Document 3N95Dayn7LpgDx7ROqY18mER6

1 1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LAKE COUNTY, OHIO 2 iRUTH N. BURNHEIMER, etc CIVIL DIVISION 3 Plaintiff 4 vs Case No. 91 CV00165 3 5 Judge Parks UNIROYAL CHEMICAL CO 6 INC., et.al. 7 Defendants. 8 DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF: J. Dexter Forbes, M.D. 9 10 11 DEPOSITION DATE: October 14, 1992 12 13 PARTY TAKING DEPOSITION: 14 Plaintiff 15 16 17 COUNSEL OF RECORD 18 FOR THIS PARTY: Peter J. Brodhead, Esq. 19 SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY TRACI 6 LANCIONE 20 1500 National City Building Cleveland, OH 44114 21 22 REPORTED BY: 23 Lois Sikoski, RPR Notary Public 24 CAT-LINKS DISCOVERY w jKF Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001135 77 1 79 11 79,80,81 19,10,16,2 1 mb[2/15/94] Uniroyal had begun epidemiology studies for the vinyl chloride workers at Painesville at the University of North Carolina; this had been done earlier in 1972 Forbes stated that acroosteolysis hand x-rays had been taken and there was an annual surveillance program going on for workers prior to that time from the 1960's; also. Dr. Harris was keeping in touch with recommendations as far as standards were concerned and in fair touch with Dr. Viola and Maltoni's work Exhibit 14 to Mr. Leech's deoosition - Dr. Forbes thinks that some parties at Uniroyal must have had this document in 1972 Exhibit 16 to Mr. Leech's deposition - memo that Dr. Forbes wrote to Dr. Harris - Dr. Forbes had some oversight responsibilities for occupational safety as it transpired at Monochem plant; shared responsibilities with the on-site doctor (can't remember name); he would have been a regular physician and not specifically trained in occupational safety 11 2 1 DEPOSITION OF DEXTER FORBES, M.D., a witness, called by the Plaintiff for examination, in 2 accordance with the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, taken by and before Lois Sikoski, a Notary Public and Registered 3 Professional Reporter, in and for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, at the offices of Allegheny County Airport, 4 US Air Club, Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, on Wednesday, October 14, 1992, commencing at 12:32 p.m. 5 6 APPEARANCES: 7 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: 8 Peter J. Brodhead, Esq. SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY TRACI & LANCIONE 9 1500 National City Building Cleveland, OH 44114 10 216-696-3232 11 FOR UNIROYAL, INC.: Anne Y. Koester, Esq. 12 BUNDA, STUT2 & DEWITT One SeaGate, Suite 650 13 Toledo, OH 43604 419-247-2777 14 FOR BORDEN MONOCHEM CHEMICAL AND PLSTICS LIMITED 15 PARTNERSHIP: Richard A. Dean, Esq. 16 ARTER & HADDEN 1801 K. Street, N.W. Suite 400K 17 Washington, D.C. 20006 202-775-7965 18 * INDEX* 19 Examination by Mr. Brodhead ----------- 4 20 Examination by Mr. Dean ------------- 79 21 Certificate of Court Reporter ---------- 82 Errata Sheet ------------------- 83 22 Notice of Non-Waiver of Signature -------- 84 23 24 CAT-LINKS" DISCOVERY" SIX. 1 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412)261-2323 UNIR0001137 1 * INDEX OP EXHIBITS * 2 Deposition Exhibit 1 Deposition Exhibit 2 - 3 Deposition Exhibit 3 Deposition Exhibit 4 - 4 Deposition Exhibit 5 Deposition Exhibit 6 - 5 Deposition Exhibit 7 Deposition Exhibit 8 - 6 Deposition Exhibit 9 Deposition Exhibit 10 7 Deposition Exhibit 11 Deposition Exhibit 12 8 Deposition Exhibit 13 Deposition Exhibit. 14 9 Deposition Exhibit 15 10 11 12 * CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF OBJECTIONS * 13 Page Line 14 15 Objection 11 bit y Mr. Ms . Dean Koester n H M 16 ft II ii n i H it ii 17 h II n n ii II n it 18 ii II ii ii ti 11 H ii 19 " 1* " " n 11 11 " 20 H " 11 " II w 21 11 H 12 17 15 13 19 8 27 9 30 3 31 9 41 14 45 8 46 7 49 1 71 18 72 19 73 3 78 20 22 23 24 3 33 37 39 40 42 44 46 48 49 51 52 54 62 73 74 CAT-LINKS** DISOOVERYT" JW7T7 /IK. F Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001138 4 J. DEXTER FORBES, M.D., 2 having been duly sworn, 3 was examined and testified as follows: 4 5 EXAMINATION 6 7 MR. BRODHEAD: Let the record reflect that 8 the deposition of Doctor Forbes is being taken 9 originally pursuant to agreement and has been 10 noticed subsequently. 11 Let the record further reflect that in 12 communication between counsel for Uniroyal and my 13 office, it was originally stated that Doctor Forbes 14 had to depart the airport at 4:30. Upon arriving 15 here today, I'm informed by counsel for Uniroyal 16 that Doctor Forbes has a need to conclude this 17 deposition at 2:30? is that correct? 18 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 19 MR. BRODHEAD: In view of that, I'm unable 20 to agree, although I will attempt to conclude the 21 deposition today. 22 BY MR. BRODHEAD: 23 Q. That having been stated, I would ask the doctor to 24 state his full name for the record. CAT-LINKS m DISCOVERY " /WJ 17 /fV Pittsburgh, Pa 15222 <412) 261-2323 UNIR0001139 1 A. 2 Q. 3 A. 4 Q. 5 6 A. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Q. 15 16 A. 17 18 19 Q. 20 A. 21 22 23 24 5 J. Dexter, D-e-x-t-e-r, Forbes. Doctor, what does the J stand for? John. Briefly, could you go through your formal education for me up to the time you went with Uniroyal, sir. I'm a graduate of Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania, Bachelors of Arts. I'm a graduate of Temple University, MD degree, one year rotating internship, Cooper Hospital, Camden, New Jersey; the University of Michigan for my occupational medicine residency, three years with a Master of Public Health degree during that period of time. That's the end of my formal training. And subsequent to that formal training, Doctor, what employment did you take? Well, I was in my third year of residency at General Motors Corporation in Lansing, Michigan, and that was my first full position in industry I think. In occupational medicine? That's true. Subsequent to that, I was in the Navy during the Vietnam era. And I spent two years of active duty at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, where I was a lieutenant and rose to the rank of a lieutenant commander. With the completion of that CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERYn | /|\ p Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412} 261-2323 UNIR0001140 2 Q. 3 |A. 4 5 Q. 6 ;A. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 |Q. 16 17 18 19 20 Q. 21 22 23 24 |Q. two-year period, should I keep going on? 6 Please do, Doctor. I was asked to return to the General Motors organization and maybe I should cut it off. That's okay. Go ahead. And I declined and took an opportunity with Western Electric Company. I was with that company for about a year and a half. And then, in November 1971, I took the Uniroyal opportunity as the corporate medical director. X was with Uniroyal from November 1971 until about mid year 1985 when the company went through a leverage buyout and effectively dissolving a lot of the corporate positions. I'm told you're now with Miles Laboratories? is that correct? Miles, Incorporated. And did you come to that position in mid '85? No. I joined Miles probably in the spring of 1987. Did you have an interim position? Yes, I did. I was an assistant medical director at Union Carbide Corporation, again, for about a year and a half. What are your duties position or your position CAT-LINKSTM DISCOVERYTM TtT'TJ Jm\. Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412)261-2323 UNIRO001141 1 2 A. 3 4 5 6 Q. 7 8 9 A. 10 Q. 11 12 |A. 13 14 15 16 17 18 Q. 19 20 21 22 23 24 7 presently? Well, I plan, administer, and develop and as much as possible audit the medical programs of Miles with probably the greater emphasis in the chemical division. Did you have any experience with vinyl chloride professionally speaking prior to coming with Uniroyal in November of '71? No direct professional experience. What were your duties as corporate medical director for Uniroyal? Well, that was a company when I joined it, Peter, of about 60,000 employees. That's large by standards then. It is large by standards now. I planned, developed, and administered the programs with the company. We had many locations and many employees as I've just indicated. Can you outline for me as best you can recall. Doctor, what was the chain of command, if you will, that starting from the top down to the implementation level at the individual plants, who were the persons or if you can't recall the positions, responsible for implementation of policies and procedures as they pertained to CAT-LINKSTM DISCOVERY TM 4/ fJ Pittsburgh. PA 15222 W12) 261'2323 UNIR0001142 8 employee health? A. Hell, I'd have to answer that the locations were all set up, as I recall, under a factory manager and a factory manager had his own direct reporting staffs. The medical organization at the plant level was typically, as I remember, under the industrial relations group. Industrial relations often now called personnel or human resources, but it was under the industrial relations group typically the medical group. At th#*corporate level of the medical function reported to the staff of vice-president for administration, and we were closely associated though not in direct report line with such people that you have probably come into contact with as the toxicologist, the industrial hygienist, and some of the others who would have activity to some degree in this sphere. Q. Were these people answerable to you? A. At one point and probably that needs to be defined. Q. Please do. A. The point which they became answerable to me was later on in the '70s, and I don't remember the precise date. I have to guess. It could have been 1977. It could have been as late as 1978. But CAT-LINKS * DISCOVERY /WZ~tJ /|\ fl Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261*2323 UNIR0001143 1 2 3 4 5 Q. 6 A. 7 Q. 8 A. 9 Q. 10 A. 11 12 13 14 15 16 Q. 17 A. 18 19 20 21 Q. 22 A* 23 Q. 24 A. 9 importantly, in 1971, and again, I'm thinking 'these people mutually agreed upon the definition, I'm thinking the industrial hygienist and toxicologist. You are too? In part. Are there any more I should be answering for? We'll get to that in a moment. Should I define my answer to those two? Please. Those two did report directly to Mr. Daniel Dudrow, D-u-d-r-o-w, who was I think safety and security manager in the corporate level. He then reported in kind, and, in turn, to the director of industrial relations who I think later became a vice-president of industrial relations. s And that was? I'm thinking of a Robert E. Lowell, and ultimately, Mr. Lowell reported to my common superior, the vice-president of staff administration. I think that was his title. Who was your predecessor? A Dr. Jack Wolfsie. How long did he serve? I would be guessing. I have an idea. Should I CAT-LINKS/l/nn DISCOVERYm /f\ fl Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001144 1 2 Q. 3 4 A. 5 6 7 8 9 Q. 10 11 A. 12 13 Q. 14 15 A. 16 Q. 17 18 A. 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. 10 enter it? Just roughly and understanding that you're guesstimating. Doctor. Somewhere in the mid to early '60s to 1971. My sense is that it was somewhere in this seven or eight years. I could be -- I know this won't get in the transcript, but I'm expressing kind of a guesstimate here. Understood. Doctor, do you have any knowledge as to the present whereabouts of Doctor Wolfsie? I thought he retired to Florida, but I'm not more specific in my knowledge. Did you have any overlapping meetings or tenure with Doctor Wolfsie? No, I did not. You had no personal contact with him whatsoever regarding the changing of the guard, if you will? No, I didn't, Peter. That is a good question. I knew him in the profession of occupational medicine, but I think there was a good gap of, oh, boy, I'd guess at least a half year the point where he departed to become medical director of a New York organization and I coming in the fall of 1971. Do you know the New York corporation to which he CAT-LINKS" DISCOVERY " yf/ IJ VTV f~f Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001145 1 2 A. 3 Q. 4 A. 5 Q. 6 A. 7 8 9 Q. 10 [A. 11 Q. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Q. 22 23 24 11 went? Yes. That was? Equitable Life Insurance. What was his position there? Well, I said a moment ago, medical director. He could have been assistant medical director or a title that would be akin to that. Excuse me for repeating. Surely. Was there a de facto or interim person who took that position during that half a year or so, to your knowledge? Well, in the way you put the question, first, there wasn't a named person and there was no formal intermediate person. I think like many positions where there's a vacancy, the people who best can try to answer questions, and cover things, and get the help they need, I speculate that that's the sort of thing that occurred. But there was no named person. In other words, making due with given resources until you arrived? I think so. Now, all the locations, again, had plant physicians, at least part-time contract plant CAT-LINKS'* DISCOVERY "* JWS TJ /f\ |l Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001146 12 physicians. I amend my answers to all the locations of size. Certainly, I think the ones we might be thinking about or the one we might be thinking about 4 have a part-time plant physician, and, of course, 5 we, too, at corporate headquarters had a person that 6 served us as the location physician. 7 Q. That was? 8 A. Well, when I camethat was a Dr. Philip Henry, 9 H-e-n-r-y. And, he again, was just a corporate 10 headquarters physician who was on duty, oh, an hour 11 or two a day. He did not get into matters like this 12 to my knowledge. 13 Q. Are you familiar with an entity known as Monochem? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. 16 Was it independent, to yourknowledge, from Uniroyal? 17 MR. DEAN: I object to the form of the 18 question. I think it's rather vague, but obviously 19 the witness can do the best he can with it. 20 A. It would be hard to say independent as such. It was 21 jointly owned to my knowledge. And I think that it 22 was a 50/50 ownership of the Borden Company and the 23 Uniroyal, Incorporated group. 24 BY MR. BRODHEAD: CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERY TM ME Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001147 1 Q. 2 3 A. 4 5 6 Q. 7 B 9 A. 10 Q. 11 A. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 |Q. 21 22 23 24 13 Was that entity, that is, Monochem, part of your responsibility in any regard to your knowledge? Only indirectly, and in the sense of a 50 percent interest in the business of the Borden interest understood too. Did you become involved in the overseeing of the health and safety of the Monochem employees in any respect? I would say more indirectly than in Painsville. How so? What Is the distinction? Well, there are several distinctions. One is the 50 percent ownership situation. Secondly, it became rather apparent early on that in terms of this situation at hand with vinyl chloride -- and I suppose you would like me to answer in regard to the perspective to that -- I accepted and the industry learned that the exposures in the production of the vinyl chloride monomer such as was the duty of the Monochem plant. That being an outdoor facility, correct? An outdoor facility and rather controlled in terms of releases. The exposures there were very, very low and though when this news first hit in early 1974 about the disclosed Goodrich cases, I think the CAT-LINKS" DISCOVERY" /1f7i 77 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001148 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Q. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Q. 20 k. 21 Q. 22 23 24 |A. 14 industry properly looked at everything from monomer production, to polymerization, to fabrication probably into the end of consumer product use. I think it soon became apparent that the monomer production did not produce appreciable exposures. Consequently, to answer your question, my duties were really directed more to Painsville. May I fairly infer, Doctor, from your answer, that given the nature of the production that it was outdoors, and the way it was set up, that ambient levels would be far lower and different than they would be at Painsville; is that correct? I think that's correct. Did you ever visit the Monochem facility? I think I must have, but I'm trying to recall how many times. I'm not exactly sure. But I visited that complex. So that it is just questionable how many times I actually visited the Monochem facility. Was that an acetylene based production? I believe it was. Do you have any knowledge of the fact that Uniroyal produced its own vinyl chloride monomer at Painsville prior to the creation of Monochem? I have no knowledge about that. CAT-LINKS " DISCOVERYTM ytx 17 y~fV fT Pittsburgh. PA 15222 (412)261-2323 UNIR0001149 * 1 15 1 3$, Do you regard vinyl chloride as a toxic chemical? 2 MR. DEAN: Excuse me. Today? 3 MR. BRODHEAD: Sure. 4 A. Well, I would have to regard it today as a toxic 5 chemical. 6 BY MR. BRODHEAD: 7 Q- When you came to Uniroyal in 1971, what other 8 chemicals were being worked with regularly or 9 produced that you would today regard as toxic other 10 11 A. 12 Q. 13 than vinyl chloride, if you can recall. Doctor? That I would regard today as being toxic? Yes, today. MS. KOESTERx I object to the relevancy. 14 15 A. 16 Go ahead. That's a very large question. MR. DEAN: I'm not sure I understand. The 17 products just used at the Painsville plant that he 18 would regard as toxic? 19 MR. BRODHEAD: No, among the whole realm. 20 A. 21 22 23 24 I could give you examples, but I wouldn't profess to give you a comprehensive list that was all inclusive. To lead things off> we worked with lead. benzene, acrylonitrile, asbestos. And for heaven's sake, not all in the same place, but in a different CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERYw A/ J Pittsburgh, PA 16222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001150 1 operation. 16 2 BY MR. BRODHEAD: 3 3. There was acrylonitrile as well at the Painsville 4 plant, was there not? 5 A. I believe that there was some operation in that 6 area, yes. 7 3. But not lead or asbestos? 8 A. 9 Lead I think not, asbestos, as you may know, has become an issue because of its ubiquitous character. 10 So to say there was no lead -- no asbestos 11 somewhere, I would say not in production. 12 3. Of course insulation application? 13 A. In insulation matters. But in answer to your 14 question, I don't know of any production that 15 16 3. involved asbestos use in Painsville. When you arrived in November of 1971, did Uniroyal 17 have in place or at its disposal the availability of 18 medical literature with respect to these substances 19 you've just described, including vinyl chloride? 20 MS. KOESTER: You're talking about the 21 list that he just gave you? 22 BY MR. BRODHEAD: 23 Q. Yes, Doctor. 24 A. Did Uniroyal have available -- I guess I'm just CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERY T" ME Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIRO001151 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Q. 19 20 21 22 lA. 23 24 |Q. 17 restating your question. You know, if I could use an analogy, it's like asking me whether a law firm had available information and a composite knowledge of the lawyers in that group as a reflection of their own training, background, experience, education, their own armamentarium of literature, journals, and books. So in that combined sense, I would say, yes, there was a knowledge base that probably the company had in some respects and In some respects the knowledge base that I had. It's probably, fair to say that all of the substances I've named had a great swelling of information in terms of what we learned about them in the '70s and '80s. So that your fund of knowledge in 1971, as you just asked me by today's standards, for probably all of them, would be judged now to be incomplete. To your knowledge, when you arrived in November of 1971, did Uniroyal undertake to compile world literature concerning the harmful effects of vinyl chloride exposure? Did we attempt to compile it? Not at that time to my knowledge. The same question, except at that time, did anyone CAT-LINKSm DISCOVERY TM 4/ WJ Pittsburgh. PA 15222 (412)261-2323 UNIR0001152 1 2 3 4 A. 5 6 7 8 9 10 Q. 11 A. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 18 at Uniroyal attempt to familiarize his or herself with the existing world literature concerning the harmful effects of vinyl chloride? I think from the early '70s on there was a concerted effort to be on top of the situation. And I feel that our toxicologists was -- had strived to be in complete touch as complete touch as he could be over the subject and the developments in the world research theater. Would it be -- excuse me. I would amend my answer about being on top of vinyl chloride information in 1971 to say I certainly believe to say, and I knew this to be the case, that Dr. Walter Harris was completing versed on the acroosteolysis threat that was perceived to be a problem in some companies. I'm not sure that our Painsville plant, the PVC plant ever did register a single case of this have however. But he was in touch on the world literature on this. In the early '70s then produced more mileage in the animal theater. Up until the 1974, early in the year disclosure that there were human things as well. CAT-LINKSTM DISCOVERY TM 7MZT7 /|\ Pittsburgh. PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001153 19 1 Q. May I correctly infer from your answer that, Doctor, 2 that it was beginning in the early '70s, that to 3 your knowledge at least, personnel at Uniroyal, 4 either through Doctor Harris or otherwise, began to 5 familiarize itself with and/or compile existing 6 world literature concerning the harmful effects of 7 vinyl chloride exposure? 8 MS. KOESTER: I'm going to object to the 9 question. That shows an inaccurate statement of his 10 testimony. 11 BY MR. BRODHEAD: 12 Q. You may answer. Doctor. 13 A. Well, I'm bothered by the way you've placed it, 14 Peter, because when you say compile, it seems to me 15 a systemic effort to function almost like a 16 librarian and organize blocks of information. That 17 connotes a concerted effort to do just that. 18 When you do that, as opposed to trying to 19 be in touch with an issue, you're doing two 20 different things. And I would say we were in touch 21 with the issues and my predecessors were in touch 22 with the acroosteolysis developments of the mid '60s 23 which preceded my arrival. 24 Q. The Dinman study? CAT-LINKS m DISCOVERY /Wy' W 7 /ft F Pittsburgh, PA 15222 1412) 261*232$ UNIR0001154 1 A. 2 3 4 5 Q. 6 7 A. 8 Q. 9 A. 10 Q. 11 A. 12 'Q. 13 A. 14 'Q. 15 A. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Q24 A. 20 The University of Michigan study which probably was the Dinman study. And I think too Doctor Harris was in touch and communicated well with what he knew about the animal research chiefly going on in Italy. Did Doctor Harris, in, fact go to Italy to Professor Maltoni's laboratories? I think he did at one point. Are you familiar with the MCA? Yes, I know about the MCA. Were you yourself active in that organization? I would say I was not. That is the Manufacturing of Chemists Association? That's right, who -- Let me say I was not in the sense I wasn't the principal company representative. it would be inaccurate to say that I never went to a MCA meeting. I believe there were special meetings called that may have summoned physicians if they were available in companies to come meet. I could have been to several of those. I think I was to several of those. Regarding vinyl chloride? Yes. CAT-LINKS TM ' DISCOVERY TM yf/ IJ /fV fl Pittsburgh, PA 15222 <412) 261-2323 UNIR0001155 1 Q* 2 A. 3 4 Q. 5 6 7 A. 8 9 10 Q- 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Beginning when? 21 I'd have to think, but it seems to me it was probably to be sure some time after January 1974. All right. In other words, your involvement with the MCA would be after NIOSH was informed about the angiosarcomas at the Louisville plant? I believe that would be accurate. In searching my memories prior to today, I can't recall of any previous involvement. Generally speaking. Doctor, from the time you began in November of 1971 at Uniroyal, would it be your prerogative or someone else's prerogative to conceive and undertake to implement protective measures in the work environment at the plant level with respect to exposure to vinyl chloride? After the point of arrival, would that have been my prerogative? Yes, Doctor. Is that the question? Yes, Doctor. It would not have been chiefly mine. In fact, I really don't think it would have been mine at all functionally. That would have been more the domain of safety and industrial hygiene. GAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERY " ^7T7 /|V fl Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001156 1 Q. 2 3 A. 4 5 6 7 8 9 Q. 10 A. 11 12 13 Q. 14 A. 15 16 A. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Q. 22 All right. And the people at that time were who, that is, at the corporate level? At the corporate level, there's corporate safety manager who, of course, is the person who was the superior of the two gentlemen I mentioned, the industrial hygienist, the corporate industrial hygienist, Lawrence Deringer, LF Deringer. Do you need the spelling? No, thank you. Where is he located? Well, he did live in Mewton -- he did live in a small Connecticut town near Middlebury, New Town, Connecticut. I don't know where he is right now. Was he with Uniroyal at the time you started? Yes, he was. And then Dr. Walter Harris. MR. DEAN: Excuse me. He would have been the toxicologist, I'm sorry Doctor Harris, to correct my answer, is the toxicologist, although he reports to Mr. Dudrow and did report to Mr. Dudrow, correction, although he reported to Mr. Dudrow during the period 1971 to, as I said, '77 or '78, remember, I wasn't sure of the latter date, the involvement of Doctor Harris in this answer is inaccurate. Please, clarify. CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERY TM J/TJ /f\ fl Pittsburgh. PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001157 23 1 A. The safety manager was Mr. Dudrow, and his safety 2 members, and the industrial hygienist was Dr. 3 Lawrence Deringer, Mr. Deringer, correct? 4 MR. DEAN: Off the record. 5 6 (Whereupon, there was a discussion off 7 the record.) 8 9 BY MR. BRODHEAD: 10 Q. Would it then be safe to say, forgive me if T'm 11 confused, Doctor, would it then be safe to say that 12 with respect to the prerogative to implement, 13 conceive and implement protective measures at the 14 plant level with respect to toxic exposure to vinyl 15 chloride at the time of your arrival in November 16 1971 that would have been in the hands in one 17 respect or another of Mr. Dudrow, Mr. Deringer, and 18 Mr. Harris, or Doctor Harris? 19 A. That is an incomplete answer. I feel it needs to be 20 clarified because I believe as stated personal 21 protective measures would more typically come from, 22 again, the safety group, the industrial hygiene 23 group, but there is a character of the strong 24 recommendation of the toxicologist perhaps entering CAT-LINKSm DISCOVERY m /tf 17 JM\ I' Pittsburgh, PA 15222 <412) 261-2323 UNIR0001158 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Q. 18 19 A. 20 21 22 Q. 23 A. 24 Q. 24 into it. But I think the two others need to be particularly brought into a role of greater emphasis. The second reason that answer needs refinement is the fact that in none of these answers, if we really considered the importance of the location, certainly they were charged with a knowledge of what was going on at the site of any problems with housekeeping, with ventilation, any readings that they might be involved in that could be reason to act upon. They would have first knowledge of this. This is why you have location people. So I guess the fuller answer is the combination of your corporate and location people must work together. Corporate would more likely conceive and the plant or the local would implement; is that correct? I think that that's fairly accurate. You know there are instances where it could come the other way, somebody sees something. The information flows the other way? * Surely, surely. The safety group was headed by whom? CAT-LINKSTM DISCOVERY TM 77~J /fV fl Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001159 1 A. 2 3 4 Q. 5 6 7 A. 8 Q. 9 10 A. 11 Q. 12 13 A. 14 Q. 15 16 A. 17 Q. 18 19 20 A. 21 Q. 22 23 A. 24 25 That was Robert G. Havener, H-a-v-e-n-e-r. I apologize. That was the principal safety person under Mr. Dudrow. And then, of course, with respect to hygiene that would be Deringer's domain and as to toxicology that would be Doctor Harris; is that correct? Yes, that's right. Are you familiar with the ACGIH, the American Conference of Government and Industrial Hygienists? Yes, I've heard of that group. Do you have any specific knowledge as to its history or how it was formed? I don't have a good recollection at this point. Are you familiar with the concept threshold limit value? Yes, I am. What was the thresholdlimit value for vinyl chloride in the work environment as of your coining on board in November of '71? I think it was 500 parts per million. Was that a time weighted average or an absolute ceiling? I think it may have. I'm just thinking. I think at first it might have been a time weighted average, _____________________________________ m____________________________________ _ mCAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERY 79S WJ /f\ ff Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (4121261-2323 UNIR0001160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 but later time it became appreciated as a ceiling value. I am not sure whether it was recognized to be a ceiling value in November of '71 or whether it could have been just a time weighted average at that point. I'm pretty certain that at some point the 500 was accepted as a ceiling value. Doctor, I'm going to represent to you that the ACGIH formed a committee on threshold limit values in June 1938. I'm further going to represent to you that there is a work written by a WG Frederick entitled: The birth of the ACGIH threshold limit values committee and its influence on the development of industrial hygiene. I'm going to further to read to you from Mr. Frederick's work, and I quote: "I feel that a committee like ours representing nearly all of the government enforcing agencies could, with justification, establish arbitrary limits which appear reasonable for different classes of material which as yet have been inadequately or not at all investigated from the standpoint of the industrial toxicologist. The fact that some folks will disagree with such values should do much to CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERYTM 7M7^WJ /l\ f"T Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412)261-2323 UNIRO001161 27 1 stimulate the needed research and investigation." 2 My question to you, Doctor, is that from 3 the time that you came on board in November of 1971 4 until OSHA's intervention in 1974 what, if any, 5 stimulation or experimentation occurred within 6 Uniroyal through industrial toxicology or otherwise 7 to assess the adequacy of the 500 part per million 8 TLV? 9 MRS. KOESTER: I object. Go ahead you may 10 answer. 11 THE WITNESS: Did you object? 12 MRS. KOESTER: Yes. You could go ahead 13 and answer under my objection. 14 A. I think the best answer to that and the accurate 15 answer is that the work of Doctor Harris was one in 16 which he was remaining in touch as best an American 17 industry person could be in touch with international 18 activity in the animal area. You're talking rats, 19 and possibly mice, and hamsters. But I think rats 20 is principally and that was the work of Viola and 21 Maltoni whom you mentioned. 22 BY MR. BRODHEAD: 23 Q. Correct. 24 A. I believe that Doctor Harris issued a memorandum CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERY * /%f 1'J /|V fi Pittsburgh, Pa 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001162 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B Q. 9 10 A. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Q. 20 21 22 23 A. 24 Q. 28 some time in 1972 that will verify that, in fact, his feeling was that we ought to move toward 50 part per million. And he recommended strongly that we adopt that as our standard. So I think that evidence is that Uniroyal was mindful that we ought to try to come in at a tenth of what the recognized ACGIH level was. Was that recommendation in response to any particular laboratory data? Well, I can't recall if it was in response to any particular data, but again, you operate under the collective sum of your knowledge and the way it's pushing you. And I believe that his feeling was that, based upon the development of the tumors in the Viola and the Maltoni studies, that we had to go on that way. Even though we didn't have any human evidence and this was the best policy, best approach. Would you defer to Doctor Harris, whose deposition is presently scheduled, as to whether or not he did indeed issue such a recommendation as to when he, in fact, if at all, issued such a recommendation? By deferring, do you mean withdraw my statement? Not withdraw but would you concede he would have CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERY yf/ |7 f"f Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001163 1 2 3 A. 4 5 Q. 6 7 8 9 10 11 A. 12 13 14 Q. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A. 23 Q. 24 29 superior knowledge as to the particulars of what you have just stated? I would say that as the originator of the recommendation, probably would, yes. Let's go back to the 500 part per million TLV. In November 1971, to your knowledge, what equipment, if at all, existed at the Painsville plant which was capable of monitoring whether or not the work environment did, in fact, comport with the TLV limit? .1 don't know what equipment they had at that time. I would have to ask industrial hygiene. And I would have asked at that time that question. Hr. Ben Leech has already been deposed in this matter and has testified that prior to the OSHA intervention that there existed no equipment at the Painsville plant which monitored vinyl chloride levels other than those for explosiveness limits. My question to you. Doctor, is do you have any information, as you sit here today, which would contradict that statement? I'm not able to add to that statement at all or -- Would it be a fair statement then. Doctor, that so far as you know, there was no equipment at the CAT-LINKS DISCOVERY TM JKF Pittsburgh. PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001164 30 1 Painsville plant prior to OSHA intervention which 2 monitored for the 500 part per million TLV? 3 MS. KOESTER: Objection. 4 BY MR. BRODHEAD: 5 Q. You may answer. Doctor. 6 A. I would, to use your term, I think deferral to 7 Mr. Leech would be the best answer here. 8 Q. Fair enough. Thank you. Assuming for the sake of 9 the question, your memory to be accurate concerning 10 Harris's 50 part per million recommendation, might i 11 infer from your previous answers that was, in fact, 12 * not implemented until after OSHA intervention? 13 A. It would be hard to say at this point in time with 14 the passage of 18 years that it was or was not 15 implemented when somebody makes a statement and a 16 recommendation that we move as a goal to this level, 17 I feel you're talking about a target. You're 18 talking about an objective. You're talking about 19 trying to move toward a desired result. 20 To implement suggests that you're there 21 and you fulfilled it. That's inconsistent with 22 moving toward a target. You have to move toward it 23 before you get there. And that was what Walter 24 Harris's recommendations were in 1972. I can't CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERYw O Pittsburgh. PA 15222 <412) 261,2328 UNIR0001165 * * 31 1 remember the month. But he felt that we needed to 2 be In tract to do this. 3 So I feel at the corporate level, there 4 was an awareness, and a commitment, and an interest 5 in human health as expressed by that. 6 Q. As you sit here today, are you able to tell me 7 whether or not that 50 part per million monitoring 8 was implemented prior to OSHA intervention? 9 MS. KOESTER: I'll object. I think it's 10 the same question. 11 A. 12 Monitoring, well, a lot of the monitoring at that time, if as you've stated, if it did, in fact, not 13 exist at the locations, depended upon the corporate 14 and industrial hygienist. I, therefore, would 15 conclude that if any monitoring was conducted in the 16 absence of plant equipment, it would have had to 17 have been done by the plant industrial hygienist. 18 the corporate industrial hygienist, excuse me. 19 BY MR. BRODHEAD: 20 Q. 21 A. 22 Q. Mr. Deringer? And there was only one corporate hygienist. That was Mr. Deringer? 23 A. 24 Yes, I'm sorry, yes. I would conclude, and it's only speculation, that there might have been some CAT-LINKS ~ DISCOVERYTM /tynr] f1\ Ml Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412)261-2323 UNIR0001166 1 2 3 Q. 4 5 6 7 8 A. 9 Q. 10 11 A. 12 13 Q. 14 15 16 A. 17 18 Q. 19 20 21 22 23 A. 24 32 measuring done in that period of time on the corporate basis, but X don't recall the data. As of the time you began in November of '71 and up until OSHA intervention, are you aware that any data was collected at the Painsville plant with respect to what were the levels of ambient vinyl chlorides to which the workers were being exposed? Again, what was the time frame of the question? After you began in November of 1971 and before OSHA intervention. Now, OSHA intervention, in terms of the permanent standard was in the fall of 1974. No, I mean, when they began to come into the plants in the winter of '74, excuse me, the early months of 1974? I could tell you there was a great deal of measuring in 1974. You would expect that to be the case. But what I want to know is before OSHA set foot in the plant to begin discussion of ambient levels, what was it, if anything, that Uniroyal had done on its own prerogative without government prodding to measure the ambient levels of vinyl chloride? I would have to go back and be shown documents of measurements in '72 or '73 or very, very late in CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERY w JKF Pittsburgh, PA 10222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001167 33 1 1971. I don't have a recollection of those pieces 2 3 Q. right now. Right. 4 A. And I think there might be some better people to 5 6 Q. answer that question. Such as Doctor Harris? 7 A. Possibly so, yes. 8 Q. 9 A. 10 Q. Or Mr. Deringer? Or perhaps questions handled by Mr. Leech. Fair enough. 11 A. Although I don't remember when hearrived at 12 Painsville. 13 14 (Document marked for identification 15 Deposition Exhibit No. 1.) 16 17 BY MR. BRODHEAD: 18 Q. Doctor, I'm showing you what has been marked Exhibit 19 1, and they're all preceded by your last name. 20 Doctor, this is a document which purports to be 21 entitled a Bibliography on Vinyl Chloride Prepared 22 by the Office of Occupational Health Surveillance 23 and Biometrics and the Office of Research and 24 Standards Development, National Institute for CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERY " ME Pittsburgh. PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001168 % 1; 2 3 4 A. 5 Q. 6 A. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Q. 15 16 A. 17 Q. 18 19 20 A. 21 Q. 22 23 24 A. Occupational Safety and Health, May 22, 1974. 34 Have I correctly identified that document, Doctor? That's correct. Have you seen it prior to today? i'm going to take a moment to review it. Well, it looks like a collection of pages that are not in any kind of order. Page 1 or so is in the back, which is numbered Page 79. It is next to the end of the packet. Page 80 is about the first page of the document. So I don't know whether the document is complete. And I don't remember if I ever saw it before. I'll concede to you. Doctor, that the pages are out of order. It looks comprehensive. But my point is it's more with reference to the fact that NIOSH had prepared a bibliography which is dated May of 1974? That's right, that's what it says. As best you can recall, had you ever been provided with a bibliography with respect to the harmful effects of vinyl chloride by NIOSH? I don't see any cover letter on this, and a fair CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERY w /MS'WJ Jm\ M' Pittsburgh. PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001169 1 2 3 4 Q. 5 A. 6 7 8 9 10 Q. 11 12 13 A. 14 Q. 15 16 17 A. 18 19 20 21 Q. 22 A. 23 Q. 24 A. 35 answer to your question, if this were to have come in to Uniroyal, I don't know to whom it was directed. Would it not likely go to you? There's a possibility that it would, again, go to Doctor Harris or anybody else who might have been deemed a person who should receive this. It's possible it could have even come into a business manager. I've reorganized the pages. And it begins with a list of journal abbreviations and the pagination continues through Page 9. Yes. Now that I've fixed the page numbering, does that appear to be, as best you can tell, a complete document? Well, I'm not able to tell because it jumps around so much and to try to pick up a chronology through the numbers is not going to work. It appears to be alphabetized. And the pagination is in sequence? No. It jumps around. The page numbers. ^ I'm sorry. I'm just looking at the other numbers. CAT-LINKS * DISCOVERY TWT^TJ /|V fi Pittsburgh, PA 15222 <412) 261-2323 UNIR0001170 36 1 The pages are okay, but it no longer has Page 79 or 2 80. They've been taken out. 3 It goes up to Page 9? 4 Yeah, but you've removed a couple of pages. 5 My suggestion to you is that I have erroneously put 6 them in there. 7 Yes, what were they a part of? 8 I apologize for that. This is a list of 26 9 references. If you want to mark those separately, 10 I'll be happy to do that as Exhibit 2. 11 They are not part of the bibliography then. 12 MR. BRODHEAD: Off the record. 13 14 (Whereupon, there was a discussion off 15 the record.) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 UNIR0001171 1 Q. 2 A. 3 Q. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A. 24 37 NIOSH through -- Do you know? Excuse me. I'm trying to answer your question. NIOSH through the Federal Register was attempting to compile information. I have such a document. It is marked as Exhibit 2. And it states in part that: Any person having information or data which is not readily available in open scientific literature in any of the areas listed above. I'll show the document momentarily, Doctor, or in any other area which the person considers relevant to the establishment of a safe and healthful occupational environment involving the agent set forth above is invited to submit such information with accompanying documentation to the assistant director for research and standards development. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and gives the address after that. And it is signed by Marcus M. Key. I'll show you the document. Have I correctly identified that, Doctor, Exhibit 2? Yes. CAT-LINKSTM DISCOVERY TM /|V fl Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001172 38 1 (Document marked for identification 2 Deposition Exhibit No. 2.) 3 4 BY MR. BRODHEAD: 5 Q. Now that you've seen it, do you have any 6 recollection of having previously seen the document? 7 A. I don't recall seeing this. I don't remember. 8 Q. NIOSH documentation subsequently reveals that there 9 were three, and three only, responses received; one 10 was from the Manufacturing Chemists Association 11 dated March 7th, 1973, and contained their 12 recommended precautionary label as stated from their 13 chemical safety data sheet, SD-566, the 1972 14 revision. The second was from the Mine Safety 15 Appliance Company, March 16, 1973, and provided 16 information on methods for sampling and analyzing 17 for vinyl chloride. The third and last response was 18 received from the Industrial Safety Equipment 19 Association, May 3rd, 1973 and provided 20 recommendations on the use of personnel protective 21 respiratory equipment for exposure to vinyl chloride 22 at concentrations in excess of 200 parts per 23 million. 24 My question to you, Doctor, is: Do you CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERY" /WS 17 Aj\Jj Pittsburgh. PA 15222 <412) 261,2323 UNIR0001173  b 39 1 recall whether or not there were any discussions at 2 Uniroyal of which or to which you were privy wherein 3 the NIOSH requests and its bulletin was discussed? 4 A. I don't recall such meetings/ but organizationally/ 5 this does not mean it might not have occurred. 6 Again, with my telling you earlier, and in the 7 record, that the industrial hygienist and the 8 corporate toxicologist reported to the safety 9 organization, it'6 not clear to me, in addition to 10 memory being a problem over 18 years, as would be 11 expected, understood I hope, that whether these 12 things took place or not in each and every aspect, I 13 can't say. I might not have been able to say the 14 15 Q. same day. I understand. Doctor. I'm only asking to the best 16 that you can recall? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Your caveat is well understood. 19 A. Okay, good. 20 - - - - 21 (Document marked for identification 22 Deposition Exhibit No. 3.) 23 - - - - 24 BY MR. BRODHEAD: CAT-UNKS ~ DISCOVERY TM /7fTiSr~T'J Pittsburgh. PA 16222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001174 1 Q. 40 I've marked as Exhibit 3 just the section from the 2 NIOSH literature which chronicles the portion I've 3 read to you? 4 A. 5 Q. I see that. Do you understand that I've read to you from the 6 document? 7 A. Yes, that's true. 8 Q. Thank you very much. Doctor, I asked you or 9 mentioned the name of Dr. Marcus Key, does that ring 10 a bell with you? 11 jA. 12 13 |Q. Yes, he was I guess the director or chief of NIOSH during that period. Have you met the man personally? 14 |A. I think some years later, I did meet Doctor Key. I 15 don't know how many years later, but it strikes me 16 it was some time later on in the '70s. 17 18 (Document marked for identification 19 Deposition Exhibit No. 4.) 20 21 BY MR. BRODHEAD: 22 Q. Doctor, I'm showing you what has been marked Exhibit 23 4. It purports to be a clipping from the Washington 24 Post dated Monday, May 20th, 1974. The headline is: CAT-LINKS DISCOVERY jj\ h* Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (4121 261-2323 UNIR0001175 41 1 Mono chloride linked to cancer. Chemical hazard 2 kept quiet. 3 My question to you. Doctor, is a specific 4 one, and I'll show you the document and allow you to 5 answer. In the second column, it states that: In 6 January, 1973, five months after Maltoni found the 7 first rat angiosarcoma, a team of three US Chemical 8 Industry scientists visited him in Bologna to Xearn 9 about his work. 10 My question to you. Doctor, is: Is that 11 visit what we might have or what I referred to 12 previously, which has Doctor Harris going to 13 Professor Maltonirs laboratory? 14 15 A. 16 MS. KOESTER: I'll object. I don't know when Doctor Harris visited Doctor Maltoni specifically. 17 BY MR. BRODHEAD: 18 Q. Doctor, I understand completely that we're working 19 with 18 years of memory. And 1 understand further 20 that some of these questions are taxing your memory 21 or you simply can't answer. But my last question to 22 you on this document is: Are you able to state that 23 it is your recollection or not your recollection 24 that Doctor Harris went to Professor Maltoni's CAT-LINKS w DISCOVERY TM IWjT f J /|\ fl Pittsburgh. PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001176 1 laboratory in January of 19737 42 2 A. I'm unable to state the time of that visit. And I'm 3 unable to state there were additional people with 4 him, and if there were, who they were. I just don't 5 recall. 6 7 (Document marked for identification 8 Deposition Exhibit No. 5.) 9 10 BY MR. BRODHEAD: 11 Q. Thank you, Doctor. Doctor, I'm showing you what is 12 marked Exhibit 5. It's an article called: The 13 Vinyl Chloride Disease. And the author's name shown 14 is PL Viola. It shows the summer of 1970. Have I 15 correctly identified that document? 16 A. You have. *' 17 Q. Would you look at it briefly and see if it appears 18 to be a complete copy of the article. 19 A. Some of the copying raises question because the 20 pagination gets dropped. It goes from ten to an 21 unnamed page, unnamed unnumbered page, unnumbered, 22 now to 14. It sounds good. 23 Q. That's logical? 24 A. It sounds good, and I have not, to my knowledge, CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERY 7TS11 7*fV fi Pittsburgh. PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001177 1 2 3 Q. 4 A. 5 Q. 6 7 A. 8 Q. 9 10 |A. 11 Q. 12 13 14 15 16 A. 17 Q. 18 A. 19 Q. 20 A. 21 22 Q. 23 24 43 seen this. I don't remember seeing it. I'm flipping through it fast here. It appears to be a complete copy, does it not? it could be. There's nothing that you see which overtly demonstrates to you that it is not a complete copy? Right. I think you've answered my next question, you're not familiar with it? I don't remember ever seeing it. Doctor, do you have any recollection as to whether or not there was an international conference on oncology in Houston in Hay of 1970 at which Doctor Viola presented the findings which are demonstrated in the paper, which is Exhibit 5? I actually have no knowledge of that. That was before your tenure? I was with another company at that time. Would I be better off asking Doctor Harris? I think that would probably be a better direction for that question. Doctor, is it your understanding that NIOSH was first informed about angiosarcomas related to vinyl chloride on or about January 22nd, 1974 by BF CAT-LINKS w DISCOVERY TM /f IJ /|\ j"f Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001178 1 Goodrich people? 44 2 A. It sounds like a very good date, although I can't 3 attest to it being the date. It strikes me 4 somewhere in the 20s of January, 1974. 5 6 (Document marked for identification 7 Deposition Exhibit No. 6.) 8 9 BY MR. BRODHEAD: 10 Q. 11 12 Doctor, I have marked Exhibit 6, which it's a letter from J. William Lloyd, director of Office of occupational health of surveillance and biometrics. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. 15 16 For the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, specifically NIOSH. Are you familiar with Doctor Lloyd? 17 I do remember the name at this point as the name I 18 heard. I forget his position in NIOSH. I guess his 19 title is there in the letter. 20 Correct. In this letter, Doctor Lloyd refers to a 21 meeting between NIOSH and the Manufacturing Chemists 22 Association, that is MCA of July 17th, 1973. My 23 question is: Do you have any knowledge of that 24 meeting. Doctor? CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERYTM /IV fl Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412)261-2323 UNIR0001179 45 1 A. Let me just kind of work with this in front of me. 2 Q. Sure. 3 A. No, I don't have any knowledge of that meeting. 4 Q. In that letter. Doctor Lloyd also indicates that he 5 was, that is, NIOSH, was never informed of the 6 angiosarcoma evidence of Doctor Haltoni prior to 7 January 22nd of 1974; is that correct? 8 MS. KOESTER: I'm going to object. I 9 mean, he stated he doesn't remember this letter. 10 |A. I don't remember this letter and I don't see where 11 that's stated. 12 MR. BRODHEAD: Let me see if I can help 13 you. Let's go off the record for just one second. 14 15 (Whereupon, there was a discussion off 16 the record.) 17 18 Would you restate your question, please. 19 BY MR. BRODHEAD: 20 Q. Sure. All I'm trying to establish, Doctor, is that 21 apparently, according to Doctor Lloyd, there was 22 some confusion as to whether a representative of 23 NIOSH was present with some industry representatives 24 in Doctor Maltoni's laboratory. Doctor Lloyd CAT-LINKST" DISCOVERY ME Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001180 46 1 apparently clears it up that there was not? 2 A. 3 Q. I understand. And furthermore indicates that until the BF Goodrich 4 Louisville angiosarcomas was brought to his 5 attention, NIOSH had no knowledge of angiosarcomas; 6 is that correct? 7 MS. KOESTERs Objection, foundation. You 8 can answer. 9 BY MR. BRODHEAD: 10 Q. If you understand. 11 A. He seems to be saying that. 12 Q. All right. Thank you, Doctor. I'll try to move on 13 and see if we can finish before 2:30. 14 15 (Document marked for identification 16 Deposition Exhibit No. 7.) 17 18 BY MR. BRODHEAD: 19 Q. I'm showing you what has been marked as Exhibit 7, 20 Doctor. It's a June 4th, 1974 letter to Mr. Marvin 21 Rowlands, of the American Medical News from Marcus 22 Key. 23 A. And director of NIOSH I trust still. 24 Q. Correct. He says in the first paragraph, he refers wCAT-LINKS DISCOVERY TM ME Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIRO001181 47 1 to rather, a Russian study concerning the harmful 2 effects of vinyl chloride exposure in 1949, and in 3 general, the tenor of the letter, he's trying to 4 clear up some confusion as to dates of when what 5 occurred. 6 My question to you is a specific one. 7 Doctor, and that is, when, if at all, were you first 8 aware of a Russian study concerning vinyl chloride 9 exposure in 1949? 10 You would have to familiarize me with more of that 11 reference because I don't recall a particular study 12 you're citing. 13 Might I do better to take that up with Doctor 14 Harris? 15 Perhaps. 16 All right. 17 And, again, with Russian studies, again, I wonder 18 during that time era whether it was published and 19 recognized journals, availability becomes a 20 question. You can appreciate things have certainly 21 changed today in terms of getting knowledge out of 22 that country, but I just don't know what the 23 situation was at that time. 24 It could be relevant to how much CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERY TM 7T7T7 /|1 fl Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001182 48 1 information one might be expected to know in the 2 free world at that time. Now, that's an answer from 3 somebody who is unfamiliar with the study, so I 4 would direct that to Doctor Harris. 5 6 (Document marked for identification 7 Deposition Exhibit No. 8.) 8 9 BY MR. BRODHEAD: 10 Doctor, I'm showing you what is marked Exhibit 8, 11 which is a letter to Dr. Marcus Key from Professor 12 Maltoni. I'm reading from the first paragraph on 13 the second page in which he states quote: "As far 14 as your specific inquiry is concerned, may I point 15 out that I never stated that NIOSH knew of 16 experimental evidence because a representative came 17 to Bologna on any occasion. It appears that there 18 may have been some misapprehension arising from 19 confusion between information received and an actual 20 visit to Bologna. 21 My question to you is a simple one. 22 Doctor: Does that seem to comport and confirm the 23 fact that there was not a NIOSH representative 24 present in Maltoni's laboratory in January of '73? CAT-LINKSTM DISCOVERY TM TWT^TD fa\ M' Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001183 49 1 MS. KOESTER: Objection, foundation. 2 \. Where is that wording in the letter again? I'd like 3 to read the phraseology. 4 BY MR. BRODHEAD: 5 3. Sure. 6 Thank you. It would appear that he's saying he 7 never stated that NIOSH knew of experimental 8 9 3. evidence because a representative came to Bologna. Right. In other words, he never made a 10 representation that there was, in fact, a NIOSH 11 representative there, correct? 12 MS. KOESTER: You're asking if that's his 13 interpretation of the letter? 14 MR. BRODHEAD: Yes. 15 H. It would appear that that could be one 16 interpretation. 17 BY MR. BRODHEAD: 18 3. Thank you. Doctor. And I understand that this is a 19 letter you probably have not seen before, correct? 20 k. Oh, no. I certainly was not copied. 21 22 (Document marked for identification 23 Deposition Exhibit No. 9.) CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERY TM jkf Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001184 MR. BRODHEAD: 50 Doctor, I'm showing you what has been marked as Exhibit 9, and which is a letter of May 28th, 1974 4 to Mr. Richard Kenyon, acting editor. Chemical and 5 Engineering News from Dr. Marcus Key, assistant 6 surgeon general and director of NIOSH. 7 The last paragraph on the first page 8 indicates: That in July 17th, 1973, Doctor Key and 9 several members of his staff met at MCA's request in 10 the Parklawn building with an MCA delegation which 11 included representatives of a Imperial Chemical 12 Industries, Ethyl Corporation, Dow Chemical 13 Corporation, and Union Carbide Corporation. 14 Was Doctor Harris involved in the MCA 15 committee as it related to vinyl chloride? 16 He was involved in MCA work related to the vinyl 17 chloride. When you say the committee, I'm not sure 18 whether at the point of expansion of our concern 19 whether there could have been possibly several 20 committees. So T do note the absence of Uniroyal 21 there, so that he was involved, but apparently he 22 wasn't involved with this particular group. 23 Right. My question was it really a general -- 24 It's very vague because it says an MCA delegation, CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERY TKT'JM /fV f~T Pittsburgh, PA 15222 {412} 261-2323 UNIR0001185 51 1 so one does not know the composition of that 2 delegation. That's not very precise in the letter. 3 4 (Document marked for identification 5 Deposition Exhibit No. 10.) 6 7 MR. BRODHEAD: 8 All right. I'll try to get precise then. Doctor. 9 I'm showing you what is marked as Exhibit 10. I'm 10 representing to you. Doctor, that Doctor Keith 11 Jacobson was a member of that delegation on behalf 12 of NIOSH, and that what is Exhibit 10 are Doctor 13 Jacobson's recollections of that meeting. 14 He indicates further, and I'm going over 15 this document with you, you can see it, correct? 16 Um-hum. 17 That there was a member of ICA, that there was a 18 doctor from Italy, that there was a Doctor Rinehart 19 from Ethyl Corporation, a Doctor Rowe from the Dow 20 Corporation, a Mr. Wheeler from Union Carbide, and 21 George Best on behalf of MCA? 22 Yes. 23 Are you familiar with some or all of these 24 individuals? CAT-LINKS w DISCOVERY TM MB Pittsburgh, PA X5222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001186 1 A. 52 I know some of those names. I don't know them on 2 3 Q. any personal level. Did you confer with any of these people at any time 4 regarding the vinyl chloride hazard? 5 A. I don't recall ever doing so. 6 Q. 7 All right. Referring to the next paragraph, Doctor, according to Doctor Jacobson's notes, NIOSH 8 representatives included Dr. Frank Mitchell, Dr. Don 9 Lassiter, Mr. Richard James, Dr. Marcus Key, and 10 Doctor Jacobson; is that correct? 11 I see that, yes. It says that. 12 This meeting took place in July of 1973 after the 13 visit to Doctor Maltoni's laboratory. My question 14 to you is: Do you know if the MCA people divulged 15 to NIOSH at that time what they knew about 16 angiosarcomas and vinyl chloride exposure? 17 No, I don't know. 18 19 (Document marked for identification 20 Deposition Exhibit No. 11.) 21 22 Y MR. BRODHEAD: 23 . Doctor, I've marked as Exhibit 11 a five-page 24 document. I'm representing to you that these are 2AT-LINKS * DISCOVERY TM ME Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (4121 261-2323 UNIR0001187 1 2 3 4 A. 5 Q. 6 A. 7 Q. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 h. 21 22 23 Q. 24 A. 53 notes from Hr. Richard B. James taken at that meeting and/or compiled thereafter. As I pointed out previously, he was on the NIOSH team. That's right. The fifth page has theinitials RBJ,correct? That's right. Again, I'm representing toyou that these are the notes of Mr. Richard B. James. I want to refer to the last sentence: If asked to sum up the meeting in a few words, I would say I was given the impression that MCA was saying that some other people had done some poor work, that there was no suspected problem to show that they were interested, and to say they have started some studies despite the fact that they don't think there is any serious problem. My question to you, Doctor, is as best you can tell, have I correctly read Mr. James's last sentence? I think you're pretty accurate. It has a lot of cross outs and insertions in somebody's handwriting, but I think you've read it pretty accurately. Thank you very much. As stated. CAT-LINKS DISCOVERY TM TTT'Tl y*fV fi Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001188 1 Q. 54 Forgive me. Doctor, I asked you previously if you 2 3 A. knew of a Dr. William Lloyd? Yes, he was in NIOSH, but I didn't remember his 4 title. 5 6 (Document marked for identification 7 Deposition Exhibit No. 12.) 8 9 BY MR. BRODHEAD: 10 Q. I'm showing you what has been marked as Exhibit 12. 11 Yes. 12 MR. BRODHEAD: Off the record. 13 14 (Whereupon, there was a discussion off 15 the record.) 16 17 MR. BRODHEAD: 18 Exhibit 12 is entitled: Risk Benefit Decisions and 19 the Public Health, Proceedings of the Third FDA 20 Science Symposium held at the United States Air 21 Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado, February 22 15 to 17, 1978. 23 The second page is entitled: The 24 Fallacies of Acceptable Risk, Dr. William Lloyd, CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERY 7/ WJ /|V f"T Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001189 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |Q. 8 9 10 11 12 |Q. 13 14 |A. 15 |Q. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 55 Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Are you familiar with the document, Doctor? I don't believe that I've seen it. I don't know whether it was published. Has it published in the literature? So far as I know it is published, but it's a 1978 document. But they seem to be proceedings of the symposium, so I don't know who the recipients would have been. I don't remember seeing it. Fair enough, Doctor. That's okay. I just wanted to read to you a portion of the document. Yes. And find out what position, if any, you do have on what Doctor Lloyd had to say. The first death from angiosarcoma of the liver that I'm aware of among polyvinyl chloride workers occurred on September 2nd, 1957. The second death occurred at the same Canadian plant December 21st, 1975. And before the health community became aware of the possibility of a serious health hazard related to vinyl chloride exposure on January 22, 1974, eight cases of angiosarcoma of the liver had already been seen at CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERY m MB Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001190 56 this plant. I would suggest to you that the 2 frequency of such a rare disease in a plant 3 employing at most a few thousand workers over the 4 years and perhaps only several hundred should have 5 become apparent to an unsophisticated management and 6 most certainly would have been obvious to company 7 medical personnel or medical consultation. 8 In addition to high liver cancer mortality 9 of the Canadian workers, the unusual age 10 distribution should have alerted management and 11 medical personnel to a very unusual problem. The 12 first case died at age 41, the second at age 43, the 13 third at age 42. Of the ten deaths reported from 14 the plant to date, eight died at age 53 or younger. 15 The oldest death occurred at age 61. 16 Doctor, I'm going to take a break now, and 17 I want to make clear to you that he's now talking 18 about a Canadian experience, and he's going to 19 switch now to American plant experience. And it's a 20 new paragraph. 21 Quote: "Let us look now at our experience 22 in the United States. The first death from 23 angiosarcoma of the liver reported in the United 24 States that I'm aware of occurred on August 19th, CAT-LINKS1* DISCOVERY w /f/' IT /fy fl Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIRO001191 57 1 1961. This was a worker from the Goodyear plant in 2 Niagra Falls, New York, a plant which closed before 3 the alert in 1974. Three deathB from this plant 4 were observed before the date of the alert. Without 5 detracting from the efforts of the Doctor Creech, 6 the BF Goodrich consultant, who first alerted the 7 health community to the problem of angiosarcoma of 8 the liver in PVC workers, we should also note that 9 six deaths prior to January 2nd, 1974, including the 10 three reported by Doctor Creech, were from the BF 11 Goodrich plant in Louisville, Kentucky. Again, we 12 should note the unusual ages of death for these 13 workers. They were all dying on the job with three 14 of the deaths in the forties and one at age 37. Any 15 systematic medical surveillance by the company, even 16 as gross as looking at the death experience, should 17 have alerted them to the problem. It also should be 18 remembered that the workers at these plants have 19 been found to have higher rates for cancers of other 20 sites and very high rates of non-malignant liver 21 disease which might have alerted the company to the 22 problem. In addition to identifying such a serious 23 health problem, by reference to even simple 24 surveillance of company records or records of their CAT-LINKSw DISCOVERY TM 7TJ U /|V f~T Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001192 56 1 insurance underwriters, the excess of cancer at 2 working ages at these plants might have been 3 identified by reference to routinely collected death 4 certificates. 5 Now, Doctor, excuse me for taking the time 6 to read of all that. I had a reason for it and I'll 7 try to get to the point quickly. 8 At any time prior to NIOSH intervention, 9 are you aware that Uniroyal monitored the incidence 10 of cancer deaths among its employees in any specific 11 category? And I understand you came in in November 12 of '71. 13 The NIOSH revelation, to clarify, being the one of 14 January 31st, 1974 in Marcus Key's letter to the 15 MCA. You're familiar with that? This is the one in 16 which they discussed the visit to Goodrich. And it 17 is my only recollection that it got out there in 18 that form. 19 This is after the Goodrich experience? 20 Yes. There was only -- I only have one recollection 21 of Uniroyal's monitoring cancer. And it was through 22 something else you've probably been made aware of, 23 possibly by Mr. Leech or others, that we had a 24 probably state-of-the-art for that time study going CAT-LINKSm DISCOVERY flf f7 /fV fj Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (4121261-2323 UNIR0001193 1 2 3 |Q. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 59 on with the University of North Carolina, which was a three-part Uniroyal university study. Does that have to do with the rubber industry? Absolutely. So with that, there was a donning of a kind of new age of epidemiology and interest. And I think it was really a study in an industry that was really ahead of its time and set the pace for a lot of studies today. Yes, and that anteceded (SIC) preceded the 1974 revelations because we were already underway in 1972 with the work. And I might say parenthetically, when I realized not off the record that one of the attractions to this Uniroyal job to me personally was the recognition that I could join a company which was this far-sighted to be involved in such an arrangement as this. So again, through the university as our contractor, we were involved in compilation of causes of death and to be sure that included cancers. That study had in large measure to do with what were the adverse health effects of any polymerization vapors, for example? Well, there were some studies about that later on. I don't recall those dates. But the early work, that's noteworthy was in, oh, boy, ten or 15 year CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERY m if/IJ /|\ fl Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001194 1 2 3 |Q. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 60 study it seemed to me of mortality analysis in the industry. Getting now specific to vinyl chloride, was there any monitoring of cancers among the vinyl chloride by Uniroyal prior to NIOSH intervention in 1974? Monitoring of cancers? In the vinyl chloride workers. Not due to the vinyl chloride workers, I do not recall that this was done or had been done. I want to go back to something from Doctor Lloyd that I read to you previously. And my question is do you agree or disagree. It's in the second paragraph having to do with the American experience. Quote: "Again we should note the unusual ages of death for these workers. They were all dying on the job with three of the deaths in the forties and one at age 37. Now, beginning with the following sentence. Doctor, I want to know whether, as a general statement, you agree or disagree: "Any systematic medical surveillance by the company, even as gross as looking at the death experience, should have alerted them to the problem. As a general statement, and not CAT-LINKSw DISCOVERY w Tin) 7*fY fi Pittsburgh, HA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001195 61 necessarily specific to Uniroyal, do you agree with Doctor Lloyd's assertion in the context in which it exists? 4 I think I have to think of the context in which 5 Doctor Lloyd was presenting this paper. It was now 6 1978. It was literally four years later. It is 7 looking back through the retrospectroscope. It is 8 constructing a good call doing things better. All 9 of us have to try to do things better. 10 I think Doctor Creech received a good 11 credit for what he did. I don't know whether it 12 could have been done any sooner. You're back into 13 the old question of when does suspicion become fact? 14 When do hunches need to get checked out? 15 Can we agree. Doctor, that with respect to the 16 Painsville plant and that was the only monomer 17 conversion plant of Uniroyal's, was it not? 18 The polymerization plant? 19 Correct. 20 That I am aware of, yes. 21 Would it be fair to state that prior to NIOSH 22 intervention in 1974, so far as you know, the vinyl 23 chloride workers were not required to wear 24 respirators, true? :at-links DISCOVERY " ME Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001196 1. 2 Q. 3 4 5 A. 6 7 8 9. 10 . 11 . 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I'm not aware o whether that's true or false. 62 Okay. The ambient levels of vinyl chloride were not monitored to determine if they were in accordance with then existing threshold value limitations? I'm not aware if that's true or false. And I would allude to my earlier answer that if there was monitoring, it was more likely to have occurred at the corporate level. All right. And I'll leave it at that. There was not any monitoring of liver function among the vinyl chloride workers? Not until 1974 in any kind of organized, concerted way. I'd have to stop, however, to pause because I would want to be most accurate in answering your question. And you would want me to be also. We had a plant physical examination program, and I would just have to hesitate to look back to see what tests we did prior to that. I don't recall how many blood chemistries, if any, we did back in those earlier days. (Document marked for identification Deposition Exhibit No. 13.) CAT-LINKS w DISCOVERY TM JKF Pittsburgh. PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001197 63 2 BY HR. BRODHEAD: 3 Q. Doctor, I'm showing you what has been marked Exhibit 4 13. I'm trying to help out the reporter to get the 5 title down. And it is an article entitled: 6 Proportional Mortality Among Vinyl Chloride Workers 7 by Monson and Peters. It appears to be a 1974 8 article. I just want to read to you the summary. 9 Doctor, if I may. Do you mind if I show this to the 10 reporter? 11 This is the first paragraph of the 12 article, which is entitled summary. A proportional 13 mortality analysis of one hundred and sixty-one 14 deceased workers in two plants using vinyl chloride 15 a 50 percent excess of deaths due to all cancers was 16 seen. Specific sites of cancer with the greatest 17 excess included liver and biliary tract, lung, and 18 the brain. The excess and fatal cancer was seen 19 mainly in men who died before age 60. Also there 20 was a trend in time in the ratio of observed to 21 expected deaths since 1970 over twice as many cancer 22 deaths as expected have occurred. 23 My question is a simple one, Doctor. Do 24 you have any basis upon which to dispute the Monson CAT-LINKS m DISCOVERY w /fj ffJl Pittsburgh. PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001198 64 1 and Peters summary as I read it to you? 2 Well, no, I don't, but I'm not really that familiar 3 with their study. 4 Okay. Thank you, Doctor. 5 I would add in terms of my recollection. 6 We agree that vinyl chloride is known to cause 7 hematic angiosarcoma, correct? 8 It has been associated with it, yes. It appears to 9 be the agent. 10 Can we agree that it has been demonstrated to cause 11 adenomas and adenocarcinomas of the lung? 12 I'm not as familiar with that effect. 13 Might I better take up that with Doctor Harris? 14 Perhaps. 15 Can we agree that it has been known to cause 16 neuroblastoma of the brain? 17 It could have been. What is the date of that paper? 18 1976 . 1? This could have been a later linkage. 20 Sure. I'm trying retrospective to today. Doctor. 21 I'm not trying to narrow you down to any point in 22 time as far as this question is concerned. Can we 23 agree that it has been associated with lymphoma and 24 various other tumors in a variety of animal species? CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERYw TM^ WJ /fV f"f Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001199 1 \k. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 65 I was familiar with the variety of tumors in animals. I don't recall the specific tissue types at this point. You're being very specific in the question. I remember a variety of different tumors. In any event, when we talk about the carcinogenicity of vinyl chloride, can we agree that in addition to angiosarcoma it has been linked to other liver and biliary cancer? By the way, I'm referring for the purpose of this question the National Institute of Health docket called Vinyl Chloride, an Information Resource, which is dated March 1978. Perhaps if I just went through what it states are the carcinogenic effects. Please read. And, again, my question is: Would you agree or disagree? It lists in addition to angiosarcoma of the liver, other liver and biliary cancers, agree or disagree? . Well, I would like to read the context. Okay. If you could restate your question, please. I'll move on because the other liver and biliary cancer is, as it states here, is only suggestive. There has been some association, but nowhere nearly CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERY TM ME Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001200 66 1 as definite as the rarely and more specifically 2 identify the cancer angiosarcoma. 3 We've already covered I believe central nervous 4 system tumors and lung cancer at least so far as 5 your understanding was concerned, correct? 6 Um-hum. 7 There also have been reported an increase lymphatic 8 and hematopoietic systems, correct? 9 I've seen some studies that indicate some increase XO in those areas. XI As well as cancer of the buccal cavity and pharynx, 12 correct? 13 Yes, but ironically, those were the lowest exposed 14 group so it is kind of a difficult -- 15 Nexus? 16 Those relationship dose response relationship at 17 best. In fact, it seems to be more inverse. 18 Let's talk for a minute, if we can, about 19 non-carcinogenic effects of vinyl chloride. It is 20 known to be associated with disturbances in the 21 liver function, correct? 22 That's possible. I could not be very specific at 23 this point. 24 Fair enough. In fairness to both of us, I'm trying CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERY TM ME Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001201 1 2 A. 3 Q. 4 A. 5 Q. 6 A. 7 Q. 8 A. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 67 to move along because you need to go, right? Yes. It has been associated with acroosteolysis? Yes. Radiographic and histological changes in the lung? Well, they have been reported according to that. Hematologic changes? They've been reported by several others. Now, could we stop a minute just to clarify. Sure. This is a compilation of much research with an eye toward, no doubt, pulling in as many effects as possibly can be found, even although they might be in one or two studies. That is a lot different than hitting the nail on the head and saying it's agreed and accepted. Some of the things could be outlyers and the reported, for completion, for completion of completeness of data, so that there's no weighting of the evidence in that. It's a recitation. Do you understand the point I'm making? I do. Doctor. I'm just trying to cover the gambit of adverse health effects that have been noted in the literature. Yes. CAT-LINKS" DISCOVERY ~ ftf WJ /fV fl Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (4121 261-2323 UNIR0001202 66 1 Doctor, if I represented to you that the MCAs 2 chemical safety data sheet for vinyl chloride first 3 published in 1954, stated quote: "Aside from the 4 risk of fire or explosion, vinyl chloride presents 5 no other very serious problem in general handling. 6 Again, do you have any basis to dispute that as you 7 sit here today? 8 From the '50's, is that the date? 9 1954 . 10 It was probably consistent with what was known about 11 vinyl chloride at that time. 12 With regard to the revised chemical safety data 13 sheet on vinyl chloride? 14 1972. 15 Did we mark that? That sheet has been previously 16 marked as Exhibit 14 in Mr. Leech's deposition. I 17 just want to refer you to the section with respect 18 to health hazards. It states in Paragraph 3.1.1: 19 That chronic overexposure may produce liver injury; 20 is that correct. Doctor? 21 Yes, I see that. 22 My question to you is: When were you first aware 23 that liver injury was associated with vinyl chloride 24 exposure? CAT-LINKSTM DISCOVERYTM TFT P ya\ M' Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412)261-2323 UNIR0001203 1 A. 2 Q3 A. 4 Q5 6 A. 7 8 Q. 9 A. 10 Q11 A. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Q. 21 22 A. 23 324 A. 69 That would be very difficult to say. Would it pre-date the May '72 date of that MSDS? I don't think so. What does that mean to you chronic overexposure may result in liver injury? It is awfully vague. There was no knowledge of human cancer as you and I both know. No, I don't know that. Doctor. We have to know that based on -- No, I don't have to know that. Well, I know that based on 1974 revelation from the Goodrich plants. So I'm accepting that as the cornerstone of the first fact. I thought we used that as a kind of BCAD divider. That's the first knowledge of human cancers at that point. To cite them back to 1958, because Doctor Lloyd gave a paper in 1978 citing cases in retrospect occurring in the '50's was not known by this compiler of the data sheet in 1972. Doctor, let me, my question to you is, I'm trying to move on here. My interpretation of that is your question, correct? It's vague, is it not? It's very vague. And liver injury is a catch all CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERY TM Tt/TJ /|V fl Pittsburgh. PA 15222 (412)261-2323 UNIR0001204 70 1 term. I don't think it necessarily refers to tumors 2 by any means. 3 What does that mean to you? You have a BA, a MD, 4 and a Ph.D.? 5 Yes. 6 You're one of the most educated men I've ever met. 7 You're telling me that's vague? 8 It seems vague. 9 MS. KOESTER: What does it mean to him 10 today is what you're talking about? 11 MR. BRODHEAD: Right. 12 I think the massive dosage level a thousand parts 13 per million, or higher, or exceeding the 500 number, 14 which I think is cited in this report as level, you 15 could risk possible malfunction in liver function 16 tests of some sort. 17 3Y MR. BRODHEAD: 18 Okay. 19 It doesn't get precise as to what the nature of the 20 injury is. 21 Does that statement suggest to you that liver 22 function levels should be monitored among those 23 occupationally exposed, that one sentence alone? 24 The lead into that statement is that primary hazard CAT-LINKS DISCOVERY TM TWf'Tl /fV ft Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001205 71 1 to vinyl chloride is associated with excessive 2 respiratory exposures. Again, sentence two, the 3 exposure to high levels may some produce lung 4 injury, lung irritation, correction, irritation not 5 injury. 6 Chronic exposure may produce liver injury. 7 The suggestion is they're talking about very high 8 dosages for exposures. So that it is just hard to 9 say whether the routine monitoring of people who had 10 exposures below the threshold limit value, where I 11 indicated to you earlier the targeted 50 PPM, later 12 on in 1972 would have been warranted based upon just 13 that. 14 Would you agree with me that in a plant that is not 15 monitoring ambient vinyl chloride levels, it would 16 be difficult to pinpoint those individuals who are 17 getting chronic over exposure, wouldn't it? 18 MS. KOESTER: Objection. 19 MR. BRODHEAD: 20 You may answer. 21 I don't know that we've concluded that the plant 22 wasn't monitoring. 23 I want you to assume for the sake of my question 24 that it is not, please. CAT-LINKSw DISCOVERYm /9J fj /fV f1 Pittsburgh. PA 15222 (412)261-2323 UNIR0001206 72 1 That would be a difficult assumption to make. I 2 believe that there probably were corporate 3 industrial hygiene measures of that plant that could 4 have been used as a decision model. I do not have 5 any in my possession. 6 Let's take a hypothetical then, just assume a vinyl 7 chloride polymerization facility, which in May of 8 1972, is not monitoring ambient levels. 9 Yes. 10 And assume further that the MSDS information that is 11 conveyed to that plant, with respect to potential 12 adverse health effects states only chronic 13 overexposure may produce liver injury. 14 Would you agree with me as a general 15 statement in the absence of data which monitors the 16 ambient levels of exposure, it is difficult, if not 17 impossible, to identify those individuals who are 18 getting chronically overexposed; isn't it? 19 MS. KOESTER: Objection. 20 MR. BRODHEADs 21 You may answer. 22 It is difficult to even evaluate the problem, but 23 you can't say, in fact, there are or are not 24 chronically overexposed individuals. You just don't CAT-LINKS * DISCOVERY " 7TJIJ J1\ r* Pittsburgh. PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001207 73 1 have enough to work on based on your assumption. 2 Q. Right, because of the lack of monitoring, correct? 3 MS. KOESTER: Objection. 4 A. As you set up your in your assumption. 5 MR. BRODHEAD: Off the record. 6 7 (Whereupon, there was a discussion off 8 the record.) 9 10 MR. BRODHEAD: 11 Doctor, why don't we agree, I am going to attempt to 12 finish this. 13 I believe you are. 14 And I can't promise you and 1 have to reserve my 15 right to protect my client, but I'm going to attempt 16 not to put you through anymore of this if I can. If 17 I have to come back, I have to come back it. 18 I'm showing you what has been marked as 19 Exhibit 14. It is an article entitled: 20 Angiosarcoma of the liver and vinyl chloride and 21 polyvinyl chloride workers. 22 On Page 2 of that document, Doctor, it 23 chronicles at least known angiosarcomas world wide, 24 including the United States, correct? CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERYTM /TfT7 /fV f~T Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412)261-2323 UNIR0001208 74 1 Yes, sir. 2 3 (Document marked for identification 4 Deposition Exhibit No. 14.) 5 6 BY MR. BRODHEAD: 7 3. And there appears to be a number of USA 8 angiosarcomas approximately 16 in number? is that 9 correct? 10 ft. Yes. 11 3. Those go back to as early as August of 1961, do they 12 not, that is the date of death? 13 ft. X see one dated '61. That's the earliest I see. 14 3. 15 Do you know when the angiosarcoma deaths actually occurred that were reported by BF Goodrich? 16 ft. There were four cases they discussed. I'm not sure 17 how many were deceased. I'm not sure. 18 2. If I would represent to you that one of those four 19 were the August of '61 death, would you have any 20 basis to dispute that representation? 21 ft. 22 I wouldn't have because I'm not sure when the dates were for those cases. As you and I know, however, 23 they did not put this all together until evidently 24 January 1974 or very close to that time? CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERY ME Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001209 75 1 2 (Document marked for identification 3 Deposition Exhibit No. 15.) 4 5 MR. BRODHEAD: 6 I'm going to try it up with this exhibit, Doctor. 7 Exhibit 15, which is a NIOSH letter from Patricia 8 Foley, which is really in the form of a memorandum 9 dated March 27th, 1974. 10 On the second page under item number nine, 11 it indicates that when NIOSH was finally informed 12 about the angiosarcoma, they implemented a 13 four-prong intervention, A, development of 14 recommended standards, B, medical surveillance and 15 research programs, C, industry wide epidemiologic 16 studies, and D, additional toxicological 17 investigations. 18 My question to you is: Prior to NIOSH 19 intervention in 1974, what was it, if anything, that 20 Uniroyal was doing for its vinyl chloride workers at 21 the Painsville plant in any of those four areas? 22 Well, i'll answer as I see them off the page. The 23 epidemiology studies were underway at the University 24 of North Carolina. That had been done earlier in CAT-LINKSw DISCOVERY TM /tSWJ /fV f"f Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001210 76 1 1972. 2 That was specific to the rubber industry# wasn't it? 3 Yes, and that plant was a specific plant covered in 4 the agreement. 5 But it didn't have to do with vinyl chloride? I 6 want you to restrict yourself to vinyl chloride. 7 I feel I have to say that that was included in the 8 study because if problems in any of the participant 9 plants were found, they would have emerged from the 10 6tudy in due time as research unfolded. It was not 11 restricted to any particular plants other than 12 participating united rubber workers plants eligible 13 in that study. 14 Do you know if, in fact, that went into the Fairport 15 facility in Painsville? Do you whether, in fact, 16 they went into the Painsville plant? 17 I think at some point they did, but I can't say 18 before 1974. 19 The actual researchers would be in the best position 20 to testify? 21 They certainly would, but I want to tell you, 22 please, that in epidemiologic investigation had 23 begun, and that should be given to the credit to the 24 answer. CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERY TM 7Tf fj /lV fi Pittsburgh. PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIRO001211 77 Two, as far as medical surveillance, I did mention that acroosteolysis hand x-rays had been taken and there was an annual surveillance program 4 going on for workers prior to that time from the 5 '60s. 6 Doctor Harris then in terms of keeping in 7 touch with recommendations as far as standards is 8 concerned, the toxicologic investigation was staying 9 in touch with MCA work and I think he was in fair 10 touch with what was going on with Doctor Viola and 11 Doctor Maltoni. 12 I get the impression from your answer that I would 13 be best served by consulting the rubber industry 14 studies, URW studies, as well as consulting with 15 Doctor Harris with respect to the specifics of the 16 four areas that you have just taken in? 17 Yes, I would like to introduce a document, please. 18 I would like to go back to Plaintiff's Exhibit 14. 19 Dr. Robert Spirtas was associated with the 20 University of North Carolina, and there is his 21 paper. 22 That's in 1977 paper, correct? 23 Yes, but again, it evolves from works he must have 24 done back in those periods of time that he was CAT-LINKS " DISCOVERY w MF Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001212 there. 7 8. He's actually - I don't know where he was when he wrote this in all 4 fairness, Peter. I would want to be accurate. X 5 don't know where he was sent. It seemed the safest 6 from the illness effects section Robert Taft 7 Laboratories back in Cincinatti, NIOSH. 8 Right. He's updating the NIOSH register, correct? 9 I guess he is. 10 Isn't that a subtitle to the article? 11 I don't know if he's from there, or whether Rose 12 Kaminski is from there. Doctor Spirtas left the 13 University of North Carolina at some point, and I 14 don't where he was when he wrote that. 15 But Doctor Spirtas was on top of this, and we'll 16 have to get that from him, or sources close to him. 17 Are you suggesting to me that he would have known 18 about the 1961 angiosarcoma of the liver, which is 19 documented here? 20 MS. KOESTER: Objection. 21 He would have known? In what point in time? 22 MR. BRODHEAD: 23 Prior to NIOSH intervention. 24 No, I don't think so. ;at-links w DISCOVERYT MF Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412} 261-2323 UNIR0001213 79 MR. BRODHEAD: Doctor/ I'd like to reserve my opportunity to complete my examination. I'm going to defer to Mr. Dean at this point. I want to 4 reserve so to ask you more. 5 6 EXAMINATION 7 8 MR. DEAN: 9 I'll be very brief. 10 Thank you. 11 But this is the vinyl chloride chemical safety 12 sheet, which is marked Exhibit 14 to Mr. Leech's 13 deposition. It's not marked to your deposition. I 14 think it was shown to you. Yeah, it's right there. 15 My question is simply this: Is it fair did Uniroyal 16 have access to this document in 1972? 17 I think some parties in Uniroyal must have had this 18 about that time. 19 That's all the questions on that document. And then 20 finally. Exhibit 16, to the Leech deposition was, at 21 least the first page of it, was a memo you wrote to 22 Doctor Harris? 23 Yes. 24 And I draw your attention to the last paragraph of CAT-LINKS m DISCOVERY TM SIS IJ /fj fl Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001214 1 2 3 4 5 6 p. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 that document where you're referencing work, 80 studies, and conclusions, work done and conclusions drawn as it relates to Monochem's plant at Geismar, Louisiana, correct? Yes. I take it from that memo that as part of your job responsibility at Uniroyal you had some oversight responsibilities for occupational safety as it transpired at the Monochem plant? I think that word some oversight is probably fairly and accurate, yes. And was there any other occupational medicine person that you shared those responsibilities with? I can't remember the name of your physician, but that would be the answer. But he would have been like the on-site doctor? That's true. He made reference to on-site doctors at plants throughout the course of the day's deposition? That's right. So you would have shared those responsibilities with him? is that right? Yes, he being the local agent and I being -- Do you remember what his name was? CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERY TM MB Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001215 81 1 I'm questioning that, but I don't remember. 2 He would have been just a regular physician and not 3 specifically trained in occupational safety, is that 4 right, if you can recall? 5 I don't remember the name of the physician. Okay. Thank you. 7 Thank you. 8 HR. BRODHEAD: I'd like to reserve my 9 right to inquire should that be necessary, Doctor. 10 Thank you very much. 11 MS. KOESTER: Doctor, I'm to advise you 12 about signature. And I think we discussed this 13 earlier. She's going to be typing up this 14 transcript. You would have the right to review it 15 and correct any inaccuracies in her taking down the 16 testimony given here today or you can waive that 17 right. 18 THE WITNESS: I would like to see the 19 transcript. 20 21 (Whereupon, the proceedings were concluded 22 at 2:40 p.m.) 23 24 CAT-LINKS TM DISCOVERYTM MF Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001216 82 1 OMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) CERTIFICATE 2 OUNTY OF ALLEGHENY ) SS: 3 I, Lois Sikoski, a Notary Public and Registered 4 rofessional Reporter, in and for the Commonwealth of 5 ennsylvania, do hereby certify that the witness, J. 6 EXTER FORBES, M.D., was by me first duly sworn to testify 7 o the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; 8 hat the foregoing deposition was taken at the time and 9 lace stated herein; and that the said deposition was 10 ecorded stenographically by me and then reduced to 11 rinting under my direction, and constitutes a true 12 ecord of the testimony given by said witness. 13 I further certify that the inspection, reading and 14 igning of said deposition were not waived by counsel for 15 he respective parties and by the witness. 16 I further certify that I am not a relative, 17 mployee or attorney of any of the parties, or a relative 18 r employee of either counsel, and that I am in no way 19 nterested directly or indirectly in this action. 20 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and 21 ffixed my seal of office this 19th day of October, 1992. >tA> 22 23 24 CAT-LINKS w DISCOVERY Notary Public NcxariaiSeal Lois Sltoski. Wary PiWc >n<* Notahas ME Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (4121 261-2323 UNIR0001217 83 1 0MM0NWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ERRATA OUNTY OF ALLEGHENY 2 ) SHEET I, J. DEXTER FORBES, M.D., have read the foregoing 3 ages of my deposition given on October 14, 1992, and wish o make the following, if any, amendments, additions, 4 eletions or corrections: 5 g. No. Line No 6 Change and reason for change: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 all other respects the transcript is true and correct. 21 J. DEXTER FORBES, M.D. 22 ubscribed and sworn to before me this 23 day of , 1992 . 24 Notary Public (LS) JKF Pittsburgh. PA 13222 (412) 261*2323 UNIR0001218 AUL, KARLOVITS & FULESDAY, INC. 312 Boulevard of the Allies Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 261-2323 84 4 >ctober 19 1992 5 0: J. Dexter Forbes, M.D. 6 RE: DEPOSITION OF J. DEXTER FORBES, M.D. 7 NOTICE OF NON-WAIVER OF SIGNATURE 8 Please read your deposition transcript. All 9 orrections are to be noted on the preceding Errata Sheet. 10 Upon completion of the above, you must affix your 11 ignature on the Errata Sheet, and it is to then be otarized. 12 Please forward the signed original of the Errata 13 heet to Peter J. Brodhead, Esq. for attachment to the riginal transcript, which is in his possession. Send a 14 opy of same to all counsel, and also a copy to me. 15 Please return the completed Errata Sheet within hirty (30) days of receipt hereof. 16 17 18 ids Sikoski, RPR ourt Reporter 19 20 21 22 23 24 CAT-LINKSTM DISCOVERYTM yf/T1 /lV Pittsburgh. PA 1&222 (412) 261-2323 UNIR0001219