Document 0Lbka01NBnZkEyd1K2bGXXE3m

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION ANTONIA TOLBERT, et al. , Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. vs. CV-01-C-1407-S MONSANTO COMPANY; PHARMACIA, INC., and SOLUTIA, INC., Defendants -X -X -X -X -X -X DEPOSITION OF ROBERT G. KALEY, II VOLUME I, taken pursuant to notice and stipulation on behalf of the Plaintiffs Antonia Tolbert, et al., in the Law Offices of Lightfoot, Franklin & White, The Clark Building, 400 20th Street North, Birmingham, Alabama, before Angela Abbott Blankenship, Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Alabama at Large, on May 1st, 2003, commencing at 1:30 p m. 1 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015114 APPEARANCES FOR THE PLAINTIFF: ROBERT B. RODEN, ESQUIRE Shelby, Roden & Cartee 2956 Rhodes Circle Birmingham, Alabama 35205 FOR THE DEFENDANTS: MICHAEL E. KELLY, ESQUIRE Smith Moore, L.L.P. P. O. Box 21927 Greensboro, North Carolina 27403 STIPULATIONS It is stipulated and agreed by and between counsel representing the parties that the deposition of ROBERT G. KALEY, II may be taken before Angela Abbott Blankenship, Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Alabama at Large, without the formality of a commission; and all formality with respect to other 2 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015115 procedural requirements is waived; that objections to questions, other than objections as to the form of the question need not be made at this time, but may be reserved for a ruling at such time as the deposition may be offered in evidence or used for any other purpose by either party as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is further stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereto and the witness, that the signature of the witness to this deposition is hereby not waived. 3 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015116 1 INDEX 2 3 EXAMINATION PAGE 4 By Mr. Roden....................................................................4 5 PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBITS: PAGE 6 PX-1 - Map Entitled Zones and Drainage 7 for Remediation 135 9 10 11 ROBERT G. KALEY, II, of lawful 12 age, having first been duly sworn, 13 testified as follows: 14 THE COURT REPORTER: Will 15 this be usual stipulations? 16 MR. KELLY: Yes. 17 MR. KALEY: I want to read and 18 sign. 19 MR. RODEN: He wants to read 20 and sign, but other than that, yes. 21 EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. RODEN: 23 EXAMINATION 4 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015117 1 BY MR. RODEN: 2 Q. Dr. Kaley, I guess, just for the 3 record, your name? 4 A. Robert George Kaley, II. 5 Q. And Dr. Kaley, your position with 6 Solutia is? 7 A. Director of Environmental Affairs. 8 Q. And you have held that since what 9 year? 10 A. Well, I have held the job at Solutia 11 since the creation of Solutia in 12 September of 1997. I had a similar 13 position in Monsanto since, I believe, 14 about 1994 or '95. 15 Q. Okay. And where are you physically 16 located? 17 A. In St. Louis. 18 Q. Have you been in St. Louis since the 19 inception of '94 of Monsanto? 20 A. I was with Monsanto long before '94. 21 I have been with Monsanto in St. Louis 22 since December of 1973 actually. 23 Q. Okay. In St. Louis? 5 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015118 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Have you ever worked in any other 3 facility or been anywhere other than St. 4 Louis? 5 A. Not located there for any length of 6 time. 7 Q. Your office, in other words? 8 A. Correct. Exactly. 9 Q. And who do you report to? 10 A. I directly report to Tom Bistline, 11 B-i-s-t-l-i-n-e. 12 Q. What's his position? 13 A. He's an attorney. 14 Q. Is he general counsel or in-house 15 counsel? 16 A. He's assistant general counsel, I 17 believe. 18 Q. And who would work under you? What 19 titles are people who work under you? 20 A. I have -- as Monsanto employees 21 there's a manager of -- I don't know 22 whether he's -- I think he's manager of 23 environmental technical support and then 6 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015119 1 I have a person who's known as, I think 2 she calls herself a literature 3 specialist. 4 Q. What does she do? 5 A. She manages the literature that we 6 maintain on PCBs and other issues. 7 Q. Like the various articles concerning 8 health studies, etcetera? 9 A. Generally, yeah, a variety of 10 things. 11 Q. Now, the environmental manager of 12 technical support, you said worked for 13 Monsanto, is that - 14 A. I'm sorry. After thirty years, I 15 use them interchangeably. No, he works 16 for Solutia. He came to Solutia in '97 17 just like I did. 18 Q. Does anyone working under you or 19 above you work with or for Monsanto? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Does anyone above you or below you 22 work for Pharmacia? 23 A. No. 7 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015120 1 Q. What exactly, and I know I have had 2 the benefit of your depositions and 3 transcripts, but tell me, since, in the 4 last two years, what exactly do you do 5 for Solutia. 6 A. Well, my primary responsibility is 7 to remain knowledgeable to serve as a 8 resource for issues around chemicals that 9 were formerly made by, primarily, 10 Monsanto, so primarily to remain 11 knowledgeable as a company support of 12 what we call Legacy Chemical, Legacy 13 issues. 14 Q. What is the purpose for Solutia 15 maintaining a support on Legacy 16 products ? 17 A. Well, there are a variety of issues 18 that I have to deal with. There are 19 numbers of regulations on the kinds of 20 products that I share compliance within 21 the company for. There are developments 22 in the science that we need to be 23 knowledgeable about. 8 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015121 1 Obviously, there are issues 2 around litigation that I provide support 3 to the litigation staff on science and 4 technology issues. I provide science 5 inputs on remediation issues associated 6 with those chemicals. 7 We also have -- we still, 8 because we were the primary manufacturer 9 of polychlorinated biphenyls in the 10 United States, we still get calls from 11 former customers from outside the 12 company, and I handle those calls. 13 Q. Now, who do you deal directly with 14 at the Anniston Solutia facility? 15 A. Primarily Craig Branchfield. 16 Q. How do you spell that? 17 A. Branchfield? 18 Q. Yes. 19 Q. B-r-a-n-c-h-f-i-e-l-d. 20 Q. What's his position? 21 A. I believe he's manager of remedial 22 proj ects. 23 Q. And do you frequent the Solutia 9 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015122 1 facility in Anniston? 2 A. I don't know what "frequent" means. 3 Sometimes more, sometimes less. I'm 4 probably there on an average of once a 5 month. 6 Q. What exactly is the facility 7 manufacturing today? 8 A. It manufactures a chemical called 9 biphenyl which is a component of heat 10 transfer fluids and it manufactures a 11 chemical called para-nitrophenol 12 p-h-e-n-o-1, which is a raw material for 13 analgesics. 14 Q. Prior to that, when was it exactly 15 that Solutia or, I guess, really the 16 Monsanto facility ceased producing PCBs 17 in the Anniston plant? 18 A. 1971. 19 Q. Now, do you, as director of 20 environmental affairs, keep up with the 21 various samples, the soil samples that 22 are being conducted by various groups in 23 the Anniston area? 10 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015123 1 A. From a very high level viewpoint, 2 yes. 3 Q. What do you mean? 4 A. Well, I mean I see the results and I 5 think about what they look like and, you 6 know, overall and what they're telling 7 us, but I don't necessarily look at each 8 sample individually and try to determine 9 whether it makes sense with the one next 10 to it or things like that, but I have a 11 general overview, overknowledge of the 12 soil sampling results. 13 Q. Would that include Dr. Bonner's soil 14 sampling? 15 A. I am aware of those. I haven't 16 reviewed those in any great detail. 17 Q. Have you reviewed those in relation 18 to the Tord Case? 19 A. Not specifically. 20 Q. You have reviewed soil samples in 21 relation to the proposed settlement 22 agreement between EPA and Solutia? 23 A. Yes. Again, at a very high level, 11 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015124 1 yes. I mean, I'm aware of, generally, 2 the types of samples that have been 3 taken, where they have been taken, the 4 general levels, a general overview of the 5 distribution of those levels. 6 Q. Can you tell me, with respect to 7 that agreement -- I understand the, I 8 guess the target level is -- is it ten 9 parts per million? Is that the target 10 level for remediation? 11 A. Well, okay, the current consent 12 order under which we are operating has 13 what they call a removal level of ten 14 parts per million with a "M", so 15 properties which have PCBs in excess of 16 ten parts per million determined by a 17 five point composite sample are subject 18 to removal by Solutia under that consent 19 order. 20 Q. And a five point composite sample 21 meaning taken in five different areas? 22 A. Yes. Basically, they divide the 23 area to be sampled into quarters and they 12 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015125 1 take a sample in the middle of each 2 quarter and at the conjunction of those 3 four quarters in the middle and add those 4 together and analyze that as a single 5 sample. 6 Q. What is the current situation with 7 that sampling? 8 A. With the sampling, I believe we have 9 sampled two to three of the areas, main 10 areas that we have agreed to sample under 11 the consent order. In that sampling, we 12 have identified something like 13 twenty-five or twenty-eight properties 14 that had PCBs above the ten parts per 15 million level and we have cleaned up, I 16 believe, twelve or thirteen of those 17 properties. 18 Q. Tell me about the area, and I know I 19 have seen it, but I'm not sure I 20 understand the areas that y'all have 21 agreed to that there has been an 22 agreement to sample. 23 A. Well, basically, when the 13 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015126 1 discussions with the EPA were going on, 2 they had taken a map of Anniston, and 3 somehow, and I don't know their logic, 4 divided it into areas. I think they were 5 numbered one, two, three, four, five, 6 six. One of them is labeled "F" as in 7 Frank, and whatever their rationale was 8 for those particular divisions, we had to 9 sample those in some priority, the ones 10 closest to the plant first, the ones 11 closest to drainage pathways, and then 12 moving, as we moved farther away from the 13 plant, those had lower priority. 14 Q. Is there a dimension involved in 15 that; that is, an area of dimension? Is 16 there a one-mile radius, two-mile or 17 five-mile or ten-mile? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Is there any radius involved at 20 all? 21 A. No, I don't believe so, not that I'm 22 aware of anyway. 23 Q. Who decided the areas, the EPA? 14 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015127 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Did y'all have any input into that? 3 A. Not really, no. 4 Q. Do the areas include properties 5 outside what is called the flood plain? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Is it any particular distance from 8 the flood plain? 9 A. Well, the distance is varied 10 depending on -- I mean it's not -- the 11 areas are not set by okay, here's the 12 flood plain and you have to go half a 13 mile past that or anything like that. I 14 really don't know what their -- there's 15 nothing, no rhyme or reason that -- I 16 have never looked for one, but I don't 17 see one obviously. 18 In fact, part of our strategy, 19 our sampling strategy is to sample in a 20 given area, sample the areas in and close 21 to the flood plain first, moving away 22 from that to see if there's PCB levels 23 and if we get to a point where we're no 15 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015128 1 longer seeing PCB levels on a statistical 2 basis, we may not have to continue to 3 sample the rest of that area. We may 4 move to another one of those areas where 5 there are more likely to be PCBs found, 6 if that makes any sense. 7 Q. Yes, it does. But that would be if 8 the EPA agreed with that? 9 A. Absolutely, yes. We have to provide 10 to the EPA our statistical analysis to 11 try to justify such a decision and then 12 they have the final decision and they 13 have every right to say no, keep 14 sampling. 15 Q. What I'm asking, Doctor, is this: 16 assume that there are people that I 17 represent outside the flood plain. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. How can I assure them that they are 20 going to be quote "tested" for PCBs, and 21 if it exceeds the removal level, that it 22 will be cleaned up? And that's why I'm 23 asking the question, and I'm not sure 16 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015129 1 anybody can answer that question. 2 A. Well, I'm not sure they can either. 3 I mean the first step, obviously, would 4 be to -- there is a map that exists. 5 Q. And I may have it somewhere. 6 A. I'm sure you do, because if you got 7 a copy of the consent order, I'm sure you 8 do have it, that lays outs those 9 particular areas. The first step would 10 be to determine where those people lived 11 in priority -- within those areas. 12 If they live within those 13 areas, then they are certainly, more 14 likely than not, to be sampled. If they 15 are outside of those areas, under the 16 current consent order under which we're 17 operating, I think there's less 18 likelihood that they would be sampled. 19 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not 20 the agreement to, or the proposal for 21 those areas was determined by any factors 22 that were used to determine that? Do you 23 have any knowledge of that? 17 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015130 1 A. Okay, now, let me try to clarify 2 something. You keep talking about a 3 proposal. I'm talking about the consent 4 order under which we are currently 5 operating. 6 Q. Okay. 7 A. Now, there is a proposed consent 8 decree which is a different animal, so 9 I'm talking, and I hope you are, about 10 the consent order under which we are 11 operating. And my understanding, as I 12 said, I don't really know how that was 13 conceived. But my understanding is it 14 was based on sampling that the EPA had 15 done in the Anniston area and roughly 16 encompassed those areas where, in their 17 sampling, they found some properties that 18 had PCBs on them. 19 Q. Now, what is the difference between 20 the order in which you are working and 21 the consent proposed as far as the area 22 is concerned that would be sampled? 23 A. Well, as far as I know, and I'm not 18 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015131 1 the expert on the details. My 2 understanding is primarily with regard to 3 residential sampling. I believe the 4 areas are roughly the same. The 5 difference would be on an established 6 cleanup level and which properties and 7 the number of properties that would be 8 required to be cleaned up. 9 Q. What would the established cleanup 10 level under the proposal -11 A. Under what they call a streamlined 12 risk assessment that EPA has carried out, 13 the cleanup level would be one part per 14 million. Any property with a composite 15 sample above one part per million would 16 be required to be cleaned. 17 Q. But the areas would still be the 18 same? 19 A. That's my thought as I sit here. I 20 don't know that for sure. Now, part of 21 the proposed consent decree is additional 22 investigations leading away from our 23 plant, and that's certainly areas to be 19 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015132 1 identified that were impacted by PCBs. 2 Those would be sampled. 3 Also, the consent decree, the 4 current consent orders address only 5 residential properties. The consent 6 decree would address other kinds of 7 properties; public access properties, 8 things like that. 9 Q. Schools? 10 A. Yes. Basically, any property in the 11 area. 12 Q. And, again, in the areas proposed in 13 the sampling? 14 A. Yes, I believe that's true, although 15 I'm not -- please, don't hold me to 16 exactly that, but it's basically that 17 general area. 18 Q. Tell me this: who was involved or is 19 involved, I should say, with working with 20 the EPA to come up with the proposal? 21 A. Primarily Craig Branchfield from 22 Solutia. I have been involved in some of 23 the discussions, but he's the man on the 20 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015133 1 ground. He's the one that understands 2 what -- I mean, the consent decree talks 3 about the Anniston PCB site under terms 4 that are EPA's terms for defining a site, 5 so I don't know that it's exactly the 6 same as a consent order, but I believe 7 it's generally the same. 8 Q. Okay. Can you tell me why the 9 removal level was changed from ten parts 10 percent million to one part per million? 11 A. Well, the emergency removal action 12 or level was primarily determined by EPA 13 by reasons I don't know to believe that 14 was the level that needed to be cleaned 15 up immediately. The one part per 16 million, as I said, is a more robust 17 number, I'll use that term, determined by 18 the streamline risk assessment that was 19 done by EPA, so it's more a risk-based 20 cleanup level. 21 Q. What do you mean by streamline risk 22 assessment? 23 A. Well, it was primarily done without 21 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015134 1 a lot of it -- it was based on the data 2 that the EPA had available to them at 3 this point rather than requiring a lot of 4 additional sampling to determine level, 5 so that's primarily the streamlined 6 nature of it. 7 Q. When you say risk assessment, what 8 exactly do you mean? 9 A. Well, a risk assessment is, in EPA's 10 mind and the contractors that do them for 11 EPA and the contractors that do them for 12 us is a very formalized process under 13 which, basically, it's a comparison of 14 sampling results to numbers that the EPA 15 or someone has generated to address the 16 theoretical risk associated with exposure 17 to those levels. 18 Q. Are there risks associated with 19 exposure to certain levels of PCBs? 20 A. Well, in the view of risk 21 assessment, there is, by definition, 22 because what the EPA, primarily, and what 23 they have done in this case is take 22 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015135 1 results from animal studies and, 2 primarily, these are based on results 3 testing whether PCBs cause cancer in 4 animals, and this is for any chemicals, 5 not just PCBs, and determine the 6 concentration in which that happens in 7 animals, apply a bunch of safety factors 8 to account for potential differences 9 between animals and humans, potential 10 differences within animals, etcetera, and 11 then come with a number which, in their 12 view, is protective of human health, so 13 they come up with this, in this 14 particular case it's called a cancer 15 slope factor. They apply that number to 16 a concentration to determine, in their 17 view, whether there is some theoretical 18 risk. The true risk, and EPA 19 acknowledges this, could be zero in the 20 risk in the way you and I think about 21 it. 22 Q. Right. 23 A. But their theoretical risk is what 23 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015136 1 determines these cleanup levels. 2 Q. Well, obviously, the issues here 3 are, in fact, PCBs carcinogens. Do they 4 cause cancer? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And I think there's a big 7 disagreement with that. I don't think 8 you and I would agree with that. 9 A. I believe we would disagree in 10 humans. I don't think we would disagree 11 in animals, but I think we would disagree 12 whether PCBs cause cancer in humans, yes. 13 Q. And I assume you are familiar with 14 the various clinical studies, if you 15 will, that have tried to relate PCBs with 16 cancer and other problems? 17 A. Yes, I am. 18 Q. What is it that can Solutia does 19 agree, if they would, that PCBs causes at 20 certain levels? 21 A. We believe that PCBs, at high levels 22 of exposure in humans, are associated 23 with dermal skin effects, possibly 24 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015137 1 including something called chloracne. I 2 personally don't necessarily agree with 3 that, but that's, you know, the company 4 has acknowledged that that's a 5 possibility. And then also with 6 transient elevations in some liver 7 enzymes, those have been reported fairly 8 consistently in some studies. 9 Q. And do you have any understanding, I 10 guess, of what the transient elevations 11 in liver enzymes, what risk factors that 12 would cause? 13 A. My understanding is probably nothing 14 specifically. I mean, when they have 15 been reported, they seem to go away if 16 the exposure is reduced or eliminated, 17 and in those populations, you don't see 18 any evidence of further progression to 19 frank disease. 20 Q. Is there any difference in risk 21 exposure depending on the chlorination of 22 the PCBs ? 23 A. Well, again, I think if you look at 25 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015138 1 animal studies, there seems to be, and 2 certainly, if you look at cancer studies 3 specifically where most of the study has 4 been focused, there does seem to be an 5 appearance that the more highly 6 chlorinated PCB mixtures are more potent 7 carcinogens in animals than the lower 8 chlorinated mixtures. But, again, we 9 don't see health effects in humans 10 particularly, so that we can't really 11 make that kind of assessment on the human 12 studies. 13 Q. What is the -- what happens when you 14 heat up the PCBs as far as the 15 chlorination of the PCBs? Does it do 16 anything to change the particular 17 chlorination of them? 18 A. Well, if -- I guess there's two ways 19 to answer that. One is if you look at an 20 individual PCB molecule, heating it will 21 not change the amount of chlorine on that 22 molecule by itself. I mean, if you're in 23 a reaction vat and you have chlorine in 26 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015139 1 there and something to promote the 2 reaction, then, obviously, that's how you 3 make PCBs, so you will continue to add, 4 but if you have got a product sitting 5 here on the table and started heating it 6 up, then there's nothing on an individual 7 molecule that's going to change, as I 8 said, the numbers of chlorines on that 9 individual molecule. 10 If you look at the mixture as a 11 whole, if you heat a vat or a jar of PCBs 12 and start raising the temperature, then 13 the more lower chlorinated materials may 14 very well evaporate into the atmosphere 15 and so the mixture as a whole may be 16 shifted to higher chlorination, but 17 that's only because you're, by heating 18 them, you're removing them to more 19 volatile materials. 20 Q. You're transferring them? 21 A. Right, you're taking them out of the 22 mixture here in the vat and you're 23 putting them in the atmosphere so that by 27 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015140 1 -- you know, that leaves the more highly 2 chlorinates ones in the vat, but it 3 doesn't change the chemistry of an 4 individual PCB molecule by simply adding 5 heat, and that's why they're good. 6 That's why they were used in many of the 7 applications they were used is because 8 they are stable under conditions of 9 heating. 10 Q. Well, as I understand, just from my 11 limited knowledge, that the PCBs that 12 were manufactured at the Anniston plant, 13 the highest number of, as I understand, 14 the highest number chlorinated was like 15 seven or eight or was it even that high? 16 A. Well, I mean, I know you don't want 17 a chemistry lesson or a PCB manufacturing 18 lesson, but all the PCBs were very 19 complex materials, very complex mixtures 20 of materials, and as you go through the 21 product sequence from 1221 to 1242 up to 22 1260 or 1268, then the number of 23 chlorines on the molecules in those 28 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015141 1 mixtures tended to increase so by the 2 time you got up to 1268, certainly, there 3 were individual PCB molecules with nine 4 or up to ten chlorines on those rings in 5 that product. 6 Q. Okay. 7 A. But now, there was no product that 8 was all what we call decachlorobiphenyl, 9 the highest biphenyl with ten chlorines 10 on a ring. We actually considered making 11 that and some people did make that as a 12 product, but that was a white solid as 13 opposed to many of the other materials. 14 That was a pure single compound, but that 15 material itself was a component of some 16 of the other mixtures and, most notably, 17 would have been a component of Aroclor 18 1268 . 19 Q. What was the majority of the PCBs 20 manufactured in Anniston as far as the 21 number of chlorines? 22 A. Well, that's a difficult question. 23 We really don't know the answer to that 29 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015142 1 question because we didn't manufacture 2 PCBs by the number of chlorines on the 3 ring. We manufacture PCBs by these 4 complex mixtures with average 5 chlorination. 6 Now, my understanding is that, 7 by far, the most -- the product of most 8 volume in Anniston was Aroclor 1242 and 9 that product is primarily biphenyl 10 molecules with three and four chlorines 11 on ring so by extrapolation, you know, 12 pushed to an answer, I would say probably 13 three, four, maybe five chlorines on a 14 ring was the most, but there would have 15 been a distribution including all the 16 possible levels of chlorination. 17 Q. What about the still bottoms or the 18 by-product of the manufacturer of PCBs, 19 did they have any more chlorine -- number 20 of chlorines in them than the mixture 21 itself? 22 A. Yes, I would think, in most cases, 23 that would be a safe assumption because 30 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015143 1 of what distillation is. Distillation a 2 process by where you basically take a 3 mixture to still off or remove the 4 lighter materials in that mixture. In 5 this case, it would be the less 6 chlorinated PCBs leaving the more highly 7 chlorinated PCBs in that still bottom 8 along with a variety of other materials, 9 but I would expect from any given 10 process, that the still bottoms from the 11 distillation, you know, the products from 12 the distillation of Aroclor 1250. For 13 example, the still bottoms would have a 14 higher level of chlorination than 1254 15 itself by some unknown amount. 16 Q. When we talk about still bottoms, 17 and I don't know the process, but are we 18 talking about a large vat of some sort 19 that these mixtures are being made? 20 A. Primarily, yes. 21 Q. How large a vat? 22 A. You know, I don't really know the 23 answer to that. I've never gone in and 31 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015144 1 looked at the size of the vats. But it's 2 primarily a large reaction vessel. 3 Q. And as far as still bottoms, can you 4 quantitate that for me as far as how much 5 would be in a vat? 6 A. Again, I don't know. 7 Q. Do you know what was done with the 8 still bottoms? 9 A. Primarily, once that vessel -- the 10 reaction that completed, my understanding 11 is that they were drummed and put in the 12 landfill at the site. 13 Q. Were there any of them washed into 14 the sewer system? 15 A. Not that I know of. 16 Q. Or drainage system? 17 A. Not that I'm aware of. 18 Q. Does Solutia -19 A. I mean they wouldn't be washable. 20 They're very viscous, hard, solid. 21 They're really not the kind of thing you 22 can move with a hose or something like 23 that. It wouldn't make any sense. 32 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015145 1 Q. Kind of like burning something on 2 the stove and trying to scrape it out? 3 A. Yes, exactly. It's basically the 4 consistency of road tar, I mean very much 5 the same. 6 Q. Does Solutia admit or agree that 7 there have been PCBs that have escaped 8 from the Solutia facility? 9 A. Yes, I think we would agree that 10 there has obviously been, in drainage 11 pathways, some PCBs have moved from our 12 facility to off-site, yes. 13 Q. Is there any agreement as to the 14 quantitative amount? 15 A. I don't believe that's 16 determinable. I don't know who I would 17 be agreeing or disagreeing with. I've 18 never heard an amount, so, you know, I 19 don't know. 20 Q. Well, you probably, like me, have 21 seen documents that talk about several 22 pounds per day and that type thing? 23 A. Right. 33 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015146 1 Q. Is that something that we can agree 2 on or is that something that's still in 3 dispute? 4 A. Well, I think we can agree that 5 those documents exist and the numbers are 6 there. I think, knowing the state of 7 analytical chemistry at the time, there 8 is some uncertainty around those numbers, 9 but I think they certainly stand for the 10 proposition that PCBs were in those waste 11 waters. 12 Q. Okay. When you say there's a 13 certain -- the analytical chemistry was 14 not available at the time, what do you 15 mean? 16 A. Well, I'm just talking about the 17 uncertainties in the measurement whether, 18 you know, if you're getting -- measure 19 one hundred parts per million, is that 20 because that sample really has one 21 hundred parts per million or the sample 22 before it had one thousand parts per 23 million and it carried over into that 34 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015147 1 sample or a number of things. 2 It is just like everything else 3 that we deal with on a daily basis, the 4 technology and abilities to do analyses 5 with PCBs have gotten much better over 6 the past three decades or four decades 7 that we have been using, so there's just 8 a lot of uncertainty around those 9 numbers. 10 Q. Do we know or does Solutia know to 11 the point where they could admit how 12 those, whatever the number is, PCBs 13 escaped or got out of the facility? 14 A. I think we have -- I mean starting 15 in 1968, we began to look at that very 16 question; are they in there and how are 17 they getting out, and I think we have 18 some understanding of how some of them 19 got out at least. 20 Q. When did Monsanto and Solutia start 21 trying to determine the number or how 22 much was escaping into the environment? 23 A. Well, I believe we started -- I 35 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015148 1 think you probably have been through the 2 history, but the report of PCBs in the 3 environment really began back in late 4 1966 by some Swedish researchers and, you 5 know, there was a learning curve that 6 Monsanto and others had to get on and 7 climb to and it took us a couple of years 8 to get on that learning curve and develop 9 the analytical techniques, but I believe, 10 if I've got my numbers right, by '68, we 11 were actually taking samples in Anniston 12 and by '69, you know, waste samples and 13 water samples and by '69, we were 14 actually able to start making some of 15 those kinds of measurements that are 16 reported on the documents that you're 17 referring to. 18 Q. Where were they coming from? How 19 were they getting out? What means -20 A. I think, primarily, there were 21 several ways. One was -- I think there 22 was a waste stream from that process that 23 was primarily -- hydrochloric acid is 36 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015149 1 generated when PCBs are manufactured in a 2 gaseous state, then it's bubbled through 3 water to make it liquid hydrochloric acid 4 and some of that was discharged as a 5 waste through the plant through what I 6 think are called the limestone beds or 7 limestone pits where the acid was 8 neutralized and there's some PCB 9 carryover in that. 10 Q. Right. 11 A. There's certainly reports, you know, 12 if they were spilling in the department 13 that a hose or washing would be done with 14 detergent and that would mobilize the 15 PCBs into basically the storm water 16 drains at the plant. It really wasn't a 17 waste stream as much as it was storm 18 water and process water. 19 Q. So waste stream and storm water, 20 you're saying that's synonymous, are you 21 not? 22 A. Well, no, they're not synonymous, 23 but there wasn't -- it wasn't a waste in 37 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015150 1 the terms of a chemical or organic waste 2 that you think about coming out of a 3 process. I mean it was primarily water 4 and it was either this hydrochloric acid 5 coming from the scrubber's process or it 6 was storm water moving things along or 7 cleanup water, but those kinds of waters 8 those, what they call noncontact waters, 9 and the storm waters were mixed in the 10 sewers at Anniston so all that was going 11 out at the same point. 12 Q. Is there any agreement, I guess, 13 with Solutia that any of the landfills 14 had escapes or exits of the PCBs from 15 them? 16 A. Well, when we became aware of the 17 situation in '93 and started measuring 18 the trace levels of PCBs in the storm 19 waters, yeah, the run-off waters from 20 those landfills finding, you know, a part 21 per billion or a few parts per billion, I 22 mean, those kinds of levels were being 23 carried away by soil erosion or soil 38 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015151 1 pickup from the landfill, so to the 2 extent that those trace levels were being 3 released, I think that we certainly agree 4 there. I see no evidence that there were 5 any large quantities of release from 6 those landfills at any point in time. 7 Q. Even prior to ' 93? 8 A. Even prior to ' 93, right. I think, 9 you know, as -- when we closed the 10 process and basically sealed those, the 11 cells where PCBs had been disposed of, 12 largely, I believe that probably shut off 13 most, if not all, other than these trace 14 levels of discharges from the landfills. 15 Q. You have two landfills; correct? 16 A. That is correct. 17 Q. And each landfill has a number of 18 cells? 19 A. Well, certainly, the south landfill 20 has a number of cells. I'm not so sure 21 about west. It may have been a single 22 cell landfill. I don't know as much 23 about that. 39 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015152 1 Q. And you're not sure? 2 A. I mean, there's clearly a west 3 landfill and it had at least one cell, 4 but I don't know that there were a number 5 like there were in the south landfill. 6 Q. And when you say you basically seal 7 those, and that was in what, the 8 seventies? 9 A. Well, the PCB landfill was generally 10 closed in early 1972, 1973, but as we got 11 into what was called the RCRA, the 12 R-C-R-A process, the Resource Recovery 13 and Conservation Act then we had to take 14 additional steps on all of the landfills, 15 as did all chemical manufacturers, to be 16 sure that they were brought up to 17 compliance, so in the late 1980s, 18 additional work was done on closing those 19 landfills, so my confidence increases as 20 we move through those various stages. 21 But certainly, by the time of the RCRA 22 closure in '98, I believe there was, 23 other than just the little bit of soil 40 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015153 1 runoff, probably no significant 2 contribution to PCBs off the plant site 3 or off the landfills, certainly. 4 Q. But is there anything in the 5 documentation that measured the numbers 6 of PCBs escaping from either of those 7 landfills prior to '89 or prior to, you 8 said '93 earlier, but any time in the 9 eighties ? 10 A. Well, we always had a storm water 11 permit when the storm water permit went 12 in so I think we have some, probably not 13 extensive, but some sparse data on storm 14 water. We were also beginning in the 15 early-1980s and continuing monitoring 16 groundwater, water going out from under 17 the landfills, and, again, there are data 18 through that early-1980s, well mid- to 19 late-1980s time frame that indicates that 20 PCBs were not leaving by the groundwater 21 route either, so there are some, they are 22 not extensive, but there are some data 23 that stand for those propositions. 41 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015154 1 Q. When was it that you had to get the 2 storm water permits? When would that 3 have been? 4 A. I'm sorry, I don't know the answer. 5 I don't know when the MPDS process really 6 went in. I think it was the mid-1970s, I 7 think, but don't hold me to that. 8 Q. Okay. In reading your testimony, 9 Dr. Kaley, in the Abernathy case, you 10 made mention when asked the question 11 about human health studies that you did 12 not feel a study is necessary nor 13 appropriate based on the understanding of 14 the size of the population and you go on 15 to say that to do an appropriate 16 epidemiology study, it takes thousands of 17 people and you don't believe that there 18 are thousands of people exposed in the 19 Anniston community. Does that refresh 20 your memory about it? 21 A. I believe that's a fairly -- I mean, 22 I remember that question and I'm sure 23 that's what I said, if you have that 42 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015155 1 written down, and I think that's probably 2 true. 3 Q. And I believe you further say that a 4 lot of this was based on the blood levels 5 you had seen? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And I guess, in that particular 8 course, was the number of those 9 plaintiffs in the Abernathy case which, I 10 believe, is like thirty-five hundred or 11 so. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Have you seen other blood levels 14 other than those? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. What blood levels have you seen? 17 A. Well, seen generally -- I mean, 18 again, I haven't spent a lot of time on 19 the details, but I've seen the blood 20 level data from the Tolbert litigation. 21 Q. Does that change your mind, in any 22 way, with respect to a need to have a 23 health study or what they call, I guess 43 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015156 1 in this testimony, a human health study? 2 A. No. I think the distributions are 3 generally -- I mean, you see, you know, a 4 large proportion, a majority of the 5 people are nondetects or certainly right 6 at the level of detection. You see 7 another group of people who are what 8 would be called normal background levels 9 throughout the United States, and then 10 there is a smaller group of people that 11 do have current or past exposure based on 12 the blood levels. 13 But again, compared to you 14 really need to have a epidemiological 15 study to look for whether exposure to 16 PCBs is associated with causes of death, 17 it really isn't -- you know, I guess it's 18 really what you're talking about. If 19 you're talking about an epidemiology 20 study or mortality study, you know, I 21 mean, you have to have large numbers of 22 people who have died that birth 23 certificates can be obtained from and I 44 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015157 1 think that would be very difficult in the 2 Anniston area to do that kind of study. 3 If you were just doing a survey of what 4 levels people have and whether they have 5 complaints, that's a whole different 6 study and those are fraught with 7 difficulties because all of us have 8 health effects and we can attribute them 9 to a variety of different things. 10 That's why mortality studies 11 are typically are done to determine those 12 associations because they are kind of 13 hard and fast. You had a person, that 14 person died of something, and you know 15 what it was, and, you know, the 16 difficulty there is you don't always know 17 what the exposure was, so it's just going 18 to be very difficult to do anything 19 that's going to be meaningful in that 20 population. 21 Q. You're differentiating a mortality 22 epidemiology study with a large health 23 study? 45 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015158 1 A. Right, what I would call a morbidity 2 study, right. 3 Q. And you're saying that a mortality 4 study is more appropriate than a 5 morbidity study? 6 A. Well, I think it's more appropriate 7 to a make a final determination on 8 whether, for example, PCBs are associated 9 with human cancer or other major 10 diseases. 11 Q. What is the level that you would 12 consider quote "nondetect" unquote or 13 what is the level that is considered 14 nondetect? 15 A. Well, that depends on -- I don't 16 know. Without being flip, that depends 17 on the laboratory and what their 18 capabilities are. I mean, I think most 19 of the detections in the samples I have 20 seen from, you know, whatever litigation 21 have been, you know, three parts per 22 billion in blood and five parts per 23 billion in blood, but certainly, we know 46 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015159 1 from literature and where you take larger 2 blood samples and do a lot more work-up, 3 I mean, you can measure clearly in the 4 parts per billion and parts per trillion 5 in blood, so your question is really an 6 analytical question if that's what you 7 really meant. 8 Q. Well, I guess what I'm trying to 9 determine is what does Solutia consider 10 as being nondetect as far as parts per 11 billion in the blood? 12 A. Well, again, without being flip, 13 it's whatever the laboratory that did the 14 analysis reports as nondetect. I mean, 15 we don't have an opinion on what that 16 number is. It's what the laboratory can 17 or can't do. 18 Q. What is the normal background 19 levels ? 20 A. Okay. That's a different question. 21 Q. Right. All right. 22 A. As I sit here today, I would say 23 that number one, you have to look at -- 47 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015160 1 there's two issues; what is the average 2 background level and what is the range of 3 people not otherwise exposed to PCBs that 4 still have PCBs measure inside their 5 blood. I think the average is probably 6 in the maybe three-to-six-part per 7 billion range, so if you looked at all 8 the studies of quote "unexposed people" 9 and averaged all their values, you would 10 see, you know, an average of three to six 11 parts per billion. That average, though, 12 is made up of people who have lower 13 levels and higher levels. 14 Q. All right. 15 A. Okay. Those higher levels, I think, 16 you know, I mean, the published data say 17 those higher levels go up to maybe twenty 18 parts per billion at the ninety-five 19 percent level. In other words, 20 ninety-five percent of the population has 21 levels twenty parts per billion or below. 22 I think, you know, the ATSDR is 23 trying to make a case for it, and I think 48 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015161 1 there's probably some slight 2 justification that that number may be 3 somewhat lower now, but we don't have the 4 data and we don't know the answer to 5 that, so as I sit here today, I would say 6 that people with up to twenty parts per 7 billion would be considered within the 8 background range. 9 Q. And obviously, there's a difference 10 of opinion about that or is there? 11 A. I don't know whether there is or 12 not, no. I mean, I think there are 13 people out there who would disagree with 14 me, but as far as being able to document 15 that on either good scientific results or 16 what studies have been done, I don't 17 think there's anything that really -- I 18 mean, if the literature said different 19 than what I say, I would go with what the 20 science says, but I just don't think it's 21 out there now. 22 Q. The ATSDR's report, it mentions a 23 figure in there, and I may be able to 49 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015162 1 find it -- well, the tox profile; are you 2 familiar with the tox profile? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. They talk about mean serum level? 5 A. And that's what I was calling 6 average. 7 Q. Is that the average? 8 A. Yes, mean and average meaning the 9 same thing. 10 Q. So average, when you say average 11 background being three to six parts per 12 billion, but then when you look at the 13 total number, you're saying that the 14 higher end of that is twenty? 15 A. Up to twenty, yes. 16 Q. Okay. And does that -- do those 17 differentiate between those who have been 18 exposed and those who haven't been 19 exposed? 20 A. Well, all of us are exposed. I mean 21 -- and some of us without occupational 22 exposure or without any other 23 identifiable source of exposure that you 50 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015163 1 or I could point to and say oh, there's 2 where I got my PCBs, that range goes up 3 to twenty and maybe it's because a few 4 more fish, maybe it's because we eat more 5 beef, you know, and for whatever reason, 6 the beef we ate may have lower or higher 7 levels than someone else, so there's a 8 lot of reasons that could explain that 9 variation in the human population. You 10 know, maybe my body is better at getting 11 rid of them than your body. Maybe I'm 12 older. If I'm older, my levels are going 13 to be higher because, you know, one of 14 the properties, unfortunately, of PCBs is 15 they are not easily eliminated, or some 16 of them aren't, from the human body, so 17 as you get older, that continuing input 18 of PCBs tends to build up in your body, 19 and that's well documented. 20 So there are a lot of reasons 21 to explain that range, but I guess what 22 I'm saying and trying to communicate is 23 that if we are going use that magic 51 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015164 1 twenty number, you can have nineteen or 2 twenty and still not be quote "exposed" 3 and you're still in normal background. 4 You don't have to go around and say okay, 5 I've got more in my blood than the next 6 guy, how did I get them, or where did 7 they come from because it's all within 8 that normal range. 9 Q. Well, when the Tox Profile says that 10 the mean PCB serum levels range from 11 point nine to one point five parts per 12 billion in recent years in individuals 13 who did not have diets high in fish from 14 waters contaminated with PCBs; is that 15 what you're telling me? 16 A. Yeah. I'm using -- I think there's 17 two qualifications. One is they're 18 qualifying recent years, and you think 19 with all the attention on PCBs, you think 20 there would be tons of data. There are 21 not tons of data. There are a few 22 studies here and there. For the purpose 23 of this statement, and I don't know 52 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015165 1 exactly how many they looked at. We 2 could go find out. I think they looked 3 at two or three very recent studies and 4 there's no doubt the levels in the 5 environment are going down, okay. 6 Q. Right. 7 A. So my number, my three to six is, 8 what I'm saying, is the same as their 9 point nine to one point five. I don't 10 think there's a lot of difference in 11 their -- a factor or two is not a big 12 difference in my mind, and I'm looking at 13 a broader view. I'm not looking at the 14 two most recent studies. I'm saying over 15 the last decade or last fifteen years, if 16 you look at all those studies, so I don't 17 disagree with this, nor do I think it's 18 very different from what I'm saying, but 19 that's, again, that's the average. 20 That's the mean. That's my -- their one 21 point five is my three number. They are 22 still made up with people that could go 23 up to tens or twenties that help make up 53 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015166 1 that average. 2 Q. And there are people, then, you say, 3 that have twenty parts per billion in the 4 general population? 5 A. Certainly, to the data we have 6 available to us, that still seems to be a 7 reasonable number. 8 Q. And that might be because they were 9 more highly exposed than those who have 10 one point five? 11 A. And through their normal living 12 without any unique source of that 13 exposure, yes. 14 Q. Would you agree that a person who 15 has currently three parts per billion had 16 more, assuming he was living, had more 17 fifteen years ago than he has now? 18 A. No, I wouldn't. I absolutely 19 disagree with that. 20 Q. Why is that? 21 A. Why should they? I mean, if I've 22 got three now, I would say fifteen years 23 ago, my number was lower because, as I 54 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015167 1 explained, we're continuously exposed to 2 these low levels of PCBs and as we get 3 older, our number tends to increase. 4 Q. So you don't agree that you can take 5 a person now that has five parts per 6 billion and extrapolate fifteen years 7 back and determine how much he had in his 8 blood serum fifteen years ago? 9 A. I absolutely say you cannot do that. 10 A person within in the normal background 11 range, you can't do that with, absolutely 12 not, because you have to correct for that 13 background that you have and I have and 14 Mike has and everybody has. You have to 15 correct for that background. 16 Q. Is that true for people in Anniston? 17 A. It's true for anybody that has PCB 18 levels in the background range, yes. 19 Q. And those that you have seen in 20 Anniston with high levels and when I say 21 high levels, say fifteen or twenty parts 22 per billion. You may not consider that 23 high, but let's assume that to be the 55 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015168 1 number. 2 A. Okay. 3 Q. Do you agree that those people are 4 at a higher risk for a disease or problem 5 than one in Anniston that has only one 6 point five parts per billion? 7 A. The answer to that is no for a 8 number of reasons. 9 Q. Tell me those reasons. 10 A. Number one, I think the reason is 11 that, I mean, we already talked about a 12 potential disagreement, but certainly, 13 the view that I hold that PCBs are not 14 associated with long-term serious health 15 affects with the potential exceptions of 16 dermal effects and transient liver 17 effects. So I don't necessarily believe 18 -- I don't believe, at whatever level 19 your PCB level is, that you are at real 20 risk, not theoretical, not regulatory 21 risk, at real risk of developing disease 22 as a result of those blood levels, okay, 23 so that's number one. 56 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015169 1 And then going, you know, even 2 further back than that, all of those 3 levels are very low background levels 4 whether it's one or fifteen or twenty and 5 I just don't believe there's any risk 6 associated that. 7 Q. They are low background levels 8 within - 9 A. I mean, they are levels within the 10 background range. 11 Q. The general population? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. You don't mean -- when you say 14 background levels, you don't mean 15 background levels as opposed to like 16 fifteen years ago, we're not using that? 17 A. Well, I don't think it matters. 18 Q. Okay. 19 A. I think people that had fifteen or 20 twenty parts per billion fifteen years 21 ago where it was more likely that they 22 were in the normal background range, I 23 don't think they were at any more risk 57 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015170 1 than the people that have one or two or 2 three now because I don't believe there's 3 any risk associated those kinds of blood 4 levels. 5 Q. Is there a level that you would 6 consider a risk to a human to develop a 7 disease, if you will, from exposure from 8 the levels that they have in their blood? 9 A. Okay, I don't -- based on my 10 understanding of the human literature 11 where we have seen levels up to, you 12 know, twenty-five hundred and three 13 thousands parts per million in some of 14 these workers, twenty-five hundred parts 15 per billion or two to three parts per 16 million in blood, we have not seen, other 17 than skin effects, health effects in 18 those workers, so based on the range of 19 human populations that we have been able 20 to study and that have been exposed to 21 PCBs, I do not believe there's risk of 22 human adverse health effects. 23 Q. At all? 58 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015171 1 A. Other than the liver and the skin, 2 so I can't pick a number. Now, if you go 3 into the literature, there are some 4 papers that will try to pick a number. I 5 think an early paper said you had to have 6 at least two hundred parts per billion to 7 be at risk of chloracne. 8 Now, I'm not sure that that 9 paper really stood for that proposition, 10 but I mean you could go out there and 11 find those kinds of things. But I think, 12 in general, looking over the whole 13 literature and looking at the blood 14 levels of people who have been studied, I 15 don't think you -- it's not that I think 16 -- you don't see those risks. You don't 17 see those diseases, let alone risks. 18 Q. Of course, you're saying you don't 19 see those in certain studies you're 20 relying on? 21 A. Yes. I mean, if you're going to, 22 you know, I mean, the proposition is if 23 you want to know what happens to people 59 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015172 1 when they are exposed to a chemical, the 2 first thing you do is go look and see if 3 people somewhere have been exposed to 4 high levels of that chemical, for 5 instance, people that work with it every 6 day, and if they're not getting ill or 7 dying from those exposures, then there's 8 no reason to believe people who are 9 exposed at low levels down to zero levels 10 are going to be ill or die from those 11 exposures. 12 Q. And of course, you're saying the 13 people that worked around it were more 14 highly exposed than someone out in the 15 community; that's your belief? 16 A. That's a general proposition, I 17 would say, yes. 18 Q. And were those people that were 19 exposed working around it, were they 20 protected in any way? Was there any 21 protective equipment? 22 A. You know, in the early days, 23 probably not. In later days, I think -- 60 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015173 1 I mean, I certainly know our workers had, 2 you know, work clothes that they could 3 take on and off. I think they were told 4 to wear gloves if they were in direct 5 contact, but I think we know from talking 6 to people that they didn't, that they 7 were contacting those materials. 8 I mean, you hear the apocryphal 9 stories of people using PCBs as grease 10 removers and things like that, so I mean, 11 there was normal hygiene protective 12 equipment available to people. I'm sure 13 some wore them and some didn't, but there 14 were no extraordinary measures that you 15 would see like in a plant where you would 16 have to wear a respirator because you 17 were working with some vaporized material 18 or something. 19 Q. Would one be at a higher risk for 20 exposure to PCBs if they consumed it as 21 opposed to inhaled it? 22 A. No. With PCBs, my understanding of 23 the studies is that it's, you know, if 61 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015174 1 it's getting in, it's getting in. 2 Q. Right. 3 A. Whether it's inhalation or dermal or 4 ingestion, however it's getting in that 5 those are all ways that PCBs can get in 6 your body and there's no one that's 7 really different than any other, I don't 8 think. 9 Q. I take it you are familiar with the 10 various studies, Brown, Bertazzi, Sinks? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And I'm sure you have read those? 13 A. Yes, I have. 14 Q. And do you agree or not that those 15 studies do indicate an association of 16 exposure to PCBs and cancer, for 17 instance? 18 A. Okay. I believe that some of those 19 studies report associations between 20 purported or real exposure to PCBs and 21 some individual cancers on an individual 22 study basis, but if you look at all those 23 studies taken as a whole, you do not see 62 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015175 1 a consistent picture of associations with 2 PCBs with cancer at all or any specific 3 cancer. 4 Q. And when you say lack of 5 consistency, you mean a lack of 6 consistency with respect to the 7 particular site of the cancer? 8 A. Or all cancers combined, yes. 9 Q. In other words, one may have 10 gastrointestinal colon cancer and one may 11 have some other, and I'm not sure - 12 A. Well, they're both 13 gastrointestinal. It's never been 14 colon. 15 Q. Gastrointestinal, and one was some 16 other cancer? 17 A. That's correct. You see one -- this 18 here, this there, but, you know, I mean, 19 you expect that. The epidemiologist, and 20 I'm not -- the epidemiologist will tell 21 you that, you know, one out of every 22 twenty things you look at is going to be 23 positive just by chance. That's why you 63 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015176 1 can't rely on a single study. You have 2 to go look at these studies where, 3 arguably, all those chance occurrences 4 are going to average out and if there's 5 something really there, it's going to be 6 there in a preponderance of the studies. 7 Q. There are epidemiologists and 8 toxicologists, as I understand, that do 9 take those studies and state emphatically 10 that they prove that cancer is, in fact, 11 related to PCB exposure. Would you agree 12 with that? 13 A. Would I agree that there are people 14 that say that? 15 Q. I mean you have read that, I'm sure? 16 A. I guess you would have to look at 17 how carefully they're saying it. I think 18 if you go to the literature where people 19 are being, you know, it's written on a 20 piece of paper and they are being judged 21 by what they say and it's there for 22 posterity to look and think about, I 23 think they'll go to say that there are 64 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015177 1 suggestions or there are associations we 2 just talked about. 3 In a given study, there are 4 some that report an association with 5 exposure to PCBs and some individual 6 cancer. Yeah, people say that. I'll say 7 that, but I don't know that you could go 8 to the literature and really find someone 9 that says I've done a good weight of the 10 evidence review of the PCB cancer 11 literature and I know PCBs cause "X". 12 Now, when they say that -- they might say 13 that. 14 Q. Well, you have seen them say that. 15 You have read testimony to that effect, 16 have you not? 17 A. Yeah. 18 Q. Okay. 19 A. Although, again, I'm going to 20 qualify that because I think, again, even 21 these guys that -- well, I'll be nice -22 even these guys that are saying it are 23 generally pretty careful about qualifying 65 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015178 1 it. They'll use the word "contributed" 2 or something like that, you know. Even 3 all that stuff I've read, I'm not sure 4 I've ever seen anybody say PCBs caused 5 this person's cancer period, only PCBs 6 period. 7 Q. You've never seen a doctor say that? 8 A. I may have, but I can't sit here, 9 oh, yeah, I remember that guy saying 10 that. 11 Q. Now, is Solutia, and I think we 12 talked about this earlier a little bit, 13 but is Solutia going to, in fact, are 14 they doing a risk assessment on the 15 Anniston residents? 16 A. All right, under the terms of the 17 consent decree proposed in federal court, 18 there will be a human risk assessment 19 done and an ecological risk assessment 20 done and, obviously, human risk 21 assessment will purport to analyze the 22 risk to humans associated with various 23 levels of exposure, and the ecological 66 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015179 1 will look at the risk to the environment. 2 Solutia is going, under the terms of that 3 agreement, would have the responsibility 4 for the ecological assessment. The U.S. 5 EPA would have the responsibility for the 6 human risk assessment. 7 But the risk assessment is 8 really an assessment of the potential 9 risk to humans from the exposures that 10 could happen to soils or whatever in 11 Anniston. It's not -- neither one of 12 those is really a risk assessment of 13 people in Anniston. 14 Q. That's what I thought. I mean, 15 because, obviously, the EPA is not, I 16 don't think, geared to a quote "true 17 human risk assessment"? 18 A. Well, I don't know what that means. 19 I don't think -- nobody -- you know, with 20 all due respect, I don't think that's a 21 meaningful term because I don't think 22 anybody does that. 23 Q. Well, for instance, CDC, would they 67 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015180 1 be more equipped? 2 A. Well, I guess I don't know what you 3 mean really by -4 Q. I'm not sure I know what it means 5 either. 6 A. I know, and the risk assessments 7 that are being done, without getting into 8 a lot of detail, basically say here are 9 the potential exposures, given those 10 exposures and given these numbers that we 11 can calculate that relate to possible or 12 theoretic risk, I basically multiply my 13 concentration in the environment by this 14 potential risk number and come up with a 15 number that says this population has so 16 much risks and that risk is either 17 acceptable or it needs to be reduced by 18 doing something. You can do that for the 19 human and you can do that for 20 ecological. That's what risk assessment 21 is all about. 22 Now, if you're saying by human 23 risk assessment, I'm going to take this 68 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015181 1 group of people, I'm going to take all 2 their blood levels, and I'm going to do 3 some calculations and see if they are at 4 more risk -- I don't know if anybody does 5 that. 6 Q. Okay, well, that's what I'm 7 asking. Is that something that would be 8 considered or necessary to a true human 9 risk assessment; that is, determine the 10 blood level in the serum of those humans 11 to determine what risk they are at? 12 A. Well, I mean, somebody could do 13 that, whether it's official or making a 14 call, you and I both know there are 15 people out there that have done that in 16 other litigation. They're going to do 17 that in this litigation saying if that 18 person has that much PCBs, therefore, 19 they are at that much additional risk or 20 they won't probably quantify it because 21 they don't know how to quantify it, and 22 that's the problem. 23 They'll say it's additional 69 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015182 1 risk, but they don't know how to quantify 2 it because there are no -- you would have 3 to have human data where you had known 4 human exposures getting to known human 5 illnesses to calculate the relationship 6 between blood level or any other measure 7 of exposure and illness and you don't -8 I'm sorry, you don't have the end points 9 to make that extrapolation so you can't 10 really do the calculation. 11 You can say, because of what 12 the literature says, there may be some 13 theoretical risk, but in any of this, I 14 have never seen anybody calculate what 15 additional risk some person is at 16 because, number one, all of these risks 17 are population risks. They're not 18 individual risks. 19 Q. What do you mean? 20 A. Well, any risk assessment, it's 21 averaging procedure, okay, and it talks 22 about whether all the, you know, all the 23 beavers in the pond, you know, one in a 70 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015183 1 million might get some end point. It's 2 not -- Bucky Beaver may or may not get 3 sick because he's been exposed to PCBs. 4 You can't do that under the 5 risk assessment process because it's a 6 broad process looking at broad 7 characterization of risk and it's looking 8 at population risk. It has nothing to do 9 with individual risk. 10 Q. Are you saying - 11 A. It can't, because there are so many 12 things that drive individual risk. You 13 can't pick that person out. 14 Q. There's other compounders that - 15 A. Or any number of -- yeah, you can 16 call them that if you want to. Lifestyle 17 factors, you know, genetics, all sorts of 18 things, and this whole process is based 19 on averages and generalities and 20 extrapolations and safety factors that 21 builds so much uncertainty into the 22 process it can't be I driven down to an 23 individual. 71 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015184 1 Q. Are you saying the risks that are 2 quote "associated with PCBs" is 3 theoretical? 4 A. In risk assessment, as applied it is 5 a risk -- it's a real risk to an animal. 6 Q. Okay. 7 A. Or it is a real end point? It's not 8 even a risk. You've got animals that are 9 sick or are dying and this isn't just 10 PCBs. You take that -- how much it 11 caused that animal to get sick and divide 12 it by ten and you divide it by ten again 13 and you divide it by ten again to come to 14 a factor where you're comfortable there's 15 enough -- you have put in enough 16 uncertainty factors in there to say okay, 17 way down here, a human exposed to this 18 level isn't going to get sick like this 19 animal up here at these very high levels 20 did. All this is uncertain in here. 21 There's no certainty that even 22 a human exposed to this level would get 23 sick. It's all been done on mathematics 72 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015185 1 and policy, frankly. It's policy. It's 2 safety factors. The EPA says we're going 3 to put in ten for species uncertainty. 4 We going to put in ten for individual 5 uncertainty. We're going to put in ten 6 because we have a NOAEL instead of a 7 LOAEL -- the other way around, a LOAEL 8 instead of NOAEL, I'm sorry, NOAEL or 9 LOAEL, all caps. 10 Q. Meaning? 11 A. No observable adverse effect level 12 or lowest observed adverse effect level. 13 Thank you, that's good for clarification. 14 And so it's policy on how we 15 are going to protect people in risk 16 assessment, and so when you're talking 17 about risk assessment and all that stuff, 18 it's uncertain and it's population-based. 19 It's not individual. 20 Q. So why do you do a risk assessment? 21 A. To help the regulators and the 22 regulated community come up with, in 23 general, a cleanup level or a no-effect 73 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015186 1 level that, under the terms of all this 2 safety, we can all agree if we get to 3 that level, we're cool. 4 Q. But if there are no risks associated 5 with exposure to PCBs to humans, why go 6 to all that trouble? 7 A. Well, again, you're using risk one 8 way and I'm probably, in the regulation, 9 using it another way. You're, you know, 10 scientifically, a layperson saying risk 11 means danger. 12 Q. Correct. 13 A. Okay. Risk in these -- I mean, it 14 starts off with the same definition but 15 the danger, at one point, is real, but 16 you have gotten so far away with all 17 these uncertainties and safety factors 18 that the risk down at this end becomes 19 theoretical based on -- the risk to 20 humans is theoretical based on the real 21 risk when an animal is at a much higher 22 level of exposure. 23 Do you come up with a number? 74 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015187 1 Yes. And that's how it's regulated. It 2 says if the risk is one in a million to 3 one in ten thousand, depending on the 4 conditions, that's probably okay. The 5 U.S. Government -- the EPA will accept 6 one in a million to one in ten thousand 7 risk to the population for a cleanup 8 level. That's the way it is. 9 But that doesn't mean that if 10 you've got a one in ten thousand risk 11 level, that in a population of ten 12 thousand people, one person is going to 13 get that illness. One person might. Ten 14 people might. Zero might. But that 15 doesn't mean it came from the exposure 16 you're protecting against. It's just a 17 way for all of us to come to an agreement 18 on what we need to do to clean up a 19 situation. 20 Q. So the known factor, i.e., the 21 exposure to an animal, a fish by a 22 certain level of PCBs causes that animal 23 to either die or be sick? 75 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015188 1 A. Right. 2 Q. What's that level? 3 A. It depends on the animal and it 4 depends on the end point you're talking 5 about. And I'm not going to be able to 6 give you numbers, but it takes, for 7 example, it takes a lot more to give a 8 rat cancer than it does to cause an otter 9 or a mink to have reproductive failure. 10 Q. Okay. And so you take that as being 11 known? 12 A. And there are all sorts of numbers. 13 Q. You take that to be known and you're 14 saying that you don't know the level, if 15 there is a level, that causes that same 16 problem to a human? 17 A. Yes, I'm saying that and I'm saying 18 that we have never seen those problems in 19 humans to know that level, but we will 20 all agree that, because we see it in 21 animals, we're going to apply all these 22 safety factors and we're going to clean 23 up to that level for humans. Or animals 76 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015189 1 may be involved. 2 I mean, the ecological risk 3 assessment is doing the same thing for 4 the little beasties and, you know, if 5 there are minks in Choccolocco Creek, 6 then the risk assessment will take into 7 consideration the reproductive risks in 8 minks at some level of PCBs and we'll 9 have to protect against that. And that 10 may be even lower than what it is for 11 humans in Anniston and that might not 12 make people happy but it could easily 13 come out that way. 14 Q. Sure. But even though you're doing 15 a quote "risk assessment", human risk 16 assessment, you're not agreeing, as I 17 understand it, that the exposure that the 18 humans in Anniston have is not causing 19 them any uncommon risk or unduly risk? 20 A. All right, I'm going to restate my 21 answer. I'm going to answer what I think 22 you meant to ask and maybe you did. 23 Q. Okay. 77 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015190 1 A. I do not believe that the exposures 2 in a stone as evidenced by human body 3 burdens indicate that any of those 4 persons is going to develop a disease as 5 a result of that exposure. 6 Q. Okay. Now, I have the letter you 7 wrote back in April of 2000 to the ATSDR. 8 Do you remember that? 9 A. I do. 10 Q. Did you have any help in writing 11 this letter? Did you write this letter? 12 A. Yes, I wrote that letter. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. A few people moved some comas. 15 Q. Sir? 16 A. A few people moved some comas, but 17 it is almost exclusively my work. 18 Q. Okay. And what did you review - 19 this may be such a broad question you 20 can't answer it. What all did you review 21 in order to write this letter and it was 22 the comments to the - 23 A. Believe me, I know what it was the 78 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015191 1 comments to. 2 Q. Health consultation. 3 A. Dated February 14th, 2000. 4 Q. Right. 5 A. Which, for the record, has never 6 been finalized, nor have my comments ever 7 been addressed. 8 Q. That's what I was going to ask you. 9 A. They keep promising they are going 10 to within the month. 11 Q. So they haven't responded or 12 corrected anything? 13 A. No. The procedure would be that 14 they will take into consideration my 15 comments or Solutia's comments, other 16 comments which they have received, which 17 I am sure have been many, and they will, 18 in their view, appropriately respond. 19 They will revise the document as they 20 believe appropriate in response to those 21 comments. They will then publish a final 22 version of the document and will publish, 23 as an attachment to that, the responses 79 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015192 1 to all of the comments that they 2 received. 3 Q. All right. With that said, let me 4 ask you a couple of things and I'll show 5 it to you, but you may know this. You 6 may have this memorized. 7 A. Well, and it's a lot of the things 8 we have already been talking about. 9 Q. I think that's right. You mention 10 here, and, again, when you refer to page 11 five, the one I have doesn't have the 12 same page so it may be off. I don't know 13 why. 14 A. You may have gotten yours off the 15 internet or something. 16 Q. I may have. 17 A. There's an internet version and a 18 hard copy version. 19 Q. When you mention page five, second 20 paragraph, it says "Solutia does not 21 believe it is appropriate for ATSDR to 22 speculate about the reduction in the 23 ninety-fifth percentile of PCBs in blood 80 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015193 1 a person is exposed in a manner quote 2 'typical' unquote for the U.S. 3 population. In the first place, we do 4 not believe it is appropriate to rely on 5 the draft Tox Profile for PCBs." 6 And my question, basically, I 7 read that for this reason: at that time 8 that you wrote this letter, the Tox 9 Profile was a draft? 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. It has now been peer reviewed and 12 finalized; correct? 13 A. Well, it has been finalized. We can 14 quibble about what peer review means, but 15 they say it has and I say it hasn't. 16 Q. Okay. The only reason I say it has 17 been peer reviewed is they have. 18 A. It has been reviewed and it's final, 19 no argument about that. 20 Q. And I guess my question to you is 21 when you -- did they change anything 22 about the Tox Profile that you were quote 23 "criticizing"? 81 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015194 1 A. Yeah, I think nowhere in here do 2 they say that the normal background range 3 is ten parts per billion in blood. They 4 talk about this average. 5 Q. Okay. 6 A. But as far as I know, they haven't 7 -- in the draft, they specifically said 8 the normal human range is now ten parts 9 per billion already. There are no data 10 to support that. They don't say that in 11 here. They don't say it in subsequent 12 health consultations that they've issued 13 with regard to Anniston. 14 Q. So the criticism that you talked 15 about is not in the final version? 16 A. Well, but this -- well, I don't know 17 because I haven't -- I think that's 18 correct and I don't remember exactly what 19 the -- I know where you are. I was going 20 to say my letter is not addressed to this 21 document, but you know that. 22 As far as I know, and I don't 23 remember the exact quote from the draft 82 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015195 1 profile, but whatever I was objecting to 2 I think has been changed in the draft 3 profile. I don't recollect anything in 4 here which would trigger that comment, 5 let's put it that way. 6 Q. Do you think today you would not 7 have that same comment? 8 A. I would have the same comment if 9 they tried to say the background range is 10 ten parts per billion without 11 justification, but I may not refer to the 12 Tox Profile and them quoting that for 13 that premise for their thing. I mean, if 14 they have data, fine, but my objection 15 was they don't have any data. That was 16 my real objection and that was evidenced 17 because they didn't cite the literature. 18 They cited the draft Tox Profile. 19 Q. Do they have data that mean serum 20 levels range from point nine to one point 21 five? 22 A. In recent studies, I think they 23 probably have a couple of studies that 83 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015196 1 they averaged to get those numbers out. 2 Q. Now, you also have some criticism 3 here about the extrapolations. "A 4 suggestion that back extrapolations can 5 be used to estimate historical PCB body 6 burdens in Anniston is over simplified." 7 A. I don't remember saying that, but 8 okay. I'm glad I did. 9 Q. "This discussion must be expanded to 10 elaborate on the uncertainties involved 11 in and introduced by this process, 12 speculative process," you call it, and 13 then you talk about "in the first place, 14 PCB half lives are congener specific." 15 What are the half lives of PCBs? 16 A. Well, let's go to what is a half 17 life. 18 Q. Okay. 19 A. All right, whether you're talking 20 about a chemical or a pharmaceutical, 21 whatever, if you put something in your 22 body and have some measure, then, of the 23 level of that thing in your body, 84 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015197 1 whatever it is . 2 Q. The dosage amount? 3 A. The dosage. Well, no. A bio-marker 4 of the dosage. You may not know exactly 5 what the dosage is, but some level -6 well, it could be a blood level, it could 7 be a breath level, it could be a level in 8 your urine. You have some measure of how 9 much of that material got to whatever -10 Q. Ten parts per billion? 11 A. Yeah, whatever your measure, okay, 12 your body basically takes everything that 13 goes into it and does something to it and 14 makes it go away. Some things go away 15 faster. Some things go away sooner. 16 Most of the things that go away go away 17 in a concentration-dependent manner so 18 that you can measure, for instance, if I 19 take an aspirin and I can measure aspirin 20 in my bloodstream, right after I take the 21 aspirin, at some point, the concentration 22 of aspirin in my bloodstream is going to 23 be half of what it was, all right, and 85 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015198 1 that's a half life. 2 Q. Whether it be hours or days or 3 whatever? 4 A. Days or minutes, whatever. And then 5 if you start at that point, then one half 6 life later, you're only going to have a 7 quarter of it left so it's basically a 8 way of measuring how quickly things are 9 removed from your body. 10 Q. Okay. With that said, can you say 11 what the half life is of PCBs in 12 general? 13 A. I do not believe you can. 14 Q. Okay and that's because -15 A. That's because there's no such thing 16 as a PCB. There are two hundred and nine 17 different things called PCBs that each 18 one is going to behave differently in a 19 human body and an animal body and they're 20 each one going to have an unique half 21 life. 22 Now, you can -- and people have 23 -- I'm not so naive as to say that 86 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015199 1 nobody's ever tried, in a given 2 population, you can look at blood levels 3 and make some generalizations about half 4 lives but those generalizations are 5 population specific. 6 Q. Okay. And what is - 7 A. So if you're looking at capacitor 8 workers and you've got a hundred or a 9 thousand capacitor workers you can get 10 some kind of average half life for, you 11 know, lower chlorinated PCBs and higher 12 chlorinated PCBs which is what has been 13 done, as you well know, but those are 14 highly exposed people and the half lives 15 may differ depending on whether they are 16 highly exposed or lowly exposed. 17 There's all sorts of averages 18 in there. You can't say on the 19 individual person that you can do that 20 calculation. You can only do it on a 21 populations basis, if at all and on a 22 population basis, I believe with a 23 similar exposure scenario. 87 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015200 CO CO 1 Q. So do you have any -- what is the 2 half lives of the general population? 3 A. I don't know. 4 Q. You have no way of knowing? 5 A. I know what has been measured in 6 capacitor workers. 7 Q. Which is? 8 A. I think for the lower, I'm guessing 9 it was one to two years and for the 10 higher, it was seven to eight years, but 11 that only applies to those capacitor 12 workers and it applies on a Hugh's 13 average and, you know, you can't do the 14 calculation. You can have the concept. 15 I don't have a problem with the concept 16 -- 17 Q. Right. 18 A. -- as long as you can check for 19 background first. 20 Q. Right. 21 A. If you know someone who is exposed 22 and you know that that exposure blood 23 level is decreasing over time, then you Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015201 1 can make a general argument that, you 2 know, correcting for background, that 3 some person's level may have been 4 higher. But I don't think, with PCBs, 5 you can do that with any certainty 6 whatsoever. 7 Q. Can you take -- do you know the half 8 lives of various congeners? 9 A. No, I don't think anybody does. 10 Q. Has that ever been studied or 11 measured? 12 A. I think those studies are 13 beginning. I think Dr. Hanson talks 14 about the fact that those studies are 15 beginning, but I think, you know, I mean, 16 they haven't been done. And until you 17 have two hundred nine of those studies 18 repeated with some certainty around those 19 numbers, you're not going to be able to 20 do it. I don't think anybody will ever 21 do it because it's too complex and it 22 doesn't really matter. 23 Q. Okay. When you say doesn't really 89 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015202 1 matter, it would matter if it were 2 something you could use to extrapolate, I 3 guess? 4 A. It would matter if someone were 5 going to get sick depending on what the 6 outcome would be. 7 Q. Okay. Again, we go back to the risk 8 associated with exposure period? 9 A. Right. I mean, why are you doing a 10 calculation? Presumably, if you're going 11 to do it, it's to try to say that, at 12 some point in time, that person had a 13 higher level which means something. 14 Q. That's exactly what I -15 A. Well, yeah. 16 Q. But you don't agree that that's 17 possible or feasible or correct? 18 A. Because of what my view of the what 19 the literature says about the health 20 effects of PCBs, no, I don't know that, 21 no matter what number you get to, it 22 matters, but I think any number you get 23 to today is going to be so uncertain that 90 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015203 1 it's meaningless anyway. 2 Q. One other point in this letter that 3 you wrote, and you're talking about the 4 note that they say that six hundred 5 forty-eight children live within a 6 one-mile radius and, of course, you 7 disagree with the number. One time, it 8 says six forty-eight and one time, it 9 says six fifty-eight or something, but 10 anyway, "More important, the significance 11 of selecting a one-mile radius around the 12 facility is unclear. Such a circle 13 includes large areas which are in the 14 drainage patterns from the facility in 15 which PCBs have not been detected in soil 16 above one part per million level defined 17 by the EPA as clean in other areas." 18 When you said that, that raised 19 the question I asked you early on which 20 was in the cleanup of the areas that 21 we're talking about in the proposed 22 agreement. Are you going to exclude the 23 areas or are you going to try exclude the 91 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015204 1 areas that are not in the drainage, as 2 you call it, the drainage pattern? 3 A. Well, I don't think we're going to 4 -- we're not going to exclude them. Can 5 we go back to what we've already done? 6 Let's talk about the consent order and 7 what we're doing. 8 Q. And I think I have that. 9 A. The areas that are not in the 10 pathway were not excluded by definition, 11 but our sampling program focused on the 12 areas in the drainage pathway and, again, 13 what we talked about earlier, and as we 14 and the EPA got more confident that we 15 were moving away from areas associated 16 with the drainage pathway and we weren't 17 seeing PCBs, that our sampling could be 18 curtailed inside those areas. 19 So I think, going back to what 20 I think the original question is, I 21 believe that we, with the oversight of 22 the EPA and whoever else is appropriate 23 will continue to try to focus our 92 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015205 1 sampling and our remediation efforts on 2 the areas associated with the drainage 3 pathway because that's where we believe 4 and are very confident that the PCBs 5 associated with our form of manufacturing 6 are, in fact, located. 7 Q. Because I assume you don't agree 8 that if there is a high level of PCBs in 9 a soil outside the drainage area, you 10 don't agree that it got there by virtue 11 of the normal exits from the plant? 12 A. That's correct, I do not, no. 13 Q. That it got there some other way? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. Fill dirt? 16 A. Primarily. That's our working 17 hypothesis, yes. 18 Q. What about areas that are outside 19 the drainage basin that have trees, for 20 instance, in it that have PCB levels; how 21 do you explain those? 22 A. I don't know that I have seen the 23 data to explain them, but I don't want to 93 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015206 1 speculate. You know, I know 2 Dr. Hermanson has been out there 3 measuring tree bark. I don't know what 4 that means, frankly. 5 Q. Okay. 6 A. Because we don't know how old those 7 trees are. We don't know what 8 contributes to getting PCBs on tree 9 bark. I don't know what calculating, on 10 a lipid basis on tree bark does. There's 11 a lot of questions about that, but I 12 don't have a ready explanation. 13 I mean, obviously if they're 14 there and they're truly there, there is 15 some explanation of how they got there. 16 I don't have a ready explanation for that 17 and I don't know why these are that are 18 located outside the drainage pathway and 19 I don't think, if they are in tree bark, 20 I don't think they got them from the 21 drainage pathways anyway other than 22 possibly some blowing dust or something. 23 What I'm saying is I don't think they're 94 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015207 1 coming up through the roots and getting 2 up to the bark. 3 Q. And I guess the question -- that 4 goes back to my question earlier, if a 5 piece of property is outside the drainage 6 basin or flood plain or whatever you want 7 to call it, can the levels of PCBs in 8 that soil have gotten there through the 9 air or particles being traveling through 10 the air into that property? 11 A. No, I am convinced that is not true. 12 At levels that are in the range we have 13 been talking about, the one part per 14 million or ten parts per millions, I mean 15 if you are going to get down to the parts 16 per trillion, then there may be some air 17 transport, there may be some dust 18 transport, but at levels that are going 19 to be significant for cleanup operations, 20 I don't think the air pathway is 21 significant either through air itself or 22 through dust. 23 Q. What way would the property outside 95 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015208 1 the flood plain have gotten a large - 2 how would that have gotten the fill dirt, 3 as you call it, or where would the fill 4 dirt have come from or do y'all have any 5 knowledge about that? 6 A. Well, there's some apocryphal 7 knowledge. There's some speculative 8 information. You know, I don't want to 9 be the carrier of tales, but, I mean, 10 it's certainly my understanding that the 11 foundries, sand piles, used sand piles 12 were pretty much freely able to anyone in 13 Anniston, anyone to come with a drum or a 14 bucket or a pickup truck and take them 15 away to use it as fill. 16 And we also, I mean we've got 17 apocryphal stories of people going down 18 into Snow Creek and taking sediments out 19 of Snow Creek and mud and stuff to fill a 20 place in the yard or something. Usually, 21 it's been people closer to the creek 22 where that was kind of -- seemed like a 23 natural thing to do. But that's, I 96 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015209 1 guess, from, you know, hearsay and 2 speculation, but that would by my answer 3 to your question. 4 Q. Now, I think I have the map and it's 5 not a very legible copy. Is that the map 6 that we're working on with respect to the 7 areas that - 8 A. No. The map you're looking at is 9 basically a map of the -- now, these are 10 actually the areas that we own, these are 11 our properties. 12 Q. I'm looking for the map that 13 describes the areas and I think you said 14 one, two, three, four, five, six, and I 15 16 A. I can use a break -17 Q. I'm sorry, yes, let's have a break. 18 A. I'm just saying I could use a break 19 anyway. Let me get a drink of water and 20 let me leaf through this and see if I can 21 find it for you. I mean, I can't 22 guarantee it's in here, but it certainly 23 should be. 97 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015210 1 Oh, this is the consent decree 2 (referring to document). It's not going 3 to be in the consent decree. It's going 4 to be on the Administrative Order of 5 Consent from October of 2001 -- the EPA 6 Administrative Order of Consent. It's 7 not going to be in here. It's going to 8 be on there (referring to documents.) 9 (Whereupon, a short recess was 10 taken at this time.) 11 Q. We'll go on to a couple of other 12 points with your letter, Dr. Kaley. The 13 blood dioxin measurements that you refer 14 to? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. You don't expect, as I understand, 17 to find -- well, tell me, do you find 18 dioxins in PCBs? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Okay. Do you find dioxin-like 21 congeners in PCBs? 22 A. Well, you're using a term I loath. 23 Q. What term would you rather use? 98 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015211 1 A. I don't know, age-responsive. I'll 2 use dioxin-like because -- under protest 3 -- but are you talking about PCBs that 4 have dioxin-like properties or are you 5 talking about other compounds that are 6 dioxin-like in PCBs? 7 Q. I'm talking about what I understand 8 to be called coplanars, which is what? 9 A. Okay, and it's too bad we don't have 10 our model, because we would know that. 11 Q. What are coplanars? 12 A. PCBs are made up of two benzene 13 rings and those rings, as we talked about 14 during break, PCBs are molecules not just 15 sitting there rigid in space. It's 16 twisting and bumping and spinning and 17 things are happening. 18 A benzene ring is a flat 19 molecule. It's made up of six carbon 20 atoms and kind of like a hexagon and it's 21 very flat. If you were able to look at 22 it spacially, it would be flat. If you 23 hook two of those together with a 99 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015212 1 carbon-carbon bond, they'll spin in 2 reference to each other constantly. And 3 if it is possible and they do get into a 4 configuration where they are flat in the 5 same plan, then they are called coplanar 6 PCB molecules. 7 Q. Do they still rotate? 8 A. Yes, it's just whether they can get 9 in there. What's important about that is 10 that there is, in animals and humans, a 11 physiological -- what's called a 12 receptor called the AH, capital A, 13 capital H, into which a molecule called 14 the TCDD or dioxin can bind and trigger, 15 arguably, a set of physiological events. 16 The receptor is structured such 17 that only things that are coplanar, that 18 are flat, will get into that and bind 19 into that receptor. A dioxin itself 20 isn't one of these flat molecules. So if 21 you have a PCB which can get into this 22 flat configuration, and it does so at a 23 time that it is in proximity to that 100 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015213 1 reception, it can bind to that receptor. 2 That's why it matters whether they are 3 coplanar or not. 4 Q. That's why some people call it 5 dioxin-like? 6 A. Yes, because the theory is, and it 7 is a theory, is that once a PCB congener 8 can bind into that receptor, it could 9 then trigger those same responses that 10 dioxin would, although at much lower 11 levels or much lower potency. 12 Q. Okay. And why is it that you do not 13 agree that that can occur; that is, that 14 it can bind to the AH receptor? 15 A. I totally agree that the binding can 16 occur. I do not disagree that the 17 binding can occur. What has never been 18 shown in the laboratory is all the rest 19 of that cascade of physiological or 20 toxicological events that have been shown 21 for dioxin. No one has ever really shown 22 that few, if any, of those have ever 23 occurred by the binding of a PCB molecule 101 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015214 1 into that receptor. Clearly, the binding 2 occurs. There's no question about that. 3 Q. There are certain PCBs that can bind 4 to that receptor? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Which ones are those? 7 A. Well, there are four PCBs that can 8 totally get into this coplanar structure 9 or format and have chlorines in the right 10 places. Do you want their numbers; is 11 that what you want? Do you want their 12 chlorine substitution patterns? I mean 13 they are numbered eighty-one, 14 seventy-seven, one twenty-six, and one 15 sixty-nine. 16 Q. Okay. 17 A. Those are four totally coplanar 18 PCBs . 19 Q. All right. 20 A. They were present at extremely low 21 levels in our products and they are 22 present at extremely low levels 23 everywhere else. 102 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015215 1 All right, there is a another 2 group of about seven or eight that have 3 one chlorine next to this bond that we're 4 talking about and they can't get totally 5 flat but they can get kind of flat and 6 they can get flat enough that they'll 7 bind even weaker than the PCBs so they 8 can get in there and they'll bind a 9 little bit, but any effects they have 10 would be totally minimal and I mean one 11 hundred five and one eighty, and one 12 thirty eight. There's some others. I 13 don't have them all memorized, but 14 there's about a dozen altogether that are 15 coplanar. 16 Q. So the part you don't agree with is 17 that once these coplanars attach to the 18 AH receptor, the effect is not the same 19 as you would have had if you had a dioxin 20 attached to that AH receptor? 21 A. I think that has never been shown. 22 Q. Is that, in simple terms, enough, at 23 least, for me to understand? 103 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015216 1 A. I don't want to make it sound like I 2 say it's impossible, but I'm saying 3 because they bind so much more weakly and 4 because there are other things going on 5 with PCBs, the most important of which is 6 that you don't ever have this single 7 congener or a group of these single 8 congeners out in nature or in a body. 9 You've got whole bunches of other PCBs 10 out there which are trying to bind and 11 which are binding to other things and 12 which are interfering with the binding, 13 etcetera, etcetera. 14 So until you go into the 15 laboratory and, number one, show that 16 that congener can cause whatever effect-17 cancers are a biggie -- you know, dioxin 18 in animals causes cancer. 19 Q. That's a known? 20 A. That's a known, all right, although 21 there's an interesting dioxin study going 22 on at EPA that EPA is going to have big 23 problems here coming up because they're 104 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015217 1 doing their own study and it isn't 2 causing cancer nor is the PCB they're 3 testing, so we'll see where that comes 4 out. 5 Q. Is that going to come out before 6 October? 7 A. No, they're sitting on it,believe 8 me. I'm hoping it will. 9 Q. Okay, just asking. 10 A. And on the other side, we've got PCB 11 studies that if you feed Aroclor 1260 to 12 rats in the laboratory, you get cancer. 13 What we don't have is taking that one 14 single congener out of PCBs, feeding it 15 to rats, and ending up with cancer, and 16 until you have that, it's all 17 theoretical. And that's exactly what EPA 18 is trying to do in their experiment and 19 it's not working out for whatever 20 reason. 21 But even if you do that, you're 22 still dealing with that single congener. 23 You're not taking into consideration all 105 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015218 1 the other things that can go on, and I 2 don't know whether you've had the 3 agonist-antagonist lecture and all that 4 stuff, but some PCBs apparently lesson 5 the effect of dioxin, so it's just very 6 complicated, and until we really 7 understand and can demonstrate that PCBs 8 can do all these things that are alleged 9 to dioxin, then we're on very shaky 10 ground. 11 I mean, you know, you say who 12 cares? Well, I think the problem is and 13 who cares is that people use this 14 theoretical construct to try to draw PCBs 15 into the whole dioxin health effects 16 discussion, whether it be animal or human 17 or whatever and there's no scientific 18 basis to that. 19 Q. So we all know that dioxins, in and 20 of themselves, do cause cancers in 21 humans ? 22 A. No, no, no. Rats. 23 Q. There are animal studies that -- 106 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015219 1 A. That show that TCDD, a single - 2 not like PCBs, there are, you know, 3 seventy-five dioxins. 4 Q. There's one dioxin and it causes 5 cancer in rats? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. What's the difference between that 8 study and the study that shows PCBs cause 9 tumors or cancers in rats? 10 A. Well, I'm not sure what your 11 question means. I mean, it's a different 12 chemical. I suppose it's as DDT causes 13 cancer in rats or something else. The 14 problem really is that dioxin does it at 15 so much lower levels. 16 Q. Okay. That's what I'm saying. We 17 know that there are animal studies that 18 show an association with - 19 A. I think in animal studies we've got 20 all that controlled. I'll go with show. 21 Q. PCBs show that there's cancers in 22 rats ? 23 A. Yes. 107 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015220 1 Q. We also have studies that show 2 dioxins cause - 3 A. A dioxin causes cancer. 4 Q. What my question is, I guess, is, 5 all right, how can you take the giant 6 leap from the dioxins in rats causing 7 cancer in humans and you can't take a 8 giant leap with respect to PCBs causing 9 cancer in rats to humans? Why can't you 10 take the same leap? 11 A. I don't take the first leap. I 12 would never take the first leap. You 13 can't take either leap. 14 Q. So you won't agree that, based on 15 the animal studies of dioxin causing 16 cancer in rats that that proves or shows 17 that dioxin causes cancer in humans? 18 A. Oh heavens, no. I mean, we would 19 have exactly the same discussion around 20 the dioxin-human lecture that we do with 21 the PCB. What I was trying to say is 22 that TCDD causes cancer in rats. 23 Q. Okay. 108 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015221 1 A. PCBs -- A PCB mixture, Aroclor 1260 2 causes cancer in rats, but the in-between 3 is one teeny component of that Aroclor 4 1260 has never been tested to determine 5 whether it causes cancer in rats, so we 6 can't make the leap that, you know, 7 because that little, you know, we don't 8 know the mechanism of really how dioxin 9 causes cancer in rats or how PCBs cause 10 cancer in rats. 11 What the theory is is that if 12 you've got that little teeny bit of, 13 let's say PCB 169 in Aroclor 1260, if it 14 binds to the receptor, it's going to 15 cause cancer by the same mechanism that 16 dioxin does, so everything you can say 17 about dioxin, you can say about that 18 compound. We don't know whether it 19 causes cancer in rats so we can't make 20 that -- that's the leap we can't make. 21 Humans are out of picture at this point. 22 Q. Okay. That's what I'm trying to get 23 at. If you don't agree that there's 109 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015222 1 quote "proof" that dioxin causes cancer 2 in humans -3 A. Okay, and I don't. 4 Q. You don't. Then what difference 5 does it make if we prove that the 6 dioxin-like congeners attach to the AH 7 receptor and cause the same risk to 8 humans as dioxin does? 9 A. There are numerous regulatory 10 implications of that assumption. It can 11 drive cleanup levels to unreasonably low 12 and unreasonable expensive levels. It 13 can cause the EPA to regulate chemicals 14 in our food supply at, you know, 15 ridiculous costs to the economy. There 16 are numerous -17 Q. Ramifications? 18 A. Ramifications, that's the word. 19 There are numerous ramifications of that 20 assumption that, until it's proved, we 21 should not be making those leaps. 22 Q. There are quote "scientists" out 23 there that do come to the conclusion, I 110 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015223 1 assume, that dioxins do, in fact, cause 2 cancer in humans. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Are there clinical studies out there 5 similar to the studies that I mentioned 6 earlier, the Brown and Bertazzi, that 7 have found cancers associated with 8 dioxins? 9 A. There's a body of dioxin literature 10 which some people interpret as being 11 demonstrative that dioxin causes cancer 12 in humans. 13 Q. Is there the same problem with those 14 studies and that literature, is there the 15 same problem with that literature that 16 there there is with the PCB; that is, 17 that one study may show a certain site of 18 cancer in one site and another study 19 won't show that; that is, inconsistency? 20 Is there the same problem with those 21 studies? 22 A. That is a minor part of the problem 23 with dioxin studies. Interestingly, Ill Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015224 1 dioxin studies do have some consistency 2 in that they seem to show that there is a 3 very weak elevation in what they call all 4 cancers combined, that it really doesn't 5 cause a cancer in any particular site 6 which is problem number one because 7 there's no other compound that's known to 8 do that. 9 Q. Okay. 10 A. So this whole all cancers combined, 11 it just doesn't make any sense. You 12 know, one of the other criteria that I'm 13 sure you've heard people talk about is 14 biological plausibility. It's not 15 biologically plausible that dioxin could 16 cause these teeny elevations, although 17 statistically significant, and I'm not 18 going to play that game. They are 19 statistically significant in all cancers 20 combined without looking at any 21 particular cancer. 22 And there are huge problems 23 with confounding in those studies because 112 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015225 1 most of those were studies of workers in 2 chemical plants where there were lots of 3 other carcinogens. So there is a body of 4 literature, some of which can arguably 5 stand for the proposition that dioxin 6 causes cancer in humans. It's clearly 7 been interpreted that way by the 8 regulatory agencies, at least EPA, and I 9 think there are problems with it, so I'm 10 not going to buy into it, but the 11 literature is clearly there. 12 Q. And I assume that the EPA's 13 assessment, you don't agree with; that 14 is, that it causes cancer in humans? 15 Dioxin? 16 A. Right, I do not agree with the EPA's 17 attempts to label dioxin a known human 18 carcinogen. 19 Q. Okay. So the letter, when you talk 20 about the TEQs, meaning what? What are 21 the TEQs? 22 A. Well, one of the outgrowths of the 23 fact that some people believe that some 113 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015226 1 PCBs have dioxin-like activity is that 2 you can, by looking at, you know, binding 3 to the receptor or some other end point, 4 come up with a number, a ratio of the 5 potency of a particular, for instance, 6 PCB to TCDD so if TCDD -- you can measure 7 how strongly something binds to this 8 receptor. If TCDD binds, you know, 9 strength "X" and this PCB binds at a 10 strength one tenth of that, then they 11 have this theoretical construct called 12 toxicity equivalency factors TEQs to 13 relate those potencies or those strengths 14 of toxicity. 15 If you have a mixture of 16 compounds and you take the concentration 17 of each compound and multiply it by its 18 concentration in that mixture, you get 19 what are called toxicity equivalents with 20 a TS and so those are TEQs which is "T" 21 from toxicity and "EQ" from equivalence, 22 TS, not CE, and that theoretically 23 relates the toxicity of that whole 114 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015227 1 mixture back to dioxin. 2 Q. And what they're measuring, as I 3 understand, is the eleven or ten or 4 whatever the number there are that are 5 quote "dioxin-like"? 6 A. Correct, the ones we talked about 7 earlier. 8 Q. Which included the four or five you 9 said that were truly dioxin -10 A. Right, truly coplanar, right. 11 Q. Coplanars. And those that are the 12 little swiquets. 13 A. The little swiquets. 14 Q. Okay. And they come up with this 15 TEQ? 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. Do you place any significance in the 18 level or the TEQs in humans? I mean, do 19 you put any significance into that? 20 A. The TEQ, the whole toxicity 21 equivalent factor, TEQ construct was 22 developed as an interim procedure and 23 it's still an interim procedure by EPA to 115 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015228 1 help them economically assess risks for 2 cleanup sites. 3 If you have a complex mixture 4 of dioxins or other, you know, 5 dioxin-like materials, arguably, to do a 6 risk assessment on that site, you would 7 have to go in and measure every compound, 8 have toxicity studies on every compound, 9 and assess independently the risks of 10 every compound in that mixture, and then 11 somehow add all those up. So everybody 12 -- and I would agree that's -- we don't 13 have the toxicological information. It 14 would be years away and very costly to 15 get the toxicological information. 16 The analytical costs would be 17 extreme, etcetera, etcetera. So EPA and 18 others come up with this scheme where 19 okay, let's look at this mixture, let's 20 look at these toxicity equivalency 21 factors which you get from animal studies 22 or test tube studies or whatever and give 23 us this TEQ for this site or this soil or 116 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015229 1 this residue which gives us some feel of 2 how that site should be cleaned up and 3 we'll relate that to dioxin and we'll 4 clean up to that dioxin level rather than 5 having to do it for each individual 6 compound. 7 I think it has some 8 justification in that scheme. Now, I 9 draw two lines. One is I think that 10 scheme is entirely inappropriate and 11 premature for PCBs. 12 Q. Why? 13 A. Because we don't have any of the 14 information that we've been talking 15 about, the toxicological information that 16 says PCBs even behave in those manners. 17 Q. That's the same thing, you don't 18 think there's information to show that 19 the coplanars or the dioxin-like PCBs 20 cause any health effects? 21 A. Right, even in animals. 22 Q. Even in animals? 23 A. Even in animals to do that. 117 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015230 1 Secondly, along the same - 2 well there's actually three. The next 3 disconnect is we have been doing PCB risk 4 assessments and PCB cleanups for decades 5 based on looking at PCB mixtures as we 6 know them and we find them and we love 7 them. 8 Q. Total? 9 A. Total PCBs. Things are getting 10 cleaned up. Things are moving along. 11 The sites, you know, there's no evidence 12 that any site that's ever been cleaned up 13 that way remains in any kind of 14 theoretical or real risk. It's worked 15 fine and it's just so much more 16 efficient. 17 The other disconnect is that to 18 take this theoretical construct and try 19 to apply it to human body burdens, I 20 believe is totally inappropriate and 21 others agree with me. And the EPA 22 doesn't agree with me. The EPA is trying 23 to do it. And there's no justification 118 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015231 1 to say that a body burden on a TEQ basis 2 has any relationship whatsoever to 3 reality. 4 It's a convenience to help us 5 gets sites cleaned up. It was never 6 designed to, nor is it robust enough to 7 talk about threats to human health based 8 on these TEQs. 9 Q. And you say others agree with you. 10 Do you have any particular reference to 11 others who agree with you? 12 A. No, I mean, it's an ongoing 13 discussion. 14 Q. Obviously, there are others that 15 disagree with you? 16 A. It's an ongoing discussion. It's 17 one of the real discussions that's, 18 frankly, holding up this draft dioxin 19 reassessment that's making its rounds to 20 government agencies because it's a huge 21 question. 22 Q. Well, in your statement to ATSDR, 23 you talk about specifics and I think you 119 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015232 1 mention someone, their ages and you talk 2 about the fact that because of their age, 3 they would have a significant TEQ. Maybe 4 I'm reading that wrong. 5 A. I don't think I said that. 6 Q. Maybe I better read it correctly. 7 "Examination of the birth dates clearly 8 shows that this is an elderly group of 9 persons. The youngest was fifty-one at 10 the time of sampling and analysis while 11 the oldest who had the highest PCB level, 12 total PCB level was eighty-four. The 13 significance of the ages of these people 14 will be discussed. Person one has 15 already been discussed. This person is a 16 former Monsanto worker. He also has the 17 highest level of TEQs among the group. 18 Examination of the data sheet for this 19 shows that his TEQ level is dominated by 20 TEQs for Penta and hexa dechlorinated 21 dibenzofurans which is exactly what would 22 be expected for someone with an elevated 23 PCB level." 120 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015233 1 And I misspoke while ago. Why 2 would he be expected to have a high TEQ 3 associated with dibenzofurans? 4 A. Okay, this person was a worker, a 5 long-time worker at our plant. He had 6 obvious exposure to PCBs. He had an 7 elevated PCB level. The PCBs, as 8 manufactured by Monsanto, had trace 9 levels two to five parts per million of 10 chlorinated dibenzofurans as impurities 11 as measured, so somebody exposed to high 12 levels of PCBs is going to, you know, 13 logically, at least, maybe not for sure, 14 but possibly have also elevated levels of 15 chlorinated dibenzofurans, but not 16 dioxins, and that's exactly what this guy 17 shows. 18 Q. And you mention, you go forward and 19 you say low levels, typically a few parts 20 per million of PCDFs were produced; 21 that's what you said? 22 A. Right. 23 Q. But you're saying that there were no 121 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015234 1 such -- there was not a same level of 2 PCDD; is that right? 3 A. That's correct. In fact, they're 4 not measurable or not measured. They 5 have never been reported of dioxins and 6 PCBs as an impurity of manufacture. 7 Q. So if there are -- so how do you 8 explain the dioxins found or the 9 dioxin-like congeners found in the blood 10 levels that we have measured? 11 A. Okay, now -12 Q. Are we talking two different things 13 here? 14 A. You start talking dioxins and then 15 you started talking dioxin-likes. 16 Q. Okay. 17 A. I mean, there's three or four things 18 we need to keep straight. One is there 19 are a group of compounds called dioxins, 20 all right, and the most well known of 21 which is this TCDD we've been talking 22 about. There's a related group of 23 compounds called polychlorinated 122 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015235 1 dibenzofurans or on short, furans. 2 Q. Right. 3 A. All right, there's another group of 4 chemicals called PCBs. 5 Q. Okay. 6 A. So we've got these three big groups 7 that we're all going to be talking about. 8 Now, within the PCB group, there's this 9 little teeny twelve-member little 10 subgroup called dioxin-like as you refer 11 to it and others are the coplanars. So 12 your question was dioxins or coplanars 13 and they're separate answers to those two 14 questions. 15 Q. All right, that's maybe my confusion 16 in reading this letter when you say PCDDs 17 or dioxins are not produced as 18 by-products for the manufacture of PCBs, 19 nor are they formed by thermal stress of 20 PCBs . 21 A. Right. That's that one group of 22 specific compounds, right. 23 Q. "Therefore, the PCDD or dioxin levels 123 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015236 1 in persons in this community cannot be 2 associated with their potential exposure 3 to PCBs." 4 A. Right. 5 Q. "In the second place, the magnitude 6 of dioxin levels in this person clearly 7 suggests that she has had some unique 8 exposure to dioxin assuming, of course," 9 and so on. You're referring, as I 10 understand you now, you're referring here 11 to the fact that they're talking about 12 dioxins as opposed to coplanars or 13 dioxin-like PCBs? 14 A. This was a separate set of analyses 15 for dioxins and furans and PCBs. 16 Q. Okay. 17 A. But I was only addressing, in these 18 comments, the dioxin and furan issues and 19 they are separate issues when being 20 discussed around PCB questions. PCBs 21 were out of that whole discussion, other 22 than the fact of as a potential source of 23 furans in that one person. But other 124 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015237 1 than that, all I was talking about was 2 the dioxins themselves and the furans 3 themselves. 4 Q. So you weren't talking about, in 5 this context, you weren't talking about 6 the coplanars; is that correct? 7 A. That's correct, I was not. 8 Q. Did ATSDR even mention the quote 9 "coplanars" as it relates to the TEQ? 10 A. As I sit here today, I don't 11 recall. I think those data were 12 available to them. I don't know whether 13 they tried -- I don't recall. 14 Q. Well, the reason I'm asking that is, 15 in the same paragraph, you're mentioning 16 the TEQs and the dioxin and furans, and 17 that's what's confusing me some because I 18 19 A. Because the TEQs were originally 20 developed only for dioxins and furans. 21 TCDD is the prime example. It's the ones 22 in which everything else is -- it's a 23 reference compound. That's the word I'm 125 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015238 1 looking for. It's the reference compound 2 and it's defined as having a toxicity of 3 one, just unitless, just one. 4 Q. All right. 5 A. There are, I'm going to say,seven 6 other dioxins and I think ten furans that 7 also, like TCDD, bind to the AH receptor 8 and, in some cases, have been shown to, 9 in other cases, are assumed to have 10 dioxin-like activity so they have TEFs 11 associated with them also, all right. 12 And that's what -- when I was talking 13 about cleanup levels and the development 14 of the TEF concept, it was only four 15 dioxins and furans, all right. 16 The attempt by the EPA to roll 17 those coplanar PCBs into the overall 18 structure is fairly recent, okay. That's 19 not been done until this latest dioxin 20 reassessment, so when I'm talking here 21 about the TEQs, I'm talking about the 22 TEQs for the dioxins and furans in those, 23 not the TEQs for the PCBs. That would be 126 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015239 1 an addition onto the TEQ if we were 2 talking about those. 3 Q. And I think you're referring to 4 table six in that paragraph; right? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And in your responding to or 7 criticizing or however you want to 8 determine it in this February 14th, 2000 9 health consultation? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And in table six what they say - 12 let me find it. I had it. Table six 13 says total blood PCBs, dioxin toxicity, 14 TEQs and levels and year of the birth, 15 blood dioxin/current/coplanar PCB 16 analysis. 17 A. Right. 18 Q. That's what I'm confused by. 19 A. If you look at the table, the first 20 column is reference number for the 21 person. 22 Q. Right. 23 A. The second number is total PCBs. 127 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015240 1 Q. Right. 2 A. Third and fourth column are the sum 3 TEQs for dioxins, furans, and PCBs in 4 blood where the third column is without 5 the PCBs included and the fourth column 6 is with the PCBs included. 7 And when I'm talking 8 specifically here about that, you know, 9 maybe I wasn't clear here, but I was 10 talking primarily about the withouts. 11 I'm talking about the TEQs from the 12 dioxins and furans, not from the PCBs. 13 Q. All right. 14 A. Now, that person, because he has 15 higher PCBs, I think it's number one, 16 obviously, if it's the highest, is going 17 to have, with the PCBs, a higher number 18 than the others also because he's got 19 more PCBs, so that would just make sense. 20 But that comment was really addressed to 21 this without the PCBs column -22 Q. Okay. And then you mention the -23 A. -- because I think I say one 128 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015241 1 seventy-nine, don't I, in there? I 2 thought I just saw where I said the 3 person -4 Q. I think you did somewhere. 5 A. Anyway, that's the confusion 6 because you can do TEQs with PCBs or TEQs 7 without the coplanar PCBs and my specific 8 comment there was addressed to just the 9 dioxin and furan analyses part of the -- 10 Q. Person nine, the magnitude of OCDD 11 level, in person nine, clearly suggests 12 that she had some unique exposure to 13 dioxin? 14 A. OCDD, octidioxin, which is -- it 15 counts, but it's the weakest of the lot. 16 Q. What was her level of PCBs? 17 A. Of PCBs? 18 Q. Right, number nine? 19 A. Her total PCBs was one hundred three 20 parts percent billion. 21 Q. And her TEQs? 22 A. Was sixty without the PCBs and two 23 hundred ninety-two, but the octidioxin 129 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015242 1 doesn't account for much TEQ because its 2 factor is one ten thousandth so you 3 multiply its concentration by one ten 4 thousandth to calculate a TEQ, so it 5 doesn't really contribute much. 6 Q. Why do you say that she had some 7 unique exposure to OCDD? 8 A. Because her OCDD level is very high. 9 Q. Okay. 10 A. Compared to everybody else in the 11 population and compared to national 12 backgrounds and compared her other dioxin 13 and furan levels. It was just out of 14 whack with the pattern you would expect 15 to see. 16 Q. How would you explain that? 17 A. How would I explain it? I would 18 explain it as a lab analytical error. It 19 could be -- OCDD is a product of 20 combustion. I mean, if for some reason, 21 she was around a lot of forest fires or 22 burned a lot of trash or something, you 23 could do it, but I think it's probably an 130 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015243 1 analytical error. It's just sticks out 2 so badly. I can't -- you know, in my 3 comments, I couldn't speculate on it. 4 I'm just saying it sticks out. 5 Q. All right. On page fourteen of your 6 letter, I think you're talking here about 7 some, I guess, soil samples, yes. 8 "Solutia suggests that the agency avail 9 itself of all avenues to ascertain the 10 conditions under which samples were 11 collected by agents of the plaintiffs' 12 attorneys. It is Solutia's understanding 13 that many of the samples were collected 14 in areas calculated to maximize potential 15 soil levels such as downspout." Can you 16 tell me who you're referring to? 17 A. To what plaintiff's attorney I'm 18 referring to? 19 Q. No, agent. 20 A. I mean, those data were all supplied 21 by the plaintiffs' attorney in the 22 Abernathy litigation, so I'm talking 23 about whoever collected the samples. 131 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015244 1 Q. You don't know particularly who that 2 was, not attorney but - 3 A. I'm tempted to say Mr. Bonner or Dr. 4 Bonner, but I don't know that for a 5 fact. I could be wrong on that. I'm 6 tempted to say that's who it was and, 7 again, let me -- I'm not saying he did 8 anything wrong. 9 Q. I understand. 10 A. I'm just saying it wasn't an average 11 value. My understanding was that they 12 went to areas on the property where they 13 expected the levels to be the highest. 14 Q. Well, you go on to say that "our 15 understanding is based on the deposition 16 testimony of one of the persons who 17 performed soil sampling for the larger of 18 the two plaintiffs' groups. For 19 instance, we will provide relevant 20 sections of that deposition to ATSDR upon 21 request." 22 A. Yes, and I don't think that was ever 23 requested and I don't think we did. 132 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015245 1 Q. You don't know who you're referring 2 to? 3 A. I think it was Dr. Bonner. 4 Q. Dr. Bonner? 5 A. I think so, but I could be wrong. 6 Q. Okay. Now, any area you refer in 7 here as under other pathways, you say 8 that in Monsanto, in 1970 or '71, 9 Monsanto became aware that hogs were 10 being raised on or near Monsanto property 11 on an area that had been used for waste 12 disposal. Can you specify what area you 13 -- do you know what area you're talking 14 about? 15 A. It was somewhere on the south 16 landfill. More specifically than that, I 17 don't know. That's my understanding. 18 Q. The hogs rooting around in this 19 secluded area were possibly being exposed 20 to waste materials. Do you have any 21 information as to whether or not these 22 hogs were analyzed as far as PCB levels? 23 A. I believe they were not. 133 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015246 1 Q. Was there ever any time that logs 2 were analyzed? 3 A. My understanding is I think it's 4 covered by people's testimony. My 5 understanding is that a hog was found 6 dead on Solutia property, that its PCB 7 levels were measured and found to be 8 elevated, and that, based on that, people 9 from the plant found that there were 10 other hogs on the property and that those 11 hogs were purchased but were not tested. 12 Q. Was there any analysis done on the 13 hog that was, in fact, the initial hog on 14 the liver? 15 A. I don't know what was -- I do not 16 know what was specifically tested. I 17 don't know. I think the fat was, but I 18 don't know whether the liver was or not. 19 Q. And I think y'all found the map or a 20 map? 21 A. Yes. 22 MR. KELLY: Can we go off the 23 record? 134 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015247 1 MR. RODEN: Yes, okay. 2 (Whereupon, a short discussion 3 was held off the record at 4 this time.) 5 MR. RODEN: Make a note we're 6 going to mark Exhibit No. 7 1 and we're going to 8 substitute it for a copy. 9 (Whereupon, Plaintiff's Exhibit 10 No. 1 was marked for 11 identification.) 12 Q. All right, Dr. Kaley, just for 13 purposes of identifying, just tell me 14 what we are looking at? What is this? 15 A. This is a map supplied by the 16 Environment Protection Agency which 17 designates by number with one exception, 18 one of them is by letter, areas in the 19 north and east of the Monsanto plant 20 which were to be tested for -- which 21 residential properties were to be tested 22 to determine if PCBs were present in 23 those properties in five point composite 135 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015248 1 samples above ten parts per million. 2 Q. And is this the same legend that has 3 been attached to the proposed order as 4 pending? 5 A. This is an attached -- this is part 6 of an attachment to the proposed consent 7 decree, but it is -- what's really 8 attached to the proposed consent decree 9 is the administrative order of consent 10 dated -- I think it was October 3rd, 2001 11 to which this is an attachment or an 12 exhibit, so it's an attachment to an 13 attachment. 14 Q. Okay. What was the purpose, again, 15 of this particular map? 16 A. The purpose of this map was to 17 delineate and prioritize areas for 18 sampling for Solutia under the terms of 19 the consent order. 20 Q. And then the proposal, its function 21 is the same under the proposed consent 22 decree? 23 A. I don't think so. I think -- well, 136 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015249 1 I don't know that the Anniston PCB site 2 enclosed as defined in the proposed 3 consent decree is exactly the same as 4 that. I do not believe it is. I think 5 it is a much larger area, but the consent 6 order is going to be rolled into the 7 consent decree and will continue to be 8 executed so, in reality, as far as I 9 know, all this still addresses properties 10 which will be sampled the ten part per 11 million removal action. I don't know 12 that this drives either the sampling or 13 the additional sampling for the consent 14 decree. 15 Now, I do know that the 16 properties identified in the sampling 17 under the consent order which have 18 greater than one part per million, 19 assuming everything is approved in the 20 courts, etcetera, will be cleaned up 21 under the terms of the consent decree 22 when it's executed. Sorry, that got very 23 confusing. 137 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015250 1 We have sampled -- the consent 2 order told us to go out and sample 3 residential properties in these areas. 4 Q. And you sampled how many? 5 A. I'm going to say nine hundred. I 6 could be wrong. Mr. Branchfield would 7 know. I'm going to say nine hundred, 8 okay. We did five-part composites, okay, 9 with the primary goal of identifying 10 those with greater than ten of which 11 there were, I think, twenty-eight or 12 something like that, mid-twenties, and 13 those ten were to be cleaned up in 14 accordance with the consent decree. 15 We've done that on thirteen, twelve, or 16 so. I think it's twenty-five. We've 17 done thirteen. Twelve, we were access by 18 the plaintiffs' attorneys or the owners' 19 attorneys. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. In doing that, some of these 22 properties were found to have one to ten 23 parts per million PCBs. The consent 138 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015251 1 decree will address cleaning up those 2 properties and those properties with 3 levels between one and ten will be 4 cleaned up under the terms of the consent 5 decree. 6 What I don't know is, for sure 7 sitting here, is if additional sampling 8 is required outside of these areas. I 9 don't know that as I sit here. 10 Q. So you don't know if the consent 11 decree expounds on this particular area? 12 A. As I sit here, I do not know the 13 answer to that. 14 Q. But my question is -- assume just 15 for the sake of this question that the 16 map, whatever the map is, whether it's 17 this map or another map, it is what it is 18 and you're saying the sampling will be 19 conducted only in these areas; is that 20 correct? 21 A. Certainly, under the consent order, 22 that is correct. 23 Q. And it would be true on the consent 139 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015252 1 decree, it would follow a map whether 2 it's this map or another map? 3 A. I believe that would be correct. 4 Q. So if a piece of property is outside 5 these zones, would they ever be tested 6 under the consent decree? 7 A. You're stretching my knowledge of 8 the consent decree. My belief is that 9 they would not be. 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. Now, can I make just one more 12 addition just to clear things up? 13 Q. Sure. 14 A. There is one additional area that is 15 not shown on this map. It is called Area 16 OLN, all caps, which stands for Oxford 17 Lake Neighborhood and that's a little 18 area down by the Oxford Lake softball 19 complex down off Highway 78 so that's 20 also included in the consent order, but 21 it's not on this map. 22 Q. What prompted that? 23 A. The discovery of a couple of yards 140 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015253 1 there that had PCBs in them. 2 Q. Was that through some litigation? 3 A. No, it's part of our investigation 4 along our -- well, I think it was 5 actually prompted by a request by one of 6 the residents there to have his property 7 sampled because we had been doing work 8 along that neighborhood and my 9 recollection is he had taken sediments 10 from the creek and put them up in his 11 yards, so we tested an additional group 12 of properties down in that area. 13 Q. What is the significance of the zone 14 up ii 9 15 A. I don't recall right offhand. I 16 think that's an area near Quintard Mall, 17 but, again, I could be wrong, and why 18 "F", I have no clue. 19 Q. This map is entitled "Zones and 20 Drainage Area for Remediation". 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And again, I have asked you this 23 once before; do you have any knowledge of 141 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015254 1 the basis for these zones? 2 A. Well, I mean -- the basis for the 3 overall map is drainage. I mean, our 4 plant sits in this big blank area to the 5 lower -- as I'm facing it -- lower 6 left-hand corner of the map. Our plant 7 area is here (indicating) so that on the 8 right side of the map, Snow Creek runs in 9 a generally vertical manner going to the 10 left. On the upper portion of the map, 11 is an area that is the Ninth Street's 12 ditch and the Eleventh Street's ditch 13 which are drainage areas from our plant, 14 and then an area from the drainage from 15 the west end landfill, which is primarily 16 the Ninth Street ditch, so that provided 17 the focus for these areas because that's 18 where EPA and Solutia had found PCBs 19 primarily. 20 So it was basically here's the 21 drainage pathway, we're going to move 22 away some direction or some amount, and 23 you can see it varies depending on where 142 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015255 1 people lived and where our plant was, 2 we're going to move away from those 3 drainage areas some distance not defined 4 and label them as these areas and that's 5 how it was generated to my understanding 6 Q. That's what I assumed, but I wanted 7 8 A. It's clearly drainage pathway 9 driven. 10 Q. And could be what some people may 11 call the flood plain? 12 A. Well, it's much larger than the 13 flood plain. There are maps of the flood 14 plain and they're certainly included in 15 here, but this map is much larger than 16 the flood plain. 17 Q. When you say much larger, can you 18 quantify as far as feet or yards? 19 A. Well, it depends. Some places, it's 20 very narrow and some places, it's very 21 wide depending on what the flood plain 22 looks like and whether the streams are 23 constricted or not in those areas, so I 143 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015256 1 really can't generalize. 2 Q. Under the consent decree, the 3 proposed consent decree, would all 4 properties in these zones be tested? 5 A. Probably not each property. Going 6 back to what we discussed earlier, that 7 as we gather more and more information by 8 our sampling, it is possible, 9 statistically, to make some predictions 10 about whether PCBs are likely or not 11 likely to be in a given area and, subject 12 to EPA's approval, we can terminate 13 sampling in a given zone if we can 14 statistically demonstrate to the EPA's 15 satisfaction that we're not likely to 16 find PCBs in those yards. 17 Q. But as you start the process, let's 18 say you start in Zone 1 - 19 A. I'm not sure which one was first. 20 Two and three were clearly the highest 21 priority. 22 Q. So not No. 1? 23 A. No. These are not labeled by 144 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015257 1 priority. 2 Q. So two and three is considered high 3 priority? 4 A. I believe. I think that's what it 5 was. It says it in the consent decree 6 specifically. 7 Q. Would you necessarily test every 8 piece of property in zone two and three? 9 A. No, you would test every piece of 10 property nearest the drainage things, 11 moving away, and if you got to the point 12 to where we and the agencies were 13 comfortable that we weren't finding PCBs 14 anymore, we could terminate even in those 15 high priority zones. 16 Now, I believe, and, again, I'm 17 moving a little further than I should, I 18 think we've only terminated samples in 19 one zone and I don't remember which one 20 it is. Otherwise, we have not been able 21 to demonstrate that is my recollection. 22 Q. You don't know if it's No. 1 or - 23 A. I believe it's No. 3, but I don't 145 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015258 1 know. I'm speculating. I shouldn't even 2 be talking about this. 3 Q. What documents or what would I look 4 to to see that? 5 A. There would be correspondence 6 between us and the EPA. 7 Q. Okay. And as far as Zone 1, has 8 there been testing been done to it? 9 A. I'm sure there has. I don't know. 10 Q. Again, that may be Mr. Branchfield? 11 A. Clearly. Clearly, Mr. Branchfield. 12 Q. Here's my question now: assume that 13 this Exhibit No. 1 is, in fact, the map 14 or assume it's the next map, whatever. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. It's my understanding, then, if I 17 have clients outside these zones, their 18 property would not be tested for PCBs 19 under the consent decree? 20 A. That would by my understanding, yes. 21 Q. And whatever properties are tested 22 and the soil is found to have one part 23 per billion -- 146 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015259 1 A. Million. 2 Q. Million, excuse me. 3 A. With an "M" . 4 Q. -- with an "M", be cleaned up? 5 A. We would make the offer to clean it 6 up. 7 Q. And what would be the procedure for 8 cleaning it up? 9 A. Removal of, basically, the top one 10 foot of soil from the property and 11 testing to be sure that some level isn't 12 present underneath that one foot and then 13 the one foot would be replaced with clean 14 soil and revegetated. 15 Q. So if you clean the one foot off and 16 then you test it again and still have one 17 part - 18 A. No, I think it's ten at the one-foot 19 level. I think it's ten. 20 Q. Okay. It goes to ten? 21 A. It goes to something else. I think 22 it's a ten and that's consistent with 23 EPA's spill cleanup policy for 147 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015260 1 residential areas which has been in place 2 for a number of years. 3 Q. Have you known -- have you known or 4 has it been known or has there been 5 findings, I guess, of higher levels of 6 PCBs than one part per million outside 7 the zones that we're looking at here in 8 Exhibit No. 1? 9 A. I don't know specifically. I do not 10 know. 11 Q. You don't know one way or the other? 12 A. I don't know. I don't have that 13 kind of detailed knowledge. 14 Q. Have you seen any type of a map that 15 shows the various samplings that have 16 been done in the Anniston area and the 17 levels of PCBs found? 18 A. Yes, I believe I have seen such a 19 map. 20 Q. And you don't recall any of those 21 maps showing PCB levels being shown 22 outside the zones? 23 A. I don't know whether I have seen it 148 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015261 1 superimposed on these zones or not. 2 Q. Okay. The Tox Profile we talked 3 about earlier, I'm sure you're familiar 4 with? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And I assume you know -- is it Dr. 7 Copland? 8 A. I mean I know who he is. I've seen 9 him. I've heard him speak. He certainly 10 wouldn't know me. Oh, he's written me a 11 letter so he may know me. 12 Q. Tell me, what is, in fact, the Tox 13 Profile? What is it for? 14 A. Under the terms of the act creating 15 ATSDR, the Agency for Tox Substance and 16 Disease Registry, one of the things which 17 is actually funded by EPA's superfund 18 money, one of the things they were tasked 19 to do was prioritize chemicals that were 20 found at superfund sites. 21 Q. Okay. 22 A. So they have got lists of how many 23 superfund sites benzene was found or 149 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015262 1 asbestos was found or PCBs were found, 2 okay. That lists exists. 3 Q. I think I have that somewhere. 4 A. Yes, and it's almost universally 5 misinterpreted. Okay, based on that 6 list, EPA or ATSDR is then commissioned 7 to either do or hire contractors to do, 8 which is what they always do, an 9 expensive literature review of everything 10 that is known or everything that is found 11 in the literature about, primarily, the 12 toxicity of that particular compound, so 13 there are dozens if not hundreds of 14 toxicological profiles for a wide variety 15 of chemicals, so that's what they are. 16 This is one in a huge series. 17 Q. And -18 A. And they are periodically revised. 19 I think this is the third revision of the 20 PCB Tox Profile. 21 Q. Is this the current -22 A. It's the most recent, yes. 23 Q. And is this, and I think I asked you 150 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015263 1 this earlier, it says it's peer 2 reviewed. 3 A. It is peer reviewed in the sense 4 that ATSDR contracted with some number - 5 generally, it's like three scientists to 6 review it and make comments. 7 Typical peer review, in the 8 sense that it's usually meant, is an 9 anonymous process whereby an absterer a 10 draft paper is sent by a journal to, as I 11 said, anonymous scientists with knowledge 12 in the field to the review and make 13 comments and those are then supplied to 14 the author to make adjustments as they 15 would. So this is not an anonymous peer 16 review, but three scientists or so, in 17 this case, many more did, in fact, review 18 this document. 19 Q. Okay. There are certain parts of 20 this you agree with and certain parts you 21 don't agree with, I assume? 22 A. Yes. I'll say yes for now and see 23 where you go with it. 151 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015264 1 Q. The reason I asked, is this an 2 authoritative document for people such as 3 you to look at to rely on as an 4 authoritative? 5 A. To the extent that the document is a 6 compilation of literature information on 7 toxicity, environmental behavior, 8 environment levels, a number of things 9 out of the literature that were reviewed 10 incorporated, yes, I would agree that it 11 is an authoritative document and is 12 relied upon and I rely upon it to the 13 extent that interpretations based on that 14 literature are superimposed on the 15 factual basis of the document. I have 16 some problems with the way things, some 17 of the things that are said, but usually, 18 more the way they are said. 19 Q. Okay, well let me just ask you, it 20 its says here under Summary of Health 21 Effects, Chapter Two, "Health effects 22 that have been associated with PCBs in 23 humans and/or animals include liver, 152 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015265 1 thyroid, dermal, ocular, immunological, 2 alterations in neurodevelopment, mental 3 changes, reduced birthrate, reproductive 4 toxicity, and cancer." Is that one you 5 would not agree with? 6 A. No, I will agree with it because it 7 says humans or animals and that's the 8 problem with that statement. Let's 9 separate it out. 10 What do they say in humans? 11 Now, I might not agree with that, but I 12 agree that in humans or animals, I think 13 most of those things -- I don't know 14 about every single one of them, but I 15 think most of them have been associated 16 in some study or another. 17 And again, I think that 18 illustrates my problem with the document 19 in that it lacks for clarity in some 20 instances. 21 Q. Okay. Let's take about a 22 five-minute break. 23 (Whereupon, a short recess was 153 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015266 1 taken at this time.) 2 Q. I think I've gone over this, Dr. 3 Kaley. Let me ask you one thing. This 4 is the letter or, excuse me, the health 5 consult of February of 2000 and I think 6 we've talked about this, but on page six 7 my copy which is, you're right, it's off 8 the internet, so it's going to be 9 different, but when they talk about the 10 persistency of PCBs and the half lives of 11 PCBs and they talk about the fact that if 12 one -- let's see, talking about the range 13 of half lives being from what? 14 A. Three to twenty four. 15 Q. Three to twenty-four, and basically 16 say that if one has a level today, their 17 level fifteen years ago would be twice as 18 high or something like that. You don't 19 agree with that statement? 20 A. No. 21 Q. I think you voiced that in your 22 letter; correct? 23 A. Well, I think the most important 154 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015267 1 thing in this paragraph is the chain of 2 if s. 3 Q. Okay. 4 A. I mean, if you assume everything 5 they're assuming here is correct, then I 6 think their chain is not necessarily - 7 doesn't come to the wrong answer with all 8 those assumptions, but I think I would 9 have arguments, possibly, about every one 10 of those ifs, you know, I mean, if 11 exposures did happen years ago. 12 Well, maybe they did and make 13 they didn't. We don't know. And I think 14 somebody that has a very low level today, 15 we don't know whether that came from 16 today, ten years ago, twenty years ago, 17 thirty years ago. It's very low. It's 18 below or right at background anyway. To 19 extrapolate that back just doesn't make 20 sense, so I mean that's an if. 21 The estimated biological half 22 lives for total PCBs; well, we've talked 23 about -- that's total PCBs. We talked 155 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015268 1 about all the uncertainties in that. The 2 three to twenty-four years, it's a big 3 difference whether they use three years 4 or twenty-four years on the half life. 5 And then I don't know what 6 reference fourteen is. You know, I would 7 have to look and see who did that work. 8 But then they say, I mean, they are 9 making -- if the elevated levels were 10 caused by exposures that happened twenty 11 years ago, you know, then. 12 They have set up a construct 13 here which I don't argue with, you know, 14 if you agree with all their assumptions, 15 you may get to the point they do, but I 16 don't -- there's all sorts of 17 uncertainties around those assumptions, 18 so I don't think you can take this 19 paragraph to say that you can 20 automatically do it. 21 Q. And so you don't agree -- from what 22 you just said, I assume you don't agree, 23 and I can't cite who says this, but that 156 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015269 1 levels of PCBs found in the general 2 population of Anniston, Alabama is much 3 higher than the general population found 4 throughout the country? 5 A. No, I think the levels in some 6 individuals are higher than levels found 7 in other environmentally exposed 8 populations, but I don't think you can 9 make a general statement about the 10 population of Anniston, Alabama. 11 Most of the people that have 12 been looked at in the course of this 13 litigation which is, I don't know what 14 percentage of the people of Anniston it 15 is, but whatever it is, most of those 16 have been nondetects. 17 Q. Meaning, again, nondetect meaning 18 what? 19 A. Meaning nondetect in terms of what 20 the laboratory could detect or not. I 21 mean, less than three parts per billion, 22 less than five parts per billion, 23 whatever it was, and another significant 157 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015270 1 proportion of what I call background 2 range, so I don't think you can make 3 statements about the whole population of 4 Anniston, Alabama. 5 There are individuals who have 6 levels that are higher that have been 7 reported in background levels in other 8 studies, but I don't think you can make a 9 generalization about the whole 10 population. 11 Q. Okay. Now, in this letter or this 12 health consultation, they talk, and I 13 think you referred to this on the soil 14 sampling and dust sampling. In table 15 nine, they talk about the samples that 16 are were taken in various locations, and 17 I want to you ask you do you know exactly 18 where or do you know generally where 19 those soil samples were taken? 20 A. Well, I mean, I may have at one 21 time. I don't right now. As I'm sitting 22 here, I don't even -- oh, community group 23 one. Okay, I was going to say I didn't 158 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015271 1 even know what CG-1 and CG-2 are. That's 2 community group one and community group 3 two. No, I don't know -- I mean, 4 obviously, there's six hundred fifty-five 5 samples from community group one. Those 6 are all plaintiff properties from Mr. 7 Stewart's clients. I don't know where 8 each one of those are. 9 Q. And it mentions some of those were 10 taken outside of the flood plain? 11 A. Yes. For instance, community group 12 one, it says in flood plain connected to 13 Solutia and for GC-1 it says mostly no. 14 Q. And were those in CG-1, that testing 15 in CG-1 outside quote "the flood plain" 16 where they found -- did they find high 17 levels of PCBs? 18 A. You can't tell from this graph and I 19 don't know without looking at individual 20 properties. 21 Q. But again, the position Solutia 22 takes, if in fact, that did occur; that 23 is, if high levels were found, it got 159 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015272 1 there some other way other than through 2 the drainage ditches, etcetera? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. I.e., field dirt for instance? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Is that the main source of that? 7 A. In my opinion, as far as I know, 8 yes. Now, I would also add that that 9 doesn't mean we're not cleaning them up 10 if they're in the areas that we've agreed 11 to clean up properties. We're still 12 cleaning them up. 13 Q. Like the OLN, the Oxford Lake 14 Neighborhood, for instance? 15 A. Right. 16 Q. For instance, CG-1, the six hundred 17 fifty-five samples outside, most of them 18 being outside of what the call the flood 19 plain? 20 A. Right. 21 Q. The maximum was eight hundred forty 22 part per million? 23 A. Yes. 160 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015273 1 Q. That's pretty high, is it not? 2 A. For a residential property, yes, I 3 would admit that's elevated. 4 Q. And in the range of the top ten, I'm 5 not sure I understand the range, 6 seventeen point four to eight hundred 7 forty? 8 A. Well, if you rank them one through 9 six hundred fifty-five, number one was 10 eight hundred forty and number ten was 11 seventeen point four and they went down 12 from there. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. That's the range of the top ten 15 samples, so obviously, it drops real 16 fast. 17 Q. Okay. 18 A. But I don't whether that eight 19 hundred forty or the seventeen was in or 20 out of the flood plain. That's why I 21 can't answer your question. I don't know 22 where those samples were. Those top ten 23 may have very well been all in the flood 161 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015274 1 plain. 2 Q. You don't remember that? 3 A. I don't know if -- no, I doubt if I 4 did know at one time. 5 Q. Now, I recall seeing something and, 6 again, it may have been a newspaper 7 article, I can't tell you, but, something 8 about Solutia and/or Monsanto using 9 mercury in their processing? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. What exactly would that use mercury 12 for? 13 A. Mercury was used in the process -14 we made chlorine at the Anniston plant 15 from the mid-1950s, I want to say 1955 to 16 1969 and the process we used is an 17 electrical chemical process and mercury 18 was used as one of the electrodes in that 19 process. 20 Q. Did you say '55? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. To '69? 23 A. I believe it's that general time 162 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015275 1 frame. I know the '69 is right. I'm not 2 so sure, it could have been '54 or 3 something like that. 4 Q. And was this mercury used on a 5 closed loop basis? 6 A. Yes. That was certainly the intent. 7 Q. Meaning it was recirculated or 8 recycled or whatever? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And was there any determination made 11 at any time that some of this mercury was 12 being lost in the environment? 13 A. Yes, there were discussions, 14 certainly, efforts to control that from 15 happening which would suggest that there 16 were some amounts being lost in the 17 environment, yes. 18 Q. And when were those efforts made? 19 A. In the mid- to late-60s primarily. 20 Q. And was that successful? 21 A. To a large extent, yes. 22 Q. What do you mean? 23 A. Well, you can't ever get it -- there 163 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015276 1 are parts -- some of the kinds of mercury 2 that ended up being in discharge waters 3 are much more difficult to control than 4 others so if the elemental mercury, the 5 little shiny silvery stuff we're all 6 familiar with, which is what we used 7 primarily, that's fairly easy to 8 control. You can separate it out. You 9 can see it. But once -- some of it 10 reacts to soluble water, soluble forms of 11 mercury, and then those are much more 12 difficult to control although efforts 13 were made. 14 Q. Has there been some heated debate, 15 if you will, about whether or not Solutia 16 admitted that there had been some 17 discharged into the drainage ditches of 18 Anniston? 19 A. I do not believe there's heated 20 debate about whether. I think, 21 certainly, there was an article in the 22 Anniston Star and I responded to that 23 article and I think that the levels, the 164 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015277 1 numbers they were reporting in that 2 article were overestimates of any mercury 3 that could have been lost to the 4 environment. 5 Q. What was their estimates; do you 6 recall? 7 A. I don't remember. It was very 8 large. 9 Q. And you responded to them by saying 10 there was no way that it was that large? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Was there an effort made by Solutia 13 or Monsanto to determine what 14 quantitative amount was being lost? 15 A. I did an extensive review of the 16 available documentation and my conclusion 17 was that it was not possible to make that 18 determination, but also pointing out that 19 it, in some ways, didn't matter what it 20 was because we and the EPA have looked 21 for mercury in the drainage pathways and 22 residential yards, to some extent, and in 23 the waterways and mercury is not there at 165 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015278 1 elevated levels. 2 Q. Well, as I understand, there were 3 attempts, at least in the seventies, or 4 the late-sixties, I guess, to determine 5 what level of PCBs were escaping? 6 A. My recollection of my document 7 review was that there were attempts to 8 limit losses of mercury in the process, 9 but many of those losses were on-site 10 losses and that's where I think the 11 difficulty -- somebody took a number that 12 was including on-site and off-site losses 13 and projected what that would be if they 14 were all off-site losses and that's how 15 that huge number got generated. 16 The documents are clearly - 17 many of those losses were losses that 18 were on-site or materials that were 19 recovered and later put back in the 20 process and things like that, so there 21 were clearly efforts to look at where the 22 process is mercury was lost and what can 23 we do to stop it and, you know, part of 166 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015279 1 that is what can we do to keep it from 2 get in the environment, but a lot of it 3 was what can we do to control it in our 4 process. 5 Q. When you say on-site loss, how would 6 that - 7 A. Spill on the ground. Leaky -- they 8 were in these big cells. The cells 9 leaked to some extent, things like that. 10 Things that we can do to, you know, 11 recover things better. I don't remember 12 exactly what they all were. 13 Q. Do you recall, in analyzing the 14 documents determining how much was spent 15 on mercury on an annual basis? 16 A. I think that number is actually in 17 there. I don't know what it was, but it 18 was a significant amount of money and, 19 frankly, there was an economic impotence 20 to recover the mercury because it was 21 expensive to replace. I believe that 22 number exists. I don't remember what it 23 was. 167 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015280 1 Q. What about the loss or was there any 2 lead used in the process? 3 A. For a short period of time, there 4 was lead used in the process to make 5 biphenyl which is the starting material 6 for PCBs. It was basically done in lead 7 pots . 8 Q. And in what period of time? 9 A. I should know, but I don't 10 remember. Probably started -- it was 11 probably from early on and I think we 12 started changing those out in the 13 mid-fifties, but as I'm sitting here 14 today, I don't remember the dates on 15 that. 16 Q. Do you remember whether or not there 17 was an effort made to prevent the escape 18 of the lead into the environment? 19 A. Yes. Well, part of it -- I mean it 20 was called a lead pot process and there 21 was really very little chance for lead to 22 escape in the environment anyway, but, 23 again, my recollection of my review was 168 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015281 1 that there was essentially no chance for 2 lead to get out of that process from our 3 facility. 4 Q. So there was no lead escaped as far 5 as you know? 6 A. Not at measurable levels, I don't 7 believe. 8 Q. Has that been questioned in the 9 recent past? 10 A. Not really. I think -- I don't 11 believe so. 12 Q. Well, I didn't know if that 13 particular article, and I don't remember 14 the article myself, but whether it 15 addressed mercury and lead or just 16 mercury? 17 A. Well, I don't remember either. There 18 was one on -- I think there was at least 19 one article on both and then your 20 question tweaked one of the -- I think 21 there was a recent article on one of 22 them, kind of a review of where it was, 23 but I thought that was the mercury one. 169 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015282 1 Well, it may have been the lead 2 one actually, because of the lead site 3 health consultation that was released so 4 it may have been the lead. I don't 5 remember. I mean, the articles are 6 obviously out there to be checked, but I 7 don't think anybody's questioned what 8 we're saying about our use of lead in the 9 facility. 10 Q. No, I'm talking about the escape of 11 the - 12 A. I don't think anybody is even 13 questioning that, whether significant 14 levels had escaped. I'm not aware of 15 that, and, again, we have done lead 16 sampling around our site and really have 17 not found any evidence that the site is 18 contaminated with lead. 19 Q. Now, I'm going to switch back over 20 here to the AST -- the Toxic Profile on 21 the area of cancer that we've both talked 22 about, I think, extensively today, but 23 let me just ask you a couple of things 170 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015283 1 about that profile. 2 "Carcinogenesity of PCBs in 3 humans has been investigated in 4 retrospective occupational studies that 5 evaluating cancer mortality in worker's 6 exposure in capacity, manufacturing, and 7 repairing," and I think that refers to 8 the Bertazzi and the Brown and the other 9 studies, I assume? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. "And in case control studies of the 12 general population, they examined 13 associations between cancer and serum or 14 out of those tissue levels of PCBs based 15 on indications of PCB-related cancer at 16 several sites, particularly the liver, 17 bilary tract, intestines and skin, 18 melanoma, the human study provides 19 suggestive evidence that PCBs are 20 carcinogenic." 21 Would you agree with that 22 statement that it's suggestive evidence? 23 A. I would agree with that in the terms 171 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015284 1 that suggestive is used and those 2 agencies that rate carcinogenicity, that 3 it probably meets the criteria for that. 4 Q. Well, let me talk about that, and 5 maybe I don't understand what you guys 6 mean by suggestive because I made 7 comments earlier that, you know, law and 8 medicine don't mix and I guess it's the 9 same way with science and law don't mix, 10 so what does suggestive mean in the 11 scientific field? 12 A. Well, primarily, the term 13 "suggestive" comes out of IARC, capital 14 I-R-A-C, you why which is the 15 International Agency for Research on 16 Cancer, and like the EPA, IRAC has a 17 carcinogenicity rating scheme for 18 chemicals and their scheme is based on 19 two and maybe two and half criteria. 20 The first criteria is animal 21 carcinogenicty and if something is an 22 animal carcinogen, it automatically 23 becomes a probable human carcinogen in 172 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015285 1 that scheme, so it doesn't matter if we 2 have any human data at all. 3 Q. Okay. 4 A. Then they look at the human data and 5 if there's any report of any association 6 they typically call that suggestive. So 7 they look at it and they say it's 8 inadequate, it's suggestive, or it's 9 conclusive, all right. 10 So the people on that 11 committee, one of which -- the committee 12 was headed by Bertazzi who has written 13 one of the studies, uncoincidentally 14 enough, made a determination that based 15 on Bertazzi's study and others, that 16 there were enough associations reported 17 in that literature to call it 18 suggestive. But it certainly did not 19 rise to the level of conclusive which 20 would have made it a known human 21 carcinogen. 22 Q. And when you say a know or 23 conclusive is that -- can you quantify -- 173 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015286 1 is that ninety nine percent? 2 A. No. I don't know what it is. In 3 IRAC's assessment, in general, it means 4 that -- they just basically put together 5 a group of scientists and that group of 6 scientists, some of them look at the 7 animal data and some of them look at the 8 human data and if the group looking at 9 the human data does a weight of the 10 evidence assessment concludes in their 11 minds that there's enough human data on 12 that compound, there are enough positive 13 studies, there's consistency, there's 14 strength of association, all those 15 Bradford Hill criteria, I'm sure you have 16 heard about until your ears are full, 17 then they will make that determination. 18 Q. That it is -19 A. That it is a known human -- that the 20 human information is conclusive. I think 21 the term they actually use is "adequate", 22 and that it is a known human carcinogen. 23 Now, we have talked about 174 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015287 1 dioxin, and they bent their rules on 2 dioxin because the human epidemiology 3 group decided that there was not enough 4 information on dioxin to call it a known 5 human carcinogen, but the overall 6 committee -- I'll save my rhetorical or 7 editorial comments -- the overall 8 committee decided that there was enough 9 known about the mechanism of the cancer 10 in animals and the fact that that 11 mechanism probably occurred in humans 12 that they were going to name it a known 13 human carcinogen even in the face of 14 inadequate information, so they kind of 15 tweaked the -16 Q. What is the difference between 17 probable suggestive and conclusive? Is 18 conclusive synonymous with known 19 carcinogen? 20 A. If the animal and human evidence are 21 conclusive then it becomes a known human 22 carcinogen under their classification 23 scheme. 175 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015288 1 Q. And if it's suggestive, it becomes 2 probable? 3 A. It remains probable. 4 Q. Okay. So you may have animal 5 studies that show - 6 A. Are conclusive. 7 Q. Are conclusive, so therefore, it's a 8 probable causation? 9 A. Yes, automatically. 10 Q. If you have human data, it becomes 11 suggestive? 12 A. It can be. I mean, you can have 13 inadequate data which says there's really 14 nothing there or there could be negative 15 human data which would probably still 16 leave it a probable or you could have 17 what they call the suggestive which is, 18 again, in the interpretation, I'm not 19 sure that I would agree with their 20 interpretation even under suggestive. 21 I think there's just too much 22 inconsistency in those studies. But that 23 was what that group said and I'm not 176 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015289 1 going to, you know, there are positive 2 associations in some studies. I'm not 3 going to argue with that. 4 Q. Would you agree that suggestive as 5 used by this group means that it's more 6 probable than not that it's carcinogenic? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Would it be less likely than not 9 that it's carcinogenic? 10 A. Well, you're asking me to get into 11 the minds of a group of I don't know how 12 many people that were meeting in Leon, 13 France fifteen years ago. I think it 14 means it's less probable than not, but 15 that's based largely on my view of the 16 human literature and not so much on what 17 I think they were really thinking. 18 Q. Well, when they say probable human 19 carcinogens - 20 A. But we're getting back. That's just 21 what they call it because of the animal. 22 I mean, you don't have to have any human 23 data for it to be a probable human 177 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015290 1 carcinogen. It's just based on the fact 2 that we think we know enough about this 3 chemical, and I don't even care whether 4 it's PCBs or what it is, about this 5 chemical based on animal studies that, 6 as regulators and people chartered to be 7 protective of human health in the 8 overabundance or abundance of caution, 9 we're going to put this label on it which 10 says you need to think about this 11 possibility in your research and in your 12 regulation of this material. It doesn't 13 mean that it has ever caused a cancer in 14 a single person. 15 Q. But PCBs are classified as probable 16 carcinogens; is that correct? 17 A. They're classified as probable human 18 carcinogens, that is correct. 19 Q. And by whom? 20 A. By IARC and the US EPA. 21 Q. And IARC is who? 22 A. International Agency for Research on 23 Cancer. 178 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015291 1 Q. And who exactly is that? 2 A. It is what it is. I think it's 3 associated with the World Health 4 Organization, WHO, and it's basically a 5 group that that's what they do is they 6 get together and talk about the 7 information available on candem. The 8 primary purpose is to say okay, we've got 9 "X" resources we can spend on cancer 10 research, how are they best spent, well, 11 let's not waste them on things that are 12 non-carcinogens and maybe let's not waste 13 them on things that are known carcinogens 14 because we already know that, let's think 15 about what research could we do on 16 something that we need to learn more 17 about. That's really the kind of purpose 18 of their classification is to guide 19 research into those areas. 20 Q. Does that same agency classify 21 dioxins as known carcinogens? 22 A. IARC classifies dioxins as known 23 carcinogens. I just talked about the 179 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015292 1 process by which they did that. 2 Q. And as does EPA? 3 A. EPA is trying to do that. They have 4 not. That is one of the controversial 5 proposals of their still draft dioxin 6 reassessment. 7 Q. And as I understand from this 8 afternoon's discussion with you, you 9 don't agree that dioxins even are a known 10 carcinogen? 11 A. I don't agree that the human 12 evidence for dioxin carcinogenicity in 13 humans is sufficient to classify it as 14 known. 15 Q. So you don't agree with IARC; 16 correct? 17 A. I don't agree that dioxin causes 18 cancer in people. 19 Q. And you don't agree with IARC as it 20 relates to PCB being a probable 21 carcinogen or do you? 22 A. I agree that it meets their 23 classification for probable carcinogen. I 180 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015293 1 don't think it means it probably causes 2 cancer in humans. And I think there is a 3 distinction there. I do not argue that 4 it meets their criteria or EPA's 5 criteria, for that matter, as a probable 6 human carcinogen because it is positive 7 in animals. 8 Q. And it's only positive in animals? 9 A. Pardon? 10 Q. And it's only positive in animals? 11 A. It's positive in only animals. 12 Q. That's the distinction? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. I probably should have asked you 15 this before we started, but have you 16 reviewed any other matter, specifically 17 in preparation for this deposition or 18 this particular case, the Tolbert case? 19 A. Well, with regard to the Tolbert 20 case, in general, no. I mean, I've 21 looked at the expert reports, I guess, on 22 both sides. 23 Q. Okay. 181 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015294 1 A. And I've read a couple of 2 depositions so for Tolbert, that's what 3 I've done. 4 For this deposition 5 specifically, I reviewed my -- I have an 6 affadavit, kind of a historical summary 7 affadavit that has been filed in a number 8 of cases. I did review that. 9 Q. Okay. But as far as any data, I 10 know you say you've looked at the expert 11 reports, but have you look at any 12 specific data that might be associated 13 with those experts reports? I think you 14 said, generally, earlier that you -15 A. I've looked at the blood data and 16 I've looked at Hanson's calculations and 17 stuff like that. 18 Q. Is there anything specific about the 19 data, the blood samples and/or the soil 20 samples that you that jumps out at you as 21 being incorrect or do you have any 22 criticisms about it as you did in the 23 letter to the ATSDR? 182 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015295 1 A. I think there are some obvious 2 inconsistencies between the data 3 generated in the Tolbert case, the data 4 generated by, I think it's Acculab, that 5 the total PCBs and the Access Lab that 6 did the individual congener PCBs and part 7 of that is because I'm not familiar with 8 Access Laboratories and their 9 capabilities to do what I know to be a 10 very difficult analysis so it's hard 11 somehow to rationalize those 12 differences. Some of there are 13 explanable. Some of them aren't. I've 14 thought about it, but I really haven't 15 reached any conclusions. 16 Q. So there's some discrepancies, you 17 say, in Accucam's levels that they found 18 and the total congener or total congeners 19 at least analyzed by Access? Of course, 20 there's going to be differences. I think 21 there are going to be -- strike that. 22 If you take the two hundred 23 nine total congeners and analyze those, 183 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015296 1 aren't you going to get a higher number 2 as opposed to taking only ten and 3 analyzing those? 4 A. It depends on which ten. 5 Q. Correct. 6 A. And it will be somewhat higher, but 7 not necessarily a whole lot higher 8 because most studies show that about 9 sixty to seventy percent of the human 10 body burden is accountable for about four 11 or five congeners so I would say, you 12 know, you may get a factor of one and a 13 half or two higher just because you're 14 doing all two hundred nine, but you 15 wouldn't expect it to be much more than 16 that. 17 Q. And is that the discrepancy you're 18 talking about; that is, that the factor 19 is maybe three times higher? 20 A. Yes, and I don't remember the data, 21 but there are some that are higher. I 22 mean, some of them are whole blood and 23 some of therm are serum. That's going be 184 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015297 1 a factor to be a difference, so I think 2 there's some reconciliation that needs to 3 be thought about in some of those data. 4 I don't have any basic objections that 5 one is right and one is wrong, here's why 6 it's right and here's why it's wrong. 7 Q. Okay. You just observe some 8 discrepancies - 9 A. And there's going to be. I mean, I 10 think we talked a little before, too, 11 that the science or art of doing 12 analytical chemistry with PCBs is very 13 difficult. When you do that in human 14 body tissues or any body tissues, animal 15 or human, it is even more difficult 16 because of the very complex matrices. 17 Blood a very complex, very 18 difficult thing to work with to get all 19 the PCBs out, you know, and get them 20 analyzed and things, so there's going to 21 be analytical variations superimposed on 22 both of those laboratory's results. 23 One of the things I don't know 185 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015298 1 and haven't seen and maybe don't exist 2 are the quantifications of how those 3 laboratories do on a daily basis on a PCB 4 analysis, how wide is their variation. 5 It could be plus or minus twenty percent, 6 it could be plus or minus one hundred 7 percent on just daily variation in the 8 lab. 9 And I haven't seen those kinds 10 data. I don't know if they are even 11 available to help make some of those 12 decisions, but there's nothing in either 13 set of data that I see that says throw it 14 away, you can't rely on it for anything. 15 Q. You just need some explanations as 16 to some of the - 17 A. Yes, I need to think about it more 18 and I haven't. 19 Q. You'll think about it more between 20 now and October? 21 A. Probably. 22 Q. In your letter, again to the ATSDR, 23 an which is dated April 2000, you make 186 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015299 1 this comment: "It is notable that among 2 the largest group of plaintiffs suing 3 Solutia, not a single physician or other 4 medical expert has opined that PCBs have 5 caused a specific health condition in a 6 specific individual." 7 You have read, have you not, 8 the expert reports in this case? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Have you found that there has been, 11 at least in this case, some physicians 12 who have opined that certain plaintiffs 13 exposed to PCBs do have adverse health 14 conditions ? 15 A. Yes, I'm aware of that, but at the 16 time, you weren't the largest group. 17 Q. Okay. We weren't even a group. 18 A. That's right. That was not 19 addressed to your group of plaintiffs. 20 Q. Okay. Have you had any conversation 21 with any physicians concerning the health 22 effects of either this plaintiffs' group 23 or any other plaintiffs' group that you 187 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015300 1 can recall? 2 A. That's a very broad question. I 3 believe that some of our experts are 4 physicians and with some of our experts, 5 I have probably had some discussion about 6 the health of this plaintiff group or 7 others, but I don't have any specific 8 recollections of that. I mean, is that 9 what you meant? 10 Q. Well, as the director of 11 environmental affairs for Solutia, is it 12 part of your job to analyze or determine, 13 if you will, the health effects or 14 possible health effects on the community 15 from PCBs? 16 A. I would say that's part of my 17 responsibility, yes. 18 Q. And as part of that responsibility 19 to do that, do you, on a regular or 20 frequent or other basis, consult with 21 physicians to keep abreast of what, if 22 any, health effects there might be 23 associated with exposure to PCBs? 188 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015301 1 A. No, I do not. I rely primarily on 2 the literature or discussions with other 3 scientists, but some of those may have 4 been physicians, but I don't do it 5 routinely. 6 Q. And when you say you rely on the 7 literature, do you -- you obviously have 8 some or you obviously don't take the 9 literature that we discussed in a general 10 nature and come to the conclusion that 11 PCBs, for instance, causes cancer in 12 humans ? 13 A. I have not come to that conclusion 14 based on my review of the literature, 15 that's correct. 16 Q. But you have seen reports of various 17 scientists, if you will, that do come to 18 the conclusion that those studies 19 indicate or suggest that there are 20 cancers associated with PCBs? 21 A. Well, I mean, I guess we could get 22 into a conversation about the difference 23 between causation and association if you 189 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015302 1 want to do that, and are you talking 2 about in the literature or are you 3 talking about in expert reports? 4 Q. Well, the literature first? 5 A. Certainly, there is literature which 6 says that PCBs are associated with 7 various cancers and various individual 8 studies. I think we had that discussion. 9 I don't think any one of those pieces of 10 literature says PCBs cause cancer in 11 humans. 12 Q. So as I understand, you would need 13 to have a study or studies that will 14 conclusively show that there is, in fact, 15 a conclusion that PCBs causes cancer? 16 A. I would say for me to reach that 17 conclusion, it would take a robust set of 18 studies of some size which show strong 19 associations, consistent findings of 20 specific cancers and in specific people. 21 I mean, the whole Bradford Hill criteria 22 thing. 23 I'm sure you get tired of 190 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015303 1 hearing about them or maybe you don't, 2 but those criteria are there for a very 3 good reason and they are accepted by -4 widely within the epidemiological 5 community and I believe that that is 6 because they make sense and they provide, 7 although there is judgments within the 8 various things, they provide a relatively 9 objective set of criteria against which 10 you can look at a body of literature. 11 Q. Now, all eight criteria don't have 12 to be met do they? 13 A. All eight criteria have to be 14 considered. I wouldn't say they have to 15 be met, but certainly, there are some 16 that are more important than others. 17 Q. So would you need to have an 18 epidemiology study as such or just -19 A. I don't think any epidemiology study 20 necessary tells you anything. You need a 21 body of literature upon which you can 22 rely. 23 Q. And if that were to happen, if you 191 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015304 1 had a quote "robust body of literature" 2 that confirmed that cancer was caused by 3 PCBs, would there be -- what, if 4 anything, would Solutia do if that were 5 to occur that they're not doing now? 6 A. I don't know specifically what we 7 would do. We will certainly change our 8 public pronouncements on our view of the 9 carcinogenicity of PCBs in humans. 10 Q. Do you know whether or not Pharmacia 11 has a different policy as to whether or 12 not PCBs is carcinogenic, causes cancer 13 in humans? 14 A. I have no idea. 15 Q. Has that ever been discussed with 16 Pharmacia? 17 A. Not by me or with me present. 18 Q. And I assume you have not had any or 19 have you had any conversation with anyone 20 with Pharmacia about PCBs? 21 A. I don't believe so. Well, not in 22 the context of Pharmacia. There are 23 people now with Pharmacia who I may have 192 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015305 1 had that conversation, but that was when 2 we were all happily Monsanto and I don't 3 have any specifics, but I don't want to 4 say it was nobody, because it may very 5 well have been. 6 Q. Was there anyone that would be your 7 counterpart with Pharmacia that was with 8 Monsanto? 9 A. Not that I'm aware of. 10 Q. Was there anyone that left Solutia 11 to go to Pharmacia that might be an 12 environmental affairs person? 13 A. I'm sorry? 14 Q. Has anyone left Solutia -15 A. Has anyone left Solutia to go to 16 Pharmacia? 17 Q. Yes. 18 A. I don't believe so, not that I know 19 of. 20 Q. I think you mentioned the dioxin 21 reassessment. 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. What exactly is that? 193 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015306 1 A. A very long story. I'll be brief. 2 It is an attempt by the EPA to do a 3 comprehensive reassessment of all the 4 toxicological information and human 5 health information known about, 6 primarily, TCDD, but encompassing the 7 broader category of what we've jokingly 8 been calling dioxin-like compounds in and 9 effort to provide information for risk 10 assessors and risk managers about what to 11 do with dioxin contaminated cleanup 12 sites, primarily, but also having 13 implications for dioxin levels in the 14 human population. 15 Q. And it addresses the areas of the 16 dioxin-like PCBs? 17 A. Yes, it does. Briefly, but, yes, it 18 does . 19 Q. And does it conclude that the 20 coplanars or dioxin-like PCBs are similar 21 to the dioxins or the TCDD that causes 22 cancer? 23 A. Okay, I'm going to jump to where I 194 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015307 1 think you were going -2 Q. Okay, thank you. 3 A. -- and say does it conclude that 4 dioxin-like PCBs are known human 5 carcinogens. The answer to that is no, 6 it doesn't even make at that 7 determination for the other dioxins or 8 the dibenzofurans, nor did IARC. 9 The designation of dioxin as a 10 known human carcinogen is the single 11 compound 2378 tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, 12 what we've been calling TCDD, it does not 13 address the carcinogenicity of any of 14 those other compounds and, in fact, IARC 15 specifically declined to address the 16 carcinogenicity of those other compounds 17 excluding the PCBs. The PCBs weren't 18 even in the IARC's discussion. 19 Q. The EPA's proposed reclassification 20 of TCDD, as I recall and I may have it, 21 to human carcinogen mixtures including 22 dioxin-like PCBs congeners are quote 23 "strong cancer promotors in weak, 195 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015308 1 direct, or indirect initiators and are 2 likely to present a cancer hazard to 3 humans." Is that contained in that -4 A. I don't know. It would not surprise 5 me if that is a statement take out of the 6 dioxin reassessment. 7 Q. Why? 8 A. Well, because that's the view the 9 EPA is trying to profess. 10 Q. Again, you don't agree with that? 11 A. I do not agree that the data 12 available from human or animal literature 13 support that conclusion. No, I don't 14 agree with that and nor did a number of 15 members of the advisory board that 16 reviewed the dioxin reassessment, by the 17 way. 18 Q. They got outvoted? 19 A. No, it's still up for discussion. 20 That's why it's still a draft document 21 and that's one of the main reasons why it 22 is probably going to the National Academy 23 of Sciences for another assessment before 196 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015309 1 it's ever released. That's one of the 2 primary discussions. 3 Q. And who are the members of that - 4 A. That has not been established. The 5 committee has not been established. 6 There is merely a proposal that it be 7 reviewed by the National Academy of 8 Sciences. 9 Q. All right, now you do agree, I 10 think, that PCB exposure does, in fact - 11 let me make sure I get the words right 12 for you, an elevation in liver enzymes; 13 is that correct? 14 A. High levels of PCBs -- there are 15 reports of high levels of PCBs causing 16 transient elevations in some liver 17 enzymes, yes. 18 Q. But as I recall, initially, today, 19 you said that there is no indication that 20 that is necessarily a risk? 21 A. Well, I mean, it indicates that the 22 liver is somehow reacting to that 23 exposure to PCBs. I think what I said 197 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015310 1 was that that has not been demonstrated 2 in the literature to be followed by frank 3 liver disease. 4 Q. Okay. So are there studies which 5 support the Hill criteria of strength of 6 the association between the observed 7 effect to the PCBs and liver damage? Is 8 there a strong association between 9 exposure of PCBs and liver damage? 10 A. No, I do not believe there is. 11 Q. Are you familiar with Maroni? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And is it Fishbein? 14 A. Fishbein. 15 Q. Do those studies not indicate -16 A. I don't remember. They may, but 17 there are only two. I mean, it goes back 18 to the other ones. There's two among 19 twenty or thirty studies that have looked 20 at that end point. 21 Q. Not robust enough is your -22 A. Well, not consistent enough and 23 frankly I don't remember Fishbein talking 198 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015311 1 about frank liver damage. I think Maroni 2 may have been looking at porphyria, but I 3 don't think that was followed up in a 4 second study. I don't remember Fishbein 5 doing it. I could be wrong, but I don't 6 recall that. 7 Q. And I don't have it with me, so I 8 don't know either. 9 A. I think his was one of the ones that 10 talked about liver enzyme elevations. 11 Q. Then you do not agree that high 12 levels of PCB exposure will cause liver 13 damage? 14 A. They will in animals for sure. I do 15 not believe human populations have been 16 exposed -- I do not believe that human 17 populations have been exposed to levels 18 that would cause that if they would. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. I'm not going to say there's not 21 some level of -- you couldn't force 22 enough PCBs down my throat that my liver 23 wouldn't be damaged at some point. I 199 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015312 1 think populations exposed, as workers are 2 everywhere, we haven't seen evidence of 3 that actually coming to the fore. 4 Q. In other words, if you consider the 5 general exposure levels in the general 6 population, which you mentioned, I 7 believe earlier, you don't believe that 8 that is a level sufficient to cause liver 9 damage? 10 A. That's absolutely correct because 11 you don't see it in the more highly 12 exposed occupational studies. 13 Q. Have you ever had your blood serum 14 tested for PCBs? 15 A. No, I haven't. 16 Q. Have you ever had a liver profile 17 done? 18 A. I have liver profiles done in my 19 annual physical. 20 Q. Is there any elevation in your liver 21 enzymes that you know of? 22 A. Not that I know of. 23 Q. Do you know of anyone that works for 200 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015313 1 Solutia that has had their serum level 2 for PCBs performed? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. Who? 5 A. I know that it's number of them. 6 Q. Is that something that has been 7 routinely done? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Is it something that used to be 10 routinely done by Monsanto for their 11 workers? 12 A. No. 13 Q. It seems like I've seen something in 14 the documents that suggested that. Am I 15 wrong? Do you remember seeing some 16 documentation or memos concerning having 17 periodic testing done for -- I misspoke. 18 Is there anything in the literature that 19 suggests that certain workers have their 20 liver profile performed after being 21 exposed to PCBs? 22 A. Monsanto workers or workers -- 23 Q. Monsanto workers? 201 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015314 1 A. Oh, I don't know. I'm not aware of 2 anything. 3 Q. I think my question seemed to 4 indicate I was talking about the blood 5 serum, but what I meant to say was their 6 liver enzymes. 7 A. I'm not aware of that either. 8 Q. Okay. Since the Abernathy trial or 9 since you testified in the Abernathy 10 trial -- it's still going -- have you 11 given your testimony in any other case, 12 PCB-related case? 13 A. No. 14 Q. And I believe you testified in March 15 about year ago; is that your 16 recollection? 17 A. That's the latest time, yes. I 18 mean, I testified in the Gadsden phase 19 and the environmental -- what's the word 20 I'm looking for -- injunctive relief 21 phase, so I know two instances of my 22 testimony in that litigation. I believe 23 this is my first deposition in a case 202 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015315 1 since that time. 2 Q. Are there still ongoing 3 communications with the EPA and 4 yourself? Is there something going on 5 that y'all routinely communicate? 6 A. Not me. Now, Craig does. I mean - 7 well, let me say we are continuing to 8 submit documents in anticipation of the 9 eventual entering of the consent decree 10 and I review those documents, but there 11 is nothing going to the EPA under my 12 name. 13 Q. What about the Alabama Department of 14 Environmental Management, have you had 15 constant contact with them? 16 A. Not recently, no. 17 Q. There's a letter here dated -- I 18 don't know where I got it. 19 A. Wait, stop, I do, because we have to 20 report on a bimonthly basis air levels 21 from our air monitoring program to ADEM 22 and EPA and I write those letters, so 23 yes. 203 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015316 1 Q. March 10th of 2003; is that the most 2 recent letter? 3 A. That's the most recent. 4 Q. Okay. What's the purpose of your 5 having to write them? 6 A. Do you want a twelve-year-old kid's 7 answer? 8 Q. A short answer. 9 A. They told us to. No, we have been 10 doing air monitoring. We had proposed to 11 stop air monitoring because we don't 12 believe it is providing a whole lot 13 useful information. They have requested 14 that we continue to do that air 15 monitoring and provide them with the 16 results. 17 Now, starting last month or 18 this month, we are entering into a more 19 useful air monitoring program under the 20 oversight of EPA and ADEM which will 21 include meteorological data, and that 22 work plan was approved and is being 23 implemented, so the air monitoring will 204 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015317 1 go on. These letters, presumably, will 2 cease at this point. 3 Q. But as far as the EPA is concerned, 4 you have no continuing dialogue with them 5 concerning the proposed order or the 6 consent order? 7 A. Me, personally? 8 Q. Right. 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. Is that something that will -- will 11 you eventually do that or is that - 12 A. Probably not. I mean, that's 13 largely Craig's responsibility is to work 14 with a EPA and the implementation of that 15 consent decree. I will continue to have 16 an advisory role with Solutia and I very 17 well may meet with EPA on a, you know, an 18 ad hoc basis at one time or another but 19 that is -- my daily or weekly or monthly 20 interactions on a continuing basis is not 21 part of my responsibility. 22 Q. So the implementation of the 23 proposed order, if it's agreed upon or 205 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015318 1 ordered, it would be Branchfield? 2 A. Branchfield, yes. 3 Q. And did you have any, I guess, input 4 into the actual drafting of the proposed 5 order itself? 6 A. Some. 7 Q. But would he have more input than 8 you? 9 A. Yes, but, by far, the EPA had a lot 10 more input than any of us. 11 Q. And what do you see as your, other 12 than a consulting role, what do you see 13 as your role in implementing the proposed 14 consent decree? 15 A. Other than advisory consulting, 16 nothing. I mean, you know, I'll continue 17 to review documents that we submit. I'll 18 continue to review things coming the 19 other direction, but other than that, 20 nothing. 21 Q. Who will actually do the -- under 22 the proposed consent decree, who will 23 actually do the actual soil sampling and 206 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMON0015319 1 testing? 2 A. Our contractor to Solutia. We hire 3 people to do those things. 4 Q. Is there a particular one that you 5 use? 6 A. There's one we have been using. 7 Q. Is that one you think you will 8 continue using? 9 A. Probably. 10 Q. Who is that? 11 A. It's Genesis Project, Mike Price. I 12 need to take two seconds or two minutes. 13 Q. Okay. Let's go off the record a 14 minute. 15 (Whereupon, a brief recess was 16 taken at this time.) 17 Q. With respect to the cleanup or 18 assuming the soil samples indicate 19 there's one part per million, who 20 actually does the reclamation or 21 remediation? 22 A. We've got us a contractor. I don't 23 know -- I don't really know who's doing 207 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015320 1 that. 2 Q. So is that a bid-out job type 3 situation? 4 A. I assume so. It was probably bid 5 out the first time. After that, it's 6 probably been the same person. 7 Q. Okay. All right, I think that's 8 all. Thank you, sir. 9 A. You're welcome. Thank you. I 10 appreciate your courtesy. 11 12 (The deposition of Robert G. 13 Kaley, II, Volume I, was adjourned at 14 approximately 5:15 p.m. on May 1, 2003.) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 208 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015321 1 2 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 3 4 STATE OF ALABAMA 5 COUNTY OF JEFFERSON 6 I, Angela Abbott 7 Blankenship, Certified Shorthand Reporter 8 and Notary Public in and for the State of 9 Alabama at Large, do hereby certify that 10 on May 1st, 2003, pursuant to notice and 11 stipulation on behalf of the Plaintiffs, 12 I reported the deposition of ROBERT 13 KALEY, II, who was first duly sworn by me 14 to speak the truth, the whole truth, and 15 nothing but the truth, in the matter of 16 ANTONIA TOLBERT, et al., Plaintiffs, 17 versus MONSANTO COMPANY, PHARAMACIA, INC. 18 And SOLUTIA, INC., Defendants, Civil 19 Action Number CV-01-C-1407-S, now pending 20 in the United States District Court 21 Northern District of Alabama, Southern 22 Division, that the foregoing 208 23 typewritten pages contains a true and 209 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015322 1 accurate transcription of the examination 2 of said witness by counsel for the 3 parties set out herein; that the reading 4 and signing of said deposition was not 5 waived by the witness and counsel for the 6 parties. 7 I further certify that I am 8 neither of kin nor of counsel to the 9 parties to said cause, nor in any manner 10 interested in the results thereof. 11 This 12th day of May 2003. 12 13 14 15 16 Angela Abbott Blankenship 17 Reporter and Notary Public 18 State of Alabama at Large 210 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015323 [& - administrative] Transcript Word Index & & 1:1 2:1________________ 0 01 1:1 209:19_____________ 1 1 4:6 135:7,10 144:18,22 145:22 146:7,13 148:8 159:1,13,14,15 160:16 208:14 1:30 1:1 10th 204:1 1221 28:21 1242 28:21 30:8 1250 31:12 1254 31:14 1260 28:22 105:11 109:1,4,13 1268 28:22 29:2,18 12th 210:11 135 4:7 1407 1:1 209:19 14th 79:3 127:8 169 109:13 1950s 162:15 1955 162:15 1966 36:4 1968 35:15 1969 162:16 1970 133:8 1970s 42:6 1971 10:18 1972 40:10 1973 5:22 40:10 1980s 40:1741:15,18,19 1994 5:14 1997 5:12 1st 1:1 209:10 2 2 159:1 2000 78:7 79:3 127:8 154:5 186:23 2001 98:5 136:10 2003 1:1 204:1 208:14 209:10 210:11 208 209:22 20th 1:1 21927 2:1 2378 195:11 27403 2:1 2956 2:1___________________ 3 3 145:23 35205 2:1 3rd 136:10________________ 4 4 4:4 400 1:1___________________ 5 5:15 208:14 54 163:2 55 162:20 6 60s 163:19 68 36:10 69 36:12,13 162:22 163:1 7 71 133:8 78 140:19 __________ 8 89 41:7____________________ 9 93 38:17 39:7,8 41:8 94 5:19,20 95 5:14 97 7:16 98 40:22___________________ a abbott 1:1 2:1 209:6 210:16 abernathy 42:9 43:9 131:22 202:8,9 abilities 35:4 able 36:14 49:14,23 58:19 76:5 89:19 96:12 99:21 145:20 abreast 188:21 absolutely 16:9 54:18 55:9,11 200:10 absterer 151:9 abundance 178:8 academy 196:22 197:7 accept 75:5 acceptable 68:17 accepted 191:3 access 20:7 138:17 183:5,8,19 account 23:8 130:1 accountable 184:10 accucam's 183:17 acculab 183:4 accurate 210:1 acid 36:23 37:3,7 38:4 acknowledged 25:4 acknowledges 23:19 act 40:13 149:14 action 1:1 21:11 137:11 209:19 activity 114:1 126:10 actual 206:4,23 ad 205:18 add 13:3 27:3 116:11 160:8 adding 28:4 addition 127:1 140:12 additional 19:21 22:4 40:14,18 69:19 69:23 70:15 137:13 139:7 140:14 141:11 address 20:4,6 22:15 139:1 195:13 195:15 addressed 79:7 82:20 128:20 129:8 169:15 187:19 addresses 137:9 194:15 addressing 124:17 adem 203:21 204:20 adequate 174:21 adjourned 208:13 adjustments 151:14 administrative 98:4,6 136:9 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015324 [admit - asked] admit ah anniston appropriate (cont.) 33:6 35:11 161:3 100:12 101:14 103:18,20 9:14 10:1,17,23 14:2 18:15 80:21 81:4 92:22 admitted 110:6 126:7 21:3 28:12 29:20 30:8 appropriately 164:16 air 36:11 38:10 42:19 45:2 79:18 adverse 95:9,10,16,20,21 203:20,21 55:16,20 56:5 66:15 67:11 approval 58:22 73:11,12 187:13 204:10,11,14,19,23 67:13 77:11,18 82:13 84:6 144:12 advisory al 96:13 137:1 148:16 157:2 approved 196:15 205:16 206:15 1:1,1 209:16 157:10,14 158:4 162:14 137:19 204:22 affadavit alabama 164:18,22 approximately 182:6,7 1:1,1,1 2:1,1 157:2,10 annual 208:14 affairs 158:4 203:13 209:4,9,21 167:15 200:19 april 5:7 10:20 188:11 193:12 210:18 anonymous 78:7 186:23 afternoon's alleged 151:9,11,15 area 180:8 106:8 answer 10:23 12:23 13:18 14:15 age alterations 17:1 26:19 29:23 30:12 15:20 16:3 18:15,21 20:11 4:12 99:1 120:2 153:2 31:23 42:4 49:4 56:7 77:21 20:17 45:2 93:9 133:6,11 agencies altogether 77:21 78:20 97:2 139:13 133:12,13,19 137:5 139:11 113:8 119:20 145:12 172:2 103:14 155:7 161:21 195:5 204:7,8 140:14,15,18 141:12,16,20 agency amount answers 142:4,7,11,14 144:11 131:8 135:16 149:15 26:21 31:15 33:14,18 85:2 123:13 148:16 170:21 172:15 178:22 179:20 142:22 165:14 167:18 antagonist areas agent amounts 106:3 12:21 13:9,10,20 14:4,23 131:19 163:16 anticipation 15:4,11,20 16:4 17:9,11,13 agents analgesics 203:8 17:15,21 18:16 19:4,17,23 131:11 10:13 antonia 20:12 91:13,17,20,23 92:1 ages analyses 1:1,1 209:16 92:9,12,15,18 93:2,18 97:7 120:1,13 35:4 124:14 129:9 anybody 97:10,13 131:14 132:12 ago analysis 17:1 55:17 66:4 67:22 69:4 135:18 136:17 138:3 139:8 54:17,23 55:8 57:16,21 16:1047:14 120:10 127:16 70:14 89:9,20 170:12 139:19 142:13,17 143:3,4 121:1 154:17 155:11,16,16 134:12 183:10 186:4 anybody's 143:23 148:1 160:10 155:17 156:11 177:13 analytical 170:7 179:19 194:15 202:15 34:7,13 36:9 47:6 116:16 anymore arguably agonist 130:18 131:1 185:12,21 145:14 64:3 100:15 113:4 116:5 106:3 analyze anyway argue agree 13:4 66:21 183:23 188:12 14:22 91:1,10 94:21 97:19 156:13 177:3 181:3 24:8,19 25:2 33:6,9 34:1,4 analyzed 129:5 155:18 168:22 argument 39:3 54:14 55:4 56:3 62:14 133:22 134:2 183:19 apocryphal 81:1989:1 64:11,13 74:2 76:20 90:16 185:20 61:8 96:6,17 arguments 93:7,10 101:13,15 103:16 analyzing apparently 155:9 108:14 109:23 113:13,16 167:13 184:3 106:4 aroclor 116:12 118:21,22 119:9,11 angela appearance 29:17 30:8 31:12 105:11 151:20,21 152:10 153:5,6 1:1 2:1 209:6 210:16 26:5 109:1,3,13 153:11,12 154:19 156:14 animal appearances art 156:21,22 171:21,23 18:8 23:1 26:1 72:5,11,19 2:1 185:11 176:19 177:4 180:9,11,15 74:21 75:21,22 76:3 86:19 applications article 180:17,19,22 196:10,11,14 106:16,23 107:17,19 28:7 162:7 164:21,23 165:2 197:9 199:11 108:15 116:21 172:20,22 applied 169:13,14,19,21 agreed 174:7 175:20 176:4 177:21 72:4 articles 2:1 3:1 13:10,21 16:8 178:5 185:14 196:12 applies 7:7 170:5 160:10 205:23 animals 88:11,12 asbestos agreeing 23:4,7,9,10 24:11 26:7 72:8 apply 150:1 33:17 77:16 76:21,23 100:10 104:18 23:7,15 76:21 118:19 ascertain agreement 117:21,22,23 152:23 153:7 appreciate 131:9 11:22 12:7 13:22 17:20 153:12 175:10 181:7,8,10 208:10 asked 33:13 38:12 67:3 75:17 181:11 199:14 appropriate 42:10 91:19 141:22 150:23 91:22 42:13,15 46:4,6 79:20 152:1 181:14 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015325 [asking - billion] asking ate aware began 16:15,23 69:7 105:9 125:14 51:6 11:15 12:1 14:22 32:17 35:15 36:3 177:10 atmosphere 38:16 133:9 170:14 187:15 beginning aspirin 27:14,23 193:9 202:1,7_____________ 41:1489:13,15 85:19,19,21,22 atoms b behalf assess 116:1,9 assessment 19:12 21:18,22 22:7,9,21 26:11 66:14,18,19,21 67:4 99:20 atsdr 48:22 78:7 80:21 119:22 125:8 132:20 149:15 150:6 151:4 182:23 186:22 back 36:3 55:7 57:2 78:7 84:4 90:7 92:5,19 95:4 115:1 144:6 155:19 166:19 170:19 177:20 198:17 1:1 209:11 behave 86:18 117:16 behavior 152:7 67:6,7,8,12,17 68:20,23 atsdr's background belief 69:9 70:20 71:5 72:4 73:16 49:22 73:17,20 77:3,6,15,16 attach 113:13 116:6 174:3,10 103:17 110:6 196:23 attached assessments 103:20 136:3,5,8 44:8 47:18 48:2 49:8 50:11 52:3 55:10,13,15,18 57:3,7 57:10,14,15,22 82:2 83:9 88:19 89:2 155:18 158:1,7 backgrounds 60:15 140:8 believe 5:136:179:21 13:8,16 14:21 19:3 20:1421:6,13 24:9,21 33:15 35:23 36:9 68:6 118:4 attachment 130:12 39:12 40:22 42:17,21 43:3 assessors 194:10 79:23 136:6,11,12,13 attempt bad 99:9 43:10 56:17,18 57:5 58:2 58:21 60:8 62:18 78:1,23 assistant 6:16 associated 126:16 194:2 attempts 113:17 166:3,7 badly 131:2 bark 79:20 80:21 81:4 86:13 87:22 92:21 93:3 105:7 113:23 118:20 133:23 9:5 22:16,18 24:22 44:16 attention 46:8 56:14 57:6 58:3 66:22 52:19 94:3,9,10,19 95:2 based 137:4 140:3 145:4,16,23 148:18 162:23 164:19 72:2 74:4 90:8 92:15 93:2,5 attorney 111:7 121:3 124:2 126:11 6:13 131:17,21 132:2 152:22 153:15 179:3 attorneys 18:1421:1922:1 23:2 42:13 43:4 44:11 58:9,18 71:18 73:18 74:19,20 167:21 169:7,11 188:3 191:5 192:21 193:18 198:10 199:15,16 200:7,7 182:12 188:23 189:20 190:6 131:12 138:18,19 attribute 108:14 118:5 119:7 132:15 134:8 150:5 152:13 171:14 202:14,22 204:12 benefit association 45:8 172:18 173:14 177:15 8:2 62:15 65:4 107:18 173:5 174:14 189:23 198:6,8 associations 45:12 62:19 63:1 65:1 171:13 173:16 177:2 author 151:14 authoritative 152:2,4,11 automatically 178:1,5 189:14 basic 185:4 basically 12:22 13:23 20:10,16 22:13 bent 175:1 benzene 99:12,18 bertazzi 149:23 190:19 156:20 172:22 176:9 31:2 33:3 37:15 39:10 40:6 62:10 111:6 171:8 173:12 assume avail 16:16 24:13 55:23 93:7 131:8 111:1 113:12 139:14 available 146:12,14 149:6 151:21 22:2 34:14 54:6 61:12 155:4 156:22 171:9 192:18 125:12 165:16 179:7 68:8,12 81:6 85:12 86:7 97:9 142:20 147:9 154:15 168:6 174:4 179:4 basin 93:19 95:6 bertazzi's 173:15 best 179:10 better 208:4 assumed 126:9 143:6 assuming 54:16 124:8 137:19 155:5 186:11 196:12 avenues 131:9 average 10:4 30:4 48:1,5,10,11 50:6 basis 16:2 35:3 62:22 87:21,22 94:10 106:18 119:1 142:1,2 152:15 163:5 167:15 186:3 188:20 203:20 205:18,20 35:5 51:10 bid 208:2,4 big 24:6 53:11 120:6 167:11 104:22 123:6 207:18 50:7,8,10,10 53:19 54:1 beasties 142:4 156:2 167:8 assumption 30:23 110:10,20 64:4 82:4 87:10 88:13 132:10 77:4 beaver biggie 104:17 assumptions 155:8 156:14,17 assure averaged 48:9 84:1 averages 71:2 beavers 70:23 bilary 171:17 billion 16:19 ast 71:1987:17 averaging beds 37:6 38:21,21 46:22,23 47:4,11 48:7,11,18,21 49:7 50:12 170:20 70:21 beef 52:12 54:3,15 55:6,22 56:6 51:5,6 57:20 58:15 59:6 82:3,9 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015326 [billion - case] billion (cont.) body (cont.) burdens capabilities 83:10 85:10 129:20 146:23 118:19 119:1 184:10 78:3 84:6 118:19 46:18 183:9 157:21,22 185:14,14 191:10,21 192:1 burned capacitor bimonthly bond 130:22 87:7,9 88:6,11 203:20 100:1 103:3 burning capacity bind bonner 33:1 171:6 100:14,18 101:1,8,14 102:3 132:3,4 133:3,4 buy capital 103:7,8 104:3,10 126:7 bonner's 113:10___________________ 100:12,13 172:13 binding 11:13 c caps 101:15,17,23 102:1 104:11 bottom calculate 73:9 140:16 104:12 114:2 31:7 68:11 70:5,14 130:4 carbon binds 109:14 114:7,8,9 bio 85:3 biological bottoms 30:17 31:10,13,16 32:3,8 box 2:1 bradford calculated 131:14 calculating 94:9 calculation 99:19 100:1,1 carcinogen 113:18 172:22,23 173:21 174:22 175:5,13,19,22 178:1 180:10,21,23 181:6 112:14 155:21 174:15 190:21 70:10 87:20 88:14 90:10 195:10,21 biologically 112:15 branchfield 9:15,17 20:21 138:6 146:10 calculations 69:3 182:16 carcinogenesity 171:2 biphenyl 10:9 29:9 30:9 168:5 biphenyls 146:11 206:1,2 break 97:16,17,18 99:14 153:22 call 8:12 12:13 19:11 29:8 38:8 43:23 46:1 69:14 71:16 carcinogenic 171:20 177:6,9 192:12 carcinogenicity 9:9 birmingham breath 85:7 84:12 92:2 95:7 96:3 101:4 112:3 143:11 158:1 160:18 172:2,17 180:12 192:9 195:13,16 1:1 2:1 birth 44:22 120:7 127:14 brief 194:1 207:15 briefly 173:6,17 175:4 176:17 177:21 called carcinogenicty 172:21 carcinogens birthrate 153:3 194:17 broad 10:8,11 15:5 23:14 25:1 37:6 40:11 44:8 86:17 99:8 24:3 26:7 113:3 177:19 178:16,18 179:12,13,21,23 bistline 71:6,6 78:19 188:2 100:5,11,12,13 114:11,19 195:5 6:10 bit 40:23 66:12 103:9 109:12 blank 142:4 broader 53:13 194:7 brought 40:16 brown 122:19,23 123:4,10 140:15 168:20 calling 50:5 194:8 195:12 calls care 178:3 careful 65:23 carefully blankenship 62:10 111:6 171:8 7:2 9:10,12 64:17 1:1 2:1 209:7 210:16 bubbled blood 37:2 43:4,13,16,19 44:12 46:22 bucket 46:23 47:2,5,11 48:5 52:5 96:14 55:8 56:22 58:3,8,16 59:13 bucky cancer 23:3,14 24:4,12,16 26:2 46:9 62:16 63:2,3,7,10,16 64:10 65:6,10 66:5 76:8 104:18 105:2,12,15 107:5 cares 106:12,13 Carolina 2:1 carried 69:2,10 70:6 80:23 82:3 85:6 87:2 88:22 98:13 122:9 127:13,15 128:4 182:15,19 184:22 185:17 200:13 202:4 71:2 build 51:18 building 1:1 107:13 108:3,7,9,16,17,22 109:2,5,9,10,15,19 110:1 111:2,11,18 112:5,21 113:6 113:14 153:4 170:21 171:5 171:13,15 172:16 175:9 19:12 34:23 carrier 96:9 carryover 37:9 38:23 bloodstream builds 178:13,23 179:9 180:18 cartee 85:20,22 blowing 71:21 bumping 181:2 189:11 190:10,15 192:2,12 194:22 195:23 2:1 cascade 94:22 board 196:15 99:16 bunch 23:7 196:2 cancers 62:21 63:8 104:17 106:20 101:19 case 11:1822:23 23:1431:5 body bunches 51:10,11,16,1862:6 78:2 104:9 107:9,21 111:7 112:4,10,19 42:9 43:9 48:23 151:17 189:20 190:7,20 171:11 181:18,18,20 183:3 84:5,22,23 85:12 86:9,19 burden candem 187:8,11 202:11,12,23 86:19 104:8 111:9 113:3 119:1 184:10 179:7 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015327 [cases - community] cases certificates 30:22 126:8,9 182:8 44:23 category certified 194:7 1:1 2:1 209:7 causation certify 176:8 189:23 209:9 210:7 cause eg 23:3 24:4,12 25:12 65:11 159:1,1,14,15 160:16 76:8 104:16 106:20 107:8 chain 108:2 109:9,15 110:7,13 155:1,6 111:1 112:5,16 117:20 chance 190:10 199:12,18 200:8 63:23 64:3 168:21 169:1 210:9 change caused 26:16,21 27:7 28:3 43:21 66:4 72:11 156:10 178:13 81:21 192:7 187:5 192:2 changed causes 21:9 83:2 24:19 44:16 75:22 76:15 changes 104:18 107:4,12 108:3,17 153:3 108:22 109:2,5,9,19 110:1 changing 111:11 113:6,14 180:17 168:12 181:1 189:11 190:15 chapter 192:12 194:21 152:21 causing characterization 77:18 105:2 108:6,8,15 71:7 197:15 chartered caution 178:6 178:8 check cdc 88:18 67:23 checked ce 170:6 114:22 chemical cease 8:12 10:8,11 38:1 40:15 205:2 60:1,4 84:20 107:12 113:2 ceased 162:17 178:3,5 10:16 chemicals cell 8:8 9:6 23:4 110:13 123:4 39:22 40:3 149:19 150:15 172:18 cells chemistry 39:11,18,20 167:8,8 28:3,17 34:7,13 185:12 certain children 22:19 24:20 34:13 59:19 91:5 75:22 102:3 111:17 151:19 chloracne 151:20 187:12201:19 25:1 59:7 certainly chlorinated 17:13 19:23 26:2 29:2 34:9 26:6,8 27:13 28:14 31:6,7 37:11 39:3,19 40:21 41:3 87:11,12 121:10,15 44:5 46:23 54:5 56:12 61:1 chlorinates 96:10 97:22 139:21 143:14 28:2 149:9 163:6,14 164:21 chlorination 173:18 190:5 191:15 192:7 25:21 26:15,17 27:16 30:5 certainty 30:1631:14 72:21 89:5,18 chlorine certificate 26:21,23 30:19 102:12 209:2 103:3 162:14 chlorines clinical 27:8 28:23 29:4,9,21 30:2 24:14 111:4 30:10,13,20 102:9 close choccolocco 15:20 77:5 closed circle 39:9 40:10 163:5 2:1 91:12 closer cite 96:21 83:17 156:23 closest cited 14:10,11 83:18 closing civil 40:18 1:1 3:1 209:18 closure clarification 40:22 73:13 clothes clarify 61:2 18:1 clue clarity 141:18 153:19 collected dark 131:11,13,23 1:1 colon classification 63:10,14 175:22 179:18 180:23 column classified 127:20 128:2,4,5,21 178:15,17 comas classifies 78:14,16 179:22 combined classify 63:8 112:4,10,20 179:20 180:13 combustion clean 130:20 75:18 76:22 91:17 117:4 comfortable 147:5,13,15 160:11 72:14 145:13 cleaned coming 13:15 16:22 19:8,1621:14 36:18 38:2,5 95:1 104:23 117:2 118:10,12 119:5 200:3 206:18 137:20 138:13 139:4 147:4 commencing cleaning 1:1 139:1 147:8 160:9,12 comment cleanup 83:4,7,8 128:20 129:8 19:6,9,13 21:20 24:1 38:7 187:1 73:23 75:7 91:20 95:19 comments 110:11 116:2 126:13 78:22 79:1,6,15,15,16,21 147:23 194:11 207:17 80:1 124:18 131:3 151:6,13 cleanups 172:7 175:7 118:4 commission clear 2:1 128:9 140:12 commissioned clearly 150:6 40:2 47:3 102:1 113:6,11 committee 120:7 124:6 129:11 143:8 173:11,11 175:6,8 197:5 144:20 146:11,11 166:16 communicate 166:21 51:22 203:5 clients communications 146:17 159:7 203:3 climb community 36:7 42:19 60:15 73:22 124:1 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015328 [community - correcting] community (cont.) conclusion consider contractor 158:22 159:2,2,5,11 188:14 110:23 165:16 189:10,13 46:12 47:9 55:22 58:6 207:2,22 191:5 189:18 190:15,17 196:13 200:4 contractors company conclusions consideration 22:10,11 150:7 1:1 8:11,21 9:1225:3 183:15 77:7 79:14 105:23 contribute 209:17 conclusive considered 130:5 compared 173:9,19,23 174:20 175:17 29:10 46:13 49:7 69:8 contributed 44:13 130:10,11,12 175:18,21 176:6,7 145:2 191:14 66:1 comparison conclusively consistency contributes 22:13 190:14 33:4 63:5,6 112:1 174:13 94:8 compilation condition consistent contribution 152:6 187:5 63:1 147:22 190:19 198:22 41:2 complaints conditions consistently control 45:5 28:8 75:4 131:10 187:14 25:8 163:14 164:3,8,12 167:3 completed conducted constant 171:11 32:10 10:22 139:19 203:15 controlled complex confidence constantly 107:20 28:19,19 30:4 89:21 116:3 40:19 100:2 controversial 140:19 185:16,17 confident constricted 180:4 compliance 92:14 93:4 143:23 convenience 8:20 40:17 configuration construct 119:4 complicated 100:4,22 106:14 114:11 115:21 conversation 106:6 confirmed 118:18 156:12 187:20 189:22 192:19 component 192:2 consult 193:1 10:9 29:15,17 109:3 confounding 154:5 188:20 convinced composite 112:23 consultation 95:11 12:17,20 19:14 135:23 confused 79:2 127:9 158:12 170:3 cool composites 127:18 consultations 74:3 138:8 confusing 82:12 coplanar compound 125:17 137:23 consulting 100:5,17 101:3 102:8,17 29:14 109:18 112:7 114:17 confusion 206:12,15 103:15 115:10 126:17 116:7,8,10 117:6 125:23 123:15 129:5 consumed 127:15 129:7 126:1 150:12 174:12 congener 61:20 coplanars 195:11 84:14 101:7 104:7,16 contact 99:8,11 103:17 115:11 compounders 105:14,22 183:6,18 61:5 203:15 117:19 123:11,12 124:12 71:14 congeners contacting 125:6,9 194:20 compounds 89:8 98:21 104:8 110:6 61:7 Copland 99:5 114:16 122:19,23 122:9 183:18,23 184:11 contained 149:7 123:22 194:8 195:14,16 195:22 196:3 copy comprehensive conjunction contains 17:7 80:18 97:5 135:8 194:3 13:2 209:23 154:7 conceived connected contaminated corner 18:13 159:12 52:14 170:18 194:11 142:6 concentration consent context correct 23:6,16 68:13 85:17,21 12:11,18 13:11 17:7,16 125:5 192:22 6:8 39:15,16 55:12,15 114:16,18 130:3 18:3,7,10,21 19:21 20:3,4,5 continue 63:17 74:12 81:10,12 82:18 concept 21:2,6 66:17 92:6 98:1,3,5 16:2 27:3 92:23 137:7 90:17 93:12,14 115:6,16 88:14,15 126:14 98:6 136:6,8,9,19,21 137:3 204:14 205:15 206:16,18 122:3 125:6,7 139:20,22 concerned 137:5,7,13,17,21 138:1,14 207:8 140:3 154:22 155:5 178:16 18:22 205:3 138:23 139:4,10,21,23 continuing 178:18 180:16 184:5 concerning 140:6,8,20 144:2,3 145:5 41:15 51:17 203:7 205:4,20 189:15 197:13200:10 7:7 187:21 201:16 205:5 146:19 203:9 205:6,15 continuously 205:9 conclude 206:14,22 55:1 corrected 194:19 195:3 conservation contracted 79:12 concludes 40:13 151:4 correcting 174:10 89:2 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015329 [correctly - dibenzofurans] correctly currently december describes 120:6 18:4 54:15 5:22 97:13 correspondence curtailed dechlorinated designates 146:5 92:18 120:20 135:17 costly curve decided designation 116:14 36:5,8 14:23 175:3,8 195:9 costs customers decision designed 110:15 116:16 9:11 16:11,12 119:6 counsel cv decisions detail 2:1 6:14,15,16 210:2,5,8 1:1 209:19_______________ 186:12 11:1668:8 counterpart d declined detailed 193:7 country 157:4 counts 129:15 daily 35:3 186:3,7 205:19 damage 198:7,9 199:1,13 200:9 damaged 195:15 decreasing 88:23 decree 18:8 19:21 20:3,6 21:2 148:13 details 19:1 43:19 detect 157:20 county 199:23 66:17 98:1,3 136:7,8,22 detected 209:5 couple danger 74:11,15 137:3,7,14,21 138:14 139:1 91:15 139:5,11 140:1,6,8 144:2,3 detection 36:7 80:4 83:23 98:11 140:23 170:23 182:1 course data 22:1 41:13,17,22 43:20 48:16 49:4 52:20,21 54:5 145:5 146:19 203:9 205:15 44:6 206:14,22 detections defendants 46:19 43:8 59:18 60:12 91:6 124:8 157:12 183:19 70:3 82:9 83:14,15,19 93:23 120:18 125:11 1:1 2:1 209:18 defined detergent 37:14 court 1:1 4:14 66:17 209:20 courtesy 131:20 173:2,4 174:7,8,9 174:11 176:10,13,15 177:23 182:9,12,15,19 91:16 126:2 137:2 143:3 defining 21:4 determinable 33:16 determination 208:10 courts 183:2,3 184:20 185:3 186:10,13 196:11 204:21 definition 22:21 74:14 92:10 46:7 163:10 165:18 173:14 174:17 195:7 137:20 dated delineate determine covered 134:4 craig 9:15 20:21 203:6 craig's 79:3 136:10 186:23 203:17 dates 120:7 168:14 day 33:22 60:6 210:11 136:17 demonstrate 106:7 144:14 145:21 demonstrated 198:1 11:8 17:10,22 22:4 23:5,16 35:21 45:11 47:9 55:7 69:9 69:11 109:4 127:8 135:22 165:13 166:4 188:12 determined 205:13 days demonstrative 12:16 17:21 21:12,17 creating 149:14 creation 5:11 creek 60:22,23 86:2,4 ddt 107:12 dead 134:6 111:11 department 37:12 203:13 dependent 85:17 determines 24:1 determining 167:14 develop 77:5 96:18,19,21 141:10 142:8 criteria 112:12 172:3,19,20 174:15 181:4,5 190:21 191:2,9,11 deal 8:18 9:13 35:3 dealing 105:22 death depending 15:10 25:21 75:3 87:15 90:5 142:23 143:21 depends 46:15,16 76:3,4 143:19 36:8 58:6 78:4 developed 115:22 125:20 developing 56:21 191:13 198:5 44:16 184:4 development criticism 82:14 84:2 debate 164:14,20 deposition 1:1 2:1 3:1,1 132:15,20 126:13 developments criticisms 182:22 criticizing decachlorobiphenyl 29:8 decade 181:17 182:4 202:23 208:12 209:12 210:4 depositions 8:21 dialogue 205:4 81:23 127:7 current 53:15 decades 8:2 182:2 dermal dibenzofurans 120:21 121:3,10,15 123:1 12:11 13:6 17:1620:4 35:6,6 118:4 24:23 56:16 62:3 153:1 195:8 44:11 127:15 150:21 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015330 [die - east] die dioxins (cont.) distillation dr (cont.) 60:10 75:23 179:22 180:9 194:21 195:7 31:1,1,11,12 98:12 132:3 133:3,4 135:12 died direct distinction 149:6 154:2 44:22 45:14 61:4 196:1 181:3,12 draft diets direction distribution 81:5,9 82:7,23 83:2,18 52:13 142:22 206:19 12:5 30:15 119:18 151:10 180:5 differ directly distributions 196:20 87:15 6:109:13 44:2 drafting difference director district 206:4 18:19 19:5 25:20 49:9 5:7 10:19 188:10 1:1,1 209:20,21 drainage 53:10,12 107:7 110:4 156:3 dirt ditch 4:6 14:11 32:16 33:10 175:16 185:1 189:22 93:15 96:2,4 160:4 142:12,12,16 91:14 92:1,2,12,16 93:2,9 differences disagree ditches 93:19 94:18,21 95:5 141:20 23:8,10 183:12,20 24:9,10,11 49:13 53:17 160:2 164:17 142:3,13,14,21 143:3,8 different 54:1991:7 101:16 119:15 divide 145:10 160:2 164:17 12:21 18:8 45:5,9 47:20 disagreeing 12:22 72:11,12,13 165:21 49:18 53:18 62:7 86:17 33:17 divided drains 107:11 122:12 154:9 disagreement 14:4 37:16 192:11 24:7 56:12 division draw differentiate discharge 1:1 209:22 106:14 117:9 50:17 164:2 divisions drink differentiating discharged 14:8 97:19 45:21 37:4 164:17 doctor drive differently discharges 16:15 66:7 71:12 110:11 86:18 39:14 document driven difficult disconnect 49:14 79:19,22 82:21 98:2 71:22 143:9 29:22 45:1,18 164:3,12 118:3,17 151:18 152:2,5,11,15 drives 183:10 185:13,15,18 discovery 153:18 166:6 196:20 137:12 difficulties 140:23 documentation drops 45:7 discrepancies 41:5 165:16201:16 161:15 difficulty 183:16 185:8 documented drum 45:16 166:11 discrepancy 51:19 96:13 dimension 184:17 documents drummed 14:14,15 discussed 33:21 34:5 36:16 98:8 32:11 dioxin 120:14,15 124:20 144:6 146:3 166:16 167:14 due 98:13,20 99:2,4,6 100:14 189:9 192:15 201:14 203:8,10 206:17 67:20 100:19 101:5,10,21 103:19 discussion doing duly 104:17,21 106:5,9,15 107:4 84:9 106:16 108:19 119:13 45:3 66:14 68:18 77:3,14 4:12 209:13 107:14 108:3,15,17,20 119:16 124:21 135:2 180:8 90:9 92:7 105:1 118:3 dust 109:8,16,17 110:1,6,8 188:5 190:8 195:18 196:19 138:21 141:7 184:14 94:22 95:17,22 158:14 111:9,11,23 112:1,15 113:5 discussions 185:11 192:5 199:5 204:10 dying 113:15,17 114:1 115:1,5,9 14:1 20:23 119:17 163:13 207:23 60:7 72:9 116:5 117:3,4,19 119:18 189:2 197:2 122:9,15 123:10,23 124:6,8 disease 124:13,18 125:16 126:10 25:19 56:4,21 58:7 78:4 126:19 127:13,15 129:9,13 149:16 198:3 130:12 175:1,2,4 180:5,12 diseases 180:17 193:20 194:8,11,13 46:10 59:17 194:16,20 195:4,9,22 196:6 disposal 196:16 133:12 dioxins disposed 98:18 106:19 107:3 108:2,6 39:11 111:1,8 116:4 121:16 122:5 dispute 122:8,14,19 123:12,17 34:3 124:12,15 125:2,20 126:6 distance 126:15,22 128:3,12 179:21 15:7,9 143:3 dominated e 120:19 dosage 85:2,3,4,5 earlier 41:8 66:12 92:13 95:4 111:6 115:7 144:6 149:3 doubt 151:1 172:7 182:14200:7 53:4 162:3 downspout early 40:10 41:15,18 59:5 60:22 131:15 dozen 103:14 91:19 168:11 ears 174:16 dozens 150:13 easily 51:15 77:12 dr east 5:2,5 11:13 42:9 89:13 94:2 135:19 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015331 [easy - exclusively] easy elevation epa (cont.) et 164:7 112:3 197:12 200:20 180:2,3 194:2 196:9 203:3 1:1,1 209:16 eat elevations 203:11,22 204:20 205:3,14 etcetera 51:4 25:6,10 112:16 197:16 205:17 206:9 7:8 23:10 104:13,13 116:17 ecological 199:10 epa's 116:17 137:20 160:2 66:19,23 67:4 68:20 77:2 eleven 21:4 22:9 113:12,16 144:12 evaluating economic 115:3 144:14 147:23 149:17 171:5 167:19 eleventh 181:4 195:19 evaporate economically 142:12 epidemiological 27:14 116:1 eliminated 44:14 191:4 events economy 25:1651:15 epidemiologist 100:15 101:20 110:15 emergency 63:19,20 eventual editorial 21:11 epidemiologists 203:9 175:7 emphatically 64:7 eventually effect 64:9 epidemiology 205:11 65:15 73:11,12,23 103:18 employees 42:16 44:19 45:22 175:2 everybody 104:16 106:5 198:7 6:20 191:18,19 55:14 116:11 130:10 effects enclosed eq evidence 24:23 26:9 45:8 56:16,17 137:2 114:21 3:1 25:18 39:4 65:10 58:17,17,22 90:20 103:9 encompassed equipment 118:11 170:17 171:19,22 106:15 117:20 152:21,21 18:16 60:21 61:12 174:10 175:20 180:12 187:22 188:13,14,22 encompassing equipped 200:2 efficient 194:6 68:1 evidenced 118:16 ended equivalence 78:2 83:16 effort 164:2 114:21 exact 165:12 168:17 194:9 entering equivalency 82:23 efforts 203:9 204:18 114:12 116:20 exactly 93:1 163:14,18 164:12 entirely equivalent 6:8 8:1,4 10:6,14 20:16 166:21 117:10 115:21 21:5 22:8 33:3 53:1 82:18 eight entitled equivalents 85:4 90:14 105:17 108:19 13:1328:1588:1091:5,8,9 4:6 141:19 114:19 120:21 121:16 137:3 103:2,12 138:11 160:21 environment erosion 158:17 162:11 167:12 161:6,10,18 191:11,13 35:22 36:3 53:5 67:1 68:13 38:23 179:1 193:23 eighties 135:16 152:8 163:12,17 error examination 41:9 165:4 167:2 168:18,22 130:18 131:1 4:3,21,23 120:7,18 210:1 eighty environmental escape examined 102:13 103:11 120:12 5:7 6:23 7:11 10:20 152:7 168:17,22 170:10 171:12 either 188:11 193:12202:19 escaped example 3:1 17:2 38:4 41:6,21 49:15 203:14 33:7 35:13 169:4 170:14 31:13 46:8 76:7 125:21 68:5,16 75:23 95:21 108:13 environmentally escapes exceeds 137:12 150:7 169:17 157:7 38:14 16:21 186:12 187:22 199:8 202:7 enzyme escaping exception elaborate 199:10 35:22 41:6 166:5 135:17 84:10 enzymes esquire exceptions elderly 25:7,11 197:12,17 200:21 2:1,1 56:15 120:8 202:6 essentially excess electrical epa 169:1 12:15 162:17 11:22 14:1,23 16:8,10 established exclude electrodes 18:14 19:1220:20 21:12,19 19:5,9 197:4,5 91:22,23 92:4 162:18 22:2,11,14,22 23:18 67:5 estimate excluded elemental 67:15 73:2 75:5 91:17 84:5 92:10 164:4 92:14,22 98:5 104:22,22 estimated excluding elevated 105:17 110:13 113:8 155:21 195:17 120:22 121:7,14 134:8 115:23 116:17 118:21,22 estimates exclusively 156:9 161:3 166:1 126:16 142:18 146:6 150:6 165:5 78:17 165:20 172:16 178:20 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015332 [excuse - followed] excuse exposure (cont.) failure 147:2 154:4 87:23 88:22 90:8 121:6 76:9 executed 124:2,8 129:12 130:7 171:6 fairly 137:8,22 188:23 197:10,23 198:9 25:7 42:21 126:18 164:7 exhibit 199:12 200:5 familiar 135:6,9 136:12 146:13 exposures 24:13 50:2 62:9 149:3 148:8 60:7,11 67:9 68:9,10 70:4 164:6 183:7 198:11 exhibits 78:1 155:11 156:10 far 4:5 expounds 18:21,23 26:14 29:20 30:7 exist 139:11 32:3,4 47:10 49:14 74:16 34:5 186:1 extensive 82:6,22 133:22 137:8 exists 41:13,22 165:15 143:18 146:7 160:7 169:4 17:4 150:2 167:22 extensively 182:9 205:3 206:9 exits 170:22 farther 38:14 93:11 extent 14:12 expanded 39:2 152:5,13 163:21 fast 84:9 165:22 167:9 45:13 161:16 expect extraordinary faster 31:9 63:19 98:16 130:14 61:14 85:15 184:15 extrapolate fat expected 55:6 90:2 155:19 134:17 120:22 121:2 132:13 extrapolation feasible expensive 30:11 70:9 90:17 110:12 150:9 167:21 extrapolations february experiment 71:20 84:3,4 79:3 127:8 154:5 105:18 extreme federal expert 116:17 3:1 66:17 19:1 181:21 182:10 187:4,8 extremely feed 190:3 102:20,22 105:11 experts f feeding 182:13 188:3,4 explain face 17513 105:14 feel 51:8,21 93:21,23 122:8 130:16,17,18 explained facility 6:3 9:14 10:1,6,16 33:8,12 35:13 91:12,14 169:3 170:9 42:12 117:1 feet 143:18 55:1 facing field explanable 1425 151:12 160:4 172:11 183:13 explanation 94:12,15,16 explanations fact 15:18 24:3 64:10 66:13 89:1493:6 111:1 113:23 120:2 122:3 124:11,22 fifteen 53:15 54:17,22 55:6,8,21 57:4,16,19,20 154:17 177:13 186:15 exposed 42:18 48:3 50:18,19,20 52:2 54:9 55:1 58:20 60:1,3 60:9,14,19 71:3 72:17,22 132:5 134:13 146:13 149:12 151:17 154:11 159:22 175:10 178:1 190:14 195:14 197:10 factor fifth 80:23 fifties 168:13 fifty 81:1 87:14,16,16 88:21 23:15 53:11 72:14 75:20 91:9 120:9 159:4 160:17 121:11 133:19 157:7 187:13 199:16,17200:1,12 115:21 130:2 184:12,18 185:1 161:9 figure 201:21 exposure 22:16,19 24:22 25:16,21 factors 17:21 23:7 25:11 71:17,20 72:16 73:2 74:17 76:22 49:23 filed 182:7 44:11,15 45:17 50:22,23 54:13 58:7 61:20 62:16,20 114:12 116:21 factual fill 93:15 96:2,3,15,19 64:11 65:5 66:23 70:7 74:5 152:15 final 74:22 75:15,21 77:17 78:5 16:12 46:7 79:21 81:18 final (cont.) 82:15 finalized 79:6 81:12,13 find 50:1 53:2 59:11 65:8 97:21 98:17,17,20 118:6 127:12 144:16 159:16 finding 38:20 145:13 findings 148:5 190:19 fine 83:14 118:15 fires 130:21 first 4:12 14:10 15:21 17:3,9 60:2 81:3 84:13 88:19 108:11,12 127:19 144:19 172:20 190:4 202:23 208:5 209:13 fish 51:4 52:13 75:21 fishbein 198:13,14,23 199:4 five 12:17,20,21 13:13 14:5,17 30:13 43:10 46:22 48:18,20 52:11 53:9,21 54:10 55:5 56:6 58:12,14 80:11,19 83:21 97:14 103:11 107:3 115:8 121:9 135:23 138:8 138:16 153:22 157:22 159:4 160:17 161:9 184:11 flat 99:18,21,22 100:4,18,20,22 103:5,5,6 flip 46:16 47:12 flood 15:5,8,12,21 16:17 95:6 96:1 143:11,13,13,16,21 159:10,12,15 160:18 161:20,23 fluids 10:10 focus 92:23 142:17 focused 26:4 92:11 follow 140:1 followed 198:2 199:3 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015333 [follows - guess] follows france generalizations going (cont.) 4:13 177:13 87:3,4 76:22 77:20,21 78:4 79:8,9 food frank generalize 82:19 85:22 86:6,18,20 110:14 14:7 25:19 198:2 199:1 144:1 89:19 90:5,10,23 91:22,23 foot franklin generally 92:3,4,19 95:15,18 96:17 147:10,12,13,15,18 1:1 7:9 12:1 21:7 40:9 43:17 98:2,3,7,7 104:4,21,22 force frankly 44:3 65:23 142:9 151:5 105:5 109:14 112:18 199:21 73:1 94:4 119:18 167:19 158:18 182:14 113:10 121:12 123:7 126:5 fore 198:23 generated 128:16 135:6,7 137:6 138:5 200:3 fraught 22:15 37:1 143:5 166:15 138:7 142:9,21 143:2 144:5 foregoing 45:6 183:3,4 154:8 158:23 170:19 209:22 freely genesis 175:12 177:1,3 178:9 forest 96:12 207:11 183:20,21 184:1,23 185:9 130:21 frequent genetics 185:20 194:23 195:1 form 9:23 10:2 188:20 71:17 196:22 199:20 202:10 3:1 93:5 full george 203:4,11 formality 174:16 5:4 good 2:1,1 function getting 28:5 49:15 65:9 73:13 formalized 136:20 34:18 35:17 36:19 51:10 191:3 22:12 funded 60:6 62:1,1,4 68:7 70:4 gotten format 149:17 94:8 95:1 118:9 177:20 35:5 74:16 80:14 95:8 96:1 102:9 furan giant 96:2 formed 124:18 129:9 130:13 108:5,8 government 123:19 furans give 75:5 119:20 former 123:1 124:15,23 125:2,16 76:6,7 116:22 graph 9:11 120:16 125:20 126:6,15,22 128:3 given 159:18 formerly 128:12 15:20 31:9 65:3 68:9,10 grease 8:9 further 87:1 144:11,13 202:11 61:9 forms 3:1 25:18 43:3 57:2 145:17 gives great 164:10 210:7 117:1 11:16 forty 91:5,8 160:21 161:7,10,19 forward 121:18 found 16:5 18:17 111:7 122:8,9 gadsden 202:18 game 112:18 g glad 84:8 gloves 61:4 go 15:12 25:15 28:20 42:14 greater 137:18 138:10 greensboro 2:1 ground 21:1 106:10 167:7 134:5,7,9,19 138:22 142:18 'k'7-0 48:17 49:19 52:4 53:2,22 groundwater 146:22 148:17 149:20,23 150:1,1,10 157:1,3,6 159:16,23 170:17 183:17 187:10 gastrointestinal 63:10,13,15 gather 144:7 59:2,10 60:2 64:2,18,23 41:16,20 65:7 74:5 84:16 85:14,14 group 85:15,16,16 90:7 92:5 44:7,10 69:1 103:2 104:7 98:11 104:14 106:1 107:20 120:8,17 122:19,22 123:3,8 foundries 116:7 121:18 132:14 123:21 141:11 158:22 96:11 four 13:3 14:5 30:10,13 35:6 97:14 102:7,17 115:8 gc 15913 geared 67:16 general 134:22 138:2 151:23 193:11,15 205:1 207:13 goal 138:9 159:2,2,5,11 174:5,5,8 175:3 176:23 177:5,11 179:5 187:2,16,17,19,22,23 188:6 120:12 122:17 126:14 6:14,16 11:11 12:4,4 20:17 goes groups 154:14,15 156:2,4 161:6,11 184:10 54:4 57:11 59:12 60:16 73:23 86:12 88:2 89:1 51:2 85:13 95:4 147:20,21 10:22 123:6 132:18 198:17 guarantee fourteen 131:5 156:6 fourth 157:1,3,9 162:23 171:12 174:3 181:20 189:9 200:5,5 generalities going 14:1 16:20 27:7 38:10 41:1645:17,19 51:12,23 97:22 guess 5:2 10:15 12:8 25:10 26:18 128:2,5 frame 71:19 generalization 53:5 57:1 59:21 60:10 63:22 64:4,5 65:19 66:13 38:12 43:7,23 44:17 47:8 51:21 64:16 68:2 81:20 41:19 163:1 158:9 67:2 68:23 69:1,2,16 72:18 90:3 95:3 97:1 108:4 131:7 73:2,4,5,15 75:12 76:5,21 148:5 166:4 172:8 181:21 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015334 [guess - important] guess (cont.) hearing hog hundred (cont.) 189:21 206:3 191:1 134:5,13,13 186:6 guessing hearsay hogs hundreds 88:8 97:1 133:9,18,22 134:10,11 150:13 guide heat hold hydrochloric 179:18 10:9 26:14 27:11 28:5 20:15 42:7 56:13 36:23 37:3 38:4 guy heated holding hygiene 52:6 66:9 121:16 164:14,19 119:18 61:11 guys heating hook hypothesis 65:21,22 172:5___________ 26:20 27:5,17 28:9 99:23 93:17 h heavens hope half 15:12 84:14,15,16 85:23 86:1,5,11,20 87:3,10,14 88:2 89:7 154:10,13 155:21 156:4 172:19 184:13 108:18 held 5:8,10 135:3 help 53:23 73:21 78:10 116:1 18:9 hoping 105:8 hose 32:22 37:13 i.e. 75:20 160:4 iarc 172:13 178:20,21 179:22 180:15,19 195:8,14 hand 119:4 186:11 hours iarc's 142:6 handle hereto 3:1 86:2 house 195:18 idea 9:12 hanson 89:13 hanson's 182:16 hermanson 94:2 hexa 120:20 hexagon 6:14 huge 112:22 119:20 150:16 166:15 hugh's 192:14 identifiable 50:23 identification 135:11 happen 67:10 155:11 191:23 happened 99:20 88:12 high human 11:1,23 24:21 28:1552:13 23:12 26:11 42:11 44:1 identified 13:1220:1 137:16 identifying 156:10 happening 55:20,21,23 60:4 72:19 93:8 121:2,11 130:8 145:2 46:9 51:9,16 58:6,10,19,22 66:18,20 67:6,17 68:19,22 135:13 138:9 ifs 99:17 163:15 145:15 154:18 159:16,23 69:8 70:3,4,4 72:17,22 155:2,10 happens 23:6 26:13 59:23 happily 193:2 happy 161:1 197:14,15 199:11 higher 27:1631:1448:13,15,17 50:1451:6,1356:461:19 74:21 87:11 88:10 89:4 76:16 77:15 78:2 82:8 86:19 106:16 108:20 113:17 118:19 119:7 171:18 172:23 173:2,4,20 174:8,9,11,19,20,22 175:2 ii 1:1 2:1 4:11 5:4 208:13 209:13 illness 70:7 75:13 77:12 90:13 128:15,17 148:5 175:5,13,20,21 176:10,15 illnesses hard 32:20 45:13 80:18 183:10 hazard 196:2 headed 157:3,6 158:6 184:1,6,7,13 184:19,21 highest 28:13,1429:9 120:11,17 128:16 132:13 144:20 177:16,18,22,23 178:7,17 180:11 181:6 184:9 185:13 185:15 194:4,14 195:4,10 195:21 196:12 199:15,16 humans 70:5 illustrates 153:18 immediately 21:15 173:12 health 7:8 23:12 26:9 42:11 43:23 44:1 45:8,22 56:14 58:17 58:22 79:2 82:12 90:19 highly 26:5 28:1 31:6 54:9 60:14 87:14,16 200:11 highway 140:19 23:9 24:10,12,22 26:9 66:22 67:9 69:10 74:5,20 76:19,23 77:11,18 100:10 106:21 108:7,9,17 109:21 110:2,8 111:2,12 113:6,14 immunological 153:1 impacted 20:1 implementation 106:15 117:20 119:7 127:9 hill 115:18 152:23 153:7,10,12 205:14,22 152:20,21 154:4 158:12 170:3 178:7 179:3 187:5,13 174:15 190:21 hire 198:5 171:3 175:11 180:13 181:2 189:12 190:11 192:9,13 implemented 204:23 187:21 188:6,13,14,22 194:5 hear 150:7 207:2 historical 84:5 182:6 196:3 hundred 34:19,21 43:10 58:12,14 implementing 206:13 implications 61:8 heard history 36:2 59:6 86:16 87:8 89:17 91:4 103:11 129:19,23 138:5,7 110:10 194:13 important 33:18 112:13 149:9 174:16 hoc 159:4 160:16,21 161:6,9,10 91:10 100:9 104:5 154:23 205:18 161:19 183:22 184:14 191:16 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015335 [impossible - know] impossible 104:2 impotence 167:19 impurities 121:10 impurity 122:6 inadequate 173:8 175:14 176:13 inappropriate 117:10 118:20 inception 5:19 include 11:13 15:4 152:23 204:21 included 115:8 128:5,6 140:20 143:14 includes 91:13 including 25:1 30:15 166:12 195:21 inconsistencies 183:2 inconsistency 111:19 176:22 incorporated 152:10 incorrect 182:21 increase 29:1 55:3 increases 40:19 independently 116:9 index 4:1 indicate 62:15 78:3 189:19 198:15 202:4 207:18 indicates 41:19 197:21 indicating 142:7 indication 197:19 indications 171:15 indirect 196:1 individual 26:20 27:6,9 28:4 29:3 62:21,21 65:5 70:18 71:9 71:12,23 73:4,19 87:19 individual (cont.) internet 117:5 159:19 183:6 187:6 80:15,17 154:8 190:7 interpret individually 111:10 11:8 interpretation individuals 176:18,20 52:12 157:6 158:5 interpretations information 152:13 96:8 116:13,15 117:14,15 interpreted 117:18 133:21 144:7 152:6 113:7 174:20 175:4,14 179:7 intestines 194:4,5,9 204:13 171:17 ingestion introduced 62:4 84:11 inhalation investigated 62:3 171:3 inhaled investigation 61:21 141:3 initial investigations 134:13 19:22 initially involved 197:18 14:14,19 20:18,19,22 77:1 initiators 84:10 196:1 irac injunctive 172:16 202:20 irac's input 174:3 15:2 51:17 206:3,7,10 issued inputs 82:12 9:5 issues inside 7:6 8:8,13,17 9:1,4,5 24:2 48:4 92:18 48:1 124:18,19__________ instance j 60:5 62:17 67:23 85:18 93:20 114:5 132:19 159:11 jar 27:11 160:4,14,16 189:11 jefferson instances 153:20 202:21 intent 163:6 interactions 209:5 job 5:10 188:12 208:2 jokingly 194:7 205:20 interchangeably 7:15 interested 210:10 journal 151:10 judged 64:20 judgments interesting 191:7 104:21 interestingly jump 194:23 111:23 interfering 104:12 jumps 182:20 justification interim 115:22,23 49:2 83:11 117:8 118:23 justify international 16:11 172:15 178:22 k kaley 1:1 2:1 4:11,17 5:2,4,5 42:9 98:12 135:12 154:3 208:13 209:13 keep 10:20 16:13 18:2 79:9 122:18 167:1 188:21 kelly 2:1 4:16 134:22 kid's 204:6 kin 210:8 kind 26:11 32:21 33:1 45:2,12 87:10 96:22 99:20 103:5 118:13 148:13 169:22 175:14 179:17 182:6 kinds 8:19 20:6 36:15 38:7,22 58:3 59:11 164:1 186:9 know 6:21 8:1 10:2 11:6 13:18 14:3 15:14 17:19 18:12,23 19:20 21:5,1325:3 28:1,16 29:23 30:11 31:11,17,22,22 32:6,7,15 33:16,18,19 34:18 35:10,10 36:5,12 37:11 38:20 39:9,22 40:4 42:4,5 44:3,17,20 45:14,15 45:16 46:16,20,21,23 48:10 48:16,22 49:4,11 51:5,10 51:13 52:23 57:1 58:12 59:22,23 60:22 61:1,2,5,23 63:18,21 64:19 65:7,11 66:2 67:18,19 68:2,4,6 69:4 69:14,21 70:1,22,23 71:17 74:9 76:14,19 77:4 78:23 80:5,12 82:6,16,19,21,22 85:4 87:11,13 88:3,5,13,21 88:22 89:2,7,15 90:20 93:22 94:1,1,3,6,7,9,17 96:8 97:1 99:1,10 104:17 106:2,11,19 107:2,17 109:6 109:7,8,18 110:14 112:12 114:2,8 116:4 118:6,11 121:12 125:12 128:8 131:2 132:1,4 133:1,13,17 134:15 134:16,17,18 137:1,9,11,15 138:7 139:6,9,10,12 145:22 146:1,9 148:9,10,11,12,23 149:6,8,10,11 153:13 155:10,13,15 156:5,6,11,13 157:13 158:17,18 159:1,3,7 159:19 160:7 161:21 162:3 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015336 [know - liver] know (cont.) large (cont.) legend levels (cont.) 162:4 163:1 166:23 167:10 163:21 165:8,10 209:9 136:2 199:17 200:5 203:20 167:17 168:9 169:5,12 210:18 legible life 172:7 173:22 174:2 177:1 largely 97:5 84:17 86:1,6,11,21 87:10 177:11 178:2 179:14 39:12 177:15 205:13 length 156:4 182:10 183:9 184:12 larger 6:5 lifestyle 185:19,23 186:10 192:6,10 47:1 132:17 137:5 143:12 leon 71:16 193:18 196:4 199:8 200:21 143:15,17 177:12 lighter 200:22,23 201:5 202:1,21 largest lesson 31:4 203:18 205:17 206:16 187:2,16 28:17,18 106:4 lightfoot 207:23,23 late letter 1:1 knowing 36:3 40:1741:19 163:19 78:6,11,11,12,21 81:8 likelihood 34:6 88:4 166:4 82:20 91:2 98:12 113:19 17:18 knowledge latest 123:16 131:6 135:18 limestone 17:23 28:11 96:5,7 140:7 126:19 202:17 149:11 154:4,22 158:11 37:6,7 141:23 148:13 151:11 law 182:23 186:22 203:17 limit knowledgeable 1:1 172:7,9 204:2 166:8 8:7,11,23 lawful letters limited known 4:11 203:22 205:1 28:11 7:1 70:3,4 75:20 76:11,13 layperson level lines 104:19,20 112:7 113:17 74:10 11:1,23 12:8,10,13 13:15 117:9 122:20 148:3,3,4 150:10 lays 16:21 19:6,10,1321:9,12 lipid 173:20 174:19,22 175:4,9 17:8 21:14,20 22:4 31:14 43:20 94:10 175:12,18,21 179:13,21,22 lead 44:6 46:11,13 48:2,19 50:4 liquid 180:9,14 194:5 195:4,10 168:2,4,6,18,20,21 169:2,4 56:18,19 58:5 69:10 70:6 37:3 I 169:15 170:1,2,4,8,15,18 72:18,22 73:11,12,23 74:1 list l.l.p. leading 74:3,22 75:8,11,22 76:2,14 150:6 2:1 lab 19:22 leaf 76:15,19,23 77:8 84:23 lists 85:5,6,7,7 88:23 89:3 90:13 149:22 150:2 130:18 183:5 186:8 97:20 91:1693:8 115:18 117:4 literature label 113:17 143:4 178:9 labeled 14:6 144:23 laboratories leaked 167:9 leaky 167:7 leap 120:11,12,17,19,23 121:7 122:1 129:11,16 130:8 147:11,19 154:16,17 155:14 166:5 173:19 199:21 200:8 201:1 7:2,5 47:1 49:18 58:10 59:3 59:13 64:18 65:8,11 70:12 83:1790:19 111:9,14,15 113:4,11 150:9,11 152:6,9 152:14 173:17 177:16 183:8 186:3 108:6,8,10,11,12,13 109:6 levels 189:2,7,9,14 190:2,4,5,10 laboratory 46:1747:13,16 101:18 104:15 105:12 157:20 laboratory's 185:22 lack 63:4,5 lacks 153:19 lake 109:20 leaps 110:21 learn 179:16 learning 36:5,8 leave 176:16 leaves 12:4,5 15:22 16:1 22:17,19 191:10,21 192:1 196:12 24:1,20,21 30:16 38:18,22 198:2 201:18 39:2,14 43:4,13,16 44:8,12 litigation 45:447:1948:13,13,15,17 9:2,3 43:20 46:20 69:16,17 48:21 51:7,12 52:10 53:4 131:22 141:2 157:13 55:2,18,20,21 56:22 57:3,3 202:22 57:7,9,14,15 58:4,8,11 little 59:14 60:4,9,9 66:23 69:2 40:23 66:12 77:4 103:9 72:19 83:20 87:2 93:20 109:7,12 115:12,13 123:9,9 95:7,12,18 101:11 102:21 140:17 145:17 164:5 140:17,18 160:13 28:1 102:22 107:15 110:11,12 168:21 185:10 landfill 32:12 39:1,17,19,22 40:3,5 leaving 31:6 41:20 121:9,12,14,19 122:10 123:23 124:6 126:13 live 17:1291:5 40:9 133:16 142:15 landfills 38:13,20 39:6,14,15 40:14 lecture 106:3 108:20 left 127:14 130:13 131:15 lived 132:13 133:22 134:7 139:3 17:10 143:1 148:5,17,21 152:8 156:9 liver 40:1941:3,7,17 large 86:7 142:6,10 193:10,14,15 157:1,5,6 158:6,7 159:17 25:6,11 56:16 59:1 134:14 legacy 159:23 164:23 166:1 169:6 134:18 152:23 171:16 1:1 2:1 31:18,21 32:2 39:5 8:12,12,15 170:14 171:14 183:17 197:12,16,22 198:3,7,9 44:4,21 45:22 91:13 96:1 194:13 197:14,15 199:12 199:1,10,12,22 200:8,16,18 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015337 [liver - medical] liver (cont.) lot (cont.) manufacture mean (cont.) 200:20 201:20 202:6 80:7 94:11 129:15 130:21 30:1,3 122:6 123:18 43:17 44:3,21 46:18 47:3 lives 130:22 167:2 184:7 204:12 manufactured 47:14 48:16 49:12,18 50:4 84:14,15 87:4,14 88:2 89:8 206:9 28:12 29:20 37:1 121:8 50:8,20 52:10 53:20 54:21 154:10,13 155:22 lots manufacturer 56:11 57:9,13,14 59:10,21 living 113:2 9:8 30:18 59:22 61:1,8,10 63:5,18 54:11,16 louis manufacturers 64:15 67:14 68:3 69:12 loael 5:17,18,21,23 6:4 40:15 70:19 74:13 75:9,15 77:2 73:7,7,9 love manufactures 83:13,19 89:15 90:9 94:13 loath 118:6 10:8,10 95:14 96:9,16 97:21 102:12 98:22 low manufacturing 103:10 106:11 107:11 located 55:2 57:3,7 60:9 102:20,22 10:728:1793:5 171:6 108:18 115:18 119:12 5:16 6:5 93:6 94:18 110:11 121:19 155:14,17 map 122:17 130:20 131:20 locations lower 4:6 14:2 17:4 97:4,5,8,9,12 142:2,3 149:8 155:4,10,20 158:16 14:13 26:7 27:13 48:12 134:19,20 135:15 136:15 156:8 157:21 158:20 159:3 logic 49:3 51:6 54:23 77:10 136:16 139:16,16,17,17 160:9 163:22 168:19 170:5 14:3 87:11 88:8 101:10,11 140:1,2,2,15,21 141:19 172:6,10 176:12 177:22 logically 107:15 142:5,5 142:3,6,8,10 143:15 146:13 178:13 181:20 184:22 121:13 lowest 146:14 148:14,19 185:9 188:8 189:21 190:21 logs 73:12 maps 197:21 198:17202:18 134:1 lowly 143:13 148:21 203:6 205:12 206:16 long 87:16____________________ march meaning 5:20 56:14 88:18 121:5 m 194:1 magic longer 16:1 look 51:23 magnitude 124:5 129:10 11:5,7 25:23 26:2,19 27:10 35:15 44:15 47:23 50:12 main 13:9 160:6 196:21 53:16 60:2 62:22 63:22 maintain 64:2,16,22 67:1 87:2 99:21 116:19,20 127:19 146:3 152:3 156:7 166:21 173:4,7 174:6,7 182:11 191:10 looked 7:6 maintaining 8:15 major 46:9 15:16 32:1 48:7 53:1,2 majority 157:12 165:20 181:21 182:10,15,16 198:19 looking 53:12,13 59:12,13 71:6,7 87:7 97:8,12 112:20 114:2 29:19 44:4 making 29:1036:1469:13 110:21 119:19 156:9 mall 118:5 126:1 135:14 148:7 159:19 174:8 199:2 202:20 looks 143:22 loop 141:16 man 20:23 management 203:14 163:5 manager loss 167:5 168:1 6:21,22 7:11 9:21 managers losses 166:8,9,10,12,14,17,17 lost 194:10 manages 7:5 163:12,16 165:3,14 166:22 lot manner 81:1 85:17 142:9 210:9 22:1,3 35:8 43:4,18 47:2 manners 51:8,20 53:10 68:8 76:7 117:16 202:14 204:1 12:21 50:8 73:10 113:20 mark 157:17,17,19 163:7 135:6 meaningful marked 45:19 67:21 135:10 meaningless marker 91:1 85:3 means maroni 10:2 36:19 67:18 68:4 198:11 199:1 74:11 81:14 90:13 94:4 material 107:11 174:3 177:5,14 10:1229:1561:1785:9 181:1 168:5 178:12 meant materials 47:7 77:22 151:8 188:9 27:13,19 28:19,20 29:13 202:5 31:4,8 61:7 116:5 133:20 measurable 166:18 122:4 169:6 mathematics measure 72:23 34:18 47:3 48:4 70:6 84:22 matrices 85:8,11,18,19 114:6 116:7 185:16 measured matter 41:5 88:5 89:11 121:11 89:22 90:1,1,4,21 165:19 122:4,10 134:7 173:1 181:5,16 209:15 measurement matters 34:17 57:17 90:22 101:2 measurements maximize 36:15 98:13 131:14 measures maximum 61:14 160:21 measuring mean 38:17 86:8 94:3 115:2 11:3,4 12:1 15:10 17:3 21:2 mechanism 21:21 22:8 25:14 26:22 109:8,15 175:9,11 28:16 32:19 33:4 34:15 medical 35:14 38:3,22 40:2 42:21 187:4 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015338 [medicine - northern] medicine million (cont.) monsanto need (cont.) 172:8 21:10,10,16 34:19,21,23 1:1 5:13,19,20,21 6:20 7:13 191:20 207:12 meet 58:13,16 71:1 75:2,6 91:16 7:19 8:10 10:16 35:20 36:6 needed 205:17 95:14 121:9,20 136:1 120:16 121:8 133:8,9,10 21:14 meeting 137:11,18 138:23 147:1,2 135:19 162:8 165:13 193:2 needs 177:12 148:6 160:22 207:19 193:8 201:10,22,23 209:17 68:17 185:2 meets millions month negative 172:3 180:22 181:4 95:14 10:5 79:10 204:17,18 176:14 melanoma mind monthly neighborhood 171:18 22:10 43:21 53:12 205:19 140:17 141:8 160:14 member minds moore neither 123:9 174:11 177:11 2:1 67:11 210:8 members minimal morbidity neurodevelopment 196:15 197:3 103:10 46:1,5 153:2 memorized mink mortality neutralized 80:6 103:13 76:9 44:20 45:10,21 46:3 171:5 37:8 memory minks move newspaper 42:20 77:5,8 16:4 32:22 40:20 142:21 162:6 memos minor 143:2 nice 201:16 111 :22 moved 65:21 mental minus 14:12 33:11 78:14,16 nine 153:2 186:5,6 moving 29:3 52:11 53:9 83:20 mention minute 14:12 15:21 38:6 92:15 86:16 89:17 102:15 129:1 42:10 80:9,19 120:1 121:18 153:22 207:14 118:10 145:11,17 129:10,11,18 138:5,7 125:8 128:22 minutes mpds 158:15 174:1 183:23 mentioned 86:4 207:12 42:5 184:14 111:5 193:20 200:6 misinterpreted mud nineteen mentioning 150:5 96:19 52:1 125:15 misspoke multiply ninety mentions 121:1 201:17 68:12 114:17 130:3 48:18,20 80:23 129:23 49:22 159:9 mercury mix 172:8,9 n 174:1 ninth 162:9,11,13,17 163:4,11 mixed 164:1,4,11 165:2,21,23 38:9 166:8,22 167:15,20 169:15 mixture 8623 name 5:3 175:12 203:12 142:11,16 nitrophenol 10:11 169:16,23 27:10,15,22 30:20 31:3,4 narrow noael merely 197:6 met 191:12,15 meteorological 109:1 114:15,18 115:1 116:3,10,19 mixtures 26:6,8 28:19 29:1,16 30:4 31:19 118:5 195:21 14320 national 130:11 196:22 197:7 natural 9623 73:6,8,8 nobody's 87:1 non 179:12 204:21 michael 2:1 mid 41:1842:6 138:12 162:15 mobilize 37:14 model 99:10 molecule nature 22:6 104:8 189:10 near 133:10 141:16 nearest noncontact 38:8 nondetect 46:12,1447:10,14 157:17 157:19 163:19 168:13 26:20,22 27:7,9 28:4 99:19 145:10 nondetects middle 13:1,3 100:13 101:23 molecules necessarily 11:7 25:2 56:17 145:7 44:5 157:16 normal mike 55:14 207:11 mile 28:23 29:3 30:10 99:14 100:6,20 money 155:6 184:7 197:20 necessary 42:12 69:8 191:20 44:8 47:18 52:3,8 54:11 55:10 57:22 61:11 82:2,8 93:11 14:16,16,17,17 15:1391:6 149:18 167:18 91:11 monitoring need 3:1 8:22 43:22 44:14 75:18 north 1:1 2:1 135:19 million 41:15203:21 204:10,11,15 122:18 178:10 179:16 northern 12:9,14,16 13:15 19:14,15 204:19,23 186:15,17 190:12 191:17 1:1 209:21 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015339 [notable - particles] notable obviously (cont.) okay (cont.) outs 187:1 161:15 170:6 189:7,8 176:4 179:8 181:23 182:9 17:8 notably occupational 185:7 187:17,20 194:23 outside 29:16 50:21 171:4 200:12 195:2 198:4 199:19 201:4 9:11 15:5 16:17 17:1593:9 notary occur 202:8 204:4 207:13 208:7 93:18 94:18 95:5,23 139:8 1:1 2:1 209:8 210:17 101:13,16,17 159:22 192:5 old 140:4 146:17 148:6,22 note occurred 94:6 204:6 159:10,15 160:17,18 91:4 135:5 101:23 175:11 older outvoted notice occurrences 51:12,12,17 55:3 196:18 1:1 209:10 64:3 oldest overabundance number occurs 120:11 178:8 19:7 21:1723:11,1528:13 102:2 oln overall 28:14,22 29:21 30:2,19 ocdd 140:16 160:13 11:6 126:17 142:3 175:5,7 35:1,12,21 39:17,20 40:4 129:10,14 130:7,8,19 once overestimates 43:8 47:16,23 49:2 50:13 octidioxin 10:4 32:9 101:7 103:17 165:2 52:1 53:7,21 54:7,23 55:3 129:14,23 141:23 164:9 overknowledge 56:1,8,10,23 59:2,4 68:14 October ones 11:11 68:15 70:16 71:15 74:23 98:5 105:6 136:10 186:20 14:9,10 28:2 102:6 115:6 oversight 90:21,22 91:7 104:15 112:6 ocular 125:21 198:18 199:9 92:21 204:20 114:4 115:4 127:20,23 153:1 ongoing overview 128:15,17 129:18 135:17 offer 119:12,16 203:2 11:11 12:4 148:2 151:4 152:8 161:9,10 147:5 operating owners 166:11,15 167:16,22 182:7 offered 12:12 17:17 18:5,11 138:18 184:1 196:14 201:5 209:19 3:1 operations oxford numbered offhand 95:19 140:16,18 160:13 14:5 102:13 141:15 numbers office 8:19 22:14 27:8 34:5,8 35:9 6:7 36:10 41:5 44:21 68:10 offices opined 187:4,12 opinion 47:15 49:10 160:7 P p.m. 1:1 208:14 76:6,12 84:1 89:19 102:10 1:1 165:1 official numerous 69:13 opposed 29:1357:1561:21 124:12 184:2 4:3,5 80:10,12,19 131:5 154:6 110:9,16,19 o oh 51:1 66:9 98:1 108:18 order 12:12,19 13:11 17:7,16 209:23 objecting 149:10 158:22 202:1 18:4,10,20 21:6 78:21 92:6 59:5,9 64:20 151:10 83:1 okay 98:4,6 136:3,9,19 137:6,17 papers objection 83:14,16 objections 3:1,1 185:4 objective 5:15,23 12:11 15:11 17:19 138:2 139:21 140:20 205:5 18:1,6 21:8 29:6 34:12 42:8 205:6,23 206:5 47:20 48:15 50:16 52:4 ordered 53:5 56:2,22 57:18 58:9 206:1 62:18 65:18 69:6 70:21 orders 59:4 para 10:11 paragraph 80:20 125:15 127:4 155:1 191:9 observable 73:11 observe 185:7 72:6,16 74:13 75:4 76:10 20:4 77:23 78:6,13,18 81:16 organic 82:5 84:8,18 85:11 86:10 38:1 86:14 87:6 89:23 90:7 94:5 organization 98:20 99:9 101:12 102:16 179:4 156:19 pardon 181:9 part 15:18 19:13,15,20 21:10,15 observed 105:9 107:16 108:23 original 38:20 48:6 91:16 95:13 73:12 198:6 obtained 109:22 110:3 112:9 113:19 92:20 115:14 116:19 121:4 originally 103:16 111:22 129:9 136:5 137:10,18 138:8 141:3 44:23 obvious 121:6 183:1 122:11,16 123:5 124:16 125:19 126:18 128:22 130:9 133:6 otter 135:1 136:14 138:8,8,20 76:8 146:22 147:17 148:6 160:22 166:23 168:19 183:6 188:12,16,18 205:21 obviously 9:1 15:17 17:3 24:2 27:2 140:10 146:7 147:20 149:2 outcome 149:21 150:2,5 151:19 90:6 207:19 particles 33:10 49:9 66:20 67:15 152:19 153:21 155:3 outgrowths 95:9 94:13 119:14 128:16 159:4 158:11,23 161:13,17 173:3 113:22 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015340 [particular - point] particular pcbs (cont.) people (cont.) physiological 14:8 15:7 17:9 23:14 26:16 58:21 61:9,20,22 62:5,16 207:3 100:11,15 101:19 43:7 63:7 112:5,21 114:5 62:20 63:2 65:5,11 66:4,5 people's pick 119:10 136:15 139:11 69:18 71:3 72:2,10 74:5 134:4 59:2,4 71:13 150:12 169:13 181:18 75:22 77:8 80:23 81:5 percent pickup 207:4 84:1586:11,1787:11,12 21:10 48:19,20 129:20 39:1 96:14 particularly 89:4 90:20 91:15 92:17 174:1 184:9 186:5,7 picture 26:10 132:1 171:16 93:4,8 94:8 95:7 98:18,21 percentage 63:1 109:21 parties 99:3,6,12,14 102:3,7,18 157:14 piece 2:1 3:1 210:3,6,9 103:7 104:5,9 105:14 106:4 percentile 64:20 95:5 140:4 145:8,9 parts 106:7,14 107:2,8,21 108:8 80:23 pieces 12:9,14,16 13:1421:9 109:1,9 114:1 117:11,16,19 performed 190:9 34:19,21,22 38:21 46:21,22 118:9 121:6,7,12 122:6 132:17 201:2,20 piles 47:4,4,10 48:11,18,21 49:6 123:4,18,20 124:3,13,15,20 period 96:11,11 50:11 52:11 54:3,15 55:5 126:17,23 127:13,23 128:3 66:5,6 90:8 168:3,8 pits 55:21 56:6 57:20 58:13,14 128:5,6,12,15,17,19,21 periodic 37:7 58:15 59:6 82:3,8 83:10 129:6,7,16,17,19,22 135:22 201:17 place 85:10 95:14,15 121:9,19 138:23 141:1 142:18 periodically 81:3 84:13 96:20 115:17 129:20 136:1 138:23 144:10,16 145:13 146:18 150:18 124:5 148:1 151:19,20 157:21,22 164:1 148:6,17 150:1 152:22 permit places party 154:10,11 155:22,23 157:1 41:11,11 102:10 143:19,20 3:1 159:17 166:5 168:6 171:2 permits plain pathway 171:14,19 178:4,15 183:5,6 42:2 15:5,8,12,21 16:17 95:6 92:10,12,16 93:3 94:18 185:12,19 187:4,13 188:15 persistency 96:1 143:11,13,14,16,21 95:20 142:21 143:8 188:23 189:11,20 190:6,10 154:10 159:10,12,15 160:19 pathways 190:15 192:3,9,12,20 person 161:20 162:1 14:11 33:11 94:21 133:7 194:16,20 195:4,17,17,22 7:1 45:13,14 54:14 55:5,10 plaintiff 165:21 197:14,15,23 198:7,9 69:18 70:15 71:13 75:12,13 2:1 159:6 188:6 pattern 199:22 200:14 201:2,21 81:1 87:19 90:12 120:14,15 plaintiffs 92:2 130:14 pcdd 121:4 124:6,23 127:21 1:1,1 4:5 43:9 131:11,21 patterns 122:2 123:23 128:14 129:3,10,11 178:14 132:18 138:18 187:2,12,19 91:14 102:12 pcdds 193:12 208:6 187:22,23 209:11,16 pcb 123:16 personally plaintiff's 15:22 16:1 21:3 26:6,20 pcdfs 25:2 205:7 131:17 135:9 28:4,17 29:3 37:8 40:9 121:20 persons plan 52:10 55:17 56:19 64:11 peer 78:4 120:9 124:1 132:16 100:5 204:22 65:10 84:5,14 86:16 93:20 81:11,14,17 151:1,3,7,15 person's plant 100:6,21 101:7,23 105:2,10 pending 66:5 89:3 10:17 14:10,13 19:23 28:12 108:21 109:1,13 111:16 136:4 209:19 pharamacia 37:5,1641:2 61:1593:11 114:6,9 118:3,4,5 120:11 penta 209:17 121:5 134:9 135:19 142:4,6 120:12,23 121:7 123:8 120:20 pharmaceutical 142:13 143:1 162:14 124:20 127:15 133:22 people 84:20 plants 134:6 137:1 148:21 150:20 6:19 16:16 17:1029:11 Pharmacia 113:2 171:15 180:20 186:3 42:17,18 44:5,7,10,22 45:4 1:1 7:22 192:10,16,20,22 plausibility 197:10 199:12 202:12 48:3,8,12 49:6,13 53:22 192:23 193:7,11,16 112:14 pcbs 54:2 55:16 56:3 57:19 58:1 phase plausible 7:6 10:16 12:15 13:14 16:5 59:14,23 60:3,5,8,13,18 202:18,21 112:15 16:20 18:18 20:1 22:19 61:6,9,12 64:13,18 65:6 physical play 23:3,5 24:3,12,15,19,21 67:1369:1,1573:1575:12 200:19 112:18 25:22 26:14,15 27:3,11 75:14 77:12 78:14,16 86:22 physically please 28:11,1829:1930:2,3,18 87:14 96:17,21 101:4 5:15 20:15 31:6,7 33:7,11 34:10 35:5 106:13 111:10 112:13 physician plus 35:12 36:2 37:1,15 38:14 113:23 120:13 134:8 143:1 187:3 186:5,6 38:18 39:11 41:2,6,20 143:10 152:2 157:11,14 physicians point 44:16 46:8 48:3,4 51:2,14 173:10 177:12 178:6 187:11,21 188:4,21 189:4 12:17,20 15:23 22:3 35:11 51:18 52:14,19 55:2 56:13 180:18 190:20 192:23 38:11 39:6 51:1 52:11,11 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015341 [point - proves] point (cont.) potential (cont.) probably (cont.) promote 53:9,9,21 54:10 56:6 71:1 68:14 124:2,22 131:14 188:5 196:22 205:12 207:9 27:1 72:7 74:15 76:4 83:20,20 pots 208:4,6 promotors 85:21 86:5 90:12 91:2 168:7 problem 195:23 109:21 114:3 135:23 pounds 56:4 69:22 76:16 88:15 prompted 145:11 156:15 161:6,11 33:22 106:12 107:14 111:13,15 140:22 141:5 198:20 199:23 205:2 predictions 111:20,22 112:6 153:8,18 pronouncements pointing 144:9 problems 192:8 165:18 premature 24:16 76:18 104:23 112:22 proof points 117:11 113:9 152:16 110:1 70:8 98:12 premise procedural properties policy 83:13 3:1 12:15 13:13,17 15:4 18:17 73:1,1,14 147:23 192:11 preparation procedure 19:6,7 20:5,7,7 51:14 97:11 polychlorinated 181:17 3:1 70:21 79:13 115:22,23 99:4 135:21,23 137:9,16 9:9 122:23 preponderance 147:7 138:3,22 139:2,2 141:12 pond 64:6 process 144:4 146:21 159:6,20 70:23 present 22:12 31:2,10,17 36:22 160:11 population 102:20,22 135:22 147:12 37:18 38:3,5 39:10 40:12 property 42:14 45:20 48:20 51:9 192:17 196:2 42:5 71:5,6,18,22 84:11,12 19:14 20:10 95:5,10,23 54:4 57:11 68:15 70:17 presumably 144:17 151:9 162:13,16,17 132:12 133:10 134:6,10 71:8 73:18 75:7,11 81:3 90:10 205:1 162:19 166:8,20,22 167:4 140:4 141:6 144:5 145:8,10 87:2,5,22 88:2 130:11 pretty 168:2,4,20 169:2 180:1 146:18 147:10 161:2 157:2,3,10 158:3,10 171:12 65:23 96:12 161:1 processing proportion 194:14 200:6 prevent 162:9 44:4 158:1 populations 168:17 produced proposal 25:17 58:19 87:21 157:8 price 121:20 123:17 17:20 18:3 19:10 20:20 199:15,17 200:1 207:11 producing 136:20 197:6 porphyria primarily 10:16 proposals 199:2 8:9,10 9:15 19:2 20:21 product 180:5 portion 21:12,23 22:5,22 23:2 30:9 27:4 28:21 29:5,7,12 30:7,9 proposed 142:10 31:20 32:2,9 36:20,23 38:3 30:18 130:19 11:21 18:7,21 19:21 20:12 position 93:16 128:10 142:15,19 products 66:17 91:21 136:3,6,8,21 5:5,13 6:12 9:20 159:21 150:11 163:19 164:7 8:16,20 31:11 102:21 137:2 144:3 195:19204:10 positive 172:12 189:1 194:6,12 123:18 205:5,23 206:4,13,22 63:23 174:12 177:1 181:6,8 primary profess proposition 181:10,11 8:6 9:8 138:9 179:8 197:2 196:9 34:10 59:9,22 60:16 113:5 possibility prime profile propositions 25:5 178:11 125:21 50:1,2 52:9 81:5,9,22 83:1 41:23 possible prior 83:3,12,18 149:2,13 150:20 protect 30:16 68:11 90:17 100:3 10:14 39:7,8 41:7,7 170:20 171:1 200:16 73:15 77:9 144:8 165:17 188:14 prioritize 201:20 protected possibly 136:17 149:19 profiles 60:20 24:23 94:22 121:14 133:19 priority 150:14 200:18 protecting 155:9 14:9,13 17:11 144:21 145:1 program 75:16 posterity 145:3,15 92:11 203:21 204:19 protection 64:22 probable progression 135:16 pot 172:23 175:17 176:2,3,8,16 25:18 protective 168:20 177:6,14,18,23 178:15,17 project 23:12 60:21 61:11 178:7 potencies 180:20,23 181:5 207:11 protest 114:13 probably projected 99:2 potency 10:4 25:13 30:12 33:20 166:13 prove 101:11 114:5 36:1 39:1241:1,1243:1 projects 64:10 110:5 potent 48:5 49:1 60:23 69:20 74:8 9:22 proved 26:6 75:4 83:23 130:23 144:5 promising 110:20 potential 168:10,11 172:3 175:11 79:9 proves 23:8,9 56:12,15 67:8 68:9 176:15 181:1,14 186:21 108:16 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015342 [provide - reduction] provide 9:2,4 16:9 132:19 191:6,8 194:9 204:15 provided 3:1 142:16 provides 171:18 providing 204:12 proximity 100:23 public 1:1 2:1 20:7 192:8 209:8 210:17 publish 79:21,22 published 48:16 purchased 134:11 pure 29:14 purport 66:21 purported 62:20 purpose 3:1 8:14 52:22 136:14,16 179:8,17 204:4 purposes 135:13 pursuant 1:1 209:10 pushed 30:12 put 32:11 72:15 73:3,4,5 83:5 84:21 115:19 141:10 166:19 174:4 178:9 putting 27:23 px 4:6 q qualifications 52:17 qualify 65:20 qualifying 52:18 65:23 quantifications 186:2 quantify 69:20,21 70:1 143:18 173:23 quantitate rate reason (cont.) 32:4 172:2 81:16 105:20 125:14 quantitative rating 130:20 152:1 191:3 33:14 165:14 172:17 reasonable quantities ratio 54:7 39:5 114:4 reasons quarter rationale 21:13 51:8,20 56:8,9 13:2 86:7 14:7 196:21 quarters rationalize reassessment 12:23 13:3 183:11 119:19 126:20 180:6 question rats 193:21 194:3 196:6,16 3:1 16:23 17:1 29:22 30:1 105:12,15 106:22 107:5,9 recall 35:16 42:10,22 47:5,6,20 107:13,22 108:6,9,16,22 125:11,13 141:15 148:20 78:19 81:6,20 91:19 92:20 109:2,5,9,10,19 162:5 165:6 167:13 188:1 95:3,4 97:3 102:2 107:11 raw 195:20 197:18 199:6 108:4 119:21 123:12 10:12 received 139:14,15 146:12 161:21 rcra 79:16 80:2 169:20 188:2 202:3 40:11,21 reception questioned reach 101:1 169:8 170:7 190:16 receptor questioning reached 100:12,16,19 101:1,8,14 170:13 183:15 102:1,4 103:18,20 109:14 questions reacting 110:7 114:3,8 126:7 3:1 94:11 123:14 124:20 197:22 recess quibble reaction 98:9 153:23 207:15 81:14 26:23 27:2 32:2,10 recirculated quickly reacts 163:7 86:8 164:10 reclamation quintard read 207:20 141:16 4:17,1962:1264:1565:15 reclassification quote 66:3 81:7 120:6 182:1 195:19 16:20 46:12 48:8 52:2 187:7 recollect 67:16 72:2 77:15 81:1,22 reading 83:3 82:23 110:1,22 115:5 125:8 42:8 120:4 123:16 210:3 recollection 159:15 192:1 195:22 ready 141:9 145:21 166:6 168:23 quoting 94:12,16 202:16 83:12 real recollections r 56:19,21 62:20 72:5,7 188:8 radius 14:16,1991:6,11 raicprl 74:15,20 83:16 118:14 119:17 161:15 reality reconciliation 185:2 record 91:18 133:10 raising 27:12 ramifications 110:17,18,19 119:3 137:8 really 10:15 15:3,14 18:1226:10 29:23 31:22 32:21 34:20 36:3 37:16 42:5 44:14,17 5:3 79:5 134:23 135:3 207:13 recover 167:11,20 recovered range 44:18 47:5,7 49:17 59:9 166:19 48:2,7 49:8 51:2,21 52:8,10 55:11,18 57:10,22 58:18 62:7 64:5 65:8 67:8,12 68:3 recovery 70:10 89:22,23 101:21 40:12 82:2,8 83:9,20 95:12 154:12 158:2 161:4,5,14 rank 106:6 107:14 109:8 112:4 128:20 130:5 136:7 144:1 168:21 169:10 170:16 recycled 163:8 reduced 161:8 rat 176:13 177:17 179:17 183:14 207:23 25:16 68:17 153:3 reduction 76:8 reason 80:22 15:1551:5 56:1060:8 81:7 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015343 [refer - rigid] refer 80:10 83:11 98:13 123:10 133:6 reference 100:2 119:10 125:23 126:1 127:20 156:6 referred 158:13 referring 36:17 98:2,8 124:9,10 127:3 131:16,18 133:1 refers 171:7 refresh 42:19 regard 19:2 82:13 181:19 registry 149:16 regular 188:19 regulate 110:13 regulated 73:22 75:1 regulation 74:8 178:12 regulations 8:19 regulators 73:21 178:6 regulatory 56:20 110:9 113:8 relate 24:1568:11 114:13 117:3 related 64:11 122:22 171:15 202:12 relates 114:23 125:9 180:20 relation 11:17,21 relationship 70:5 119:2 relatively 191:8 release 39:5 released 39:3 170:3 197:1 relevant 132:19 relied 152:12 relief 202:20 rely 64:1 81:4 152:3,12 186:14 189:1,6 191:22 relying 59:20 remain 8:7,10 remains 118:13 176:3 remedial 9:21 remediation 4:7 9:5 12:10 93:1 141:20 207:21 remember 42:22 66:9 78:8 82:18,23 84:7 145:19 162:2 165:7 167:11,22 168:10,14,16 169:13,17 170:5 184:20 198:16,23 199:4 201:15 removal 12:13,18 16:21 21:9,11 137:11 147:9 remove 31:3 removed 86:9 removers 61:10 removing 27:18 repairing 171:7 repeated 89:18 replace 167:21 replaced 147:13 report 6:9,10 36:2 49:22 62:19 65:4 173:5 203:20 reported 25:7,15 36:16 122:5 158:7 173:16 209:12 reporter 1:1 2:1 4:14 209:7 210:17 reporter's 209:2 reporting 165:1 reports 37:11 47:14 181:21 182:11 182:13 187:8 189:16 190:3 197:15 represent 16:17 representing 2:1 reproductive 76:9 77:7 153:3 request 132:21 141:5 requested 132:23 204:13 required 19:8,16 139:8 requirements 3:1 requiring 22:3 research 172:15 178:11,22 179:10 179:15,19 researchers 36:4 reserved 3:1 residential 19:3 20:5 135:21 138:3 148:1 161:2 165:22 residents 66:15 141:6 residue 117:1 resource 8:8 40:12 resources 179:9 respect 2:1 12:6 43:22 63:6 67:20 97:6 108:8 207:17 respirator 61:16 respond 79:18 responded 79:11 164:22 165:9 responding 127:6 response 79:20 responses 79:23 101:9 responsibility 8:6 67:3,5 188:17,18 205:13,21 responsive 99:1 rest 16:3 101:18 restate 77:20 result 56:22 78:5 results 11:4,1222:1423:1,2 49:15 185:22 204:16210:10 retrospective 171:4 revegetated 147:14 review 65:10 78:18,20 81:14 150:9 151:6,7,12,16,17 165:15 166:7 168:23 169:22 182:8 189:14203:10206:17,18 reviewed 11:16,17,2081:11,17,18 151:2,3 152:9 181:16 182:5 196:16 197:7 revise 79:19 revised 150:18 revision 150:19 rhetorical 175:6 rhodes 2:1 rhyme 15:15 rid 51:11 ridiculous 110:15 right 16:13 23:22 27:21 33:23 36:10 37:10 39:8 44:5 46:1 46:2 47:21,21 48:14 53:6 62:2 66:16 76:1 77:20 79:4 80:3,9 84:19 85:20,23 88:17,20 90:9 102:9,19 103:1 104:20 108:5 113:16 115:10,10 117:21 121:22 122:2,20 123:2,3,15,21,22 124:4 126:4,11,15 127:4,17 127:22 128:1,13 129:18 131:5 135:12 141:15 142:8 154:7 155:18 158:21 160:15,20 163:1 173:9 185:5,6 187:18 197:9,11 205:8 208:7 rigid 99:15 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015344 [ring - shifted] ring ruling saying (cont.) seen (cont.) 29:10 30:3,11,14 99:18 3:1 165:9 170:8 201:13 rings run says selecting 29:4 99:13,13 38:19 49:20 52:9 65:9 68:15 91:11 rise runoff 70:12 73:2 75:2 80:20 sense 173:19 41:1 90:1991:8,9 117:16 127:13 11:9 16:6 32:23 112:11 risk runs 145:5 151:1 152:20 153:7 128:19 151:3,8 155:20 19:1221:18,19,21 22:7,9 142:8 156:23 159:12,13 176:13 191:6 22:16,20 23:18,18,20,23 s 178:10 186:13 190:6,10 sent 25:11,20 56:4,20,21,21 safe scenario 151:10 57:5,23 58:3,6,21 59:7 61:19 66:14,18,19,20,22 30:23 safety 87:23 scheme separate 123:13 124:14,19 153:9 67:1,6,7,9,12,17 68:6,12,14 68:16,20,23 69:4,9,11,19 23:7 71:20 73:2 74:2,17 76:22 116:18 117:8,10 172:17,18 164:8 173:1 175:23 September 70:1,13,15,20 71:5,7,8,9,12 72:4,5,5,8 73:15,17,20 74:7 sake 139:15 74:10,13,18,19,21 75:2,7 sample schools 20:9 science 5:12 sequence 28:21 75:10 77:2,6,15,15,19,19 90:7 110:7 116:6 118:3,14 11:8 12:17,20 13:1,5,10,22 14:9 15:19,20 16:3 19:15 8:22 9:3,4 49:20 172:9 185:11 series 150:16 194:9,10 197:20 risks 34:20,21 35:1 138:2 sampled sciences 196:23 197:8 serious 56:14 22:18 59:16,17 68:16 70:16 12:23 13:9 17:14,18 18:22 scientific serum 70:17,18 72:1 74:4 77:7 116:1,9 road 20:2 137:10 138:1,4 141:7 samples 10:21,21 11:20 12:2 36:11 49:15 106:17 172:11 scientifically 74:10 50:4 52:10 55:8 69:10 83:19 171:13 184:23 200:13 201:1 202:5 33:4 36:12,13 46:19 47:2 131:7 scientists serve robert 1:1 2:1,1 4:11 5:4 208:12 209:12 robust 131:10,13,23 136:1 145:18 110:22 151:5,11,16 174:5,6 8:7 158:15,19 159:5 160:17 161:15,22 182:19,20 189:3,17 scrape set 15:11 100:15 124:14 207:18 33:2 156:12 186:13 190:17 21:16 119:6 190:17 192:1 198:21 roden 2:1,1 4:4,19,22 5:1 135:1,5 sampling 11:12,14 13:7,8,11 15:19 16:14 18:14,17 19:3 20:13 22:4,14 92:11,17 93:1 scrubber's 38:5 seal 40:6 191:9 210:3 settlement 11:21 seven role 120:10 132:17 136:18 sealed 28:15 88:10 102:14 103:2 205:16 206:12,13 roll 137:12,13,16 139:7,18 39:10 144:8,13 158:14,14 170:16 secluded 126:5 seventeen 126:16 rolled 206:23 samplings 133:19 second 161:6,11,19 seventies 137:6 rooting 133:18 148:15 sand 96:11,11 80:19 124:5 127:23 199:4 40:8 166:3 secondly seventy 118:1 102:14 107:3 129:1 184:9 roots 95:1 satisfaction 144:15 seconds 207:12 sewer 32:14 rotate 100:7 save 175:6 sections 132:20 sewers 38:10 roughly saw sediments shaky 18:15 19:4 rounds 119:19 129:2 saying 37:20 46:3 50:13 51:22 96:18 141:9 seeing 16:1 92:17 162:5 201:15 106:9 share 8:20 route 53:8,14,18 59:18 60:12 seen sheet 41:21 routinely 189:5 201:7,10 203:5 rules 64:17 65:22 66:9 68:22 69:17 71:10 72:1 74:10 76:14,17,17 84:7 94:23 97:18 104:2 107:16 121:23 13:19 33:21 43:5,13,16,17 120:18 43:19 46:20 55:19 58:11,16 shelby 65:14 66:4,7 70:14 76:18 2:1 93:22 148:14,18,23 149:8 shifted 3:1 175:1 131:4 132:7,10 139:18 186:1,9 189:16 200:2 27:16 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015345 [shiny - started] shiny single (cont.) soil (cont.) specific 164:5 195:10 207:18 63:2 84:14 87:5 123:22 short sinks soils 129:7 182:12,18 187:5,6 98:9 123:1 135:2 153:23 62:10 67:10 188:7 190:20,20 168:3 204:8 sir solid specifically shorthand 78:15 208:8 29:12 32:20 11:1925:1426:3 82:7 1:1 2:1 209:7 sit soluble 128:8 133:16 134:16 145:6 show 19:19 47:22 49:5 66:8 164:10,10 148:9 181:16 182:5 192:6 80:4 104:15 107:1,18,20,21 125:10 139:9,12 solutia 195:15 108:1 111:17,19 112:2 site 1:1 5:6,10,11 7:16,16 8:5 specifics 117:18 176:5 184:8 190:14 21:3,4 32:12 33:12 41:2 8:14 9:14,23 10:15 11:22 119:23 193:3 190:18 63:7 111:17,18 112:5 116:6 12:18 20:22 24:18 32:18 specify showing 116:23 117:2 118:12 137:1 33:6,8 35:10,20 38:13 47:9 133:12 148:21 166:9,12,12,14,18 167:5 66:11,13 67:2 80:20 131:8 speculate shown 170:2,16,17 134:6 136:18 142:18 80:22 94:1 131:3 101:18,20,21 103:21 126:8 sites 159:13,21 162:8 164:15 speculating 140:15 148:21 116:2 118:11 119:5 149:20 165:12 187:3 188:11 192:4 146:1 shows 149:23 171:16 194:12 193:10,14,15201:1 205:16 speculation 107:8 108:16 120:8,19 sits 207:2 209:18 97:2 121:17 148:15 142:4 solutia's speculative shut sitting 79:15 131:12 84:12 96:7 39:12 27:4 99:15 105:7 139:7 somebody spell sick 158:21 168:13 69:12 121:11 155:14 9:16 71:3 72:9,11,18,23 75:23 situation 166:11 spend 90:5 13:6 38:17 75:19 208:3 somewhat 179:9 side six 49:3 184:6 spent 105:10 142:8 14:6 48:6,10 50:11 53:7 sooner 43:18 167:14 179:10 sides 91:4,8,9 97:14 99:19 85:15 spill 181:22 102:14 127:4,11,12 154:6 sorry 147:23 167:7 sign 159:4 160:16 161:9 7:14 42:4 70:8 73:8 97:17 spilling 4:18,20 sixties 137:22 193:13 37:12 signature 166:4 sort spin 3:1 sixty 31:18 100:1 significance 102:15 129:22 184:9 sorts spinning 91:10 115:17,19 120:13 size 71:17 76:12 87:17 156:16 99:16 141:13 32:1 42:14 190:18 sound St significant skin 104:1 5:17,18,21,23 6:3 41:1 95:19,21 112:17,19 24:23 58:17 59:1 171:17 source stable 120:3 157:23 167:18 slight 50:23 54:12 124:22 160:6 28:8 170:13 49:1 south staff signing slope 39:19 40:5 133:15 9:3 210:4 23:15 southern stages silvery smaller 1:1 209:21 40:20 164:5 44:10 space stand similar smith 99:15 34:9 41:23 113:5 5:12 87:23 111:5 194:20 2:1 spacially stands simple snow 99:22 140:16 103:22 96:18,19 142:8 sparse star simplified softball 41:13 164:22 84:6 140:18 speak start simply soil 149:9 209:14 27:12 35:20 36:14 86:5 28:4 10:21 11:12,13,20 38:23,23 specialist 122:14 144:17,18 single 40:23 91:15 93:9 95:8 7:3 started 13:4 29:14 39:21 64:1 116:23 131:7,15 132:17 species 27:5 35:23 38:17 122:15 104:6,7 105:14,22 107:1 146:22 147:10,14 158:13 73:3 168:10,12 181:15 153:14 178:14 187:3 158:19 182:19 206:23 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015346 [starting - tar] starting streamlined subject sure (cont.) 35:14 168:5 204:17 19:11 22:5 12:17 144:11 147:11 149:3 161:5 163:2 starts streams submit 174:15 176:19 190:23 74:14 143:22 203:8 206:17 197:11 199:14 state street subsequent surprise 1:1 2:1 34:6 37:2 64:9 1:1 142:16 82:11 196:4 209:4,8 210:18 street's substance survey statement 142:11,12 149:15 45:3 52:23 119:22 153:8 154:19 strength substitute Swedish 157:9 171:22 196:5 114:9,10 174:14 198:5 135:8 36:4 statements strengths substitution swiquets 158:3 114:13 102:12 115:12,13 states stress successful switch 1:1 9:10 44:9 209:20 123:19 163:20 170:19 statistical stretching sufficient sworn 16:1,10 140:7 180:13 200:8 4:12 209:13 statistically strike suggest synonymous 112:17,19 144:9,14 183:21 163:15 189:19 37:20,22 175:18 step strong suggested system 17:3,9 190:18 195:23 198:8 201:14 32:14,16_________________ steps 40:14 Stewart's 159:7 sticks 131:1,4 stipulated 2:1 3:1 stipulation 1:1 209:11 stipulations 2:1 4:15 stone 78:2 stood 59:9 stop 166:23 203:19 204:11 stories 61:9 96:17 storm 37:15,17,19 38:6,9,18 41:10,11,1342:2 story 194:1 stove 33:2 straight 122:18 strategy 15:18,19 stream 36:22 37:17,19 streamline 21:18,21 strongly suggestion t 114:7 84:4 table structure 102:8 126:18 suggestions 65:1 27:5 127:4,11,12,19 158:14 taken structured 100:16 studied suggestive 171:19,22 172:1,6,10,13 173:6,8,18 175:17 176:1,11 1:1 2:1 12:3,3,21 14:2 62:23 98:10 141:9 154:1 158:16,19 159:10207:16 59:14 89:10 studies 176:17,20 177:4 suggests tales 96:9 7:8 23:1 24:14 25:8 26:1,2 124:7 129:11 131:8 201:19 talk 26:12 42:11 45:10 48:8 suing 49:16 52:22 53:3,14,16 187:2 59:19 61:23 62:10,15,19,23 sum 64:2,6,9 83:22,23 89:12,14 128:2 89:17 105:11 106:23 summary 31:16 33:21 50:4 82:4 84:1392:6 112:13 113:19 119:7,23 120:1 154:9,11 158:12,15 172:4 179:6 talked 107:17,19 108:1,15 111:4,5 152:20 182:6 56:11 65:2 66:12 82:14 111:14,21,23 112:1,23 superfund 113:1 116:8,21,22 158:8 149:17,20,23 171:4,9,11 173:13 174:13 superimposed 176:5,22 177:2 178:5 184:8 149:1 152:14 185:21 189:18 190:8,13,18 198:4 supplied 92:13 99:13 115:6 149:2 154:6 155:22,23 170:21 174:23 179:23 185:10 199:10 talking 198:15,19200:12 study 26:3 42:12,16 43:23 44:1 44:15,20,20 45:2,6,22,23 46:2,4,5 58:20 62:22 64:1 131:20 135:15 151:13 supply 110:14 support 6:23 7:12 8:11,15 9:2 82:10 18:2,3,9 31:18 34:16 44:18 44:19 61:5 73:16 76:4 80:8 84:19 91:3,21 95:13 99:3,5 99:7 103:4 117:14 122:12 122:14,15,21 123:7 124:11 65:3 104:21 105:1 107:8,8 196:13 198:5 125:1,4,5 126:12,20,21 111:17,18 153:16 171:18 suppose 173:15 190:13 191:18,19 107:12 127:2 128:7,10,11 131:6,22 133:13 146:2 154:12 199:4 stuff 66:3 73:17 96:19 106:4 sure 13:19 16:23 17:2,6,7 19:20 39:20 40:1,16 42:22 59:8 170:10 184:18 190:1,3 198:23 202:4 talks 164:5 182:17 subgroup 61:1262:1263:11 64:15 66:3 68:4 77:14 79:17 21:2 70:21 89:13 tar 123:10 107:10 112:13 121:13 33:4 139:6 140:13 144:19 146:9 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015347 [target - told] target teqs (cont.) things thirty 12:8,9 115:18 119:8 120:17,20 7:10 11:1020:8 35:1 38:6 7:1443:10 103:12 155:17 tasked 125:16,19 126:21,22,23 45:9 59:11 61:10 63:22 198:19 149:18 127:14 128:3,11 129:6,6,21 71:12,18 80:4,7 85:14,15 thought tcdd term 85:16 86:8,17 99:17 100:17 19:19 67:14 129:2 169:23 100:14 107:1 108:22 114:6 21:17 56:14 67:21 98:22,23 104:4,11 106:1,8 118:9,10 183:14 185:3 114:6,8 122:21 125:21 172:12 174:21 122:12,17 140:12 145:10 thousand 126:7 194:6,21 195:12,20 terminate 149:16,18 152:8,16,17 34:22 75:3,6,10,12 87:9 technical 144:12 145:14 153:13 166:20 167:9,10,11 thousands 6:23 7:12 terminated 170:23 179:11,13 185:20 42:16,18 58:13 techniques 145:18 185:23 191:8 206:18 207:3 thousandth 36:9 terms think 130:2,4 technology 21:3,4 38:1 66:16 67:2 74:1 6:22 7:1 11:5 14:4 17:17 threats 9:4 35:4 103:22 136:18 137:21 23:20 24:6,7,10,11 25:23 119:7 teeny 139:4 149:14 157:19 30:22 33:9 34:4,6,9 35:14 three 109:3,12 112:16 123:9 171:23 35:17 36:1,20,21 37:6 38:2 13:9 14:5 30:10,13 35:6 tef test 39:3,8 41:12 42:6,7 43:1 46:21 48:6,10 50:11 53:3,7 126:14 116:22 145:7,9 147:16 44:2 45:1 46:6,18 48:5,15 53:21 54:15,22 58:2,12,15 tefs tested 48:22,23 49:12,17,20 52:16 97:14 118:2 122:17 123:6 126:10 16:20 109:4 134:11,16 52:18,19 53:2,10,17 56:10 129:19 144:20 145:2,8 tell 135:20,21 140:5 141:11 57:17,19,23 59:5,11,15,15 151:5,16 154:14,15 156:2,3 8:3 12:6 13:18 20:18 21:8 144:4 146:18,21 200:14 60:23 61:3,5 62:8 64:17,22 157:21 184:19 56:9 63:20 98:17 131:16 testified 64:23 65:20 66:11 67:16,19 throat 135:13 149:12 159:18 4:13 202:9,14,18 67:20,21 77:21 80:9 82:1 199:22 162:7 testimony 82:17 83:2,6,22 88:8 89:4,9 throw telling 42:8 44:1 65:15 132:16 89:12,13,15,20 90:22 92:3 186:13 11:6 52:15 134:4 202:11,22 92:8,19,20 94:19,20,23 thyroid tells testing 95:20 97:4,13 103:21 153:1 191:20 23:3 105:3 146:8 147:11 106:12 107:19 113:9 117:7 time temperature 159:14201:17207:1 117:9,18 119:23 120:5 3:1,1 6:6 29:2 34:7,14 39:6 27:12 tetrachlorodibenzodioxin 125:11 126:6 127:3 128:15 40:21 41:8,1943:1881:7 tempted 195:11 128:23 129:4 130:23 131:6 88:23 90:12 91:7,8 98:10 132:3,6 thank 132:22,23 133:3,5 134:3,17 100:23 120:10 121:5 134:1 ten 73:13 195:2 208:8,9 134:19 136:10,23,23 137:4 135:4 154:1 158:21 162:4 12:8,13,16 13:14 14:17 theoretic 138:11,16 141:4,16 145:4 162:23 163:11 168:3,8 21:9 29:4,9 72:12,12,13 68:12 145:18 147:18,19,21 150:3 187:16202:17203:1 73:3,4,5 75:3,6,10,11,13 theoretical 150:19,23 153:12,15,17 205:18 207:16 208:5 82:3,8 83:10 85:10 95:14 22:16 23:17,23 56:20 70:13 154:2,5,21,23 155:6,8,13 times 115:3 126:6 130:2,3 136:1 72:3 74:19,20 105:17 156:18 157:5,8 158:2,8,13 184:19 137:10 138:10,13,22 139:3 106:14 114:11 118:14,18 164:20,23 166:10 167:16 tired 147:18,19,20,22 155:16 theoretically 168:11 169:10,18,20 170:7 190:23 161:4,10,14,22 184:2,4 114:22 170:12,22 171:7 174:20 tissue tended theory 176:21 177:13,17 178:2,10 171:14 29:1 101:6,7 109:11 179:2,14 181:1,2 182:13 tissues tends thereof 183:1,4,20 185:1,10 186:17 185:14,14 51:18 55:3 210:10 186:19 190:8,9 191:19 titles tens therm 193:20 195:1 197:10,23 6:19 53:23 184:23 199:1,3,9 200:1 202:3 today tenth thermal 207:7 208:7 10:7 47:22 49:5 83:6 90:23 114:10 123:19 thinking 125:10 154:16 155:14,16 teq thing 177:17 168:14 170:22 197:18 115:15,20,21 116:23 119:1 32:21 33:22 50:9 60:2 77:3 third tolbert 120:3,19 121:2 125:9 127:1 83:13 84:23 86:15 96:23 128:2,4 150:19 1:1,1 43:20 181:18,19 130:1,4 117:17 154:3 155:1 185:18 thirteen 182:2 183:3 209:16 teqs 190:22 13:16 138:15,17 told 113:20,21 114:12,20 61:3 138:2 204:9 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015348 [tom - view] tom tried typical unreasonable 6:10 24:15 83:9 87:1 125:13 81:2 151:7 110:12 tons trigger typically unreasonably 52:20,21 83:4 100:14 101:9 45:11 121:19 173:6 110:11 top trillion u upper 147:9 161:4,14,22 47:4 95:16 u.s. 142:10 tord trouble 67:4 75:5 81:2 urine 11:18 total 74:6 truck uncertain 72:20 73:18 90:23 85:8 use 50:13 118:8,9 120:12 96:14 uncertainties 7:15 21:17 51:23 66:1 90:2 127:13,23 129:19 155:22 true 34:17 74:17 84:10 156:1,17 96:15 97:16,18 98:23 99:2 155:23 183:5,18,18,23 totally 101:15 102:8,17 103:4,10 20:14 23:18 43:2 55:16,17 67:16 69:8 95:11 139:23 209:23 uncertainty 34:8 35:8 71:21 72:16 73:3 73:5 106:13 156:3 162:11 170:8 174:21 207:5 useful 118:20 truly unclear 204:13,19 tox 94:14 115:9,10 91:12 usual 50:1,2 52:9 81:5,8,22 83:12 truth uncoincidentally 4:15 83:18 149:2,12,15 150:20 209:14,14,15 toxic try 173:13 uncommon usually 96:20 151:8 152:17 170:20 11:8 16:11 18:1 59:490:11 77:19 V toxicity 91:23 92:23 106:14 118:18 underneath value 114:12,14,19,21,23 115:20 trying 147:12 132:11 116:8,20 126:2 127:13 33:2 35:21 47:8 48:23 understand values 150:12 152:7 153:4 51:22 104:10 105:18 12:7 13:20 28:10,13 64:8 48:9 toxicological 108:21 109:22 118:22 77:17 98:16 99:7 103:23 vaporized 101:20 116:13,15 117:15 180:3 196:9 106:7 115:3 124:10 132:9 61:17 150:14 194:4 ts 161:5 166:2 172:5 180:7 variation toxicologists 64:8 114:20,22 tube 190:12 understanding 51:9 186:4,7 variations trace 116:22 18:11,13 19:2 25:9,13 30:6 185:21 38:18 39:2,13 121:8 tumors 32:10 35:18 42:13 58:10 varied tract 107:9 61:22 96:10 131:12 132:11 15:9 171:17 transcription tweaked 169:20 175:15 132:15 133:17 134:3,5 143:5 146:16,20 varies 142:23 210:1 twelve understands variety transcripts 13:16 123:9 138:15,17 21:1 7:9 8:17 31:8 45:9 150:14 8:3 204:6 unduly various transfer 10:10 twenties 53:23 138:12 77:19 unexposed 7:7 10:21,22 24:14 40:20 62:10 66:22 89:8 148:15 transferring twenty 48:8 158:16 189:16 190:7,7 27:20 13:13,13 48:17,21 49:6 unfortunately 191:8 transient 50:14,15 51:3 52:1,2 54:3 51:14 vat 25:6,10 56:16 197:16 55:21 57:4,20 58:12,14 unique 26:23 27:11,22 28:2 31:18 transport 63:22 102:14 138:11,16 54:12 86:20 124:7 129:12 31:21 32:5 95:17,18 154:14,15 155:16 156:2,4 130:7 vats trash 156:10 186:5 198:19 united 32:1 130:22 twice 1:1 9:10 44:9 209:20 version traveling 95:9 154:17 twisting unitless 126:3 79:22 80:17,18 82:15 versus tree 99:16 universally 209:17 94:3,8,10,19 type 150:4 vertical trees 33:22 148:14 208:2 unknown 142:9 93:19 94:7 trial types 12:2 31:15 unquote vessel 32:2,9 202:8,10 typewritten 46:12 81:2 view 209:23 22:20 23:12,17 53:13 56:13 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015349 [view - zones] view (cont.) weakest worker's 79:18 90:18 177:15 192:8 129:15 171:5 196:8 weakly working viewpoint 104:3 7:18 18:20 20:19 60:19 11:1 wear 61:17 93:16 97:6 105:19 virtue 61:4,16 works 93:10 weekly 7:15 200:23 viscous 205:19 world 32:20 weight 179:3 voiced 65:9 174:9 write 154:21 welcome 78:11,21 203:22 204:5 volatile 208:9 writing 27:19 went 78:10 volume 41:11 42:6 132:12 161:11 written 1:1 30:8 208:13 west 43:1 64:19 149:10 173:12 vs 39:21 40:2 142:15 wrong 1:1_____________________ we've 120:4 132:5,8 133:5 138:6 w 92:5 96:16 105:10 107:19 141:17 155:7 185:5,6 199:5 wait 117:14 122:21 123:6 201:15 203:19 waived 3:1,1 210:5 138:15,16 145:18 154:6 wrote 155:22 160:10 170:21 78:7,12 81:8 91:3_________ 179:8 194:7 195:12 207:22 y want 4:17 28:16 59:23 71:16 whack 130:14 y'all 13:20 15:2 96:4 134:19 93:23 95:6 96:8 102:10,11 102:11 104:1 127:7 158:17 162:15 190:1 193:3 204:6 whatsoever 89:6 119:2 white 203:5 yard 96:20 wanted 143:6 wants 1:1 29:12 wide 143:21 150:14 186:4 yards 140:23 141:11 143:18 144:16 165:22 4:19 washable 32:19 washed 32:13 widely 191:4 withouts 128:10 witness yeah 7:9 38:19 52:16 65:6,17 66:9 71:15 82:1 85:11 90:15 year washing 3:1,1 210:2,5 5:9 127:14 202:15 204:6 37:13 waste 34:10 36:12,22 37:5,17,19 37:23 38:1 133:11,20 179:11,12 word 66:1 110:18 125:23 202:19 words 6:7 48:19 63:9 197:11 200:4 years 7:14 8:4 36:7 52:12,18 53:15 54:17,22 55:6,8 57:16,20 88:9,10 116:14 148:2 154:17 155:11,16,16 water 36:13 37:3,15,18,18,19 38:3,6,7 41:10,11,14,16 42:2 97:19 164:10 waters 34:11 38:7,8,9,19,19 52:14 164:2 waterways 165:23 ways 26:18 36:21 62:5 165:19 weak 112:3 195:23 weaker wore 61:13 work 6:18,19 7:19,22 40:18 47:2 60:5 61:2 78:17 141:7 156:7 185:18 204:22 205:13 worked 6:27:1260:13 118:14 worker 120:16 121:4,5 workers 58:14,18 61:1 87:8,9 88:6 88:12 113:1 200:1 201:11 155:17 156:2,3,4,11 177:13 youngest 120:9____________________ z zero 23:19 60:9 75:14 zone 141:13 144:13,18 145:8,19 146:7 zones 4:6 140:5 141:19 142:1 144:4 145:15 146:17 148:7 148:22 149:1 103:7 201:19,22,22,23 Kaley, Robert; Tolbert HARTOLDMONO015350