Document 3J8K0JQ359NxN0y8VrpyVn61D

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY JOAN MAERTIN, Executrix of the Estate of Lothar Maertin, JOAN MAERTIN, individually and in her own right, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Cause No. L-95-CV 02849 (JB6) ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC. , VS . MONSANTO COMPANY AND AMERICAN MINERAL SPIRITS COMPANY, Defendants. DEPOSITION OF GEORGE LEVINSKAS Taken on Behalf of the Defendants November 10, 1997 Condensed Transcript and Word Index Taylor & Associates Reporting, Inc. coi in iutoimi;ns 7494 ETHEL AVE. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63117 PHONE: (314) 644-2191 1-800-280-DEPO DEPONET^ WATER PCB-SD0000011568 Joan Macrtin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10; 1997 * 1 INDEX OP QUESTIONERS 2 QUESTIONS BY: Page 3 Mr. 4 Mr. O' Connor 142 4 Hr. Lipshutz 161 Mr. Davidson 164 S INDEX OP DEPENDANT'S DEPOSITION EXHIBITS NO. DESCRIPTION 7 1 Mena dated 10/13/71 e 2 Memo dated 12/6/74 3 Letter dated 12/17/74 9 4 Letter dated 1/14/75 5 Memo dated 1/13/75 10 6 Letter dated 3/24/75 7 Letter dated 5/1/75 11 8 Report dated 3/24/75 9 Letter dated 8/4/75 12 9-A Letter dated 7/18/75 10 Memo dated 8/22/75 13 11 Bonus recoanendation 12 Bonus recommendation 14 13 Memo dated 10/16/75 14 Letter dated 10/17/73 IS IS Report 16- L Toxicity study 16 16- a Toxicity Study 16-C Reproduction Study 17 16- 1 Teratogenic Study 17 Report dated 10/14/81 16 Exhibits attached 19 MARKED 44 so 55 63 65 69 74 77 S3 83 93 101 107 112 115 117 124 124 124 124 140 . . 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page I 2 3 4 5 (5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES For the Plaintiff: LAW OFFICES OF GARY D. GINSBERG BY: Brian P. O'Connor Attorney at Law Atrium n. Suite 101 3000 Atrium Way Mt. Laurel, New Jersey 08054 For the Defendant Monsanto Company: latham ti Watkins BY: Christopher M. DiMuro One Newark Center Newark, New Jersey 07101*3174 (973)639-7298 SMrTH HELMS MULMS & MOOR):. LLP. BY: Gerard H. Davidson, Jr. 300 North Greene Street, Suite 1400 P. O. Box 21927 Greensboro, North Carolina 27420 For the Defendant Armstrong World Industries, Inc.: DUANE, MORRIS & HECKSCHER, LLP BY: Craig F. Turel One Liberty Place Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103*7396 (215)979-1000 For the Defendant (Pre-sent Telephonicallv) WrLSON, ELSER, MOSKOWtTZ, EDELMAN & DICKER BY: Gary Lipshutz Two Gateway Center Newark, New Jersey 07102-5311 Page 3 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 2 JOHN KAKRTIN, Executrix of ) 3 the Estate of Loth&r ) Maertin, JOAN MAERTIN, )t 4 individually and in her ) Zause No. L-95-CV own right, et &!., ) 32849 <JBS> 5 Plaintiffs, ) vs. ) 6) ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, ) 7 INC f vs. I ) e MONSANTO COMPANY AND AMERICAN) MINERAL SPIRITS COMPANY, ) 9 Defendants. ) 10 11 DEPOSITION OF GEORGS USVINSKAS, 12 produced, sworn and examined on the 10th day of 13 November, 1997, between the hours of eight 14 o'clock in the 15 16 Associates, Inc., 7494 Ethel, St. Louis, 17 Missouri, before Nancy A. Kuncaitis, a 18 Registered Professional Reporter and Notary 19 20 the cause now pending in the United States 21 District Court for the District of New Jersey, 22 23 and Armstrong World Industries, Inc., and 24 Monsanto Company and American Mineral Spirits 25 Company are the Defendants. Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Page 4 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Counsel for the Plaintiff and Counsel for the Defendant that this deposition may be taken by Nancy A. Kuncaitis, Notary Public and Registered Professional Reporter, thereafter transcribed into typewriting, with the signature of the witness being expressly reserved. 8 9 GEORGE LEVINSKAS. 10 of lawful age, being produced, sworn and 11 examined on behalf of Defendant, testified as 12 follows: 13 14 EXAMINATION 15 QUESTIONS BY MR. TURF.T: 16 Q.Good morning, Dr. Levinskas. 17 A. Good morning. 18 Q.My name is Craig Turet. We met a few moments 19 ago. I'm an attorney representing Armstrong 20 World Industries in this case. Have you been 21 deposed before, sir? 22 A. Yes, I have. -> 23 Q.I know you're familiar with what will take place 24 here, sir. I'll ask you a series of questions. 25 You will be expected to answer as completely as - Page 1 - Page 4 WATER PCB-SD0000011569 jQan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997 Page 5 . Page 7 1 you can, but not to speculate or guess. If I 1 projects that were going on al the University of 2 ask you a question and you don't know the 2 Pittsburgh at the time? 3 answer, just say, I don't know. If you don't 3 A. We had several grants and contracts with various 4 hear the question or don't understand it, let me 4 government agencies, and 1 was the primary 5 know and I'll be happy to repeat it. And if you 5 researcher on several of them. 6 do answer a question that will indicate that you 6 Q. Did any of them have to do with chlorinated 7 both heard the question and understood the 7 hydrocarbons? 8 question, okay? 8 A. No. 9 A. Okay. 9 Q. How long did you end up working with the 10 Q. Also, if you need to take a break at any point, 10 University of Pittsburgh? 11 just let me know. I'll be happy to accommodate 11 A. Until 1958. 12 you as long as there is not a question 12 Q. And with whom were you employed after that? 13 outstanding. And you understand, Dr. Levinskas, 13 A. The American Cyanamid Company. 14 that if for any reason you're not available at 14 Q. Where was that based? 15 trial, the testimony that's being taken down by 15 A. Initially al Stamford, Connecticut; later al 16 the court reporter today will be available at 16 Princeton, New Jersey. 17 trial just as if you were testifying there? 17 Q.How long were you employed by American Cyanamid? 18 A. Yes. 18 A. Until 1971. 19 Q.Dr. Levinskas, are you employed by Monsanto as 19 Q. What was the first job that you held with 20 of today? 20 American Cyanamid? 21 A.No, I'm retired. 21 A. I joined the company as a research 22 Q. And can you give us just a brief overview of 22 pharmacologist and shortly thereafter I was 23 your educational background? 23 named the director of their environmental health 24 A. I have a bachelor degree in chemistry from 24 laboratory. 25 Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut. 25 Q.I'm sorry, director of -- Page 6 Page 8 1 I have a doctorate in pharmacology from 1 A. The environmental health laboratory. 2 University of Rochester in Rochester, New York. 2 Q. Was that in approximately 1958? 3 Q.Do you have a master's as well as a doctorate? 3 A. Well, that would probably be about the end of 4 A.No master's. 4 '58, beginning of '59. 5 Q. What year did you get your doctorate? 5 Q. How long did you say you had worked with 6 A. 1953. 6 American Cyanamid? 7 Q.Did you begin employment in the private sector 7 A. Until 1971. 8 once you received your doctorate? 8 Q. Did you remain as director of the environmental 9 A. My first employment after that was teaching at 9 health laboratory throughout that time? 10 the graduate school of public health at the 10 A. Yes. 11 University of Pittsburgh. 11 Q. Why did you ultimately leave American Cyanamid? 12 Q. What courses did you teach? 12 A. The company decided to close out the laboratory 13 A. I taught a course in applied toxicology and I 13 so it was phased out gradually, and since there 14 gave lectures in several other courses that 14 were no other job opportunities of interest to 15 others were giving in the department. 15 me in the company, I left. 16 Q.Now, was your position as an instructor or 16 Q. What were your duties as director of the 17 professor? 17 environmental health lab at American Cyanamid? 18 A. I started as a research associate, became a 18 A. We did animal toxicity tests on Monsanto -- I'm 19 research associate lecturer and I was assistant 19 sorry, Cyanamid company products. 20 professor when I left. 20 Q. Those were toxicological studies that were done ~ 21 Q. While you were at the University of Pittsburgh, 21 in-house? 22 did you also do any consulting work for 22 A. Yes. . ^ 23 companies? 23 Q.Did you also oversee any toxicity studies done 24 A. No, I did not. 24 by outside independent laboratories? 25 Q.Did you participate in any large scale research 25 A.Not while at Cyanamid. ^ Page 5 - Page 8 WATER PCB-SD0000011570 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Lcvinskas Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997' Page 9 Page 11 1 Q. What -- during the time period that you worked 1 and Drug Administration. 2 for American Cyanamid, what types of products 2 Q. When you say presented studies to them, did that 3 did that company manufacture? 3 involve forwarding a copy of your written report 4 A. They were strong in pesticides. They had a 4 to them or was it something more than that? 5 variety of organic and industrial chemicals and 5 A. Generally the written reports were submitted by 6 we tested products from those groups. 6 people who had regular dealings with the 7 Q.And did any of the studies that you participated 7 regulatory agencies. 1 would go down on 8 in while at American Cyanamid involve 8 occasion either at the request of an agency to 9 chlorinated hydrocarbons? 9 expand or discuss a study or the regulatory 10 A.No. 10 people in the company would ask me to accompany 11 Q.What was the size of the environmental health 11 them when they presented the data. 12 lab during the period of time that you were 12 Q.At American Cyanamid when you were director of 13 there? Let's say what was the largest that it 13 the environmental health laboratory, were you 14 got? 14 part of a larger department within the company? 15 A. It was about 12 to 15 people when I got there. 15 A. I was part of the corporate medical department. 16 It reached, at its top it was probably about 30 16 Q.And were you answerable to a medical director, 17 people. And then as 1 say, it started to be 17 is that who was your supervisor? 18 disbanded. 18 A. 1 had a supervisor who was a nonphysician in the 19 Q. When would you approximate that it reached its 19 medical department. He in turn reported to the 20 largest size? 20 director of the medical department. 21 A.I would say probably '68, '7, '8, '9, somewhere 21 Q.Now, during your employment at American 22 about there. 22 Cyanamid, did you ever have occasion to work 23 Q.Then there was a couple years phase out? 23 directly with any of the people employed at 24 A. Yes. 24 Monsanto? 25 Q.Did you ever perform toxicological testing while 25 A. I had met some people from Monsanto, as I did Page 10 Page 12 1 you were employed by American Cyanamid that led 1 from other companies over the years, at 2 to a conclusion that a particular product was 2 meetings, in conferences and 1 had had contacts 3 carcinogenic? 3 with them along those lines. I did not -- I do 4 A. I do not recall that we found any compounds that 4 not recall having a contact in the sense of a 5 we tested to be carcinogenic. 5 testing -- joint studies or anything of that 6 Q.Now, other than supervising or actually 6 sort with these people. 7 performing toxicological studies on American 7 Q.The people that you saw over the years, were 8 Cyanamid products, did you have any other job 8 those fellow toxicologists? 9 responsibilities during your employment with 9 A.They were predominantly toxicologists, some 10 that company? 10 physicians and a few industrial hygienists. 11 A. I'm not sure what you mean by other job 11 Q. Was Dr. Kelly, the medical director at Monsanto, 12 responsibilities. Certainly administrative 12 one of the people you were mentioning that you 13 functions were involved as director of a 13 met over the years'? 14 laboratory. And also responsibility for 14 A. Interestingly enough, 1 never met Dr. Kelly 15 assessing test results and writing and 15 until I came to work for Monsanto. 16 distributing reports within the company. On 16 Q.How about Elmer Wheeler? 17 occasion we would present our studies to 17 A. Elmer Wheeler I met as an industrial hygienist. 18 regulatory agencies if there were regulatory 18 Q.How about Dr. Hunt? 19 issues involved with the products we were 19 A. Bill Hunt I met as a toxicologist, yes. 20 studying. 20 Q.Any others that you can remember that you got to - 21 Q.What were some of the regulatory agencies that 21 know over the years? 22 you had occasion to present reports to during 22 A. From Monsanto, Wheeler and Hunt were the two. I 23 the course of your employment? 23 should go back. I did meet very casually but 24 A. At that time it would have been predominantly 24 did not have any dealings with Jack Garrett, who 25 the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food 25 was an industrial hygienist also reporting to Page 9 - Page 12 WATER PCB-SD0000011571 jQan Macrtin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas Cause No.: L-9S-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997 Page 13 . Page 15 1 Elmer Wheeler. l witness. 2 Q.How did your employment with Monsanto come 2 Q.Was there any difference substantively in your 3 about? 3 duties between the tiine you served as manager of 4 A. After I left Cyanamid, I was looking for a job. 4 product safety or whatever the title was, and 5 They made me a job offer -- invited me for an 5 manager of environmental assessment and 6 interview made me a job offer and I accepted. 6 toxicology? 7 Q.By the way, just to complete the profile, I take 7 A. Initially when 1 joined the company, Dr. Hunt 8 it your next job after American Cyanamid was 8 was the toxicologist. Dr. Hunt died somewhat 9 with Monsanto? 9 over a year after I joined the company. After 10 A. Yes. 10 his death, I took over the responsibilities for 11 Q.How long were you employed by Monsanto? 11 the toxicology. That would be the most 12 A.'71 -- 1971 to 1991. 12 substantive change. 13 Q. At that point you retired? 13 Q. Did you take over for Dr. Hunt fairly soon after 14 A. Yes. 14 his death? 15 Q.Have you done periodic consulting work with the 15 A.Relatively soon. I don't recall exactly when I 16 company since your retirement? 16 was told I had that responsibility. 17 A. I have done consulting work, but I would not say 17 Q.Was it somewhere around 1972? 18 periodic. It has not been a regular or a fixed 18 A. It would have been the latter part of '72. 19 interval sort of thing. 19 Q.Okay. Did your position change at all from 20 Q.Has that typically been in connection with 20 manager of environmental assessment and 21 litigation? 21 toxicology from 1972 or so to the time you 22 A. I think all of it has been in connection with 22 retired? 23 litigation, that is with Monsanto Company. 23 A. Later, it was retitled director of environmental 24 Q. Have you also done consulting work with other 24 assessment and toxicology and then a few years 25 companies since you retired? 25 before I retired I was a senior toxicology Page 14 Page 16 1 A. I have done a certain amount, yes. 1 consultant. That was the title, but I was still 2 Q.Has your consulting work for others also 2 a company employee. 3 involved litigation? 3 Q. When did you serve as director of environmental 4 A.Some of it's been litigation, some of it has 5 just been general information and guidance. 4 assessment and toxicology? 5 A.I don't recall specific dates, but it would have 6 Q.Has all of the litigation work you just referred 6 been the latter part of the 1970s until probably 7 to related to PCBs? 7 about 1985, '87. 8 A. The non-Monsanto work is definitely not PCBs. 8 Q.Then you were senior toxicology consultant from 9 Q. What was the position you assumed when you 9 that point on until your retirement in '91? 10 started with Monsanto in 1971? 10 A.That's correct. 11 A. I think my first title was probably manager of 11 Q. Going back to your time as manager of product 12 environmental -- I'm sorry, manager of product 12 evaluation or -- I'm sorry, product safety, what 13 safety or some such title, and that was changed 13 were your duties and responsibilities? 14 after a while to manager of environmental 14 A. At that time Monsanto was trying to pull 15 assessment and toxicologist. 15 together various assessment procedures it had 16 MR. DAVIDSON: Craig, I would like to 16 for safety of products and my function was to 17 clarify something you just talked about, just 17 work with the operating units to put together a 18 for clarification purposes. You used the word 18 more formalized procedure for evaluating 19 "consulting" and that is a term of art. I 19 potential health and environmental effects of 20 think if you delve into it, I believe Dr. 20 chemicals and to review the status of knowledge " 21 Levinskas has been presented by deposition, such 21 on products and make recommendations for testing 22 as your requesting this deposition, and that is 22 or judgments, about their potential safety for 23 the extent of what he might refer to as 23 new products and new uses of existing products. 24 consulting work for Monsanto. It's really 24 to try to anticipate the issues which could be 25 nothing more than being presented as a fact 25 raised by those products. t- Page 13 - Page 16 WATER PCB-SD0000011572 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997` Page 17 Page 19 1 Q.So was this an assignment that brought you to 1 material, what testing, if any, was to be 2 each of the plants to evaluate products being 2 recommended and as the initial samples went out, 3 manufactured at those plants? 3 they would have that information if the product 4 A. The people in the operating units that had the 4 looked like it was feasible or had prospects we 5 products or had the interest in the products 5 might do further testing or more extended 6 would bring the information to me. I did not 6 testing. 7 visit plants with any frequency. 7 Q. Again, as of this 1971, '72 period when more 8 Q. Just so I understand, did this relate to safety 8 testing was required, was it done in-house at 9 of products as it affected the workers of 9 Monsanto or was it done by an independent 10 Monsanto or is it something broader than that? 10 laboratory? 11 A. This would include workers, which would include 11 A. At that time Monsanto did not have a toxicology 12 customers and also taking into consideration 12 laboratory in-house so the testing was done at 13 environmental issues. 13 outside what I call contract laboratories. 14 Q.And did this undertaking proceed product line by 14 Q. Just so I'm clear, what is your definition of an 15 product line throughout the company? 15 outside contract laboratory? 16 A. I indicated that this was for new products and 16 A.It's a laboratory that provides a service and 17 new uses of existing products. We were going to 17 you contract with them for the provision of that 18 start with those things. 18 service. 19 Q.Did any of those undertakings involve PCBs or 19 Q.So you or somebody at Monsanto would tell the 20 PCB containing products manufactured by 20 outside contract lab what type of a study you 21 Monsanto? 21 wanted done on a particular product and they 22 A. For practical purposes in most cases PCBs were 22 would do it and report back to you? 23 existing products and they were not in my 23 A.That would be the general intent, yes. 24 purview when I first started working with 24 Q. During that same 1971 to '12 period, was one of 25 Monsanto. 25 the outside contract labs that was utilized by Page 18 Page 20 1 MR. LIPSHUTZ: Could the court 1 Monsanto Industrial Bio-Test Labs? 2 reporter read back that answer? 2 A. Yes. 3 (Answer read) 3 Q.And will you understand what I'm talking about 4 Q. Did they become in your purview while you were 4 if I call it IBT? 5 the manager of product safety? 5 A. Yes. 6 A.I'm not sure when, but later on when we got more 6 Q. Were there other outside contract labs that were 7 involved and caught up on some of these things, 7 utilized by Monsanto at the time? 8 then I got more involved with PCBs. That would 8 A. Yes. 9 have been sometime later. 9 Q. As best you can estimate, what percentage of the 10 Q.And can you tell me in the abstract what was 10 work being done by outside contract labs on 11 involved in developing these -- without putting 11 behalf of Monsanto was being done in IBT in this 12 words in your mouth, tell me what it is that was 12 1971, '72 time period? 13 involved in these undertakings you're describing 13 A. I would say probably the greater part of it, but 14 as manager of product safety for any one 14 I was not involved in the testing program when 1 15 product. 15 first came and I'm not too sure of how much was 16 A. Well, it was sort of a product specific issue. 16 done, but 1 would think the greater part of it 17 We would look at what was known about the 17 was being done by IBT. 18 chemical, its chemical, physical properties. We 18 Q.Now, to whom did you report while you were 19 would look at what the intended uses were and 19 manager of product safety? 20 what the potential was for exposure under those 20 A. Elmer Wheeler. - 21 conditions of use. We would take a look at 21 Q. Before I go on, just to finish out the analysis, 22 similarity or what was known about somewhat 22 once you had gone through ^particular product 23 similar products and we would make 23 and looked at the chemical and its properties 24 recommendations to the operating unit as to what 24 and developed information about safe handling 25 precautions should be taken in handling the 25 and/or possibility of exposure was there a Page 17 - Page 20" WATER PCB-SD0000011573 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997 Page 21 Page 23 1 written work product that emerged? 1 plasticizer products. I'm not sure which ones 2 A. What I indicated was that we would make 2 and when, but yes, there was some uses which 3 recommendations to the operating units as to 3 were new products that we looked at. 4 what we thought should be done. In some cases, 4 Q. Do you remember if any of them related to 5 no testing at the initial limited amount of 5 Santicizer products? 6 sampling that was done would be required. In 6 A. Santicizer is a trade name for a class of 7 other cases, the timing and the schedule of the 7 plasticizers and it would include several items, 8 testing would be left to the discretion of the 8 and yes, Santicizer as such would have been 9 operating units because they knew how they 9 included. 10 wanted to progress on the timetable of 10 Q. Now, jumping back, you said you reported to 11 developing that product. If testing was done, 11 Elmer Wheeler? 12 reports would be issued, yes. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Okay. I probably threw things off by focusing 13 Q. What was Mr. Wheeler's position at the time? 14 on that aspect. I'm talking about generally 14 A. I'm not sure what his formal title was, but for 15 once you finished an analysis of a particular 15 practical purposes all of the non-physician 16 product line looking at all the properties and 16 persons in the medical department reported to 17 looking at all the recommendations that you had, 17 Elmer Wheeler. He was probably assistant 18 did you develop some sort of a written 18 medical - I shouldn't say medical director, but 19 recommendation with respect to that product? 19 a director reporting to Dr. Kelly who was the 20 A. I think in most cases a written report was sent 20 medical director. 21 back to the operating unit, yes. 21 Q. When you came over to Monsanto in 1971, what did 22 Q. What is an example of an operating unit? What 22 you do to prepare for the position if you can 23 are you talking about when you talk about an 23 recall? 24 operating unit? 24 A. 1 don't recall that 1 did anything specific to 25 A. We had a phosphates and detergents group and 25 prepare other than get myself moved out here. Page 22 Page 24 1 they made phosphate chemicals that are used in 1 Q. When you showed up at work, were there materials 2 detergents, and some food contact uses -- food 2 that you reviewed to get up to speed on what had 3 uses, not food contact, but ingredients of 3 come before you had arrived? 4 foodstuffs, so they're the people that are 4 a.No. 5 responsible for the research on the products, 5 Q. Did you take it upon yourself to review any of 6 for the development of uses, for peddling the 6 the historical studies that had been done on 7 products to customers. That's the operating 7 particular products manufactured by Monsanto? 8 unit for that group. And much of Monsanto was 8 A. No. 9 created in separate blocks of chemicals that 9 Q. Did you speak with others with whom you were 10 were related to each other and they're what I 10 then working to develop some of the history for 11 call business groups. 11 yourself about Monsanto's products? 12 Q. Was the plasticizers group also a business 12 A. I've indicated that my interests, or I was 13 group? 13 assigned new products and existing uses -- or 14 A. Plasticizers were a business group, yes. 14 new uses of existing products. There would be 15 Q. As of this 1971, '72 period, who was the head of 15 no history on the new products in this instance 16 that particular group if you can remember? 16 and new uses might or might not have a prior 17 A. Which group? 17 history. The first several months 1 met with 18 Q. Of the plasticizer group? 18 people in various parts of the company to get 19 A.I really can't recall who would have been at 19 some familiarity with company products, to get 20 that time. 20 some idea of what sort of resources were within *' 21 q.Do you remember doing any of this investigative 21 the company that I could rely on or call upon to 22 work, for lack of a better word, on specific 22 familiarize myself with things and that sort of 23 plasticizer products? 23 thing and we started looking at new products. 1 24 A. If you're talking about these environmental . 24 don't want to create the impression there was a 25 reviews I talked about, yes, I did them on 25 big flood gate of new products that suddenly t Page 21 - Page 24 WATER PCB-SD0000011574 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997` Page 25 Page 27 1 engulfed me. So as a few came in and we worked 1 to be spotlighted as environmental contaminants 2 on them and in collaboration with other people 2 and 1 was led to believe that Monsanto had 3 in some cases, then the tempo picked up a bit. 3 undertaken studies that were in progress and 4 Q. Let's jump ahead to the point at which you 4 they were going along well and I saw no reason 5 became manager of environmental assessment 5 to get myself involved in them. 6 toxicology. And if I understood you correctly 6 Q. These studies that were underway were being done 7 before, that was the point at which you also 7 by IBT? 8 picked up responsibility for toxicology that Dr. 8 A. Yes. 9 Hunt had had previously? 9 Q. And is that the set of four tests or so that 10 A. Yes. 10 were published in or around 1971? 11 Q. What was the nature of those duties that were 11 A.I'm not sure which publications, I don't recall 12 added to your portfolio? 12 any 1971 publications. I mean, at this time I 13 A. Well, when I came here Dr. Hunt had gone -- he 13 don't recall any. 14 would go to periodic contract labs and keep tabs 14 Q.Did the medical department at Monsanto during 15 on studies being done. And he might make 15 this, let's say '72, '73, '74 period, have 16 comments back to the operating units. The 16 periodic meetings? 17 operating units placed the studies, I presume in 17 A.I don't recall that they were scheduled with any 18 consultation with the medical department and so 18 regularity, periodic meetings, no. 19 forth. So that most of the studies that were 19 Q. Were there any means of communication other than 20 underway when Dr. Hunt died were known and were 20 just informal discussions between two people 21 to some degree being shepherded by the operating 21 down the hall? 22 unit personnel. So there was very little actual 22 A. It was a small group and we were all in one 23 change. And after Dr. Hunt died, then I began 23 general area of the building and most of the 24 to get more involved in getting caught up on 24 contact was casual and informal in the course of 25 what was underway and what was under test, but 25 the day, across the counter at lunch time. Page 26 Page 28 1 again, I can't say that I suddenly read every 1 Q. Was there any kind of a status report that was 2 report and brought myself up-to-date on every 2 circulated to keep people abreast generally of 3 product that was out. 3 developments within the medical department? 4 Q. Obviously, this case allegedly relates to PCBs. 4 A.I don't recall any. 5 So let's focus on PCB products for the moment. 5 Q. When did Mr. Wheeler retire? 6 As you assumed these additional duties as a 6 A.I would guess it was in the latter '70s. I 7 toxicologist, what did you do to familiarize 7 don't recall. 1 would say probably something 8 yourself with PCBs in particular? 8 like '76 to '78, '9, somewhere in there. 9 A. I really wasn't doing much to familiarize myself 9 Q. To the best of your recollection, was it before 10 with PCBs. Elmer Wheeler was handling most of 10 or after Dr. Kelly retired? 11 the PCB issues. 11 A. It was after Dr. Kelly retired. 12 Q.Did Mr. Wheeler seek out anybody's assistance as 12 Q.Do you remember when Dr. Kelly retired? 13 he was staying abreast of developments relating 13 A.It was about '74, 1974, '75, about that time. 14 to PCBS? 14 Q. When do you recall taking on a more active role 15 MR. DiMURO: I'll object to the 15 relating to PCBs? 16 form. You can answer. 16 MR. DiMURO: Object to the form. He 17 A.I don't know what he may have done with other 17 can answer. 18 people, but we did have occasional discussions 18 THE WITNESS: Beg your pardon? 19 with not very much detail on PCBs. I don't 19 MR. DiMURO: I object to the form of 20 think he ever came in and specifically asked me 20 the question. You can answer. ~ 21 my opinion on PCBs. 21 A. Well, my personal feeling is 1 got involved with 22 Q. And what types of discussions did you have with 22 PCBs when Dr. Kimbrough came to Monsanto to 23 him that related to PCBs? 23 comment that she had observed liver cancers in 24 a. They were getting to be recognized as 24 female rats fed Aroclor 1260 and that was 25 environmental contaminants. They were getting 25 probably the end of '73 or beginning of '74 ^ Page 25 - Page 28 WATER PCB-SD0000011575 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997 Page 29 Page 31 1 somewhere about there. And the reason I got 1 Q. He was a physician? 2 invited was that Dr. Kimbrough came to Monsanto 2 A. Yes. 3 to present her findings and I was asked if I 3 Q. Were there other physicians at that time in the 4 knew Dr. Kimbrough and I said yes I had known 4 medical department? 5 her for several years, so I was asked to go to a 5 A. Yes, there was a Dr. Murray Johnson who was the 6 meeting. That, to me, is the focal point from 6 assistant director or associate director, I 7 which I got involved in PCBs. 7 guess, of the department. And there was a 8 Q.That will teach you to volunteer information. 8 clinician, Ray Mezaras (phonetic) who was in the 9 A. Knowledge of acquaintances, you know. 9 clinic that they had at the site here in St. 10 Q.How had you gotten to know Dr. Kimbrough before 10 Louis. There were other physicians at other 11 1974? 11 locations and I did not have very much contact 12 A. Dr. Kimbrough was with the Center for Disease 12 with them. 13 Control outside of Atlanta. I had met her 13 Q. Are these like plant physicians? 14 supervisor, a physician who was her immediate 14 A. Yes, plant physicians. 15 supervisor some years earlier, and in the course 15 Q.And who became medical director when Dr. Kelly 16 of meetings, toxicology and so forth, I was 16 retired? 17 introduced to Dr. Kimbrough. 17 A. Dr. George Roush. 18 Q. Just to finish out your employment history a 18 Q. Who became medical director after Dr. Roush left 19 little bit, did your responsibilities change at 19 the company? 20 all from the time you were manager of 20 A.Barry -- let me see, what's his last name -- he 21 environmental assessment and toxicology to the 21 was there a few years before I left and he has 22 time when you were senior toxicology consultant? 22 since left Monsanto. Barry Friedlander. 23 A. Yes, we built a laboratory for toxicology 23 Q.To the best of your knowledge has Dr. Kelly 24 testing. I had a great deal of involvement with 24 passed away? 25 that. I was director of it at the time --1 25 A. Yes, he passed away a few years ago. Page 30 Page 32 1 shouldn't say director -- it was reporting to me 1 Q.Dr. Wheeler as well? 2 until it started to get functional. Then 2 A. Yes, earlier than Dr. Kelly. 3 because of other work pressures and so forth, 3 Q.And from the time you joined Monsanto through 4 that was assigned to another person. And as the 4 your tenure there, were there additional 5 group of toxicologists grew at Monsanto, I got 5 physicians added to the medical department again 6 into more of a teaching role with mentoring 6 focusing on the medical department in which you 7 younger toxicologists and I got a little further 7 served, not the plant physicians? 8 removed from the day-to-day testing, but for 8 A. In the last couple years there was a Jim Spraul 9 practical purposes it was a continuum. 9 that came to join us after Dr. Roush was medical 10 Q. When was the toxicology lab built by Monsanto? 10 director. Jim, unfortunately, died of liver 11 A.It's down here in St. Louis near the Washington 11 cancer some years back. He was a really young 12 University Medical School. 12 fellow. There were two other physicians -- I 13 Q. Perhaps a better question is when did it become 13 can see the faces, I can't put a name on them. 14 operational? 14 One of them who came from Olin Matheson worked 15 A. I think they started moving into it about 1977. 15 for a couple years then went to Olin Matheson. 16 The--1 think it was about 1977 that they 16 Don Coleman was more or less his assistant or 17 started people moving into that laboratory. 17 associate medical director of Dr. Roush. He 18 Q. And who was the person who assumed control or 18 left after a couple of years. Before I left a 19 responsibility for the toxicological lab? 19 young woman physician, Becky, was hired by 20 A. The first director was Paul Wright. 20 Monsanto, so there have been other people in the " 21 Q.Let me take you back through the structure of 21 corporate medical department as distinct from 22 the Monsanto medical department for a few 22 the clinics, but toward the en<1 of my time at 23 minutes. Going back to 1971, you mentioned the 23 Monsanto the medical department people started 24 medical director was Dr. Kelly; right? 24 spending more time in the clinic at the 25 A. Right. 25 headquarters site than they had previously. Page 29 - Page 32 WATER PCB-SD0000011576 Joan Macrtin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997' Page 33 Page 35 1 Q. Also back in 1971 you mentioned Elmer Wheeler 1 Q.How many toxicologists were on staff at Monsanto 2 was there and he was industrial hygienist? 2 by the mid'80s? 3 A. Yes. 3 A. At the peak I had 16, counting myself. We had 4 Q.And Jack Garrett was also an industrial 4 16 Ph.D.s maybe about 14, 14, 15 Ph.D.s one or 5 hygienist? 5 two master's and half dozen clerical staff. 6 A. Yes. 6 MR. L1PSHUTZ: I'm having a little 7 Q. Were there any other hygienists in the medical 7 trouble hearing the witness. 8 department as of 1971? 8 Q. Those are all toxicologists? 9 A. There was Dr. Carl Bole, he was an industrial 9 A. Yes, exclusive of those that were in the 10 hygienist working with Garrett. Those are ~ 10 laboratory downstairs. 11 near as I can tell that was about the extent of 11 Q.Okay. When you joined Monsanto in 1971 were 12 the medical department. 12 there any epidemiologists on staff? 13 Q. Toxicologists, you mentioned? 13 A. No. 14 A. Bill Hunt. 14 Q.Did there come a time while you were employed by 15 Q. By the way, industrial hygienists, again between 15 Monsanto that an epidemiologist was hired? 16 you're talking 1971 and the year you retired, 16 A. Yes. 17 were there additional industrial hygienists 17 Q.Who was that? 18 added to the medical department? 18 A. Bill Gaffey. 19 A. Yes. The industrial hygiene - after I came, 19 Q.He was the first epidemiologist, to the best of 20 the industrial hygiene department, or section, I 20 your knowledge, hired by Monsanto for the 21 guess, rather than department, expanded by 21 medical department during your tenure there? 22 adding several more industrial hygienists both 22 A. They had a young lady, Judy Zack, who was here 23 at headquarters and at plants and the toxicology 23 for a while. I had veiy little contact with 24 section expanded. 24 Judy, but she did some epidemiology work, but 25 Q. Who were the ones that you can recall being 25 Bill Gaffey was the first one that headed a Page 34 Page 36 1 added let's say in the 1970s in the medical 1 formalized epidemiology section. 2 department? 2 Q. When did Mr. Gaffey or Dr. Gaffey join the 3 A. I would have trouble getting their names for the 3 medical department of Monsanto? 4 hygienists because some of them would come and 4 A.I would - again, I don't have a clear 5 go or spend time at the plants and go back. I'm 5 recollection of the time, but somewhere about 6 really not in a position to do that. 6 1980 I guess, might have been a little earlier. 7 Q.Toxicologists, there was Bill Hunt before you. 7 Q.Now, as of the early 1970s when you joined the 8 Was there anybody else there in 1971 when you 8 medical department, what was the function that 9 joined Monsanto? 9 was served by that department? 10 A. No. 10 MR. DiMURO: You're talking about the 11 Q.And after your arrival, were there additional 11 day he joined the department what the function 12 toxicologists added? 12 was? 13 A. We hired Paul Wright in, would have been about 13 MR. TURET: Yeah, that approximate 14 the middle, or before Bill Hunt died to work 14 time frame. 15 with me on the environmental assessment 15 A. You mean the function of the medical 16 schemes. And at the time we made an offer to 16 department? 17 him, between the time we made an offer to him 17 Q.Yes. 18 and he arrived, Bill Hunt died. And that would 18 A. 1 don't think that was ever stated to me. I 19 have been more or less mid third quarter of 19 presume it was like many other medical 20 '72. Then '73, we hired Fred Johannsen as a 20 departments. I don't recall a specific ,, 21 toxicologist and beyond that we kept adding 21 statement of what their function was. 1 22 toxicologists with some regularity for some 22 indicated what I was being hjred for, and that 23 years as we got more involved in the testing 23 I'm familiar with. 24 programs on a day-to-day basis we kept adding 24 Q. You were there for how many years, 1971 -- 25 staff. 25 A.To '91. Page 33 - Page 3^ WATER PCB-SD0000011577 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)'November 10, 1997 Witness: George Levinskas Page 37 Page 39 1 Q. Twenty years. Based on your experiences while 1 information fo the operating units so they could 2 you were there, what was the function of the 2 get the registrations or the approvals for the 3 medical department to the company as a whole? 3 use of pesticides. To a large extent, at that 4 A. Well, over the years we developed, at least I 4 time, there were relatively few regulations 5 can speak a little more definitely on that, with 5 dealing with anything, so most of this was that 6 the passage of time, we began to talk about what 6 was what in the judgment of the individuals 7 the function was, what the function of 7 involved could be done or ought to be done. 8 toxicology was and the environmental assessment 8 Q. You mentioned the issue of commissioning studies 9 procedure we were developing, so we began to 9 where appropriate. Was that one function, to 10 formalize and put down some of these things that 10 recommend outside studies by outside contract 11 we were supposedly doing. But I don't know 11 labs? 12 whether there was a written statement of a 12 A. My understanding of it was that the 13 charter or a mission statement for the medical 13 recommendations -- the operating units were 14 department. I really don't have any knowledge 14 responsible for the testing to some extent 15 of such a thing. 15 because they were the ones who would have to 16 Q.I'm not asking for a formal written statement. 16 fund it. The medical department would provide 17 I'm just asking for your experiences based on 17 support and maybe some expertise in dealing with 18 the time you were working in the medical 18 those studies. But that was to a large extent 19 department what function it served. 19 an operating unit responsibility. When 1 came 20 A. Well, I would assume like any function for any 20 here the intent was to formalize and pull this 21 medical department. One is to work -- the 21 together under a central control in the medical 22 industrial hygiene people go out and make 22 department. 23 measurements in the plants to see that the 23 Q. Was it not within your purview to recommend to 24 exposures were either controlled of within 24 operating units that further testing might be 25 permissible limits of whatever standards were 25 appropriate or desirable? Page 38 Page 40 1 set. The physicians had the responsibility to 1 A. 1 indicated that that was, to deal with. 2 see that the health surroundings of the 2 initially we were dealing with new products and 3 employees was maintained. And the toxicologists 3 new uses of existing products. But whatever was 4 were to provide what support they could by 4 out there already was not in my purview when we 5 virtue of doing testing or reviewing published 5 started. 6 literature to come up with information that 6 Q.Did there come a time later -- let me withdraw 7 could be used in assessing safe working 7 that. What about where there were gaps in 8 conditions and safe uses of chemicals. And then 8 testing that had been conducted in the past on 9 later on, more recently, about the time I came 9 existing products? 10 here was concerns about the environmental 10 MR. DiMURO: Object to the form. You 11 safety. So all of these things contributed 11 can answer. 12 something to the big picture. Beyond that 12 A. When you say gaps, in the absence of any 13 generalization I really don't know how to gather 13 requirements, I don't see how you could say a 14 your question. 14 gap. I'm trying to indicate that that was a 15 Q.I understand it's a broad question. This may be 15 question of judgment on people whether something 16 repetition of some of the things you just said, 16 should or shouldn't be done. We were starting 17 but was one function to gather information 17 to look at new products and new uses because we 18 concerning toxicity of products being 18 could deal with those. There was no way we 19 manufactured by Monsanto? 19 could go back and automatically and instantly 20 A. One was to keep abreast of information that was 20 look at everything that the company had ever *' 21 available on the products that Monsanto, or 21 done and had on record. The resources and such 22 related -- products related to those Monsanto 22 weren't there. But to say gaps, in the absence 23 was selling. There were some instances where 23 of a definition of what's needed, I don't see 24 regulatory approval was required for products 24 how you could see there was a gap. There is 25 such as pesticides. It was to help provide to 25 probably no product on earth that somebody Page 37 - Page 40 WATER PCB-SD0000011578 Joan Macrtin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas, November 10, 1997 Page 41 Page 43 1 wouldn't like to know more about. 1 was or was not required or appropriate. 2 Q. Well, you mentioned that one of the functions of 3 the medical department would be to stay abreast 2 A. Well, I guess my feeling would be that if we got 3 information, we would certainly convey it to the 4 of developments being published in the 4 operating units with a recommendation. The 5 literature, for example. If a study came out 5 recommendation might or might not include 6 from some other source and suggested that there 6 further testing. 7 could be a toxicity problem with a particular 7 Q.Okay. Did the medical department also serve the 8 product at Monsanto, would it not be the medical 8 function of gathering toxicity information into 9 department that would make a recommendation that 9 one place from which it could be available to 10 further testing was desirable or appropriate? 10 others such as customers? 11 MR. DiMURO: Object to the form. 11 A. Yes. 12 A. If a report came out with, quote, adverse 12 Q. And did the medical department also make that 13 findings in a study, I think the first question 13 information available to researchers or others 14 would be, is that possible with the Monsanto 14 in the public at large? 15 product under the conditions of Monsanto use. 15 A. I don't know of any mechanism by which you could 16 If somebody were injecting intravenously a fluid 16 make it available to the public at large except 17 of some sort that was not intended for injecting 17 taking out a newspaper ad, and we were not doing 18 intravenously in people, I don't think I would 18 that. But we certainly attempted, as far as I 19 get -- we would tell people, be careful but it 19 know, we attempted to make the information 20 had no relevance. So the first thing we would 20 available to our own people and when 1 had 21 do would be to assess whether the information 21 queries from outside I would tend to respond and 22 was relevant to the particular product and the 22 include that information in response to them. 23 use of our product. I mean, it doesn't 23 But the public at large, I don't see a mechanism 24 necessarily call for testing. 24 for getting that information out there. 25 Q.If you reached the conclusion that the testing 25 Q. Fair enough. But for Monsanto employees, for Page 42 Page 44 1 was relevant to the use of the product, would it 1 customers, for people who asked for it, would 2 not then be a medical department recommendation 2 such information come from the medical 3 that more testing was necessary or desirable or 3 department? 4 appropriate? 4 A. Yes. 5 MR. DiMURO: I'll object to the 5 Q.How about government agencies? 6 form. 6 A. There were two reasons for going with government 7 A.I think it could be equally applicable that you 7 agencies. At that time one would be we were 8 would review your handling precautions and you 8 seeking regulatory approval and providing them 9 might decide that you did not have to test. The 9 information they requested, or the other would 10 purpose of testing, if somebody raises a 10 be that they may have come to us and asked about 11 question about a chemical, and assuming that 11 a product because of something else they were 12 that is a valid result, to do the thing over 12 dealing with. And in both those cases 1 think 13 again and confirm that it happens, there is some 13 we responded. 14 merit to that. But if it happens in animals, no 14 Q. Responded by giving whatever information you 15 amount of testing is going to obliterate it, I 15 had? 16 mean overcome it. So you would look at your 16 A. Providing them with what we had, yes. 17 handling procedures, you would look at the uses, 17 Q.A11 right. 18 you might curtail uses, you might change your 18 MR. TURET: Off the record for a 19 handling procedures or something, but it does 19 second. 20 not automatically in my judgment lead to a 20 (Lunch recess.) " 21 requirement for the testing. 21 MR. TURET: Back on the record. 22 Q.No, I'm not asking if it automatically leads to 22 Q.Dr. Levinskas, I would like To have the court 23 anything. I'm asking whether the medical 23 reporter mark as Levinskas 1 a document 1 would 24 department would find it within its purview to 24 like you to take a look at. 25 make suggestions about whether further testing 25 (Memo dated 10/13/71 x Page 41 - Page 44 WATER PCB-SD0000011579 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas _______ November 10, 1997 Page 45 Page 47 1 marked as Exhibit No. 1 1 that would be a cancer of a bladder in a rat. 2 for identification.) 2 Q.The memo goes on to say that sections of both 3 Q.I don't want to rush you, sir. Just for the 3 bladders were sent to NCl. Is that the National 4 record, this has Bates number MAE 054084-085. 4 Cancer Institute? 5 It's an October 13, 1971, memorandum to the 5 A. Yes. 6 file. Dr. Levinskas, have you ever seen this 6 Q.For diagnosis of Drs. Strauss and Katherine 7 document before? 7 Snell? 8 A. Yes. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And down at the very bottom of the second page, 9 Q.They're both affiliated with National Cancer 10 are those your initials handwritten on it? 10 Institute as of October, 1971? 11 A. Yes. 11 MR. DiMURO: I'll object to the form. 12 Q. And so is this a document that you authored? 12 Q. To the best of your knowledge? 13 A. Yes. 13 A. As I recall, Dr. Kimbrough said she sent the 14 Q.Now, this memo starts out saying that you had 14 slides of the bladders to the National Cancer 15 spoken with Dr. Kimbrough today, the memo is 15 Institute and then the information she got back 16 dated October 13, 1971. Is this the 16 was from Drs. Strauss and Snell. I would assume 17 conversation you referred to earlier today when 17 they're probably institute employees, but I 18 you offered to contact her since you had known 18 don't know. 19 her from previous years? 19 Q. Is there any significance. Dr. Levinskas, to the 20 A. No. 20 fact that Dr. Kimbrough chose the National 21 Q. What was the nature of the conversation that is 21 Cancer Institute to have a second look at her 22 involved in this memorandum? 22 slides? 23 A. My recollection is that someone, it may have 23 MR. DiMURO: Objection to the form. 24 been Wheeler or Kelly, had heard that there was 24 You can answer if you know. 25 sort of a rumor floating around of a possible 25 A. Well, two reasons: One is it's another Page 46 Page 48 1 bladder tumor in rats fed Aroclor 1260 and that 1 government agency, and to an extent some of the 2 Dr. Kimbrough was doing and talking about it and 2 most knowledgeable people in cancer would be at 3 I said I knew Dr. Kimbrough and I would be 3 the National Cancer Institute. 1 think it's a 4 willing to call her to inquire further, get some 4 logical choice, but other than that, assuming 5 further information on this and this is a 5 that's why she made her choice. 6 summary of my discussion with her on the phone 6 Q. Was it your understanding at the time that as 7 about that study. 7 you refer in your memorandum here, the diagnosis 8 Q. Had you spoken with Dr. Kimbrough before October 8 of carcinoma in the female was confirmed? 9 13ofl971asa Monsanto employee? 9 A. Yes. 10 A. Not that I recall. 10 Q.To your knowledge, was the lesion that was 11 Q.Now, the memo suggests that Dr. Kimbrough had 11 detected in the male ever resolved? 12 seen two lesions in bladders of rats that were 12 A. If I remember correctly, later in the year there 13 fed Aroclor 1260. Is that your understanding of 13 was -- there was a meeting at Quail Roost, a 14 what had prompted your call to her? 14 conference at which several people were involved 15 A. I say two lesions in the memo. It may have been 15 including people from Monsanto, Dr. Kimbrough 16 there were lesions in the bladder, I don't know 16 herself, people from the FDA l was told, and 17 if it was two or not, but she said she had seen 17 people from Bio-Test and others and that they 18 those. 18 looked at the slides and with respect to the 19 Q.It says one of the tumors was diagnosed as a 19 male cancer, they decided that -- the conclusion 20 malignant anaplastic carcinoma of the bladder. 20 as reported to me was that it was a cancer but " 21 What exactly is that? 21 it was not related to the feeding with PCBs. 22 A. I'm not a pathologist, but that would be - 22 That was the consensus of the various people, 23 malignant is one that would be aggressive like 23 including the pathologist that looked at the 24 definitely cancer. And the anaplastic 24 lesion. 25 description of the type of tissues they saw, but 25 Q.Do you have any understanding of how it's t Page 45 - Page 48 WATER PCB-SD0000011580 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. CauseNo.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) Multi-Page1 Witness: George Levinskas, November Id, 1997 Page 49 Page 51 1 determined or on what basis it's determined that 1 Exhibit Levinskas 10. This is a December 6, 2 cancer that's found is related to the PCBs? 2 1974, memorandum from Frederick Johannsen to 3 MR. DiMURO: Object to the form. 3 George Roush. Dr. Levinskas, have you ever seen 4 A. I think there is a variety of things. The first 4 this document before? 5 thing that would occur to me is that it says it 5 A. Yes. 6 occurred in a female which died after six 6 Q. And had you seen it before the deposition in 7 months. Six months would be rather short for 7 which it was marked as an exhibit? 8 induction of cancer by almost any chemical. 8 A. I'm quite sure that I did. 9 Q. I thought we were talking about the diagnosis of 9 Q. Who is Frederick Johannsen? 10 the male? 11 A.The male is eight months; it's still a short 10 A. A toxicologist who was reporting to me working 11 at Monsanto. 12 time. 12 q.Now, this refers to a telephone conversation 13 Q. So the answer is the same with respect to the 13 between Dr. Kimbrough and you. I don't know if 14 male? 14 I asked you this last time, were you in regular 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. There is a reference in here to porphyria. I 15 contact with Dr. Kimbrough through the late 16 1974, into 1975 period? may be mispronouncing it. 17 MR. DiMURO: I'll object to the MR. DiMURO: Last paragraph, first 18 form. sentence first page? 19 A. We had contacts following her visit to Monsanto MR.TURET: Yes. 20 to talk about her 1260 study. I wouldn't A. I see it. 21 characterize them as regularly, but I would say 22 Q. What is porphyria? 22 now and then. 23 A. It's the secretion of chemicals or compounds 23 Q.When did Dr. Kimbrough first come to Monsanto to 24 called porphyrins in the urine. 24 share with you her findings about 1260? 25 Q.Is there any significance to that observation 25 A. My best recollection it was probably in the Page 50 Page 52 l here in these rats, to your knowledge? I latter part of '74, mid to latter part of '74, 2 MR. DiMURO: I'll object. 2 but I really don't recall a specific date. 3 A. I'm not aware there is any particular -- it's an 4 observation made. I'm not sure anybody made a 3 Q. And was that a meeting at which you were 4 actually present? 5 causal connection or a causal connection if any 5 A. Yes. 6 is known. It happens with exposure to some 6 Q. Who else was present, from Monsanto in 7 chemicals. 7 particular? 8 Q.And down at the very last, this is apparently 8 A. I don't recall everyone else that was present 9 how Weiseburg learned about them. Who is the 9 there. Dr. Kelly was there. Elmer Wheeler was 10 Weiseburg that refers to? 10 there, and 1 suspect there were several other 11 A. That would be John Weisburger who at that time 11 people or some other people from the operating 12 was with the National Cancer Institute. 12 units, but 1 don't -- 1 don't recall the makeup 13 Actually, it should be Weisburger -- no, it's 13 of the meeting. 14 Weiseburg. I stand corrected, it's Weiseburg. 14 MR. LIPSHUTZ: Would you identify 15 Q.He was a pathologist with the National Cancer 15 that document again for me? 16 Institute? 16 MR. TURET: This is one of the ones 17 A. Yes. 17 that's going to be faxed your way. I'm waiting 18 (Memo dated 12/6/74 18 for the other copies to be bought in so I can 19 marked as Exhibit No. 2 19 fax you the bunch. But if you want, we can send 20 for identification.) 20 along this first set of documents to you and ~ 21 MR. O'CONNOR: Off the record. 21 supply the rest to you later. 22 (Discussion off the record) 22 MR. LIPSHUTZ: I don'T-need to see 23 MR. TURET: I'm showing the witness a 23 the documents right now. What was that marking, 24 document that has been marked in a previous 24 though? 25 deposition in another litigation as Deposition 25 MR. TURET: This was produced by % Page 49 - Page 52 WATER PCB-SD0000011581 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997 Page 53 Page 55 1 Monsanto as an exhibit to one of the transcripts 1 being looked at as a possible replacement for 2 that was requested. 2 the other Aroclors, the more highly chlorinated 3 MR. LIPSHUTZ: I'm sorry, I'm not 3 Aroclors. 4 hearing. Was that marked in connection with 4 Q.And what was MCS 1043 if you know? 5 this deposition? 5 A. MCS is an acronym for Monsanto Company Sample, 6 MR. TURET: It has been now as 6 and I don't know without -- I'm sure the records 7 Levinskas 2, but it was previously marked as 7 are somewhere, but I don't know what the number 8 Levinskas 10 in another litigation. 8 1043 would be without checking out something 9 MR. LIPSHUTZ: Now I understand. 9 else. I just don't know. 10 That's what confused me. Okay. 10 (Letter dated 12/17/74 11 Q.Dr. Levinskas, there is a comment here about Mr. 11 marked as Exhibit No. 3 . 12 Johannsen having made a call to Dr. Sidney 12 for identification.) 13 Siegel at NCI. Do you know who Dr. Siegel is? 13 Q.For the record, the document that has been 14 A.He was one of the administrative people and 14 marked as Levinskas 3 is a December 17, 1974, 15 researchers at the National Cancer Institute. 15 letter reportedly from Dr. Levinskas to Dr. 16 Q. Was he the person who one would contact at the 16 Donovan Gordon of IBT and has an enclosure, a 17 time at the National Cancer Institute to find 17 letter from Dr. Kimbrough and some other 18 the status of toxicological studies being done? 18 materials and it's Bates number MAE 051687 19 A. He would be one of the people we could call. We 19 through 694. Just so you know, Dr. Levinskas, 20 had the advantage that I had met him, didn't 20 you're welcome to read the whole document 21 know him well, but I had met him, so he agreed 21 beginning to end, but I would also refer you to 22 to call him. 22 the parts that I would ask you about. Have you 23 Q. Were you aware as of early December of 1974 that 23 ever seen that document before, sir? 24 NCI was conducting studies like the one 24 A. Yes. 25 described in this memo? 25 Q.Whatisit? Page 54 Page 56 1 MR. DiMURO: Object to the form. 1 A. After Dr. Kimbrough came to Monsanto, I asked 2 A. I think, it would seem to me the memo is fairly 2 for further information about the details of 3 self-explanatory, in talking to Dr. Kimbrough, 3 this study and this is the information that she 4 she thought NCI was doing a study on Aroclor 4 sent to me. 5 1254, and I asked Dr. Johannsen if he would call 5 Q. Okay. The cover letter on this is forwarding 6 Dr. Siegel and inquire, see if he could get some 6 the information you received onto Dr. Gordon? 7 information about that study. 7 A. Yes. 8 Q.Did the information about the status of that 8 Q.And what was Dr. Gordon's position with IBT at 9 study come back to you as well others? 9 the time? 10 A. I would have seen Dr. Johannsen's memo and that 10 A. He was a pathologist up there. 11 was the distribution as indicated on that memo 11 Q.And down at the CC section on that cover letter 12 that he would have made. 12 there is a reference to Dr. JC Calandra. Who is 13 Q.Down at the bottom there is a handwritten note 13 Dr. Calandra? 14 signed WR at the bottom. Who is WR if you know? 14 A. He was the owner at that time, the president of 15 A. I do not know. 15 the laboratory. 16 Q.Do you know whether it's William Richard? 16 Q.Now, there is a reference here to a subsequent 17 A.It could be, but I don't know. 17 discussion with them that's coming up. What 18 Q.Do you have any understanding of what those 18 subsequent discussion was being referred to, if 19 handwritten notes refer to? 19 you know? _ 20 A. I don't know that I've seen the handwritten 20 A. We were planning - I say we were planning. It 21 notes before, but I don't have any knowledge of 22 what they are or why they were put there. 21 was our intention that Dr. Gordon would look at --s 22 the slides on-the studies Monsanto had done at 23 Q. What was Aroclor 1016 if you know? 23 IBT on Aroclor 1260 to look at those lesions 24 A. It was a PCB which had a lower average of degree 24 again, and to go down and look at the lesions 25 of chlorination than Aroclor 1254 and it was 25 that Kimbrough had described. And have -i Page 53 - Page 56 WATER PCB-SD0000011582 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997 Page 57 Page 59 1 Kimbrough look at slides from the Monsanto 1 MR. TURET: I'm asking for his 2 studies so that we could attempt to resolve the 2 opinion. 3 apparent differences in observations between the 3 A. In terms of the number of animals involved, I 4 two studies. 4 don't think that's a significant difference. 5 Q. And was there a meeting set up for that purpose? 5 Q.Next section says nodular hyperplasia and 6 A. Yes. 6 hepatomas. What are hepatomas? 7 Q. When was that meeting to take place, if you 7 A. A hepatoma is a liver tumor which is, at that 8 know? 8 time was generally, and I think today is also 9 A. Well, it would have been subsequent to this. I 9 considered to be a benign tumor. 10 think it probably was early '75. 10 Q. And are those hepatomas tumors that occur 11 Q.Now, there is a reference down in the last 11 spontaneously in humans or are they only as a 12 paragraph right at the end that you anticipate 12 result of exposure - 13 that Dr. Gordon, Dr. Kimbrough and Bob Squires 13 MR. DAVIDSON: In humans? 14 as well as you would attend. Who was Bob 14 Q.Let me rephrase the question. Are hepatomas 15 Squires? ~ 15 benign tumors that occur in Sherman strain rats 16 A. Bob Squires was a pathologist. I believe he was 16 spontaneously or do they occur only as a result 17 at the National Cancer Institute at that time. 17 of some other phenomenon? 18 Q. Flipping to the next page, the one Bates 18 MR. DiMURO: I'll object to the 19 numbered MAE 051688, is that a letter you 19 form. If he has a personal opinion -- 20 received from Dr. Kimbrough? 20 A. The strain of rats that Kimbrough used, which is 21 A. Yes. 21 from -- this document says obtained from the 22 Q. When she talks about a brief outline of the 22 NCDC animal farm at Lawrenceville, and the 23 experiment that, I guess Aroclor 12-72-A, is 23 Sherman strain, I have no knowledge of the 24 that the document that follows it? 24 Sherman strain, I have not worked with them. I 25 A. Yes. 25 don't know what the incidence would be of Page 58 Page 60 1 Q.Now, flipping forward, I guess Bates number MAE 1 hepatomas that do occur or can occur 2 051691, says at the top. Preliminary List of 2 spontaneously in some animals, in some rats, as 3 Microscopic Findings? 3 evidenced by the fact -- well -- it's difficult 4 A.Uh-huh. 4 because she combined nodular hyperplasia and 5 Q.Down in the section that says liver, under tumor 5 hepatomas, so I don't know, of that 154 in the 6 type? 6 high level, 1 don't know how many hepatomas 7 A. Yes. 7 alone, or whether it's 153 nodular hyperplasias 8 Q. First one is nodular hyperplasia. What is that? 8 and one hepatoma. 9 A.It's a swelling of the structures within the 9 Q.Do you have any understanding of how nodular 10 cell, but they're like nodules, they're little 10 hyperplasia here can be in a separate category 11 lumps and they're scattered. It's not a large 11 and not be lower than a category with both 12 mass. 12 nodular hyperplasia hepatoma? 13 Q. And do nodular hyperplasias occur spontaneously? 13 A. 1 don't know how she put this table together or 14 a. They can. 14 what her reasoning was or the background. All 1 15 Q. You notice under the control section it's 15 know is what she provided in this table. 16 reported there were three nodular hyperplasias 16 Q.Do you have any understanding personally as to 17 and under the experimental rats there are seven? 17 whether there is a significance to seeing 154 18 A. Yes. 18 nodular hyperplasias and hepatomas in the rats 19 Q. Is there any significance to the fact there is 19 exposed to the Aroclor 1260 as opposed to one in 20 seven in the rats that were exposed to Aroclor 20 the control group? - 21 1260 versus three in the control? 21 MR. DiMURO: Object to the form. You 22 MR. DiMURO: Object to the form to 22 can answer. 23 the extent you're asking for expert testimony, 23 A. Obviously the number is greater and on a 24 I'm going to direct him not to answer. If you 24 statistical basis I would expect it to be 25 want his opinion, that's fine. 25 greater. It's not statistically significant. Page 57 - Page 60 WATER PCB-SD0000011583 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)___________________________________November 10, 1997 Page 61 Page 63 1 Q.Can one derive from looking at that number that l (Letter dated 1/14/75 2 nodular hyperplasia and hepatomas increase in 2 marked as Exhibit No. 4 3 experimental rats is caused by the Aroclor 1260? 3 for identification.) 4 MR. DiMURO: I'll object to the 4 Q.For the record, I'm showing the witness a 5 form. You're asking for expert testimony on one 5 document that's dated January 14, 1975, which 6 study, on one person's conclusions. 6 purports to be a letter from Dr. Levinskas to 7 MR. TURET: I'm asking for his 7 Dr. Gordon of IBT. It's a document that was 8 opinion based on this. I'm not asking for 8 marked as Deposition Exhibit Levinskas 13 in a 9 expert testimony. 9 prior deposition. Doctor, have you seen the 10 A. There is no question but 154 is markedly greater 10 document that's been presented to you before? 11 than one. It's a statement of fact. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Yes, I understand one is a larger number than 12 Q.And although there is no signature line at the 13 the other. Did you hear my question? Can you 13 bottom, is this a letter that you sent to Dr. 14 derive from that, just from the numbers that 14 Gordon? 15 fact that there were 154 in the rats exposed to 15 A. Yes. 16 Aroclor 1254 versus one in the non-exposed 16 Q. Now, the letter purports to send along three -- 17 control group, does that translate into the fact 17 are they studies, toxicological studies? 18 that Aroclor 1260 caused the nodular hyperplasia 18 A.They're reprints of studies. 19 and hepatomas in the exposed rats? 19 Q.And is it fair to say these reprints were sent 20 MR. O'CONNOR: Object to the form. 20 along to Dr. Gordon in anticipation of a meeting 21 Just so the record is clear, Craig, I think 21 that he and Dr. Richter were going to have with 22 you're referring to Aroclor 1260. You mentioned 22 Dr. Kimbrough and Dr. Squire? 23 Aroclor 1254. 23 A. Yes. 24 MR. TURET: That was my mistake. I 24 Q. Is this leading up to the same meeting that was 25 intended to say 1260. 25 referred to in the letter we discussed a couple Page 62 Page 64 1 A. I think the basic premise is correlation is not 1 moments ago? 2 causation. Correlation and causation may go 2 A. Yes. 3 together. Correlation does not prove 3 Q. Did you personally select the three reprints 4 causation. So there is no question that a 4 that were going on to these gentlemen? 5 larger number of observations that were made in 5 A. I don't recall how I got these reprints, but we 6 the treated animals, but it is going beyond the 6 had them and they talked about these things in 7 data that that's the conclusion one is drawing, 7 the first sentence, due to liver tumorigenesis 8 but the data are consistent with that conclusion 8 of PCBs, and since that was a subject of the 9 but they don't necessarily make that a 9 meeting, 1 thought it was prudent to inform them 10 conclusion. 10 of what was published in the literature 11 Q. Moving onto the next item, hepatocellular 11 regarding the subject that was under discussion. 12 carcinomas, what is hepatocellular carcinomas? 12 Q. Did you select these three reprints as being 13 A. Well, hepato, is a liver cell and the carcinoma 13 leading authorities at the time on the issue of 14 is a cancer of the liver. 14 liver tumorigenesis? 15 Q.And what is an adenofibrosis? 15 A. I did not select them on that basis. My 16 A. Adenofibrosis, I'm not that good a pathologist, 16 recollection is these were reprints that we had 17 I don't think that's a tumor. It may be a 17 or had been called to our attention and, 18 fibrous tissue tumor, but it's not been 18 therefore, I included them or sent them on to 19 considered a carcinogen, but --1 would like to, 19 Don Gordon. 20 if I might add, in one bladder papilloma which 20 Q.So is there any particular significance in the - 21 is a tumor, you will see one in the control 21 fact that these three articles are here as 22 animal and none were seen in the treated 22 opposed to other articles that-might have 23 animals. 23 covered the same topics? 24 Q.I'm not going to ask anything further on that 24 MR. DiMURO: I'm going to object to 25 one. 25 the form. I think he told you twice why he Page 61 - Page 64 WATER PCB-SD0000011584 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997^ Page 65 Page 67 1 selected them, but you can answer. 1 rat consistently or regularly, one develops a 2 A. I think these were available and known to us. 2 background information and we had no such 3 They were not selected from a larger bailiwick. 3 background information against which to assess 4 They might have been called to our attention by 4 the data that Kimbrough presented. 5 Kimbrough. I don't know how they came to my 5 Q. What did you mean by the sentence that follows 6 attention. 6 that, despite the absence of historic control 7 Q.Did the meeting that's referred to here as a 7 data, her results would be hard to refute? 8 January 31, 1975, meeting ultimately take place? 8 A. I think any time you have an adverse finding of 9 A. Yes, the meeting did take place. 9 any sort in an animal study and you try to 10 Q.Did you participate in that meeting? 10 repeat it, and if you don't repeat it, it 11 A. I attended. 11 doesn't negate the fact that it was seen the 12 Q.Did Drs. Richter and Gordon also attend? 12 first time and that's why 1 say her results 13 A. Yes. 13 would be hard to refute. 14 Q. Was Dr. Kimbrough there as well? 14 Q.The following page, top paragraph, you were 15 A. Yes. 15 referring to you and Dr. Gordon and Dr. Richter, 16 Q.How about Dr. Squire? 16 it says, after we left and they conceded the 17 A. Yes. 17 occurrence of hepatic carcinomas, there was 18 (Memorandum dated 1/31/75 18 little else to do. Do you have any recollection 19 marked as Exhibit No. 5 19 one way or the other as to whether Drs. Gordon 20 for identification.) 20 and Richter conceded the occurrence of hepatic 21 Q.For the record, Levinskas 5 is a two-page 21 carcinomas in that study? 22 memorandum that is entitled at the top, Aroclor 22 A.The recollection I have is when we left, as we 23 1260 meeting at NCI, January 31, 1975. It's 23 were going back to the airport, they said, and 24 Bates number MAE 027812. 24 they were looking at some of the selected 25 Dr. Levinskas, have you seen the 25 tissues from Kimbrough's study that a few of the Page 66 1 document that's just been shown to you before 2 today? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q.Down at the bottom of the second page there are 5 the three initials G-J-L. Are those your 6 initials? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Was that a document that you authored? 9 A. Yes. Page 68 1 ones they saw, there was no question but the 2 changes in those livers were more severe than 3 what they had seen in the IBT studies and that 4 some of those were hepatic carcinomas. 5 Q. In the Kimbrough study? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q.Now, there is also a reference in the following 8 paragraph to the only palliative course of 9 action would be to publish our two-year study on 10 Q.Now, down in the paragraph that begins, control 11 animals in this study, the sense is control 12 animals in this study have very clean livers. 13 What did that mean at the time you wrote it? 14 A. I would say the next sentence is explanatory, 15 which says, the incidence of spontaneous 16 changes, in other words there are differences 17 that occur in animals as they age, so the 18 incidence of spontaneous change was quite low. 19 And then my next sentence, I say insofar as 20 could be determined, Dr. Kimbrough has no data 21 from other two-year studies which could be used 22 to assess the spontaneous tumor incidence of 23 this strain of rats. There are differences in 24 the types of pathology and the incidences in 25 various strains of rats. And if one is using a 10 Aroclor 1260 before Dr. Kimbrough gets into 11 print. That was your assessment at the time? 12 A. My recollection was that if we published 13 simultaneously or almost simultaneously, both 14 studies, the one that was negative and the one 15 that was positive, we were presenting all the 16 information available, and people could draw 17 their own conclusions. Once she has published a 18 study indicating it causes the cancer, for us to 19 go out and say we did a study and it's negative, 20 you can't offset the fact that somebody has 21 already said it caused cancer and the idea is 22 lodged in people's minds. ^ 23 Q. I take it the next sentence, this would at least 24 blunt the impact of her publication, that 25 remains your view today? .. Page 65 - Page 6^ WATER PCB-SD0000011585 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997 Page 69 Page 71 1 A. Yes. l A. Yes. 2 (Letter dated 3/24/75 2 Q.Down below there is a reference to in summary -- 3 marked as Exhibit No. 6 3 MR. DiMURO: What page? 4 for identification.) 4 MR. TURET: Same page, further down. 5 Q.Dr. Levinskas, I've just shown you a document 5 A. About seven or eight lines from the bottom? 6 that's been marked in this litigation as 6 Q. Right. Is your understanding of her study the 7 Levinskas 6, marked in a prior litigation as 7 same as what's reported in that summary? 8 Levinskas 15. The cover letter, at least, is a 8 MR. DiMURO: Are you asking whether 9 March 24, 1975, letter from Dr. Gordon to you. 9 he agrees with that line? 10 And there are some enclosures, some trip 10 MR. TURET: Yes, the sentence starts 11 reports. Do you remember seeing this document 11 in summary, and ends with test animals, period. 12 before today? 12 A. The information there is consistent with the 13 A. Yes. 13 earlier exhibit where Dr. Kimbrough sent me the 14 Q. Do you remember receiving it from Dr. Gordon? 14 table you questioned me about the hepatomas. 15 A. Yes, it came in the mail. 15 And that is consistent with that table. They 16 Q.And is this referring to the same meeting with 16 did not look at all the slides from all the 17 Dr. Kimbrough that we've been discussing now for 17 animals. So if you read that. Dr. Gordon's 18 a little while? 18 statements to say that in summary, Kimbrough 19 A. Yes. 19 makes statements, and these are the statements, 20 Q.Dr. Gordon, the first trip report is one which 20 then that's correct. If you are reading into 21 you'll see if you flip on a few pages ahead that 21 this that Dr. Gordon is saying he saw the high 22 was prepared by Dr. Gordon, at least has his 22 incidence and all those other things in the 23 signature at the bottom? 23 Kimbrough study, that's incorrect because he 24 A. Yes. 24 didn't look at enough slides to make that 25 Q.Dr. Gordon states in the first page of his trip 25 statement. So I guess it's how do you want to Page 70 Page 72 1 report, the purpose of the meeting was to review 1 read the words, the context in which you're 2 the slides and data from a 23-month oral feeding 2 reading. 3 study with Aroclor 1260 in rats that was 3 Q. So you're saying that Dr. Gordon didn't see 4 conducted by Dr. Kimbrough while at the EPA. 4 enough slides to be able to say one way or the 5 Where was Dr. Kimbrough now as of February of 5 other what the Kimbrough study showed? 6 1975? 6 A.No, I'm saying that the statement that Kimbrough 7 A. The Center for Disease Control, when I first met 7 found a rather high incidence of all these 8 Kimbrough was under the Public Health Service, 8 things, he didn't look at enough slides from 9 and then subsequently there was -- I don't know 9 enough animals to know what the incidence is. 10 the administration shifts, but when the 10 He did see some of these things, hyperplastic 11 Environmental Health Science was created and so 11 nodules and neoplastic hepatomas, carcinomas, 12 forth, and EPA, they juggled around the 12 lesions of livers, he did see some of all these 13 relationships and I don't know whether this 13 things, but not enough to have an idea of 14 statement while she was at EPA is correct or not 14 whether it was high or low or intermediate level 15 in this case. But we met at the National Cancer 15 of incidence. 16 Institute and when I first met Kimbrough she was 16 Q. I understand. And is it your understanding that 17 with the Public Health Service and was stationed 17 Dr. Squire of the National Cancer Institute 18 at Chamblee, Georgia, outside of Atlanta. I 18 reviewed all the slides from the Kimbrough 19 think she was in there rather than -- prior to 19 studies? 20 EPA, but location is somewhat irrelevant, I 20 A. I don't know how many he looked at. - 21 think. 21 Q. Do you have an understanding as to whether he 22 Q.I understand what you're saying. The purpose of 22 ultimately concurred in her-f'indings? 23 the meeting as described by Dr. Gordon, is that 23 A.I think the statement here, he says, the slides 24 the same as your understanding of the purpose of 24 were subsequently reviewed by Dr. Squire. 25 that meeting? 25 That's my understanding that she went to Dr. , Page 69 - Page 72 WATER PCB-SD0000011586 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas _______ November 10, 1997' Page 73 . Page 75 1 Squire and he helped her with the classification 1 051695 to 696. Do you recognize the document? 2 and review of the slides. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. As it's your understanding also as Dr. Gordon 3 Q.What is it? 4 reported that Dr. Squire concurred with her 4 A. It's a memo from of a meeting we had with Dr. 5 findings? 5 John Weisburger -- it is Weisburger - who used 6 A. Yes, because she used a classification scheme 6 to be at the National Cancer Institute and was 7 that Dr. Squire had helped develop just prior to 7 currently at the American Health Foundation in 8 this. 8 Valhalla, New York. 9 Q. Okay. Let me flip ahead to the trip report from 9 Q.What was the name of that organization? 10 Dr. Richter which is the last two pages of this 10 A. It's the American Health Foundation. 11 document. Is it your understanding that Dr. 11 Q. Okay. And that was essentially a letter you 12 Gordon -- let me withdraw the question. Is it 12 wrote to Dr. Weisburger; is that right? 13 your understanding that there was some 13 A. Yes. 14 discrepancy between one person's definition of a 14 Q.Now, down at the bottom of the page, first page, 15 carcinoma and another person's definition of a 15 there is a reference to, our concern - 1 take 16 carcinoma among this group of people who 16 it that's concern of the medical department of 17 evaluated the slides? 17 Monsanto based on Dr. Kimbrough's study? 18 A. I think the definition of what is a carcinoma or 18 A. Yes. 19 not is influenced by several things, which is a 19 Q.Now, it asks for Dr. Weisburger's recommendation 20 person's experience and it's a judgmental 20 as to what should be done as a result of this 21 issue. And that there are differences of 21 information and thoughts as to how you might 22 opinion among pathologists when they look at 22 proceed. Was Dr. Weisburger actually retained 23 slides. That's one reason they review them to 23 and paid for his recommendations to your 24 come to some sort of a consensus agreement. 24 knowledge? 25 Q. Is it your understanding in this instance that 25 MR. DiMURO: Objection to the form; Page 74 Page 76 1 there were differences of opinion as to whether 1 paid by who? 2 there were or were not carcinomas in the slides 2 MR. TURBT: Paid by Monsanto. 3 taken from the Kimbrough study? 3 A. The last part first, to my knowledge we did not 4 A. I think that it's already been said in the 4 pay Dr. Weisburger anything to my knowledge. 5 summaries that the lesions seen in Kimbrough's 5 John had been with the National Cancer 6 study were more advanced than those seen in the 6 Institute. I'd known him for some time and had 7 D3T study. I think there was general agreement 7 dealings with him earlier. When the question of 8 on that. 8 carcinogenics came out, we turned to several 9 Q.That wasn't the question I asked, though. Do 9 attempts to try to resolve the questions as to 10 you agree that Dr. Richter concurred in Dr. 10 differences that arose between our studies and 11 Kimbrough's findings that there were carcinomas 11 Kimbrough's. And among the people I contacted 12 in the slides from the Kimbrough study? 12 was John Weisburger who had left the National 13 A. I thought I just said that. 13 Cancer institute and was up here in New York. 14 Q. And do you also agree that Dr. Gordon also found 14 John had a very busy schedule and he said he was 15 carcinomas in the slides from Dr. Kimbrough's 15 flying through from the East Coast to the West 16 study? 16 Coast somewhere and he had a stop in St. Louis 17 A. I think I said that. 17 and so he agreed to meet with us at the airport 18 Q. And Dr. Squire also concurred with Dr. 18 in St. Louis. And if I recall correctly, Dr. 19 Kimbrough's findings? 19 Roush and I drove up to meet him and we talked 20 A. Yes. 20 for a couple hours in the airport between " 21 (Letter dated 5/1/75 21 flights, and there is a listing of the 22 marked as Exhibit No. 7 22 information 1 sent to him. "4 said we would 23 for identification.) 23 appreciate if you would review this information 24 Q. Dr. Levinskas, you're now being shown a two-page 24 and on the basis of it give us your 25 document dated May 1st, 1975, Bates number MAE 25 recommendations as to what steps _we might take ^t Page 73 - Page 76 WATER PCB-SD0000011587 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas November 10, 1997 Page 77 Page 79 1 to grapple with the issue of carcinogens. If l look at all of the available livers. The 2 you look at the last paragraph, I say we shall 2 practice would be to look at the tissue, and if 3 be waiting at the airport to meet your flight 3 there were no marked abnormalities grossly that 4 and promise to get you on the next flight. We 4 they would only look at a sample to see what 5 did meet with him. I do not have any 5 sorts of changes. So we ask them to go back and 6 recollection that he ever came back to us with 6 look at all of the livers that were available 7 any comments other than saying I have no further 7 from those three studies. And this is the 8 recommendations to make on what you're doing. 8 pathological evaluation of additional, the extra 9 Other than that sort of casual comment, I don't 9 liver sections from that study, so this would be 10 recall that he had anything else to say about 10 a report of the microscopic examinations of 11 it. 11 liver tissues from that study. 12 MR. O'CONNOR: Are you saying the 12 Q.Now, this one was focused on Aroclor 1254. To 13 meeting didn't take place? 13 your knowledge, were there similar additional 14 A.No, it did. We met at the airport a couple 14 studies done with regard to Aroclor 1260? 15 hours, but we didn't have any formal report that 15 A. Yes. 16 I'm aware of or any written comments as to what 16 Q. And also 1242? 17 we should be doing in addition to what we were. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. You don't know of any informal comments? 18 Q.Now, we're looking at a study that's dated March 19 A. He had no additional recommendations for what we 19 24, 1975. To your knowledge, was there a 20 were doing. 20 previous version of this report with terminology 21 MR. TURET: Off the record a minute 21 that was different? 22 then. 22 MR. DiMURO: Object to the form, if 23 (Brief recess.) 23 you want to tell me what version means. 24 MR. TURET: Back on. 24 MR. TURET: Perhaps Dr. Levinskas, if 25 (Report dated 3/24/75 25 he understands my question, he can answer. 1 marked as Exhibit No. 8 2 for identification.) Page 78 1 MR. DiMURO: Sure. 2 A. As I understand, these were additional liver Page 80 3 MR. O'CONNOR: This is Levinskas 8? 4 MR. TURET: Yeah. 3 sections looked at from the two-year study which 4 is conducted prior to this reexamination. So 5 Q.For the record, this document is a report to 5 there is an earlier report and there is this 6 Monsanto Company dated March 24, 1975, IBT 6 report. 7 report Bates numbers MAE 001342-56. 7 Q.The earlier report, was that done in about 1971? 8 MR. DiMURO: Go ahead, shoot. 8 A. '71 or '2 probably yes. 9 Q.Dr. Levinskas, have you ever seen this report 9 Q. Was a previous version of the March 24, 1975, 10 before today? 10 report that used different terminology? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q.Did you receive it at or about March of 1975 11 MR. DiMURO: Object to the form 12 again. You can answer. 13 from IBT? 13 A. My recollection is that and this is where the -- 14 A. I don't recall when I received it. 14 I was handed two sets of reports from IBT. on 15 Q. Do you remember -- let me withdraw that 15 each of those three studies. Each of the 16 question. What was the purpose behind this 16 reports dealt with the additional evaluation of 17 study? 17 tissues. And I made a side by side comparison 18 A. It was in the comments I just made about the 18 of the two versions of those reports. 1 don't 19 meeting with Dr. Weisburger. When Kimbrough 19 recall which was the first or which was the 20 raised the question of carcinogenicity of 20 second in that sense of timing or sequence. 21 Aroclor 1260 and her results were different from 21 Q. When you talk about first and second, you're 22 what IBT had found, and since we had looked at 22 referring to the 1971-ish reports? 23 only a small section of the animals in the IBT 23 A.No, I'm talking about two versions of these 24 study, which was customary for studies of that 24 additional slides. 25 nature at that time, we asked IBT to go back and 25 Q. Why were there two separate versions of these Page 77 - Page 80^ WATER PCB-SD0000011588 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997 Page 81 Page 83 1 two additional slides? 1 report. 2 A. I can't answer that. I don't know. 2 Q.The other version of this one, so one of them 3 Q. So just to see if I'm understanding you 3 said tumorigenic and the other one said does not 4 correctly, you were handed two different reports 4 appear to be carcinogenic? 5 that reflected IBT's reevaluation of the slides 5 A. Yes. 6 relating to Aroclor 1254? 6 Q. And the both relating to the studies done on 7 A. Yes. 7 Aroclor 1254 by IBT? 8 Q.Did they cover the same undertaking by IBT? 8 A. Yes. 9 A. Yes. 9 Q. At the same time? 10 Q. And they were not identical? 10 A. Yes. 11 A. Word for word, no, they were not identical. 11 Q.The same studies done by IBT. the same 12 Q. What do you remember were the differences 12 conclusions? 13 between the one report relating to Aroclor 1254 13 A. Yes. 14 dated March 24, '75 and the other? 14 (Letter dated 8/4/75 15 A. My recollection is there were three reports that 15 marked as Exhibit No. 9 16 came in, as I said, and I don't have the 16 for identification.) 17 documents, and I did a point -- I was asked to 17 MR. TURET: For the record, this 18 do -- I was handed two sets of reports and I was 18 document that has been marked Levinskas 9 is an 19 asked to compare them and look at them and I 19 August 4, 1975 -- actually, wait a minute. I 20 made a point by point comparison of them. And 20 think I mixed two of them. There are two 21 in the second version, IBT had changed the 21 letters that went together. Can we mark that as 22 wording on two of the three reports and I said 22 Levinskas 9-A. 23 to them, since the findings are similar in all 23 (Letter dated 7/18/75 24 three reports and you used the same language the 24 marked as Exhibit No. 9-A 25 first time, then you changed two the second 25 for identification.) Page 82 Page 84 1 time, why don't you change all three the second 1 MR. DiMURO: You want him to look at 2 time, just to be consistent. 2 9-A first? 3 Q.I know I asked this already. Do you have any 3 MR. TURET: Yes. 4 recollection as to why there were two reports on 4 Q.Levinskas 9-A is a July 18, 1975, letter from 5 the same undertaking at the same time? 5 Dr. Levinskas to Dr. Calandra of IBT and Bates 6 A. I have no idea where they came from, how they 6 numbered MAE 051966. Focusing on Levinskas 9-A 7 came. I was handed them and asked to review 7 first, Dr. Levinskas, have you seen this 8 them. 8 two-page letter before today? 9 Q.Let me direct your attention, I guess it's Bates 9 A. Yes. 10 number MAE 001344, sentence, in conclusion, 10 Q.Is this a letter that you wrote to Dr. Calandra 11 Aroclor 1254 does not appear to be carcinogenic 11 of IBT on or about July 18, 1975? 12 in rats fed for two years at levels up to and 12 A. Yes. 13 including 100 parts per million. See that 13 Q.In the first -- I guess it's the second 14 sentence? 14 paragraph, where ~ first refers to the two 15 A. Yes. 15 instances in which "slightly tumorigenic" was 16 Q. Do you have any recollection as to whether there 16 changed to "does not appear to be carcinogenic," 17 was anything in that sentence that was different 17 is that the reference to what you described a 18 in one of the reports versus the other? 18 moment ago? 19 A. My general recollection is that the earlier 19 A. Yes. 20 reports, that the earlier version said something 20 Q.In this letter did you ask Dr. Calandra to .. 21 like it was tumorigenic, and this one as you 21 change the conclusion from "slightly 22 read it. 22 tumorigenic" to "does not appear to be 23 Q. When you say the earlier version, are we talking 23 carcinogenic"? 24 about the 1971 one? 24 A. I say may we request that the Aroclor 1254 25 A. No, talking about the other version of this 25 report be amended to say does not appear to be Page 81 - Page 8^" WATER PCB-SD0000011589 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997 Page 85 ' Page 87 1 carcinogenic, yes. l supplemental report number one and two? 2 Q. And that you requested it be changed? 2 A. It's the same thing. If you look at number 600 3 A. I said may we request it. 3 to 800 under 1260 and so forth, then I say this 4 Q.That's a yes? 4 is -- in 42, you've got these numbers. And in 5 A.I asked him if he would make a change. I didn't 5 1260 you've got these numbers. It's the same 6 say he had to. 6 transposition, to me, that the threes, sevens 7 Q.Down below there is a reference to, with Aroclor 7 and these two blocks of numbers are. In a 8 1254 confusion is compounded, appears to be 8 shorthand manner, I'm saying go back and look at 9 confusion regarding the numbering of the 9 your numbers. These two go together and these 10 animals. Do you have any recollection of what 10 two go together. I don't know whether this is 11 that confusion involved? 11 the 1242 or that's the 1242, but somehow you've 12 A. If you look at the last page, there should be a 12 inverted two sets of numbers and got this and 13 third page attached that was a table. And this 13 this, and I'm saying did this one want to go 14 is the basis of which I made the request. If 14 this way or did this one want to go that way. 15 you look at the left column, Aroclor 1260, 54, 15 I'm not sure which it is but those two don't 16 42, and this hepatomas that they did describe in 16 match. 17 the original study, they had an incidence in the 17 Q.Okay, and we're in a written deposition. That 18 three study respective, of three, six and 18 entire discussion won't make any sense. Tell me 19 seven. And he says slightly tumorigenic in 19 if this is correct: Essentially IBT swapped 20 every instance. In the second report that I was 20 some numbers by mistake, some of the results 21 asked to compare they had made the change in 21 that should have been for 1242 showed up for 22 1260 from slightly tumorigenic to does not 22 1260 or vice versa? 23 appear to be carcinogenic. They made a similar 23 A. I don't know what happened, but my surmise would 24 change for 42. And 54, they kept the original 24 be somehow the 1242 got mislabeled as 1260 and 25 terminology, slightly tumorigenic. And I was 25 the 1260 got mislabeled as 1242 in one or the Page 86 Page 88 1 trying to say to Dr. Calandra, if you made this 1 other sets. Instead of ABC, they have ABC and 2 change for those three, or change for two of the 2 CBA. And I don't know whether the A and C are 3 three, why not be consistent and make the change 3 wrong on the top or the C, A on the bottom is 4 for all three. If you look at hepatomas under 4 wrong, but it should be ABC and ABC instead of 5 1260, the number they give for 1260, they say 5 ABC and CBA. 6 three, and in the second set of reports it says 6 Q. It's a pretty sloppy set of reports for an 7 seven. You look at the last line and you see a 7 important study, is it not? 8 seven and a three. And I don't have the 8 MR. DiMURO: Objection. 9 original records, but I say you're not 9 A. I have no comment. When I looked at the reports 10 consistent. These groups are mixed up. Either 10 I looked at what I called internal consistency, 11 1260 is in the wrong place in one or the other 11 does it make sense. And the first thing is they 12 columns. I could spend a lot of time going back 12 don't match. So I got a right hand and a left 13 over the numbers if you want, but that's the 13 hand and I say which one is it and I don't 14 gist of what I was try to convey in a shorthand 14 know. It could be a typo error, 1 don't know 15 form to Dr. Calandra that if you had 3 in the 15 what the problem is, I'm just calling it to your 16 1260 column once and 3 in that column the next 16 attention. 17 time, and 42 has a 7 in that column and a 3 in 17 Q. Would you expect a properly done study to be 18 that column. 18 internally consistent? 19 Q.This is the report on the very same studies? 19 A. Yes. -. 20 A. Yeah, you've got the numbers mixed up or 20 MR. DiMURO: Objection. 21 something. I don't know what you've done. It 21 Q.Let me direct your attention, to Levinskas 9 22 doesn't make sense to me. 22 which is an August 4, 1975, letter from Mr. 23 Q. What is, the column that you've listed as range 23 Calandra to you, Bates numbered MAE 052975. 24 of test animal numbers, what is it you're trying 24 Have you seen this document before? 25 to convey there the differences between 25 A. Yes. Page 85 - Page 88 WATER PCB-SD0000011590 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas November 10,1997 Page 89 Page 91 1 Q. Is that a letter you received from Dr. Calandra l know if you would call that adverse publicity. 2 back in August of 1975? 2 Q.I'm talking about specifically the request from 3 A. Yes. 3 Monsanto that there by a change to this 4 Q. And Dr. Calandra's reference here to amending 4 particular report. Do you remember seeing that 5 his statement in the last paragraph, Page 2 of 5 in a newspaper or magazine article? 6 Aroclor 1254 to state does not appear to be 6 A. I can't recall that I did. I may have. I don't 7 carcinogenic instead of slightly tumorigenic, is 7 recall specifically. 8 that a response to your request? 8 Q. Do you remember anyone bringing to your 9 A. Yes. 9 attention that you were named in the magazine or 10 Q. And he also down below refers to what you 10 newspaper article for having requested a change? 11 pointed out about the transposition of the II MR. DiMURO: I didn't hear the 12 numbers. There is also a reference in Paragraph 12 question. 13 4 of that letter to discrepancies in animal 13 (Question read). 14 identification numbers. Is that something 14 Q.Do you understand the question? 15 different than what we've discussed already? 15 A. With respect to PCBs, I don't recall it. I may 16 A. I would have to have the reports before me to be 16 have been, but 1 don't recall it specifically. 17 sure, but he says in the report on reevaluation 17 MR. O'CONNOR: Off the record. 18 of the additional sections dated March '75, 18 (Discussion off the record) 19 there was a typo on Page 1 which referred to 19 MR. TURET: Back on the record. 20 1260 instead of 1254. Perhaps that is the basis 20 Q.Dr. Levinskas, the report we've been talking 21 of your confusion. So he's saying we could have 21 about now, Levinskas 8, the March 24 study? 22 mixed up the 54s and 60s. I don't recall 22 A. Okay. 23 specifically what follows on this thing. 1 23 Q. Do you recall Dr. Calandra sending you a revised 24 don't have a recollection, but he does 24 page with the terminology changed from slightly 25 acknowledge, or I think he acknowledges that I 25 tumorigenic to does not appear to be Page 90 Page 92 1 might have said something to ring a bell. 1 carcinogenic? 2 q.Do you remember just in general the issue of 2 MR. DiMURO: For Aroclor 1254? 3 some animals having turned up both in a control 3 Q.For Aroclor 1254? 4 group and in the experiment group? 4 A.I don't specifically recall it, but 1 assume it 5 A. I would have to go back and look at the tables 5 was done. While it may be addressed to me, it 6 in detail. I just don't have that kind of 6 may not have been called to my attention, just 7 recollection. 7 filed. 8 Q.Do you remember anybody other than yourself 8 Q. Do you have any knowledge one way or the other 9 criticizing these particular IBT studies for 9 whether the date was changed to reflect that the 10 having used the very same identification numbers 10 report had been revised subsequently? 11 in both categories? 11 A. At this time I don't recall the dates. I don't 12 A. I don't recall anybody raising the question, no. 12 think I paid much attention to them. 13 Q. Do you recall any adverse publicity to Monsanto 13 Q. Based on your experience as a toxicologist for 14 that resulted from these changes from slightly 14 30 or 40 years, when a report is revised, is it 15 tumorigenic to does not appear to be 15 customary for the date to be revised as well? 16 carcinogenic? 16 A.I don't think I could say what is customary in 17 MR. LIPSHUTZ: Objection to the 17 terms of the general practices at that time. I 18 form. 18 suspect it was done both ways. 1 mean, some 19 MR. DiMURO: Objection. 19 people might have amended the report, some 20 A.I don't recall any adverse publicity. I don't 20 people may have just made a change in the date. ,, 21 really know what you mean by that, and I don't 21 Q.So if the report was amended months later, in 22 know how I would assess adverse publicity. 22 your mind it would be jusM common practice to 23 Certainly this question of the environmental 23 have it back dated to the date of the original 24 impact of PCBs and cancer was all coming up at 24 report? 25 this time and I'm sure it got noticed. I don't 25 MR. DiMURO: Object to the form, but Page 89 - Page WATER PCB-SD0000011591 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas ____ November 10, 1997 Page 93 Page 95 1 you can answer. 1 compile and my recollection is, I don't really 2 A. I think I just said I don't think there was a 2 know what was done with the information. I 3 standard practice. I think some laboratories 3 don't recall. 4 probably back dated them and some didn't. I 4 Q. What prompted this effort to compile infonnation 5 can't speak to the practices of all 5 from department 246, if you know? 6 laboratories. I don't know. 6 A. This was part of the subsequent actions Monsanto 7 MR. LIPSHUTZ: Can we take a short 7 took after Dr. Kimbrough announced the 8 break? 8 carcinogenicity of Aroclor 1260 in rats. Among 9 MR. TURET: Can you hold out five 9 the things we wanted to do was see if there was 10 minutes? 10 any supportive evidence of indication of this in 11 MR. LIPSHUTZ: Something just popped 11 the workers who were making the material and 12 up. I apologize. 12 presumably would have higher degree of exposure 13 MR. O'CONNOR: We'll take a 13 than people who had casual contact with the 14 five-minute break. 14 material. 15 (Memo dated 8/22/75 15 Q. Was Dr. Johannsen the one primarily involved in 16 marked as Exhibit No. 10 16 this action? 17 _ for identification.) 17 A. Dr. Johannsen was the toxicologist and deemed 18 (Brief recess. ) 18 the man who could probably take the best look at 19 MR. TURET: Back on the record. 19 the infonnation, so he was given that 20 Q.This document that's been marked as Levinskas 10 20 assignment. 21 is an August 22, 1975, memorandum from Frederick 21 Q.Now, the infonnation is summarized by Dr. 22 Johannsen to George Roush, Bates number MAE 22 Johannsen in this memorandum. Do you have any 23 022030, dash 033. Dr. Levinskas, have you seen 23 independent basis, knowledge as to the accuracy 24 the document that has been marked Levinskas 10 24 of that infonnation? 25 before today? 25 A. No, I have nothing beyond what Dr. Johannsen Page 94 Page 96 1 A. Yes. 2 Q.I notice you're CC'd at the top. Do you 1 reported here. 2 Q. Do you remember seeing any other memoranda 3 remember receiving a copy of this document in or 3 regarding status updates of such a 4 about August of 1975? 4 compilation -- 5 A.I don't specifically recall receiving it, but -- 5 A. I may have. I don't have a specific 6 Q.Do you remember seeing this document in that 6 recollection of it. 7 general time frame as opposed to in litigation 7 Q.I didn't get to finish the question. I think 8 more recently? 8 you understood the gist of it, relating to this 9 A.I'm sure it crossed my desk. But I don't have a 9 compilation of infonnation? 10 particular recollection of it, put it that way. 10 A. (Witness nods). 11 Q.Do you remember a time when medical data was 11 Q. Did I understand you to say you don't have any 12 compiled on the workers in department 246 at the 12 recollection? 13 Krummrich plant? 13 A. I don't recall receiving any other information. 14 A. I know that Dr. Johannsen was attempting to look 14 Q.Do you remember hearing from any corridors other 15 at the records in department 246 in Krummrich to 15 than in this memorandum that the rate of 16 see if there was sufficient information to do an 16 respiratory cancer deaths was higher in 17 epidemiology study. 17 department 246 than in the general population in 18 Q. Just to clarify, department 246 at the Krummrich 18 St. Louis? plant is what? 19 A. I have heard Dr. Roush make that comment, yes. A. I believe that's where we were making the PCB 20 Q. Have you seen any written documents that ,, Aroclors. 21 referred to such an increased respiratory cancer Q.Do you know one way or another whether Dr. 22 death rate? ^ Johannsen succeeded in compiling that data in 23 A.I can't think 'of any. 1 just don't recall any. that plant? 24 Q. On Page 2 of this document, there is a reference A. This memo summarizes the data they were able to 25 to an opinion shared by Dr. William Gaffey, WATER PCB-SD0000011592 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) Multi-PageTM Witness: George Leyinskas. November 10, 1997 Page 97 Page 99 1 manager, epidemiology, Tabershaw-Cooper 2 Associates. Is that the same William Gaffey who 3 later became an employee of Monsanto? 4 A. Yes, if memory serves me correctly, Dr. Gaffey 5 did come from Tabershaw-Cooper. 6 Q. What was Tabershaw-Cooper? 7 A.That was a consulting firm. I'm not sure 8 whether they specialized in epidemiology or 9 among other things, epidemiology. 10 Q.Down at the bottom of that same page there was a 11 reference to, it is recommended that an 12 experienced epidemiologist be contracted to 13 further evaluate this data. Do you have any 14 knowledge one way or another as to whether an 15 experienced epidemiologist was ultimately 16 contracted to evaluate the data? 17 A. Ultimately Dr. Gaffey was hired and I think I 18 said earlier that Judy Zack worked in the 19 medical department for a little while on 20 epidemiology. 21 Q. Do you know if Judy Zack worked specifically on 22 that assignment? 23 A. I don't have a good knowledge of what Judy was 24 working on, so I can't comment directly. 25 Q.Dr. Levinskas, you mentioned earlier that at 1 IBT when 1 joined the company in 1971. 2 Q. While he was employed by IBT, do you know 3 whether Dr. Wright worked on projects 4 specifically for Monsanto? 5 A. I know he worked at IBT and IBT did studies for 6 many companies, including government agencies, 7 and I would not be surprised if he had worked on 8 Monsanto projects, but I don't have specific 9 knowledge of what he did. 10 Q.Do you remember how Dr. Wright's rehiring by 11 Monsanto came about in or about 1972? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. How did that come about? 14 A. Elmer Wheeler decided, or I should say he 15 finally agreed with me that I needed some 16 assistance, so we began discussing possibilities 17 and Elmer mentioned the fact that Paul Wright 18 might be interested in rejoining Monsanto since 19 he had worked for Monsanto. 1 had not met Paul 20 Wright before I came to Monsanto, though I had 21 met him once or twice at IBT, So I made 22 inquiries within Monsanto, particularly among 23 the people Paul had worked for and with before 24 he left Monsanto, all of whom had high 25 recommendations for his professional competency. Page 98 Page 100 1 some point in time Paul Wright was hired by 1 his technical ability, and therefore I pursued 2 Monsanto in the medical department? 2 the investigation and we decided it would be a 3 A. Yes. 3 good idea to make Paul an offer. Paul was 4 Q.When was that? 4 offered a job to work with me on the 5 A. I think Paul joined us at the end of '72, 5 environmental assessment. That offer was made 6 towards the end of'72. It was after Bill 6 before Bill Hunt died. Paul joined us shortly 7 Hunt's death and Bill died, I think, August 7 after Bill died, and so people have tended to 8 '72. 8 think of Paul as Bill Hunt's replacement, but in 9 Q. Where had Dr. Wright come from? 9 reality he was hired for a different purpose. 10 A. IBT. 10 Q. Did he end up working with you on those 11 Q.Do you know what position he held at IBT? 11 environmental assessments or did he end up being 12 A. I do not know his title. 12 sidetracked to the things Dr. Hunt was doing 13 Q.Do you know whether Dr. Wright had worked for 13 previously? 14 Monsanto before going to IBT? 14 A.That's what happened, when Dr. Hunt died, Elmer 15 A. Yes. 15 Wheeler said that since Paul had better 16 Q. What was his role at Monsanto before he left? 16 knowledge of Monsanto products, having worked 17 A. My understanding is that he worked in a 17 for the company earlier, that he might take over 18 nutrition unit, animal nutrition unit in the 18 the day-to-day operation of the functions Bill 19 agricultural division of Monsanto, that that 19 Hunt had had and I would continue on with 20 program had been phased out, that there was no 20 environmental assessment, and that's what was " 21 comparable opening for Dr. Wright at Monsanto so 21 done. 22 he left and went to IBT. 22 Q.When Dr. \Vright came back to Monsanto was he 23 Q.And how long before 1972 had he left Monsanto to 23 under your supervision? 24 go to IBT? 24 a. Yes. 25 A. I don't know when he left Monsanto but he was at 25 Q-.-A--n-d---both of you were under Dr. Wheeler's Page 97 - Page 100 WATER PCB-SD0000011593 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997 Page 101 Page 103 1 supervision still? 1 Q. Was it your understanding at the time that Dow 2 A. Yes. 2 had encountered lung tumors in rats fed maleic 3 Q. Who was the one who evaluated Dr. Wright for 3 anhydrides? 4 performance reasons, personnel reasons within 4 A.That's information Dow gave to Monsanto, yes. 5 Monsanto? 5 Q. Maleic anhydrides was a chemical manufactured by 6 A. When it was necessary, I did that. 6 Monsanto? 7 Q.Can you just describe generally the nature of 7 A. Yes. 8 the supervision that you did over Dr. Wright's 8 Q. Was it your understanding at the time that Dow 9 work? 9 wanted to report its findings to the FDA 10 A. Well, I guess since there were two of us in the 10 immediately? 11 group, we would meet frequently, had offices 11 A. No, my understanding is that Dow was conducting 12 adjacent to each other, we would talk about what 12 a study with maleic anhydride, the details of 13 was going on among ourselves or with people from 13 which were not that clear to us, but they 14 the operating units if they were around, or 14 conveyed this information to Elmer Wheeler who 15 across lunch, so just sort of keeping general 15 in turn gave it to me and then we looked at it 16 tabs and seeing that things were moving along. 16 and we did perhaps, somewhat analogous to what 17 There was no day-to-day instructions or 17 I've been saying about PCBs, Dow asked us what 18 specifics. We just dealt with issues as they 18 they thought we should do with this 19 came along. 19 information. And we went back and made 20 (Bonus recommendation 20 suggestions and recommendations to them and it's 21 marked as Exhibit No. 11 21 for Dr. Wright's handling of that situation that 22 for identification.) 22 1 made the recommendation of the performance 23 MR. TURET: For the record, this is a 23 award. 24 document that says Monsanto at the top, refers 24 Q. In the performance award suggestion 25 to a nominee Paul Wright and it has Dr. 25 recommendation, it says that Dow felt they had Page 102 Page 104 1 Levinskas' name at the bottom. 1 to report these findings to the Food and Drug 2 Q.Dr. Levinskas, have you seen this document 2 Administration under their product stewardship 3 before? 3 program. Am I reading that correctly? 4 A. Yes. 4 A. Yes, okay. 5 Q. Is this a performance evaluation form that you 5 Q. And was it your understanding that Dr. Wright 6 completed with respect to Dr. Wright? 6 contacted Dow's toxicologists and convinced Dow 7 A. It's really a recommendation for a bonus, if you 7 that it would be foolhardy to act precipitously 8 will, for Dr. Wright, so it's not a periodic 8 by reporting to the FDA right away? 9 performance review in that sense of the word. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q.Okay. But it recommends a merit based bonus; 10 Q. Was it your understanding that based on Dr. 11 correct? 11 Wright's suggestions that Dow ultimately agreed 12 A. Yes. 12 to not contact the FDA right away? 13 Q. And that's your signature down at the bottom; 13 A. No. Dow did submit the information to FDA. l 14 correct? 14 don't know exactly when or how, but the basis of 15 A. Yes. 15 discussions 1 had with Dr. Wright and our 16 Q.Did you recommend the merit bonus for Dr. Wright 16 recommendations to Dow were that they should 17 in this form? 17 consider alternatives and should consider all 18 A. Yes. 18 the possibilities and angles and develop an 19 Q.And you agreed his performance is excellent? 19 approach as to what they were going to do as a 20 A. In this instance for this particular action, 20 result of this information and present that " 21 yes. 21 entire package to Dow. In other words, go to 22 Q. Was it your understanding at the time that Dr. 22 FDA and here's what we found out, here's what we 23 Wright had done work with Dow, I take it that's 23 suspect, and here's what we intend to do about 24 Dow Chemical Company? 24 it. And if you, FDA. has additional 25 A. Yes, that's Dow Chemical Company. 25 information, or suggestions we'_ll_b_e__h_app-y__to______ ^ Page 101 - Page 104 WATER PCB-SD0000011594 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997' Page 105 Page 107 1 entertain them. In other words, we're here to 1 Q.That was roughly 9 or 10 percent of his annual 2 try to work with you for resolution of questions 2 salary? 3 that have come up as distinct from throwing 3 A.I don't remember at that time what his salary 4 something at them and saying here's what we 4 was. It could have been. I don't recall his 5 found, we don't know what to do with it, which 5 salary at the time. 6 was basically the way Dow came to us with that 6 Q. If the document that you said he filled out 7 information. 7 listed his annual salary as $28,980 - 8 Q.I want to clarify one piece at a time. Your 8 A. Yeah, that would be less than 10 percent. 9 document says Dr. Wright advised Dow to defer 9 Q.And down at the bottom it says award amount is 10 contacting FDA until they thoroughly documented 10 $2,500, does that refresh your recollection? 11 their findings and a subsequent course of action 11 A. Two things; one is the 25 is less than 10 12 had been developed, et cetera, and Dow agreed to 12 percent, and that's the amount that somebody put 13 this. Am I reading that correctly? 13 in there. I did not have a specific dollar 14 A. I would say that Dow deferred going to FDA by 14 amount. My recommendation does not include a 15 coming to Monsanto first, so we were simply 15 specific dollar amount, just to make the 16 saying to them, we think you're doing the right 16 recommendation that he be considered. 17 thing, you're looking at the problem before you 17 (Bonus recommendation 18 rush off to FDA. I think that's the right thing 18 marked as Exhibit No. 12 19 to do, and that's what I think I just said. But 19 for identification.) 20 Dow had the option of going to FDA before they 20 Q. For the record, this is a similar document from 21 came to us. We did not say, don't go to FDA 21 Monsanto that relates to Dr. Wright and lists 22 until after you talk to us. 22 George Levinskas as a signature at the bottom. 23 Q.Dr. Wright suggested they hold off going to FDA; 23 Dr. Levinskas, is that document I've shown you 24 correct? 24 marked Levinskas 12 a document you've seen 25 A. They came to us before they went to FDA. If 25 previously? Page 106 Page 108 1 they were going to go precipitously to FDA, they 1 A. Yes. 2 would have gone there before they came to us. 2 Q. Is this, too, a form that you filled out and 3 They came to us for our advice and our opinion 3 signed recommending a merit bonus for Dr. 4 and that's what we gave them. 4 Wright? 5 Q. Was it your understanding at the time that the 5 A. Yes. 6 very intent to conduct a study promptly would 6 Q.The technical accomplishment of significant 7 serve to forestall precipitous action against 7 results include Dr. Wright's excellent analysis 8 the product by FDA? 8 and synthesis of widely scattered observations 9 A. Yes. 9 played a prominent role in forestalling EPA's 10 Q. Ultimately the FDA went along with that approach 10 promulgation of unrealistic regulations to limit 11 as well? 11 discharge of PCBs? 12 A. Yes. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And in conclusion it says that, thus we believe 13 Q.And on that basis you recommended that he 14 Dr. Wright played a singular outstanding role in 14 receive a merit bonus of $1,000? 15 preventing FDA from publicly proclaiming that 15 MR. DiMURO: I'm going to object to 16 maleic anhydride was a suspect carcinogen? Am I 16 the form, doesn't say that. 17 reading that correctly? 17 Q.Did you recommend he receive a merit bonus of an 18 A. Yes. 18 amount not determined? 19 Q. And it was on the basis of that activity that 19 A. I recommended he receive a merit bonus, yes, on 20 Dr. Wright was nominated for a merit bonus? 20 this occasion. 1 did not specify amounts. - 21 A. Yes. 21 Q.Did Dr. Wright ultimately receive a merit bonus 22 Q.And he received the merit bonus? 22 based on your recommendation? 23 A. Yes, I assume he did. I have no independent 23 a. I presume he did. 24 confirmation, but on the basis of this I assume 24 Q. Is it fair to say in both those instances in two 25 he did get it. 25 successive years Dr. Wright was recommended for Page 105 - Page 108 WATER PCB-SD0000011595 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas 'Cause No.: L-9S-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997 Page 109 Page 111 1 a merit bonus based on his efforts to slow down 1 Q. Do you know who the others were who were 2 government regulation of a chemical substance? 2 convicted from IBT? 3 MR. DiMURO: Objection to the form 3 A.Keplinger, Moreno Keplinger, Dr. Keplinger was 4 and recharacterization. 4 one. Jim Plank was one. And 1 think Dr. 5 MR. LIPSHUTZ: Join in that 5 Calandra had been indicted but during that time 6 objection. 6 he underwent open heart surgery for, 1 think it 7 A. I may not get the technical terms here. EPA had 7 was a valve replacement, and he was separated 8 proposed regulations for limiting, as I recall, 8 from the trial. To the best of my knowledge he 9 discharge of PCBs into the water and the 9 was never retried. So there were three 10 environment. And they called for comments on 10 convictions, would have been Moreno Keplinger, 11 the recommendations. And Dr. Wright put 11 Paul Wright and Jim Plank. 12 together a lot of our environmental data, some 12 Q.Did Dr. Calandra ultimately pass away? 13 of which may be Monsanto and some of which may 13 A. The last I knew he was alive. 14 have been literature and he put together a 14 Q. Was Paul Wright stripped of his certification or 15 presentation and submitted that to EPA in 15 license of a toxicologist to your knowledge? 16 response to their published articles or 16 A. As far as 1 know, toxicologists such as myself 17 whatever, their Federal Register, calls for 17 and Paul Wright are not licensed. We are 18 comments on proposed regulations. They took 18 certified, there were certifying organizations. 19 time to study this and to come up with what some 19 I do not know whether Paul was certified or not 20 people would call realistic regulations. And 20 or whether he was stripped of certification, I 21 since Paul contributed to that, that's why I'm 21 do not. 22 making the recommendation for this achievement 22 Q.Do you know whether Dr. Wright ultimately died? 23 award, with reference to chlorinated 23 A. Dr. Wright died in the early part of '73. The 24 isocyanurates in addition to the PCBs. 24 reason I know that is I was not in St. Louis at 25 Q. Was Dr. Wright ultimately fired by Monsanto? 25 the time. I was out for sometime and when 1 Page 110 Page 112 1 A. Dr. Wright, when he was last employed by 1 came back one of the librarians at Monsanto 2 Monsanto, Dr. Wright was no longer reporting to 2 mentioned to me that Dr. Wright had died and she 3 me. I don't know the terms under which he left 3 did send me a copy of his obituary notice. 4 Monsanto. 4 MR. DiMURO: You mean 1993? 5 Q.Do you know whether he was criminally convicted? 5 A. Yeah, '93, I'm sorry. 1 was out of the country 6 A. At a later date he was found guilty, yes. 6 for a couple months and when I came back I was 7 Q. Was that for the felony of falsifying data 7 informed that he had died. 8 submitted to authorities? 8 Q. Do you know whether he died of natural causes? 9 A.I don't recall the specifics. What I read about 9 A. I saw the obituary notice that he had died and 10 it in the newspapers was he was indicted and 10 he was not living in the St. Louis area, and it 11 convicted with others for submitting -- using 11 made no mention of the cause of death. 12 the mails to defraud and one case was mails, the 12 Q.Do you know whether he ever worked again as a 13 other case was wire. But for submitting 13 toxicologist after leaving Monsanto? 14 information which was later alleged to be false, 14 A. I really don't know what he was doing. 15 he and others were convicted for several 15 MR. O'CONNOR: Off the record. 16 studies, but not for Aroclor studies. 16 (Memo dated 10/16/75 17 Q.But it was scientific studies and scientific 17 marked as Exhibit No. 13 18 data that was falsified? 18 for identification.) 19 A. I don't know whether it was falsified; for 19 (Discussion off the record) 20 submitting false data or false reports. I don't 20 MR. TURET: Back on the record then. -* 21 know the basics of it, but yes, as a result of 21 Q.Dr. Levinskas, we've just marked a document as 22 the IBT files he was one of those people 22 Levinskas 13 which is an October 16, 1975 letter 23 convicted. But at that time he was not working 23 or memo with Bates number MAE 022089. Is this a 24 for me and I don't know the terms of his leaving 24 document you've seen before? 25 Monsanto. 25 A. Yes. , Page 109 - Page 112 WATER PCB-SD0000011596 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas, Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997 Page 113 Page 115 1 Q.Is it a memo that you wrote back in October of l Q. What one? 2 1975? 2 A. A breast tumor, mammary tumor, and I think he 3 A. Yes. 3 had one liver tumor. I may be confused. I 4 Q. It refers to a Dr. Pour, P-O-U-R. Who is Dr. 4 think he had one liver tumor that he thought 5 Pour? 5 came from some other organ. And then he said he 6 A. Dr. Pour is a pathologist at the Eppley 6 had something like that 30 or 40 slides which 7 Institute of Cancer in Omaha, Nebraska, and he 7 showed some activity in the sections like 8 was working at that time with Dr. Phil Shubik. 8 something was going on in the sections, but he 9 Dr. Shubik was the former director of the cancer 9 couldn't tell, without further information or 10 institute and had formerly been with the 10 additional information, he couldn't tell whether 11 National Cancer Institute, and he was again, one 11 it was a developing lesion or one that was 12 of these very, very long term researchers in 12 resolving itself and disappearing. It was in a 13 cancer. We went to him with the results of our 13 state of change but he couldn't tell whether it 14 studies and the Kimbrough studies and asked 14 was getting worse or getting better, but I 15 Shubik what steps would he take to resolve the 15 believe he concluded there were no carcinomas in 16 contradictions or discrepancies, the differences 16 the Kimbrough study. 17 between the findings of Dr. Kimbrough and 17 (Letter dated 10/17/75 18 ourselves. And among his recommendations was 18 marked as Exhibit No. 14 19 the fact that we ought -- he had a pathologist, 19 for identification.) 20 Dr. Pour, that it would be useful if the same 20 Q. For the record, the document marked as Levinskas 21 pathologist looked at all of the slides from the 21 14 is an October 17, 1975 letter from Dr. Gordon 22 IBT studies and all of the slides from the 22 of IBT to Dr. Levinskas, Bates number MAE 23 Kimbrough study. So we contacted this Dr. Pour 23 051697. Dr. Levinskas, have you seen this 24 to undertake that. And this is a memo 24 letter before today? 25 forwarding Dr. Pour's report on the review of 25 A. Yes. Page 114 Page 116 1 the IBT slides. 1 Q. And do you remember receiving it in or about 2 Q. Was it your understanding at the time that Dr. 2 October of 1975 from Dr. Gordon? 3 Pour had concluded there was no evidence of 3 A.I don't recall it specifically, but yes, I did 4 carcinoma except for one animal in Dr. 4 get it, yes. 5 Kimbrough's study? It's in the middle of the 5 Q.This is the Dr. Gordon of IBT that we talked 6 first paragraph. 6 about earlier today? 7 A.No, I think, as I said, this is reviewing the 7 A. Right, the pathologist. 8 IBT studies. He's saying after reviewing the 8 Q.There is a reference to black and white 9 liver sections of the rat studies in IBT he 9 photomicrographs of Aroclor lesions in rat 10 concluded there was no evidence of carcinoma 10 livers that were taken by Dr. Pour, and -- 11 except for one animal, and that animal had a 11 MR. DiMURO: Says liver, not livers. 12 lesion or a tumor, that he thought might be a 12 Q. Pardon me, rat liver. Is it your understanding 13 metastatic lesion that had spread to the liver 13 that Dr. Pour took essentially photographs of 14 from another organ. He is scheduled, supposed 14 the slides that he saw when he went to look at 15 to be meeting with Dr. Kimbrough this week to 15 the slides of Dr. Kimbrough? 16 review liver sections from her study. He has 16 A. I believe these are -- the photomicrographs, I 17 not yet looked at Kimbrough's study. 17 think are ones that he took of the IBT slides, 18 Q. Do you know whether Dr. Pour ultimately did 18 although I'm not sure of that. He's saying he 19 examine Dr. Kimbrough's slides? 19 sent copies of Kimbrough's findings and reports 20 A. Yes. 20 on Aroclor which I had sent to him earlier in - 21 Q. What is your understanding of his findings? 21 the year he's returning. I don't think at this 22 A. My recollection of his theory is that he 22 stage that Pour has seen Kimbrough's slides. 23 concluded there were no carcinomas in 23 I'm not sure of that at this time, but sounds to 24 Kimbrough's study. He had one, I think he had a 24 me like he's saying that Pour has looked at the 25 mammary tumor somewhere, that he described. 25 IBT slides and Gordon says, 1 do not concur with Page 113 - Page 116 WATER PCB-SD0000011597 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997 Page 117 Page 119 1 his classification and interpretation of some of 1 one of those. It's the sort of thing that I 2 the liver lesions and that would be findings of 2 would have written and probably did write. 3 all kinds in the livers. I think he's talking 3 Q. In the middle of the first page it states: As a 4 specifically. I don't recall. I don't think 4 class, the Aroclors are relatively harmless 5 he's talking here about the Kimbrough slides. 5 materials for routine industrial handling under 6 Q.Do you know what it was about the liver lesions 6 ambient conditions. Was that your understanding 7 that Dr. Gordon disagreed with Dr. Pour on? 7 as of January, 1976? 8 A. He says, I do not concur. I do not look through 8 A. Yes. 9 microscopes. I am not a pathologist. I listen 9 Q. Is that your understanding as of the time you 10 to them and try to put together and assimilate 10 retired from Monsanto? 11 and digest what they say, but I don't make a 11 A. Yes. 12 diagnosis. 12 Q. Is that still your opinion today? 13 Q.Do you have a layperson's understanding of what 13 A. Yes. 14 the difference was between Dr. Gordon and Dr. 14 q.Now, second page, under the heading, Summary of 15 Pour specifically with regard to these studies? 15 Monsanto's Long-term Toxicity Studies on 16 A. I think it's analogous to what we talked about 16 Commercial PCBs, there is a reference to, 1 17 earlier about the differences between Richter, 17 think it's four studies, a two-year lifetime 18 Gordon, Squire and Kimbrough and it's another 18 feeding study of rats, two-year feeding study of 19 opinion on this thing, but no, I don't know the 19 dogs, three-generation rat reproduction studies 20 specifics of what he's referring to. 20 with two litters cast per generation, and a rat 21 (Report 21 teratology study and dominant lethal mutagenic 22 marked as Exhibit No. 15 22 studies in mice. I don't know what that last 23 for identification.) 23 one is. 24 Q.Dr. Levinskas, you're being shown a document 24 a. The rat teratology studies, mutagenic studies 25 that's been marked as Levinskas 15, that's 25 are different studies. Page 118 Page 120 1 entitled, Toxicity and Environmental Effects of 1 Q.So it's five studies. Is it your understanding 2 Commercial PCBs. This particular document was 2 that each of those five studies were done on 3 marked at a prior deposition as Levinskas 29. 3 Aroclor 1254? 4 Dr. Levinskas, I note at the very end of the 4 a. Yes. 5 text of this document there are the initials GJL 5 Q. Are those the studies that were done in or about 6 handwritten on Bates number 19643. Are those 6 1971? 7 your initials? 7 A. The rat two-year studies were finished about 8 A.They're my initials, but I didn't put them 8 1971. And so these studies would all have been 9 there. 9 done in the time frame before that or initiated 10 Q. Is this a document that you authored? 10 in the time frame before that, into the '71 -'2 11 A. Looking at the content of it and the type of 11 era. 12 style, I think I probably have authored a fair 12 Q. So for the two-year study somewhere around 1969 13 part of this document, but I don't recognize it 13 through 1971? 14 in this form. It may have been part of 14 A. Yes '68, '69, I'm not sure when they started but 15 something else I wrote. I don't recall. 15 they were finishing up around 1971. And some of 16 Q. Do you know whose handwritten notes are at the 16 them, the longest studies would be the two-year 17 top of the first page? 17 lifetime study in rats and two-year dog feeding. 18 A.No, I really don't. I don't know who put them 18 Q. What's the difference between an acute study and 19 there. 19 a chronic study? 20 Q.Do you remember doing a paper in general that 20 A. At that time, probably still today they're " 21 related to toxicity and environmental effects of 21 somewhat loose terms. Acute is one or a few 22 commercial PCBs that covered these issues and 22 doses given in a very short period of time as 23 these conclusions? 23 distinct from chronic which is over an extended 24 A. I have written statements along these lines a 24 period of time. You can argue where you want to 25 couple different times, and this could well be 25 draw the line betw.een them, but----a-c----u---t-e---is---e-i-t-h-e--r--------- i . Page 117 - Page 120 WATER PCB-SD0000011598 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997 Page 121 Page 123 1 a single dose or a few doses in a short interval l monsters, malformed, misshapen. 2 of time, hours or days, versus chronic which is 2 Q. How about the dominant lethal mutagenic study? 3 repeated dosing over a long period of time. 3 A. The dominant lethal mutagenic study is one that 4 Q. What's the shortest period of time that you've 4 really is designed to measure the effect of 5 seen a chronic study -- let me rephrase. What's 5 chemicals on the potency of males, on the spenn 6 the shortest period of time that you would 6 of males, so it's a short-term study. But it 7 consider to be a chronic study? 7 may affect the offspring of that male that's 8 A. I would say to some extent it would depend on 8 been dosed, may have a poor survival rate and so 9 the kind of study, but for practical purposes 9 forth, so it looks at a change in the genetic 10 anything much less than a year I would not 10 composition of the sperm. And so that's why 11 consider chronic. It would have to be better 11 it's a mutagenic study. It measures something 12 than a year for me to consider it a chronic 12 different, the ability to transmit changes. 13 study. 13 genetic changes in the male to the next 14 Q. And can you have an acute study that follows the 14 generation. 15 subject over a longer period of time? 15 Q.This battery of tests, the five tests described 16 A.The acute and the chronic refers to dosing 16 on the second page of this document, were they 17 period. I could dose a rat today and follow it 17 also performed on Aroclor 1260, to your 18 for its lifetime. I would consider that an 18 knowledge? 19 acute study because he was dosed only once even 19 A. Those were, all those tests were done on 42, 54 20 though I followed him for a lifetime. I don't 20 and 60. 21 know if anybody does it that way. A short-term 21 Q. 1242, 1254, and 1260. And that was all done by 22 study is terminated in the short term. So to 22 IBT? 23 me, acute and chronic refers to the dosage 23 A. I believe they were all done by IBT, yes. 24 schedule, not the duration of the study. 24 MR. TURET: How about we mark these 25 Q. These studies that are described in long-term 25 16 A, B, C, and D. Page 122 Page 124 1 toxicity studies, these are chronic studies, are 1 (Documents 2 they not? 2 marked as Exhibits Nos. 16-A, 16-B, 16-C, 3 MR. DiMURO: Talking about the ones 3 16-D for identification.) 4 described in the document? 4 Q.For the record, that means that Levinskas 16-A 5 MR.TURET: Yes, on Page 2, the 5 is the Two-year Chronic Oral Toxicity Study with 6 two-year, three-year feeding? 6 Aroclor 1254 in Beagle Dogs. That's MAE 038398 7 A. The two-year lifetime is chronic. The two-year 7 to 475. 16-B is the Two-year Chronic Oral 8 feeding to dogs is chronic. The 8 Toxicity with Aroclor 1254 in Albino Rats, and 9 three-generation, that's kind of -- that's 9 that's Bates number MAE 001743. Levinskas 16-C 10 really not chronic. That's to study the effects 10 is Three-Generation Reproduction Study with 11 on successive generations. In other words, the 11 Aroclor 1254 in Albino Rats, and that's Bates 12 animals are dosed for a period of time. Their 12 number MAE 003505. And Levinskas 16-D is 13 offspring are observed, maybe reared and in turn 13 Teratogenic Study with Aroclor 1254 in Albino 14 mated again, so while it was an extended period 14 Rats, Bates number MAE 002241. Dr. Levinskas, 15 of time, no animal is on observation for that 15 you've just been handed four different 16 entire length of time. So I don't know that 16 Industrial Bio-Test study reports that have been 17 that's chronic. The teratology studies, again 17 marked Levinskas 16-A 16-B, 16-C and 16-D. Are 18 are sort of a subset of the rat reproduction 18 you familiar with these documents? 19 studies. And the dominant lethal mutagenic are 19 A. I have seen them before. 20 not chronic. So the only chronic studies are 20 Q.Did you receive them while you were toxicologist " 21 the rat and dog feeding studies. 21 with Monsanto back in or about 1971? 22 Q. What are the rat teratology studies? 22 A. I don't recall, but I don't tfilnk these reports 23 A. Well, the word for rat is the Greek word for 23 were directed to me. If you will look at the 24 monster, so the rat teratology study is looking 24 dates, says November 1, 1971 and 1 didn't join 25 for malformations of the fetuses, production of 25 the company until July '71, so these studies , Page 121 - Page 124 WATER PCB-SD0000011599 loan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-Page TM Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)_______________ Witness: George Levinskas November 10,1997 Page 125 Page 127 1 would have been finished and I would assume they 1 A.Not aware of any other than what I saw later at 2 originally went to Elmer Wheeler. I did see 2 Monsanto. 3 them at a later date, not when they first came. 3 Q. Do you know of any chronic studies that 4 Q.Let's start with the first one, the study on 4 addressed dermal exposure to Aroclor 1254? 5 Beagle dogs. What is your understanding of the 5 MR. DiMURO: At any time? 6 bottom line findings on this particular study? 6 MR. TURET: Prior to the 1971 IBT 7 A. Well, since I indicate I've looked at them 7 studies? 8 somewhat later and I didn't pay that much 8 A.No, I don't think I can recall any. 9 attention to them, I don't have a good 9 Q. While we're on this same document, Chronic 10 recollection other than looking at the reports, 10 Toxicity study in Beagle Dogs, flipping ahead to 11 taking time to read it or specific comments on 11 Bates number 038402, Paul Wright is one of the 12 portions of the report. 12 signatories of that study, is he not? 13 Q.Is it your understanding that this is one of the 13 A. Yes. 14 battery of chronic tests we saw referred to in 14 Q. And he was section head of toxicology for IBT at 15 the previous documents? 15 the time? 16 A. This is one of the studies that were done on the 16 A. Yes. 17 three Aroclors 1242, 1254 and 1260. This is on 17 Q. Let's flip ahead briefly to the others. The 18 1254, yes. 18 next one, Levinskas 16-B is the Chronic Oral 19 Q. Based on the reviews of studies that you've done 19 Toxicity Study in Albino Rats? 20 in your tenure as an employee of Monsanto, are 20 A. Yes. 21 you aware of any chronic testing on Aroclor 1254 21 Q. Similar question as to do you have any knowledge 22 done by Monsanto before these studies? 22 one way or the other about what the bottom line 23 A.There are some published inhalation studies by 23 conclusions of this report are? 24 Joseph Trion (phonetic) who was at the Kettering 24 A. Other than the -- to me two things come out: 25 Institute at the University of Cincinnati at 25 One is that they did produce liver damage in the Page 126 Page 128 1 that time. I believe those studies were at 1 rats, and the other one is that the conclusion 2 least in part sponsored by Monsanto. The only 2 was it was not carcinogenic under the conditions 3 reason I mention that is because at a later date 3 of the test. 4 just before I went to Monsanto Trion went to 4 Q. And flipping ahead to the same signature line 5 Atlas, and he made me a job offer. Atlas Company 5 Paul Wright was a signator on this report as 6 in Maryland. And I think at that time may be 6 well; correct? 7 the first time I took a serious look at PCBs to 7 A. Yes. 8 read on to get some background information on 8 Q. Flipping ahead to the third document, 9 Joe Trion, but other than those inhalation 9 Three-Generation Reproduction Study, same 10 studies at that time, I had no other knowledge 10 question, do you have any personal knowledge 11 of studies Monsanto had sponsored. 11 about what the bottom line conclusions are of 12 Q. Do you know one way or another whether the Trion 12 this report? 13 study from the 1950s is viewed to be 13 A.I really don't recall the reproduction studies 14 authoritative in the toxicological industry? 14 that well. I would have to look at the report 15 MR. DiMURO: Objection to form. 15 to refresh my memory, but I don't recall 16 MR, LIPSHUTZ: Same objection. 16 specifically the details on it, the details of 17 A. It has been used to establish so-called 17 findings. 18 threshold limit values which were originally 18 Q.I don't remember if I asked this, a global 19 published by the American Conference of 19 question with regard to all four of these, are 20 Governmental Industrial Hygienists. It was used 20 all four of these studies that you recall having - 21 as a basis for establishing threshold limit 21 seen while you were in the medical department of 22 values, and on the basis of that, I would say 22 Monsanto? r *> 23 that they were recognized and accepted. 23 A. 1 would have seen them later on but not when 24 q.Do you know of any other chronic ingestion 24 they came in. 25 studies? 25 Q. Sometime during the mid 1970s, sometime after Page 125 - Page 128 WATER PCB-SD0000011600 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas. November 10, 1997 Page 129 Page 131 1 1974 but during the 1970s? 1 one, I think we may have touched upon earlier. 2 A. We had one of the earlier documents which 2 It states, at ordinary temperatures the Aroclor 3 summarized Monsanto toxicity test data and I 3 chlorinated polyphenols have not presented 4 indicated that's the kind of thing I would have 4 industrial toxicological problems. Was that 5 written and I would have referred to these to 5 your understanding as of the early 1970s when 6 write that summary. 6 you were employed in the medical department of 7 Q. Same question with regard to the Levinskas 16-D 7 Monsanto? 8 the Teratogenic study. Do you have any 8 A. That would be my understanding, yes. 9 recollection of what the bottom line conclusions 9 Q. Was that also your understanding, say, as of the 10 were in that report? 10 mid 1980s? 11 A.I can't say specifically, but -- I wouldn't 11 A. Yes. 12 hazard a guess. I could look at it and give you 12 Q. Is it still your understanding today? 13 a comment on it, but I don't know. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Flipping ahead to the signatures page on that 14 Q.Now, what was your understanding as of the time 15 document, which is 002244, Paul Wright's name is 15 you came to Monsanto about the adverse health 16 not listed there. Had he already joined 16 effects that could be caused by exposure to 17 Monsanto as of September of 1971? 17 Aroclor 1254? 18 A. No, he had not been at Monsanto. 18 MR. DiMURO: Objection to form. 19 Q. Do you have any knowledge as to why he was not 19 MR. O'CONNOR: Objection. 20 called upon to sign that when he signed the 20 A.l think I've indicated that other than the fact 21 other IBT reports? 21 that Joe Trion had done work on these materials 22 MR. DiMURO: Objection to the form. 23 A. Can I speculate? 24 MR. DiMURO: No. 22 and since he had made an offer of employment to 23 me and I wanted to know more about the guy, I 24 looked up some of the work that he had done, and 25 A.I don't know why he didn't sign it. 25 that's about all 1 knew about the PCBs at that Page 130 Page 132 1 Q.Each of these reports was also signed by ML 1 time. The studies he reported in the literature 2 Keplinger, Ph.D. 2 seemed to be well-done. They had been accepted 3 A. Yes. 3 and used. From what I understood there were no 4 Q.Is that correct, as manager of toxicology? 4 other problems as long as one kept the air 5 A. Yes. 5 levels below those limits specified by the TLV 6 Q. And he's one of the ones you indicated was 6 committee. 7 convicted as well? 7 Q.I'm referring to excessive levels, levels in 8 A. Yes. 8 excess of those levels. Was it your 9 Q. Several of them are also signed by James Plank. 9 understanding that the Trion study suggested 10 Is that the Dr. Plank you referred to? 10 that there were adverse health effects that 11 A. Yes, that would be the same James Plank. I 11 could be caused if one exceeded the acgih 12 don't believe he was a doctor. 12 standards? 13 Q. Just briefly I want to take you through a 13 MR. DiMURO: Object to form. You can 14 document that, portion of a document that was 14 answer. 15 marked previously as Exhibit Orem 3, Bates No. 15 A. If a TLV value is set, my feeling would be that 16 MAE 040881 through 934. And I apologize, I'm 16 under the pending conditions if you stayed below 17 going to show you my marked up copy. This is 17 that level you wouldn't have any difficulty. I 18 the toxicity and safe handling section. 18 don't know that I had focused much on what would 19 (Brief recess.) 19 be the potentiality if you got above that 20 Q.Dr. Levinskas, I've just handed a couple pages 20 because the question would be how much higher " 21 to you, Bates No. MAE 040931 to 932. These are 21 are you going to go and how long are you going. 22 excerpts from a technical bulletin that relates 22 If the number is .5 and you'got .51,1 don't 23 to the Aroclor plasticizers, and this is the 23 think you would see anything go haywire. So 24 section relating to toxicity and safe handling. 24 it's a question of how much you exceeded and how 25 I want to ask about a few pieces of this. First 25 long you exceeded that gets into play as to what t Page 129 - Page 132 WATER PCB-SD0000011601 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas November 10, 1997 Page 133 Page 135 1 the effects would be. In chlorinated l liver, breakdown of liver cells which could be 2 hydrocarbons, as a rule they tend to be liver 2 life threatening if it would be prolonged in 3 factors, I would expect there may be some liver 3 duration, but basically a liver failure, not a 4 damage. Beyond that, I don't know that I would 4 cancer effect. 5 speculate. 5 Q.Did you have an understanding back in the mid 6 Q.How about the occurrence of chloracne, is it 6 1970s that the liver damage that could result 7 your understanding that chloracne could occur 7 was reversible on removal from the exposure 8 from excessive exposure to Aroclor 1254? 8 source? 9 A. Chloracne has been a point of dispute. It 9 A. In most cases, if not all, certainly in many 10 occurs, there is no disputing it occurs, but the 10 cases, if the exposure ceases, the condition 11 causative agent, in the early days there were 11 will either stay as it is or will improve. 12 mixtures of other chlorinated terphenyls, not 12 There may be cases, but it's hard for me to 13 just biphenyls, in a class of compound called 13 think of any, where removing some of the 14 halowaxes which were notorious for producing 14 exposure, the thing continues to intensify and 15 chloracne. And because of the analytical 15 get worse. Stopping the exposure usually will 16 methods being used, some of those early mixtures 16 stop the progression or result in regression. 17 were probably contaminated with the 17 Q. What if one is exposed to levels of Aroclor 18 polychlorinated terphenyls and other materials, 18 vapors above the ACGIH standard, must one 19 so it's hard to say. I'm of the opinion that a 19 necessarily feel irritation to the eyes or 20 pure biphenyl probably would not produce 20 throat? 21 chloracne. 21 MR. DAVIDSON: Object to the form. 22 Q. Could a polychlorinated biphenyl? 22 MR. DiMURO: You can answer. 23 A. When I say pure, a biphenyl without a 23 A.I think if you're dealing, in the first place to 24 chlorinated triphenyl or polyphenol, the halowax 24 get levels of above the -- that approach TLVs, 25 compound, I don't know it would produce 25 you have to do one of two things, you have to Page 134 Page 136 1 chloracne or not. 1 either aerosolize it or heat it. And I think 2 Q.Is Aroclor 1254 a pure biphenyl as you've 2 either one of those would produce sensory 3 described it? 3 irritation to the eyes, nose and respiratory 4 A.To my understanding, I think that probably is a 4 tract. 1 think it would be noticeable, either 5 clean biphenyl. I don't think it has a 5 noticeable or downright uncomfortable, depending 6 chloracne. 6 on the degree. And I wouldn't expect people to 7 Q. Other than liver damage or chloracne, with the 7 tolerate that for any length of time. 8 caveats you've stated about what may be required 8 Q.That's to reach a level that exceeds the ACGIH 9 to produce chloracne, are there any other 9 standard? 10 adverse health effects that you understood back 10 A. If you get appreciably above it, if the level is 11 in the 1970s could be caused by elevated 11 constant. You get short increases, I don't know 12 exposures to Aroclor 1254? 12 that would be noticeable, but if there is a 13 MR. DiMURO: Object to the form. 13 consistent elevated number, I think respiratory 14 A. If there were vapors it could be irritating to 14 tract, sensory irritation of the eyes and throat 15 the eye or the respiratory tract, but I would be 15 and such would be noticeable. 16 of the opinion that the sentinel sign of 16 Q. If there is, again, a buildup of vapors beyond 17 exposure would be liver damage and if one kept 17 the ACGIH levels, would there also be an 18 the exposure low enough to prevent liver damage 18 associated odor that would be detectable? 19 it would be most unlikely you would see serious 19 MR. DiMURO: Objection to the form. 20 biological effects in people. 20 You can answer. 21 Q.The liver damage you're referring to now is 21 A.I really don't know about the odor. I would 22 benign as opposed to malignant? 22 think there could be an odor, but I really don't 23 A. I'm not talking about cancer; I'm talking about 23 know. I think you would get somewhat of a sharp 24 just frank liver damage, cirrhosis of the liver 24 and acrid odor, something that would be not as 25 is what some people call frank damage to the 25 objectionable in my opinion as the sensory ^ Page 133 - Page 136 WATER PCB-SD0000011602 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10,1997 Page 137 Page 139 1 irritation would be, but that's just sort of l pull together and evaluate the information 2 trying to put together lots of different things. 2 presented as a package. And that would go to 3 Q.Have you ever personally smelled vapors that 3 the operating units. On occasion we might 4 have resulted from any of the Aroclor PCB 4 condense it or rephrase it to put in a product 5 products? 5 bulletin. In later years we would put the 6 MR. DAVIDSON: And lived to tell 6 information in the material safety data sheet. 7 about it? 7 Whether that information then was given to PR 8 A. I smelled some Aroclors at room temperatures and 8 and how it was distributed, I'm really not 9 I don't have a recollection that they smelled 9 involved. I would answer queries that came to 10 particularly bad, but I haven't worked in an 10 me but I was not in charge of distributing 11 elevated -- biphenyl itself has been used as a 11 information. We relied on the operating units, 12 coolant around nuclear reactors and there have 12 our technical information and assessment of it 13 been complaints of irritation and odors from 13 to the operating units and others who want to 14 biphenyl itself and that's where I draw my 14 use it. 15 conclusions about the chlorinated biphenyls. 15 Q. Were there others in the public relations of 16 Q.You may have been joking a moment ago, but did 16 Monsanto that you remember consulting you about 17 you actually smell Aroclor products? 17 the information about Aroclor PCB products? 18 A. I've sniffed the products. The lower 18 A. I think Larry O'Neil was one that I had some 19 chlorinated ones tend to be liquid and the 1260 19 dealings with. I've talked on one occasion or 20 I think is a solid. You don't smell much of a 20 another with others in PR, people I can't recall 21 wax. And I've sniffed a couple of samples and I 21 specifically what ones, talking about PCBs. 22 don't recall -- nothing striking about the odor, 22 Q.How about Jim McKee? 23 at least at room temperature, at least not to 23 A. I don't really recall talking to Jim McKee. 1 24 me. 24 may have, but 1 don't have a recollection of 25 Q.Who is Dan Bishop? 25 talking to him about it. Page 138 Page 140 1 A. Dan Bishop was in public relations with Monsanto 1 Q. One last document to show you, Dr. Levinskas. 2 Company at different parts of the company at 2 (Report dated 10/14/81 3 different times. 3 marked as Exhibit No. 17 4 Q. And did you ever serve as a source of 4 for identification.) 5 information for Mr. Bishop on toxicological 5 Q.Dr. Levinskas, I'm showing you a document that's 6 issues for his PR publications? 6 entitled Toxicity of Aroclor Products 1242, 1254 7 A. We have talked about the issues, yes. 7 and 1260 to the Liver of Albino Rats, dated 8 Q. Was there a standard set of information that was 8 October 14, 1981, and Bates number MAE 014404. 9 supplied for public relations purposes when 9 Is this a document that you recognize, Dr. 10 required back in the mid 1970s, let's say? 10 Levinskas? 11 A.I don't ever recall writing a statement 11 A. Yes. 12 specifically for public relations. Some of the 12 Q.What is it? 13 statements I had written would be analogous to 13 A.It's a review, compilation to some extent of the 14 some we had in earlier exhibits, may have been 14 liver sections, all of the liver sections from 15 picked up and used by PR people. But I don't 15 the original 1242, 1254 and 1260 Aroclor studies 16 recall writing a statement that was intended for 16 in rats that were reevaluated by IBT and, let me 17 use only by PR people. 17 check before I go too far out, and it presents 18 Q. Was the information that was supplied to 18 the findings on each of those studies for rats 19 customers with regards to toxicity or safe 19 that were sacrificed at three, six, 12 months on 20 handling of Aroclor products also used for 20 test and at the end of the study. And it gives _ 21 public relations purposes? 21 an accountability, if you will, for all the rats 22 MR. DiMURO: I'll object to the form, 22 that presumably, that we believe were on that 23 but you can answer. 23 study and what happened to them. 24 A. When I wrote summaries of what ~ pulled 24 Q. And just very quickly, a footnote 1 on Page 1, 25 together information, I attempted to do this, to 25 right at the very bottom paragraph, talks about Page 137 - Page 14(H- WATER PCB-SD0000011603 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997 Page 141 Page 143 1 information being made available to various l talked about one of them here. And I was trying 2 government groups and if you look in the 2 to explain my position, my understanding of it, 3 footnote there are dates of correspondence and 3 so it was a more extended version but it was -- 4 contact. 4 Q. Of a similar nature? 5 A. Yes. 5 A. Of a similar nature. 6 Q. Where are those drawn from? 7 A. These would have come from the records we had at 6 Q. What are the plaintiff's claims in that 7 particular case, personal injury or property 8 Monsanto. You'll see the first one is Wheeler, 8 damage? 9 October '69, April, '70, on Page 8 I think it 9 A. The deposition that was videotaped was personal 10 is. These are dates that predated my time with 10 injury. 11 Monsanto, so they would have had to come out of 11 Q. What was the specific claim itself? 12 the company files. No. 2, R.D. Kimbrough that 12 A. Counsel will have to help me. That was a 13 personal communication, that's where I began to 13 cancer, a person that died from cancer wasn't 14 get into the act. It's an attempt to summarize 14 it? 15 what -- where we stood and how we got there, if 15 Q. You don't have to guess. I can get hold of the 16 you will, and also what our position was at the 16 transcript. 17 time, to make this information available to 17 A. I think - 18 somebody that wanted to look at it. I don't see 18 MR. DAVIDSON: There was more than 19 a date on this thing. 19 one plaintiff. 20 Q. Right on the front under your name? 20 A. I think there was a cancer, but I'm not positive 21 A. October 14, 1981. I got to get my bifocals 21 about that. The reason I say that is we were 22 changed. I had cataract surgery on one eye and 22 shown Polaroids, colored Polaroids of a wasting 23 I do have to get my prescription changed. 23 individual in the deposition. They were passed 24 MR. TURET: I have no further 24 around and that's why that sticks in my memory. 25 questions at this time. 25 Scott's widow was suing for alleged cancer. Page 142 Page 144 1 1 Q. Do you know what kind of PCB exposure was 2 EXAMINATION 2 alleged in that case? 3 QUESTIONS BY MR. O'CONNOR: 3 A.No, I don't. I think it was used in the 4 Q. Doctor, I was introduced earlier in the day. My 4 dielectric industry. 1 don't know whether --1 5 name is Brian O'Connor. I'm an attorney and I 5 think it was one of the PCB containing 6 represent the plaintiffs in this case that have 6 dielectric fluids. I don't think this was pure 7 bought a lawsuit against Armstrong World 7 PCB alleged in that case, but I don't remember. 8 Industries. How many times have you been 8 Q. Were you paid for the testimony you gave in 9 deposed related to PCB litigation? 9 that? 10 A. In total for all the things, I don't know, 10 A. I was working for Monsanto when I gave that 11 probably a dozen or 14, 15 times. 11 deposition and Monsanto paid my regular salary. 12 Q.Have you testified in court at all? 12 Q. How about today, are you being paid? 13 A. No, I have not testified in court. 13 A. I have not been paid for my testimony for 14 Q.Have you been videotaped, any of your testimony 14 Monsanto since I retired. 15 been videotaped to show to a jury? 15 Q.Did you review any documents prior to today's 16 A. Yes. 16 deposition? 17 Q. When was that? 17 A. Yes, I met with attorneys and they did show me a 18 A. About 10 years ago in Texas, two-day deposition 18 few documents to refresh my memory. 19 that was videotaped. 19 Q. I don't want to know about any specific 20 Q. What was the basis of your testimony in that 20 conversations you had with the attorneys, but - 21 case? 21 could you tell me and identify any documents you 22 A. Some of it was more or less rehashed here now. 22 reviewed? 23 It was the same thing, what did Monsanto do, 23 A. Some of these are in this pile. I was -- I did 24 what did they know, what was my part in it. Did 24 look at the copy of the Scott deposition. There 25 I request changes to be made in reports and 25 was some others but in that general vein. . Page 141 - Page 144 WATER PCB-SD0000011604 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas November 10, 1997 Page 145 Page 147 1 Q.When were you first contacted about appearing 1 Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, a 2 for a deposition in this case? 2 bound volume annually, and in about '89, '88, 3 A. Three or four weeks ago more or less, I had a 3 '89, Renate Kimbrough wrote a review on the 4 call from one of the paralegals at Monsanto and 4 health effects -- and Renate Kimbrough is an 5 then the attorneys. 5 M.D., a pathologist, and the title was something 6 Q. Contacted by counsel? 6 like The Chronic or Health Effects of 7 A. Yes, they asked me if I would be willing to be 7 Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Polybromated 8 deposed and I said yes and then I was contacted, 9 these meetings were set up. 8 Biphenyls and she is doing a review of 9 information, animal studies as well as human 10 Q.How many times have you met with counsel prior 10 data, and towards the end of the review she 11 to today's deposition for the purpose of the 11 makes the statement more or less, it's not a 12 deposition today? 12 direct quote, but the gist of it was while they 13 A. I met with them Tuesday last week a couple hours 13 are interesting chemicals biologically, they do 14 and this morning. 14 not appear to present significant human health 15 Q. You are a toxicologist, correct, you're not an 15 hazards at the current levels of exposure. So 16 M.D.? 16 taking Kimbrough, keeping in mind she is the 17 A. I'm not an M.D. 17 woman that first raised the serious queries 18 Q.In that case in Texas did you offer any opinions 18 about carcinogens in PCBs has come around to 19 or were you basically just giving the facts as 19 saying, 1 don't think there is a serious health 20 you recall them with regard to your contact with 20 risk for man. So between her data and Bill 21 PCBs at Monsanto? 21 Gaffey's review is what I relied upon. 22 A. I was not - 22 Q. Have you ever talked to Dr. Kimbrough personally 23 MR. DiMURO: For the record, he was 23 about PCBs in relationship to the allegation 24 not identified as an expert witness. Subject to 24 that they're carcinogenic? 25 that you can answer. 25 A, Yes. She came to Monsanto, presented her Page 146 Page 148 1 A. I was not asked for -- the questions -- the 1 findings. 2 discussions were limited to the animal toxicity 2 Q. Since then have you talked to her? 3 testing, Monsanto's relationships with ibt, the 3 A. Yes, I've seen her off and on over the years and 4 IBT situation and so forth. I don't think that, 4 we've talked along those lines. 5 having reviewed the documents just recently, I 5 Q.The data that you made reference to, you stated 6 still don't recall, I don't think I was asked 6 at certain levels of exposure, what levels of 7 anything about causation in terms of humans, 7 exposure was Dr. Kimbrough dealing with in the 8 trying to establish that it was a carcinogen in 8 latter piece of literature that you just cited? 9 animals, how good were the data, that sort of 9 A. Kimbrough did one study. In her study she had 10 thing. 10 one level of exposure which was, I think a 11 Q. You don't hold yourself out as an expert on the 11 hundred parts per million, and she had only 12 effect of PCBs on human beings, do you? 12 female rats. The Monsanto studies were done at 13 A. No. 13 1,10 and a hundred parts per million. So we 14 Q. So the opinions that were elicited here today 15 that you believe that PCBs may cause liver 14 had multiple levels. So Kimbrough had one level 15 in a high dose and, you know, we've talked back 16 abnormalities but not necessarily cancer, what 16 and forth, but just on the same basis of trying 17 training do you have to offer that opinion? 17 to see what would be a basis for the different 18 A. Well, there are two things that I would say that 18 conclusions and the different opinions that were 19 lead me to that. One is Dr. Gaffey, he is an 19 being held on that subject. 20 epidemiologist, he reviewed the available 20 MR. LIPSHUTZ: Sorry to interrupt, ~ 21 epidemiological data and in his report he 21 I'm having a little trouble hearing. If you 22 concluded that the evidence for carcinogenicity 22 could try to speak up a little louder. 23 of PCBs in humans under these conditions that 23 THE WITNESS: I said that - 24 existed was flimsy or nonexistent. The other 24 MR. O'CONNOR: That's all right. He 25 one that's sort of interesting, there is an 25 can get the transcript. Page 145 - Page 148 WATER PCB-SD0000011605 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997 Page 149 1 Q. Doctor, can you tell us generally what your 1 2 understanding was of the relationship between 2 3 Monsanto and ibt back in the early '70s? 3 4 A. Well, IBT had a large testing laboratory which 4 5 was used extensively by various people, various 5 6 companies. It had been used by Cyanamid before 6 7 I got to Cyanamid, but when Cyanamid built its 7 8 lab, they kept their work in-house. But most of 8 9 the major chemical companies had used IBT. The 9 10 government agencies institute had used IBT and 10 11 my understanding of them on the basis on which 11 12 we proceeded was they were a competent 12 13 laboratory whose competency was recognized by 13 14 various people and they were being used by them 14 15 and we were just another customer of theirs. 15 16 Q.Do you know roughly what Monsanto paid IBT for 16 17 all the studies and testing they did on lab 17 18 animals and PCBs? 18 19 A. No. And the reason I would say that is that, 19 20 first of all, these were all contracts set up 20 21 before I got to Monsanto, so I don't know what 21 22 arrangements were made or how they were made. 22 23 Until later in the game, when virtually all 23 24 testing was being conducted through the auspices 24 25 of the medical department, then we would have 25 Page 151 ultimately came to me, asking if we could identify studies on this list that we had submitted to them. So we did that and the studies that we had submitted to support registration of pesticides or food contact chemicals were on the list so we started to go back and look at IBT, to get the information from IBT so we could verify those studies. So many people descended on, apparently on IBT at that time, that IBT basically went out of business; they closed them down. So we spent a good deal of time trying to retrieve records from IBT to reconstruct and validate the studies. Monsanto took a three-step approach. We said that anything that we sent to an agency that was used to request an agency take action such as a food additive petition, that we had an obligation to determine whether or not the data we had submitted to the government was valid. So those became our high priority items. The second category was items that had not been subject to regulatory action, but we thought were important, either from a commercial standpoint or potential health, we'd make a attempt to validate those studies. And the Page 150 Page 152 1 some idea of what was being negotiated, if you 1 third category was either discontinued products 2 will, or the prices, but at that time the 2 or products that never became a reality and we 3 operating units were paying the bills and that 3 would not worry about those. Similar letters 4 was part of their fiscal responsibility and we 4 went to many companies. We went in with the 5 had no involvement in it. 5 first validation studies on the pesticides, and 6 Q. Earlier you had made reference to the IBT trial 6 EPA not only accepted our proposed validation 7 and the IBT business, what were you making 7 procedure, they subsequently held it out for a 8 reference to? 8 model for the rest of the industry to follow. 9 A. I was asked a question about whether Paul Wright 9 So as a result, these four studies that were 10 was indicted and was found guilty. The 10 from four different companies that were 11 allegations were made that IBT had submitted 11 requested by the government, those are the basis 12 data on, first it was one or two drugs and as I 12 of the charges brought against the IBT officials 13 recall there were four different compounds 13 that we mentioned. 14 involved, and the allegations were somewhat 14 Q. What time frame are we talking about where IBT 15 similar in each case, that they had submitted 15 was alleged to have submitted false data? 16 false data, and that they had used the wires or 16 A. Boy, so many things were going on about that 17 the mail to do it. A case of fraud, I guess, 17 time, I have trouble. There were so many things 18 using the mails to commit that fraud, and 18 because we were opening up the lab and various 19 submitting false data to agencies. This, in a 19 other things -- this would be in the latter 20 different connection some EPA inspectors had 20 '70s, '77, '8, later than '77; '78, '79, '80. " 21 gone up to look at IBT studies and they started 21 Q.Do you know if Monsanto did anything to go back 22 raising questions and basically the government 22 and validate the studies thaMBT had performed 23 came down and said anybody submitted -- they 23 on the lab rats with reference to the PCBs? 24 sent out lists of various studies to various 24 A. This is part of the endeavor. We had never 25 companies, to Monsanto, not directly to me but 25 submitted -- the agencies that as_k_e_d__M_o_n_s_a_n_t_o_____ > Page 149 - Page 152 WATER PCB-SD0000011606 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas, _______ November 10", 1997 Page 153 Page 155 1 for PCB data, and that was made available to l was necessary to the symposium at Chicago. 2 them, some of the references in here refer to 2 Q. What data did he present? 3 it, but these are made at the request of the 3 A. I think he presented the dog results and I don't 4 FDA, for instance, and EPA. We had never 4 know whether he presented the feeding studies on 5 submitted them to an agency, asked them for any 5 the rats. My recollection is, I have some 6 regulatory action on PCBs. And at that time 6 recollection that he talked about the dog 7 they were taking no regulatory action. Since 7 feeding studies, and I really don't recall the 8 they were not the basis, they were not our high 8 details of his presentation. 9 priority item, but they were of sufficient 9 Q. Well, do you know whether or not you had 10 interest as environmental contaminants and 10 requested that Dr. Calandra change some of the 11 health risk we made an effort to do something, 11 studies that he had written with regard to 1242, 12 and rather than do the entire study, we looked 12 1254 and 1260, the slightly tumorigenic and 13 at this question of the liver tumors. The IBT 13 changed that language to does not appear to be 14 data were cited by FDA when they set up 14 carcinogenic, did he do that before he went to 15 tolerances on food levels for PCBs, but the 15 Chicago? 16 levels were set predominantly on the basis of 16 A. I can't remember. I don't know. 17 the Yusho experience which are the human poison 17 Q. What is the difference in your mind between 18 cases in Japan. The Monsanto data on animals 18 slightly tumorigenic and carcinogenic? 19 were consistent with and in a sense supportive 19 A.Tumorigenic to me is a more general term. A 20 of human data, but they were not the basis that 20 mole such as this is a tumor. And cancer of the 21 FDA used to set the food tolerances, although 21 lip would be a tumor. So it's a generic term. 22 there had been newspaper articles and magazines 22 And a carcinogen is a very specific, or 23 alleging that Monsanto sent false data to FDA 23 carcinoma is a very specific type of tumor. 24 for that purpose. They asked for the data, we 24 Since the discussion was focused on whether or 25 gave it to them and we continued to try to keep 25 not the materials produced cancer, and since I Page 154 Page 156 1 them posted as developments went on with PCBs. 1 saw in the second set of reports that 1 had that 2 Q.If I'm understanding your testimony, then, other 2 we talked about earlier, that they had used the 3 than the endeavor that you just described to 3 term "is not carcinogenic." 4 validate the testing and data that IBT provided 4 Q. Does not appear to be carcinogenic? 5 to Monsanto, is the answer no, then, that the 5 A. Does not appear to be carcinogenic. My request 6 tests were never validated in full? 6 to him was based on the fact that if we are 7 A.That's right, sir, we never went back to look at 7 trying to deal with the issue of carcinogenicity 8 the complete. 8 we should be as specific in the terminology as 9 Q.Dr. Calandra, he appeared with a gentleman named 9 we could. And since it was more directly to the 10 Papageorge at a seminar in Chicago with the 10 cancer and he had made the change twice already, 11 Environmental Protection Agency in 1975; were 11 it would be preferable to have the third change 12 you aware of that? 12 read the same way, since tumorigenic is a less 13 A. Yes. 13 specific term and didn't quite deal with the 14 Q.Did you attend that seminar? 14 issues under discussion. 15 A. No. 15 Q. Do you know when Dr. Calandra appeared in front 16 Q. Do you know what the basis of the information 16 of the EPA in Chicago in 1975 whether or not he 17 was that Calandra provided or what the 17 discussed his opinion that the Aroclor lines 18 substance, I should say, at that seminar? 18 were tumorigenic in the lab animals that they 19 A. I don't recall specifics of the discussion he 19 worked on? 20 had but the intent was -- well, Monsanto had 20 A. I don't recall exactly what the proceedings were - 21 paid for the data and it was probably Monsanto 21 in the large volume. 1 don't recall exactly 22 data, Joe Calandra had developed the data in his 22 what Joe Calandra said. 1 do have a vague 23 laboratory and he should be the man who should 23 recollection that he talked about the dog 24 present it because he should be in the better 24 studies and I don't know what he said about the 25 position to defend it or explain it if either 25 rat studies. Page 153 - Page 156 WATER PCB-SD0000011607 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10,1997 Page 157 Page 159 1 Q.Do you know at any time, if Monsanto ever made 1 correct? 2 any effort to let a governmental or state agency 2 A. Yes. 3 know that Mr. Calandra's preliminary opinion was 3 Q. What was your understanding back in the '70s as 4 that the Aroclor 1242, 1254 and 1260 were 4 to what was the basis for the allegation that 5 slightly tumorigenic? 5 PCBs were an environmental contaminant? 6 A.They -- trying to think of -- I don't recall the 6 MR. DAVIDSON: Just in the '70s? 7 phrasing in the original two-year rat reports. 7 MR. O'CONNOR: Yeah, just in the 8 But they could have the two-year rat reports. 8 '70s. 9 Q. And you don't recall the specific -- 9 A. They were being described -- first there was a 10 A. And I don't recall how this was phrased in the 10 DDT in the environment and then there was - 11 two-year rat reports, they do have the original 11 reports were beginning to come out from 12 reports. 12 different places, a few reports at least from a 13 Q. You came on with Monsanto in what year, sir? 13 few place that something other than PCBs was in 14 A. 1971. 14 that mixture. Then it says the analytical 15 Q.Do you recall seeing any literature that was 15 methodology got better -- I should say that 16 provided by Monsanto to customers who had 16 something other than DDT was involved in this 17 purchased PCBs from Monsanto? 17 environmental contamination. As they refined 18 A. I don't recall that I saw any such literature. 18 their analytical methods, they identified the 19 Q.Did you in your working with PCBs at Monsanto 19 PCBs which probably were mixed in with the DDT 20 ever come across an article from the journal 20 earlier and weren't recognized as separate. So 21 referred to as Chemical Week? 21 they were beginning to have an awareness that 22 A. I'm sure things from Chemical Week have been 22 there were PCBs as environmental contaminants 23 sent across my desk more than once, but I don't 23 and that was done probably in the late '60s and 24 know specifically what you're referring to. 24 early '70s. 25 Q.Specifically I'm referring to an article on PCBs 25 Q. Your focal point was not PCBs in the 1970s? Page 158 Page 160 1 that appeared in the early '70s that was 1 A. Right. As I said, 1 was to work on new products 2 provided to customers of Monsanto who had 2 and new uses of existing products. PCBs were in 3 purchased PCBs. Do you have any recollection 3 existing products, no new uses, so they really 4 other personal knowledge of that particular 4 were not in my purview. 5 article? 5 Q.The studies that were done on employees at 6 A. No, I do not. 6 Monsanto that were working in the area or 7 Q.Did you see any of the letters that were 7 working with the manufacture of the Aroclors, do 8 generated by Monsanto informing customers that 8 you know the name of the outside contractor that 9 Monsanto was ceasing to manufacture and 9 performed those studies? 10 distribute the Aroclor lines? 10 A. No. 11 A. I know that that decision -- I heard the 11 Q. And was there data that was collected that was, 12 decision was made. I do not reo.fi 1 seeing the 12 was it Dr. Johannsen that interpreted that data? 13 letters sent to customers. 13 A. No, my recollection is Dr. Johannsen was given 14 Q. Was it within your purview in the medical 14 the assignment to look at the records and see 15 department in the role that you were filling in 15 what information was there and was there enough 16 Monsanto at that time? 16 information to work with. And as I was reading 17 A. I think not, not my involvement at that time. 17 his --1 really hadn't remembered while I was 18 My involvement at that time, such as it was, 18 reading it earlier, Frederick's assignment was 19 with PCBs did not include seeing anything like 19 to see what's available and is there enough 20 that. 20 information there that we could make some sense " 21 Q.Let me ask you, earlier this morning you were 21 out of it, or it would be useful. Because like 22 asked when you first learned about PCBs, and I 22 everything ejse, the fact thaFyou've got a 23 believe you responded to one of Mr. Turet's 23 number of people working in an area and nobody 24 questions you first heard of PCBs in the context 24 has a history of what they have been doing or 25 that PCBs were environmental contaminants; 25 what their exposures or are what their health, ^ Page 157 - Page 160 WATER PCB-SD0000011608 Joan Macrtin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM Witness: George Levinskas Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) ____________ _____________________________ November 10, 1997 Page 161 Page 163 1 is it meaningful having so many bodies without 1 Company? 2 some indication as to what they're related to, 2 A. I've had heard the company in -- I've seen the 3 isn't a meaningful exercise. 3 name in various chemical magazines that I've 4 Q.I guess I should have asked you whether or not 4 read, but I don't know anything about it. 5 you knew whether an independent contractor had 5 Q.Have you ever discussed PCBs with any 6 been hired to collect the data or was that 6 representative of American Mineral Spirits? 7 strictly an in-house study performed by Dr. 7 A. Not that I can recall. 8 Johannsen? 8 Q.Do you have any knowledge of Monsanto's sales to 9 A.My recollection is that Dr. Johannsen's initial 9 American Mineral Spirits as a distributor of 10 effort was to see what was available, was there 10 PCBS? 11 enough material that we could work with to do 11 A. No. 12 something further. 12 Q. Do you know the name of any Monsanto current 13 MR. O'CONNOR: I don't haveanything 13 employee or former employee who would know the 14 else. 14 types of warnings or brochures which were given 15 MR. DiMURO: Gary? 15 to distributors of Monsanto PCBs products? 16 16 A. I would not know who would have been in charge 17 EXAMINATION 17 of such things that would have handled that, 18 QUESTIONS BY MR. LIPSHUTZ: 18 other than to say somebody in the functional 19 Q.Dr. Levinskas, my name is Gary Lipshutz. I'm 19 fluids business group that handled PCBs, but I 20 speaking to you from New Jersey on the 20 don't know who would have had responsibility for 21 telephone. Can you hear me okay, sir? 21 it. 22 A. Yes. 22 MR. LIPSHUTZ: I have no further 23 Q.Mr. O'Connor, the attorney just asked you some 23 questions. 24 questions, asked you whether yourecalled ever 24 MR. TURET: I have no questions. 25 seeing any brochures distributed to customers of 25 MR. DAVIDSON: I have one question. Page 162 Page 164 1 Monsanto regarding PCBs. I believe your answer 1 EXAMINATION 2 was that you had not recalled seeing any 2 QUESTIONS BY MR. DAVIDSON: 3 brochures; is that correct? 3 Q.Dr. Levinskas, Mr. Turet asked you about bunch 4 A. Yes, that's correct. 4 of questions about Exhibit 3 which was Dr. 5 Q. Would that be correct also in regards to 5 Kimbrough's letter to you providing some 6 distributors for PCBs, Monsanto distributors? 6 information about her studies, do you recall 7 A. I guess I have some difficulties with the 7 that? 8 question. 8 A. Yes. 5 Q.Let me rephrase it for you, sir. Do you recall 9 Q.My only question is, was the data and her study 10 ever seeing brochures that Monsanto gave to 10 subsequently published in the scientific 11 distributors, that Monsanto gave to its 11 literature? 12 distributors regarding PCBs? 12 A. Her study was published, yes. 13 A. My answer of not seeing brochures is absolute. 13 MR. DiMURO: We'll read and sign. 14 I did not know they had such separate ones for 14 MR. TURET: Tomorrow we start at 15 customers and distributors. I have not seen any 15 nine. 16 such bulletins that I can recall. 16 (Witness excused) 17 Q.I'm trying to understand what you said. You're 17 18 saying that you don't recall seeing any 18 19 brochures which would have been given by 19 20 Monsanto to either customers or distributors; is 20 " 21 that correct? 22 A. That's right. I don't recall seeing any product 21 22 -N 23 bulletins on PCBs shortly after I came to 23 24 Monsanto. 24 25 Q. Have you ever heard of American Mineral Spirits 25 ^ Page 161 - Page 164 WATER PCB-SD0000011609 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) Multi-PageTM Page 165 1 STATE OF ) 2 COUNTY OF ) 3 I, GEORGE LEVINSKAS, do hereby certify: 4 That I have read the foregoing deposition; 5 That I have made such changes in form 6 and/or substance to the within deposition as 7 might be necessary to render the same true and 8 correct; 9 That having made such changes thereon, I 10 hereby subscribe my name to the deposition. 11 I declare under penalty of perjury that 12 the foregoing is true and correct. 13 Executed this day of 14 ,, 1997, 15 at . . 16 17 18 NOTARY PUBLIC 19 20 Mv Commission expires: 21 22 23 24 GEORGE LEVINSKAS 25 Page 166 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 STATE OF MISSOURI ) 3 ) SS 4 COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS ) 5 I, NANCY A. KUNCAlTis, a Registered 6 Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and 7 for the State of Missouri, the officer before 8 whom the foregoing deposition was taken, do 9 hereby certify that the witness whose testimony 10 appears in the foregoing deposition was duly 11 sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness 12 was taken by me to the best of my ability and 13 thereafter reduced to typewriting under my 14 direction; that I am neither counsel for, 15 related to, nor employed by any of the parties 16 to the action in which this deposition was 17 taken, and further that I am not a relative or 18 employee of any attorney or counsel employed by 19 the parties thereto, nor financially or 20 otherwise interested in the outcome of the 21 action. 22 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the 23 State of Missouri 24 My commission expires 11-22-01 25 Witness: George Levinskas November 10, 1997 'So Page 165 - Page 166 WATER PCB-SD0000011610 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-Page TO $1,000 - acronym Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) Witness: George Levinskas. -$- $1,000 [l] 108:14 $2,500 [l] 107:10 $28,980 [l] 107:7 *2 [2] 80:8 120:10 '58 [i] 8:4 '59 [i] 8:4 '60s[i] 159:23 '68 [2] 9:21 120:14 '69 [2] 120:14 141:9 '7 [i] 9:21 '70 [i] 141:9 '70s [8] 28:6 149:3 152:20 158:1 159:3,6,8 159:24 *71 [4] 13:12 80:8 120:10 124:25 '72 [io] 15:18 19:7,24 20:12 22:15 27:15 34:20 98:5,6,8 '73 [4] 27:15 28:25 34:20 111:23 '74 [5] 27:15 28:13,25 52:1,1 '75 [4] 28:13 57:10 81:14 89:18 '76 [i] 28:8 'll [2] 152:20,20 '78 [2] 28:8 152:20 '79 [i] 152:20 '8 [2] 9:21 152:20 *80 [i] 152:20 * 80s [l] 35:2 '87 [i] 16:7 '88 [i] 147:2 '89 [2] 147:2,3 '9 [2] 9:21 28:8 '91 [2] 16:9 36:25 '93 [i] 112:5 .5 [i] 132:22 .51 [i] 132:22 0- - 001342-56 [1] 78:7 001344 [i] 82:10 001743 [i] 124:9 002241 [i] 124:14 002244 [i] 129:15 003505 [i] 124:12 014404 [i] 140:8 022030 [i] 93:23 022089 [i] 112:23 027812 [i] 65:24 02849 [i] 2:4 033 [l] 93:23 60:19 61:3,18,22,25 65:23 1981 [2] 140:8 141:21 696 [i] 75:1 038398 [l] 124:6 038402 [l] 127:11 040881 [i] 130:16 68:10 70:3 78:21 79:14 85:15,22 86:5,5,11,16 87:3,5,22,24,25 89:20 95:8 123:17,21 125:17 1985 [l] 16:7 1991 [l] 13:12 1993 [l] 112:4 -77 [3] 1:10 74:22 86:17 040931m 130:21 051687 m 55:18 051688 m 57:19 051691 m 58:2 051695 m 75:1 051697 m 115:23 137:19 140:7,15 155:12 157:4 13p] 1:14 45:5,16 46:9 63:8 112:17,22 14 [9] 1:14 35:4,4 63:5 115:18,21 140:8 141:21 142:11 . 1997 [2] 2:13 165:14 1st [l] 74:25 -2 217] 1:8 50:19 53:7 89:5 96:24 122:5 141:12 7/18/75 [2] 1:12 83:23 74 [i] 1:10 7494 [i] 2:16 77 m 1:11 8- - 051966 [i] 84:6 052975 [i] 88:23 140 [i] 1:17 1400 [i] 3:12 215 [l] 3:18 21927 [i] 3:12 8 [5] 1:11 78:1,3 91:21 141:9 054084-085 [i] 45:4 07101-3174 [i] 3:9 142 m 1:3 22 [i] 93:21 15 m 1:15 9:15 35:4 69:8 23-month [i] 70:2 8/22/75 m 1:12 93:15 8/4/75 [2] 1:11 83:14 07102-5311 [i] 3:22 117:22,25 142:11 24 [6] 69:9 78:6 79:19 800 m 87:3 08054 [i] 3:5 153 [i] 60:7 80:9 81:14 91:21 83 m 1:11,12 154 m 60:5,17 61:10,15 246 [5] 94:12,15,18 95:5 -1 1 [8] 1:7 44:23 45:1 89:19 124:24 140:24,24 148:13 1/13/75 [l] 1:9 1/14/75 [2] 1:9 63:1 1/31/75 [i] 65:18 16 [4] 35:3,4 112:22 123:25 16-A[4] 1:15 124:2,4,17 16-B [5] 1:16 124:2,7,17 127:18 16-C[4] 1:16 124:2,9,17 96:17 25 [i] 107:11 27420 [l] 3:13 29 [i] 118:3 -3 -9 9 [5] 1:11 83:15,18 88:21 107:1 9-A [6] 1:12 83:22,24 84:2,4,6 193 [i] 1:12 10[ii] 1:12 51:1 53:8 93:16,20,24 107:1,8,11 142:18 148:13 10/13/71 [2] 1:7 44:25 10/14/81 [2] 1:17 140:2 16-D [5] 1:17 124:3,12 124:17 129:7 161 [i] 1:4 164 [i] 1:4 17 [4] 1:17 55:14 115:21 3 [8] 1:8 55:11,14 86:15 86:16,17 130:15 164:4 3/24/75 [4] 1:10,11 69:2 77:25 30 [3] 9:16 92:14 115:6 932 [i] 130:21 934 m 130:16 973 [i] 3:10 979-1000 [i] 3:18 10/16/75 m 1:14 112:16 140:3 10/17/75 [2] 1:14 115:17 18 [2] 84:4,11 300 [i] 3:12 3000 [i] 3:5 -A- 100 m 82:13 19103-7396 [l] 3:17 31 [2] 65:8,23 ABC [5] 88:1,1,4,4,5 101 [2] 1:13 3:4 1016 [i] 54:23 1043 [2] 55:4,8 107 [i] 1:13 10th [i] 2:12 11 [2] 1:13 101:21 11- 22-01 [i] 166:24 112 [i] 1:14 1950s [i] 126:13 ability [3] 100:1 123:12 1953 [i] 6:6 -4 166:12 1958 [2] 7:11 8:2 19643 [i] 118:6 1969 [i] 120:12 1970s [10] 16:6 34:1 128:25 129:1 131:5 134:11 135:6 138:10 159:25 36:7 4 [6] 1:3,9 63:2 83:19 88:22 89:13 40 [2] 92:14 115:6 42 [S] 85:16,24 86:17 87:4 123:19 44 [i] 1:7 able m 72:4 94:25 abnormalities m 79:3 146:16 above m 132:19 135:18 135:24 136:10 abreast m 26:13 28:2 38:20 41:3 115 [i] 1:14 1971 [34] 7:18 8:7 13:12 475 [i] 124:7 absence m 40:12,22 117 [i] 1:15 12 [5] 1:13 9:15 107:18 107:24 140:19 12- 72-Am 57:23 12/17/74 [2] 1:8 55:10 14:10 19:7,24 20:12 22:15 23:21 27:10,12 30:23 33:1 -5 33:8,16 34:8 35:11 36:24 45:5,16 46:9 47:10 80:7 82:24 99:1 120:6,8,13,15 5 [3] 1:9 65:19,21 5/1/75 [2] 1:10 74:21 124:21,24 127:6 129:17 50 [i] 1:8 67:6 absolute [i] 162:13 abstract [i] 18:10 accepted [4] 13:6 126:23 132:2 152:6 12/6/74 [2] 1:8 50:18 157:14 54 [3] 85:15,24 123:19 accommodate [l] 5:11 124 [4] 1:15,16,16,17 1971-ish [i] 80:22 54s [l] 89:22 accompany [i] 11:10 1242 [12] 79:16 87:11,11 1972 [4] 15:17,2198:23 55 [l] 1:8 87:21,24,25 123:21 99:11 accomplishment m 108:6 125:17 140:6,15 155:11 1974 m 28:13 29:11 51:2 157:4 51:16 53:23 55:14 129:1 -6 accountability m 140:21 1254 [33] 54:5,25 61:16 1975 [24] 51:16 63:5 65:8 6 [4] 1:10 51:1 69:3,7 accuracy [i] 95:23 61:23 79:12 81:6,13 82:11 65:23 69:9 70:6 74:25 60 [l] 123:20 ACGIH [4] 132:11 83:7 84:24 85:8 89:6,20 78:6,12 79:19 80:9 83:19 92:2,3 120:3 123:21 124:6 84:4,11 88:22 89:2 93:21 124:8,11,13 125:17,18,21 94:4 112:22 113:2 115:21 127:4 131:17 133:8 134:2 116:2 154:11 156:16 134:12 140:6,15 155:12 157:4 1260 [38] 28:24 46:1,13 51:20,24 56:23 58:21 1976[i] 119:7 1977 [2] 30:15,16 1980 [i] 36:6 1980s [i] 131:10 600 [l] 87:2 60s [i] 89:22 63 [i] 1:9 639-7298 [i] 3:10 65 [i] 4:9 69 [i] 1:10 694 [i] 55:19 135:18 136:8,17 achievement [i] 109:22 acknowledge [i] 89:25 ^ acknowledges [i] 89:25 acquaintances [i] 29:9 acrid [i] 136:24 acronym[i] 55:5 Index Page WATER PCB-SD0000011611 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) Multi-Page TM act - bell Witness: George Levinskas act [2] 104:7 141:14 agreed [7] 4:1 53:21 60:2 62:6,23 66:11,12,17 arrangements [i] 110:8 [action [ii] 68:9 95:16 76:17 99:15 102:19 71:11,17 72:9 78:23 85:10 149:22 automatically [3] 40:19 102:20 105:11 106:7 104:11 105:12 90:3 122:12 146:9 149:18 arrival [i] 34:11 42:20,22 151:16,22 153:6,7 166:16 agreement [2] 73:24 166:21 74:7 153:18 156:18 announced [l] 95:7 actions [1] 95:6 agrees [i] 71:9 annual [3] 107:1,7 147:1 active [l] 28:14 agricultural [i] 98:19 annually [i] 147:2 activity [2] 106:19 115:7 Agriculture [i] 10:25 answer^] 4:25 5:3,6 actual [i] 25:22 ahead [9] 25:4 69:21 73:9 18:2,3 26:16 28:17,20 arrived [2] 24:3 34:18 available [i7] 5:14,16 art[i] 14:19 38:21 43:9,13,16,20 65:2 article [5] 91:5,10 157:20 157:25 158:5 68:16 79:1,6 141:1,17 146:20 153:1 160:19 161:10 articles [4] 64:21,22 109:16 153:22 average [ii 54:24 [acute [7] 120:18,21,25 78:8 127:10,17 128:4,8 40:11 47:24 49:13 58:24 121:14,16,19,23 ad[i] 43:17 129:14 air[i] 132:4 60:22 65:1 79:25 80:12 81:2 93:1 132:14 135:22 136:20 138:23 139:9 add[l] 62:20 airport [S] 67:23 76:17 145:25 154:5 162:1,13 [added [S] 25:12 32:5 76:20 77:3,14 answerable [i] 11:16 33:18 34:1,12 al [2] 2:4,22 anticipate [2] 16:24 adding [3] 33:22 34:21 Albino p] 124:8,11,13 57:12 34:24 127:19 140:7 anticipation [i] 63:20 addition [2] 77:17 alive[i] 111:13 anybody's [i] 26:12 109:24 allegation [2] 147:23 additional [U] 26:6 32:4 159:4 apologize^] 93:12 130:16 33:17 34:11 77:19 79:8 79:13 80:2,16,24 81:1 allegations [2] 150:11 150:14 apparent [i] 57:3 89:18 104:24 115:10 additive [i] 151:17 alleged^] 110:14 144:2,7 152:15 143:25 appear [is] 82:11 83:4 84:16,22,25 85:23 89:6 90:15 91:25 147:14 addressed [2] 92:5 127:4 allegedly [i] 26:4 155:13 156:4,5 asks[i] 75:19 aspect [i] 21:14 assess [4] 41:21 66:22 67:3 90:22 award [4] 103:23,24 107:9 109:23 aware [6] 50:3 53:23 77:16 125:21 127:1 154:12 assessing [2] 10:15 38:7 awareness [i] 159:21 assessment [i4] 14:15 15:5,20.24 16:4,15 25:5 29:21 34:15 37:8 68:11 away [5] 31:24,25 104:8 104:12 111:12 100:5,20 139:12 assessments [i] 100:11 -B- assigned [2] 24:13 30:4 B [i] 123:25 assignment [3] 17:1 bachelor [i] 5:24 95:20 97:22 160:14,18 background [3] 5:23 assimilate [i] 117:10 60:14 67:2,3 126:8 assistance [2] 26:12 bad[i] 137:10 99:16 bailiwick [i] 65:3 adenofibrosis [2] 62:15 alleging [i] 153:23 62:16 almost [2] 49:8 68:13 adjacent[i] 101:12 alone [i] 60:7 appeared [3] 154:9 156:15 158:1 appearing [i] 145:1 assistant [4] 6:1923:17 Barry [2] 31:20,22 31:6 32:16 based [12] 7:14 37:1,17 associate [4] 6:18,19 61:8 75:17 92:13 102:10 administration [3] 11:1 along [io] 12:3 27:4 applicable [i] 42:7 70:10 104:2 52:20 63:16,20 101:16,19 applied [i] 6:13 31:6 32:17 associated [i] 136:18 104:10 108:22 109:1 125:19 156:6 administrative [2] 10:12 53:14 advanced [i] 74:6 advantage [i] 53:20 [adverse [9] 41:12 67:8 90:13,20,22 91:1 131:15 132:10 134:10 advice [i] 106:3 advised [i] 105:9 [aerosolize [i] 136:1 affect [i] 123:7 affected [i] 17:9 affiliated [i] 47:9 afternoon [i] 2:15 106:10 118:24 148:4 appreciably [i] 136:10 alternatives [i] 104:17 appreciate [i] 76:23 ambient [i] 119:6 approach [4] 104:19 amended [3] 84:25 92:19 106:10 135:24 151:14 92:21 appropriate [5] 39:9,25 amending [i] 89:4 41:10 42:4 43:1 American [2i] 2:8,24 approval [2] 38:24 44:8 7:13,17,20 8:6,11,17 9:2 9:8 10:1,7 11:12,21 13:8 approvals [i] 39:2 75:7,10 126:19 162:25 approximate [2] 9:19 163:6,9 36:13 among [8] 73:16,22 76:11 April [i] 141:9 95:8 97:9 99:22 101:13 area [4] 27:23 1)2:10 113:18 160:6,23 amount [8] 14:1 21:5 argue [i] 120:24 Associates [2] 2:16 97:2 basic [i] 62:1 assume [6] 37:20 47:16 basics [i] 110:21 92:4 106:23,24 125:1 basis [24] 34:24 49:1 assumed [3] 14:9 26:6 30:18 assuming [2] 42:11 48:4 Atlanta[2] 29:13 70:18 60:24 64:15 76:24 85:14 89:20 95:23 104:14 106:19,24 108:13 126:21 126:22 142:20 148:16,17 149:11 152:11 153:8,16 Atlas [2] 126:5,5 153:20 154:16 159:4 Atrium [2] 3:4,5 attached [2] 1:18 85:13 attempt [3] 57:2 141:14 151:25 attempted [3] 43:18,19 138:25 Bates [21] 45:4 55:18 57:18 58:1 65:24 74:25 78:7 82:9 84:5 88:23 93:22 112:23 115:22 118:6 124:9,11,14 127:11 130:15,21 140:8 battery [2] 123:15 125:14 again [U] 19:7 26:1 32:5 33:15 36:4 42:13 52:15 56:24 80:12 112:12 113:11 122:14,17 136:16 against [4] 67:3 106:7 142:7 152:12 age [2] 4:10 66:17 agencies [io] 7:4 10:18 10:21 11:7 44:5,7 99:6 149:10 150:19 152:25 agency [7] 11:8 48:1 151:15,16 153:5 154:11 157:2 agent [l] 133:11 aggressive [i] 46:23 ago m 4:19 31:25 64:1 84:18 137:16 142:18 145:3 [agree [2] 74:10,14 42:15 107:9,12,14,15 108:18 amounts [i] 108:20 analogous [3] 103:16 117:16 138:13 analysis [3] 20:21 21:15 108:7 analytical [3] 133:15 159:14,18 anaplastic [2] 46:20,24 angles [i] 104:18 anhydride m 103:12 106:16 anhydrides [2] 103:3,5 animal [i3] 8:18 59:22 62:22 67:9 86:24 89:13 98:18 114:4,11,11 122:15 146:2 147:9 animals [i9] 42:14 59:3 Armstrong [3] 2:6,23 3:14 4:19 142:7 Aroclor[S9] 28:24 46:1 46:13 54:4,23,25 56:23 57:23 58:20 60:19 61:3 61:16,18,22,23 65:22 68:10 70:3 78:21 79:12 79:14 81:6,13 82:11 83:7 84:24 85:7,15 89:6 92:2,3 95:8 110:16 116:9,20 120:3 1 23:17 124:6,8,11 124:13 125:21 127:4 130:23 131:2,17 133:8 134:2,12 135:17 137:4,17 138:20 139:17 140:6,15 156:17 157:4 158:10 Aroclorsp] 55:2,3 94:21 119:4 125:17 137:8 160:7 arose [i] 76:10 attempting^] 94:14 attempts [i] 76:9 attend [3] 57:14 65:12 154:14 attended [i] 65:11 Beagle [3] 124:6 125:5 127:10 became m 6:18 25:5 31:15,18 97:3 151:20 152:2 attention [io] 64:17 65:4 Becky [i] 32:19 65:6 82:9 88:16,21 91:9 92:6,12 125:9 attorney [3] 3:4 4:19 142:5 161:23 166:18 attorneys [3] 144:17,20 145:5 August [6] 83:19 88:22 89:2 93:21 94:4 98:7 auspices [i] 149:24 authQred [4] 45:12 66f8 118:10,12 [become [2] 18:4 30:13 Beg[i] 28:18 began [S] 25:23 37:6,9 99:16 141:13 begin [1] 6:7 beginning [j] 8:4 28:25 55:21 159:11,21 " begins [i] 66:io behalf [2] 4:11 20: ll behind [i] 78:16 authoritative [i] 126:14 beings [i] 146:12 authorities [2] 64:13 bell [i] 90:1 Index Page 2 WATER PCB-SD0000011612 Joan Macrtin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-PageTM below - conditions Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) ss: George Levinskas* below [5] 71:2 85:7 89:10 briefly [2] 127:17 130:13 150:17 20:23 42:11 49:8 102:24 commercial [4] 118:2 132:5,16 bring [i] 17:6 cases [10] 17:22 21:4,7 benign [3] 59:9,15 134:22 bringing [1] 91:8 best [9] 20:9 28:9 31:23 broad [1] 38:15 35:19 47:12 51:25 95:18 111:8 166:12 broaderp] 17:10 better [7] 22:22 30:13 100:15 115:14 121:11 brochures p] 161:25 162:3,10,13,19 163:14 154:24 159:15 brought p] 17:1 26:2 between [2i] 2:13 4:2 152:12 15:3 27:20 33:15 34:17 building [i] 27:23 21:20 25:3 44:12 135:9 135:10,12 153:18 castp] 119:20 casual p] 27:24 77:9 95:13 casually [i] 12:23 cataract pi 141:22 categories [i] 90:11 51:13 57:3 73:14 76:10 buildup [i] 136:16 category [4] 60:10,11 76:20 81:13 86:25 113:17 built [3] 29:23 30:10 151:21 152:1 117:14,17 120:18,25 147:20 149:2 155:17 149:7 caught [2] 18:7 25:24 bulletin p] 130:22 139:5 causal [2] 50:5,5 beyond [<] 34:21 38:12 62:6 95:25 133:4 136:16 bifocals [i] 141:21 big [2] 24:25 38:12 bulletins [2] 162:16,23 causation [4i 62:2,2,4 bunch [2] 52:19 164:3 146:7 business pi 22:11,12,14 causative [i] 133:11 150:7 151:11 163:19 causedp] 61:3,18 68:21 Bill [M] 12:19 33:14 34:7 34:14,18 35:18,25 98:6,7 busyp] 76:14 131:16 132:11 134:11 causes [2] 68:18 112:8 100:6,7,8,18 147:20 bills [i] 150:3 Bio-Test p] 20:1 48:17 124:16 biological [1] 134:20 -c- C [4] 3:1 88:2,3 123:25 Calandraps] 56:12,13 84:5,10,20 86:1,15 88:23 caveats [i] 134:8 CBAp] 88:2,5 CC[i] 56:11 CC'dp] 94:2 biologically [i] 147:13 89:1 91:23 111:5,12 154:9 ceases [i] 135:10 biphenyl [7] 133:20,22 133:23 134:2,5 137:11,14 154:17,22 155:10 156:15 ceasing [i] 158:9 156:22 cell [2] 58:10 62:13 102:25 103:5 109:2 149:9 118:22 119:1.6 151:23 157:21,22 163:3 commission p] 165:20 chemicals po] 9:5 16:20 166:24 22:1,9 38:8 49:23 50:7 123:5 147:13 151:6 commissioning p] 39:8 chemistry p] 5:24 commit p] 150:18 Chicago [4] 154:10 155:1 committee [i] 132:6 155:15 156:16 common [i] 92:22 chloracnep] 133:6,7,9 133:15,21 134:1,6,7,9 communication p] 27:19 141.13 chlorinated po] 7:6 9:9 55:2 109:23 131:3 133:1 133:12,24 137:15,19 companies [9] 6:23 12:1 13:25 99:6 149:6,9 150:25 152:4,10 chlorination [i] 54.-25 company [40] 2:8,8,24 choice [2] 48:4,5 2:25 3:7 7:13,21 8:12,15 chose [i] 47:20 8:19 9:3 10:10,16 11:10 Christopher[i] 3:8 chronic [2S] 120:19,23 121:2,5,7,11,12,16,23 122:1,7,8,10,17,20,20 124:5,7 125:14,21 126:24 127:3,9,18 147:6 Cincinnati [i] 125:25 circulated [i] 28:2 cirrhosis pi 134:24 cited [2] 148:8 153:14 claim [i] 143:11 11:14 13:16,23 15:7,9 16:2 17:15 24:18,19,21 31:19 37:3 40:20 55:5 78:6 99:1 100:17 102:24 102:25 124:25 126:5 138:2,2 141:12 163:1,2 comparable [i] 98:21 compare p] 81:19 85:21 comparison p] 80:17 81:20 competency p] 99:25 149:13 biphenyls [4] 133:13 137:15 147:7,8 Calandra'sp] 89:4 157:3 cells [i] 135:1 claims [i] 143:6 competent pi 149:12 Center [4] 3:9,21 29:12 clarification pi 14:18 compilation p] 96:4,9 Bishop p] 137:25 138:1 calls [l] 109:17 70:7 clarify p] 14:17 94:18 140:13 138:5 cancer [43] 32:11 46:24 central [i] 39:21 105:8 compile p] 95:1,4 bit p] 25:3 29:19 black [i] 116:8 bladderp] 46:1,16,20 47:1 62:20 bladders [3] 46:12 47:3 47:14 blocks [2] 22:9 87:7 blunt [i] 68:24 47:1,4,9,14,21 48:2,3,19 48:20 49:2,8 50:12,15 certain [2] 14:1 148:6 53:15,17 57:17 62:14 certainly [5] 10:12 43:3 68:18,21 70:15 72:17 75:6 43:18 90:23 135:9 76:5,13 90:24 96:16,21 CERTIFICATE [i] 113:7,9,11,13 134:23 166:1 135:4 143:13,13,20,25 certificationp] ill: 14 146:16 155:20,25 156:10 111:20 class [3] 23:6 119:4 133:13 classification p] 73:1 73:6 117:1 clean [2] 66:12 134:5 clear [4] 19:14 36:4 61:21 103:13 compiled pi 94:12 compiling [i] 94:23 complaints [i] 137:13 complete p] 13:7 154:8 completed [i] 102:6 completely [i] 4:25 cancers [i] 28:23 certifiedp] 111:18,19 clerical [i] 35:5 composition [i] 123:10 Bob [3] 57:13,14,16 bodies [l] 161 :l Bolep] 33:9 carcinogen [4] 62:19 106:16 146:8 155:22 carcinogenic [is] 10:3 10:5 82:11 83:4 84:16,23 bonus [is] 1:13,13 101:20 85:1,23 89:7 90:16 92:1 certify [2] 165:3 166:9 certifying [i] 111:18 cetera [i] 105:12 Chambleep] 70:18 clinic [2] 31:9 32:24 clinician pi 31:8 clinics [i] 32:22 close [i] 8:12 compoundp] 133:13 133:25 compounded [i] 85.-8 compounds p] 10:4 49:23 150:13 102:7,10,16 106:20,22 107:17 108:3,14,17,19,21 109:1 bottom [19] 45:9 54:13 54:14 63:13 66:4 69:23 71:5 75:14 88:3 97:10 102:1,13 107:9,22 125:6 127:22 128:11 129:9 140:25 bought [2] 52:18 142:7 bound [i] 147:2 Boxp] 3:12 Boyp] 152:16 break P] 5:10 93:8,14 breakdown [i] 135:1 breastp] 115:2 Brian [2] 3:3 142:5 brief [S] 5:22 57:22 77:23 93:18 130:19 128:2 147:24 155:14,18 156:3,4,5 carcinogenicity [4] 78:20 95:8 146:22 156:7 carcinogenics [i] 76:8 carcinogens [2] 77:1 147:18 carcinoma p] 46:20 48:8 62:13 73:15,16,18 114:4,10 155:23 carcinomas pi] 62:12 62:12 67:17,21 68:4 72:11 74:2,11,15 114:23 115:15 careful [i] 41:19 Carlp] 33:9 Carolina [i] 3:13 case [14] 4:20 26:4 70:15 110:12,13 142:6,21 143:7 144:2,7 145:2,18 150:15 change [22] 15:12,19 25:23 29:19 42:18 66:18 82:1 84:21 85:5,21,24 86:2,2,3 91:3,10 92:20 115:13 123:9 155:10 156:10,11 changedpo] 14:13 81:21 81:25 84:16 85:2 91:24 92:9 141:22,23 155:13 changes [9] 66:16 68:2 79:5 90:14 123:12,13 142:25 165:5,9 characterize pi 51:21 charge p] 139:10 163:16 charges [i] 152:12 charterp] 37:13 check [i] 140:17 checking [i] 55:8 chemical [i3] 18:18,18 closedp] 151:11 Coast[2] 76:15,16 Coleman [i] 32:16 collaboration [i] 25:2 collect [i] 161:6 collected [i] 160:11 colored pi 143:22 column [6] 85:15 86:16 86:16,17,18,23 conceded p] 67:16,20 concern p] 75:15,16 concerning [i] 38:18 concerns pi 38:10 concluded [5] 114:3,10 114:23 115:15 146:22 conclusion po] 10:2 41:25 48:19 62:7,8,10 82:10 84:21 106:13 128:1 columns p] 86:12 conclusions [9] 61:6 combined[i] 60:4 68:17 83:12 118:23 coming p] 56:17 90:24 105:15 127:23 128:11 129:9 137:15 148:18 _ comment p] 28:23 53:11 concur [2] 116:25 117:8 77:9 88:9 96:19 97:24 concurred [4] 72:22 73:4 129:13 " 74:10,18 comments [8] 25:16 77:7 condense [i] 139:4 77:16,18 78:18 109:10,18 condition pi 135:10 125:11 conditions p] 18:21 Index PageTT WATER PCB-SD0000011613 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) Multi-Page TM conduct - direction Witness: George Levinskas 38:8 41:15 119:6 128:2 contract [9] 19:13,15,17 Craig [4] 3:16 4:18 14:16 dealt p] 80:16 101:18 desk p] 94:9 157:23 132:16 146:23 19:20,25 20:6,10 25:14 61:21 death [5] 15:10,14 96:22 despite [i] 67:6 [conduct [i] 106:6 39:10 create [1] 24:24 98:7 112:11 detail p] 26:19 90:6 conducted [4] 40:8 70:4 contracted pi 97:12,16 created [2] 22:9 70:11 deaths [i] 96:16 details [5] 56:2 103:12 80:4 149:24 contractor p] 160:8 criminally [i] 110:5 Decemberp] 51:1 53:23 128:16,16 155:8 conducting [2] 53:24 161:5 criticizing [i] 90:9 55:14 . detectable pi 136:18 103:11 contracts p] 7:3 149:20 crossed [u 94:9 decide [l] 42:9 detected pi 48:11 conference [2] 48:14 126:19 conferences [l] 12:2 confirm [i] 42:13 ' confirmation [i] 106:24 confirmed [i] 48:8 contradictions [i] 113:16 contributed pi 38:11 109:21 control [13] 29:13 30:18 39:21 58:15,21 60:20 61:17 62:21 66:10,11 67:6 currentp] 147:15 163:12 curtail [i] 42:18 customary [3] 78:24 92:15,16 customerp] 149:15 customers [i2] 17:12 decided [4] 8:12 48:19 99:14 100:2 decision p] 158:11,12 declare [i] 165:11 deemedp] 95:17 defend [i] 154:25 detergents p] 21:25 22:2 determine pi 151:18 determined [4] 49:1,1 66:20 108:18 develop [4] 21:18 24:10 confusedp] 53:10 115:3 70:7 90:3 22:7 43:10 44:1 138:19 Defendant pi 3:7,14,19 73:7 104:18 confusion [4] 85:8,9,11 controlled [i] 37:24 157:16 158:2,8,13 161:25 4:3.11 developed [4] 20:24 89:21 conversation pi 45:17 162:15,20 DEFENDANT'S [i] 37:4 105:12 154:22 Connecticut p] 5:25 45:21 51:12 Cyanamid[i9] 7:13,17 1:5 developing [4] 18:11 7:15 conversations m connection [6] 13:20,22 144:20 50:5,5 53:4 150:20 convey [3] 43:3 86:14,25 7:20 8:6,11,17,19,25 9:2 9:8 10:1,8 11:12,22 13:4 13:8 149:6,7,7 Defendants p] 2:9.25 deferp] 105:9 deferred [i] 105:14 21:11 37:9 115:11 development [i] 22:6 developments [4] 26:13 [consensus [2] 48:22 73:24 conveyed [l] 103:14 consider^] 104:17,17 121:7,11,12,18 convicted [6] 110:5,11 110:15,23 111:2 130:7 'Consideration [i] 17:12 convictions [i] 111:10 [considered [3] 59:9 convinced [i] 104:6 62:19 107:16 coolant [i] 137:12 [consistency [i] 88:10 copies p] 52:18 116:19 consistent [9] 62:8 71:12,15 82:2 86:3,10 copy [5] 11:3 94:3 112:3 130:17 144:24 88:18 136:13 153:19 corporate p] 11:15 consistently [i] 67:1 [constant [i] 136:11 32:21 correct [17] 16:10 70:14 -D- D[2] 3:3 123:25 damage [io] 127:25 133:4 134:7,17,18,21,24 134:25 135:6 143:8 Dan [2] 137:25 138:1 dash[i] 93:23 data [43] 11:11 62:7,8 66:20 67:4,7 70:2 94:11 94:23,25 97:13,16 109:12 110:7,18,20 129:3 139:6 146:9,21 147:10,20 148:5 definitely [3] 14:8 37:5 46:24 definition [5] 19:14 40:23 73:14,15,18 defraud [l] 110:12 degree [5] 5:24 25:21 54:24 95:12 136:6 delve [i] 14:20 department [54] 6:15 10:25 11:14,15,19,20 23:16 25:18 27:14 28:3 30:22 31:4,7 32:5.6,21,23 33:8,12,18,20,21 34:2 28:3 41:4 154:1 develops [i] 67:1 diagnosed pi 46:19 diagnosis [4] 47:6 48:7 49:9 117:12 DICKER [i] 3:20 died [18] 15:8 25:20,23 32:10 34:14.18 49:6 98:7 100:6,7,14 111:22,23 112:2.7,8,9 143:13 dielectric p] 144:4,6 difference [5] 15:2 59:4 117:14 120:18 155:17 consultant [3i 16:1,8 29:22 [consultation [l] 25:18 71:20 87:19 102:11,14 105:24 128:6 130:4 145:15 159:1 162:3,4,5 162:21 165:8,12 consulting [9] 6:22 corrected [i] 50:14 13:15,17,24 14:2,19,24 97:7 139:16 contact [14] 12:4 22:2,3 correctly p] 25:6 48:12 76:18 81:4 97:4 104:3 105:13 106:17 27:24 31:11 35:23 45:18 51:15 53:16 95:13 104:12 141:4 145:20 151:5 correlation p] 62:1,2,3 correspondence [i] contacted [6] 76:11 141:3 150:12,16,19 151:18 152:15 153:1,14,18,20,23 153:24 154:4,21,22,22 155:2 160:11,12 161:6 164:9 date [9] 52:2 92:9,15,20 92:23 110:6 125:3 126:3 141:19 dated [38] 1:7,8,8,9.9.10 1:10,11,11,12,12,14,14,17 44:25 45:16 50:18 55:10 63:1,5 65:18 69:2 74:21 35:21 36:3,8,9,11,16 37:3 37:14,19,21 39:16,2241:3 41:9 42:2,24 43:7,12 44:3 75:16 94:12,15,18 95:5 96:17 97:19 98:2 128:21 131:6 149:25 158:15 departments [l] 36:20 dependp) 121:8 depending [i] 136:5 deposed [3] 4:21 142:9 145:8 differences [io] 57:3 66:16,23 73:21 74:1 76:10 81:12 86:25 113:16 117:17 different po] 78:21 79:21 80:10 81:4 82:17 89:15 100:9 118:25 119:25 123:12 124:15 137:2 138:2,3 148:17,18 150:13,20 152:10 159:12 difficult [i] 60:3 104:6 113:23 145:1,6,8 corridors [i] 96:14 74:25 77:25 78:6 79:18 deposition p8] 1:5 2:11 difficulties [i] 162:7 contacting [i] 105:10 counsel pi 4:2,2 143:12 81:14 83:14,23 89:18 4:3 14:21,22 50:25,25 difficulty [1] 132:17 contacts p] 12:2 51:19 containing p] 17:20 144:5 145:6,10 166:14,18 counter [l] 27:25 counting [i] 35:3 contaminant [i] 159:5 country [i] 112:5 contaminants [5] 26:25 COUNTY p] 165:2 27:1 153:10 158:25 166:4 159:22 couple [12] 9:23 32:8,15 contaminated [i] 133:17 contamination [i] 159:17 content [i] 118:11 context p] 72:1 158:24 32:18 63:25 76:20 77:14 112:6 118:25 130:20 137:21 145:13 course [6] 6:13 10:23 27:24 29:15 68:8 105:11 courses pi 6:12,14 continue [i] 100:19 court [7] 2:1,21 5:16 18:1 44:22 142:12,13 92:23 93:4,15 112:16 115:17 140:2,7 dates [5] 16:5 92:11 124:24 141:3,10 Davidson [to] l :4 3:11 14:16 59:13 135:21 137:6 143:18 159:6 163:25 164:2 day-to-day [4] 30:8 34:24 100:18 101:17 days p] 121:2 133:11 DDT [3] 159:10,16,19 deal [6] 29:24 40:1,18 151:12 156:7,13 dealing [6] 39:5,17 40:2 51:6 53:5 63:8,9 87:17 118:3 142:18 143:9,23 144:11,16,24 145:2,11,12 165:4,6,10 166:8,10,16 derivepj 61:1,14 dermal [i] 127:4 descended pi 151:9 describe [2] 85:16 101:7 described pi] 53:25 56:25 70:23 84:17 114:25 121:25 122:4 123:15 134:3 154:3 159:9 describing [i] 18:13 description p] 1:6 46:25. ^ digest [i] 117:11 DiMuro[52] 3:8 26:15 28:16,19 36:10 40:10 41:11 42:5 47:11,23 49:3 49:18 50:2 51:17 54:1 58:22 59:18 60:21 61:4 64:24 71:3,8 75:25 78:8 79:22 80:1,11 84:1 88:8 88:20 90:19 91:11 92:2 92:25 108:15 109:3 112:4 116:11 122:3 126:15 127:5 129:22,24 131:18 132:13 134:13 135:22 136:19 138:22 145:23 161:15 164:13 directp] 58:24 82:9 continued [i] 153:25 cover [4] 56:5,11 69:8 44:12 135:23 148:7 designed [l] 123:4 88:21 147:12 continues [i] 135:14 81:8 dealings [4] 11:6 12:24 desirable pj 39:25 41:10 directed [l] 124:23 [continuum [i] 30:9 covered [2] 64:23 118:22 76:7 139:19 42:3 direction [i] 166:14 Index Page 4 WATER PCB-SD0000011614 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) Multi-Page TM directly - experiences Witness: George Levinskas directly [4] 11:23 97:24 144:15,18,21 146:5 91:20,23 93:23 94:14,22 elicited^] 146:14 146:8 150:25 156:9 doesn't [4] 41:23 67:11 95:7,15,17,21,25 96:19 Elmer [i4] 12:16,17 13:1 establishing [i] 126:21 diiectorps] 7:23,25 8:8 86:22 108:16 8:16 10:13 11:12,16,20 dog[5] 120:17 122:21 12:11 15:23 16:3 23:18 155:3,6 156:23 23:19,20 29:25 30:1,20 30:24 31:6,6,15,18 32:10 32:17 113:9 dogs [5] 119:19 122:8 124:6 125:5 127:10 disagreed [ii 117:7 dollar [2] 107:13,15 disappearing [i] 115:12 dominant [4] 119:21 122:19 123:2,3 disbanded [i] 9:18 Don [2] 32:16 64:19 discharge [2] 108:11 109:9 |discontinued[i] 152:1 done [S3] 8:20,23 13:15 13:17,24 14:1 19:8,9,12 19:21 20:10,11,16,17 21:4 discrepancies [2] 89:13 21:6,11 24:6 25:15 26:17 113:16 27:6 39:7,7 40:16,21 discrepancy [i] 73:14 53:18 56:22 75:20 79:14 96:25 97:4,17,25 98:9,13 98:21 99:3,10 100:12,14 100:22,25 101:3,8,25 20:20 23:11,17 26:10 33:1 [Estate[i] 2:3 52:9 99:14,17 100:14 103:14 125:2 [ estimate [i] 20:9 102:2,6,8,16,22 103:21 104:5,10,15 105:9,23 106:14,20 107:21,23 108:3,7,21,25 109:11,25 110:1,2 111:3,4,12,22,23 112:2,21 113:4,4,6,8,9,17 ELSER[i] 3:20 emerged^] 21:1 employed [12] 5:19 7:12 7:17 10:1 11:23 13:11 35:14 99:2 110:1 131:6 et[3] 2:4,22 105:12 Ethel [i] 2:16 evaluate^] 17:2 97:13 97:16 139:1 evaluated [2] 73:17 113:20,23,25 114:2,4,15 166:15,18 101:3 114:18,19 115:21,22,23 employee m 16:2 46:9 evaluating [i] 16:18 116:2,5,10,13,15 117:7,7 97:3 125:20 163:13,13 [evaluation [4] 16:12 117:14,14,24 118:4 166:18 79:8 80:16 102:5 124:14 130:10,20 140:1,5 [employees [4] 38:3 140:9 146:19 147:22 148:7 154:9 155:10 1 43:25 47:17 160:5 156:15 160:12,13 161:7,9 employment [8] 6:7,9 evidence [4] 95:10 114:3 114:10 146:22 [evidenced [l] 60:3 discretion [i] 21:8 discuss [i] 11:9 discussed [4] 63:25 89:15 156:17 163:5 [discussing [2] 69:17 80:7 83:6,11 86:21 88:17 92:5,18 95:2 100:21 102:23 120:2,5,9 123:19 123:21,23 125:16,19,22 131:21,24 148:12 159:23 160:5 161:19 164:3,4 draw [3] 68:16 120:25 137:14 drawing [i] 62:7 drawn [i] 141:6 10:9,23 11:21 13:2 29:18 131:22 [enclosure [i] 55:16 enclosures [i] 69:10 [encountered [i] 103:2 exactly [3] 15:15 46:21 104:14 156:20,21 EXAMINATION [4] 4:14 142:2 161:17 164:1 examinations [l] 79:10 1 99:16 Donovan [X] 55:16 drove [i] 76:19 end [13] 7:9 8:3 28:25 examine [i] 114:19 E discussion [ii] 46:6 50:22 56:17,18 64:11 87:18 91:18 112:19 154:19 155:24 156:14 discussions [5] 26:18 26:22 27:20 104:15 146:2 Disease^] 29:12 70:7 dispute [l] 133:9 disputing [i] 133:10 distinct [3] 32:21 105:3 120:23 [distribute [l] 158:10 distributed [2] 139:8 161:25 distributing [2] 10:16 139:10 distribution [i] 54:11 distributor [i] 163:9 distributors [7] 162:6,6 162:11,12,15,20 163:15 District^] 2:1,1,21,21 division [i] 98:19 doctor [4] 63:9 130:12 142:4 149:1 doctorate [4] 6:1,3,5,8 document [54] 44:23 45:7,12 50:24 51:4 52:15 55:13,20,23 57:24 59:21 63:5,7,10 66:1,8 69:5,11 73:11 74:25 75:1 78:5 dosage [i] 121:23 Drs [4] 47:6,16 65:12 dose[3] 121:1,17 148:15 67:19 32:22 55:21 57:12 98:5,6 examined [2] 2:12 4:11 100:10,11 118:4 140:20 147:10 example^] 21:22 41:5 dosed [3] 121:19 122:12 Drug[2] 11:1 104:1 123:8 drugs [i] 150:12 endeavor [2] 152:24 154:3 exceeded [3] 132:11,24 132:25 doses [2] 120:22 121:1 DUANE [i] 3:16 |ends[i] 71:11 exceeds [i] 136:8 dosing [2] 121:3,16 Dow [19] 102:23,24,25 103:1,4,8,11,17,25 104:6 104:11,13,16,21 105:6,9 105:12,14,20 Dow's [i] 104:6 due[i] 64:7 dulyp] 166:10 duration [2] 121:24 135:3 during [ii] 9:1,12 10:9 10:22 11:21 19:24 27:14 engulfed [i] 25:1 entertain [i] 105:1 'entire [4] 87:18 104:21 122:16 153:12 entitled^] 65:22 118:1 140:6 excellent [2] 102:19 108:7 except [3] 43:16 114:4 114:11 excerpts [l] 130:22 excess [i] 132:8 down [25] 5:15 11:7 27:21 30:11 37:10 45:9 50:8 54:13 56:11,24 57:11 58:5 66:4,10 71:2,4 75:14 85:7 89:10 97:10 102:13 107:9 109:1 150:23 35:21 111:5 128:25 129:1 duties [S] 8:16 15:3 16:13 environment [2] 159:10 109:10 excessive [2] 133:8 132:7 25:11 26:6 [environmental [36] exclusive [i] 35:9 7:23 8:1,8,17 9:11 11:13 [excused [i] 164:16 -E- 14:12,14 15:5,20,23 16:3 Executed [i] 165:13 151:11 downright [i] 136:5 downstairs [i] 35:10 E[2] 3:1,1 [early [10] 36:7 53:23 1 57:10 111:23 131:5 16:19 17:13 22:24 25:5 Executrix [i] 2:2 26:25 27:1 29:21 34:15 37:8 38:10 70:11 90:23 100:5,11,20 109:12 118:1 exercise [i] 161:3 |exhibit[24] 45:1 50:19 dozen [2] 35:5 142:11 133:11,16 149:3 158:1 118:21 153:10 154:11 51:1,7 53:1 55:11 63:2,8 Dr[238] 4:16 5:13,19 12:11,14,18 14:20 15:7,8 159:24 [earth [i] 40:25 15:13 23:19 25:8,13,20 East[i] 76:15 25:23 28:10,11,12,22 29:2 EDELMAN[i] 3:20 29:4,10,12,17 30:24 31:5 31:15,17,18,23 32:1,2,9 32:17 33:9 36:2 44:22 educational [i] 5:23 effect [3] 123:4 135:4 45:6,15 46:2,3,8,11 47:13 146:12 158:25 159:5,17,22 EPA [10] 70:4,12,14,20 109:7,15 150:20 152:6 153:4 156:16 EPA's[i] 108:9 epidemiological [i] 146:21 65:19 69:3 71:13 74:22 78:1 83:15,24 93:16 101:21 107:18 112:17 115:18 117:22 130:15 140:3 164:4 exhibitS[4] 1:5,18 124:2 138:14 existed [i] 146:24 47:19,20 48:15 51:3,13 51:15,23 52:9 53:11,12 effects [ii] 16:19 118:1 1 118:21122:10 131:16 epidemiologist [S] 35:15,19 97:12,15 146:20 existing [] 16:23 17:17 17:23 24:13,14 40:3,9 83:18 88:24 93:20,24 94:3 94:6 96:24 101:24 102:2 105:9 107:6,20,23,24 112:21,24 115:20 117:24 118:2,5,10,13 122:4 123:16 127:9 128:8 129:15 130:14,14 140:1,5 140:9 documented [l] 105:10 [documents [i2] 52:20 52:23 81:17 96:20 124:1 124:18 125:15 129:2 53:13 54:3,5,6,10 55:15 132:10 133:1 134:10,20 55:15,17,19 56:1,6,8,12 147:4,6 56:13,21 57:13,13,20 63:6 effort [4] 95:4 153:11 63:7,13,20,21,22,22 65:14 157:2 161:10 65:16,25 66:20 67:15,15 68:10 69:5,9,14,17,20,22 [efforts [l] 109:1 69:25 70:4,5,23 71:13,17 eight [3] 2:13 49:11 71:5 71:21 72:3,17,24,25 73:3 either[i2] 11:8 37:24 73:4,7,10,11 74:10,10,14 86:10 120:25 135:11 74:15,18,18,24 75:4,12 136:1,2,4 151:23 152:1 75:17,19,22 76:4,18 78:9 154:25 162:20 78:19 79:24 84:5,5,7,10 elevated [3] 134:11 84:20 86:1,15 89:1,4 136:13 137:11 epidemiologists [i] 160:2,3 35:12 expand [i] 11:9 epidemiology m 35:24 ' 36:1 94:17 97:1,8,9,20 expanded [2] 33:21,24 Eppleyn] 113:6 expect [4] 60:24 88:17 133:3 136:6 - equally [i] 42:7 expected [i] 4:25 erap] 120:11 experience [3] 73:20 errorji] 88:14 ^ 92:13 153:17 essentially [3] 75:11 87:19 116:13 experienced [2] 97:12 97:15 [establish [2] 126:17 experiences p] 37:1,17 Index Page 5 WATER PCB-SD0000011615 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-Page TM experiment - handled 'Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) Witness: George Levinskas experiment [2] 57:23 feasible [i] 19:4 flimsy [i] 146:24 frame [$] 36:14 94:7 139:7 160:13 162:19 90:4 February [i] 70:5 flip [3] 69:21 73:9 127:17 120:9,10 152:14 163:14 experimental [2] 58:17 fed [5] 28:24 46:1,13 61:3 82:12 103:2 flipping [6] 57:18 58:1 frank [2] 134:24,25 127:10 128:4,8 129:14 fraud [2] 150:17,18 giving [3] 6:15 44:14 145:19 expert [S] 58:23 61:5,9 Federal [i] 109:17 | floating [l] 45:25 Fred[i] 34:20 GJL[i] 118:5 145:24 146:11 expertise [i] 39:17 feeding [10] 48:21 70:2 flood [i] 24:25 119:18,18 120:17 122:6,8 fluid[i] 41:16 Frederick p] 51:2,9 93:21 global [i] 128:18 goesni 47:2 expires [2] 165:20 166:24 122:21 155:4,7 fluids [2] 144:6 163:19 Frederick's [l] 160:18 gone [4] 20:22 25:13 explain [2] 143:2 154:25 feeling [3] 28:21 43:2 explanatory [l] 66:14 132:15 exposed [S] 58:20 60:19 fellow [2] 12:8 32:12 61:15,19 135:17 felony [i] 110:7 exposure [i9] 18:20 20:25 50:6 59:12 95:12 127:4 131:16 133:8 134:17,18 135:7,10,14,15 144:1 147:15 148:6,7,10 felt[ij 103:25 female [4] 28:24 48:8 49:6 148:12 fetuses [i] 122:25 flying [i] 76:15 frequency [i] 17:7 focal [2] 29:6 159:25 focus [i] 26:5 frequently [i] 101:11 Friedlander[i] 31:22 focused [3] 79:12 132:18 front[2] 141:20 156:15 155:24 full [i] 154:6 focusing[3] 21:13 32:6 function^] 16:16 36:8 84:6 36:11,15,21 37:2,7,7,19 follow [2] 121:17 152:8 37:20 38:17 39:9 43:8 106:2 150:21 good [8] 4:16,17 62:16 97:23 100:3 125:9 146:9 151:12 Gordon [29] 55:16 56:6 56:21 57:13 63:7.14,20 64:19 65:12 67:15,19 69:9 69:14,20,22,25 70:23 71:21 72:3 73:3,12 74:14 exposures [3] 37:24 134:12 160:25 expressly [i] 4:7 few [16] 4:18 12:10 15:24 25:1 30:22 31:21,25 39:4 followed [l] 121:20 67:25 69:21 120:21 121:1 following [3] 51:19 130:25 144:18 159:12,13 67:14 68:7 extended [4] 19:5 120:23 fibrous [i] 62:18 122:14 143:3 file ci| 45:6 follows [5] 4:12 57:24 67:5 89:23 121:14 functional [2] 30:2 163:18 115:21 116:2,5,25 117:7 117:14,18 functionS[3] 10:13 41:2 Gordon's pj 56:8 71:17 100:18 government [ii] 7:4 fund[i] 39:16 44:5,6 48:1 99:6 109:2 141:2 149:10 150:22 extensively [i] 149:5 extent [9] 14:23 33:11 39:3,14,18 48:1 58:23 121:8 140:13 extra [i] 79:8 eye [2] 134:15 141:22 eyes [3] 135:19 136:3,14 -F- F[i] 3:16 faces [i] 32:13 filed [i] 92:7 files [2] 110:22 141:12 filled [2] 107:6 108:2 filling [X] 158:15 finally [i] 99:15 financially [i] 166:19 finding [i] 67:8 findings [20] 29:3 41:13 51:24 58:3 72:22 73:5 74:11,19 81:23 103:9 104:1 105:11 113:17 food [9] 10:25 22:2,2,3 104:1 151:5,17 153:15,21 foodstuffs [l] 22:4 foolhardy [i] 104:7 footnote [2] 140:24 141:3 foregoing [4] 165:4,12 166:8,10 forenoon [i] 2:14 forestall [i] 106:7 forestalling [i] 108:9 -G- G-J-L[i] 66:5 Gaffeym 35:18,25 36:2 36:2 96:25 97:2,4,17 146:19 Gaffey'sni 147:21 game[i] 149:23 gap [2] 40:14,24 gaps [3] 40:7,12,22 Garrett [3] 12:24 33:4,10 151:19 152:11 governmental [2] 126:20 157:2 gradually [i] 8:13 graduate [i] 6:10 grants [i] 7:3 grapple [i] 77:1 great [i] 29:24 greater^] 20:13,16 60:23,25 61:10 Greek [1] 122:23 fact [15] 14:25 47:20 58:19 60:3 61:11,15,17 64:21 67:11 68:20 99:17 113:19 131:20 156:6 160:22 factors [i] 133:3 facts [i] 145:19 failure [1] 135:3 fair [4] 43:25 63:19 108:24 118:12 fairly [2] 15:13 54:2 false [7] 110:14,20,20 150:16,19 152:15 153:23 falsified [2] 110:18,19 falsifying [i] 110:7 familiar [3] 4:23 36:23 124:18 familiarity [l] 24:19 familiarize [3] 24:22 26:7,9 far[3] 43:18 111:16 140:17 114:21 116:19 117:2 form [38] 26:16 28:16,19 Gary [4] 3:3,21 161:15 125:6 128:17 140:18 40:10 41:11 42:6 47:11 161:19 148:1 fine[i] 58:25 47:23 49:3 51:18 54:1 58:22 59:19 60:21 61:5 gate[i] 24:25 61:20 64:25 75:25 79:22 Gateway [i] 3:21 finish [3] 20:21 29:18 80:11 86:15 90:18 92:25 gather [2] 38:13,17 96:7 102:5,17 108:2,16 109:3 gathering [i] 43:8 finished [3] 21:15 120:7 125:1 finishing [i] 120:15 fired [i] 109:25 118:14 126:15 129:22 131:18 132:13 134:13 135:21 136:19 138:22 165:5 general [i3] 14:5 19:23 27:23 74:7 82:19 90:2 92:17 94:7 96:17 101:15 118:20 144:25 155:19 firmni 97:7 first pi) 6:9 7:19 14:11 17:24 20:15 24:17 30:20 35:19,25 41:13,20 49:4 formal [3] 77:15 23:14 37:16 6 ^generalization [ij 38:13 formalize [2] 37:10 39:20 generally [] 11:5 21:14 28:2 59:8 101:7 149:1 49:18,19 51:23 52:20 58:8 formalized [2] 16:18 64:7 67:12 69:20,25 70:7 36:1 70:16 75:14 76:3 80:19 former [2] 113:9 163:13 80:21 81:25 84:2,7,13,14 88:11 105:15 114:6 118:17 119:3 125:3,4 126:7 130:25 135:23 141:8 145:1 147:17 149:20 150:12 152:5 formerly [i] 113:10 forth [8] 25:19 29:16 30:: 70:12 87:3 123:9 146:4 148:16 forward [l] 58:1 generated [i] 158:8 generation [2] 119:20 123:14 generations [i] 122: ll generic [i] 155:21 genetic [2] 123:9,13 gentleman [i] 154:9 158:22,24 159:9 forwarding [3] 11:3 gentlemen [i] 64:4 Greene [i] 3:12 Greensboro [i] 3:13 grew [ij 30:5 grossly [i] 79:3 group [17] 21:25 22:8,12 22:13,14,16,17,18 27:22 30:5 60:20 61:17 73:16 90:4,4 101:11 6':9'- groups [4] 9 6 86:10 141:2 U s [17] 5:1 28:6 31:7 33:21 36:6 43:2 57:23 58:1 71:25 82:9 84:13 101:10 129:12 143:15 150:17 161:4 162:7 guidance [i] 14:5 guilty pj 110:6 150:10 guy[i] 131:23 -H- H [i] 3:11 half[X] 35:5 farm[i] 59:22 fiscal [i] 150:4 56:5 113:25 George [8] 2:11 4:9 31:17 hall [i] 27:21 ,, fax[i] 52:19 faxed [i] 52:17 FDA [22] 48:16 103:9 104:8,12,13,22,24 105:10 105:14,18,20,21,23,25 106:1,8,10,15 153:4,14 153:21,23 five [4] 93:9 120:1,2 123:15 five-minute [i] 93:14 fixed [i] 13:18 flight [2] 77:3,4 flights [i] 76:21 found [9] 10:4 49:2 72:7 74:14 78:22 104:22 105:5 110:6 150:10 51:3 93:22 107:22 165:3 165:24 Georgia [i] 70:18 ^ halowaxp] 133:24 halowaxesp] 133:14 Foundation [2] 75:7,10 Gerard [i] 3:11 hand p] 88:12,13 four [9] 27:9 119:17 124:15 128:19,20 145:3 150:13 152:9,10 GINSBERG [i] 3:3 gist [3] 86:14 96:8 147:12 handedp] 80:14 81:4,18 82:7 124:15 130:20 handled pj 163:17,19 given [6] 95:19 120:22 Index Page 6 WATER PCB-SD0000011616 Joan Macrtin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) Multi-Page TM handling - judgments Witness: George Levinskas* handling [ii] 18:25 hold [4] 93:9 105:23 in-house [3] 8:21 19:8 ingredients [i] 22:3 25:24 27:5 28:21 29:7 1 20:24 26:10 42:8,17,19 143:15 146:11 19:12 149:8 161:7 inhalation [2] 125:23 34:23 39:7 45:2248:14 103:21 119:5 130:18,24 hours [5] 2:13 76:20 138:20 77:15 121:2 145:13 Inc [4] 2:7,16,23 3:15 incidence [9] 59:25 126:9 59:3 85:11 95:15 139:9 initial^] 19:2 21:5 161:9 150:14 159:16 handwritten [6] 45:10 human [S] 146:12 147:9 54:13,19,20 118:6,16 147:14 153:17,20 66:15,18,22 71:22 72:7,9 72:15 85:17 initials [6] 45:10 66:5,6 118:5,7,8 involvement [4] 29:24 150:5 158:17,18 happy [3] 5:5,11 104:25 humans [4] 59:11,13 incidences [i] 66:24 initiated [i] 120:9 irrelevant [i] 70:20 hard [4] 67:7,13 133:19 135:12 harmless [i] 119:4 haywire [i] 132:23 hazard [i] 129:12 hazards [i] 147:15 head [2] 22:15 127:14 headed [i] 35:25 heading [i] 119:14 headquarters [2] 32:25 146:7,23 [hundred [2] 148:11,13 Hunt [18] 12:18,19,22 15:7,8,13 25:9,13,20,23 33:14 34:7,14,18 100:6 100:12,14,19 Hunt's [2] 98:7 100:8 hydrocarbons [3] 7:7 9:9 133:2 hygiene [3] 33:19,20 37:22 include^] 17:11,1123:7 injecting [2] 41:16,17 43:5,22 107:14 108:7 158:19 included [2] 23:9 64:18 including [4] 48:15,23 82:13 99:6 injury [2] 143:7,10 inquire p] 46:4 54:6 inquiries [i] 99:22 insofar [i] 66:19 incorrect [i] 71:23 inspectors [i] 150:20 increase [i] 61:2 increased [i] 96:21 increases [i] 136:11 instance [5] 24:15 73:25 85:20 102:20 153:4 instances [3] 38:23 84:15 108:24 irritating [i] 134:14 irritation [S] 135:19 136:3,14 137:1,13 isocyanurates [i] 109:24 issue [7] 18:16 39:8 64:13 73:21 77:1 90:2 156:7 issued [i] 21:12 issues [9] 10:19 16:24 17:13 26:11 101:18 118:22 138:6,7 156:14 33:23 health [24] 6:10 7:23 8:1 8:9,17 9:11 11:13 16:19 38:2 70:8,11,17 75:7,10 131:15 132:10 134:10 147:4,6,14,19 151:24 153:11 160:25 hygienist [3] 12:17,25 33:2,5,10 hygienists [7] 12:10 33:7,15,17,22 34:4 126:20 hyperplasia n 58:8 59:5 60:4,10,12 61:2,18 hear [4] 5:4 61:13 91:11 hyperplasias [4] 58:13 161:21 58:16 60:7,18 heard [7] 5:7 45:24 96:19 hyperplastic [i] 72:10 158:11,24 162:25 163:2 hearing[4] 35:7 53:4 -I- 96:14 148:21 heart [i] 111:6 IBT [71] 20:4,11,17 27:7 55:16 56:8,23 63:7 68:3 heatp] 136:1 74:7 78:6,13,22,23,25 HECKSCHERm 3:16 held [4] 7:19 98:11 148:19 152:7 HELMS [i] 3:11 80:14 81:8,21 83:7,11 84:5,11 87:19 90:9 98:10 98:11,14,22,24 99:1,2,5,5 99:21 110:22 111:2 113:22 114:1,8,9 115:22 help [2] 38:25 143:12 116:5,17,25 123:22,23 helped [2] 73:1,7 hepaticp] 67:17,20 68:4 hepatop] 62:13 127:6,14 129:21 140:16 146:3,4 149:3,4,9,10,16 150:6,7,11,21 151:7,8,9 151:10,13 152:12,14,22 hepatocellular [2] 153:13 154:4 62:11,12 IBT'S[i] 81:5 hepatoma [3] 59:7 60:8 idea [6] 24:20 68:21 72:13 60:12 82:6 100:3 150:1 hepatomas [14] 59:6,6 59:10,14 60:1,5,6,18 61:2 61:19 71:14 72:11 85:16 86:4 (hereby [4] 4:1 165:3,10 identical [2] 81:10,11 identification [20] 45:2 50:20 55:12 63:3 65:20 69:4 74:23 78:2 83:16,25 89:14 90:10 93:17 101:22 independent [3] 8:24 19:9 95:23 106:23 161:5 INDEX [2] 1:1,5 indicate [3] 5:6 40:14 125:7 indicated[9] 17:16 21:2 24:12 36:22 40:1 54:11 129:4 130:6 131:20 instantly [i] 40:19 instead [4] 88:1,4 89:7 89:20 institute pi] 47:4,10,15 47:17,21 48:3 50:12,16 53:15,17 57:17 70:16 72:17 75:6 76:6,13 113:7 113:10,11 125:25 149:10 indicating [i] 68:18 instructions [l] 101:17 indication [2] 95:10 instructor [i] 6:16 161:2 intend [i] 104:23 indicted [3] 150:10 110:10 111:5 intended [4] 61:25 138:16 18.1941:17 individual [i] 143:23 intensify [i] 135:14 individually [i] 2:4 individuals [i] 39:6 intent [4] 19:23 39:20 106:6 154:20 induction [i] 49:8 intention [i] 56:21 industrial [is] 9:5 12:10 interest p] 8:14 17:5 12:17,25 20:1 33:2,4,9,15 153:10 33:17,19,20,22 37:22 119:5 124:16 126:20 131:4 interested p] 99:18 166:20 Industries [3] 2:6,23 3:14 4:20 142:8 interesting p] 146:25 147:13 industry [3] 126:14 Interestingly [i] 12:14 144:4 152:8 interests [i] 24:12 influenced [i] 73:19 inform [i] 64:9 informal [3] 27:20,24 intermediate [i] 72:14 internal [i] 88:10 internally [i] 88:18 77:18 interpretation [i] 117:1 informational] 14:5 interpreted [i] 160:12 17:6 19:3 20:24 29:8 38:6 interrupt [i] 148:20 item p] 62:11 153:9 items [3] 23:7 151:20,21 itself [4] 115:12137:11 137:14 143:11 Jack p] 12:24 33:4 James p] 130:9,11 January [4] 63:5 65:8,23 119:7 Japan [i] 153:18 JBS[i] 2:4 JC [i] 56:12 Jersey [7] 2:1,21 3:5,9,22 7:16 161:20 Jim [6] 32:8,10 111:4,11 139:22,23 Joan [3] 2:2,3,22 job [10] 7:19 8:14 10:8,11 13:4,5,6,8 100:4 126:5 Joe [4] 126:9 131:21 154:22 156:22 Johannsen [is] 34:20 51:2,9 53:12 54:5 93:22 94:14,23 95:15,17,22,25 160:12,13 161:8 Johannsen's pi 54:10 161:9 John [5] 50:11 75:5 76:5 76:12,14 Johnson [i] 31:5 1 166:9 107:19 112:18 115:19 herself[i] 48:16 117:23 124:3 140:4 [high [8] 60:6 71:21 72:7 identified [2] 145:24 72:14 99:24 148:15 159:18 151:20 153:8 identify [3] 52:14 144:21 I higher [3] 95:12 96:16 151:2 1 132:20 II [i] 3:4 highly [i] 55:2 immediate [i] 29:14 |hired[io] 32:19 34:13,20 immediately [i] 103:10 1 35:15,20 36:22 97:17 98:1 100:9 161:6 impact [2] 68:24 90:24 38:17,20 39:1 41:21 43:3 43:8,13,19,22,24 44:2,9 44:14 46:5 47:15 54:7,8 56:2,3,6 67:2,3 68:16 71:12 75:21 76:22,23 94:16 95:2,4,19,21,24 96:9,13 103:4,14,19 104:13,20,25 105:7 110:14 115:9,10 126:8 138:5,8,18,25 139:1,6,7 139:11,12,17 141:1,17 147:9 151:7 154:16 interval p] 13:19 121:1 join [4] 32:9 36:2 109:5 interview [ii 13:6 124:24 intravenously p] 41:16 joined [12] 7:21 15:7,9 41:18 32:3 34:9 35:11 36:7,11 introduced pi 29:17 98:5 99:1 100:6 129:16 142:4 joint [i] 12:5 inverted [l] 87:12 joking [i] 137:16 investigation [i] 100:2 Joseph [i] 125:24 investigative [i] 22:21 journal [i] 157:20 ~ invited p] 13:5 29:2 Jrp] 3:11 historic [i] 67:6 historical [i] 24:6 history[5] 24:10,15,17 29:18 160:24 important [2] 88:7 151:23 impression [i] 24:24 improve [i] 135:11 160:15,16,20 164:6 informed [i] 112:7 informing [i] 158:8 ingestion [i] 126:24 involve [3] 9:8 11:3 ^ [judgment [31 39:6 40:15 17:19 42:20 involved [22] 10:13,19 judgmental [i] 73:20 14:3 18:7,8,11,13 20:14 judgments [i] 16:22 Index Page 7 WATER PCB-SD0000011617 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-Page TM Judy - master's Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) Witne : George Levinskas Judy [5] 35:22,24 97:18 30:10,19 149:8,17 152:18 145:3 147:11 156:12 literature [9] 38:6 41:5 97:21,23 juggled [l] 70:12 July [3] 84:4,11 124:25 jumpti] 25:4 jumping [i] 23:10 152:23 156:18 laboratories [4] 8:24 19:13 93:3,6 laboratory [17] 7:24 8:1 8:9,12 10:14 11:13 19:10 19:12,15,16 29:23 30:17 lethal [4] 119:21 122:19 123:2,3 letter[37] 1:8,9,10,10,11 1:12,14 55:10,15,17 56:5 56:11 57:19 63:1,6,13,16 63:25 69:2,8,9 74:21 64:10 109:14 132.1 148:8 -M- 157:15,18 164:11 litigation [ii] 13:21,23 M[i] 3:8 14:3,4,6 50:25 53:8 69:6 M.D [2] 145:17 147:5 69:7 94:7 142:9 M.D. [i] 145:16 litters [i] 119:20 MAG [20] 45:4 55:18 juiym 142:15 35:10 56:15 149:4,13 75:11 83:14,23 84:4,8,10 lived [i] 137:6 57:19 58:1 65:24 74:25 154:23 -K- labs [6] 19:25 20:1,6,10 Katberineti] 47:6 25:14 39:11 keep [4] 25:14 28:2 38:20 lack[i] 22:22 153:25 lady [i] 35:22 keepings 101:15 147:16 language [2] 81:24 155:13 Kelly [12] 12:11,14 23:19 large [9] 6:25 39:3,18 28:10,11,12 30:24 31:15 43:14,16,23 58:11 149:4 31:23 32:2 45:24 52:9 156:21 Keplingerp] 111:3,3,3 laiger[4] 11:14 61:12 84:20 88:22 89:1,13 112:22 115:17,21,24 164:5 letters [4] 83:21 152:3 158:7,13 level [7] 60:6 72:14 132:17 136:8,10 148:10 148:14 levels [14] 82:12 132:5,7 132:7,8 135:17,24 136:17 147:15 148:6,6,14 153:15 153:16 liver[38] 28:23 32:10 58:5 59:7 62:13,14 64:7 64:14 79:9,11 80:2 114:9 114:13,16 115:3,4 116:11 116:12 117:2,6 127:25 133:2,3 134:7,17,18,21 134:24,24 135:1,1,3,6 140:7,14,14 146:15 153:13 livers [8] 66:12 68:2 72:12 79:1,6 116:10,11 117:3 78:7 82:10 84:6 88:23 93:22 112:23 115:22 124:6,9,12,14 130:16,21 140:8 Maertin [4] 2:2,3,3,22 magazine [2] 91:5,9 magazines [2] 153:22 163:3 mail [2] 69:15 150:17 mails [3] 110:12,12 150:18 111:10 130:2 62:5 65:3 Levinskas [70] 2:11 4:9 living [i] 112:10 maintained [i] 38:3 kept [6] 34:21,24 85:24 largest [2] 9:13,20 4:16 5:13,19 14:21 44:22 LLP[i] 3:16 major [i] 149:9 132:4 134:17 149:8 Larry [i] 139:18 Kettering [i] 125:24 last [17] 31:20 32:8 49:18 Kimbrough [63] 28:22 29:2,4,10,12,17 45:15 46:2,3,8,11 47:13,20 48:15 51:13,15,23 54:3 50:8 51:14 57:11 73:10 76:3 77:2 85:12 86:7 89:5 110:1 111:13 119:22 140:1 145:13 55:17 56:1,25 57:1,13,20 late [2] 51:15 159:23 59:20 63:22 65:5,14 66:20 LATHAM [i] 3:8 67:4 68:5,10 69:17 70:4,5 70:8,16 71:13,18,23 72:5 72:6,18 74:3,12 78:19 95:7 113:14,17,23 114:15 latter [7] 15:18 16:6 28:6 52:1,1 148:8 152:19 Laurel [i] 3:5 115:16 116:15 117:5,18 Law [2] 3:3,4 141:12 147:3,4,16,22 lawful [i] 4:10 148:7,9,14 Lawrenceville [i] Kimbrough's [i4] 67:25 59:22 74:5,11,15,19 75:17 76:11 114:5,17,19,24 116:19,22 lawsuit [i] 142:7 164:5 layperson's [i] 117:13 kind [6] 28:1 90:6 121:9 lead [2] 42:20 146:19 122:9 129:4 144:1 leading [2] 63:24 64:13 kinds [i] 117:3 leads [i] 42:22 knew [6] 21:9 29:4 46:3 learned [2] 50:9 158:22 111:13 131:25 161:5 least [8] 37:4 68:23 69:8 knowledge [30] 16:20 69:22 126:2 137:23,23 29:9 31:23 35:20 37:14 159:12 47:12 48:10 50:1 54:21 59:23 75:24 76:3,4 79:13 79:19 92:8 95:23 97:14 97:23 99:9 100:16 111:8 111:15 123:18 126:10 leaven] 8:11 leaving p] 110:24 112:13 lecturer^] 6:19 127:21 128:10 129:19 lectures [i] 6:14 158:4 163:8 led [2] 10:127:2 knowledgeable [i] 48:2 left [20] 6:20 8:15 13:4 known [8] 18:17,22 25:20 21:8 31:18,21,22 32:18 29:4 45:18 50:6 65:2 76:6 32:18 67:16,22 76:12 Krummrich [3] 94:13 94:15,18 85:15 88:12 98:16,22,23 98:25 99:24 110:3 Kuncaitis [3] 2:17 4:4 length [2] 122:16 136:7 166:5 lesion [S] 48:10,24 114:12,13 115:11 -L- lesions [io] 46:12,15,16 56:23,24 72:12 74:5 116:9 44:23 45:6 47:19 51:1,3 53:7,8,11 55:14,15,19 63:6,8 65:21,25 69:5,7,8 74:24 78:3,9 79:24 83:18 83:22 84:4,5,6,7 88:21 91:20,21 93:20,23,24 97:25 102:2 107:22,23,24 112:21,22 115:20,22,23 117:24,25 118:3,4 124:4 124:9,12,14,17 127:18 129:7 130:20 140:1,5,10 161:19 164:3 165:3,24 Levinskas'[i] 102:1 Liberty [i] 3:17 librarians [i] 112:1 license [i] 111:15 licensed [i] 111:17 life [i] 135:2 lifetime [S] 119:17 120:17 121:18,20 122:7 limit[3] 108:10 126:18 126:21 limited [2] 21:5 146:2 limiting [i] 109:8 limits [2] 37:25 132:5 line [12] 17:14,15 21:16 63:12 71:9 86:7 120:25 125:6 127:22 128:4,11 129:9 lines [6] 12:3 71:5118:24 148:4 156:17 158:10 lip[i] 155:21 Lipshutz[i7] 1:4 3:21 18:1 35:6 52:14,22 53:3,9 90:17 93:7,11 109:5 126:16 148:20 161:18,19 163:22 liquid [i] 137:19 list [3] 58:2 151:2,6 listed [3] 86:23 107:7 129:16 location [i] 70:20 locationsp] 31:11 lodged [i] 68:22 logical [i] 48:4 long-term [2] 119:15 121:25 longer [2] 110:2 121:15 longest[i] 120:16 look [46] 18:17,19,21 40:17,20 42:16,17 44:24 47:21 56:21,23,24 57:1 71:16,24 72:8 73:22 77:2 79:1,2,4,6 81:19 84:1 85:12,15 86:4,7 87:2,8 90:5 94:14 95:18 116:14 117:8 124:23 126:7 128:14 129:12 141:2,18 144:24 150:21 151:7 154:7 160:14 looked [is] 19:4 20:23 23:3 48:18,23 55:1 72:20 78:22 80:3 88:9,10 103:15 113:21 114:17 116:24 125:7 131:24 153:12 looking[ii] 13:4 21:16 21:17 24:23 61:1 67:24 79:18 105:17 118:11 122:24 125:10 looks [i] 123:9 loose [i] 120:21 Lothar[i] 2:3 lotS[i] 137:2 louder [i] 148:22 Louis [9] 2:16 30:11 31:10 76:16,18 96:18 111:24 112:10 166:4 low [3] 66:18 72:14 134:18 lower [3] 54:24 60:11 137:18 lumps [i] 58:11 makes [2] 71:19 147:11 makeup [i] 52:12 male [7] 48:11,19 49:10 49:11,14 123:7,13 maleic [4] 103:2,5,12 106:16 males [2] 123:5,6 malformations [i] 122:25 malformed [i] 123:1 malignant [3] 46:20,23 134:22 mammary [2] 114:25 115:2 man [3] 95:18 147:20 154:23 ' manager [H] 14:11,12 14:14 15:3,5,20 16:11 18:5,14 20:19 25:5 29:20 97:1 130:4 manner [i] 87:8 manufacture [3] 9:3 158:9 160:7 manufactured [3] 17:3 17:20 24:7 38:19 103:5 March [8] 69:9 78:6,12 79:18 80:9 81:14 89:18 91:21 mark [3] 44:23 83:21 123:24 marked [39] 1:6 45:1 50:19,24 51:7 53:4,7 55:11,14 63:2,8 65:19 69:3,6,7 74:22 78:1 79:3 83:15,18,24 93:16,20,24 101:21 107:18,24 112:17 112:21 115:18,20 117:22 117:25 118:3 124:2,17 130:15,17 140:3 - markedly [i] 61:10 markings] 52:23 L-95-CV [i] 2:4 117:2,6 listen [i] 117:9 lunch [3] 27:25 44:20 Maryland [i] 126:6 L.L.P[i] 3:11 less [9] 32:16 34:19 107:8 listing [i] 76:21 101:15 mass[i] 58:12 lab [10] 8:17 9:12 19:20 107:11 121:10 142:22 lists [2] 107:21 150:24 lung [ii 103:2 , master's[3] 6:3.4 35:5 Index Page'S WATER PCB-SD0000011618 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-Page TM match - obtained Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) Witne ss: George Levinskag match [2] 87:16 88:12 mated [i] 122:14 mentoring [i] 30:6 merit [ii] 42:14 102:10 30:10,22 31:22 32:3,20 53:17 57:17 70:15 72:17 notice [4] 58:15 94:2 32:23 34:9 35:1,11,15,20 75:6 76:5,12 113:11 112:3,9 ] j material [$i 19:195:11 95:14 139:6 161:11 102:16 106:20,22 108:3 108:14,17,19,21 109:1 Imaterials [6] 24:1 55:18 met [19] 4:18 11:25 12:13 119:5 131:21 133:18 12:14,17,19 24:17 29:13 155:25 53:20,21 70:7,15,16 77:14 Mathesonp] 32:14,15 may [34] 4:3 26:17 38:15 44:10 45:23 46:15 49:17 99:19,21 144:17 145:10 145:13 metastatic [i] 114:13 62:2,17 74:25 84:24 85:3 methodology [i] 159:15 91:6,15 92:5,6,20 96:5 methods [2] 133:16 109:7,13,13 115:3 118:14 159:18 36:3 38:19,21,22 41:8,14 [natural [i] 112:8 41:15 43:25 46:9 48:15 51:11,19,23 52:6 53:1 55:5 56:1,22 57:1 75:17 76:2 78:6 90:13 91:3 95:6 nature [6] 25:11 45:21 78:25 101:7 143:4,5 |NCDC[i] 59:22 97:3 98:2,14,16,19,21,23 NCI [5] 47:3 53:13,24 98:25 99:4,8,11,18,19,20 54:4 65:23 . 99:22,24 100:16,22 101:5 | near [2] 30:11 33:11 101:24 103:4,6 105:15 107:21 109:13,25 110:2,4 Nebraska [i] 113:7 110:25 112:1,13 119:10 necessarily [4] 41:24 124:21 125:20,22 126:2,4 62:9 135:19 146:16 noticeable [4] i 36:4,5 136:12,15 noticed [i] 90:25 notorious [i] 133:14 November p] 2:13 124:24 now [33] 2:20 6:16 10:6 11:2) 20:18 23:10 36:7 45:14 46:11 51:12,22 52:23 53:6,9 56:16 57:11 58:1 63:16 66:10 68:7 j 123:7,8 126:6 131:1 133:3 Mezaras[i] 31:8 134:8 135:12 137:16 138:14 139:24 146:15 micep] 119:22 126:11 127:2 128:22 129:3,17,18 131:7,15 138:1 139:16 141:8,11 necessary [4] 42:3 101:6 69:17 70:5 74:24 75:14 155:1 165:7 75:19 79:12,18 91:21 need [2] 5:10 52:22 95:21 119:14 131:14 McKee [2] 139:22,23 MCS [2] 55:4,5 (mean [io] 10:1127:12 36:15 41:23 42:16 66:13 67:5 90:21 92:18112:4 meaningful [2] 161:1,3 means [3] 27:19 79:23 124:4 measure [l] 123:4 microscopes [i] 117:9 microscopic [2] 58:3 79:10 mid [7] 34:19 35:2 52:1 128:25 131:10 135:5 138:10 [middle [3] 34:14 114:5 119:3 Middletown [i] 5:25 might [24] 14:23 19:5 142:23 144:10,11,14 145:4,21 147:25 148:12 149:3,16,21 150:25 151:14 152:21,25 153:18 153:23 154:5,20,21 157:1 157:13,16,17,19 158:2,8 158:9,16 160:6 162:1,6 162:10,11,20,24 163:12 163:15 Monsanto's [4] 24:11 119:15 146:3 163:8 needed [2] 40:23 99:15 negate [i] 67:11 negative [2] 68:14,19 negotiated [i] 150:1 neitherp] 166:14 neoplastic [i] 72:11 neverp] 12:14 111:9 152:2,24 153:4 154:6,7 new [28] 2:1,21 3:5,9,22 134:21 142:22 nuclear [i] 137:12 number [27] 45:4 55:7 55:18 58:1 59:3 60:23 61:1,12 62:5 65:24 74:25 82:10 86:5 87:1,2 93:22 112:23 115:22 118:6 124:9,12,14 127:11 132:22 136:13 140:8 160:23 measurements [i] 37:23 measures [i] 123:11 24:16,16 25:15 36:6 39:24 monster [i] 122:24 42:9,18,18 43:5,5 62:20 64:22 65:4 75:21 76:25 monsters [i] 123:1 6:2 7:16 16:23,23 17:16 numbered [3] 57:19 84:6 17:17 23:3 24:13,14,15 88:23 24:16,23,25 40:2,3,17,17 numbering [i] 85:9 I mechanism [2] 43:15 43:23 90:1 92:19 99:18 100:17 months [7] 24:17 49:7,7 75:8 76:13 160:1,2,3 114:12 139:3 165:7 49:11 92:21 112:6 140:19 161:20 numbers [14] 61:14 78:7 86:13,20,24 87:4,5,7,9,12 |medical[54] 11:15,16,19 million [3] 82:13 148:11 MOORE [l] 3:11 Newark [3] 3:9,9,22 87:20 89:12,14 90:10 11:20 12:11 23:16,18,18 148:13 Moreno [2] 111:3,10 newspaper^] 43:17 nutrition [2] 98:18,18 23:20 25:18 27:14 28:3 mind [3] 92:22 147:16 morning [4] 4:16,17 91:5,10 153:22 30:12,22,24 31:4,15,18 32:5,6,9,17,21,23 33:7,12 33:18 34:1 35:21 36:3,8 36:15,19 37:3,13,18,21 39:16,21 41:3,8 42:2,23 43:7,12 44:2 75:16 94:11 97:19 98:2 128:21 131:6 149:25 158:14 meet [6] 12:23 76:17,19 77:3,5 101:11 155:17 minds [i] 68:22 Mineral [5] 2:8,24 162:25 163:6,9 minute [2] 77:21 83:19 minutes [2] 30:23 93:10 mislabeled [2] 87:24,25 mispronouncing [i] 49:17 145:14 158:21 newspapers [i] 110:10 -o- MORRIS [i] 3:16 MOSKOWITZ [i] 3:20 next pi] 13:8 57:18 59:5 62:11 66:14,19 68:23 77:4 Opj 3:12 mostpi] 15:1) 17:22 86:16 123:13 127:18 o'clock [2] 2:14,14 21:20 25:19 26:10 27:23 ninep] 164:15 0'Connorp6] 1:3 3:3 39:5 48:2 134:19 135:9 149:8 mouth[i] 18:12 moved [i] 23:25 [nobody [i] 160:23 nodsp] 96:10 nodularpi] 58:8,13,16 59:5 60:4,7,9,12,18 61:2 50:21 61:20 77:12 78:3 91:17 93:13 112:15 131:19 142:3,5 148:24 159:7 161:13,23 O'Neil [i] 139:18 meeting [22] 29:6 48:13 52:3,13 57:5,7 63:20,24 64:9 65:7,8,9,10,23 69:16 70:1,23,25 75:4 77:13 78:19 114:15 misshapen [i] 123:1 mission [i] 37:13 Missouri [S] 2:17,19 166:2,7,23 moving [4] 30:15,17 62:11 101:16 Mt[i] 3:5 MULLISp] 3:11 61:18 nodules [2] 58:10 72:)] nominated [i] 106:20 nominee [i] 101:25 obituary [2] 112:3,9 object [25] 26:15 28:16 28:19 40:10 41:11 42:5 47:11 49:3 50:2 51:17 meetings [5] 12:2 27:16 27:18 29:16 145:9 (memo [23] 1:7,8,9,12,14 44:25 45:14,15 46:11,15 47:2 50:18 53:25 54:2,10 54:11 75:4 93:15 94:25 112:16,23 113:1,24 memoranda [i] 96:2 memorandum [9] 45:5 45:22 48:7 51:2 65:18,22 93:21 95:22 96:15 mistake [2] 61:24 87:20 multiple [i] 148:14 mixed[5] 83:20 86:10,20 Murray [i] 31:5 89:22 159:19 must[i] 135:18 mixture [l] 159:14 mutagenic [6] 119:21 mixtures [2] 133:12,16 119:24 122:19 123:2,3,11 non-exposed [i] 61:16 54:1 58:22 59:18 60:21 non-Monsanto [i] 14:8 61:4,20 64:24 79:22 80:11 92:25 108:15 132:13 non-physician [i] 134:13 135:21 138:22 23:15 objection [i4] 47:23 nonep] 62:22 75:25 88:8,20 90:17,19 ML[i] 130:1 model [i] 152:8 -N- nonexistent [i] 146:24 109:3,6 126:15,16 129:22 [nonphysician [i] 11:18 131:18,19 136:19 molep] 155:20 moment [3] 26:5 84:18 137:16 N[i] 3:1 nor[2] 166:15,19 name [14] 4:18 23:6 31:20 North [2] 3:12,13 32:13 75:9 102:1 129:15 Nos [i] 124:2 objectionable pi 136:25 obligation]!] 151:18 memory [4] 97:4 128:15 moments [2] 4:18 64:1 143:24 144:18 Monsanto [is7] 2:8,24 oention[2] 112:11 126:3 oentioned [to] 30:23 33:1,13 39:8 41:2 61:22 97:25 99:17 112:2 152:13 nentioning [i] 12:12 3:7 5:19 8:18 11:24,25 12:11,15,22 13:2,9,11,23 14:10,24 16:14 17:10,21 17:25 19:9,11,19 20:1,7 20:11 22:8 23:21 24:7 27:2,14 28:22 29:2 30:5 141:20 142:5 160:8 161:19 163:3,12 165:10 named [3] 7:23 91:9 154:9 names [i] 34:3 nosep] 136:3 |Notary [5] 2:18 4:4 165:18 166:6,23 note [2] 54:13 118:4 . obliterate [i] 42:15 observation pi 49:25 50:4 122:15 " observations [3] 57:3 62:5 108:8 Nancy [3] 2:17 4:4 166:5 notes-Pl 54:19,21 118:T6 observed [2] 28:23 National [16] 47:3,9,14 47:20 48:3 50:12,15 53:15 nothing [3] 137:22 14:25 95:25 122:13 obtained [i] 59:21 Index Pagein WATER PCB-SD0000011619 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) Multi-Page TM Obviously - polychlorinated Witness: George Levinskas Obviously p] 26:4 122:3 130:6 137:19 89:5,19 91:24 96:24 97:10 126:7 131:25 139:21 pharmacologist [i] 60:23 139:21 162:14 118:1'' 119:3,14 122:5 145:21 146:12,15,23 7:22 ' occasion m 10:17,22 onto [2] 56:6 62:11 123:16 129:14 140:24 147:18,23 149:18 152:23 pharmacology [2] 6:1 11:8,22 108:20 139:3,19 openp] 111:6 141:9 occasional [i] 26:18 occur [9] 49:5 58:13 59:10,15,16 60:1,1 66:17 133:7 occurred [i] 49:6 opening [2] 98:21 152:18 operating pa] 16:17 17:4 18:24 21:3,9,21,22 21:24 22:7 25:16,17,21 39:1,13,19,24 43:4 52:11 pages [3] 69:21 73:10 130:20 paid po] 75:23 76:1,2 92:12 144:8,11,12,13 149:16 154:21 occurrence [3] 67:17,20 101:14 139:3,11,13 150:3 palliative [l] 68:8 133:6 operation [i] 100:18 Papageorge [i] 154:10 153:6,15 154:1 157:17,19 157:25 158:3,19,22,24,25 159:5,13,19,22,25 160:2 162:1,6,12,23 163:5,10 163:15,19 peak [i] 35:3 peddling [i] 22:6 penalty [i] 165:11 147:1 phase [i] 9:23 phased [2] 8:13 98:20 phenomenon [i] 59:17 Phil [i] 113:8 Philadelphia [i] 3:17 phone [i] 46:6 [occurs [2] 133:10,10 operational [i] 30:14 paper pi 118:20 pending [2] 2:20 132:16 phonetic [2] 31:8 125:24 October [11] 45:5,16 opinion [17] 26:21 58:25 papilloma [i] 62:20 Pennsylvania [i] 3:17 phosphate [l] 22:1 46:8 47:10 112:22 113:1 59:2,19 61:8 73:22 74:1 paragraph [ii] 49:18 people [56] 9:15,17 11:6 phosphates [i] 21:25 115:21 116:2 140:8 141:9 96:25 106:3 117:19 57:12 66:10 67:14 68:8 11:10,23,25 12:6,7,12 photographs [i] 116:13 141:21 119:12 133:19 134:16 odor [5] 136:18,21,22,24 136:25 146:17 156:17 137:22 157:3 [odors [l] 137:13 opinions [3] 145:18 Off [12] 21:13 44:18 50:2; , 146:14 148:18 50:22 77:21 91:17,18 opportunities [i] 8:14 105:18,23 112:15,19 opposed [4] 60; 19 64:22 148:3 94:7 134:22 77:2 84:14 89:5,12 114:6 140:25 paralegals pi 145:4 pardon p] 28:18 116:12 part [17] 11:14,15 15:18 16:6 20:13,16 52:1,1 76:3 95:6 111:23 118:13,14 126:2 142:24 150:4 17:4 22:4 24:18 25:2 26:18 27:20 28:2 30:17 32:20,23 37:22 40:15 41:18,19 43:20 44:1 48:2 48:14,15,16,17,22 52:11 52:11 53:14,19 68:16 73:16 76:11 92:19,20 95:13 99:23 100:7 101:13 109:20 110:22 134:20,25 photomicrographs [2] 116:9,16 phrased [l] 157:10 phrasing [i] 157:7 physical [i] 18:18 physician [3] 29:14 31:1 32:19 I offer [io] 13:5,6 34:16,17 option [i] 105:20 1 100:3,5 126:5 131:22 145:18 146:17 'offered [2] 45:18 100:4 oral [4] 70:2 124:5,7 127:18 ordinary [i] 131:2 officer [i] 166:7 Oremp] 130:15 [offices [3] 2:15 3:3 101:11 officials [i] 152:12 offset [i] 68:20 offspring [2] 122:13 123:7 Olinpj 32:14,15 organ p] 114:14 J 15:5 organic [i] 9:5 organization [i] 75:9 organizations p] 111:18 original [7] 85:17,24 86:9 92:23 140:15 157:7 Omahap] 113:7 157:11 once [8] 6:8 20:22 21:15 originally p] 125:2 68:17 86:16 99:21 121:19 126:18 157:23 otherwise pi 166:20 one [122] 3:9,17 12:12 ought p) 39:7 113:19 18:14 19:24 27:22 32:14 35:4,25 37:21 38:17,20 39:9 41:2 43:9 44:7 46:19 ourselves p] 101:13 113:18 152:24 participate p] 6:25 65:10 136:6 138:15,17 139:20 149:5,14 151:9 160:23 people's [l] 68:22 participated [i] 9:7 per [4] 82:13 119:20 particular po] 10:2 148:11,13 19:21 20:22 21:15 22:16 percent^] 107:1,8,12 24:7 26:8 41:7,22 50:3 percentage [i] 20:9 52:7 64:20 90:9 91:4 94:10 102:20 118:2 125:6 perform [i] 9:25 143:7 158:4 performance [6] 101:4 particularly p] 99:22 102:5,9,19 103:22,24 137:10 performed [4] 123:17 parties p] 166:15,19 152:22 160:9 161:7 parts [6] 24:18 55:22 performing [i] 10:7 82:13 138:2 148:11,13 perhaps [4] 30:13 79:24 pass[i] 111:12 89:20 103:16 passage [i] 37:6 period [18] 9:1,12 19:7 19:24 20:12 22:15 27:15 passed [3] 31:24,25 51:16 71:11 120:22,24 143:23 121:3,4,6,15,17 122:12 past[i] 40:8 122:14 physicians [9] 12:10 31:3,10,13,14 32:5,7,12 38:1 picked [3] 25:3,8 138:15 picture [ii 38:12 piece [2] 105:8 148:8 pieces [l] 130:25 pile [l] 144:23 Pittsburgh [4] 6:11,21 7:2,10 place [io] 3:17 4:23 43:9 57:7 65:8,9 77:13 86:11 135:23 159:13 placed [l] 25:17 places [i] 159:12 plaintiff [3] 3:2 4:2 143:19 plaintiff's [i] 143:6 plaintiffs [3i 2:5,22 142:6 46:23 47:25 52:16 53:1 outcome [i] 166:20 pathological [i] 79:8 periodic [6] 13:15,18 Plank [5] 111:4,11 130:9 53:14,16,19,24 57:18 58:8 outline [ii 57:22 pathologist [12] 46:22 25:14 27:16,18 102:8 130:10,11 60:8,19 61:1,5,6,11,12,16 outside p3] 8:24 19:13 62:7,20,21,25 66:25 67:1 19:15,20,25 20:6,10 29:13 67:19 68:14,14 69:20 72:4 39:10,10 43:21 70:18 73:14,23 79:12 81:13 160:8 82:18,21,24 83:2,2,3 86:11 87:1,13,14,25 88:13 92:8 94:22 95:15 97:14 outstanding p] 106:14 5:13 101:3 105:8 107:11 overcome p] 42:16 48:23 50:15 56:10 57:16 perjury m 165:11 62:16 113:6,19,21 116:7 117:9 147:5 pathologists [i] 73:22 permissible [i] 37:25 personal 30:4,18 53:16 143:13 pathology [i] 66:24 person's [4] 61:6 73:14 Paul [22] 30:20 34:13 98:1 73:15,20 98:5 99:17,19,23 100:3,3 personal [7] 28:21 59:19 planning [2] 56:20,20 plant [61 31:13,14 32:7 94:13,19,24 plants [6] 17:2,3,7 33:23 34:5 37:23 plasticizer [3] 22:18,23 23:1 110:12,22 111:4,4 112:1 oversee pi 8:23 100:6,8,15 101:25 109:21 128:10 141:13 143:7,9 113:11 114:4,11,24 115:1 overview [i] 5:22 111:11,14,17,19 127:11 158:4 115:3,4,11 119:1,23 120:21 123:3 125:4,13,16 own [3] 2:4 43:20 68:17 126:12 127:11,18,22,25 owner [i] 56:14 128:1 129:2 130:6 131:1 128:5 129:15 150:9 pay [2] 76:4 125:8 paying [i] 150:3 personally [4] 60:16 64:3 137:3 147:22 personnel [2] 25:22 132:4,11 134:17 135:17 135:18,25 136:2 139:18 139:19 140:1 141:8,22 143:1,19 144:5 145:4 -P- P [4] 3:1,1,3,12 P-O-U-Rp] 113:4 PCB [12] 17:20 26:5,11 101:4 54:24 94:20 137:4 139:17 persons [i] 23:16 142:9 144:1,5,7 153:1 pesticides [S] 9:4 38:25 PCBs[63] 14:7,817:19 39:3 151:5 152:5 146:19,25 148:9,10,14 150:12 158:23 163:25 ones [ii] 23:1 33:25 39:15 52:16 68:1 116:17 package p] 104:21 139:2 page [26] 1:1 45:9 49:19 57:18 66:4 67:14 69:25 71:3,4 75:14,14 85:12,13 17:22 18:8 26:4,8,10,14 26:19,21,23 28:15,22 29:7 petition [i] 151:17 48:21 49:2 64:8 90:24 Ph.D[i] 130:2 91:15 103:17 108:11 Ph.D.S [2] 35:4,4 109:9,24 118:2,22 119:16 plasticizers [4] 22:12 22:14 23:7 130:23 playp] 132:25 played [2] 106:14 108:9 point [12] 5:10 13:13 16:9 25:4,7 29:6 81:17,20,20 ,, 98:1 133:9 159:25 pointed [l] 89:11 poison [i] 153:17 Polaroids[2] 143:22,22 Polybromated [i] 147:7 polychlorinated [3] Index Page 10 WATER PCB-SD0000011620 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) Multi-Page TM polyphenol - reexamination. Witness: George Levinskas' 133:18,22 147:7 president [i] 56:14 progression [i] 135:16 reared [i] 122:13 polyphenol [i] 133:24 pressures [i] 30:3 projects [3] 7:1 99:3,8 reason [8] 5:14 27:4 29:1 polyphenols [i] 131:3 presumably [2] 95:12 prolonged [l] 135:2 Quail [l] 48:13 poor[i] 123:8 140:22 prominent [i] 108:9 quartern] 34:19 popped [i] 93:11 population [i] 96:17 presume^] 25:17 36:19 108:23 promise [i] 77:4 prompted [2] 46:14 95:4 queries [3] 43:21 139:9 147:17 porphyria [2] 49:16,22 pretty [i] 88:6 promptly [i] 106:6 questioned [i] 71:14 porphyrins [i] 49:24 prevent [i] 134:18 promulgation [i] QUESTIONERS m portfolio [i] 25:12 preventing [i] 106:15 108:10 1:1 portion [i] 130:14 portions [i] 125:12 positional] 6:16 14:9 15:19 23:13,22 34:6 56:8 previous [5] 45:19 50:24 properly [i] 88:17 79:20 80:9 125:15 properties [3] 18:18 previously [6] 25:9 20:23 21:16 32:25 53:7 100:13 107:25 130:15 property [i] 143:7 questions [16] 1:24:15 4:24 76:9 105:2 141:25 142:3 146:1 150:22 158:24 161:18,24 163:23 163:24 164:2,4 98:11 141:16 143:2 154:25 prices [i] 150:2 proposed [3] 109:8,18 152:6 quickly [i] 140:24 positive^] 68:15 143:20 primarily [i] 95:15 possibilities [2] 99:16 primary [i] 7:4 104:18 Princeton [i] 7:16 prospects [i] 19:4 Protection [i] 154:11 prove [i] 62:3 quite [3] 51:8 66:18 156:13 quotem 41:12 147:12 possibility [i] 20:25 print [i] 68:11 provide [3] 38:4,25 39:16 possible^] 41:14 45:25 priorityp] 151:20 153:9 provided [5] 60:15 154:4 -R- 55:1 private [i] 6:7 154:17 157:16 158:2 |R[i] 3:1 73:23 111:24 126:3 143:21 149:19 reasoning [i] 60:14 reasons [4] 44:6 47:25 101:4,4 recalled[2] 161:24 162:2 receive [6] 78:12 108:14 108:17,19,21 124:20 received [] 6:8 56:6 57:20 78:14 89:1 106:22 receiving [S] 69:14 94:3 94:5 96:13 116:1 recently pj 38:9 94:8 146:5 recess [4] 44:20 77:23 93:18 130:19 recharacterization m 109:4 j recognize [3] 75:1 118:13 140:9 posted [i] 154:1 potency [i] 123:5 potential [4] 16:19,22 18:20 151:24 potentiality [i] 132:19 Pour [13] 113:4,5,6,20,23 114:3,18 116:10,13,22,24 117:7,15 Pour's [i] 113:25 problem [3] 41:788:15 provides [l] 19:16 105:17 providing [3] 44:8,16 problems [2] 131:4 164:5 132:4 provision [i] 19:17 procedure [3] 152:7 16:18 37:9 prudent [i] 64:9 procedures [3] 16:15 42:17,19 public [16] 2:19 4:4 6:10 43:14,16,23 70:8,17 138:1 138:9,12,21 139:15 proceed [2] 17:14 75:22 165:18 166:6,23 R.D[i] 141:12 raised [3] 16:25 78:20 147:17 raises [i] 42:10 raising [2] 90:12 150:22 range [i] 86:23 rat [19] 47:1 67:1 114:9 116:9,12 119:19,20,24 120:7 121:17 122:18,21 recognized [4] 26:24 126:23 149:13 159:20 recollection [33] 28:9 36:5 45:23 51:25 64:16 67:18,22 68:12 77:6 80:13 81:15 82:4,16,19 85:10 89:24 90:7 94:10 95:1 96:6,12 107:10 114:22 125:10 129:9 137:9 139:24 155:5,6 156:23 PR [5] 138:6,15,17 139:7 proceeded [i] 149:12 publication [i] 68:24 139:20 proceedings [i] 156:20 publications [3] 27:11 122:22,23,24 156:25 157:7,8,11 158:3 160:13 161:9 recommend [4] 39:10 practical [4] 17:22 23:15 proclaiming [i] 106:15 27:12 138:6 rate [3] 96:15,22 123:8 39:23 102:16 108:17 30:9 121:9 produce [S] 127:25 publicity [4] 90:13,20 rather [S] 33:21 49:7 recommendation [i7] practice [3] 79:2 92:22 133:20,25 134:9 136:2 90:22 91:1 70:19 72:7 153:12 1:13,13 21:1941:9 42:2 93:3 practices [2] 92:17 93:5 precautions [2] 18:25 42:8 precipitous p] 106:7 precipitously [2] 104:7 106:1 predated [i] 141:10 predominantly [3] 10:24 12:9 153:16 preferable [i] 156:11 preliminary [2] 58:2 157:3 produced [4] 2:12 4:10 52:25 155:25 producing [i] 133:14 product [31] 10:2 14:12 15:4 16:11,12 17:14,15 18:5,14,15,16 19:3,21 20:19,22 21:1,11,16,19 26:3 40:25 41:8,15,22,23 42:1 44:11 104:2 106:8 139:4 162:22 production [i] 122:25 products [55] 8:19 9:2,6 10:8,19 16:16,21,23,23 16:25 17:2,5,5,9,16,17,20 publicly [i] 106:15 publish [i] 68:9 published [ii] 27:10 38:5 41:4 64:10 68:12,17 109:16 125:23 126:19 164:10,12 rats [33] 28:24 46:1,12 50:1 58:17,20 59:15,20 60:2,18 61:3,15,19 66:23 66:25 70:3 82:12 95:8 103:2 119:18 120:17 124:8,11,14 127:19 128:1 140:7,16,18,21 148:12 43:4,5 75:19 101:20 102:7 103:22,25 107:14,16,17 108:22 109:22 recommendations [i4] 16:21 18:24 21:3,17 39:13 75:23 76:25 77:8,19 99:25 103:20 104:16 109:11 pull [3] 16:14 39:20 139:1 152:23 155:5 113:18 pulled [i] 138:24 Raym 31:8 recommended [S] 19:2 purchased [2] 157:17 158:3 pure [4] 133:20,23 134:2 144:6 purports [2] 63:6,16 reach [l] 136:8 97:11 108:13,19,25 reached[3] 9:16,19 41:25 recommending [i] reactors [i] 137:12 108:3 readns] 18:2,3 26:1 recommends [i] 102:10 55:20 71:17 72:1 82:22 reconstruct [i] 151:13 premise [i] 62:1 17:23 18:23 22:5,7,23 purpose [9] 42:10 57:5 91:13 110:9 125:11 126:8 record [25] 40:21 44:18 prepare [2] 23:22,25 prepared [i] 69:22 prescription [i] 141:23 23:1,3,5 24:7,11,13,14,15 24:19,23,25 26:5 38:18 38:21,22,24 40:2,3,9,17 100:16 137:5,17,18 present [11] 3:19 10:17 138:20 139:17 140:6 10:22 29:3 52:4,6,8 152:1,2 160:1,2,3 163:15 104:20 147:14 154:24 155:2 professional [4] 2:18 4:5 99:25 166:6 presentation [2] 109:15 professor [2] 6:17,20 155:8 profile [i] 13:7 presented[ii] 11:2,11 14:21,25 63:10 67:4 131:3 139:2 147:25 155:3,4 program [3] 104:3 20:14 98:20 presenting [i] 68:15 programs [i] 34:24 presents [i] 140:17 progress [2] 21:10 27:3 70:1,22,24 78:16 100:9 145:11 153:24 156:12 163:4 164:13 165:4 purposes [7] 14:18 17:22 reading [7] 71:20 72:2 23:15 30:9 121:9 138:9 104:3 105:13 106:17 138:21 160:16,18 pursued [l] 100:1 realistic [i] 109:20 purview [7] 17:24 18:4 reality [2] 100:9 152:2 39:23 40:4 42:24 158:14 really [23] 14:24 22:19 160:4 26:9 32:11 34:6 37:14 put[is] 16:17 32:13 37:10 38:13 52:2 90:21 95:1 _ 54:22 60:13 94:10 107:12 102:7 112:14 118:18 109:11,14 117:10 118:8 122:10 123:4 128:13 118:18 137:2 139:4,5 136:21,22 139:8,23 155:7 putting [i] 18:11 160:3,17 44:21 45:4 50:21,22 55:13 61:21 63:4 65:21 77:21 78:5 83:17 91:17,18,19 93:19 101:23 107:20 112:15,19,20 115:20 124:4 145:23 records [6] 55:6 86:9 94:15 141:7 151:12 ,, 160:14 reduced [i] 166:13 reevaluated ni 140:16 reevaluation [2] 81:5 89:17 reexamination [i] 80:4 Index Page 11 WATER PCB-SD0000011621 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-Page TM refer - sentence "Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) Witness: George Levinskas refer[S] 14:23 48:7 54:19 relationships [2] 70:13 reproduction [6] 1:16 review [18] 16:20 24:5 scattered [2] 58:11 108:8 55:21 153:2 146:3 119:19 122:18 124:10 42:8 70:1 73:2,23 76:23 schedule^) 21:7 76:14 reference [20] 49:16 relativem 166:17 128:9,13 1 56:12,16 57:11 68:7 71:2 (relatively p] 15:15 39:4 request [10] 11:8 84:24 75:15 84:17 85:7 89:4,12 119:4 85:3,14 89:8 91:2 142:25 82:7 102:9 113:25 114:16 121:24 140:13 144:15 147:1,3,8 147:10,21 scheduled [2] 27:17 114:14 96:24 97:11 109:23 116:8 119:16 148:5 150:6,8 152:23 relevance [i] 41:20 (relevant [2] 41:22 42:1 151:16 153:3 156:5 requested [6] 44:9 53:2 85:2 91:10 152:11 155:10 reviewed[6] 24:2 72:18 72:24 144:22 146:5,20 reviewing [3] 38:5 114:7 scheme [i] 73:6 schemes [i] 34:16 references [i] 153:2 relied [2] 139:11 147:21 requesting [i] 14:22 114:8 school [2] 6:10 30:12 |referred[u] 14:6 45:17 relym 24:21 required [6] 19:8 21:6 reviews [2] 22:25 125:19 Science [i] 70:11 56:18 63:25 65:7 89:19 (remain [i] 8:8 38:24 43:1 134:8 138:10 revised [4] 91:23 92:10 scientific [3] 110:17,17 96:21 125:14 129:5 130:10 157:21 Ireferring [9] 61:22 67:15 1 69:16 80:22 117:20 132:7 134:21 157:24,25 remains [i] 68:25 remember[27] 12:20 22:16,21 23:4 28:12 48:12 69:11,14 78:15 81:12 90:2 90:8 91:4,8 94:3,6,11 96:2 requirement [i] 42:21 requirements [i] 40:13 research [S] 6:18,19,25 7:21 22:5 (refers [8] 50:10 51:12 96:14 99:10 107:3 116:1 researcher[i] 7:5 84:14 89:10 101:24 113:4 118:20 128:18 139:16 researchers [3] 43:13 121:16,23 144:7 155:16 53:15 113:12 92:14,15 Richard [i] 54:16 Richter [7] 63:21 65:12 67:15,20 73:10 74:10 117:17 right [20] 2:4 30:24,25 44:17 52:23 57:12 71:6 75:12 88:12 104:8,12 164:10 Scott [i] 144:24 Scott's [i] 143:25 second [16] 44:19 45:9 47:21 66:4 80:20,21 81:21 81:25 82:1 84:13 85:20 86:6 119:14 123:16 151:21 156:1 refined [i] 159:17 remembered [i] 160:17 reserved [i] 4:7 105:16,18 116:7 140:25 secretion [i] 49:23 reflect [i] 92:9 reflected [i] 81:5 removal [i] 135:7 removed [i] 30:8 resolution [i] 105:2 resolve [3] 57:2 76:9 141:20 148:24 154:7 160:1 162:22 section [u] 33:20,24 36:1 56:11 58:5,15 59:5 refresh[3] 107:10 128:15 removing [i] 135:13 113:15 ring[i] 90:1 78:23 127:14 130:18,24 144:18 Renatem 147:3,4 resolved [i] 48:11 [risk [2] 147:20 153:11 sections [io] 47:2 79:9 refute [2] 67:7,13 render [i] 165:7 regard [6] 79:14 117:15 repeat [3] 5:5 67:10,10 128:19 129:7 145:20 155:11 repeated [i] 121:3 regarding [S] 64:11 85:9 repetition [i] 38:16 96:3 162:1,12 rephrase [4] 59:14 121:5 regards [2] 138:19 162:5 139:4 162:9 Register [i] 109:17 Registered [3] 2:18 4:5 166:5 (replacement [3] 55:1 100:8 111:7 report [50] 1:11,15,17 11:3 19:22 20:18 21:20 resolving [i] 115:12 resources [2] 24:20 40:21 respect[5] 21:19 48:18 49:13 91:15 102:6 respective [i] 85:18 respiratory [5] 96:16,21 134:15 136:3,13 respond [l] 43:21 responded [3] 44:13,14 Rochester [2] 6:2,2 role [6] 28:14 30:6 98:16 106:14 108:9 158:15 room[2] 137:8,23 Roost [i] 48:13 roughly [2] 107:1 149:16 Roush [8] 31:17,18 32:9 32:17 51:3 76:19 93:22 96:19 routine [i] 119:5 80:3 89:18 114:9,16 115:7 115:8 140:14,14 sector [i] 6:7 see [32] 31:20 32:13 37:23 38:2 40:13,23,24 43:23 49:21 52:22 54:6 62:21 69:21 72:3,10,12 79:4 81:3 82:13 86:7 94:16 95:9 125:2 132:23 134:19 141:8,18 148:17 158:7 160:14,19 161:10 registration [i] 151:5 26:2 28:1 41:12 69:20 158:23 rulem 133:2 seeing [is] 60:17 69:11 registrations [i] 39:2 regression [i] 135:16 regular^] 11:6 13:18 . 51:14 144:11 regularity [2] 27:18 1 34:22 regularly [2] 51:21 67:1 70:1 73:9 77:15,25 78:5,7 response [3] 43:22 89:8 rumor [i] 45:25 78:9 79:10,20 80:5,6,7,10 109:16 . 81:13 83:1 84:25 85:20 responsibilities [3] rush [2] 45:3 105:18 86:19 87:1 89:17 91:4,20 92:10,14,19,21,24 103:9 104:1 113:25 117:21 125:12 127:23 128:5,12 128:14 129:10 140:2 10:9,12 15:10 16:13 29:19 responsibility [8] 10:14 -S- 15:16 25:8 30:19 38:1 s[1] 3:1 39:19 150:4 163:20 sacrificed [i] 140:19 91:4 94:6 96:2 101:16 157:15 158:12,19 161:25 162:2,10,13,18,22 seek[i] 26:12 seeking [i] 44:8 seem [i] 54:2 select [3] 64:3,12,15 (regulation [i] 109:2 146:21 responsible [2] 22:5 safe [6] 20:24 38:7,8 selected [3] 65:1,3 67:24 regulations [S] 39:4 108:10 109:8,18,20 reported [9] 11:19 23:10 39:14 23:16 48:20 58:16 71:7 rest [2] 52:21 152:8 130:18,24 138:19 safety [ii] 14:13 15:4 self-explanatoiy [i] 54:3 (regulatory [io] 10:18,18 73:4 96:1 132:1 result[9] 42:12 59:12,16 16:12,16,22 17:8 18:5,14 selling [i] 38:23 1 10:21 11:7,9 38:24 44:8 151:22 153:6,7 reportedly [l] 55:15 75:20 104:20 110:21 reporterp] 2:18 4:5 5:16 135:6,16 152:9 20:19 38:11 139:6 salary [S] 107:2,3,5,7 seminar^] 154:10,14 154:18 rehashed [i] 142:22 18:2 44:23 166:1,6 resulted [2] 90:14 137:4 144:11 send [3] 52:19 63:16 rehiring [i] 99:10 rejoining [i] 99:18 relate [i] 17:8 related [12] 14:7 22:10 23:4 26:23 38:22,22 48:21 49:2 118:21 142:9 161:2 166:15 relates [3] 26:4 107:21 130:22 (relating [7] 26:13 28:15 1 81:6,13 83:6 96:8 130:24 relations [S] 138:1,9,12 138:21 139:15 relationship [2] 147:23 1 149:2 reporting [6] 12:25 23:19 results [8] 10:15 67:7,12 30:1 51:10 104:8 110:2 78:21 87:20 108:7 113:13 reports [36] 10:16,22 11:5 155:3 21:12 69:11 80:14,16,18 retained [i] 75:22 80:22 81:4,15,18,22,24 retirem 28:5 82:4,18,20 86:6 88:6,9 retired [12] 5:21 13:13 89:16 110:20 116:19 13:25 15:22,25 28:10,11 124:16,22 125:10 129:21 28:12 31:16 33:16 119:10 130:1 142:25 156:1 157:7 144:14 157:8,11,12 159:11,12 retirement [2] 13:16 represent [i] 142:6 16:9 representative [i] retitled [i] 15:23 163:6 representing [i] 4:19 reprints [] 63:18,19 64:3,5,12,16 retried [i] 111:9 retrieven] 151:12 returning [i] 116:21 reversible [i] 135:7 sales [i] 163:8 sampled] 55:5 79:4 samples [2] 19:2 137:21 sampling [i] 21:6 Santicizer[3] 23:5,6,8 saw[i] 12:7 27:4 46:25 68:1 71:21 112:9 116:14 125:14 127:1 156:1 157:18 says [22] 46:19 49:5 58:2 58:5 59:5,21 66:15 67:16 72:23 85:19 86:6 89:17 101:24,103:25 105:9 " 106:13 107:9 116:11,25 117:8 124:24 159:14 scale [i] 6:25 112:3 sending [i] 91:23 senior[3] 15:25 16:8 29:22 sense [9] 12:466:11 80:20 86:22 87:18 88:11 102:9 153:19 160:20 sensoiyp] 136:2,14,25 sent [i] 21:20 47:3,13 56:4 63:13,19 64:18 71:13 76:22 116:19,20 150:24 151:15 153:23 157:23 158:13 sentence [io] 49:19 64:7 66:14,19 67:5 68:23 71:10 82:10,14,17 Index Page 12 WATER PCB-SD0000011622 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-Page TM sentinel - summary Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) Witness: George Levinskas ' sentinel [i] 134:16 Signatory] 128:5 sorts [i] 79:5 starting^] 40:16 66:11,12 67:9,21,25 68:5 separate [S] 22:9 60:10 signatories [i] 127:12 sounds pi 116:23 Starts [2] 45:14 71:10 68:9,18,19 70:3 71:6,23 80:25 159:20 162:14 separated [i] 111:7 September [i] 129:17 signature [6] 4:6 63:12 69:23 102:13 107:22 128:4 source [3] 41.-6 135:8 138:4 speak [4j 24:9 37:5 93:5 State [8] 2:19 89:6 115:13 157:2 165:1 166:2,7,23 statement [i3] 36.21 72:5 74:3,6,7,12,16 75:17 78:17,24 79:9,11,18 80:3 85:17,18 88:7,17 91:21 94:17 103:12 106:6 sequence [i] 80:20 signatures [i] 129:14 148:22 37:12,13,16 61:11 70:14 109:19 113:23 114:5,16 series [i] 4:24 serious [4] 126:7 134:19 147:17,19 serve [4] 16:3 43:7 106:7 138:4 served [41 15:3 32:7 36:9 37:19 serves [i] 97:4 service [4] 19:16,18 70:8 70:17 set [14] 27:9 38:1 52:20 57:5 86:6 88:6 132:15 138:8 145:9 149:20 153:14,16,21 156:1 sets [4] 80:14 81:18 87:12 88:1 seven [6] 58:17,20 71:5 85:19 86:7,8 sevens [i] 87:6 several [13] 6:14 7:3,5 23:7 24:17 29:5 33:22 48:14 52:10 73:19 76:8 110:15 130:9 severe [i] 68:2 signed [S] 54:14 108:3 speaking [i] 161.-20 129:20 130:1,9 specialized [i] 97:8 significance [S] 47:19 specific [18] 16:5 18:16 49:25 58:19 60:17 64:20 22:22 23:24 36:20 52:2 significant [4] 59:4 96:5 99:8 107:13,15 60:25 108:6 147:14 125:11 143:11 144:19 similar [10] 18:23 79:13 155:22,23 156:8,13 157:9 81:23 85:23 107:20 specifically [18] 26:20 127:21 143:4,5 150:15 89:23 91:2,7,16 92:4 94:5 152:3 97:21 99:4 116:3 117:4 similarity [i] 18:22 simply [i] 105:15 simultaneously pj 68:13,13 single^] 121:1 singularpi 106:14 117:15 128:16 129:11 138:12 139:21 157:24,25 specifics [4] 101.-18 110:9 117:20 154:19 specified [i] 132.-5 specify [i] 108:20 site [2] 31:9 32:25 situation [2] 103:21 146:4 Six [5] 2:14 49:6,7 85:18 140:19 speculate [3] 5:1 129:23 133:5 speed [i] 24:2 spend [2] 34:5 86:12 spending [i] 32:24 size [2] 9:11,20 spentp] 151:11 slides [32] 47:14,22 48:18 sperm [2] 123:5,10 56:22 57:1 70:2 71:16,24 Spirits [5] 2:8,24 162:25 71:25 72:6,23 89:5 138:11 138:16 147:11 statements [S] 71:18,19 71:19 118:24 138:13 States [5] 2:1,20 69:25 119:3 131:2 stationed [i] 70:17 statistical [i] 60:24 statistically [i] 60:25 status [5] 16:20 28:1 53:18 54:8 96:3 Stay [2] 41:3 135:11 Stayed [i] 132:16 staying [i] 26:13 Steps [2] 76:25 113:15 stewardship [l] 104:2 sticks [l] 143:24 Still [7] 16:1 49:11 101:1 119:12 120:20 131:12 146:6 STIPULATED [i] 4:1 stoodm 141:15 Stop [2] 76:16 135:16 114:17,24 115:16 119:18 119:18,21 120:12,17,18 120:19 121:5,7,9,13,14 121:19,22,24 122:10,24 123:2,3,6,11 124:5,10,13 124:16 125:4,6 126:13 127:10,12,19 128:9 129:8 132:9 140:20,23 148:9,9 153:12 161:7 164:9,12 studying [ii 10:20 style [i] 118.12 subject [6] 64:8,11 121:15 145:24 148:19 151:22 submit [i] 104:13 submitted [12] 11:5 109:15 110:8 150:11,15 150:23 151:3,4,19 152:15 152:25 153:5 submitting [4] lio.-ll 110:13,20 150:19 subscribe [i] 165:10 subsequent [S] 56:16 56:18 57:9 95:6 105:11 subsequently [$] 70:9 shall [i] 77:2 72:4,8,18,23 73:2,17,23 163:6,9 Stopping [i] 135:15 72:24 92:10 152:7 164:10 share [l] 51:24 shared [i] 96:25 sharp [i] 136:23 sheet [i] 139:6 shepherded [i] 25:21 Sherman [a] 59:15,23,24 74:2,12,15 80:24 81:1,5 113:21,22 114:1,19 115:6 116:14,15,17,22,25 117:5 slightly [ii] 84:15,21 85:19,22,25 89:7 90:14 91:24 155:12,18 157:5 sloppy [l] 88:6 spoken [2] 45:15 46:8 sponsored [2] 126:2,11 spontaneous [3] 66:15 66:18,22 spontaneously [4] 58:13 59:11,16 60:2 strain [5] 59:15,20,23,24 66:23 strains [i] 66:25 Strauss [2] 47:6,16 Street [i] 3:12 strictly [i] 161:7 subset [1] 122:18 substance [3] 109:2 154:18 165:6 substantive [ii 15:12 substantively [i] 15:2 succeeded in 94:23 shifts [i] 70:10 slow[i] 109:1 spotlighted [i] 27.1 striking [i] 137:22 successive pi 108:25 shoot [i] 78:8 small [2] 27:22 78:23 Spraulp] 32:8 stripped [2] 111:14,20 122:11 short [7] 49:7,11 93:7 smell p] 137:17,20 120:22 121:1,22 136:11 smelled [3] 137:3,8,9 short-termpj 121:21 SMITH [i] 3:11 123:6 Snell [2] 47:7,16 shortest pi 121:4,6 sniffed p] 137:18,21 shorthand^] 86:14 87:8 so-called [i] 126.-17 shortly [3] 7:22 100:6 162:23 solid [i] 137:20 shoW[4] 130:17 140:1 someone [i] 45:23 142:15 144:17 sometime [4] 18:9 spread [i] 114:13 Squire [9] 63:22 65:16 72:17,24 73:1,4,7 74:18 117:18 Squires [3] 57:13,15,16 SS[i] 166:3 St [9] 2:16 30:11 31:9 76:16,18 96:18 111:24 112:10 166:4 Staff [4] 34:25 35:1,5,12 strong [i] 9:4 such[22] 14:13,2123:8 structure [i] 30:21 structures [i] 58:9 studies [10S] 8:20,23 9:7 10:7,17 11:2 12:5 24:6 25:15,17,19 27:3,6 39:8 39:10,18 53:18,24 56:22 57:2,4 63:17,17,18 66:21 37:15 38:25 40:21 43:10 44:2 67:2 96:3,21 111:16 136:15 151:17 155:20 157:18 158:18 162:14,16 163:17 165:5,9 suddenly [2] 24:25 26:1 sufficient [2] 94:16 68:3,14 72:19 76:10 78:24 153:9 79:7,14 80:15 83:6,11 suggested[3] 41:6 86:19 90:9 99:5 110:16 105:23 132:9 showed [4] 24:1 72:5 111:25 128:25,25 stage [l] 116:22 110:16,17 113:14,14,22 suggestion [i] 103:24 87:21 115:7 showing [3] 50:23 63:4 140:5 shown [6] 66:1 69:5 74:24 107:23 117:24 143:22 Shubik[3] 113:8,9,15 side [2] 80:17,17 sidetracked [i] 100:12 | Sidney [i] 53:12 Siegel [3] 53:13,13 54:6 sign [4] 129:20,25 134:16 164:13 somewhat [8] 15:8 18:22 Stamford [i] 7.-15 114:8,9 117:15 119:15,17 70:20 103:16 120:21 Stand [i] 50:14 125:8 136:23 150:14 standard [4] 93:3 135:18 somewhere [9] 9:21 136:9 138:8 15:17 28:8 29:1 36:5 55:7 76:16 114:25 120:12 standards [2] 132:12 37:25 soon [2] 15:13,15 standpoint [i] 151:24 sorry m 7:25 8:19 14:12 16:12 53:3 112:5 148:20 Start [3] 17:18 125:4 164:14 119:19,22,24,24,25 120:1 120:2,5,7,8,16 121:25 122:1,1,17,19,20,21,22 124:25 125:16,19,22,23 126:1,10,11,25 127:3,7 128:13,20 132:1 140:15 140:18 147:9 148:12 149:17 150:21,24 151:2,4 151:8,14,25 152:5,9,22 sort [17] 12:6 13:19 18:16 21:18 24:20,22 41:17 45:25 67:9 73:24 77:9 101:15 119:1 122:18 137:1 146:9,25 started [i3] 6:189:17 14:10 17:24 24:23 30:2 30:15,17 32:23 40:5 120:14 150:21 151:6 155:4,7,11 156:24,25 160:5,9 164:6 ^ study[97] 1:15,16,16,17 11:9 19:20 41:5,13 46:7 51:20 54:4,7,9 56:3 61:6 suggestions [4] 42:25 103:20 104:11,25 suggests [i] 46:11 suing [i] 143:25 Suite [2] 3:4,12 summaries [2] 74:5 138:24 summarize [l] 141:14" summarized [2] 95:21 129:3 summarizes [ii 94:25 summary [7] 46:6 71:2 71:7,11,18 119:14 129:6 Index Page -13- WATER PCB-SD0000011623 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-Page TM supervising - up Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) Witness: George Levinskas supervising [i] 10:6 term [7] 14:19 113:12 149:24 training [i] 146:17 two-day [ii 142:18 supervision [3] 100:23 1 121:22 155:19,21 156:3 throughout p] 8:9 17:15 transcribed [i] 4:6 101:1,8 156:13 throwing [i] 105:3 transcript p] 143:16 supervisor^] 11:17,18 terminated [l] 121:22 times [5] 118:25 138:3 148:25 29:14,15 terminology [$] 79:20 142:8,11 145:10 transcripts [l] 53:1 supplemental [i] 87:1 80:10 85:25 91:24 156:8 timetable [l] 21:10 translate [i] 61:17 supplied [2] 138:9,18 supply [i] 52:21 support [3] 38:4 39:17 151:4 I supportive [2] 95:10 153:19 terms [7] 59:3 92:17 109:7 110:3,24 120:21 146:7 teiphenylsp] 133:12 133:18 [test [8] 10:15 25:25 42:9 71:11 86:24 128:3 129:3 [timing p] 21:7 80:20 tissuep] 62:18 79:2 tissues [4] 46:25 67:25 79:11 80:17 title pj 14:11,13 15:4 16:1 23:14 98:12 147:5 transmit [i] 123:12 transposition p] 87:6 89:11 treated pj 62:6,22 trial [4] 5:15,17 111:8 150:6 supposednj 114:14 140:20 TLV p] 132:5,15 Trionp] 125:24 126:4,9 supposedly [i] 37:11 tested [2] 9:6 10:5 TLVs [l] 135:24 126:12 131:21 132:9 surgery p] 111:6141:22 testified p] 4:11 142:12 today po] 5:16,20 45:15 trip [4] 69:10,20,25 73:9 two-page [3] 65:21 74:24 84:8 two-year [17] 66:21 68:9 80:3 119:17.18 120:7.12 120:16,17 122:6,7.7 124:5 124:7 157:7,8,11 type [5] 19:20 46:25 58:6 118:11 155:23 types [4] 9:2 26:22 66:24 163:14 typewriting [2] 4:6 166:13 typically [i] 13:20 typo [2] 88:14 89:19 surmise ni 87:23 142:13 45:17 59:8 66:2 68:25 triphenyl [i] 133:24 "-U- surprised ni 99:7 testifying [i] 5:17 69:12 78:10 84:8 93:25 trouble [4] 34:3 35:7 surroundings [i] 38:2 survival [i] 123:8 suspect [4] 52:10 92:18 104:23 106:16 swapped ni 87:19 swelling [i] 58:9 sworn [3] 2:12 4:10 166:11 testimony pi] 5:15 58:23 61:5,9 142:14,20 144:8,13 154:2 166:9,11 testing [34] 9:25 12:5 16:21 19:1,5,6,8,12 20:14 21:5,8,11 29:24 30:8 34:23 38:5 39:14,24 40:8 41:10,24,25 42:3,10,15 42:21,25 43:6 125:21 115:24 116:6 119:12 120:20 121:17 131:12 144:12 145:12 146:14 today's p] 144:15 145:11 together [i4] 16:15,17 39:21 60:13 62:3 83:21 87:9,10 109:12,14 117:10 137:2 138:25 139:1 148:21 152:17 U.S[i) 10:25 true pj 165:7,12 ultimately [13] 8:11 65:8 try [8] 16:24 67:9 76:9 86:14 105:2 117:10 148:22 153:25 72:22 97:15,17 104:11 106:10 108:21 109:25 111:12,22 114:18 151:1 trying [12] 16:14 40:14 86:1,24 137:2 143:1 146:8 uncomfortable [i] 136:5 148:16 151:12 156:7 under [24] 18:20 25:25 157:6 162:17 39:21 41:15 58:5,15,17 symposium [i] 155:1 synthesis [i] 108:8 -T- 146:3 149:4,17,24 154:4 tolerances pj 153:15,21 Tuesday [1] 145:13 tests p] 8:18 27:9 123:15 tolerate [i] 136:7 123:15,19 125:14 154:6 Tomorrowp] 164:14 tumor [17] 46:1 58:5 59:7 59:9 62:17,18,21 66:22 Texas [2] 142:18 145:18 too [3] 20:15 108:2 140:17 114:12,25 115:2,2,3,4 64:11 70:8 86:4 87:3 100:23,25 104:2 110:3 119:5,14 128:2 132:16 141:20 146:23 156:14 165:11 166:13 Tabershaw-Cooper [3] 97:1,5,6 table [$] 60:13,15 71:14 71:15 85:13 tables ni 90:5 tabs pi 25:14 101:16 taking [6] 17:1228:14 43:17 125:11 147:16 153:7 text[i] 118:5 took p] 15:10 95:7 [theirs [i] 149:15 109:18 116:13,17 126:7 theory [i] 114:22 151:14 thereafter p] 4:5 7:22 top [8] 9:16 58:2 65:22 166:13 67:14 88:3 94:2 101:24 therefore p] 64:18 100:1 118:17 thereon [i] 165:9 topics [l] 64:23 thereto [i] 166:19 total [i] 142:10 third [5] 34:19 85:13 touched [i] 131:1 155:20,21,23 tumorigenesis p] 64:7 64:14 tumorigenic [i6] 82:21 83:3 84:15,22 85:19,22 85:25 89:7 90:15 91:25 155:12,18,19 156:12,18 157:5 tumors [5] 46:19 59:10 59:15 103:2 153:13 understand [13] 5:4,J 3 17:8 20:3 38:15 53:9 61:12 70:22 72:16 80:2 91:14 96:11 162:17 understands [i] 79:25 understood [S] 5:7 25:6 96:8 132:3 134:10 undertaken] 113:24 undertaken [i] 27:3 talks [2] 57:22 140:25 128:8 152:1 156:11 toward [l] 32:22 Turet[36] 1:3 3:16 4:15 undertaking m 17:14 taught [i] 6:13 thoroughly [i] 105:10 towards p] 98:6 147:10 4:18 36:13 44:18,21 49:20 81:8 82:5 Taylor [i] 2:15 teach p] 6:12 29:8 thought [9] 21:4 49:9 54:4 64:9 74:13 103:18 114:12 115:4 151:22 toxicity pi] 1:15,16 8:18 50:23 52:16,25 53:6 59:1 undertakings [2] 17:19 8:23 38:18 41:7 43:8 61:7,24 71:4,10 76:2 18:13 118:1,21 119:15 122:1 77:21,24 78:4 79:24 83:17 underway [3] 25:20,25 teaching pj 6:9 30:6 thoughts [l] 75:21 technical [S] 109:7 130:22 100:1 139:12 108:6 threatening [i] 135:2 telephone p] 51:12 161:21 Telephonically [i] three p4] 58:16,21 63:16 64:3,12,21 66:5 79:7 80:15 81:15,22,24 82:1 85:18,18 86:2,3,4,6,8 3:19 111:9 125:17 140:19 temperature [i] 137:23 145:3 temperatures p] 131:2 three-generation [4] 124:5,8 127:10,19 129:3 130:18,24 138:19 140:6 146:2 toxicological [9] 8:20 9:25 10:7 30:19 53:18 63:17 126:14 131:4 138:5 toxicologist [i2] 12:19 14:15 15:8 26:7 34:21 51:10 92:13 95:17 111:15 112:13 124:20 145:15 84:3 91:19 93:9,19 101:23 27:6 112:20 122:5 123:24 127:6 141:24 163:24 underwent [i] 111:6 164:3,14 unfortunately [i] 32:10 Turet'sp] 158:23 tump] 11:19 103:15 122:13 turned p] 76:8 90:3 Twenty [i] 37:1 unit [9] 18:24 21:21,22 21:24 22:8 25:22 39:19 98:18,18 United [2] 2:1,20 units [16] 16:17 17:4 21:3 21:9 25:16,17 39:1,13,24 137:8 tempo [i] 25:3 tend [3] 43:21 133:2 119:19 122:9 124:10 128:9 [three-step [l] 151:14 toxicologists [13] 12:8 12:9 30:5,7 33:13 34:7,12 twice [3] 64:25 99:21 156:10 43:4 52:12 101:14 139:3 139:11,13 150:3 34:22 35:1,8 38:3 104:6 two [41] 3:21 12:22 27:20 University [8] 5:25 6:2 137:19 three-year [i] 122:6 111:16 32:12 35:5 44:6 46:12,15 6:11,21 7:1,10 30:12 tended [i] 100:7 tenure p] 32:4 35:21 125:20 Teratogenic [3] 1:17 124:13 129:8 teratology [5] 119:21,24 122:17,22,24 threes [i] 87:6 threshold pj 126:18,21 thiewp) 21:13 throat p] 135:20 136:14 through pi] 20:22 30:21 32:3 51:15 55:19 76:15 117:8 120:13 130:13,16 toxicology pi] 6:13 15:6,11,21,24,25 16:4,8 19:11 25:6,8 29:16,21,22 29:23 30:10 33:23 37:8 127:14 130:4 147:1 tract [3] 134:15 136:4,14 trade [i] 23:6 46:17 47:25 57:4 73:10 125:25 " 80:14,18,23,25 81:1,4,18 81:22,25 82:4,12 83:20 83:20 84:14 86:2 87:1,7,9^ unlikely [l] [unrealistic 134:19 ni 108:10 87:10,1'2,15 101:10 up [36] 7:9 18:7 24:1,2 107:11 108:24 119:20 25:3,8,24 38:6 56:10,17 127:24 135:25 146:18 57:5 63:24 76:13,19 82:12 150:12 86:10,20 87:21 89:22 90:3 Index Page 14 WATER PCB-SD0000011624 Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Multi-Page TM Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS) 90:24 93:12 100:10,11 105:3 109:19 120:15 130:17 131:24 138:15 145:9 148:22 149:20 150:21 152:18 153:14 -w- wait[i] 83:19 waiting [2] 52:17 77:3 98:13,17 99:3,5,7,19,23 100:16 112:12 137:10 156:19 workers [4] 17:9,11 94:12 95:11 up-to-date [1] 26:2 updates [i] 96:3 warnings [i] 163:14 World [5] 2:6,23 3:14 Washington [i] 30:11 4:20 142:7 urine [i] 49:24 wasting [i] 143:22 worry [i] 152:3 USedp7] 14:18 22:1 38:7 water [X] 109:9 worsep] 115:14 135:15 59:20 66:21 73:6 75:5 WATKINS [i] 3:8 80:10 81:24 90:10 126:17 126:20 132:3 133:16 137:11 138:15,20 144:3 waxp] 137:21 waysp] 92:18 149:5,6,9,10,14 150:16 week [4] 114:15 145:13 151:16 153:21 156:2 157:21,22 [useful p] 113:20 160:21 (weeks pi 145:3 'uses[i7] 16:23 17:17 Weisbuigerp] 50:11 WRpi 54:14,14 Wright p] 30:20 34:13 98:1,9,13,21 99:3,17,20 100:22 101:3,25 102:6,8 102:16,23 104:5,15 105:9 105:23 106:14,20 107:21 108:4,21,25 109:11,25 110:1,2 111:11,14,17,22 18:19 22:2,3,6 23:2 24:13 50:13 75:5,5,12,22 76:4 24:14,16 38:8 40:3,17 76:12 78:19 111:23 112:2 127:11 128:5 150:9 42:17,18 160:2,3 Weisburger'sm 75:19 Wright's [6] 99:10 101:8 using pj 66:25 110:11 [ Weiseburg [4] 50:9,10 150:18 1 50:14,14 103:21 104:11 108:7 129:15 usually [i] 135:15 welcome [i] 55:20 write p] 119:2 129:6 utilized Pi 19:25 20:7 -V- vaguett] 156:22 <Valhalla [i] 75:8 (valid [2] 42:12 151:19 validate [4] 151:13,25 152:22 154:4 [validated [l] 154:6 1 validation p] 152:5,6 value [i] 132:15 well-done pi 132:2 i Wesleyan [i] 5:25 Westp] 76:15 Wheeler [19] 12:16,17 12:22 13:1 20:20 23:11 23:17 26:10,12 28:5 32:1 33:1 45:24 52:9 99:14 100:15 103:14 125:2 141:8 Wheeler's pj 23:13 100:25 wherein [i] 2:22 writingp] 10:15 138:11 138:16 written [is] 11:3,5 21:1 21:18,20 37:12,16 77:16 87:17 96:20 118:24 119:2 129:5 138:13 155:11 wrong [3] 86:11 88:3,4 wrote p] 66:13 75:12 84:10 113:1 118:15 138:24 147:3 -Y- lvalues [2] 126:18,22 white [i] 116:8 yearp] 6:5 15:9 33:16 valve [i] 111:7 whole p] 37:3 55:20 48:12 116:21 121:10,12 vapors [4] 134:14 135:18 widely [i] 108:8 157:13 136:16 137:3 variety pj 9:5 49:4 widow [l] 143:25 years [2S] 9:23 12:1,7,13 12:21 15:24 29:5,15 31:21 William [3] 54:16 96:25 31:25 32:8,11,15,18 34:23 (various [13] 7:3 16:15 97:2 36:24 37:1,4 45:19 82:12 24:18 48:22 66:25 141:1 willing p] 46:4 145:7 92:14 108:25 139:5 149:5,5,14 150:24,24 152:18 163:3 (vein [i] 144:25 verify [i] 151:8 WILSON [l] 3:20 142:18 148:3 wirep] 110:13 yet[ij 114:17 wires [i] 150:16 York [3] 6:2 75:8 76:13 | withdraw [3] 40:6 73:12 young [3] 32:11,19 35:22 (versa [i] 87:22 78:15 younger [i] 30:7 version pj 79:20,23 80:9 81:21 82:20,23,25 83:2 143:3 within [13] 2:19 10:16 11:14 24:20 28:3 37:24 39:23 42:24 58:9 99:22 (versions p] 80:18,23,25 101:4 158:14 165:6 yourself [5] 24:5,11 26:8 90:8 146:11 Yushop] 153:17 versus [4] 58:21 61:16 without [6] 18:11 55:6,8 82:18 121:2 115:9 133:23 161:1 -z- |vice [l] 87:22 [witness [12] 4:7 15:1 Zack [3] 35:22 97:18,21 videotaped [4] 142:14 28:18 35:7 50:23 63:4 142:15,19 143:9 96:10 145:24 148:23 |view [t] 68:25 164:16 166:9,11 viewed [i] 126:13 woman p] 32:19 147:17 virtually [i] 149:23 WOrdp] 14:18 22:22 virtue [i] 38:5 81:11,11 102:9 122:23,23 [wording [i] 81:22 visitp] 17:7 51:19 volume p] 147:2 156:21 words [6] 18:12 66:16 72:1 104:21 105:1 122:11 | volunteer [i] 29:8 [worked [18] 8:5 9:1 25:1 VSp] 2:5,7 32:14 59:24 97:18,21 up-to-date - Zack Witness: George Levinskas1' Index Page hSt WATER PCB-SD0000011625