Chase, FI Woodward, R Hoff, RC Fraser, JM McCutchen, L fO ro ro Recipient Page 20 Distributees General Subject Matter Niehoff, BR Loucks, MF Ouellette, FE Hol deman, GE White, LC, Jr. Delong, HC Highhill, CA Amstutz, FC Niehoff, BR Loucks, MF Korsmeier, RB Ouellette, FE Holdeman, GE Product specification for Tippon 2-2 Highhill, CA Amstutz, FC White, LC, Jr. Niehoff, BR Loucks, MF Ouellette, FE Holdeman, GE Product specification for Tippon T4 Seymour, KG Blosser, KC Hodges, KL Chase, FI Woodward, R Hoff, RC Fraser, JM McCutchen, L Production specification for Tippon T6 weed and brush killer Dow Number Date Author Flannery, RF Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE 0725522 * 690106 Dow 0725523 * 690106 Dow 0725524 * 660418 White, LC, Jr. Delong, HC Amstutz, FC Hudberg, RN Loucks, MF McCoy, WJ Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE 0725525 * 720218 Seymour, KG Chase, FI Flannery, MF Tait, SR Woodward, R Scoles, GW Hoff, RC Talcott, AT Flannery, RF Hoi deman, GE 0725526 * 660418 White, LC, Jr. -Delong, HC ?Y) to CO Recipient Page 21 Di stributees General Subject Matter Flannery, RF Talcott, AT Holdeman, GE Suggested product specification for brush killer T 334 Suggested product specification for brush killer 50-25 White, LC, Jr. Delong, HC Amstutz, FC Hudberg, RN Loucks, MF McCoy, WJ Talcott, AT Holdeman, GE Scheddel, RT Higgins, HS Product specification for brush killer LV 4T Seymour, KG Chase, FI Flannery, MF Tait, SR Woodward, R Scoles, GW Hoff, RC Talcott, AT Flannery, RF Holdeman, GE Product specification for brush killer LV 2-2 White, LC, Jr. Delong, HC Product specification for brush killer LV 2-2 Dow Number Date Author Amstutz, FC Hudberg, RN Loucks, MF McCoy, WJ Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE 0725527 * 651007 Dow 0725528 * 630424 Delong, HC Highhill, CA Amstutz, FC White, LC, Jr. Hoff, RC Loucks, MF Korsmeier, RB Ouellette, FE 0725529 * 721013 Flannery, RF Blosser, KC Gill, HH Chase, FI Woodward, R Hoff, RC Fraser, JM Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE 0725530 * 630424 Delong, HC Highhill, CA Recipient Page 22 Distributees General Subject Matter Amstutz, FC Hudberg, RN Loucks, MF McCoy, WJ Talcott, AT Holdeman, GE Scheddel, RT Higgins, HS Product specification for brush killer Lv 2-2 Delong, HC Highhill, CA Amstutz, FC White, LC, Jr. Hoff, RC Loucks, MF Ouellette, FE Holdeman, FE Product specification for Esteron brush killer OS Flannery, RF Blosser, KC Gill, HH Chase, FI Woodward, R Hoff, RC Fraser, JM Talcott, AT Holdeman, GE Product specification for Reddon Delong, HC Highhill, CA Product specification for Esteron Ten-Ten Dow Number Date Author Amstutz, FC White, LC, Jr. Hoff, RC Loucks, MF Korsmeier, RB Ouellette, FE 0725531 * 720108 Flannery, RF Seymour, KG Loucks, MF Tait, SR Chase, FI Woodward, R. Hoff, RC Scoles, GW Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE 0725532 * 601004 Dosser, RC Delong, HC Loucks, MF Luce, EN Nyman, FA Smith, HL Ouellette, FE 0725533 * 650125 Dow 0725534 * 640612 White, LC, Jr. Delong, HC Highhill, CA Amstutz, FC Page 23 Distributees General Subject Matter Amstutz, FC White, LC, Jr. Hoff, RC Loucks, MF Ouellette, FE Hoi deman, GE Flannery, RF Seymour, KG Loucks, MF Tait, SR Chase, FI Woodward, R Hoff, RC Scoles, GW Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE Product specification for Esteron 44 weed killer Dosser, RC Delong, HC Loucks, MF Luce, EM Nyman, FA Smith, HL Ouellette, FE Product specification for Esteron 44 Suggested product specification for Esteron 47 White, LC, Jr. Delong, HC Hudberg, RN Loucks, MF Product specification for Esteron 67-33 OS Dow Number Date Author Hudberg, RN Loucks, MF Korsmeîer, R3 Ouellette, FE Hoi deman, GE 0725535 * 660721 White, LC, Jr. Delong, HC Highhill, CA Deline, DD Hudberg, RN Loucks, MF McCoy, WJ Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE 0725536 * 681118 Highhil1, CA Woodward, RE Hawley, HM Loucks, MF McCoy, WJ Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE 0725537 * 710317 Seymour, KG Chase, FI Loucks, MF Reigler, PF Woodward, R Hawley, HM ! *• to to CQ Recipient Page 24 Di stributees General Subject Matter Korsmeier, RB Ouellette,- FE Hoi deman, GE Higgins, HS Scheddel, RT White, LC, Jr. Delong, HC Highhill, CA Deline, DD Hudberg, RN Loucks, MF McCoy, WJ Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE Scheddel, RT Higgins, HS Product specification for Esteron 76E Highhil1, CA Woodward, RE Hawley, HM Talcott, AT Product specification for Esteron 76BE Seymour, KG Chase, FI Loucks, MF Rei gl er, PF Woodward, R Hawley, HM Product specification for Esteron 76E herbicide Dow Number Date Author Talcott, AT MacDonald, LA Hoi deman, GE 0725538 * 630424 Delong, HC Hi ghhil1, CA Amstutz, FC White, LC, Jr. Hoff, RC Loucks, MF Korsmeier, RB Ouellette, FE Hoi deman, FE 0725539 * 670717 Hi ghhil1, CA White, LC Deline, DD Hudberg, RN Loucks, MF McCoy, WJ Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE 0725540 * 670214 White, LC Delong, HC Highhill, CA Deline, DD ro to -a Recipient Page 25 Di stributees General Subject Matter Talcott, AT MacDonald, LA Hoi deman, GE Delong, HC Hi ghhil1, CA Amstutz, FC White, LC, Jr. Hoff, RC Loucks, MF Ouellette, FE Hoi deman, GE Product specification for Esteron 99 Highhil 1, CA White, LC Deline, DD Hudberg, RN Loucks, MF McCoy, WJ Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE Higgins, HS Scheddel, RT Wiffen, EE Richardson, HA Skory, LK Brown, R Butler, A Product specification for Esteron 99 concentrate White, LC Delong, HC Highhill, CA Deline, DD Product specification for Esteron 245 OS Dow Number Date Author Hudberg, RN Loucks, MF McCoy, WJ Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE 0725541 * 630507 White, LC, Jr. Delong, HC Highhill, CA Amstutz, FC Niehoff, BR Loucks, MF Korsmeier, RB Ouellette, FE Hoi deman, GE 0725542 641019 White, LC, Jr. Delong, HC Highhill, CA Amstutz, FC Hudberg, RN Loucks, MF McCoy, WJ Ouellette, FE Hoi deman, GE 0725543 * 610906 Vanvalkenburg, W White, LC, Jr. CO to 00 Recipient Page 26 Distributees General Subject Matter Hudberg, RN Loucks, MF McCoy, WJ Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE Higgins, HS Scheddel, RL Richardson, HA Skory, L Brown, R White, LC, Jr. Delong, HC Highhil1, CA Amstutz, FC Niehoff, BR Loucks, MF Ouellette, FE Hoi deman, GE Product specification for Esteron 245 concentrate White, LC, Jr. Delong, HC Highhil 1, CA Hudberg, RN Loucks, MF McCoy, WJ Hoi deman, FE Scheddel, RT Higgins, HS Product specification for Esteron 600 Vanvalkenburg, W White, LC, Jr. Product specification for Esteron seventy Dow Number Date Author Delong, HC Luce, EN Loucks, MF Nyman, FA Smith, HL Ouellette, FE 0725544 * 660121 White, LC, Jr. Delong, HC Highhill, CA Amstutz, FC Hudberg, RN Loucks, MF McCoy, WJ Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE 0725546 * 571226 Watson, 0725547 * 620104 Scoi es, 0725548 * 690219 Vanhorn 0725549 * 620213 Scoles, 0725550 * 620213 Scoles, k - -a M CO QO Recipient Page 27 Distributees General Subject Matter Delong, HC Luce, EN Loucks, MF Nyman, FA Smith, HL Ouellette, FE White, LC, Jr. Delong, HC Highhill, CA Amstutz, FC Hudberg, RN Loucks, MF McCoy, WJ Talcott, AT Hoi deman, 6E Scheddel, RT Higgins, HS Product specification for Esteron 6E Production specification Brush Killer 21 Production specification Brush Killer 50-50 Brush Killer T production speci fication Brush Killer TX production specification Brush Killer X production speci fi cation Dow Number Date Author 0725551 * 650809 Vanhorn, R 0725555 * 610928 Scoles, G 0725558 * 661011 Vanhorn, R 072587107258811* 000000 Dow 0725903 * 000000 Dow 0725904 * 000000 Dow 0725905 * 000000 Dow 0725906 ★ 000000 Dow 0725907 * 000000 Dow 0725908 * 000000 Dow 0725909 ★ 000000 Dow 0725910 * 000000 Dow Reci Page 28 Distributees General Subject Matter Esteron T2 production specification Clover Killer (discontinued) pro­ duction specification Verton 2 (not released) production speci fication Safe work procedure Tordon 225E Tordon production charges Tordon 101 batch calculations and adjustments Tordon 212 batch calculations and adjustments Tordon 2696 batch calculations and adjustments Tordon K salt and Tordon 22K batch calculations and adjustments Tordon 155 batch calculations and adjustments Tordon 472 batch calculations and adjustments Tordon 40 batch calculations and adjustments Dow Number Date Author 0725911 * 000000 Dow 0725912 * 000000 Dow 0725915 * 000000 Dow 07259170725920* 000000 Dow 0725940 * 700414 Dow 07259540725960* 690612 Dow 07259610725963* 700921 0725977 . 720218 Dow 07260260726036* 000000 Dow 0726037 * 701020 Dow 07464270746472* 670109 Johnson, RL Wi di ger, AH j- '- 'A K-S, ? .5 QO f^ - A Recipient Page 29 Di stributees General Subject Matter Loading TIPA Tordon concentrate Tordon formulations Tordon formulations Tordon 22K batch 810713 Tordon 225 product specification Tordon 225 formulation Description of process for produc­ tion of Tordon 225 245T production specification Formulating instructions for Tordon 472 Tordon brush killer 520 production and sales specifications Johnson, RL Widiger, H Bender, S Bailey, C Silverstein, L Cobi er, J Haberstroh, W Sauers, R Thermal decomposition of dry sodium salts of chlorinated phenates I I Dow Number Date Author Recipient 07464300746447* 650804 Wagoner, EJ Cobler, JG Widiger, A Johnson, RL 07471260747128* 640730 Holmes, R Hoyle, HR 07503320750354* 571122 Dow McCollister, DD Olson, KJ 07504650750469* 501017 Adams, EM Dow McCollister, DD Rowe, VK r* to (JO to Allen, WW Alquist, FN Britton, JW Dosser, RC Dow I I Page 30 Distributees General Subject Matter Differential thermal analysis of various chlorophenol s Trichlorophenol manufacture Allinson, RL Athay, RN Beshgetoor, AW Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dosser, RC Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart, A Hymas, TA Jones, GD Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Martin, D McIntyre, HH Mussel1, DR Perkins, RP Tisdale, WO White, LC Wright, N Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on Brush Killer X, Weed Killer X, and Brush Killer TX Results of skin irritation and skin sensitization tests conducted on human subjects with Esteron 245 (New Ester) ) Dow Number Date Author Recipient Dutton, WC Irish, DD Kagy, JF Lynn, GE 07504700750484* t- to CO to 530217 Dow RJE McCollister, DD Oyen, F Page 31 Distributees General Subject Matter Allen, WW Allinson, RL Al qui st, FN Beshgetoor, AW Boundy, RH Britton, EC Britton, JW Collier, B Davidson, JH Dow Dutton, WC Gay, HH Gibson, J Greene, LN Heath, SB Johnson, JE Kagy, JF Kelly, JA Kriner, RR Luce, EN Lynn, GE MacCutcheon Mel ass, VH Nation, HA Otis, CE Prendergast, DT Southwick, L Sunderland, WW Results of range finding toxlcolo gical tests on Esteron 245 Dow Number Date Author 07505600750587* 531030 Adams, EM Oyen, F 07506020750633* 560501 Dow McCollister, DD Torkelson, TR Recipient Page 32 Distributees General Subject Matter Vanhorn, JC Walker, H White, LC Wright, P Zuhl, HH Allen, WW Allinson, RL Alquist, FN Barrons, KC Beshgetoor, AW Boundy, RH Britton, EC Davidson, JH Dow Dutton, WC Gay, HH Greene, LM Kagy, JF Luce, EN Lynn, GE MacCutcheon, SM Prescott, RF Sunderland, WW White, L Wright, P Results of range finding toxicolo gical tests on Dow Brush Killer T Allinson, RL Beshgetoor, AW Boundy, RH Britton, EC Coulter, LL Dow Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on M-631 (Esteron 245-Type Formulation) Dow Number Date Author 07506660750693* 560409 Dow McCollister, DD Wolf, MA 07506940750714* 560702 Dow McColHster, DD Olson, KJ h-* I'O OJ UT Recipient Page 33 Distributees General Subject Matter Elshere, D Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart, A Kilian, DJ Luce, EN McCutcheon, SM Martin, D Scoles, G Sunderland, WW Wright, N Allinson, RL Beshgetoor, AW Boundy, RH Britton, EC Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart, A Kagy, JF Kelly, J Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE MacCutcheon, SM Sunderland, WW Wright, N Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on formulations of Reddon (M-640 and M-713) Allinson, RL Alquist, FN Barrons, KC Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on Esteron Brush Killer O.S. (M-726) Dow Number Date Author 07507190750726* 570806 Dow Hoyle, HR Wolf, MA Recipient Page 34 Distributees General Subject Matter Beshgetoor, AW Boundy, RH Britton, EC Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart, A Kagy, KF Kelly, JA Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE MacCutcheon, SM Sunderland, WW Wright, N Allinson, RL Athay, RM Beshgetoor, AW Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart, A Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McCollister, DD Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on M-1085 (A 245T Triethyl amine Liquid Formulation) Dow Number Date Author Recipient 07507270750736* 570510 Babcock, I Dow Dunn, EE KS MAW Dow Wolf, MA 07507390750740* 570510 Dow Hoyle, HR McCollister, DD Wolf, MA 07507410750743* 000000 Dow Hoyle, HR McCollister, DD Wolf, MA 07507440750746* 580521 Dow McCollister, DD Olson, KJ 07507470750764* 580425 Dow Hoyle, HR McCollister, DD Olson, KJ Coulter, LL Dow Page 35 Distributees General Subject Matter McIntyre, HH Mussel!, DR Perkins, RP Scoles, GW Tisdale, WL Wright, N Request for application testing for M-1085 with eye and skin contact tests attached M-1085 data sheet of properties, health hazards, and precautions for safe handling of materials M-1085 data sheet of properties, health hazards, and precautions for safe handling of materials Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on Weed Killer Formulation M-1094 containing a 245T Ester Allinson, RL Athay, RM Beshgetoor, AW Boundy, RH Colby, RW Coulter, LL M-1094 Weed Killer Formulation Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials Dow Number Date 07507690750790* -610316 Où QQ Author Hoyle, HR Olson, KJ Oyen, F Thompson, E Recipient I Page 36 Distributees General Subject Matter Dow Elshere, D Fletcher, FW Gay, HH Greene, LM Hammer, OH Hart, A Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN McIntyre, HH Perkins, RP Scoles, GW Tisdale, WL Vanvalkenburg, W Wright, N Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Falkenstein, WJ Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart, A Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Perkins, RP Results of range finding toxicological tests on M-1123 Dow Number Date Author 07507910750793* 000000 Hoyle, HR Olson, KJ Oyen, F 07507950750813* 600125 Dow Oyen, F Wolf, MA 07508140750827* 610601 Dow Olson, KJ Oyen, F ?\"> CO CO Recipient Page 37 Distributees General Subject Matter Shrader, SA Tisdale, WL Vanvalkenburg, W Wright, N M-1123 data sheet of properties, health hazards, and precautions for safe handling of materials Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Greene, LM Hammer, OH Hart, A Hymas, TA Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Perkins, RP Stenger, VA Tisdale, WL Wright, N Results of range finding toxicolo gical tests on Esteron 245 OS (M-1257) Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on Esteron 245 OS (Replacement for present Formulation M-1257) Dow Number Date Author 07508330750854* 571122 Dow McCollister, DD Olson, KJ Recipient I Page 38 Distributees General Subject Matter Elshere, D Falkenstein, WJ Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart, A Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Perkins, RP Shrader, SA Tisdale, WL White, LC, Jr. Wright, N Allinson, RL Athay, RM Beshgetoor, AW Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dosser, RC Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart, A Hymas, TA Jones, GD Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Martin, D McIntyre, HH Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on Brush Killer X, Weed Killer X, and Brush Killer TX Dow Number Date Author 07508550750873* 590818 Olson, KJ Oyen, F 07508740750876* 590706 Dow Hoyle, HR Olson, KJ Oyen, F tO Recipient Page 39 Distributees General Subject Matter Mussell, DR Perkins, RP Tisdale, WL White, LC Wright, N Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Gray, HE Greene, LM Hammer, OH Hart, A Hymas, TA Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Perkins, RP Scoles, G Stenger, VA Tisdale, WL Wright, N Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on M-1413 (Formulation of Dowanol Ester 245T) made for the Stull Chemical Company M-1413 Formulation of K 7856 (Dowanol Ester 245T). Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materi als Dow Number Date Author 07508780750903* 590506 Dow McCollister, DD Wolf, MA 07509150750940* 590505 Dow McCollister, DD Wolf, MA Recipient Page 40 Distributees General Subject Matter Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Gray, HE Greene, LM Hammer, OH Hart, A Hymas, TA Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Perkins, RP Stenger, VA Tisdale, WL Vanvalkenburg, JW Wright, N Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on M-1447 and M-1443 Weed Killer Formulations (Similar to Esteron 245 OS and Esteron Brush Killer OS respectively) Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Gray, HE Greene, LM Hammer, OH Hart, A Hymas, TA Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on M-1447 and M-1433 Weed Killer Formulations (Similar to Esteron 245 OS and Esteron Brush Killer OS respectively) Dow Number Date Author Recipient 07509510750952* 591209 Dow Wolf, MA McIntyre, HH 590903 Dow Olson, KJ Oyen, F 07509560750974* ÌS3 ' Page 41 Distributees General Subject Matter Jones, JD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Perkins, RP Stenger, VA Tisdale, WL Vanvalkenburg, JW Wright, N Dow Wolf, MA Toxicological information on Esteron 99 granules (M-1741) suitable for presentation to the USDA Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Greene, LM Hammer, OH Hart, A Hymas, TA Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Leasure, JK Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on Agricultural Chemical Formulation M-1511 con­ taining Dowanol 97B70 Ester 245T (K—7856) Dow Number Date Author 07509750750976* 590811 Dow HRH Olson, KJ Oyen, F 600216 Dow Olson, K 07509770550996* Recipient Page 42 Distributees General Subject Matter Perkins, RP Scoles, G Stenger, VA Tisdale, WL Wright, N M-1511 Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Greene, LM Hammer, OH Hart, A Hymas, TA Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Perkins, RP Scoles, GW Stenger, VA Tisdale, WL Wright, N Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on Agricultural Chemical Formulation M-1683 (Esteron 245 Type) ) Dow Number Date Author 07509980751016* 600223 Dow Olson, KJ Oyen, F 07510560751058* 611120 Dow Olson, KJ Oyen, F Plomer, ET Scoi es, GW Recipient Page 43 Distributees General Subject Matter Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Greene, LM Hammer, OH Hart, A Hymas, TA Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Perkins, RP Scoles, GW Stenger, VA Tisdale, WL Wright, N Results of range finding toxicolo glcal tests on Agricultural Chemical Formulation M-1684 (Esteron Brush Killer Type) Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Falkenstein, W Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart, A Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on M-2115, an agricultural chemical formulation containing 245T and triethyl amine Dow Number Date 0751059 * 611120 07510600751075* 611106 Author Dow Hoyle, HR Olson, KJ Oyen, F Recipient 11246 Page 44 Distributees General Subject Matter Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Perkins, P Scoles, GW Shrader, SA Tisdale, WL Wright, N Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Falkenstein, W Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart, A Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Perkins, P Scoles, GW Shrader, SA Tisdale, WL Wright, N First aid measures Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow M-2115 data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials Dow Number Date Author Plomer, ET 07510780751080* 620403 ■ Dow Olson, KJ Oyen, F Vanvalkenburg, W Recipient I Page 45 Distributees General Subject Matter Elshere, D Falkenstein, W Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart, A Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Perkins, P Scoles, GW Shrader, SA Tisdale, WL Wright, N Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Brown, R Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Falkenstein, WJ Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart, A Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Nash, HA Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on M-2235, an emulsi­ vi able formulation of 24D and 245T Dowanol Esters in kerosene Dow Number Date 0751081 * 620323 07510820751098* 620323 t1 GO Author Dow H o y l e , HR O l s o n , KJ Oyen, F Recipient Page 46 Distributees General Subject Matter Perkins, RP Shrader, SA Vanvalkenburg, W Wilson, AW Wright, N Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Brown, R Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Falkenstein, WJ Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart, A Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Nash, HA Perkins, RP Shrader, SA Vanval kenburg, W Wilson, AW Wright, N First aid measures Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Brown, R Colby, RW Dow M-2235 data sheet of properties, health hazards, and precautions for safe handling of materials Dow Number Date Author 07510990751101* 630809 Hoyle, HR Olson, KJ Oyen, F 0751102 * 620124 Dow Wolf, MA 07512090751210* 630225 Dow Olson, KJ Oyen, F Scoi es, G Recipient Dow McIntyre, HH ) Page 47 Distributees General Subject Matter Elshere, D Falkenstein, WJ Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart, A Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Nash, HA Perkins, RP Shrader, SA Vanvalkenburg, W Wilson, AW Wright, N Verton T sales specification Suggested precautionary labeling for M-2235 Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Brown, R Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Falkenstein, WJ Gay, HH Greene, LM Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on agricultural chemi­ cal formulation M-2422 containing 91 percent Dowanol PIB Ester of 245T Dow Number Date 0751211 * 630225 Author Recipient Distributees General Subject Matter Hart, A Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Mulllson, WR Nash, HA Norton, TR Shrader, SA Wilson, AW Wright, N Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Brown, R Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Falkenstein, WJ Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart, A Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Mullison, WR Nash, HA Norton, TR Shrader, SA First aid measures J Dow Number Date Author 07512120751213* 630220 Dow Hoyle, HR Olson, KJ Oyen, 07512140751236* 630225 to an Y* x Recipient Page 49 Distributees General Subject Matter Wilson, AW Wright, N Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Brown, R Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Falkenstein, WJ Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart, A Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Mullison, WR Nash, HA Norton, TR Shrader, SA Wilson, AW Wright, N M-2422 data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Brown, R Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Falkenstein, WJ Gay, HH Toxicological properties of Formulation M-2422 Dow Number Date Author 07522640752265* 670328 Dow Hoyle, HR McCollister, DD Olson, KJ 0752266 * 661220 Buerge, TE Dow 07523600752361* 670410 07523850752386* 690415 ^ ittA to cn tO Dow Norris, JM Torkelson, TR Recipient Dow Lynn, 6E ) Page 50 Distributees General Subject Matter Greene, LM Hart, A Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH MulHson, WR Nash, HA Norton, TR Shrader, SA Wilson, AW Wright, N M-3060 data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials M-3060 request for screening or application testing M-3060, Safety Data and Formulation Axe, FD Barton, J Beauchamp, RR Blair, EH Burgert, BE Dow Edwards, H Elshere, D M-3401 Brush Killer-A Tordon Acid Formulation ) I Dow Number Date Author 07523880752389* 690320 Dow Hoyle, HR Norris, JM Torkelson, TR 07523900752395* 690417 Dow Norris, JM 07525500752552* 700130 Dow Gowell, JH Loucks, MF Lynn, GE Naegele, RE Newport, JJ Ridner, JM Seymour, KG Stein, JS ro tn co Recipient Page 51 Distributees General Subject Matter Gordon, HL Holder, BB Johnson, JE Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Kimme!, CE Lloyd, BH MacCutcheon, SM McCollister, DD McIntyre, HH Morse, D Pitman-Moore Robinson, VB Schwartz, AJ Wright, N M-3402 Brush Killer data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials Toxicological properties of M-3401 Brush Killer-A Tordon acid formul ation Tordon 225 herbicide release to sales Dow Number Date Author Recipient Williams, CS Williams, RW Wolf, MA 07525530752554* 690429 Dow Hoyle, HR Norris, JM 07624930762496* 500829 Dow Rowe, VK Spencer, HC 0762497 * '000000 0762498 * 490309 Dow Irish, DD McCollister, DD Rowe, VK White, L 0762499 * 490412 Dow Wyse, H 0762500 * 490321 Dow Wyse, H Allen, WW Barrons, KC Britton, JW Dosser, RC Dow Dutton, WC Irish, DD Kagy, JF Lynn, GE I Page 52 Distributees General Subject Matter Tordon 225 mixture herbicide data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on Esteron 245T formulations Summary of toxicological infor­ mation on 24D & 245T formulations Esteron 245T (New formulation) (Request for biological test) K7716-1 Esteron 245T (New formulation) (Acute oral toxicity) Esteron 245T (New formulation) ) I pow Number Date Author 07625010762504* 490000 Dow Wyse, H 0762505 * 490517 Dow Wyse, H 0762506 * 490225 Dow HAS RSH Irish Rowe, VK White, L 0762507 * 490414 Dow Wyse, H 0762508 * 490321 Dow Wyse, H 07625090762512* 490000 Dow Wyse, H 0762513 * 490517 Dow Wyse, H 07666980766699* 690415 Beauchamp, RR Dow Norris, JM Torkelson, TR CXI Ul Recipient Page 53 Distributees General Subject Matter K7716-1 Esteron 245T (New formulation) (Skin irritation) K771.6-1 Esteron 245T (New formulation) (Single absorption exposure record) Esteron 245T formulation (Request for biological test) K7716-2 Esteron 245T formulation (acute oral toxicity) Esteron 245T formulation K7716-2 Esteron 245T formulation (Skin irritation) K7716-2 Esteron 245T formulation (Single absorption exposure record) Axe, FD Barron, J Beauchamp, RR Blair, EH Burgert, BE Dow Edwards, H M-3401 Brush Killer-A Tordon Acid Formulation Dow Number Date Author 07667000766701* 690320 Dow Hoyle, JR Norris, JM Torkelson, TR 07667020766708* 690417 Dow Norris, JM 0766709 * 681008 Beauchamp, RR Byrd, BC Dow Dow McCollister, DD Hoerger, FD McCollister, DD 0766710 * 681008 Dow 07667110766726* 680000 Dow Litchfield, N Norris, JM 7 Recipient Page 54 Distributees General Subject Matter Elshere, D Gordon, HL Holder, BB Johnson, JE Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Kirnmel, CE Lloyd, BH MacCutcheon, SM McCollister, DD McIntyre, HH Morse, D Robinson, VB Schwarz, AJ Wright, N M-3401 Brush Killer (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of material s) Toxicological properties of M-3401 Brush Killer, a Tordon acid formulation Proposed name, Tordon 124V Brush Killer (M3401) (Request for screening or application testing) Toxoicology work sheet (Tordon 124V Brush Killer) Tordon 124V Brush Killer (Acute oral toxicity) ) Dow Number Date Author 07667270766729* 690310 Dow Norris, JM 07667300766737* 680000 Dow King, CD Litchfield, N Sparschu, GL Trice, V 07667380766740* 681000 Dow Dunn, FL 07667410766744* 681104 Dow Dunn, FL 07667450766746* 690128 Dow Dunn, FL 07667470766750* 690000 Dow Litchfield, N 07667510766765* 690123 Dow Norris, JM 0766766 * 690123 Dow 0766767 * 681008 Beauchamp, RR Dow McCollister, DD 07667680766769* 000000 Dow to Ol -a Recipient ) Page 55 Distributees General Subject Matter M-3401 Brush Killer, oral dosage to male rats Tordon 124V Brush Killer (Request for pathology) Tordon 124V Brush Killer (Eye con­ tact test) Tordon 124V Brush Killer (Skin contact, irritation) M-3401 Tordon 124V Sample 2, (Skin contact, Irritation) Tordon (Skin contact absorption) Toxicological properties of Tordon 124V Brush Killer made with CA Tordon acid Tordon 124V Brush Killer (Toxicology work sheet) Proposed name Tordon 124V Brush Killer (Request for screening or application testing) M3401 Brush Killer (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and Dow Number Date Author 07667700766800* 680000 Dow Dunn, FL Litchfield, N 07668010766821* 680000 Conran, PB Dow King, CD Litchfield, N Sparschu, GL Trice, V 07668220766823* 690107 Beauchamp, RR Dow Leong, BKJ Trice, VR 07668240766847* 690113 Beauchamp, RR Conran, PB Dow Leong, BKJ Sparschu, GL Trice, VR 07668480766849* 690320 Norris, JM Torkelson, TR Hoyle, HR 0766850 * 560524 Peterson, JE HRH Recipient ) Page 56 Distributees General Subject Matter precautions for safe handling of materials) Tordon 124V Brush Killer, male rat testing Tordon 124V Brush Killer (Request for pathology) Summary report on the effect of acute inhalation of the volatile components of California Tordon Acid and Texas Tordon Acid (Biochemical Res Lab Sample 1) Summary pathology report on the effect of acute inhalation of the volatile components of California Tordon Acid and Texas Acid (Biochem Res Lab Pathology Report Sample) M-3401 Brush Killer (data sheet of properties, health hazards, and precautions for safe handling of materials) Brush Killer ) Dow Number Date Author 07668*51 0766852* 690320 JMN H 07670180767019* 560412 Dow 07670200767021* 610525 Dow Hoyle, HR Olson, KJ Oyen, F 07670220767023* 790216 Dow Fishbeck, WA Keeler, P 07670240767025* 720329 Dow 07670260767027* 580613 Dow McCollister, DD Wolf, MA 07670280767029* 610525 Dow Olson, KJ Oyen, F 0767030 * 610531 Dow 0767031 * 000000 Dow to cn Recipient 1 Page 57 Distributees General Subject Matter M-3401 Brush Killer (safety information) Esteron Brush Killer OS M-726 (T2.30-71-1), safety data sheet with formulation Esteron 99 data sheet of proper­ ties, health hazards and pre­ cautions for safe handling of materials Esteron 99 medical information Esteron 99 material safety data sheet Esteron 99 data sheet of proper­ ties, health hazards and pre­ cautions for safe handling of materials Esteron 99 data sheet of proper­ ties, health hazards and pre­ cautions for safe handling of materials Esteron 99 (Replacement formulation) Esteron 99 medical information symptomatology and treatment Recipient Dow Number Date Author 0767032 * 700721 Dow 07670330767034* 720329 Dow 07670540767055* 570514 Dow Hoyle, HR McCollister, DD Wolf, MA 07670560767057* 580514 Dow Hoyle, HR McCollister, DD Wolf, MA 0767058 * 000000 Dow Hoyle, HR Wolf, MA 07670590767060* 710900 Dow 0767061 * 580716 Dow Wolf, MA Dow McIntyre, HH 0767062 * 610112 Dow Wolf, MA Dow McIntyre, HH 07670630767064* 580425 Dow Hoyle, HR McCollister, DD Olson, KJ Page 58 Distributees General Subject Matter Esteron 99 toxicology, anticipated human response Esteron 99 material safety data sheet M-1086 data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials Veon brush killer (M-1086) data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials M-1086 (A herbicidal formulation T2.3098), safety data sheet Veon brush killer Suggested precautionary labeling for M-1094 Suggested precautionary labeling for M-1094 M-1094 weed killer formulation data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials Dow Number Date Author 0767065 * 580717 Dow Hoyle, HR Olson, KJ 0767066 * 570730 Dow Wolf, MA 07670670767068* 571120 Dow Hoyle, HR McCollister, DD Olson, KJ 07670690767070* 571028 Dow Hoyle, HR McCollister, DD Olson, KJ 0767071 * 571206 Dow Hoyle, HR Olson, KJ 0767072 * 571206 Dow Hoyle, HR Olson, KJ 0767073 * 610112 Dow Wolf, MA 07670730767074* 610311 Dow Hoyle, HR Olson, KJ Oyen, F 0767075 * 610400 Dow Recipient Coulter, LL Dow Dow McIntyre, HH Page 59 Distributees General Subject Matter M-1094 containing 245T Ester T2, 30-112-1, safety data sheet Inverton, a letter showing concern for hazards Inverton M-1116 data sheet of pro­ perties, health hazards and pre­ cautions for safe handling of materials M-1116 dilution Cl-14-100 data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials Inverton weed killer (M-1116) T2.30-101-1, safety data sheet M-1116 dilution Inverton for­ mulation Suggested precautionary labeling for M-1123 M-1123 data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials M-1123, safety data sheet ^---jcn> i3 Qow Number Date Author 07670920767098* 531029 Adams, EM Dow Eslunn, E Maxey, JS Oyen, F 07670990767119* 530325 Dow HCS Rowe, VK Wolf, MA 07671530767160* 570806 Dow McCollister, DD Wolf, MA Recipient Page 60 Distributees General Subject Matter Allen, WW Allinson, RL Alquist, FN Barrons, KC Beshgetoor, AW Boundy, RH Britton, EC Davidson, JH Dow Dutton, WC Gay, HH Greene, LM Kagy, JF Luce, EN Lynn, GE MacCutcheon, SM Prescott, RF Sunderland, WW White, LC Wright, P Results of range finding toxicological tests on Dow Brush Killer 50-50 Toxicity of Dow Brush Killer 50-50 (T2.30-28-1) Allinson, RL Athay, RM Beshgetoor, AW Boundy, RF Colby, RW Dow Elshere Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on M-1085 (A 245T triethyl amine liquid formulation T2.30-97-1) ) Dow Number Date Author 07671540767155* 571005 Dow Hoyle, HR McCollister, DD Wolf, MA 0767161 * 570228 Dow 0767162 * 570301 Dow 07671630767164* 570402 Babcock, D Dow Wolf, MA 07671650767166* 570415 Dow K5 m GO Recipient Barrons, KC Dow Page 61 Distributees General Subject Matter Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart, A Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luceen Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Mussel 1, DR Perkins, RP Scoles, GW Tisdale, WL Wright, N M-1085 (A 245T alkyl amine formulation) data sheet of pro­ perties, health hazards and pre­ cautions for safe handling of materials Sample 1, M-1085 (T2.30-97-1), eye and skin contact M-1085 request for applications testing (2.30-97-1) Sample 1 (2.30-97-1) (eye contact test) Sample 1 M-1085 skin contact irri­ tation T2.30-97-1 / Dow Number Date Author 07671840767191* 570806 Dow McColllster, DD Wolf, MA 07671850767186* 570511 Dow Hoyle, HR McColllster, DD Wolf, MA 0767192 * 570228 Dow Wolf, MA 0767193 * 570227 Dow Scoles, G 'CO CD Recipient Barrons, KC Dow \ Page 62 Distributees General Subject Matter Allison, RW Athay, RM Barrons, KC Beshgetoor, AW Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart, A Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Perkins, RP Russel, DR Scoles, G Tisdale, WL Wright, N Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on M-1086 (A 245T and 24D alkyl amine formulation) M-1086 (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) Sample 1, M-1086 (Toxicology work sheet) M-1086 (2.30-96-1) (Request for applications testing) ) } Dow Number Date Author 07671940767195* 570326 Dow Stagerstron, E 07671960767197* 570228 Dow 07672130767222* 580521 Dow McCollister, DD Olson, K 07672160767217* 580425 Dow Hoyle, HR McCollister, DD Olson, KJ 0767223 * 580225 Dow \ *■ r-i sji Recipient I Page 63 Distributees General Subject Matter Eye contact test M-1086, T2.30-96-1 M-1086 (Skin contact irritation) (T2.30-96-1) Allinson, RL Athay, RM Beshgetoor, AW Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Greene, LM Hammer, OH Hart, A Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN McIntyre, HH Perkins, RP Scoles, GW Tisdale, WL Vanvalkenburg, W Wright, N Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on weed killer for­ mulation M-1094 containing a 245T Ester (T2.30-112-1) M-1094 Weed Killer formulation (Data sheet of properties, health hazards, and precautions for safe handling of materials) Sample 1 Weed Killer formulation (M-1094) (Toxicology work sheet) / Dow Number Date Author 0767224 * 000000 Dow Scoles, G 0767225 * 580218 Coulter, LL Dow 0767226 * 580225 Dow NCG 07672270767228* 530311 Dow NCG 07672290767230* 580525 Dow NCG 0767231 * 580402 Coulter, LL Dow 07672430767251* 571220 Dow McCollister, DD Olson, KJ r-i Recipient Dow Rowe, VK Dow Rowe, VK ) Page 64 Distributees General Subject Matter 245T (Request for screening or application testing) Dow Fletcher, FW Scoi es, GW Vanvalkenburg, W Formulation M-1094, contemplated sales program Sample 1 Weed Killer formulation (M-1094) (T2.30-112-1) (acute oral toxicity) Sample 1 Weed Killer formulation (M-1094) (eye contact test) Sample 1, weed killer formulation (M-1094) (T2.30-112-1) (skin con­ tact irritation) Dow Fletcher, FW Scoles, GW Vanvalkenburg, JW M-1094, will remain in development during 580000 Allinson, RL Beshgetoor, AW Boundy, RH Colby, RW Coulter, LL Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Gray, HE Greene, LM Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on Inverton (brush killer). (T2.30-101-1) Dow Number Date Author 07672450767246* 571120 Dow Hoyle, HR McColllster, DD Olson, KJ 0767252 * 570520 Dow 0767253 * 000000 Dow Scoles, G 0767254 * 570520 Dow 07672550767256* 570520 Babcock, D Dow 07672570767258* 570624 Babcock, D Dow Recipient 1 Page 65 Distributees General Subject Matter Hart, A Hymas, TA Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Mussel 1, DR Perkins, RP Scoles, GW Tisdale, WL Wright, N Inverton M-1116 (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) Sample 1 M-1116 (T2.30-101-1) (Toxicology work sheet) M-1116 (Request for applications testing) (2.30-101-1) Sample 1 M 1116 (Acute oral toxicity) (T2.30-101-1) Sample 1 M-1116 (Eye contact test) (T2.30-101-1) Sample 1 M-1116 (Skin contact irritation) (T2.30-101-1 ) Dow Number Date Author Recipient 07672590767260* 570730 Dow Wolf, MA Coulter, LL Dow 0767261 * 580221 Dow Dow Olson, KJ 0767262 * 580408 Dow Wolf, MA Dow McIntyre, HH 07672630767267* 610316 Dow Olson, KJ Oyen, K Thompson, E Vanvalkenburg, W 07672680767269* 610311 Dow Hoyle, HR Olson, KJ Oyen, F QO Page 66 Distributees General Subject Matter Inverton, a letter showing concern for hazards Request for report Suggested precautionary labelling for Inverton (M-1116) Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Falkenstein, WJ Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Perkins, RP Shrader, SA Tisdale, WL Vanvalkenburg, W Wright, N Results of range finding toxicologlcal tests on M-1123 (T2.30-201-1) M-1123 (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) I I Dow Number Date Author 0767270 * 601228 Dow 0767271 * 601229 Dow 0767272 * 601223 Dow Dow Vanvalkenburg, W Olson, KJ 0767273 * 610106 Dow Wolf, MA 0767274 * 601228 Dow 07672750767276* 610110 Dow Thompson, E 07672770767280* 601228 Dow Thompson, E 07672810767282* 610120 Dow Thompson, E 07672880767300* 610601 Dow White, LC, Jr. Recipient Dow Rltty, PM I Page 67 Distributees General Subject Matter M-1123 (Toxicology work sheet) (T2.30-201-1) M-1123 (request for screening or application testing) Dow Johnson, JE M-1123, Formulation, use, release to sale plans Ritty, PM Formulation for M-1094, no data available on toxicity for M-1123 Sample 1 M-1123 (Acute oral toxicity) (T2.30-201-1 ) Sample 1 M-1123 (Eye contact test) (T2.30-201-1) Sample 1 M-1123 (Skin contact irritation) (T2.30-201-1 ) Sample 1 M-1123 (Skin contact absorption) (T2.30-201-1 ) Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Falkenstein, WJ Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart, A Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on Esteron 245-OS (replacement for present for­ mulation M-1257) (BC T2.30-167-2) I Dow Number Date Author 07673010767314* 600125 Dow Wolf, MA to «a o Recipient Page 68 Distributees General Subject Matter Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Oyen, F Perkins, RP Shrader, SA Tisdale, WL White, LC, Jr. Wright, N Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Greene, LM Hammer, OH Hart, A Hymas, TA Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Oyen, F Perkins, RP Stenger, VA Tisdale, WL Wright, N Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on Esteron 245 0S(M.1257) (BC T2.30-167-1) Recipient Dow Number Date Author 0767309 * 591102 Dow Dow Vanvalkenburg,JW Wolf, MA 0767315 * 591028 Dow Ri tty, PM Dow Wolf, MA Page 69 Distrlbutees General Subject Matter Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Coulter, LL Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Greene, LM Hammer, OH Hart, A Heath, SB Hymas, TA Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Oyen, F Perkins, RP Stenger, VA Tisdale, WL Wright, N Esteron 245 OS (M-1257), For­ mulation plans for toxicological evaluation Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Coulter, LL Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Greene, LM Hammer, OH Hart, A Need toxicology information sheets on Esteron Brush Killer O.S. Dow Number Date Author 07673210767342* 571122 Dow Olson, KJ ro — to Recipient Page 70 Distributees General Subject Matter Heath, SB Hymas, TA Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Oyen, F Perkins, RP Stenger, VA Tisdale, WL Wright, N Allinson, RL Athay, RM Beshgetoor, AW Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dosser, RC Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart, A Hymas, TA Jones, GD Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Martin, D McCollister, DD McIntyre, HH Mussel 1, DR Perkins, RP Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on Brush Killer X, Weed Killer X and Brush Killer TX (T2.30-76-1 T2.30-77-1 T2.30-78-1) Dow Number Date Author 07673660767335* 590423 Dow Wolf, MA 07674020767416* 590818 Olson, KJ Oyen, F KS Recipient Page 71 Distributees General Subject Matter Tisdale, WL White, LC Wright, N Athay, RM Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Greene, LM Hammer, OH Hart, A Hymas, TA Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McCollister, DD McIntyre, HH Perkins, RP Stenger, VA Tisdale, WL Vanvalkenburg, W Wright, N Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on Forron brush killer (M—1368) (T2.30-123-1) Barrons, KC Colby, RW Lynn, GE Boundy, RH McIntyre, HH Perkins, RP Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on Ml413, formulation of Dowanol Ester 245T made for Stull Chem. Data sheet of proper­ ties, health hazards and pre­ cautions for safe handling of Dow Number Date Author 07674170767418* 590506 Dow McCollister Wolf, MA 07674190767421* 590202 Dow Hoyle, HR McCollister Wolf, MA 07674220767930* 590202 Dow Hoyle, HR McCollister Wolf, MA Recipient Page 72 Distributees General Subject Matter Hart, A Wright, N Hammer, OH Hymas, TA Jones, GD Gay, HH Tisdale, WL Luce, EN Green, LM Stenger, LM Scoi es, G Gray, HE Kilial, DJ Elshere, D Kagy, JF materials Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on M-1447 and M-1433 weed killer formulations (Similar to Esteron 245 OS and Esteron Brush Killer respectively) A concentrate formulation of 245T Dowanol 97B70 Ester data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH A concentrate formulation of 24D and 245T Dowanol 97B70. Esters data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials Dow Number Date Author Recipient 0767431 * 590127 Dow 0767432 * 581120 Dow Wade, J 0767433 * 581121 Dow Dow Vanvalkenburg.JW Olson, KJ 07674340767439* 581120 Dow 07674400767441* 590506 Dow McCollister, DD ) Page 73 Distributees General Subject Matter Gray, HE Greene, LM Hammer, OH Hart, A Hymas, TA Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Perkins, RP Stenger, VA Tisdale, HH Vanvalkenburg, W Wright, N M-1433 Toxicology work sheet A concentrate brush killer for­ mulation of 31b. 24D and 31b. 245T acid equiv per gal. based on Dowanol 97B70 Esters. Request for screening or application testing Coulter, LL Dow Heath, SB M-1433 and M-1447, formulations M-1433 eye contact test Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on M-1447 and M-1433 Dow Number Date Author Wolf, MA K) G '3 07674420767444* 590202 Dow Hoyle, HR McCollister, DD Wolf, MA 07674450767453* 590202 Dow Hoyle, HR McCollister, DD Wolf, MA 0767454 * 590127 Dow Recipient Page 74 Distributees General Subject Matter weed killer formulations (Similar to Esteron 245 OS and Esteron Brush Killer OS respectively) M-1447 A concentrate formulation of 245T Dowanol 97B70 esters. Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Gray, HE Greene, LM Hammer, OH Hart, A Hymas, TA Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Perkins, RP Stenger, VA Tisdale, WL Vanvalkenburg, JW Wright, N M-1433 A concentrate formulation of 24D and 245T Dowanol 97B70 esters. Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials M-1447 toxicology work sheet ) Dow Number Date Author 07674550767456* 581120 Dow Vanvalkenburg, JW 07674570767462* 581120 Dow 07674630767464* 590202 Dow Hoyle, HR McCollister, DD Wolf, MA 07674650767466* 700709 Dow 07674780767479* 590713 Dow McCollister, DD Wolf, MA 07674800767485* 590414 Dow McCollister, DD Peterson, JE Wolf, MA H* ro Recipient Page 75 Distributees General Subject Matter M-1447 request for screening or application testing M-1447 acute oral toxicity M-1433 A concentrate formulation of 24D and 245T Dowanol 97B70 esters. Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials Dowanol 97 B-70 medical Infor­ mation Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on Forron 235T Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Greene, LM Hammer, OH Hart, A Hymas, TA Jones, GS Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Forron 245 M-1456 data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials Dow Number Date Author 0767486 * 590319 Dow 0767487 * 590127 Dow 0767488 * 590113 Dow Dow Vanvalkenburg.JW Olson, RJ 07674890767493* 590127 Dow 0767494 * 000000 Dow Wolf, MA 07674950767497* 590610 Dow McCollister, DD Peterson, JE Wolf, MA 0767498 * 590722 Dow Olson, K Recipient Page 76 Distributees General Subject Matter Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Perkins, RP Stenger, VA Tisdale, WL Vanvalkenburg, W Wright, N M-1456 (Forron 245T) toxicology work sheet M-1456 (Contains K-7756) (Forron 245) Request for screening of application testing Coulter, LL Dow Heath, SB Formulation M-1456 M-1456 acute oral toxicity Suggested precautionary labeling for Forron 245 Forron 245 (M-1456) Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on M-1459. Formulation of K-7797 and K-7856 Dow Number Date Author 07674990767504* 590702 Dow Hoyle, HR Olson, KJ Oyen, F 0767505 * 590618 Dow 0767506 * 590216 Dow 07676350767637* 590901 Dow 01 son Oyen, F Scoi es, GE H* to Ci) Recipient ) ) Page 77 Distributees General Subject Matter Athay, RM Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Gray, HE Greene, LM Hammer, OH Hart, A Hymas, T Jones, GD Kilian, DJ Lynn, GE Martin, D McIntyre, HH Perkins, RP Scoles, GE Stenger, VA Tisdale, WL Wright, N M-1459 formulation of K-7797 and K-7856 M-1459 Toxicology work sheet M-1459 formulation of K-7797 and request for screening or applica­ tion testing Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on M-1586 (Formulation containing Dowanol 97B70 Esters of 24D and 245T) (T2.30-156-1) Dow Number Date Author 07676380767639* 590811 Dow Hoyle, HR Olson, KJ Oyen, F 0767640 * 590729 Dow KO 0767641 * 590611 Dow Scoi es, G 0767642 * 590610 Dow Scoi es, GW £0 QO CJ Recipient Olson, KJ ) Page 78 Distributees General Subject Matter Gay, HH Greene, LM Hammer, OH Hart, A Hymas, TA Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Leasure, JK Luce, EH Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Perkins, RP Scoles, GE Stenger, VA Tisdale, WL Wright, N M-1586 (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) M-1586 (Toxicology work sheet) (T2.30-156-1) Coulter, LL Dow Scoles, G Formulation containing the Dowanol 97B70 Esters of 24D and 245T (M-1586) (Request for screening or application testing) Coulter, LL Dow Dosser, RC Improved Esteron formulation Dow Number Date Author 0767643 * 590710 Dow Greenhoe, NC KO 07676440767646* 590721 Dow Greenhoe, NC KO 07676470767649* 590727 Dow Greenhoe, NC KO 590811 Dow Hoyle, HR Olson, KJ Oyen, F 600331 Dow Olson, KJ Scoles, G 07676500767652* 07677670767780* Recipient Page 79 Distributees General Subject Matter Heath, SB Maddox, JF White, LC M-1586 (Acute oral toxicity) (T2.30-156-1 ) M-1586 (Eye contact test) (T2.30-156-1) M-1586 (Skin contact irritation) (T2.30-156-1 ) M-1586 (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Greene, LM Hammer, OH Hart, A Hymas, TA Jones, GD Kagy, JF Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on agricultural chemi­ cal formulation M-1639 (Veon brush killer type) Dow Number Date Author 07677920767793* 600128 Dow Hoyle, HR Olson, KJ Oyen, F 0767794 * 600313 Dow 0767824 * 600216 Dow Olson, KJ Oyen, F Uü ¿'O Recipient Page 80 Distributees General Subject Matter Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Oyen, F Perkins, RP Scoles, G Stenger, VA Tisdale, WL Wright, N M-1639 (Veon brush killer type) (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) M-1639 (Veon brush killer type), Safety data sheet Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Greene, LM Hammer, OH Hart, A Hymas, TA Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE Results of range finding toxlcological tests on agricultural chemi­ cal formulation M-1683 (Esteron 245 Type) ) l I Dow Number Date Author 07678250767828* 600223 Dow Olson, KJ 07678290767830* 600126 Dow Hoyle, HR Olson, KJ Oyen, F 07678310767841* 600000 Dow EO NS O'Connor Scoles, GW Torkelson, 0767351 0767852* 600126 Dow Hoyle, HR ?■'.) CO CO Recipient Page 81 Distributees General Subject Matter McIntyre, HH Perkins, RP Scoles, G Stenger, VA Tisdale, WL Wright, N Corrections in biochemical research laboratory reports (T2.30-177-1 ) Results of range finding toxicological tests on agricultural chemical formulation M-1683 (Esteron 245 Type), Results of range finding toxicological tests on Bis Acetonitrilo Decaborane (Band) (T23.14-94-2); Results of range finding toxicological tests on Alpha Phenoxy Propionic Acid M-1683 (Esteron 245T) (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materi als) Toxicology work sheet, acute oral toxicity, eye contact test, skin contact irritation, single vapor exposure record (M-1683) M-1683 (Esteron 245T) (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and ) Dow Number Date Author Recipient 01 son, KJ Oyen, F 0767853 * 600212 Dow 0767854 * 551108 Dow 0767872 * 600406 Dow Wolf, MA 07678730767875* 600215 Dow 01 son, KJ Oyen, F 07679880767990* 611031 Dow 01 son, KJ Oyen, F 07679940767997* 611106 Dow Hoyle, HR Oyen, F Plomer, ET 07680100768025* 611117 Dow 01 son, KJ Plomer, ET to QO Dow McIntyre, HH Page 82 Distributees General Subject Matter precautions for safe handling of materials) AG chem formulation M-1683 Esteron 245T, safety data sheet Dow Sales Wolf, MA Suggested precautionary labeling for M-1684 Dow Hoyle, HR M-1684 (Esteron Brush Killer type) Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials Dow Hoyle, HR M-2016 data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials Dow Hoyle, HR M-2115 data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Falkenstein, W Gay, HH Greene, LM Results of range finding toxicological tests on M-2115, an agricultural chemical formulation containing 245T acid and triethyl amine Dow Number Date Author 07680870768103* 611108 Olson, K Oyen, F Hoyle, HR KS Scoi es, GW Tompson, E 07681040768143* 631129 Dow Lynn, GE ■•-Ai ZJ uo u\ Recipient Page 83 Distributees General Subject Matter Hart, A Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Oyen, F Perkins, RP Scoles, GW Shrader, Sa Tisdale, WL Wright, N Boundy, RH McIntyre, HH Perkins, RP Hart, A Jones, GD Scoles, G Gay, HH Tisdale, WL Luce, EN Greene, LM Shrader, SA Falkenstein, W Elshere, D Kagy, JF Barrons, KC Colby, RW Kilian, DJ Lynn, GE Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on agricultural chemcical formulation M-2016 containing 35 percent Dowanol Ester 245T. Material safety data sheet Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on Verton T herbicide Dow Number Date Author Olson, KJ 07682360768254* to LO co 620403 Olsen, KJ Oyen, F Vanvalkenburg, W Recipient 1 Page 84 Distributees General Subject Matter Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Epstein, J Falkenstein, WJ Gordon, HL Greene, LM Hake, CL Hart, A Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Koerker, FW Luce, EH Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Mullison, WR Norton, TR Oyen, F Shrader, SA Wilson, AW Wright, N (M-2137) a formulation containing Dowanol Ester of 245T Boundy, RK McIntyre, HH Perkins, RP Hart, A Wright, N Lynn, GE Jones, GD Barrons, K Vanvalkenburg, V Brown, R Gay, HH Results of tox. tests on 24D + 245T dowanol esters in kerosene Dow Number Date Author 0768240768241* 620323 Olsen, KJ Oyen, F Hoyle, HR 0768243768244* 611108 Vanvalkenburg, tv> GO Recipient Olson, KJ Page 85 Distributees General Subject Matter Wilson, AW Luce, EN Greene, LM Shrader, SA Falkenstein, WJ Nash, HA Colby, RN Kilian, DJ Elshere, D Kagy, JF Boundy, RH McIntyre, HH Perkins, RP Hart, A Wright, N Lynn, GE Jones, GD Barrons, H Vanvalkenburg, V Brown, R Gay, HH Wilson, AW Luce, EN Greene, LM Shrader, SA Falkenstein, WJ Nash, HA Colby, RW Kilian, DJ Elshere, D Kagy, JF Data sheet for M2235 Johnson, JE Boundy, RK Cover letter with sample of M-2235 for testing Dow Number Date Author 07682620768263* 620323 Olson, KJ Oxen, F Hoyle, HR 0768264 * 620300 Dow 07682680768269* 720416 Wolf, MA Hoyle, HR 07682700768271* 720413 Wolf, MA 1. ' ■ ' Recipient Page 86 Distributees General Subject Matter McIntyre, HH Perkins, RP Hart, A Wright, N Lynn, GE Jones, GD Barrons, K Vanvalkenburg, V Brown, R Gay, HH Wilson, AW Luce, EN Greene, SA Falkenstein, WJ Nash, HA Colby, RN Kilian, DJ Elshere, D Kagy, OF M-2235 (data sheet of properties, health hazards, and precautions for safe handling of materials) M-2235 (safety information) Verton CE (data sheet of proper­ ties, health, hazards, and pre­ cautions for safe handling of materials) Verton CE (medical information) Dow Number Date Author 07682970768299* 630108 Dow Hoyle, HR Olson, KJ Oyen, F 07683000768301* 710400 0768302 * 630507 Dow 07683030768304* 720328 Dow 07683050768306* 780401 Dow 07686800768699* 660526 Dow Stevenson, GT 0768961768962* 610601 Olson, KJ Oyen, F Hoyle, HR Recipient Page 87 Distributees General Subject Matter M-2422 (Data sheet of proportions for safe handling of materials) Esteron 245 concentrate Esteron 245 concentrate (Sales specification) Esteron 245 concentrate brush and weed killer (Material safety data sheet) Esteron 245 concentrate brush and weed killer (Material safety data sheet) Dow Haagsma, TA BLS GTS KJO A summary of acute oral toxicity LD50 studies 1n poultry from TOX-37 thru TOX-66 inclusive (Report GH-A 186) Prod. Plan Target Team Mgr. Robinson, VB RJS RMS RVJ Safety data sheet for Esteron 245 OS Dow Number Date Author 0768963768964* 580630 Wolf, MA McCollister, DD Hoyle, HR 0768965768966* 610531 Dow 07689840769027* 660510 Dow Lynn, GE Olson, KJ 0769080 * 001216 Dow Getzendaner, ME Herman, JL Moss, RD i-* ir'1:> o- Recipient Page 88 Distributees General Subject Matter Safety data sheet for Reddon con­ centrate (M-2157) Safety data information on Esteron 245 OS Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Dow Elshere, D Falkenstein, WJ Hart, A Holder, BB Johnston, RV Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McCollister, DD McIntyre, HH Moss, RD Mullison, WR Norton, TR Pitman-Moore Shrader, SA Wilson, AW Wright, N Toxicological properties of her­ bicide formulation M-2993 con­ taining 4-amino-356-trichioropicolinic acid, isooctyl ester and 245T polypropylene glycol butyl ether ester Barrons, KC Bauriedel, WR Dow Dowell, FH A residue study picloram and 245T in grass from application of M-3060 formulation (GH-C 343) Dow Number Date Author 07690810769082* 670410 Dow 07690830769085* 661205 Dow 01 son, KJ Oyen, F Wilson, H 07690850769087* 661108 Dow Hoyle, HR 01 son, KJ Oyen, F Wilson, H 07690880769094* 660816 Dow Wilson, H 07691600769162* 670316 01 son, KJ Oyen, F Recipient Page 89 Distributees General Subject Matter Hanson, RG Hymas, TA Johnston, RV Kagy, JF Laning, ER Ludwig, PD Moss, RD Osborne, DW Popoff, FP Ridner, JM Rowe, VK Seymour, KG Shaver, RJ Spalding, JL Williams, CS M-3060, safety data sheet Dow Lynn, GE Results of range finding toxicolo gical tests on Esteron O.S. (M-3094) (T2.3094-1) Esteron 245 O.S. (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) Esteron 245 O.S. (M-3094) Toxico­ logy work sheets Boundy, RH Buerge, TE Toxicological properties and industrial handling hazards of Dow Number Date Author 07691630769179* 660000 Dow Tinker, B Wilson, H 07692680769271* 671224 Dow McCollister, DD Olson, KJ 07692720769297* 680104 Dow Lynn, GE Olson, KJ Recipient Page 90 Distributees General Subject Matter Dean, P Dow Elshere, D Holder, BB Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kill an, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Moss, RD Sheetz, DP Shrader, SA Wilson, AW Wright, N Tordon 105 mixture (T2.MO-3132-1) Tordon 105 mixture (Toxicology worksheet) Tordon 144 mixture data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling Boundy, RH Dean, P Dow Elshere, D Holder, BB Jones, GD Kagy, JF Luce, EN McCollister, DD McIntyre, HH Toxicological perperties and industrial handling hazards of Tordon 144 mixture herbicide Dow Number Date Author 07693510769352* 690121 Dow Hoyle, HR Norris, JM 07693530769354* 700130 Bjork, C Dow Gowel1, J H JBD Loucks, MF Nagele, RE Newport, JJ Seymour, KG Sheldon, HW Stein, JS Talcott, AT Williams, CS Wolf, MA 07693550769356* 681213 Dow Norris, JM 07700430770058* 571122 Dow Olson, KJ Recipient Page 91 Distributees General Subject Matter Moss, RD Olson, KJ Robinson, VB Sheetz, DP Shrader, SA Wilson, AW Wright, N M-3199X Tordon 225 mixture her­ bicide data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials (T2.MO-003199-1 ) Tordon 225 herbicide release to sales M-3199X Tordon 225 herbicide (T2.M0-003199-(l)), safety data sheet Allinson, RL Athay, RM Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on Brush Killer X, Dow Number Date Author 07700440770045* 571115 Dow McCollister, DD Olson, KJ Peterson, JE 07700470770048* 571115 Dow McCollister, DD Olson, KJ Peterson, JE 0770049 * 000000 Dow Recipient ) i Page Distributees General Subject Matter Beshgetoor, AW Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dosser, RC Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart, A Hymas, TA Jones, GD Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Martin, D McCollister, DD McIntyre, HH Mussel1, DR Perkins, RP Tisdale, WL White, LC Wright, N Weed Killer X and Brush Killer TX Brush Killer TX (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) Weed Killer X (Data sheet of pro­ perties, health hazards and pre­ cautions for safe handling of materials) Brush Killer X (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and 92 Dow Number Date Author 07700500770052* 571115 Dow McCollister, DD Olson, KJ Peterson, JE 0770059 * 560308 Dow White, LE 07700600770061* 560424 Dow 07700620770063* 560521 Dow 07700640770065* ' 571115 Dow McCollister, DD Olson, KJ Peterson, JE 07706650770684* 660526 Dow Stevenson, GT Stock, BL 07817910781794* 501017 Dow Rowe, VK Recipient Allen, WW Alquist, FC Britton, JW Page 93 Distributees General Subject Matter precautions for safe handling of materials) Brush Killer X (Data sheet of pro­ perties, health hazards and pre­ cautions for safe handling of materials) Brush Killer TX (Request for application testing). Brush Killer TX (Eye contact test) Brush Killer TX (Skin contact irritation) Brush Killer TX (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) BLS GTS K00 RJS RMS RVJ TAH VBR A summary of acute oral toxicity LD50 studies in poultry from TOX-37 thru TOX-66 inclusive (GH-A 186) Results of skin irritation and skin sensitization tests conducted on human subjects with Esteron 245 Dow Number Date Author Recipient Dosser, RC Dow Dutton, WC Irish, FN Kagy, JF Lynn, GE 0781795 * 500405 07817960781810* 530217 j* cl Dow REW Streeter, LE Dow White, L Dow Oyen, F Allen, WW Allinson, RL Al qui st, FN Beshgetoor, AW Boundy, RH Britton, EC Britton, JW Collier, B Davidson, JH Dow Dutton, WC Gay, HH Gibson, J Greene, LM Heath, SB Johnson, JE Kagy, JF Kelly, JA Kriner, RR Luce, EN Lynn, GE MacCutcheon, SM Mel ass, VH Page 94 Distributees General Subject Matter (New Ester) (T2.30-3-1) Esteron 245T (Main lab report sheet) Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on Esteron 245 (T2.30-3-2) Dow Number Date Author Recipient Nation, HA Otis, CE Predergast Southwick, L Sunderland, WW Vanhorn, JC Walker, H White, LC Wright, P Zuhl, HH 07820850782091* 531030 Dow Oyen, F 0782092 * 530305 Dow Rowe, VK ¿age 95 Distributees General Subject Matter Allen, WW Allinson, RL Alquist, FN Barrons, KC Beshgetoor, AW Boundy, RH Britton, EC Davidson, JH Dow Dutton, WC Gay, HH Greene, LM Kagy, JF Luce, EN Lynn, GE MacCutcheon, SM Prescott, RF Sunderland, WW White, L Wright, P Results of range finding toxlcolo gical tests on Dow Brush Killer T Dow Brush Killer T (Request for biological test) Dow Number Date Author Spencer, HC White, L 07820930782100* 530000 Dow Wolf, MA Wyse, H 0782101 0782103* 530000 Dow Wyse, H 07821040782112* 530000 Dow Wyse, H 07821130782114* 700721 Dow HCS 0782115 * 000000 Dow 07821160782117* 710714 Dow Hoyle, HR Wolf, MA 07821180782119* 710920 Dow Wolf, MA 07821780782198* 560501 Dow McCollister, DD Torkel son, TR oo Recipient Page 96 Distributees General Subject Matter Dow Brush Killer T (Acute oral toxicity) Brush .Killer T (Eye irritation) Brush Killer T (Skin irritation) Brush Killer T, safety data sheet Brush Killer T (Medical information) Brush killer T (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) Brush Killer T (Medical information) Allinson, RL Beshgetoor, AW Boundy, RH Britton, EC Coulter, LL Dow Elshere, D Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on M-631 (Esteron 245 type formulation) (BC T2.30-67-1) Dow Number Date Author 07821990782200* 580916 Dow Hoyle, HR Torkel son, TR 0782201 * 560504 Dow 07822020782220* 560409 Dow McCollister, DD Wolf, MA Recipient Page 97 Distributees General Subject Matter Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart, A Kilian, DJ Luce, EN MacCutcheon, SM Martin, D Scoles, G Sunderland, WW Wright, N Esteron 245 type formulation (M—631) (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) M-631 (Esteron 245 type for­ mulation) (T2.30-67-1), safety data sheet Allinson, RL Beshgetoor, AW Boundy, RH Britton, EC Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart, A Kagy, JF Kelly, J Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on 2 formulations of Reddon (M-640 and M-713) Dow Number Author 07822850782306* 560503 Dow Lockwood, D McCollister, DD Torkelson, TR 07823790782393* 560702 Dow Lockwood, D McCollister, DD Olson, KJ Y-* to O Recipient Page 98 Distributees General Subject Matter Lynn, GE MacCutcheon, SM Sunderland, WW Wright, N Alllnson, RL Beshgetoor, AW Boundy, RH Britton, EC Coulter, LL Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart, A Kilian, DJ Luce, EN MacCutcheon, SM Martin, D Scoles, G Sunderland, WW Wright, N Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on M-697 (Esteron Brush Killer type formulation) (T2.30-66) Allinson, RL Alquist, FN Barrons, KC Beshgetoor, AW Boundy, RH Britton, EC Colby, RW Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Greene, LM Results of range finding toxicological tests on Esteron Brush Killer OS (M-726) CT2.30-71-1) Dow Number Date Author 07869420786954* 000000 Dow 07869550786975* 000000 Dow 07870000787030* 680122 Delong, HC 08903940980398* 000000 Dow 09703300970343* 700901 Blair, EH Dow 09790330979047* 691215 Bailey, RE CO o Recipient ) Page 99 Distributees■ General Subject Matter Hart, A Kagy, JF Kelly, JA Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE MacCutcheon, SM Sunderland, WW Wright, N 24D Esters-process information Direct Ester process Acid Ester operating instructions 489 Bldg General process description, 24D process Chemistry of the Dow agricultural department Blair, EH Fernandez, JB Johnson, JE Moss, RD Chamberlain, LC Peterson, LI Strojny, EJ Tobey, $W Hillary, BB Miniplant preparation of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T Dow Number Date Author 09791880979210* 680000 Dow 09794110979416* 670828 Seidel, EM 09794290979430* 670906 Tacy, W 0979686 * 670915 Seidel, EM 0979732 * 670914 EMS 0979733 * 670914 EMS WHH 0979734 * 670914 EMS 0979735 * 670914 EMS oa i J Recipient Page 100 Distributees General Subject Matter Rehurg, CE Moyer, JR Pumpelly, CT Poffenberger, N Haberstroh, WH Deline, DD Ayers, JE Woodward, RE Jones, GD Blue, RD Vanwestenburg, JA Historical overview of chloracne experiences, includes process informati on Agent Orange related costs and capacity Process flow chart with recommended raw material unit ratios for Orange Flow chart with costs and capacity for making Agent Orange Trichlorophenol plant unit ratios Diehlorophenol plant unit ratios Chloroacetic acid plant unit ratios Crystalline chloracetate acid unit ratios ) I Dow Number Date Author 0979736 * 670914 EMS 0979737 * 670914 EMS 0979738 * 670914 EMS 09798830979884* 000000 Dow 0979885 * 670311 Delisle, NG 09798860979887* 670829 Delisle, NG 09799270979934* 670411 Delisle, NG 0979935 * 670427 Delisle, NG 097Q9890979994* 670417 Delisie, NG EMS 0980024 * 670130 Jossi, JA 09800850980086* 661227 Gilbert, PW GO O CO Recipient Page 101 Distributees General Subject Matter Butyl chloroacetate plant unit ratios Butyl ester 24D plant unit ratios Butyl ester 245T plant unit ratios Process flow chart indicating costs and capacity for Agent Orange production Process flow chart indicating costs and capacity for Agent Orange production Process flow chart indicating costs and capacity for Agent Orange production Agent Orange production flow charts showing capacities Chart showing capacity and costs for Agent Orange production Flow sheets on 24D butyl ester acid Orange 24Dichlorophenol block flow sheet 245-Trichlorophenol block flow chart Dow Number Date Author 0980089 * 670130 EMS GTG 09801780980188 690307 Wen, RY 09803200980341* 660121 Amstutz, FC Highhill, CA Kosinski, JE Delong, HC 09803940980398* 000000 Dow 0980971 * 000000 Dow 0980994Q381006* 750000 Dow CO Recipient Page 102 Distributees General Subject Matter Ester production product Orange Look, AT Sheetz, DP Pumpelly, CT Hennis, HE Thompson, CJ DeMott, DN McGee, TW Fernandez, JB Lindy, L Molehouse, D Wisner, R Wen, RY DeLine, DD Woodward, RE Seidel, EM Thurston, DH Kellom, DB Manufacture of 24D, 245T and 2,4,5-Tr1chiorophenoxyproploni c Acid: a literature survey Dow customer - Weed killer for­ mulating plant General process description, 24D process Mexico Phenoxy Ester process flow chart Cost data, process information ) Dow Number Date Author 09810120981024* 691030 Dow 09810250981030* 000000 Dow 09810310981036* 691022 Haberstroh, WH 09813660981372 620227 Fernandez, JB 0981474 * 711209 Hoff, RC Wi11iams, CS Chase, FI Woodward, R Blosser, KC Scoles, GW 2 Illegible 0981484 690227 White, LC DeLong, HC Chase, FI Loucks, MF Hawley, HM Sheldon, HW Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE Oû o CT Recipient ; Page 103 Distributees General Subject Matter Technology review Flow chart for 2,4-D process Projected book costs to 1977 (Dow and 2,4-D) 1969 accomplishments and goals, 1970 G & P Doser, RC Prescott, RF Sculati, JJ Hillary, BB Johnson, D Highhlll, CA The preparation of Esters of Phenoxy Acetic Acid Hoff, RC Williams, CJ Chase, FI Woodward, R. Blosser, KC Scoi es, GW 2 Illegible Brush killer, LV4T, M3508, pro­ duct specification, 12662 White, LC DeLong, HC Chase, FI Loucks, MF Scheddel, RT Sheldon, HW Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE Rei gl er, PF McCoy, WJ 24D, Butyl-Isopropyl Esters, 50-50 mix Dow Number Date Author 0981538 * 701005 Chase, FI Loucks, MF Tait, SR Woodward, RE Hoi deman, GE Hawley, AM Seymour, KG Talcott, AT MacDonald, LA 0981590 690227 Williams, JL Loucks, MF Stobby, GE White, LC Hawley, HM Sheldon, HW Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE 0981591 671 on Hawley, HM Sculati, JJ White, LC 0981596 690227 Williams, JL Loucks, MF Stobby, GE White, LC Hawley, HM Sheldon, HW Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE Recipient Page 104 Distributees General Subject Matter Chase, FI Loucks, MF Tait, JR Woodward, RE Hoi deman, GE Hawley, HM Seymour, KG Talcott, AT MacDonald, LA Esteron Ten-Ten, M3503, export only Williams, JL Loucks, MF Stobby, GE White, LC Hawley, HM Sheldon, HW Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE Rei gl er, PF Scheddel, RT 245T - product specification P87523 245T - raw material specification Williams, JL Loucks, MF Stobby, GE White, LC Hawley, HM Sheldon, HW Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE 245T - product specification P87523 '»V Dow Number Qate Author 0981597 671011 White, LC Sculati, JJ Hawley, HM 09816170981520 680207 Kubiak, CJ 0981895 * 690227 VanHorn, R 0981896 671011 White, LC Sculati, JJ Hawley, HM 0981899 671011 White, LC Sculati, JJ Hawley, HM 0981900 690227 Williams, JL Loucks, MF Stobby, GE White, LC Hawley, HM Sheldon, HW Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE 0981901 710316 Gill, HH Reigler, PF Recipient ) Page 10 Distributees General Subject Matter Reigler, PF Scheddel, RT 245T - raw material specification 245T - Butyl Esters - analytical method - 87554A M-3393 - 2nd revision 245T - raw material specification 245T - raw material specification Williams, JL Loucks, MF Stobby, GE White, LC Hawley, HM Sheldon, HW Talcott, AT Hoi deman, GE Reigler, PF Scheddel, RT McCoy, WT Gill, HH Reigler, PF 245T - product specification 245T, Butyl Esters production specification Dow Number Date Author Loucks, MF Tait, SR Chase, FI Woodward, RE Hawley, HM Hoff, RC Talcott, AT MacDonald, L Hoi deman, GE 0981901 710316 Gill, HH Rei gl er, PF Loucks, MF Tait, SR Chase, FI Woodward, RE Hawley, HM Hoff, RC Talcott, AT MacDonald, L Hol deman, GE 11194991119500 670317 DeLong, HC White, LC Hawley, HM 11195951119599* 650315 Anderson, RE Delisle, NG i- -A Recipient Page 106 Distributees General Subject Matter Loucks, MF Tait, SR Chase, FI Woodward, RE Hawley, HM Hoff, RC Talcott, AT MacDonald, L Hoi deman, 6E Reigler, PF Scheddel, RT McCoy, WT Gill, HH Reigler, PF Loucks, MF Tait, SR Chase, FI Woodward, RE Hawley, HM Hoff, RC Talcott, AT MacDonald, L Hoi deman, GE 245T, Butyl Esters production specification N-Butyl 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetate raw material specifica­ tion Coulter, KE Graves, HE Wolf, RR Goergen, GG Lueck, A Trichlorophenol plant scope of project Dow Number Date Author 11199431119944* 670420 Dow 11199471119952* 670417 Dow 11199531119960* 670410 Dow 11199611119968* 670419 Dow CO o CLD Recipient Nummy, WR Page 107 Distributees General Subject Matter Dylewski, S Trapp, W Sauers, R Poffenberger, N Hutchenreuther, N Wappenhensch, CA Morello, VS Wehn, WR Staehling, EC Kennett, WW Putnam, MS Agent Orange proposal listing capacity of non-herbicide product PI etcher, DE Bosscher, H Timm, WC Coulter, KE Tacey, WJ Hensley, EF Gunkler, AA Kennett, WW Deline, DD Goergen, GG Carlson, RG Bender, SL Putnam, MS Orange information for development of reply to H.G. Fredricks letter dated 670331 Costs and capacity information about Agent Orange Costs, capacity and technical information about the proposed production of Agent Orange Dow Number Date Author 1119969 * 000000 Dow 11199901119991* 660614 McCoy, WJ Bryant, CA 11200901120092* 671220 Heath, WO Koster, W 11241BOll 24160* 650302 Cornell, JL Anderson, RE 11249771125002* 670420 Recipient Page 108 Distributees General Subject Matter Nielsen, WH Staehling, EC Putnam, MS Vanarsdale, JD Tetrachlorobenzene capacity information Van Arsdale, JD Gill, WM Hanson, KY 245T capabilities Coulter, KE Dylewski, SW Goergen, GG Haberstroh, WH Lueck, AF Poffenberger, N Sauers, RC Trapp, WB Wappenhensch, 0 West, KD Wehn, WE Widiger, AH Graves, HE Wolf, RR Delisle, NG Hutchenreuther, C Morello, VS Beyer, DG Harris, JS Project conference 14 million pounds per year. Trichlorophenol plant Job 50175 Dow Kennett, WW Defense Dept. Orange ProjectBases for Dow Proposal Dow Number Date Author 11273971127393 641208 Johnson, D 12321171232129* 570806 Dow McCollister, DD Wolf, MA 12321301232143* 600331 Dow Olson, KJ Oyen, F Recipient Page 109 Distributees General Subject Matter Putnam, MS Staehling, EC Denlslk, R Hay, JM Hillary, BB LeSueur, RW Maunder, WG Morrison, JA Mul hol land, RS Smart, JL Smy, KG Sundberg, FA Veach, RH Young, DM Condensation of Butyl Diehloroacetate with Sodium 24-Dichlorophenate Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on Ml 086 (A 245T and 24D alkyl amine formulation) Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dow Eishere, D Gay, HH Greene, LM Hammer, OH Hart, A Hymas, TA Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on agricultural chemi­ cal formulation Ml639 (Veon Brush Killer type) Dow Number Date Author 12323551232378* 571122 Dow McCollister, DD Olson, KJ 12847281284733 650622 Tiffany, PA Gill, HH Recipient Page 110 Distributees General Subject Matter Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Scoles, G Stenger, VA Tisdale, WL Wright, N Allinson, RL Allison, WE Athay, RM Beshgetoor, AW Boundy, RH Colby, RW Dosser, RC Dow Elshere, D Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart, A Hymas, TA Jones, GD Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Martin, D McIntyre, HH Mussel!, DR Perkins, RP Tisdale, WL White, LC Wright, N Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on Brush Killer X, Weed Killer X and Brush Killer TX Analytical method for determination of TCDD in 2,4,5-T by GLC ) Dow Number Date Author 12881531288155* 700130 Ridner, JM Williams, CS Loucks, MF Wolf, MA Seymour, KG Bjork, C Talcott, AT Lynn, GE Stein, JS Newport, JJ Nagele, RE Howell, JH Williams, R 1 Illegible 12884201288422* 660218 Saunders, E Loucks, MF Wolf, MR Van Valkenberg, W J .R .B • Sachs, SB Lynn, GE Branuman, J Gill, WM Highhill, CA Amstutz, FC Wiltse, ML Illegible 1288423 * 660218 Van Valkenburg, W 1295043* 000000 Dow Recipient 11313 Page 111 Distributees General Subject Matter Tordon 225 - Release to Sales Tordon 105 - Release to sales Memo - Release to Sales-Tordon 105 Block flow sheet Tordon Ester form Dow Number Date Author 12982631298290* 670000 Dow 12982971298299* 741204 Dow JNJ 1298300 * 640921 Dow EMS 12983011298302* 000000 Dow 1298303 * 000000 Dow 12983041298305* 681030 Dow Erickson, AC 1298306 * 741202 Dow JNJ 12983071298309* 730315 Dow 12983101298312* 490720 Dow BFW WJC Luce, EN Waling, BF 12983131298315* 680826 Dow JJ Recipient Dow Schrauf, B 11314 Page 112 Distributees General Subject Matter Direct nuclear chlorination of phenoxyacetic acid, benzene Research lab 2-(2-4 dichlorophenoxy) proprionic acid (Physical properties data sheet) Dowanol Ester of 245T (Physical properties data sheet) Silvex (Physical properties data sheet) 24D NA salt monohydrate (Physical properties data sheet) 245-Trichlorophenol (Physical pro­ perties data sheet) 245T (Physical properties data sheet) Freezing point molten 24D HgO 24D report sheet (Main lab No. SSR 146-851 ) Colby, A Dow Herbicides, vapor pressure data (Analytical laboratories report Dow Number Date Author Recipient RH Stobby, G 12983161298320* 731128 Dow Messing, S 12983211298322* 670327 Dow Stull, DR Walker, LC 12983231298326* 691022 Dow Sinke, GC Stull, DR 1298328 * 710917 Dow Gilbert, PW Hawley, HM Hoi deman, GE Loucks, MF MacDonald, LA Dow Hart, JP 11315 Page 713 Distributees General Subject Matter Hoi deman, GE Kiley, L Shrader, S Wengert, GB AL 79-202) Arestin, Bleiweiss, J Chase, F Dhingra, Y Dow Haberstroh Jones, W Lafevor, D Manfrom, R Martin, R Miller, B Mintz, M Morehouse, DS Yeager, L 24D acid ester process solubilities Dow Fernander, J Thermal data for process steps in synthesis of 24D (HL-304) Hoi deman, GE Heat of reaction of dimethyl amine and 24D (HL-527) Dow Gilbert, PW Hawley, HM Hoi deman, GE Loucks, MF MacDonald, LA 2,4-Dichlorophenol, technical (product specification) Dow Number ,Date Author Reigler, PF Talcott, AT 1298329 * 720615 Blosser, KC Chase, FT Dow Flannery, RF Fraser, JM Gill, HH Hoff, RC Hoi deman, GE Talcott, AT Woodward, R 1298330 * 720615 Dow 1298331 * 710118 Chase, FI Dow Hawley, HM Hoi deman, GE Loucks, MF MacDonald, LA Reigler, PF Seymour, KG Tait, SR Talcott, AT Woodward, RE 1298332 * 730412 Blosser, KC Chase, FI Dow Flannery, RF Recipient 11316 Page 114 Distributees General Subject Matter Rei gl er, PF Talcott, AT Tree, RM Blosser, KC Chase, FT Dow Flannery, RF Fraser, JM Gill, HH Hoff, RC Talcott, AT Woodward, R 245T propylene glycol butyl ether esters (Product specification) 245T propylene glycol butyl ether esters (Sales specification) Chase, FI Dow Hawley, HM Holdeman, GE Loucks, MF MacDonald, LA Rei gl er, PF Seymour, KG Tait, SR Talcott, AT Woodward, RE Formula 40 Weed killer M-3604 (Product specification) Blosser, KC Chase, FI Dow Flannery, RF DMA-6 unsequestered M-2255 (Product specification) ) Dow Number Date Author Fraser, JM Hoff, RC Hoi deman, 6E Seymour, KG Talcott, AT Woodward, RE 1298333 * 710601 Chase, FI Dow Hawley, HM Hoi deman, GE Loucks, MF MacDonald, LA Reigler, PF Seymour, KG Tait, SR Talcott, AT Woodward, RE 1298334 * 000000 Dow 1298335 * 000000 Dow 1298336 * 000000 Dow 1298337 * 000000 Dow CO h* M Recipient ) Page 115 Distributees General Subject Matter Fraser, JM Hoff, RC Hoi deman, GE Seymour, KG Talcott, AT Woodward, RE Chase, FI Dow Hawley, HM Hoi deman, GE Loucks, MF MacDonald, LA Reigler, PF Seymour, KG Tait, SR Talcott, AT Woodward, RE DMA-6 sequestered M-3637 (Product specification Propylene glycol butyl ether esters of Silvex (Physical properties) Isooctyl esters of 245T (Physical properties) Low volatile esters of 245T Dow sales grade 245T, propylene glycol (C3H60 to C9H1803) butyl ether esters (Physical poperties) Isooctyl esters of 24D (Physical properties) ) Dow Number Date Author 1298338 * 000000 Dow 1298339 * 000000 Dow 1298340 * 710316 Dow 1298341 * 720117 Blosser, KC Chase, FI Dow Flannery, RF Gill, HH Hoff, RC Hoi deman, GE Scoles, GW Talcott, AT Woodward, RE 1298342 * 000000 Dow 12983431298344* 611017 Dow Hoyle, HR Olson, KJ 1298345 * 000000 Dow Recipient 11318 Page 116 Distributees General Subject Matter N-Butyl ester of 24D (Physical properties) 24D Butyl esters (Physical properties) 24D propylene glycol butyl ether ester (Product specification) Blosser, KC Chase, FI Dow Flannery, RF Gill, HH Hoff, RC Hoi deman, GE Scoles, GW Talcott, AT Woodward, RE 24D (Product specification) Tordon 101 mixture (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) Dowanol PIB mix ester of 24D (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) 245-Trichlorophenol (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) Dow Number Date Author 12983461298347* 570927 Dow Hoyle, HR Peterson, JE 12983481298349* 000000 Dow 1298350 * 741202 Bethke Boust, HF Dersnah Dow Jones, W 1298351 * 750109 Dersnah Dow Fey, K 1298352 * 700801 Abegg, CF Dow Harris, W Higgins, HS 1298353 * 741211 Wozniak, LJ 1298354 * 750123 Dersnah Dow Jones, JN, Jr 1298355 * 750123 Dersnah Dow Jones, JN, Jr 1298356 * 750123 Dersnah Dow Jones, JN, Jr Recipient 11319 ,Jage 117 Distributees General Subject Matter 24D (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) Consequences of overexposure for chemicals in 489 building Bis-C24D) (Reactive chemical hazard data) Ethylene Glycol W/ 24D acid; molten 24D process (Reactive che­ mical hazard data) 24D (Reactive chemical hazard data) DE waste treatment plant Waste treatment, butyl ester of 24D, distillation feed (Reactive chemical hazard data) Waste treatment, butyl ester of 24D solvent (Reactive chemical hazard data) Waste treatment of butyl ester of 24D tars (Reactive chemical hazard data) Dow Number Date Author 12983571298360* 741204 Dow Jones, J 12983611298362* 710526 Boggs, GU Dow 12983631298369* 730000 Dow Southwlck, L 12986031298605* 000000 Dow 12986061298607* 650119 Dow Hoyle, HR Olson, KJ Oyen, F 12986081298609* 650125 Dow Hoyle, HR Olson, KJ 12986101298611* 740300 Dow 12986121298614* 780601 Dow Recipient Dow Dunlap, R Haberstroh, WH Higgins, HS Theis, JM 11320 Page 118 Distributees General Subject Matter Alcohols, and molecular weight data summary Direct ester "T" waste 710309 from 489 (Analytical laboratories report AL28-830) Kuron Si1vex herbicide continues to gain acceptance (Ind vegetation mgmt 5(2), 18-24) Properties and hazards, flash points of various products Tordon 50D formulation (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) (T2.M0-2777X-1) Tordon 101 mixture (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) (T2.MO-2439-1) Tordon 101 mixture weed and brush killer (Material safety data sheet) (Form 336-158-74) Tordon (R) 101 mixture weed and brush killer (Material safety data sheet) ) CO iv> ) Dow Number Date Author 12986151298617* 780601 Dow 12986181298620* 780601 Dow 12986211298623* 780601 Dow 12986241298625* 660412 Dow Hoyle, HR McCollister, DD Olson, KJ 12986261298627* 740300 Dow 12986281298629* 660201 Dow Hoyle, HR McCol11ster, DD Olson, KJ 12986301298632* 780601 Dow 12986331298634* 671031 Dow Hoyle, HR Norris, JM Olson, KJ 12986351298636* 760800 Dow Recipient I Page 119 Distributees General Subject Matter Tordon (R) 101 mixture weed and brush killer private label (Material safety data sheet) Tordon (R) 101R forestry herbicide (material safety data sheet) Tordon (R) 155 mixture brush killer (Material safety data sheet) 1 Tordon 155 (Data sheet of pro­ perties, health hazards and pre­ cautions for safe handling of materials) (T2.MO-2993-1 ) Tordon 155 mixture brush killer (Material safety data sheet) Tordon 202 mixture (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) (T2.MO-2861-1) Tordon (R) 202C mixture herbicide (Material safety data sheet) Tordon 212 (Data sheet of proper­ ties, health hazards and pre­ cautions for safe handling of materials) (T2.M0-3200-1) Tordon 212 mixture herbicide (Material safety data sheet) (Form 336-161-76) Dow Number Date Author 12986371298638* 780601 Dow 12986391298640* 771001 Dow 12986411298643* 780601 Dow 12986441298651* 750811 Dow Gutenkunst, V Porter, DF Skelly, NE 12986521298653* 700514 Dow Hoyle, HR Norris, JM 12986541298655* 750600 Dow 12986561298658* 780601 Dow 12986591298660* 710422 Dow Hoyle, HR Norris, JM 12986611298662* 710917 Dow Hoyle, HR Wolf, MA Recipient 11322 Page 120 Distributees General Subject Matter Tordon (R) 212 mixture herbicide (Material safety data sheet) Tordon (R) 225 herbicide (Material safety data sheet) Tordon (R) 225E mixture herbicide (Material safety data sheet) Analytical method Tordon 225E mix­ ture herbicide by liquid chroma­ tography (Method 87141) Tordon 472 herbicide (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) (BC12.MO-3427-1) Tordon 472 herbicide (Material safety data sheet) (Form 336-166-75) Tordon (R) 472 weed killer (Material safety data sheet) DMA4 (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) (NB T2.MO-3538-1) 245T Dowanol 97B ester (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) (K-7856 NB725.14-106) ) Dow Number Date Author 12986631298664* 750310 Dow Silversteln, LG Wolf, MA 12986651293666* 760823 Dow Langner, RR Wroblewski, D 1298667 * 000000 Dow Lamott, S 12986681298670* 760800 Dow 12986711298672* ’ 710917 Dow Hoyle, HR Wolf, MA 12986731298674* 650125 Dow Hoyle, HR Olson, KJ 12986751298676* 690909 Dow Hoyle, HR Norris, JM 12986771298678* 650119 Dow Hoyle, HR Recipient Rafos, G 11323 Page 121 Distributees General Subject Matter 24D Trl Isopropanol amine salt (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) (K-8866) DMA-6 (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) (M-3637) Cover memo for data sheets Tordon 212 mixture herbicide (Material safety data sheet) (Form 336-161-76) 245T Dowanol 97B ester (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) (K-7856 NBT25.14-106) Tordon 101 mixture (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) (T2.MO-2439-1) Tordon 472 herbicide (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) (BC T2.MO-3472-1) Tordon 50D formulation (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and Dow Number Date Author Recipient Olson, KJ Oyen, F 12986791298680* 660412 Dow Hoyle, HR McCollister, DD Olson, KJ 12986811298682* 751009 Dow Hoyle, HR Yakel, HO 12986831298684* 700319 Dow Hoyle, HR Norris, JM 1298685 * 750711 Dow Krumel, KL 12986861298689* 750711 Dersnah, H Dow 1298690 * 711116 Brown, M Dow JL Robb, J 12986911298692* 000000 Dow Dow Krumel, Kl 11324 Page 122 Distributees General Subject Matter precautions for safe handling of materials) (BC T2.M0-2777X-1) Tordon 155 (Data sheet of proper­ ties, health hazards and pre­ cautions for safe handling of materials) (T2.MO-2993-1) Tordon 212 mixture herbicide (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) (HET M—3179— (2)) Tordon 212 mixture herbicide (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) (T2.MO-3179-1) 24D (Reactive chemical hazard data) Dust explosion properties of 24D acid (Analytical report) DMA-6 (unsequestered) (Reactive chemical hazard data) 24D (Summary of chemical reactiivity precautions and properties) Dow Number Date Author 1298693 * 741031 Dow Hebbourn, R Kerby, JE 12986941298695* 690716 Dow Dullap, RL Mandrel 1, ME 12986961298697* 690716 Dow Dunlap, RL Mandrel 1, ME 1298698 * 750206 Bethke Dersnah Dow Hoi deman, G Keeney, N Vanhorn, R 12986991298700* 691003 Dow Gilbert, PW Mandrel1, ME 1298701 * 710830 Dow CJR JRL RSS 12987021298703* 690716 Dow Dunlap, RL Mandrel 1, ME 12987041298714* 710125 Dow Prophet, H Recipient 11325 / Page 123 Distributees General Subject Matter 24D PGBEE (Reactive chemical hazard data) Tordon 212 mixture (Summary of chemical reactivity precautions and properties) Tordon 101 mixture (Summary of chemical reactivity precautions and properties) Tordon 101 R (Reactive chemical hazard data) Tordon acid (Summary of chemical reactivity precautions and properties) Tordon 225 (Reactive chemical hazard data) Tordon 155 mixture (Summary of chemical reactivity precautions and properties) Studies of hazardous chemicals and their reactions, kinetics of che- Dow Number Date Author Stull, DR 1298715 * 710801 Dersnah, H Dow McCarty, WM 12987161298717* 690627 Dow Gilbert, PW Mandrel1, ME 12987181298719* 690718 Dow Gilbert, RW Mandrel1, ME 1298726 * 000000 Dow 1298766 * •000000 Dow 12991651299169* 000000 Dow 12992561299265* 000000 Dow 12992671299270* 000000 Dow 13394201339423* 650810 Barrons, KC Lynn, GE McCoy, WJ Southwick, L Wolf, MA Recipient 11326 Page 124 Distributees General Subject Matter mica! destruction by burning (NCT-5007) Esteron 245 CONC (Reactive chemi­ cal hazard data) Dowanol PIB esters of 245T (Summary of chemical reactivity precautions and properties) 24D TIPA mix (Summary of chemical reactivity precautions and properties) Chioro-Pyridines dept. Block flow H2O form. Tordon Formulations, special formulations area Tordon operations manual TIPA and TIPA 2D storage and transfer from 489 building Esteron TR2 (Release to Sales 12) Dow Number Date Author Recipient Vanvalkenburg.W Sachs, SB Branaman, J Gill, WM Delong, HC Matutz, H Davis, H Corbin, WL Johnson, J CEO DEP 13418341341853* 700422 Fauver, VA 14107901410792* 701217 Dow Gehring, PJ Norris, JM Williams, CS CO CO -s j MacDonald,LA Page 125 Distributees General Subject Matter Demott, DN Hanners, HH Martin, RA Tree, RM Deline, DD Kennedy, TL Robbins, LA Plepys, RA Stamand, VE Clark, GA Spencer, RA Dylewski, SW Bleiweiss, JC High purity 245-trichlorophenol, state of the art review Barton, J Blair, EH Burgert, BE Clegg, DH Dow Edwards, H Frevel, LK Gordon, HL Toxicological properties and industrial handling hazards of formulation M-3592 containing the propylene glycol butyl ether ester of 245T Dow Number Date Author 14107931410794* 701228 Dow Hoyle, HR Norris, JM 14107951410798 701217 Dow Norris, JM 14107991410800* 701119 Bourne, JE Dow 14108011410802* 701228 Silverstein, EH 14108031410804* 701110 Silverstein, EG Recipient 11328 Page 126 Distributees Goring, Ca Holder, BB Johnson, JE Kilian, DJ Kimmel, CE Lloyd, BH MacCutcheon, SM McCollister, DD McIntyre, HH Morgan, RW Morse, D Pitchforth, L Robinson, VB Schwarz, BA Williams, CS General Subject Matter < M-3592 (Data sheet of properties, health hazards, and precautions for safe handling of materials) Acute toxicological properties of Formulation M-3592 containing the propylene glycol butyl ester of 245T M-3592 (Acute oral toxicity) M-3592 (Acute oral toxicity) M-3592 (Eye irritation) Dow Number Date Author 1410805 * 701106 Silverstein, EH 14108061410807* 701210 Silverstein, EH 14108101410811* 701210 Silverstein, EH 14108121410813* 701210 Silverstein, EH 14108141410815* 701217 Dow Gehring, PJ Norris, JM Williams, CS 14108161410817* 701217 Dow Hoyle, HR Norris, JM Recipient Page 127 Distributees General Subject Matter M-3592 (Primary skin irritation patch test (household chemical)) M-3592 (Skin contact absorption) M-3592 (Skin contact absorption) M-3592 (Skin contact absorption) Bergeri, BE Blair, EH Clegg, DH Dow Frevel, LK Gordon, HL Goring, CA Holder, BB Johnson, JE Kirnmel, CE Lloyd, BH MacCutcheon, SM McCollister, DD McIntyre, HH Morgan, RW Morse, D Pitchforth, L Robinson, VB Schwarz, AJ Williams, CS Toxicological properties and industrial handling hazards of formulation M-3592 containing the propylene glycol butyl ether ester of 245T M-3592, (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) ) Dow Number Date Author 14108181410821* 701217 Dow Norris, JM 14108221410823* 701119 Bourne, JE 14108241410825* 701228 Silverstein, EH 14108261410827* 701110 Silverstein, EH 1410828 * 701106 Silverstein, EH 14108291410830* 701210 Silverstein, EH 14108311410832* 701210 Silverstein, EH 14108331410834* 701210 Silverstein, EH 14103351410836* 701210 Silverstein, EH 14108801410902* 630225 Dow Olson, KJ Oyen, F Scoles, G fri.uuA CO CO o Recipient Page 128 Distributees General Subject Matter Acute toxicological properties of formulation M-3592 containing the propylene glycol butyl ether ester of 245T M-3592 (Acute oral toxicity) M-3592 (Acute oral toxicity) M-3592 (Eye irritation) M-3592 (Primary skin irritation patch test (household chemical)) M-3592 (Skin contact absorption) M-3592 (Skin contact absorption) M-3592 (Skin contact absorption) M-3592 (Skin contact absorption) Barrons, KC Boundy, RH Brown, R Colby, RW Dow Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on agricultural chemi­ cal formulation M-2422 containing 91 percent Dowanol PIB ester of 245T (Biochemical Research ; Dow Number Date Author 14109031410909* 531030 Dreyer, F Recipient 11331 ) Page 129 Distributees General Subject Matter Elshere, D Falkenstein, WJ Gay, HH Greene, LM Hart, A Jones, GD Kagy, JF Kilian, DJ Luce, EN Lynn, GE McIntyre, HH Mullison, WR Nash, HA Norton, TR Scoi es, G Shrader, SA Wilson, AW Wright, N Laboratory) Adams, EM Allen, WW Allinson, RL Alquist, FN Barrons, KC Beshgetoor, AW Boundy, RH Britton, EC Davidson, JH Dow Dutton, WC Gay, HH Greene, LM Kagy, JF Luce, EN Results of range finding toxicolo­ gical tests on Dow Brush Killer T Dow Number Date Author 14286101428611* 611228 Dow Winston, AW, Jr. 14312591431263* 000000 Ivon Watkins 14363541436364* 000000 14370601437102* 660622 Graves, HH DRE 14439211443922* 701217 Dow Gehring, PJ CO CO to Recipient Page 130 Distributees General Subject Matter Lynn, GE MacCutcheon, SM Prescott, RF Sunderland, WW White, L Wright, P Fish toxicity of some herbicide formulations and their ingredi ents IWD 245T Esters Compounds showing toxicity to fish at 5 MG/L or less Goergen.GG Lueck.A Sauers, RC Widiger, AH Tuttle, FC Poffenberger, N Wolf, RR Eigsti, DR Hillman, RE Anderson, RE Graves, HE Coulter, KE Snyder, AP Delisle, NG Pilot Plant Study of the Caustic Hydrolysis of 1245 Tetrachlorobenzene CF-1043-2 Barton, J Blair, EH Toxicological properties and industrial handling hazards of Dow Number Date Author Norris, JM Williams, CS 14439231443924* 701217 Dow Hoyle, HR Norris, JM 14439251443928* 701217 Dow Norris, JM 14439291443932* 700000 Bourne, JE Dow Silverstein 14439331443934* 761110 Dow Silverstein Recipient ) Page 131 Distributees General Subject Matter Burgert, BE Clegg, DH Dow Edwards, H Frevel, LK Gordon, HL Goring, CA Holder, BB Johnson, JE Kilian, DJ Kimmei, CE Lloyd, BH MacCutcheon, SM McCollister, DD McIntyre, HH Morgan, RW Morse, D Pitchforth, L Schwarz, AJ Williams, CS formulation M-3592 containing the propylene glycol butyl ether of 245T M-3592 (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) Acute toxicological properties of formulation M-3592T M-3592 (Acute oral toxicity) M-3592 (Eye Irritation) Dow Number Date Author 1443935 * 701106 Dow Silverstein, EH 14439361443941* 701210 Dow Silverstein, EH 1511476 * 800506 KSE Wine, LM 15436521548663* 610124 Strand, D HRH LGS 15494971549536* 501214 Delisle, NG Strand, D LGS Prior, CA Teal, JL Brittos, WW Arnold, JB Delong, HC Pott, S Highhill, CA Brown, M 15496411549693* 700410 Axe, FD Hoyle, HR Recipient Braun, WH Dow 11334 Page 132 Distributees General Subject Matter Primary skin irritation patch test (household chemical) (M-3592) M-3592 skin contact absorption Dow Tucker, M Oil formulations 24D process Lynn, GE Deline, DD Schmidtke, DJ Hodson, RE Miller, DE Kramer, CG Holder, BB Morse, DB Rowe, VK Soule, RD Industrial hygiene survey of 245T Dow Number Date Author 1550150 * 710202 Olson, RD Axe, FE Hoyle, HR 15504011550407* 690930 Mutcher, JE 15504241550441* 650716 Dow 1550444 000000 Dow 1550445 580807 Bradford, R 1550446 580805 Bradford, R 1550447 580808 Bradford, R 1550448 580806 Bradford, R Recipient Tree, RM Plepys, RA Bailey, CE Kramer, CG Morse, DB Stehl, RH Seidel, EM Rowe, VK Snyder, RE Axe, FD Page 133 Distributees General Subject Matter Murray, N Deline, DD Tree, RM Bailey, CZ Seidel, EM Snyder, RE Holder, BB Silverstein, LG Summary of environmental con­ ditions in dowicides plant Dowicide plant environmental control task force minutes Dowicides - industrial hygiene job analysis Flowchart of production of Dowicides Flowchart - Dowicide B Flowchart - Dowicide P Flowchart - Scrubber and Trap Phenol Flowchart - Monochlorophenol crude production Dow Number Date Author 1550449 581015 Synder, RE 1550455 651007 Krohn, L 1550456 651007 Krohn, L 1550457 651007 Krohn, L 1550458 651007 Krohn, L 1550459 651006 Krohn, L 1550460 651007 Krohn, L 1550464 * 000000 Dow 1550550 .580807 Bradford, ! 1550551 580807 Bradford, 1 1550552 * 580805 Bradford, 1 1550553 580805 Bradford, 1 Mutchler, . 1550554 * 651006 Krohn, L 15505771550579 580807 Bradford, 15515891 551 591* 580417 Dow Stevenson, GT H* CO CO en '•'Recipient Page 134 Distributees General Subject Matter Flowchart - Monochlorophenol Flowchart - Dowicide 6 Flowchart - Dowicide 6 Flowchart - Orthochlorophenol Flowchart - Diehlorophenol Flowchart - Dowicide 2 Flowchart - Dowicide DPM Schematic diagram of 265 Bldg, processes Flowchart - Dowicide 1 Flowchart - Dowicide 2S Flowchart - Dowicide 6 Flowchart - Dowicide 6 Flowchart - Dowicide 7 Dowicide B process Barrons, KC Blair, EH Boundy, RH Inverton (brush killer) hay spray cattle feeding test Dow Number Date 1556945 * 000000 1558517 * 671027 Fairey, BP 1558517 * 670607 Chang, KY Fernandez, JB 15585181558518A* 790316 Krümel, KL Arnold, RF Howard, AC First, KE Owen, PW Author Recipient Page 135 Distributees General Subject Matter Colby, RW Coulter, LL Dow Green, J Hymas, TA Johnson, JE Kagy, JF Lippie, LJ Lynn, GE Norton, TR Nutting, HS Perkins, RP Rowe, VK Spalding, J Vanvalkenburg, JW Notes on Fort Saskatchewan D process, Hooker TCP and Hercules MCAA Laboratory preparation of 24D Laboratory preparation of 24D Bumb, RR Johnson, SR Pruitt, ME Ward, WH Williams, CS Maddox, JF Owen, PW May, VT McGregor, SD High yield aqueous 24D process a study of the modified Brazil process. ) I I Dow Number Date Author 15585191558520 750101 Mintz, MJ Brust, HF Recipient 11338 Page 136 Distributees General Subject Matter Williams, AJ Tobey, SW Bohnert, TJ Morehouse, DS Buzzelli, DT Haberstroh, WH Woodward, RE Humbert, D Westover, LB Jewett, G Kleidon, D Fothergill, W Valcore, D Mendoza, C Hormel, T Kennedy, TL Aerstin, FG Manfrom, R Schloemann, P Bleiweiss, J Giebelhaus, L Dasilva, AA Blair, EH Hein, ND Karwal, JH Leng, ML Mintz, MJ Moss, RD Pruitt, ME Sheetz, DP Theis, JM Brust, HF Morehouse, DS Thermal decomposition rate of bis (24 dichlorophenyl) acetal of glyoxylic acid (BIS 24D) present in 24D ; Dow Number Date Author 1558521 — 1558522* 810204 Krumel, KL Arnold, RF McGregor, SD Recipient 11339 Page 137 Distributees General Subject Matter Dhingra, YR Messing, SH Aerstin, FG Yeager, LM Bleiweiss, JC Kennedy, TL Haberstroh, WH McCoy, CE Woodward, RE Lafevor, DR Skelly, NE Robbins, LA Little, DW Kern, WG Hoffman, RL Werling, CL Mirsky, MJ Jones, WO Swogger, KW Chase, FI Carlson, RG Osborne, DW Gledhill, JR Sheetz, DP McGregor, SD May, VT Muench, WC Williams, A Tobey, S. Buzzelli, DT Woodward, RE Haberstroh, WH Gorgacz, S The continuous preparation of 24D and 2-methly-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid (MCPA) Dow Number Date Author 1559777 * 671102 Seidel, EM 15597811559786* 000000 T.A.G. 15597871559788* 640625 Seidel, EM 1559789 * . 640625 Seidel, EM 1559790 * 640625 Seidel, EM 15597911559797* 640618 E.M.S. 15597981559799* 650118 E.M.S. 1559800 * 650118 Seidel, EM 15598011559806* 000000 Dow Recipient 11340 Page 138 Distributees General Subject Matter Hormel, T Moser, J Yocum, R Downs, T Veurink, G Westover, W Pierzinski, B Dersnah, BE 245T process Direct Ester reaction information 489 bldg. Diehlorophenol Dowanol Material balance considerations 24D Ester (unit ratios) 245T Ester unit ratios material bai ance Utilities, DE Utility requirements 489 Utility requirements 260 Bldg. Direct Ester General process description Direct Ester process ^*4 CO Dow Number Date Author 15601781560214* 681017 Seidel, EM Gilbert, PW Dunlap, RL 15602151560237* 681017 Seidel, EM Gilbert, PW Dunlap, RL 15602381560241* 681111 Seidel, EM Gilbert, PW Dunlap, RL Recipient Page 139 Distributees General Subject Matter Seidel, EM Gilbert, PW Dunlap, RL Bleiweiss, J Chase, FI Deline, DD Delong, HC Jossi, JA Rogers, JP Schwark, GJ Williams, JL Woodward, RE Fernandez, JB Technical report with information about 24D and 245T processes, costs, capacity and equipment Seidel, EM Gilbert, PW Dunlap. RL Bleiweiss, J Chase, FI Deline, DD Delong, HC Jossi, JA Rogers, JP Schwark, GJ Williams, JL Woodward, RE Fernandez, JB Technical report with information about 24D and 245T processes, costs, capacity, plant design and equipment Seidel, EM Gilbert, PW Dunlap, RL Bleiweiss, J Chase, FI Technical report with information about 24D and 245T processes, capacity, plant design and equipment Dow Number Date Author 15602421560265* 681111 Seidel, EM Gilbert, PW Dunlap, RL 1560266 * 670109 Johnson, RL Widiger, AH 1560539 * 600324 Delong, HC Recipient Page 140 Distributees General Subject Matter Deline, DD Delong, HC Jossi, JA Rogers, JP Schwark, GJ Williams, JL Woodward, RE Fernandez, JB Seidel, EM Gilbert, PW Dunlap, RL Bleiweiss, J Chase, FI Deline, DD Delong, HC Jossi, JA Rogers, JP Schwark, GJ Williams, JL Woodward, RE Fernandez, JB Process information and operating procedures for 24D Esters Johnson, RL Widiger, AH Bender, S Bailey, C Silverstein, L Cobi er, J Haberstroh, WH Sauers, R Summary of laboratory research on temperature control of processes related to 24D and 245T formation Safety precautions Dow Number Date Author 1560540 * 491200 Dow 1560542 * 690722 McKnight, FW 1560548 * 000000 Koslnskl, JE 1560549 * 000000 Kosinski, JE 1560550 * 000000 Koslnksl, JE 1560714 * 510228 15609511561000* 680826 Fernandez,, JB Seidel, M Brown, M Highhill, C 15613071561310* 670329 GMS 1561311 * 670118 Hartenstein 1561312 * 670419 15613431561346* CO CO 670316 " Hartenstein, P Recipient Sculati, JJ Page 141 Distributees General Subject Matter 24D Amine weed killer hazards and precautions Block flow diagram of Amine formulations Unit ratios Amine formulation Cycle times formulating Cycle times packaging Raw material specification L2-0-3 Hoff, RC Bielwelss, J Beauchamp, R Deline, DD Delong, H Dosser, R Schwark, J Snodgrass, B Woodward, D Technology review phenoxy & Tordon formulations 245T process 245T process 245T material balance Deline, DD Kearney, JK Delisle, NG 245T centrifuge installation 03 Dow Number Date Author 15613531561375* 681114 Jossi, JA Seidel, EM Williams, JL 15613761561397* 681114 Seidel, EM Williams, JL Jossi, JA 15616951561698* 690417 Dow 15616991561700* 690413 Wyant, G Brown, M Recipient Charlie ! Page 14 Distributees General Subject Matter Chase, F Jossi, JA Bleîweiss, J Haberstroh, W Williams, L Marshall, S Rodgers, J Schwark, G, Seidel, M Snodgrass, W Woodward, RE Del isle, NG Fernandez, JB Del ine, DD 245T, 245T Esters and for­ mulations of Esters technology revi ew Williams, L Marshall, S Rodgers, J Schwark, G Seidel, M Snodgrass, W Woodward, RE Delisle, NG Fernandez, JB Deline, DD Chase, F Jossi, JA Bleiweiss, J Haberstroh, W Silvex acid, Dowanol Ester of Silvex and Isooctyl Ester of Silvex technology review Veon 245 process Veon formulations CO CN Dow Number Date Author 1561701 * 690709 CAH 1561702 * 690319 Highhill, CA 15617031561705* 690417 Dow 15617061561707* 670700 Dow 15621771562119* 000000 Dow 15623411562397* 680711 Dell se, NG Schmidtke, DJ Deli ne, DD 1562343 * 681024 Deli sie, NG 15623651562383 650000 Harris, JS West, KD Recipient Chase, FI Bleiweiss, JC Pumpelly, CT Deline, DD Rogers, JP Fernandez, JB Schmidtke, DJ Goergen, GG Schwark, GJ Widiger, AH Page 143 Distributees General Subject Matter 245T formulation Australia 24D products Veon 245 process Esteron brush killer O.S., label & production specification Process descriptions Fernandez, JB Bleiweiss, JC Goergen, GC Haberstroh, WH Pumpelly, CT Rogers, JP Schwark, GJ Widiger, AH 245T technology review Corrections for Trlchlorophenol technology review Trlchlorophenol plant Dow Number Date Author Recipient Passmore, L Knopp, DO McClure Owens, B Anderson, RE Cornell, JL 1562386 * 661212 Johnson, RL 15626941562695* 000000 Dow 15626961562697* 000000 Dow 15642331564240 700209 Schmidtke, DJ 15684501568452* 641118 Widiger, AH Holmes, RD Greiss, GA 15685111568513* 640730 Holmes, R Hoyle, HE Page 144 Distributees General Subject Matter Alchollc caustic hydrolysis of Tetrachlorobenzene Block flow H2O from Tordon Tordon 1OK pellets process Fernandez, JB Hanners, H Tree, R Fauver, V DeMott, D Stamend, V McDonald, L Haberstroh, W Elgsti, D Routes to higher purity Trichiorophenol Goergen, GG 199 building production of Sodium 245 Trichlorphenate Manufacture of Tri chiorophenol at 199 building Do,w Number Date Author 1568528 * 000000 Dow 1568532 * 650813 Smith, FB Goodchlld, CD 15685331568534* 650707 Trapp, WB Merz, H 15685351568537* 650128 Trapp, WB Merz, H 1568549 000215 Trapp, WB Doll, 0 1568552 * 650401 Trapp, WB Kooperman, P 15685531568555 650621 Merz, H Deckers Tolkmlth, H Trapp, WB 15685561568557 650312 Trapp, WB Merz, H CO fi*» Recipient Page 145 Distributees General Subject Matter Notes on 245T manufacturing process Coulter, LL Trapp, WB Sinclair, JR Cessna, OC Visger, HC Coon, ET Wolker, E Farnum, JH Ivon Watkins Trichlorophenol know­ how Coon, ET Amos, JL Koopman, R Sinclair, J Coulter, LL Gill, HH Analytical methods to determine TCDD in Phenols CTTL Griess, Ga Dylewski, SW Silverstein, L Summary of phone conversation between Dow employees 245T manufacturing processing contract CTTL Contract concerning Chloracne Gas Chromatography analyses CTTL Grote, M Amos, L Analyses of NA Trichlorophenate Solution and Ani sole Oil CTTL ) wO ÜÜ Dow Number Date Author 1568558 650000 Dow 15685591568560 650000 Dow 15685691568572* 650126 Trapp, WB 15685771568578* 650422 Merz, H Doll, 0 15685791568580* 650422 Merz, H Doll, 0 15685811568582* 650422 Merz, H 15685831568586* 650409 Trapp, WB 15685881568589* 650330 Sinclair, JR Trapp, WB 1568592 650223 Merz, H Gemer Recipient Chamberí ain,LC Mertz, H Trapp WB Page 146 Distributees General Subject Matter Silverstein, L Sinclair, JR GLC analysis of your 245-Trichlorophenate Solution Analysis of caustic insoluble oil and 245 Trichlorophenol for com­ position by gas liquid chroma­ tography Coulter, KE Haberstroh, WH Goergen, GG Sauers, RC Trichlorophenol research 245T Contract 245T Contract 245T Contract Amos, L Grote Toxicological studies, Gas Chromatography and infrared ana­ lyses CTTL Amos, L Coon, ET Koopman, P 245T Contract Chioroanisole Oil samples CTTL Dow Number Date Author Recipient 1568593 650205 Trapp, WB Merz, H 15685941568595 650113 Trapp, WB Farnum, JH Kudszus, CH 15686021568603 650113 Trapp, WB Farnum, JH Kudszus 15686041568605 641215 Kudszus Merz Trapp, WB Dow 15686061568608 641215 Kudszus Merz Dow 1568609 641217 Merz Jaenlcke Boehrlnger Sohn Silverstein 15686101568613 551005 “11349 1568614568615* 650123 Weyland Trapp WB Coulter, KE Page 147 Distributees General Subject Matter Griess, GA Chloroanisole Oil samples CTTL Griess, Ga Silverstein, L Goergen, GG Lueck, AF Poffenberger, N Sauers, RC Request for Process information Griess, GA Lueck, GA Silverstein, L Goergen, GG Poffenberger, N Sauers, RC Request for additional infor­ mation on 245T production Report on isolation of chloracnegen sent to Dow Report on isolation of chloracnegen sent to Dow Enclosure letter for rabbit tests conducted in connection with 1955 plant disinfection Johne Knecht Nick Horner Rabbit tests conducted in connec­ tion with 1955 plant disinfection Sauers, RC Haberstroh, WH C.H. Boehringer Sohn Contract H* CO m o Dow Number Date Author 15686221568626* 650105 Poffenberger, N 15686271568630 641208 Sauers, RC 15686391568646* 610104 Poffenberger, N 15686471568664* 641127 Sorge AWB 15686661568667 641208 Sorge 15636661568667 641208 Sorge 15686871568690* 650105 Poffenberger, N Recipient Sauers Page 148 Distributees General Subject Matter Poffenberger, N Sauers, R Trapp, W Lueck, A Widiger, A Bradley, K Goergen, G Holmes, R Delis!e, N 245-Trichlorophenol notes, pro­ cess information and flowsheet Chronological survey of the first production period of 245T produc­ tion 245-Trichlorophenol flow sheet Description and prints for pro­ duction methods for obtaining 245-Trichlorophenolate solution in Boehringer process Chronological survey of the first production period of 245T pro­ duction Chronological survey of the first production period of 245T production Poffenberger, N Sauers, R Trapp, W 245-Trichlorophenol notes, process information and flowsheet Recipient Dow Number Date Author 15686911568735 650107 Sorge 15687361568778 560912 Sorge 15687791568780 641208 Merz 15687811568795 641127 Sorge 15687961568797* 650319 Branch, CB CH Boehringer Sohn 15688001568801 6503305 Trapp, WB Farnum, JH CH Boehringer Sohn 15688021568803* 650000 CH Boehringer Sohn Dow 11351 Page 149 Distributees General Subject Matter Lueck, A Widiger, A Bradley, K Goergen, G Holmes, R Delisle, N Attempts to determine the chloracne inciter in the pro­ duction of 245T Experiments to determine the chloracnegens in 245T production 245T production chronology Trichlorophenol process Agreement concerning the disclo­ sure of information regarding the prevention of Chloracne arising out of the production of Sodium 245-Tri chiorophenate Revision of agreement regarding disclosure of Information con­ cerning 245-Trichiorophenate pro­ cess Agreement concerning the disclo­ sure of information regarding the prevention of Chloracne arising CO to Dow Number Date Author Recipient 15688041568805 650305 Trapp, WB Farnum, JH CH Boehringer Sohn 15688061568807* 650000 CH Boehringer Sohn Dow 15688141568815 570222 Smith, FB CH Boehringer Sohn 1568816 570211 CH Boehringer Sohn Dow 15688171568818* 570000 Weyland 15690061569019* 650107 Poffenberger, N Page 150 Distributees General Subject Matter out of the production of Sodium 245-Trichlorophenate Amos, L Doedens, J Haberstroh, W Revision of agreement regarding disclosure of information con­ cerning 245-Trichlorophenate pro­ cess Agreement concerning the disclo­ sure of Information regarding the prevention of chloracne arising out of the production of 245-Tri chiorophenate Griswold, AM Vanderweele, JC Hoyle Mel ching, WA Knapp K1 ei ne Myers, JR Krahne, 0 Preparation of Trlchlorophenol to avoid Chloracne Chloracne, preparation of Trlchlorophenol Preparation of 245T avoiding the formation of Chloracnegens Sauers, R Trapp, WB Poffenberger, N Widiger, A Lueck, A 245-Trlchlorophenol, outline of requirements of applying Boehrlnger data to Midland operations Dow Number Date Author Recipient 15691 OS15691 12* 550209 Dow Anderson Lueck Goergen West Trapp Morello Wolf Wi di ger Poffenberger 1569137 * 650127 AHW 1569138 * 641128 AHW 15691391569140 650127 RAJ 15691411569142 650310 AHW 15691431569153 650211 Bradley, KB 15691541569167* 650107 Poffenberger, N h-* CO or CO Page 151 Distributees General Subject Matter Holmes, R Bradley, K Goergen, GG Haberstroh, WH German TCP process, safety techniques 245 Trichlorophenol reaction graph time vs temp Graph Chloracne exciter vs temp 245 Trichlorophenol reaction graph conversion vs time at 155**c Caustic hydrolysis of 1245 Tetrachlorobenzene graphs conversion vs time at 155%c & 165^c Data & graphs on hydrolysis of 1245-Tetrachlorobenzerie Sauers, RC Trapp, WB Poffenberger, N 245-Trichlorophenol; outline of batch reaction Dow Number Date Author 15691681569176* 650203 Poffenberger, N 15691771569192* 650212 Poffenberger, N Recipient 11354 Page 152 Distributees General Subject Matter Widiger, A Lueck, A Holmes, R Delisle, N Bradley, K Goergen, GG Bradley, K Graves, H Dylewski, S Delisle, N Haberstroh, WH Sauers, R Trapp, W Poffenberger, N Widiger, A Coulter, K Goergen, G Lueck, A Staehling, E 245-Trichlorophenol preliminary process design Bradley, K Graves, H Dylewski, S Delisle, N Haberstroh, WH Sauers, R Trapp, W Poffenberger, N Widiger, A Coulter, K Goergen, G Lueck, A Staehling, E 245-Trichlorophenol preliminary process design appendix ; Page 15 Dow Number Date Author 15691951569197* 650311 Graves, HH 15692091569210* 650518 Trapp, WB Goergen, GG 15692211569223* 650302 Cornell, JL Coulter, KE Delisle, NG Dylewski, SW Goergen, GG Hutchenreuther, CO Haberstroh, WH Lueck, AF Poffenberger, N Sauers, RC Trapp, WB Wappenhensch, 0 West, KD Wehn, WE Widiger, AH Graves, HE Wolf, RR Anderson, RE Morello, VS Beyer, DG Harris, JS Cornell, JL 15692321569233* 650304 Harris, JS Recipient Distributees General Subject Matter Pilot plant preparation of Sodium Trlchlorophenate solution Anderson, RE Delisle, NG Lueck, AF Wehn, WE Hillman, RE Coulter, KE Graves, HE Wolf, RR TCP Process Project Conference Trlchlorophenol plant Notes from 6th Trlchlorophenol process review 355 Dow Number Date Author 15692391569243* 650315 Anderson, RE Del isle, NJ 15692471569250* 650318 Harris, JS 15692511569254* 650317 Anderson, RE Recipient 11356 Page 7 54 Distributees General Subject Matter Haberstroh, WH Dylewski, SW Trapp, W Widiger, A Morello, V Cornell, J Goergen, G Coulter, KE Graves, HE Wolf, RR Goergen, GG Lueck, A Dylewski, SW Trapp, W Sauers, R Poffenberger, N Hutchenreuther, CO Wappenhensch, CA Morrello, VS Wehn, WE Trichlorophenol plant scope of project Coulter, KE Graves, HE Wolf, RR Haberstroh, WH Dylewski, SW Trapp, W Widiger, A Morello, V Lyon, G Goergen, G Notes from 9th Trichlorophenol process review Trichlorophenol reactor cycle Date 15701561570165* 000000 1570376 * 000000 Dow 1570380 * 000000 Dow 15723161572322* 690310 Jankowski, SJ 15724291572440* . 641110 EMS 15727301572734* 710202 Theis, JM 1572735 700914 Knutson, AT Chase, FI Schmidtke, DJ Dorton, RO 1572736 700924 Knutson, AT Chase, FI Martin, RA Loucks, MF 1572737 700406 Knytson, AT Dorton, RO Yeager, LM 11357 Dow Number Author Recipient Page 15 Distributees General Subject Matter Tordon process information Oil formulations Phenoxy herbicide formulations Woodward, RE Marshall, SP Chase, FI Gilbert, PW Snodgrass, WA Kenslcki, RF Haberstroh, Jankowski, SJ Preliminary Investigation of direct ester expansion capabilities Direct ester 24D, alternate facility Dow raw material specification 2,4-Dichlorophenol Dow raw material specification Sodium Monochloroacetate solution Caustic soda solution raw material specification 05 CJX 00 Dow Number Date Author 1572738 700721 Knutson, AT Kennedy, TL Chase, FI Schmldtke, DJ Martin, RA Landis, CA 1572739 660923 Hawley, HM Delong, HC Highhill, CA White, LC Hawley, HM 1573474* 700915 Haberstroh, WH 15734751 573482* 700910 Haberstroh, WH Seidel, EM 15790031579009* 701231 Thels, JM SI edel , M 15805421580566* 680514 JFL Kern, WG Fernandez Gorgasz Dal man 15805671580585* 680822 Dow Recipient Savaso, JC Page 156 Distributees General Subject Matter Internal Dow raw material speci­ fication for Hydrochloric acid Dow raw material specification 24D Bleiweiss, JC Deline, DD Henry, HE Hensley, EF Schmidt, BV Tefft, TH 24D Capital Estimates Revision of 24D Capital Estimates Alkaline hydrolysis of 245T and si1vex Technology review of industrial chloracetic acid Dowanol, Butyl & Isooctyl Chioroacetate technology review Dow Number Date Author 15813611581376* 660000 Dow 15813821581397* 660000 Dow 15819831582013* 620700 Gilzorrilla FGZ CAH McCauley, V Mathew, BA 15826541582657* 15836671583675* 15836901583691* 03 UJ CO 000000 Millhisler, 721125 Vanhorn, R Bethke . 1630441* 500600 1630444* 510228 1630446* 501000 16304471630473* 501000 1630466 500810 Dupont Ott, RC Recipient Page 157 Distributees General Subject Matter Chlorophenol Prod. 670000 Chlorophenol Research Preliminary engineering study for Dow Qulmica Argentina, SA Tordon 105 Manufacture Tordon 225E M3990 or Tordon 225E reactive chemical hazard data 24D Amine Weed Killer (Raw materials description and specifications) Raw material specification 24D Amine Weed Killer (Raw materials handling & storage conditions) 24D Amine Weed Killer (operating directions) Effect of DMA Concentration on PH of 24D Amine Weed Killer Author Dow Number Date 16304741630478* 491200 16304791630483* 500201 Jirouch, EA 1630485* 500510 Dupont 16304891630490* 491200 16304911630494* 491200 16318881631889* 640624 Seidel, EM 16319011631913* 000000 Seidel, EM 16426901642691* 000000 JRU 16450901645098* 550826 Bennett, CM Widiger, A Dugan, G co O* o Recipient Page 158 Distributees General Subject Matter 24D Amine Weed Killer (Operational hazards) Tentative Operating Instructions, Dimethyl amine 24D Amine Weed Killer Specifications & average analysis 24D Amine Weed Killer (Labor Required for Operation). 24D Amine Weed Killer (Production and Yield Accounting Methods and Information) Direct Ester Authorization Handwritten notes concerning various steps of 245T process Trichlorophenol Manufacturing Griswold, A Williams, WH Britton, EC Alquist, FN Colby, A Vanarsdale, J Reese, R Brainerd, A Phenol, 245 Tricholor C O dh Dow Number Date Author 16500791650081* 630429 Barrons, KC Coulter, LL Johnson, JE Lynn, GE Wolf, MA Hunt, M Loucks, MF Vanvalkenburg, W Fayerweather, BL McIntyre, HH Branaman, J Lang, HC Falkenstein, WJ Davis, HW Allen, WW 16501391650141* 670522 Barrons, KC Byrd, BC Wolf, MA Gowell Loucks, MF Falsey, MP Buerge, TE McIntyre, HH Hammer, OH Gill, WM Highhill, CA Woodward, RE Davis, H Corbin, WF Recipient Distributees General Subject Matter Poffenberger, N Widiger, A Dugan, G Verton CE with oil (Release to Sales) Tordon 155 Mixture (Release to Sales 9) Dow Number Date Author Recipient Nummy, WR DEP CJK JLS 16501461650148* 671009 Dow 1650262 1650264* 630517 Barrons, KC Coulter, LL Johnson, JE Lynn, GE Ritty, PM Wolf, MA Loucks, MF Vanvalkenberg.W Branaman, J Lang, HC Falkenstein, WJ Allen Saunders, ES 16504661650468* 621012 Amstutz, FC Barrons, KC Johnson, JE Lynn, GE Southwick, L Wolf, MA Vanvalkenberg.W McIntyre,HH Branaman,J '■‘ O CO CJ Woodward, RE Page 160 Distributees General Subject Matter Dosser, RC Hoff, RC Matuska, R Colby, A Stone, F Sales Release Tordon 155 Verton T (Release to Sales 16) Esteron 245 Concentrate (Proposed Release to Sales 21) Dow Number Date Author Lang, HC Allen, WW JLS KEE ES PMR Saunders, E 17108381710856* 740221 Roush, GJ Hoyle, HR 17108571710885* 700410 Axe, FD Hoyle, HR 1711008 * 000000 Dow 17183181718319* 000000 Dow Recipient Page 161 Distributees General Subject Matter Winters, RE Degeer, JL Williams, FL Langner, RR Kelyman, M Holder, BB Blair, EH Wipe test for Tertiary Butyl Catechol and TCDD in 267 bldg, prior to demolition Deline, DD Hodson, RE Miller, DE Kramer, CG Morse, DB Soule, RD Holder, BB Lynn, GE Rowe, VK Schmidtke, DJ Industrial hygiene survey of 245T production 267 production Notes on direct Ester production of 24D and 245T IWD 24D & MCPA & 245T esters ) M Dow Number Date Author 17183331718335* 000000 Dow 17195661719572* 000000 Dow 17240981724104* 690310 Jankowski, SJ 17263311726333* 000000 17279671727968* 580630 Dow McColHster, DD Wolf, MA 17280491728050* 590702 Dow Olson, KJ Oyen, F 17280531728054* 630108 Dow Olson, KJ Oyen, F 17280571728058* 621214 Dow Olson, KJ Oyen, F CO C5 Recipient Page 162 Distributees General Subject Matter Process time cycles NATCP Solution IWD Jankowski, SJ Woodward, RE Chase, FI Gilbert, PW Snodgrass, WA Marshall, SP Kensickl, RF Haberstroh, WH 24D and 245T Esters preliminary Investigation of Direct Ester ex­ pansion capabilities (ACPD 69-10) Consequences of Overexposure For Tordon; 597 Building Dow Hoyle, HR Dow 245T amine weed killer (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) Dow Hoyle, HR M-1459 formulation of K-7797 and K-7856 (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) Dow Hoyle, HR M-2422 (Data sheet-of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) Dow Hoyle, HR M-2468 (Data sheet of properties, health hazards and precautions for safe handling of materials) I( 3& -4 A'"■■4 A Q) ! i Date Author Recipient Distributees Holiday, A1 Jacob, E Johnson, JE Kearney, JK Kenaga, EE Kennedy, TL Kline, CW Larnan, JD Leathers, JM Leavitt, FC Lichy, C Rector, MR Look, AT Maasberg, AT Matheson, LA McClure, HH Rodgers, W Mcllheny, WF McKennon, KR Nielson, WH Otis, CE Pankratz, PM Pavlick, JE Peterson, NR Pfrommer, CP Prince, AK Pumpelly, CT Putnam, MS Reinker, RE Sanders, ME Schaffer, AW Schultz, WD Sercu, CL Shannon, ES General Subject Matter Dow Number Date Author 20244412024454* 701200 Dow 20244552024479* 701200 Dow 20244802024518* 701200 Dow Recipient Page 201 Distributees General Subject Matter Teal, J . Sheetz, DP Shelton, LG Sienknecht, PJ Smart, RC Schuessler, RG Snyder, RE Staehling, EC Tree, RM VanDusen, G Van Westenburg, JA Wilcox, AC Woodward, RE Wukasch, RF CRI Research and Development Monthly Summary December 1970 Organic Chemicals Production Research Monthly Summary December 1970 Alexander, HC Baker, RL Bek, CM Brosier, JS Bosscher, H Colbry, RJ Daniels, SL Davis, RD Fox, RD Gaska, RA Waste Control Progress Report October - November - December 1970 Dow Number Date Author 20245192024553* 701200 Dow *£ü. Recipient Page 202 Distributees General Subject Matter Hall, SD Hamilton, CE Hintz, MJ Ilgenfritz, EM Kaut, DE Krienke, ME Lynch, JE Novak, RG Pfrommer, C Putnam, MS Reinker, RE Sawinski, RJ Shannon, ES Shively, JF Stielstra, C Teal, JL Terryah, GG Wass, WE Weburg, AW Wilson, JD Zillich, JA Ludwig, RC Johnson, JE Nummy, WR Barrons, KC Hymas, TA Kagy, JF Goring, CAI Heitz, RG Bail es, RH Johnston, H Johnston, RV . Gowell, JH Argicultural Department Quarterly Progress Report October November - December 1970 Dow Number Date Author 20245542024601* 701000 Dow ' s ’»4 s'\ Oy Recipient Page 203 Distributees General Subject Matter Popoff, FP Dowell, FH Holmsen, TW Reifschneider, W Getzendaner, ME Lynn, GE Bjork, CK Blair, EH Schwarz, AJ Ludwig, PD Moss, RD McCollister, DD Osborne, DW Seymour, KG Winquist, ME Gum, W Busk, RS Cheney, GW Flynn, JM Kelly, ME McCoy, CE Mclntire, OR Prince, AK Struthers, JA Peterson, LI Johnston, C Dishburger, JH Gehring, P Pruitt, ME Arcangel i, M Bosscher, H Briggs, RL Brower, FM Process Engineering Progress Report - September - October 1970 ) Dow Number W. ‘" v y rC) «!3 Date Author Recipient Distributees Cermak, RW Chisholm, DS Copeland, RA Costa, JE Deline, DD Engibous, DL Gaska, RA Graves, HE Griffin, JD Jacobs, CE Kehde, H Kennett, WW Larsen, PE Leathers, JM Leavitt, FM Look, AT Sheetz, DP Ioranger, HR Maasberg, AT Maier, RW Miller, RE Murdoch, PG Otto, KA Pumpelly, CT Rousch, WE Schorr, JF Scovic, JM Petrunia, G Sheffield, PH Stagg, DM Szymanski, L Treibilock, J Wilcox, AC Biggers, MW General Subject Matter Dow Number Date Author 20246022024613* 700800 Dow 20246242024641* 700600 Dow 20246422024651* 700700 Dow O Reelplent Page 205 Di stributees General Subject Matter Dehaven, ES Herron, RE Research and Development Monthly Summary August 1970 Organic Chemicals Production Research - Monthly Summary June 1970 Arcángel i, M Bosscher, H Brubaker, RI Bugg, DA Chase, FI Clark, GA Coulter, KE Daigre, GW. Deline, DD Engibous, DL Ettinger, MB Fletcher, WH Griffin, JD Gunkler, AA Hammond, DD Hillary, BB Holder, BB Jacob, E Johnson, JE Kearney, JK Kennedy, TL Kline, C Kline, PE Leathers, JM Monthly Summary July 1970 ) I Dow Number Date Author 20246522024680* 700300 Dow h~A •V-* o Qd Recipient Page 206 Distributees General Subject Matter Leavitt, FC Look, AT Maasberg, AT Mcllhemy, WF McKennon, KR Nielsen, WH Otis, CE Peterson, NR Pfrommer, CP Prince, AK Pumpelly, CT Putnam, MS Rector, MR Reinker, RE Sanders, ME Sercu, CL Shannon, ES Sheetz, DP Shelton, LG Sienknecht, PJ Smart, RC, Jr. Syyder, RE Staehling, EC Struthers, JA Teal, JL Tree, RM. Jr. Wilcox, AC Woodward, RE Wuckasch, RF CRI(5) Alexander, HC Baker, RL Bek, CM Waste Control Progress Report January - February - March 1970 Dow Number 1140 C D Date Author Recipient Distributees Brosien, JS Colbry, FJ Daniels, SL Davis, RD Fox, RD Hall, JR Hall, SD Hamilton, CE Hintz, MJ Filgenfritz, EM Kraut, DE Krienke, ME Lynch, JE Novak, RG P frommer, C Putnam, MS Reinker, RE Sawinski, RJ Shannon, ES Shively, JF Teal, JL Terryah, GG Wass, WE Weburg, AW Wilson, JD Zillich, JA Bubiitz, DW Bauer, DL Bremner, F Batcheider, TL McClure, HH Mclver, JH Smith, DH Strahan, JM General Subject Matter I Dow Number Date Author 20246812024692* 700700 Dow 20246932024730* 700600 Dow h-* o Recipient Page 208 Distributees General .Subject Matter Skory, LK Halphen, CE Research and Development Monthly Summary - July 1970 Alexander, HC Baker, RL Bek, CM Brosier, JS Colbry, RJ Daniels, SL Davis, RD Fox, RD Gaska, RA Hall, JR Hall, SD Hamilton, CE Hintz, MJ Ilgenfritz, EM Kraut, DE Krienke, E Lynch, JE Novak, RG Pfrommer, C Putnam, MS Reinker, RE Sawinski, RJ Shannon, ES Shively, JF Stielstra, C Teal, JL Terryah, GG Waste Control Progress Report April, May, June 1970 I Dow Number t*4 >T* to Date Author Recipient Distributees Hillary, BB Holder, BB Jacob, E Johnson, JE Kearney, JK Kennedy, TL Kline, C Kline, PE Laman, JD Leathers, JM Leavitt, FC Lichey, C Look, AT Maasberg, AT Mcllheny, WF McKennon, KR Nielsen, WH Otis, CE Peterson, NR Pfrommer, CP Prince, AK Pumpelly, CT Putnam, MS Rector, MR Reinker, RE Sanders, ME Sercu, CL Shannon, ES Sheetz, DP Shelton, LG Sienknecht, PJ Smart, RC, Jr. Snyder, RE Staehling, EC General Subject Matter Dow Number Date Author 20247572024775* 700800 Dow 20247762024787* 700800 Dow 20247882024799* 700900 Dow Recipient Page 211 Distributees General Subject Matter Struthers, JA Teal, JL Tree, RM. Jr. Wilcox, AC Woodward, RE Wuckasch, RF CRI(5) Organic Chemicals Production Research - Monthly Summary August 1970 Research and Development Monthly Summary August 1970 Arcángel i, M Bosscher, H Brubaker, RI Bugg, DA Chase, FI Clark, GA Coulter, KE Daigre, GW. Deline, DD Engibous, DL Ettinger, MB Fletcher, WH Griffin, JD Gunkler, AA Hammond, DD Hillary, BB Hinman, CW Jacob, E Johnson, JE Environmental Research Monthly Summary - September 1970 ) Dow Number A I Date Author Recipient j Page 212 Distributees Kearney, JK Kennedy, TL Kline, C Kline, PE Laman, JD Leathers, JM Lichy, C Look, AT Maasberg, AT Matheson, LA Mcllheny, WF McKennon, KR Nielsen, WH Otis, CE Peterson, NR Pfrommer, CP Prince, AK Pumpelly, CT Putnam, MS Rector, MR Reinker, RE Sanders, ME Sercu, CL Shannon, ES Sheetz, DP Shelton, LG Sienknecht, PJ Smart, RC, Jr. Snyder, RE Staehling, EC Struthers, JA Teal, JL Tree, RM. Jr. Wilcox, AC General Subject Matter ) I Dow Number Date Author 20248002024811* 700900 Dow 20248122024831* 700900 Dow 20248322024855* 701000 Dow 20248562024868* 701000 Dow cn I Recipient ) Page 213 Distributees General Subject Matter Woodward, RE Wuckasch, RF CRI(5) Research and Development Monthly Summary - September 1970 Organic Chemicals Production Research Monthly Summary September 1970 Organic Chemicals Production Research Monthly Summary October 1970 Research and Development Monthly Summary - October 1970 STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS: COUNTY OF NASSAU ) CAROLE BARNES, b eing duly sworn, deposes and says: That deponent is n ot a party to this action, is over 18 years of age and resides in W e s t Hempstead, N e w York. That on the 16th d ay of November, 1983, de p o n e n t served the w ithin Notice of Confiden t i a li t y and Updated Index of C o n f i dential Documents of Defendant The D ow Chemical Company upon the attorneys below set forth representing the parties, as indicated, at the addresses shown, said addresses being d esignated by said attorneys for that purpose, by depositing a true copy of same, enclosed in a postpaid pro p e r l y addressed w r a p p e r in an official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the U n i t e d States Post Office Department w i t h i n the State of N e w York. TO: SEE A T T A C H E D SERVICE LIST CAROLE BARGE'S Sworn to before m e this day of November 16, 1983. __ MTHRYHÜUWS» IWMYh»UC^j(NwVMt . Qm RM hi Nm m CMity au (Wiftaibylwi MwhSTltffi N O T A R Y /PUBLIC R i v k i n , L e f f , S h e r m a n & R a d l e i * TO; k. M orton B. Silberman, Esq. C la r k , G a g lia r d i & M ille r T h e^ In n s o f C ou rt 99 C ou rt S t r e e t W h ite P l a i n s , N ew Y o rk 10601 W e n d e ll B . A lc o r n , J r . , E sq . C a d w a la d e r , W ic k e r sh a m & T a f t One W a ll S t r e e t N ew Y o r k , N ew Y o r k 10005 John S a b e tta , E sq. T o w n le y & U p d ik e 405 L e x in g to n A venue N ew Y o r k , N ew Y o r k 10174 H ow ard L e s t e r , E s q . L e s t e r , S ch w ab , K a tz & D w yer 1 2 0 Broadw ay N ew Y o r k , N ew Y o r k 10271 S tep h en J . S c h le g e l, E sq . S c h le g e l & T r a f e le t, L td . O ne N o r t h L a S a l l e S t r e e t S u ite 3900 C h ic a g o , I l l i n o i s 60602 B en to n I -Iu sse lw h ite , E sq . Law O f f i c e s o f B e n t o n M u s s e l w h i t e , S u ite 517 6 0 9 F a n n in H o u sto n , T exas 77002 W illia m K r o h le y , E sq . K e l le y , D rye & W arren 101 Park A venue N ew Y o r k , New Y o r k 10178 Thom as H e n d e r so n , E sq . B a sk in & S e a r s F r ic k B u ild in g - 1 0 th F lo o r P it t s b u r g , P e n n sy lv a n ia 15219 David R. Gross, Esq. Budd, L a rn er, K en t, G r o ss, & R osenbaum 33 W a sh in g to n A ven u e N e w a r d , New J e r s e y 07102 P ic illo V ic to r J . Y annacone, J r ., E sq. Y annacone & Y annacone P .O . B ox 1 0 9 P a t c h o g u e , ‘N ew Y o r k 11772 Thom as A . B e c k , E sq . A r th u r , D ry & K a lis h , P .C . 1 2 3 0 A ven u e o f t h e A m e r ic a s N ew Y o r k , N ew Y o r k 10020 D a v id D e a n , E sq . D ean and F a la n g a O ne O ld C o u n t r y R o a d C a r l e P l a c e , N ew Y o r k A r v in M a sk in , E s q . D ep artm en t o f J u s t ic e S a few a y B u ild in g Room 9 0 4 D W a s h in g to n , D .C . 20530 S o l S c h r e ib e r , E sq . S p e c ia l M a ster M ilb e r g , W e iss, B e r sh ad & S p e c t h r ie One P e n n s y l v a n i a P l a z a Room 4 9 1 5 , 4 9 t h F l o o r N ew Y o r k , N ew Y o r k 10019 Ju d y S p a n ie r , E sq . S h e a & G o u ld 3 3 0 M a d iso n A v en u e 1 5 th F lo o r N ew Y o r k , N ew Y o r k 10017 Paul E sp o sito , E sq. - L e w i s , O v e r b e c k & Furm an 135 S o u th L a S a lle S t r e e t S u ite 1060 C h ic a g o , I l l i n o i s 60603 11514 C le r k o f th e P a n e l J u d ic ia l P a n el on M u lt id is t r ic t L itig a tio n 1 1 2 0 V e r m o n t A v e n u e , N .W . S u ite 1002 W a s h in g to n , D .C . 20005 In ^ }L F n Le' U NITED S TATES D I S T R I C T C OURT E A S T E R N D I S T R I C T OF N E W YO R K ------------------------------------- X In Re fihrr J "AGENT ORANGE" P.M Ml (i Product Liability Litigation ------------------------------------- X P L A I N T I F F S ’ M E M O R A N D U M ON THE A P P L I C A B I L I T Y OF THE L E G A L T H EORIES OF F A I LUR E TO WARN, C O N C E R T E D ACTION, ENTERPRISE LIABILITY AND ALTERNATIVE LIABILITY December 1, 19S3 PLAINTIFFS' MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Mr. S t e p h e n J. Schlegel S c h l e g e l & Trafelet, Ltd. One N o r t h L a S a l l e Street S u i t e 3900 Chicago, I l linois 60602 Mr. Bent o n M u s s l e w h i t e S u i t e 517 - 609 Fann i n Houston, T e x a s 77002 Mr. Thom a s Henderson B a s k i n & Sears F r i c k B u i l d i n g - 10th Floor Pitt s b u r g h , Pennsylvania 15219 1141 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction i F A C T U A L BACKGROUND 1 I- DEFENDANTS W E R E K N O W L E D G E A B LE A B O U T THE M A N U F A C T U R I N G PROCESS, DIOXIN AS A C O N ­ TAMINANT, D E T E C T I O N METHODS, RISK R E D UCTION M E THODS A N D H E A L T H HAZARDS A S S O C I A T E D WITH EXPOSURE TO D I O X I N A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. 2 Prior to Becom i n g a "Government Contractor" Dow had invented, Patented, and Sold C o m m e r c i a l Herbic i d e s C o n t a i n i n g a 50/50 Mixture of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T 2 Dow was K n o w l e d g e a b l e A bout the M a n u f a c t u r i n g Process of 2,4,5-T and Its Toxic Impurities 4 D efendants were K n o w l e d g e a b le A b o u t D e t e c t i o n and M a n u f a c t u r i n g Risk Re d u c t i o n Techn i q u e s 25 D e f e n d a n t Monsa n t o ' s Knowledge About M a n u f a c t u r i ng Process, Dioxin As C o n t a m i n a n t D e t e c t i o n Methods, Risk R e d u c t i o n Methods, and H ealth Hazards Assoc i a t e d wi t h Exposure to Dioxin 29 D e f e n d a n t Diamond Shamrock C o r p o r a t i o n 's Knowledge A b o u t M a n u f a c t u r i n g Process D ioxin A s Contaminant, D e t e c t i o n Methods, Risk R e d u c t i o n Methods and H e a l t h Hazards A s s o c i a t e d With Exp o s u r e to Diox i n 33 T.H. A g r i c u l t u r e and N u t r i t i o n 'C o m p a n y , Inc. Knew A b o u t D i o x i n as a C o n t a m i n a n t in 2,4,5-T and Knew A b o u t C o n c o m i t a n t H e a l t h Hazards and Failed to W a r n the M i l i t a r y 40 The M i l i t a r y Was U n i n f o r m e d of T.H.'s M a n u f a c t u r i n g Process and Its C a p a b i l i t y for Risk R e d u ct i o n 50 T.H. K n e w Failed to of Means For D e t e cting Dioxin An d Disclose Those M e t h o d s to the M i l i t a r y 53 11419 I. T . H . ' s Parti c i p a t i o n in the C o n s p i r a c y J. T h o m p s o n C h e m i c a l Was K n o w l e d g e a b l e A b o u t The M a n u f a c t u r i n g Process, Dioxin as a Contam i n a n t , D e t e c t i o n Methods, Risk Reduction Methods, and H e alth Hazards A s s o c i a t e d with E x p o s u r e to D i o x i n 56 K. T.C. K n e w that a Highly Toxic Impurity Was in its TCP and 2,4,5-T 56 H e r c u l e s I n c o r p o r a t e d W as K n o w l e d g e a b l e A b o u t The M a n u f a c t u r i n g Process, Dioxin As a Contaminant, D e t e c t i o n Methods, Risk R e d u c t i o n M e t h o d s and H e alth Hazards A s s o c i a t e d w i t h Exp o s u r e to D i oxin 59a L. II. D E F E N D A N T S ’ M I S R E P R E S E N T A T I O N S OF THE SAFETY OF THEIR H E R B I C I D E S TO O T H E R G O V E R N M E N T A G E N C I E S III. THE D E F E N D A N T S SUPPLIED D I OXIN C O N T A M I N A T E D H E R B I C I D E S W HICH W E R E M I X E D T O G E T H E R B E FORE BEING S P R A Y E D IN V I E T N A M M A K I N G IMPOSS I B L E I D E N T I F I C A T I O N OF W H I C H D E F E N D A N T ’S HE R B I C I D E C AUSED INJURIES TO P L A I N T I F F S IV V. D E F E N D A N T S ’ JOINT A C T I O N TO P R E V E N T G O V E R N M E N T P R O D U C T I O N OF 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D 55 60 73 75 THE M I L I T A R Y WAS NOT AS K N O W L E D G E A 3 L E AS THE D E F E N D A N T S A B O U T THE M A N U F A C T U R I N G PROCESS, D I O X I N AS A CONTAMINANT, D E T E C T I O N METHODS, RISK R E D U C T I O N M E T H O D S AND HEALTH HAZARDS A S S O C I A T E D WI T H E X P O S U R E TO D I OXIN 77 VI. U N D E R THE P R E C E D I N G F ACTS AND C I R C U M S T A N C E S , EACH D E F E N D A N T ' S BREACH OF ITS S E PARATE DUTY TO WARN M A Y BE C O N S I D E R E D T H E ■"CAUSE IN FACT" OF P L A I N ­ TIFFS' INJURIES, AND THE P R O B L E M OF S E P A R A T E D E F E N D A N T I D E N T I F I C A T I O N T H E R E F O R E DOES N O T EXIST; BUT IN ANY EVENT, TH E D E F E N D A N T S M AY BE HELD J O I N T L Y AND S E V E R A L L Y L I A B L E U N D E R THE T H E ORIES OF C O N C E R T E D ACTION, E N T E R P R I S E LIABILITY AND ALTERNATIVE LIABILITY A. The Facts and C i r c u m s t a n c e s W a r r a n t A p p l i c a t i o n of the C o n c e r t e d A c t i o n Theory as a Basis for D e f e n d a n t s ’ Joint and Several L i a b i l i t y 82 114 20 96 B. C. The Facts and C i r c u m s t a n c e s of this Case al s o W a r r a n t the I m p o s i t i o n of L i a b i l i t y Up o n the Defend a n t s Unde r the T h e o r y of E nterprise Liability 103 The Facts and C i r c u m s t a n c e s of this Case A l s o w a r r a n t the I m p o s i t i o n L i a b ility Upon The Defendants u n d e r the T h e o r y of Alternate Liability 109 CONCLUSION 113 11421 U N I T E D STATES D I S TRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF N E W YO R K -----------------------------------------x In Re "Agent Orange" M D L No. 381 (All Cases) Products L i a b ility L i t i g a t i o n X P L A I N T I F F S ’ M E M O R A N D U M ON THE A P P L I C A B I L I T Y OF THE L EGAL T H E O R I E S OF FAILURE TO WARN, CONCERTED ACTION, E N T E R P R I S E L I A B I L I T Y AND A L T E R N A T I V E LI A B I L I T Y INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs' M e m o r a n d u m a d d r e s s e s the issue of w h e t h e r the legal theories of c o n c e r t e d action, e n t e r p r i s e liability, or a lternative liability m a y be a p p l i e d here in the abse n c e of e v i dence enabling plain t i f f s to id e n t i f y w h i c h defendants' tortious c o n d u c t caused the i njuries c o m p l a i n e d of. However, plain t i f f s do not solely rely on the a f o r e m e n t i o n e d theories. It is plaintiffs' p o s i t i o n that: (1) ea c h d e f e n d a n t b r e a c h e d its duty to w a r n the g o v e r n m e n t of the d i o x i n haza r d s to health known or w h i c h should have known by it to be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h its o w n d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a t e d A g e n t O r a n g e h e r b i c i d e product and w i t h the d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a t e d p r oducts sold by the other d e f e n d a n t s to the military; (2) that e a c h d e fendant's b r e a c h of duty to w a r n was a subst a n t i a l factor leading the m i l i t a r y to decide to m i x and d e p l o y the d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a t e d A g e n t O r a n g e h e r b i c i d e s supplied by defendants, w h i c h c a u s e d plaintiffs' injuries; and (3) that c o n s e q u e n t l y d e f e n d a n t s are liable as t o r t f e a s o r s •jointly and severally for such injuries w i t h o u t any b u r d e n on the p a r t of p laintiffs to ide n t i f y and p r o v e w h i c h d e f e n d a n t c a u s e d their injuries. If this C o u r t agrees that the defendants' b r e a c h of their duty to w a r n c a rri e s such legal c o n sequences, it need not decide with regard to the failure to wa r n issue, w h e t h e r the theories of c o n c e r t e d activities, e n t e r p r i s e liability or a l t e r n a t i v e l i a b ility need to be appl i e d on the i d e n t i f i c a t io n / c a u s a t i o n issue. However, so that the C o u r t m ay be in a p o s i t i o n to c o n sider the legal im p l i cations of all these theories, p l a i n t i f f s p r e s e n t h e r e i n a c o m p r e h e n s i v e h i s t o r i c a l record of defendants' c o n d u c t in the m a n u f a c t u r i n g and sale of' dioxin c o n t a m i n a t e d A g e n t O rang e h e r b i c i d e s to the m i l i t a r y for use in Vietnam, focusing on the realtions b e t w e e n the d e f e n d a n t s and w i t h the m i l i t a r y and o t h e r g o v e r n m e n t agencies during the p eriod of the V i e t n a m era. Plaint i f f s b e l i e v e that this h i s t o r i c a l r e cord fully supports any and all of the theories of c o n c e r t e d activities, 11423 11 a l t e r n a t i v e liability, e n t e r p r i s e liability, and that, should the C o u r t deem it n e c e s s a r y to address the defendant i d e n t i f i ­ c ation c a u s ation issue, the d e f e n d a n t s m ay be held jointly arid s e v e r a l l y liable u n d e r any of these three theories. In the d e t a i l e d factual b a c k g r o u n d statement which follows, a tragic h i t h e r t o u n r e c o r d e d chap t e r of the V i e t n a m war is told of the m i s d e e d s of c h e m i c a l w a r cont r a c t o r s w hich injured A m e r i c a n and a l l i e d soldiers. The d e f e n d a n t ch e m i c a l companies owned or controlled v i r t u a l l y all of the A g e n t O r a n g e h e r b i c i d e production capacity. They s u p plied to the military, the sole source p u r ch a s e r over 99% of the herbici d e s c o n t r a c t e d for and received over 99% of the purch a s e price paid. (Exhibit 1) E a c h of the defe n d a n t ' s h e r b i c i d e s was c o n t a minated w i t h dioxin, in v a r y i n g degr e e s and v i o l a t e d their contractual o b l i g a t i o n s to the military. Ea c h d e f e n d a n t k n e w its p r o d u c t was c o n t a m i n a t e d and h a z a r d o u s to h u m a n health. Each d e f e n d a n t k n e w that the o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s ' h e r b i c i d e s w e r e dioxin c o n t a m i n a t e d and hazardous. Each knew, w i t h v a r y i n g degrees of expertise, to e l i m i n a t e or reduce the dioxin. less expert, military, how None ever w a rned the trusting, or i nformed it of the d i oxin p r o b l e m and the m e a n s of its avoida n c e or elimination. 1 ? «¿L aiL in 424 Instead, they c o n s p i r e d s e c r e t e l y and p e r s i s t e n t l y to d e ceive the m i l i t a r y and o t h e r g o v e r n m e n t agencies a b o u t the m a t t e r s herein a f t e r d e t a i l e d w h i c h w e r e of p r o f o u n d i m p o r t a n c e to the h ealth of A m e r i c a n sol d i e r s and to the n a t i o n a l se c u r i t y let alone to the A m e ri c a n p e o p l e generally. The.defendants used every device avai lable to k e e p their d i oxin pr o b l e m s c o n fined to t heir inner circle and to ke e p the m i l i t a r y and g o v e r n m e n t agencies in the dark - secret meetings, confidential documents, misre p r e s e n t a t i o n s , half truths, s u p p r e s s i o n and w i t h h o l d i n g of data and technology, task and trade association, fronts and p o s i t i o n papers, ad h oc committees, of other regrettable activités, which, and a m y r i a d if they h ad n ot occurred, m i g h t have led to m i l i t a r y d e c i s i o n s w h i c h would h a v e p r e v e n t e d the injuries inflicted by d e f endants. n o w told. 3 \ »> ï f iv The full s t o r y is F A C T U A L BACKG R O U N D In order to address the issues of failure to w a r n and a p p l i c a b i l i ty of the th eories of c o n c e r t e d action, b i l i t y and a l t e r n a t i v e liability, torical sequence, enterprise lia­ it is n e c e s s a r y to r e v i e w in h i s ­ the fact u a l record as it has b e e n d e v e l o p e d to date The r ecord is far from complete, bu t e n o u g h is a l r e a d y known up o n w h i c h the C o u r t m a y reach a p r e l i m i n a r y j u dgment that the conduct, transactions and r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n the d e f e n d a n t s and b e tween the d e f e n d a n t s and the G o v e r n m e n t (horizontal) (vertical) are such as to w a r r a n t a finding that d e f e n d a n t s have b r e a c h e d their duty to warn and that one or m o r e of the a bove theories of l i a b i l i t y are a p p l i c a b l in this case. It is like l y that a d d i t i o n a l d i s c o v e r y will, if a n y ­ thing, buttr e s s the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of a p p l y i n g these theories. We begin the r e v i e w of the h i s t o r i c a l r e c o r d wi t h an e xamination of the k n o w l e d g e and c o n d u c t of the d e f e n d a n t D o w C h e mical Company, a ke y p l a y e r in the events w h i c h followed and a linchpin c o n n e c t i n g m a n y of the h o r i z o n t a l a n d v e rtical relationships b e t w e e n the d e f e n d a n t s and the G o v e r n m e n t in c onnection with the sale of the d i o x i n - c o n t a m i n a t e d A g e n t Orange herbicides w h i c h c a u s e d plaintiffs' injuries. Where n e c e s s a r y to p r e s e n t the full c o n t e x t of factual statements in this pa r t of plaintiffs' memo, a l i m i t e d n u m b e r of documents have b e e n ap p e n d e d w h i c h have p r e v i o u s l y b e e n used as exhibits or r e f e r r e d to in p l a i n t i f f s ' p r i o r s u b m i s s i o n s or in depositions of the d e f e n d a n t s and G o v e r n m e n t witnesses. U42R I. D E F E N D A N T S WE R E KN O W L E D G E A B LE ABOUT THE M A N U F A C T U R I N G PROCESS, DIOXIN AS A C O N ­ TAMINANT, D E T E C T I O N METHODS, RISK REDUCTION M E T H O D S AND H E A L T H HAZARDS A S S O C I A T E D WITH E X P O S U R E TO DIOXIN. A. Prior to B e c o m i n g a "Government Contractor," D o w h a d Invented, P a tented and Sold Comme rc i a l H e r b i c i d e s C o n t a i n i n g a 50/50 Mixture of 2, .4-D and 2,4,5-T_________________________________ D o w a dmits to have known a b o u t a h i ghly toxic imp u r i t y in 2,4,5-T since 1950. 1/ On A p r i l 15, 1970, Julius E. Johnson, V i c e - 1/ 1. The r e c o r d s u g g e s t s Dow's earlier knowledge. .1937--- F o u r h u n d r e d (400) lumber work e r s using Dowicide H ( t e t r a c h l o r o p h e n o l ) , some of w h o m d e v e l o p e d among other things, comedones, c y s t s and pus t u l e s ( c h l o r a c n e ) , urinary d i s turbances, skin leisons last i n g seven years and m a r k e d hyperkeratosis; 2. 1 9 3 7 --- T w e n t y - o n e (21) work e r s at a D ow plant w h i c h m a n u f a c t u r e d t e t r achlorophenol, some of w h o m d e v e loped the same symptoms as the 400 lumber w o r k e r s ; 3. 1 9 4 9 --- Ten (10) w o r k e r s exposed in Nordheim, W. Fahlen in the m a n u f a c t u r e of 2,4,5-TCP, some of w h o m d e v eloped n e u ralgic pains, h e a r t d i s o r d e r s and chloracne; 4. 1 9 4 9 --- One h u n d r e d s e v e n t e e n (117) workers exposed in the m a n u ­ facture of 2 , 4 ,5- T and 228 family members and medical p e r s o n n e l d e aling w i t h the e x p o s e d workers, at a M o n s a n t o plant in Nitro, W e s t V i r g i n i a some of w h o m de v e l o p e d chloracne, liver damage, vomiting, p a p a b l e liver and tiredness; 5. 1 9 5 4 --- T h i r t y - o n e (31) w o r k e r s at a C.H. Boehr i n g e r p l a n t exposed in the m a n u f a c t u r e of 2,4,5-TCP and 2,4,5-T, some of w h o m develops liver d a m a g e and chloracne; 5. 1 9 5 6 --- T w e n t y - n i n e (29) w o r k e r s in a Dia m o n d Alkali (now D i a m o n d Shamrock) p l a n t e x p o s e d in the m a n u f a c t u r e of 2,4,5-T s o m e of whom d e v e l o p e d p o r p h y r i a c u t a n e a tarda, h y p e r p i g m e n t a t i o n and hirsutisrr and 7. 1 9 6 4 --- F o r t y (40) plus wor k e r s in a Dow p l a n t in Midland, Michigar exposed in the m a n u f a c t u r e of 2,4,5-T, some of w h o m d e v e l o p e d c h l o racne and com p l a i n t s of tiredness, weakness, and d e p r e s s i o n with some r e d u c t i o n in h e m o g l o b i n and red cel counts. S o m e worker w i t h m e t a p l a s t i c chan g e s were examined. 11427 -2- President and D i r e c t o r of R e s e a r c h for Dow, gave a s t a t e m e n t before a subco m m i t t e e of the U n i t e d States Senate C o m m i t t e e on Commerce. Mr. J o h n s o n stated: Since 1950 we have b e e n k e e n l y aware of the p o s s i b i l i t y of a h i g h l y toxic im p u r i t y being formed in 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l as a side reaction under co n d i t i o n s of e l e v a t e d p r o c e s s i n g t e m p e r a t u r e s . . .We also k n e w that if the impurity was p r e s e n t in the 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l it c o u l d be carried forward to the end product, 2,4,5-T. A review of Dow's h i stor y of 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l "2,4,5-TCP") (hereafter and 2,4,5-T p r o d u c t i o n c o nfirms that statement. Dow began m a k i n g 2,4,5-TCP in mid-1946. In 1948, D o w registered its first 2,4,5-T p r o d u c t under the F e d e r a l Insecticide, Fungicide and R odenticid e Act. S i n c e 1948, c o n t a i n i n g by v o l u m e of 2 , 4 , 5 - T and 2,4-D. 50-50. Absent D o w has m a n u f a c t u r e d a number of p r o d u c t s (minus y inert i n g r e d i e n t s ) One such product was Brush Killer inert ingredients, that p r o d u c t c o n t a i n e d 50/50 m i x t u r e of 2 , 4 , 5 - T a nd 2,4-D. a d d i t i o n to B r u s h K i l l e r a 50/50 mixture 50-50, a In D ow a l s o m a n u f a c t u r e d B r u s h K i l l e r L V 2-2, T i p p o n 2-2, V e r t o n CE, e a c h of w h i c h is a p p r o x i m a t e l y a 50/50 m i x t u r e of 2 , 4 - D and 2 , 4 ,5-T. D o w p a t e n t e d T i p p o n 2-2 a nd B r u s h K i l l e r 2/ "Agent Orange" and V e o n B r u s h K i l l e r , 50-50. was a 5 0 / 5 0 m i x t u r e of 2 , 4 , 5 - T a n d 2,4-D. -3- In t h e m a n u f a c t u r e of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, its c o m m e r c i a l 50/50 m i x t u r e s of Dow d e v e l o p e d internal specifications. T h o s e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s d e a l t w i t h the m a n u f a c t u r i n g p r o c e s s e s a nd the c o m p o s i t i o n s of the f inal p r o d u c t s . a d d i t i o n to p r o d u c t s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , quality control procedures" Prior Military, to s e l l i n g Dow was and in Dow developed "accepted "quality requirements." "Agent Orange" to the U n i t e d S t a t e s t h o r o u g h l y f a m i l i a r w i t h c o m m e r c i a l 50/50 m i x t u r e s of 2 , 4 , 5 - T and 2,4-D. Prior to s e l l i n g "Agent Orange" to the U n i t e d S t a t e s m i l i t a r y , Dow h ad d e v e l o p e d i n t e r n a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n s a n d q u a l i t y c o n t r o l p r o g r a m s for the p r o d u c t i o n of c o m m e r c i a l h e r b i c i d e s c o n t a i n i n g and 2,4-D. a 5 0 / 5 0 m i x t u r e of 2 , 4 , 5 - T As the r e s u l t of d i r e c t m a n u f a c t u r i n g e x p e r i e n c e ......... - ,J7. i«» ■■ 1 ~■ ..............- — s i n c e 1948 of c o m m e r c i a l p r o d u c t s c o n t a i n i n g 2 ,4,5-T, Dow d e v e l o p e d a t r e m e n d o u s e x p e r t i s e w i t h r e s p e c t to that particular phenoxy herbicide. B. Dow w a s K n o w l e d g e a b l e A b o u t the M a n u f a c t u r i n g P r o c e s s of 2 , 4 , 5 - T and Its T o x i c I mpurities Though Dow has w i t h h e l d as p r o p r i e t a r y a nd c o n f i d e n ­ vsc*. t i a l the s p e c i f i c m a n u f a c t u r i n g p r o c e s s e s to 1970, it u t i l i z e d from 1 9 4 8 it is g e n e r a l l y k n o w n that D o w p r o d u c e d 2 , 4 , 5 - T ■rvi^r-v w '/ l a t h r o u g h the f o l l o w i n g p r o c e s s : _4 _ 1. C a u s t i c H y d r o l y s i s a. A s o l u t i o n of c a u s t i c (believed to be s o d i u m h y d r o x i d e ) in m e t h a n o l was formed; b. T h e c a u s t i c a n d m e t h a n o l we r e m i x e d with tetrachlorobenzene; c. T h e s o l u t i o n of c a u s t i c an d m e t h a n o l a n d t e t r a c h l o r o b e n z e n e w e r e p l a c e d in a r e a c t o r u n d e r p r e s s u r e and heat. 2. P r e p a r a t i o n of S o d i u m Sa l t of 2 , 4 , 5 - T C P a. D i s t i l l a t i o n of m e t h a n o l under heat; b. D i s t i l l a t i o n of w a t e r u n d e r heat; c. D r i v i n g o f f of t r i c h l o r o a n i s o l e u nder heat; 3. C o u p l i n g S o d i u m 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h o l o p h e n a t e and MonochlorjDacetic E ster In 1945, D o w c o n d u c t e d the first rabbit skin test on the t r i c h l o r o p h en o l proc e s s material. A t that time the cau s t i c i n s o luble oil f r o m the 2, 4 , 5 - T C P process was found to cause a c n e f o r m d e r m a t i t i s on the r abbit's skin. As e a r l y as 1945, D o w k n e w that e x p osure to t r i c h l o r o p h en o l process m a t e r i a l s c o u l d cause a c n e f o r m dermatitis. In 1952 Dow we n t f r o m a "batch" p r o c e s s to a "continuous" process. By 1956, D ow l e a r n e d of the p a r t i c u l a r substance in the 2,4,5-TCP and 2,4,5-T w h i c h was r e s p o n s i b l e for the a c n e f o r m dermatitis. K n o w l e d g e of the toxic c o n t a m i n a n t in 2, 4 , 5 - T C P was l e arned by D ô w from the C.H. Boehri n g e r Sohn C o m p a n y of Germany. In 1951, C.H. B o e h r i n g e r began e x p e r i m e n t i n g wi t h the p r o d u c t i o n of 2,4,5-TCP. B e t w e e n 1952 and 1954, -5- 19 c a s e s of serious c h l o r a c n e a p p e a r e d at the I n g e l h e i m p l a n t and at the H a m b u r g p l a n t . T h e p r o b l e m b e c a m e so s e r i o u s p r o d u c t i o n w a s h a l t e d at the I n g e l h e i m p l a n t 1954. In the s p r i n g of 1955, H a m b u r g p lant. 18 c a s e s a p p e a r e d that in D e c e m b e r o f production was halted at the T h e p l a n t s w e r e clos e d . To test for t o x i c i t y in the p l a n t s , rabbits were p l a c e d on e a c h of the f l o o r s w i t h the d o o r s a n d w i n d o w s closed. A l l the r a b b i t s d i e d w i t h i n fi v e d a y s . Autopsies s h o w e d p r o n o u n c e d l i v e r c h a n g e s a nd l i v e r n e c r o s i s . J u n e of 1955, Dr. K.H. S c h u l z of the U n i v e r s i t y S k i n C l i n i c H a m b u r g - E p p e n d o r f h a d f o u n d t h a t the p r e s e n t in the p h e n o l , a n d solution. By in "chloracne inciters” were the 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l a t e Dr. S c h u l z further determined that t h e a n i s ó l e f r a c t i o n w a s t he c a r r i e r of the c h l o r a c n e g e n i c substance. In 1956, Dr. Schulz identified the o f f e n d i n g s u b s t a n c e as 2 , 3 , 6 , 7 - t e t r a c h l o r o d i b e n z o d i o x i n e . B e c a u s e C.H. B o e h r i n g e r w as h a v i n g s u c h d i f f i c u l t y w i t h c h l o r a c n e in the m a n u f a c t u r e of o u t s i d e help. C.H. 2,4,5-TCP, B o e h r i n g e r w as p u t O n J a n u a r y 27, it s o u g h t in t o u c h w i t h Dow. 1955 Dow w r o t e to B o e h r i n g e r , " [ E ] n c l o s i n g a d a t a s h e e t d e s c r i b i n g the h a z a r d s d u e to t o x i c i t y and p r e c a u t i o n s for s a f e h a n d l i n g a n d use of 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l a n d ansv/ered s e v e n s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s regarding experience in our o w n p l a n t . " In the c o u r s e of attempting to identify the c a u s e of the chloracne, r e s e a r c h e r s at C.H. B o e h r i n g e r i den t i f i e d t e t r a c h l o r o d i b e n z o d i o x i n e in 1956. As a r esult of C.H. B o e h r i n g e r 's i d e n t i f i c a t io n of d ioxin as the c h l o r a c n e g e n i c agent in 2,4,5-TCP, C.H. B oehringer i n s t i t u t e d c e r t a i n pro c e s s changes to p r e v e n t the formation of dioxin. S i n c e D o w h a d p r o v i d e d C.H. 1955 c o n c e r n i n g Boehringer the c h l o r a c n e p r o b l e m , Dow, on F e b r u a r y 11, 1957, information in C.H. B o e h r i n g e r sent to i n f o r m a t i o n on the p r e p a r a t i o n of t r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c a c i d in a m a n n e r to a v o i d t he f o r m a t i o n of " c h l o r a k n e e x c i t e r s . ” i n f o r m a t i o n w a s s e n t b y C.H. 3/ of c h l o r o p h e n o l . In A p r i l , respect 1957, Dr. Boehringer to all k n o w n p r o d u c e r s S c h u l z r e p o r t e d his f i n d i n g s w i t h to 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 - t e t r a c h l o r o d i b e n z o d i o x i n e t o g e t h e r with Professor Kimmig in "Die N a t u r w i s s e n s h a f t e n " (1957). described In the a r t i c l e , 44:337-338 Kimmig and Schulz the a p p e a r a n c e of w o r k e r s at C.H. B o e h r i n g e r ' s p l a n t s w h o had b e e n e x p o s e d to the t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l c o n t a i n i n g 2,3,6,7-tetrachlorodibenzodioxine which th e y b e l i e v e d the to be t he culpr i t : T h e a p p e a r a n c e of the i l l n e s s was c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a s c a t t e r i n g of c o m e d o n e s , p u s t u l e s , s m a l l s e b u m r e t a i n i n g c y s t s in the regio-ns of' the face, neck, b r e a s t s , back, a n d extremities. D a m a g e s to liver f u n c t i o n i n g w a s d e t e r m i n e d in i n d i v i d u a l cases. 3/ - This suggests that the o t h e r defen d a n t s k n e w at the time that D o w did, h o w to avoid the f o r mation of the toxic i m p u r i t y that was causing the chloracne problem. t Kimmig and Schulz loot e d the "high g e n e r a l t o x i city" o f c o m p o u n d and f o u n d u p o n a u t o p s y of e x p o s e d r a b b i t s n e c r o s e s as w e l l as d i f f u s e a d i p o s i s of the l i v e r . " states: "It w a s a l s o p o s s i b l e dioxane, identical "severe The article to i s o l a t e a t e t r a c h l o r o d i b e n z o - to the s y n t h e s i z e d m o d e l s u b s t a n c e , by-products resulting the from the in the i n d u s t r i a l p r e s s u r e ' p h e n o l process." D o w e i t h e r h a d a c o p y of the K i m m i g a nd S c h u l z a r t i c l e in 1957 or s h o u l d h a v e h a d a c o p y of their e x t e n s i v e d e a l i n g s w i t h C.H. that a r t i c l e in light o f Boehringer. i- Coptcnber, liJCT. / D o w made a two-w e e k pilot p l a n t run using an approximate 24% caustic s o l ution d i l u t e d wi t h water. 4/ was raised. In July, Again, the temperature 1963, D o w shut down b u i l d i n g 199, w h e r e 2,4,5-TCP was m a n u f actured, to install n e w e q u i p m e n t to increase D o w ’s c a p a c i t y to h y d r o l y z e t e t r a c h l o r o b e n z e n e to 2,4,5-TCP using the 22% caustic solution. the limit of (its) e x i s t i n g plant to A f t e r reopening, D ow was "running a t h y d r o l y z i n g capacity". (its) limit." Dow was "pushing (the) "Whenever p r o d u c t i o n is i n c r eased it is u s ually d o n e b y i n c r e a s i n g the t e m p e r a t u r e of the synthesis 4/ The caustic insolu b l e oil from the p r o d u c t i o n of 2,4,5-TCP was studied by the B i o c h e m i c a l R e s e a r c h L a b o r a t o r y of Do w and found to be an acti v e c h l o r a c n e g e n . -8- On J u l y 3, 1963, an e v e n t o c c u r r e d w h i c h illustrates that D o w and the d e f e n d a n t Hercules w e r e b o t h fully aware of the hazards a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the use of 2,4-D and 2 , 4 , 5 - t . that date, Dr. John P. Frawley, Hercules' On C h i e f Toxicologist, wrote to V.K. Rowe, C h i e f T o x i c o l o g i s t for the D ow C hemcial Company, to d i s cuss the hazards a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the use of 2,4,-D and 2,4,5-T. The letter reads in p a r t as follows: "Dear V . K . : Several weeks ago I m e n t i o n e d to Don M c C a l l i s t e r t h a t Dr. Jack L e a r y of U.S.D.A. h a s a p p r o a c h e d H e r c u l e s and M o n s a n t o w i t h a request to c o n d u c t sub a c u t e d e r m a l t o x i c i t y s t u d i e s on at least one c h l o r i n a t e d p h e n o x y herbi c i d e . On J u n e 27th, I h a d an o p p o r t u n i t y to r e v i e w this r e q u e s t w i t h L e a r y and I will try to r e port to y o u the b a c k g r o u n d . U n d o u b t e d l y you h a v e seen the c l i n i c a l r e p o r t s o f four c a s e s o f n e u r o p a t h y w h i c h a l l e g e d l y h a v e b e e n c a u s e d b y 2 ,4-D salts and esters. (Archives o f I n ternal Medicine, Vol. 3, 1963, pp. 133-134; J.A.M.A. N o v e m b e r 7, 1959 p p . 1306 to 1389) In addition, I h a v e h e a r d of one p r e v i o u s l y u n r e p o r t e d ca s e involving a p r o d u c t l i a b i l i t y c l a i m w h i c h w as s u c c e s s f u l l y defended by a formulator. To my k nowledge, L e a r y h a s no t h e a r d of this case... On the basis of these reports L e a r y feels that the h a z a r d s a s s o c i a t e d with the use of 2,4,-D and 2 , 4 , 5 - T p r o d u c t s s h o u l d be unders t o o d more thoroughly. He s p e c i f i c a l l y w i s h e s to k n o w w h e t h e r repeated dermal e x p o s u r e o f animals to the free acids and the various salts and e s t e r s w i l l c a u s e p e r i p h e r a l neuropathy or the o t h e r related symptoms. He p lans to m a k e -an informal r e q u e s t of each m a n u f a c t u r e r to s t u d y at l e a s t one such product... Frankly I b e l i e v e Leary's req u e s t is reasonable. It could h a v e been m a d e in the form of a d e m a n d and not a request, and ce r t a i n l y could h a v e in v o l v e d far m o r e extensive design. I b e l i e v e it is d e s i r a b l e for you, B i l l Hunt and m y self to conf e r on the d e s i r a b i l i t y o f c o n d u c t i n g such studies and to c o n s i d e r c a r e f u l l y the d e s i g n a nd the selection of m i n i m u m number o f these p r o d u c t s for such study... I also suggest that w e h a n d l e such d i s c u s s i o n s by r e q u e s t i n g N A C A to appoint an ad h o c t o x i c o l o g y s u b - c o m m i t t e e c o n s i s t i n g of the three of us. A f t e r we ha v e c r y s t a l i z e d our own thinking we can invite o t h e r s to s e r v e as w e see fit and can n e g o t i a t e with USDA as a t e c h n i c a l c o m m i ttee... Since Dow is g e n e r a l l y reg a r d e d as the largest m a n u f a c t u r e r of p h e n o x y herbicides, I sug g e s t that y ou s e r v e as C h a i r m a n o f this c o m m i t t e e . .. Sincerely, J o h n P. Frawley, P.H.D. Chief Toxicologist..." 34 This letter reveals three s i g n i f i c a n t facts. First, the U nited States D e p a r t m e n t of A g r i c u l t u r e as early as July, 1963, was r e l ying upo n the phenoxy he r b i c i d e i ndustry to ma k e the studies n e c e s s a r y to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r phe n o x y h e r b i c i d e s were toxic to humans. S e c o n d , both D o w and He r c u l e s had semi n a l kno wledge of p r o b l e m s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c o n s u m e r use of 2, 4 , 5-T, and t h i r d , in o rder to insure a g a i n s t any adverse findings, NACA (National A g r i c u l t u r a l C h e m i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n ) , an i ndustry o p e r a t e d lobbying group w o u l d a p p o i n t ind u s t r y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s to "negotiate" w i t h U S D A so that the d e s i g n and study of t o xicity and p o t e ntial h a z a r d s to h u m a n h e a l t h w o u l d be m i n i m a l and not 5/ get out of hand. I n c r e d i b l e as it m a y seem, given its e x t e n s i v e k n o w l e d g e of h e a l t h h a z a r d s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the use of 2,4-D a nd 2, 4 , 5-T in 1963, D o w a f f i r m a t i v e l y m i s r e p r e s e n t e d to the U n i t e d States military: (W)e have b e e n m a n u f a c t u r i n g 2,4-D and 2 , 4 , 5-T for over ten years. To the b e s t of our knowledge, none of the w o r k m e n in these fa c t o r i e s have shown any ill effects as a r e sult of w o r k i n g w i t h these chemicals. 5/ F r o m this seminal u n d e r t a k i n g later e m e r g e d in the years 1965, 1966, and 1967, an i n d u s t r y - w i d e c o n s p i r a c y w h o s e sole f u n c t i o n was to d e f r a u d the m i l i t a r y and the g o v e r n m e n t b y c o n c e a l i n g from them the k n o w l e d g e w h i c h and the p h e n o x y h e r b i c i d e i n d u s t r y p o s s e s s e d a b o u t d i o x i n as a c o n t a m i n a n t p o i s o n in 2 , 4 , 5-T a n d its p o t e n t i a l haz a r d s to h u m a n health. -10- D o w m a d e that r e p r e s e n t a t i o n kno w i n g about the prior o c c u p a t i o n a l h e a l t h p r o b l e m s in its own and other c h e m i c a l c o m p a n y plants, and k n o w i n g a b o u t C.H. B o e h r i n g e r s ’ h o r r i f y i n g e x p e r i e n c e s with c h l o r a c n e and liver dama g e in 1954. A p p a r e n t l y D o w t h o u g h t in 1963 that the m i l i t a r y w o u l d be i n t e r e s t e d in D o w ’s i n d u s t r i a l health history in the m a n u ­ facture of 2,4,5-T as a b e n c h m a r k of safety. As the r e s u l t of p u s h i n g its p r o d u c t i o n c a p a c i t i e s to the limit w h e r e the t e m p e r a t u r e s emp l o y e d we r e increased, w o r k e r s in the D o w p lants b e g a n to e x p e r i e n c e chloracne. In A u g u s t of 1964, D o w utili z e d v a p o r p h a s e c h r o m a t o g r a p h y to d e t e c t d i o x i n in the w a s t e oils. The w a s t e oi l s were fractionated, dioxin i s o l a t e d and identified. d i o x i n in the laboratory. D o w then p r o c e e d e d to s y n t h e s i z e In November, 1964 D ow p r e p a r e d i n t e r n a l l y a c o n f i d e n t i a l m e m o r a n d u m on an a n a l y t i c a l m e t h o d for "The D e t e r m i n a t i o n of 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 - T e t r a c h l o r o d i b e n z o - p - D i o x i n in 2 , 4 , 5 - T r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c A c i d by G as-Liquid C h r o m a t o g r a p h y . " The a n a l y t i c a l m e t h o d was for d e t e c t i o n of c i o x i n in 2,4,5-T, the end p r o d u c t a nd n o t only for 2,4,5-TCP, intermediary. the D o w a p p a r e n t l y thou g h t it was n e c e s s a r y to a n alyze its end product. -iiY 8 Thus, by November, 1964, the D o w C h e m i c a l C o m p a n y h a d identified d i o x i n as the toxic c o m p o u n d causing c h l o r a c n e , an a dmittedly hideous d i s f i g u r i n g disease. This i d e n t i f i ­ c a tion of d ioxin as the c a u s a t i v e factor in the k n o w n health problems as set forth in the N o v e m b e r 30, 1964 m e m o r a n d u m on the stationary of "The D o w C h e m i c a l C o m p a n y " , titled "The D e t e r m i n a t i on of C o m p o u n d s C a p a b l e of Causing C h l oracne in 2,4,5 - T r i c h l o r o ph e n o l P r o c e s s Samples By G a s - L i q u i d C h r o m a t ography." This m e m o r a n d u m d e s c r i b i n g the m e t h o d s a n d means for d e t e c t i n g d i o x i n was later to be d i s t r i b u t e d to those attending the secret M a r c h 24, conference, d e s c r i b e d infra. 1965 "dioxin" D o w sought to advise the o t h e r manuf a c t u r e rs of 2,4,5-T that Do w k n e w their produ c t s were contaminated. Dr. R.C. D o s s e r of D o w p o i n t e d o ut to Mr. E.T. Upton of T.H. (Defendant T.H. A g r i c u l t u r e & Nutrition, in a telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n on or b e f o r e J a n u a r y 12, -12- Inc.) 1965: [t]hat if a c o m p o u n d , f o u n d in 2 , 4 , 5 - T acid or its e s t e r s , p r o v e d to be d a m a g i n g that this m i g h t lead to a f l u r r y of s u c c e s s f u l c l a i m s b y u s e r s of the h e r b i c i d e who a l l e g e d l y h a d b e e n i n j u r e d b y it. On F e b r u a r y 18, Problem, Meeting. 1965, Do w h e l d an i nternal " E x citer" M i n u t e s of that m e e t i n g state: O t i s i n t r o d u c e d the m e e t i n g b y i n d i c a t i n g that r e c e n t i n f o r m a t i o n i n d i c a t e s " E x c iter" c o m p o n e n t s m a y be p r e s e n t in D o w 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l . B i o p r o d u c t s is c o n c e r n e d a b o u t 2 , 4 , 5 - T acid, esters, f o r m u l a t i o n s , s i l v e x , ronnel, and Erbon. T h i s m e e t i n g is to r e v i e w s t a t u s of our k n o w l e d g e o f this s u b j e c t , p o t e n t i a l h a z a r d s , p o s s i b l e e f f e c t on D o w image, legal i m p l i c a t i o n s , and ne e d for p o s s i b l e quarantine. T h e s e b a s i c d e c i s i o n s a re to be m a d e w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r a t i o n of e c o n o m i c impact. As a r esult of that meeting, D o w d e t e r m i n e d to m e e t wi t h the o t h e r producers of 2,4,5-T. In February, 1965, Dr. Frawley, Chief T o x i c o l o g i s t of d e f e n d a n t Hercules learned from V.K. Rowe, Dow's Chief T o x i c o l o g i s t that 2,4,5-T was contam i n a t e d w i t h an acnegen. This is the toxic impurity w h i c h was more a c c u r a t e l y ident i f i e d by Dr. Rowe at the secret c o n f e r e n c e called M a r c h 24, 1965 at D ow's h e a d q u a r t e r s in Midland, Michigan. Prior to M a r c h 1, 1965, V.K. Rowe of D ow c o n t a c t e d the Medical Director (Emett Kelly, M.D.) and A s s i s t a n t M e d i c a l D i r e c t o r at M o n s a n t o and the Chief T o x i c o l o g i s t at H e rcules (John P. Frawley) c o n c e r n i n g dioxin contamination. -13- 1 ~ • On M a r c h 19, 1965, D o w entered into a letter agreement w i t h C.H. Boehringer, c o n c e r n i n g the d i s c l o s u r e of processes and/or a p p a r a t u s a nd/ o r p r o d u c t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the p r e v e n t i o n of i n c i d e n c e of c h l oracne arising out of the p r o d u c t i o n of 2,4,5-T. The a g r e e m e n t p r o v i d e d for C.H. B o e h r i n g e r to d i s close to D o w t e c h n i c a l k n o w - h o w d e s i g n e d to p r e v e n t the occurrence of chloracn e . The d o c u m e n t a t i o n and information was s u b m itted w i t h i n a c o v e n a n t of secrecy. The agreement was to come into force D e c e m b e r 7, 1964 and be valid for a p e r i o d of ten years u n t i l Dec e m b e r 6, 1974. The importance of secrecy was e m p h a s i z e d in the f o l lowing provisions: "You agre e to k e e p any d o c u m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g the p r o c e s s as w e l l as all v e r b a l or w r i t t e n i n ­ f o r m a t i o n and da t a s trictly secret. Y ou wi l l bind your c o l l a b o r a t o r s w h o get k n o w l e d g e of this information, d o c u m e n t s and data to the same o b l i g a t i o n as th a t a s s u m e d by D o w by r e q u i r i n g them to e x e c u t e an indiv i d u a l commitment. The o b l i g a t i o n of secrecy h e r e u n d e r shall not apply to any it e m of i n f o r m a t i o n d i s c l o s e d hereunder which: 1. D o w can d e m o n s t r a t e was k n o w n to D o w and in its p o s s e s s i o n prior to d i s c l o s u r e by B o e h r i n g e r o n or after D e c e m b e r 7th, 1964, or 2. Is n o w or h e r e a f t e r beco m e s g e n e r a l l y available to the p u b l i c w i t h o u t fault of Dow, or 3. D o w can d e m o n s t r a t e w as o b t a i n e d by i t in good faith f r o m a third p a r t y h a v i n g a b o n a fide r i g h t to make such disclosure." We do n o t k n o w at this time w h e t h e r or the e x t e n t to w h i c h or at what time if ever, the existence of this a g r e e m e n t was m a d e k nown by D o w to the o t h e r d e f e n d a n t c h e m i c a l c o m p a n i e s or the Government. -14- On M a r c h 19, 1965, V.K. Rowe of D o w w rote an identical letter to Enmefct Kelley, M.D., Dr. J. W i l k e n f e l d of Hooker Chemical Corporation, Mr. R a y m o n d V e r h o e z e of Hooker Ch e m i c a l Corporation, Mr. F r anci s Kennedy, Plant M a n a g e r of Diamond Alkali Company, Dr. Ed Chandler, T e c h n i c a l Services, D i a m o n d Alkali Company, and Dr. John P. Frawley. That letter stated: [I] a m i n v i t i n g e a c h of you to c o m e to M i d l a n d to d i s c u s s the t o x i c o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m s c a u s e d b y the p r e s e n c e of c e r t a i n h i g h l y t o x i c i m p u r i t i e s in c e r t a i n s a m p l e s of 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l a nd r e l a t e d m a t e r i a l s . Our d i s c u s s i o n s w i l l d e a l o n l y w i t h t o x i c o l o g i c a l and a n a l y t i c a l a s p e c t s of the problem. W e w i l l n ot d i s c u s s m a n u f a c t u r i n g k n o w how, s a le s , or a n y t h i n g e l s e n ot d e a l i n g w i t h the p r o b l e m s of health. See, E x h i b i t 2. T h e m e e t i n g o c c u r r e d on M a r c h 24, P r e s e n t at that m e e t i n g were: Dr. W i l k e n f e l d and R a y m o n d V e r h o e z e of H o o k e r C h e m i c a l C o r p o r a t i o n , and Dr. Mr. the m e e t i n g "V.K. the Dow s i t u a t i o n He e x p a n d e d this end p r o d u c t s , in g e n e r a l o u r s and other p e o p l e s . " n u m b e r of the a t t e n d e e s at the M a r c h 25, to file. At in terms of i n i t i a l s t u d i e s b y T o x i c o l o g y and Environmental Research Laboratory regarding situation. and Mr. C. L . F r a w l e y of H e r c u l e s P o w d e r C o m p a n y . Rowe recapped the p r o b l e m and the memos Francis Kennedy E d w a r d C h a n d l e r of D i a m o n d A l k a l i C o m p a n y , Dunn and Dr. J o h n P. 1965. the i n - p l a n t terms See. to the s t u d y o f Exhibit ^ 19 6 5 m e e t i n g d r a f t e d T h o s e m e m o s ar e w o r t h r e v i e w i n g entirety. 3. in their jF * ■* -15- A m e m o to file f r o m E.L. C o m p a n y notes, among other Chandler of D i a m o n d A l kali things: T h e D o w p e o p l e s t a t e th a t th e y i n t e n d to set a l i m i t o f z e r o w i t h s e n s i t i v i t y of p l u s or m i n u s 1 p p m on this m a t e r i a l . They have a n a l y z e d m a t e r i a l s from o t h e r c o m p a n i e s , i n c l u d i n g our c o m p a n y , and h a v e f o u n d a m o u n t s as h i g h as 10 p p m in 2 , 4 , 5 - T acid (end p r o d u c t ) a n d 20 to 30 pp m in p h e n a t e s . T h e y h a v e m a d e a s i n g l e a p p l i c a t i o n to the e a r s o f t e s t r a b b i t s a n d h a v e f o u n d that 20 ppm w ill not give folliculitis. F o r t y ppm d o e s g i v e a s l i g h t effect, a nd 100 p p m is s e vere. They have made repeated applications of f r o m 10 to 100 ppb, and 25 of t h e s e t r e a t m e n t s do n ot c a u s e a r e s p o n s e ; how e v e r , 1 0 0 0 p p b (1 ppm) g i v e s a s l i g h t r e s p o n s e w i t h n i n e a p p l i c a t i o n s an d a s e v e r e r e a c t i o n w i t h 11 a p p l i c a t i o n s . T h e y c o n c l u d e , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t 1 p p m wi t h r e p e a t e x p o s u r e c a n c r e a t e a real p r o b l e m . See, E x h i b i t 4 ■ (Emphasis added). It is clear that D o w b e l i e v e d in 1965 t h a t 1 p p m w i t h r e p e a t e d e x p o s u r e s p r e s e n t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t heal t h hazard. C.L. memo to file. concern D u n n of H e r c u l e s P o w d e r C o m p a n y a l s o p r e p a r e d a In th a t m e m o Mr. t h a t c a r r y - t h r o u g h of Dunn n o t e s , toxic m a t e r i a l s formulated herbicide products may occur taken." S e e , Exhibit is found: and "Evidence 5 , p. "Rowe e x p r e s s e d 1. On p a g e into final unless precautions are 2 of that m e m o to fi l e that the c h l o r a c n e g e n s m a y be s y s t e m i c . " ; " H o o k e r and D i a m o n d p e o p l e w e r e q u i t e a w a r e of c h l o r o a c n e . O n e of the H o o k e r relate people said that s o m e c a s e s a re b e l i e v e d to e x p o s u r e s o c c u r r i n g 20 y e a r s b e f o r e . " On p a g e 4 1 JL. -16- to of th a t m e m o to file Mr. Dow's gas chromatography: acid - 1 p . p . m . " See, Dunn recorded the d e t e c t i o n limits " 2 , 4 , 5 - T C P - 1 p . p . m . ” and E x h i b i t 5 , p. 4. for "2,4,5-T On page 5 is found: "C o m p e t i t o r p r o d u c t s - D o w ha s e x a m i n e d a l l m a n u f a c t u r e r ' s 2,4,5-T products. Some have " s u r p r i s i n g l y high" a m o u n t s of chloroacnegens. T h i s d e f i n e d as 10 p.p.m. up to 30 p.p.m. in 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n a t e ." Similarly, in 2 , 4 , 5 - T acid, Id-/ p. and 5. J. W i l k e n f e l d of H o o k e r C h e m i c a l C o m p a n y r e c o r d e d the i n f o r m a t i o n h e h a d r e c e i v e d at Do w on M a r c h 24, 1965. Dr. W i l k e n f e l d noted: Work with rabbits with washing after e x p o s u r e , s o m e t i m e s as s o o n as 15 m i n u t e s a f t e r a p p l i c a t i o n , d i d n ot s t o p the d e v e l o p m e n t o f the c h l o r a c n e a nd single, o r a l d o s e t o x i c i t y t e s t s (not (?) m 50) r e s u l t e d in the d e a t h of s o m e r a b b i t s at 17 m i c r o g r a m s per kilo. P e r i p h e r a l liver ce l l n e c r o s i s o c c u r r e d in s o m e r a b b i t s w h e r e the w a s h i n g w a s d one. The c u r r e n t i n p l a n t w o r k i n g l imit is "no r e s p o n s e " w i t h less th a n o n e p p m by c h r o m a t o g r a p h y c o n s i d e r e d safe. W h e n they were having difficulty, chloracne causers w e r e in the or d e r of 20 - 30 ppm. S e e , Exhibit 6 (parenthetical u n c l e a r ) . government representative was meeting. Not a s i n g l e i n v i t e d to a t t e n d the March, 1965 D o w nor a n y of the o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s has p r o d u c e d a n y evidence suggesting t h a t the i n f o r m a t i o n c o n v e y e d b y Dow to t h e other d e f e n d a n t s at the M a r c h 24, 1965 m e e t i n g w a s c o n v e y e d any g o v e r n m e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e or m o r e p r o p e r l y , military official. 17 to a high-ranking D efendants other than D ow were also c o m m u n i c a t i n g with each other as to their c h l o r a c n e and d i o x i n p r o b l e m s . On April 9, 1965, Dr. Fraw l e y d u m to Mr. C.L. Dunn. (Hercules) In the memorandum, Dr. sent a m e m o r a n ­ F r a w l e y refers to obtaining inform a t i o n fr o m Monsanto, "...rega r d i ng the problems they a n d Bad i s c h e have had on chloracne..." He then goes on to r e p o r t that, "...from the data provided, a sample w h i c h c o n t aine d 5 p p m of the D i o x i n w o u l d be acut e l y toxic. W h e t h e r this refers to d e a t h or liver damage is not clear..." On J u n e 24, 1965, V.K. R o w e of D o w ’s B i o c h e m i c a l R e s e a r c h L a b o r a t o r y w r o t e à l e tter Bioproducts, to Ro s s M u l h o l l a n d , D o w C h e m i c a l of C a n a d a . In that letter, Manager, Mr. R o w e stated : As y o u w e l l know, w e had a s e r i o u s s i t u a t i o n in our o p e r a t i n g p l a n t s b e c a u s e of c o n t a m i n a t i o n of 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l w i t h i m p u r i t i e s , the m o s t a c t i v e of w h i c h is 2 , 3 , 7 ,8 - t e t r a c h l o r o d i b e n z o d i o x i n . This m a t e r i a l is e x c e p t i o n a l l y toxic; it h as t r e m e n d o u s p o t e n t i a l for p r o d u c i n g c h l o r a c n e a n d s y s t e m i c injury. If it is p r e s e n t in t he t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l , it w i l l be c a r r i e d t h r o u g h into the T a c i d an d into the e s t e r s a nd h e n c e into f o r m u l a t i o n s w h i c h are to be s o l d to the p u b l i c ^ O n e of the t h i n g s w h i c h we w a n t to a v o i d is the o c c u r r e n c e of a n y a c n e in consumers. I am particularly concerned here w i t h p e r s o n s w h o a re u s i n g the m a t e r i a l on a $*3 -18- daily, r e p e a t e d basis such as c u s t o m operators m a y use it. If this should occur, the whole 2,4,5-T industry wi l l be hard h i t and I would e x p e c t r e s t r i c t i v e legislation, either bar r i n g the m a t e r i a l or putting v e r y r i dged controls upon it. This is the m a i n reas o n w h y we are so c o n cerned that we clean up our own house from within, r a ther than h a v i n g someone from w i t h o u t do it for us. In this way, w e can a p p r o a c h the p r o b l e m in an o r d e r l y manner. If the p r o d u c e r s a nd h a n d l e r s of this m a t e r i a l w i l l cooperate, there is no r e a s o n why we c a n n o t get this p r o b l e m under s t r i c t c o n t r o l a nd thereby h o p e f u l l y avoid r e s t r i c t i v e legislation; in other words, let us practice good citizenship. We are n o t in any w a y a t t e m p t i n g to hide our p r o b l e m u n d e r a he a p of sand, b u t we c e r tainly do n o t w a n t to have any situat i o n s arise w h i c h w i l l cause the r e g u l a t o r y age n c i e s to become restrictive. Our p r i m a r y o b j e c t i v e is to a v o i d this. I trust that you w i l l be ve r y judicious in your use of this information. It could be q u i t e e m b a r r a s s i n g if it were m i s i n t e r p r e t e d or misused. See, E x h i b i t 7, (emphasis a d d e d ) . In k e e p i n g with the d e sire to m a i n t a i n secrecy, V.K. Rowe w r o t e as a postscript, c i r c u m s t a n c e s m a y this letter be reproduced, anyone o u t side of D o w . " "under no shown, or sent to Id. Later, a telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n took place on J u l y 9, 1965 b e t w e e n Dr. John P. Frawley, Chief T o x i c o l o g i s t for H e r c ules, and Earl Farnham, a Dow C o m p a n y executive, who, a c c o r d i n g to this m e morandum, was calling Dr. F r a w l e y on behalf of D o w V i c e - P r e s i d e n t , D o n a l d Baldwin. The d o c u m e n t dated Ju l y 12, 1965, a n d m a r k e d "Conf idential", reads as follows: -19- (Exhibit 8) 4,,¿¿¿4 4 "NOTE T O J A C K S O N V I L L E A R K A N S A S PLANT FILE, Re: 2 , 4 , 5-T On July 9, 1965, Mr. Earl F a r n h a m of D o w Chemical C o m p a n y t e l e p h o n e d s t a t i n g that he was c a l l i n g at the request o f Mr. Donald Baldwin, V i c e - P r e s i d e n t of Dow to inquire h o w seri o u s I considered the chloracne p r o b l e m in relation to the consumer use of 2 , 4 , 5-T. W h e n I s u g g e s t e d that he should discuss this w i t h H e r c u l e s m a n a g e m e n t r a t h e r than with me, he stated that on the advice of their toxicologists, Dow h a d gone to g r e a t e x p e n s e to alter their m a n u f a c t u r i n g c o n d i t i o n s in o r d e r to p r o d u c e 2 , 4 , 5-T ac i d w h i c h h as less than 1 p p m acnegen. Since s e v e r a l m o n t h s ago, Dow had ma d e a v a i l a b l e to all o t h e r producers the same da t a w h i c h c o n v i n c e d their t o x i c o l o g i s ts to set an internal s p e c i f i c a t i o n of 1 p p m on the acid, t h e y had assumed that the o t h e r p r o d u c e r s w o u l d take s i m i l a r action. On the b a s i s of t heir c h e m i c a l analyses, they are convinced that no one else has done a n y t h i n g to remove the acnegen f r o m their 2 , 4 , 5-T and c o n s e q u e n t l y, they w a n t e d my opinion whether they had b e e n m i s a d v i s e d by their o w n t o x i c ologists. I a d v i s e d Mr. F a r n h a m that I d i d not t h i n k this was a p r o p e r q u e s t i o n for me and that he s h o u l d seek o u t s i d e advice f r o m a private consultant if h e d o u b t e d the advice of his ow n t o x i c ologists. I p o i n t e d out that c o n s i d e r a b l e i ndividual professional j u dgment would be i n v o l v e d in e s t a blishing a s p e c i f i c a t i o n of this type b e c a u s e all o f the important f acts are not known. He then s tated that Dow was e x t r e m e l y f r i g h t e n e d that this situation might explode. They are aware that their competitors are m a r k e t i n g 2 , 4 , 5-T w h i c h contains "alarming amounts" o f a c n e g e n and if the g o v e r n m e n t learns of this, the w h o l e i n d u s t r y w i l l suffer. T h e y are p a r t i c u l a r l y fearful of a Congressional investigation and e x c e s s i v e restr i c t i v e l e g i s l a t i o n on m a n u f a c t u r e of p e s t i c i d e s w h i c h might result. I a d v i s e d Mr. F a r n h a m that we s h ared h i s fear b ut were n ot aware of h i s a l l e g a t i o n that the c o m p e t i t o r s ’ products w e r e hazard o u s . He a sked if Hercules h ad e s t a b l i s h e d an i n t e r n a l specification. I stated that he s h o u l d discuss this w i t h someone in our m a n a g e m e n t and r e f e r r e d h i m to Mr. Copeland. I r e m inded h i m that w e h a d e x p e r i e n c e d g r e a t d i f f i c u l t y in c o n d u c t i n g the a n a l y s e s for the a c n e g e n b y the D ow procedure, and that o n l y w i t h i n the past few weeks, following a v i s i t of our chemists to Midland, have we b e e n able to obtain a n y useful information. I s u g g e s t e d that if he wanted a n y a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on this p r o b l e m h e should talk to Mr. Copeland. He asked that h e be t r a n s f e r r e d to Mr. Copeland. (After the call was tran s f e r r e d I l e a r n e d that Mr. C o p e l a n d was out of town and Mr. F a r n h a m left w o r d that he would call on Monday, July 12)" 0 -20- The documents reveal that the che m i c a l c o m p a n i e s w e r e all aware that their d iox i n level in A g e n t Oran g e was totally u n a c c e p ­ table and a p o t e ntial heal t h hazard. No such c o m m u n i c a t i o n or any of the informatio n de s c r i b e d above w as ever t r a n s m i t t e d b y any chemical c o mpany to the G o v e r n m e n t or the military, even though the chemical c o m p anies kn e w that the d i oxin level of some of the herbicide s r a n g e d from 20-140 ppm, and they all k n e w that their contam i n a t e d h e r b i c i d e s w e r e b e i n g m i x e d together in drums before use in Vietnam. Silence and co n f i d e n t i a l i t y w e r e the code w o r d s u t i l i z e d to conceal the k n o w le d g e w h i c h these d e f e n d a n t s h a d amassed c o n ­ cerning the potential health hazards a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the c o n t a m i n a t e Agent Orange herbicides. It is clear from the record that no one in the m i l i t a r y was advised of the c o n t a m i n a t i on of the d e f e n d a n t s ' A g e n t Orange herbicides wit h d i oxin and of the c o n c o m i t a n t health hazards until March 6, 1970. On that date, r e p r e s e n t a t iv e s of D ow p r o v i d e d a b r i e f i n g to representatives of the U n ited States military. T he subj e c t of that briefing was d io x i n as an i mpurity in 2, 4 , 5 - T C P and 2,4,5-T. At that briefing, D o w repr e s e n t a t iv e s p r e s e n t e d the following information on 2,4,5-T: 1 -21- S i n c e 1 9 5 0 it has b e e n k n o w n that 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 - t e t r a c h l o r o d i b e n z o - p - d i o x i n is an impurity associated with 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l (TP). The l a tter m a t e r i a l is used in the m a n u f a c t u r e of 2,4,5 T. D i o x i n is a h i g h l y t o x i c m a t e r i a l ... In 1964, D o w c l o s e d their p l a n t w h i c h m a n u f a c t u r e d 2 , 4 , 5 T d u e to w i d e s p r e a d a c n e among plant workers. D i o x i n a n d o ther i m p u r i t i e s w e r e f o u n d in the 2,4,5T. The p l a n t w a s c l e a n e d a nd the m a n u f a c t u r i n g p r o c e s s w a s c h a n g e d to e l i m i n a t e the d i o x i n and o t h e r i m p u r i t i e s . T h e Dow 2 , 4 , 5 T n o w c o n t a i n s less than 0.5 p p m of dio x i n . See, E x h i b i t "9. T h e d e p o s i t i o n of Dr. R o b e r t D a r r o w is i n s t r u c t i v e on the l e v e l of the U n i t e d S t a t e s m i l i t a r y ' s k n o w l e d g e w i t h r e s p e c t to d i o x i n as late as M a r c h of 1970. attended Dr. Robert Darrow the m e e t i n g on M a r c h 6, 1970 at the P e n t a g o n w i t h Dr. Charles Minarik Fort Detrick. as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the C r o p s D i v i s i o n at During e x a m i n a t i o n by d e f e n d a n t ' s counsel, following transpired: Q u e s t i o n : Can y o u r e c a l l a m e e t i n g w h i c h took p l a c e on or a b o u t M a r c h 11, 1970, at w h i c h v a r i o u s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of Dow m e t w i t h Gen. W i l l i a m S l o a n (sic) a n d v a r i o u s o t h e r s concerning Agent Orange? Mr. O ' B r i e n : (Objection) Mr, K r o h l e y: (question r e p h r a s e d ) Mr. O ' B r i e n : (Objection) A n s w e r : I was at a meeting with Dow's r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s but I d o n ' t r e c a l l t h e d a t e o f it. The name General Sloan doesn't r e g i s t e r w i t h me. I' m n o t sure. -22- the Q u e s t i o n ; Do yo u r e c a l l w h a t s a i d a t that m e e t i n g . Answer : I just listened. anything. I didn't say Q u e s t i o n : Do you r e c a l l w h a t M i n a r i k s a i d at th a t m e e t i n g ? Mr. O ' B r i e n : if a n y t h i n g y o u if a n y t h i n g Dr. Sa m e O b j e c t i o n . A n s w e r : T h e p r e s e n t a t i o n w a s g i v e n b y the Dow people. T h a t w a s it. They presented information. Q u e s t i o n : A n y o n e at the m e e t i n g , Dr. D a r r o w , d i d t h e y s a y in w o r d s or in s u b s t a n c e to the D o w r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s w h y d i d n ' t you tell us a b o u t this b e f o r e ? A n s w e r : I think the f e e l i n g w a s t h e r e b ut I ' m n o t s u r e it w a s said. We were surprised w h e n w e g o t the i n f o r m a t i o n at this time. Question : Answer : By "we" w h o are y o u r e f e r r i n g to? Dr. M i n a r i k a nd m y s e l f . Question: Do y o u ' r e c a l l w h a t if a n y t h i n g w a s said in t h a t r e g a r d b y a n y o n e at the m e e t i n g ? Answer: No s p e c i f i c c o m m e n t s , no. In o t h e r w o r d s , this r e p r e s e n t e d i n f o r m a t i o n that w e w e r e r e c e i v i n g for the f i r s t time in this r e s p e c t on the d i o x i n s i t u a t i o n . Question: Where was y o u r e c a l l that? that meeting held? Do A n swer: It w a s in the P e n t a g o n . It was' in W a s h i n g t o n , D.C., in the P e n t a g o n . -23- W i t h o u t any doubt, D ow a nd the other d e f e n d a n t s in this litigation had c o n s p i r e d to w i t h h o l d infor m a t i o n from the U ni ted States m i l i t a r y c o n c e r n i n g diox i n c o n t a m i n a t i on of the A g e n t O range herbicides. On June 15, 1970, Dow w r o t e a letter a d d r e s s e d as follows: The H o n o r a b l e M e lvin R. Laird Secretary of Defense The Pe n t a g o n Washington, D.C. See, E x hibit 10. In that letter, Dow a d v i s e d the Secretary of Defe nse that Dow's A g e n t O r a n g e c o n t ained one p a r t per m i l l i o n of d ioxin and that "certainly such a product is safer in use than one c o n t a i n i n g larger quantities". Thus was c u l m i n a t e d a p e r i o d of r e l a t i o n s h i p between the g o v e r n m e n t and defend a n t s w h i c h began wi t h D ow's misrer e s e n t a t i o n s in 1963 of the safety of its h e r b i c i d e s and ended in 1970 after a c o n t inued c o n s p i r a c y of silence and failure to warn, w i t h a d m i s s i o n s of their high toxicity, a nd the fact h i g h e r d i o x i n levels m e a n t g r e a t e r safety hazards. It is clear also that during the period of ti m e of their r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the military, the defen d a n t s also w i t h h e l d fr o m the m i l i t a r y their c o n s i d e r a b l e k n o w ledge about d e t e c t i o n and m a n u f a c t u r i n g risk reduction techniques. -2 4- C. D e f e n d a n t s w e r e K n o w l e d g e a b le A b o u t De t e c t i o n and M a n u f a c t u r i n g Risk R e d uction Techniques Risk r e d u c t i o n r e q u i r e s a problem, m e t h o d for i n v e s t i g a ­ ting the problem, r e m e d i a l a c t i o n and a method for m o n i t o r i n g to p r event recurrence. The "highly toxic impurity" pro b l e m d e fined itself in 1937 w h e n 400 lumber workers developed chloracne. The m e t h o d for i n v e s t i g a t i n g the p r o b l e m was a nimal testing w h i c h D o w d id not undertake. The re m e d i a l a c t i o n was a change in the P laintiffs are unaw a r e m a n u f a c t u r i n g process. w h e t h e r such a change was made. As of 1941, the m e t h o d for m o n i t o r i n g to p r e v e n t the r e c u r r e n c e was the rabb i t skin test. In 1964, the p r o b l e m w as the same. The m e t h o d for inves t i g a t i ng the p r o b l e m was gas liquid c h r o m o t a g r a p h y and sample prepar a t i o n techniques. The r emedial action, at least w i t h respect to D o w w as the p u r c h a s e and imple m e n t a t io n of C.H. B oehringer t echnology to p r o d u c e 2,4,5-TCP and 2,4,5-T with less 6 than one p p m of dioxin. T he m e t h o d for m o n i t o r i n g the p r o b l e m to p r e v e n t recurrence w a s liquid gas c h r o m a t o g r a p h y and s eparation techniques p i o n e e r e d by Dow. 6/ T h e C.H. B o e h r i n g e r t e c h n o l o g y c a l l e d for, a m o n g other • things, r e d u c i n g the t e m p e r a t u r e of the r e a c t o r (autoclave) j to a m a x i m u m of 175 d e g r e e s c e n t i g r a d e ; no m o r e than 20 j a t m o s p h e r e s (here i n a f t e r "atms") of p r e s s u r e in the j reactor; r i n s i n g s a l t d e p o s i t s f r o m the r e a c t o r after e a c h \ use; c e s s a t i o n of the i n t r o d u c t i o n of s o d i u m h y d r o x i d e if the t e m p e r a t u r e or p r e s s u r e in the r e a c t o r w e n t a b o v e the m a x i m u m ; d i s t i l l a t i o n of m e t h a n o l u n d e r h e a t a n d 5 atms u n t i l t e m p e r a t u r e at h e a d h as r i s e n to 8 8 - 9 0 d e g r e e s c e n t i g r a d e w i t h a c e s s a t i o n of d i s t i l l a t i o n w h e n -> « ^ t r i c h l o r o a n i s o l e a p p e a r s ; m a x i m u m t e m p e r a t u r e of 11-5 0 d e g r e e s c e n t i g r a d e in the s u m p p h a s e to p r e v e n t excess w a t e r e v a p o r a t i o n f r o m the p h e n o l a t e s o l u tion; a d d i t i o n of w a t e r b e f o r e d r i v i n g o f f the t r i c h l o r o a n i s o l e s o l u t i o n (primary c a r r i e r of dixion) by s t e a m . / There can be no d o u b t that D ow was familiar w i t h risk reduction techniques of a d e t e c t i o n and m a n u f a c t u r i n g nature and the Dow had total d i s c r e t i o n in the de c i s i o n of w h e t h e r to employ those techniques. The m i l i t a r y p l a c e d no r e s t r i c t i o n s on t h e •defendants with r e s pect to their m a n u f a c t u r i n g p r o c e s s e s . D o w had clear discr e t i o n in the choic e of p r o c e s s e s to use. Dow w e l l u n d e r ­ stood that the p r o c e s s used d e t e r m i n e d the a m o u n t of dioxin in the 2,4,5-T. Dr. B.B. Holder, Medi c a l Director, M e d i c a l D e p a r t ­ m e n t of Dow admitted: In 1964 at the t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l p r o d u c t i o n area a process a l t e r a t i o n was ma d e cha n g i n g the t emperature and p r essure levels p r e v i o u s l y used. It was we l l u n d e r s t o o d by all i nvolved that we had to be e x t r e m e l y c a r e f u l in process changes to p r e v e n t the fo r m a t i o n of ex c e s s i v e c h l o r i n a t e d dioxins and similar toxic c o m p o u n d s . Dow was fully aware of process alternatives. In fact, to lower the dioxin c o n t a m i n a t i o n of its 2 , 4 , 5-TCP and 2,4,5-T, Dow purcha s e d , in 1965, parts of a 2,4,5-TCP pro c e s s from C.H. Boehringer. had absolute f r e e d o m to do so. Dow D ow was so c o n c e r n e d a b o u t end p r o d u c t c o n t a m i n a t i o n that on M ay 4, 1965, it e s t a b l i s h e d a s p e c ification r e q u i r i n g a gas liquid c h r o m a t o g r a p h i c a nalysis of all 2,4,5-T leaving the plant. H ad the m i l i t a r y k n o w n that d i f f e r e n t temperatures, pressures, alcohols, a nd p h e n o l a t e w a t e r c o n t e n t resulted in d i f f e r e n t levels of d i o x i n conta m i n a t i on , can be no doubt, the m i l i t a r y w o u l d ha v e r e q u i r e d the safest method. -26- * J£ i /? a* there N o t h i n g s p e a k s m o r e c l e a r l y to the e f f e c t o f d i f f e r e n t p r o c e s s e s on the l e v e l of d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a t i o n and to defendants' k n o w l e d g e on that s u b j e c t than the Jtol lading e x c e r p t from an internal document: C h l o r o p h e n o l and d e r i v a t i v e s p r o d u c e r s are Dow, M o n s a n t o , H e r c u l e s , D i a m o n d and HookerD o w and H o oker i s o l a t e and d i s t i l l the t r i c h l o r p h e n o l prior to s a l e s and use, and a n a l y s e s of s a m p l e s of their s a l e s p r o d u c t s s h o w no e x c i t e r p r esent. It is s u s p e c t e d t h a t H e r c u l e s a l s o d i s t i l l s the t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l as s a m p l e s of their 2 , 4 , 5 - T a c i d s h o w s no exciter. D i a m o n d and M o n s a n t o d o not i s o l a t e the t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l to p u r i f y it. b u t make nil dc r i ” .nhives from the c o diun salt. Analysis of Monsan t o ' s 2,4,5-T ac i d shows 3 - 8 ppm. exciter, and analyses of D i a m o n d ’s s o d i u m t r i c h lo r o p h e n a t e shows 8 - 2 4 ppm. exciter. Clearly, d i f f er e n t m a n u f a c t u r i n g p r o c esses resulted in different levels of dioxin c o n t a m i n a t i o n and D o w and the other defendants w e r e clearly aware of that fact. Of e qual clarity is the fact that the m i l i t a r y was i g n o r a n t of this matter. The evidence indicates that the m i l i t a r y did n ot k n o w i n d e p e n ­ dently and was not informed by the d e f e n d a n t s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n process selected and level of dioxin. A p a r t i c u l a r l y irrational instance of "cover up" was in the d e f e n d a n t s ' withho l d i n g from the g o v e r n m e n t of the t e c h n o l o g y n e c e ssary to a n alyze the p r oducts and to d e t e c t its d e adly impurities. The A i r Force was w o r k i n g on a m e t h o d of analysis, gas c h r o m o t rograph^ w h i c h it hoped would prove more e f f e c t i v e than the army's i n f r a r e d s p e c t r o g r a p h y , analysis and p r e l i m i n a r y tests looked promising. The g o v e r n m e n t was well behind the d e f e n d a n t s in d e v e l o p i n g this technology, however. In a H e r c u l e s m e m o r a n d u m m a r k e d "confidential" and d a t e d Septe m b e r 5; 1967, from M.A. T a v e s , S y n t h e t i c Re s e a r c h D i v ision, to Mr. J.M. Eagan, S y n t h e t i c Department, the g o v e r n m e n t p r o c e d u r e (infrared) was d e s c r i b e d as "very tedious" and p ossibly was inaccurate. The repo r t states that "they appar e n t l y are not aware of the compon e n t s w h i c h we kn e w to be present." The m e m o r a n d u m conjectures t h a t the g o v e r n m e n t w o u l d pr o b a b ly be r e c e ptive to adopting Hercules' Taves cautioned, a n a l y t i c a l method, b ut "we m u s t c a r e f u l l y c o m p a r e both m e t h o d s b e cause it is possi b l e that their m e t h o d m a y be giving b e n e f i c i a l l y h i g h e r analysis, p a r t i c u l a r l y on 2,4-D, than our own m e t h o d ." -28- 1 1 1 7o3^ During the years that the d e f e n d a n t s s u p p l i e d c o n t a m i n a t e d herbi cides to the military, D o w was n ot the o n l y d e f e n d a n t p o s s e s s e d of e x p e r t i s e as to dioxin h a z a r d s and m e a n s of risk reduction. While their expertise may ha v e v a r i e d in d e p t h and time acquired, each of the defen d a n t s f a iled to w a r n the m i l i t a r y of wh a t d e f e n d a n t k n e w a b o u t its and o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s ' p r o d u c t s and sooner or later b ecame a p a r t y to the c o n s p i r a c y to conceal or m i s r e p r e s e n t the m a tter s w h i c h the m i l i t a r y n e e d e d to know in order to make i n f o r m e d choi c e s and d e c i s i o n s as to herbicide procurement. We turn next to an h i s t o r i c a l r e v i e w of the c o n d u c t of the other defendants. DEFENDANT MONSANTO'S KNOWLEDGE ABOUT M A N U F A C T U R I N G PROCESS, D I O X I N AS CONTAMINANT, D E T E C T I O N MET H O D S , RI S K REDUCTION M E T H O D S , AND HEALTH HAZARDS A S S O C I A T E D WI T H E X P O S U R E TO D I O X I N Perhaps the m o s t m a l e v o l e n t p a r t i c i p a n t in the C h e m i c a l C o m p a n y c o n s p i r a c y to w i t h h o l d fr o m the G o v e r n m e n t and the general p ublic the toxic e f f e c t s of the d i o x i n c o n t e n t in their 2,4,5-T is the M o n s a n t o C h e m i c a l Company. It was in 1949, at their Nitro, W e s t V i r g i n i a plant' that M o n s a n t o was first a l e r t e d to the e x i s t e n c e of a c o n t a m i n a n t p r e s e n t in their 2,4,5-T process. upset", As a r e s u l t of the "process (Monsanto's term), w o r k e r s p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the r e f i n e m e n t of sodium t r i c h l o r o p h en o l (the p r e c u r s e r of 2,4,5-T) -29- we r e e x p o s e d to the product. Ultimately, more than 200 workers in the 2 , 4 , 5 - T depart m e n t b e g a n to d e v e l o p m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of toxic exposure. Multi p l e workers' com p e n s a t i o n c l aims were filed in w h i c h there were made acute c o m p l a i n t s of liver damage, p eripheral nerupathy, c h l o r a c n e and severe systemic effects. M o n s a n t o ' s exten s i v e k n o w ledge of the health problems a s s o c i a ­ ted w i t h 2 , 4 ,5-T exposu r e is further i l l u s t r a t e d by the c o m m u n i c a t i o n from Elmer Wheeler, a key M o n s a n t o employee, in w h i c h he d i s c u s s e d an incident at Badische, the German m a n u f a c t u r e r of 2,4,5-T. Referring to a November, 1953 process d i s r u p t i o n similar to th a t of the Nitro i n c i d e n t four years before, Mr. Whee l e r a c k n o w l e d g e d that a p p r o x i m a t e l y 50-60 cases of Bad i s c h e worker h e a l t h p r o b l e m s o c c urred f o l l owing the incident. Stated the M o n s a n t o hygienist, not only did B a d i s c h e 2,4,5-T workers show "horrible skin e r u p t i o n s " but that "In a d d i t i o n to the skin m a n ifestations, their men reported all the additi o n a l symptoms as e x p e r i e n c e d in our w o r k e r s , i.e. fatigue, vertigo, loss of libido, p a i n f u l joints, etc." T h rough the 1 9 5 0 's M o n s a n t o c o n t i n u e d to be aler t e d to the p r o b l e m of w o r k e r 2,4,5-T exposure. A 1955 conf i d e n t i a l m e m o r a n d u m a c k n o w l e d g e d w i d e s p r e a d e mployee toxic reaction. It stated, "You also k n o w that the 2,4,5-T p r o b l e m has n o t been s o lved and c h l o r a c n e remained as the o u t s t a n d i n g prob l e m of the Nitro p l a n t in d e a l i n g w i t h h o u r l y personnel". (Exhibit 11 ). -30- T h r o u g h o u t the ' 5 0 ’s, the w o r k e r illness p r o b l e m in the 2 .4.5- T plant b e c a m e so a c u t e that the workers r e f u s e d to labor in that environment. M o n s a n t o was required to p ay an h o urly bonus to those v o l u n t e e r work e r s w h o did s u b j e c t t hemselves to the h ealth p r o blems w h i c h we r e r a m p a n t in the 2,4,5-T factory. the In '60's as p r o d u c t i o n increased, w o r k e r h e a l t h pr o b l e m s b e came even m o r e frightening. As a m a t t e r of fact, J ames Springgate, who became P l a n t Manger of Nitro in of his job, '64 was r e q u ired, as part to r e v i e w M o n s a n t o w o r k e r health c o m p l a i n t s and estimated that over 100 w o r k e r s c o m p l a i n e d of c h l o r a c n e duri n g the p eriod from '64 to '68. S i g n i f i c a n t ly , the P l a n t M a n a g e r e s t i m a t e d that there we r e m o r e 2 , 4 , 5 - T M o n s a n t o e m p l o y e e s who compla i n e d of h e a l t h pro b l e m s in the period of '60 to '64 than the 100 he e s t i m a t e d in the ne x t four years. In 1964, M o n s a n t o sent to D o w for analysis, M o n s a n t o ' s 2 . 4 . 5 - T. ppm's. The d i o x i n c o n t e n t of the s a mple s h o w e d three to ten (As high as this a m o u n t was, it was n o w h e r e near the huge amount of toxic c o n t a m i n a t i o n of the M o n s a n t o p r o d u c t that further analysis was about to r e v e a l . ) . February, 1965, the M e d i c a l Director, counterpart, V.K. Rowe. On the 24th day of Kelly, s poke to his D o w Rowe a c k n o w l e d g e d that D o w had 20 cases of chlor a c n e and a d m i t t e d that he was sure that d i o x i n was the cause. (Exhibit 11a) . The M e m o r a n d u m clea r l y r e v e a l s that D o w ' s m o t i v a t i o n for its secret M a r c h m e e t i n g was h a r d l y salutory; since D o w s u g g ested a "crash m e e t i n g w i t h all the produ c e r s " -30a- in I t A0 Q an a t tempt to eliminate the c o n t a m i n a t i o n b e fore the "PHS got into the act." Of course, the Public H e alth Service c o u l d n ' t get into the act u n l e s s they found o u t a b o u t the toxic contaminant, a d i s c o v e r y that the c o n s p i r i n g c h emical companies m i g h t i l y tried to avoid. It was on l y one m o n t h later that V.K. Rowe w r o t e the infamous M a r c h 19 s e cret c o m m u n i c a t i on to c e r tai n 2,4 , 5 - T m a n u f a c t u r e r s in w h i c h he alluded to the d ioxin c o n t e n t of 2,4,5-T as toxic impurities". "certain h i ghly (Exhibit 2 ). In F e b r u a r y of 1965 M o n s a n t o and D ow shared i n f o r m a t i o n concer n i n g their m u t u a l problems. By that time, it w as known by both companies that d i o x i n was the c o n t a m i n a n t in their product. Therefore, as s u p p o r t e d by the sworn a d m i s s i o n of M o n s a n t o employees as we l l as the anne x e d d o c u m e n t a r y evidence, M o n s a n t o knew: a) of the c o n t i n u i n g a cute h e a l t h p r o b l e m s to w h i c h their 2,4,5-T e m p l o y e e s had be e n subjected for the p a s t 17 years, b) that other c h e m i c a l companies, both here and abroad had similar pblems, and c) that the h e a l t h pr o b l e m s to w h i c h M o n s a n t o had p e r sonal k n o w l e d g e not o n l y in c l u d e d chloracne, but also involved: 1. 2. 3. 4. fatigue vertigo loss of libido painful joints i l i 57 -30b- M o n s a n t o ' s 2,4,5-T was e n o r m o u s l y toxic. 14, In a S e p t e m b e r 1965 i n t e r d e p a r t me n t a l m e m o w h i c h w a s then filed in the "Confidential Folder," M o n s a n t o adm i t t e d that "during April, 1965, p r o d u c t i o n of TDD rose to an a l l-time high and r emained m u c h higher than its previous n o r m - c u r r e n t - 50 ppm normal - 10 ppm". (Exhibit lib) .That a m o u n t was 50 times greater than the one ppm d ioxin w h i c h D o w clai m e d was safe (although p l a i n t i f f ' s evide n c e estab l i s h e s that even 1 p p m is t o x i c ) . M o n s a n t o did not remove this a c k n o w l e d g e d e n o r m o u s l y toxic c o n t a m i n a n t from its 2,4,5-T. In a c o n f i dential c o m m u n i c a t i o n dated a lmost four years later, M o n s a n t o ack n o w l e d g e d that their 1968 exper i e n c e showed a c o n t e n t of 40 p p m and that ev e n in 1969, their c o n t a m i n a t i o n r a n g e d from 5 to 7 ppm. (Ex.11c). So serious was the p r o b l e m that in 1968, after the m e d i c a l d i r ector was i n f ormed that there had be e n no n ew c h l o r a c n e cases since O c tober of the pre v i o u s year, he r e s p o n d e d to that i n f o r m a t i o n by asking, "I don't w a n t to be cynical, b ut are there a n y em p l o y e e s in the d e p a r t m e n t w h o d o n ' t have c h l o r a c n e already?" (Ex.lid). As was r e p orted in the c o n f i d e n t i a l M o n s a n t o final r e p o r t on 2,4,5-T t e r m i n a t i n g J a n u a r y of 1969: "The incidence of c h l oracne has been a l m o s t u n i v e r s a l among p e r s o n n e l engaged in the m a n u f a c t u r e of 2,4,5t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l (TCP) and 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y acetic acid (2,4,5-T). The m o s t severe cases ha v e o c c u r r e d in i ndividuals involved in the clean up of u n c o n t r o l l e d a u t o c l a v e b a t c h e s (hydrolysis of t e t r a c h l o r o b e n z e n e ) . H o w ­ ever, cases of vary i n g severity have occ u r r e d c o n s i s t e n t l y among o p e r a t o r s p r i m a r i l y e m p l o y e d a r ound the 2,4,5-T w o r k up e q u i p m e n t - filteration, acidi f i c a t i on , drying, etc." -31- M o n s a n t o was able to i s o l a t e d i o x i n as the toxic i n g r e d i e n t when it first b e g a n to prod u c e A g e n t Orange, and M o n s a n t o k n e w for 20 years b efore 1969 that the 2,4,5-T that they pro d u c e d contained toxic impurities t h a t w e r e c l e a r l y and d r a m a t i c a l l y hazardous to humans. Their k n o w l e d g e em a n a t e d from their own personal experiences, from the rep o r t s of i n d u s t r i a l p r oblems from other chemical companies p r o d u c i n g the same p r o d u c t and from confidential e x c h anges from the manufacturers. There is no q u e s t i o n t h a t D i o x i n was v i e w e d by M o n s a n t o and all other defendant s as h i g h l y toxic. dioxin c o n t a m i n a t e d 2,4,5-T sold They k n e w that the by them to the G o v e r n m e n t was being m i x e d together and us e d in Vietnam. But M o n s a n t o never informed any gover n m e n t a l o f f i c e r w i t h regard to the risks of dioxin c o n t a m i n a t i on a s s o c i a t e d wi t h A g e n t Oran g e or the m e t h o d s of dioxin control; nor did M o n s a n t o ever warn the G o v e r n m e n t with r e g a r d to the causal r e l a t i o n s h i p botv.’cen 2,4 , 5 - T exposure and serious injury. In their V e r i f i e d A n s w e r to the Plaintiffs' Interrogatories, M o n s a n t o has a d m i t t e d th a t they w e r e not r e s p o n ­ sible for, p a r t i c i p a t e d in, or familiar with any w a r n i n g s to the United States G o v e r n m e n t w i t h r e g a r d to the risks of dioxin c o n t a m i n a t i on a s s o c i a t e d w i t h A g e n t Orange, or w i t h the m e t h o d s of d i o x i n control. R.Emmet Kelly, M.D., for ma n y y ears the D i r e c t o r of the M o n s a n t o Medical D e p a r t m e n t and the p e r s o n whose r e s p o n s i b i l i t y it was to investigate and s u p e r v i s e N i t r o workers' complaints, in his deposition, a c k n o w l e d g e d the c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p betw e e n 2,4,5-T exposure a n d claims of p e r i p h e r a l neuropathy, d e m y e l i n a t i o n , chloracne, involvement". nerve and e v e n "the p o s s i b i l i t y of liver x* x . r» ;j Thus, M o n s a n t o ' s c o n d u c t c l e a r l y m arks it as a prime p a r t i c i p a n t w i t h the other d e f e n d a n t s in their efforts to conceal and m i s r e p r e s e n t the h a z a r d s a s s o c i a t e d wi t h the herbicides they were selling to the Government. E. D E F E N D A N T D I A M O N D S H A M R O C K C O R P O R A T I O N 'S K N O W L E D G E A B O U T M A N U F A C T U R I N G PROCESS D I OXIN AS CONTAMINANT, D E T E C T I O N METHODS, RISK R E D U C T I O N METHODS AND H EALTH HAZARDS A S S O C I A T E D W I T H E X P O S U R E T O DIOXIN. 1. D o c u m e n t s s u b m i t t e d b y D i a m o n d S h a m r o c k C o r p o r a t i o n a nd testimony of the Defendant's own witnesses graphically demonstrate that t h e r e w a s an e n o r m o u s a m o u n t o f i n f o r m a t i o n e x c h a n g e d r e l a t i n g t o t h e c o n t a m i n a n t i n v o l v e d here i n , its m a n u f a c t u r e , a n a l y s i s , . m e t h o d s o f elimin a t i o n , a nd last, importantly, its m e a n s of an d p e r h a p s most k n o w l e d g e b y the d e f e n d a n t s of the e x t e n t o f c o n t a m i n a t i o n in t h e p r o d u c t s o l d t o t he g o v e r n m e n t b y Diamond. 2. T h e h i s t o r i c a l e x p e r i e n c e of D i a m o n d S h a m r o c k C o r p o r a t i o n w i t h 2 , 4 , 5 - T is e n c a p s u l a t e d in c o m m u n i c a t i o n from R i c h a r d W. M c B u rney, J a rvis, M.D., d a t e d M a r c h 27, 1963, a d d r e s s e d to Mr. V i c e - P r e s i d en t , o f D i a m o n d S h a m r o c k C o r p o r a t i o n , Chloracne— Confidential. (Di a m o n d S h a mrock, Frank W. labeled E x h i b i t 12 This l e t t e r refers to a b u i l d i n g of ancient vintage where 2,4,5-T acid processing a c t u a l l y t a k e s p l a c e a n d a d v i s e s t h a t it is in th i s b u i l d i n g t h a t the 'workers are e a s i l y c o n t a m i n a t e d b y v a p o r s in the air. P a r a g r a p h 4, p a g e 1, admits: "As long as t h i s p l a n t h a s b e e n in operation, t h e r e h a s b e e n a chronic p r o b l e m in t he e m p l o y e e s h i r e d — o f a c o n d i t i o n r e f e r r e d to as c h l o r a c n e . " A t o n e time, a p p r o x i m a t e l y 40 o f the 72 w o r k e r s in t he p l a n t w ere affected by chloracne. P a r a g r a p h 5 o f p a g e 1 states, i m p r e s s i o n and the i m p r e s s i o n o f t h e m a n a g e m e n t "It is m y (Newark plant), that t h e s e b y p r o d u c t s a r e t h o s e o f a c h l o r i n a t e d e t h e r a nd a r e a r e s u l t of t h e r e a c t i o n o f c a u s t i c sod a o n 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 - t e t r a c h l o r o b e n z e n e as u s e d in t h e making, o f the 2,4,5-T." 1 X 4 S Q -33- 3. T h i s c o n c e r n e x p r e s s e d b y Dr. McBurney, however, doe n o t b e g i n a n d end w i t h the p r o b l e m of c h l o r a c n e in the p r o d u c t i o n Yorkers- Rather, as m a y b e s e e n on p a g e 2 o f his letter, there w a s a g r o w i n g c o n c e r n a b o u t a m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n k n o w n as p o r p h y r i a c u t a n e a tarda. T h i s is a d i s e a s e o f t h e b l o o d f o r m i n g ele m e n t s of the b o d y in w h i c h t h e h e m o g l o b i n o f t h e r ed b l o o d c e l l s is b r o k e n down and, essentially, the Spleen, o r l e s s e r extent, b e n zene. liver, a n d k i d n e y s are e f f e c t e d to a g r e a t e r d e p e n d i n g u p o n the i n g e s t i o n of such a c h l o r i n a t e d O n e o f the p h y s i c i a n s w o r k i n g o n b e h a l f o f D i a m o n d S h a m r o c k a t the N e w a r k plant. Dr. Bl e i b e r g , c o n d u c t e d a test o n four m e n w h o h a d s u f f e r e d the l o n g e s t f r o m c h l o r a c n e o n l y to find t h a t two o f t h e s e m e n h a d p o s i t i v e p o r p h y n r e a c t i o n s in t h e i r urine. 4. E u g e n e B a k in the m i d 1 9 6 0 's b e c a m e p r o d u c t i o n m a n a g o f the Diamond Shamrock Newark plant (page 2.7,; lines 17-25). t e s t i f i e d a t h i s d e p o s i t i o n on J a n u a r y 27, Bak 19S3 that h e w a s . a d v i s e d o f h e a l t h p r o b l e m s w i t h t h e w o r k e r s in the N e w a r k p l a n t w h e n he f i r s t c a m e to N e w a r k and r e p o r t e d to F r a n c i s Kennedy, 39, lines 16-23; p a g e 21, lines 2-10). Plant Manager (page He testified t h a t h e f e l t chloracne was a serious health problem when he became production manager (page 40, l i n e s 19-23). He a d m i t t e d that c e r t a i n l y h a l f the w o r k e r s in A c i d and T - E s t e r B u i l d i n g w e r e e f f e c t e d b y c h l o r a c n e 59, lines 11-25; p a g e 60, l ines 1-17). (page He c o nceded t h a t the m a n a g e m e n t s u s p e c t e d t h a t the h e a l t h h a z a r d also i n c l u d e d p o r p h y r i a a m o n g the w o r k e r s a t N e w a r k a n d t h a t t h e r e w a s some p o s i t i v e f i n d i n g s i n the u r i n e s p e c i m e n s o f t h e s e w o r k e r s 67, lines 1-25; p a g e 68, lines 1-3). (page 66, lines 10-25; p a g e He t e s t i f i e d t h a t c h l o r a c n e and l i v e r p r o b l e m s e x i s t e d in the N e w a r k p l a n t a n d h e w a s c o n c e r n e d a b o u t it (page 68, lines 4-23). T he p l a n t m a n a g e r for D i a m o n d S h a m r o c k at N e w a r k c o n s i d e r e d c h l o r a c n e to b e a s e r i o u s h e a l t h p r o b l e m w h i l e f u n c t i o n i n g i n that c a p a c i t y ( D e p o s i t i o n o f Francis Kennedy, p a g e 48, l i n e s 16-24; p a g e 50, lines 3-8). Mr. B a k a d m i t t e d t h a t the s a m e p r o d u c t s w e r e sold t o the p u b l i c t h a t w e r e s u s p e c t e d to cause c h l o r a c n e in w o r k e r s 5. (page 74, l i n e s 15-25; p a g e 75, lines 1-4). Mr. B a k a l s o a d m i t t e d that t h e s e same p r o d u cse ts nt w e r e o v e r s e a s as A g e n t O r a n g e (page 75, lines 5-9). Given the admitted k n o w l e d g e o f D i a m o n d S h a m r o c k ' s p r o d u c t i o n manager, it is s h o c k i n g to c o n s i d e r t h e c o m p l e t e lack of d i s c l o s u r e t o the G o v e r n m e n t of the^ information possessed by Diamond Shamrock (page 105, l i n e 2): A ^ "Q: At a n y ti m e d u r i n g t h o s e y e a r s 1965 t h r o u g h 1968, did you personally e v e r a d v i s e the U n i t e d S t a t e s A r m y o f t he c o n t a m i n a n t in t h e T C P p r o c e s s str e a m ? " A: I have not personally. Q: Did anyone t o y o u r p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e o n the p a r t of D i a m o n d S h a m r o c k e v e r a d v i s e the A r m y o f that? A: .1 don't know." 6. Having established the e x i s t e n c e o f an d k n o w l e d h e a l t h h a z ards, n o t o n l y in t h e p r o d u c t i o n s t a g e s of t he pr o d u c t , in product the final itself, but c o n s i d e r the i n t e r c h a n g e of t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n b e t w e e n D i a m o n d S h a m r o c k a n d the o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s in this law suit. February the T h e d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y o f E d w a r d L e e Chandler, 8, 1983, technical tak e n on i n d i c a t e s t h a t in 1957, C h a n d l e r b e c a m e m a n a g e r of service department of Diamond Shamrock which w a s a l i a i s o n b e t w e e n t h e t e c h n i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t of p r o d u c t s a n d the s a l e s of (pq. Exhibit 13 30, l ines 19-25; p g . 31, was Diamond Shamrock is a n i n t e r o f f i c e m e m o r a n d u m a d d r e s s e d to Hr. R. A. Guidi, daTtstl^Juiy 9, 1962, Guidi lines 1-2). the f r o m Mr. E d w a r d L e e C h a n d l e r . manager o f t h e N e w a r k plant. At t h a t time, Mr. The letter clearly illustrates D i a m o n d S h a m r o c k ' s c o n c e r n w i t h the loss o f two s i z e a b l e customers, Riverdale complained o f c h l o r a c n e p r o b l e m s w i t h the u se o f the final p r o d u c t s sold severe Chemical a nd Q u a k e r C i t y Tree, to them by Diamond Shamrock. both of w h o m T h e d e r m a t o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m w a s so to the e m p l o y e e s o f t h e s e c o m p a n i e s t h a t D i a m o n d lost t h e m as customers - -35- D i a m o n d ' s k n o w l e d g e of the h e a l t h haza r d s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the use of its p r o d u c t s was u n q u e s t i o n a b l y e s t a b l i s h e d by a serious o u t b r e a k of c h l o r a c n e among users of their 2,4-D and 2 , 4 , 5-T in Columbia, South America. This p r o b l e m was d e s c r i b e d b y L e x Creamer, D i a m o n d ' s repr e s e n t a t iv e , who forwa r d e d a r e p o r t to D i a m o n d ' s N e w York offi c e on M a r c h 18, 1965 (Exhibit 13a). As his r e p o r t indicates, in one ar e a alone t wenty p e o p l e we r e a f f e c t e d w i t h m o s t of them b e i n g h o s p i t a l i z e d for months. He also i n d icated that the horses were b a d l y a f f e c t e d w i t h loss of hair, skin lesions a nd in one case death. 7. C o n s i d e r i n g D i a m o n d Shamr o c k ' s con c e r n over the los customers b e cause of h e a l t h haza r d s and the use of their esters, it is not surprising that we see Fran c i s Ken n e d y and E d w a r d Lee C h a n d l e r on a list of invitees to the now infamous D o w - M i d l a n d C o n f e r e n c e of M a r c h 24, 1965, by letter from V.K. Rowe of D ow C h e m i c a l dated M a r c h 19, 1965. In that i nvitation Rowe d i r e c t l y addresses the t o x i c o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m s c aused by the p r e s e n c e of certain high l y toxic impuri t i e s in c e r t a i n sam pies of 2 , 4 , 5-T. He does not conf i n e these pr o b l e m s to a n y single c o mpan b u t rather admits t h a t the p r o b l e m was i n d u s t r y - w i de and that the -3 5a1 ■j*-. purpose of the m e e t i n g itself was to deal with the t o x i c o l o g i c al and analytical a s p e c t s of this problem. It is indisputable that as of that date, D o w had po s s e s s e d a m e t h o d of analysis w h i c h it . was w i l l i n g to share w i t h the i n vitees t h r o u g h o u t the industry, but n o t w i t h the military. Dr. C h a n d l e r never denied r e c e i v i n g this letter from Rowe, or in fact spe a k i n g to Rowe prior to his attend a n c e at the meeting. meeting. He r e a d i l y a d m i t t e d attending this He did, however, deny any acc u r a t e r e c o l lection of what took place at the m e e t i n g in M i d l a n d (Chandler deposition, p. 96). In i n t e r o f f i c e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e from E.L. C h andler to John Cort, Jr. dated M a r c h 25, 1965 with carbon copies to F r a n c i s R. Kennedy, M a n a g e r of the N e w a r k Plant, obvious first, and others (Exhibit 14 ), it is that D o w C h e m i c a l was sharing with the rest of the industry the s evere h e a l t h hazards; secondly, D o w advised the industry that they had i d e n t i f i e d the c a u s ative agent as dioxin; thirdly, D o w had d e v e l o p e d a new a n a l y t i c a l m e t h o d with a s e n sitivity level of 1 ppm; fourthly, D o w a d v i s e d the industry of its intention to set a limit at that time of 1 p p m d i oxin on this material; fifthly, C h a n d l e r a dmits that D o w had a n alyzed m a t e r i a l s from other companies i n c l u d i n g D i a m o n d Shamrock and found amounts as high as 10 p p m of d i o x i n in the 2 , 4 , 5 - T acid. recon f i r m s the purpose, M a r c h 24, The last p a r a g r a p h in this e x h i b i t industry-wide, of the M i d l a n d m e e t i n g of 1965, w h e r e Mr. C h a n d l e r co n c l u d e s "the purpose of this m e e t i n g w a s d e s i g n e d to help us solve this p r o b l e m b e f o r e o u t s i d e r s c o n f u s e the issue and cause us no end of grief. D o w is sending the test resul t s of our m a t e r i a l to us incidentally and this w i l l further check our techniques, etc." -36- H a ving consi d e r e d the I unive r s i a l i ty of the h e a l t h p r o b l e m of 2,4,5-T esters and the need throughout the i n d u s t r y to c o o p e r a t e to some exte n t to all eviate this problem, w h a t steps if any, did D i a m o n d S h a m r o c k take to eliminate the c o n t a m i n a n t d i o x i n from the T ester w h i c h c o m ­ prised half of the A g e n t O r a n g e p roduct? K e n n e d y ret u r n e d to the N ewark Plant after at t e n d i n g the D o w confe r e n c e at M i d l a n d on M arch 24, 1965 w i t h the k n o w l e d g e th a t there was a p r o b l e m i n v o l v i n g dioxin that had to be solved 8. (Kennedy deposition, p. 135, line 1-17) The dioxin c o n t a m i n a t i o n of Di a m o n d ' s h e r b i c i d e s c a u it to lose customers, in p a r ticular, Dow. On A p r i l 6, 1966 the f o l l o w i n g m e m o r a n d u m was sent f r o m J.C. Kelly, Diamond's sales s h i p p i n g c o o r d i n a t o r in Div i s i o n h e a d q u a r t e r s of its A g - C h e m D i v i s i o n in Cleveland, sales m a n a g e r in that division, to J.O. King, r e g a r d i n g Dow's r e f u s a l to p u r c h a s e Dia mo n d ' s production: A p r i l 6, 1966 "Mr. J.O. King Mr. J.C. K elly Dow Chemical C o m p a n y On M a r c h 21, we d i r e c t e d a sample of our T e c h n i c a l 2,4,5-T Acid to subject account. ' In t a l k i n g w i t h Ken Hanson on A p r i l 4, he a d v i s e d that they w o u l d n o t be in a m a r k e t for our material. Apparently, they feel that our m a t e r i a l could c o n c e i v a b l y r e ­ create a chlor- a c n e p r o b l e m at M i d l a n d and, as such, w o u l d not e n t e rt a i n the pur c h a s e of our p r e s e n t p r o ­ duction. J. C. KELLY J CK/im cc. Mr. F.R. K e n n e d y - N e w a r k Mr. R.A. Guidi" 9. There is no d o u b t that Diam o n d had con si d e r a b l e k n o w l e of d i o x i n risk r e d u ctio n techniques. An inte r i m report, J a n u a r y 9, 1967 of experi m e n t a l wo r k for TC P purification, reveals their awareness of Dow's studies r e g a r d i n g i d e n t i f i c a t io n of the c o m ­ pounds causing chloracn e and analy t i c a l proce d u r e s used to q u a n ­ t itatively identify the d i o x i n contamination. D i a m o n d also k n e w w h a t n e eded to be done to e l i m i n a t e or reduce dioxin, and that this could be a c c o m p l i s h e d in s e v e r a l ways including a l t e r a t i o n of the TCP c o n d e n s a t i o n r e a c t i o n or ut i l i z i n g e n g i n e e r i n g techniques to remove d ioxin from proc e s s streams after they have be e n reduced. 10. It is s i g n i f i c a n t that from the time D o w gave D i a m o n d Shamrock the means of a n a l y z i n g its p r o d u c t in M a r c h of 1965, it was not until September of 1967 that a p u r i f i c a t i o n c o l u m n was i n s talled on the p r o d u c t i o n floor and p u t into use. D e s p i t e such installation, and perhaps m o s t significantly, by Dia m o n d S h a m r o c k ' s own a n alysis from J a n u a r y to M arch of 1968, it was r u n n i n g 3.8 p p m diox i n and r e l a t e d compounds in its 2,4,5-TCP. In October through De c e m b e r 11 -38- j 1968, it ran 9 ppm. N e v e r t h e l e s s, p r o d u c t i o n continued, and the p r o d u c t was sold to the gove r n m e n t . R. Kennedy, sworn to M a r c h 27, In the a f f i d a v i t of Francis 1980, he speaks eloque n t l y of the g o v e r n m e n t ’s need for A g e n t Orange, but is a b s o l u t e l y silent on D i a m o n d Shamrock's need for p u r i f i c a t i o n of a contaminated p r o d u c t that it k n e w that it was s e l l i n g to the g o v e r n m e n t with o u t d i s c l o s u r e of the c o n t a m i n a t i o n problems. Wh a t effect, if any, did the perfor m a n c e of D i a m o n d S h a m r o c k c o r p o r a t i o n have on the defendants? Did the concern e x p r e s s e d b y D o w in the M i d l a n d m e e t i n g in M a r c h of 1965 terminate its c o n c e r n r e g a r d i n g the c o n t a m i n a n t which it k n e w at that time was i n d u s t r y w ide? Or in fact did the purported c o n c e r n for this serious h e a l t h p r o b l e m con t i n u e among the various d e f e n ­ dants well b e y o n d the D o w c o n ference? An answer to that can c l e a r l y be seen in a c o n f i d e n t i a l m e m o r a n d u m of J.P. Frawley, d ated July 12, 1965, of the H e r c u l e s Powder C o m p a n y w h i c h relates to a telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n dated Ju l y 9, 1965 with Mr. E a r l Far n h a n of D o w C h e m i c a l C o m p a n y . Mr. F a r n h a n w as c o n vinced that no one else in the i n d u s t r y had d o n e anything to remove the c o n t a m i n a n t from their. 2,4,5-T. Mr. F a r n h a n further stated that D o w was e x t r e m e l y f r i g h t e n e d that this s i t u ation m i g h t explode. Mr. F r awley q uotes Mr. F a r n h a n as stat i n g that D ow "aware that their compet i t o r s are m a r k e t i n g 2,4,5-T w h i c h contains alarming a m o u n t s of a c n e g e n and t h a t if the g o v e r n m e n t learns of this the whole ind u s t r y w i l l suffer. T h e y are p a r t i c u l a r l y f e a r f u l of a c o n g r e s s i o n a l i n v e s t i g a t i on a n d e x c e s s i v e r e s t r i c t i v e legislation on the m a n u ­ facture of p e s t i c i d e s w h i c h m i g h t r esult." -39- Obviously, it was not the in t e n t i o n of Hercules, to disclose a p r o b l e m of h e a l t h to its customer, D ow and o t hers the U n i t e d States Government, b u t r ather to try a nd induce the industry at large to "clean-up" ("cover-up?") its p r o d u c t b e f o r e the g o v e r n m e n t found out about the h ealth hazard. It is ha r d to c o nceive of g r e a t e r evidence of the c o n s p i r a c y of silence where, as here, the industry a d m i t t e d l y k n e w of a s e r i o u s h e a l t h problem, u n k n o w n to the government, than Mr. F a r n h a n ' s o wn w o r d s of p r e c a u t i o n that Dow is fearful if the g o v e r n m e n t learned of the a l a r m i n g amou n t s of acnegen, F. the e ntire industry w o u l d suffer. T.H. A g r i c u l t u r e and N u t r i t i o n Company, Inc. K n e w A b o u t D i oxin as a C o n t a m i n a n t in 2,4,5-T and K n e w A b o u t C o n c o m i t a n t Health Hazards and F a i l e d to Warn the Military._____________________ M u c h of w h a t is known a b o u t the d e f e n d a n t T.H. A g r i c u l t u r e and N u t r i t i o n Company, Chemical Company, Inc., Inc., f o r m e r l y k n o w n as T h o m p s o n - H a y w a r d (hereafter "T.H.") is the r e s u l t of a d eposition of Edwin T. U p t o n a nd a r e v i e w of T . H.'s pr o d u c e d documents. Mr. U p t o n was d e p o s e d on A p r i l 7 a n d 8, 1983 a n d T.H. p r o d u c e d d o c u m e n t s t o t a l i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 8,000 p ages. C o u n s e l for T.H. r e p r e s e n t e d to c o u n s e l for plaintiffs that no c o n f i d e n t i a l or p r o p r i e t a r y d o c u m e n t s w e r e withheld. Mr. documents, c l e a r l y sh o w s that T.H. product ester U p t o n ’s d e p o s i t i o n , in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the knew about dioxin (hereafter variously 2,4,5-T, 2 , 4 , 5 - T e s t e r and i s o o c t y l 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c acetate) c o n c o m i t a n t health hazards. in its e n d and knew about Mr. U p t o n ' s d e p o s i t i o n and T . H . ' s d o c u m e n t s f u r t h e r e s t a b l i s h that n e i t h e r Mr. U p t o n nor a n y o n e at T.H. w a r n e d the m i l i t a r y . -4 0 - *« Edwin T. U p t o n first w o r k e d for T.H. on a full-time basis as a c h e m i s t b e g i n n i n g in 1946. (Upton T r . at 27.) F r o m Chemist, Mr. Upton p r o g r e s s e d to C hief of the Quality Control Laboratory, Chief Chemist, Administrator. Id^ at 27, 44. and finally Labor a t o r y F r o m 1946 to 1947 Mr. Upton w o r k e d o n f o r m u l a t i n g usable forms of 2,4,5-T. Id. at 29. In e x p e r i m e n t i ng with formulations, Mr. U p t o n made an informal literature search resu l t i n g in a paper w h i c h was presented at a r e g i o n a l A m e r i c a n C h e m i c a l S o c i e t y m e e t i n g in 1946 or 1947. Id., at 29. In p r e p a r i n g that p aper he reviewed a number of patents on the use of p h e n o x y herbicides. Those p a tents were r e v i e w e d p r i o r to 1955. Id_. at 30. Id. at 31. In 1946 or 1947, Mr. Upton d e v e l o p e d for T.H., a successful f o r m u l a t i o n of 2,4,5-T. Id_. at 32-33. B e t w e e n 1946 and 1947 , Mr. Upton also w o r k e d on p r o d u c t s c o n t a i n i n g a mixt u r e of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D. Id. at 35. T h r o u g h Mr. Upton's efforts, T.H. developed, early in the '50's, a h e r b i c i d e w h i c h w a s a 50/50 m i x t u r e of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. That p r o d u c t was c a l l e d DED WE E D 50-50 BRUSH KIL. (Upton T r . at 36). T.H. al s o m a n u f a c t u r e d 3-3 BRUSH KIL. That p r o d u c t was a 50/50 m i x t u r e of 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D. (Upton at 41). -41- T.H. established specifications for 2 , 4,5-T. 49. T h o s e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s 'were e s t a b l i s h e d Id. Beginning in 1 9 5 0 or 1951, T.H. a c c o r d i n g to t h o s e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . Id. a t in the late '40s. began manufacturing 2,4,5-T JEd. at 51. 2 , 4 , 5 - T was m a n u f a c t u r e d f r o m a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1950 to s o m e time b e f o r e 1 9 6 0 at a p l a n t in K a n s a s Cit y , Kansas. p l a n t w a s o p e n e d in T u r n e r , Kans a s . product, isooctyl Some time a f t e r 1960, a n e w In m a n u f a c t u r i n g the e n d 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acetate, T.H. b e g a n w i t h t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l p u r c h a s e d f r o m the D o w C h e m i c a l Company. The 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l w a s c o n v e r t e d to s o d i u m 2.4.5- trichlorophenate. In a s e p a r a t e p r o c e s s , acetic acid was e s terified with isooctyl m o n o c h l o r o a c e t a t e . The monochloro- isooctyl alcohol to ma k e two i n t e r m e d i a t e s , sodium 2 . 4 . 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n a t e a n d i s o o c t y l m o n o c h l o r o a c e t a t e wer e coupled to m a k e the e n d p r o d u c t , noxyacetic acetate. isooctyl 2,4,5-trichlorophe- JCd. at 76. F r o m 1 9 4 7 w h e n he w a s a c h e m i s t u n t i l 1974 w h e n he w a s the L a b o r a t o r y A d m i n i s t r a t o r , Mr. U p t o n r e m a i n e d r e s p o n s i b l e a " h a n d s on" or s u p e r v i s o r y c a p a c i t y for of r a w m a t e r i a l s , 44, 81. From 1947 the a n a l y t i c a l t e s t i n g i n t e r m e d i a r i e s and f i n i s h e d p r o d u c t s . to a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1965, T.H. U p t o n Tr. at 82. Beginning infrared spectrometer its 2,4,5-T. for d e t e r m i n i n g JEd. at 84. to be u s e d u n t i l Mr. 1962 or 1963, T.H. in 1964 or The Id. at u t i l i z e d the official Agricultural Chemist Association method for d e t e r m i n i n g g r o s s a m o u n t s of c h l o r i n e in (Parr Bomb) in the 2,4,5-T. ‘65, T.H. b e g a n u s i n g an the g r o s s c o m p o s i t i o n of infrared spectrometer continued U p t o n le f t T.H. in 1974. J[d. a t 85. o b tained a gas chromatograph. In Id. at 87. -42- 1 F r o m 1963 w h e n T.H. o b t a i n e d its gas c h r o m a t o g r a p h until the m i d d l e of 1964 that gas c h r o m a t o g r a p h was n o t used to d eter m i n e impurities in 2,4,5-T. Id. at 88,89. F r o m 1963 until the m i d d l e of 1964, T.H.'s gas c h r o m a t o g r a p h was n ot u t i l i z e d to d e t e r m i n e the a m o u n t of i n e r t i n g redients in the 2,4,5-T being m a n u f a c t u r e d by T.H. Id. at 89, 90. O n D e c e m b e r 3, 1964, Dr. D avid Groth of the R e gional H e a l t h R e s e r a c h and T r a i n i n g F a c i l i t y in Cincinnati, Ohio, w r o t e to Mr. Upton. In t h a t letter, Dr. Groth i n d i c a t e d t h a t he was inter e s t e d in the "determination of the toxic c o m p o u n d p r e s e n t in the c o m m e r c i a l l y a v a i l a b l e 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a cetic acid w h i c h is sold as the iso-octyl ester." D a v i d Groth further indic a t e d that K i m m i g and Schultz had p u b l i s h e d a p a p e r "whic g a v e evidence that the skin and liver toxicity w e r e n ot original) (emphasis in due to the 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c acid, but p r o b a b l y f r o m some b y - p r o d u c t w h i c h is pres e n t in very s m a l l quanities." F r o m his reading of K i m m i g and Schultz, Dr. G r o t h stated .^at he t h o u g h t to be the r e s p o n s i b l e c o m p o u n d a n d d r e w a s c h e m a t i c of t h a t c o m p o u n d - Of g r e a t e s t i m p o r t a n c e , as a r e s u l t of h i s lack of k n o w l e d g e , c o n c l u s i v e e v i d e n c e that this, " h o wever, in c o m m e r c i a l 2,4,5-T." the h o p e of b e i n g a b l e to s e p a r a t e r e q u e s t e d E. T. U p t o n of T.H. there is no or a ny o ther s p e c i f i c c o m p o u n d , is r e s p o n s i b l e s i n c e no o n e has y et s e p a r a t e d compounds present he n o t e d the v a r i o u s Apparently, those compounds, in David Groth to s e n d h i m s a m p l e s of i s o o c t y l e s t e r 2 , 4 , 5 - T m a n u f a c t u r e d b y T.H. -43- After letters and c o n v e r s a t i o n s wi t h e m p l oyees of the Dow Chemical C o m p a n y - w h i c h were the d i r e c t result of David Groth's letter - E.T. U p t o n sent samples of T . H . ’s 2,4,5-T a n d Dow's trichlorophenol to D a v i d G r o t h . 1 9 6 5 w h i c h a c c o m p a n i e d the T.H. In a l e t t e r of J a n u a r y 14, s a m p l e s , Mr. U p t o n w r o t e "we w o u l d a p p r e c i a t e v e r y m u c h r e c e i v i n g a c o p y of your a n a l y t i c a l method, which I assume determining the is b a s e d on g a s c h r o m a t o g r a p h y for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin." Apparently, Mr. U p t o n w as a w a r e g r a p h y c o u l d be u t i l i z e d to d e t e r m i n e tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin To a s s u r e h i m s e l f that gas c h r o m a t o - the e x i s t e n c e of 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 - in the 2,4,5-T. that he w o u l d be a d v i s e d Groth discovered anything, Mr. if Dr. U p t o n w r o t e a s e c o n d letter d a t e d F e b r u a r y 17, 1965 in w h i c h he stat e d : i n t e r e s t e d in y o u r study of "We are very m u c h the t o x i c i t y of the b y - p r o d u c t s p r e s e n t in c o m m e r c i a l l y a v a i l a b l e 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic a c i d esters. p l e a s e send us a c o p y of For our i n f o r m a t i o n , your a n a l y t i c a l m e t h o d for the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 - tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in t e c h n i c a l 2,4,5-T esters." See, Exhibit 4 (emphasis a d d e d ) . Unfortunately, that, in fact, D a v i d G r o t h w a s n ever ab l e to d e t e r m i n e 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 - t e t r a c h l o r o d i b e n z o - p - d i o x i n w as the s u b ­ s t a n c e in c o m m e r c i a l l y a v a i l a b l e 2 , 4 , 5 - T c a u s i n g l i v e r d a m a g e and chloracne. Mr. A s e x p l a i n e d by D a v i d G r o t h in his l e t t e r to U p t o n of F e b r u a r y 26, 1965: -44- I h a d h o p e d by this t i m e I w o u l d have been a b l e to g i v e you s o m e r e s u l t s on our t e c h ­ nique. H o w e v e r , d u e to a s h o r t a g e of funds we h a v e n o t y e t p u r c h a s e d the t h i n - l a y e r c h r o m a t o g r a p h y a p p a r a t u s t h a t we plan on u s i n g for the s e p a r a t i o n . In p r e v i o u s c o r r e s p o n d e n c e I m e n t i o n e d so m e a r t i c l e s w h i c h r e f e r r e d to the t o x i c i t y of 2,4,5 t r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c ac i d and possible toxic contaminants. The p r i n c i p a l (sic) a r t i c l e is b y K i m m i g in D e r m a t o l o g i e s 115:540-546. 1957. So far, that is the p r e s e n t s t a t e of our k n o w l e d g e on the subject. Like K i m m i g and Schultz in 1957, D a v i d Groth was o n l y able to speculate that 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 - t e t r a c h l o r o d i b e n z o - p - d i o x i n was the p o s s i b l e toxic contaminant. However, Mr. Upton, o t h e r s at T.H. and others at Dow C h e m i c a l C o m p a n y were k e e n l y aware that David G r o t h was g r oping for answers to a serious i n d u s t r i a l and end user helath problem. R e p r e s e n t a t iv e s of Dow, T.H. and of the o ther d e f endant c h e mical companies had the a n s w e r s Dr. G roth was seeking. Those answers were, never p r o v i d e d to him. Mr. U p t o n never w r o t e to Dr. G r o t h after D a v i d Groth's letter of F e b r u a r y 26, 1965. Mr. U p t o n never informed Dr. G r o t h of i n f o r m a t i o n Mr. Upton had concerning tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, its r e l a t i o n s h i p to 2 , 4 , 5 - T a n d intermediaries, and analytical p r e s e n c e of d i o x i n . U p t o n Tr. t e c h n i q u e s for d e t e r m i n i n g t he 225, n e v e r a b l e to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r 2 , 4 ,5-T, 2,3 , 7 , 8 - 226. While Da v i d Groth was d i o x i n w a s a c o n t a m i n a n t in the s a m e c a n n o t be s a i d for Mr. U p t o n a n d o t h e r s a t T.H. IX? -45- D a v i d Groth's initial letter of Dec e m b e r 3, 1964 w a s the c a t a l y s t for a number of events. A f t e r r e c e iving David G r o th's letter, Mr. Upton d i s c u s s e d the c o ntents of th a t lett e r w i t h L i n d l e y S. DeAtley, V i c e - P r e s i d e n t of R e s e a r c h and D e v e l o p ­ m e n t for T .H . -Uptorr-Tp.. 102. W i t h i n a m a t t e r of days, Mr. D e A t l e y w r o t e a let ted, D e c e m b e r 11, 1964 to Dr. R.C. Dosser, L a b o r a t o r y or for the D o w Che m i c a l Company. that letter, Mr. D e A t l e y stated: In "As w e have c o r r e s p o n d e d a n d t alked a b o u t the p u r i t y of t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l and r e l a t e d c o m p o u n d s on several o c c a s i o n s , I t h o u g h t yo u w o u l d be intere s t e d in the a t t a c h e d letter of D e c em b e r 3, from Dr. D a v i d H. G r o t h of the Public H e a l t h Service." (Emphasis added.) W h e n Mr. Dosser failed to respond, Mr. D e A t l e y w r o t e anot h e r letter of D e c e m ­ ber 28, 1964 stating: "... we feel we m u s t reply to the l e t t e r of D e c e m b e r 3 from David H. G roth ..." (Emphasis added). Mr. D e A t l e y never rec e i v e d a w r i t t e n r esponse from Dow. Rather, Dr. R.C. D osser of D ow c a l l e d Mr. D e A t l e y on Jan u a r y 12, 1965 and "pointed out" that: "[I]f a compound, found in 2,4,5-T acid or its esters, p r o v e d to be damaging that this m i g h t lead to a flurry of successful claims b y u s e r s of the h e r b i c i d e w h o a l l e g e d l y had be e n inju r e d by it. Also, he said that altho u g h he did not k n o w our m e t h o d of p r o c e s ­ sing D o w ’s t r i c h o l o p h e n o l , his c h e m i s t s u s p e c t e d that by some procedures, the toxic c o m p o u n d m i g h t be formed in process i n g thr o u g h the sodium salt of the p henol to the sodium salt of the acid. -46- Dr. Dosser, of Dow, w a s clea r l y aware of alleged "user" injuries. time, T.K. w a s advi s e d of those e nd user injuries at this if it d i d n o t have p r e v i o u s knowledge. Dow, also i n f ormed Mr. D e A t l e y of T.H., Dr. Dosser, of that D ow h a d d e v e loped an a n a l y t i c a l t e c h nique for d e t e c t i n g d i o x i n and had been u t i l i z i n g a n i m a l tests (the r a b b i t ear test) w h i c h ha d a s e n s i ­ t ivity of a b o u t one part per m i llion. Id. None of this infor­ m a t i o n was c o n v e y e d to Dr. G r o t h at the Public Heal t h Service t h o u g h he h a d c l e a r l y e x p r e s s e d his i n t e r e s t . 226. U pton Tr. 225, R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of D o w and the r e p r e s e n t a t iv e s of T.H. w e r e w e l l aware of his interest. W h e n Mr. Upton r e s p o n d e d to D a v i d Groth's letter on J a n u a r y 14, 1965-two or m o r e days a f t e r D osser's con v e r s a t i o n w i t h D e A t l e y - Mr. Upton f a i l e d to i n f o r m Dr. Groth of the i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d by Dr. Dosser, of Dow, to Mr. DeAtley, of T.H. U pton Tr. 225, 226. As n o t e d earlier, Dr. G r o t h w r o t e to Mr. U p t o n on the 26th of February, 1965 and a d v i s e d h i m that due to b u d g e t a r y constraints, Dr. G r o t h w o u l d not be able to p u r ­ sue his research. Upon r e c e i v i n g Dr. Groth's letter, E.T. U p t o n or o t h e r s at T.H. c l ear l y c o u l d and should have imparted to Dr. G r o t h all of the inform a t i o n they in d e p e n d e n t ly po s s e s s e d a nd l e a r n e d from the Dow C h e m i c a l Company. -47- I T h e i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h s h o u l d h a v e been i m p a r t e d to Dr. Groth and T . H . 's a b i l i t y to i m p a r t th a t i n f o r m a t i o n a re clear. In a d d i t i o n Dosser/ of D o w T.H- m e e t i n g a t Dow. O n F e b r u a r y 19, Fuhlhage, T . H . ’s S u p e r v i s o r Dow h e a d q u a r t e r s to i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d by Dr.. obtained i n f o r m a t i o n from the 1965, Mr. D e A t l e y a n d D.W. for P r o c e s s D e v e l o p m e n t , v i s i t e d in M i d l a n d , Michigan. P r e s e n t a t t h a t m e e t i n g w e r e t he f o l l o w i n g D o w r e p r e s e n t a ­ tives: J.C. T u c k e r , P r o d u c t S a l e s M a n a g e r ; Mr. H a r o l d Gill, Chromatography Laboratory; Research; a n d Mr. T.H. Larry Silverstein, Harold Hoyle, F r o m m i n u t e s m a d e b y Mr. meeting, Mr. it a p p e a r s c l e a r Biochemical B i o c h e m i c a l Research. D e A t l e y of the F e b r u a r y 19, 1965 th a t D o w i n f o r m e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of t h a t D o w h a d e x p e r i e n c e d c a s e s of c h l o r a c n e p r i o r ~ December, indicated 1964. • At that m e e t i n g , to Dow's representatives that d i o x i n w a s s y s t e m i c and g e n e r a l l y t a k e n into the body by physical contact. D o w ' s p e o p l e n o t e d th a t they h a d t a k e n e l a b o r a t e p r e c a u t i o n s w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r a t i o n of c o s t to e l i m i n a t e the h e a l t h h a z a r d to w o r k e r s . sentatives stated Dow's repre­ that s u c h p r e c a u t i o n s a p p e a r e d n e c e s s a r y , in l i g h t of the " b i o l o g i c a l a c t i v i t y w h i c h s o m e t i m e s e x c e e d e d expectations" upon conducting r e p o r t e d b y Dr. S i l v e r s t e i n , tests. of Dow, dioxin when repeatedly applied, applied material Additionally, it w a s th a t lower l e v e l s of ev e n t h o u g h than a s i n g l e a p p l i c a t i o n , t o t a l i n g m u c h le s s could produce extreme reactions. 11476 - 4 8 - As a r e s u l t of the F e b r u a r y 19, 1 9 6 5 m e e t i n g . Dr. c a r l e s E. Lewis, w h o w o r k e d for T.H. Advisor, v i s i t e d Dow. h is a l l e g e d R e p o r t o n . t h e C h l o r a c n e « In as its I n d u s t r i a l H y g i e n e Problem, Dr. L e w i s noted: B e c a u s e of the p a s t e x p e r i e n c e at T h o m p s o n - H a y w a r d it w o u l d s e e m th a t two g e n e r a l a p p r o a c h e s n e e d to be m a d e to the problem. First , b e c a u s e of the u se of so m e material which was probably heavily c o n t a m i ­ n a t e d w i t h d i o x i n a n d o t h e r C.A. (chloracne) p r o d u c t i n g a g e n t s , it w o u l d s e e m i m p o r t a n t to s a m p l e (using the w i p e s a m p l e method) the e n v i r o n m e n t of the s y n t h e s i s a r e a to m a k e s u r e t h a t there is no r e s i d u a l c o n t a m i n a t i o n with these agents....It would seem highly d e s i r a b l e to go to the use of c o v e r a l l s a nd s h o w e r s as m a n d a t o r y , as w e l l as m o n t h l y i n s p e c t i o n of these i n d i v i d u a l s for s k i n l e s i o n s a n d on an o c c a s i o n a l , p e r h a p s 2 to 3 m o n t h s , c h e c k on b l o o d tests for t h e i r l i v e r function. In d i s c u s s i n g this w i t h Mr. R o w e (Chief T o x i c o l o g i s t at Dow) it was a l s o t h o u g h t that it m i g h t be w i s e to do an o c c a s i o n a 1 s a m p l e o f the f i n a l p r o d u c t of the o p e r a tion h e r e w i t h V.P.C. (believed to s t a n d for V a p o r C h r o m a t o g r a p h y ) for d i o x i n and m a y b e (?) o c c a s i o n a l r a bbit t e s t . >■ ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d e x c e p t a d d e d except Dr. Le wis' the l a s t ) . letter alleged report was written prior D o w a n d T.H. is an i n d i c a t i o n , to A p r i l 26, 1965. to u s e r s . By F e b r u a r y 19, h a d a s t o r e of methodology. parentheticals w e r e c l e a r l y c o n c e r n e d a b o u t end p r o d u c t c o n t a m i - nation and hazards T.H. If the c o v e r the l a s t 1965, and c e r t a i n l y b y A p r i l information concerning Nonetheless, n e i t h e r E.T. -49- 26, 1 9 6 5 dioxin and analytical U p t o n nor a n y other 11477 repre s e n t a t iv e o f T h o m p s o n - H a y w a r d C h e m i c a l C o m p a n y wrote to Dr. G r o t h after his letter of F e b r u a r y 26, 1965 in w h i c h he indicated an i n a b i l i t y to o b t a i n answ e r s to his questions. Upton Tr. 225, 226. G.The M i l i t a r y W as U n i n f o r m e d of T.H.'s M a n u f a c t u r i n g P r o c e s s A n d Its C a p a b i l i t y For Risk Reduction. In his first letter to Mr. Upton, Dr. Groth requested "any i n f o r m a t i o n you can gi v e us c o n c e r n i n g the m a n u f a c t u r i n g process, ie. s t a rting compounds, r e a c t i o n s and p o ssible b y - p r oducts." In r e s p o n d i n g to Dr. Groth's request, Mr. Upton d i r e c t e d Dr. Groth to o p e n liter a t u r e on 2 , 4-D m a n u ­ facturing processes. Mr. U p t o n did not d i rect Dr. Groth to open literature on 2,4,5-T m a n u f a c t u r i n g processes. inference of c o n s p i r a t o r i a l silence again arises. The In addition, Mr. Upton was u n d o u b t e d l y r e l u c t a n t to divu l g e trade secrets. When Dr. D o s s e r of D o w r e q u e s t e d i n f o r m a t i o n on T.H.'s m a n u ­ facturing process, T.H. a g a i n was w i l l i n g only to d i r e c t the inquirer to p u b l i s h e d literature. F r o m .the p u b l i s h e d literature, n e i t h e r D o w nor the m i l i t a r y c o u l d have k nown T . H.'s m a n u f a c t u r i n g process. The m i l i t a r y ' s lack of k n o w l e d g e as to the m a n u f a c t u r i n g process is i m p o rtant b e c a u s e "the type of m a n u f a c t u r i n g process used a f f e c t e d the level of d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a t i o n and that by. e x e r c i s i n g d i s c r e t i o n as to the process, the d e f e n d a n t s c o n t r o l l e d the extent of the d i o x i n hazard." O r a n g e , 534 F.Supp. 1046, 1957 By a d m i s s i o n , of T . H . ' s (E.D.N.Y., s o m e of 2,4,5-T was ^ i d - ’60s. 1982). the m a t e r i a l used in the m a n u - "heavily contaminated" According ■71 tests of T . H . ' s See, In Re A g e n t to Mr. Upton, " Agent O r a n g e " by 19 7 0 or 2 , 4 , 5 - T e s t e r s s h o w e d a lower l e v e l of c o n t a m i n a t i o n of up to two p a r t s per m i l l i o n U p t o n Tr. a t 143. in the {hereafter Samples taken from excess stocks of T.H.'s in 1973 f r o m a n i n v e n t o r y at G u l f p o r t , sippi m a y belie "ppm"). t h o s e l o w 1970 or Missis­ '71 figures. T h e G u l f p o r t s a m p l e s s h o w e d a c o n t a m i n a t i o n l e v e l of f r o m 0.7 to 4.1 ppm. factured Unfortunately, the A g e n t O r a n g e s a m p l e s been determined. used, the d a t e upon w h i c h T.H. m a n u ­ however, t u r e d by T.H. t a k e n at G u l f p o r t h as n ot y e t F r o m the r a t e a t w h i c h A g e n t O r a n g e w as b e i n g the A g e n t O r a n g e s a m p l e d w as p r o b a b l y m a n u f a c ­ in the la t e '60s or e a r l y '70s. F r o m the m i d - ' 6 0 s w h e n T . H . ' s i s o o c t y l e s t e r t r i cholorophenoxyacetic acetate was the l a t e '60s or e a r l y 4.1 ppm, "heavily contaminated" to '70s w h e n T . H . ' s A g e n t O r a n g e c o n t a i n e d lower but still hazardous than) 2,4,5- l e v e l s of u p Gene Douglas, a T.H. to (and p e r h a p s h i g h e r c h e m i s t under Mr. a t t e m p t e d to d i s c o v e r w h e r e d i o x i n w a s b e i n g p r o d u c e d Upton, in T . H . ' s plant and to remove the d i o x i n wi t h a c t i v a t e d carbon. W h e t h e r an activ a t e d c a r b o n c l e a n up process was instit u t e d and the levels of dioxin in this h e r b i c i d e d u ring 1960-1969, will only be known after p l a i n t i f f s have had the o p p o r t u n i t y to complete their d i s c ove r y of T.H.. -51- 1 1.4 . In a d d ition to looking at an a c t i v a t e d carbon clean up process, Gene Douglas c o n d u c t e d e x p e r i m e n t s in 1967 to d e t e r m i n e the relationship betwee n p r e s s u r e / t e m p e r a t u r e and the p r o d u c t i o n and amount of dioxin. F r o m those experiments, Mr. Douglas c l e a r l y learned that over a cert a i n temperature, d i o x i n formed and that the higher the t empera t u r e the mo r e d i o x i n was produced. if With t h a t knowledge, Gene Doug l a s w o u l d have been remiss if he h a d not suggested that the s o d i u m t r i c h l o r o p h e n a t e be d r i e d at a lower temperature. He m i g h t also have s u g g e s t e d that the w e t ester be d r i e d at a lower t e mpe r a t u r e and that the excess u n r e a c t e d p h e n o l be driven off w i t h steam inst e a d of heat. W h e t h e r those sugge s t i o n s w e r e made and implemen t e d w i l l also not be k n o w n u n t i l p l a i n t i f f s c o m p l e t e their discovery. Clearly, T.H. k n e w of m e t h o d s for r educing the level of d ioxin in its end product. T.H. also k n e w from 1965 and p e r h a p s b e f o r e 1965 of the dan g e r o u s n e s s of d i o x i n and T.H. kn e w th a t the level of hazard increa s e d w i t h the level of dioxin. no proof, on the other hand, T here has been that the m i l i t a r y k n e w a b o u t T . H.'s o r i g i n a l m a n u f a c t u r i n g process. T h e r e has been no p roof t h a t the military experimented with a pressure/temperature dioxin relationship T h e r e has b e e n no proof that the m i l i t a r y e x p e r i m e n t e d with an a c t i ­ v a t e d carbon clean up process. No r has there b e e n any proof by T.H. < any of the d efendants that the m i l i t a r y was told a b o u t the foregoing. 7/ Whenever p r o d u c t i o n is i n c r eased it is u s u a l l y done by i n ­ creasing the temperature of the s y n thesis run." The higher temperature resul t e d in i n c r eased d i o x i n in the w a s t e and in the end product. 11480 -52- Finally, neith e r T.H. nor the other d efendants has pu t in any proof that "the g o v e r n m e n t h ad k n o w l e d g e equal to theirs the above d i s c u s s e d risk re d u c i n g techniques) (about and that even wi t h that k n o w l e d g e the g o v e r n m e n t imposed no r e q u i r e m e n t or r e s t r i c t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t to the m a n u f a c t u r i n g proc e s s or the level of d i o x i n conta m i n a t i on . " The e v i d e n c e p o ints instead to T . H.'s failure to d i s c l o s e these techni q u e s to the military, just as it failed to w a r n them of the hazards a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a t e d h e r b i c i d e s it w a s selling to the Government. H. T.H. Kne w of M e a n s For De t e c t i n g D i oxin A n d F aile d To D i s c l o s e Those Methods to the Military._____________________ T.H. c l e a r l y learned from the Dow Ch e m i c a l Comp a n y they did not a l r e a d y know) (if h o w to use gas c h r o m a t o g r a p h y for the d e t e c t i o n of d i ox i n in t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l , sodi u m trichlorop h e n a t e and later 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c acetate. discus s i o n s w i t h H. Gill of Dow, Mr. From DeAtley and Mr. Fuhlhage c l e a r l y knew a b o u t the u s e of gas c h r o m a t o g r a p h y for detecting dioxin. Mr. D e A t l e y and Mr. F u h l h a g e learned a b o u t Dow's d e t e c t i o n m e t h o d prior to F e b r u a r y 23, 1965. Dr. T.H. never in f o r m e d Groth of their k n o w l e d g e c o n c e r n i n g the use of gas c h r o m a t o ­ g r a p h y even after Dr. G r o t h ' s letter of Fe b r u a r y 26, he a l e r t e d T.H. 1965 w h e r e i n that he h ad not been able to p u r c h a s e a gas c h r o m a ­ t o g r a p h and devise a m e t h o d for separ a t i n g the compounds. Whether or not T.H. and the other d e f e n d a n t s had a duty to test their 9 f * \ p r o d u c t s using gas c h r o m a t o g r a ph y , they had a clear du t y to £/ advise the m i l i t a r y of its availability. Use of a gas c h r o m a t o g r a p h to identify d i o x i n and d e t e r ­ mine the levels of c o n t a m i n a t i o n is a risk reduction technique. K n o w l e d g e of gas c h r o m a t o g r a p h y and after 1965 is important. (and the rabbit ear test) b e f o r e U n d e r the contracts for the p r o c u r e m e n t of "Agent O r a n g e , " the d e f e n d a n t c h e m i c a l c o m p anies w e r e r e q u i r e d to u t i li z e the Parr Bomb m e t h o d and w h e n it b e c a m e available, mass spectrometry. U p t o n T r . 222. N e i t h e r of these m e t h o d s is c a pable of d e t e c t i n g trace amounts of impurities. of those m e t h o d s can d e t e c t dioxins. Neit h e r Ici. at 223,224. A g o v e r n m e n t in s p e c t o r w as frequ e n t l y p r e s e n t w h e n T.H. c o n d u c t e d its Parr Bomb and later, mass spec t r o m e t r y tests. T h o u g h present, that inspector c o u l d not learn about the p resence of d i o x i n in the 2,4,5-T e s t e r s thr o u g h either the Parr Bomb or m a s s s p e c t r o m e t r y tests. T.H. and the other d e f e n d a n t s in similar situations had a c l e a r duty to divulge to those g o v e r n m e n t i nspectors the a v a i l a b i l i t y of a bett e r m e t h o d for the d e t e c t i o n of d i o x i n and d e t e r m i n a t i o n of levels of c o n ­ tamination. T h a t did n o t o c c u r in T.H.'s case. D uring Mr. U p t o n ' s deposition, he stated that during the testing of the fin a l 2,4, 5 - T product, a Mr. Block, who he b e l i e v e d to be a g o v e r n m e n t inspector, was present. U p t o n T r . 8/ Defendants also had a du t y to tell the m i l i t a r y a b o u t the r a bbit ear test w h i c h had been in e x i stence since at least 1941 for d e t e c t i n g a c n e g e n s to 1 ppm. r“ A at 221. The test m eth o d e m p l o y e d was the Parr Bomb. tography was not utilized. T h o u g h Mr. Gas c h r o m a ­ Block was p r e s e n t d u ring numerous tests of the 2,4 , 5 - T e nd product, Mr. U p t o n never told Mr. Block a b o u t gas c h r o m a t o g r a p h y or the e x i s t e n c e of dioxin as a contam i n a n t in 2,4,5-T. U p t o n at 224, evidence that a nyone at T.H. 225. Nor is there a n y i n formed the m i l i t a r y of gas c h r o m a ­ tography as a m e t h o d for d e t e c t i n g dioxin. I. T.H.'s P a r t i c i p a t i o n In The C o n s p i r a c y The evidence indicates that T.H. e n t e r e d that conspiracy, as early as Decem b e r 11, 1965 wi t h Mr. D e A t l e y 's letter to Dow, two years b e f o r e T.H. p r o d u c e d its first A g e n t O r ange for the military. Dr. D a v i d G r o t h ' s l e t t e r of D e c e m b e r 3, 1964 w a s the c a t a l y s t for a s e r i e s of m e e t i n g s a n d c o n v e r s a t i o n s b e t w e e n J a n u a r y a n d M a r c h of 1 9 6 5 dants i n v o l v i n g m o s t of the d e f e n ­ in this l i t i g a t i o n on the s u b j e c t s of d i o x i n a n d h a z a r d s to w o r k e r s a n d e n d users. T.H. c l e a r l y p a r t i c i p a t e d in those c o n v e r s a ­ t i o n s and m e e t i n g s . of Out t h o s e c o n v e r s a t i o n s a n d m e e t i g s c a m e a c o n s p i r a c y of s i l e n c e T h o u g h Mr. U p t o n h a d the a b i l i t y to i n f o r m Dr. G r o t h , o f the P u b l i c H e a l t h S e r v i c e , risk of d i o x i n , reducing manufacturing procedures a s s o c i a t e d w i t h dioxi n , gas c h r o m a t o g r a p h y , a nd h e a l t h h a z a r d s he d i d not do so. U p t o n at 225, 226. If/ *4^ -55- T h o u g h Mr. U p t o n h a d the o p p o r t u n i t y on n u m e r o u s o c c a s i o n s to i n f o r m the g o v e r n m e n t i n s p e c t o r , Mr. Block, of d i o x i n , its h a z a r d s a n d o f a v a i l a b i l i t y of g a s c h r o m a t o g r a p h y a n d a l t e r n a ­ tive m a n u f a c t u r i n g p r o c e s s e s , 224, 225. Furthermore, produced evidence Mr. U p t o n d i d not do so. the C o u r t s h o u l d n o t e that T.H. indicating m i l i t a r y of the f o r e g o i n g . t h a t a n y o n e at T.H. là. at h a s n ot i n f o r m e d the A c o n s p i r a c y of s i l e n c e r e igned. •T. T H O M P S O N cmy/jCAT.. w a s KNOT'N\r\UCr,ARLE A B O U T THE MANUFACTURING. PROCESS,: DIOX I N AS A CONTAMINANT, D E T E C T I O N METHODS, RISK R E D U C T I O N METHODS-, A N D H E A L T H HAZARDS A S S O C I A T E D WITH E X P O S U R E T O DIOXIN. T h o mpson Chemical C o m p a n y also had far more knowledge about the m a n u f a c t u r i n g proc e s s than m i l i t a r y d e c i s i o n makers. There can be no q u e s t i o n that ov e r numerous y ears as a m a n u f a c t u r e r of TCP and 2,4,5-T, T.C. w as fully aware of the m a n u ­ facturing p r ocess for those compounds. T.C. k n e w that in the synthe of t e t r a c h l o r o b e n z e to TCP, h e a t and p r e s s u r e were utilized. T.C. k n e w that in the d i s t i l l a t i o n of water, alcohol and anisole, he a t was e m p l o y e d in the p r o d u c t i o n of 2,4,5-T, the end product. T.C. was thoro u g h l y familiar wi t h the m a n u f a c t u r i n g process for 2,4,5-TCP and 2,4,5-T. K. T.C. K n e w That A H i g h l y T oxic Imp u r i t y Was In Its TCP a n d 2,4,5-T As a m a n u f a c t u r e r of TCP, T.C. m a y have been informed in 1956 by C.H. Boehri n g e r Sohn that a TCP or 2,4,5-T pro c e s s that used heat or p r e s s u r e above a c e r t a i n m a x i m u m the TCP and 2,4,5-T with a h i g h l y toxic impurity. C.H. B o e h r i n g e r Sohn h a d e x p e r i e n c e d h o r r e n d o u s outbreaks of chlor a c n e w i t h liver d a m a g e in some cases in t wo separate plants. To a ssure that other m a n u f a c t u r e r s of TCP and 2,4,5-T did n ot e x ­ p e r i e n c e similar incidences, C.H. B o e h r i n g e r Sohn sent in 1957, "Information of the r e a c t i o n c o n d i t i o n s under w h i c h no chloracne results to all known p r o d u c e r s of c h l o r o p h e n o l ." Plaintiffs h a v e e s t a b l i s h e d that The D o w C h e m i c a l Company, as a man u f a c t u r e r of TCP, r e c e i v e d such i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m C.H. B o e h r i n g e r Sohn. m a n u f a c t u r e r of TCP As a (a c h l o r o p h e n o l ) , T.C. p r o b a b l y received the same i n f o r m a t i o n in 1957 from' C.H. B o e h r i n g e r Sohn, as to a toxic i m p u r i t y a r i s i n g under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s in the manufacture of TCP and 2,4,5-T. Dr. K . H . . S c h u l z of the U n i v e r s i t y Skin C l i n i c in Hamburg r e p o r t e d in "Die N a t u r w i s s e n s h a f t e n " 44: 337-338(1957), what he b e l i e v e d to be the c o n t a m i n a n t in the TCP and 2,4,5-T being m a n u f a c t u r e d by C.H. B o e h r i n g e r Sohn. Had a n y o n e at T.C. read that article, he or she w o u l d h a v e b e e n a l e r t e d to the possible p r e s e n c e of d i oxin in T . C . ' s 2,4,5-T and TCP. T h o u g h he did n o t start w i t h T.C. u n t i l a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1965, Mr. M.S. Buckley m a y have read Dr. Sch u l z ' s article. T h o m p s o n Tr. p.43, 50. Regar d l e s s of w h e t h e r T.C. r e c e i v e d i n f o r m a t i o n from B o e h ­ ringer, or the N a t u r w i s s e n s h a f t e n article, T.C. was u n d o u b t e d l y aware a n umber of i n d u s t r i a l e x p o s u r e i n c i dents in w h i c h w o r k e r s m a n u f a c t u r TCP a n d 2,4,5-T e x p e r i e n c e d c hloracne, liver d a m a g e in some i n s tances and m a l a d i e s involvin g the ner v o u s system. See, generally, t e t r a c h l o r o d i b e n z o - p a r a - d i o x i n in the E n v i r o n m e n t , Baughman R o bert W. (unpublished d i s s e r t a t i o n for the H a r v a r d D e p a r t m e n t of -57- Chemistry, 1975) - An awareness of those i n c i d e n t s w ould have aler t e T.C. to the p r e sence of a h i ghly toxic i m p u r i t y in TCP and 2,4,5-T. If T.C. had not learned of the e x i s t e n c e of a h i g h l y toxic contaminant in TCP and 2,4,5-T t h r o u g h C.H. B o e h r i n g e r Sohn, Dr. Schulz' a r t i c l e in 1957 o r thr o u g h k n o w l e d g e o f i n d u s t r i a l w o r k e r e xposures, T.C. c l e a r l y c a m e to l e a r n a b o u t d i o x i n fr o m its o wn e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h e m p l o y e e injury. 1967, S o m e time p r i o r to F e b r u a r y 3, e m p l o y e e s at T.C. e x p e r i e n c e d c a s e s o f s e v e r e chlor a c n e . u n e x p l a i n e d reason, Mr. M.S. For B u c k l e y o f T.C. w a s s u f f i c i e n t l y w e l l i n f o r m e d to call T h e D o w C h e m i c a l C o m p a n y to i n q u i r e o f r e c o m m e n d e d t r e a t m e n t for t h e exposed. Mr. W.J. M c C o y of D o w r e c o r d e d in a memo t o file his c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h Mr. B u c k l e y of T.C.: Mr. M.S. B u c k l e y o f T h o m p s o n C h e m i c a l p h o n e d H o w a r d Sheldor. F e b r u a r y 2, i n d i c a t i n g that h e b e l i e v e d t h e y h a v e a s e v e r e c h l o r a c n e p r o b l e m w i t h so m e o f t heir employ e e s . He i n d i c a t t h a t t h e y a l r e a d y h a v e two m e n a f f e c t e d a nd b e l i e v e t h a t th m a y h a v e two m o r e e m p l o y e e s t h a t a p p e a r to b e a f f e c t e d as well. T h e y a r e u s i n g H o o k e r ’s t e t r a c h l o r o b e n z e n e to m a k e their trichlorophenol. B u c k l e y w a s a s k i n g if D ow w o u l d h a v e a ny r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s fo m e d i c a l t r e a t m e n t for t h e i r emplo y e e s . T h o m p s o n T r . 31. Thus, T.C. kn e w a b o u t d i o x i n as a c o n t a m i n a n t in TCP and 2,4,5-T as early as 1956 and c e r t a i n l y no later than the end of 1966. The m i l i t a r y placed no r e s t r i c t i o n s on T.C. w i t h respect to its m a n u f a c t u r i ng processes. of processes to use. T.C. had c l e a r d i s c r e t i o n in the choice See, Thompson, TR. 38. T.C. well u n d e r s t o o d that the process used determ i n e d the a m o u n t of d i o x i n in the 2,4,5-%. When M.E. Buckley of T.C. called Dow to d i s c u s s T.C. ' s c h l o racne problem, Mr. B u c k l e y "started talking a b o u t the c h e m i s t r y of this material. A p parently, Mr. Buckley k n e w the che m i c a l origins of d i o x i n and k n owing that, k n e w that alte r n a t i v e m a n u f a c t u r i n g processes existec T.C. was fully aware of p r o c e s s alternatives. T.C. had abs o l u t e freedom to select the m a n u f a c t u r i n g process. that d i f f erent temperatures, pressures, Had the m i l i t a r y k n o w n alcohols, and phenolate w a t e r content resulted in d i f f ere n t levels of d i o x i n contamination, can be no doubt, there the m i l i t a r y w o u l d have r equired the -safest method. As p r e v i o u s l y shown, d i f f e r e n t m a n u f a c t u r i n g processes resulted in d i f f e r e n t levels of d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a t i o n and while T.C. and the o ther defend a n t s w e r e c l e a r l y aware of that fact, the military was i g n o r a n t of this m a t t e r b e c a u s e T.C. did not wa r n the milit a r y of the relati o n s h i p b e t w e e n p r o c e s s selected and level of dioxin. Thus, T.H. also was p a r t of the c onspiracy of silence to c o nceal from the military. The facts of pre s e n c e of dioxin, a s s o c i a t e d health hazards, and risk reduction processes. 43 ? -59- L - HERCULES I N C O R P O R A T E D W AS KN O W L E D G E A B LE A B O U T THE M A N U F A C T U R I N G PROCESS, DIOXIN AS A CONTAMINANT, D E T E C T I O N METHODS, RISK R E D U C T I O N METHODS, A N D H E A L T H HAZARDS A S S O C I A T E D W I T H E X P O S U R E T O DIOXIN._______ Hercules sold the p r o d u c t k n o w n as "Agent Orange" to the m i l i t a r y b e g i n n i n g s o m e t i m e in July, 1965. The "orange" was a m i x t u r e c o m p o s e d of equal volumes of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. Sometime in February, 1965, H e r c u l e s learned f r o m another defendant, D o w C h e m i c a l C o mpany, a c nege n (chloracnegen) that a p r e v i o u s l y i dentified w as a c o n t a m i n a n t in 2,4,5-T That b e g i n n i n g so metime in June, (Frawley dep. 35) 1965, H e rcules knew that the 2,4,5-T w h i c h it was sell i n g to the m i l i t a r y was cont a m i n a t e d w i t h dioxin (Frawley d e p o . 24; 67). Hercules learned fr o m D o w in March, was d i o x i n (Frawley depo. to p r oduce physio l o g i c (Frawley depo. 1965 that the acn e g e n 37), and that d i oxin had the capacity and sys t e m i c i n jury at a ve r y low dosage 47). Hercules k n e w that u n l e s s d i o x i n was r e m o v e d from i n t e r ­ m e d i a t e s such as t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l it w o u l d carry t h o u g h to the f i n ished product. (Frawley depo. 65, 70). -59a- 11488 H e r c u l e s produced d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a t e d h e r b i c i d e s w h i c h were u l t i m a t e l y sold to the m i l i t a r y for use in Vietnam. the e v i dence as to the diox i n c o n t e n t of Hercules' d i s p u t e d by Hercules, Although h e r b i c i d e s is it was s u f f i c i e n t to p e r s u a d e this C o u r t to r e c e n t l y r e c o n s i d e r and deny Hercules' M o t i o n f o r - S u m m a r y Judgment. The e v i d e n c e included: 1. The Hercules i nternal m e m o r a n d u m (Ex.l4 a ) , reporting that Dow's sam p l i n g showed an e x cess of 2 ppm. diox i n in Hercules p r o d u c t as late as 1966 ; 2. The fact k n o w n to H ercules that D o w wa s p u r c h a s i n g Hercules' c o n t a m i n a t e d 2,4,5-T for sale to the m i l i t a r y in order to fulfill Dow's c o n t r a c t s for d e l ivery of A g e n t Orange; 3. The Gulfport, M i s s i s s i p p i sampling w h i c h r evealed that 5 - 10% of the Hercules samples t e sted c o n t a i n e d d ioxin in the r ange of 14 - 16 p a r t s per million; 4. Hercules k n o w l e d g e since the 1950's of d i o x i n forma t i o n in its 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D m a n u f a c t u r i n g process; 5. Hercules k n o w l e d g e of c h l o racne p r o b l e m s e x p e r i e n c e d by its.plant em p l o y e e s during the p e r i o d 1950 - 1959. -59b- H e r cules never i n f o r m e d any a g e n c y or d e p a r t m e n t of Government, p a r t i c u l a r l y the U n i t e d Stat e s m i l i t a r y to w h o m it sold "orange", that the p r o d u c t it was selling to the m i l i t a r y was c o n t a m i n a t e d w i t h dioxin. That H e r c u l e s n e v e r d i s c l o s e d to an y agency, or any department of G o v e r n m e n t m u c h less did it n o t i f y the m i l i t a r y to whom it was selling the d i o x i n - c o n t a m i n a t e d "orange" the i n f o r m a t i o n it had o b t ained b o t h fro m i n d u s t r y and i n d e p e n d e n t sources c o n c e r n i n g the toxic e f f ects of e x p o s u r e to d i o x i n a nd its p o t e n t i a l h a z a r d to h u m a n h e a l t h i n c l u d i n g d i s f i g u r i n g skin and systemic diseases. 95; 104-107; 110-111; (Frawley depo. 113-114; 115; diseases, 78-79; 87-88; 130-133; 138). liver d a m a g e 90-91; 93-94; Hercules p r o c e s s e s for m a n u f a c t u r i n g 2,4,5-T w e r e at all times proprietary. (Frawley depo. 71-72). Hercules never d i s c l o s e d the d e t a i l s of its m a n u f a c t u r i n g process to the m i l i t a r y or to any a g e n c y of g o v e r n m e n t at a ny of the times r e l e v a n t to this litigation. (Frawley depo. 28). -59c> DEFENDANTS' M I S R E P R E S E N T A T I O N S OF THE S A F E T Y OF T H E I R HERBICIDES TO O T H E R G O V E R N M E N T AGENCIES II. C o n c u r r e n t l y w i t h t h e i r c o n s p i r a c y of c o n c e a l m e n t and failure to w a r n the mi l i t a r y , defen d a n t s also a t t e m p t e d to silence any c r i t i c i s m of d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a t e d 2,4,5-T and to o btain the U nited States Governments' approval of the c o n t a m i ­ nated h e r b i c i d e s w h e c h they w e r e selling to the military. De­ fendants formed w h a t came to be k n o w n as a "joint industry task force on p h enoxy h e r b i c i d e t o lerances" whose sole purp o s e was to p e r s u a d e the p e s t i c i d e r e g u l a t i o n d i v i s i o n States D e p a r t m e n t of A g r i c u l t u r e p h e n o x y herbicides, (USDA) i n c l u d i n g 2,4,5-T, (PRD) of the Unit e d to dec l a r e various as t o x i c o l o g i c a l l y safe. The technical term used w as "neg l i g i b l e residue tolerance." On or a bout A u g u s t 23, 1966, the Task F o r c e held its first m e e ting at the M a d i s o n Hotel in Washington, D.C. Members of the T a s k Force included r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of Defend a n t s Chemical D i a m ond-Shamro c k , Co., Hercules, and T h o m p s o n - H a y w a r d , C h e m i c a l C o r p o r a t i o n and Uniroyal, The Inc., M o n s a n t o Co., D ow later to b e joined by T h o m p s o n Inc. Task Force was c o n v e n e d under the aegis of the N a t i o n a l Agricultural Chemicals organization owned, A s s o ciation, operated, a chemical industry activist m a n a g e d and c o n t r o l l e d b y the che m i c a l indus t r y . Mr. George E. Lynn, elected an e x e c u t i v e of Dow C h e m i c a l C o m p a n y was C h a irman w h i l e Mr. C.L. Dunn, e l e c t e d Vice-Chairman. -60- an e x e c u t i v e of Hercules, was The m i nutes of the A u g u s t 23, 1966 m e e t i n g revealed that the N a t i o n a l A g r i c u l t u r a l C h e m i c a l s A s s o c i a t i o n had called the m e e t i n g at the r e q u e s t of an u n i d e n t i f i e d m e m b e r company. The purpose of the m e e t i n g as set forth in the m i n u t e s was to a s c e rtain if the co m p a n i e s pre s e n t w i s h e d to form a T a s k Force and work jointly in an e f f o r t to secure n e g l i g i b l e r e s i d u e t olerances for p h e n o x y herbicides. Put a n o t h e r way, its p u r p o s e was to persuade the U n it e d S t ates D e p a r t m e n t of A g r i c u l t u r e to declare p h enoxy herbicid e s such as 2,4,5-T safe (nontoxic to humans and a n i m a l s ) , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the mass of infor m a t i o n w h i c h each other concer n i n g the toxicity of 2,4, 5 - T to humans. The m e m b e r companies m e e t i n g decided that the task force would be foremd, "...to work w i t h the F o o d and Drug A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and the United States D e p a r t m e n t of A g r i c u l t u r e for the purpose of securing the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of tolerances for e x i sting no-r e s i d u e r e g i s t r a t i o n s of p h e n o x y h e r ­ b i cides (— 2 , 4 , 5 - T — )." One of the activi t i e s d e l i n e a t e d in the m i n u t e s is as follows : "— 2 Each member of the task force wi l l c o m p a r e and submit to the C h a i r m a n a listing of the t o x i c o l o g i c al and residue i nfor m a t i o n w h i c h his c o m p a n y has on each of the h e r b i c i d e c h e micals involved..." The next m e e t i n g of the task force w h i c h o c c u r r e d on S e p t e m b e r 27, 1966 at the J e f f e r s o n Hotel in Washi n g t o n , D.C. was a t t ended for the first time by a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of T h o m p s o n Chemical C o r p . C o n s e q u e n t l y b y Se p t e m b e r 27, 1966, d e f e n ­ dants D o w C h e mical Co., T h o m p s o n C h e m i c a l Corp., D i a mond-Shamrock, M o n s a n t o Co., T h o m p s o n - H a y w a r d , a nd Hercules, -61- Inc. were now m e mbers of the in d u s t r y Ta s k Force. Significantly, b y this time, all d e f e n d a n t s w e r e aware of d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a t i o n of 2 , 4 , 5 - T and the fact that it c a r r i e d through to the end p r o d u c t p o s i n g a h a z a r d to consumers. Hercules C h i e f Toxic o l o g i s t, this not time Dr. J o h n P. Frawley, h a d b y only r e c e i v e d i n f o r m a t i o n M o n s a n t o and Badis c h e in E u rope c o n c e r n i n g from Dow, b u t also from their p r o b l e m s w i t h d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a t i o n a r i s i n g out of the m a n u f a c t u r e of t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l . They were a l s o aware of p o t e n t i a l h a z a r d s to h u m a n h e a l t h b a s e d upon the M a r c h 24, 1965 d i o x i n c o n f e r e n c e (supra) as w e l l as the subsequent c o n t a c t s b y Dow w i t h o t h e r c o m p a n i e s to i n f o r m th e m of the frighten ing implications contaminated 2,4,5-T of their c o n t i n u e d m a n u f a c t u r e of d i o x i n as per the F r a w l e y m e m o r a n d u m dated J u l y 12, 1965. At the September 26, 1966 meeting, the sub j e c t of "toxicol ogical and residue data" arose and it w as d e c i d e d "--that Popham , each member of the task force -is to send to Dr. any and a l l t o x i c o l o g i c a l and r e s i d u e d a ta w h ic h h e m a y h a v e r e l a t i v e to p h e n o x y h e r b i c i d e s . T h e Task Force e n g a g e d a Dr. describe as . ." P o p h a m w h o m later m i n u t e s w o u l d formerly w i t h the A g r i c u l t u r a l R e s e a r c h S e r v i c e of the U n i t e d States D e p a r t m e n t of A g r i c ulture. He was, in effect, to b e c o m e the Task Force's p o i n t m a n for p u r p o s e s of d e c e i v i n g the g o v e r n m e n t concerning the nature and exte n t of the t o x i c o l o g i c a l data w h i c h w as locxed w i t h i n the p h e n o x y h e r b i c i d e s industries' On the offices Washington, O c t o b e r 25, 1966, c o n f i d e n t i a l files. the Task Force a g a i n met, this t i m e at of the Natio n a l A g r i c u l t u r a l C h e m i c a l s A s s o c i a t i o n in D. C. The m i n u t e s ref l e c t that t he -62- Agricultural R e s earch Service Agriculture, appointed Dr. Division "--to work of the U n i t e d Stat e s D e p a r t m e n t of L.L. D a n i e l s o n of the Crops Research wi t h the Task Force — " The m i n u t e s further d e s c r i b e that Dr. D a n i e l s o n "— is g o i n g to s e a r c h the US D A files for any res i d u e d a t a that is available and Dr. P o p h a m will wo r k w i t h h i m to collate it w i t h w h a t the Task F o r c e a l r e a d y has. — " Dr. D a n i e l s o n w as to search t he U S D A files to determine w h e t h e r those files had any i n f o r m a t i o n on the t o x i c i t y of the h e r b i c i d e s under c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n c l u d i n g 2 , 4 , 5-T. W h a t Dr. D a n i e l s o n and his s u p e r i o r s at the U S D A d id not k n o w w as that c u r r e n t t o x i c o l o g i c al within the data Task on the t o x i c i t y of 2 , 4 , 5-T w as s a f e l y r e p o s i n g F orce companies w h o h a d s o l i cited the U S D A ’s "assistance." As will be seen (infra) the of problem the U S D A h a d not an i n k l i n g of d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a t i o n of 2 , 4 , 5-T as the Task F o r c e c o n s p i r a t o r s well knew. The m i nutes of the J a n u a r y 18, 1967 m e e t i n g of the Task F o r c e reveal that Dr. L.L. D a n i e l s o n o f the A g r i c u l t u r a l D e p a r t m e n t had, by that time, "consultant." How this squa r e d wi t h his d u t i e s at the US D e p a r t m e n t of and a p o s s i b l e c o nflict of in t e r e s t is unclear. Agriculture b e e n a p p a r e n t l y r etained as a p a r t - t i m e It seems not to have p r e s e n t e d any p r o b l e m to the task force. At point that needs to be m a d e w i t h b o t h the FDA and P R D / U S D A that t h e r e is considerable etc., m e e t i n g the c o m m i t t e e "disc u s s e d " the fact that a p u blic interest i nvolved in the c o n t i n u e d use of 2,4-D, (including available, 2 , 4 , 5-T) and that in v i e w of all the data n ow the a g e n c i e s s h ould exte n d t h e m s e l v e s to c o n s i d e r and act favorably on the T a s k For c e ' s p r o p o s i t i o n that the n e g l i g i b l e r e s i d u e tolerances should be e s t a b l i s h e d for all c u r r e n t r e g i s t e r e d uses. None of the data o b t a i n e d by H e r c u l e s or an y of the o t h e r producers from with use of the p r o d u c t and the a d v e r s e i m pact u p o n l a b o r a t o r y the a n imals as Dow c o n c e r n i n g the t o x i c o l o g i c a l h a z a r d s a s s o c i a t e d r e p orted by Dow at the March 24, -63- 1965 c o n f e r e n c e l U9i and in the o t h e r ' c o m m u n i c a t i o n s b e t w e e n the defendants ever found its w a y into the petition. On M a r c h 28 of 1967, Chemical Mr. G e o r g e E. Lynn, an ex e c u ti v e o f Do w then C h a i r m a n of the industry Task Force co m p o s e d a r e p o r t d e t a i l i n g the a c t i v i t i e s of the Task F orce i n c l u d i n g the i ndividuals negligible w h o would be c o o p e r a t i n g wi t h it in e s t a b l i s h i n g a r e sidue representatives of tolerance. the USDA T he report shows that s e v e r a l i n c l uding the A d m i n i s t r a t o r o f t he A g r i c u l t u r a l R e s e a r c h Service we r e invited to c o o perate w i t h the Ta s k Force. The r eport further i n d i cates that Dr. George W. Irving, Jr., a d m i n i s t r a t o r of the A g r i c u l t u r a l R e s e a r c h Service of the U S D A a n d Dr James L. Goddard, C o m m i s s i o n e r of Food and Drugs, w e r e i n v i t e d to with the Task Force in this p r o j e c t "by s u p p l y i n g such "cooperate" technical a s s i s t a n c e and data as w o u l d be a p p r o p r i a t e w i t h the p u b l i c interest." The of report further shows that the c o m m ittee in the p r e s e n c e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the U S D A and the Food and Drug A d m i n i s t r a t i o n m a d e it a p o i n t to stress: "that in view of the wi d e use of these h e r b i c i d e s b y the A m e r i c a n farmer for food production, the Task F orce felt the USDA and the FDA a l s o h a d a vital interest in the c o n t i n u e d a v a i l a b i l i t y of these essential h e r b i cides.. ." One of the obje c t i v e s of the Task Force as d e s c r i b e d in the m e m o r a n d u m w a s to: -64- V "collect all a v a i l a b l e data from priv a t e and p u b l i s h e d s o urces w i t h res p e c t to toxicity . . • p e r t i n e n t to the use o f any and all p h e n o x y h e r b i c i d e s - - " "— The p r o b a b l e sou r c e s of such data b e i n g (a) A g r i c u l t u r a l R e s e a r c h Service, (b) industry (data registrations); used USDA; in support of no res i d u e (c) state e x p e r i m e n t stations; (d) s c i e n t i f i c literature; (e) Food and Drug A d ministration, Significantly, not the k i n d of "industry" data to b e s u p p l i e d w as left to speculation. "--used USDHEW. It w a s to be o n l y that data w h i c h c o u l d be in support of no r e s i d u e r e g i s t r a t i o n s — " As w i l l be s e e n , any b e l i e f that the U. S. D e p a r t m e n t of A g r i c u l t u r e or the Department industry of Health, supplying scientific its current data or d i r e c t i n g U S D A to its literature w o u l d at the time of s u b m i s s i o n of the p e t i t i o n turn out to be a sham. industry E d u c a t i o n and W e l f a r e m i g h t h a v e h a d a b o u t As w i l l be further seen (infra)-, not o n l y did not report the state of its curr e n t k n o w l e d g e a b o u t d i o x i n contamination of 2,4,5-T, but deliberately submitted antiquated l i t e r a t u r e none of w h i c h was c r i t i c a l of 2,4,5-T m u c h less c o n t a i n i n g any m e n t i o n of an a c n e g e n or a c h l o r a c n e g e n and c e r t a i n l y not dioxin. By the time of the A p r i l 20, the minutes, the T a s k 1967 meeting, F o r c e learned that as r e f l e c t e d in * ". . . the FDA's c o n c e p t of a n e g l i g i b l e t o l e r a n c e is in a range of 0.1 ppm b u t 0.2-0.3 p pm is not ou t of line if d a t a justifies it. . ." Of course, the 0.1 p p m etc., h as no r e f e r e n c e to d i o x i n since the U S D A at that juncture h a s a b s o l u t e l y no the Task contamination knowledge from contamination of F orce about the p r o b l e m of d i o x i n 2,4,5-T. One would expect that, given defendants claimed knowledge by USDA, F DA and HEW of the d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a t i o n problem and potential to human health, -65- its at least o ne of t h e s e 11496 m i n u t e s would have shown some d i s c u s s i o n and p e r h a p s even a d i s c l o s u r e to these a g e n c i e s or their r e p r e s e n t a t iv e s at the m e e t i n g about the p o t e n t i a l hazards. The minutes contain no such reference. The m i n u t e s c o n t a i n a schedule of the d i f f è r e n t phenoxy herbi c i d e s and o p p o s i t e 2 , 4 , 5 - T all d e f e n d a n t s ,e x c e p t U niroyal a p p e a r to h a v e c o n t r i b u t e d t o w a r d s the fee for p u t t i n g the p e t i t i o n t o g ether a n d the filing. Th e y each appear to have b e e n a s s e s s e d the sum of $1,100.00. On M a y 11, 1967, the N a t i o n a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Chemicals A s s o c i a t i o n on b e h a l f of the task force informed Haz e l t o n laboratories b y letter, that it had b e e n selected to prepare the p e t i t i o n to have 2,4,5-T d e c l a r e d safe to humans, animals and crops. The fraud a nd d e c e p t i o n c o n t i n u e d wi t h the f o l l owing e mpty p r o m i s e d e s c r i b e d in the third p a r a g r a p h of the letter to Hazelton: "The i n d u s t r y Ta s k F orce w i l l turn over to Hazel t o n all of the i n f o r m a t i o n on the above m e n t ioned p h enoxy h e r b i c i d e s w h i c h it has g a t h e r e d from various sources w i t h r e s p e c t to anim a l t o x i c i t y and crop r e s i d u e s ..." An e x a m i n a t i o n of the studies c o n c e r n i n g a n i m a l toxicity submitted w i t h the p e t i t i o n reve a l s in substance that 2,4,5-T is as safe as d r i n k i n g water. 1950 were included, Of course, the V.K. Ro w e studies of showing 2,4,5-T to be safe w h i l e the V.K. Rowe studies of 1965 s h owing t o x i c i t y to humans and anim a l s as d i s c u s s e d at the secret M a r c h 1965 d i o x i n c o n f e r e n c e were c o n s p i c u o u s l y absent. -66- i : ;97 T h e Task Force min u t e s of O c t o b e r 17, 1967 r e p o r t " c o n s i d e r a b le d i s c u s s i o n was g i v e n to p o s s i b l e the use of these h e r b i c i d e s on rangeland. application rates involved, up to 6 pounds p e r result in high residues on the treated forage a fter application. . ." i Significantly, V i e t Nam. h a n d l i n g of The h i g h acre, c o u l d immediately the m i l i t a r y only used 3 p o u n d s per a c r e in The/ C o m m i t t e e then h a d to c o n s i d e r the p r o b l e m s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a p p l i c a t i o n of 6 pounds p e r acre of 2 , 4 , 5-T. The minutes reflect that there was d i s c u s s i o n of p o s s i b l e a p p r o a c h e s such as ". . .requesting a s u f f i c i e n t l y high n u m e r i c a l tolerance, requesting that the use be d e c l a r e d a " n o n -food u s e , " and u sing label statements s pecifying a minimal time i nterval for grazing the treated range a n d/or for s l a u g h t e r i n g c a t t l e w h i c h h a v e grazed the land. . ." T h e C o m m i t t e e then d e c i d e d as a b e t t e r s o l u t i o n ". . . to list this use under a new h e a d i n g Pasture, Range. . ." "Forest Grass, It was a l s o decide d to include in the . . . p e t i t i o n the n o t a t i o n w h i c h appears in t he 2,4-D e n t r y in the U S D A summary of r e g i s t e r e d a g r i c u l t u r a l p e s t i c i d e c h e m i c a l uses under the "Pasture: Clover., Grass" item to the effect: "Do not graze dairy ani m a l s on t r e a t e d areas w i t h i n seven days after a p p l i c a t i o n . " N o t h i n g appears to h a v e b e e n b e y o n d the i m a g i n a t i o n and ability of this resourcefu l g r o u p of conspirators. W i t h a spray rate o f 6 p o u n d s per acre the only w a y to o v e r c o m e the t o x i c resi d u e w a s to h a v e the U S D A i n c rease the t o l e r a n c e level. there at this p o i n t is still no m e n t i o n by in d u s t r y of d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a t i o n to the product Task Of course, and its p o t e n t i a l h a z a r d to h u m a n health. Force treated did T h e fact t h a t the not w i s h to p e r m i t the d a i r y ani m a l s to graze o n areas for at least s e v e n days a f t e r a p p l i c a t i o n d e m o n s t r a t e s some c o n s i d e r a t i o n for animals w h e n w e i g h e d a g a i n s t t h e fact t h a t no one told the m i l i t a r y to k e e p the soldiers out of t he s p r a y e d a r e a s for at least one week. The Danielson the minutes and D.L. further reflect that at 12:00 noon, Drs. L.L. Klingma n o f the A g r i c u l t u r a l R e s e a r c h S e r v i c e of U S D A joined the group. Dr. Kli n g m a n is q u o t e d as d i s c u s s i n g the s p r a y i n g of range lands with h e r b i c i d e s and that m a n y m o r e a c r e s w o u l d ' 6 7 ‘ 11498 be benifited if t h e y w e r e sprayed. He is further q u o t e d as urging • that the ta s k force seeked to o b t a i n c l e a r a n c e for this use so that farmers and r anchers c o u l d con t i n u e to u t ilize these v a l u a b l e tools. ." However, part-time his consultant associate to from the USDA, the ' o c c a s i o n a l the task force, Dr. Danielson, went ev e n f u r t h e r when he "promised to a s s i s t the task force in every w a y p o s s i b l e and p r o p e r in o b t a i n i n g r e g u l a t o r y c l e a r a n c e for these m a t e r i a l s so as to k e e p t h e m available. Specifically, h e and Dr. Klingman promised to cons u l t t h e i r files in an effort to locate a n y p e r t i n e n t d a t a w h i c h w o u l d be h e l p f u l to the task force in its e f f o r t s to o b t a i n tolerances." It is clear that the m i n u t e s d o not refl e c t any k n o w l e d g e by the USDA, FDA, HEW that any of these phenoxy herbicides, including 2 , 4,5-T are toxic. S i g n i f icantly, for the first time, the Task Force by E.A. H a f n e r in attendance. On C.L. Dunn, November 27, 1967 on the s t a t i o n e r y of Hercules, Director States D e p a r t m e n t of Agri c u l t u r e . phenoxy basis. Inc., of the P e s t i c i d e R e g u l a t i o n D i v i s i o n o f the U n i t e d Agricultural herbicide tolerances joined C h a i r m a n of the i n d u s t r y Task F orce w r o t e to Dr. H a r r y A. Hayes, National U n i r o y a l C hemical to he s t a t e d t h a t the C h e m i c a l s A s s o c i a t i o n I n d u s t r y T a s k F o r c e on tolerances cover In substance, h ad a s s e m b l e d p e t i t i o n s r e q u e s t i n g uses p r e v i o u s l y r e g i s t e r e d on a "no-residue" What this means is that previously, the p h e n o x y h e r b i c i d e s h a d been registered w i t h the U S D A as h a v i n g a no resi d u e toxicity. the industry was s e e k i n g by its petition, Now, to e s t a b l i s h a t o x i c i t y t o l e r a n c e for these very same herbicides. Hr. Dunn w e n t on to m i s r e p r e s e n t on page 1 of the letter: f; -68- "There is no h a z a r d to anim a l s as e v i denced by the e x t e n s i v e use of these m a t e r i a l s for m o r e than a decade, nor is the p r e s e n c e of r e sidues in me a t or m i l k a r e g u l a t o r y p r o b l e m . .." N o t h i n g was said in that lett e r about the animal studies conducted by Dow; nor that Dow h ad d e t e r m i n e d that d i o x i n was a c ontaminant in 2,4,5 - T w h i c h c a r r i e d thr o u g h unless extracted, carried through to tne end product, nor that D ow had a l e r t e d a ll producers of 2 , 4 ,5-T to the p o t e n t i a l h a z a r d s a s s o c i a t e d to h u m a n s exposed to d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a t e d 2,4,5-T; nor that D ow h ad set an internal s p e c i f i c a t i o n of 1 p p m of d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a t i o n b a s e d upon their e x p e r i e n c e w i t h l a b o r a t o r y animals; expressed to the p r o d uc e r s at the M a r c h 24, nor that Dow h a d 1965 m e e t i n g that their analysis of their c o m p e t i t o r s 2,4 , 5 - T showed w h a t fate described as " s u r p r i s i n g l y hi g h a m o u n t s of the acnegen" which they identified as dioxin; nor was there any m e n t i o n of the telephone call of the su b s t a n c e of k n o w l e d g e g a ined by Dr. F r a w l e y from the telep h o n e call r e c e i v e d fr o m E a r l F a r n h a m of D ow C h e m i c a l Company on July 9 of 1965 a l e r t i n g Dr. F r a w l e y to the fact that Dow was f r i g h t e n e d that the w h o l e i n d u s t r y m i g h t e x p l o d e and that there m i g h t be g o v e r n m e n t a l i n t e r v e n t i o n by w a y of a Congr e s s i o n al i n v e s t i g a t i o n a nd a b a n n i n g of p e s t i c i d e s b e c a u s e of what Dow p e r c e i v e d as "alarming a m o u n t s of acnegen" in their competitors' 2,4,5-T; nor any d i s c l o s u r e s by M r . C.L. Dunn w h o attended the s e c r e t dioxin c o n f e r e n c e w i t h Dr. Jo h n F r a w l e y on behalf of H e r cules and was copi e d on the m e m o Dr. F r a w l e y w r o t e recoun t i n g his c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h F a r n h a m of Dow. A t no time d id the so-called i n d u s t r y Task F o r c e on p h e n o x y h e r b i c i d e s -69- make disclosure- to the USDA or F D A p e ople in a t t e n d a n c e at their m e e t i n g s of the common kn o w l e d g e which they had all a c q u i r e d b e g i n n i n g in November, 1964 w h e n Dow had d e v i s e d a m e a n s for the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of d i oxin in 2,4,5-T. On N o v e m b e r 27, 1967 on the statio n e r y of Hercules, Mr. C.L. Dunn, Inc. acting in his c a p a c i t y of C h a i r m a n of the Task Force w rote to Dr. Harry Hayes, D i r e c t o r of the P e s t i c i d e R e g u l a t i o n D i v i s i o n of the U n i t e d States D e p a r t m e n t of A g r i c u l t u r e informing h i m that the ind u s t r y Ta s k F orce had a s s e m b l e d pe t i t i o n s requ esting tolerances on the p h e n o x y herbicides. The fourth p a r a graph of Mr. Dunn's letter c o n t i n u e s the m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and fraud w h e n he states: "there is no h a z a r d to ani m a l s as e v i d e n c e d b y the e x t e n s i v e use of these m a t e r i a l s for more than a d e c a d e — " On that same date, N o v e m b e r 27, 1967, Mr. D u n n w r o t e to the T a s k Force informing them that b o t h h e and Don M c C o l l i s t e r (Dow) w e r e d i s c o u r a g e d by the appare n t u n c o n c e r n of the US D A "for the farmer users of p h e n o x y herb i c i d e s . In addition. Dr. A n d e r s o n seemed q u i t e o p p o s e d to a c o o p e r a t i v e p r ogram. He e x p r e s s e d sen s i t i v i t y to c r i t i c i s m by G.A.O. I n v e s t i g a t o r s who recently complained about U S D A d e v e l o p i n g data subsequently used by a m a n u f a c t u r e r for registration, purposes. On Decem b e r 8, 1967, the c o n s p i r a t o r s s u b m i t t e d to the p e t i t i o n c o ntrol b ranc h of the Food and Drug A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the D e p a r t m e n t of Health, E d u c a t i o n and W e l f a r e a p e t i t i o n to have 2,4,5-T d e c l a r e d safe. The cover letter is on the s t a t i o n ­ ery of N a t i o n a l Agricultural Chemicals A s s o c iation, C. L. Dunn, Chairman. signed by The p e t i t i o n con s i s t s of seven sections, -70- 11501 a-g. S e ction C reads as follows: "full- reports of i n v e s t i g a t i on s made w i t h respect to the safety of the p e s t i c i d e chemical. An e x a m i n a t i o n of the b i b l i o g r a p h y in support of the Task F o r c e claims a lack of toxic i t y shows that not one s t u d y cri t i c a l of 2,4,5-T was cited. Instead, these d e f e n d a n t s s u b m i t t e d to the u n s u s p e c t i n g g u l l i b l e and ingenuous USDA, studies by V. K. Rowe, dated 1950, Food & Drug Admi n i s t r a t io n , and H EW M c C o l l i s t e r and Spen c e r of Dow C h e m i c a l C o mpan all of whi c h h ad b e e n negated by Dr. Rowe's " s t artling" c o n f i r m a t i o n of d ioxin as the toxic c h l o r a c n e g e n in November, 1964 anc Dow's s u b s e q u e n t e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n w i t h d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a t e d 2 , 4 , 5 - T u p o : laboratory animals, none o f w h i c h w o r k found its w a y into t he open s c i e n t i f i c literature much less into the FDA petition. Subsequently, the T a s k Force r e c e i v e d a letter dated April 8, 1963 from the D e p a r t m e n t of Health, E d u c a t i o n and W e l f a r e to Mr. C. L. Dunn, C h a i r m a n of the Task Force, i n f o r m i n g Mr. Dunn that the t o x i c o l o g y d a t a su b m i t t e d by the in d u s t r y was i n ­ sufficient e s p e c i a l l y wi t h r e s p e c t to the fact that there w o u l d be a carry over into m e a t a nd milk. The p e t i t i o n was s u b s e q u e n t l y w i t h d r a w n along w i t h the p e t i t i o n w h i c h sought to ha v e 2,4-D d e c l a r e d safe also. Defendants' efforts to d i s p a r a g e any claims of the t o x i c i t y of dioxin did not cease, however. When the N a t i o n a l C a n c e r I n s t i ­ tute which c o m m i s s i o n e d the s o - c a l l e d "Bionetics Report" r e l e a s e d its findings c o n c e r n i n g the p o t e n t i a l h e a l t h haza r d s of d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a t e d 2,4,5-T, Hercules, Dr. J o h n Frawley, C hief T o x i c o l o g i s t of sought to b e l i t t l e the ignorance of the N a t i o n a l C a n c e r -71- Institute about the t o x i c i t y of dioxin. In a letter dated N o v e m b e r 25, 1970 r e s p o n d i n g to a letter from his c o u n t e r p a r t in England, Dr. John C. H iggins, of the H e r c u l e s P o w d e r Comp a n y of England, Dr. F r a w l e y m a d e the following caus t i c a nd c ritical d i s p a r a g e m e n t of the N a t i o n a l C a n c e r Insti t u t e ' s k n o w l e d g e of d ioxin and its toxicity: "--- the G o v e r n m e n t A g e n c y s ponsoring the study (NCI) was not familiar w i t h the t o xicity of the d i o x i n and allowed p u b l i c i t y on the results w i t h o u t c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h b e t t e r informed g o v e r n m e n t or indus t r i a l scien­ tists. --- " He r e s e r v e d his m o s t severe c r i t i c i s m for the surgeon general when, in that same letter to Dr. Higgins, he wrote: "--- on the basis of this single o b s e r v a t i o n in mice, the Surgeon G e n e r a l (who has n e v e r in the p a s t g o t t e n i n v o l v e d in safety evaluations) d e c l a r e d b e f o r e a C o n g r e s s i o n a l C o m m ittee that even pu r e 2,4,5-1 p r e s e n t e d an imminent h azard to the h e a l t h of the public. T h i s t r i g g e r e d the b a nning of 2,4,5-T for all h o u s e h o l d and several i n d u s ­ trial uses ..." It was not until 1979 that the E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n A g e n c y (hereinafter " E P A " ) , a l t h o u g h kno w i n g that some m a n u f a c t u r e r s p r o d u c e d 2,4,5-T w i t h less than 1PPM, p r o c e e d i n g s - a g a i n s t 2 / 4 , 5-T. instituted deregistration The E P A 's P r e h e a r i n g B r i e f on T he Risk A s s o c i a t e d w i t h the R e g i s t e r e d Uses of 2,4 , 5 - T a nd Silvex concludes: "In sum, the data on toxic effe c t s in a n i m a l s and h umans t o g e t h e r w i t h the data on e x p o s u r e p o t e n t i a l estab l i s h that the c o n t i n u e d use of 2,4,5-T and S i l ­ vex c o n t a m i n a t e d w i t h T C D D (dioxin) pose risks of adverse e f fects on h u m a n health. (parenthetical added). Though the E P A is u n d o u b t e d l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h the h e a l t h h a z a r d dioxin in 2,4,5-T p r e s e n t s to those w h o m a n u f a c t u r e it, the focus of EPA's c o nc e r n is the user, the i n n o c e n t b y s t a n d e r and the e n v i r o n m e n t . Since E P A a p p a r e n t l y b e l i e v e s that less than 1PPM is unsafe. The i n e s c a p a b l e i n f e r e n c e is that d e f e n ­ dants' c o n s p i r a t o r ia l conduct, m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s and failure to warn were r e s p o n s i b l e in subs t a n t i a l m e a s u r e for the EPA's d e l a y in c o m m e n c i n g d e r e g i s t r a t i o n pro c e e d i n g s . -72- III. THE D E F E N D A N T S S U PPLIED DIOX I N CON T A M I N A T E D H E R B I C I D E S W H I C H WE R E MIXED T O G E T H E R BEFORE B E I N G S P R A Y E D IN V I E T N A M M A K I N G IMPOSSIBLE I D E N T I F I C A T I O N OF W H I C H D E F E N D A N T rS HERBICIDE C A U S E D INJURIES TO PLAINTIFFS.__________________ The defendants' d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a t e d h e r b i c i d e s were s u p p l i e d in drums n o t bearing, the defendants' They w e r e m i x e d t o g e t h e r b e f o r e spraying. "standard o p e r a t i n g pro c e d u r e s " co r p o r a t e name. A d e s c r i p t i o n of is c o n t a i n e d in an official q / U.S. A i r F orce T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t — , (pp. 1-15, 15). E a c h of the 11 d i f f e r e n t companies that m a n u f a c t u r e d m i l i t a r y h e r b i c i d e s p a c k e d t h e m in ne w ICC 17C 55-gal 18 gauge steel drums for s h i pmen t to S o u t heast Asia. Each h e r b i c i d e d r u m w as m a r k e d wi t h a t h r e e - i n c h colorc o d e d band a r o u n d the c e n t e r to identify the specific m i l i t a r y herbicide. This m a r k i n g w a s initially a 12-inch band, but was c h a n g e d to a 3 - inch ban d in M a r c h 1966. A b o u t 10 out of e v e r y 10,000 drums shipped w e r e rec e i v e d in a damaged or d e f e c t i v e state. rate of 0.1 percent. This r e p r e s e n t e d a damage A b o u t 50 percent of these d a m a g e d drums l e a k e d as a r esult of p u n c t u r e s or split seams. T h e r e we r e c a u s e d by improper loading and d e f ective drums. F o r klifts o p e r a t e d by S t e v e d o r e s also c a used punctures. R e d r u m m i n g wa s a c c o m p l i s h e d at the ports. A b o u t 65 p e r c e n t of the h e r b i c i d e was ship p e d to the 20th O r d n a n c e Storage Depot, Saigon, and 35 p e r c e n t was shipped to 9_/ "The T o x i c o l o g y , E n v i r o n m e n t a l Fate and Human Ri s k of H e r b i ­ cide Orange and its A s s o c i a t e d Dioxin" A l v i n L. Young, et al., O c t o b e r 1978. the 511th O r d n a n c e Stora g e Depot, Da Nang. h a n d l i n g procedures, U n d e r the normal drums w e r e u n l o a d e d at Da Na n g a n d Saigon from the cargo vessel d i r e c t l y into s e m i - t r a i l e rs and were p l a c e d in an u p r i g h t position. The tr a i l e r s w e r e d r i v e n to the various units of the 12th Ai r C o m m a n d o S q u a d r o n at the bases of Da Nang, P h u Cat, or B i e n Hoa) (primarily for disposition. N o r m a l l y the c o n tents of the drums w e r e t r a n s f e r r e d into b l o c k e d F-6 trailer tanks t h r o u g h a suction tube w i t h o u t r e m o v ­ ing the full drums from the s e m i - trailers. E a c h F-6 trailer h e l d 4,298 gal or about 78 drums of herbicide. When the h e r b i c i d e w as p u m p e d from the d r u m s into the F-6 trailers about 0.5 to 1.5 gal r e m a i n e d in the drum. Hence the drum was p l a c e d on a drain rack and the "drippings" were c o l l e c t e d from m a n y drums in a p a n - t y p e r e c e p t a c l e a nd used for spraying base p e r i m e t e r areas. -74- f f ^ ,,1 Sr . i, J. r, (J IV. DEFENDANTS' J O I N T A C T I O N TO PRE V E N T G O V E R N M E N T P R O D U C T I O N OF 2,4,5-T AND 2,4-D __________ ___ The defend a n t s t o g e t h e r c o m p r i s e d v i r t u a l l y the entire 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T industry. As we ha v e demonstrated, they a c t e d c o n s p i r a t o r ia l l y or in concert to conc e a l from or .misrepresent to the g o v e r n m e n t the hazards a s s o c i a t e d w i t h their products. In addition, to g u a r d their d o m i n a n t m a r k e t position, they a c t e d jointly to p r e v e n t the go v e r n m e n t from c o n s t r u c t i n g and p l a c i n g in operation at W e l d o n Springs, 2,4,-D and 2,4,5-T. authored a p l a n t for the p r o d u c t i o n of This is e v i d e n c e d by a d o c u m e n t by M. F. Wilkerson, D i a m o n d ' s M a r k e t i n g Manager, re­ flecting the industry d e c i s i o n t a k e n by the d e f e n d a n t s at a m e e t i n g October 4, 1963 of the Task Force c r e a t e d by the N a t i o n a l Agricultural Chemical Association ( N A C A ) , att e n d e d in p e r s o n or by repre s e n t a t io n by defendants, Monsanto, Hercules, Diamond, Dow & Thompson-Hayward. The d o c u m e n t reviewed the ind u s t r y c a p a c i t y "as s e c r e t l y submitted", to p r o d u c e bo t h 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T as o p p o s e d to the p u r chase patterns of the military. Although the p r o d u c t i o n data s u b m i t t e d by each d e f e n d a n t was c o d e d to p r e s e r v e secrecy, Mr. W i l k e r s o n e s t i m a t e d their respective capacities: -75- 11506 "A bit of upside-down reading gave the following breakdown of the partici­ pating members' capacities. These were coded but are exact. I have attached Ccmpanv names which may or may not be, with the exception of Diamond, asso­ ciated correctly with the capacity number. 2,4-D TOTALS 2,4,5-T 5.0 MM - Hercules 12.0 MM - Diamond 40.0 MM - Dow 24.0 MM - Monsanto _______ 14.0 MM - Chicman 5.5 M4 3.0 MM 12.0 MM 7.2 MM _______ 4.5 Mi 95.0 MM 32.2 MM Hercules Diamond Dow Monsanto T-Hayward T-Kayward acknowledged they produced no 2,4-D as did Chipman for 2,4,5-T. This group's best estimates for total annual domestic requirements of D and T were: 2,4-D - 55 Mi lbs. 2,4,5-T - 18 MM lbs. Hooker acknowledged they now have TCB capacity to supply all producers, on the basis of these estimates, except for Dow (who produce their own) and T-Hayward (who are presently being supplied TCP by Dow.) " The task force then adopted the following position: "SUMMARY OF POSITION The group of phenoxy herbicide producers at their meeting of October 4, 1968 after estimating the capacity of the domestic industry to produce 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T; after estimating as accurately as possible the domestic civilian consumption of these products and the military requirement based upon the stated needs and current delivery schedules, concluded that there is sufficient domestic production of 2,4-D to fully meet both the civilian and military requirements, and that the production of 2,4,5-T would meet a substantial part of both the civilian and military need. It was concluded that the questions which prompted the Government Officials to make the decision to construct and place in operation a plant at Weldon Springs to produce both 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T have changed, and that the industry should request an opportunity to explore these data with the Government. It was further concluded that even if it is assumed that the military will require the full amount of its needs as heretofore estimated, that there would be a very substantial over-production of both 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T if the Weldon Springs plant is operated at full capacity. This raised questions of serious import to the domestic industry which should be t h o r o u g h l y e x p l o r e d w i t h the Government. 11 507 -76- V. THE M I L I T A R Y W AS NO T AS K N O W L E D G E A B LE AS THE D E F E N D A N T S A B O U T THE M A N U F A C ­ T U R I N G PROCESS, D I O X I N AS A CONTAMINANT, D E T E C T I O N M E THODS, RISK REDUCTION METHODS A N D H E A L T H HAZA R D S A S S O C I A T E D W I T H E X P O S U R E TO D I O X I N The disparity of k n o w l e d g e b e t w e e n the d e f e n d a n t s and the m i l itary was enormous. rise to the defendants' It is a signi f i c a n t factor g i v i n g duty to w a r n the m i l i t a r y of the h a z a r d s a c companying use of their h e r b i c i d e s k n o w n to the defendants, and the duty to i hform the m i l i t a r y of the m eans of r i s k e l i m i ­ nation or reduction as this C o u r t n o t e d in 534 F. Supp. 1046 , 1055 "A supplier should n ot be i n s u l a t e d from li a b i l i t y for damages that w o u l d n e v e r h a v e o c curred if the m i l i t a r y h a d been a p p r i s e d of h a z a r d s known to the supplier. A supplier, therefore, has a duty to inform the m i l i t a r y of k nown risks a t t e n d a n t to a partic u l a r w e a p o n that it supplies, so as to provide the m i l i t a r y w i t h at least an o p p o r t u n i t y fairly to balance the w e a p o n ' s risks and benef i t s . " The good sense of i m p o s i n g a duty to inform is rea d i l y apparent. Such a duty does n ot in t e r f e r e with the m i l i t a r y ' s prerog a t i v e s by r e q u iri n g s u p p liers a nd courts to s e c o n d - g u e s s the m i l i t a r y ' s decisions. r o g a t i v e s by Indeed, it en h a n c e s those p r e ­ h e l p i n g to e n sure that s u p p liers w i l l share t h e i r k n o w l e d g e and e x p e rtise w i t h g o v e r n m e n t a l d e c i s i o nmakers. Nor • does such a duty cause d e lays in s u p p l y i n g n e eded o r d n a n c e the suppliers are o b l i g a t e d m e r e l y to share k n o w l e d g e and e x p e r t i s e already in hand. 77 In o r d e r for k n o w l e d g e a b o u t h a z a r d s to have h e lped the m i l i t a r y "fairly to b a l a n c e a w e a p o n ' s risks and benefits," it m u s t have been p o s s e s s e d by i n d i v i d u a l s wh o were in p o s i t i o n s of s ufficient a u t h o r i t y and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to act on that k n o w ­ ledge . If the d e c i sio n s in q u e s t i o n w e r e those r e g arding w h e t h e r and h o w to depl o y A g e n t O r a n g e in So u t h e a s t A s i a and w h i c h of the v a r i o u s forms of the A g e n t to employ, k n o w ledge about h a z a r d s m u s t have b e e n p o s s e s s e d by a d e c i s i o n m a k e r relati v e l y h i g h up in the c h a i n s of c o m m a n d and authority. Moreover, for the k n o w l e d g e to ha v e i n formed that relevant d e c i s ionmaker, it must ha v e be e n p o s s e s s e d by hi m in a c o h e s i v e m a n n e r so that he w o u l d be in a p o s i t i o n to integrate it into a m e a n i n g f u l whole. It is not suffi c i e n t for m i l i t a r y c o n t r a c t o r s to share inform a t i o n v/ith anyone at all or w i t h individuals so far do w n the r e l evant chains of c o m m a n d an d a u t h o r i t y as to rend e r the information u s eless as a m e a n s of i n c r e a s i n g the r a t i o n a l i t y of the p olicy decisions being r e a c h e d by the a p p r o p r i a t e d e c i s i o n ­ m a k e r at the a p p r o p r i a t e level in the chain of authority. Nor is it sufficient if the infor m a t i o n c o n s i s t s of isolated bits and pieces of k nowledge, scattered both v e r t i c a l l y and h o r i z o n t a l l y throug h o u t the g o v e r n m e n t a l b u r e a u c r a c i e s a n d shared in p i e c e m e a l fashion, wi t h one p e r s o n in g o v e r n m e n t b e i n g info rmed as to a n o t h e r aspect. T he first of these threats to rational d e c i s i o n m a k i n g m i g h t be t e r m e d the threat of v e r t i c a l n oni ntegration. Both defeat the o b j e c t i v e of r a t i o n a l -78- XjL^{)9 d e c i s i o n m a k i n g by p r e v e n t i n g k n o w ledge about haza r d s from b e i n g a v a i l a b l e to those attempting, in the Court's words, "fairly to b a l a n c e the risks and benefits." In their p r i o r submission, "Plaintiffs' M e m o r a n d u m C o n c e r n i n g the G o v e r n m e n t C o n t r a c t Defe n s e Phase of the Orange' 'Agent P r o ducts L i a b i l i t y Litigation: A M a n a g e m e n t Pl a n for the D i s c o v e r y Phase", June 8, 1982, p laintiffs a d d r e s s e d the legal implic a t i o n s of the q u e s t i o n of w h o in the g o v e r n m e n t m u s t have known, and n o t e d that under the r e levant case law, i n c l u d i n g that of the p r o d u c t liability field, the following rules apply in d e t e r m i n i n g the issue of k n o w l e d g e imput a t i o n or i n f o r m a t i o n transfe r e n c e: 1. I n t e r - A g e n c y imput a t i o n of kn o w l e d g e is whol l y i m p e r m i s s i b le and i n t r a - a g e n c y imputation use n a r r o w l y limited (pp. 2 2 - 6 8 ) . 2. I n f o r m a t i o n tra n s f e r e n c e m u s t be t a r g e t e d to the a p p r o p r i a t e d e c i s i o n m a k e r and focused to alert to danger (pp. 22-31). It is c l e a r from t he record that judged by these standards, the d e f e n d a n t s ha v e br e a c h e d their duty to w a r n and i n f o r m the r e s p o n s i b l e g o v e r n m e n t a l decisionmakers. A p a r t from th e q u e s t i o n of w h o r a t i o n a l decisionmaker) (i e . the h i g h level in the g o v e r n m e n t should have p o s s e s s e d the i n f o r m a t i o n d e f e n d a n t s h a d and withheld, is the issue of w h a t i n f o r m a t i o n w o u l d ra t i o n a l g o v e r n m e n t a l d e c i s i o n m a ker s have w a n t e d the c h e m i c a l companies to share w i t h t h e m in o r d e r to be "fairly to b a l a n c e the risks and benefits -79- g iven the 1 15 1 0 i m plications o f "such a m a s s i v e m i l i t a r y d e p l o y m e n t of a toxic herbicide, k n o w n by the s u p p l i e r s to be hazardous to human health, b u t c a p a b l e of e l i m i n a t i n g or re d u c t i o n such hazards. We s u b m i t that t h e r e w e r e at least four types of i n f o r m a t i o n in the p o s s e s s i o n of the d e f e n d a n t c h e m i c a l co m p a n i e s that rational g o v e r n m e n t a l d e c i s i o n m a k e r s w o u l d have w a nted those companies to share w i t h th e m so that the g o v e r n m e n t c o u l d u n d e rtake its own r i s k - u t i l i t y a s s e s s m e n t in the c o n t e x t of the e ntire w a r effort: F i r s t , i n f o r m a t i o n r elating to factual, historical experiences with dioxin contamination — eg., o c c u p a ­ tional r e l a t e d injuries to w o r k e r s fo l l o w i n g e x posure to d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a t e d m a t e r i a l s in m a n u f a c t u r i n g facilities — that w o u l d have led a rational p e r s o n to s u s p e c t that ex p o s u r e to such m a t e r i a l s m a y be harmf u l to humans; S e c o n d , d i o x i n information, c o n t a m i n a t i o n levels and v a r i a b l e s d e t e r m i n i n g levels of d i o x i n in the c h e mical h e r b ic i d e m a n u f a c t u r i n g process; Third, infor­ m a t i o n r e l a t i n g to dioxin c o n t a m i n a t i o n levels in the h e r b i c i d e s m a n u f a c t u r e d for use in V i e t n a m and the extent to w h i c h levels of d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a t i o n could be r e d u c e d by the use of a p p r o p r i a t e a n a l y t i c a l and d e t e c t i o n p r o c e d u r e s , a l t e r n a t i v e m e t h o d s of m a n u ­ facture or q u a l i t y control and the cost thereof and F o u r t h , i n f o r m a t i o n in the f o r m of j u d gments and a s s e s s m e n t s of the risks to h e a l t h alre a d y a r r i v e d at by the c h e m i c a l co m p a n i e s themselves. The first, s e c o n d an d t h i r d types of i n f o r m a t i o n are e s s e n t i a l l y factual, the f i r s t foc u s i n g on the risks of injury and the second focusin g on the d i o x i n forming p r o c e s s and c o n t a m i n a n t ? sr 1 «4. -80- ii levels, and the third f o cusing on risk avoidance. The fourth type of i n formation is m o r e judgmental than factual, c o n s i s t i n g of the conclusions, however, that the chemical companies ha d reac re garding the risks p r e s e n t e d by Agent Orange. Finally, there is the q u e s t i o n of "when?" — i e ., t he r e l evant time frame w i t h i n w h i c h the g o v e r n m e n t m u s t have had k n o w l e d g e about the haza r d s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h A g e n t Orange? C o n s i s t e n t w i t h the conc e p t of i nformed and ra t i o n a l decisionmaking, the c r u c i a l time for the g o v e r n m e n t to have had k n o w ledge of the haza r d s was the time during w h i c h d e c i s i o n s w e r e m a d e r e g a rding the p u r c h a s e and d e p l o y m e n t of A g e n t O r a n g e in southeast Asia. The key to u n d e r s t a n d i n g the re l e v a n t time frame is the o b j e cti v e that the m i l i t a r y not be forced u n n e c e s ­ sarily to act on ina d e q u a t e information. Thus, suppliers of the chemical herbici d e s w e r e o b l i g a t e d to share w h a t e v e r r e l e v a n t i nformation they p o s s e s s e d at the time of sale and w e r e o b l i g a t e d to share additi o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . a s it b e c a m e a v a i l a b l e to t h e m throug h o u t the p e r i o d during w h i c h those h e r b i c i d e s we r e b e i n g used by the government. The discov e r y to date e s t a b l i s h e s that t hese c h e m i c a l companies were in a position, at little or no cost, a nd indeed had the duty, to draw the h a z a r d and risk a v o i dance p i eces t o g e t h e r and timely w a r n and share them with the r e s p o n s i b l e g o v e r n m e n t a u t h o r i t y w h o m a d e the d e c i s i o n s that d irectly and d r a s t i c a l l y a f f e c t e d the w e l f a r e of the plaintiffs. The d e f e n d a n t co m p a n i e s 11512 - 8 1 - failed to d o this. of o f f i cials D e f e n d a n t s ' e l a b o r a t e di s c o v e r y of hundreds have at mo s t p r o d u c e d bits and p i eces of i n ­ formation a b o u t the haza r d s of dioxin in general scattered u s e ­ lessly a cross t h e length and b r e a d t h of various federal bureaucracies. Thus, defen d a n t s have also failed in their d u t y to w a r n and i n f o r m the r e s p o n s i b l e g o v e r n m e n t a l d e c i s i o n m a k e r as to the s p e c i f i c facts the m i l i t a r y need e d to k n o w in order to make an i n f o r m e d decision. -8^ VI. U N D E R T HE P R E C E D I N G F A C T S A N D C I R C U MSTANCES, EACH DEFEND A N T ' S B R E A C H OF ITS SEPARATE D U T Y TO W A R N MAY BE C O N S I D E R E D T HE "CAUSE IN FACT" OF PLAINTIFFS' INJURIES, AND THE P R O B L E M OF SEPARATE D E F E N D A N T I D E N T I F I C A T I O N T H E R E F O R E D O E S N O T EXIST; BUT IN A NY EVENT, THE DEFEND A N T S MA Y BE H E L D J O I N T L Y AND S E V E R A L L Y L I A B L E U N D E R T HE T H E O R I E S OF C O N C E R T E D ACTION, ENTERPRISE LIABILITY AND ALTERNATIVE LIABILITY Because of the m a n n e r in w h i c h the d e f e n d a n t s sold A g e n t O range to the Government, an d the m a n n e r in w h i c h the G o v e r n m e n t then u t i lized it so as to e x p o s e the p l a i n t i f f s to its effects, it is unlikely, no m a t t e r h o w firmly it is e s t a b l i s h e d that A g e n t Orange in fact c a u s e d the plaintiffs' injuries, that any plaintiff will b e able to i d entify w i t h c e r t a i n t y w h i c h one or more of the defend a n t s a c t u a l l y p r o d u c e d the specific b a t c h of A g e n t Orange to which he w a s exposed, to his detriment. Rather, b e c a u s e the defendants p u t no c o m p a n y - i d e n t i f y i n g m a r k s on the' b a r r e l s of A g e n t Orange they sold to the G o v ernment, a nd the G o v e r n m e n t t r e a t e d the p r o d u c t gene r i c a l l y , the m o s t that plaint i f f s w i l l be able to p r o v e is that they w e r e all inj u r e d by A g e n t Orange, v i r t u a l l y all of w h i c h w as p r o d u c e d b y the defendants. To go further than this, a n d to r e q u i r e each p l a i n t i f f to identify the specific d e f e n d a n t or d e f e n d a n t s w h o s e A g e n t O r a n g e c au s e d his injury, w o u l d p r e s e n t i m p o s s i b l e ■ p r o b l e m s of proof. At one time in the law, perhaps, such p r o b l e m s of p r o o f m i g h t have been fatal to a p l a i n t i f f ' s case. The d e m a n d s of m o d e r n society, however, ha v e b r o u g h t c h a n c e to the law of c a u s a t i o n and liability. T h e c o urts ha v e c l e a r l y r e c o g n i z e d that if they are to c o n t i n u e to serve the ends of justice in an ev olving society, evolve. the r ules of lav; they apply m u s t also As the Supreme C o u r t of C a l i f o r n i a put it, in c on­ sidering the similar p r o b l e m s of proof of c a u s a t i o n a n d lia­ b i l i t y facing a p l a i nti f f in a pro d u c t s l i a b ility a c tion invol ving the d r u g DES: "In our c o n t e m p o r a r y c o m p l e x i n d u s t r i a l i z e d society, advance s in science and t e c h n o l o g y c r eate fungible goods w h i c h m a y h a r m c o n s u m e r s and which c a n n o t be t r a c e d to any specific producer. The r e s p o n s e of the c o u r t s c an be either to a dhere r i g i d l y to p r i o r doctrine, denying r e c o v e r y to t hese injured by such products, or to fas h i o n r e medies to m e e t these c h a n g i n g needs. Ju s t as J u s t i c e T r a y n o r in his landmark c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n in E s c o l a v. Coca Cola B o t t l i n g C o m p a n y (1944) 24 Cal. 2d 453., 467-468, 150 P . 2 d 436, r e c o g n i z e d that in an era of m a s s p r o d u c t i o n and comp l e x m a r k e t i n g m e t h o d s the t r a d i t i o n a l sta n d a r d of negligence w a s i n s u f f i c i e n t to g o v e r n the o bligations of m a n u f a c t u r e r to consumer, so should we a c k n o w l e d g e that some a d a p t a t i o n of the rules of c a u s a t i o n and l i a b i l i t y m a y be approp r i a t e in these r e c u rring c i r c u m s t a n c e s fl Sindell v. A b b o t t L a b o r a t o r i e s , 607 P .2d 924 , 926 (Cal. 1980) . Or, as Judge M e y e r of the N e w Yo r k C o u r t of A p p e a l s m o r e succinctly put it in a n o t h e r p r o d u c t s l i a b i l i t y a c t i o n i n v o l v ­ ing DES, "Products liab ility law c a n n o t be e x p e c t e d to stand still where i n n ocent v i c t i m s face problems of proof.'" 580; 450 N Y S 2d 776,779 'inordinately d i f f i c u l t B i c h l e r v. Eli L i l l y & C o . , 55 N Y 2 d 576, (N.Y. 1982). 83 Thus, C ourt as w e l l as c o m m e n t a t o r s have p r oposed means w h i c h permit recovery by p l a i n t i f f s under circu m s t a n c es such as these, where the c o n d u c t or p r o d u c t of a specific d e f endant o ut of a group of p o t e n t i a l l y liable defend a n t s cannot be identified as the "cause in fact" of the p l a i n t i f f s ’ injuries. Such proposals involve a p p l i c a t i o n of p r i n c i p l e s of "concerted action", " enterprise liability", and, m o r e recently, "alternative liability", "market share liability".— ^ 10/ The C o u r t in S i nde l l v. A b b o t t L a b o r a t o r i e s , 607 P.2d 924 (Cal. 1980) d e v e l o p e d the m a r k e t share liability theory as a specific m o d i f i c a t i o n of the a l t ernative liability theory to s u r m o u n t the r ational difficulties in applying the a l t e r n a t i v e liability theory in cases where not all or s u b s t a n t i a l ly all p o t e n t i a l l y liable parties are named as defendants. Since, as E x h i b i t 1 to this M e m o r a n d u m clearly demonstrate s, v i r t u a l l y all poten t i a l l y liable p a r t i e s are named as defen d a n t s here, the problems p r e s ented in S i n d e l l , and the specific s olution of m a r k e t share l i a b i l i t y devised by the Sindell C o u r t to o vercome them, do not apply. Plaintiffs, therefore, do not discuss the m a r k e t share l i a b i l i t y in this memorandum. -84- P laintiffs b e l i e v e that the lengthy factual statement fully supports the theories of c o n c e r t e d action, e nterprise liability and altern a t i v e a d d r essed seriatum. liability. However, T h e s e a r g u ments will be there is good r e ason to examine at the outset the impli cations of the failure to wa r n theory as it has d e v e l o p e d in this case. On its own it is disp o s i t i v e of the p r o b l e m of d e f e n d a n t i d entification. The p l a i n t i f f s have p r e s e n t e d facts in this case e s t a b ­ lishing that the d e f e n d a n t c h e m i c a l c o m p a n i e s failed to warn the g o v e r n m e n t a b o u t a b r o a d range of risks r e l a t e d to the use of A g e n t Orange. Plaintif f s submit that the ve r y special nature of the breach of the duty to w a r n issue as it arises in this case m o o t s the issue of c a u s a t i o n as it rel a t e s to the ident i f i c a t io n of w h i c h d e f e n d a n t should be d e e m e d respo n s i b l e for which p l a i n t i f f ‘s harm. As we s hall demonstrate, each d e f e n d a n t i n d i v i d u a l l y in the t r uest sense of the w o r d was a "cause in fact" of the e n t i r e t y of the harm. It w i l l be h e l p f u l to focus on the n a t u r e of the failure to warn claim. Plain t i f f s c o n t e n d that each of the d e f e n d a n t s failed to w a r n of risks w h i c h th e y e i t h e r k n e w or should have k n o w n about. These b r e a k d o w n into v a r i o u s categories. First, plaintiffs c o n t e n d that the d e f e n d a n t failed to share with the 1 -85- r IT ^ iL^ 1 7 U n i t e d States G o v e r n m e n t i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g the possible hazards a t t e n d a n t to the use of dioxin c o n t a m i n a t e d A g e n t Orange. W h a t suspicions did they h a r b o r or should they have h ad that the h e r b i c i d e caused a b r o a d range of d i s eases? The d e f o l i a t i o n p r o j e c t subjected soldiers to doses a nd exposure to the h e r b i c i d e h e r e t o ­ fore unkn o w n to mankind. backyard. This was not s p raying a b u s h in one's T h o u s a n d s of g a l l o n s of the d e f o l i a n t w e r e to be sprayed from the air to d e f o l i a t e jungles. experiments, Thus, a n y test results, s uspicions a nd c o n c l u s i o n s how e v e r t e n t ative should have been shared w i t h the g o v e r n m e n t w i t h total candor. have shown that this did no t occur. Second, Plaintiffs was a long h i s t o r y of indust r i a l a c c i d e n t s that i n d i c a t e d that pro b l e m s of d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a t i o n w e r e r e l a t e d to the m a n u f a c t u r i n g process. These accidents took place over a rather long peri o d of time. Some were of c o n s i d e r a b l e severity. Th e y have be e n noted in the factual i n t r o d u c t i o n to this memorandum. The d i s a s t r o u s results of these i n d u s t r i a l accidents c a u s e d the defen d a n t s to discuss the need for e x t r a o r d i n a r y p r ecautions in the c l e a n u p to assure that d i oxin was avoided or removed from the w o r k p l a c e and to p r o t e c t the w o r k e r s in the cleanup process. There w as no a s s u r a n c e that the diox i n w h i c h was the c a u s e of these indust r i a l c a t a s t r o p h e s w as avoi d e d or r e moved from the final product. -86- P l a i n t i f f s have d e m o n s t r a t e d that d efendants f ailed to fully inform the g o v e r n m e n t of t h e s e industrial accidents, the p r e cautions and methods d i s c ussed or u s e d to avoid the f o r m a t i o n of or rid the plants of dioxin a n d m o s t important of the terrible c o n s e quences to those injured as a r esult of e x p o s u r e to the dioxin. Finally, p l a i n t i f f s have shown that d e f e n d a n t s had i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g their ability and n o n - a b i l i t y to d e t e r ­ m i n e the level of d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a t i on in the final A g e n t O r a n g e product. Some defend a n t s kn e w mu c h a b o u t their a b i l i t y to t e s t for d ioxin and their a b i l i t y to control its presence. Others k n e w that they w e r e unab l e to test for the pre s e n c e of the d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a n t and that their quality control techniques were erratic at v e r y best. The evidence e s t a b l i s h e s that the d e f e n d a n t s f ailed to inform the g o v e r n m e n t about their a n a l y t i c a l and testing c a p a b i l i t i e s and the meth o d s a v a ilable to them to c o n t r o l the risk by in s tituting alternate methods of m a n u f a c t u r e that would s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduce or e l i m i n a t e the d i o x i n s or t h e i r i n a b i l i t y to c o n t r o l the risk in that their q u a l i t y control t e c h n i ­ ques were such that they did not know h o w to e v a l u a t e or c o n t r o l the d ioxin level that was in their product. -87- 19 A t first blush, it w o u l d a p p e a r that p l a i n t i f f s are presen t i n g a classic failure to w a r n case that w o u l d require c o nformance to normal c a u s a t i o n principles. However, on reflec t i o n it is clear that there is something very d i f f e r e n t a b o u t this failure to w a r n case. W a r n i n g s serve two purposes. The standard failure to w a r n ca s e serves the p u r p o s e of risk reduction. M o s t produc t s r a i s e the spectre of some element of danger if the p r o d u c t s are no t us e d properly. can reduce the p r o b a b i l i t y of h a r m u t i l i t y balance) A warning (thus e f f e c t i n g the risk- by a l e r t i n g the us e r to risks that m a y e v e n ­ tuate should the user n ot f o l l o w the p r e s c r i b e d instructions. Alternately, a w a r n i n g m a y i n f o r m a user that he b e l o n g s to a special class of p e rson s w h o s h ould not util i z e a p r o d u c t at all or utilize it w i t h spec i a l p r e c a utions. w a r n i n g is v e r y c ommon in d r u g cases. are designed to a c hi e v e a This form of Bo t h forms of war n i n g s ¡reduction of risk since they permit the user to i n t e l l i g e n t l y respond to risks that attend the use of the s u s p e c t product. There is, however, a n o t h e r c a t e g o r y of failure to wa r n cases. In that type case, the c o n t e n t i o n is n o t that the d e f e n ­ d a n t failed to w a r n so that risk could be reduced, b ut that the risk level is c o n s t a n t a nd there is little that can be done by the user to r e d u c e the p r o b a b i l i t y of harm. The f u n c t i o n of the w a r n i n g in this seco n d genre of p r o d u c t cases is to i n f o r m -88- 0 the user of risks a t t e n d a n t to the use of a p r o d u c t so that the user can d ecide w h e t h e r he/she w i s h e s to expose h i m s e l f / h e r s e l f to an i rreducible risk. This class of failure to warn cases is v e r y c l o s e l y an a l o g o u s to the informed choice m e d i c a l m a l p r a c t i c e case. The issue in those cases is not.the c o n d u c t of the d e f e n d a n t p e r s e , but rather the failure to give the p a t i e n t s u f f i c i e n t i nfor m a t i o n so that the p a t i e n t can. make an informed and k n o w l e d g e a b l e choi c e as to w h e t h e r to expose h i m s e l f to a g i v e n t hera p e u t i c procedure. v. S p e n c e , 464 F. 2d 772 (DC Cir) (1972); Cobb v. G r a n t , 8___ See e.g. C a n t e r b u r y ce r t d e nied 409 US 1064 Cal 3d 229 , 104 Cal Rptr. 505, 502 P. 2d 1 (1972) . The p r o d u c t liability a n a l o g u e to these informed c h o i c e m e d i c a l m a l p r a c t i c e cases is e x e m p l i f i e d by such well known c a s e s as Davis v. W y e t h L a b o r a t o r i e s , 339 F. 2d 121 (9th Cir. 1968); Reyes v. W y e t h L a b o r a t o r i e s , 498 F. 2d 1264 (5th Cir. 1974) cert d e n i e d 419 US 1096. C u n n i n g h a m v. Char l e s P f i z e r & C o . I n c . , 532 P. 2d 1377 (Okla. 1974). In these cases use of p olio v a c c i n e w a s a t t e n d e d with a small but i r r e d u c i b l e risklevel which c o u l d not be a f f e c t e d by production. In D avis v. W y e t h L a b o r a t o r i e s , Judge M e rril r e c o g n i z e d that he wa s f a c e d with this problem: "There are m a n y cases, however, p a r t i c u l a r l y in the area of n e w drugs, w h e r e the risk, a l t h o u g h k n o w n to exist, c a n n o t be ... n a r r o w l y limited and w h e r e k n o w l e d g e does not yet expl a i n the reason for the risk or s p e cify those to w h o m it applies. It thus f -T -89- 2l applies in some d e g r e e to all, or at lease a si g ­ n i f i c a n t portion, of t hose w h o take the drug. T h i s is our case; t h e r e seems to be no certain m e t h o d of isol a t i n g those adults who m a y be a f f e c t e d adver s e l y b y taking Type III Sabin vaccine. In such cases, then, the drug is fit and its d anger is r e a s o n a b l e only if the balance is struck in favor of its use. W h e r e the risk is otherwise k n o w n to the consumer, no p r o b l e m is presented, since c h o i c e is available. W h e r e not known, h o w ­ ever , the dr u g can p r o p e r l y be m a r k e t e d only in such f a shion as to p e r m i t the striking of the balance; that is, b y full d i s c l o s u r e of the e x i s t e n c e and e x t e n t of the risk involved." 399 F. 2d 121, at 129. The f u n c t i o n of the w a r n i n g in this case the court c o n ­ c luded was not to r e d u c e the risk but instead to provide the p l a i n t i f f w i t h the o p p o r t u n i t y to decide w h e t h e r to expose h i mself to a risk w h i c h c o u l d no t be further reduced by any action on his part. The C o u r t noted: "When, in a p a r t i c u l a r case, the risk q u a l i t a t i v e ly (e.g., of deat h or m a j o r disability) as well as q u a n t i t a t i v el y , on b a l a n c e w i t h the end sought to be achieved, is such as to call for a true choice judgment, m e d i c a l or personal, the war n i n g mu s t be given." Id. 399 F. 2d at 129-130 (emphasis added) A l s o see Model U n i f o r m P r o d u c t L i a b i l i t y Act. Sec. 104 (c) (3) , T w e r s k i , O l d W i n e in a N e w F l a s k - R e s t r u c t u r i n g A s s u m p ­ tion of Risk in the P r o d u c t s L i a b i l i t y E r a , 60 Iowa L. Rev. 1, 44-46 and Twerski, W e i n s t e i n , D o n a h e r and Peehler, The Use an d A b u s e of W a r n i n g s in P r o d u c t s L i a b i l i t y - D e s i g n D e fect L i t i ­ g a t i o n Comes of A g e , 61 C o r n e l l L. R e v 495, 517-521 (1976). The import a n c e of the stated d i s t i n c t i o n is that it a f f e c t s the c a u s a t i o n issue in a m o s t inte r e s t i n g fashion. 1 -90- If the question is asked h o w r e s p o n s i b l e is each d e f e n d a n t for not sharing the totality of all the risk i n formation which it k n e w or should have k n o w n about, the asnwer is clear. The failure of each d e f e n d a n t to w a r n the g o v e r n m e n t was r e s p o n ­ sible for the ignorance of the g o v e r n m e n t and contributed, n ot only to the use of each d e f e n d a n t ' s product, b u t to the ve r y d e c isi on to use A g e n t Orange as a d e f o l i a n t at all. That decision was not a d i v i s i b l e one. There is thus joint and several liabi l i t y in the m o s t c l a s s i c and t r aditional sense. The r e a s o n that this i n f o r m e d c h o i c e a r g u m e n t resolves the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p r o b l e m is that the focus has switched from the nuance of e a c h d e f e n d a n t ' s p r o d u c t to the defendants' colle c t i v e and i n d i v i d u a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for failing to i nform the g o v e r n m e n t so that it c o u l d make a decision w i t h all the i n f o r m a t i o n b e f o r e it. Since the decision was n o n - d i v i s i b l e and w a s c o n t r i b u t e d to by everyone's f a ilure to warn, the l i a b i l i t y ought to be joint and several as well. As long® the failure to deliver the r e q u i s i t e i n f o r m a t i o n was a subst a n t i a l factor leading to the d e c i s i o n to d e p l o y A g e n t Orange, the p l a i n t i f f s have fully d i s c h a r g e d their b u r d e n on causation. Concurrent tortfeasors do not have the l u xury of the but-for a r g u m e n t in this context. See, A n d e r s o n v. M i n n e a p o l i s St. P. & St. -91- M.R.R. C o . , 146-Minn. Chicago 430, 179 N.W. & N.W.R. C o . , 191 Wis. The facts 610, 45 (1920), K i n g s t o n v. 211 N.W. 913 (1927). of this c a s e supp o r t the c o n c l u s i o n that the failure to d i s c h a r g e o ne's o wn duty to w a r n m u s t be v i e w e d in the context of the g o v e r n m e n t ' s d e c i s i o n to u t i l i z e Agent O r a n g e as a defoliant. in this case, T he d e f e n d a n t s w e r e not lone rangers totally u n a w a r e of ea c h others activities. The facts point to a heavily c o n c e n t r a t e d industry w i t h a high d e g r e e of special exp e rtise w i t h r e gard to the m a n u f a c t u r e a n d use of herbicides. T h i s h i g h l y c o n c e n t r a t e d industry dealt w i t h a dizzying array of g o v e r n m e n t agencies. F r o m time to time bits a n d pieces of k n o w l e d g e w e r e in the p o s s e s s i o n of one p erson or another in one g o v e r n m e n t agency or another. T he i n f o r m a t i o n that was a v a i l a b l e to the d e f e n d a n t s w a s or should have been put together by the d e f e n d a n t s in a c o h e r e n t fashion so that the responsible p e r s o n s in the r e s p o n s i b l e g o v e r n m e n t a g e ncies were delivered the total risk picture. We shall demons t r a t e at trial that this was never accomplished. The defend a n t s had full k n o w l e d g e that the A g e n t O r a n g e that w e n t to V i e t n a m was to be loaded in planes to be m i x e d and sprayed w i t h o u t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n as to w h i c h d e f e n d a n t ' s p r o d u c t . was being utilized. The c o n s e q u e n c e s of the d a n g e r s if the suspicions and fears a b o u t d i o x i n turned ou t to be true were staggering. Hundreds of th o u s a n d s of soldiers w o u l d be e x p o s e d to the risk. If we h y p o t h e s i z e that a g o v e r n m e n t w e l l aware of the risk w ould have or w e l l m i g h t ha v e d e c i d e d a g a i n s t the d e f o l i a t i o n then it w o u l d seem clear that the a f o r e m e n t i o n e d -92- ... \ . P w facts,if proven, streng t h e n the a r gument that each bears some r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for that final decision. The relationships b e t w e e n the m a n u f a c t u r e r s and their knowledge of h o w the p r o d u c t was to be d e p l o y e d add to the strength of the arg u m e n t that t h e y c a n n o t easily separate t h e m s e l v e s into fragments for the p u r p o s e of causation. W h e t h e r or no t the a f o r e m e n t i o n e d facts do or do not a m o u n t to c o n c e r t e d acti o n they are clearly a predicate f or the p r o p o s i t i o n that the b r e a c h of the duty to w a r n cannot be isolated. F i n a l l y , a n d as a separate a r g u m e n t , p l ai n t i f f s note t h a t several d e f e n d a n t s h a d specific k n o w l e d g e not on l y of the d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a t i o n of their own prod u c t but of the r a t h e r substan­ tial p r o b l e m s that oth e r d e f e n d a n t s h ad with the dioxin c o n t e n t in their product. So much so that d efendants w e r e called together to d i s c u s s the problem. The g o v e r n m e n t was the c o n ­ spicuous u n i n v i t e d guest to that meeting. Once the d e f e n d a n t s b e c a m e aware of the p r o b l e m s that exi s t e d with r e gard to the m a n u f a c t u r e of d ioxin c o n t a m i n a t e d A g e n t Orange the question is did they have a duty to wa r n the gover n m e n t not only about t h e i r own p r oduct but the p r o b l e m s that were being faced industry w ide. An a r g u m e n t c o u l d be m a d e , given the long st a n d i n g r e l a t i o n ­ ships b e t w e e n such d e f e n d a n t s as D ow and Hercules w i t h the g o v e r n m e n t , that eren if they had decided not to m a n u f a c t u r e a n d sell A g e n t O r a n g e to the g o v e r n m e n t they would ha v e had a d u t y to d i s c l o s e to the g o v e r n m e n t the information that they had i-I 'O' -93- before the court and social p o l i c y q u e s t i o n s always under l i e the duty issue." P r osser, W a d e and Schwartz p. 404 (Sixth Ed. 1976) The c o u r t thus mus t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r the conditions in this case support the impos i t i o n of such a duty. We believe that given the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the g o v e r n m e n t and the defendants, the h i g h f o r e s e e a b i l i t y that d a nger to h undreds of thousands of soldiers w o u l d r e s u l t if the information was n ot shared, the c o m m o n use of the A g e n t O r a n g e in V i e t n a m through i ndiscriminate mixing, and the h i g h l y s p e c i a l i z e d knowledge that existed w i t h i n the chemical i n d u s t r y that a duty to i n f o r m the g overnment of the other d e f e n d a n t ' s pr o b l e m s is e s t a b l i s h e d b eyond p e r a d v e n t u r e . Whe n one adds to this the "take charge" aspect of D o w and other d e f e n d a n t s wi t h regard to the i n f o r m a ­ tion that was to be d i s s e m i n a t e d a nd the atte m p t to jealously guard it from p ublic view,, the du t y issue simply disappears. Once a d e f e n d a n t has deci d e d not to stand aside but to act affirmatively, the duty to act r e a s o n a b l y under the c i r c u m s t a n c e s is firmly established. Restatement (Second) Parvi v. City of K i n g s t o n , 41 N Y 2 d 553, of Torts Sec. 32; 362 N E 2 d 960 (1977). The i m plications for the c a u s a t i o n issue once a duty has been e s t a b l i s h e d to warn the g o v e r n m e n t of the dioxin c o n ­ tamination that existed in other d e f e n d a n t s ' pro d u c t s is obvious. If the duty to wa r n is as we have set forth, then there can be no a r g ument that r e s p o n s i b i l i t y should be limited to the individual defendant. Ey h y p o t h e s i s the b r e a c h of the -95- 1 "3 v0 duty to inform the g o v e r n m e n t was. specifically d i r e c t e d to the highly toxic product of a c o - d e f e n d a n t. It was that v e r y p r oduct which was deploy e d in Vietnam. There is thus no c a u s ation issue left to decide. The v e r y product w h i c h c a u s e d the h a r m was allowed to be d e p l o y e d b e c a u s e the d e f e n d a n t s n o t only failed to warn of the d a n g e r s w h i c h were indig e n o u s to their product but that w h i c h the entire industry w a s selling. Once the duty issue is r e s o l v e d c a u s a t i o n is r e s o l v e d as well. E a c h d e f e ndant who did not r e v e a l that w h i c h it should have r e v e a l e d bears d irect r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the h a r m c a u s e d by the p r o duct of the other d e f e n d a n t s w h i c h they k n e w to be more h i ghly toxic then their own. Should the Court requ i r e still further grounds for holding the defend a n t s jointly and se v e r a l l y liable, however, ample such grounds exist u n d e r any or all of the t h e o r i e s of c o n c erted action, e nter p r i s e liability and a l t e r n a t i v e liability, d i s c ussed s e r iatim below. A. T h e Facts and C i r c u m s t a n c e s W a r r a n t A p p l i c a t i o n of the C o n c e r t e d A c t i o n T h e o r y as a B a s i s for Defendants' J o i n t and Several L i a b i l i t y _________ C o n c e r t e d action among two or mo r e d e f e n d a n t s r e s u l t i n g in injury to a p l a i ntif f is a fact s i t u a t i o n under w h i c h joint and several liability has h i s t o r i c a l l y been imposed. D uPont de N e m o u r s & Co., I n c . , 345 F.Supp. -96- 353, 371 Hall v. E . I . (E.D.N.Y. 1972) U527 1 H a r p e r & James, The Lav/ of Torts §10.1 at 697-93 Prosser, Joint Torts and S e v e r a l Liability, 413, 429 et seq. Lititgation, (1937); 1979) 25 Calif. L.Rev. See also In re Beverly Hills Fire Civil A c t i o n No. filed N o v e m b e r 14, (1956); 77-79, O rder 215, p.3 (S.D. Ohio, (Order attached as Exhi b i t 16 h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d to as "Beverly Hills"). ; The elements of the c o n c e r t e d a c t i o n theory are presc r i b e d in Section 876 of The R e s t a t e m e n t of Torts, w h i c h provides in part as follows: F o r h a r m r e s u l t i n g to a third pers o n from the tor t i o u s conduct of another, a p e rson is liable if he . . . (b) knows that the other' s c o n d u c t c o nstitutes a b r each of d u t y and gives substantial a s s i s t a n c e or e n c o u r a g e m e n t to the other so to conduct himself, or (c) gives substantial assistance to the o t h e r in a c c o m p l i s h i ng a tortious r e s u l t and his own conduct, s e p a r a t e l y considered, c o n s t i t u t e s a b r e a c h of d u t y to the third person. With r e s p e c t to this theory, Pro s s e r states that: "(T)hose who, in p u r s u a n c e of a c o m m o n p l a n or d e s i g n to c o m m i t a tortious act, a c t i v e l y take p a r t in it, or f u r ­ t h e r it by c o o p e r a t i o n or request, or w h o lend aid or e n c o u r a g e m e n t to the wrongdoer, or ratify and adopt his acts done for their bene f i t are e q u a l l y liable with him. (P) Express a g r e e m e n t is not necessary, and all that is r e q u i r e d is that there be a tacit u n d e r s t a n d i n g . . . " Prosser, L a w of T orts §46, p.292 (4th Ed. 1971); See also S i n d e l l v. A b b o t t L a b o r a t o r i e s , 607 P. 2 d at 932 (Quoting Prosser) f r ■»¿r .J.y, -97- 3 and Hall v. D u P o n t , 345 F.Supp. at 371 (Quoting P r o s s e r ) . Three elements are n e c e s s a r y to p r o v e a case of joint and several liability for c o n c e r t e d a c t i o n in a p r o d u c t s l i a ­ bility case. F i r s t ., plaint i f f s m u s t e s t a b l i s h a caus a l re l a t i o n b e tween the plaintiffs' harm and the ta r g e t e d defendants. S e c o n d , the plaint i f f s m u s t prove that d e f e n d a n t s in the group p a r t i c i p a t e d by c o o p e r a t i v e or c o n c e r t e d a ctivities to cause this harm. T h i r d , p l a i n t i f f s m u s t show that the d e f e n d a n t s in the group have b y their actions or o m i s s i o n s c o n t r a v e n e d a legal standard of care. See Hall v. D u P o n t , 345 F.Supp. Beverly H i l l s , O r d e r at pp. at 371; 8-9. Expanding upon these e l e m e n t s somewhat, and co n s i d e r - ,tne,m each in turn, m g /it is clear from the S i n d e l l and Ha l l cases that p l a i n ­ tiffs are not r e q uired as part of their proof of c a u s a t i o n to identify the i n j u r y - p r o d u c i n g party. for example, In Hall v. D u P o n t , the Court noted that "the i s s u e of w h o 'caused' the injury is d i s t i n c t l y s e c o n d a r y to the fact that the g roup e n gaged in joint hazardou s conduct." Of course, p r o d ucing product, 345 F.Supp at 372. the p l a i n t i f f s m u s t still identify the i n j u r y but under the c o n c e r t e d action theory, the tortious event is c o n s i d e r e d to be the express or tacit agreement among the defend a n t s to c o m m i t a c u l p a b l e act. identi f y i n g the injur y - p r o d u c i n g product, Beyond p l a i n t i f f s m u s t on l y show that each d e f e n d a n t was a s u b s t a n t i a l l y c o n t r i b u t i n g factor in producing, prom o t i n g and p l a c i n g the d e f e c t i v e p r o ­ duct into the s tream of commerce. Sheiner, DES and a P r o p o s e d Theory of E n t e r p r i s e L i a b i l i t y , 46 F o r d h a m L.Rev. (1978). dant. 963, 933 This p roof links the h a r m done to a p a r t i c u l a r d e f e n ­ Thus, the fact that a s p ecific injur y - c a u s in g p a r t y is u n k n o w n does not p r e v e n t a p l a i n t i f f ' s recovery. Order at pp. Beverly H i l l s , 10-11. To e s t a b l i s h that d e f e n d a n t s are a s u bstantial factor in plaintiffs' injuries, therefore, it is n e c e s s a r y for p l a i n ­ tiffs to show that all d e f e n d a n t s in the group m a n u f a c t u r e d and p r o m o t e d similar d e f e c t i v e products. D u P o n t , 345 F.Supp. Id., at p. 11; Hall v. at 374. By p l a c i n g a defe c t i v e p r o d u c t into the s t ream of c o m m e r c e and p r o m o t i n g it, the m a n u f a c t u r e r in c r e a s e s the p u b l i c usage of the product. This, c aused by the product. in turn, Thus, co m p o u n d s the chance of injury e a c h d e f e n d a n t wh o p r o d u c e d and p r o m o t e d the d e f e c t i v e p r o d u c t in c o n c e r t with others shares in the r e s p o n s b i l i t y for plaintiffs' injuries. I_d. Under the facts and c i r c u m s t a n c e s of the p r e s e n t case, it is e v i d e n t that if p l a i n t i f f s can i dentify A g e n t O r a n g e as the d e f e c t i v e and i n j u r y - p r o d u c i n g product, and further e s t a b l i s h c o n c e r t e d a ction among the d e f e n d a n t s w i t h respect to its' p r o d u c t i o n and p r o m o t i o n and to failure to warn the g o v e r n m e n t of the risks a t t e n d i n g its p r o d u c t i o n and use, then there will be little if any re m a i n i n g q u e s t i o n regarding causation. No d e f e n d a n t disputes, for example, that it supplied A g e n t O r a n g e to the g o v e r n m e n t during the r e levant period. our discussion, therefore, Vie w i l l turn to the more substantial m a t t e r of c o n c e r t e d activities. In a d d i t i o n to s a t i s f y i n g the causation requirement, p l a i n t i f f s m u s t also e s t a b l i s h that the targeted d e f e n d a n t s a c t e d by c o o p e r a t i v e or c o n c e r t e d activities before the theory of c o n c e r t e d a ction wil l be imposed. F.Supp. Ha l l v. D u P o n t , 345 at 371; B e v e r l y H i l l s , Order, p. Generally, 11. all this m e a n s is that there m u s t be at least some tacit a g r e e m e n t or u n d e r s t a n d i n g among the defendants. Prosser, L a w of T o r t s , §46 at 292. In the products liability arena, and in this case, the tacit a g r e ement or u n d e r s t a n d i n g among the d e f e n d a n t s m u s t be to m a r k e t and pro m o t e a d e f e c ­ tive product, or to fail to w a r n of undue risks or dangers k n o w n to or fores e e a b l e by them. H a l l v. D u P o n t , 345 F.Supp. Bev e r l y H i l l s , O r d e r at p. 13; at 372. The p r e c e d i n g factual materials, together w i t h the E x h i b i t s a t t a c h e d to this Memorandum, clea r l y e s t a b l i s h the existence, not just of c o n c e r t e d a c tivity or tacit agreement, but of an actual, ongoing and pe r v a s i v e c onspiracy among the d e f e n d a n t s to m a r k e t and p r o m o t e A gent Orange, -100- a product known by them to be d a n g erous and defective, and to a ctively con c e a l such dangers and d e fect s from b o t h the g o v e r n m e n t and the general public. The evidence f u r t h e r d i s c l o s e s substantial sharing among the d efen d a n t s of i n f o r m a t i o n relating to the risks and d a ngers a t t e n d i n g the p r o d u c t i o n of and exposure to Agent Orange. To b r i e f l y recap i t u l a t e some of this s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e of conspiracy and cover up, the p l a i n t i f f s w o u l d dire c t the C ourt e specially to the long h i s t o r y of i ndustrial accidents involving A g e n t O r a n g e - r e l a t e d m a t e r i a l s ; D o w ’s 1963 m i s r e p r e s e n ­ tation to the m i l i t a r y that it was u n a w a r e of any problems associated w i t h the p r o d u c t i o n or use of Agent Orange; the M a r c h 24, 1965 c o n f e r e n c e among the d e f e n d a n t s at D o w h e a d q uarters in Midland, Michigan, at w h i c h the d e f e n d a n t s w e r e all in attendance or upon which they w e r e b r iefed; the N .A . C - A . •task force formed by the def e n d a n t s to s t u d y the p r o d u c t i o n m e t h o d s and effects of e x p osure to A g e n t O r a n g e - r e l a t e d products; Ad Hoc Committee formed by Dow and H e r c u l e s to, the in effect, lobby the g o v e r n m e n t in favor of A g e n t O r a n g e - r e l a t e d products; the B o e h r i n g e r agreement; the s h a r i n g among the defen d a n t s of analytical and d i o x i n d e t e c t i o n k n o w l e d g e ; D o w ’s sampling and testing of other defendants' of its results; products, and r e p o rting to t h e m the withholding from the g o v e r n m e n t of e f f e c t i v e analytic techniques for testing for t oxic c o n t a m i n a t i o n of A g e n t Orange, d e s pite the kno w ledge that the g o v e r n m e n t ' s t e c h ni q u e s were insufficient; the succe s s f u l d r i v e by the d e f e n d a n t s to 1 -101- b lock g o v e r n m e n t efforts to b u i l d its own A g e n t O r a n g e p r o d u c ­ tion facilities at W eld o n Springs; the failure of any of them to d i s close to the g o v e r n m e n t the k n o w n fact of d i o x i n c o n ­ t a m i n a t i o n of the Agent O r a n g e p r o d u c e d by them and the c o n ­ c o m i t a n t risks of serious injury; and the absolute secrecy and c o n f i d e n t i a li t y from the g o v e r n m e n t and o u t s i d e r s wi t h w h i c h all of the foregoing acts w e r e committed. moreover, are just the highl i g h t s . These, The objective factual situation points clearly to the e x i s t e n c e of k n o w l e d g e among the d efendants of the e x i s t e n c e of undue risks a s s o c i a t e d with A g e n t Orange, the failure of any of them to take r e a s o n ­ able steps to eliminate such risks thro u g h p r oper t e s t i n g and produc t i o n m e t h o d s or, alter n a t i v e ly , w a r n i n g the g o v e r n m e n t of such risks, and an a b s o l u t e c o n s p i r a c y of sile n c e among the d efendants to preve n t su c h risks from b e c o m i n g known. Under the circumstances, a l l e g e d a^dsubstantiated therefore, p l a i n t i f f s have an ample basis for p e r m i t t i n g them to p r o c e e d with their claims upon a theo r y of c o n c e r t e d a c t i ­ vity . The third element of the c o n c e r te d activity t h e o r y r e ­ q u i r e s proof that the d e f e n d a n t s in the group ha v e b y their acts or o m i s sions breac h e d a sta n d a r d of care as to t hese plaintiffs. B e v erly H i l l s , O r d e r at p. 13; Hall v. D u P o n t , 345 F.Supp. at 371. Since this M e m o r a n d u m deals w i t h the q u e s ­ tion of the defendants' joint and several liability, s p e c i f i c a l l y with the su b s t a n c e of plaintiffs' and not p r o d u c t l i a bility 11533 -102- claims, this e l e m e n t w i l l not be d i s c u s s e d at length here. Plaintiffs w o u l d only refer the court here to the somewhat novel aspects of their failure to w a r n claims, fully in S e c t i o n VI spects, of this M e m o r a n d u m above. discussed more In other re­ their p r o d u c t l i a b ility claims par a l l e l those in the m o r e typical p r o d u c t s l i a b i l i t y case. for p r e sent purposes, Suffice it to say that, the m a t t e r of the defendants' breach of some a p p l i c a b l e s t a n d a r d care, wh=cher that sta n d a r d be of s t rict liability, n egli g e n c e , or cond u c t w a r r a n t i n g i mposition of p u n i t i v e damages, w i l l not be a stumbling b lock to imposing liability upon the d e f e n d a n t s under the theory 'of concerted acti vity. The p l a i n t i f f s have t h e refore all e g e d and s u b s t a n t i a t ed an ample basis for invo k i n g the c o n c erted a ctivity liability d o c t r i n e a g a i n s t the defendants, and for holding t h e m jointly and severally liable to the plaintiffs. B. The Facts and C i r c u m s t a n c es of this Case al s o W a r r a n t the I mposition of L i a b i l i t y Upon the D efendants Under the T h eory of E n t e r p r i s e L i a b i l i t y_________ The facts and c i r c u m s t a n c es of the present case also w a r r a n t s a p p l i c a t i o n of the theory of e n t e r p r i s e liability as a means of b r i d g i n g the gap of c a u s a t i o n b e t w e e n the injuryc a using p r o d u c t and the p a r t i c u l a r defendants. -103f * ¿lb34 E n t e r p r i s e liab ility b l e n d s the theories of c o n c erted activity, d i s c u s s e d s u p r a , a nd a l t e r n a t i v e liability, d i s c u s s e d i n f r a , although it is b a s e d p r i m a r i l y on the latter of these. Sheiner, s u p r a . 46 F o r d h a m L.Rev. at 974: "Under e n t e r p r i s e liability, the p l a i ntiff m u s t p r o v e there is a h i g h p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t (his) injury was c a u s e d by the tortious b e h a v i o u r of some one of the d e f e n d a n t s — a m o d i f i c a t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e liability. In addition, (the plaintiff) m u s t show thatdefendants c o n c e r t e d l y adhe r e d to a dangerous, i n d u s t r y w i d e safety standard in their m a n u f a c t u r e of the i n j u r y - p r o d u c ­ ing product. E v i d e n c e of these two e l e ­ m e n t s w i l l shift the b u r d e n of p r o o f on c a u s a t i o n to the defendants. E n t e r p r i s e liability w o u l d impose joint and several liability in a s i t u a t i o n w h i c h occurs w i t h i n c r e a s i n g f r e q u e n c y in our h i g h l y i n d u s t r i a l i z e d society. F u ngible p r o du c t s w i t h d e l a y e d a nd d a n g e r o u s effects c ause injury, but the i n s t r m e n t a l i t y and a gent p r o d u c i n g the s p e c i f i c injury are u n i d e n t i f i a b l e .36» i d . The theory of e n t e r p r i s e Court in Hall v. DuPont, liability was su g g e s t e d by the 451 F.Supp. 353. The theory of e n t e r p r i s e l i a b i l i t y pro c e e d s from a d e t e r m i n a t i on of fairness: as b e t w e e n an i n n o c e n t v i c t i m and members of an industr y w ho are n e g l i g e n t or w h o have joint control of the risks, the injury. the latter shou l d b e a r the cost of E n t e r p r i s e liability is p r o p o s e d as an e q u i t a b l e m e t h o d of a l l o c a t i n g these risks in a' m a n n e r bo t h af f o r d i n g the p l a i n t i f f s an o p p o r t u n i t y to r e c o v e r a nd p r o t e c t i n g the d efendants a g a i n s t u n j u s t loss. -104- In the F o r d h a m L aw R e v i e w article, Sch i e n e r suggests s e v e n r e q uirements for impos i t i o n of e n t e r p r i s e liability. T hese r e ­ q u i r e m e n t s are as follows: 1. T h e r e exis t e d an i n s ufficient, indus t r y - w i de s t a n d a r d of safety as to the m a n u f a c t u r e of the product. 2. P l a i n t i f f is not at fault for the absence of e v i d e n c e i d e n t i f y i n g the c a u s a t i v e agent, but rather, this a b s e n c e of proof is due to d e f e n d a n t ' s conduct. 3. A g e n e r i c a l l y simi l a r d e f e c t i v e p r o d u c t was m a n u ­ f a c tured by all the defendants. 4. Plain t i f f ' s injury was c a u s e d by this defect. 5. D e f e n d a n t s owed a duty to the class of w h i c h p l a i n t i f f was a member. 6. T h e r e is clear and c o n v i n c i n g evidence that p l a i n ­ tiff's injury was c a u s e d by a p r o d u c t ma d e by one of the defendants. For example, the joined d e ­ fendants a c c o u n t e d for a high p e r c e n t a g e of such d e f e c t i v e p r o d u c t s on the m a r k e t at the time of p l a i n t i f f ' s injury. 7.. All defend a n t s w e r e tortfeasors. S c h e i n e r , s u p r a , 46 F o r d h a m L.Rev. these things, defendants, at 995. Once p l a i n t i f f s p r o v e the burden of p roof as to c a u s a t i o n shifts to each of w h i c h can e x o n e r a t e itself only by showing that its p r o d u c t could n ot have be e n the one w h i c h injured the p a r t i c u l a r plaintiff. Id. Jf. T 3 ,0 P l a i n t i f f s submit that each of these seven r e q u i r e m e n t s are m e t here, and thafcimposition of enterprise li a b i l i t y u p o n the d e f e n d a n t s is t h e r e f o r e proper. F i r s t , there was no real industry standard of safety for the manufacture, products. test i n g and use of Agent O r a n g e - r e l a t e d Certainly, k n o w l e d g e of the danger of d i o x i n c o n t a m i ­ n a t i o n was there, as was th e te c h n o l o g i c al abi l i t y to d e t e c t and r educe the m a g n i t u d e of its incidence. But these c a nnot be c o n s i d e r e d "standards" in any real sense, for the reason t h a t the defend a n t s largely i g n o r e d them. Even those d e f e n d a n t s who a p p a r e n t l y did m a k e some e f f o r t s to mon i t o r and reduce the i n ­ c i dence of d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a t i o n in their products cannot be c o n s i d e r e d to have f o r m u l a t e d or adhe r e d to an a d equate s t a n d a r d of safety, for the e v i d e n c e suggests that any level of d i o x i n c on­ t a m i n a t i o n can have serious effects wh e n exposure is p r o l o n g e d or repeated. A n d for the inf a n t r y in Vi e t Nam, prolonged, e x p osure was p r o b a b l y the norm. re p e a t e d No adequate s t a n d a r d of safety t h e r efore existed. S e c o n d , the p l a i n t i f f s are not at fault for their i n a b i l i t y to p i n p o i n t w h i c h defendant, or d e f e n d a n t s caused their specific injuries. This in a b i l i t y is due, rather, to the m a n n e r in w h i c h A g e n t O r a n g e w as d i s t r i b u t e d to and u t i l i z e d by the government. in this regard, W h e t h e r or not the defend a n t s are at f a u l t as b e t w e e n p l a i n t i f f s and defendants, should bear this risk. the latter See, e.g., Sindell v. A b b o t t L a b or a t o r i e s , 607 P .2d at 936. j -106- 71537 T h i r d , the requ i r e m e n t that a g e n e r i c a l l y similar d e ­ fective p r o d u c t be m a n u f a c t u r e d by all the defen d a n t s is m e t in this case. All the d e f e n d a n t s m a n u f a c t u r e d g e n e r i c a l l y similar A g e n t O r a n g e - r e l a t e d products; all of their products suffered from d ioxin c o n t a m i n a t i o n to one d e g r e e or another; n o n e of the defend a n t s labeled their containers, making it i m ­ possible to tell one defendants' p r o d u c t from another's once d e l i vered into the gov e r n m e n t ' s p o s session; and the g o v e r n m e n t in fact treated the p r o d u c t s g e n e r ically, m i x i n g the p r o d u c t s indiscriminately. The r e q u i r e m e n t of a g e n e r i c a l l y similar defe ctive p r o d u c t is therefore met. F o u r t h , there is substantial e v i d e n c e b o t h that p l a i n ­ tiffs' injuries were caused by the d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a t e d A g e n t Orange, and that the g o v e r n m e n t u t i l i z e d this c o n t a m i n a t e d p r o duct in c o n s e q u e n c e of the defendants' failure to warn. The fourth requi r e m e n t is t h e r efore met. F i f t h , as d i s c u s s e d m o r e fully above, the defendants b o t h owed and b r e a c h e d their duty of care to t he plaintiffs, those u ltimately and fores e e a b l y e x p o s e d to A g e n t Orange, in failing to r emedy or wa r n of the k n o w n d a n g e r s of d i o x i n c o n t a m ­ ination. The fifth r e q u i r e m e n t of e n t e r p r i s e li a b i l i t y is t h e r e ­ fore satisfied. S i x t h , there is c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e that the plaintiffs' injuries we r e caus e d by a p r o d u c t m a d e by one of the defendants. E x hib i t 1 to this M e m o r a n d u m e s t a b l i s h e s that 107 defendants a c c o u n t e d for over 99% of the A g e n t Orange market, both in terms of gallons and doll a r s sold. This case is t h e r e ­ fore d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from S i n d e l l , in w h i c h the C o u r t d e c l i n e d to apply e i ther enterprise or a l t e r n a t i v e liability theories because of the absence as p a r t i e s of s i g n i f i c a n t m e m b e r s of the a f f e c t e d industry, and the sixth r e q u i r e m e n t of e n t e r p r i s e liability is e a s i l y met. S e v e n t h , all de f e n d a n t s are t o r t f e a s o r s in the p r e s e n t case. All of them m a n u f a c t u r e d d e f e c t i v e products; the others' all of t h e m kn e w p r o ducts were s i m i l a r l y defective; all of them k n e w the g o v e r n m e n t and the p u blic were u n a w a r e of the e x i s t e n c e of the defects; all of them k n e w the g o v e r n m e n t relied u p o n their c ollective and individual r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s as to the p r o d u c t ' s safety; yet none of them the known defects, effectively e l i m i n a t e d or w a r n e d of as a c o n s e q u e n c e of w h i c h the p l a i n t i f f s were injured. This, all of the r e q u i r e m e n t s for impos i t i o n of e n t e r ­ prise liability outlined by S c h e i n e r h a v e been m e t in the p r e s e n t case. Cons i d e r a t i on s of funda m e n t a l fairness require that the c u l pable defendants, havi n g cont r o l of the risks, and not the innocent plaintiffs, bear the c o n s e q u e n c e s of plaintiffs' ability to identify wi t h s p e c i f i c i t y c aused their respectiv e injuries. in­ the d e f e n d a n t s w h i c h I m p o s i t i o n of e n t e r p r i s e liability upon the def e n d a n t s fulfills such c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of fundamental fairness, and a p p l i c a t i o n of e n t e r p r i s e l i a b i l i t y in this case is therefore warranted. C. T HE FACTS A ND CIRCU M S T A N C ES OF THIS CASE ALSO W A R R A N T THE I M P O S I T I O N LIABILITY UPON THE DEFEND A N T S U N D E R THE T H E O R Y OF A L T E R N A T I V E LIABILITY.__________ One final t h eo r y of liability advanced by the p l ai n t i f f s is that of a l t e r n a t i v e liability. l i a b ility applies "where n e g l i g e n c e on the part of d e f e n d a n t s is clear, w h i c h is in doubt, The theory of' alternative [several] and it is only the issue of causation so that the choice m u s t be m a d e between letting the loss due to f a i l u r e of proof fall u p o n the i n n o c e n t p l a i n t i f f or the c u l p a b l e defendants." §41, p. 243 (4th Ed. 1971). Prosser, Law of T o r t s , The theory of a l t e r n a t i v e liability is a d opted in S e c t i o n 433 B(3) of the R e s t a t e m e n t of Torts, w h i c h p r o v i d e s that: W h e r e the c o n d u c t of two or mo r e actors is tortious, and it is proved that h a r m has been c a u s e d to the pl a i n t i f f by only one [or more] of them, b u t there is unce r t a i n t y as to w h i c h one lor more] has caused it, the b u r d e n is u p o n each such a c t o r to prove that he has not caused the harm. Thus, as under the e n t e r p r i s e liability theory, w h e r e the a l t e r n a t i v e l i a b i l i t y t h e o r y is applicable, the b u r d e n of p r o v i n g c a u s a t i o n shifts to the i n d e p e n d e n t ly acting defendants. The classic ca s e a p p l y i n g the a l t ernative liability t h e o r y is S u mmers v. T i c e , 33 Cal. 2d 80, 199 P. 2d 1 (1948). In S u m m e r s , the p l a i n t i f f w a s injured w h e n two h u n t e r s n e g l i g e n t l y shot in his direction. It could not be d e t e r m i n e d w h i c h of them had fired the shot w h i c h actually c a u s e d the injury <• il 109 to the plaintiff's eye, b u t b o t h d e f e n d a n t s w e r e n e v e r theless held, jointly and s e v e r a l l y liable for the w h o l e of the damages. The California C o u r t r e a s o n e d that b o t h w e r e w r o n g d o e r s , b o t h w e r e negligent toward the plaintiff, and that it w o u l d be u n f a i r to require p l a i n t i f f to i s o l a t e the d e f e n d a n t responsible, if the one p o i n t e d out w e r e to escape liability, also, because the other m i g h t and the p l a i n t i f f - v i c t i m w o u l d be shorn of any remedy. In these circumstances, the Court held, the b u r d e n of proof shifted to the defendants, "each to absolve h i m s e l f if he can." I d . , p. 86, 199 P . 2 d p. The C o u r t stat e d th a t u n d e r t hese or 4. similar c i r c u m s t a n c es a d e f e n d a n t is o r d i n a r i l y in a "far b e t t e r position" to o f f e r e v i d e n c e to d e t e r m i n e whe t h e r he or another defendant c a u s e d the injury, or, if not, defendants and the i n n o c e n t plaintiff, then as b e t w e e n the it is the former w h o s h ould bear the c o n s e q u e n c e s of any lack of e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g causation. Relying p r i n c i p a l l y up o n the r u l i n g in S u m m e r s , the Plaintiffs in Sindell v. A b b o t t L a b o r a t o r i e s l i k e w i s e sought to impose a l t e r n a t i v e li a b i l i t y u p o n the d e f e n d a n t s for their m anufacture of the d e f e c t i v e p r o d u c t DES. however, r e j e c t e d plaintiffs' The D i s t r i c t Court, claims in this r e g a r d and r e f u s e d to apply the theory of a l t e r n a t i v e li a b i l i t y u p o n the facts b efore it, d i s t i n g u i s h i n g the h o l d i n g in Sum m e r s from the case b efore it as follows. In S u m m e r s , all the p a r t i e s w h o w e r e or could have been r e s p o n s i b l e for the h a r m to the p l a i n t i f f w e r e joined as defend a n t s . In contrast, the P l a i n t i f f s in Sindell, 4* -110- 1 named only five of the a p p r o x i m a t e l y two hundred m a n u f a c t u r e r s of DES as defendants. Thus, w h i l e on the one hand, there was certainty in Summers that the d e f e n d a n t w ho a ctually caus e d plaint i f f ' s injury was among those to be held jointly liable, and a fifty p e r c e n t p r o b a b i l i t y th a t either of the d e f e n d a n t s was r e s p o n s i b l e for p l a i n t i f f ' s injuries, on the o t h e r hand, there was no rationa l basis in S i n d e l l u p o n w h i c h to infer that any of the five named defen d a n t s c a u s e d p l a i n t i f f ' s injuries, since any one of the two hund r e d c o m p a n i e s w h i c h m a n u f a c t u r e d DES m i g h t have m a d e the p r o d u c t w h i c h i n j u r e d the p laintiff. Accordingly, the Court in S i n d e l l r e f u s e d to apply the t h e o r y of altern a t i v e liability. The clear im p lication of the Court's analysis in S i n d e l l is that if the m a r k e t in that case h ad been smaller and m o r e cohesive, and if all or p r a c t i c a l l y all p o t e n t i a l l y liable m a n u f a c t u r e r s had been joined as defendants, the case w o u l d have fallen squarely w i t h i n the h o l d i n g in Summers v. Tice and the theory of a l t e r n a t i v e li a b i l i t y w o u l d have applied. regard, In this the p r e s e n t case is far m o r e a n a l ogous to the s i t u a t i o n in Summers than in S i n d e l l , for here, v i r t u a l l y all p o t e n t i a l l y liable m a n u f a c t u r e r s are n a m e d as defendants. As in S u m m e r s , the q u e s t i o n in this case is simp l y w h i c h of the n a m e d d e f e n d a n t s caused p l a i n t i f f ' s injuries. U n l i k e the situation in S i n d e l l , the p o s s i b i l i t y that the named d e f e n d a n t s will be held liable for the acts of those o u t s i d e the g r o u p and not n a m e d as d e f e n d a n t s -111- 1 is r e m o t e to non-existent. For the foregoing reasons, t h e r e f o r e a p p l i c a t i o n of the theo r y of a l t ernative liability is w a r r a n t e d and the d e f e n d a n t s m a y be held jointly and se v e r a l l y liable o n such g r o u n d s . X CONCLUSION The reasons for defen d a n t s ' c o n d u c t are not yet fully clear. Was their failure to act as they should have due to a desire to m a x i m i z e p r o f i t s ? What additiona l costs, if any, w e r e n e c e s s a r y to eliminate the d i o x i n c o n t a m i n a n t from their pro d u c t ? Why d idn't defendants who h ad c o s t plus contracts w i t h the military, spend w h a t e v e r sums w e r e ne c e s s a r y to e l i m i n a t e the dioxin from their p r o d u c t s ? The discovery that rema i n s to be c o m p l e t e d m a y answer these questions. Wha t is clear, however, is the "cover up" m e n t a l i t y that p e r v a d e d d e f e n d a n t s ' activities d u ring the V i e t n a m era, and well beyond. We append h e r e t o as E x h i b i t 15 , a letter d a t e d S e p t ember 15, 1977 from the P r e s i d e n t of Dow C h e m i c a l to all D ow U.S.A. supervisors. The letter speaks for itself and p r o v i d e s further evidence of the c o n t i n u i n g c o n s p i r a c y of silence. Th a t letter states the fundamenta l c o r p o r a t e p o s i t i o n wi t h r e s p e c t to its r e s p o n sibility to outsiders, to a great port i o n of w h o m that company sells products for profit. -113- That position is one of silence. It is one of avoidance with respect to the d i s s e m i n a t i o n of any i n f ormation which might be subject to an i n t e r p r e t a t io n w h i c h is c r itical either of the products or the policies of the company. b o t t o m line is "when in doubt, The throw it out". Plaintiffs belie v e that such policy pe r v a d e d the attitudes of all of the d e f e n d a n t war-time c o n t r a c t o r - m a n u ­ facturers of A g e n t Orange and the other phen o x y h erbicides supplied during the V i e t n a m era. continues today. We believe that that policy Under these circumstances, there is much reason and authority for p r o c e e d i n g against these firms under any of the three legal theories discussed. T here is also much justification for the i m p o s i t i o n of punitive damages in such cases. We respectfully urge the Court to r e c o gnize the applicability of such theories. Dated: December 1, 1983. R e s p e ctfully Submitted, Stephen J. Schlegel, Esq. Thomas Henderson, Esq. David J. Dean, Esq. Aaron D. Twerski, Esq. A l b e r t J. Fiorella, Esq. Kenneth G. Hawley , Esq. V. Don Russo, Esq. James Henderson, Esq. -114- C E R TIFICATE OF SERVICE On the 1st day of December, 1983, a copy of Plaintiffs' M e m o r a n d u m On the A p p l i c a b i l i t y of the L egal Theories of Failure to Warn, Conc e r t e d Action, Enter p r i s e Liability and Alternative L i a b ility was caused to be served upon all attorneys of record as per the attached list by depositing same in a p o s t p a i d p r o p e r l y addressed w r a p p e r in a post office official d e p o s i t o r y under the exclusive care and custody of the United States post offi c e depar t m e n t w i t h i n the State of New York. Dated: D e c ember 1, 1983 ') ACSNT ORANGE SERVICE LIST Hon. J a c k B. W e i n s t e i n , C hief Judge United S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Court 225 Cadman P l a z a New Y o r k , New York 1 1 2 0 1 Hon. S o l S c h r e i b e r S p e c ia l Master M ilberg, W eiss, Bershad & S p e c th r ie One P e n n s y l v a n i a P l a z a New Y o r k , New Yo rk 1 0 0 1 9 Thomas W. H a n d e r s o n , E s q . Baskin & S e a r s , P.C. Attorneys for P l a i n t i f f s Frick Buildi-ng, 10th F lo o r P i t t s b u r g h , P e n n s y l v a n i a 15219 S tep h en J. S c h l e g e l , Esq. S c h l e g e l & T r a f e l e t , Ltd. Attorneys for P la in t if f s 1 N. L a S a l l e S t r e e t , S u i t e 3 9 0 0 C hidago, I l l i n o i s 60602 Benton M u s s le w h ite , Esq. Attorney fo r P l a i n t i f f s 609 F a n n i n , S u i t e 517 Houston, Texas 77002 Ne wto n S c h w a r t z , E s q . Attorney for P l a i n t i f f s 7 2 3 Main S t r e e t , S u i t e 3 2 5 H ouston, Texas 77002 Gregory S t a y a r t , Esq. Sullivan & A ssociates Attorneys for P l a i n t i f f s 180 M. M i c h i g a n , S u i t e 1700 C h ic a g o , I l l i n o i s 60601 V i c t o r John Y annacone, J r . , Esq. Yannacone ü Yannacone, P.C. Attorneys for P la in t if f s P. 0 . Dr aw e r 109 P a t c h o g u e , New Y o r k 1 1 7 7 2 David J . Dean, Esq. De a n, F a l a n g a & R o s e Attorneys for P l a i n t i f f s 1 Old C o u n t r y Road C a r l e P l a c e , New York 11 5 14 I r v in g L ik e, Esq. R e i l l y , Like & S ch n eid er 200 W. Main S t r e e t , P. 0 . Bo x 218 B a b y l o n , New York 1 1 7 0 2 Leonard R iv k in , Esq. R iv k in , L e f f , Sherman & Radler A ttorneys for Defendant Dow C h e m i c a l Company LOO G ar d e n C i t y P l a z a Garden C L t v , New York 1 1 5 !0 Morton S L l b e r m a n , E sq . C l a r k , G u q l L a r d i v. M i l l e r A1 at rv'y", f o r D e f e n d a n t r:i Agr i o n 1 tur-* M u t r U i o n C o . , L n c . Inns , f . ' ..a rt , 19 C o u r t .5 *' Wit i r e [>i ,ii n s , New York 11' A0 L i- s • , .-.’•unda L1 B . A l c o r n , J r . , Esq . 'udwa l a J e r , W i c k e r s h a m \ Taf At t o r n e y f e r De f e n d a n t Di amend S h a m r o c k C o r p o r a t Ln n One Wa 1 1 S t r e e t N-v.v York , Mow York 1;V)9 5 J o h n C. S a b e t t a , E s q . Town l e y & U p d i k e A ttorneys for Defendant M o n s a n t o Company 4U5 L e v i n g t o n A v e n u e New Y o r k , New York 10 0 1 7 Themas B-'ck , E s q . A r ’ lì u r , Dry \ Ka L i s h Ai ' r n- ■ vs f o r D«-> fondar) ► Cn i roy i I , Ln o . ! Gi Av^na-■ a i Mie Ame t i c is • f • • L 1 e r M-ui r ^r Vai'k, M-->w Cork l'Clal I ; h n M. F i t z p a t r i c k , E sq . S t i L l w o r t h , P a s x o n , Ha 1 i s h S L e v y At |- o r n » y s f o r D e f e n d a n t H ooker Che mi e ¿1 Company 2 6 00 F i l e Li t v B u i l d i n g P h i Lade I c h i a , P e n n s y l v a n i a 19 1 0 ) '> f « * ± 0 3 AGENT O R A N G E SERVICE LIST PAGE 2 Michael V. Corrigan, Esq. Simpson, Thatcher & Bartlett Attorneys for Defendant Ansul One Battery Park Plaza N e w York, N e w York 1Q004 A rvin Maskin, E s q . United States D epartment of Justice United States Attorney Safeway Building, Room 904D Washington, D.C. 20530 Howard Lester, Esq. Lester, Schwab, Katz & Dwyer Attorneys for Defendant Hoffman-Taft 120 Broadway N ew York, N e w York 10271 CvsA. t a d b - . J SAN ANTONIO AIR LOGISTICS CENTER DIRECTORATE OF ENERGY MANAGEMENT KELLY AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS ;Ì I ■. tv ■ USE OF HERBICIDES IN SOUTHEAST ASIA H istory prepared as an a c t i v e duty assig n m e n t by: DOROTHY A. CRAIG Lt Col, USAFR 1 A u gu st 1975 ¿ h Jo . I A . * -f^ C Í ftk h e rb ic id e P roducers All herbicida-'produb es were produced in che United States. *‘ The products showing tocal amount produced of each by nanufacturers and costa are shown below: (Reference individual contracts) ; Orange Gallons Price Average i- Monsanto 3,561,040 $23,259,233.74 $6.53 5. Hercules 2,400,041 $15,947,155.01 $6.63 c Diamond Alkali 696,605 $ 4,639,671.25 $ 6.73 c. US Rubber 694,802 $ 4,730,447.60 $6.81 4,002,534 $23,028,212.16 • $7.oo \ , Dow í Agrisect 8 H - Thouipson-Iiayward 100.023 $ 7 . 22.440 $ 159,324.00 $7.10 $87,132-,806.34 $6.78 12,553,750 : Blae 1, jol,u39 $ 7,113,907.00 20, :j?o 77,6¿¡:.60 1,607,929 $ 7,191,595.60 - $39,724,653.81 5,704,215 . 1 \ ■ ’ V ' . 1V • 1 •4 ^ * 7 \ b• ‘: ; ';•« •?• t !"• t-■; $4.5° /.V, < * 1♦ / nw .nn *vi \ ^• •. V so ' 1. ': ■ $4.47 ■; ; "/ *. *. .' * ♦ ’• * ' Weite Dow ' :; . $7.06 ■ *, i• Hoffman Taff Tocal "■ 1,036,475" ",'r’$'7,317,513.50 $7.04 Diamond Snaurock : '['■ $ 2,347,566.10 Ansul ; .$6.53 • ' 333,685 Total • 653,632.98 Thompson 1 • ■' ■ $6.89 . # .. . 1- /• 7 ' 7 * j» . , * ■( 1 1-1550 TOTAL PKCCk-Mi 0 20,225,514 $6.63 $134,049.055.80 % • . .\• S V K ) :6 THE DOW C H E M I C A L C O M P A N Y MIOI_AMO. MICHIQAM March 19, 1965 L3C^0 0 0 0 3 /9 Immet Kelly, M.D. M e dicai D i r e c c o r Monsa n t o C h e m i c a l C o m p a n y 8CO Norrh L ì n d b e r g h B o u l e v a r d SC. Loul3 6 6 , M i s s o u r i Mr. F r a n c i s K e n n e d y Plant M a n a g e r Diamond Alkali Company S O L i s t e r Avenue Newark, New J e r s e y Dr. J. W i l k e n f e i d Technical Superintendent Kcoker Chemical Corporation N i agara Falls, Mew Y o r k Dr. Ed C h a n d l e r T e c h n i c a l Serv i c e D i a m o n d Alka l i C o m p a n y 3 0 0 'union C o m m e r c e B u i l d i n g C l e v e l a n d , Ohio Mr. P a y m o n d V e r h o e c e Hooker Chemical Corporation N i a g a r a Falls, New Y o r k Dr. John ?. F r a w l e y Chief Toxicologist He r c u l e s Powd e r C o m p a n y D e l a w a r e Trust B u i l d i n g W i l m i n g t o n 99, D e l a w a r e Gentlemen : I an w r i t i n g this same l e t t e r to e a c h of you. I have talked w i s h some of y o u and you h a v e i n d i c a t e d the o t h e r p e r s o n s w i t h i n y o u r own o r g a n i z a t i o n s who s h o u l d be p r e s e n t . As p e r these t e l e p h o n e d c o n v e r s a t i o n s , I am i n v i t i n g e a c h of. you to come to M i d l a n d to d i s c u s s the t o x i c o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m s c a u s e d by the p r e s e n c e of c e r t a i n h i g h l y toxic i m p u r i t i e s in c e r t a i n samples of 2 , d ,5 - t r l c h l o r o p h e n o l and r e l a t e d m a t e r i a l s As I told all of 70U w i t h w h o m I have talked, we h a v e b e e n d o i n g a n a l y t i c a l and t o x i c o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h on this p r o b l e m and w i s h to share o u r f i n d i n g s to date w i t h ail the p r o d u c e r s of 2 , a ,5 - t r l c h l o r o p h e n o l fo r the sole p u r p o s e of l e s s e n i n g any h a z a r d s to h e a l t h that m i g h t be a t t r i b u t e d to this a n d related products. Cur d i s c u s s i o n s will d e a l o n l y w i t h the toxico l o g i c a i a n d a n a l y t i c a l a s p e c t s of the pro b l e m . We w i l l not d i s c u s s m a n u ­ f a c t u r i n g know-how, sales, or a n y t h i n g else net d e a l i n g w i t h the pro clems of health. :)r.zz Gr-rcu^r. g ^ I g -eeilr.;, we w i l l a c q u i r e a .L** — GOT* b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of tne p r o b l e m a nd that e a c h c o m p a n y 11551 2 March 1 9 , 1565 will then p r o c e e d I n d e p e n d e n t l y a3 it see3 fit to i n s t i t u t e such s e l f - i m p o s e d c o n t r o l s on its p r o d u c t i o n a3 are n e c e s s a r y to i nsure the s a f e t y of its p r o d u c t s . ’ E n c l o s e d is a c o p y of an a n a l y t i c a l m e t h o d o u r A n a l y t i c a l L a b o r a t o r y has dev e l o p e d . - Perhaps you w o u l d like to h a v e your a n a l y s t s l o o k it o v e r b e f o r e c o m i n g here. Cur analyst will he a v a i l a b l e to d i s c u s s the m e t h o d w i t h you. I have r e s e r v e d a room for ea c h of you at the M i d l a n d C o u n t r y Club for the n i g h t of M a r c h 23, 1 9 6 5 • W h e n you a r r i v e at t he a i r p o r t s e r v i n g Mid l a n d , B a y C i t y a nd Saginaw, get t he M i d l a n d l i m o u s i n e a n d it w i l l take yo u d i r e c t l y to the C o u n t r y C l u b . I s u g g e s t that we a l l meet in the l obby at 7 : 3 0 A.M. f o r b r e a k ­ fast a n d t h e n we w i l l come to o u r l a b o r a t o r y for o u r d i s c u s s i o n I b e l i e v e we c a n c o m p l e t e our d i s c u s s i o n s b y l u n c h t i m e so t h a t r e s e r v a t i o n s f o r y o u r r e t u r n trips can be made f or a n y time a f t e r lunch. If a n y of y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s , p l e a s e ca l l me. S i n c e r e l y y ours, o l t Z '/ C c u , ' V. X. Howe Biochemical Research Laboratory 1701 B u i l d i n g Phene M E 6 - 2 3 7 6 - Area C o d e 5 1 7 VXR/Jd 11552 af­ TH K DOW CHEM ICAL MIDLAND, M ichigan f e r c h 2 9 , 1965 ro K. CO CO Rowe B lo o h e tilc a l R esearch L ab o rato ry 1701 B u ild in g 001 F . H. R ile y R. N. Sm iley L. B. O rant C. 0 . H u tch en reu th er F. C. A astu tz W. P . F aleey 0. X. Lynn V . H. 0111 N. 0 . W lltse D. X. F le tc h e r V. L. C orbin D. D. I r la h J . X. P e te rso n cn co J . C. T uck er J . W. H a r r is H. W. P e ln a u e r B. C. 3 ta e h lin g C. X. O tla K. I . H ansen R. C. H off V. J . McCoy J . D. Doedens K. C. B a rre n s H. R. H oyle B. B. H o ld e r, N.D. 3 . E . Sadek REPORT ON THE CHLORACHE PROBLEM MEETING ON 3/2A /65 P re s e n t! D r. J . V llk e n fe ld and Mr. Raymond V erhoeze, H ooker C hem ical C o rp o ra tio n Mr. F ra n c is Kennedy and D r. Ed C h and ler, Diamond A lk a li Company K r. C. L. Dunn and D r. John F. F raw ley, H ercu les Powder Company V. K. recapped th e Dow s itu a tio n In term s o f th e problem and th e I n i t i a l s tu d ie s by T ox icolog y and E nv iro n m en tal R esearch L aboratory re g a rd in g th e ln - p la n t s i t u a t i o n . He expanded th is In g e n e ra l term s to th e stu d y o f end p ro d u c ts, o u rs and o th e r p o o p les. He made re fe re n c e to sym m etrical D a tra c h lo ro -p -d lb e n z o d lo x ln . He r e f e r r e d to th e ev id en ce f o r unknown acnegens. There were some q u e s tio n s from th e group abo ut th e unknowns. We (Dow) w ere n o t a b le to answ er th e se q u e s tio n s except to review th e ev id en ce f o r t h e i r e x is te n c e In th e p ro cess sam ples and end p ro d u c ts . CCNFIDB.TuM - S'J2JcCT IO Ew."!C?ION D.C, ED. A'J. DOV/, ;?A AGREEMENT 9-79 a > V 25/r? * 5 . L . CrLUiDLS71 JOHH COST, J R . C -g JfiS A C ifg - DCW « S g H B Q cc i 3-^. r. JTÓ. Eisg K. T. Wiltorson ^ T. n'evarlc plant / : .1 :lriir Cp. March 2ii, Mika iencsdy and I set vith two people free Hooker Chsssical Co. ¿T two fro« Hercules, end with the Dov group to discuss tha tea i.cologi cal Impariti« associated vith 2,li,5 irichlarophenol and related aatariala. 9 o f 5 o v Caom cLcal cp « n sd th e a e s t in g b y s t a t i n g t h a t th e y h a d o p e r a te d - ’ approach vas a quill tat ira one rt first. Tlivy vaatad to find tha.causative sartsrial, learn hov to identify it, and try to avoid continual trouble vith tha uahne-m. They tested rarlous asxtartals from tar fraction* and fro«, as thay pot • it, ,r~rV~", etc. 7h*y found that there are a number ol suspect .oaterials, prchahljr 26 or 21] but tha ?s&Jcr ’'bad actor" that they Identified and vhich seamed to cousistsxtly cause the probiass vus 2 , 3 , ? ,8-Ta^radiLcro<±i>anzo p —Dicxis. (a, s—atrical). m- iiiwmi mm,. T' |T v! I 7 -■ A 1 1 1 \\ / ; J ? " 6 m ~T p.. f} C r~. p ~ D i 0 ? '/a/ ^ 3 C $ 0 0 i S =. Ni . C S y jyi s*i £ 7 “/? / h 7h—* i n c i d e n t a l l y was p r e v io u s ly l i s t e d us a a u c p o c t s e t e r i a ! b y Cy P a r k in s o f c u r co m p a n y. A. s i m i l a r s a t cariai is th a ’n s y w e a e t r ic a l 1 ,3>7,8 -7 C I2 D ( a ls o a c s m rtia e a l i s t e d as 2 , 3 f 7 , p - T C f S v . The D ov p e o p le u s e d th e v h i t e g lo r g and fovmd th is c ontaninent on usaeata, end ether fesaitas. ¿cutest anl"v**!.s ._th*y_coi?1d lo o c i^ s a r U ^ ^ & n s a —t h a - r y c p t c c s to appear. Dr. Holder 01 _ Dov, eoa of their .«me. o f th e v a r io u s n i t i £ ie difficulty starts 'Vith Slltinle b 1 ng y c t i c s t r u c tu r e s v h ic h n s ie th e p a t ie n t aook ■ iMh; h is =_fac a .. rie d is e a n a d e v e lo p a s l 'c v l y , n e t a p p e a r in g tool bsodlj until-aix-»»eks_to-ta< o~ -sacnthK _ n ft er_ g i l r •with very_hasT T gxno*urm _ o u t a p p e a r in g i n f i v e t o s e v e n da ys — — -> &ie bench chemist his been under troctaeot fer tvo years and his fans Is :ing.to. ahev .sirna of.^clajaiDg. Dr. Holder xays that he believes this e c u 's )Lasa will be solved in another sir aerrtha. Dr. vho d o e s their AtLcro- ^ socpic verr in connection vith their a l liberator/, shcved photc o± crographs q __ cf the cysts as they formed in the ears of rabbits. The cysts correlated vith C^. y those found on the faces of tha a » , >7 i : :: :o::i c s r o c: DS !... 1963 0002463911554^ o ¿5, 15«:? ' Basically, thscra Is a. r rotiocdd ¿opoait li th* ba.tr follicles «od oil duotc In the f*c«. 7h«s« evert,ually go fro« the biackhscd ctSÄG to fera *. closed, ha-cyy ocr» depocit. Tb« oheacLcal -cannot b« found in the f.'-ciai tisauss or in the corte but the p r o b i « still persist* after expesura. The best d^&criptica cf tha actrta - • is that the facial ttssus« reaexbla ids exaggerated surface toxturs of an ora tad sarbly vtth the ancloaed hard core deposits. raihsr A eryooodarj- eyTEptoa, vhich does not correlate directly with the taouot of facial darxatitis, is a fattgua reaction vhara. the axplcyoe is coxplsi-sly listi*«, tired .„out j |and oaarly_jjc-n.rao itateli 1 co op Iste biopsy of liner, '¡cidsney, etc, t eher no degTeaarct5ctT*of raijcs* arg? _2. 1 aocplsta clinicd txxxLpatica of the patient« sheved no acasurabls affect on he art, blood pressure, roepiration rate, blood'sogar etc. The fatigued patiffct-o nn-euaid to be helped by h*avy d o e w of ri toxins, perbene related, in s o e way t-o th* carotene rsetoholisi^ of the body ( involving viiasrLn 1, ri Ac oral dose of 17 xLcrcgraus isaedljt «iy tilled the tect auiosla. The lew ‘ people did nert levar this dosage to obtain an LD-^q but decided that, vh«n thry <*»n detect this coripcond, it should not be in the product. TheyJ«fouDd--thst-J*^aftsr-' exposure rto „th g sat «rial, washing v i t ^ P ^ l S ^ i n u t es .-did rnot help- a. grsat^daal.,, bet did" itlew down the" b Seed^ at y uhl ch^tha .-Syx^dbcar.a ppe ara d. * Washing aliar caa hour vus of' abfrojtrt ely ~~nc help what*osy-er_ln .reducing ^tattl'd m a t it 1b crjspessd_of appear arc of th* __react ìceoT*- Hod er at e._scrubb in;-vit h- cat ar g endlich s 'c h t^ r& s x rr a this “set’’¿rill, àrtrewly hard »d^n^-»speciiQ;hiirncce^'nich oegratea et 8CX £ j . Ihes e ^saxplos ^xre ¡>jwaLttd.sb«i They use bioassay methods cn rabbits far qualitxtire checking..ooly.. The 2cw pocple state that they intend to act a U n i t of sero vith aenjsitÌTit'i of plus or rinun 1 ppa ca this sat erial. They hare analysed act-srials frea ether ccspaniftc, including our cespary, and hare found zaountg as riigh is ID ppa in 2,1,5— T acid «id 20 to 30 _jppa_^in_ phenatas. *=s=i.' They hare ksha a singls application to the ears of mast rsbbits sad fo'and that 20 ppn vili Dot give folliculitis. Tcrty ppa does gira a slight offéct, and 100 ppa is sever«. They have nahe impest ipplicaticns of froa ID to IDO ppb, and ;s do not cause a rcr 25 of those tr»®*a; hcverer, 1000 (l ppa) gives a , aT i gtrfc regpcnaja_vith_nine- a m licatlcpa^gad^~a'~86T eJ.-e^reagtics~vith-ll applicati cans . They conclude, therefore, that 1 pqx with rgp^at axpooure can creatplh real [0ttnr' n™r"“ ■ sxr-v ■ "■ ■ ■ 111 “ ■ ■ I™1" !" »1* probi»*.. _ 11555 c ' Dow's p ocpls o c tlin e d a aethod fe r ex tra c tin g i-uaning ssr p le s c£2' 2 .L .5 -T ; 2.11^5*^?] o d phzEoda. I t iir r o ir a * ch lcrofcn a extract io n , foUt^red by 2$, - z _ t_o They h-fr« j i r a thf La *= t« e rL a l. h^-for-a petting arvj s r-sdixrt ion. by i t in th e os , »1 nog vith 126S »■pay aart h od t o itijco Kennedy h a j ths& o sat* c o d i n t e n d s t o p u r s n a t h a l a b o r a t o r y v e r ic « « « a s a x y t o Lf e = T , o f t h i s ¿ i r s r t n * p p « r * in . o a r 2 * 1 1 ,5 - 1 p r o c e s s . a a o a r tid n * fcisre z e d h ew «— The purpose of this aoetlng vaa ob-ricrtLsly dastjned to balp us *o 1t b this preblea beicr» outsiders coc.fas a the i-san* xnd ciua« us no eod of ¡'rief. Dew is•ending th* t « t rwealts oo oar »stKriAl to a s , incidentally; and this vill forgvank cmr t-*chciqas, eta. / I. L. Chjssdlar I ' ^ i U ■si DS 00024641 O CD - TO: F ile FR O M : C. L. D unn ‘ /^- 0 ,V “■ * . .V\ ., y •— v .>. D e t a i l e d N o t e s on D o w V i s i t 3 / 2 4 / 6 5 ( T o x i c M a t e r i a l s in 2 , 4 , 5 - T C P ) x: M1 P e r s o n n e l at M e e tin g Dow: M r. V. K. R o w e - A s s t . D i r e c t o r , B i o c h e m i c a l R e s e a r c h L aboratory M r. L a r r y S i l v e r s t e i n - I n d u s tr ia l H y g i e n i s t M r. J ack P e t e r s o n - I n d u s t r ia l H y g i e n i s t ( C h e m . E n g r . ) D r . S. S a d e k - B i o c h e m i c a l L ab . D r . B e n j a m i n H o ld e r - D o w M e d ic a l D e p t. M r . H a r o ld G ill - A n a l. C h e m . , D o w O p e r a tin g D e p t.. M r . H a r o ld G o r d o n - (lun ch only) D r . E d w a r d A d a m s (lun ch only) - B i o c h e m . R e s . L a b . , D ir . H o o k e r C h e m ic a l C o. : D r . J'. W ilk e n f e ld - T e c h . - S u p e r i n t e n d e n t , N i a g r a F a l l s , N . Y . M r . R a y m o n d V e r h o o z e - T e c h . M g r . E a s t e r n D iv . , N ia g r a F a l l s , N. Y. D ia m o n d A lkali: D r . E d. C h a n d le r - M g r . , T e c h . S e r v i c e , C l e v e l a n d , O hio M r. F r a n c i s (M ike) K e n n e d y - P la n t M gr. , N e w a r k , N . J. H e r c u le s Powder: D r . J. p . F r a w l e y - C h ie f T o x i c o l o g i s t M r . C. L ’. D unn - Syn. D e p t. 3 J j J - 1 M . If-*»»' *»■- x 0 .D 7 HO 1 3 0 5 - 1 V. K. R o w e P r e s e n t e d a b r i e f h i s t o r y of th e ir e x p e r i e n c e at D o w . S ta te d that th e y had no c h l o r o a c n e p r o b l e m s at D ow for a p e r io d o f 25 y e a r s . R e c e n t l y (no d e t a i l s g iv e n ) d i s c o v e r e d that th e ir p la n t w a s c o n t a m i n a t e d w ith c h l o r o a c n e g e n s - - t o o l s , w a l l s , p ip in g , all s u r f a c e s . -About 6 0 - 7 0 --ca se s o f c h l o r o a c n e r e s u l t e d . Of t h e s e , 5-10 w e r e s e v e r e , 10 m o d e r a t e , r e m a i n d e r m ild . E x a m i n a t i o n of f r a c t i o n s f r o m 2, 4, 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l ( 2 , 4 , 5 - T C P ) bv r a b b it e a r b i o a s s a y id e n t if ie d c e r t a i n p o r tio n s as c h l o r o a c n e g e n s . .A n a ly sis la t e r c o n f i r m e d the id e n tity o f s o m e of t h e s e . Tars w ere a n a l y z e d by g as c h r o m a t o g r a p h y , and y ie ld e d at l e a s t 26 p e a k s ; t h e r e is s o m e e v id e n c e that t h e s e a r e a l s o c h l o r o a c n e g e n s . T he plant w a s e x a m i n e d by ta k in g "wipe s a m p l e s " . A c l e a n c a n v a s g lo v e w a s w o r n , a s u r f a c e w a s w ip e d w ith a f i n g e r , a nd the f i n g e r c u t - f r o m the g lo v e . (r a b b it e a r ). T he f i n g e r w a s e x t r a c t e d and the e x t r a c t b i o a s s a y e d T he plant w a s found to be c o m p l e t e l y b la n k e te d w ith ch loroacn egen s. 2, 4, 5 - T m a d e f r o m D ow 2, 4, 5 - T C P w as t e s t e d by b e n z e n e e x t r a c t i o n and b i o a s s a y and c h e m i c a l a n a l y s i s . T h e i r ' T e s u l t s fo r c h l o r o ­ a c n e g e n s w e r e p o s i t i v e . R o w e e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n that c a r r y - t h r o u g h of t o x i c m a t e r i a l s into fin a l f o r m u l a t e d h e r b i c i d e p ro d u c ts m a y o c c u r u n l e s s -2 D r. B e n ja m in H o ld e r P r e s e n t e d a d e s c r i p t i o n of the c h lo r o a c n e c a s e s , in c lu d in g p h o to g r a p h s. C y s t ic s e b a c e o u s in v o lv e m e n t. Sooty a p p e a r a n c e of skin on fa c e due to b la n k e tin g of sk in with m y r ia d of b la c k h e a d s . A l s o l a r g e r s w e l l in g s due to o c c l u d e d c y s t s . noted in s o m e c a s e s . C o m p la in ts of e x c e s s i v e fa tig u e a ls o E v i d e n c e that the c c l o r o a c c e g e n s m a y be s y s t e m i c . " C y c lin g ” noted th rou gh ou t the 2 - 1 /2 y e a r p e r io d of the dis e a s e - - naor e in te n s iv e at c e r t a i n p e r i o d s , l e s s at o t h e r s . V e r y th o r o u g h b a tt e r y of c lin ic a l c h e m i s t r y t e s t s and p h y s ic a l e x a m in a tio n to s e e if any o th e r i m p a ir m e n t of body fu nction. E v e n l iv e r b io p sy ’. n a few c a s e s . e~ No ^.ffect other than skin c o u ld be found. P im ple s q u e e z i n g s w e r e c o l l e c t e d and su b je c te d to a n a l y s i s , but cou ld find no c h l c r o a c n e g e n s by gas c h r o m a t o g r a p h y . D ow is now o p e r a tin g th e ir plant, and have e n c o u n t e r e d no new - e l e c t r i c a l Insulation. 0 - P u c i e s or du st p r o d u c e d the d i s e a s e , and the 'j . b i l a t e r a l r e s p o n s e s s u g g e s t that the to x ic m a t e r i a l s m a y be s y s t e m i c . ’ S e v e r e e x p o s u r e g i v e s an i n f l a m m a t o r y r e s p o n s e w ith in s e v e n days. L e s s e r exposure- g i v e s a r e s p o n s e p e r i o d o: 2 -3 w e e k s . P h o t o m i c r o g r a p h s of s e c t i o n s cl skin f r o m rabbit e a r s at v a r i o u s s t a g e s of c h i c r o a c n e w e r e s h e w n , as w e l l as s o m e l i v e r s e c t i o n s . H y p e r K e r a t o s i s in c a t t l e and s w i n e due to fee d c o n t a m i n a t e d w;ith ch lorcrap htha lenes from, l u b r i c a t i n g oil was e x p e r i e n c e d in the U. S, about 10 y e a r s ago. ¿he p r e d i l e c t i o n si te for c a t tl e is the neck; fo r s w i n e , the b u tt o c k s. V i t a m i n A ma v be i n v o l v e d in the s e q u e n c e of e v e nts i n v o l v e d in the c o u r s e of the d i s e a s e , or m a y be an i nd ex or me icater. T o p i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n to rabbit e a r s is the b i o a s s a y p r o c e d u r e . A f t e r to pi c al a p p l i c a t i o n , w a s h i n g f r o m 15 m i n u t e s to 4 h o u r s l a t e r d o e s no g ood . Dr. S a c e k noted that rab bits w h o s e e a r s nad b e e n w a s h e d (t h o r o u g h ly w a s h e d or s c r u b b e d with d e t e r g e n t ear w a t e r ) had s e v e r e l y d a m a g e d l i v e r s (" g r a d e 4"). This suggests washing may have cau sed g r e a te r absorption. Pl a n t c l e a n - u p at D o w w as done by th o r o u g h s c r u b b i n g -with d e t e r g e n t and w a t e r , and in s o m e a r e a s w a s n i n g with s o l v e n t (C'nlo r o t h e n e , 1 , 1 -tr ic h lo r o e th a n e ) was perform ed. 11580 The acute o r a l L D iq to rabbits o : 2 , 3 , 7 , 2 - t e t r a c hi o r od i b e n r o - p - d i o x i a •was favino to be only 17 m i c r o g r m s per k i l o g r a m body wet gat. extrem ely toxic. H a r o l d Gill - A n a l y t i c a l T e c h n i q u e s Ga s c h r o m a t o g r a p h y (s e e attn 1 n c mvtr.oc). mi c ro - c oulemetr ic detector. - n ey nave not u s e d E l e c t r o : c a p t u r e d e t e c t o r d o e s not g i v e the. e x p e c t e d s u p e r - s e n s itivity . Has d sad v an ta g e that othe r c h l o r i n a t e d m a t e r i a l s do h av e s t r o n g e l e r t r o n - a b s :ro\. 1 c n , anc. nave a s w a m o - m g , or o v e r w h e l m i n g e f f e c t on d e t e c t o r w h i c h is t r o u b l e s o m e . D e t e c t i o n l i m i t s as f o l l o w s : n on s apon.iiia.bl e o ils f r o m 2 -, 5 - 1 :? - 10 0 . 0 . 2, 4, 5 - T C P - 1 p. p. m. 2,4, 5 - T acid - 1 p .p .m . 2, 4, 5 - T P a c i d (Sii ve x) - i B e l i e v e that b i o a s s a y is m o r e s e n s i t i v e than gas c h r o m a t o g r a p h y . 2, 4, 5 - T C P c o n v e r t e d to s o d i u m p h e n a te , and this e x t r a c t e d wit h chloroform. T w e n t y g r a m s 2, 4, 5 - T C P ~ N aO H , e x t r a c t e d with 20 m l CHCI 3 . 2, 4, 5 - T and 2, 4, 5 - T P f r e e a c i c s - - sh ake 2 0 g r a m s of s a m p l e with 40 m l C K C I 3 for one h o u r . F i l t e r , w a sh C H C I 3 so lu ti o n with an e q u a l v o l u m e of 0 . 1 N a q u e o u s NaOH. E v a p o r a t i v e l y c o n c e n t r a t e to o n e - t e n t h volume p**r\ iT l , -, o l ■ I O 1 o r' m •.V cn CO U s e e x t r e m e c a r e in h an d l in g . Disposable gbves. A ll refuse c o l l e c t e d La s p e c i a l c o n t a i n e r s , d i s p o s a l by bu rning in s p e c i a l h i g h e f f i c i e n c y i n c i n e r a t o r (ok'd for b urn ing r a d i o a c t i v e t r a s h ) . A t 8 0 0 ° C . in an open tu be , d e c o m p o s i t i o n of the 2, 3, 7, 8 - c o m p o u n d w a s 99. 6 % c o m p l e t e . D o w lab h a 3 d e c o n t a m i n a t e d g l a s s w a r e by putting in g l a s s shop a n n e a l in g o ve n o v e r n i g h t . P l a n t w a s t e _at^Dpwri s pre s e n t l y e n c a p s u l a t e d ( d r u m s ) and b u r i e d . X ^ y ^ c u n c t b m n w - i û - 8_oiirbaxrte'rin“de c o m po s epthe—c'nlo r oa-cne gens-.. C o m o e t i t o r c r o d u c t s - D o w h a s e x a m i n e d all m a n u i a c t u r e r s 2 , 4 , 5 - T p r o d u c t s . S o m e h a v e " s u r p r i s i n g l y nigb" a m o u n t s o f c h l o r o a c n e g e : T h i s d e f in e d as 10 p. p. m. in 2, 4, 5 - T a c i d , and up to 30 p. p. m . in 2, 4, 5 - t r i c h l c r c o h e n a t e . J a c k P e t e r s o n - I d e n t i t i e s and S t a t i s t i c s 2 , 3 , 1 , 8 -tetrachlorodiber.no-£-dicx: Cl n, C IS '■ Cl O S '' 60-iì U) Cl 1 ,3 ,7 , 8 -tetrachiorodibenco-_p-dioxin ( m i s n a m e d 2 , 3 , 7 , 9 - te tr a chi o rod ine m o - £ - d i ox m ) -h '■-/*0¿b c; ! ci 1' ^ ______ l ' /.'c i JEtaBKiZSS.ar’S- - Bioassav technicue 0 2 - , 3, 7, 8 - t e t r a c h l c r o d ib e r . r o - o - d i o x L h. has been applied La s i n g l e ana m u l t i p l e dc-sages ran gin g f r o m 2 p. p. y. to 0. 1% La b e n z e n e s o l u t i o n . A p p l i c a t i o n is 0.1 ml of s o lu ti o n, s p r e a d o v e r the 1 - 1 / 2 inch upper p o r t i o n of the e ar (Inner s u r f a c e ) . M u lt ip le a p p l i c a t i o n s a * c ide one a c a y , 5 d a y s e a c h w e e k . ^ . av Single A o o l i c a t i o n {no w a s h in g ) : o . o . na­ 40 p. m 1 0 0 p.""p. un. 20 HgES« no r e a c t i o n ' Si 11:s r t ' rei folliculitif sev ere folliculitis Multinie A o o l i c a t i o n (no w a s h i n g ) A v e r a g e i n d u c t i o n p e r i o d 10 d a y s . U n t o 25 a p p l i c a t i o n s of IOC p. p. V. g a v e no r e s p o n s e ( f o l l ic u li t i s ) rr * * L i v e r R eS D o n s e - do not •rei k no w w h a t the n o - e f f e c t l e v e l is for l i v e r r e s o c n s e . r" ** O' 0 vJ O'*l-i 0 Ì O i l V - — n*O0 0 0 0 3 8 c r.-5~ :•.c a - . Vr-cr. cGcs y, M a r c h t* 1 ' i c . Z m '.‘i 3 u i -- - 25 96: _ r■ r- : c : ; c r . e 2 ~ . 1 9 6 5 , R V e r R e e v e . m e L i e : ; r i e-cr v: ri c :u u * 2 1 r C C. v.) C S i. •- O >—j.. j» . .! CG ... r*. d - C. kfcte O j, 1 ~ c:: o u t l i n e d ir. t h e a t t a c h e d l e t t e r . Inrorreaticr. v e t prese: r a c p l e ; r c e Dev: vRmJS.o~>;e, ^ A G 3 i s t . y . t - D i r e c t e r - 5 i o c h e m i c a l . D r J ' . c i c e r , . p i y s i c i a r i . v ' r . o - a m a ; n i r e d , _ . t h £ _ c f f e c l e a -4r e c o i e ; Dr D Le ch er . ! c a l R e s e a r c h D c r a r t a e r . t s e r i f v e o c i s c u s s e c i = v r e r i s D r . r o Id G i l l o f t h e a n a l y t i c a l s e c t i c r . v h o c c v e i c r e c ; r e . v a : rneticc; L arry S i l v e r s t e i n , L n e r a t r i a i h y g i e n i s t c o n c e r n e d cation s; ar.d J a c k P e t e r s e n v h o i s c o n d u c t i n g f l i c s t a t i s t i c e s e Ci . c n o e r e i t e s n t i a c i k , a e e r i e r o f the r. e d a n irna 1 p a c h o l o v y ; r - I iquid_. c h r o r a c o g r a r h i c i t i . in p i a n t i r . v e s t i t e" n ln s t i o n . anc are Oso procedure ?. c : p c r . o e for rerrcr.se and severe fo'-ae the that routine uas us uas 10 use our that the are with At after that mttnetrical bic-assay but cays. found. race the correlating response told statement of on averaged no hr feels '--cr u i n g 1 test tvo. is They continuing 25 port a the sore realise ve sens bic-es 3i. to use tt for f a p p l rcstior.s at 10 ppb , 25 van noted slight response ppb, after and aC CIG eras n active sarples c phenetes product sene dioooane RVH ppr 9 applicctis 11. and sene of ha (see ttschsc note) and ML? Nr 2 , h ,5 a ? 02 the ge r test ac d_as h i g h _as 10__?cr.. ? f fr rt i-iwO c ICO CIO T T n o n n Currently i^/rs t . hom« Jlooheulce j/floeearcn Laboratory 170HFu»?*lng ooi F. H. R iley R. R. » a lla y L. B. O rant C. 0 . H u tch enrauth er F . 0 . Amstuta M. F. False/ Q. B. Lynn H . N . 0111 H. 0 . U l l t i i D. I . M ato h ar W. L. C orbin 0 . 0 . I r ia n J . B. fa ta rs o n REPORT OH THE CHLORACKE mOBLEM F ra a a n ti D r. J . U llk tn filU and Hr. Raymond V erho ata, HooWar C h an lcal C o rp o ra tio n t H r. F ran ola Kannady and D r. Bd C handler, Diamond A lk a li Company Hr. C. L. Dunn and D r. John P. Frsw ley, H arculaa Powder Company V. K. recapped the Dow s itu a tio n In tarm a o f th a problem and th a I n i t i a l atu d la a by T oxicology and E nvlronm antal R e se a rc h Laboratory reg ard in g th e In -p la n t s it u a ti o n . Ho expanded th is In g en eral tarm a to th a atudy of and p ro d u o ta, o u rs and o th e r paoploa. Ha made re fe re n c e to ay m n etrlo al t a t r a c h lo ro -p -d lb o n ro d lo x ln . Ho re fe rre d to th a evidence f o r unknown iB H e g o n s.T h e ra were some q u aetlo n e from th e group about the unknowns. Me (Dow) were no t a b le to answer th e e e qu estio ns except to review the evidence fo r th e ir e x la ta n o e In the proceea sam ples end end p ro d u o te. coniiddj:.m -£” _;2Jici io t :ciiom DC-.*-0- AX < < 7I| DOV/, :?A /.GjIlyAtNI 0 7» p L in ea h arvU in s lu cn p h a o o l. ? acid , or 7 acid cataro. I s t ^ i ì t a d d t h a t w* ¿ r « c o n t i r r u l n g o u r r e s e a r c h e d o n t d l # p a r t i c u l a r p r o b i * » f r a » t ri * » t a n d p o i n t o f s t u d y i n g c h e ot.*%«r I m p u r i t i e s ’• n i c h t u 7 n a v e e h * c a p a c i t y t o p r o d u c o ' » M s ' T P * of re a ctio n . aj . u o , m« i r » i c ; a o p c . i n ^ t o u u a n c i t j t s erte e f ­ f e c t s O f t h * l u i o v n o c : ' . * n # o e w n * n au d»»l t o S « a e © s t o r t a l a . T h is > o n t lo p ro g ra a -U n n » • • li, but i t * l i l b* s e v e r a l o o n tb a b e fo re * • have a c o a p le te d aco ry. I w o u ld u r j i a g a i n t h a t I f 700 r b i g c u o c o -a e r a o u c h i a C o-O p and .'t a u g A t u u f c b a v e p a r t i c u l a r T j n a t ' . o m a t o u t t n i s p r o b i * « t h a t you i n v i t e tn e» to co o * to l a r . o » n e r e - * « i l i o* ¿1 Ari t o d i a c u a o l a « © a t t e r i n ' J e ' o l i - ì t n z . t • 3 4 tvj Jno-» Zh*-» what *• nave \e o r r r d . ■ « < r « n o e '. n a n y » a y a L t n p i 1 to b i d e o u r p r o b i « u n d e r a ne-, p o •' «:i x k s . b u t » • : r r t i l * 1 / d o t o t v e n t t o h a v e an y s i t u a t i o n * / ir la * » n itri v i l i : iu j h th * r e g u la t o r y a g e n c ie s to beco»* re* t r i e t I t * . Cur p r l a j n csJ e c t l v * la to a v o id t h i s . :u£ '•'\r-rtfw 'v. tu'-'&Zi r.4 • -- I t r u a c t h a t p u « i l l b . v - r T , ' u i l : L o u 3 In tout- u s . o f t a l » in fo rsa cio n . l b -.o u I ì; o. t u i i » c o o m n i o s Lf '.i > « ra a u In te rp re te d o r alau o ed . s "'.¿h^ k: m - V. K. ftOwe 3iOch*3tcai .'ieseerrn ¿ b o r a t o r y 17 C 1 5Ì U L Ì C Ì . H 5 H8 6-237b TTCPyjd co 1 L. - i l v e r s t e l n C. C tio G r a d 7 .'V) l d e s J n T . .‘o a c u c : Q . G o* r g * jn H. J l o y i a m « ..j s r s & 'é w. p«i3*y V. X. “owe (2) 717.*-I?-¿0 — E£i?f C o r r e s p u m lrn ce U n d e r no ; 1 r r u n » t o nc r s o-j y a h o u n , o r 2 * n t t o .wr/or.e o u t ; '.it« m •■HV.-26§g f--~ r'.lc r ,r o- »produccd, -e«GD , 12, atH 24 re/V.i> and in r ^ M t s at 1, 29, 4) r"/v-i, durino formative devs n r oestation. The purified 2,4,5T did not cause fetal anomalies. Dioxin in -;esj< cf 0,93, 9.125, 3.3, 2.9 tod 3.0 jn/Vp in rats durip.-t th» 6-15 da-/ of oestatlnr did cause fetal aencr'al i ties tut not c l o f't '•slates as v'.are noted in the f'larvatics' tests, T:-e nn« toxicologist felt that tsc difference seen in t'-s) tests nin.ht he rvferv-.u: 1e to S""intics of reportin''. !::;w»ver, it is also possible teat i-:--jrities other than dioxin '".lent have caused the cleft palates in the? Dioneti r.s1 tests. S^jEA-P.?fT ME10RAJIOUM FOR: 11 «arch 1970 Director of Research Laboratories It arrears that 2,A,5T Itself does not cause teratogenic effects fn the doses studied, j The acid and butyl-esters (used in *9range") are manufactured by Dow Chemical Co,, Monsanto Chemical Co.,. Hercules Povder Co,, Howard Taft Cherni Co., and' Diamond Alkali Co. The latter discontinued oroducinn these nroduc in 1369, The l‘S Arm/ purchased 2,4,5T esters from all of the above «entlonf Companies, Teratogenicity of the butyl esters has not been tested. 3. List of Attendees: Or. George E, Lynn, Regulatory Operations; Dr. Etcvl H. Blair, Chemist; Or. Keith Uarrons, Herbicide Specialist; and Mr. Oon HcCollister, Toxicoloqi Dor Chemical Ccnrany. General William W. Store, COL George y. Connell, “AJ Manuel L, Sanches, ACSFOR. Or. Benjamin L. Harris, DSD, 0DR5E. COL John J. Osici, and A Dr. Charles Mlnarik, and Dr. Robert Oarrown, Ft. Detrick, id. Dr. yayne YandeVenter, Analytical Chemist, Kelley aFQ, Texas Or. 8. Jandorf, Gr. 0. P. Mciiam-ara, and ‘-'r. S. Sass, Psch Labs, Edgevood Arsenal, Maryland. BERTARQ P. »»cii-VtftPA, Ph.D. Chief, Toxlcclon^ Department Medical nesearc.h Laboratory C H* GC CD Chief, Chemical Research Laboratory 115 70 1.1 'i 1 1" ' i .’ .’Mi. \11\■\l. 1»>k>L « » . U 5Q AS PULLlGRAiiS PEI! ICG B O D Y RAT // //*v* DIOXIN “ 0,022 - WEIGHT GUIIIEA P I G 0,045" 0,0005 - w 2,4,5-T 500.. 2,4-D 375, SILVEX 500, 850. 8,200. 3,000, PICLORAM DDT 38 0, G G 5 .* 150. P A R A T M I OH 1,7 1.000. 800, * - i 400 9,3 30? - 3 / ▲ " d i o x i n " = 2 / 3 , 7 , 0 - T E T R A C ! ILORO' 'D H i!ZO ••P _ IO X IN ■» VARIES SEX, ACCORD!HG TO V E H I C L E IJ: ~D A N D / O R 601857 THc DOW C ! M C A l C'V.r'ANY MIDLAND, .‘.MCA1C-AN t 1 .Jl jl U ? £ V ’ '■ 1 ■ >■ ■ v '? , 4 , *' t i : I ( ! ; i ( i 1 i . ! i . i > ill-' mm :i ¡: g T Y P I C A L Z, C O M PO :v COMPOSITION 5 rruou.oncPMf: •>r •*j.a i' '.CID PEPCE7*T J 2 , 4 , 5 - t k i c i î l o p o p t :t ;:c :c t j :c t t :c í .t :p d j s {2 r .5 c o t i c 0 , 5- o c i o .. ■ . . — -r 3,2 2 , 4 - D 1C Î I L O R 0 P H Z N Q I C W , C E T . . C /. C I O 2 , 3 , 6 - T R i a i L o n G T \ r c M O / : r s . c z 3v c .-.cio 0,2 2 ,4 , U T R I C U L O R Û F ; r S N O L 0,1 irrn.-s c i i l o •; o d ib hocco - d :o ::?h A < 0. 5 098T09 2 , 3 , 7 ,V - T r- 0,5 » 2 , 5 - D 1C H L O i > C P I I I S N O M Y / » CZIT.' C S. C I D o D i C i ÍJ.O ínO . m ^ 1 HÜ^*; 1.PÎ’i-^tvU-V 95,0 r~* 1 » I. l.'n I J I I 1,1 ! u'.; [•ia\ i .i.V•.. i, PïI E K O X Y A Œ T î C A C ID BY-PRODUCTS r i R I Y Z D I M .2 / ‘ J/5-TPvI C ü L O n o r n E i X l • U FÆ U 171- o lUio-'... •• /• M „v ».: FZli I it IJ Ï PMIü j L î C ! ; . 7 i l ; i ! T E 3 . s \ / * . *<-* . * . J. 7 , - r- - — IV i 11' • • • - « * • « 1 . . « * » . » . ■ .. c: 2 o - • •I .* ,V J...0 . •> ~ / » _ • .... : ~i i f 2 / 3 , ‘!-Tnic::LG..^ w i+* 2/5/o-Tr.ic:;i..^;,c T99T0Ô 1, II. lh 5 - d i c k l g p .o - 2 - ; ; ì t : :x :v D 2y 5- ic:ìLe r.o -f!• ;2T>:c ::v 3,5 2 , 4 - d i ci ;l o ;:o - 5 - ; :2t ; :o x y •ff »** .1i.D / b ♦ T**7J A JVLi .L OQ oV.or * ¿/*a I **.* Vf.v\ .* O /u f » •* /• , ot'; - fJ.. i î . ^r r■.*„ j\ }v •*• - .. tj:. r \ * . ;7 • y * •■... y ; f ( G A S - L T q U U ì CKip:/LV.L C G K A Ï - ••'~-j 1 f;rf)7 ri 7 Coni': o n 2 r.l D i m e t h y l Etiisriì ». .« ;-!-J X*■ r*•;inn O -.7 -O f!a 9 f*-*•'V 7 -Î*.■■« «i- Soin c l i-Ionoiii-îLlr I n r C> '"»O »*:i ♦ -y ■rj -'A «•■* .■v 0 A 5 - rn-r!:^Vi*rv ' r-.~.. *vrr n-»' •» • I » » » . (I O’ *_•— l»• fi fr!>. » U a* 1».v- o >1 <*» .*•-. • « *1 _ ñyl, u - i Jir::u,:.;c M f i T O S 0. 01 * 1 K >iy rji <0 t ) \ L ANALYTICAL DATA FON CUT.0^0 FOIL. 1NC0 LU li LE IMPUNITY IN.DISTILLATICI-' lì.' i.TiDUL Analysis Carton, £ . ' Hydro "un, ^ Chlorine, % hires No. Ivlol. T.Vl.I.roUir.?: Poi;-.l roui::: 2 , T, v-¿u^ refere-?• / u r-J. o /• * V *.«. t /•'v' r . ’•* • • .. .* .."Oñ3 ^ V- \ - S1 Vw* Ini r r re.*:. Er:n:iiinrAio-i 801863 4 115 78 . t * t, S'YNTIIKSIS . ■ OF 2 t 3 r7 , 8 -T ETRACULÒKO/Ji: \ U Z Q - P - D ! 5 : a u u 4.« j \ m J i v i i ì « • l k ' \ : i i. PUFIV IV Iiyclrossn,- Z ‘p:.7 1 ' ?•-* -* Chlorrao* Z 'ir.*7. M ass N o* 020. " n• • MoL \7t* vi~U*> Me King Po ini w -lOo • Infra iv i c.v im ina ti on : Sandermaim, Y7., et ri, Cileni 1*25 44.0 320. 322. 295•295-3C0 ' 320-325 2r. 8 0 ,G 8 0 (1 9 5 7 ) 11579 !>98T0S Carbon, £ :tirai — ____. ... r. 3 SOLUBILITY O F 2 , 3 , 7 , y - T F I T > A C ¡ : i . . o i i o n i p . : : Ü7.0 - p - D I O X I i l IN V A R I O O S S O LV E Ü T S A T 25 °C So l v e n t — S O L U B ILI TY WT. PERCENT C r . / I O Q ML. O - D l CHLOROBENZENE o ,ia Ch l o r o b e n z e n e 0 ,0 8 0 Pe r c h l o r o e t h y l e n e 0 ,0 0 0 0 .0 5 8 Ch l o r o f o r m 0 ,0 5 5 0 ,0 5 7 Benzene 0..G.57 0 ,0 5 7 Ac e t o n e 0 .0 0 9 o .o n <0,0.1 . < 0 ,0 1 Dimethylsulfoxide (c;j Me t h a n o l 0 ,0 0 1 Wa t e r <0.0005 (a) 0 .1'i .. 0 ,0 72 * .0 ,0 0 1 <0.0005 DMSO c a u s e d d ;ETECTOR FOULING AND A BETTE R VBLUE COULD NOT be o b t a i n e d , HOWEVER/ SOLUBfLITY DOES NOT EXCEED 0 , 0 1 PERCENT M L-ALS 57-575 1965 THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY .MIDLAND, M ICHIGAN 801865 December '8 , .1580 iij.n.:. i m . j , x . 1 •• iiXA'miiXY o i ¡liJY MliJY (Fiíüm "Report 01 ni;. .Slcrltary 'g (X;:.;iog i t * : : o n P i . ' .....................................j X Their Relationship .to Environmental Health " USDüEl í R e c e h t e r I L L Y ) O R A L DUSE. L E V E L S EQUrVALEMT kg 2 , ¿í , 5 - T " (a p p r o x ) EFFECTS /kg b o d y JJG Vil/DAY*"' B O D Y v.t / d a y 0 0- 4 .6 0 ,14 " DI O X I m V KG Fetal Ab n o r m a l Mo r t a l i t y Fe t u s e s * ' ' up - to 50/ 'THREE-FOLD A T UÍGHLST 10 ,0 0. j OVER < DOSAGE COH- <.T E O L S ^ EVE AT LOWEST ^6. M ASSAY = 2 7 DOSED FOR VEHICLE - 6 DAYS, — 8 r?H 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 10 THROUGH tht * _DOSE RAC: ILORQR lDEi’Z O “ P “ D I OX IH 1 5 D: YS OF GEO, T A T IOH, = HONEY / ¿ 9 8 T 0 9 DOW l.M 2 . ¡ c - : ì A . 7 .' S E T «IW 601868 T h e .Do w C h e m It c ca L Cc, ; w , ARY 1 0 7 :3 GO LQ « { GRAL DOSE L E V E L O 1, •“ -T-JJ. / k g BODY > :Lii. :.'T/rAY •" n w Eq uivalen t A v g , ;-!o . , ÜG " D U P I N ' " / OF L I V E Re s o r p t i o n s Sk e l e t a l De a d per ABNORMALITIES i" L- ■ ?3 L itter V/T / D A Y L lTTÈRè PUPS V f F LITTER • • ¿18 1? r, « J ____ 1 n 1 .CM 12 ^ r\ n 0 ,7 k Lit 0 1 , 1 7 ~ r\ t n 0 .71 n 0 . GM 0 4 0.0005 2 k •»*« 0 ,0 0 15 23 0,003 23 0,005 2 k of 0 ,3 7 and x'. ;!o s ig n ific an t DIFFERENCES OBSERVED o «, ry ' n Dov: Total r!o. L * Visc eral kG B O D Y r r\ - Avg, M o, 01012 2 A , I’C S E D 5-T contained . ' 25 0 ,5 PPM y,Di o x i n " 12 BETV. ' EEN C O N T R O L GR O U P AND H IG H E S T DOSAGE GRO UP j ( 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 - t e t i RACHLORCDI3ENZ0 FOR 1 0 DAYS/ 6 THROUGH 1 5 DAYS OF CEST-MlcN, VEH.I f^LE 0 , 2 5 7 HYDROXYPROPYL• N.ETHYLCELLULOSE AAi> r E T U 3 E S - E X A M I N E D P E R G R O U D l : 3: d e r ¡ m e n t a l desig n Wo r k e d * ES U ITS OBSERVED BY Dr , H . out L, VISCERAL = 200, w ith NlH-NCI RICHARDSON, and SKELETAL K iEES of F D A O F HSDnEW TKn now c::aa ; 100 USDHEIi. Il fo / <$r "■V". s. / / , n ,,. '* * * £ ^ ¿> ••/•>• " '4-, ' / V , . Z' /r, > ' .£? A / r*-. 0: •r- '^■L/' C ■/ 0p ‘ •■ O: ¿7 0 :,. C?o, -y 0J■0.0, 'û " >*,. '•;/' CoJü, C <9 V/ *7, %> f RAT T E R A T O L O G Y STUDY 801S70 2 / 3 / 7 / o - T Ë 7 R A C K L O r ; C D , fLE.',: Z O - p - D I O X l N The D o w Ch e m i c a l Co m p a n y 5 Ma r c h 1 9 7 0 * < i ..CSE L l V E L Ave-, of -.CM..' / \G U 0, v.-t / b a y * L itters OF i\ o * TAIL A v g . fío. L ive Purs G r oss A b n o r m a l i t i e s Total o ■, per AND |\ES07:PTI0WS JN T SUB-Q r*c a HEM 1 EDEMA 2 TAIL LIMB Purs Litter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 21 10 0 J iL 10 12 0 5 -» j 0,125 9 3 2 17 0 L 0 9,5’ 11 12 r» '6 0 bi 31 0 0 ‘0 T 1j w 1s TO CD Litter 0 12 1 2 0 A NF E W NFË NFE Nfe NFE. 0,0 ’ 8. ' NFE . . D o s e d f o r 1 0 d a y s , 6 t h r o u g h 1 5 d a y s o f g e s t a t i o n ; v e h i c l e a c e t o n e /c o r n o i l s o l u t i o n = .HO EVIDENCE OF FETAL TISSUE PRESENT, • = INTESTINAL HEMORRHAGE,2 = SUBCUTANEOUS EDEMA, * = RUDIMENTARY TAIL,’ 1' = ROTATION. OF LIMBS, SHORTENING OF DIGITS, TAIL CURVED Lir.LÎS O B S E R V E D B Y D?., *H. L, Richardson, F D A ; D r. T. K ing, N I H , % K o L lT .lL I IY or Th i s OlwV.TI e o u iv a le n \ 70 n> i t !i Ai 10 n r . / 8 ppm 45 ICG W O M A N DR INIC IMG 2 L I T E R S 8 ppm 2 /4 ,5 -T This is KG = equivalent to ingesting of r a t e • ppm 2/4,5-T 2,'l,i>- I acid m g /day In g e s t i o n 2 ,4 ,5 -T i ^ i. I.:. n;u ( 2 KG) W A T E R P E R DAY / IN 2 In g e s t i o n 16 pi Oirc 0 .4 rate "d i o x i n " in m g / kg of dody -..t / d a y ? "nr o n i n " (jjg / k g / d a y ) w h e n 2/4/5-T IS: (m g / k g / d a y ) 0 ,4 rom .0 ,5 1 5 50 0,00 02 0.0004 0,002 0 ,0 12 150 75 15 SAFETY TACTOR over 2 0 . 0 5 j jg / k o / d a y TENTATIVE ” T k .0 1 0,0002 = DOSE 150 L E V E L SNOWING NO-EFFECT ON FETUSES - T A R T O S (" d IOX'IN" = 2 / 5 / 7 / o - T E T R A C H L C H O D IB E N l O - p ~D I OX III) THE OOV/ CHEMICAL COMPANY MIDLAND, MICHIGAN f 1 .jL J*. 30 THE DOW CHEMICAL C O M PA NY ÍAÄ5TOW BLMUÛJNC The Honorable Melvin Secretary of Defense The Pentagon W a s h i n g t o n , D. C. R. Laird for the 15, 1970 W 424G33 June ° ° 2020 DOW CfNTCA VUÛLANO, MtCHlCAN 48640 Sir: Subject: Defoliants Department of Defense S e v e r a l w e e k s a g o the D e p a r t m e n t o f D e f e n s e a n n o u n c e d the t e m p o r a r y s u s p e n s i o n o f t h e u s e o f A g e n t O r a n g e (a m i x t u r e of the n-butyl esters of 2 , 4 - d i c h l o r o p h e n o x y e c e t i c acid a n d 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c a c i d ; as a d e f o l i a n t i n Southeast Asia. T t h a s n o w c o m e to o u r a t t e n t i o n that the use of A g e n t O r a n g e c a y b e r e i n s t i t u t e d . T h e r e is a b u n d a n t e v i d e n c e t h a t 2 , 3 , 7 , S - t e t r a c h l o r c c i b e n z o p - c ' i c x i n o c c u r r i n g a s a n i m p u r i t y i n 2 , ^ , 5 - T is h i g h l y toxic. 2 , 4, 5- T can be p r o d u c e d that contains only minute q u a n t i t i e s of this i m p u r i t y (less than one part p e r m i l l i o n ) , ar.c s u c h a p r o d u c t is a v a i l a b l e t o t h e g o v e r n m e n t f r o m v a r i o u s sources. W e a t D o w a r e c o n v i n c e d c h a t 2,<1,5 -1 c o n t a i n i n g l e s s than one part p e r m i l l i o n of 2 , 3 , 7 , 8- te trachlcrcdibento-pdioxin can be used safely. C e r t a i n l y s u c h a p r o d u c t is s a f e r in use than one c o n t a i n i n g larg er quantities. The Dow C h e m i c a l Company a g a i n recommends s t r o n g l y t h a t t h e g o v e r n m e n t s e t a p p r o p r i a t e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s and c o n t r o l s t o i n s u r e t h a t no 2 , ^ , 5 - T be u s e d i f i t c o n t a i n s more t h an on e p a r t p e r m i l l i o n 2 , 3 , 7 , S - t e e r a c h l o r o d i b e r . z o - p - d i o x i n . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , we w o u l d make c h i s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e u s e o f 2 , ^ , 5 - T a s a c o m p o n e n t o f A g e n t Orange i f i t i s to be used as a d e f o l i a n t in V ietnam . Such s p e c i f i c a t i o n s h o u l d a p p l y t o s t o c k s on h and a s w e l l a s new p r o c u r e m e n t . l 'K iX LS _x^2 J— > Honorable Because of ing copies Melvin R. Laird Page o u r s t r o n g f e e l i n g s in this m a t t e r , we o f t h i s l e t t e r to c h o s e l i s t e d b e l o w . Dr. L e e Science are A. D u B r i d g e A d v i s e r to t h e P r e s i d e n t T h e H o n o r a b l e C l i f f o r d M. S e c r et ar y of Agriculture The Honorable Elliot S e cr et ar y of Health, Hardin Richardson Education, 2 send­ l'C 9^ 2 P M OO The and Welfare T h e H o n o r a b l e W a i t e r J. H i c k e l S e c r e t a r y of the Interior. Y o u rs v e r y t r u l y , G. U . W i l l i a m s Vice P resid en t G J W :I n 115 38 m I¿¿MONSANTO C O R P O R A T I O N ».•viA-i’C « ? ' - - ■ ■ ■ lji-»>-lif.-j ISCHROriCE #4 ROLL " \v El fr# niKCTLOS 2 2 C 'i 15 2 m m "N M V - -r;'■f&r- ;1 f , 41 UM 4 1 d 4iVi c1 X 1 M TJ «i^-O f& c l / > « 1( *C1jC •U .s CX« * i: iC:>I.PM »o •j c* »> « « d o * *> -H ¡5 .H 3 C O C .G ,: C« o p < *» l. * » * - » 3 0 a, • p •; C o X) >i u w m (« M * C C • • -j t. * • o , ;b y W ♦* ♦» t i kO • i» • c , • i:n £ m «1 w * a o 3 CW \ J u «1 « o n ► J. t« x>x » o o o Wn o m ? « mcxj r. C-* . U .1 S •! M .I v o C C C o o *> i;> u U * i I « c s*» I Mc * Li,P*P X*• *o a •>• • * T1 O T3 21,8c c rr.. c u U *1«c t♦4> C■ U ( O • * ^ fl >c ri * c o < > r< U « Q 0 « . OQ o •£ H O *-» 4 h«4 • 4 *-i O O * * X j *:41I .X1»*'xi o • • tlii CM« .Ml M ■» , W. ? . D U N LA P J . A, STEPH ENS D . B . SH A R P / I,uu<- -. •' • *^'Th* r c c u lt * o / ©eur a a a ly a l* o í to a r a u to c la v e b a teh a a a r a inmrnjmi»á in th* >tmb«4 -■ J m p h a (TVgur*a 1 - 4 ) . I beLlanr» th* coda la a e lí- e x p lá n e t e r y wdth th* p oaalh le í^:'ntCap*ioa o í D m r O . T U i r o ta r a te th* era a l o t Cha d im * th o x y d ich lo reb * n * « a * a *nA j\"th* m a th o x y d lc h lo r e p h a a o l* , T h a tatrach L orod i'b eaaod ioxaa (TDD) coocaoCrarLoa la VT . ‘í - i a a d oo th a r lg b t a b i d i u , T h a T D D e a a c a a t r i il a a i a r a b a a a d « a tha to ta l o í tha ' ,' -■ ■ ^ : th a caacan tyarip n ^ o f T D D la tha *v - •*'“-* • i-----------—a . ?¿¿'?~ J. T C 7 i1*- a-------p o r o— r 'im a ía r a q u el1 to tha------------------cotx^tctf arlo I > ? h { TDQ la d i i p ro d a c a d f r o m th a t" "STTth ta i» oaca jro u & u .có rta la ooeciaurlow* f ] c a a ba d raw n by a cero p a m e o n o í P if a r e * 1 —* and a k n o w led g e o í tha p a st V —-------- * * ' ‘"1'~ ^ ..••TDD 5 rodadla* ( rifux« 5). S o m a oÍ th a a * c o n d u a lo n * are* í.' „( :• y.=»!■■ D u r ia j A p r il, 1965, p ro d uc tio n o í T D D r o a * to u a l l - d m * high and haa r m u ch h ig h e r th an tha p r r r lo u * n o r m -c u r r * m « ~ d O p p m ., n o r m a l^ 4 0 ppm . •' “■ T h* fo r m a tio n o i T D D tak a* p la c e t l m o i t « u rtra ly d u rin g th* hold p e r io d . ,'r'rr - ~ A s th* «a d o i th a h o ld p a r lo d tha T C A c o o la n t a c c o u n t* to r 2 . 0 - 2 . 5% o i tha y ie ld . .A b o u t V, o i th la la r e m o v e d by a a a o tx o p lc d istllL a tlo a in tha m eth an ol e tlll and r a c y c l *d w ith th a m e th a nol . T ha T C 3 1b a a a a n tia lly g o a a a t about o n e h o u r into tha hold p erio d . ’ ’. Be ' I n t e n d in g tha h o ld p e r io d r a tu lt* in in c r a a a a d T D D to r m a d o n (B atch 701). -* ■. T h * c a n a * o i th * r e c a n t lu c r e * * » in TDD fo r m a tio n 1» not o b v io u s ito r o th* data, r E c u r f M , a ia c * T D D fo r m a tio n haa b»*n r a la d v e l y low U th* p**t w* J » * l that a d e ta lla d la b o r a t o r y atudy o i th* a u to c la v e r e a c tio n ha* a r e a so n a b ly good ch ance ■? t o r a u c c a a a . S u ch a atudy 1* now la tha p la n n ing (ta g * . .W n fTd.l) W. R . U d ell • 00156^ |pfce ■ » AiS-or?1 / Pm?ESS U P P U ^ ^ i 'V ^ ' m it m mjlvt rteio«*«xi M rra o * >YO y C ^ r V - w £ a a u tm ^ inn Kir» W. A. UdaU,.. 3. a . McGuire £.. A. Cutrlgsi W. A. H ilo?* !.. t . Dot son. * : ijr1. - ¿ '.S - i • H . A . Dodd-.^ÿ V. L. Abode« L/CLêT \ -.V-Pi-y-; >o -iJ. D: Gwrt*c«s- 7 . I. Be bow W» t . Lyscù O X. Do Un aie iS*? . A. Eelderaoo " ■V J .. ^ j ; mV- ~ * ' . -.'■ •'•' t - ~~ ‘ |-.,"T** r.^Mfy21.m* •■ mm •u w tn rt J. X . Savage J, A, dtapbao* I. C. Landvrahr ■ .JV D. Z. Cl yardD . Vf. JaoJtaoa 'r C . Z. Iweckai J. O. Brighi. •■ •A v - ' • *• » < R. X, Howard " - .1•. y•*^ j, ir.....-ri u-."i '..• *-••••>.-w p ;• ' a> ■ :••■ * v - ”.-.*; .'a .' **•••"•-• * . . C.. • .-*x • _ ^ ,' « 4 * - " *» .'•_ . . '■"••—-> -J.7.-T r J. C, s a » £7 . I. Helaer) ••■ '-¿y .’. _ < ~ ; v r > . •'•'•<.-»“£*• • \ ^sZS: , tin t a REDUCTIO? TDD TV NaTC? - lOTLPCTG .' •-\ J ¿educe formation ctf TDD In 2.4.5-T plant NaTC? autoclave«, and'-lneraaa* conversi oa of TC3 to NaTC?. W •/* * ‘ A brief plant trial run haa been completed In an attasp t to aupport tie resulta of an Agricultural Research NaTC? autoclave itudy. Tie Research study indicatati a reduction In formalina of TDD (a cblorac— txxyea) from <0 ppn (1963 ajcperiance) to S - 7 ppm. with a coccurraat reduction in TCA (reaction Int»m adiata) contani from 1% to trac#. The trial run showed a reduction In TDD content iroo 10. S ppm to 3 .OS ppo. The Lower than expected TDD content La believed due to Improved raw material charge control because of the new autoclave pressure charging system. TCA wes reduced iroa 0.S3X to 0.19X, according to analysis of three representative batches. A 30-cay plant trial run will begin on feiruary 2ù to complete the demonauaticr.. — / <7C, ^tf0l4G J. C. Strum ICS/ial / r t f c COMPANY CCNriCrNTlAL *irrvrr*'vs 11593 ÌiStp 1*«oH Ü. J » r r l* •J VJ - I - lUraft 77, 1343 « 1 * probi*« »laca mi « n i a l * i* tu « Jcirm ry 1**»* a f t t e Journal o í Vi» ta a rlo a n te d ia c i i a i o a l a t l s a «on—r^ln c a dianone * 00*1 • • te rp n y rla Cu m i Tarda. TMa a r t l a l a , oom rcry io a n n a f tte M d lo a l te ta n la * l a i t e p * » l, »ha«« « sa i ln a taa d o f ttd a te la « a tli-r- — V i«'» l a te e n ro n lta l* , l t any W aaq airad &7 t t e in r a r tla * a f o n rtaln cnlonateaanna piodoeta and (M a « r a d i l a « r ii« la ra ^ a rla d JUfl aaaaa o f tM a dia*«»« «filai acaarrod l a Tardar «bau th a p ap n lattn » «ara ii»«n aftaat to p la n t t t e t bad bona t r i n i »4 alti» a f e n d a la * , no tah ly H o m cn lo ro te n sa n a . Inalanti of p la a tia f t t e afta at, n aat f b a i l l o a «Va l t , and Un i aa ca rro d tM a o a lb m m V ta h l a a a tla n ta d t o terra tao andad 3,000 aaaaa, «ltaou«ft orOjr JL3 par «ima 11j t baaraa d aaaan v ara neon by th.oao «a t t e r a . T ata aaaaa la a iti m a »a o f I te bload fo n d e a a lta n u ta o f t t e tedi* In 0*1 sii i t e M a n flsb tn a f t t e rad bload o t i l a la tem an do«« and m a rn i 1*12 y e ia «plaan, l l v a r and blrinaya a ra a f f m ta d ta a t r i l l a r o r la a a a r a x ta trt, -‘opandlhr apon t t e in r a r l l c a a f mah a c h ia ri« m ta d banan i* . I ta <*»t«*rd a a n lf n o ta tiana ara t t e a a «hi«« a ra p ro ro lm t In tte p la r t la I r a n n he o r p a n a t i a f th a « o d im i l i t a r a : t r a d an llay « I te th a te ta * ani «tiat ha» ba*r knami cre ai tem i In <-te p n at. ■ Vanammnt of tea plani tea in te# piai Ur*h Tt, 19é j -J l a « a c a n d iti oa t l » i « s ia la »1 tb a piami « 4 a W illia m »«« 1» • pwaorvU. Ina prò l i s a a f om* p l* n tt «ad taaay 1 b a ro bavn n a t lf la d V a* aweù «n lA «p*«tlaa v i l i ba « a rrla d oat b f »1« nasci v ra k , «ob lv at a f «oara«, u y w r approvai« Z «aiild b v a r tl l? minarne o l i a Or. R a ib a r f and o f f r e th a opinion I r a i Diamond l i k a l i Cenpoity oaa otti? i r o f l t by h i» v i a l i and woold aa i n aonand « a l Ha ba « H a« *4 l a m * 1 U I b a lla v a tn a t ba probably « i l i « liti t a an-Wrt*ko «oro oatonalvo b a a p iU l tam ii*« o r In dlT idaala tb an I pa r aoaal V baU a»a i» naeaaaarjr, and wf rta o n a a r t « tlo a in tb ia ra< ard , a l Wa p raa an t, woald ba lo h o a p lta llm on ly V a iv a aarwl aaaaa and b ara a tbarourb n filmi »xasirw vloa, « a fo a ia lljr ra ta rd m « tba b load la m ia « aiam a ta « Via »tdbvy* and tha l l t a r a of tb a sa In d lT id aa la . X d i n a i fami t b r t T «oeld raaom and tb a i a a ro tb a n liti» b a dona s t th a proman i lin a . Z bava baan i a f om ad * w t tb a etapany*« fa ta r« p lan a lra la d a a r o h a b llita tio n o f ib a a ld a r b a ild 'n * « i t i r a l a i a r a f tb a r o a f , ra> v la lo n o f tb a tara-» and aod«ntl*M l>n a f a a v ip m n t alane « i t i adw oola w n t l l i t l o n , a r t Z c a rn a i aapbaalav tua a iro n e !? to jwj tb a i a t t l l tJtla pro«TW* l a oa r r la d « a l , tba problan et tba d a r a a i i t l a o n d /o r parphyria in tN r l a n t « i l i ro rn m » * , T«. a f c o a r ta , a a a o t oonvaraant a i tb a r « i«n «ba 1 in a ia v a avai Labi# noe tba f a a a la lllt y o f e a rry ib f forvi tb i» pr»/T «ri Ho m « p , 1 A b allav o tb a i Ibi« La tb a a o ly r a a l ao lA lo n Va tbv p ro b lan « rtab « « ia to in th » I n Jvrocy J l a n t , -v^A In n a a r r th»n, Blanend l i b a l i baa a p la a t l a lane** H irln t 7? « o tv v rs , navi of « tu a bava baan a ll tv ' cd « llb a m in dl»v«va and a iltfl n*r prova to ba vrva ro rv daofrrrw a to h o o lib th ao U lta in i t a • i r » a n t ■oboi’»«an i baa baan awara o f tb lo proala* f a r « o rn ila « and tba n td ia a l V rv tn a n t ba« o a r ta ia ly baan a i - i # i « la u d ari« « a1 r a a i l t y . 5 « tU • ra ra v a tlo n et tba e U p o e tic a o f th ia p ia o t 1« o a rrla d o a t , Z «n a r r i« in tb la p rc b !_ « t u ooetlaa* to v a ia i. K- Richard V. H ebam ty, H .3. . .. ./.iSbiSi«] ‘>. ¿< r. -'flfl •s.. ;■• 1 . t . ^U>:" irvfl-tfta .-SHPCv PVIebiama osa He. C. Me*»ed »v a i a « r . Irjvaond 1. 1 . O cldi w- »-■ ;'ÌvV;.--■'c-’aP». i ii«f;«f'VEibPia*! qQ 1 '• •-XiVu. ¡t5.,i,^K$%3 W L';ì-■‘V-"'-' W t&.fg&y “ ’■ ' ^¿SarJÌt O S 3 U U 1952^ ~ "1-■ •■•u*: <• ■■, -iOr,* ^ 1 Ì ■■'*■' *- ___________ r'^’7** 11;‘Vr>vj .j - r /o-j y'-r^ r'SO r'~. St*. £, I» Qvarrflar a . i, Gtdjdl - Timarle Plant r Tbo q u o rtic a eg'V^ I c r o -a m o .ban Dot b a e a r a a o lra d l a th e c o r x ld e ra tlo a o f tv o ¿ l ü h b l e e o r ta * e - a . B U I Chajylon o f tlv e r d a la C bccdcal cay s ♦•hat ha p r ta b e t t e r g ta reo latio ca TT-rinc e th e r a a p p llc re 1 b a r j i d d o a , and ba l u c i r t e t h a t ba a chlar© -*cae p r o b le i vT-ii bo a*ee Pl«a- 4 f -b r •_ fii; y l a you r e c a l l , th e *Jjakar C ity T ree p a ra a e n a l ptnro re ly aggectad by t h l a d a r* L tc lo g le a l p ra b lo « , < d c t i a l t e l y lo o t tb a * a a a curV caer, , „ voaid lib a a reply grm yoe, d ría « year pereceol ccarlctlooe * 1 to tbo pon-rlble n v c c a ia oot eg thla frailee In tba gatara. Jim Tint x. l. auxBua tic131 co i H. 3* Vela* ■ J Si 1398 M ) , I D ia m o n d A lk a li C o m p a n y imps ,*fnci COtsifrONPlNCl IC74-04 ii.'V IS »terch iv64 1 e r Cream er, J r , COUMblA iU FJ ICI •CLOMaC.'dT* probi** to tbe u a e rs o f 3 ,4 -9 and 3 , 4 , Î-T producta in Colombia* Daring ay recent v i s i t to Colomola, **uimor ltdaiDACO a ita ta ) put w* aPraaat of the reported serio u s problema re su ltin g to workara «ha bava osad Diamond A lkali producta «hieb c a n ta la 3,4-D and 3,4,3-X acida* At tba tima o f ay v i s i t «hieb «aa during the la s t o f N b . , thara bad alraady baan eorraapandanea bataaan Diamond and Qulmor diacuaalng problems «hieb aroaa la tba •ucaraaanga area* At th a t tia a tha la a t b it of corraapoodaaca had came fro n Diamond oa tha 37th of November 1*43« Ainea th a t data Qilmor reportad th a t thara had btaa «van aora pa op la and animala affaetad «ho had baaa in contact «1th tha product* and in othar araaa a lto . SICA «AMANSA— - A p p ro aiaataly 3 ° pa op la bava baan a ffe c te d —Most bava baaa b o a p ita lix a d f o r «ontha with very l i t t l e aigha o f c u rin g th em selv es. la some cimi tha victima bava bado«« iDcreiainfily v o rs« . Aoraaa uaad ia a p p lic a tio n o f th e prodocta « a ra a l i o badly a f f a c ta d ,lo a a o f h a ir , a k ia l a i s o a s , and in ooa caaa d e a th . C a ttle bave a la o baaa a ff a e ta d «no g ra te d th e tr e a te d araaa* •re a ■?: le v e r a i c laim a have come l a from tha oucaram agga/requaating c o n sid e ra tio n fo r tha hoopit a l , id oct o r b i l l a , p lu aau b a iatd n ca f o r the lo a s o f work tima by th a workara* CAI !■ - l a t e In 19t3 a couple of viettma were reported in tbe C ali a r ta , however vary l i t t l a conotion was nade about the fact* MOULIN—- R ecently caaa a a rc re p o rte d ia th e " e d e m a a re a o f Cloeoocoe w ith h o a p ita lia a tio o . At t h i s p o in t th a government ia a ta ping l a b7 bav«iog tba p u b lic H ealth S o c ie ty ln v a s tig a ta tha m atter* “ as re p o rte d th a t tha S o c ie ty w ill e v e n tu a lly tak e sim ples o f the pro d u ct w ith a n a ly a ia fo llo w in g . QOimor's b u sin e ss has baaa jtp o ^ is e d by tb a adverse p u b lic ity . P arsers ia Colombia a re frla g h te a e d o f tha peoduct and are ta m in g to th e com petitors* Qulmor f a a la th a t the product wna ia dha f a u l t a f t a r la v a a tig a tln g a l l f a c ta o f Oaa* They f e e l th a t the pro d u ct s ig h t have com from a bad b a tc h o r two* Qulmor e t l l l has sto c k o f tha a a** sh ip n eo t and do not want to s a i l u * anywore o f the m aterial* try Diamond* Tha a u p je e t m a te ria l was shipped to Qilmor i-tda in Colombia»/ upon re c e iv in g the m a te ria l Qulwor p a in te d the Diamond drums and p lace d th e ir ovn "CLEC* la b e l. QSOflOI 1893 11599 3/25/0? ' S, JCKX C O ST, J R . CrLDEOACiE - DCW X S S n s Q cat 3.—.JCermstr. - ?igr,, ncvaric plant y Eirg K. T. Vilinasrson T. / L. CHAJ-iDLSil t JTO . •-—r-5^ .’ -■ .*.- .! ,'i-. Cq. Kirch 2k, Kika .Lsniisdy and I s e t w ith two p eo p ia fr e u Hocker C r.aaical Co. ¿T -'■ < two frees H ercu les, end v lt h th e Dow group to disuruss tha t e a i.eo lo g ic a l ir p n r itia * a s s o c ia te d w ith 2 ,k ,5 tr lc h la r o p h e o o l and relatexd a a t a r iz la . -.2 • ••-zL'jfä& t Eh*. ? o » i o f Dow CruncLcal cp«nsd th a o e e tin s by s t a t in s th a t they had operated-' f o r 2 5 y»*c3 ehlaroÄenai n ear tpproaca ftu r/ , s * t « r ± a l , I s a m how t o i d e n t i f y i t , and t r y t o a v o id c o n t i n u a l t r o u b l e w i t h t h e . L /fy i u n k n o -w a . T h e y t e c t e d . v a r i o u s a g r t s r l a l a f r o « t a r T r a c t i o c e a n d f r o « , ax t h e y p e t - r"i-e i t , , c e n / ' , etc. T h e y found t h a t t h e r e a r > a n u m b e r o f s u s p e c t ; = . t « r i a L s , o r 2 7 ; b e t t h a ti&J c t ''b a d —r t c r t h a t t h e y i d e n t i f i e d and w h ic h a e s a e d t o c a u se t h e p r d b le a v u s , , ^ , B - T a ^ r a c h l r r o c j j > a n z o p —D icocis: ( s y 3 26 3 2 3 7 .. 1 ^ p ~ V w \\ .CSy f t C H i_ C $ 0 D I 3 =■ ^ "*"■. •."*“*■**• D 0 /*•1 ^ 1 •;-u: ¿~r /Z.j C.fit -). T h i s i n c i d e n t a l l y w ao p r e v i o u s l y l i s t e d a s a B u c p o c t m a t e r i a l b y C y P a r k i n s ccrap any. a s i w i l a r m a t e r i a l La t h e r n s y s e a s i r i c . a L 1 , 3 , 7 ,5 -T C D 3 D t sesaartises l i s t e d a s 2 , 3 , 7 ,5 -T C D B D . LEO T h e Dow p e o p l e u s e d t h e w h i t e g l c m j a p p r o a c h a n d f o u n d t h i s c c a t a a i n a n t m t o o l b u s o d l» « , b e n c h e s , L n s t m s a f c a t s , c a d o t h e r f o m l t c s . I r r t e s t a r iir v tle . _ t h * y -_ c o v ,,M a o o s i s x e c r t l y —c a u s a —t h e - x y e p t e m s t o a p p e a r . D r. H o li e r c f _ S o w , cn a c f t h e i r 1 g lid e s o f the v a r io u s , p a t le n t a , 11 *cuLt 7 s ta r ts t«tC w i t h z a l t i n l e b t r 'rrruxd ^ y r o s u l t i n z , l n _ c l e a s c j r y c c s t m e t u r e s w h ic h n a k e t h e p a t i e n t l p c i : ^ l i cB?^be . n e e d s . i o _ - ' » . ~ a s h - h i s ^ l C .- Trie d i s e a s e d o r e Ic p e T o w ly , n o t a p p e a r in g u n ^ i l —a i r - w e e l a ^ t o , .i^ - :wjcrt h x - u f t u r . _ c i l d e c r x s u r e h u t a p p e a r i n g i n f i r « t o s e v e n d a y s 3 3 8 '-•1 heerr o p e x u r t w One bench ch em ist has bewu under tr e e tu e c t fo r tvo years and h is fa c e is s t a r tin g , to anew .sir c a .o f ^ c la s r lr g . Dr. K cldar says that he b e lie v e s th is ra n 1pmblzxas w i l l be s o lv e d in another s i r sxxrtha. Dr. Sader, who does th e ir r i.c n :sc o p ic work in c o n n e c tio n w ith t h e ir «n-t-aaT Labo r a to r y , shoved photo aicrc^rsp-hs o f t h e cy s t s as t h e y fo r m e d in . t h e e x im o f r a b b i t s . The c y s ts th o s a fo u n d on t h e f a c e s o f t h a a .rm..... . _ ... ^ ^--0 » w__ . . .w w . *— LdutiU m^.u;a r ■ cf 3 S 00021639 L...■ 'A ■ Irf3 -- *~i A, ßo • C^: 11800 c: CD B a s ic a lly , thara i s a. circrtLccid. d s p exalt i n uh* ha.tr f o l l i c l e s *axi o i l n th « f* c a . Tb«s« 'everruually so fro = th e blackhead ctaao to fcr-& *. closed ., bo-rr csxrtt d e p o s it. The chcro-cal esnnert b« found in th e i s o l a i tis-su ss or in the c c r w but th e p rx ò lsa g t i .l l p e r s is t* a fte r cq jcsu ra . The b ea t c ^ a crip tica c f th e acuta < sh a g « l a t h a t t h e f a c i a l t i s s u e s rea c u b ie th « e x a g g e r a te d s u r fa c e r a t h s r g l u e d cad x a r b ly w ith th e e n c lo s e d h ard c o r e d e p o s i t s . tex tu re cf an. ce A , . g g o c o d x r X ; c y g p t c a , w h i c h d o e a n e t c o r r e l a t e H r e c t l y w i t h t h e t a o ix r i o f f a c i a l d a r x s t i t l s , I s a f a t ig u e r e a c t i c s v h a ro . th e e c p lc y a e I s c c e p lf f t s ly lis t i* » - ' t i r _ « d . _ œ r t ^ * û d p a a r l y _ In m a p -sc b a t e d . JL c e s e p L c t e b i o p s y o f l i v e r , f c i d a e y , e t c . , so d e ç œ r c ific n ^ o f a j a r e r g ; j . A c c c p l s t a e l i d e d e x a s d n a tic a o f th « p it ie e r t s s h c v w d d o a w a m r r s b l e a f f e c t or. h e a r t , b l o o d p r e s s u r e , r o e p i r s t i o n . r i t e , b i c o d ' s c ; e tc . The f a t i g u e d p a tlc c t-fl t o b e h e lp e d b y h e a v y d e e o f v it n s, p sm a r e l a t e d i n s e c a w a y t o t h * c a r o t e n e .- s s t x b o l l s K o f t h e b o d y ( i n v o l v i n g v i t a s l n A , 1 fn ) y 03 An o r a l d o s e o f 1 7 a l e r ò g r u s e i u o s d iu .': * i y j e l l i e d t h e t e s t a n i s e a l s . p e o p l e d i d n o t I ovrst t h i s d o s a g e t o o b t a i n a n uO^q b u t d e c i d e d t h a t , v h « n d e tec t th is c c r ip c s n d , i t s h o u ld not b e in "the p r o d u c t . T h e Dc tn«r ca T h ey « ifo \iD d ''tb a rt-,-= -* ften v Sctt'eaeil y hard s c r i^bihg 1, ITI-trdlll'CT-óéthà&a.' ücw h a s d e v e l o p e d a n>cvr_ a n a l y t i c a l n srth o d i n ‘v h i c h t h e y h«T ave c o n fid a n e « t h d r s e n s itiv ity , to ppsa. T h e y c a n o n l y a t a c e i n ia v e G ls ^ b e lo w t h i s b e ' p r e s e n t b e lo w t h e ppz. T h ey s t a t e d t h a t t h e y h a v e n e t u se d c i c r o - c o a e t h o d r , a n d t h e a l S S t r b a c a p t u r e t e s t s t h a t t h e y r a n c a d e o n l y a v a r y sT < -o v -y s e s r t i n s e n s i t i v i t y w i t h t h i s c o m p o u n d . T h a i r a n a l y t i c a l ch th « e l e c t r o n c a l l sa tu r tr tfts b e c a u s e c f t h e p r e e e c c e o f e t h e r m a t e r ia ls high o c c o e c r tr a tlo n o o c o a r e c t o t h e d io x in . 1 1 8 0=3 T h is » s t e r i * ! h a s o tr a e g e p r o p e r tie s . I t h a s a f a i r l y h i g h vn*pcr p r e s s u r e b u t n a r v s r th e l& s s I s q u i t e p a r a is t e r r t a s a c o n t a m in a n t . I t can be *epar. i r o n b e n n sQ O b y b o i l i n g i f i t i s n e t c a r r i e d ¿ow n t c d r y n e s s . Th?» D e v p r» . ■ K-• >*r •’ 'm m m - ...■ -< >■ DOW C H E M IC A L U.S.A. S e p t e m b e r 15 , 19 7 7 MIDLAND. MICHIGAN 48G40 ALL DOW U . S . A . SUPERVISORS RECORDS RETENTION Recent e v e n ts have dram atized the need for reem phasis o f g u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e c r e a t i o n and r e t e n t i o n o f r e c o r d s . B r i e f l y s t a t e d , t h o s e r e c o r d s which a re u s e f u l to our b u s i n e s s , f a c t u a l l y r e p o r t e d , and w hich a c c u r a t e l y p o r t r a y a s i t u a t i o n s h o u ld be c r e a t e d . C o n v e r s e l y th en , r e c o r d s w h i c h c o n t a i n more f e e l i n g s o r o p i n i o n s t h a n f a c t , w h i c h contain p h rases, paragraphs or s u b j e c t s of dubious value o r a r e r e a d i l y c a p a b l e o f m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s h o u l d be a v o i d e d . T o d a y ' s memo may b e t o m o r r o w ' s h e a d l i n e o n l y b e c a u s e we h a v e n o t a n t i c i p a t e d t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s when we g e n e r a t e d t h e p a p e r w o r k . Too f r e q u e n t l y , w o r d s a r e t a k e n o u t o f c o n t e x t by p e o p l e who w a n t t o e m b a r r a s s u s , e s p e c i a l l y i n a t i m e fr a m e o f 10 y e a r s o r m ore a f t e r t h e w r i t i n g . R e a s o n a b l e n e s s and d i s c r e t i o n s h o u l d a c c o m p a n y o u r w o r d s . The m a i n t e n a n c e o f r e c o r d s i s a l s o a c o s t l y p r o p o s i t i o n and t o d a y , more t h a n e v e r , , we c a n n o t a f f o r d t h e l u x u r y o f r e t a i n i n g u s e l e s s o r o b s o l e t e d a t a i n o u r f i l e s . We f a c e trem endous c o s t s in f i l i n g and h a n d l i n g p a p e r s . Not l o n g a g o , o n e d o c u m e n t r e t r i e v a l e x e r c i s e , r e q u i r e d by a court order to d i s c l o s e documents to a p l a i n t i f f , turned up more t h a n 5 0 , 0 0 0 d o c u m e n t s i n v a r i o u s c om pan y and p e r s o n a l f i l e s . The c o s t o f c o m p l y i n g w i t h t h a t o r d e r u'as i n e x c e s s o f $ 10 p e r d o c u m e n t . We h a v e a r e c o r d s r e t e n t i o n p r o g r a m , w i t h a p o l i c y m anu al c o n t a i n i n g s c h e d u l e s f o r r e t e n t i o n and d e s t r u c t i o n . We n e e d t o a p p l y them more s t r i c t l y t o o u r a c t i v i t i e s . * Dow b u s i n e s s m a t t e r s b e l o n g i n D o w ' s o f f i c i a l f i l e s - not in p e r so n a l f i l e s . Your e f f e c t i v e l e a d e r s h i p i n t h i s a r e a i s n e e d e d . CAIU I0W IT AWAY ! ! ! Dow Chemical U.S.A. A N O P E R A T I N G U N IT O F T M E O O W C H EM IC A L C O M P A N Y CTATSS ea stern at 1JT d is t r ic t of C’ ren t c o v in c t o n U’ l y ujv>ii t h i s s e c t i o n , o n l y a c l a i m a r i s i n g t i-inu a i". ;i 1 ' i n i i a . ' r a t e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n may be a s : :ort i *d a . i a i n s t h i m . Ky. Rev. S t a t . § 454. 210 (2 ) (a 11632 •„•¡•...•n j u r i s d i c t i o n is a s se rte d under th is c o n d i t i o n s m u s t be s a t i s f i e d w ill attach. F irst, before jurisdiction, in two fact, t h e C o u r t m u s t f i n d t h a t d e f e n d a n t com­ m itted a phy sical a c t which f a l l s s i t u a t i o n s o f the statute. in ad d itio n , statute, If w i t h i n one o f th e i t does, fact th e C o u rt must f i n d , t h a t an e x e r c i s e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n b a s e d upon t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a c t w o u l d c o m p o r t w i t h F o u r t e e n t h Amendment d u e process. In s u p p o r t o f i t s m otion to d is m is s f o r la c k o f p e rs o n a l jurisdiction, the A. T r e a s u r e r o f t h e Aluminum A s s o c i a t i o n , R einfried, porated. AA h a s s u b m i t t e d t h e a f f i d a v i t o f R o b e r t Incor­ This a f f i d a v i t p ro v id es in p a r t: [ t ] h a t th e A s s o c ia tio n does not t r a n s a c t b u s in e s s o r c o n t r a c t to supply s e r v i c e s o r goods in the C o m m o n w ea l th o f K e n t u c k y . The A s s o c i a t i o n d o e s n o t r e g u l a r l y do o r s o l i c i t b u s i n e s s i n K e n t u c k y a n d d o e s n o t engage i n any p e r s i s t e n t c o u r s e o f con­ d u c t o r d e r i v e s u b s t a n t i a l r e v e n u e from goods used o r consumed o r s e r v i c e s r e n d e r e d i n K entucky. The A s s o c i a t i o n h a s no o f f i c e , a g e n t s o r e m p l o y e e s i n Kentucky. Again, t h i s a f f i d a v i t i s n o t c o n t r o v e r t e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f s . P lain tiffs asserting have f a i l e d to p r o v i d e any f a c t u a l basis for iji pcrsonam j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h i s d e f e n d a n t . Based on t h e R einfried a f f id a v it, w i t h th e S t a t e o f Kentucky. t h e AA h a s no c o n t a c t s The e x e r c i s e o f p e r s o n a l d i c t i o n o v e r t h e AA d o e s n o t s a t i s f y the statutory ju ris­ requirem ents u n d e r th e K entucky long-arm s t a t u t e o r t h e due p r o c e s s r e ­ quirem ent under the A ccordingly, F o u r t e e n t h Amendment. t h e Aluminum A s s o c i a t i o n ' s m o t i o n t o dism iss fo r lack of personal t h i s Court lacks ¿n A ssociation i t for is p c jurisdiction is GRAN'TBD. Since rsor.am j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e Aluminum u n n e c e s s a r y t o examine th e o t h e r grounds summary j u d g m e n t a s s e r t e d b y t h e Aluminum A s s o c i a t i o n . I. ITT Suru rur.nnt The m o t i o n o f D ivision ITT S u r p r e n a n t to tho m o tio n o{ Koltox not m m it.iotm v l ho p r o d u c t Aeoordinii i m o r o f PW to Polymer. (ITT) is ITT c l a i m s that which p l a i n t i f f s claim t ho c o m p l a i n t , im uil.it ion. D ivision ITT i s sued ITT h a s a t t a c h e d as sim ilar it it does m anufactures. a manufac- the a f f i d a v i t o f W. W i l l i a m B e n n e t t , Jr. which i n d i c a t e s that n e i t h e r a l u m i n u m w i r e n o r ?VC i n s u l a t i o n . c o p p e r w ir e and c a b l e and e n t r u c e s copper w ire. ITT r . a n u f a c t u r e s ITT d o e s m a n u f a c t u r e ?VC i n s u l a t i o n o n t o I T T ' s p r o d u c t was n o t l o c a t e d its in th e Supper Club. P l a i n t i f f s h a v e a d v a n c e d no t h e o r y b y w h i c h a p u r c h a s e r o f PVC i n s u l a t i o n c a n be b r o u g h t i n t o are th is action, a n d we r e l u c t a n t to advance a th eo ry o f c o n c e r t o f a c tio n beyond th e l i m i t s a l r e a d y e s t a b l i s h e d . Thus, have a claim f o r r e l i e f ag ain st th is defen­ p lain tiffs' a g a i n s t ITT a r e failed dant. to s t a t e Accordingly, claim s p lain tiffs h e r e b y DISMISSED. V. Conclusion The f o r e g o i n g s h o u l d n o t be d e e me d a s a n e x p r e s s i o n b y the Court o f l i a b i l i t y of any o f th e d e f e n d a n ts h e re in . P lain tiffs' ability to p r e v a i l on t h e m e r i t s o r to motions f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t s a t the c o n c lu s io n o f c ase must a w a it the t r i a l o f t h i s m a t t e r on i t s The C o u r t h o l d s o n l y t h a t i n a c c o r d a n c e survive their m erits. w ith the a p p r o p r i a t e stan d ard s in t h i s c i r c u i t d e fe n d a n ts, e x c e p t as hereinabove noted, are not e n ti t l e d t o summary j u d g m e n t . T h is m a t t e r w i l l p ro c e e d to t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s i n a c ­ cordance with p re v io u s Orders o f t h i s Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. C a r l B. R u b i n , C h i e f J u d g e C n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Court. r~ 11634 U NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X In re : MDL No. 381 (JBW) "AGENT ORANGE" (All Cases) Product Liability Litigation X I M E M O R A N D U M OF L AW OF DEFENDANT THE DOW C H E MICAL COMPANY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS IN LIGHT OF PLAINTIFFS' INABILITY TO ESTABLISH THAT A N Y P A R T I C U L A R PLAINTIFF WAS EXPOSED TO ANY A G E N T ORANGE M A N U F ACTURED BY DOW 1 Ü a R i v k i n , L e f f , S h e r m a n <& R a d l e r At t o r n e y s a n d C o u n s e l l o r s a t La w I O O G a r d e n C ity P l a z a . G a r d e n C ity, N Y. 1 1 5 3 0 n rt JL ù 3 b T ABLE OF C O NTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF A R G U M E N T ................................................ 4 POINT I PLAINTIFFS HAVE A C K N O W L E D G E D THAT THEY ARE UNABLE TO SATISFY T H E I R B U R D E N OF IDENTIFYING THE M A N U F A C T U R E R OF THE PARTICULAR BATCH OF A G E N T ORANGE TO WHICH EACH PLAINT I F F WAS E X P O S E D ......................... 14 POINT II NONE OF THE THEORIES OF A L T E RNATE LIABILITY A D D R E S S E D BY THE COURT OR THE PARTIES ARE APPLI C A B L E IN THIS C A S E ................................................... 17 A. Alternative Liabi l i t y .................................. 18 1. C a u s a t i o n ........................................... 20 2. All Potential T o r t f e a s o r s A r e Not Before the C o u r t ....................................... 30 3. Defendants A re Not R e s p o n s i b l e For Plaintiffs' Inability To Meet Their B u r d e n Of Defendant Identificatio n Nor Are They In A Superior Posit i o n To Offer E vidence of Defendant Identificatio n .................................... 39 B. Market Share L i a b i l i t y ..................................... 41 C. Concert of A c t i o n ....................................... 55 1. Dow Did Not Act In Concert Wi t h Other Herbicide Orange M a n u f a c t u r e r s To W i t h h o l d In formation On C h l o r a c n e And Dioxin From The G o v e r n m e n t ......................61 lie 37 Page D. a. Dow Was A w a r e Of O c c u p a t i o n a l H e a l t h Hazards A s s o c i a t e d W i t h Extremely High Levels Of D i o x i n In The W aste Stream Of The T r i c h l o r o p h e n o l M a n u ­ facturing Process, But Not Of H e alth Hazards To Users Of Its 2,4,5-T P r o d u c t s ..........................................62 b. The Groth C o r r e s p o n d e n c e ...................... 68 c. The T r i c h l o r o p h e n o l M a n u f a c t u r e rs M e e e t i n g ..........................................72 d. The Industry Task F o r c e ...................... 82 2. Dow Commu n i c a t e d Its K n o wledge Of Chloracne And Dioxin To The Fede r a l Government, The State Of Michigan, The Che m i c a l Industry, And Interested Heal t h P r o f e s s i o n a ls Around The W o r l d ............................................85 3. The Infor m a t i o n Re g a r d i n g Chloracne And Dioxin Wh i c h Do w A l l e g e d l y C o n spired To W i t hhold F r o m The G o v e r n m e n t Was Known To The Go v e r n m e n t And W as In Fact Publicly A v a i l a b l e In The Scientific L i t e r a t u r e ............................................ 97 Enterprise L i a b i l i t y ...................................... 127 C O N C L U S I O N ............................................................ 132 -ii- We submit this m e m o r a n d u m of law on behalf of defendant The Dow Chemical Compan y ("Dow") in support of Dow's motion to dismiss under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of C ivil Procedure all claims asserted against Dow in the In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability L i t i g a t i o n , M DL No. 381 (hereinafter "A gent Orange L i t i g a t i o n " ), on the ground that plaintiffs are unable to iden­ tify any Agent Orange* m a n u f actured by D ow as the cause of their alleged injuries.** INTRODUCTION One of the most basic tenets of products liability law is that "the imposition of liability depends upon the plaintiff proving that the defendant manufacturer made the product that caused the plaintiff's injury." R. C o . , 533 F. Supp. 183, 187 In P r e trial Order No. Starling v. S e aboard Coast Line (S.D. Ga. 1982). 66, this Court recognized the d i f ­ ficulties that each individual plaintiff would encounter in attempting to prove that a particular defendant m a d e the p a r ­ ticular batch of Agent Orange to which that plaintiff was exposed. Thus, the Court requested argument on how plaintiffs propose to show that a particular defendant is responsible for any injury to any particular plaintiff. * As used herein, the term "Agent Orange" refers to all h er­ bicides in issue in these proceedings. ** The Court has the right under Rule 12(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., to consider Dow's m o t i o n to dismiss as a m o t i o n for summary j udgment under Rule 56. 11 £ Qq In that same Order, the C o u r t also expressed its doubt regarding the applicability of any alternate theories of liability in the absence of defendant identification: The case authority I have seen [applying the alternate l i a b ility theories] seems distingu i s h ab l e from the instant case. (Citations omitted.) In response to P r etrial Order No. 66, Do w submitted a m e m o r a n d u m asserting that, in light of the unique circu m s t a n c es surrounding the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, no individual plaintiff would be able to satisfy his burden of defendant iden­ tification and that, upon plaintiffs' failure to d e m onstrate an ability to satisfy this burden, plaintiffs' dismissed.* claims must be We further urged this C ourt to refrain from relieving plaintiffs of their burden of defendant identification by applying any of the alternate theories of liability to this case. In their response to P r etrial Order No. 66, p laintiffs conceded that they would be unable to meet their w e l l -settled b u r d e n of proof of defendant identification: "[T]o require each plaintiff to identify the specific d e f endant or defendants whose * See M e m o r a n d u m of Law of The Dow Che m i c a l Company in O pp o s i t i o n to the U t ilization of A l t e rnate T heories of L i a b ility in this Liti g a t i o n and in Support of the Di s m i s s a l of Plaintiffs' Claims, dated November 30, 1983 (hereinafter "Dow's Alt. L i a b i l i t y M e m o at______.’*) . -2 11340 Agent Orange caused his injuries, would present impossible b ur­ dens of p r o o f ."* Plaintiffs, in light of their admitted lack of proof, have advanced a number of theories of liability which would relieve them of their burden of d e f e n d a n t identification. Plaintiffs' Alt. Liability M e m o at pp. 96-112; V e r i f i e d Complaint," 79-C-747 See "Sixth Ame n d e d filed in Ry a n v. D o w , Civ. A c t i o n No. (E.D.N.Y.), a copy which is annexed as E x h i b i t "1". At a pretrial co n f e r e n c e on December 5, 1983, theories were discussed. plaintiffs' counsel, these After hearing oral argument from the C o u r t inquired whether Dow was moving to dismiss this case in light of plaintiffs' burden of defendant identification. Counsel for D ow a c k n o wledged that it was indeed seeking such relief, submission of a formal motion. inability to m e e t their and the Court requested Tr. at 40-42. Pursuant to the C o u r t ' s direction, this m e m o r a n d u m and the accompanying exhibits are submitted in support of Dow's m o t i o n to dismiss all claims against it in these p r o c e e d i n g s on the grounds that plaintiffs are unable to meet their burden of d e f e ndant identification and that there is no legal or factual basis for the alternate theories of liability asserted by plaintiffs. * See Plaintiffs' M e m o r a n d u m on the A p p l i c a b i l i t y of the Legal T h e orie s of Failure to Warn, C o n c e r t e d Action, E n t e r p r i s e L i a b i ­ lity and Alternative Liability, dated December 1, 1983 at p. 82 (hereinafter "Plaintiffs' Alt. L i a bility Me m o at____ ."). -3- < A -i JL JL Ü 41 SUMM A R Y OF A RGUMENT Under well-s e t t l e d principles of product liability law, an essential element of a plaintiff's claim is that the m a n u ­ facturer's product was the proximate cause of the harm c omplained of. Absent proof establishing this causal relationship, plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed. Plaintiffs in the Agent Orange L i t i g a t i o n have conceded their inability to satisfy this element of their case. sibility for plaintiffs' lack of proof and, indeed, Respon­ their i nabi­ lity to sue the only clearly identifiable potential tortfeasor the case, the U n ited States, these circumstances, lies with the United States.* in Under relieving plaintiffs of their burden of defendant identification is unjustified. In a few rare instances, courts have fashioned remedies w h i c h relieve plaintiffs of their burden of identifying the particular defendant which was responsible for producing the p r oduct that actually caused plaintiff's harm. E s s e n t i a l l y four theories of so-called alternate liability have been articulated: (1) alternative liability, cert of action and (2) market share liability, (4) enterprise liability. (3) c o n ­ It is unclear whether plaintiffs intend to rely upon the mark e t share theory. * The Government has informed the parties that it cannot identify the manufacturer of particular batches of Agent Orange to which plaintiffs may have been exposed. Letter of A r v i n Moskin, Esq. to All Counsel, dated J a n u a r y 9, 1984. As explained at p. 17, i n f r a , the Gover n m e n t ' s current inability to do so is a direct c onsequence of its method of conducting the d e f o l i a t i o n program. See p. 16, i n f r a . Nonetheless, we include it in our discussion for the sake of comple t e n e s s and in light of the Court's reference to it, albeit in terms of dubious applicability, Pretrial Order No. in 66. Dow's o p p o s i t i o n to the imposition of any of these theories is twofold. First, there are significant policy co n ­ siderations which counsel against relieving plaintiffs of their burden of defendant ident ification as a matter of law. Indeed, the creation of these remedies and their application in product liability cases is discou r a g e d and viewed as a "radical d e p a r ­ ture" from long-standing and w e l l - e s t a b l is h e d product liability principles. (D.S.C. M i z e l l v. Eli Lilly .& C o . , 526 F. Supp. 589, 596 1981). Second, aside from these p o licy considerations, the facts of this case, as developed after almost two years of dis­ covery, simply do not provide the factual predicate for the impo­ sition of any of the alternate theories of liability. Alternative Liability A lternative liability, which imposes joint and several liability on all defendants, has been uniformly rejected in every product liability case in which it has been raised. Alternative liability is only applicable when the cause of the harm c om­ plained of is undisputed, when all of the possible tortfeasors are before the court and when the defen d a n t s are in a superior p o s itio n to offer evidence of d e f e n d a n t identification or are -51 responsible for plaintiff's i n a b ility to identify the specific tortfeasor. The Agent Orange L i t i g a t i o n does not satisfy any of these factors. The cause of the ha r m complained of by plaintiffs is clearly disputed. Indeed, plaintiffs' claim that the trace amounts of 2,3,7,8 tetr a c h l o r o d i b e n z o - p - d i o x i n "dioxin") ("TCDD" or in the herbicide A g e n t O r a n g e caused the incredibly diverse range of maladies they allege is contrary to the o v e r ­ whelming weight of medical and scien t i f i c evidence. ally, Addition­ in light of the staggering number of potential alternate causes for plaintiffs' alleged injuries, of the possible tortfeasors — it is evident that all most notably the U n ited States — are not before the Court.* Furthermore, it was the m i l i t a r y ' s m ethod of procuring and using A g e n t O r ange which renders p l a i n ­ tiffs unable to satisfy their burd e n of defendant identification. Other than supplying the h e r bicide under g overnment contract, Dow p layed no part in this m i l i t a r y o p e r a t i o n and is in no better posit i o n than plaintiffs to identify the specific man u f a c t u r e r of a batch of Agent Orange to which a particular p l a i ntiff was exposed. M a r k e t Share Liability Under market share liability, articulated by a sharply- divided C alifornia Supreme Court in Sindell v. A b b o t t L a b o r a t o r * W h i l e this Court has indicated that the United Stat e s m ay be a d e f e ndant in the upcoming trial with respect to the claims of non-veterans, the governm e n t ' s e x posure is none t h e l e s s severely limited in view of the central role it plays in the underlying facts of this case. -6- i e s , 26 Cal. 3d 588, 607 P.2d 924, cert, d e n i e d , 449 U.S. 912 (1980), a defendant is subject to liability for a percen t a g e of plaintiff's alleged damages equal to that defendant's share of the total market of the product within a given area and time frame. The defendant can escape liability by establishing that it could not have made the product which caused plaintiff's damage. Market share liability constitutes an unpre c e d e n t ed and questionable departure from well-settled product l i a b ility p r i n ­ ciples. Moreover, the social and economic ramifications of this theory require that the legislature rather than the judiciary address the issue in the first instance. The creation of market share liability in Sindell was predicated on the fact that all defendants man u f a c t u r e d an iden­ tical product with the capacity to cause the alleged harm that was undisputed. Thus, duct was identical. the risk created by each d e f e n d a n t ' s p r o ­ Consequently, a d e f endant's share of the relevant market bore a direct c o r relation to the l ikelihood that its product caused a particular plaintiff's harm. formula, U t i l i z i n g this the court concluded that liability without product iden­ tification could be apportioned fairly. The Agent Orange L i t i g a t i o n presents a far d i f f erent situation. Each defendant's A g e n t O r ange had widely d i s p arate amounts of TCDD — the allegedly toxic causative agent — resulting in a non-fungible product whose prope n s i t y for causing harm, as alleged by plaintiffs, is d i rectly dependent on the c on­ centration of the TCDD in each manuf a c t u r e r' s Agent Orange. greater the concentrati on of TCDD in Agent Orange, the likelihood of the alleged risk; tion, The the greater the smaller the c o n c e n t r a ­ the lesser the likelihood of the alleged risk. Therefore, in contrast to the equal risk imposed by each m a n u f a c t u r e r' s DES product in S i n d e l l , each defe n d a n t ' s Agent Orange posed a d i f ­ ferent alleged risk to the ultimate user. Thus, imposing l i a b i ­ lity based upon market share would bear no c o rrelation at all to the likelihood that a particular defendant's Agent Orange caused a particular plaintiff's harm. Moreover, market share liability, as espoused in S i n d e l l , has no application where, as here, the c a pacity of the product to cause harm is seriously disputed and the number of other possible causative factors renders one d e f endant's share of the market of one product meaningless. Concert Of Action The concert of action theory is analogous to a theory of criminal conspiracy. Under this theory, joint and several l i a b i ­ lity will be imposed on d efendants who have either e x p ressly or tacitly agreed to commit a tortious act which is the proximate cause of plaintiffs' injuries. Courts have ge n e rally rejected the concert of action theory in product liability cases, citing serious c onceptual problems. These courts have concluded that employing this theory to normal business practices within an industry would take the theory far beyond its intended scope, unfairly rendering the manufacturer of a safe prod u c t liable for the allegedly defective product of other industry members. Furthermore, more than two years of di s c o v e r y has demonstrated that there is simply no factual basis for p l a i n ­ tiffs' concert of action allegations. B r i e f l y stated, p laintiffs contend that defendants c o n s p i r e d to hide from the gover n m e n t the fact that TCDD was a po t ential by-pr o d u c t in the m a n u f a c t u r e of trichlorophenol ("TCP"), a precursor to 2,4,5-T, that some m a n u ­ facturers had experienced o c c u p a t i o n a l health problems as a result of this and that trace amounts of the TCDD b y-product could be present in Agent Orange. However, plain t i f f s have offered no direct or even c i r ­ cumstantial evidence of an agreement between Dow and any other A gent Orange manufa c t u r e r to hide this information. Moreover, the actions of Dow and its compe t i t o r s do not even remotely suggest a tacit agreeme n t to conspire to conceal information. Indeed, far from creating an issue of fact sufficient for consideration by a jury, that plaintiffs' the evidence clearly establishes alleg a t i o n of a c onspiracy to conceal infor­ m a t i o n is sheer fantasy. The record before this Court d e m o n s t r a ­ tes that when Dow e x per i e n c e d an occ u p a t i o n a l health p r o b l e m in 1964 among its t r ichlor o p h en o l workers, the source of the problem. it endeav o r e d to identify Up o n learning that the c h l o racne experienced by its plant employees was attr i b u t a b l e to high c o n ­ -9- centrations (up to 10,000 parts per million ["ppm"]) of TCDD in the waste stream of the TCP process, Dow immediately notified its TCP customers and the Mi c h i g a n Depar t m e n t of Health and insti­ tuted quality control procedures to eliminate dioxin from its t r ichlorophenol and 2,4,5-T products. Thereafter, Dow shared its information with occupational health specialists throughout the world, as well as representatives of the U n ited States Ar m y and Public H ealth Service. In addition, in March, 1965, D ow tech­ nical personnel met with their counterparts at other companies manuf a c t u r i ng TCP to advise them of what Dow had learned. Significantly, TCP m a n u f a c t u r e r s neither D ow nor any of the other three in attendance at the meeting were selling Agent Orange to the government at that time, and, in fact, Dow did not commence selling Agent Orange to the United States until the following year. Furthermore, in 1967 Dow again notified the Army and the D e p a r t m e n t of Defense of the above occupational health problems when the m i l ita r y decided to m a n ufacture Agent Oran g e at a facility in W e l d o n Springs, Missouri. In addition, the D e p a r t m e n t of Commerce, which was supervising the sale of Agent Orange to the military, was advised by Dow of the occ u p a t i o n a l health problems attributable to the potential TCDD by-p r o d u c t s in the m a n u f a c t u r e of 2,4,5-T. The w i d e l y disparate amounts of TC D D in each defe n d a n t ' s Agent Orange aptly illustrates that Dow and other manufacturers, far from acting in concert, acted independently and d i f f e r e n t l y regarding the p o t e ntial TCDD c o n t a m i n a n t in Agent Orange. -10- W hile Dow imposed a standard of no d i o x i n — at the lowest level at which dioxin could then be r e l i a b l y detected — others did not, presumably relying on the long h i s t o r y of widespread and safe domestic use of 2 , 4 f5-T. Plaintiffs' a lleg a t i o n s of a sinister and c o n s p iratorial failure to warn are of no legal significance if this failure to warn was not the proximate cause of their injuries. Here, the element of proximate cause is m i s s i n g because the information purpo r t e d l y withheld by the d e f e n d a n t s was known to the g o v e r n ­ ment. As this Court concl u d e d in Pretrial Order No. 51, there is uncontradicted evidence that the govern m e n t and the m i l i t a r y were well aware of the presence of trace amounts of dioxin in Agent O range and of industrial health hazards associated with the m a n u ­ facture of 2,4,5-T. Evide n c e uncovered subsequent to Pretrial Order No. 51 further docu ments that the m ilitary p o s s essed both the scientific and technical e x p e r t i s e in these areas, plaintiffs' belying assertion that this information was excl u s i v e l y known by defendants. Moreover, unbek n o w n s t to d efendants at the time, o n l y study — albeit of q u e s t i o n a b l e v alidity — the even suggesting a possible health hazard to h u mans from the use of 2,4,5-T was the g o v e r n ment-sponsored B i o n e t i c s Report. It was the political c o n t r o v e r s y surrounding the release of this conf i d e n t i a l g o v e r n ­ m e n t report, along with other w e l l - d o c u m e n t e d political pressures, which lead to the suspe n s i o n of the herbicide program. -11- i 1 ^ fi Finally, the relevant information on chloracne and dioxin was common knowledge among interested persons in g o v e r n ­ ment, industry, and academia, and was in fact published in the open scientific literature on many oc c a s i o n s during the 1950s and 1960s. Enterprise Liability The facts of this case also fail to satisfy the factual predicate for enterprise liability. E n t e r p r i s e liability, as conceived by this Court in Hall v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & C o . , 345 F. Supp. 353 (E.D.N.Y. 1972), is premised on a factual setting where all defend a n t s share jointly the control of the risk associated with a given product. In this case, there is clearly no joint control of the risk. Ea c h de f e n d a n t m a n u f a c ­ tured Agent Orange in accordance with its own process and, thus, exercised individual control over any risk attributable to the presence of trace amounts of TCDD in their A g e n t Orange. Furthermore, in H a l l , there was evidence of an industry-wide safety standard adopted by the defendants. Here, c o ntrary to H a l l , there is no evidence of a unif o r m safety standard adopted regarding Agent Orange or TCDD, nor even an explicit or tacit agreement among defendants as to the need for a safety standard. * In sum, * * sound policy reasons and the unique facts of this case counsel against departure from the wel l - s e t t l e d requirement of defendant ident i f i c a t io n by resorting to one of -12- ?“ r o the alternate theories of liability discussed herein. Accordingly, the Court should grant Dow's m o tion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss all claims against Dow in these proceedings. -13- t f £- -f *- ^54 , POINT I PLAINTIFFS HAVE A C K N O W L E D G E D THAT THEY ARE UNABLE TO SATISFY T H E I R BURDEN OF IDENTIFYING THE M A N U F A C T U R E R OF THE P A R T I C U L A R BATCH OF A G E N T ORAN G E TO W H I C H EACH P L A INTIFF W AS EXPOSED.______ In their response to Pre t r i a l Order No. 66, plaintiffs have admitted that at trial they will be unable to present proof that one particular defendant's A g e n t Oran g e was the p r o x imate cause of the injuries complained of by a specific plaintiff. Plaintiffs' Alt. Liability M e m o at p. 82; Proceedings before Judge Weinstein on December 5, 1983, Tr. at 66. Under traditional products liability law, plaintiff bears the burden of establishing this causal connec t i o n and, in the absence of such proof, p l a i n t i f f ' s claims must be dismissed. S e e , e . g . , M o r t o n v. Abbott L a b o r a t o r i e s , 538 F. Supp. (M.D. Fla. 593, 595 1982); Starling v. Seaboard Coast Line R. C o . , s u p r a , 533 F. Supp. at 197; Prelick v. J o h n s - M a n v i l l e C o r p . , 531 F. Supp. 96, 98 F.R.D. 332 (W.D. Pa. 1982); Tidier v. Eli Lilly & C o . , 95 (D.D.C. 1982); M i z e l l v. Eli Lilly & C o . , s u p r a , 526 F. Supp. at 595; Ryan v. Eli Lilly & C o . , 514 F. Supp. (D.S.C. 1981); Payton v. Abbo t t L a b s , 512 F. Supp. 1981). 1004, 1018 1031 (D. Mass See also Dow's Alt. L i a b i l i t y M e m o at pp. 4-5. Plaintiffs' inability to me e t their burden of id e n t i f y ­ ing a particular manufacturer is the direct result of the m i l i ­ tary's methods of procuring and using A gent Orange. Under the -14- I o d 2 terras of the governme n t co n t r a c t s and speci f i c a t i on s issued by the military for the sale of Agent Orange, the h e r b i c i d e was to be delivered to the m i l i t a r y in fifty-five gallon drums. These contracts and militar y s p e c i f i c a t i on s required that the drums be identified only by contract number rather than by the m a n u ­ facturer's name. S e e , e ,g . , A w a r d / C o n t r a c t for H e r b i c i d e Orange, dated May 20, 1968, at p. 4, Exh i b i t "2". Furthermore, the handling and shipping of the drums and the eventual d i s position of their contents were all w i thin the c omplete d i s c r e t i o n and control of the military. Do w simply played no part in this and the resultant inability of plaintiffs to meet their burden of proof. Plaintiffs' inability to pursue its claims against the government, which decided to use Agent Orange as part of its integrated weapons system in Vietnam, is the result of the Supreme Court's inter p r e t a t io n of C o n g r e s s i o n a l intent in Feres v. United S t a t e s , 340 U.S. 135 (1950). The S u p r e m e Court held in Feres that Congress did not intend to waive the U n i t e d States' sovereign immunity from suit for injuries arising incident to military service. As this Court noted at the p r e - t r i a l con­ ference on December 5, 1983: [T]he only reason here that you [the plaintiffs] have that p r o b l e m is because the G o v e r n m e n t is immune. Normally, if they [the defendants] sold e v e r y t h i n g to another party who sprayed it, you'd sue the other party, but here you have a s pe­ cial problem. That doe s n ' t seem to make -15U.? 53 your argu m e n t any more p o w e r f u l . The unfairnes s comes not from the unfairness of the law but because of the unfairness of the G o v e r n m e n t . Tr. at p. 9 (emphasis added). In short, any unfairness plaintiffs c o mplain of is directly attributable to the actions of the m i l i t a r y during a time of war and the g o v e r n m e n t ’s immunity from suits arising out of military service. We respectfully submit that these factors do not justify departing from sound principles of product l i a b i ­ lity law which, plaintiffs' in this instance, require dismissal of claims.* * Indeed, the A g e n t Orange Litigation presents a c ompelling example of a situation where departing from traditional tort princ iples of liability would have serious ramifications. See discu s s i o n at pp. 48-49, i n f r a . t f •'*> i-Z A D Q -16- P OINT II N O N E OF THE T H EORIES OF ALTERNATE L I A B I L I T Y A D D R E S S E D BY T HE COURT O R THE PARTIES ARE A P P L I C A B L E IN T H I S CASE.______ ____ In c e rtain product liability cases, where plain t i f f s are unable to identify the manufacturer of the injury-causing p r o ­ duct, courts have created theories of recovery which relieve plaintiffs of the burden of identifying a particular defendant and have shifted the burden of proof to defendants. There are four of these so-called "alternate" theories of recovery: native liability, m arket share liability, alter­ concert of action and enterprise liability. It appears from plaintiffs' Pretrial Order No. theories — s u b m i s s i o n in response to 66 that they pr e s e n t l y rely on three of these alternative liability, concert of action, enterprise liability — and but it is somewhat unclear whether they intend to rely upon the fourth theory, m a r k e t share liability. See Plaintiffs' Alt. Lia b i l i t y M e m o at p. 83 n.10. Plaintiffs' recently filed class action c o m plaint in R y a n v. D o w , Civ. Action No. 79-C-747 (E.D.N.Y.), contains vague and c onclusory alle g a ­ tions which suggest that they may rely on all four theories. See "Sixth Amended V e r if i e d C o m plaint," at 1111 40-41, 64, Exhibit "1". theory herein, 45, 47-52, In any event, we address the market share since the C ourt has spe c i f i c a l l y referred to it in Pretrial Order No. 66, though q u e s t i o n i n g its a p plication to this litigation. -17- Significantly, the four theories of alternate liability cited above have been applied in an extremely limited number of circumstances. The vast m a j o r i t y of courts that have been asked to consider the application of one or more of these theories have rejected them, viewing them as "radical d e p a r t u r e [ s ] " from tradi­ tional concepts of product l i a b i l i t y principles, M o r t o n v. Abbo t t L a b o r a t o r i e s , s u p r a , 535 F. Supp. at 599; Mizell v. Eli Lilly & C o . , s u p r a , 526 F. Supp. at 596, and as "repugnant to the most basic tenets of tort law." Ryan v. Eli Lilly & C o . , s u p r a , 514 F. Supp. at 1017.* In Pretrial Order No. 66, and again at the confer e n c e on December 5, 1983, this Court e x p ressed serious doubt regarding the application to this l i t i g a t i o n of any of the alternate theories of liability. more detail below, We agree with the Court. As set forth in as a matter of policy and in light of the u ni­ que facts of this case, none of the four theories of alternate liability are applicable to the A g e n t Orange L i t i g a t i o n . A. A lternative Liability The theory of alte r n a t i v e liability is appro p r i a t e where it is unquestioned that one of two or more defendants, all of whom acted tortiously, caused p l a i n t i f f ' s injuries, but the * It must also be recognized that serious due process questions are raised by imposing l i a b i l i t y on a m a n u facturer absent a showing that it was that m a n u f a c t u r e r ' s product which caused the harm complained of. See D o w ' s M e m o on Alt. L i a b i l i t y at p. 7 n * . -18- I7 -O'¿3 r» plaintiff is unable to identify which d e f e n d a n t caused his injuries. In that instance, joint and several l i a b ility will be imposed on all of the defendants, although only one of them in fact caused plaintiff's injuries. The p o licy underlying this theory is that it would be unjust to deny recovery to the inno­ cent plaintiff m erely due to his inability to identify the proper defendant. See Restatem e n t (2d) of Torts, § 4 4 3 B (3) (1965). The seminal case establishing the principle of alterna­ tive liability is Summers v. T i c e , 33 Cal. 2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948). There, plaintiff was injured when his two hunting c ompanions each simultaneously fired a shot in his direction, one of the shots striking him in the eye. Plaintiff was unable to prove which of the defendants fired the shot that struck him. The court e m p h a ­ sized that there was no question as to causation. T here could be no doubt that one of the defendants fired the errant bullet, the only failure of proof was as to which one it was. ingly, and Accord­ the court held both defendants jointly liable. Efforts to apply the theory of a l t ernative liability embodied in the Restatement and Summers to product liability cases have been uniformly rejected. Sindell v. A b b o t t L a b s , s u p r a ; Starling v. Seaboard Coast L i n e , s u p r a ; Ryan v. Eli Lilly & C o . , s u p r a ; M o r t o n v. Abbott L a b s , s u p r a .* Indeed, the * In Abel v. Eli Lilly & C o . , 94 Mich. App. 59, 289 N . W.2d 20 (1979), a DES case, a Mic h i g a n appellate court held that plaintiff's broad allegations fell within the theory of a l t e r ­ native liability. A close reading of the decision, however, indicates that the court was proceeding under a m a r k e t share theory of liability, discussed at pp. 41-54, i n f r a . -19- f Jtl. California Supreme Court, the very court which recognized the theory of alternative liability in S u m m e r s , concluded that it was inapplicable in complex products l i a b ility litigation. Sindell v. Abbott L a b s , s u p r a , 607 P.2d at 931. In their analysis of whether alternative liability is appropriate in a products liability case, the courts have focused on a number of factors, which can be summarized as follows: whether the cause of the harm compl a i n e d of is undisputed; (1) (2) whether all of the possible tortfeasors are before the court; (3) whether the defendants are in a superior position to offer evidence of identification, or the defen d a n t s are responsible for plaintiff's inability to identify the manufacturer. See, e.g., Ryan v. Eli Lilly & C o . , s u p r a , 514 F. Supp. at 1016-17. Applying these factors to the facts of this case, it is apparent that this theory of l i a b i l i t y is inappropriate in the Agent Orange L i t i g a t i o n . 1. C a u s ation The issue of causation in this case is far from settled and is quite d i stinguis h ab l e from S u m m e r s . In S u m m e r s , there was no question as to the cause of p l a i n t i f f ' s injuries. bullets, fired by one of the two defendants, One of the and nothing else, produced p l aintiff's injuries. By contrast, the cause of the myriad of injuries claimed by the plaintiff-vetera n s in the Agent Oran g e L i t i g a t i o n is one - 20 - --v. U 58 ‘ of the central issues in dispute.* Indeed, the o v e r w helming weight of medical and scientific o p i n i o n to date, dioxin and Agent Orange, supports defendants' herbicides caused no harm.** Thus, in regard to p osition that their the circumstances surrounding the causation issue in Agent Orange p reclude adoption of the alternative liability theory. Despite the seriousness of the claims leveled against defendants by plaintiffs and the volume and intensity of the media coverage of the A g e n t Orange and diox i n issues, an o b j e c ­ tive analysis of the present state of the medical and scientific evidence reveals surprisingly little, plaintiffs' if any, support for claims.*** * The list of illnesses and phy s i c a l d i s o r d e r s claimed by the 15,000 named plaintiffs in this litigation, a l l egedly att r i b u ­ table to the plaintiff-veterans' e x posure to trace amounts of TCDD in Agent Orange, is staggering. Plaintiffs' recent interro­ gatories to defendants list a p p r o x i m a t e ly eighty different types of disorders purporte d l y caused by the herbicides used by the milit a r y in Southeast Asia, ranging from headaches and into­ lerance to cold to cancers of every major type and d e s cription and of every major organ of the body. See Plaintiffs' Interrogatories to Defendants, dated De c e m b e r 22, 1983, at p. 14. ** For an excellent ove r v i e w of the p r e s e n t state of medical and scientific evidence and the o n -going studies on the toxicity of the TCDD in 2,4,5-T, we r e s p e c t f u l l y refer the Court to a recent article by Colonel Al v i n Young, who is a w o r l d - r e n o w ne d expert on Agent Orange and who is p r e s e n t l y a ssigned to the White House as an advisor to the Pre s i d e n t on A gent Orange matters. See Young, A., et al., Chlorinated Dioxins as He r b i c i d e C o n t a m i n a n t s , 17 Environ. Sci. Technol. 53 0 A - 5 4 0 A (1983), annexed as E x h i b i t "3". *** It is this lack of evidence which has led the V e t e r a n s A d m i n i s t r a t io n to disallow claims for c o m p e n s a t i o n based upon (Footnote Continued) -21- l 'r\ ** Perhaps the most complete and compelling e x a m i n a t i o n of this issue and the unsubstantiated nature of plaintiffs' claims is the recent decision by Just i c e N u n n of the Supreme C ourt of Nova Scotia in Palmer v. Stora Kopparbergs B e r q slags A k t i e b o l a g , S.SN. No. 02555 (September 15, 1983). annexed as E x hibit "5".) (A copy of the d e c i s i o n is In P a l m e r , plaintiffs sought to enjoin defendants from spraying 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D, citing the serious risk to health posed by exposure to these herbicides and the TCDD contaminant.* In his 182-page dec i s i o n denying plaintiffs' quest for an injunction, re­ the court confronted head-on the issue of the toxicity of TCDD and, in turn, of 2,4,5-T, which this (Footnote Continued) exposure to Agent Orange, except for two cases of chloracne, an a c n eform dermatitis. See d iscussion at p. 31, n.*, i n f r a . However, even the validity of these chloracne claims is dubious. While theoretically, there could be a causal link between chlor a c n e and Agent Orange containing s i g nificantly higher amounts of TCDD than in the Agent Orange supplied by Dow, B e t t y Fischmann, Chairperson of the V e t e r a n s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n C h l o racne Task Force, recently testified before a U.S. Senate C o m m i t t e e that the Task Force's special review of 3200 V i e t n a m veterans who filed claims with the V A for c o m p e nsation for A gent Orange injuries failed to produce a single diagnosis of chloracne, past or present. Ms. Fischmann also testified that another pilot study of 906 veterans in the Agent Orange Re g i s t r y led to the diagnosis of the two cases of chloracne noted above. However, although V A c o m p e n ­ sation was allowed in these two cases, Ms. F i s c h m a n n made clear that even these two instances of chloracne have not been c o n c l u ­ sively attributed to Agen t Orange. A copy of Fischm a n n ' s statement is annexed as E x h i b i t "4". * The court was satisfied that the alleged serious risk to human health, if proven, would constitute irreparable harm and that damages would not be an adequate remedy. Sl i p op. at 163, E x h i b i t "5". -22- Court has also been asked to consider. The issue, as framed by Justice Nunn, was: Have the p l a i n t i f f s offered sufficient proof that there is a serious risk of health and that such serious risk of health will occur if the spraying of the substances here is p e r m itted to take place? Slip op. at 163, E x h i b i t "5". In deciding this issue, Justice Nunn noted that he was mindful its magnitude, the world - w i d e implications of his ruling and the assistance which his findings may provide in u n d e r s t a n d ­ ing this complex issue: Because of the nature of the issues in dispute, the w i t n esses produced and the testimony given, the enormous publicity attached to the trial and the public interest involved, the evi d e n c e went far beyond the particular substances involved and related to all the phen o x y herbicides and their derivatives. The whole trial had the aura of a s cientific inquiry, as to whether the world should be exposed to d i o x i n s . S cientists from all over North America, as well as from Sweden were called and testified. Scientific reports and studies from scientists the world over were filed as part of the evidence. * * * While this dispute is between the parties to the action and will depend upon the facts and their relevance as I find them, this case is unique by its nature and the world- w i d e interest in its result. Apparently, it is the first time that the leading scientists of o p posing views reqardinq dioxin have :m et in Court where the chemicals involved are at the very center of the d i s p u t e . -23- *§ * JL I As a result, this is one of those very rare cases where, I believe, the Court owes a duty which goes beyond the parties/ to make clear its findings so as to give some assistance, one way or another, which will h e l p the u n d e r s t a n d ­ ing of those so vita l l y interested in this s u b s t a n c e . Slip op. at 164-66 (emphasis a d d e d ) . After hearing extensive testimony from the leading experts on both sides of the d i o x i n / 2 ,4,5-T issue and after reviewing the voluminous scientific ma t e r i a l introduced into evi­ dence, the court concluded: To my mind, after hearing all the evi­ dence and reading all the exhibits, there is no doubt that the weig h t of current responsible scientific opinion does not support the allegations of the plaintiffs. Slip op. at 179 (emphasis a d d e d ) .* The holding in Palmer is consi s t e n t with the conclusion reached by every major o r g a n i z a t i o n which has looked into the issue, to wit, that the accumulated m e d i c a l and scientific e v i ­ dence simply does not support the claims of injuries attributable to Agent Orange containing trace amounts of TCDD.** * The court also noted the lack of o b j e c t i v i t y evidenced by plaintiffs' experts. Slip op. at 179. ** Plaintiffs' claims are coming under increased s crutiny and criticism. For example, p l a i n t i f f s a pparently allege a causal link between exposure to Agent O r a n g e and soft tissue sarcoma, based upon research conducted by Swedish scientists. See (Footnote Continued) One example of this is a 1981 report entitled "The H ealth Effects of 'Agent Orange' and Polychlorinated Dioxin Contaminants," authored by the A m e r i c a n Medical A s s ociation's Select Panel on Toxic Substances. While the report states that dioxin is toxic at certain dose levels, as demonstrated in testing of certain animal species, it concludes that in spite of claims of numerous adverse health effects on humans attributed to dioxin, there is conclusive evidence of a cause and effect rela­ tion only with respect to c h l o r a c n e .* annexed as E x h ibit "6".) (A copy of this report is A subsequent report by the L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s published in June, 1983, surveying the entire body of scientific opinion and its c o n clusions on the toxicity of T C D D , (Footnote Continued) Hardell, L., Case-Contro l Study: Soft-Tissue Sarcomas and E x p osure to Phenoxyacetic Acids or C h l o r o p h e n o l s , 39 Brit. J. Cancer 711-17 (1979). H a r d ell's work purportedly showed an increased risk of developing this form of cancer among persons reporting exposure to p h e n o x y herbicides. However, more recent case-control studies do not support the hypothesis that exposure to phenoxy herbicides cause soft tissue sarcoma. S e e , e , g ., Smith, A., et al., The N ew Zealand Soft Tissue Sarcoma Case C o n t r o l Study; Interviews and Findings Concerning Pheno x y o c e t ic Acid E x p o s u r e , 6 Community Hlth Studies 114-19 (1982); Riihimoki, V . , et al., M o r t a l i t y and Cancer M o r b i d i t y Among Chlor i n a t e d Phenox y a c i d Applicators in F i n l a n d , 8 Scand. J. Work Environ. H e a l t h 37-42 (1982); Thiess, A., M o r t a l i t y Study of Persons E x posed to Dioxins in a T r i c h l o r o p h en o l - p r o c e s s Acc i d e n t on N o v e m b e r 17, 1 9 5 3 , 3 Am. J. Ind. Med. 178-89 (1982). Signifi­ cantly, Hardell's work was introduced into evidence in Palmer and one of his associates testified. The court rejected the Hardell hypothesis in light of the o v e r w h e l m i n g weight of s cientific evi­ dence that is contrary to Ha r d e l l ' s position. Slip op. at 174-75. Exhibit "5". * C h l o racne is a skin reaction to exposure to a wide range of c hlorinated hydrocarbons ch a r a c t e r i z ed by acneform dermatitis. 25 is in full accord with the 1981 AMA Report.* More recently, an epid e m i o l o g ic a l birth d e fect study involving Australian V i e t n a m veterans concluded that " [t]here is no evidence that A r m y service in V i e t n a m has increased the risk of the birth of a child with an anomaly."** Furthermore, the Air Force recently released its ba s e ­ line mortality study of Air Force personnel exposed to Agent Orange. That study dem o n s t r a t e d that the m o r t a l i t y experience of the Ranch Hand group*** — whose exposure to Agent Orange far surpassed any other group of V i e t n a m veterans — that of the comparison group . * * * * is identical to The Ranch Hand unit was * See Dioxin: E n v i ronme n t al Impacts and Po t e n t i a l H u m a n Health E f f e c t s , June 6, 1983, p u b l i s h e d by the C o n g r e s s i o n a l Research Service of the L i brary of Congress. The A M A and C o n g r e s s i o n al reports are also consis t e n t with two prior g o v e r n m e n t - sp o n s o r e d reports addressing the effects of h erbicides in Vietnam. See The Effects of Herbicid e s in South V i e t n a m , p u b l ished by the National Academy of Sciences in 1974; and Young, A., et al., The Toxicological, Envir o n m e n t a l Fate, and Human Risk of Herbicide Orange and Its Associat e d D i o x i n , published by the United States Air Force Occupational and E n v i r o n m e n t a l H e alth L a b o r a t o r y in 1978. (For the C o u r t ’s convenience, a cou r t e s y copy of the lengthy Air Force report will be provided under separate cover with the chambers' copy of this memorandum.) ** Report to the Minister for V e t e r a n ' s Affiars, C a s e - C o n t r o l Study of Congenital A n o m a l i e s and V i e t n a m S e r v i c e (Birth Defects S t u d y ) , January, 1983, annexed as Exhibit "7". *** "Ranch Hand" was the code name given the d e f o l i a t i o n o p e r a ­ tion in V i e t n a m and the d e s i g n a t i o n of the Air F o r c e unit r e spon­ sible for carrying out the aerial spraying operations. **** Surgeon General, USAF, An E p i d e m i o l o g i c I n v e s t i g a t i on of Health Effects in Air Force P e r s onnel F o l l o w i n g E x p o s u r e to Agent Orange, Baseline M o r t a l i t y S t u d y R e s u l t s , 30 June 1983, annexed as Exhibit "8". This was a m o r t a l i t y study c o n c e r n i n g 1,247 Ranch Handers and 6,171 c o m p a r i s o n subjects. -26- r !! n u selected as the subject for this e p idemiological study because of its repeated and sustained exposure to the herbicides used in Vietnam. The Ranch Hand m o r t a l i t y findings are consistent with the preliminary data coll ected through the Agent O r ange Registry. The Agent Orange Registry was established by the V e t e r a n ' s Administration in 1978 to provide any V i e t n a m veteran concerned about the possible health effects of A gent Orange with a complete m e dical examination. As of September, 1983, over 110,000 veterans had been examined at V A facilities. collected from this self-selected group, Based on the data the V e t e r a n ' s A d m i n istration has concluded: [T]he major i t y of the above symptoms [reported by the veterans examined] bear no corre l a t i o n to the known toxicology of Herbicide Orange; in addition, no increased incidences of m a l i g n a n c y have been observed in this popula t i o n which, by virtue of its self-se l e c t ed nature, m ay have been expected to exhibit a r t i f i ­ cially higher than baseline rates in the general p o p u l a t i o n . Supporting the above data is the o b s e r v a t i o n by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology that there is no unusual clustering or inciden­ ces of tumor types among the over twelve-hund re d pathological s peci­ mens from V i e t n a m veterans examined to date. C o n c l u s i o n s : Thus, the A g e n t Orange Registry data do not support the thesis that there is any unusual l o n g-term m o r b i d i t y or m o r t a l i t y associated with V i e t n a m service or Agent Oran g e e x p o s u r e . -27- r A * rr ^ ^ o ./) Young, A . , and Flicker. M.R., E v a l u a t i o n of Veterans for Agent Orange E x p o s u r e , Extended Pre p r i n t Abstract, Presented before the Divis i o n of E n v i r onment al Chemistry, American Chemical Association, September 1983, at p. 2, Exhibit "9" (emphasis supplied). The two most prevalent types of symptoms reported by this group of veterans veterans are dermatological and p s y c h o l o ­ gical in nature. JEd. at p. 2. Significantly, the report notes that "of several thousand veterans complaining of dermatologic problems, only one may possibly turn out to have chloracne." (Emphasis in original.) Id. The reported psychological problems have been diagnosed as delayed stress response syndrome. Studies of human popu l a t i o n s exposed to phenoxy h e r ­ bicides and TCDD as a result of industrial accidents also co n ­ tinue to support defendants' M o n s a n t o workers — position. Long term studies of who sustained acute TCDD intoxication as a result of an explosion at M o n s a n t o ' s plant in Nitro, W e s t V i r g i n i a in 1949 and of Dow wor k e r s involved in a chloracne experience in 1964 — have esta b l i s h e d that there is no apparent effect on m o r t a l i t y and no increase in cancer mortality.* * Zack, J .A. and Suskind, R . , The M o r t a l i t y E xperience of Workers Exposed to T e t r a c h l o r o d i b e n z o - p - d i o x i n in a Trich l o r o p h en o l Process A c c i d e n t , 22 J. Occup. Med., 11-14 (1980), annexed as E x hibit "10"; Cook, R . R . , M o r t a l i t y E xperience of Employees Exposed to 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 - T e t r a c h l o r o d i b e n z o - p - d i o x i n , 22 J. Occup. Med. 530-32 (1980), annexed as E x h i b i t "11". -28- V Â, i) Similar conclusions have been reached with respect to the most extensive human e xposure to TC D D known to date, an explosion at a hexachlorop he n e plant owned by G i v a u d a n ICMESA in Seveso, Italy in 1976. A reactor producing t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l , which is also a precursor ch e m i c a l in the m a n ufacture of h e x a ­ chlorophene, exploded causing release of the TC D D b y-product into the local environment. An indication of the s e verity of the c o n ­ tamination is that the amount of TC D D released into this small community was equal to the entire amount of TCDD released in the entire continental United Stat e s annually.* As a consequence of the explosion, a number of chickens, birds and rabbits in the area died and over 100 chi l d r e n c o n ­ tracted chloracne. Significantly, however, the results of c o n ­ siderable medical testing of the human inhabitants of the Seveso area who were exposed do not support plaintiffs' veterans' claims that the exposure to Agent Orange containing trace amounts of TCDD produced any of the serious and life-th r e a t en i n g illnesses and disorders alleged.** While the foregoing is ce r t a i n l y not an all inclusive list of the evidence supporting defendants' position, it n o n e t h e ­ less aptly demonstrates that the fear and u n c e r t a i n t y surrounding the A g e n t Orange and dioxin issues is more the product of the * Wagner, S., Clinical T o x i c o l o g y of A g r i c u l t u r a l C h e m i c a l s , at pp. 181-87 (1981), annexed as E x h i b i t "12". ** Id. -29- media's search for headlines than the product of the present state of medical and scientific knowledge. Indeed, the media's reporting of this entire issue recently led the A m e r i c a n Med i c a l Assoc i a t i o n ("AMA") to issue a resolution condemning the media for conducting a "witch hunt" which has resulted in public h ysteria over the dioxin issue. The resolution concludes that "the lives and well-being" of people living in areas where d i oxin has been found "have been u n n e c essarily and ignorantly damaged by this hysterical m a l r e p o r t i n g ." (Emphasis added.) A copy of a New York Times article discussing the AMA resolution is annexed as Exh i b i t "13". * * * Before a drastic remedy such as alternative liability or, as discussed in the following section, market share liabi­ lity, can be applied, undisputed. the cause of plaintiff's injuries must be Plaintiffs in the Agent Orange Litig a t i o n simply cannot satisfy this requirement. 2. All P o t e ntial T o r tfeasors Are Not Before The C o u r t . The second factor to consider in d e t ermining whether imposition of alternative liability is appropriate is whether all potential tortfeasors are before the Court. In this case, where the cause of the illnesses and disorders claimed by plain t i f fs is contested, it is inconceivable that all or even s u b s t a n t i a l ly all of the possible tortfeasors are before the Court. Indeed, as this Court observed at the conference on December 5, 1983, the -30- only clearly identifiable potential tortfeasor in the Agent Orange controversy, the United States, plaintiff-veterans. Tr. at p. 9. As noted earlier, is immune from suit by the the approximately 15,000 plaintiffs presently in the case allege an incredibly diverse range of m a l a ­ dies p urportedly attributable to Agent Orange. Significantly, none of these injuries or physical disorders are unique to expo­ sure to Agent Orange.* Furthermore, the vast array of alternate causative factors in this case forecloses any argument that all of the potential tortfeasors are before the Court. One of plaintiffs' advocates, Dr. Samuel Epstein, has characterized the V i e t n a m e s e environment as a "toxicological cocktail": * M o s t experts believe that chloracne is the "hallmark" of expo­ sure to TCDD. See Chlorinated Dioxins as Herbicide C o n t a m i n a n t s , s u p r a , at p. 532A, Exhibit "4". However, chlor a c n e symptoms are not unique to TCDD exposure. Chloracne may arise from exposure to a wide variety of c h l o r i ­ nated compounds, partic u l a r l y c h l o r o n a p h t h a l e n e s , chlorodiphenyls and c h l o r o d i p h e n y l o x i d e s . As Dr. Donald Birmingham, a retired United States Public Health Service officer, noted in a 1966 article on occup a t i o n a l dermatoses: [Chloracne] has occured in machinists working with insoluble oils containing c h l o r a c n e g e n s , chemical workers making herbicides, in cable splicers, in metal platers, in paint makers, and in wood preservers, among others. Birmingham, D . , P r event a b l e O c c u p ational D e r m a t o s i s , 12 Arch. Envirn. Hlth. at 641 (May 1966), annexed as Exhibit "14". What you had in V i e t n a m was a toxico l o g i ­ cal cocktail. I t ’s impossible on theore­ tical grounds to make predictions on exactly what the eventual effects of all the chemicals could be. From an e p i d e m i ­ ologist's point of view, it would be a nightmare. Peracchio, A . , T ox i c - C h e m i ca l M ix Being Eyed as Cause of V i e t n a m Vets' I l l s , Newsday, June 8, 1980, at p. 5 (hereinafter "Newsday Article"), annexed as Exh i b i t "15". Thus, for example, a c o m mittee made up of members of Australia's Senate concluded in a report on pesticides and their health effects on A u s t r a l i a n V i e t n a m veterans that the potential for exposure to insecticides — reactions — many of which have reported toxic was far more pro b a b l e than herbicide exposure: The C o m m ittee is of the opinion that the potential for d i rect exposure to h e r ­ bicides sprayed by A u s t r a l i a n and U.S. forces was low. D i rect exposure to insecticides sprayed by both A u s t r a l i a n and U.S. forces, was highly probable. The Committee believes that while possible, indirect exposure to herbicides and TCDD through drink i n g - w a te r and foodstuffs, was unlikely. The Committee is of the opinion that possible exposure to pestic i d e s is only one aspect of the health problems s uf­ fered by V i e t n a m veterans today. Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment, Pesticides and the Health of A u s t r a l i a n V eterans F irst R e p o r t , at p. 65 (November 1982) (hereinafter "Australian Sena t e Report") (Chapter three of the report, which p rovides an excellent discussion of the veterans' p o t e n t i a l exposure to pesticides, annexed as Exhibit "16"). t ? ^ * - =4 y -32- is Moreover, the m i l i t a r y ' s aerial spraying of military 4 facilities in V i e t n a m with insecticides such as DDT, d i eldrin and m a l a t h i o n was conducted by Ranch Hand pe r s o n n e l flying C-123 fixed wing aircraft, the same aircraft used in the herbicide d efoliation program. Au s t r a l i a n Senate Report at pp. annexed as Exhibit "17". Thus, 18-21, even veterans who believe that they were directly exposed to Agent Orange may in fact have been exposed to insecticides. We list and describe briefly below only some of the m a n ­ made and natural substances which each p l a i n t i f f - v e t e r a n was potent i a l l y exposed to during his tour of duty in Vietnam. The list illustrates the broad variety of pos s i b l e causative agents of plaintiffs' alleged injuries. Munitions Billions of tons of TNT and related explosives were used in Vietnam; animal studies indicate that at least one of these, tetryl, is a direct acting mutagen; isomer, 2,4-DNT, concluded that, ficient period, in sufficient doses over a suf­ it is carcinogenic, with the liver as the target organ; contact dermatitis, other an A r m y study of a TNT anorexia, severe liver injury and "significant adverse p h y s i o l o g i c al effects" claimed by veterans, have been attributed to o c c u p a t i o n a l e xposure to TNT.* * See W h o n g , W . , Mutagenic A c t i v i t y of Tetryl, a N i t r o a r o m a t i c Explosive in Three Micro b i a l Test S y s t e m , 5 Tox. L e t t e r s 11-17 (1980), annexed as Exhibit "18"; Mid w e s t R e search Institute, M a m m a l i a n Toxicity of M u n i t i o n C o m p o u n d s , Pr o g r e s s Repo r t 11 at (Footnote Continued) -33- A n t i m a l a r ial Drugs D a psone - an ant i m alarial drug dispensed daily to Unit e d States forces in V i e t n a m beginning in 1966; discontinued after 25 soldiers sustained a bone m a r r o w disorder from which nine e v e n ­ tually died; a Natio n a l Cancer Institute study found Dapsone to be a c arcinogen in laboratory animals. peripheral neuropathy, tite and insomnia, Symptoms such as skin rashes, blurred vision, loss of ap p e ­ similar to those claimed by many veterans, have been attributed to D a p s o n e . * C h l o r o g u i n e - another a n t i m alarial drug used in Vietnam; another suspected carcinogen; weight loss, after p r o l onged use may cause skin eruptions and ear damage.** C h l o r i n a t e d Insecticides Chlordane - an insecticide used in Vietnam; "unequi­ vocally carcinogenic" according to Dr. Epstein; there are reports (Footnote Continued) pp. 15-17 (January, 1980), anne x e d as Exh i b i t "19"; U.S. Army Environ. Hyg. Agency, Occ u p a t i o n a l Heal t h Special Study New po r t Army A m m u n i t i o n P l a n t , p. 1 and appendix (April 1974), annexed as E x hibit "20". * See N e wsday article; Ognibene, A., A g r a n u l o c y t o s i s , 72 Ann. Int. Med. 521-524 (1970), annexed as Exh i b i t "21". McAleenan, J., Army Drug B r a n d e d a C a r c i n o g e n , Detr o i t News, December 28, 1980, annexed as Exhibit "22". See also Martindale, The E x t r a P h a r m a c o p o e i a , at p. 1489 (18 ed. 1982) (hereinafter "Martindale"); A u s t r a l i a n Senate Repo r t at p. 73. ** A u s t r a l i a n Senate Report at p. 73. Goodman & Gilman's, The P h a r m a c o l o g ic a l Basis of T h e r a p e u t i c s , at p. 1045-46 (6th ed. 1980); see also Martindal e at 395-96. -34- of neuroblastoma and acute le u k e m i a associated with chlordane.* DDT (dicophane) - used exte n s i v e l y in Vietnam; concerns over the long-term effects of DDT led to a report in 1963 by the President's Science Advi s o r y C ommittee, entitled "Use of Pesticides"; extremely persis t e n t in soil, use is now g e n e r a l l y discouraged. Dieldrin - insecticide used in Vietnam; c o n s i d e r e d more toxic than DDT and is readily a b sorbed through the skin; reports of adverse skin reactions among wor k e r s and liver tumors in experimental mice.** O r g ano phosphorous Insecticides M a l a thion - insecticide used in Vietnam; include contact dermatosis, m u scular twitching, depression, neuropathy; toxic effects anorexia, evidence that c hromosome abnorm a l i ti es temporarily increased in o r g a n o p h o s p h o r o u s p o i s oning victims; poisoning in more than 2,500 field workers led to five deaths attributed to impurity in malat h i o n . * ** Illicit D r u g s **** Heroin - as man y as 15% to 25% * See, e . g . , P.F. H l t h . 137 (1978). (estimated) of A m e ri c a n Infante, et al., 4 Scand. J. Wo r k Environ. ** See M artindale at p. 386. *** S e e , Martindale at p. 832; P.F. Work Environ. Hlth. 137 (1978). Infante, et al., 4 Scand. J. **** The number of V i e t n a m - e r a veterans hos p i t a l i z e d for a l c o h o l ­ ism and drug depend e n c y is c onsidered significant. Walker, I., The Psych o l o g i c al Problems of V i e t n a m V e t e r a n s , 246 J A M A 781 (Aug. 1981), annexed as E x h i b i t "23". -35- -4 •■ 4 875 combat forces experimented or regularly used heroin while in Vietnam; pulmonary immunological muscle, kidney and liver d i s o r ­ ders attributed to heroin use.* LSD - also used by U.S. servicemen in Vietnam; p e r s o n ­ ality disorders, psychosis and c h romosomal aberrations r e p o r t e d .** Microorga n i sm s / D i s e a s e s End e m i c to Southeast Asia A f l a toxin - a mold toxin found on native feeds, e . g . , rice, in Vietnam; in addition to being naturally occurring, one of the most carcinogenic agents known to man.*** Hepatitis - a hepatitis virus of epidemic proportions was reported by medical o f f icials in Vietnam; this form of h e p a ­ titis virus has been linked in studies with liver cancer.**** Animal Parasite s - amoebic parasites known to cause liver abcesses found in ice sold to troops in Vietnam; other a n i ­ mal parasites causing skin diseases and liver damage were reported by the A rmy's med i c a l unit.***** * Martindale at p. 1008; Consumers Union Report, Licit and Illicit D r u g s , at p. 188 (1972), annexed as Exhibit "24". ** Stanton, M . , Drug Use in V i e t n a m , 26 Arch. Gen. Psych. (1972); Martindale at 924. *** Newsday Article; Casarett & Doll's, Toxicology, 104-05 (2d ed. 1980). 279 at pp. **** Newsday Article. ***** id. See also Internal M e dicine in Vietnam: V o l u m e I Skin Diseases in Vietnam, 1 9 6 5 - 7 2 , at 130-136 (1977), annexed as E x hibit "25". -36- M e l i o i d o s i s - an infectious and sometimes fatal disease with reported symptoms similar to those complained of by certain plaintiffs; reported latency period of up to 20 years in some instances. There are also reports of a sexual transmission of melioidosis from a veteran to his wife and of a fatal infection in a newborn baby.* Other M i c r o o r g a n i s m s - other known micro o r g a n i sm diseases such as tropical sprue produced a wide range of illnesses and disorders among servicemen in Vietnam; for example, intestinal abnormalities were found in 22 of 37 servicemen studied after serving in V i e t n a m from 6 weeks to 11 months.** M a l a r i a - U.S. A r m y reported that malaria was the most important disease in Vietnam, accounting for the greatest number of man-days lost; malar i a ' s effects are both acute and c h r o n i c .*** * Internal M e d i c i n e in Vietnam: V o l u m e II, Gen e r a l Medicine and Infective D i s e a s e s , at pp. 197-214, annexed as Exhibit ”26"; Brundage, W . , Four Fatal Cases of M e l i o i d o s i s in U.S. Soldiers in V i e t n a m , Amer. J. Tro p i c a l Med. & Hyg. 183-190 (1968) annexed as Exhibit "27"; Beck, J., Agent Oran g e Isn't Only Peril V i e t n a m V e t e r a n s May M e e t , Columbus Dispatch at p. 10, February 15, 1982, annexed as E x h ibit "28". ** See U.S. Army M e d ica l Research T e a m (WRAIR) Vietnam, Annual Progress Report (1 September 1967-30 June 1 9 6 8 ) . See generally Internal M e d i c i n e in Vietnam, Vol. 2 , s u p r a . *** U.S. Army, M a l a r i a , M e d i c a l B u l l e t i n as Exhibit "29". (Jan-Feb. 1970), annexed -370 Psychological Overlay It has been estimated that 500,000 to 700,000 V i e t n a m veterans are in need of emotional he l p at this time, and some researchers estimate that 1.5 m i l l i o n of the 2.4 m i l l i o n veterans who served in V i e t n a m may event u a l l y need psyc h i a t r i c help. Incidences of post-traumatic stress disorder among V i e t n a m veterans are well-documented.* Furthermore, a recent study of veterans randomly selected from the Agent Orange Reg i s t r y concluded that there is a stong likelihood that at least some of the reported problems are psychosomatic and a reaction to the stressful degr e e of un­ certainty arising from allegations — albeit u n s u b s t a n t i at e d — pertaining to exposure to Agent Orange.** * Significantly, * * this is not an inclusive list of every possible Vietn a m - r e l at e d cause for the injuries claimed by p l a i n ­ tiffs nor will every p l a i n t i f f - v et e r a n have been exposed to all of the man-made and natural perils which A m e r i c a n servic e m an were subjected to while serving in Vietnam. The list does, however, * The Psychological Problems of V i e t n a m V e t e r a n s , supra at p. 781, Exhibit "23". See also Exhi b i t "9" (claims of psycho lo g i c al problems attributable to A gent Orange m a y in fact be attributable to delayed stress syndrome, see p. 27, s u p r a ) . ** Korgeski, G . , et al., Corre l a t e s of S e l f - R e p o r t e d and Objectively D etermined Exposure to A g e n t O r a n g e , 140 Amer. J. of Psych. 11 (November 1983), annexed as Exhibit "30". -38- 11S7S serve as an indication of the c o m p l e x i t y of the alternate c a u s a ­ tion issue. In addition to V i e t n a m - r e l a t e d alternate causes, each veteran's pre- and p o st- V i e t n a m history must be examined.* Moreover, where a birth defect is claimed, the p l a intiff's spouse's h i story and the couple's g e n e a l o g y are also matters of concern. Accordingly, in view of the numerous potential causative agents responsible for the injuries alleged by plaintiffs, it is apparent that all of the parties p o t e n t i a l l y responsible for plaintiffs' 3. alleged injuries are not in the case. Defendants Are Not R e s ponsible For Plaintiffs' Inability To Meet Their B u r d e n Of Defendant Identification Nor Are They In A Superior Position To Offer E v i d e n c e . O f D e f e n d a n t I d e n t i f i c a t i o n . The facts of this case also do not meet the third cr i ­ terion for application of a l t ernative liability. D e f e n d a n t s are in no better position than plaint i f f s to identify which defendant's A gent Orange individual p laintiffs were exposed to. Moreover, defendants bear no r e s p o n s i b i l it y for plaintiffs' * The past twenty years has seen explosive growth in the number of substances which Americans are exposed to daily which have identified as toxic to human health. For example, ci g a r e t t e smoking — aside from its well publicized link with cancer and health problems in the progeny of smoking mothers — has also been reported as a potential cause for the produ c t i o n of abnormal sperm. Another study consistent with the foregoing, found an increased rate of perinatal deaths and birth defects among the progeny of men who smoke tobacco. Science News at 247, A p r i l 18, 1981, annexed as Exhibit "31". -39- inability to identify individual manufacturers. As explained in Point I, s u p r a , the m i l it a r y had exclusive control over the entire herbicide operation, including the composition of the pro­ duct, the markings on the drums and the deployment of the h er­ bicide in Vietnam. Therefore, plaintiffs' inability to meet their burden of defendant ident i f i c a t io n is the direct result of the m ilitary's method of p r o c u r e m e n t and use of the herbicide. Consequently, there is no j u s t i f i c a t i on for shifting the burden of proof to the defendants. * * * In sum, the Agent O r a n g e Litigation stands in stark contrast to the simplicity of the underlying facts in Summers v. Tice, supra. In S u m m e r s , one of two defendants involved in one isolated incident was und e n i a b l y responsible for plaintiff's injuries, the cause of which was undisputed. however, the cause of plaintiffs' issue in dispute. Moreover, In Agent O r a n g e , alleged injuries is a principal unlike S u m m e r s , not all potential tortfeasors are parties to this case. not responsible for plaintiffs' Finally, defendants are inability to identify the d e f e n ­ dant who caused the alleged harm, nor are defendants in a better position than plaintiffs to identify the allegedly responsible tortfeasor. Accordingly, while the theory of alternative liability m a y be attractive in a simple case like S u m m e r s , it bears little relevance to a case of the size and c omplexity of the A gent O r ange L i t i g a t i o n . -40- B. Market Share Liability The most novel approach employed by a court to relax plaintiff's burden of identifying the specific defendant which caused his injury is that announced by a sharply divided Supreme Court of California in Sindell v. Abbo t t L a b o r a t o r i e s , s u p r a . The Court in S i n d e l l , a DES case, d e v eloped what it char a c ­ terized as "market share" liability, which is in essence a refinement of the theory of alternative liability. M a rket share liability, as conceived by the court in S i n d e l l , is based upon two basic points. The first is that all DES, no matter who the manu f a c t u r e r was, had the same chemical formula, and that all DES was therefore fungible. The second is that the capacity of this product to cause the harm complained of was undisputed. Relying on the generic nature of the products and its capacity to cause harm, the court held that, although plaintiff was unable to identify which d e f endant's drug had been ingested by her mother, liability would n o netheless be imposed upon each defendant proportionate with its share of the market of DES during the relevant time and in the relevant g eographic area.* In developing what has been ch a r a c t e r i z ed as a theory of "rough justice," Ryan v. Eli Lilly & C o . , s u p r a , 514 F. Supp. 1018, at the m a j ority in Sindell e mphasized that its proposal was * To avoid liability, each d e f e n d a n t had the burden of proving, if it could, that its product did not consti t u t e part of the relevant "market." - 4 1 - 11S79 reasonable and a fair means of apportioning liability and c o m p e n ­ sating plaintiff for injuries attributable to a generic product manufa c t u r e d and sold by all defendants. Its rationale was that because all defendants produced the identical drug, each d efendant's product posed the same risk to the ultimate user. Therefore, a defendant's share of the market would with a degree of mathematical precision bear a direct correlation to the like­ lihood that its product caused a particular plaintiff's harm. [W]e hold it to be reasonable in the present context to measure the likelihood that any of the defendants supplied the product which allegedly injured plaintiff by the p ercentage which the DES sold by each of them for the purpose of p r e ­ venting m i s c a r r i a g e bears to the entire production of the drug sold by all for that purpose. * * * Under this approach, each m a n u ­ facturer's liability would approximate its responsibility for the injuries caused by its own products. . . . 607 P . 2d at 937. As discussed further below, applying the Sindell for­ mula, which equates a m a n u f a c t u r e r' s market share to the risk posed by that manufact u r e r' s product, is simply impossible in this case. The concept of market share liability has been rejected as a matter of policy in DES cases decided after S i n d e l l . Ryan v. Eli Lilly C o . , s u p r a ; M o r t o n v. Abbott L a b o r a t o r i e s , s u p r a ; M ize ll v. Eli Lilly Co. , s u p r a ; Tiddler v. Eli Lilly & C o . , s u p r a ; P ayton v. Abbott L a b o r a t o r i e s , 386 Mass. 171 (1982).* 540, 437 N.E.2d It has similarly been rejected by the maj o r i t y of courts that have considered it in asbestos cases on both policy and factual grounds. T h o m p s o n v. Johns - M a n v i ll e Sales C o r p . , 714 F.2d 581 (5th Cir. 1983); H a n n o n v. W a t e r m a n S.S. C o r p . , 567 F. Supp. 90 (E.D. La. 1983); Starling v. Seaboard Coast Line C o . , s u p r a ; In re Related Asb e s t o s C a s e s , s u p r a ; Prelick v. JohnsManville C o r p . , s u p r a ; Diamond v. J o h n s - M a n v i ll e Sales C o r p . , Civil A c t i o n No. 79-2206, slip o p i n i o n (D. Md. December 11, 1981); Garcia v. Johns - M a n v i l l e Sales C o r p . , slip opinion, 1981 Asb. Lit. Rep. 3931 (M.D. Fla. A u g u s t 28, 1981); Aguilar v. J o h n s - Manville Sales C o r p . , slip opinion, 3882, 3908 1981 Asb. Lit. Rep. (Cal. Super. Ct. S e p t ember 8, 1981); Gorniak v. Combustion E n g i n e e r i n g , slip opinion, 1981 Asb. Lit. Rep. 4141 (N.D. Ohio July 6, 1981).** * A federal district court in South Dako t a recently upheld a p p l i ­ cation of the Sindell theory in a DES case under South Dakota law. M c E l h a n e y v. Eli Lilly & C o . , 564 F. Supp. 265 (D.S.D. 1983). In its decision, the court justified shifting to d e f e n ­ dants the burden of showing the source of the DES to which p l a i n ­ tiff was exposed because the d efendants maintained extensive and detailed m a r k eting records. The same does not hold true in the Agent Orange case. There are no records, in defendants' p o s s e s ­ sion or otherwise, which could connect a d e fendant's Agent Orange with each exposure claimed by a plaintiff. ** In two asbestos cases, d i strict courts in Texas permitted plaintiffs to amend their c omplaints to allege m a rket share liability. Hardy v. J o h n s - M a n v i l l e Sales C o r p . , 509 F. Supp. 1353 (E.D. Tex. 1981), rev'd on other g r o u n d s , 681 F.2d 334 (5th Cir. 1982); Herbeck v. J o h n s - M a n v i l l e Sales C o r p . , slip o p i n i o n (Footnote continued) -43- l. •O G S; Drawing from the hol d i n g s of the above line of authority, Dow's objec t i o n to adopting the theory of market share liability in this instance is threefold. public policy, First, as a matter of the m ark e t share concept is too great a departure from well-settled p rinc i p l e s of tort law. Second, the social and economic ramifications of the m a r k e t share issue dictate that it is an issue for the l e g i s l a t i v e branch to address in the first instance.* Third, ass u m i n g the validity of the theory, we agree with this Court's asses s m e n t in P r etrial Order No. 66 that the facts of this case do not w a r r a n t its application, part i c u l a r l y in view of the serious q u e s t i o n s regarding the validity of plaintiffs' causation claims, the presence of a significant number of possible alte rnate c a u s ative factors and, of primary importance, that each d e f e n d a n t ' s Agent Orange was a non-fungible product which did not pose the identical risk, if any, to the ultimate user. With respect to the first basis for Dow's oppos i t i o n to the market share theory, as noted earlier, product liability law (Footnote continued) 1981 Asb. Lit. Rep. 4699 (W.D. Tex. 1981). Significantly, these courts did little else but comport with liberal rules governing amendment of pleadings. T h e y provide little, if any, discu s s i o n of the public policy c o n s i d e r a t i o n s at issue nor the d i s t i n g uishable c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the product involved in S i n d e l l , D E S , and asbestos. * These first two issues di s c u s s e d below also are addressed in Dow's Alt. Liability M e m o at pp. 23-26. -44- I *i Us^? rests on the fundamental premise that an essential element of causation is establishing a causal c o n n e c t i o n between a d e f e n d a n t ’s product and plaintiff's injuries. Handbook of the Law of T o r t s , § 103 W. Prosser, (4th ed. 1971). shifts this burden away from plaintiff, Market share requiring a defendant to show that its product was not the cause of the plaintiff's injury. As such, departure" the ma rket share theory constitutes "a radical from the body of product liability law developed by the fifty states. Thus, in the words of one court: A p p l i c a t i o n of this burden shifting theory would violate esta b l i s h e d public policy and fundamental p rinciples of tort law and procedure in this state in a variety of ways. * * * By removing the traditional requirement that the plaintiff identify the respon­ sible manufacturer, the do c t r i n e destroys the nexus between p roduction of a d e f e c ­ tive product and the p l a intiff's injury. As a result, liability is placed on defendants bearing no respo n s i b i l it y for the defective product. M i z e l l v. Eli Lilly & C o . , s u p r a , 526 F. Supp. at 596 (footnote omitted). This view was shared by the diss e n t in Sindell which noted that the majority' s novel concept represents a rejection of "over one hundred years of tort law which required that before tort liability was imposed a 'matching' of d e f endant's conduct -45- and p l a i n t i f f ’s injury was absol u t e l y essential." 607 P .2d at 939 .* The district court's d e c i s i o n in Starling presents a penetrating analysis of the legal ramifi c a t i o ns of the theory announced in S i n d e l l . At the outset, the district court noted that market share runs contrary to l o n g -established princ i p l e s of product liability law, specifically, G e o r g i a ' s product liability law, because it, in effect, makes a m a n u facturer an insurer of his product. However, as the Starling court concluded, market share liability goes far beyond even that, making a manufacturer an insurer of his competitor's p roduct.** [This approach is] a q u a n t u m leap "toward render[ing] e v e r y m a n u f a c ­ turer an insurer not only of the safety of its own products, but of all generi c a l l y similar products made by others." I d . at 190, quoting Ryan v. Eli Lilly & C o . , s u p r a . Accordingly, market share l i a b i l i t y constitutes too radical a break from w e l l - e s t a b l is h e d rules of tort liability, * Subsequent decisions which have rejected the market share concept have agreed with the dissent in Sindell that the court's unprecedented "legislation" was v i o l ative of public policy. Ryan v. Eli Lilly & C o . , s u p r a ; M o rton v. A b b o t t L a b s , s u p r a ; M i z e l l v. Eli Lilly & C o . , s u p r a ; Starling v. Seaboard Coast L i n e , s u p r a ; Tiddler v. Eli Lilly & C o . , s u p r a . ** Indeed, as one commentator has noted, "elimination of the b ur­ den of proof as to identification w ould impose a l i a bility which would exceed absolute liability." Coggins, Industry-Wide L i a b i l i t y , 13 Suffolk L. Rev. 980, 998 (1979). -46- such that, as a purely legal matter, its application in this litigation is completely unwarranted. The decision in Sta r l i n g also provides a useful discussion of the second basis underlying Dow's o p p o s i t i o n to market share liability. In its refusal to adopt "market share", the court in Starling noted the possible "Pandora's box of undesirable economic and social effects" attributable to expanding a m anufacturer's l i a b i l i t y by judicial fiat. 533 F. Supp. at 190. In light of the impact of decisions that would so d r a m a ­ tically alter the relationship between m a n ufacturers and c o n ­ sumers, the district court in St a r l i n g advocated judicial restraint and legislative action. The flexibility to fashion remedies for asbestos victims that take into account economic and social ramifi­ cations is found in the legislature. 533 F. Supp. at 190. This view was shared by the diss e n t in Sindell. Given the grave and sweeping e cono­ mic, social and m e d i c a l effects of "market share" liability, the policy decision to introduce and define it should rest, not with us, but with the legislature.... 607 P . 2d. at 943. The Agent Orange L i t i g a t i o n presents a c ompelling example of a situation where d e p a r t i n g from traditional tort principles of liability would have serious ramifications. -47- The I u 3 defendants in this case provided, under government contract and pursuant to military specifications, a munition to the mil it a r y for use in the defense of A m e r i c a n servicemen in a time of war. Unque s t i o n a bl y the Agent Orange deployed by the m i l i t a r y in the war effort s a v e d .countless numbers of soldiers' lives. Thus, this is not a routine product liability case where a manufacturer introduces a product into the stream of commerce and a p a r t y s ub­ sequently attributes an injury to use of the product. number of courts, Indeed, a including this Court, have held that under the circumstances of this case, defense contractors should not be held liable for injuries attributed to a munition. L i t i g a t i o n , 534 F. Supp. 1046 (1982); International C o r p . , 704 F.2d 444 Agent Orange see also M c K a y v. Rockwell (9th Cir. 1983). In a similar vein, the M a s sachusetts Supreme Court refused to adopt market share liability in light of the public p o l i c y favoring development of new drugs and the p o t e n t i a l l y devastating effect market share would have on this policy. Public policy favors the development and marketing of new and more efficacious drugs. The R e s tatement (Second) of Torts recognizes this policy by rejecting strict liability in favor of negligence for drug related injuries. Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A, Comment K (1965). Under the plaintiffs' market share theory, each p o t e ntial drug marketing d e f endant would risk being held liable, not only for injuries that re­ sulted from its own negligence but also for injuries resulting from the negli- 1 -Ti.u¿7 -48- gence of other m a r k eters and even for injuries caused by drugs m a rketed nonnegligentl y by others. Imposition of such broad liability could have a dele­ terious effect on the devel o p m e n t and marketing of new d r u g s . Payton v. Abbott L a b s , s u p r a , 437 N.E.2d at 179 (emphasis added). The impact of market share liability on defense c o n t r a c ­ tors and the ability of the m i l i t a r y to secure the best available technology during times of crisis is c e r tainly no less compelling than the need for advancements in the pharmaceutical field. The important policy c o n s i d e r a t i on s implicated in this litigation, not the least of which is the relationship between a government during a time of war and its contractors, require that any decision to depart from well - s e t t l e d principles of m a n u ­ facturer liability m u s t come from the legislature. as the court in Starling noted, Furthermore, the legislative branch is best suited to deal with the claims of veterans and their families who allege injuries from Agent Orange, which requires balancing the needs of these individuals with other socially or economically desirable goals.* * One factor which the legislature m ay consider and which would, in our view, counsel against expanding a defense contractor's liability, should causation be established in any instance, is the statutory benefit to which a veteran is entitled for servicerelated injuries. S e e , e . g . , 38 U.S.C. §§ 310-15 (setting forth c o mpensation to veterans and depen d e n t s for wartime d i s a b i l i ­ ties) ; 38 U.S.C. §§ 321^22 (setting forth c o m p e nsation to d e p e n ­ dent survivors of veterans for wartime fatalities); 10 U.S.C. §§ 1071 et s e q . (providing for m e d i c a l care for members of the u ni­ formed services and their d e p e n d e n t s ) . -49■ ^ y O . c hi Aside from these p u r e l y policy reasons for urging rejec­ tion of the market share concept, Dow's third o b j ection is that the facts of the Agent Orange case simply do not lend themselves to the application of market share liability. In particular, the lack of fungibility of Agent O r a n g e as well as the acknowledged questions relating to the elem e n t of causation make the applica­ tion of market share liability c ompletely unwarranted. In S j n d e l l , the prod u c t at issue was DES, a drug m a n u ­ factured under the identical c h emical formulation by all m a n u f a c ­ turers. Thus, although m a n u f a c t u r e d under different brand names, all DES was fungible. Every m a n u f a c t u r e r' s DES, therefore, also had exactly the same toxicity and prope n s i t y for causing harm in humans. Consequently, the go a l of m a r k e t share liability, establishing a correlation bet w e e n sales of the prod u c t and the likelihood that a particular d e f endant's product caused a p ar­ ticular plaintiff's harm. As noted in a number of asbestos cases, this concept has no application where each m a n u f a c t u r e r ' s product is unique, and its propensity to cause injury differs. In these cases, it is the presence of asbestos fibers within a defendant's product which is alleged to be the cause of plaintiff's injuries. d i s trict court noted in rejecting market share liability: Asbestos fibers are of several varieties, each used in varying quantities by d efendants in their products and each differing in its harmful effects. -50- As one In re; Asbestos C a s e s , s u p r a , 543 F. Supp. at 1156. See also Starling v. S e a b o a r d , s u p r a ; H a n n o n v. W a t e r m a n S t e a m s h i p , s u p r a . Thus, while all DES is fungible, asbestos products with their varying amounts of asbestos fibers are not. Because it is the fibers which cause the h a r m complained of, the aggregate peril caused by a particu l a r m a n u f a c t u r e r ' s product bears no rational relation to the share of the m a r k e t held by that m a n u ­ facturer . Similarly, in the Agent Orange L i t i g a t i o n , the Agent Orange sold by d efendants was not fungible. Tests of stockpiled Agent Orange d e m o n s t r a t e d a m a r k e d d i s p a r i t y in the TCDD c on­ centrations among the various defendants. Liability M e m o at pp. See Dow's Alt. 21-22 and annexed exhibits. Indeed, p l a i n ­ tiffs acknowledge that by utilizing d i f f erent manufacturing p r o ­ cesses, the levels of dioxin in A gent Oran g e varied significantly from manufacturer to manufacturer: " [C]learly, different m a n u ­ facturing processes resulted in d i f f erent levels of dioxin contamination." Plaintiffs' Alt. L i a bility Memo at p. 27. In light of the v a r i ation in the co n c e n t r a t i on of TCDD, the underlying p r emise of m a r k e t share liability, attributable to all defendants' this case. equal risk products, cannot be satisfied in There are two reasons for the foregoing. First, the greater the c o n c e n t r a t i o n of TC D D in a p a r ­ ticular batch of A g e n t Orange, the greater the likelihood that a plaintiff would come into p h ysical contact with a m olecule of -51- T 7 ^V $3 TCDD. Thus, the risk of exposure to T C D D from one m a n u f a c t u r e r' s batch of Agent O range containing, for example, 10 ppm dioxin necessarily differs from the risk of e x posure created by another manufacturer's A g e n t Orange which c o n t a i n e d 1 ppm dioxin. Second, the concentration of TC D D in each defendant's product will direc t l y affect the toxicity, and, in turn, the risk, if any, of the product if any, created by the product.* Thus, Agent Orange is m a r k e d l y d i f ferent from the DES product considered in S i n d e l l . The d i f f e r i n g levels of TCDD in each defendant's product makes each m a n u f a c t u r e r ' s Agent Orange unique, and the likelihood that any p articular plaintiff was harmed by the Agent Orange sold by D ow would not bear any rela­ tion whatsoever to Dow's share of the A g e n t Orange "market". Another limitation of the m a r k e t share liability theory is that it does not reasonably reflect the degree of risk posed by a defendant's product when there are other p o ssible harmful agents which may be a substantial factor in producing the illness or disorder complained of. This flaw in the mar k e t - s h a r e concept is no more evident than in this case, w h e r e there are no injuries unique to Agent O r a n g e exposure and there are many potential * S e e , e . g ., Murray, Three G e n e r a t i o n R e p r o d u c t i o n Study of Rats Given 2,3,7,8 T e t r a c h l o r o d i b e n z o - p - d i o x i n (TCDD) in the D i e t , Tox. and App. Pharma. 50, 241-252 (1979) . This was a threegeneration study of rats given TCDD in their diet. The study evidenced an effect on the animals rep r o d u c t i v e capacities at higher dose levels of 0.01 ug. T C D D / k g . / d a y but not at a lower dose of 0.001 ug. TCDD/kg./day. -52- t 0 alternate causative agents that will be at issue in the l i tiga­ tion. See pp. 30-39, supra. Accordingly, where A g e n t O r ange is only one of a number of purported toxic substances which m ay have caused plaintiffs' injuries, the Sindell concept of m a rket share which equates the degree of risk posed by one m a n u f a c t u r e r ' s product with his share of the "market" would necessitate c r eation of a market of all poten t i a l l y harmful products. Under the Sindell rationale, this would, of course, be impossible because each of these substances would pose a different degree of risk. There is one final d i s t i n g u i s h in g chara c t e r i s ti c between the Agent Orange Litigation and those few instances in which courts have broken from traditional tort principles and adopted m a rket share liability. issue, to wit, complained of, In those cases, invariably the causation the propensity of the product to cause the harm is not in dispute. For example, in the few DES and asbestos cases cited p r e v i o u s l y in which market share has been recognized, the causal link between certain dis e a s e s and these substances is accepted by the medical and legal communities.* There is, however, no such causal c o n n e c t i o n in * Daughters of women who took DES, a man-made e s trogen previ o u s l y used to prevent miscarriages, are suffering from a rare form of cancer, clear-cell a denoc a r c i n om a of the vagina and uterus and adenosis, an abnormality on the cervix or vagina. B e f o r e the DES-cancer linked cases, only three cases of c lear-cell a d e n o c a r ­ c inoma of the vagina had been reported. Subsequently, eighty p e rcent of all such cases had confirmed exposure to DES. (Footnote Continued) this case. Absent an accepted cause and effect relationship, imposition of the d r a s t i c remedy of market share liability is inappropriate. In sum, mark e t share liability is inappropriate on fun­ damental policy grounds and because it cannot rationally be applied in this case. This theory of liabilty departs dras t i ­ cally and improperly from well-settled tort principles requiring defendant identification. Further, adoption of such a radical theory should be a le g islative not a judicial determination. This is particularly true here, where alteration of these tradi­ tional tort principles would seriously affect the relationship b e tween the g overnmen t and its defense contractors. Finally, a m a r k e t share theory is simply inappropriate under the facts of this case: Agent O ra n g e is not a fungible product, the cause of plaintiffs' alleged injuries is seriously disputed and numerous potential alternative causative agents for plaintiffs' asserted harm exist. (Footnote Continued) Ulfelder, The S t i l b e s t e r o l- A d e n o s i s - C a r c i n o m a S y n d r o m e , 38 Cancer 426 (1976). See also Comment, DES and a Proposed Theo r y of A l t e rnate L i a b i l i t y , 46 F o r d h a m L. Rev. 963, 964-66 (1978). Asbestosis, a thickening of the chest walls, and mesothelioma, a form of lung cancer, have been linked unque s t i o n a bl y to o c c u p a ­ tional exposure to asbestos. Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products C o r p . , 493 F.2d 1076 (5th Cir. 1973), c e r t , d e n i e d , 419 U.S. 869 (1974) . -54- C. Concert of A ction Plaintiffs contend that Dow participated in a "con­ spiracy of silence" to conceal information on dioxin from the government and is thus liable under the theory of concert of action. See Plaintiffs' Alt. Liability Me m o at 100-02. As discussed more fully herein, plaintiffs', c ontention is utterly without merit. First, there was no conspiracy. The undisputed evidence before the Court establishes that Dow acted independently from, not in concert with, Second, the other defendants. there was no silence. Dow informed the g o v e r n ­ ment and many others of the hazards of dioxin in 2,4,5-T m a n u f a c ­ ture — actions totally inconsistent with a "conspiracy of silence." Third, even if a conspiracy had existed, had no effect, it would have since the government was fully aware of the r e l e ­ vant information regarding dioxin and H e r b icide O r a n g e from the published scientific literature and other sources. The principle of concert of action has been applied in instances in which two or more defendants have acted jointly or pursuant to a common design to p r o x i m a t e l y cause plaintiff's injury. If plaintiff is unable to show which defen d a n t ' s act was the actual cause of the injury, joint liability m ay be imposed upon each defendant for their joint conduct. Torts, §876 (1979). R e s tatement As described by one court, (2d) of "the concert of -55o 9 action theory is devised from a criminal law concept, abetting, aiding and and renders jointly and severally liable all who inten­ tionally partic i p a t e in an unlawful activity." Lilly & C o . , s u p r a , 514 F. Supp. at 1015. under this theory, Ryan v. Eli To impose liability the common endeavor must be in furtherance of an express or tacit agreement and must be tortious in nature. Prosser, W . , Law of Torts § 46 (4th ed. 1971). The case in which a bystander is injured by a car involved in an illegal drag race best illustrates appli c a t i o n of this theory. Under the concert of action theory, all p a r t i c i ­ pants in the drag race are held jointly and severally liable to the injured party. The rationale underlying imposition of liability on all participants is that they were all engaged in a common endeavor and it was that endeavor, the drag race itself, that was the cause of the b y s tander's injuries. The application of this rationale in a complex product liability case is highly questionable. Indeed, the m a j o r i t y of courts that have addressed the a p plication of a concert of action theory of liability in DES cases have rejected it, expressing concern over its adaptation to product liability cases. Dow's Alt. L i a b i l i t y Memo at pp. 24-25. See The C a l i f o r n i a Supreme Court's comments in Sindell are representative: A p p l i c a t i o n of the concept of concert of action to this situation would take the theory far beyond its intended scope and would render virtually any m a n u f acturer liable for the defective products of an -56- f ■* *4 A entire industry, even if it could be d e monstrat e d that the product which caused the injury was not made by the defendant. Sindell v. A bbott L a b o r a t o r i e s , s u p r a , 607 P.2d at 933. Aside from this c o n c e p t u a l p r o b l e m with applying the con­ cert of action theory to a comp l e x product liability case, the analysis utilized by the courts in other product liability li t i ­ gation of the facts necessary to establish concert of action makes clear that this theory is inapplicable to the facts of the Agent Orange L i t i g a t i o n . In the DES cases, the courts have concluded, exhaustive analysis of the defendants' based on an actions that: the DES m a n u f a c t u r e r s simply did not act in concert as that concept is defined in tort law. M o r t o n v. A bbott L a b s , s u p r a , 538 F. Supp. at 596. The facts surrounding the DES cases are ge n e r a l l y undisputed. DES was discov ered in the 1930's by a group of British scientists. By 1940, over ten pharm a c e u t i c a l companies had filed N e w Drug Applic a t i o n s with the FDA. The F DA subsequently requested that the companies pool their cl i n i c a l data and develop a uniform label. It is also unque stioned that, names, the DES sold by all m a n u f a c t u r e r s was, by agreement, chemi c a l l y identical. Finally, although m a rketed by trade the record is also clear that no w a r nin gs were ever given by the c o m p anies regarding carcinogenic or other risks attributable to ingestion of DES. In the view of the vast m a j o r i t y of courts, did not satisfy the criteria of "joint conduct": these facts [T]he history of stilbestrol [DES], far from showing joint conduct, d e m o n ­ strates an independent, competitive response to a w i d e l y acclaimed medical discovery, all under the supervision of the FDA. Ryan v. Eli Lilly & C o . , s u p r a , 514 F. Supp. at 1011. The district court in R y a n , citing the holding in S i n d e l l , further concluded that the kind of c o o p e r a t i o n engaged in by those m a n u ­ facturers was common practice throughout the ma n u f a c t u r i ng industry and simply not in and of itself tortious. Id. Similarly instructive is Judge Rubin's o p i n i o n in In re: B e verl y Hills Fire L i t i g a t i o n , Civil No. 77-79, (E.D. Ky. November 14, 1979), slip opinion the lawsuit arising out of the tragic fire at the Beverly Hills Supper Club in Southgate, Kentucky. Plaintiffs cite this de c i s i o n as an instance where the concert of action theory has been applied in a product liability case. However, under the cr i t e r i a set forth by the court in B e v e r l y Hills for application of this theory, it is evident that plaintiffs in the Agent O r ange L i t i g a t i o n cannot satisfy their burden of proof. Specifically, required proof: (1) that each d e f e ndant marketed and promoted a gener i c a l l y similar product; the court in B e v e r l y Hills (2) that the defend a n t s acted by express or tacit agreement to market and promote a defective product; and (3) that this agreement to commit a tortious act was the cause in fact of plaintiff's injuries. Slip op. at 9-10. After almost two years of intensive discovery, the record before the Court in the Agent Orange L i t i g a t i o n shows much -58- r o> o less evidence of concerted action than was present in the DES cases — where no concert of action was found. Furthermore, not one of the factors relied upon in Beverly Hills is present in Agent O r a n g e . First, as set forth at pp. 50-52, not a generic product. Moreover, s u p r a . A g e n t Orange is the wide v a r i ation in the levels of dioxin in Agent O r ange demonstrates the lack of joint action among the manufacturers. Second, there is no evidence of either a tacit or an explicit agreement b e twee n Dow and any other defendant to conceal information regarding dioxin from the government. Ev e n the few documents offered by plain t i f f s in support of their theory show Dow acting independently from, other defendants. Moreover, rather than jointly with, the p laintiffs ignore the fact that Dow repeatedly informed m i l i t a r y and government officials and health professionals around the world of the chloracne pro b l e m asso­ ciated with dioxin in 2,4,5-T m a n ufacture — a fact totally inconsistent with p l a i n t i f f s ’ supposed "conspiracy of silence." Finally, the essential information regarding chloracne and dioxin was both readily available in p u b l i s h e d scientific literature and in fact well known to the government. if Dow had failed to inform the government — did not — tiffs, Thus, even which it clearly Dow's failure would not have caused injury to p l a i n ­ since the govern m e n t already possessed the relevant infor­ -59- 11 h 'A mation. Before addressing plaintiffs' allegations of conspiracy, it must be e mphasized that Judge Pratt previ o u s l y rejected these allegations when considering defendants' motions for summary judgment on the governme n t c o ntract defense. Addressing counsel for Dow at oral argument on May 4, 19.83, the Court stated: Mr. Rivkin, I read your reply brief while I was eating my sandwich at lunch and I went through all the people you notified in this country and elsewhere. ★ * * I wonder really why you ever address yourself to the so-called c onspiracy . . . . All the o r a t o r y about conspiracy I found to be something of a turn-on [sic, should read " t u r n - o f f ” ] and I had to fight my way through words in order to get down to what few facts I could find. Proceedings b e fore Judge Pratt on May 4, 1983, Tr. at 4862 (emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . Accordingly, plaintiffs' a l legations of c o n s p i r a c y or concert of action as the factual p r e dicate for imposing joint and several liability have already been considered and rejected by the Court as w i t h o u t foundation. We will first set forth the history of Dow's involvement with chloracne, that history, dioxin, and H e r b i c i d e Orange. Then, in light of the documents cited by plaintiffs in support of a "conspiracy" will be discussed and shown to establish that D ow in fact acted independently from the other defendants. -60- N u merous T l * y . instances of notice given by D o w during the 1960s to the g o v e r n ­ ment and others will be presented. Finally, the g o v e rnment's extensive knowledge regarding c h l oracne and dioxin, together with the publicly available scientific literature on those subjects, will be summarized. 1. Dow Did Not Act In Concert With Other H e r b icide Orange M a n u f a c t u r e rs To W i t hhold Info r m a t i o n On Chloracne And Dioxin From The Govern m e n t ______________ The starting point in considering plaintiffs' tions of a "conspiracy of silence" is the realization that p l a i n ­ tiffs offer no direct evidence whatsoever conspiracy. allega­ in support of their After searching through hundreds of thousands of documents, many of them con f i d e n t i a l internal memoranda, plain­ tiffs cannot point to a single line where D ow agreed with anyone to hide information on dioxin from the government. Conscious of their lack of any direct evidence, p l a i n ­ tiffs seek to imply a tacit agreement from the actions of Dow and the other defendants. Yet the meetings and documents plaintiffs cite in support of their c onspiracy theory in fact prove p r e c i ­ sely the contrary. Plaintiffs' Using primarily the evidence presented in Alt. Liability Memo, we will demonstrate, first, that Dow knew the government already possessed the information on c h l o racne and dioxin which D ow was allegedly c onspiring to withhold; second, that Dow and the other d efendants acted c o m p l e ­ tely independently regarding the dioxin cont a m i n a n t in He r b i c i d e -61- Orange; third, that a 1965 mee t i n g of t r ichlorophenol m a n u f a c ­ turers resulted in no agr eement whatsoever among the defendants, was not attended by anyone m a n u f a c t u r i ng Herbicide Orange, and, in fact, had nothing at all to do with H e r bicide Orange; and fourth, that an industry task force on herbicide residues was innocuous and totally irrelevant to dioxin and H e r b icide Orange. In order to appreciate fully the independence of Dow's actions from those of the other defendants, it is necessary to understand the background of Dow's involvement with 2,4,5-T. a. Dow Was Aware Of Occ u p a t i o n a l Health Hazards Associated Wi t h E x t r e m e l y High Levels Of Dioxin In The W a s t e S t ream Of The Trichl o r o phenol Manuf a c t u r i n g Process, But Not Of Health Hazards To Users Of Its 2,4,5-T Products. The undisputed evidence e s t ablishes that Dow became acutely aware of occupati o n a l health hazards associated with the m anufacture of trichlorophenol in 1964, when a number of Dow employees developed chloracne following exposure to the trichlorophenol waste stream. Dow identified d i o x i n as the causative agent and instituted manu f a c t u r i ng process changes and quality c o n t r o l procedures to protect its workers and insure that its trichlorophenol and 2,4,5-T contained no dioxin. Thorough testing by Dow scientists showed that its trich l o r o p h en o l and 2,4,5-T posed no health hazards to users. Dow fully informed the government, the chemical industry and the scientific community of the o c c u p a t i o n a l h e alth hazard -62- H r ... f Li associated with d ioxin in the m a n u f a c t u r e of trichlorophenol. See pp. 85-97, infra. However, Dow had no reason to warn the government that dioxin in Dow's H e r b i c i d e Orange posed a hazard to troops in Vietnam, since extensive testing at the time showed that Dow's H e r b i c i d e Oran g e c o n tained no dioxin and posed no hazard. The d i s t i n c t i o n between o c c u p a t i o n a l health hazards of dioxi n — which are severe — 2,4,5-T products — and hazards to users of Dow's which are non - e x i s t e n t — is critical to a proper u n d e rstanding of Dow's actions during the 1950s and 1960s. Prior to the time that Dow m a n u f a c t u r e d and sold h e r ­ bicides to the U n i t e d States for use in S o u t heast Asia, Dow learned that an unidentified c h l o r a c n e g e n — capable of causing chloracne — a chemical agent could be present in the waste s tream during the manuf a c t u r i ng process of TCP, a precursor the m a n u f a c t u r e of 2,4,5-T. Silverstein, in "The C h l o racne P r o b l e m - Biochem's C ontributio n, " M arch 11, 1965 at pp. 4-6, Exhibit "32". Utili z i n g the so-called "rabbit ear" test, pioneered by Dow toxicologists,* Dow tested the waste stream, which c on­ sistently produced the c h a r a c t e r i s ti c folliculitis on the rabbit ear — indicating the c h l o r a c n e g e n was present; Dow also tested the finished trichlorop h en o l product, which con s i s t e n t l y p roduced no response on the rabbit ear — indicating no chloracnegen. Id. * See Adams, et al., The Response of R a bbit Skin to Compounds Reported to Have Caused A c n e f o r m D e r m a t i t i s , J. Ind. Med. (1941), Exhibit "33". The article is d i s c ussed at pp. 111-112, infra. -63- at p. 2; In the Matter of the Hear i n g of 2,4,5-T and S i l v e x , Direct Testimony of V.K. Rowe at pp. In or about February, 3-5, Exhibit " 3 4 ” . 1964, workers assigned to D o w ’s Midland, Michigan plant engaged in the m a n ufacture of trichlorophenol began to experience symptoms associated with chloracne. M e m o of R. Holmes, re: Manu f a c t u r e of TCP at 199 Bldg., July 30, 1964, Exh i b i t "35". Dow investigated the cause of the symptoms and d e t e r ­ mined that they were attributable to a recent change in Dow's production process for t r i c h l o rophenol which resulted in the for­ m a t i o n of high concentrations — measured at up to 10,000 ppm — of a chloracnegen jji the waste s t r e a m .* At the time, Do w also determined that the previously unidentified chl o r a c n e g e n in the waste oils was dioxin. Me m o of R. Holmes, s u p r a . Exh i b i t "35"; Silverstein, Report on the Ch l o r a c n e Pro b l e m Meet i n g on 3/24/65, E x h i b i t "37". During the course of its investigation, Dow developed an analytical method, utilizing gas chromatography, which was c a pable of consistently detecting dioxin in t r i c h l o rophenol and 2 .4.5- T at concentrations as low as 1 ppm. Gill, "The * Dow's testing in December, 1964 by gas liquid c h r o m a t o g r a ph y of the waste stream from the trichlorophenol process showed amounts of dioxin in the waste stream ranging from 0.6 percent to 1.0 percent, which equals 6,000 ppm to 10,000 ppm. Gill, "The A n a l y s i s of Caustic Insoluble Oils and Process Samples from the 2 .4.5- T Trichlorophenol Process for Compounds Capable of Causing Chloracne, Principally, 2,3,7,8 T e t r a c h l o r o d i b e n z o - p - d i o x i n , " December 22, 1969 at p. 1, Exh i b i t "36". -64- Deter m i n a t i on of 2 , 3 , 1 , 8 Trichlorophenol T e t r a c h l o r o d i b e n z o - p - d i o x i n in 2,4,5- (Gas C h r o m a t o g r a p h i c Method)," July 7, 1965, Exhibit "38"; Gill, "The D e t e r m i n a t i o n of 2,3,7,8 Tetrachloro- d i b enzo-p-dioxin in 2 , 4 , 5 - T r i c h l o r o ph e n o x y a c e t i c Acid by Gas-Liquid Chromatography," Ju n e 22, 1965, Exhibit "39". Based upon tests conducted by Dow, it was d etermined that no chlor- acnegenic response occurred if the dioxin concen t r a t i on was below that level.* s u p r a , p. 7; Exhibit "37", s u p r a . Exhibit "32", Accordingly, Dow esta b l i s h e d internal specifications for its trichlorophenol and 2,4,5-T products which required that it contain no dioxin whatsoever as m e asured by its analytical p r o c e ­ dure. Memo on Conferenc e re: 2,4,5-T Acid Product S p e c i f i c a ­ tion, May 4, 1965, Exhibit "40"; Letter fr. Otis to Coulter, April 6, 1965, Exhibit "41". In order to insure compl i a n c e with this specification, Dow instituted the following internal procedures: of trichlorophenol were analyzed for dioxin; (1) all cars (2) two samples per * For a brief period of time following the identification of d ioxin in the trichlorophenol waste stream, Dow was uncertain whether dioxin might also be pre s e n t in the end product — trichlorophenol. At that time it notified its trichlorophenol customers and other tric h l o rophenol m a n u f a c t u r e rs of the chloracne hazard associated with the impurity. By A pril 1965, however, laboratory testing had established the safety of trichlorophenol with no detectable dioxin according to Dow's analyti­ cal method. Dow then notified its customers that there was no cause for concern since the p r o b l e m had been solved. The docu­ ments indicating some u n c e r t a i n t y regarding Dow's end products all date from early 1965, prior to the c o m p l e t i o n of laboratory tests — a period in which D o w sold no herbic i d e s to the g o v e r n ­ ment. See pp. 90-92, i n f r a . tank car of 2,4,5-T were analyzed for dioxin; and (3) a sample for animal toxicity testing was taken from a filter cake utilized d uring the manuf a c t u r i ng process. Memos re: TCP and 2,4,5-T acid analysis for dioxin, M a y 4, 1965, Exhibit ,,4 2 ,,, and Ma y 8, 1967, Exhibit "43". Dow maintained analytical records reflecting, among other things, the dioxin c o n c e n t r a t i o n in Dow's trichlorophenol production. S e e , e .g ., Reco r d s of Shipments of Trichlorophenol, E x hibit "44". No t richl o r o p h en o l or 2,4,5-T or H e r b i c i d e Orange ever left the D o w plant for any purpose unless it satisfied Dow's internal criteria of zero dioxin. A f f i d a v i t of Richard Hoff, Exhibit "45"; Gill T r . at 161-162, Exhibit "46"; E x hibits "41", "42", and "43". In 1966, after these qua l i t y control p rocedures were well in place, Dow for the first time began shipments of Herbicide Orange to the g o v e rnment.* Pursuant to Pre-Trial Order No. See Dow's S t a tement 33, April 21, 1982. Since * Dow had p reviously supplied H e r b i c i d e s Purple, Pink, and Green to the government, the last de l i v e r y occurring in 1963. See Statement of The Dow C h e m i c a l C o m p a n y Pursuant to P retrial Order No. 33, April 21, 1982. Prior to 1964, Dow had cons i s t e n t l y tested samples of trichl o r o p h en o l for chloracne activity, using the rabbit ear procedure, and found none. Results of the gas chromatography test were compared with results of the rabbit ear test, previously utilized by Dow, and it was determined that the rabbit ear test indicated no c h l o r a c n e g e ni c tendencies when Dow's analytical procedure showed no dioxin. See pp. 64-65, s u p r a . Thus, Herbicides Purple, Pink and Green, which D o w supplied to the government well before its 1964 c h l o racne problem, were of the same quality with respect to dioxin as Dow's He r b i c i d e Orange. Report on the C h l o r a c n e Meeting, s u p r a , at pp. 3, 5, E x hibit "37". See also R e p l y M e m o r a n d u m of the Dow Che m i c a l C o m p a n y in Support of its M o tion for Reargument, June 13, 1983, at 5-7. -66- Herbicide Orange was a 50% blend of 2 , 4 , 5-T and 2,4-D, the d i o x i n content of Herbicide O ran g e would have been only half that of the 2 , 4 , 5-T — which was already too low to measure.* Exhibits "42" and "43"; Letter fr: R. Woodward to G. Lynn, M arch 10, 1970; Exhibit "47". V.K. Rowe, Dow's chief toxicologist, has stated c a t e ­ gorically in his affidavit in support of Dow's m o tion for summary judgment on the government contract defense that he never believed Dow's 2 , 4 , 5-T products constituted a health hazard to humans or animals. Indeed, Affidavit of V.K. Rowe, Exhi b i t "48". the Court has found that "Dow believed [its] standard to be within a reasonable ma rgin of safety so that hazards to people would be eliminated." 565 F. Supp. at 1276. Accordingly, Dow's knowledge of dioxin was that high levels might cause occupational health hazards in conne c t i o n with the manufacture of t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l . There is no evidence that Dow ever believed or had any reason to believe that its H e r b icide O range — which contained no dioxin according to Dow's tests — posed a health hazard to troops in Vietnam. * Since Dow's trichlorophenol always contained less than 1 ppm dioxin — the lowest amount its analytical p r o c edure could detect — Dow's H e r b icide Orange always contained less than 1/2. ppm dioxin. More sensitive tests, developed in the 1970s, were p e r ­ formed on stocks of Agent Orange stored under gover n m e n t control in Gulfport, Mississippi, and confirmed that Dow's A gent Orange contained well under 1/2 ppm of dioxin, i .e . , an average of 0.12 ppm. See Dow's Alt. Liability Me m o at pp. 21-22 and annexed exhibits. b. The Groth Correspondence. Plaintiffs argue that certain correspondence related to Dr. David Groth of the Public H e alth Service shows that Dow conspired to conceal information of its chloracne experience from the government. However, Dow did inform the Public Health Service of its chloracne e xperience at that time. plaintiffs' argument fails completely. Thus, The Groth correspondence simply demonstrates the extensive knowledge of dioxin and chloracne which the Public H e a l t h Service possessed by 1964 and 1965 — and makes clear that Dow was aware that the govern m e n t had such extensive knowledge. On December 3, 1964, Dr. David Groth, a p a thologist with the Occupa t i o n a l Health R e search & T raining F acility of the Public Health Service at Cincinnati, Ohio, which was responsible for investigating occupational health problems, wrote to E. T. U p t o n of T h o m p s o n - H a yw a r d C h e m i c a l Co. 2,4,5-T and trichlorophenol. to request samples of Exhi b i t ”49". Dr. Groth identified d i o x i n as the suspected c h l o r a c n e g e ni c contaminant in 2,4,5-T by giving its full chemical name and drawing a structural diagram. He discussed a paper pub lished by Kimmig and Schulz in D e r m a tologica in 1957 and proposed to test samples of 2,4,5-T and t r i c h l orophenol for dioxin to confirm, if possible, the c o n c l u ­ sion of Kimmig and Schulz that the skin and liver toxicity asso­ ciated with 2,4,5-T m a n u f a c t u r e was caused by very small q u a n ­ tities of dioxin created as a b y - p r o d u c t of the 2,4,5-T m a n u f a c - -68- turing process. See Kimmig, J., and Schulz, K . H . , O c c u p a t i o n a l Chloracne Caused by A r o m a t i c C y c l i c E t h e r s , D e r m a t o l o g i c a 115: 540-46 (1957), Exhibit "50". This significant p u b l i c a t i o n is summarized and discussed at pp. 113-114, i n f r a , as one example of the fact that the presence of d i o x i n in 2,4,5-T was common knowledge among interested scien t i s t s and p hysicians in the 1960s. Since Dow supplied t r i c h l o rophenol which T h o m psonHayward used to manu f a c t u r e 2,4,5-T, Tho m p s o n - H a yw a r d forwarded a copy of Groth's letter to D o w and asked what levels of dioxin were present in D o w ’s trichlorophenol. Letters from DeAt l e y to Dosser, December 11, 1964 and D e cember 28, 1964, Exh i b i t s "51" and "52". A subsequent me m o by D e A t l e y states that D ow replied that it already knew the P u blic H e alth Service was studying d i o x i n but that Dow's t r i c h l o r o p h en o l contained no dioxin, according to a test pr o c e d u r e sensitive to "about 1 ppm." D e Atley memo, J a n uary 12, 1965, E x h i b i t "53". On January 14, 1965, T h o m p s o n - H a yw a r d sent Dr. Groth the samples and manufactu r i ng i n f ormation he requested. U p t o n to Groth, Exhibit "54". Letter from Both D o w and T h o m p s o n - H a y w a r d samples were provided to Dr. Groth. DeAt l e y memo, supra, E x hibit "53". At about the same time, Dr. Groth applied for funds to conduct experiments on 2,4 , 5 - T and dioxin. Pro j e c t D e v e l o p m e n t and Approval form, Janu a r y 12, 1965, Exhibit "55". -69- Dr. Groth •4 / 0 ? ft planned to apply various c o m p o n e n t s of 2,4,5-T to rabbits and feed dioxin to dogs, animals. then p e r f o r m a full battery of tests on the He had previo u s l y o b t a i n e d a quantity of diox i n from Dr. Krizek of the U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago.* Groth Tr. at 78, E x hibit "56". His proposal records his knowledge that 2,4,5-T was "widely used in large qu a ntities" and that there had been "many reports of people developing c h l o racne and liver damage from over- e x p o s u re to [2,4,5-T] in industry." Dr. Groth d i s c usses the significance of prior research on 2,4,5-T and dioxin, including unpublished data developed by a co-worker at the Public Health Service, Dr. George Lawton, and includes a list of thirty-two published references on chloracne, 2,4,5-T and dioxin. The government did not fund Dr. Groth's proposed research, and he did not pursue the matter further. G r o t h Tr. at 102-03, Exhibit "57". Plaintiffs' argument regarding Dr. Groth rests entirely on their unsupported alleg a t i o n that Dow and T h o m p s o n - H a y w a r d , h aving learned of the Publ i c H e a l t h Service's interest in dioxin and chloracne, attempted to conceal the D ow chloracne experience from the Public Health Service. As plaintiffs well know, allegation is completely false. In fact, Dow informed Dr. that * Dr. Krizek was co-author of an important 1962 paper on the acnegenic potency of dioxin. See pp. 118-119, i n f r a . -70- Groth's superior,* Dr. H e r b e r t Stokinger, of the Do w chloracne problem soon after the G r o t h correspondence. Dr. Stokinger, Chief Toxi c o l o g i s t at the Public Health Service's Cincinnati facility, testified that V.K. Rowe, Dow's chief toxicologist, disc ussed Dow's c h l oracne incident with him in 1965 or 1966. all of plaintiffs' Stokinger Tr. at 75-77, Exhi b i t "59". Thus, insinuations regarding the Groth c o r r e s p o n ­ dence come to nothing, since D ow did inform the Publ i c Health Service of its chloracne experience. Furthermore, the information from Dow was hardly a surprise to Dr. Stokinger. Like Dr. Groth, by 1965 he was fami­ liar with the G e r m a n articles on d i oxin and chloracne in the 2,4,5-T m a n u facturing process. Exhibit "60"; 565 F. Supp. in Pretrial Order No. See S t o kinger Tr. at 102-04, at 1267. Moreover, as the Court noted 51, r e p r e s e ntatives from the Public Health Service had been investigating chloracne episodes among trichlorophenol workers dating back to an incident at a M o n s a n t o plant in Nitro, West V i r g i n i a in 1949. articles summarized at pp. 565 F. Supp. 120-121, at 1255. See also infra. The G roth c orre s p o n d e nc e actually provides strong evidence against Dow's p a r t i c i p a t i o n in a " c o nspiracy of silence" by demonstrating, first, that the Public H e a l t h Service was fully * See Groth Tr. at 146-47, Exhibit "58". -71- ^ a i aware of dioxin as an e x t remely toxic b y-product of the 2,4,5-T process which could cause chloracne and other more serious problems, and, second, that D ow knew of the Public Health Service's k n o w l e d g e a b i l i t y . The implausib i l it y of Dow's p lanning a "conspiracy of silence" against the govern m e n t in these circumstances is evident. The government already had the information Dow was supposedly conspiring to c o n c e a l — and Dow knew it. c. The Trich l o r o p h e n o l M a n u f a c t u r e r s M e e t i n g . On M a r c h 19, 1965, V.K. Rowe of Dow invited all A m e r i c a n producers of trichloro p h en o l to a meet i n g to discuss t o x i c o l o g i ­ cal problems caused by the possible pr e s e n c e of highly toxic impurities in trichlorophenol. Wilkenfeld, Verhoeze, Letter fr. Rowe to Kelly, Kennedy, Chandler, Frawley, Exhibit "61". V.K. Rowe stated that the meeting was called for the sole purpose of lessening any hazards to health that m i g h t be attri­ buted to [trichlorophenol] and related products. Our discussions will deal only with the toxicolo g i c al and a n a l y t i c a l aspects of the problem. We will not discuss m a n u ­ facturing know-how, sales, or anything else not dealing with the problems of health. It is our hope that through this meeting we will acquire a better under s t a n d i ng of the p r o b l e m and that each com p a n y will then proceed i n d e p e n d e n t ly as it sees fit to institute such self - i m p o s e d controls on its p r o d u c t i o n as are n e c e ssary to insure the safety of its p r o d u c t s . -72- I f ■ I d . (emphasis supplied). A copy of Dow's recently d e v eloped analytical method for measuring dioxin in trichlorophenol was forwarded with the letter to all invitees. The meeting of trichlorophenol manufacturers took place on March 24, 1965, attended by representatives of Dow, Hooker Chemical Corp., Diamond Alkali Company, Company. and Hercules Powder None of these companies was selling Herbicide O r ange to the government at that time.* See Statement of The D ow Che m i c a l C o mpany Pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 33, dated April 21, 1982; Verified Statement of Defendant Diamond Shamrock C o r p o r a t i o n Identifying H e r b icide Contracts, Quantities Supplied, and Shipment Dates, April 21, 1982; Contract Documents Su b m i t t e d by Hercules Incorporated Pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 33, April, 1982. The five memo r a n d a written by attendees of that meeting c o nfirm that the meeting was limited to the matters de s c r i b e d in V.K. Rowe's letter. See Silv e r s t e i n memo, March 29, 1965, Exhi bit "62"; Frawley memo, M arch 26, 1965, Exhibit "63"; Dunn memo, March 29, 1965, Exhibit "64"; Chandler memo, M a r c h 25, 1965, Exhibit "65"; Wilkenfeld memo, March 25, 1965, Exhi b i t " 66 ". * Dow did not begin shipments of Herbicide Orange to the g o v e r n ­ ment until 1966. See Dow's S t a t ement P u rsuant to Pr e t r i a l Order No. 33. Hooker never man u f a c t u r e d Herbicide Orange at all. -73- Dr. Benjamin Holder, Dow's med i c a l director, discussed the Dow experience with chloracne. Harold Gill, an analytical chemist, described Dow's a nalytical procedure, stating that it could detect the presence of dioxin in trichlorophenol at levels of one part per m i llion or more. V.K. Rowe recounted Dow's toxi­ cological research, concl u d i n g that trichlorophenol which co n ­ tained no dioxin, within the sensitivity of Dow's analytical pr o ­ cedure, did not pose a hazard to humans. In response to a question, he stated that D ow had set a s p e c i f i c a t i on for its p ro­ ducts of "zero with a confid e n c e of 1 ppm." S i l v e r s t e i n memo, s u p r a , at 4, Exhibit "62". It is undisputed that there was no ment i o n whatsoever at the meeting either of He r b i c i d e Orange or of sales of any product to the government. Indeed, the only d i s c u s s i o n of the g overnment was in the F r awley memo, which noted brie f l y that the M i c h i g a n State Department of Health had been consulted and that D o w believed the Federal government was aware of the problem. Fra w l e y memo, s u p r a , Exhibit "63". In a brief "postscript" meeting, V.K. to the S i l v e r s t e i n report on the Rowe commented that [a]11 p a rt i c i p a n t s seemed to appreciate well the prob l e m and all indicated that they would return home and attempt to convince their m anagement to institute safety specifications (really qua l i t y control) . . . . Silver s t e i n memo, s u p r a , at 7, Exhibit "62". V -74- ►V ■* ' i. This m e eting of t r i c h l o rophenol manuf a c t u r e rs is the linchpin of plaintiffs' c o n s p i r a c y allegations — a mee t i n g at which defendants supposedly met and agreed to conceal the hazards of Herbicide Orange and dioxin from the government. Yet, not only were most of the defendants absent from that meeting, no one present was selling Herbicide O r ange to the gover n m e n t at the time. Furthermore, besides 2,4,5-T, trichlorophenol was used to make many things and 2,4,5-T was used to make many things besides Herbicide Orange. The meeting simply did not deal with sales of Herbicide Orange to the government, and p laintiffs have produced no e vi­ dence whatsoever to the contrary. Nor did the meeting result in any agreement to withhold information from the government. On the contrary, Dow reported that it had called in the M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t of P u blic Health and believed that the federal g o v e r n m e n t was aware of the problem.* Furthermore, personnel, the attendees were technical and scientific hot management. At the concl u s i o n of the meeting, "all indicated they would return home and attempt to convince their management to institute safety specifications." supplied.) Silverstein memo, (Emphasis s u p r a , at 7, Exhibit "62". These people did not even have the power within their own c o m p anies to * In fact, based on the Groth correspondence, Dow knew for c er­ tain that the government had full knowledge of the o c c u p a t i o n a l health hazards posed by dioxin. See pp. 68-72, s u p r a . -75- a , ) set the specifications on the products with which they worked. To suggest that they had the power to commit their companies to an industry-wide conspiracy of many years duration to defraud the federal government strains common sense to the breaking point. In sum, it is difficult to imagine a more unlikely scenario for a Herbicide Orange conspiracy: the people present at the meeting lacked the power to act, none of the companies represented was manufacturing Herbicide Orange, Herbicide Orange was never discussed, and the supposed goal of the c o n s p i r a c y was stated to be unattainable. Thus, plaintiffs' c o n t e n t i o n that the meeting inaugurated a vast consp i r a c y to unload deadly Herbicide Orange on an unsuspecting government should be seen for what it is — a product of plaintiffs' imagination. In addition to d e m onstrating that the defen d a n t s did not agree to conceal information on diox i n from the government, the 1965 meeting and its aftermath show that the defendants did not agree on anything at all related to 2,4,5-T and dioxin. In particular, it is important to realize that the meeting did not attempt to set an industry-wide standard for dioxin in trichlorophenol. Dow only mentioned its standard in response to a question: We were asked if we could give levels of dioxin contamination which were p e r m i s ­ sible limits. V.K. [Rowe] m e n t i o n e d that at present we are using zero with a c o n ­ fidence of 1 ppm . . . . Silver s t e i n memo, s u p r a , at 4, Exh i b i t "62" (emphasis supplied). The other m e m o randa c o n f i r m that Do w m e r e l y stated its own stan­ dard, and did not suggest an industry-wide specification. e . g . , Chandler memo, s u p r a , Exhi b i t ”65" ("The Dow people state that they intend to set a limit of zero"); Exhibit "63" ("Dow . . . See, F r a w l e y memo, s u p r a . is checking all p r o d u c t i o n to be certain that it contains less than 1 ppm 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 - T C D D " ); W ilkenfeld memo, s u p r a . E x hibit "66" (Dow's "current in plant working limit is 'no r e s p o n s e '"). Dow called the meeting not to set an industry standard but to encourage other producers of t r i c h l o r o p h en o l to test their product for d i o x i n themselves and institute whatever quality control procedures they deemed appropriate. For its own part, Dow said it allowed zero dioxin in its trichlorophenol, within the limits of its analyt i c a l capabilities. stated in his letter announcing the meeting, But, as V.K. Rowe each company was to "proceed independently as it sees fit." Letter fr. Rowe, Exhibi t "61". supra. The people present at the meet i n g simply took Dow's analytical procedure and said they would report to their manage ment Dow's recomme n d a t io n that they consider instituting some sort of q u a l i t y control p r o c e d u r e s of their own. However, within a few months it had become apparent that the other trichloropheno l m a n u f a c t u r e r s were not in fact using the analytical p r o c edure which Dow had pro v i d e d to institute qualit y control procedures. A m e m o by J o h n F r a w l e y of Hercules -77- f f itf states that on July 9, 1965 F r a w l e y received a telephone call from Earl Farnham of Dow: [Farnham] stated that on the advice of their t o x icologists D ow has gone to great expense to alter their m a n u ­ facturing c o n d i t i o n s in order to produce 2,4,5-T acid which has less than 1 p pm acnegen. Since several months ago D ow made a v a i l ­ able to all other producers the same data which co n v inced their toxicologists to set an internal specification of 1 ppm on the acid, they had assumed that the other pr o d u c e r s would take similar action. On the basis of their chemical analyses, they are convinced that no one else has done anything to remove the acnegen from their 2,4,5-T and c o n s e ­ quently, they wanted my opinion whether they had been m i s-advised by their own toxicologists. I advised Mr. F a r n h a m that I did not think this was a proper q u estion for me and that he should seek outside advice from a pri v a t e c onsultant if he doubted the advice of his own toxicologists. I pointed out that c o n s i derable individual p r o fessi o n a l judgment would be involved in estab l i s h i n g a speci f i c a t i on of this type . . . . N o t e to file by J. A. F r a w l e y dated J u l y 12, 1965 (the "Frawley/ F a r n h a m memo"), Exhibi t "67" Frawley (emphasis supplied). refused to comment on Dow's internal s p e c i f i c a t i on or to say whether Hercules had set an internal sp e c i f i c a t i on for dioxin, instead referring F a r n h a m to "someone in ... m a n a g e m e n t . " Obviously, Id. "individual p r o f essional judgment" differed w i d e l y on the s p e c i fic a t i on issue. In fact, no other m a n u f a c ­ turer set a comparable sp e c i f i c a t i on for dioxin. T h r o u g h o u t the period in which H e r b icide Orange was manufactured and sold to the government for use in Vietnam, no m a n u f acturer but Dow regularly tested its p r o d u c t i o n to insure that its Herbicide Orange c o n ­ tained no d i o x i n .* This lack of testing and quality control by other Herbicide O range manufacturers, combined with the fact that various m a n u facturers used different manufacturing processes, resulted in greatly varying diox i n levels in Herbicide Orange. S e e , e . g . , Dow's Alt. Li a b i l i t y M e m o at 21-22 and annexed e x h i ­ bits. Thus, Dow's one r e c o m mendation to its competitors at the 1965 meeting — that they should test their trichlorophenol for dioxin regularly and consider control measures — instituting their own quality was not followed. Furthermore, Frawley's guarded language and refusal to discuss specifications make clear that Dow and H e r c u l e s were wary competitors, not cozy co­ conspirators. Clearly, there was never an industry-wide standard for dioxin. Plaintiffs attempt to impugn Dow's motives in calling the t richlorophenol manuf a c t u r e rs meeting by citing documents * Dow's rigorous q u a l i t y control p rocedures are described at pp. 64-67, s u p r a . C o mpare T h o m p s o n - H a y w a r d 's M e m o in Support of Its M o t i o n for Reargument of its M o t i o n for Summary Judgment, May 26, 1983 at p. 5; M e m o of U n iroyal in Support of its Motion for Reargument, M a y 26, 1983 at pp. 11-12; M e m o in Support of T h o m p s o n Chemical Corpora t i o n 's M o t i o n for Summary Judgment, April 20, 1983 at pp. 1-2; M e m o of Hercules in Support of its M otion for Reargument of Plaintiffs' M o t i o n for Reco n s i d e r a ti o n of Hercules' S u m m a r y Judgment Motion, December 9, 1983 at pp. 10-11; Reply M e m o of Dow in Support of its Motion for Reargument, June 13, 1983 at pp. 10-11. -79- referring to Dow's desire to avoid "excessive restrictive legislation" or restrictive "regulatory activities." Fra w l e y / Farnham memo, s u p r a , Exhibit "67"; Letter fr. Rowe to Mulholland, June 24, 1965 tiffs' (the "Mulholland letter"), Exhibit " 6 8 ". Plain­ insinuations are totally without merit. It is entirely proper for a corp o r a t i o n to wish to avoid excessive legislation or regulation. A c o r p o r a t i o n can c e r t ainly do so without entering into a c o n s p i r a c y to conceal information. In fact, just the opposite occurred. See pp. 85-97, infra. Dow communicated information on chloracne and dioxin to federal and state government officials, the chemical industry, and many indi­ vidual health professionals. For example, V.K. Rowe urged in the Mulhol l a n d letter that large C a n a d i a n trichlorophenol c u s t o m e r s be invited to M i c higan for a full briefing, stating: We are not in any way attemp t i n g to hide our problem under a heap of s a n d , but we certainly do not want to have any situ­ ations arise which will cause the regu­ latory agencies to become restrictive. Mulholland letter, s u p r a . Exhibit " 6 8 " (emphasis supplied). Actions to avoid restrictive gover n m e n t regulation are part of the normal business practices of most large c o r p o rations and do not constitute a conspiracy to defr a u d the government. Thus, in the DES cases, the fact that several c o r p o r a t i o n s acted similarly when their actions were o r d i n a r y business practices w i thin industry, was found not to c o n s t i t u t e concert of action. See pp. 57-58, s u p r a ; Sindell v. A b b o t t L a b o r a t o r i e s , s u p r a ; Ryan v. Eli Lilly & C o . , s u p r a . Nothing in the evidence h e rein indicates anything other than the "independent, co m petitive response" which, Sindell court found in the DES context, concert of action. Indeed, as the precludes any claims of the facts in Agent Orange are far weaker regarding concert of action than those in the DES cases, since there was no industry s t andard for dioxin in He r b i c i d e Orange, whereas all DES was, by agreement, c hemically identical. See p. 57, s u p r a . Dow's actions c o n c e r n i n g the 1965 m e e t i n g were those of an "independent, c o m p etitive" corp o r a t i o n acting r e s p o n ­ sibly to warn its competitors of a po t e n t i a l o c c u p ational health hazard. In any industry today, munication. there is some degree of c o m ­ If the minimal c o m m u n i c a t i o n s present in A gent O r a n g e , c ommunications which in fact show d i s a g reement rather than agreement in the industry, of concert of action, Sindell — are allowed to support a finding then the pro s p e c t decried by the C ourt in that the concert of action theory would be d i s t orted to "render virtually every m a n u f a c t u r e r liable for the de f e c t i v e products of an entire industry" — will have become a reality. 607 P . 2d at 933. There is nothing in the 1965 meeting, the M u l h o l l a n d letter, or the F r a w l e y / F a r n h a m m e m o to suggest a desire on Dow's part to conspire to withhold infor m a t i o n on dioxin and ch l o r a c n e from the government — information which Do w knew the g o v e r n m e n t -81- already possessed. Rather, the record is clear throughout that Dow's concern was with regard to its competitors. That concern in no way led Dow into a useless c onspiracy to conceal infor­ m a t i o n on d ioxin from the government. On the contrary, it underlines the lack of any agreement or concerted action on the part of Dow and its competitors. There were no Herbicide Oran g e manufacturers at the 1965 meeting, Herbi c i d e Orange was not mentioned, sent did not agree — on anything. and the people p re­ and did not have the authority to agree — No other manufacturer used the analytical p r o c edure which Dow provided at the meeting to establish any sort of s peci­ fication for dioxin in its own product. In contrast, Dow regu­ larly tested its produ c t i o n to insure that its Herbicide Orange contained no dioxin. Accordingly, the 1965 meet i n g provides no evidence w h a t ­ soever that Dow acted in concert with other defendants regarding d i oxin or Herbicide Orange. d. The Industry Task Force In August, 1966 a number of chemical companies met to form the Industry Task Force on Phen o x y Herbicide T o l e r a n c e s "Task Force") (the under the auspices of the N ational A g r i c u l t u r a l Chemi c a l s Association. A number of defendants in the Agent O r ange L i t i g a t i o n , including Dow, together with other chemical companies, were at some time or another members of the Task Force. -82- Plaintiffs assert that the fact that a p e tition prepared by the Task Force did not m e n t i o n dioxin constitutes evidence that defendants were conspi r i n g to keep the g overnment from learning about dioxin. pp. 60-75. However, See Plaintiffs' that p e t i t i o n related to p e r missible trace levels of 2,4,5-T in crops, — Alt. Liability Me m o at so dioxin — a trace within a trace would have been at utterly insignificant levels. Thus, dioxin was not m e n t ioned in the Task Force's p e t i ­ tion simply because it was not relevant. In fact, there is no evidence that dioxin was ever discussed at any Task Force meeting. The Task Force was formed to compile toxicological data regarding residues of p h e n o x y h erbicides in crops and submit that data to the D epar t m e n t s of A g r i c u l t u r e and Health, Education, tions. and Welfare, in a ccordance with g overnment r e gula­ The government had issued regulations requiring such sub­ missions following a report on pesticide residues issued by the National A c a demy of Sciences "Zero Tolerance", ("NAS"). Report on "No Residue" and 1965, E x h i b i t "69". The NAS report noted that new and more sensitive a naly­ tical techniques were making possible the de t e c t i o n of minute pesticide residues which had p r e v i o u s l y been undetectable. Up until that time govern m e n t regulations had allowed some p e s t i c i ­ des to be used only when they left no detect a b l e residue. -83- The ■ X ^ I improving technology thus threatened the continued use of many valuable pesticides if the regulations were not changed. Rather than permit this to happen, the NAS report recommended that pestic i d e s p reviously registered on a no-residue basis could continue to be used for five years, minute residues were now detectable. even though During that time, industry was to submit data on the effects of those newly d etectable resi­ dues, so that suitable "negligible residue tolerances" could be determined. On December 8 , 1967, the Task Force submitted its "Petition for the E s t a b l i s h m e nt of T o l e r a n c e s for the Pesticide Chemical 2 , 4 , 5 - T r i chlo r o ph e n o x y a c e t i c Acid on Raw Agr i c u l t u r a l Commodities" to the FDA. Exhibit "70". The toxicity data sub­ mitted, gathered from a wide variety of sources within industry, the government, and academia, represented the current state of knowledge of the toxicity of 2,4,5-T as it was then being m a n u ­ factured and used. Any toxicity a t t r i butable to the presence of dioxin in 2,4,5-T would have been m e a s u r e d and reported in that data, because actual commer c i a l samples of 2,4,5-T were tested. amount — The Petit i o n asked that a p e r m i s s i b l e residue — a trace of 2,4,5-T in crops be established. a trace contaminant within that trace of 2,4,5-T — Dioxin — could have been p r e ­ sent in such a residue only in a s t r o n o m i c a ll y small q u a n t i t i e s of -84- f 1 ^ 0 O parts per q uadrillion (1,000,000,000,000,000).* Such levels of dioxin are far below even current limits of detection. There is of course absolutely no evidence that the m e m ­ bers of the Task Force c onsidered such levels to pose any risk whatsoever to anyone or anything. Nor is there any evidence that dioxin was ever discussed at any Task Force meeting. Dioxin was o b v i ously irrelevant to the question of herbicide residues. — and not some sinister consp i r a c y — That was the reason dioxin was not mentioned in the Petition. Accordingly, the actions of the Task Force provide no evidence that defendants acted in concert to conceal hazards of Herbicide Orange from the government. 2. Dow Communica t e d Its Knowledge Of Chloracne And Dioxin To The Federal Government, The State Of Michigan, The Chemical Industry, And Interested H e a l t h Professionals Around The World._________________________________________ The most persu a s i v e evidence that Dow was not part of a "conspiracy of silence" is the fact that Dow was not silent. Rather, Dow time and again disclosed to the government, the c h e ­ mical industry, and numerous interested individuals the infor­ m a t i o n which it supposedly was trying to suppress. * The FDA envisioned a residue "in the range of 0.1 ppm." Minutes of the Task Force, A p r i l 20, 1967, Exhibit "71". Calcul a t i n g based on the G u l f p o r t measurement of an average of 0.12 ppm of dioxin in Dow's Herbicide Orange yields a dioxin residue within the m a x i m u m po s s i b l e 2,4,5-T residue of 12 parts per quadrillion (0.000000000000012). See Dow's Alt. L i a b i l i t y M e m o at p. 22. f T -85- ■j- ¿k. ” /V 3 Initially, D ow notified the M i c h i g a n S tate Depar t m e n t of Health in 1965 of the pr e s e n c e of a c h l o r a c n e g e n in the waste stream of the TCP process. In a letter dated M a r c h 2, 1965, Russell G. Scovill* of that Depart m e n t prai s e d D o w for its handling of the problem: It is an unusual substance that requires such stringent p r e c a u t i o n a r y me a s u r e s and we must state that those finally adopted are far more restrictive than we o u r ­ selves would have recommended . . . . Exhibit "73". Significantly, in 1965, the state health d e p a r t ­ ments, rather than any federal agency, were the appropriate governmental units to notify of industrial health problems; contact with the United States Public Health Service ("USPHS") about such problems was made not by the c o m p a n y but by the state agency. See B i r m i n g h a m Tr. at 50, Lee Tr. at 17, E x h i b i t ” 7 4 ".** Dow also notified Dr. Donald Birmingham, a d e r m a t o l o g i st formerly associated with the USPHS and, at the time, a Professor * Russell Scovill, in ad d i t i o n to being D i s t r i c t En g i n e e r for the Michigan State Dep a r t m e n t of Health, had served on the prestigious Threshhold Limit V a l u e C o m m i t t e e of the A m e r i c a n Conference of Governm e n t and Industrial H y g ienists. See "Threshhold Limit Valu e s for 1961," at p. 129, E x h i b i t "72". Dr. Stokinger was also a member of the T h r e s h h o l d L i m i t Value Committee. That committee fixed the a c c e p t a b l e level of industrial exposure to 2,4,5-T in 1962, which still remained unchanged in 1981. See p. 110, n.**, i n f r a . ** Nevertheless, V.K. Rowe of Dow d i s c u s s e d the ch l o r a c n e inci­ dent with Dr. Herbert Stokinger, Chief T o x i c o l o g i s t at the Occupational Health Research and Tr a i n i n g Facility, USPHS, in 1965 or 1966. Stokinger Tr. at 75-77, E x h i b i t "59". -86- f f *7 9 ■■•it j of Dermatology at the W a y n e State U n i v e r s i t y Coll e g e of Medicine. He was considered an expert in the field of chloracne and his advice and counsel were sought. Dr. B i r m i n g h a m saw Dow p e r s o n n e l with chloracne and, accompanied by 1 0 other derma t o l o g i st s from around the country, he visited the M i d l a n d plant for an on-s i t e inspection. B i r m i n g h a m Tr. at 51-54, E x h i b i t " 7 5 ” ; letter from B. B. Holder to G. E. Lynn, M arch 31, 1970, E x h i b i t "76". In addition, Dow contacted the Institute for I ndustrial Health at the U n i v e r s i t y of M i c h i g a n Coll e g e of Medicine. A seminar on chloracne was held for resident p hysicians and stu­ dents, and several c l inical cases were presented to U n i v e r s i t y professors and senior memb e r s of the staff while visiting in Midland. JEd. Magnuson, formerly chief of the D i v i s i o n of Industrial H e alth of the USPHS. Among the doctors c o n s ulted was Dr. Harold M a g n u s o n Tr. at 19, 46, E x h i b i t "77". As a result of these contacts with the U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan, the incident was reviewed with p hysicians representing various branches of the federal government, such as the United States Navy and the Atom i c Energy Commission, priv a t e industry, such as General Motors and Ford Motor Company, government of Canada, Exhibit "76". and even the through the O n t a r i o D e p a r t m e n t of Labor. Dow also c o m m unicated e x t e n s i v e l y about the incident with physicians at the U n i v e r s i t y of Texas Col l e g e of Medicine in Galveston, Texas. Id. - 8 7 - Dow discussed the incident with physicians and other h ealth-oriented individuals from all over the world, including the Netherlands, England, South America, and the Institute of Health in Russia. Id. As early as December 1964, Dow provided information about dioxin's hazards for workers manufacturing trichloropheonol, together with several citations to the scientific literature on dioxin, ("MCA"). "78". to the Manuf a c t u r i ng Chemists' A s s ociation See Rowe letter of Dec. 13, 1964 to Stephenson, Exhibit A Mr. Drew of Ca m b r i d g e Research, Inc. had asked M C A for information on safety in the m a n u f a c t u r e of trichlorophenol, M C A had in turn asked Dow. Rowe's letter concludes: free to pass this information on to [Mr. Drew] and "You are as you see fit." Similarly, when Dow received an inquiry from Drs. J. B l e iberg and R. H. Brod k i n dated A pril 6 , 1965 (Exhibit "79"), Dow promptly answered, pr o v i d i n g technical information on d i o xin's chemical properties, the methods and results of Dow's toxicological work on dioxin, and possible therapy for chloracne patients. Letter fr. B. B. Holder to Bleiberg and Bro d k i n dated April 13, 1965, Exhibit "80". Interestingly, Drs. B l e i b e r g and Brodkin had enclosed a reprint of an article on chloracne, apparently the one they had w r i t t e n and published the p r e c e d i n g year. al., See Bleiberg, J., et Industrially Acquired P o r p h y r i a , Arch. Dermatolog 89: 793-97 (June 1964), Exhibit "81"; see summary at pp. 119-120, -88- infra. 7, 1 * o Dow ^ =4 ‘ .v 0 could certainly anticipate that they m i g h t publish whatever information they received, yet D o w p rovided its information on dioxin with no restrictions whatsoever. Furthermore, Dow advised Dr. Charles Minarik around 1965 that it had experienced a chloracne p r o b l e m during the m a n u f a c ­ ture of 2,4,5-T. Minarik, Minarik Tr. at 302-04, Exh i b i t ”82". Dr. the chief of the Crops D i v i s i o n of the A r m y Biolo g i c a l Laboratories at Fort Detrick, was the man who developed H e r b icide Orange for the g overnm e n t and recommended it as the herbicide of choice for use in Vietnam. See M e m o r a n d u m of The Dow C h emical Company in Support of its M o t i o n for Summ a r y Judgment on the Government Contract Defense, at pp. 37-45 (hereinafter " D o w ’s Summary J u d gment Memo"). Dow also reported its 1964 ch l o r a c n e incident to its competitors. A letter of March 19, 1965, Hooker, Diamond Alkali and H e r c u l e s from Dow to Monsanto, (Exhibit "61") refers to earlier discussions between D ow and the other companies about the chloracne problem. The mee t i n g of tric h l o r o p h en o l m a n u f a c t u r e rs held as a result of that letter is di s c u s s e d at pp. 72-82, s u p r a . On February 19, 1965, r e p r e s e n t a t iv e s of T h o m psonHayward visited Dow and were briefed on D o w ’s chloracne prob l e m and analytical method for dioxin. 1965, E x hibit "83". D e A t l e y memo, Feb r u a r y 23, Dow's p r e s e n t a t i o n was essen t i a l l y the same as that made to the group of t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l pr o d u c e r s in March -89- 0w 1965.* At the request of Thompson-Hayward, Dr. Charles E. Lewis, chairman of the Depar t m e n t of P reventive Me d i c i n e of the Univer s i t y of Kansas M e d i c a l Center also visited Dow in regard to the chloracne and dioxin problem. Ic3.; DeAtley memo, April 26, 1965, Exhibit "84". At about the same time, other purchasers of Dow's trichlorophenol were being told of the p r esence of a c h l o r a c n e g e ni c impurity in trichlorophenol. Dow warned its customers during the brief interval in early 1965 after Dow learned that trace amounts of dioxin might be present in its trichlorophenol but before comple t i o n of the laboratory tests which established the purity and safety of Dow's tr ichlorophenol products. The following me m o from F. H. Riley of Dow dated F e b r u a r y 15, 1965 (Exhibit "85") was sent to "All Che m i c a l Sales Manag e r s or Office Managers, cc: One Inside Salesman each office": The following information should be passed on to each customer of D owicide 2 and Dowicide B.** In order to be certain that there are no m i s u nderstandings, it is suggested that a letter be sent so the customer has it in writing. * Since Thompson-Haywar d m a n u f a c t u r e d only 2,4,5-T and not tric h l o r o p h e n o l , it was not invited to the M a r c h meet i n g of trichlorophenol manufacturers. ** Dowicide 2 and Dowicide B are tric h l o r o p h en o l products. -90- V. Ï170O Impurities have been found in Dowicide 2 and D o w ic i d e B which are potentially capable of causing chloracne. The impurities were discovered as a result of more advanced analytical techniques. The levels are probably about the same as always; but lacking analytical confir­ m ation of this, we feel obliged to advise our customers. At this point in time, we do not know if the levels are safe or not. Lab tests on animals are being run to determine safe levels, but will not be completed for three to four weeks. The general feeling is that customers should have no more trouble than in the past. However, they should be careful and should be warned. Our problem is that our knowledge on the safety of the impurities is sufficient to warn our customers, but is not great enough to know the precise safety levels. In view of this, we would advise against applications involving frequently repeated exposures to the skin. In all probability, normal industrial applications would not p r esent any significant hazard. Each Dowicide 2 and Dowicide B customer should be warned prior to further ship­ ments of either product. We will insist on c o n fir m a t i o n of same prior to releasing orders now on hand or those which may be received in the future. The Riley memo in no way suggested that customers keep secret Dow's warning regarding the chloracnegen in trichlorophenol. One such customer, V a n Waters & Rogers, Inc., passed on Dow's warning regarding chloracnegens to M a g n a C o r p . ; M agna then wrote to Dow asking for further information, which D o w supplied. See letter fr. Dow to V an W a t e r s & Rogers, Inc., M a r c h 4, 1965, - 9 1 - x ’Oi9 Exhibit "86"; letter fr. M a g n a Corp. Exhibit "87"; letter fr. Dow to M agna Corp., April 15, 1965, • 00 00 Exhibit to Dow, A pril 6, 1965, By late April of 1965 Dow's testing had demonstrated that its trichlorophenol posed no chloracne hazard. supra. See p. 65, Dow immediately sought to allay the fears expressed by a few of its customers regarding continued use of trichlorophenol: We have had some indication that a few customers expressed fears of continuing the use of these two p roducts since our warning regarding impurities which could cause an outbreak of chloracne. As was expressed in a letter dated A p r i l 20, 1965, we again wish to advise that a great deal has been learned about this impurity; and we believe that we can give complete assurance that the amounts which might have been pres e n t in D o wicide 2 or Dowicide B could not cause chloracne, even with gross over-exposure. The situation which o c c a s i o n e d earlier caution about impurities has now been brought completely under control. All of the product being pr o d u c e d now is ca r e ­ fully monit o r e d to assure its appropriateness for the recommended applications of these products. In the event that further information relative to the impurities is requested, please contact us and we wi l l be very happy to as sist in p r o v i d i n g additional factual information from our B i o c h e m i c a l Research Department to back up your sales story. Memo fr. Haling of Dow to All Ch e m i c a l S a l e s M a nagers or Sales Office Managers, Designed Ch e m i c a l S a l e s m e n and Office S a l e s m e n dated July 8, 1965, Exhibit "89". -92- f Later, in 1967, Dow learned that the government was to open its own plant in W e l d o n Springs, Missouri, tion of Agent Orange. for the p r o d u c ­ Dow considered bidding on the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the W e l d o n Springs plant. During the negotiations w hich followed, Dow advised the g o v e r n m e n t on numerous o c c a sions about potential industrial hygiene problems associated with the m a n u ­ facture of TCP: 1. On F e b ruary 24, 1967, A.P. Beutel, V i c e - P r e s i d e n t and Director of G o v e r n m e n t A f f a i r s at Dow, wrote to Brig. Gen. J.A. Hebbeler, Director of C B R and Nuclear Operations, conce r n i n g the proposed g o v e r n m ent-ow n e d H e r b i c i d e Orange plant. In his letter, Beutel notes Dow's concern over "certain health problems" inherent in the present process. Beutel letter at p. 3, Exhi b i t "90". 2. On April 20, 1967 A.P. B e utel of Dow wrote to H.G. Fredericks, Deputy D i rector of Proc u r e m e n t and Production, E d gewood Arsenal, Army Ch e m i c a l Corps, concerning "a serious po t e n t i a l health haza r d to p roduction workers . . . involved in the p r o d u c t i o n of 2,4,5-T." Beut e l goes on to advise that Dow has told other m a n u f a c t u r e r s of the danger and "methods to detect." Finally, he advises that "even with this specific hazard eliminated, care must be taken in handling of the p roducts and intermediates involved." Beut e l letter at p. 3, Exh i b i t "91". 3. In August, 1967 A.P. B e u t e l and two other D o w repre­ sentatives visited Ca r l Rolle and his as s i s t a n t L e o n Davis of the Office of the S e c r etary of Defense, Installation and Logistics, to discuss the W e l d o n Springs project. During the course of the meeting, the Dow representatives suggested to Davis that every caution be exercised in terms of the health hazard associated with the produc t i o n of 2,4,5-T. Salesmen's Call Report at p. 1, Exhibit "92". 4. On September 26, 1967, A.P. Beut e l advised A n d r e w A n d e r s o n of Edg e w o o d that D o w would not be p r e ­ senting a bid at that time on the W e l d o n Springs project. One of the reasons for this d e c i s i o n was that: -93- # (As A *1 3 1JL The C h l o r - A c n e prob l e m associated with the m a n u f a c t u r e of T r i c h lorphenol could not be solved without first receiving permi s s i o n from a European Chemical Manufacturer. The C h l o r - A c n e p r o b l e m is one of Human Health which Dow has had to combat in the design of its own plants at its Midland operations« B eutel Letter, at p. 2, Exhibit "93" (emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . A copy of this letter was also sent to Col. C.G. Shead of the Directorate of Air Force Aerospace Fuels and to W.G. Kratz of the Ar m y Corps of Engineers. Exhi b i t "94". The contract for the W e l d o n Springs project was e v e n ­ tually awarded to a joint venture between T hompson Chemical C o mpany and S t e a r n s - R o g e r , Inc. While Dow generally believes it a ppropriate to allow each d e f endant to set forth for itself the extent to which it commu nicated its knowledge of chloracne and dioxin (and thus has not attempted to do so h e r e i n ) , it is worth noting that Thompson C h e m i c a l Company, in the course of meetings with the government in J a n u a r y 1968 to plan the W e l d o n Springs project, fully disclosed the dangers of dioxin and the methods of avoiding its creation in the 2,4,5-T manuf a c t u r i ng process.* T h o m p s o n had requested and received such information from Dow only a few months before. Letter fr. Rowe to Buckley, Feb r u a r y 15, 1967, Exhibit "95".** * Those meetings are discussed infra. in more detail at pp. 104-106, ** Two scientific articles on dioxin and chloracne by Bauer, et al., and Bleiberg, et al., which Dow sent to T h o m p s o n are d i s c ussed at pp. 117-18 and pp. 119-20, i n f r a . -94- n. JL At about the same time, Dow also notified Jane Lewis, a C o m m odity Industry Analyst, C h e m icals Division, D epartment of Commerce, that Dow had experienced a chloracne pro b l e m in its 2,4,5-T plant — cause. and that dioxin had been determ i n e d to be the Lewis was responsible for insuring that the government had adequate supplies of H e r b icide Orange. Lewis was concerned that other manufacturers m ight encounter a chloracne p r o b l e m as Dow had and asked if Dow had notified other H e r b icide Orange manufacturers of dioxin. Dow said that it had done so, and that it had also notified the Depart m e n t of Health, E d u c a t i o n & Welfare.* Lewis believed that no further action was warranted. In any event, Lewis informed her superior in the D epartment of Commerce, Wes Koster, of Dow's chloracne incident. Lewis Tr. at 64-67, 70, Exhibit "96". Finally, there is the May 25, 1967 letter from Dr. B e n j a m i n Holder, Dow's Medi c a l Director, M.D., Exhibit "97". to A a r o n J. Reiches, In response to a telephone inquiry from Dr. Reiches, Dr. Holder sent him a list of c h e m i c a l s which can p r o ­ duce chloracne. "Tetrach lorobenzodioxane" was "listed first" by Dr. Holder as the "probable main o ffender." Dr. Holder referred to the published scientific literature on d i o x i n and even pointed out that increased heat or pressure in the m a n u f a c t u r i n g process could cause the creation of dioxin. * As discussed previously, Dow had n o tified Dr. Stokinger of H EW in 1965-66. See pp. 70-71, s u p r a . -95- This last information is the crucial element in reducing the amount of d i o x i n created in the 2, 4 , 5-T m a n ufacturing p r ocess— the element Dow was supposedly conspiring so diligently to hide. In fact, the letter to Reiches, written when Dow's Herbicide O r a n g e sales were at their peak and the " c o n s p i r a c y ” should have been most intense, displays a complete openness regarding information on chloracne and dioxin. All it took for Dr. Reiches to crack the supposed sinister, industry-wide c o n s p i r a c y was a telephone call. D ow then mailed him its information on dioxin. It is obvious from the Reiches letter that Dow c o n ­ sidered dioxin to be common knowledge. Dr. Holder simply s um­ marized the basic information and referred Dr. Reiches to the published scientific literature for further details. Certainly, Dow's repeated d i sclosures of information on chloracne and d i o x i n to the g o v e r n m e n t and others during the middle 1960s are totally inconsistent with any consp i r a t o r ia l attempt to hide such information from the government. Plaint i f f s do not dispute the evidence presented above. They simply try to ignore it. For the evidence establishes that Dow repeatedly disclosed its chloracne experience and its knowledge of dioxin and could not po s s i b l y have been part of any "conspiracy of silence." Accordingly, Dow did not act jointly with the other defendants to conceal information on diox i n from the govern m e n t -96- and cannot be held liable to p l a i n t i f f s on a theory of concert of action. 3. The Information R e g a r d i n g Chloracne And D i o x i n W h i c h D o w Alle gedly C o n s p i r e d To Withhold F r o m the Government W a s K n o w n To The Government And W a s In Fact Pu b l i c l y A v a i l a b l e In The Scientific Literature _____________________________________________ The evidence of p e r v a s i v e government knowledge of dioxin in the 1960s and earlier w h i c h has been developed through disco­ very on government contract defe n s e issues is also d i rectly rele­ vant to — tions. and disposit i v e of — plaintiffs' conspiracy allega­ The evidence of g o v e r n m e n t knowledge establishes that any "conspiracy of silence," even if one had existed, could not have caused injury to plaintiffs, since the government obtained all the relevant information on d i o x i n from other sources. After reviewing volum i n o u s submissions from all parties on the extent of government knowledge of dioxin, Judge Pratt sum­ m a riz ed this "uncontradicted and uncontested evidence" trial Order No. 51, 565 F. Supp. 1263. in P re­ We have excerpted at length below Judge Pratt's findings regarding the breadth and depth of the government's knowledge. We ask the Court's indulgence for including such a lengthy quotation, since a full exposi t i o n of relevant g o v e r n m e n t knowledge supported by ci t a ­ tions and exhibits would have been many times longer. Even when all doub t s are resolved in favor of the plaintiffs, as required by SEC v. Re s e a r c h A u t o m a t i o n C o r p . , 585 F.2d 31, 33 (2d Cir. 1978), the record - 9 7 - il?" 3~ demonstrates that the gover n m e n t and the military had a cons i d e r a b l e amount of knowledge about 2,4,5-T, about dioxin, and about the h e alth hazards associated with both. The following gen e r a l c h r o n o ­ logy, while not all-inclusive, gives some indication of both the extent of g o v e r n ­ ment knowledge in this area and of the fact that it was cont i n u a l l y increasing. During World War II, the m i l i t a r y d i s c o ­ vered the herbi c i d a l prope r t i e s of 2.4.5- T and conducted extensive testing of various p o ssible herbicides. This was conducted under the supe r v i s i o n of the Crops Division of the Army C h e m i c a l Corps, at Camp Detrick, Maryland. Several years later, in 1949, Dr. Donald Birmin g h a m of the P u blic H e alth Service visited Nitro, We s t Virginia, where there had been an explosion at M o n s a n t o ' s 2.4.5- T plant. The report of Dr. Birmingham's colleague, Dr. Louis Schwartz, indicated a c o n n e c t i o n between chloracne and the chemicals pro d u c e d in the plant. There is uncontradicted e vidence in the record that a number of people knew in the 1950s that dioxin was toxic although they may not have connected it with 2.4.5- T. Several factors c o n t r i b u t e d to this awareness. First, in the early 1950s, C.H. Boehringer Sohn Comp a n y of G e r m a n y had serious cases of chloracne among workers engaged in the p r o d u c t i o n of TCP, a p r e ­ cursor chemical used inter alia to m a n u ­ facture 2,4,5-T. By 1955, the Boehr i n g e r company was forced to halt p r o d u c t i o n at two plants. Dr. K.H. Schulz, a skin specialist, investigated the p r o b l e m and in 1957 together with P r o f essor J. Kimmig, reported his findings in an article entitled C h l o r i n a t e d A r o m a t i c Cyclic Ethers As the Cause of Chloracne. 44 Die N a t u r w i s s e n s h a f t e n 337 (1957). In this article, the authors stated that they were able to isolate dioxin, which &o D -98- they believed to be the c o n taminant in TCP that was causing the health problems. While it is not established that anyone in the govern m e n t read the Kimmig & Schulz article at the time it was published, the article was available as part of the scientific literature and it appeared in a note to the report written by Friedr i c h Hof f m a n n concerning his trip to Europe in 1959. The "Hoffmann Tr i p Report" was a second factor contributing to government knowledge during this period. Dr. Hoffmann, who was searching on behalf of the m i l it a r y for potential chemical w a r ­ fare agents, reported that he had re­ ceived "startling information" regarding the toxicity of the compound dioxin. In his report, he described the deaths of several workers in a plant that produced wood prese r v a t i v es containing trace amounts of dioxin. In addition, he reported that the compound could cause severe, indeed liver damage. At least 10 copies of the Hof f m a n n report were sent to the Ar m y C h emical Corps Chemical W a rfare Laboratories at Edg e w o o d Arsenal, the governmental body responsible for investigating toxicity and analyzing c h e ­ m ical agents. Thus, the Hof f m a n n report on dioxin, coupled with the Kimmig & Schulz article connecting dioxin to TCP, raises a strong poss i b i l i t y that p e r s o n ­ nel at Edgewood, even before 1960, were aware of the c onnection between dioxin and TCP as well as the use of TCP to make 2,4,5-T. Depositio n testimony of Ed g e w o o d research personnel confirms that people at Edgewood knew about the toxicity of dioxin. Dr. Bernard Jandorf, chief of the Army Chemical Research Laboratory, testified that people at Edg e w o o d had been familiar with this fact since the late 1950s. Dr. Richard Horton, a toxicologist, testified that he knew dioxin was toxic in 1959, as did Dr. Thomas Simmons, who worked in the Agents Research Branch. Walter Sultan, a -99- 1 1 7 3^ p h a r m acolog is t in the T o x i c i t y Screening Branch, testified that he had read the H o f fmann report. Further evidence of governmental knowledge is found in the article written by Dr. B i r m i n g h a m of the Public Health Service in 1959, stating that in the manufa c t u r e of 2,4,5-T, intermediate hydrocarbons of the chlorine group had caused chloracne in more than 200 c h e m i ­ cal workers at a m a n u f a c t u r i ng plant. Birmingham, N ew Causes of Occupational Dermatosis, 20 Indus t r i a l Health 489, 492 (1950). Dr. M a rcus Key of the Public Health Service testified that he had learned of the a s s o c i a t i o n between h y d r o ­ carbons and c h l o r a c n e and other diseases at the Harvard Scho o l of Public Health in 1953. In the early 1960s, Dr. Bernard McNamara, Chief of the T o x i c o l o g y Division at Edgewood, p e r f o r m e d a study at Edgewood Arsenal of the toxicity of Agent Purple, another de f o liant containing 2,4,5-T that was used by the military. This testing was conducted at the request of General F. J. Delmore, C o m m a n d i n g General, U.S. Army Chemical Corps, Research & D e v e l o p ­ ment Committee. While the testing indi­ cated that there was some toxicity, the results were not conclusive. At a m e eting held at E d g e w o o d Arsenal in 1963 to discuss and ev a l u a t e the toxicity of 2,4,5-T, the o v e r a l l thrust of those reporting was that both 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D were safe for humans. Other events o c c u r r i n g in 1963 give a d d i ­ tional indications of governmental knowledge. The Institute for Defense Analysis wrote a report for the Advanced Research Proj e c t Agency, an agency within the Department of Defense. This report stated that h e r b i c i d e s were safe when used commercially, but that there could be increased hazards in m ilitary use because greater conce n t r a t i on s might be applied by less experienced personnel -100- 11738 under the pressures inherent in battle­ field use. The report noted the c o n n e c ­ tion between c h l o racne and skin and respiratory irritations and their asso­ ciation with herbicides. Dr. Key of the P u b l i c Health Service testified at his d e p o s i t i o n that in 1963 he placed a sample of 2,4,5-T herbicide on his forearm to see if it would induce chloracne. He did this three times a week for three weeks and developed chloracne on his forearm. He also testified that he had read Kimmig & Schulz and learned of dioxin from that article. When q u e s t i o n e d concerning a June 1964 article by Dr. Jacob Bleiberg, Industrially A c q u i r e d Porphyria, 89 Archives of D e r m a t o l o g y 793 (1964), which discussed chloracne and p o r p hyria in workers engaged in 2,4,5-T production, Key stated that he had reviewed the article at the time it was written and that it was only a more complete version of what they already knew. The level of g o v e r n m e n t knowledge appears to have increased mu c h more rapidly during the m i d - t o - l a t e 1960s. D efendants point to numerous instances of g o v e r n m e n ­ tal knowledge which are not disputed by plaintiffs. Dr. Her b e r t Stokinger, the chief toxicologist of the D i vision of Occupational Health, testified that he knew dioxin was an impurity in 2,4,5-T sometime around 1965. Colonel Robert A. Shade, who was chief of the Chemical Operation B r a n c h of M i l i t a r y A s s i s t a n c e C o m m a n d -Vietn a m and later on the staff of the chemical branch of the As s i s t a n t Chief of Staff Force Development, testified that he learned of the c o n n e c ­ tion between d i o x i n and 2,4,5-T sometime between mid-1966 and summer 1968. In July 1966, the director of the National Aca d e m y of Sciences wrote to the chief of the B u r e a u of Med i c i n e and Surgery for the N a v y advising him of the connection between 2,4,5-T and p o r p h y r i a -1011 7 *7 ji 33 and chloracne. In August 1966, the National A c a d e m y of Sciences, in response to a request for information, wrote to the A r m y S u r g e o n General telling him that 2.4.5- T was toxic and that chloracne was associated with it. Recent d epo s i t i o n testimony indicates that people c l o s e l y associated with the W h i t e House were aware of hazards involved in the use of defoliants. Dr. Gordon MacDonald, a member of President Johnson's Science A d v i s o r y Committee (PSAC), testified that the issues of h e r ­ bicides and d i oxin in herbicides were informally d i s c ussed by a subgroup of PSAC sometime between April and June 1965. Dioxin as an impurity in 2,4,5-T was also discussed. He said there was d i s c u s s i o n of the potential toxicity of dioxin, and while it was considered that the evidence was fragmentary and incon­ clusive, the subject of dioxin c o n ­ tamination deserved continuing attention. Dr. MacDonald testified that human health effects were discussed, and that he attended a meet i n g where the e f f e c ­ tiveness of herbicides and the presence of dioxin in 2,4,5-T were discussed. Accor d i n g to MacDonald, S e c r e t a r y of Defense Robert M a c N a m a r a attended this meeting. Dr. Donald Hornig, Special A s s i s t a n t to President J o h n s o n for Science and T e c h n o l o g y and C h a i r m a n of PSAC, testified at his depos i t i o n that by 1966 PSAC was discussing impurities in 2.4.5- T. He stated that this discus s i o n occurred sometime between 1964 and 1966. He said that when he learned of the impurity, he felt that "one ought to be concerned" about what the m agnitudes of the toxicological effects and of the exposures might be. He testified that he understood dioxin was a health hazard to human beings. However, he also testified that he did not relay the information to President Johnson. -102- f ♦ A n additional element of knowledge is found in a 1967 Rand report commissioned by the Advanced R e search Project Agen c y of the Department of Defense. This report described "actual experience" of health hazards associated with the use of defoliants in Vietnam. Finally, there is the study commissioned by the Na t i o n a l Cancer Institute, Evalu a t i o n of Carcinogenic, Teratogenic, and Mutagenic A c t i v i t i e s of Selected Pesticides and Indus t r i a l Chemicals (Bionetics R e p o r t ) . This study evaluated the carcinogenic, teratogenic, and m u t a ­ genic effects of various chemicals. The study was c o m m issioned in 1963, and the report is dated A u g u s t 1968. The study did result in a finding of some t eratoge­ nic effects connected with the use of 2,4,5-T. While it is not clear that defendants are correct in their assertion that portions of the study were available to the government earlier than August 1968, it is clear that by 1968 and 1969, the results of the study were available to the government.* 565 F. Supp. at 1266-1268. The government knowledge set forth above, running through the m i l i t a r y and numerous federal agencies and ranging as high as the P resident's Science A d v i s o r y Committee and the S e c r etary of Defense, was, as noted above, undisputed. Supp. at 1266. 565 F. The Court c o n c luded that "the government and the m i l i t a r y possessed rather extensive knowledge" health effects of Agent Orange, regarding the noting further that "much of the * The significance of the B i o n e t i c s report, as it pertains to the government's level of knowledge, is addressed in detail in the M e m o r a n d u m of Hercules, Inc. in Support of Its M o tion to Dismiss, J a n u a r y 16, 1984. I f *7 -103- i-, f *d J7L government's knowledge was class i f i e d and not shared with the defendants." 565 F. Supp. at 1268. Several highly significant additional facts have been discovered since Judge Pratt's o p i n i o n was written. For example, Jane Lewis, an official of the D e p a r t m e n t of Commerce responsible for insuring that the g overnment had adequate supplies of Herbicide Orange, has testified that Dow informed her that dioxin was a toxic contaminant present in Herbicide Orange. See p. 95, supra. Also, documents and testimony relating to the proposed government Herbicide Orange plant at W e l d o n Springs have established that by 1968 the g overnment was familiar with the intimate details of the 2,4,5-T ma n u f a c t u r i ng p r o c e s s — including the causes of dioxin contamination, the methods of m inimizing the amount of dioxin created, and techniques for d e t e cting the p r e ­ sence of dioxin. This new evidence fully disposes of the few, limited concerns regarding the extent of government knowledge which led the Court to deny Dow's m o tion for summary judgment on the g overnment contract defense. The documents reveal that meetings between chemical industry and government representatives were held during the week of January 15, 1968, to review the manuf a c t u r i ng process for the g o v ernment-owned Agent Orange p r o d u c t i o n facility at W e l d o n Springs. An Engineer Status Report summarizes, under the heading -104- "Health Considerations," the discussions which took place regarding dioxin: 1. In the p r o d u c t i o n of TCP, a compound known as dioxen [sic] is formed which causes Chloracene [sic]. The formation of the dioxen is generally controlled by the temperature of the TCP reaction in the autoclave. Montrochem's experience indicates that dioxen is not formed if the temperature is held below 160 C. However, John Angel has experienced the o p e r a ­ tors contracting Chlor a c e n e even though the 160 C temperature conditions were maintained. 2. M o n t r o c h e m recommended that T-S-R* contact the C. H. B oehringer Com p a n y of Ingelheim, Germany, for advice in the control of the dioxen. This company had developed a gas chromatograph test procedure for the finding of dioxen in the process streams. Exhibit "98" (emphasis a d d e d ) . Listed as attending this meeting are three United States Army representatives. These individuals were engineers assigned to the Weapons Developmen t and E n g ineering L a b o r a t o r y at Edgewood A r senal and were responsible for overseeing the design and construction of the W eldo n Springs produ c t i o n facility. Two of these individuals, Robert Cox and Charles Bushey, have previo u s l y testified to an awareness of the presence of dioxin as an impurity in the manufa c t u r e of 2,4,5-T and, cerning risk reduction techniques. to a degree, c o n ­ Dow's Summ a r y Jud g m e n t Memo at 62-63; Dow's Reply Memo in Support of its Summ a r y Judgment M otion at p. 31. * "T-S-R" stands for T h o m p s o n - S t e a r n s - R o g e r , a joint venture of T h o mpson Chemical Company and S t e a r n s - R o g e r , Inc. -105- (W,. In its d e c ision on Dow's m o t i o n for summary judgment, the Court listed the following limited issues of mat e r i a l fact which remained with respect to the level of g o v e r n m e n t and m a n u ­ facturer knowledge: negen in TCP; levels the d i s c overy that dioxin was the chlorac- the d evelop m e n t of a test to determine dioxin (gas c h r o m o t o g r a p h y ) ; and the d e v e l o p m e n t of techniques to reduce dioxin levels during the m a n u f a c t u r i n g process. Supp. at 1270. 565 F. It is evident from the above language of the minutes of the 1968 meeting that all these matt e r s were d i s c ussed and made known to the government at this meeting, a meeting w h i c h took place over two years before the m i l i t a r y stopped using Agent O r a n g e . The W e l d o n Springs documents c o m p l e t e l y answer Judge Pratt's only reservations regarding the relative knowledge of Dow and the government. The documents set out in no uncertain terms that the m i l itary was aware of (1) the health hazards presented in the manufacture of 2,4,5-T; (2) the source of the hazard; a method for detec t i n g the source; nating the hazard. Thus, and (3) (4) a m e thod for e l i m i ­ the m i l i t a r y p e r s onnel responsible for the m anufacture of Agent Orange intended for mil i t a r y use in V i e t n a m clearly had the same degree of s o p histicated m a n u f a c ­ turing process information as the defendants. Based on the government knowledge o utlined by Judge Pratt, the g o v e r n m e n t was aware that d i o x i n could be formed during the m a n u f a c t u r e of 2,4,5-T and could cause chloracne and other more serious injuries in workers -106- in the m a n u f a c t u r i n g p lant since at least the early sixties, and perhaps the late fifties. Furthermore, the W e l d o n Springs evidence shows that the gove r n ­ ment was aware of the details of the m a n ufacturing process relating to the detection and prevention of dioxin formation. Dow had no other information on dioxin to give the government. Thus, any failure by Dow to communicate its knowledge to the government — though no such failure occurred — less have been irrelevant and harmless. would ne v e r t h e ­ The g o v e r n m e n t had the information a l r e a d y . * In addition to the actual knowledge of diox i n outlined above, there is also constructive kn o w l e d g e — based primarily on public a t i o n s in the open scientific literature. * Even if one assumes, contrary to the foregoing facts, that the govern ment had no knowledge of dioxin during the peri o d that Agent Orange was used in Vietnam, there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the absence of such knowledge would not have altered the government's decision to use Agent Orange. The record is replete with a ssertions by Def e n s e D e p a r t ­ ment officials that the use of Agent Orange was an essential part of the war effort, that its use saved the lives of countless s er­ vicemen, and that its use was only terminated for political reasons, e , g . , to undercut accusations made against the United States regarding its use of chemical warfare, the infliction of ecological damage on Vietnam, to offset the p o l itical c o n troversy s urrounding the release of the Bionetics report and to insure r a tification of the Geneva Protocol by the United S t ates Senate. See Dow's Summary Judgment Me m o at pp. 82-87. In any event, it is clear that the absence of knowledge of d ioxin would not have altered the g o v e rnment's d e c i s i o n to use Dow's Agent Orange. Dr. Charles Minarik, Chief of the Crops D i v ision of the A r m y Biological Laboratories at Fort Detrick, was the government's principal expert consu l t a n t and advisor on the use of herbicides throughout the defo l i a t i o n program. Id. at 37-45. Dr. Minarik concluded in 1971, after the use of Agent O range had been terminated, that use of A g e n t Orange with less than 1 ppm dioxin was safe. Id. Dow's A g e n t Orange, which could not have had more than 1/2. ppm dioxin, and in fact averaged .12 ppm dioxin, met this criterion. See pp. 66-67, s u p r a . -107- * ■') The Court has indicated that the parties m ay be held accountable for what they "should have known" about dioxin during the 1950s and 1960s. Hearings before Judge W e i n s t e i n on October 21, 1983, Tr. at 6813. There is no plainer example of infor­ mation that the parties should have known than the information published in the open scientific literature. For example, highly sophi s t i c a t ed scientists from a number of government agencies, including the United States Public Health Service, Department of Agriculture, Army C h emical Corps, and the Offices of the Surgeon General for the Army, Navy and Air Force, were responsible for, among other things, keeping abreast of the world scientific literature on occupational health and herbicide research and development. Thus, the fact that certain information was openly published in scientific journals should conclusively establish gover n m e n t knowledge of that information. The Court reached p r e c i s e l y that c onclusion in its recent discussion of the g o v e r n m e n t c o ntract defense: The Court: Well, was this [the fact that 2,4-D* m i g h t cause p e r i p h e r a l neuropathy] in the literature in 1961? * Mr. Krohley: * * In the p u b l ished scien­ tific community, yes. These reports go back to the 1950's. * 2 , 4-dichlorophenoxyaceti c acid. -108- The Court: Then you have all you need on the G overnment c o ntract defense. Proceedings before Judge W e i n s t e i n on December 21, 1983 at 96-97 (emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . Obviously, the same standard — that open publication conclusively esta b l i s h e s government knowledge — must apply for 2,4,5-T and dioxin as well as 2,4-D.* Thus, the extensive body of early scientific p u b l i c a ­ tions on chloracne, 2,4,5-T, and dioxin outlined below must all be considered to have been known to the government. Since the early 1900s, cases of chloracne have been reported in industrial health literature, and it was common knowledge that there was a p o t e n t i a l risk of chloracne inherent in the manufacturing process of certain chlorinated hydrocarbons, including c h l o r o p h e n o l s .** Accordingly, in 1941 Dow biochemists developed and published the rabbit ear test, which they utilized extensively to monitor Dow's p r o d u c t i o n of c h l orinated n a p h t h a l e ­ nes and crude chlorinated phen o l s for potential c h l oracne problems. Exhibit "33". Dr. Herbert Stokinger of the PHS testified that he became aware of the p o s s i b i l i t y that 2,4,5-T might cause * The fact of publication must be conclusive as to g o v e r n m e n t knowledge, as the Court indicated; otherwise, the denial of any d i s c overy for defendants on 2,4-D would clearly violate defendants' right to a fair trial on the g overnment c ontract defense for 2,4-D. ** See a 1941 article by Adams, et al., Exhi b i t ”3 3 ” , citing reports appearing in the open literature dating back to 1901 on chloracne incidents from e x posure to chlorinated hydrocarbons. See p. 63, s u p r a ; pp. 111-12, i n f r a . -109- chloracne in the early 1950s due to an article published by V.K. Rowe of Dow and V. Drill.* Furthermore, he stated that the a s s o ­ ciation of chloracne with c h l orinated hydrocarbons such as 2,4,5-T was "common knowledge" by the 1950s. A dditional illnesses associated with chloracne at that time included liver disease and porphyria. Stokinger Tr. at 61-65, Exh i b i t "99". Most importantly, Dr. Stokinger testified that the fact that dioxin was the impurity in 2,4,5-T "was getting to be common knowledge when we met in the Ame r i c a n Industrial Hyg i e n e A s s o c i a t i o n meetings." He fixed the time period wh e n dioxin became "common knowledge" as "the mid-sixties earlier."** .. . or maybe . Stokinger Tr. at 108-09, Exhibit "101". Many other government scientists from many agencies, including the P u blic Health Service, Institute, the National Cancer the Air Force, and the D epartment of Defense, have testified similarly. Key Tr. at 159, 230-31, Exhibit "102"; Lee Tr. at 29-31, E x h i b i t "103"; Baker Tr. at 63-64, E x h i b i t "104"; * Dr. Stockinger was chief toxicologist at the Publ i c Health Service Division of Occu p a t i o n a l Health. He further testified that V.K. Rowe discussed D o w ’s chloracne problem in its tric h l orophenol plant with him in 1965 or 1966. See pp. 70-71, supra. ** Dr. Stokinger served as chairman of the p r e stigious Threshhold Limit Value C o m m itte e of the A m e r i c a n Conference of G o v e r n ­ ment Industrial Hygienis t s from 1962 to 1977. That committee set a tentative acceptable level of industrial exposure to 2,4,5-T in 1962, based on the work of V.K. Rowe and Victor Drill. That level was formally adopted a few years later and remained un­ changed in 1981. Stokinger Tr. at 26-28, Exhibit "100". Thus, the committee did not modi f y the threshhold limit value for 2,4,5-T in response to information regarding dioxin. -110- Coates Tr. at 134-35, Exhi b i t "105"; M e l v i n Tr. at 31-33, Exhibit "106"; Birmin g h a m Tr. at 43-44, 102-03, E x h i b i t "107"; Lawton Tr. at 16, Exhibit "108"; Magn u s o n Tr. at 53, Exhi b i t "109". In order to make clear the extent of information readily available to government scientists during the 1960s, we have p r e ­ pared the following annotated list of representative scientific publications. In considering that list, the Court should bear in mind that it is far from complete, and that there is extensive evidence that the government was actually aware of the listed articles during the 1960s. See p. 125, n.*, infra. In fact, many of the articles were wri t t e n by g o v e r n m e n t employees or p u r ­ suant to government research grants. 1. Adams, E.M., Irish, D . D . , Spencer, H.C., and Rowe, V.K., The Response of Rabbit Skin to C o m pounds Reported to Have Caused Acneform D e r m a t i t i s , J o u r n a l of Industrial M e dicine (January 1941), (Exhibit "33"). Twenty-nine articles describing previous industrial experiences of acneform dermatitis and c h l o racne are cited. Among the causative agents listed are c h l orinated d i p henyls and crude chlorinated phenols. Experiments were p e r f ormed a pplying various m a t e r i a l s to the skin and ears of rabbits. The response of the rabbit is described in detail. The results grea t l y resembled the response of human skin. it appeared pro b a b l e that the "rabbit ear Thus, test," as it came to be called, could be used to d e tect substan- -111- ces which would cause chloracne and ac n e f o r m d ermatitis in humans. The article was w r i t t e n by D ow scientists. The rabbit ear test has since been exte n s i v e l y employed at Dow and throughout the world to detect the presence of acnegens and other skin irritants. 2. Birmingham, D. J., and Campbell, P. C.: Occupational and Related D e r m a t o s e s , Chloracne, (Abstracts from the Literature — pp. 43-44 July 1943 to December 1953). (Exhibit "110".) Ten articles on c h l o racne dated between Ju l y 1943 and December 1953 are abstracted. Among the substances a ssociated with chloracne are chlorinated hydrocarbons, chlordiphenyls, c h l o r d i p h e n y l o x i d e , c h l o r o p h e n o l s , and pentachlorophenol. Dr. Birmin g h a m was Senior Surg e o n with the O c c u p a t i o n a l Health P r o g r a m of the USPHS at the time. 3. Schulz, K.H.: C l i n i c a l and E x p e r i m e n t a l Studies on the E t i ology of C h l o r a c n e , Arch. Klin. Exp. Dermatol. (1957). (English translation) 206:589-96 (Exhibit "111".) Thirty-one workers engaged in the m a n u f a c t u r e of 2,4,5-T from trichlorophenol developed chloracne. The symptoms of chloracne and the 2,4,5-T m a n u f a c t u r i n g process are described. Animal experiments (predominantly on rabbit ears) revealed that chloracne was caused by a by-pro d u c t of the m a n u f a c t u r i n g p ro­ cess, not the trichlorophenol itself. -112- A number of likely by- products were tested. Alt h o u g h proof was incomplete, "tetrachlorodiphenylene dioxide"* chlorine atoms "uncertain") Further (with the positions of the four was suspected as a causative agent. investigations were underway.** 4. Kimmig, J., and Schulz, K. H.: Occupational Chloracne Caused by Aromatic Cyclic E t h e r s , Dermatologies 115: 540-46 (1957). (English translation) (Exhibit "50".) T hirty-one cases of chloracne developed among workers in a trichlorophenol and 2,4,5-T p r o d u c t i o n plant. In three cases, the liver was also affected. ears showed that Tests on rabbits' pure trichlorophenol did not cause chloracne, but technical grade trichlorophenol did. Thus, the chloracnegen was demonstrated to be a toxic by-product formed during the manufacturing process. The process by which tetrachlorobenzene is converted into trichlorophenol and then 2,4,5-T is described. Several compounds which might arise in the produ c t i o n process were tested and found to be chloracnegenic, c h l o r o d i b e n zo d i o x i n the most toxic of which was " 2 , 3 , 6 , 7-tetra- [2,3,7,8 - T C D D ] ."*** * Tetra chlo r o di p h e n y l e n e dioxide is another name for tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin. ** See pp. 113-14, i n f r a , where Schulz reports the isolation and identification of 2,3,7,8 - t e t r a c h l o ro d i b e n z o - p - d i o x i n ("2,3,7,8-TCDD," " T C D D ," "dioxin"). *** The compound is 2,3,7,8-TCDD, though the German system results in a slightly different numbering. S e e , e . g . , the d i a g r a m in Exhibit "112," another 1957 article by Kimmig and Schulz. -113- Further investigation estab l i s h e d that TC D D was present in residues of the trichlorophenol process. The reaction by which T C D D formed during the m a n u f a c t u r e of trichlorophenol was demonstrated. Kimmig and Schulz thus concluded that "tetra- c h l o r odibenzodioxin is responsible for the observed cases of chloracne if not entirely, c e r t a i n l y to a considerable extent." 5. Kimmig, J., and Schulz, K. H.: C h lorinated Aromatic Cyclic Ethers as a Cause of the S o - c alled C h l o r a c n e , N a t u r w i s s e n ­ schaften 44:337-38 (1957). (English translation) (Exhibit " 112 " . ) Personnel engaged in the m a n u f a c t u r e and further p r o ­ cessing of trichlorophenol developed c h l o racne and, cases, liver damage. in some The principal intoxicating factor was a b y ­ product of the manufacturing process, occ a s i o n a l l y present as an impurity in trichlorophenol and its subsequent derivatives: " 2 , 3 , 6 ,7-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin dioxide)."* (2,3,6,7 - t e t r a c h l o ro d i p h en y l e n e Results of ear and peroral toxicity tests on rab­ bits demonstrated the "high general toxicity" of TCDD. The c h e ­ mical reaction by which TCDD is formed in the trich l o r o p h en o l process is described and diagrammed. The fact that high t em­ perature and pressure contribute to d i o x i n formation is made clear. This article was cited in the H o f f m a n n T r i p Report. pp. 99, s u p r a . * A d i agram shows that these names r e p r esent 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 - T C D D , though the German numbering system differs. -114- See 6. Hoffman, H., N e w E x p e r i e n c e s with High l y Toxic Chloro H y d r o c a r b o n s , Arch. Exper. Pathol, 228-30 (1957). (English translation) and P h a r m . , 232(1): (Exhibit "113".) An accident in a t r i c h l o rophenol plant caused a "sudden increase of pressure and temperature." "the classical P e r n a disease" plant were unsuccessful; cleaned died. [chl o r a c n e ] . At t e m p t s to clean the rabbits placed in the plant after it was Samples from the contaminated plant proved highly toxic in animals. Many compounds were tested to d e t e rmine the "highly toxic d e c o mposit i on product" responsible. M a n y workers developed in t r i c h l o r o p h en o l which was Thus, a d e c o m p o s i t i on product, and not the tri- chlorophenol itself, was assumed to be responsible for the chloracne problem associated with tric h l o r o p h en o l production. 7. Sandermann, W . , Stockmann, H., and Casten, R . , Pyrolysis of P e n t a c h l o r o p h e n o l , Chem. Ber. 90:690-92 (German original and English translation) (1957). (Exhibit "114".) The synthesis of "t e t r a c h l o r o di p h e n y l e n e dioxide" [2,3,7,8 - T C D D ] * from ch l o r ophenol is described. teristics of TCDD are recorded. Phy s i c a l c h a r a c ­ The c o mpound was "very effective" against wood - d e stroying fungi and insects, but caused chloracne "even in very small quantities." cited in the H o f f m a n n Trip Report. 8. This article was See p. 99, s u p r a . Dugois, P. Marechal, J., and Colomb, L.: Caused by 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l , Arch. Mai. Prof. Chloracne 19:626-27 * A diagram clearly identifies the com p o u n d as 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 - T C D D . -115- (1958). (English translation) (Exhibit "115".) Seventeen cases of chloracne occurred in a trichlorophenol plant. The symptoms of chloracne, which presented the "classical picture," are described. The toxic mat e r i a l was found to be concentrated in the waste tars. Modi f i c a t i o n of operating procedures to minimize contact with the tars eliminated the problem. 9. Tomita, M., Ueda, S., Narisada, M.: dioxin D e r i v a t i v e s , Pharm. Soc. of J apan 79:186 (1959). Dibenzo-p(Japanese) (Exhibit "116".) In response to another article by S andermann containing information on dioxin similar to that recorded in the Sandermann article discussed s u p r a , at p. 115, Tomita synthesized a number of d i b e n z o -p-dioxin (diphenylene dioxide) mined their p h y sical properties, spectra. compounds and d e t e r ­ including infrared absorption One of the compounds synthesized and tested was 2 , 3 , 7 , 8-tetrachlorodiben z o - p - d i o x i n . 10. Birmingham, D. J.: See p. 118, infra. New Causes of Occupational D e r m a t o s e s , A m e r i c a n Med i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n Arch, of Industrial Health 20:489-92 (Dec. 1959). (Exhibit "117".) Numerous developments i n ’o c c u p a t i o n a l d e r matology are discussed. Chlor i n a t e d aromatic hyrocarbons, notably the diphenyls, diphe n y l o x i de s and chloron a p h t h a l e n e s , are w e l l - k n o w n chloracnegens . . . . In the manuf a c t u r e of 2,4,5-T Weed Killer, intermediate aroma- -116- tic hydroca r b o n s of the c h l orinated group were discov e r e d as the cause of chloracne in more than 200 ch e m i c a l work e r s in one plant engaged in the m a n u f a c t u r e of the weed killer. Dr. Birmingham was M e dica l Director and Chief Dermat o l o g i st of the USPHS Occupational He alth Program. The paper was presented at the 18th Annual Congress on Industrial H e a l t h in January 1958. 11. Bauer, H., Schulz, K.H., and Spielberg, U.: Occupational Intoxication in the M a n u f a c t u r e of C h l o r ophenol C o m p o u n d s , Arch. G e w e r b e p a t h o l . Gewerbehyg. 18:538-55 (1961). (English translation and Germ a n orignial) (Exhibit "118".) Several G erman chemical companies e x p erienced chloracne outbreaks during the 1950s. The tric h l o r o p h en o l and 2,4,5-T manufacturing processes involved are discussed and the associated symptoms are reported in detail. P u b l i c a t i o n s and incidents of chloracne world-wide since the late 1800s are summarized. A long series of investigations eventu a l l y led to the finding of Kimmig and Schulz that trichlorophenol itself was not the chloracnegen. Rather, chloracne was caused by a b y-product of the m a n u f a c t u r i n g process. The precise conditions in which TCDD forms are descr i b e d : alkaline hydrolysis of 1 : 2 : 4 : 5-tetrachloro benzene to 2 : 4 : 5 - t r i c h lo r o phenol w hich is carried out t e c hnically under pressure at temperatures of about 180° C in the presence of me t h a n o l and sodium hydroxide. -117- The chemical reaction by which T C D D is formed in the trichlorophenol process is also described. isolated from process materials. TCDD was successfully Finally, Schulz applied T C D D to his own forearm and induced chloracne. Thus, the authors c o n ­ sidered the fact that T C D D caused the c h l oracne associated with the trichlorophenol process "sufficiently proven." A change of manufacturing process eliminated the chloracne problem. 12. Jones, E. L., and Krizek, H.: A Technic for Testing Acnegenic Potency in Rabbits, Applied to the Pote n t Acnegen, 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 - t e t r a c h l or o d i b e n z o - p - d i o x i n , J o u r n a l of Investigative D ermatology 38:511-17 (1962). (Exhibit "119".) A quantitative method for m e a s u r i n g the acnegenic potency of chemicals by applying them on the rabbit ear is described. TCDD was selected as the test compound to d e m onstrate the method because it was known to be an e x t r e m e l y potent a c n e ­ gen. TCDD is suitable for use as a standard against which the acnegenicity of other compounds can be measured. The preparatio n of TCDD by heating the sodium salt of trichlorophenol is described in detail and compared with the v i r ­ tually identical mode of origin of TC D D in the tric h l o r o p h en o l process as described by Kimmig and Schulz. 113-14, supra. See E x h i b i t "50", pp. The physical c h a r a c t e r i s ti c s of the prepared TC D D sample were comparable to values p r e v i o u s l y reported for TC D D in three different articles by Tomita et al., Sandermann et al., and Narisada. -118- s u p r a , E x h i b i t "116", The report concludes that 4. :■ ■ u •/? ‘J [a]ttention should be called to the great toxicity of [TCDD]." The research was p e r f ormed at the University of Chicago and supported by grants from the Office of the Surgeon General of the Army and the U nited States Public H e alth Service. The paper was presented at the Twen t y - t h i r d A n nual Meeting of the Soc i e t y for Investigative D e rmato l o g y on June 26, 1962. 13. 3:38 Birmingham, D. J.: O c c u p a t i o n a l D e r m a t o l o g y , Skin (1964). (Exhibit "120".) The article surveys the current state of o c c u pational dermatology, identifying two p r i n cipal problem areas: sitivity reactions and chloracne. are described, photosen­ Several episodes of chloracne including one in which forty out of sixty p r o d u c ­ tion employees in a 2,4,5-T p l a n t were reported to be e x p e r i e n c ­ ing mild to severe chloracne symptoms at the time the article was published. The article concludes that " [tlhe presence of c h l o racneqens in A m e rican industry is c o m m o n " (emphasis in original). 14. Applebaum, Bleiberg, J., Wallen, M . , Brodkin, R . , and I. L.: Industrially A cquired P o r p h y r i a , Arch. D ermatology 89:793-97 (June 1964). (Exhibit "80".) A severe outbreak of chloracne occurred in a plant m a n u ­ facturing 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. Twent y - n i n e workers with chloracne were examined; eleven of these also showed evidence of p o r p h y r i a c u tanea tarda, a disturbance of p o r p h y r i n m e t a b o l i s m with asso- -119- ciated skin manifestations. The ou t b r e a k provides evidence that porphyria is not necessarily genetic, but may be acquired following insult to the liver. The article expressed a p p r e ­ ciation for the assistance of Drs. Birmingham, Key, and Olivier of the Public Health Service. Drs. Bleiberg and B r o d k i n wrote to Dow for information on dioxin shortly after the p u b l i c a t i o n of their article, and Dow provided the information requested. 15. Birmingham, D. J.: See pp. 88-89, supra. P r e v e n t a b l e O c c u p ational D e r m a t o s e s , A m e r i c a n Medical A s s o c i a t i o n Arch. Environ. Health 12:639-43 (June 1966). (Exhibit "121".) V a r i o u s types of p r e v e n t a b l e o c c u p a t i o n a l d ermatoses are discussed. A number of cases of industrial chloracne have resulted from exposure to c h l o r o n a p h t h a l e n e s , c h l o r d i p h e n y l s , and chlordiphenyloxides. Cases have been reported in chemical workers making herbicides. Recently, Bl e i b e r g * reported chloracne accompanied by p o r p h y r i a in a number of chemical workers making herbicides. This is a p r e ventable disorder, but only when efficient engin e e r i n g c o n ­ trols are installed and maintained. Id. at 641. The paper was p r e s e n t e d at the 25th A m e r i c a n M e d i c a l Assocation Congress on O c c u p a t i o n a l Health. 16. Birmingham, D. J., and Key, M. M . : Occupational C h l o r a c n e , P roceedings of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Congress on O c c u p a ­ tional Health (September 1966). (Exhibit "122".) * See Exhibit "80", p. 119, s u p r a . -120- The history of c h l o r a c n e incidents and publ i c a t i o n s dating back to 1899 is b r i e f l y summarized. The P u b l i c Health Service has been "interested in chloracne since the middle 1 9 3 0 ' s." A table of some of the incidents known to the Public Health Service includes two involving 2,4,5-T. Outbreaks of c h l oracne in chemical plants m a n u f actu r i ng 2,4,5-T herbicide (Bleiberg et al., 1964; D u gois and Colomb, 1956; Kimmig and Schuz [sic], 1957) and recent reports to the Di v i s i o n of Occ u p a t i o n a l Health of ch l o r a c n e among herbicide users, has p r o m p t e d us to attempt to identify the c h l o r a c n e g e ni c c o n t a m i ­ nant (s) in c o m m e r c i a l 2,4,5-T. Several investigators . . . have ascertained . . . that on a theoretical basis, the contamina n t m ay be a chlorinated d ibenzop-dioxin (Kimmig and Schuz, 1957; J ones and Krizek, 1962). Dr. Key worked in the D i v i s i o n of Occupational H e a l t h of the USPHS; Dr. Birmingham, author of many of the p r e ceding articles while with the USPHS, is now a professor at W ayne State University. The paper was p r e s ented at the Inter n a t i o n al Congress on O c cupationa l H e a l t h in V i e n n a in 1966. 17. Zielinski, w. L . , and Fishbein, L.: Gas C h r o m a t o ­ graphic M easurement of D i s a p p e a r a n c e Rates of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T Esters in M i c e , J. Agr. Food Chem. 15:841-44 (Sept.-Oct. 1967). (Exhibit "123".) Gas c h r o m atog r a ph y was used to determine the rate of disappearance of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T from the bodies of mice. The body residence time of 2,4,5-T was found to be longer than that of 2,4-D. A number of p revious studies which used gas c hr o m a ­ -121- tography in the early and mid sixties to measure levels of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T were cited. The samples used in the study were obtained from Dow, and were "used as received following a p u r i t y check by gas chro m a t o g r a p h y and infrared spectra." Zielinski and F i s h b e i n were affiliated with the Bionetics Research Laboratories. This research was an outgrowth of their work on the ongoing B i o n e t i c s study of pesticides, see p. 103, s u p r a , and was supported by the Na t i o n a l Cancer Institute and the P ublic Health Service. 18. Schulz, K.H.: Cli n i c a l Picture and Etiology of C h l o r a c n e , Arbeitsmed. Socialmed. Arbeitshyg. (1968). (English translation) 3(2):25-29 (Exhibit "124".) The history and symptoms of chloracne are described. Outbreaks in c h lorophe n o l plants in the United States, the Netherlands, and Germa n y are discussed. The trichlorophenol m a n u f a c t u r i ng process is described, and various possible c h l oracnegens formed during that process are identified — sized and, chief among them being TCDD. in addition, lorophenol process. TCDD has been s y n t h e ­ isolated from residues of the trich- The chemical r e action by which TCDD is formed in the process is diagrammed. showed "an extreme high toxicity." T o x i c o l o g i c al data on TCDD One investigator applied TCDD to his own skin and pro d u c e d chloracne. "played an important role" [Schulz] Thus, TCDD in the o u t b r e a k s of chloracne a s s o ­ ciated with the m a nufa c t u r e of trichlorophenol. -122- *1760 19. Dugois, P., Amblará, D., Aimard, M . , Deshors, G . , A Collective and Acciden t a l C h l o r a c n e of a New T y p e , Bull, de la Societe Clinique de Derm, et Syphil. written E n glish translation) In 1966, (1968). (hand­ (Exhibit "125".) there was an accident in a 2 , 4 , 5-T p lant in the Grenoble region of France. to burst." 75:260-61 "[0]v e r - p r e s s u r e caused the plumbing Shortly after the accident the workers e x p erienced lesions and edema. Subsequently, they developed chloracne. The rapid development of lesions and edema d i s tinguished this outbreak from previous reported ch l o r a c n e episodes. noted that the causative agent had been isolated: tetrachlore 20. The article etheroxyde [apparently T C D D ] . Innes, J. R. M . , et al., B i o a s s a y of P e s t i c i d e s a Industrial Chemicals for T u m o r i g e n i c i t y in Mice: A Preliminary N o t e , Journal of the N a tional Cancer Institute 42:1101-14 1969) (with attached list of test compound sources) (June (Exhibit "126"). The tumorigenicity of 120 selected pesticides and industrial compounds was tested by c ontinuous oral a d m i n i s t r a t io n to mice. E l e v e n of the compounds induced a s i g n i f i c a n t l y e l e ­ vated incidence of tumors; twenty compounds were m a r g i n a l and require further evaluation; eigh t y - n i n e gave no sign i f i c a n t indi­ cation of tumorigenicity. Both 2,4-D and 2 , 4 , 5-T* showed no * The sample of 2,4,5-T tested was o b tained from Dia m o n d Al-kali in 1964 and contained about 30 ppm dioxin. See p. 124, i n f r a . -123- (• tumorigenicity. The study was performed for the N a t i o n a l Cancer Institute by Bionetics Res e a r c h Laboratories. n.*, See pp. 103, 107 supra. 21. H. L.: Courtney, K. D., Gaylor, D. W . , Hogart, M. D., Falk, Teratogenic E v a l u a t i o n of 2 , 4 , 5 - T , Science 168:864-66 (1970) . (Exhibit " 1 2 7 ” .) The herbicide 2,4,5-T was found to be teratogenic in two strains of mice when administered subcutaneously and oral l y and in one strain of rats with oral administration. The 2,4,5-T used in the study was manuf a c t u r e d by Diamond Alkali. It contained approximately 30 p p m of T C D D , according to analysis p e r f ormed by Dow. Both dioxin and purified 2,4,5-T will be investigated further. The study was performed at B i o n e t i c s R e search Laboratories under contract from the N a t i o n a l Institute of Health. See pp. 103, 107 n.*, s u p r a . Dr. H.L. Fa l k of the N a t i o n a l Cancer Institute was a co-author of the study. * * * It must be emphasized that the above list is by no means exhaustive. There are m a n y other p u b l i c a t i o n s on c h l o r a c n e and dioxins from the 1960s, 1950s, and earlier. However, the above sampling establishes con c lusively that all relevant information on dioxin was publicly available in the o p e n s cientific litera-- -124- ture by the early 1960s.* The articles included the following significant inform atio n regarding dioxin and 2,4,5-T: 1) The chemical structure and properties of dioxin; 2) M e t h o d s of synthesis of dioxin; 3) D i oxin is a by-product of the trichlorophenol process poten t i a l l y present at varying levels in trichlorophenol and 2,4,5-T; 4) D i o x i n at sufficiently high levels can cause chloracne, liver damage, porphyria cutanea tarda, and other serious health problems; 5) D i o x i n can be formed as a by-product during the portion of the 2,4,5-T process in which tetrachlor o be n z e n e is converted to trichlorophenol; 6) The 2,4,5-T manufa c t u r i ng process is d e ­ scribed in detail; 7) High temperature (180° C) and pressure in the manufa c t u r i ng process can cause increased d ioxin formation; * We have refrained from documenting the government's extensive familiarity with the above articles, since to do so would g r e a t l y expand the size of this memorandum. However, it is worth noting that the articles by Sandermann and by Kimmig and Schulz, pp. 114-115, s u p r a , were cited in the Ho f f m a n n Trip Report in 1959. See p. 99, s u p r a . The thirty-two references on chloracne and d ioxin in Dr. Groth's 1965 research proposal include many of the most significant early articles discussed above. See pp. 68-72, s u p r a . Finally, when Dr. Walter Melvin, Commander of the Air Force E n v i r o n m e n t al Health Laboratories, reviewed phenoxy h e r ­ bicides in the 1960s, his review of the scientific literature included the articles by Kimmig and Schulz. Exhibit "106". -125- 8) Suitable modifi c a t i o ns of the manufacturing process result in the p r o d u c t i o n of 2 , 4 , 5-T and trichlorophenol wit h o u t the formation of dioxin at levels which cause chloracne or other health effects; 9) The rabbit ear test was available to d e t e r ­ mine whether 2 , 4 , 5-T m i g h t cause chloracne; 10) Gas chromatography was capable of detecting low levels of c h emical contaminants in the 1960s. The extent of the p u b l i c l y available information on dioxin as shown by the above list renders absurd plaintiffs' charges that Dow conspired to conceal such information from the government. The information which Dow supposedly conspired to conceal was published in the scient i f i c literature before the "conspiracy" even began. As set forth at pp. 62-67, s u p r a , Dow's knowledge of dioxin was limited to oc c u p ational health hazards; Dow had no knowledge of hazards to users of its 2 , 4 , 5-T products. Since the information regarding occu p a t i o n a l health hazards associated with d ioxin is fully set forth in the above articles — available both to Dow and the g o v e r n m e n t — information the g overnment c l earl y possessed the same information as Dow. Thus, again, any failure on Dow's part to warn the g o v e r n m e n t could not have caused injury to plaintiffs. ★ * Accordingly, Dow cannot be held liable to plain t i f f s on grounds that it acted in concert with other defendants to conceal -126- information on dioxin from the g overnment and thus caused harm to plaintiffs. Dow acted i n d e p e n d e n t ly from the other defendants on all aspects of the di oxin problem, chemical industry, its customers, telling the government, the and health p r o f e s s i o n a ls around the world about chloracne and d i o x i n and regularly testing its production to insure that its H e r b i c i d e Orange c o n tained no dioxin. Moreover, the gover n m e n t was clearly fully informed regarding dioxin's potential hazards, which were d i s c ussed in the open scientific literature. The answer to plaintiffs' allegations of a "conspiracy of silence" is simple and a b u n d a n t l y apparent. conspiracy. And there was no silence. Accordingly, There was no the concert of action theory does not justify relieving plaintiffs of their burden to prove that Dow in fact caused them harm before they can hold D ow liable for their alleged damages. D. Enterprise Liability The principle of e nterprise liability, sometimes referred to as industry-wide liability, was first announced by this Court in Hall v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & C o ., 345 F. Supp. 353 (E.D.N.Y. 1972). There, plain t i f f s had sustained injuries when blasting caps, which a l l e gedly had not been a c c o m ­ panied by appropriate warnings as to the dangers inherent in their improper use, were d e t o nated and exploded. M o s t of the plaint i f f s were unable to identify which of the d e f e n d a n t s had -127- 11765 m a n u f a c t u r e d the specific blasting cap which had caused his injury. Among the def e n d a n t s was a trade association of which each of the defendants was a member. Plaintiffs alleged that the decision not to include appropriate warnings, and indeed to lobby against legislation which would require such warnings, was made by the manuf a c t u r e rs jointly through its trade association. Therefore, rather than attempting to fix liab ility on a specific defendant, plaintiffs in effect alleged negligence by an entire industry, acting as a unit. The Court, of action. in a landmark decision, sustained the causes Using the accepted doctrine of concert of action as a starting point, the Court reasoned that in this instance joint liability need not necessarily be predicated on a showing of joint action or common design. Rather, when defendants e x e r ­ cise joint control of the risk and their control proves insuf­ ficient, Thus, joint liability is appropriate. 345 F. Supp. at 374. under the Hall rationale, whenever an industry-wide stan­ dard of safety is insufficient to protect product users, that standard "becomes itself the cause of plaintiff's injury, just as d e fendant's joint plan is the cause of injury in the traditional concert of action plea." Comment, DES and a P r oposed Theory of Enter p r i s e L i a b i l i t y , 46 F o r d h a m L. Rev. 963, 997 The Court determined, the complaint, therefore, (1978). that the allegations of if proven, would be sufficient to shift the burden -128- of disproving causation to the defendants. size, however, The Court did em p h a ­ the nature of the control of the risk exercised jointly by the defendants which must be shown: To establish that the explos i v e s industry should be held jointly liable on enterprise liability grounds, plaintiffs, pu r s u a n t to their pleading, will have to demo n s t r a t e defendants' ... joint cap a c i t y to reduce or affect those r i s k s . 345 F. Supp. at 378 (emphasis a d d e d ) . It is this requirement that the defendants, between them, exercise control of the risk and the ability to reduce it that has led courts to cons i s t e n t l y dec l i n e to apply the theory of enterprise liability in DES cases. See D ow Alt. Liability Memo at pp. 32-33. As this Court recognized in P r e t r i a l Order No. 66, Hall and the principle of enterprise liability are not applicable in the context of the Agent Orange L i t i g a t i o n . expressed in the DES and asbestos cases, For the reasons the C o u r t ' s rejection of Hall in this instance is correct. It is clear that, unlike H a l l , there was no industry standard for dioxin in Agent Orange. The w i d e l y varying levels of dioxin in the various manufacturers' H e r b i c i d e Orange speak for themselves. The 1965 meetin g of tric h l o r o p h en o l m a n u f a c t u r e rs also supports the lack of any industry standard.* There was no * The trichlorophenol ma n u f a c t u r e rs m e e t i n g is d i s c ussed in full at pp. 72-82, s u p r a . The lack of an industry standard is dealt with specifically at pp. 75-80, s u p r a . -129- suggestion of such a standard at the meeting. Rather, each manufacturer was to take the information p r ovided by D ow and e v a ­ luate and apply it independently. The F r a w l e y / F a r nh a m memo, wri t t e n several months after that meeting, shows that Dow exercised no control whatsoever over the dioxin levels in its competitors products. John Frawley, s u p r a , E x hi b i t "67". Note to file by See pp. 77-78, s u p r a . Indeed, Dow's recommendat io n that the other manuf a c t u r e rs test their products using the analytical p r o c e d u r e which D ow had supplied and set suitable safety s p e c i fications at their own d iscretion was not followed by the other manufacturers. 76-82, See pp. supra. Since Dow demonstrably had no power to affect its c o m ­ petitors' actions regarding dioxin, whether by imposing an industry standard or otherwise, affect the "joint c a pacity to reduce or . . . risks" required by Hall for the imposition of e n t e r ­ prise liability simply does not exist in A g e n t O r a n g e . If there was a "risk" in the manufacture of A g e n t Orange w hich created a p o t e nti al health hazard from exposure to the end product, each manufacturer had individual control over that risk. The record is clear that there was no uni f o r m standard adopted nor even a tacit understanding among defendants as to the need for a safety standard. Furthermore, the gover n m e n t u n q u e s t i o n a bl y c ontrolled the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam. -130- A ny risk att r i b u t a b l e to the use or, more accurately, the m i suse of herbicides by the govern ment and the capacity to reduce that risk was within the e x c l u ­ sive control of the Unit e d States government. Accordingly, any effort to impose liability on a defen dant who had neither control over the manufacture of his competitor's Agent Orange or the use of Agent Orange would be unfair and contrary to the standard of industry-wide liability set forth in Hall. -131- CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth herein, Dow's moti o n to dismiss should be granted. Dated: G arden City, New York January 16, 1984 Res p e c t f u l l y submitted, RIVKIN, LEFF, SHERMAN & R A D L E R By:___ (A M H e r o r t h e Firm) A t t o r n e y s for D e f endant The Dow C h emical Comp a n y 100 G a rden City Plaza G a r d e n City, New York 11530 (516) 746-7500 O n the Brief: Leonard L. Rivkin Jeffrey Silberfeld Lesli e R. Bennett W i l l i a m F. Cavanaugh, Jr. Steven Brock -132- F i I'l p n C'XrK’S ornçr UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In Re ) ) ) ) ) "AGENT ORANGE" Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 381 (All Cases) Plaintiffs Demand Trial by Jury FIFTH AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT NOW COME each of the Plaintiffs hereinafter set forth, by and through the undersigned attorneys, each of them in their individual and representative capacities, and complaining of the various Defendants, both individually and collectively, as' and for their Fifth Amended Verified Complaint, allege as follows: Federal Diversity Jurisdiction 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §1332. The amount in controversy herein and the amounts in controversy with respect to each of the individual claims of the representative Plaintiffs herein exceeds the sum or value of TEN THOUSAND AND NO/lOO DOLLARS ($10,000.00), exclusive of interests and costs. 2. In this action brought as a class action, the following Plaintiffs have been selected as representative members of the class. Plaintiffs reserve the right to seek leave of the Court to add additional representative Plaintiffs. a) Plaintiff CHARLOTTE BLACKMON, as surviving spouse and as the personal representative of the veteran ORVILLE E. BLACKMON, deceased, and as mother and next friend of their children, REBECCA, VALERIE, BRENT and KAREN, is a resident of the State-of:# Georgia. 117/F b) Plaintiff CAROLYN ŒAMPICN, as surviving spouse and as the personal representative of the veteran THOMAS B. CHAMPION, deceased, and as mother and next friend of their children, THCMAS, JR., JOY and DEDRIC, is a resident of the State of Georgia. c) Plaintiff veteran GEORGE EWALT and his spouse, SHEILA, and as.parents and next friends of ,theircchild, TERA CATHERINE, are .residents of the State of Pennsylvania. d) Plaintiff veteran DANNY L. FORD and his spouse, CHRISTINA, are residents of the State of Michigan; the Dow Chemical Company is not a defendant to these Plaintiffs' claims. e) Plaintiff veteran DAVID G. LAMBICŒTE is a resident of the State of Virginia. f) Plaintiff CAROL QUINN, as surviving spouse and as the personal representative of the veteran BRIAN T. QUINN, deceased, and as mother and next friend of their child, KEVIN, is a resident of the State of Illinois. g) Plaintiff veteran DAN G. JORDAN and his spouse, DONNA, individually and as vparents . and next friends their children CHAD and MICHAEL, are residents of the State of Texas. h) Plaintiff veteran EARLIE ROBINSON and his spouse, SHEILA ANN, individually and as parents and next' friends of their child, MICHAEL ANTHONY, are residents of Washington, D.C. i) Plaintiff veteran MICHAEL F. RYAN, and his spouse, MAUREEN, individually and as parents and next friends of -2- 11772 their child, KERRY, are residents, of the State of New York. j) Plaintiff veteran WILLIAM SINGLEY, and his spouse, DIANE, both individually and as the surviving parents of their child, WILLIAM, deceased, are residents of.the State of Pennsylvania. k) Plaintiff veteran STEVE ZARDIS, is a resident of the State of Maryland. 3. Upon information and belief, defendant Dow Chemical Company is a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Delaware and having its principal office in the State of Michigan. 4. Upon information and belief, defendant Monsanto Corporation is a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Delaware and having its principal office in the State of Missouri. 5. Upon information and belief, defendant Hercules, Incorporated is a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Delaware and having its principal office in the State of Delaware. 6. Upon information and belief, defendant T-H Agriculture & Nutrition Company, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Delaware, and having its principal office in the State of Kansas. 7. Upon information and belief, defendant Diamond Shamrock Corporation is a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws -3- of the State of Delaware and having its principal office in the State of Ohio. 8. Upon information and belief, defendant Uniroyal Incorpora­ ted is a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of New Jersey, and having its principal office in the State of Connecticut. 9. Upon information and belief, defendant Thompson Chemical Corporation, formerly a division of William T. Thompson Company, is a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Missouri, and having its principal office in the State of Missouri. Federal Question Jurisdiction 10. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §1331. The amount in controversy herein and the amounts in controversy with respect to each of the individual claims of the representative Plaintiffs herein exceeds the sum or value of TEN THOUSAND AND No/100 DOLLARS ($10,000.00) exclusive of interests and costs. action arise These causes of under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, as more fully and at length hereinafter set forth and alleged. 11. Upon information and belief, the "corporate defendants" have violated the cannon law of the United States as hereinafter alleged and/or the statutory laws of the United States of America. 12. The genesis of these causes is the Vietnam War, a federal military undertaking empowered at least in part by Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution (The War Powers Act) and such of the federal statutes governing the Armed Forces and defense procurement and production, including, inter alia, the Defense Production Act of 1950, U.S.C. app. sec. '459(b) §§2061, et seq. 13. As is more specifically hereinafter set forth, the corporate defendants and each of them comuitted tortious acts alleged herein while engaged in interstate and/or foreign commerce, and/or through the use and violation of federal contractual relationships and through the use in part of the United States mails, federal air waves and federal procurement and distribution channels and facilities in connection with the marketing, manufacture, sale and distribution to the United States Government of herbicides for use in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War. 14. That federal interests and relationships, multistate and international contracts crossing State or National boundaries on an almost daily basis as the result of Defendants' conduct are predominate in these causes; that the choice of federal common law rules of decision is necessi­ tated thereby. 15. That on November 24, 1980, the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit in 635 F.2d, 987 (cert. den. sub. ncm. Chagrtian v. Dow Chemical Co., 454 U.S. 1128 (1981)) rejected federal common law as the basis for federal question jurisdiction therein,stating that there was as yet no identifiable federal policy at stake in this litigation that warranted the creation of federal common law rules (635 F.2d 987 at 993), and that while the federal government had obvious interests in the welfare of the -5- 11775 plaintiff/veterans and the defendant/war contractors, the federal govern­ ment's interest in the outcome of the litigation, i.e., in how the parties' welfares should be balanced, was as yet undetermined (635 F.2d 987 at 995). 16. That subsequently, as the record of these causes has developed, important federal policies and interests have become identifiable. 17. That these include the relationships between the federal government and the suppliers of weapons to the military during war-time, the interpretation of government contracts, the liability of such suppliers for damages due to their tortious conduct and breach of contract and warranty causing injury to military personnel; that this is reflected in the decision of this Court of February 24, 1982 at 534 F.Supp. 1046, 1054, 1055. 18. That among the federal statutes from which causes of action are implied are: a) The Defense Production Act of 1950, 50 U.S.C. app. sec. 459(b), §§2061, et seq.; b) The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Fedenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. §§135-135k, as amended by The Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act (FEPCA), 7 U.S.C. §136-136y. Venue 19. Venue is laid in the Eastern District of New York based upon the residences of the plaintiffs and upon the prior Orders of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation together with this Court's certification of these causes as class actions. ■ 6- n?76 Class Action Allegations 20. That these actions are maintainable as a "class action" under the provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b) (1) (A), 23(b)(1)(B), 23(b)(2) and 23(B)(3). 21. That the class consists of persons who were in the United States, New Zealand or the Australian Armed Forces assigned to Vietnam during the hostilities from 1961 to 1972, who claim injury from exposure to Agent Orange (and other phenoxy herbicides) and their spouses, parents and «children b o m before January 1, 1984 (or such later date as may be fixed by this Court) who claim direct or derivative injury as a result of such exposure. 22. That class action certification is appropriate under Rule 23 (b) (3) in that: a) The members of the plaintiffs class as of the date hereof exceed 100,000 persons and may include substantial numbers of additional claimants and are, therefore, so numerous that joinder of all members of the class in this action is impracticable; b) These actions raise numerous questions of law and fact common to the class relating, among other issues, to the facts that: i) the herbicides manufactured by the defendants and sold to the United States Government were toxic and dangerous to health and could and would cause the injuries complained of by plaintiffs; ii) Defendants knew or should have known such facts; - 7 - ■ I t **y7 7 iii) the Defendants knew or should have known the means of avoiding or reducing such hazards; iv) the Defendants failed to warn the United States Government and the Plaintiffs and the public at large of such hazards and means of risk reduction when the defendants and each of them individually and collectively had the duty to so warn; V) the Defendants and each of them individually and collectively conspired or acted in concert or as an enterprise to breach their aforesaid duty to warn; Vi) the Defendants negligently designed and produced such herbicides; vii) such herbicides produced by the Defendants and sold to the United States Government contained the deadly contaminant known as 2,3,7,8, tetrachlorodibenzo . para dioxin, more commonly referred to as "TCDD" or "dioxin"; viii) exposure to dioxin contaminated herbicides could and would cause the injuries complained of by the Plaintiffs; ix) the Defendants defectively designed and produced such herbicides; X) the herbicides were defective and unreasonably dangerous; xi) the Defendants breached the duties imposed upon them by the contracts entered into between thon and the United States Government; xii) the Defendants breached their implied warranty of merchantability; xiii) the Defendants breached the express warranties required by the Government contracts; and xiv) the Defendants misrepresented to the Government their knowledge with respect to the hazards associated with the herbicides that they were supplying to the Government and withheld such information from the Government and the public; c) That the claims of the representative Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of all members of the class except as to the issues of specific proximate causation and individual damages; 11778 -8- d) That the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; since the inception of this action, the Plaintiffs have been represented by experienced counsel who have shown themselves willing to undertake the consi­ derable catmitment of time, energy and money necessary for the vigorous prosecution of the claims herein asserted; e) That the class is readily identifiable as the persons described in Paragraph 21, supra; f) That the class representatives are members of the g) That class action is the most productive and efficient class; means of managing the litigation; 23. That class action certification and treatment is also conjunctively and alternatively appropriate and necessary under Pule 23 (b) (1) (B) because Defendants' conduct exposes them to compensatory and punitive damages in excess of the "limited fund" comprised of their net worths, either indivi­ dually or collectively, giving rise to the risk that if Plaintiff/litigants are allowed to proceed on an individual basis, those who sue first will deplete the fund and leave nothing for subsequently successful Plaintiff/ litigants. 24. That class certification under Rule 2 3 (b)(1)(A) is also appropriate and necessary to avoid inconsistent adjudications establishing incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendants on issues which involve important federal policies and interests and which should be resolved by application of a uniform rule of decision. -9- These federal policies and interests include: a) The need for consistency, in the interests of national security, in negotiating and determining price and terms of performance in and compliance with government military contract procurement processes which would be disrupted or rendered uncertain by the application of differing or non-existent state tort and contract laws, which would lead to disparate results as to potential liabilities involved so that the price and terms of performance in government contracts for the supply of military ordnance would vary depending on what state laws were applied; b) The need for consistency in the administration of veterans' benefits and programs, in determining whether Vietnam veterans' injuries were service connected, hence entitling them to payment for service connected disability and other benefits; that the issue of "service connected" may in large part depend on how the issues of medical causation are resolved, the application of differing state laws on such issues of causation would lead to disparate results as to liability so that some veterans would be deemed to have proven causation and others not; c) The federal interest in securing compliance with government contracts with military suppliers. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE: Negligence: Breach of Duty to Warn As To Defendants' Products -10- 25. That all of the individual representative Plaintiffs and members of the plaintiffs class were persons who were in the United States, New Zealand or Australian Armed Forces assigned to Vietnam during the hostilities from 1961 to 1972 who claim injury from exposure to Agent Orange (and other phenoxy herbicides), or whose spouses, parents and children b o m before January 1, 1984 claim direct or derivative injuries as a result of such exposure. 26. That during the period of 1961 to 1972 each of the corporate Defendants designed, manufactured and sold to the United States Government pursuant to Government contracts, the phenoxy herbicides (hereinafter collectively described as Agent Orange herbicides), known as Agents Orange, Orange II, Purple, Pink and Green, and whose basic component formulations were: a) Agent Orange was a 50/50 mixture of the n-butyl esters of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid); b) Agent Orange II was a 50/50 mixture of the isooctyl ester 2,4,5-T and the n-butyl ester of 2,4-D; c) Agent Purple was a 50/30/20 by weight mixture of the n-butyl ester of 2,4-D, n-butyl ester of 2,4,5-T and isobutyl ester of 2,4,5-T; d) Agent Pink was a 60/40 by weight mixture of n-butyl ester of 2,4,5-T and the isobutyl ester of 2,4,5-T; e) Agent Green was a single component formulation consisting of n-butyl ester of 2,4,5-T. ■ 11 27. The Agent Orange herbicides manufactured and sold by the Defendants to the United States Government for use in Vietnam during the aforesaid period contained deadly toxic contaminants known as dioxins which were dangerous to human health and capable of causing severe injuries to persons exposed thereto, one of which dioxins was the most toxic and deadly, that being 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo. para dioxin, more commonly referred to as "TCDD" or "dioxin". 28. The Defendants, individually and collectively, knew or should have known of the following: a) That exposure to the herbicides would be harmful to humans by reason of historical experiences involving occupation related injuries to workers following exposure to dioxin-contaminated materials in the Defendants' manufacturing facilities in addition to substantial scientific information in the Defendants' possession, custody and control, evidencing the extreme toxicity of such material; b) That dioxin, its extreme toxicity, its presence in the manufacturing process and the herbicides themselves, and variables determining levels of dioxin in the chemical herbicides' manufacturing processes, and its existence in the herbicides, created a substantial risk to human health; c) That the levels of dioxin contamination in the herbicides manufactured for use in Vietnam could be reduced by the use of appropriate analytical and detection procedures, coupled with alternative and careful methods of manufacture or quality control and the usa thereof, could have eliminated the substantial risk -12- U? to human health involved in the use of the herbicides in Vietnam; d) That information in the form of judgments and assessments of the risks to health had already been arrived at by the chemical companies themselves; and e) That the deployment and use of the herbicides manufactured by the Defendants in Vietnam could and vrould cause substantial adverse health effects to persons who were exposed to the herbicides. 29. That during the period 1961 to 1972, the United States Government decision-makers responsible for the decision to deploy the Agent Orange herbicides in Vietnam were not knowledgeable about the afore­ said types of information with respect to Agent Orange herbicides' manufacturing processes, dioxin as a contaminant, detection and risk reduction methods, and health hazards associated with human exposure to such herbicides. 30. That during the period 1961 to 1972, the Defendants were under a duty to, but failed to warn and share with the Government, the aforesaid information which Defendants knew or should have known with respect to the Agent Orange herbicides they were supplying to the United States Government for use in Vietnam. 31. That during the period 1961 to 1972, the Defendants also knew that the dioxin contaminated Agent Orange herbicides which they were supplying to the Government would be contained in drums unmarked -13- with any corporate identification and mixed together with other contaminated Defendants' products before being sprayed in Vietnam. 32. That by reason of Defendants' failure to warn the Govern­ ment of the health hazards accompanying the use of the dioxin contaminated Agent Orange herbicides "being sold to the Government, and by reason of Defendants' failure to share with the Government all they or any one of than knew or should have known with respect to the Agent Orange manufac­ turing processes, dioxin as contaminant and detection and risk reduction methods, the resulting ignorance on the Government's part affected not only what was put into or emitted frem the contract specifications, but also the standards applied to determine whether each Defendant's product conformed to the specifications. 33. That by reason of each Defendant's breach of its duty to warn and to share such information with the Government and military, the Government and military were prevented fran: a) making an informed decision not to use a particular Defendant's dioxin contaminated herbicide; b) imposing a contractual duty upon each Defendant to supply Agent Orange herbicides free of dioxin contamination; c) imposing protective safety measures in connection with the use of Agent Orange herbicides in Vietnam; or prescribing their use in a manner that would have protected the risk of exposure to the military servicemen; d) providing exposed soldiers prophylactic medical examinations and treatment to avert or mitigate injuries caused by such exposure; and U ?84 -14- e) deciding not to lose such herbicides in the Vietnam conflict whatsoever, or, alternatively, to sharply curtail their use in a limited fashion designed to prevent human exposure and injury. 34. That each Defendant's failure to warn the responsible Government and military decision-makers and to share its information as above alleged prevented the military and Government from taking the actions described in Paragraph 33, supra. 35. That as a direct and proximate result of each Defendant's breach of its aforesaid duties, each of the Plaintiffs were exposed to Defendants' herbicides and were thereby caused to suffer severe injuries, diseases, physical disorders and irritations, and in some cases, death, for which Plaintiffs are entitled to and seek to recover monetary damages firm the Defendants. 36. That by reason of the foregoing, each Defendant is individually, jointly and severally liable as tortfeasors to pay such damages to the Plaintiffs. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE: Breach of Duty to Warn As To Other Defendants' Products 37. Plaintiffs adopt, repeat, reiterate and reallege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 36 as though fully set forth herein. -15- 1 38- That each Defendant knew or should have known that the other Defendants were manufacturing and selling to the military dioxin contaminated Agent Orange herbicides for use in Vietnam during the period 1961 to 1972. 39. That each of the defendants knew or should have known that the Agent Orange herbicides being supplied by other Defendants to the military for use in Vietnam was dangerous to human health. 40. That each of the Defendants knew or should have known that the other Defendants failed to warn the Government as to the health hazards associated with the use of their products and that the other Defendants had also failed to share with the Government what they knew or should have known with respect to the Agent Orange manufacturing processes, dioxin as a contaminant and detection and risk reduction methods. 41. That each Defendant knew or should have known that none of the barrels of Agent Orange they sold to the Government contained any company identifying marks, and that the Agent Orange herbicides shipped to Vietnam would be mixed and sprayed without discrimination as to which Defendant's product was being utilized and that Plaintiffs and all members of the class of Plaintiffs would be exposed to such dioxin contaminated herbicides and would suffer the injuries complained of. 42. That each Defendant's breach of its duty to warn and to share with the Government the information with respect to the other Defendants' dioxin contaminated herbicides, the health hazards associated therewith and the means of detection, risk avoidance and -16- X I 7 86 risk reduction, was a substantial factor in preventing the military from taking the action described in Paragraph 33, supra. By reason of the foregoing, each Defendant is individually, jointly and severally liable as the cause in fact of the indivisible injuries suffered by Plaintiffs and is responsible for the payment of damages to the Plaintiffs AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE: Negligent Design and Production 43. Plaintiffs adopt, repeat, reiterate and reallege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 42 as though fully set forth herein. 44. That each corporate Defendant negligently designed and produced the Agent Orange herbicides it supplied to the United States Government for use in Vietnam in that each Defendant: a) failed to design its herbicides so that they were free from the toxic contaminant dioxin; b) failed to follow reasonable manufacturing methods and procedures that would avoid the formation of or eliminate the toxic contaminant dioxin; c) failed to test the Agent Orange herbicides to insure that they were free from the toxic contaminant dioxin. 45. That Defendants owned or controlled virtually all of the Agent Orange herbicide market and product capacity and supplied to the military, the sole source purchaser, over 99% of the herbicides contracted for, and received over 99% of the purchase price paid. i -17- 46. That each of the Defendant's herbicides was toxic and harmful to human health, contaminated with dioxin in varying degrees, and as such, violated their contractual obligations to the military. Each Defendant knew its product was hazardous to human health and contaminated. Each Defendant knew that the other Defendants' herbicides were hazardous and contaminated with dioxin. Each Defendant knew, with varying degrees of expertise, how to eliminate or reduce the dioxin. None of the Defendants ever warned the uninformed, less expert, military, or informed it either of the toxicity of the herbicides or of the dioxin contamination and the means of its avoidance or elimination. 47. That the Defendants instead conspired and acted in concert secretly and persistently to deceive the military and other governmental agencies about the matters hereinbefore alleged through misrepresentations, suppression and withholding of information and other schemes. The Defendants knew that each other's herbicides were dangerous to human health and contaminated with dioxin; that each other's products constituted a breach of duty to warn, and that each was negligent in the design and production of the Agent Orange herbicides being supplied to the Government for use in Vietnam and that exposure to such herbicides could and would cause injuries to many thousands of individuals. 48. That notwithstanding such knowledge, the Defendants, in pursuit of a cannon plan or design to continue the production and sale of herbicides contaminated with dioxin to the military at a substantial profit and pursuant to a common scheme to avoid governmental investigation and restrictive legislation or regulation which would reduce Defendant's profits, conspired and acted in concert to misrepresent the safety of such -18- herbicides to the military arid other Governmental agencies and suppressed and withheld from the military and other Governmental agencies the informa­ tion described in Paragraph 29, supra, thereby preventing the military frcm undertaking the actions described in Paragraph 33, supra. 49. That during the period fran 1961 to 1972, the chemical industry-wide standard of safety as to the manufacture of Agent Grange herbicides was inadequate to protect the health of the plaintiffs and the Defendants knew or should have known of that fact. 50. That the Agent Orange herbicides manufactured by all the Defendants were produced in accordance with identical military specifi­ cations set forth in their Government contracts and were generically similar. 51. That the Government contracts, pursuant to which the D e fe n d a n ts m a n u fa c tu re d t h e ir A g e n t O range h e r b ic id e s , d id n o t o r d e r , re q u e s t, o r p u t lim it a t io n s o n a n y p e rm is s ib le le v e l o f th e to x ic c o n ta m in a n t d io x in . The h e r b ic id e s p ro d u c e d b y th e D e fe n d a n ts w e re g e n e r ic a lly s im ila r e x c e p t t h a t th e y c o n ta in e d v a r y in g d e g re e s o f th e t o x ic c o n ta m in a n t d io x in . T he D e fe n d a n ts j o in t ly c o n tr o lle d a l l o f th e m a n u fa c tu rin g p ro c e s s e s u s e d in th e p ro d u c tio n o f th e A g e n t O range h e rb ic id e s s u p p lie d to th e m ilit a r y . E ach o f th e D e fe n d a n t's p ro d u c ts w as d e fe c tiv e a n d d a n g e ro u s to hum an h e a lth , e s p e c ia lly in v ie w o f th e p re s e n c e o f th e t o x ic c o n ta m in a n t d io x in . E ach o f th e D e fe n d a n t's d io x in c o n ta m in a te d h e rb ic id e s w as a ca u se in f a c t o f th e in ju r ie s s u ffe r e d b y th e P la in t if f s . -19- 52. That as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conspiracy and concerted action, the Plaintiffs were caused to suffer the injuries ecmplained of hereinabove. 53. That by reason of the foregoing, each Defendant is individually, jointly and severally liable as the proximate cause of the indivisible injuries suffered by plaintiffs and is responsible for and must be required to pay all special, general, compensatory and punitive damages suffered by the Plaintiffs. AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE: Strict Liability 54. That Plaintiffs adopt, repeat, reiterate and reallege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 53 as though fully set forth herein. 55. That at various times during the period 1961 through 1972, each Defendant was engaged in the business of manufacturing, shipping and delivering Agent Orange herbicides to the military for use in Vietnam. Each Defendant's Agent Orange herbicides, as so supplied to the military for use in Vietnam, contained the toxic contaminant dioxin, were in defective condition, and were unreasonably dangerous to the Plaintiffs. 56. That Plaintiffs' exposure to the Defendants' dioxin contaminated herbicides directly and proximately caused or contributed to the Plaintiffs' injuries and damages hereinabove alleged. 57. That by reason of the foregoing, the Defendants are individually, jointly and severally liable for Plaintiffs' injuries a n d re s p o n s ib le f o r a n d m u s t b e r e q u ir e d t o p a y a l l s p e c ia l, g e n e ra l, c o m p e n s a to ry a n d p u n itiv e dam ages s u ffe r e d b y th e P la in t if f s . Breach of Implied Warranty 58. That Plaintiffs adopt, repeat, reiterate and reallege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 57 as though fully set forth herein. 59. That each Defendant impliedly warranted the merchanta­ bility of the Agent Orange herbicides which they supplied to the Govern­ ment and that such herbicides would be reasonably fit for the ordinary purposes for which they were to be used by the military in Vietnam, and that they were relatively non-toxic to humans and animals. 60. That each Defendant breached its implied warranty of merchantability in that the Agent Orange herbicides it supplied to the Government were not reasonably fit for the purposes for -which they were to be used, especially so because of the presence of the toxic contaminant dioxin. Each Defendant breached its implied warranty that the Plaintiffs exposed to such herbicides would be safe frcm personal injury attributable to such exposure in that such exposure did in fact directly and proximately cause or contribute to the Plaintiffs' serious injuries as hereinbefore alleged. 61. That by reason of Defendants' breach of their implied warranties, the Defendants are individually, jointly and severally liable for the Plaintiffs' injuries and responsible for and must be required, bo pay Plaintiffs' resultant special, general, compensatory and punitive damages. -21- r Breach of Express Warranty Arid Misrepresentation 62. That Plaintiffs adopt, repeat, reiterate and reallege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 61 as though fully set forth herein. 63. That the contracts between the military and the Defendants imposed specific specifications which did not call for or permit the presence of the toxic contaminant dioxin in the Agent Orange herbicides produced pursuant to such contracts. The Defendants breached their duty to comply with such Government contracts and specifications in that the Agent Orange herbicides produced by the Defendants contained dioxin which was dangerous to the health of the Plaintiffs exposed thereto in Vietnam. 64. That the Defendants concurrently, with their conspiracy of concealment and failure to warn the military as hereinbefore alleged, misrepresented the safety of their herbicides to the military and other Government agencies. Despite its extensive knowledge of health hazards, the Defendant, DCW CHEMICAL COMPANY, made the following misrepresentation to the United States military: " (W)e have been manufacturing 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T for over ten years. To the best of our knowledge, none of the workmen in these factories have shown any ill effects as a result of working with these chemicals." Subsequently, during the years 1966 and 1967, at times when all the Defendants were selling dioxin contaminated herbicides to the military, they formed a Joint Industry Task Force, under the auspices of the National Agricultural Chemicals Association, an organization owned, operated, managed and controlled by the chemical industry whose purpose it was to declare the Defendant's Agent Orange herbicides to be t o x i c o - j [ j[ 7\3 ^ -22- lo g ic a lly s a fe . D u rin g th e p e rio d o f i t s e x is te n c e , th e D e fe n d a n ts ' T a s k F o rc e m is re p re s e n te d to and d e c e iv e d th e G o ve rn m e n t c o n c e rn in g th e n a tu re a n d th e e x te n t o f th e to x ic o lo g ic a l d a ta a s to h a z a rd s w h ic h w as lo c k e d w ith in th e D e fe n d a n ts c o n fid e n t ia l f i l e s . 65. That the Defendants and each of them knew of health hazards associated with exposure to such herbicides and each of them during the period in question either made affirmative statements mis­ representing material facts concerning such hazards or wilfully failed to disclose such material facts by conscious and willful emission. 66. That by reason of the Defendants' breach of express warranty and such misrepresentations, the military and the Government were lulled into a belief that the Defendants' Agent Orange herbicides were safe to human health, and the military was prevented from taking the actions described in Paragraph 33, supra. 67. That as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' breach of warranty and express misrepresentations, the plaintiffs suffered injuries and are entitled to damages, both special and general, compensatory and punitive. 68. T h a t th e D e fe n d a n ts a re in d iv id u a lly , j o in t ly a n d s e v e r a lly lia b le f o r th e p a ym e n t o f P la in t if f s dam ages. AS AND FOR A F IF T H CAUSE OF ACTIO N, P LA IN T IF F S ALLEGE: 69. That Plaintiffs adopt, repeat, reiterate and reallege each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1 through 68 as though fully set forth herein. -23- * 70. That Defendants' conduct constituted an intentional and fraudulent concealment of the facts hereinabove alleged frcm the Government and the Plaintiffs, and prevented them iron discovering that the injuries suffered by Plaintiffs were caused by Defendants' wrongful conduct and Plaintiffs' exposure to Defendants' defective and dangerous dioxin contaminated Agent Orange herbicides. As the result of such fraudulent concealment and Defendants' misrepresentations, Plaintiffs' domiciled in states whose statutes of limitations governing claims for damages caused by tortious conduct such as that of the Defendants, begin to run frcm the date of injury, were prevented through Plaintiffs' lack of knowledge of the facts, frcm instituting suit on such claims against Defendants within the tiroes prescribed by such statutes of limitations. 71. That by reason of the foregoing, Defendants are estopped firm asserting such statutes of limitations as a bar to any of Plaintiffs' claims. AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE: Punitive Damages 72. That Plaintiffs adopt, repeat, reiterate and reallege each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 1 through 71 as though fully set forth herein. 73. That each Defendant knew, or had reason to know that its conduct and the other Defendants' conduct not only created an un- . reasonable risk of harm to Plaintiffs, but also that there was a strong probability that the harm would result. Nevertheless, each Defendant 11794 -24- proceeded with its conduct in reckless or conscious disregard of such consequences to Plaintiffs. 74. That as a direct and proximate result, Plaintiffs suffered the injuries complained of, and are entitled to punitive damages, in addition to special, general and compensatory damages. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, individually and collectively demand judgment of the "corporate Defendants", THE DCW CHEMICAL COMPANY, MONSANTO CO., HERCULES INCORPORATED, T-H AGRICULTURE & NUTRITION COMPANY, DIAMOND SHAMROCK CORPORATION, UNIROYAL, INC., and THOMPSON CHEMICAL CORP., for the following relief: A) Judgment in such sums as this Court and jury shall find in favor of each of the representative Plaintiffs as shall fully, adequately and completely compensate them for all usual and customary elements of damage awardable in cases of personal injury and wrongful death, both general and special, including but not limited to physical pain and mental suffering, both past, present and future, the reasonable and necessary costs of medical and hospital services and treatments, both past, present and future, loss of earnings, disability, disfigurement, loss of society, consortium, services and companionship, pecuniary losses to the widows and next of kin of deceased veterans, including but not limited to losses of support, companionship, services and society, funeral and other familial expenses incurred thereby and all other recognized losses, costs and damages incurred by such representative Plaintiffs, their widows, families and next of kin with direct and derivative claims; -25- B) Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff class members as and for their punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the Court and jury of sufficient magnatude to adequately punish the Defendants and each of them, jointly and severally, by reason of their willful and wrongful conduct and the great magnitude of damages which it has wrought; C) A determination by this Court in the form of its judgment that there is a substantial risk based upon the damages awarded the individual representative Plaintiffs herein and based upon the special verdicts of the jury favorable to the Plaintiffs as to the issues ccmmon to the class of Plaintiffs, that the total damages suffered by the class of Plaintiffs and recoverable frcm the Defendants or Defendants adj lodged liable, are likely to exceed the ability of any such Defendant or Defendants to pay such damages, impressing an equitable trust upon the assets and future earnings of such Defendant or Defendants in order to create a fund for the full or pro rata satisfaction of the present or future damage claims of the members of the class; D) Together with such other and further relief as to this Court shall seem just and proper under the circumstances, plus interest, reasonable counsel fees and the costs and disbursements of this action. DATED: December 14, 1983 Respectfully submitted, Chairman, Law Ccmmittee -26- Stephen J. Schlegel, Esq. SCHLEGEL & TRAFELET, LTD. One North LaSalle Street Suite 3900 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Irving Like, Esq. REILLY, LIKE AND SCHNEIDER 200 West Main Street P.O. Box 218 Babylon, New York 11702 Thomas W. Henderson, Esq. BASKIN & SEARS Frick Building, 10th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 David J. Dean, Esq. DEAN, FALANGA & ROSE 1 Old Country Road Carle Place, New York Benton Musslewhite, Esq. John O'Quinn 600 Fannin, Suite 517 Houston, Texas 77002 Newton B. Schwartz, Esq. NEWTON B. SCHWARTZ, P.C. Houston Bar Center Building 723 Main, Suite 325 Houston, Texas 77002 Stanley M. Chesley, Esq. WAITE, SCHNEIDER, BAYLESS & CHESLEY CO., L.P.A. 1318 Central Trust Tower Fourth & Vine Streets Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Phillip E. Brown, Esq. HOBERG, FINGER, BROWN, COX & MOLLINGAN, P.C. 11514 C e n tr a l T o w e r 703 Market Street San Francisco, California -27- 94103 11797 * VE RI F I C AT I O N The undersigned, being a duly appointed member of the Plaintiffs' Management Committee and Lead Counsel Group, affirms under penalties of perjury that he has read the above and foregoing Fifth Amended Complaint, by him subscribed, and that the contents are true. CERTIFICATiaSI OF SERVICE The undersigned does hereby certify that she has served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Fifth Amended Complaint on all those shown on the attached Service List by Federal Express Mail, this 14th day of December, 1983. V ^ SERVICE LIST BY FEDERAL EXPRESS Hon. Ja c k B. W e i n s t e i n U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of N e w York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, N e w York 11201 Hon. Sol Schreiber Milber, Weiss, B e rshad & Specthrie One Pennsylvania Plaza N e w York, N e w York 10019 A r v i n Maskin, Esq. United States Dept, of Just i c e Safeway Building, R o o m 904D Washington, D.C. 20530 Thomas W. Henderson, Esq. B a s k i n & Sears Frick Building, 10th FI. Pittsburgh, Pa. 15219 B enton Musslewhite, Esq. 609 Fannin-Suite 517 Houston, Texas 77002 David Dean, 1 Old Carle J. Dean, Esq. Falanga & R o s e Country R o a d Place, N e w York 11514 Stanley M. Chesley, Esq. Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A. 1318 Central Trust Tower Fourth & Vine Streets Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 M o r t o n Silberman, Esq. Clark, Gagliardi & M i l l e r Inns of Court - 99 Court St. W h i t e Plains, N e w York 10601 Wendall B. Alcorn, Jr., Esq. Cadwalader, W i c k e r s h a m & Taft One Wall Street N e w York, N e w York 10005 John C. Sabetta, Esq. T o w n l e y & Updike 405 L e x i n g t o n Aven u e N e w York, N e w York 10017 Thomas Beck, Esq. Arthur, Dry & K a l i s h 1230 A v e n u e of the A mericas N e w York, N e w Y o r k 10020 W i l l i a m A. Krohley, Esq. Kelley, Drye & W a r r e n 350 Park A v e n u e N e w York, N e w York 10022 D a v i d R. Gross, Esq. Budd, L a m e r , Kent, Gross, Picillo & R o s e n b a u m 33 W a s h i n g t o n Street Newark, N e w J e r s e y 07102 J u d i t h L. Spanier, Esq. Shea & Gould 330 M a d i s o n A v e n u e N e w York, N e w Yo r k 10017 BY R E G U L A R M A I L L e o n a r d Rivkin, Esq. Rivkin, Leff, Sherman & Radler 100 Garden City Plaza Garden City, N e w York 11530 G r e g o r y Stayart, Esq. S ullivan & A s s o c i a t e s 180 N. M i c h i g a n A v e ., S t e . 1700 Chicago, Illinois 60601 3-18Oo