Document G6b5DZpkL734jJYDQpvdJLXLq

H 495 1 1 'i ' ^ 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 3 In Re: Asbestos Products Liability x 4 Litigation (No. VI) x 5 This Document relates to: United States District Court 6 Fifth Division, District of Minnesota 7 CONNED CORPORATION, Plaintiff, 8 -against- 9 UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS & PLASTICS 10 CO., INC., (f/k/a Union Carbide Corp.), 11 Defendant, Case No. Civ. 5-91-88 12 -and1- 13 UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS & PLASTICS CO, INC., (f/k/a Union Carbide Corp.), 14 -against- 15 OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION, 16 WALKER JAMAR COMPANY, A.W. KUETTEL'& SONS, INC., API, INC. and MacARTHUR 17 COMPANY, Third-Party Defendants. 18 19 June 22, 1995 9:15 a.m. 20 ED ILGREN, M.D. 21 22 DUPLICATE FILE COPY 23 24 25 RECEIVED JUL 1 2 1995 \ DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 `i UCAREF00008972 1 2 June 22, 1995 3 9:15 a.m. 4 Deposition of ED ILGREN, M.D., taken by 5 Plaintiff, pursuant to adjournment, held 6 at the offices of Kelley Drye & Warren, 7 Esgs., 101 Park Avenue, New York, New York, 8 before Sara Deutsch, a Shorthand Reporter 9 and Notary Public within and for the State 10 of New York. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 496 DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00008973 497 1 2 3 STICH ANGELL KREIDLER & MUTH, ESQS. Attorneys for Conwed Corporation 4 The Crossings, Suite 120 250 2nd Avenue South 5 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 6 By: ROBERT D. BROWNSON, ESQ., of Counsel 7 -and- 8 RUDNICK & WOLFE, ESQS. 9 203 N. LaSalle Suite 1800 10 Chicago, Illinois 60601 11 By: MICHAEL GOLDMAN, ESQ., of Counsel 12 13 FOLEY & LARDNER, ESQS. 14 Attorneys for Union Carbide Corp. Firstar Center 15 777 East Wisconsin Avenue Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 ' 16 By: TREVOR J. WILL, ESQ., 17 of Counsel 18 - and- 19 KELLEY DRYE & WARREN, ESQS. 101 Park Avenue 20 New York, New York 21 By: ALAN GERSON, ESQ., of Counsel 22 oOo 23 24 25 DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00008974 498 1 2 ED ILGREN, M.D., having been 3 previously sworn, resumed and testified 4 further as follows: 5 EXAMINATION BY 6 MR. BROWNSON: 7 Q. Dr. Ilgren, let's continue'the e deposition which we started before, and what I 9 want to do at the risk of being repetitive, I do 10 not want to repeat anything we've done before, but 11 I want to start out by going back to your opinions 12 with respect to Calidria chrysotile asbestos. Can 13 we use the term "Calidria" here, I think we have 14 in the past, to refer to the particular 15 chrysotile. I just want to get your terms 16 straight before we start, so why don't we refer to 17 it as Calidria, which is - 18 A. Yes. 19 MR. WILD: That's Union Carbide's 20 brand name? 21 MR. BROWNSON: Right. 22 . MR. WILL: Do we have to trademark 23 the transcript or not? 24 Q. I want to start out with talking 25 about Calidria and mesothelioma, which we've DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00008975 499 1 Ilgren 2 talked about at some length. Let me put it this 3 way. As I understand your opinion, it's your 4 opinion that Calidria asbestos did not cause 5 mesothelioma among coal workers, is that correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Now you are familiar with cases of 8 certain Conwed workers who have been diagnosed as 9 having mesothelioma, and I want to just go back to 10 those cases and let's talk about Donald Broeffle, 11 Stanley Fleisch, Clarence Maki, James Manisto and 12 Lawrence Roseth, and when at the last session of 13 your deposition you identified those as cases 14 where some doctor had made some diagnosis of 15 mesothelioma, is that correct? 16 A. I believe so, yes. 17 Q. Okay, and I want to talk a little bit 18 about those, but before I do, since we were last 19 at your deposition, have you become aware of any 20 other cases of mesothelioma or cases that some 21 doctors identified as mesothelioma among the 22 Conwed workers? 23 A. Fred Bergstrom would beamongst them. 24 MR. WILL: Yes, but we talked about 25 Fred last time. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00008976 500 1 Ilgren 2 THE WITNESS: No, I haven't. 3 Q. Other than Fred Bergstrom, you're not 4 aware of any others? 5 A. Not that I recall. 6 Q. Now at an earlier session of your 7 deposition we marked as an exhibit, the witness a disclosure served by Mr. Will in this case, which 9 I got this copy that I've highlighted, and you're 10 familiar with that, of course, correct? 11 A. Right. 12 Q. Okay. Now in the disclosure it says 13 that with respect to mesothelioma, I'm going to 14 quote in the Conwed -- "The putative mesotheliomas 15 noted at Conwed would have been due to amosite 16 exposure or non-asbestos-related cause." That's 17 the statement we see here, and that's number 8. 18 A. I thought we also put crosidolite on 19 there. 20 Q. At your last deposition you testified 21 that it was your general sense that crosidolite 22 may have had something to do with these 23 mesothelioma. And what I want to do now is I want 24 to just develop your current thinking as to what 25 actually was the cause of these Conwed DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00008977 501 1 Ilgren 2 mesotheliomas, and why don't I just put the 3 question to you. As you sit here today, what is 4 your belief as to the cause of the Conwed 5 mesotheliomas that I've just described to you? 6 MR. WILL: Bob, that's a little 7 broad. Do you want -- he doesn't have 8 anything in front of him. I think you 9 marked his files previously. 10 MR. BROWNSON: Well, I did. 11 Q. Let me put it to you this way. What 12 I'm trying to do is avoid a page by page going 13 through all these medical files. Maybe we can't 14 avoid it, but at the last deposition you said it 15 was your general sense that crosidolite used in 16 the research and development department was a 17 cause or the cause of the mesotheliomas. 18 MR. WILL: Again, I don't mean to 19 argue with you, I think he's referenced 20 that with respect to Manisto and Bergstrom 21 who worked in the R&D department-with 22 crosidolite. I'm not trying to be funny 23 about this, but there are a couple of them 24 where he noted that a doctor diagnosed meso 25 but he was not certain whether that was in DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00008978 502 1 Ilgren 2 fact the correct diagnosis. 3 Q. Let's back up then. Let's start with 4 James Manisto and Fred Bergstrom, since Trevor 5 just mentioned those, you're familiar with those 6 two cases , I take it? 7 A. I haven't reviewed them very 8 recently. but I am familiar. 9 Q. Is it your opinion in this case that 10 those mesotheliomas were caused by those two men's 11 exposure to crosidolite in the research and 12 development department? 13 A. Certainly very possible. 14 Q. Do you believe that -- let 's confine 15 ourselves to those two cases. Do you believe that 16 either of those cases is an or could be an 17 etiopathic mesothelioma, that is one that's not 18 related to any asbestos exposure? 19 A. It's unlikely. 20 Q. That's unlikely. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. Do you believe that amosite 23 exposure would have had anything to do with either 24 of those two mesotheliomas? 25 A. Possibly. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00008979 503 1 Ilgren 2 Q. la- there any way that you use or that 3 you have developed to apportion or quantify 4 causation of mesotheliomas when you've got a man 5 exposed to both amosite and crosidolite? 6 A. Apportion to amosite or crosidolite? 7 Q. Right. It's a question that tends to 8 come up more in the mind of lawyers where they 9 will ash the question was amosite a cause, was 10 crosidolite a cause, and if so, how would those be 11 apportioned, and I'm just curious if you have any 12 technique or analysis that you would be able to 13 use in that regard? 14 A. I think sort of traditional approach 15 through long burden, obviously they're amphibole 16 both retained, so examination of the lungs might 17 reveal a very large number of crosidolite fibers 18 and actually a very small number of amosite 19 fibers, just as an example, one way to apportion 20 to one fiber type as opposed to another fiber 21 type. 22 Q. Let me ask you this. This is a 23 hypothetical question. Let's take the 24 hypothetical case of James Manisto, and let's 25 assume hypothetically that he's got a pleural DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00008980 at 504 1 Ilgren 2 malignant mesothelioma, and let's assume 3 hypothetically that he's been exposed to both 4 crosidolite and amosite, and let's further assume 5 hypothetically that we've got sufficient latency 6 from beginning of exposure of each of those 7 fibers. . 8 A. Okay. 9 Q. Now let's further assume 10 hypothetically that we're involved in a lawsuit, 11 and to make this easy, let's say Mr. Manisto is 12 simply suing Union Carbide, for example, as he did 13 at one time, and let's further assume 14 hypothetically that the question is put to you, 15 Dr. Ilgren, we want to determine to what extent 16 the crosidolite exposure contributed to that 17 mesothelioma, and to what extent amosite exposure 18 did, and let's say now that you've given it some 19 thought and you're going to explain to us what we 20 could do to try to make that determination. Now 21 you've told us that one thing we could do would be 22 to do a lung tissue fiber burden and look at 23 fibers and count fibers and try to quantify the 24 two, is that correct? 25 A. Right. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00008981 Ilgren 505 2 Q. And let's just stop there a moment. 3 You haven't seen any such test done on either 4 Manisto or Bergstrom, I take it? I'm not aware of 5 any either. 6 A. Not that I know of. 7 Q. If you were doing such a test or you 8 were sending it to Dr. Pooley or Dr. Langer or 9 somebody to do such a test, what fibers would you 10 consider counting? Would you count only fibers 11 greater than five microns or would you count all 12 fibers or fibers greater than one or what would 13 you use for your counting technique or what would 14 you recommend? 15 A. I'd be interested in the fibers over 16 five microns. I know Fred Pooley counts all 17 fibers. But then they break them down according 18 to size. Some labs only focus on the fibers that 19 are over five microns. 20 Q. So I assume that you would recommend 21 that TEM be used? 22 A. Definitely. 23 Q. And would it be fair to say that the 24 fibers you would be interested in would be those 25 greater than five? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00008982 506 1 Ilgren 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Now would you have any interest in 4 fibers less than five or to you is that simply 5 something that's of academic interest only but 6 really irrelevant to the question? 7 A. I think the correlation with diseases 8 expressed mostly in terms of fibers greater than 9 five, though I'd certainly like to know what 10 numbers and percentages fall in all fiber size 11 classes. 12 Q. Let me put the question a little 13 differently. 14 With respect to crosidolite, do you 15 believe that fibers, crosidolite fibers less than 16 five microns are biologically active in any sense 17 with respect to mesothelioma? 18 MR. WILL: In humans? 19 MR. BROWNSON: In humans. 20 A. I would say probably not. 21 Q. Okay. I think I detected from your 22 prior answer when you said that fibers over five 23 microns are of interest, I think I detected a 24 thought that historically the data we have, the 25 epidemiological studies and as such, historically DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UGAREF00008983 507 1 Ilgren 2 people have focused on fibers over five, and I'm 3 wondering if that is some sort of historical or 4 analytical artifact or that because people have 5 always believed that it's just particles over that 6 five that cause disease. 7 MR. WILL: Object to the form of the 8 question. I'll elaborate my objection if 9 you want me to. 10 MR. BROWNSON: No, that's all right. 11 Q. Do you understand the question? 12 A. I believe so. 13 Q. What do you think about that? In 14 other words, what's your view on that? 15 MR. WILL: On what? 16 Q. On this five micron question with 17 respect to crosidolite. In other words, I was 18 trying to get at that with my prior question. Do 19 you believe that those over five are active and 20 those under five are not or do you believe that 21 those over five have historically been counted for 22 analytical or other reasons? 23 A. I'm not a state-of-the-art hygienist 24 per se. In other words, my sense is that the 25 greater than five micron cutoff is a combination DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00008984 508 1 Ilgren 2 of utilitarian purpose plus biological perception. 3 so there's certainly an element of both where the 4 hygienist simply said yes, it's possibly easier to 5 count reliably fibers over five microns for 6 technical reasons. But in addition, there was a 7 historical perception that biologically fibers 8 over, quote, unquote, five, I don't want to use a 9 precise cutoff, but it's so-called long fibers in 10 the range, say, of ten or 20 or 30 microns were 11 more biologically active than short fibers. 12 Q. Do you believe that with respect to 13 being biologically active, five microns is to some \ ` 14 extent an artificial cutoff, in other words, it's 15 not an absolute bright line? 16 A. Certain workers such as Stanton 17 focused more on eight microns, though there was 18 also a certain level of tumor probability with 19 five. Pott, as I recall, I think looked at four 20 or five. I think a man called Maroudis looked at 21 20. And I can't remember whether Davis felt in 22 terms of cancer induction, one was looking at ten 23 microns. So I mean I don't believe that there's 24 an absolute clear cutoff, but the experimental 25 evidence I think tends to focus in the region of / DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00008985 509 1 Ilgren 2 five. 3 Q. Would you agree with the statement 4 that the longer the fiber, the more biologically 5 active it is, as a general proposition? 6 A. Generally up to the point of 7 respirability, yes. 8 Q. And that although there's no absolute 9 cutoff at five microns, you are less concerned 10 about fibers under five microns, would that be 11 fair to say? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. Now does there come some length where 14 you simply would not be concerned at all, and 15 let's confine ourself to crosidolite fibers. We 16 were talking about for instance if you saw a 17 one-micron crosidolite fiber, would you just 18 consider that too short to be of any concern or is 19 there some other cutoff you use or is -- I'll 20 leave it at that. 21 A. Again, I think my general thinking 22 would focus on five. 23 Q. Now you mentioned that Dr. Pooley 24 counts fibers under five. Does he -- as far as 25 you're aware, does he have any cutoff length that DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00008986 510 1 Ilgren 2 he uses when he counts fibers? 3 A. As I recall, he counts fibers of all 4 sizes, but the data are expressed also in terms of 5 fibers over five. 6 Q. So he reports them as fibers over 7 five or fibers under five? 8 A. He reports them as total fiber number 9 of all sizes, and those, as I recall, over five or 10 over ten, it's a fairly detailed analysis. 11 Q. Now in connection with your work, 12 your own work, have you ever done any lung fiber 13 tissue burden analysis or do you farm that out to 14 people to have that done? 15 A. It's farmed out. 16 Q. And who do you use in cases where 17 you've seen the need for that work to do it? 18 A. Generally Allen Gibbs, Fred Pooley. 19 Q. And have you ever asked them to do * 20 such lung fiber or lung tissue fiber burden 21 analysis on any cases involving Calidria-exposed 22 people? 23 A. Have I ever sent them a case? 24 Q. Right. 25 A. No. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00008987 W ; J 511 1 Ilgren 2 Q. As far as you're aware, have they 3 done any, either of them done any lung tissue 4 fiber burden analysis on any of the Conwed 5 workers? 6 A. I'm not aware of any. 7 Q. Let's move on a minute. We had 8 started with the question about what you would do 9 to make this apportionment between amosite and 10 crosidolite exposure in mesothelioma, and this 11 hypothetical Conwed worker, and you told us that 12 one thing you could do would be this lung tissue 13 fiber burden analysis. Is there any other 14 analysis or technique that you would use to try to 15 make that determination? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Or that apportionment. And what 18 would that be? 19 A. I'd be interested in the types of 20 work they did. In addition to the types of work 21 people did around them, the types of products they 22 used, the kinds of fiber levels, if there was dust 23 measurements made, the kinds of fiber levels that 24 were found. The type of ventilation that might 25 have been found in the plant, among other things. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00008988 512 1 Ilgren 2 And what periods of time, say, amosite and/or 3 crosidolite might have been used in the products 4 in relation to their employment history within the 5 constraints of the latency period, i.e., prior to 6 a 20-year point. 7 Q. Now with respect to time, I take it 8 what you're looking at there would be latency, in 9 other words, the longer the time from first 10 exposure to one of these fiber types, the more 11 important it would be to you in making this 12 causation determination. Would that be fair to 13 say? 14 A. Could you just say that again. 15 Q. Let me rephrase the question. You 16 said one of the things you'd be interested in was 17 the time from which they were exposed to these 18 fibers. Why would you be interested in that? 19 What are you looking for there? 20 A. I see. Just simply that if the 21 person was diagnosed, say, in 1990 with a 22 mesothelioma, I'd be looking for the kinds of 23 exposure he had prior to 1970. I wouldn't say 24 that perhaps the exposeures he might have incurred 25 in 1940 were more important than those he incurred DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00008989 513 1 Ilgren 2 in 1950. 3 Q. But are you saying that any exposures 4 within the last 20 years would not be important, 5 in your view? 6 A. I don't believe they would be very 7 important. Certainly the very critical ones would 8 be the ones prior to the 20-year period. 9 Q. And with respect to the 20-year 10 latency period that you apply here, again is that 11 a bright line, for instance, if it's 21 or 19 or 12 15 or 25, is there - 13 A. Well, the review by I think Linphaer 14 that looked at, I think it was 1105 mesotheliomas 15 entitled the paper being something like Latency 16 Analysis in Mesotheliomas, and he found that 97.5 17 percent of all the cases, and as X recall they 18 were exposed, occupationally-asbestos-exposed 19 cases, were over 20 years with a median of 32.5 20 years, so I would generally say that a reasonable 21 minimum is 20 years. Can one discount 15? I 22 think it's very rare if it doesn't. 23 Q. So a 15-year latency is rare but it 24 could occur, would that be a fair summary? 25 A. Possibly. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00008990 514 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Now do you believe that latency from 3 onset of exposure to diagnosis is influenced by 4 the dose? In other words, if a person had a 5 higher dose could the latency be shorter or vice 6 versa? 7 A. Generally I would say within the past 8 30 years, perhaps not. At the turn of the century 9 when Auribalt was looking at the mortality of 10 French women working in textile plants where the 11 women were exposed to phenomenal - - reportedly 12 phenomenal doses, the latency for, say, asbestosis 13 was I think seven or eight years, but by and large 14 I don't think today that in recent times the dose 15 would necessarily affect the latency period. 16 Q. Have you done any research yourself 17 on the issue of dose and latency with respect to 18 mesothelioma? 19 A. The dose latency data for all the ? 20 animal studies are certainly in my book. I 21 haven't gone back and analyzed them, nor have I 22 ever done a meta-analysis or a critical synthesis 23 of all the latency, so the short answer is no. 24 Q. So if we were to go to your book, 25 which I didn't bring with me today, we had at a " DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00008991 515 1 Ilgren 2 prior session, called Mesothelioma in Animals 3 where you compile all these different papers, if 4 you wanted to, you could look at one or more of 5 those papers and see what they say, but you didn't 6 actually do any critical analysis yourself on that 7 question? 8 A. No. I believe the latency times are 9 there, again, I'd have- to go back and check. 10 Q. But when you say you believe they're 11 there, do you mean that you believe you reported 12 them in your book as a category or do you believe 13 they're back in the papers that are reported in 14 the book? 15 A. Well, that's what I don't recall. 16 I'm not sure if they're in the book. They're 17 certainly in the papers. They may also be on the 18 data base, but I just don't recall. 19 Q. Now with respect to these other 20 factors you said you would look at in the 21 hypothetical Conwed workers we were talking 22 about - 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. -- where they worked, who was working 25 around them, what types of products they were DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00008992 516 1 Ilgren 2 working with, would it be fair to say that those 3 factors all relate to the question of their dose 4 and their exposure? In other words, what you're 5 looking for there is what they were exposed to and 6 how much? 7 A. What were the parameters again. 8 Q. They were type of work, fiber levels 9 and ventilation were the three that you named. 10 MR. WILL: I think he also said what 11 was going on around them. 12 A. I also said product type. 13 Q. Right. What I'm trying to do is see 14 if there's some way we could summarize those. It 15 looks to me what you're dealing with there is 16 types of exposure and doses. 17 A. Types in terms of fiber type or types 18 in terms of fiber level? 19 Q. I probably should ask you that. 20 A. Well, generically certain products 21 contained crosidolite and other products didn't, 22 though there wasn't any absolute line that perhaps 23 some did and some didn't, but I'd say that 24 ventilation activity and I think the one other you 25 read. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00008993 fKil / . ,/ 5X7 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Types of work and fiber levels? 3 A. Would generally be related to fiber 4 concentration as opposed to fiber type, i.e. 5 amosite as opposed to crosidolite as opposed to 6 chrysotile. 7 Q. And have you been asked in this 8 particular case to make any apportionment with 9 respect to amosite and crosidolite in the cases of 10 Mr. Manisto and Mr. Bergstrom? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Based upon the data that you've seen 13 that is available, do you think that it would be 14 possible to do that? 15 A. I'd have to go back and get my files 16 out and the records. I don't recall the details. 17 It might be but I just don't recall. 18 Q. Well, let me ask you this question. 19 If it turns out that there is absolutely no 20 industrial hygiene asbestosis air level data for 21 the amosite and any crosidolite that these two men 22 were exposed to, which I'll represent to you is 23 the case, there just simply are no such 24 measurements, in that situation do you believe it 25 would still be possible to make some apportionment DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00008994 518 1 Ilgren 2 between those two things? 3 A. Perhaps. 4 Q. And that's why -- what would you use 5 as a surrogate or a replacement for actual 6 measurements if you were to do that? 7 A. Obviously it's not as good, but kinds 8 of activities they might have done whether say one 9 was sawing a pipe or sawing a board or drilling a 10 hole. There's perhaps not the best data, but 11 there are acknowledged ranges of levels generated 12 for those different activities. 13 Q. Let me go back to thehypothetical 14 Conwed worker I gave you. Would it be fair to say 15 that the best test, in your view, would be the 16 lung tissue fiber burden that you were describing 17 a little while ago in order to try to determine 18 the relative contribution of these different 19 fibers? ` 20 A. Probably. 21 Q. And let's assume, let's add another 22 hypothetical to your thing here. Let's assume 23 that now a lung tissue fiber burden test has been 24 done on our hypothetical Mr. Manisto, and let's 25 assume that the following is found in his lungs, DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00008995 519 1 Ilgren 2 crosidolite, amosite and chrysotile, those three 3 things. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Would it be your view that the 6 chrysotile would have had no role to play in the 7 causation of his mesothelioma? 8 A. Pure? 9 Q. Right. 10 A. Amphibole-free. 11 Q. Right. We're just talkingabout 12 chrysotile fibers as seen under the microscope. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And as I understand your view, the 15 amosite would have had some role to play but a 16 lesser role than the crosidolite, would that be 17 fair to say? 18 A. The question is an amphibole and 19 amphibole and amphibole. I think the question or 20 the answer slightly restated is there any 21 difference between the biological potency of a 22 long, thin amosite fiber and a long, thin 23 crosidolite fiber. I don't know if we have that 24 information. 25 Q. So would you then be looking in this DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00008996 520 1 Xlgren 2 hypothetical situation for the amount of the 3 respective fibers seen in that tissue as a more 4 important thing to look at than the type of the 5 fiber? 6 A. I think you'd want to know the amount 7 of each type. 8 Q. Let's start with crosidolite. Is 9 there an amount of crosidolite that you believe 10 needs to be found in lung tissue before you will 11 assign it as being a cause of a mesothelioma? In 12 other words, a million fibers per dry gram or some 13 number, is there some number you use? 14 A. There are numerical correlates for 15 mesotheliomas, for crosidolite, for amosite. A 16 Nottingham gas mask worker with mesothelioma with 17 I believe the briefest duration of exposure had l 18 to 2 million crosidolite fibers over five microns 19 per gram lung, and I think that's somewhere near 20 perhaps the lower end of -- again, I haven't 21 looked at this for a little while, I think that's 22 towards the lower end of the amount of crosidolite 23 it might take. . 24 Amosite -- I think the only data we 25 have for amosite mesothelioma lung burden comes DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00008997 Ilgren 521 rom Gibbs, et al. 1992, an analysis of the Uxbridge plant workers, and again, as I recall, the amounts of amosite found in the five or six mesotheliomas they looked at were in the order of, I just don't recall, 80, a hundred million fibers. Q. Let me ask you this with respect to this particular question of how much fiber per dry gram of lung would be a bottom value or a floor or a threshold or causation of mesothelioma, have you done any specific research on that question? A. Well, in conjunction with a threshold analysis for mesothelioma. I've certainly tracked the lung burden- literature. Right off the top of my head I couldn't cite the figures, but I think the numbers I gave you before, there aren't those many data out- there. Q. Let me ask you this. Would those figures be in these published papers by these authors you've just told us? A. I believe so, sure. Q. And at this point as you sit here today, in response to the question, is it your answer that a minimum lung tissue fiber burden for crosidolite is somewhere in the 1 to 2 million DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00008998 522 1 Ilgren 2 fiber per dry gram of tissue range? 3 A. I'd like to go back to a couple of 4 papers, but that's basically what I recall. 5 Q. And with respect to amosite, I'm not 6 quite sure if you told us you had a minimum or 7 not, what would your sense be as you sit here 8 today what that minimum would be, as reported in 9 these papers? 10 A. I don't know if one could actually 11 determine that. I guess I would try to answer the 12 question by looking at the worker with 13 mesothelioma that had, say, apparently the 14 briefest exposure duration, which isn't to say he 15 didn't have perhaps an intense exposure, but I'd 16 be looking for the mesothelioma case with the 17 briefest exposure duration and asking the question 18 how many amosite fibers would he have in his lung. 19 I mean one would naturally like to 20 look at all the mesothelioma cases irrespective of 21 exposure duration and intensity. And again, I 22 can't remember the figures, there aren't many 23 cases, and the only ostensibly pure 24 amosite-exposed cases that I can think of are from 25 this Uxbridge cohort. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00008999 ` ,: 523 1 Xlgren 2 MR. BROWNSON: Let's just take one 3 moment here. 4 (Discussion off the record) 5 (Whereupon, document entitled "Fiber 6 Levels and Disease in Workers From a 7 Factory Predominantly Using Amosite" marked 8 Ilgren Exhibit 25 for identification, as of 9 this date.} 10 Q. Now we've marked an article here as 11 Ilgren Deposition 25, and for the record it's 12 called "Fiber Levels and Disease in Workers From a 13 Factory Predominantly Using Amosite," and it's 14 published in Environmental Health Perspectives 15 beginning at page 261 by A.R. Gibbs, et al. 16 Now, is this the paper which reports 17 these data you were just talking about about the 18 amosite? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. This is from this factory at Uxbridge 21 in England? 22 A. North London, right. 23 Q. Let me ask you a question. They 24 report here tha.t this particular plant produced 25 insulation board. Do you have any information as DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009000 ' "\ J J 524 1 Ilgren 2 to what this insulation board was specifically? 3 A. I think it was 40 percent amosite 4 with a little chrysotile. 5 Q. Let me rephrase the question. What 6 physically was the product? 7 A. Ceiling tile, I think. I believe. 8 Q. And as you understand it, would that 9 be acoustical ceiling tile like we see in the room 10 here? 11 A. I don't know. I presume so. 12 Q. Wow there's reference in this paper 13 that this particular factory was a very dusty 14 factory, and at an earlier session of your 15 deposition when you were getting into questions 16 concerning exposure levels to the common workers. 17 you were talking about what you called a similar 18 factory in Uxbridge. Is this the one you were 19 talking about that we see reported in Exhibit 25? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Okay. And at an earlier session of 22 your deposition, you were making some allegations 23 with respect to how much exposure Conwed workers 24 needed based upon this Uxbridge plant. Do you 25 remember that? ' DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009001 Ilgren 525 2 A. Yea. 3 Q. Now my question ia, what information 4 do you have concerning actual fiber levels that 5 the workers were exposed to at the Uxbridge plant 6 that we see here in Exhibit 25? 7 A. I think there's only three sources. a Health & Safety Executive, abbreviated HSE, 9 documents 19 -- I believe 1979, 1980, and then 10 Acheaon, in the fall 1981 cited as rev. number 1 11 in the bibliography of this paper Gibbs, et al., 12 1994. 13 Q. Now do you know if -- first of all, . 14 have you read those three papers, the Acheson 15 paper and those two Health & Safety Executive 16 documents, concerning this factory? 17 A. Yes. ia Q. And did they report actual air 19 measurements in those three papers? 20 A. Yes. Actually one other source of 21 data came from Kevin Brown because he was the 22 chief treating chest physician at Uxbridge for 23 Cape Industries, so there's actually four sources 24 Q. What I'm wondering is, did these 25 people have the same measurements or did all four V ^ DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009002 526 1 Ilgren 2 of these sources do their own air measurements or 3 report different air measurements? 4 A. I believe they're all the same from 5 the same source. 6 Q. And do you know when the air 1 measurements were taken at that plant, what a historical time period? 9 A. There are certainly dates stated in 10 Acheson, et al., 1981. I can't remember how the 11 dates are broken down, if they're broken down in 12 the other documents. I think they have a citation 13 for some measurements taken in the mid '70s with 14 estimates of the ones that might have been 15 attained prior to that. 16 Q. My question is to get the actual air 17 measurement data from this plant? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. We would find that data reported in 20 Acheson's paper? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And would thatthenbe the same data 23 that's reported in these two Health & Safety 24 Executive papers? 25 A. Yes. IbelieveAcheson cites one or DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009003 527 1 Ilgren 2 both of the HSE papers as the source of the data. 3 Q. Now, do you know as we sit here today 4 the actual fiber levels that were measured at this 5 Uxbridge factory? 6 MR. WILL: Does he recall off the 7 top of his head, is that what you're asking 8 him? 9 MR. BROWNSON: Right. 10 A. Some. One of the dustiest 11 operations, as I recall, was what they call 12 beating, working as a beater, I'm not quite sure 13 what he did, it could have been a fiberizer, and I 14 think a cited level there was an estimated 64 15 fibers per cc, but there were a series of other 16 activities with different correlated fiber levels 17 as well and some of the earlier papers, I can't 18 recall exactly. 19 Q. Do you have any information as to 20 what the average fiber level was to which these 21 workers were exposed who are described in this 22 paper, Exhibit 25? 23 A. I believe the data are in the sources 24 for an average, a background, an average. 25 Q. When you say in the sources, you mean DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009004 528 1 Ilgren 2 in this Acheson paper? 3 A. I meant Acheson plus the two other 4 documents. 5 Q. So if we wanted to find what the 6 actual average levels were, calculate those, we 7 could find them in this Acheson paper or these two 8 Health & Safety Executive papers? 9 A. Yes, I believe so. 10 Excuse me, the other source I know 11 there are citations of hygiene data definitely in 12 Acheson 1981. It just occurred to me that there 13 might also be data in Acheson 1984, which is rev. 14 number 2. I can't remember. I think most of the 15 data cited in '81 are simply replicated in '84, IS but there might be some additional data in '84 17 that aren't in '81. 18 Q. Now the only actual data I see in 19 this paper. Exhibit 25, is down at the bottom of 20 page 262 where it says, "Measurements of airborne 21 samples in the late 1960's showed some areas to 22 contain more than 30 fibers per milliliter, but 23 prior to 1964, nine counts were probably higher." 24 You see that? 25 A. Yes. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009005 529 1 Ilgren 2 Q. That doesn't really tell us much? 3 A. Right, but it does say there is some 4 data in the 1984 paper. 5 Q. Now, I'm trying to understand your 6 relationship of this Uxbridge plant with the 7 Conwed plant, and as I understand it, at the last 8 session of the deposition you were talking about 9 this because you viewed it as sort of a similar 10 exposure or similar plant, is that right? 11 A. My perception was they're both 12 ceiling tile production plants. 13 Q. And this Uxbridge plant, do you 14 understand that that used just amosite and 15 chrysotile and no crosidolite or was there some 16 crosidolite used there? 17 A. Again, this is indicated in either 18 and/or the 1981 or 1984 Acheson papers. I think 19 there was a small amount of crosidolite used at 20 some period either experimentally or in the 21 research lab at Uxbridge, which is certainly borne 22 out by the fact that at least one of their 23 mesothelioma cases had crosidolite in its lungs. 24 In this particular paper they don't 25 break down the individual cases, but I think the DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009006 Ilgren 530 data were also published or presented at the iarc meeting. I believe that's where my galley proof is. I also believe that the individual mesothelioma cases are expressed in terms of how much each had in terms of crosidolite or amosite or chrysotile. Q. Where are those data expressed? A. I believe, they're in the -- again, I might be wrong. X believe that was in the IARC presentation that Allen Gibbs gave. Q. When was that? A. I think it's a couple of years ago. I could be wrong on that, but that's my vague recollection. Q. Are those the data presented in some published form somewhere, as far as you know? A. If it was an IARC scientific presentation, it's probably come out in one of the IARC scientific monographs. * Q. But as you sit here today, you can't give us a specific citation for that? A. I'd have to call Allen, Q. Well, as you read this paper, they report in here, this is Exhibit 25, that some DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009007 531 1 Ilgren 2 crosidolite was found in somebody but it doesn't 3 break it down? 4 A. Right. 5 Q. But then it also says -- what I'm 6 wondering is, have you looked at the last page of 7 the paper in the first column, there's a reference 8 to the East London factory where a substantial 9 amount of crosidolite was used, and this gives the 10 impression that we're talking about two factories 11 here, one at Uxbridge and one in East London. Is 12 that right, they're two factories? 13 A. Yes. Barking was the Newhouse 14 Thompson study. In fact I think there were some 15 people -- because Barking -was a Cape plant and 16 Uxbridge was a Cape plant, and I believe there 17 were some people to come from Barking to go to 18 Uxbridge. 19 Q. My question is, as I read this paper, 20 Exhibit 25, there's no indication in this paper 21 that crosidolite was used in this Uxbridge ceiling 22 tile plant, the only indication I see is that one 23 or more of these workers had some crosidolite in 24 their lungs, and I'm trying to find your 25 understanding about whether there was actually DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009008 532 1 Ilgren 2 crosidolite used here or whether these workers 3 could have been the ones that came from Barking or 4 where this crosidolite came from? 5 A. Do you have the '81 or '84 papers? 6 Q. Not with me, no. 7 A. My perception is that there were 8 several potential sources of crosidolite at 9 Uxbridge. One, there might have been experimental 10 tests done with crosidolite in which they 11 incorporated for a brief period of time 12 crosidolite into the product. Two, that there was 13 some use in the research lab for crosidolite. 14 Three, that there were perhaps some workers who 15 might have been exposed briefly at Barking or for 16 some period of time at Barking to crosidolite when 17 they made -- I think they made, I can't remember, 18 pipes or other kinds of boards there. 19 Q. Let me ask this question with respect 20 to Exhibit 25. . These workers, which were the ones 21 we were originally talking about, would it be fair 22 to say that some of these workers who have 23 mesothelioma and the other diseases did not have 24 crosidolite found in their lung tissues? 25 A. Yes. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009009 533 1 Ilgrefl 2 Q. And again, we don't have the exact 3 breakdown in this exhibit of who did and who 4 didn't, but it's fair to say that some did and 5 some didn't, right? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. Let's then concentrate onthose that 8 did not have any crosidolite but just had amosite 9 found in their lungs. 10 A. Right. 11 Q. And I want to go back to my earlier 12 question of what would be the minimum or least 13 amount of amosite fibers in a dry gram of lung 14 tissue that you would consider would be causative 15 of mesothelioma? 16 A. Right. - 17 Q. And you told us thatyouweren't sure 18 but that data came out of this factory, so what 19 I'd like you to do is could you look at the paper 20 here and try to answer that question? 21 MR. WILL: Object to the form of the 22 question. I think your preamble misstates 23 his earlier testimony, but go ahead, I 24 don't have any objection to him looking at 25 the document and commenting on the data. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009010 '' , ,^ 534 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Let me rephrase the question. 3 Based on the data in Exhibit 25, can 4 you now give us some answer to the question of how 5 much amosite per dry gram of lung tissue you need 6 to cause mesothelioma? . 7 A. I'm just looking here to see if they 8 have the table 4 data, which is fiber counts times 9 a million by type of pathology in terms of all 10 fiber lengths or just over five, Mr. Brownson, do 11 you see how they've broken that down? It looks 12 like all fiber lengths but -- 13 Q. Well, I can't answer it but - 14 A. I would look at table 4 in the 15 right-hand column where they have amosite, and it 16 says "Mean, approximately a thousand with standard 17 deviation of 1,012 for the five cases." 18 Q. That would be a thousand what? 19 A. A thousand million, that's a billion. 20 A billion fibers per gram lung. 21 Q. It's a thousand times ten to the 22 sixth or a billion fibers per dry gram of lung 23 tissue? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And if we could try to summarize DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009011 Ilgren 535 this, table 4 of Exhibit 25 indicates that there are five mesothelioma cases where lung tissue fiber burden analyses were done, is that right? A. Yes. Q. And that's out of thisUxbridge ceiling tile plant? A. Yes. Q. And in those five cases, the mean amosite fiber burden in the lungs was a billion fibers per dry gram of lung tissue, correct? A. Yes. Q. Now if we wanted to find what each of the five actually was, we don't find that here in this paper, do we? A. No. Q. And are you telling us that or do you recall or believe that we could find that in these two Acheson papers that are cited here at the end? A. No. The lung burden data, theonly other place I know where the lung burden data exists would either be in that possible IARC presentation or in Allen Gibbs' data books in the lab. I'm sure he's broken them down. Q. Well, earlier what I wastrying to do DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009012 536 1 Ilgren 2 was find from you what your answer would be as to 3 the minimum amount of amosite found in a lung 4 tissue fiber burden analysis that you would 5 believe causes mesothelioma, and you pointed us to 6 the data out of this factory, and would it be fair 7 to say that this Exhibit 25 doesn't give us the 8 individual data in those five cases, it just gives 9 us a mean of 1 billion fibers? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. So when you answered earlier that the 12 minimum amount of amosite would be the minimum 13 found in these workers, we don't actually have 14 that here , what we have is a mean amount? 15 A. We've got a standard deviation, I 16 must say. 17 Q. Could we calculate it from using that 18 standard deviation? 19 A. Possibly one could. I couldn't at 20 the moment. 21 MR. BROWNSON: Off the record. 22 (Discussion off the record) 23 Q. To get back to this question, try to 24 finish up here and move along, your opinion as to 25 the minimum amount of amosite needed to cause a / DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009013 537 1 Ilgren 2 mesothelioma is based upon the data from this 3 Uxbridge factory, would that be fair to say? 4 A. For lung burden? 5 Q. Right, for lung burden? . 6 A. Right. 7 Q. Okay, and we can'tspecifically 8 calculate it from this particular paper because 9 the five mesotheliomas aren't broken down 10 individually, would that be fair to say? 11 A. And I don't know how to work the 12 standard deviation analysis. 13 Q. But would it be fair to say that your 14 opinion on that question is based upon these five 15 mesothelioma cases, whatever those lung burdens 16 turn out to be? 17 A. We don't have any other data, to my 18 knowledge. 19 Q. Okay. So if I wanted to get your 20 answer as it were, we would have to -- we could go 21 and find these five cases and look at the actual 22 lung burdens in those five cases, and whichever 23 the lowest one would be, would that then be what 24 you would consider the minimum? 25 A. That being a suggestive minimum, we'd DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009014 IHi . \ y 538 1 Ilgren 2 like obviously to have more cases, but I think 3 that would be true. 4 Q. Let me put the question to you a 5 little differently. Would it be your opinion that 6 a fiber burden of 1 billion amosite fibers per dry 7 gram of lung tissue would cause mesothelioma? 8 MR. WILL: Would or could? 9 MR. BROWNSON: Would. 10 A. I'd like to know what sizes. 11 Obviously it's a tremendous number of fibers. 12 Q. Right. 13 A. I would say most probably, but I'd 14 like to know how many were so-called lung amosite 15 fibers over five microns. 16 Q. Well, whatever the size of these 17 five, the fibers found in these five workers, 18 would you agree that the authors of this paper. 19 Exhibit 25, have attributed these five -V 20 mesotheliomas to these billion amosite fibers. 21 whatever size they turn out to be? 22 A. With or without some contribution in 23 the one -- or I can't remember, one or two cases 24 with crosidolite. 25 Q. Now let's go back to my hypothetical DOYLE REPORTING, INC. {212)867-8220 UCAREF00009015 539 1 Ilgren 2 Conwed workers where this whole thing started. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Let's assume the hypothetical James 5 Manisto had the crosidolite and the amosite that 6 we've already talked about in his lung tissue 7 fiber burden, but now let's assume we also find 8 some tremolite there - 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. --in that lungtissue. Do you have 11 any opinion as to the minimum amount of tremolite 12 needed to cause mesothelioma in a lung tissue 13 fiber burden? 14 A. I think the only dataone could look 15 at would be either from the Libby vermiculite, 16 vermiculite tremolite cohort from Montana or the 17 Thetford Canadian chrysotile/tremolite cohort from 18 Canada. And I don't recall off the top of my head 19 the levels in the Canadian cohort, but again, I 20 think we're dealing with somewhere around a 21 billion tremolite fibers as Fred Pooley -- is what 22 Fred Pooley found. The Libby data aren't really 23 published or available. I've looked at some of 24 them but they're not -- I mean I can't remember 25 what they were, but again, they were very high. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009016 540 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Let me ask you this. Do you have an 3 opinion one way or another as to how much 4 tremolite fiber per dry gram of lung tissue is 5 needed to cause mesothelioma? 6 A. I think it's much -- it's at least as 7 high, if not higher, than the exposure to amosite. 8 Q. And if.1 understand it, that's not a 9 firm figure. You're talking about a range? 10 A. A range. 11 Q. And you derive that range from some 12 data from Libby vermiculite workers and Thetford 13 Canada chrysotile miners and millers? 14 A. Yes. There might be one or two 15 others but they'd be the major sources. 16 Q. How about these Charleston, South 17 Carolina textile workers, do you get data from 18 them on this question of tremolite? 19 A. I think Prank Green and John Dement 20 are just publishing those data now. I can't 21 remember what they show. 22 Q. And again, as I asked before, have 23 you done any research yourself on this question of 24 how much tremolite is needed to cause 25 mesothelioma? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009017 541 1. Ilgren 2 MR. WILL: By research, do you mean 3 experimental work? 4 MR. BROWNSON: Right. 5 MR. WILL: Original experiments as 6 opposed to reading papers? 7 MR. BROWNSON: Right. 8 A. Just on the Libby vermiculite 9 workers. 10 Q. And what research have you done on 11 those workers? 12 A. Just looking at trying to get the 13 lung burden data collated and see what they say. 14 I can't remember, it's been a long time since I 15 looked at the data. 16 Q. As I understand it, you didn't 17 actually take those data, you got that data 18 from - 19 A. Frank Green or Pat Sebastian. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. It wasn't as if I did the lung 22 burdens myself, I didn't actually count the fibers 23 myself, no. 24 Q. That data is some data that you have 25 seen in written form but it's not published, would DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009018 ' . Ilgren 542 2 that be fair to say? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Let's go back to my hypothetical, 5 Conwed workers, James Manisto, and let's assume 6 that James Manisto had 1 billion crosidolite 7 fibers per dry gram of lung tissue, 1 billion 8 amosite fibers and 1 billion tremolite fibers? 9 A. What sizes? 10 Q. All over five microns. Let's just 11 assume this hypothetically. Would it be your 12 opinion that each of those three things would have 13 had some role to play in the causation of his 14 mesothelioma? IS A. It's possible. 16 Q. And let me put the question another 17 way. Does anybody --if you were presented with 18 that hypothetical case -- 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. --is there anybody who can really 21 say that the tremolite did have a role, the 22 amosite did have a role, the crosidolite did have 23 a role, or are you really saying that each of them 24 could have had a role but nobody really knows for 25 sure? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009019 I1 Ilgren 543 2 A. I think no one knows for sure. And 3 if notwithstanding one, say, had not had the 4 exposure to the tremolite or the amosite, there is 5 a probability that the crosidolite alone might 6 cause the meso, and/or in the absence of 7 crosidolite or tremolite, the amosite, so the net 8 contribution of all three together, I think I 9 don't know how one would apportion them. 10 Q. Let me ask you this. If the 11 hypothetical Mr. Manisto had just a million 12 crosidolite fibers per dry gram of lung tissue and 13 nothing else, would you say his mesothelioma was 14 caused by the crosidolite? 15 A. Could very well have been. 16 Q. And let's say that the hypothetical 17 Mr. Manisto just had the billion amosite fibers 18 and nothing else, would you then say the amosite 19 was the likely cause? 20 A. Yes. * 21 Q. Let's say that he just had the 22 billion tremolite fibers and nothing else, would 23 you say that's the likely cause? 24 A. Yes. Probably. 25 Q. Once you get some combination of > DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UGAREF00009020 544 1 Ilgren 2 those, that's where it becomes harder to actually 3 say what did and what didn't, is that what you're 4 telling us? 5 A. Basically I think, again, it comes 6 down to is an amphibole is an amphibole is an 7 amphibole. Is a tremolite fiber that's eight 8 microns long and a quarter of a micron wide any 9 more biologically potent than one of an amosite or 10 crosidolite? 11 Q. Now I understand that you believe 12 that Calidria chrysotile fiber cannot cause 13 mesothelioma, and that's because it has no 14 amphiboles in it, is that a fair summary? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Now what I want to do is Iwant to go 17 back and understand the reasons you say that 18 Calidria cannot cause mesothelioma, and we've 19 covered some of this before, so let me try to 20 summarize it to move along. I understand that you 21 believe that the animal data, which is tabulated 22 in your book Mesothelioma in Animals, leads you to 23 that conclusion, is that right? 24 A. One basis. 25 Q. That's one basis. Andwe've talked DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009021 545 1 Ilgren 2 about that already, but as I understand it, you 3 look at these studies which have actually exposed 4 animals to Calidria fiber which are reported in 5 your book, and based upon what's reported in those 6 studies you've reached the conclusion that 7 Calidria cannot cause mesothelioma in humans, 8 correct? 9 A. Again, it's one basis. 10 Q. That's one of the bases, and I want 11 to just talk for a minute about that basis. I 12 understand that's not your whole basis but that's 13 one of them. 14 A. Sure. 15 Q. With respect to that part of your 16 opinion, are there any other animal studies with 17 respect to Calidria asbestos that you are aware of 18 that are not reported in your book that form a 19 part of that opinion? 20 A. Just the Pinkerton work that we 21 discussed before, that's the only other set of 22 animal studies, to my knowledge, that ever used 23 Calidria fiber. 24 Q. So if we wanted to -- strike that. 25 That part of your opinion that says DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009022 546 1 Ilgren 2 Calidria cannot cause mesothelioma, that's based 3 on animal studies. The animal studies we're 4 talking about, are those reported in your book? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And then the Pinkerton studies? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Right? 9 A. Right. 10 Q- And with respect to those animal 11 studies, just so I understand it, certain of those 12 animals exposed to Calidria by injection did 13 develop mesotheliomas, correct? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q- As reported for instance in the 16 Suzuki study in 1984, let's use that as an 17 example. 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. But despite that, it's your belief 20 that Calidria cannot cause mesothelioma, and I'm 21 wondering why. 22 MR. WILL: Why vis-a-vis the animal 23 studies or why vis-a-vis the other? 24 MR. BROWNSON: No, just the animal 25 studies. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009023 547 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Let's narrow it down, let's take the 3 Suzuki paper in 1984 which showed that at certain 4 doses, certain o the animals did get 5 mesothelioma. 6 A. Right. 7 Q. And you obviously in some fashion 8 discount that data, and I'm wondering why. 9 A. Well, there's two papers, there's 10 Suzuki 1982 and Suzuki 1984. They're two separate 11 studies, Suzuki 1982 used 10 milligrams of 12 Calidria and Suzuki 1984 used 2 milligrams and 20 13 milligrams. I don't recall the highest percentage 14 of mesotheliomas. I'd like --do you have the 15 papers? 16 Q. I actually don't have that paper. 17 A. One basis for discounting Suzuki, as 18 I recall, and again, I'd have to check the 19 numbers, I think the highest incidence he obtained -* 20 was somewhere around 30 percent, and this was 21 intraperitoneal injection in the mouse, and as I 22 recall based on an analysis of the literature, 23 particularly, say, Freidrich Pott's studies where 24 he's done very large numbers of intraperitoneal 25 injections, that up to 25, circa 30 percent of DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009024 548 1 Ilgren 2 tumors thus induced by intraperitoneal injection 3 might be caused by a combination of spontaneous 4 incidence, vehicle alone, injection alone and 5 nonspecific fibrous nonfibrous dust alone 6 treatments. 7 Q. Okay, so - 8 A. One basis is it's a background - 9 so-called background incidence. 10 Q. I understand, that's what the 11 conclusion you basically derive in your book is, 12 that in these animal studies there's a certain 13 background incidence of mesothelioma, which is not 14 related to the specific fiber being injected or 15 inhaled, as the study may be? 16 A. Right. . 17 Q. And are yousaying thenthat with 18 respect to these injection studies, approximately 19 a 20 percent level of mesotheliomas constitutes 20 this background? 21 A. I can't recall. I think it's 22 somewhere 20 to 30 percent, so one basis would be 23 background. A second basis would be species 24 mouse. It's my understanding that the mouse is 25 less reproducible or these sorts of investigations DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)067-8220 UCAREF00009025 i&A 549 1 Ilgren 2 done on the mouse are less reproducible than ones 3 found in the rat, hence the rat is really the 4 species of choice these days for intraperitoneal 5 injection studies. 6 Another reason why perhaps 1 would 7 discount at least part of the Suzuki would be that 8 in 1982, we only used five animals. It was a 9 control, so to speak, for a zeolite, principally. 10 a zeolite study, and among other reasons again, 11 I'd ihave to take the papers out. 12 Q. You're not saying, though, are you, 13 that in mice generally not exposed, not inj ected 14 with asbestos, there's a 20 percent rate of 15 mesothelioma? 16 A. No. 17 Q. That's not part of it in your view? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Do you have any data that tells you 20 what the background incidence of mesothelioma in 21 mice is? 22 A. Uninjected, sitting around? 23 Q. Right, just a bunch of mice sitting 24 in a cage eating cheese. 25 A. If the reports exist, they' re in the DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009026 550 1 Ilgren 2 book. And they're pretty rare. 3 Q. So with respect to this 20 percent of 4 mice that get mesothelioma that you do not 5 attribute to the injected asbestos, you're saying 6 a very small amount of those could be just 7 background mesotheliomas and then the rest of them 8 are something else? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And I'm trying to figure out what the 11 something else is. 12 A. The injection of saline alone I think 13 can produce up to 6 or 8 percent. 14 Q. Of mesotheliomas in mice? 15 A. Well, see, we don't have a lot of 16 data. As I recall, Suzuki also had saline 17 injections in which he didn't find any 18 mesotheliomas, but if you go back to the work of 19 Pott, admittedly these are in rats, and you look 20 at the saline, a great number of saline injections 21 in some of the studies, he-got 6 or 8 percent 22 mesothelioma, so I think one can attribute it to 23 spontaneous genetics to the saline vehicle in 24 which the fiber was injected, to a nonspecific 25 effect of the nonfibrous elements coming together DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009027 551 1 Ilgren 2 and clumping. 3 Q. Are you saying that the chrysotile 4 injected had absolutely no role to play in those 5 20 percent that got mesothelioma? 6 A. Well, I mean it's also a question of 7 the artificiality of the test system whereby the 8 chrysotile under the circumstance of inhaling it 9 as a dispersed aerosol may not have any effect but 10 the chrysotile when injected might have an effect. 11 Q. What I'm asking, let me rephrase the 12 question, is in terms of Calidria chrysotile 13 injected into mice by Suzuki. 14 A. Right. 15 Q. Are you saying that injection of 16 chrysotile could have had some role in those 17 mesotheliomas or are you saying that the injected 18 chrysotile just absolutely had no role? 19 A. I don't believe one can look at the 20 Suzuki studies and conclude that Calidria 21 chrysotile on the basis of those studies can 22 induce mesotheliomas. 23 Q. In those mice? 24 A. That was a specificeffect. 25 Q. Was the converse also true, can you DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009028 552 1 Ilgren 2 look at Suzuki's studies and say that the Calidria 3 asbestos injected in those mice had no role or is 4 that an ambiguous result? 5 A. I would assume probably no role. 6 Q. But is it safe to say that you can't 7 say that with certainty? 8 MR. WILL: What do you mean by 9 certainty? 10 MR. BROWNSON: Well, I'm trying to 11 - - his answer was he would probably assume 12 it had no role and "probably" strikes me as 13 a qualifier. 14 A. I would do the usual medical 15 probability certainty qualifier, I would say it's 16 probably within the realm of medical scientific 17 certainty, not causative. 18 Q. Well, if control mice had a lower 19 rate of mesothelioma and if Calidria-injected mice 20 had a higher rate than control mice, are you 21 saying that the injection of the Calidria had no 22 role to play in that increased rate of 23 mesothelioma in those mice? 24 A. I'm sorry, I'm a bit tired today. 25 Q. By the way, we can take a break at DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009029 553 1 Ilgren 2 any time. 3 MR. WILL: Bob, I'm not trying to be 4 funny. I think from what his answer said, 5 they talked about injection per se may be a 6 factor, so when you say injection of 7 Calidria, are you including the injection 8 factor or are you trying to focus just on 9 the Calidria factor? 10 Q. Well, let me ask if you can answer 11 the original question. If not, maybe we need to 12 go to something else. Let's go back to the 13 original question. Can you answer that question? 14 A. Just repeat the original question. 15 (Record read) 16 A. I think within our discussion of 17 control and background, there's an apparent 18 difference, but I don't believe it's a real 19 difference. 20 Q. So you believe that the difference 21 between the control mice and the Calidria-injected 22 mice is based on something other than the 23 Calidria-injected into the peritoneum of those 24 mice. 25 A. Yes, I do. J DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009030 ) . 554 1 Ilgren 2 Q. And let's take the animal studies as 3 a whole, the Calidria-exposed animals, is it your 4 opinion that the difference in effect of 5 Calidria -- strike that. 6 Is it your opinion that the 7 difference in mesotheliomas in Calidria-exposed 8 animals where it appears, because it doesn't 9 appear everywhere, is based on something other 10 than the Calidria to which those animals were 11 exposed? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Now you stated that your opinion that 14 Calidria cannot cause asbestosis is based on a 15 number of things, one of which was these animal 16 studies? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Let's go now to the other basis for 19 your opinion. 20 MR. WILL: You said asbestosis, I 21 think we've been talking about meso. 22 Q. I'm sorry, let me ask another 23 question. 24 You said that your opinion that 25 Calidria cannot cause mesothelioma is based in DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009031 ilk 1 Ilgren 555 2 part on the animal studies which we've now talked 3 about, in part on other things. Let's now talk 4 about the other things. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Before we do, maybe this is a good 7 time to just take a short break. 8 (Recess taken) 9 Q. Before we move on, going back to the 10 animal studies and this prior discussion we had, 11 you had mentioned that 6 to 8 percent of 12 mesotheliomas in injection studies were caused 13 just by the simple fact of injecting a needle, is 14 that what that was? 15 A. I can't remember. I wrote about this 16 in that 1989 NATO ASI paper. The percentages are 17 broken down there for needle alone, for saline 18 alone. 19 Q. And where did you get that data, was 20 this out of some other studies? 21 A. Pott studies, Stanton studies, 22 there's a series of studies. 23 Q. So that was reported in your paper? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Again, this wasn't injection research DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009032 556 1 Ilgren 2 that you actually did, you're reporting from some 3 of these other studies? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. Let's move on to the question where 6 we quit about other bases for your opinion that 7 Calidria cannot cause mesothelioma other than the a animal studies. What are the other bases? 9 A. Would be epidemiological, physical, 10 chemical, lung burden, and animal studies as well. 11 Just the four. 12 Q. So the animal studies we've already 13 talked about, right, or we missed something? 14 A. Well, I guess vis-a-vis animal 15 studies which did not use Calidria, for example, 16 the inhalational studies where animals were dosed 17 with chrysotile. 18 Q. But this would be other types of 19 chrysotile? 20 A. Exactly. ? 21 Q. Okay. So let's take these other 22 bases, which as I understand it are 23 epidemiological, physical, chemical 24 characteristics and lung burden, those are the 25 three others? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009033 557 1 Ilgren 2 A. Right. 3 Q. Let's start with epidemiological, 4 what epidemiological studies are there that show 5 that Calidria cannot cause mesothelioma? 6 A. Calidria or chrysotile. 7 Q. I'm talking just about Calidria. 8 A. I'm sorry, I thought you were talking 9 about -- I mean, as you know, there's never been a 10 formal analysis of Calidria-exposed workers, but I 11 would say - 12 MR. WILL: Go ahead. 13 A. - - I would say that there are several _ / 14 bases for saying that humans exposed to Calidria 15 probably don't develop mesotheliomas. 16 Q. Let's back up here because that's my 17 question. You are of the opinion that Calidria 18 cannot cause mesothelioma in humans? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Let's just start over here, and that 21 opinion is based on several things. The first 22 thing is animal studies, and we've already talked 23 about that. 24 MR. WILL: Bob, I want to object to. 25 I think he told you in the last deposition i DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009034 558 1 Ilgren 2 that he didn't think chrysotile in general 3 caused mesothelioma. Calidria is a 4 chrysotile, so all of that material in 5 general would also apply to his opinion 6 about Calidria. If you want to focus on 7 which parts of the studies and things are 8 specific to Calidria, that's fine. 9 MR. BROWNSON: I understand that, 10 but here my question is can Calidria cause 11 mesothelioma, and I'm trying to understand 12 the reasons you say it does not, and to the 13 extent those reasons include information 14 about other types of chrysotile that you 15 relate to this question, that's fine. You 16 can tell us about that. But the question 17 is can Calidria cause mesothelioma and what 18 are the reasons you say it cannot. 19 A. Well, there were, as you know, the 20 work force at King City that mined, milled the 21 Calidria chrysotile, none of whom, to my 22 knowledge, ever developed mesothelioma nor any 23 asbestos-related disease, to my knowledge. 24 Q. Now let's stop there. 25 A. Sure. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 U CARE F00009035 559 1 Ilgren 2 Q. I'm trying to follow this through 3 logically. You say Calidria cannot cause 4 mesothelioma for a number of reasons, one is 5 animal studies. I think we've talked about that. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. The second then is epidemiology, and 8 is it fair to say that there has been no formal 9 epidemiological study of Calidria-exposed workers? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. But are there other 12 chrysotile-exposed worker, epidemiological studies 13 that you think bear on the question of Calidria? 14 A. Sure. 15 Q. And what are those? 16 A. The lack of mesotheliomas in workers 17 who appeared to have been exposed topure 18 chrysotile under different settings. The gas mask 19 workers who worked only with chrysotile. Certain 20 friction product industry people who worked only 21 with chrysotile. The instance of mesotheliomas in 22 certain cement workers, the mesothelioma incidents 23 in paper mill workers, I think it was Bill Weiss 24 in '77 study, there is, I would say, 25 epidemiologically speaking, eight or ten relevant DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009036 560 1 Ilgren 2 analyses that I think support the view that 3 chrysotile won't make mesotheliomas. 4 Q. Okay, and all of those studies are 5 with respect to Canadian chrysotile, would that be 6 fair to say? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Other than Canadian chrysotile, what 9 other kind of chrysotile was involved in those 10 studies? 11 A. Well, there's Obalangero Italian 12 chrysotile. There is the studies, the so-called 13 demographic epidemiological studies in Africa of 14 the miners in Swaziland and Rhodesia where no 15 mesotheliomas have been reported. I think that's 16 basically it. Italian and Africa. 17 Q. So you -- it's your opinion that 18 there are epidemiological studies of workers 19 exposed to pure chrysotile ucontaminated by any 20 amphiboles? 'f 21 A. No. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. Well, to myknowledge, theObalangero 24 Italian chrysotile as it's mined does not contain 25 amphibole. I believe that's the case. I'm not DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009037 561 1 Ilgren 2 entirely sure. I believe that there ia very 3 little, if any, tremolite in the African 4 Rhodesian -- again, there might be some, I don't 5 recall, but I think it's minimal. 6 Q. Let me put it to you another way. Is 7 it your belief that the mesotheliomas that show up 8 among chrysotile-exposed workers in 9 epidemiological studies is caused by some other 10 amphibole exposure that those workers have had, 11 whether it's tremolite or amosite or crosidolite? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Now let's go back then to the 14 Calidria-exposed workers. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And I think you've already told us 17 that as far as you know, there's no formal 18 epidemiological study of any workers exposed just 19 to Calidria, is that fair to say? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. But you are aware of - - well, let me 22 strike that. 23 Are you aware of informal studies of 24 Calidria-exposed workers? 25 A. Yes. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009038 562 1 Ilgren 2 Q. And what would those be? 3 A. The existence and follow-up -- well, 4 the follow-up of the King City miners and millers 5 done between I think 1962 to the present time. 6 Q. Other than the workers at the mining 7 mill in King City, California, are you aware of 8 any other group of Calidria-exposed workers who 9 have been studied but not in some formal reported 10 epidemiological study, in some informal way? 11 A. Calidria? 12 Q. Right. 13 A. As the Union Carbide fiber? 14 Q. Right. 15 A. No. 16 Q. So if we want to look at workers who 17 have been exposed to Calidria is the only group of 18 such workers of whom you're aware of the miners 19 and millers in King City or are there any others. 20 that's what I'm trying to get at? 21 A. I know. I think we've got to get the 22 definitions - 23 MR. WILL: Just answer the --go 24 ahead . His question was do you know of 25 anybody else other than miners and millers DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009039 563 1 Ilgren 2 in King City that were only exposed to 3 Calidria. 4 A. Calidria is a form of chrysotile or 5 Calidria is the Union Carbide-specific product. 6 Q. Right. The Union Carbide-specific 7 Calidria? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Okay, now let's talk about the miners 10 and millers in King City, California. Have you 11 done any - - first of all, have you actually ` 12 examined or seen any of those workers? 13 A. I met them, I met a few of them. 14 Q. And would that be at some tour you 15 took of the mine and mill? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. What I'm wondering is, have you done 18 any medical examination as a physician of any of 19 those workers? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Have you done any epidemiological 22 study or analyses of those workers? 23 A. I've reviewed the medical records. 24 Q. Of who? All of the workers? 25 A. Of all of the workers. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009040 564 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Okay, and how many were there? 3 A. I'd have to go and check my notes. I 4 recall that there were somewhere around 460. 5 Q. And when did you make this review? 6 A. Early May. If I -- of 1995. 7 Q. Okay, and however many they were, you 8 think there was around 460 records? 9 MR. WILL: Records. 10 Q. Records of 460 workers, give or take 11 a few? 12 A. Workers. 13 Q. Okay, so let me ask you about this 14 review you did. In May of 1995, you reviewed the 15 records of some 460 or so workers who worked at 16 the mine or milling in California? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And as I understand, you haven't 19 actually physically examined any of those workers, 20 what you saw were records? 7 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. Now, did these records include x-ray 23 films? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Did they include radiology reports? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009041 565 1 Ilgren 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Were you ever provided with any of 4 the x-ray films in connection with this record 5 review that you've described? 6 A. No. 7 Q. And in terms of the records that you 8 reviewed. where did you get the records? 9 A. Prom Mr. Ed Ryan. 10 Q. And Mr. Ryan is Union Carbide's 11 lawyer in Chicago, is that right? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And was this review that you made in 14 connection with the Chicago Board of Education 15 building cases that Mr. Ryan is defending? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Do you still have those records or 18 have you returned them? 19 A. They're being returned. 20 Q. Okay. Have you met Dr. Duane Hyde? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Have you spoken to Dr. Duane Hyde? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And you know who he is, he's a 25 physician in King City, California? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009042 566 1 Ilgren 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Retired, I guess? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Have you seen any reports prepared by 6 Dr. Hyde concerning these workers at King City, 7 California? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And how many reports? 10 A. As I recall, one. 11 Q. I'm going to show you before we mark 12 it, I'll just show you, is this the one that 13 you've seen? 14 A. I believe so. 15 MR. BROWNSON: Why don't we mark 16 that as I guess 26. 17 (Whereupon, letter dated July 31st, 18 1989 from Dr. Duane Hyde to John L. Myers 19 marked Ilgren Exhibit 26 for 20 identification, as of this date.) 21 Q. Exhibit 26 is a July 31st, 1989 22 letter from Dr. Duane Hyde to a John L. Myers of 23 KCAC, Inc., and I'll ask you have you ever seen 24 this letter before today? 25 A. I believe so. ./ DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009043 567 1 Ilgren 2 Q. And you believe this is the letter 3 you were just talking about that you saw from Dr. 4 Hyde? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Okay. Now in this letter. Exhibit 7 26, Dr. Hyde makes reference to a prior report he 8 had prepared. If you look up at the top, he says, 9 "This updated my February 19th, 1988 letter.* 10 Have you ever seen the February 19th, 1988 letter? 11 A. I may have but I don't recall. I've 12 certainly seen this letter. 13 Q. Okay. Do you know what the February 14 19th, 1988 letter said? 15 A. I can't recall. 16 Q. Do you know what the occasion was 17 that caused Dr. Hyde to write this July letter of 18 July 31st, 1989? 19 MR. WILL: Do you mean beyond what 20 it says in the letter? 21 MR. BROWNSON: Right. 22 Q. I'm wondering if you have any 23 information about what led up to this letter. 24 A. No. 25 Q. Have you seen any other DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009044 568 1 Ilgren 2 correspondence among Myers and Hyde, either from 3 Myers or to Myers, which is related to this report 4 or seems to be? 5 A. No. 6 Q. So what you had seen before would be 7 this report and- you might have seen the other 3 report of February 19th? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And where did you get -- when you saw 11 this report before today, how did it come into 12 your possession, in what context? And who did it 13 come from? 14 A. I think from Mr. Gerson, but I don't 15 recall. Probably Mr. Gerson. 16 Q. And was thatprovided to you in 17 connection with this work you were doing, 18 reviewing the records of these workers for this 19 Chicago case, or was it provided in connection 20 with some other work you were doing? 21 A. Other work. I think it was just 22 general work on the effects of Calidria fiber. 23 Maybe a year ago. 24 Q. And your communications with Dr. 25 Hyde -- let me ask you about that. First of all, DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009045 569 1 Ilgren 2 have you actually met with Dr. Hyde? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Did you talk to him bytelephone? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And do you remember if you talked to 7 him after you came into possession of this letter 8 or before? 9 A. I only - - as I recall, I talked to 10 him once, and I don't recall whether it was before 11 or after. 12 Q. Do-youremember ifyour conversation 13 with him or if in your conversation with him, you 14 reviewed the matters that he describes in this 15 letter? 16 A. I don't remember what we talked 17 about. 18 Q. Okay. Now this letter. Exhibit 26, 19 I've highlighted toward the bottom of the first 20 page a statement by Dr. Hyde which reads, "Because 21 the program has been in existence for only 26 22 years and because of its limited population size, 23 it is too soon to determine definitely whether or 24 not asbestos - related disease may occur." Do you 25 see that statement? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009046 570 1 ilgren 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay. First ofall, do you agree 4 with that statement? 5 A. Not entirely. 6 Q. What portions of it do youagree with 7 or disagree with? 8 A. Well, there are now 30-year workers, 9 and I think we've gotten to the point where a 10 sufficient time has elapsed that one might expect 11 to see some asbestos-related disease, if there was 12 some asbestos-related disease. 13 Q. And do you know as of the date of 14 this letter of July 31, 1980 -- strike that. As 15 of July 31st, 1989, the program had been in 16 existence for 26 years. Do you agree with that 17 part of it? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Are you saying that it's now 1995, so 20 we got an additional six years so that's where you 21 get the 30 years? 22 A. I'm just aware of men that have 23 worked between - - 24 MR. WILL: Are we six years passed 25 that? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009047 571 1 Ilgren 2 THE WITNESS: All right, fair 3 enough. 4 MR. WILL: Listen to his question, 5 answer his question. 6 Q. You made the statement that we're now 7 30 years out, and I understand what you meant by 8 that is we today in 1995? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. What Iwant to do is go back to 11 Exhibit 26, Dr. Hyde's letter of 1989. At that 12 point he said that the program had been in 13 existence for 26 years. You agree with that part 14 of his statement? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And then he says because of its 17 limited population size, do you agree or disagree 18 that there was a limited population size that 19 would cause him to be uncertain as to whether any 20 asbestos-related disease will occur? 21 A. I don't know what thepopulation size 22 would have been.. 23 Q. Let me ask you this. Ofthe 450 or 24 so workers who Dr. Hyde talks about and whose 25 records you reviewed, first of all, I assume those DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009048 572 1 Ilgren 2 are the same workers? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. You said about 460, he says about 5 450, so it sounds like we got the same group o 6 people, right? 7 A. Yes. a Q. Of those workers, do you know how 9 many as of today had worked at the mine or mill 10 for 30 years? In other words, how many of those 11 were original workers? 12 A. I think there's at least ten today. 13 Q. And the records that you reviewed, 14 were those sufficient in detail to tell you how 15 long these people had worked there? 16 A. No. ' 17 Q. But you were able to find at least 18 ten of them who had worked for 30 years? 19 A. Mr. Ryan showed me a document where 20 the people who worked 20 and 30 years, I think 20, 21 25 and 30 years, are listed. 22 Q. And did this appear to be some 23 document that Mr. Ryan prepared or was it some 24 document that appeared to come from KCAC or could 25 you tell? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009049 573 1 Ilgren 2 A. I couldn't tell, I think he prepared 3 it 4 MR. WILL: If you don't know, don't 5 guess. 6 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. 7 Q. Now when you reviewed the 450 or 60 8 or so records -- first of all, did you actually 9 review all of them? 10 A. I reviewed what I was supplied with. 11 Q. Were you supplied with all 450 or so? 12 A. Yes. 13 MR. WILL: Excuse me just a second. 14 (Witness and counsel confer) 15 MR. BROWNSON: You've had an IS off-the-record conversation with Mr. Will. 17 What was the last question pending before? 18 MR. WILL: The reason, Bob, there's 19 no mystery, I think there was a 20 misunderstanding between 'the two of you 21 that I was aware of from having talked with 22 Ed before. Ask him the question again 23 about how many workers he had records to 24 review. 25 Q. How many workers' records did you DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009050 574 1 ilgren 2 have to review? 3 A. About 375. 4 Q. And those were the records that you 5 got from Mr. Ryan? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. Now, did that group of records 8 appear to be the complete medical file of those 9 375 or so workers or did it appear to be selected 10 excerpts from the medical file of those workers, 11 from what ;you could tell? 12 A. I couldn't tell. 13 Q. Were there radiology reports for all 14 of the workers whose records you reviewed? 15 A. No. 16 Q. About how many of those workers in 17 your best recollection had radiology reports? 18 A. I can't recall. 19 Q. Was it more than half of them or less 20 than half? 21 A. I haven't tabulated those. 22 Q. Were there pulmonary function records 23 or reports on some of those workers? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And about how many pulmonary DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009051 575 1 Ilgren 2 functions did you see? 3 A. I can't recall. 4 Q. It would be fair to say, in any 5 event, that some amount of the workers' records 6 that you saw had radiology reports and some amount 7 had pulmonary functions, you did see those data 8 for some workers? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And in addition tothe medical 11 records, did there also appear to be included in 12 this group of records, employment records, from 13 either Union Carbide or KCAC, Inc.? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And were there suchemployment 16 records for all of the workers whose records you 17 reviewed or just for some of them? 18 A. Some. 19 Q. And can you give me any estimate as 20 to how many of those there were? 21 A. No. 22 Q. And physicallywhat did theserecords 23 look like? Was there a separate folder or file 24 for each worker? 25 A. Yes. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009052 576 1 Ilgren 2 Q. And would that be like a manila 3 folder? I'm just wondering what the physical 4 layout of these were. 5 A. Manila folder. 6 Q. So for example, there would be a 7 manila folder for Mr. Smith? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And then whatever records there were 10 on Mr. Smith would be in that folder? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. So there were approximately 375 13 manila folders? 14 A. 460 manila folders. 15 Q. Okay, but I don't get the difference 16 between the 375 and the 460. Were some of them 17 empty? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. So there were about 460 manila 20 folders but only about 375 of them actually 21 contained records that you could review? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. Do you know what happened to the 24 records in the other folders that were empty? 25 A. NO. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UGAREF00009053 577 1 Ilgren 2 MR. WILL: Assuming there ever were 3 any records in those folders. 4 MR. BROWNSON: Right. 5 Q. Do you know where the manila folders 6 came from? I mean before Mr. Ryan got his hands 7 on them. a A. No. 9 Q. Now Dr. Hyde had testified in a 10 different matterthat the medical records were n maintained either at his clinic or at the Ring 12 City Memorial Hospital. Could you tell from 13 looking at these manila folders whether they were 14 folders that looked like they came out of Dr. 15 Hyde's office or did they look like they were 16 hospital folders? 17 A. I couldn't tell. 18 Q. Did you make any inquiry to determine 19 where the x-ray films were? 20 A. No. T 21 Q. And with respect to those workers who 22 had employment records, were those employment 23 records stuck in their manila folders or were 24 those filed separately when you reviewed them? 25 A. In the manila folders. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009054 578 1 Ilgren 2 Q. And when you spoke to Dr. Hyde on the 3 telephone, was this after you had come into 4 possession of the records or was this before? 5 A. Before. 6 Q. So you have not had a chance to speak 7 to Dr. Hyde concerning specific individuals whose a records you reviewed, would that be fair to say? 9 A. Pair. 10 Q. And the records, as I understand it. 11 are currently in your possession but in the 12 process of being shipped back to Mr. Ryan? 13 A. Yes. 14 MR. WILL: Clarify how many records, 15 he doesn't have all of them. 16 Q. The 375? 17 A. No'. 18 Q. Where did you review the records? 19 A. Most of them in Chicago. 20 Q. So you actually went to Mr. Ryan's 21 office and reviewed the records there physically? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And did you then obtain copies of 24 certain of the records? 25 A. Yes. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009055 Ilgren 579 2 Q. And which ones did you obtain copies 3 Of? 4 A. The ones I didn't have time to 5 review , finish reviewing in Chicago. 6 Q. I see, so you reviewed some in 7 Chicago, you didn't get done so you took some with 8 you to finish your review? 9 A. They were sent to me. 10 Q. Those you've now completed and now 11 you're sending those back? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. Okay. And then with respect to these 14 particular records, had you ever seen any of those 15 before this review you've told us about with Mr. 16 Ryan? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Do you know who it was who collected 19 those records to get them together for Mr. Ryan 20 to - - 21 A. No. 22 Q. Do you know how long it took to 23 collect the records? 24 A. No. 25 Q. In any event, in addition to the DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009056 500 1 ilgren 2 physical manila folders with records in them, was 3 there any sort of additional index or reports or 4 summaries? 5 MR. GOLDMAN: You mean in addition 6 to the document that Ed Ryan showed him? 7 Q. Well, it would include that document. 8 A. I think so. I think there was a 9 listing of the workers, but I can't recall. 10 Q. So someone had prepared just a list 11 of the workers? 12 A. As I recall. 13 Q. Now is this that same list you told & 14 us about earlier that broke out the people with 15 the long exposures? 16 A. No. 17 Q. So as you recall it, there was a 18 separate list then that somebody had prepared of 19 the workers with the longer exposures? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And what did that list look like? 22 A. Just a one or two-page list. 23 Q. How were the workers categorized? 24 Was it 20| years of exposure, 30 years? 25 A. Yes. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009057 581 1 Ilgren 2 Q. For instance, was there a group of 3 workers who had 30 years of exposure? 4 A. Yes, as I recall. 5 Q. Okay, and about how many workers were 6 in that group? 7 A. I can't recall specifically. I 8 believe around ten. 9 Q. And in addition to those with 30 10 years of exposure, was there a breakdown then with 11 those who had 25 years of exposure? 12 A. I believe so, but I can't remember 13 exactly. 14 Q. Do you recall as best you can that 15 this was broken down in five-year increments or 16 was it one-year increments or something else? 17 A. I believe there were only those who 18 had worked 20, 25 and 30 years. 19 Q. And in the group of 25-year workers, * 20 can you give us some estimate of how many workers 21 were in that group? 22 A. I don't recall. 23 Q. How about the 20-year workers? 24 A. I think there were 20 or 30. 25 Q. And would there have been more than DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009058 582 1 Ilgren 2 30 in the 25-year group? 3 A. I don't recall. 4 Q. So if we could summarize, there were 5 approximately ten, give or take some, in the 6 30-year group, approximately 20 to 30 in the 7 20-year group, and then some number in the 25-year 8 group that you can't remember? 9 A. Right. 10 Q. Was the 25-year group generally of 11 that same range, in other words, it wasn't 200 12 people, was it? 13 A. No. ^ 14 Q. Maybe a dozen or two or something in 15 that order? 16 A. I really don't -- maybe five or ten. 17 Q. Okay, and were the records of these 18 people who had the 20,25 and 30-year exposures 19 kept or indexed separately so that you had easy 20 reference to them? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Were these files kept alphabetically 23 or haphazardly or chronologically? What was the 24 order of them? 25 A. Alphabetical. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009059 583 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Now in your review of these records, 3 it sounds like you spent some time in Chicago 4 reviewing them. How long did you spend in 5 Chicago? 6 A. Two days. 7 Q. And did you spend that entire two 8 days reviewing these records? 9 A. Most of the two days, yes. 10 Q. And in addition to that, then, you 11 didn't finish so you had some sent home with you? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. How long did you spend on those? 14 A. Another day or two. 15 Q. So after this total review of, say, 16 three to four days in Chicago and Philadelphia, 17 did you manage to get through all 375 or so? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. So I assume that you also as part of 20 that review saw these people with the 20 to 21 30-year exposures? 22 A. I believe so. 23 Q. Now did you prepare anyreport or 24 letters or notes concerning your review of the 25 records? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009060 584 1 Ilgren 2 A. Notes. 3 Q. And what form did those notes take? 4 Are they typed up or handwritten? 5 A. Typed. 6 Q. And haveyou provided those notes to 7 anybody? 8 A. No. 9 Q. So they're still in your possession? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Have you been asked or do youintend 12 to further refine those notes into some sort of 13 report or letter? 14 A. I haven't been asked to do that. 15 Q. Are you doing that or are the notes 16 just sitting there? 17 A. They're sitting. 18 Q. Now in your review--at the time you 19 reviewed these records in May of 1995, did they 20 appear to be current? In other words, there were 21 1994, 1995 records involved? 22 A. For a few people. 23 Q. Okay. Did the recordsindicate to 24 you how many people were still employed as of 1995 25 and how many were former employees? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009061 585 1 Ilgren 2 A. No. 3 Q. You couldn't tell that from what they 4 had there? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Could you tell, however, from 7 reviewing the records that some of them were 8 former employees? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Because the records would just stop 11 at like some date? 12 A. It was termination notice or 13 something. 14 Q. And do you have any estimate as to 15 how many of the workers were current employees and 16 how many were former employees? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Have you made any request or inquiry 19 for the records of the remaining people who just 20 had the manila folders without records in them? 21 MR. WILL: Assuming there are such 22 records .. 23 Q. In other words, are you trying to 24 find or locate those records? 25 A. I requested those. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009062 586 1 Ilgren 2 Q. And who did you make that request to? 3 A. Mr. Ryan. 4 Q. And do you know if Mr. Ryan is making 5 any inquiry or work in trying to find those? 6 A. I don't know. 7 Q. So you just simply don't know what 8 the status of those are? 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. Now, did you draw any conclusions 11 yourself from your review of these records? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And what conclusions did you draw? / 14 A. No asbestos-related disease baaed on 15 what I saw. 16 Q. Now do you know if the group of 450 17 or 60 or so manila folders you were provided 18 constituted all present and former workers who 19 have worked in either the mine or the mill at King 20 City since it was opened? 21 A. I don't know. 22 Q. Do you have any indication that there 23 may have been other workers at the mine or mill 24 who are not included in the 460 or so? 25 A. No. - DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009063 587 1 Ilgren 2 Q. At least among the 375 or so that you 3 did see, you did not see evidence of 4 asbestos-related disease, is that what you're 5 telling us? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. And with respect to these 375 or so 8 workers, could you tell how many of those people 9 worked at the mine? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Could you tell how many of those 12 workers worked in the mill? In other words, was 13 there something in their records that would tell 14 you where they worked? 15 A. Occasionally, but I couldn't tell how 16 many worked in the mill. 17 Q. Are you familiar with the term 18 "bagger"? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. In those 375 records, did you see 21 some who were identified as baggers? 22 A. I believe a few. 23 Q. Do you have any estimate of how many? 24 A. No. 25 Q. But there were some that were so DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009064 >i-S>il 1 Ilgren 2 identified? 588 3 A. I believe so. 4 Q. Okay. From what you could tell of 5 these records, were all of these people employed 6 somewhere in the King City operation, that is the 7 mine or the mill or the office or the truck driver 8 or somewhere involved with that operation? Is 9 that who these people were? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. In other words, they weren't Union 12 Carbide employees from Niagara Falls, New York or 13 someplace, they all appeared to be from these _/ 14 operations in King City? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And do you have any breakdown for us 17 as to how many were men and how many were women? 18 A. No, the majority were men. 19 Q. Could you tell if some of them were 20 truck drivers? 21 A. I think so but I can't quite recall. 22 Q. Okay. Now, I take it I think you 23 told us you didn't see any mesotheliomas in these 24 375 workers, correct? 25 A. Correct. J DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009065 589 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Did you see any lung cancers? 3 A. I don't believe so. 4 Q. Were there any pleural plaques 5 reported on any of the x-ray reports that you saw? 6 A. I think one unilateral plaque. I'd 7 have to go and recheck, I think it's just one 8 unilateral plaque. 9 Q. And did you make some reference in 10 your notes to that particular reference? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Did you see any pleural thickening 13 reported in any of the radiology reports? \ y 14 A. I believe for a couple. 15 Q. Now Dr. Hyde in his letter. Exhibit 16 26, references one worker on the last page whose 17 x-rays he sent to Mount Sinai and Dr. Selikoff, do 18 you see that? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q,, Were you able to determine who that 21 worker was? Did you come across that worker? 22 A. I don't recall. I don't believe so. 23 I just don't recall a correspondence. 24 Q. Did you see any record, report or 25 correspondence from Mount Sinai in the group of / DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009066 590 1 Ilgren 2 375? 3 A. I may have but I don't recall. 4 Q. If you did, do you know if you made a 5 reference to that in your notes? 6 A. I may have. 7 Q. Could you tell from your review of 8 the records how many of these workers were 9 smokers? 10 A. Not precisely. 11 Q. Do you have some general sense that 12 you can give us as to how many were smokers, did 13 it appear to be half or 10 percent or 90 percent? 14 A. Like the majority, but I couldn't 15 say. 16 Q. Were there smoking histories given in 17 the records that you saw? 18 A. As' I recall, there was a smoking 19 history for many of them. 20 Q. Was there some sort of form or check 21 list for the pre-employment physicals of these 22 workers that were included in the records that you 23 reviewed? 24 A. I believe so, yes. 25 Q. And from what you could tell, did DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009067 591 1 Ilgren 2 there appear to be some sort of regular, whether 3 it's annual or otherwise, follow-up to these 4 workers that had a check list that was included in 5 the records? 6 A. I believe so. 7 Q. And do you know if the pre-employment 8 form or check list had a category for smokers or 9 for smoking? 10 A. I believe so. 11 Q. And based upon your review, were you 12 able to determine the amount of smoking? In other 13 words, was there some reference to one pack or two 14 packs? 15 A. I believe -- again, I don't recall. 16 I believe there's a pack year. 17 MR. WILL: In the form you're 18 talking about? 19 A. Yes, I believe so. 20 Q- Did most or all of these records have 21 a medical history included? 22 A. Some. Not much. 23 Q. Some but not most. So it would be a 24 minority of them? 25 A. I can't recall. * DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009068 592 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Now Dr. Hyde at his deposition in the 3 Chicago case mentioned that Dr. Hilton Lewinsohn 4 had come out to King City in about 1985 and taken 5 a look at these records. Did you see any reports 6 or records or documents of any type in the medical 7 records that made reference to this review by Dr. 8 Lewinsohn? 9 A. No. . 10 Q. Have you ever seen Dr. Lewinsohn's 11 report? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. I think in an earlier session of your 14 deposition you told us that you had seen his 15 report. Have you seen any updated material from 16 Dr. Lewinsohn concerning these workers other than 17 that report? 18 A. No.. 19 Q. Now other than Dr. Lewinsohn, do you 20 know anyone else who has reviewed the records of 21 these workers? 22 A. No. 23 MR. WILL: Other than Dr. Lewinsohn? 24 MR. BROWNSON: Right. 25 A. Well, Dr. Hyde. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009069 593 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Now I understand Dr. Barrett has 3 reviewed some records of these workers. Are you 4 familiar with that review of Dr. Peter Barrett? 5 A. I just know that he made a review, 6 I'm not familiar with anything about it. 7 Q. So as far as you know, that review 8 was done independently of yours, in other words 9 you didn't collaborate with Dr. Barrett on a joint 10 review? 11 A. No. 12 Q. And have you seen any reports or 13 documents that Dr. Barrett generated in connection 14 with his review? 15 A. No. ' 16 Q. Let's go back to theExhibit 26, and 17 I was talking about this reference that Dr. Hyde 18 made in the last paragraph of the first page that 19 is highlighted on the exhibit? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And you had told us earlier that you 22 disagreed with a portion of this, I want to follow 23 up now and continue and ask you what specific 24 things you disagree with in that statement. 25 A. Well, I think there's beensufficient DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009070 594 1 Ilgren 2 time to note asbestos-related disease. 3 Q. Okay, and would that include 4 mesothelioma? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And how many of the approximately 375 7 records that you reviewed as of May of 1995 had a 8 20-year or greater employment? 9 A. I can't recall. 10 Q. Was there any indication in the 11 records that you reviewed as to the exposures that 12 people had to asbestos? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Was there any indication in the 15 records as to which of those people were exposed 16 to asbestos? 17 A. No. 18 Q. So you're saying that as of 1995, if 19 there was asbestos-related disease, you would 20 expect to see some evidence of it? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. But wouldn't you need to know how 23 many of those workers were exposed at least 20 24 years ? 25 A. Yes. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009071 595 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Is that data contained in your notes? 3 A. I think so. I think there's some -- 4 Q. Now, could you tell from your review 5 of the records as to whether any of these 6 individuals had made a workers' compensation 7 claim? a A. No. 9 Q. Dr. Hyde in his letter Exhibit 26 in 10 the second to the last paragraph on the first page 11 states that there were annual pulmonary function 12 tests on the workers. You had told us earlier 13 that you saw some pulmonary function data but you 14 didn't see it on all of them, is that right? 15 A. Correct. " 16 Q. Prom what you could see, did it 17 appear that these workers were getting annual 18 pulmonary function exams? 19 A. Many of them did. 20 Q. Andcould you tell from yourreview 21 of the records whether the pulmonary function 22 exams were being given only to those people 23 exposed to asbestos as opposed to other people? 24 A. No. 25 Q. You did see that someappeared to be DOYLE REPORTING, INC. {212)867-8220 UCAREF00009072 .?*-% .J / 596 1 Ilgren 2 getting the annual pulmonary function exams and 3 some did not? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And I guess what I'm wondering is 6 were you able to correlate that with any 7 particular jobs or exposure to asbestos or 8 anything else? 9 A. No-. 10 Q. Were you able to determine when the 11 annual pulmonary function exams began? 12 A. No. 13 Q. And were you able to determine from the records whether the annual pulmonary function 15 exams were being done in any way in conjunction 16 with OSHA requirements? 17 A. No. 18 Q. If you look at Dr. Hyde's letter 19 where we're talking about the pulmonary function 20 exams in that second to last paragraph, it says 21 that those have been done since 1972. Do you see 22 that reference? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Do you know why they were begun in 25 1972? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009073 597 1 ilgren 2 A. NO. 3 Q. Are you familiar with the fact that 4 the OSHA asbestos regulation began in about 1972? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And do you have any indication one 7 way or another if these annual pulmonary function 8 exams were begun in connection with or conjunction 9 with the OSHA requirements? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Then he says there's been annual 12 sputum cytology from '80 to '83. Do you know what 13 he's talking about there? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And what's that? 16 A. Looking at the sputum saliva for 17 cellular changes. 18 MR. GERSON: Can we go off the 19 record for one minute. 20 MR. BROWNSON: Sure. 21 (Discussion off the record) 22 Q. In your review of the records did you 23 see reports of this sputum cytology? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. What form did these reports take? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-3220 UCAREF00009074 598 1 Ilgren 2 What was reported there, what did they look like? 3 A. It was, I don't recall exactly, just 4 a form where they reported number of cells, type 5 of changes, normal dysplastic, metaplastic cancer. 6 Some note about smoking just half page form 7 perhaps. 8 Q. And as far as you know, does the 9 sputum cytology have anything to do with 10 asbestos-related changes? 11 A. Presumably. 12 Q. Well, what they're looking for there 13 really is any cancers or precursor to cancers, is 14 that correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. In layman's terras? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Whether or not it's related to 19 asbestos or not., would that be fair to say? 20 A. Yes. That's correct. 21 Q. Okay. Then they speak of an annual 22 stool, this is Dr. Hyde, guaiac? 23 A. Guaiac. 24 Q. 25 that is? I have to confess I don't know what DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009075 599 1 Ilgren 2 A. Looking for blood in the stool. 3 Q. And in your view, does that have any 4 relevance to any asbestos-related disease? 5 A. No. 6 Q. It's more of a gastrointestinal sort 7 of thing? 8 A. Colon cancer screen. 9 Q. Before May of 1995, had you received 10 any information on the medical condition of the 11 King City workers at the mine and mill? 12 MR. WILL: You mean any detailed 13 documents as opposed to just something a 14 lawyer might have said like - 15 MR. BROWNSON: Right. Any medical 16 records on these workers. 17 A. No. 18 Q. Have you ever seen any medical 19 records concerning workers at either the Atlas or 20 the Johns Manville facilities? 21 A. No. 22 Q. At or nearCoalinga? 23 A. No. 24 Q. You know what I'm talking about when 25 I refer to the Atlas or Johns Manville facilities? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009076 600 1 Ilgren 2 A. Ye9. 3 Q. Are you aware of anyone, any 4 physician or anyone else who has reviewed those 5 records of those workers and studied those 6 workers? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Were you able in your review of the 9 records of the King City workers to correlate any 10 of the particular workers with particular levels 11 of exposure? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Have you seen the data -- and I may 14 have asked you this before, I forgot, but have you 15 seen the data from Dr. Harrison Rhodes and other 16 industrial hygienists concerning the air levels at 17 the King City mine and mill? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And you're familiar with the fact 20 that this was generally done on a quarterly basis 21 sometimes more often over the years? 22 A. Seemed like once a year. I wasn't 23 familiar with quarterly basis. 24 Q. In any event, it was done on a 25 regular basis, you've seen certain of those DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009077 Ilgren 601 2 records? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Do you know if you've seen all of 5 them? 6 A. I don't know. 7 Q. But from your review of those 8 records, are you familiar with the fact that they 9 would indicate that certain operations :in the mill 10 had higher exposures than others? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And do you remember seeing reference 13 to the bagging area? 'A ) 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And do you remember seeing reference 16 that those levels were generally the highest 17 airborne fiber levels in the mill? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And what I'm wondering is, were you 20 able to tell from reviewing the medical records 21 which of the workers would have been exposed to 22 those air levels in the bagging area? 23 A. No. 24 MR. WILL: Other than those that 25 indicated they were baggers. DOYLE REPORTING, INC-. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009078 602 X Ilgren 2 Q. That's why I asked the earlier - 3 A. It's part of the same question you 4 asked before. 5 Q. I had asked earlier about the 6 baggers, would it be fair to say what we do know 7 is that at least some of these workers were 3 identified as baggers, whatever that might mean? 9 A. Yes. . 10 Q. And do you think from your own review 11 of both the industrial hygiene data and the 12 medical records that we would be able to draw any 13 correlation between these people described as 14 baggers and what was called the bagging area in 15 this industrial hygiene area or hygiene data? 16 A. Just for those marked as baggers 17 perhaps. 18 Q. So is it your belief that the people 19 described in the medical records as baggers would 20 be the people who worked in the bagging area of 21 the mill? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Okay. And do you have any 24 information as to approximately how many of these 25 baggers there were? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009079 603 1 Ilgren 2 A. No. 3 Q. Do you know whether any of the 4 baggers had fell into these categories of the 20, 5 25 and 30-year exposures? 6 A. I don't recall. 7 Q. Is there any furtherwork that you 8 intend to do or are in the process ofdoing with 9 respect to the review of the records of these King 10 City workers? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And what's that? 13 A. Well, I asked for the employment 14 duration information, the number of baggers and 15 eventually follow-up for ones for which we have 16 very little information. 17 Q. And you've made this request to whom? 18 A. Mr. Ryan. 19 Q. And do you have any information as to 20 whether any of that data is available? 21 A. I don't know. 22 Q. In any event, if it does become 23 available. what is it that you want to do or would 24 like to do with that data? 25 A. Just want to see how the workers that DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)067-8220 UCAREF00009080 m 604 1 Ilgren 2 were presumably exposed the most and the longest 3 are doing now. 4 Q. Okay, based upon what you know about 5 the exposures to Calidria fiber in the mill, is it 6 your understanding that the highest exposures were 7 in the bagging area or do you have some other 8 understanding? 9 A. As I recall, that's the case. I 10 don't recall the levels in any detailed way for 11 the very specific jobs. 12 Q. I'm just asking in a general sense 13 the higher exposures were in the bagging area? 14 A. Yes. That's my perception. 15 Q. Is. it your understanding that the 16 mill itself has operated as what they call wet 17 process? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. I may have asked you this before, 20 have you visited the mill? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. You have. On how many occasions? 23 A. Once. 24 Q. And when was that? 25 A. Three months ago. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009081 605 1 Ilgren 2 Q. And on that visit which has been more 3 recent than when Trevor and I were out there, you 4 saw - - first of all, was the mill in operation at 5 that point? 6 A. Yes, it was. 7 Q. Did you notice that it was what they 8 called the wet process throughout the mill? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And then in the bagging area, the 11 fiber would be in a dry state? Did you observe 12 that? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q* Was there any other part of the mill 15 or part of the process where the fiber was in a 16 dry state that you could see other than when it 17 came off the end of this bagging area? 18 A. I don't believe so. I don't recall. 19 Q. And did you also visit the mine? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q- And was the mine in operation when 22 you visited it? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And at that point how many workers 25 were working in the mine? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009082 606 1 Ilgren 2 A. Two. 3 Q. In addition, when you visited the 4 facility, were there truck drivers driving between 5 the mine and the mill? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And about how many of those were 8 there that you could see? 9 A. Two. 10 Q. In terms of workers, as you 11 understand this operation, out there with the mine 12 and the trucks and the mill, do you have some 13 general understanding as to which types of workers 14 were exposed to airborne Calidria fiber? 15 A. Generally. 16 Q. And do you have any understanding 17 whether the miners in the mine itself were exposed 18 to airborne Calidria fiber? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And what is your understanding of 21 that? 22 A. They were. 23 Q- And with respect to the levels they 24 may have been exposed to, have you seen data on 25 that? DOYLE REPORTING, INC, (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009083 607 1 Ilgren 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And would these be these industrial 4 hygiene data by Dr. RHodes and McDaniels and those 5 people? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. With respect to the truck drivers 8 operating between the mine and the mill, do you 9 have any understanding as to whether they were 10 exposed to airborne Calidria fiber? 11 A. I think so. 12 Q. Have you seen any data on what their 13 exposure may have been? 14 A. I believe so. 15 Q. Would this again be in the same 16 category, the Union Carbide industrial hygiene 17 data? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And with respect to the mill we've 20 talked about that you've seen the industrial 21 hygiene data there? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Other than the mine, the truckers and 24 the mill. are there any other parts to this King 25 City facility that you are aware of where these DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009084 608 1 Ilgren 2 375 workers could have been? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Could you make any determination from 5 the records that you saw as to whether any of 6 these people were office workers? 7 A. Yea. 9 Q. And what did you learn about that? 9 A. Just there was some mentionthey 10 worked in the office. 11 MR. BROWNSON: I guess that's all. 12 We're going to move on to a new area, so 13 maybe now is the time to take our break. 14 (Lunch recess: 11:55 a.m.) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009085 609 1 2 Afternoon Session 3 1:20 p.m. 4 ED ILGREN, M.D., previously 5 sworn, resumed: 6 BY MR. BROWNSON: 7 Q. I have a couple more questions. Dr. 8 Ilgren, concerning the Union Carbide - - or I mean 9 the King City workers. Going back to your review 10 of the records that we've discussed before lunch, 11 I'm not entirely clear exactly how this review 12 came about. You got the records from Mr. Ryan, 13 who is Union Carbide's lawyer in Chicago, correct? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And was it your understanding that it 16 was Mr. Ryan's office who actually collected the 17 records or how did they get to his office in 18 Chicago? 19 A. Don't know. 20 Q. Were you involved in any of the work 21 out in California in collecting the records and 22 locating them or any of that sort of thing? 23 A. No. 24 Q. When you made your visit out there 25 recently that you just told us about, did you make DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009086 610 1 Ilgren 2 any visit to the hospital or to the -- well, did 3 you make any visit to the hospital to see how the 4 records were kept and where they were kept and 5 that kind of stuff? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Did you makeany inquiries of 8 anybody, whether at KCAC or the hospital or Dr. 9 Hyde's office or anywhere else, about how these 10 records are kept and in order to familiarize 11 yourself with where they were and what they were 12 and that sort of thing? 13 A. No. 14 Q. So was your visit related in any way 15 to the records or was it related to just visiting 16 the facility? 17 A. Facility. 18 Q. Did you getany information from Mr. 19 Ryan's offices who actually did the physical 20 collecting of the records out in California? 21 A. No. 22 Q. And other thanMr. Ryan, have you 23 spoken to anyone else on the topic of reviewing 24 these King City worker records? 25 A. Mr. Stang. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UGAREF00009087 611 2 Q. And who is Mr. Stang? 3 A. He's an associate of Mr. Ryan. 4 Q. Okay. And when you -- just so I ' m 5 clear when you first -- strike that. 6 I take it that you had heard in the 7 past from somebody that the workers out there had 3 not gotten sick or did not have asbestos-related 9 disease? 10 A. True. 11 Q. Do you remember when you first heard 12 that? 13 A. Couple of years ago. 14 Q. And do you know who told you that? 15 A. Mr. Gerson. 16 Q. And did Mr. Gerson indicate at that 17 point where he got that information from? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Did Mr. Gerson show you then or later 20 any documentation to that effect? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Was the first documentation you saw 23 to that effect that letter that we've marked as 24 Exhibit 26? 25 A. Yes. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. {212)867-8220 UCAREF00009088 612 1 Ilgren 2 Q. And did you see that letter before or 3 after you went to Chicago to review the records? 4 A. Before. 5 Q. Do you know whose idea it was to 6 actually collect the King City records and review 7 them? 8 A. Not really. 9 Q. Were you aware that this was going to 10 be done or in the process of being done before you 11 went out to visit in Chicago to actually see them? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And can you give us a time frame of 14 when you first became aware that this process was 15 under way of collecting and reviewing the records? 16 A. The actual process of collecting the 17 records. 18 Q. Right, because I mean I assume it 19 took a little time, it didn't probably happen in a 20 day. 21 A, I don't know. 22 Q. At some point would it be fair to say 23 somebody told you "We're collecting the King City 24 records. we want you to review them"? 25 A. Right. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009089 613 1 Ilgren 2 Q. 3 that? Was that Mr. Ryan who asked you to do 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And do you remember how far in 6 advance of your actual review in Chicago that you 7 got that first notification? a A. No. 9 Q. 10 it weeks? Was it just a matter of days or was n A. I don't remember. Probably weeks. 12 Q. And then when you finally laid eyes 13 on the records for the first time, was it Mr. 14 Ryan's office in Chicago? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And you mentioned to us earlier that 17 the records were arranged alphabetically. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Is that by last name of the employee? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And then you told us that each was in 22 an individual file folder. Was there like then a 23 name on the tab of each folder, is that how it 24 worked? 25 A. Yes. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009090 614 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Okay. And was this the full name of 3 the employee that was on the folder? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. So for instance on those 85 or so 6 folders that have no records in them, at least 7 there is the name of Smith Joseph or somebody on 8 the tab? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay, let's move on now. We were on 11 the topic of your opinion concerning the fact that 12 Calidria asbestos does not cause mesothelioma, and 13 you said that was based on a number of factors, 14 the first is animal data, the second was this 15 experience of these King City workers that we've 16 talked about, and what are the other factors, if 17 any, that you base that opinion upon? 18 A. Within the epidemiology? Repeat the 19 question, I'm sorry. 20 Q. What, if any, other factors are there 21 that you base your opinion on that Calidria 22 asbestos does not cause mesothelioma other than 23 the animal data we've talked about and the records 24 of the King City workers that we've talked about? 25 MR. WILL: Are you excluding the DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009091 615 1 Ilgren 2 epidemiological study of other chrysotiles 3 that he mention,ed as well? 4 Q. I'm including that, although I think 5 you've talked about that, and what I'm trying to 6 do is just have you list and catalogue the various 7 factors that you base your opinion on. 8 A. You mean vis-a-vis, say, physical 9 chemical, as we said before, or lung burden. 10 Q. Right. 11 A. Physical chemical nature of Calidria 12 chrysotile would be another one. 13 Q. And what is it about the physical and 14 chemical nature of Calidria chrysotile that forms 15 the basis of your opinion that it cannot cause 16 mesothelioma? 17 A. Principally it's amphibole-free. 18 Q. And we've talked about that. Other 19 than the fact that it's amphibole-free, are there 20 other things relating to its physical or chemical 21 nature that forms a basis of your opinion? 22 A. It would be highly soluble, very 23 thin, very short, so it's rapidly cleared. I 24 think they're the principal ones, there's a number 25 of'subthemes. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009092 616 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Now with respect to being highly 3 soluble, do you mean by that that it is -- once 4 it's in the lungs, it is cleared through chemical 5 process? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. Okay. And what particular chemical 8 process is it that clears it from the lungs, 9 dilutes it or breaks it down? 10 A. I would assume it's acids and lung 11 juices and the like. 12 Q. And do you have any opinion as to how 13 long Calidria fiber will last in the lungs? 14 MR. WILL: Under what circumstances? 15 Q. Let me put it to you this way. Would 16 you say that all Calidria fiber that a Conwed 17 worker breathed up until 1974 would now be cleared 18 from their lungs? If we did a lung tissue fiber 19 burden today would we see any of that or wouldn't 20 we see it? 21 A. 22 1974? With no subsequent exposure after 23 Q. Right. 24 A. I'd be surprised if there was any 25 substantial amount. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009093 617 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Okay, so are you saying that the bulk 3 of the Calidria fiber would be cleared from the 4 lungs within a 20-year period? 5 A. I would think so. 6 Q. Okay. You also mentioned that it's 7 thin, and again does that relate to its solubility 8 or is this more easily dissolved because it's 9 thinner, is that the idea there? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Then you said it's short and rapidly 12 cleared. And what did you mean by that? 13 A. Just it's very short so it 14 facilitates macrophage clearance. 15 Q. And now in addition to the factors 16 which you have listed which are animal data, King 17 City workers, chemical and physical properties and 18 epidemiology of other types of chrysotile, are 19 there other facts or data upon which you base your 20 opinion that Calidria cannot cause mesothelioma? 21 A. Did we touch on the chrysotile lung 22 burden story? 23 Q. I don't know. 24 A. Divisional retention ofchrysotile in 25 amphibole, the studies that show in cases of DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009094 >, 1 6*5 Ilgren 618 ' 2 mesothelioma the amphibole was retained and the 3 chrysotile was cleared, that sort of thing. 4 Q. Are you saying there that if you do a 5 lung tissue fiber burden analysis some years after 6 exposure, what you find is that more of the 7 amphibole is retained in the lung, whereas the 8 chrysotile has been dissolved away? 9 A. Yes. 10 MR. WILL: Or cleared. 11 Q. Or cleared, however you would 12 describe it. 13 A. Sure. 14 Q. Are there other facts or data upon 15 which you base your opinion or have we now covered 16 the categories? 17 A. Those are the general categories. 18 Q. Okay. Now when this discussion 19 started, we were talking about the specific Conwed 20 mesothelioma cases, and we had discussed the cases 21 of Mr. Bergstrom and Mr. Manisto and the 22 crosidolite. Do you have any information that any 23 of the other Conwed cases, which may at least be 24 claimed to be mesotheliomas, are crosidolite other 25 than those two? jt DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009095 619 1 Ilgren 2 A. I can't remember. 3 Q. Okay. I'd like to - - well, you 4 mentioned earlier that you thought at least one or S two of those cases was not related or perhaps not 6 related to asbestos exposure at all. Do you 7 recall which of those? 8 A. I'd have to look at the files again. 9 Q. Now, Mr. Will has provided me since 10 the time of your last deposition with two letters, 11 one of January 13,1995 and one of January 25th, 12 1995, where he sent your files concerning the 13 mesothelioma cases, and I wanted to ask you just a 14 couple of things because I think we can 15 short-circuit this a little bit. 16 If we just take a look at them, for 17 instance, look at the first page under Mr. Will's 18 cover letter there, that it reads "Analysis 19 pathology of Donald Broeffle, analysis of 20 pathology," and this is a typewritten summary, and 21 I'm wondering is this a summary that you prepared? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. So when we see these typewritten 24 summaries in these records, these are your 25 summaries? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009096 620 1 Ilgren 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And if we look through the records, I 4 notice that on a couple of these summaries they've 5 been crossed out with pencil or pen kind of. Take 6 a minute. There's one. And I'm just wondering 7 who did that or what's that all about or is that 8 something you did? 9 A. It looks like my scribbling, but I 10 don't know. 11 Q. Do you know if that has any relevance 12 to your comments? 13 A. I don't recall what I was doing here. 14 Q. Let me just back you up to the last 15 one you were just looking at was Stanley Fleisch, 16 and that's also got some handwriting. If you turn 17 the page there's some comments and arrows and that 18 sort of thing in the margins. Is that your notes? 19 A. Right, it's mine. 20 Q. I don't want to go through every one 21 of these in detail, but are those of significance 22 to your opinions or is that just some kind of 23 doodling you did? 24 A. That just says I think I was just in 25 the process of putting this together into DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UGAREF00009097 621 1 Ilgren 2 different other subsections, one of which was 3 called I think "Asbestos-Related Disease or 4 Potential," so that just says "To ASB-Related 5 Disease," I was just looking through. 6 Q. So when we're looking -- I think what 7 happened here is what we're seeing are preliminary 8 drafts and final drafts that all got copied in 9 your records, is that significantly what this is? 10 A. Yes, whatever I had X copied up. 11 Q. So when we see these arrows and 12 handwritten notes and scribbling and crossing out, 13 is that because we're looking at a preliminary 14 draft as opposed to actually some substantive 15 comments that you' re making? 16 A. Yes. They're kind of editorial. 17 Q. Okay. I wanted to just ask you one 18 other thing about these records. I guess they're 19 in no particular order, but I have tabbed with the 20 yellow tab, I think it's Mr. Broeffle's. Yes, it 21 is. That is a page 8 of a report by a pathologist 22 named Jerome Kleinerman, if you go back there. 23 A. Okay. 24 Q. I'm just wondering, are you familiar 25 with Dr. Kleinerman? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009098 622 1 Ilgren 2 A. As a person? 3 Q. Right, as a physician, by reputation 4 or otherwise. 5 A. No. 6 Q. Have you ever seen reports from Dr. 7 Kleinerman before? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Now, I have highlighted in yellow at 10 the tab page on page 8 his statement that Mr. 11 Broeffle's mesothelioma was caused by asbestos. 12 I'm paraphrasing. 13 A. Right. 14 Q. I was justwondering wasBroeffle one 15 of the cases that you thought was not caused by 16 asbestos or do you agree with that conclusion? 17 A. I'd have to go through it again, I 18 can't remember. 19 Q. Can you just take aminute and do 20 that? 21 A. Sure. 22 MR. WILL: I may have some notes. 23 (Discussion off the record) 24 Q. Do you know if Mr. Broeffle is one of 25 the people who you believe had the same DOYLB REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009099 623 1 Ilgren 2 mesothelioma not caused by asbestos? 3 MR. WILL: Maybe you ought to ask 4 him if he thinks he really had 5 mesothelioma. 6 Q. Do you think Mr. Broeffle has a 7 mesothelioma? 3 A. Probably not. 9 Q. And what do you base that opinion 10 upon? 11 A. Well, at least three things. One 12 biological behavior in his case is very 13 atypical -- in other words, he apparently has at 14 least twelve-year survival after the 1980 15 resection, which is very unusual. At post mortem, 16 if my notes are correct, they said that there was 17 tissue taken from the left lower lobe of the lung 18 consistent with pulmonary adenocarcinoma, and a 19 stain that might be quite helpful in 20 distinguishing carcinoma from mesothelioma was not 21 done, the so-called DPAS stain. 22 Q. Okay. So do you have an opinion that 23 this is not a mesothelioma or are you saying that 24 you're skeptical of whether it is or not? 25 A. I'm very skeptical. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009100 1 Ilgren 624 2 Q. And are you saying then that Dr. 3 Kleinerman has made an incorrect diagnosis? 4 A. I suppose I am. 5 Q. Now, I think that forecloses my 6 second question. Let me ask you this. Assuming 7 hypothetically that Mr. Broeffle has a malignant 8 mesothelioma, do you have any indication that that 9 mesothelioma would not be as a result of asbestos 10 exposure, based upon your review of his case? ' 11 A. The only thing I saw was I believe 12 radiotherapy for ankylosing spondylitis. 13 Q. And where did you see that reference? 14 A. Here we go again. 15 (Discussion off the record) 16 A. There is a clinical note -- let's go 17 back off for a second. 18 Q. My question is going to be this. I'm 19 trying to figure out when this radiation therapy 20 occurred, if there's a reference to it. 21 A. I thought I had found it. I think I 22 had it wrong. The only thing I can see quickly 23 here is that he had x-ray evidence of ankylosing 24 spondylitis and a blood test positive for HLAB27 25 but no radiotherapy. I don't see the DOYLE REPORTING. INC. (212)967-8220 UCAREF00009101 625 1 Ilgren 2 radiotherapy. 3 Q. So radiotherapy would not be a 4 potential cause of mesothelioma in Mr. Broeffle's 5 case? 6 A. Probably not. I don't think he 7 received it, though I can't say for sure. 8 Q. And you're familiar with the 9 literature, I take it, that suggests that perhaps 10 radioactive therapy such as chemotherapy could be 11 a cause of mesothelioma, correct? 12 A. Yes. \ 13 Q. But doesn't that literature suggest 14 that what the cause is is actual radiation therapy 15 as opposed to just for instance a chest x-ray? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. So is there -- to go back to my 18 original question. Do you see anything or have 19 you seen anything in the case of Mr. Broeffle 20 which would suggest a cause other than asbestos 21 exposure for his mesothelioma. Assuming it is 22 that? 23 A. No'. 24 Q. I would like to show you an IARC 25 scientific publication number 90 from 1989, and DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 U GAR EF00009102 626 1 Ilgren 2 it's a paper by Maltoni and Minardi, which I 3 believe this is the one included in your book, and 4 I just wanted to make sure that this is the one 5 you make reference to. 6 A. This is the one. 7 Q. Before lunch we were talking about 3 the Suzuki paper, and I told you that I didn't 9 have that paper with me when you asked if you 10 could look at it, but I do have this paper, and I 11 wanted to take a minute to follow up and look at 12 this one, and I guess we might as well mark it 13 Exhibit 27. 14 (Whereupon, IARC paper from 1989 15 marked Ilgren Exhibit 27 for 16 identification, as of this date.) 17 Q. Just for the record. Exhibit 27 is a 18 paper which is included in your book entitled 19 Mesothelioma in Animals, correct? t 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And I think youmay even have made 22 reference to this paper this morning, I'm not 23 sure. 24 A. Perhaps. 25 Q. Whether you did or not,this is an DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-9220 UCAREF00009103 627 1 Ilgren 2 IARC paper of 1989, correct? 3 A. Right. 4 Q. And just so we're clear, this was in 5 an IARC session entitled "Nonoccupational Exposure 6 to Mineral Fibers" edited by Bignon, Peto and 7 somebody else? 8 A. Saracci. 9 Q. But they're not the actual authors of 10 this paper? 11 A. No. 12 Q- I wanted to refer you to page 49 of 13 the paper where they're talking about this being 14 an intraperitoneal injection experiment with 15 Sprague Dawley rats and Swiss mice. 16 A. Right. 17 Q. I'm looking at table 4, and they 18 appear to be reporting peritoneal mesotheliomas as 19 a result of these injections, correct? 20 A. Right. 21 Q. And they report the different types 22 of asbestos and water controls that they're 23 inj ecting. and one of the things they report is 24 California chrysotile? 25 A. Right. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009104 628 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Now that California chrysotile 3 they're talking about there, that's Calidria 4 chrysotile, correct? 5 A. I don't know. 6 Q. That was my question. Do you have 7 any information one way or another where that 8 California chrysotile came from? 9 A. I wrote to Maltoni twice and he 10 didn't respond, so since it said here Mount Sinai 11 School of Medicine, I wrote to Suzuki and he said 12 he didn't know, so I don't know. 13 Q. So we don't know if that's Calidria 14 or not specifically? 15 A. Right. 16 Q. We do know that it came from -- the 17 samples analyzed in this experiment came from - 18 or not analyzed, but used -- came from Mount Sinai 19 School of Medicine? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And it'sdescribed asCalifornia 22 chrysotile? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Okay, so it might be Calidria and it 25 might not? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009105 629 1 Ilgren 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Okay. In any event, when they talk 4 about tumor -bearing animals in table 4, is this a 5 mixture of both rats and mice, as you understand 6 it? 7 A. No, rats alone. 8 Q. This is rats alone? 9 A. See here it says rats as a subscript 10 or superscript A to describe this experiment, so 11 they're all rats. 12 Q. But in any event, in this particular 13 California chrysotile, they got 72.5 percent 14 tumors and peritoneal mesotheliomas in these rats. 15 right? 16 A. Right. 17 Q. 18 zero? And the water controls, they got 19 A. Right. 20 Q. So when you told us earlier this 21 morning we were discussing the Suzuki injection 22 experiment, you indicated that Suzuki had gotten 23 about 20 percent mesotheliomas or 25, I think with 24 Calidria asbestos, right? 25 A. Right. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009106 630 1 Ilgren 2 Q. And you were questioning whether that 3 was caused by the actual Calidria and you listed a 4 number of other factors that could have caused it, 5 one of which was the saline solution, is that 6 correct? 7 A. Right, plus other things. 8 Q. What I'm wondering is, on this 9 particular study, which we're looking at now, 10 Exhibit 27, when it says water controls, do you 11 know is that a saline control? 12 A. Probably saline. 13 Q. So would it be fair to say that these 14 water control injections, those rats both got the 15 needle and they got the saline? 16 A. Right. 17 Q. Okay, and none of them got 18 mesothelioma? 19 A. Not in this study. . jt 20 Q. Have you attempted tomake any 21 follow-up on your inquiry to Suzuki about just 22 what this California chrysotile is that we see 23 here? 24 A. He just simply said "Call Maltoni." 25 Q. Did you do that? DOYLE REPORTING. INC. (212)867 - 9220 / UCAREF00009107 631 1 Ilgren 2 A. Again? A third time? 3 Q. You did it twice? 4 A. I did it twice. 5 Q. And he didn't know? 6 A. No, he wouldn't respond. 7 Q. I see. 8 A. I faxed Maltoni. 9 Q. Is there anything else that you can 10 think of that we could do to try to answer that 11 question? Could we ask, for example, Minardi? 12 A. You can ask Art Langer for a letter. 13 Q. Do you think Art Langer might be able 14 to find that out? 15 A. Perhaps. 16 Q. I want to move on to a different 17 topic, and that is the issue of asbestosis among 18 the Conwed workers. Are you familiar with the 19 fact that certain of the Conwed workers have 20 exhibited interstitial fibrosis? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And have you reviewed records of any 23 particular Conwed workers with interstitial 24 fibrosis? 25 A. No. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009108 V;J. % 632 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Are you familiar with the fact that 3 certain of the Conwed workers have exhibited 4 pleural plaques on x-ray? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And have you reviewed any of the 7 records of those particular workers? 8 A. No. 9 Q. And are you familiar with the fact 10 that certain of the Conwed workers have exhibited 11 pleural thickening on x-ray? 12 A. I believe so. 13 Q. Have you reviewed any of those 14 records? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Now let me go back to this issue of 17 interstitial fibrosis. Is your definition of 18 asbestosis, parenchymal or interstitial fibrosis? 19 A. Yes. Plus caused by asbestos with a 20 characteristic diffused bilateral. more often 21 lower lobe interstitial fibrosis which begins as 22 parabronchial thickening. 23 Q. So you require interstitial fibrosis 24 number one. and you require it bilaterally? 25 A. And asbestos bodies. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009109 633 1 Ilgren . 2 Q. So you also require asbestos bodies? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. In order to make a diagnosis of 5 asbestosis, that's what I'm asking? 6 A. Yes. I pretty much agree with the 7 ATS pathology definition. 8 Q. So if we were to summarize your 9 opinion as to what is required for diagnosis of 10 asbestosis , we could look to the American Thoracic 11 Society guidelines? 12 A. You could look to Craighead, et al.. 13 C-r-a-i-g- h-e-a-d, one word, et al. 14 Q. So if someone was to ask you in the 15 case of a particular Conwed worker as to your 16 opinion as to whether that worker has asbestosis 17 or not, those would be the guidelines you would 18 look to to make that diagnosis? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And have you actually made such a 21 diagnosis in any of the Conwed records that you've 22 reviewed? 23 A. No. 24 Q. Or agreed or confirmed or disagreed 25 with the diagnosis? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009110 634 1 Ilgren 2 A. No. 3 Q. Have you been asked to do that? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Now, with respect to the diagnosis of 6 asbestosis , is that something that you've ever 7 done in a clinical practice? 8 A. Including pathology? Microscopical? 9 MR. WILL: He's a pathologist, not a 10 pulmonologist. 11 MR. BROWNSON: Right. 12 Q. I take it that you have not had a 13 clinical practice where you actually see 14 asbestotic patients? 15 A. No. 16 Q. For treatment, clinical treatment? 17 A. No. 18 Q- Now as a pathologist, have you seen a 19 pathology tissue samples of asbestosis? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And have you seen those in the 22 context of making a diagnosis or was that in the 23 context of research or learning or what? 24 A. Diagnosis, research, litigation. 25 Q. And again, you haven't done that, DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009111 635 1 Ilgren 2 though, with any of the Conwed workers? 3 A. No. 4 Q. Now, you make or a statement is made 5 in your witness disclosure in this case that 6 pleural plaques, although probably specific for 7 asbestos, do not carry any future cancer risk nor 8 impose any significant functional impairment, and 9 my question is, is that your opinion today? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Are you aware that there is a school 12 of thought abroad today that thinks that pleural 13 plaques do impose functional impairment? 14 A. Yes. 15 MR. WILL: By that, do you mean 16 foreign, the United States or just 17 circulating in the medical community? 18 Q. I meantcirculating in themedical 19 community? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And that's beenreported in the 22 literature, and I don't want to get that into 23 detail here but I want to establish the fact that 24 you're familiar generally with that concept and 25 that literature? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. f212)867 - 8220 UCAREF00009112 636 1 Ilgren 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Now, at the last session of your 4 deposition, we were discussing a little bit the 5 idea of exposure and how much exposure would be 6 necessary to cause asbestosis, and I don't want to 7 spend a lot of time on this, but as I understand 8 it, you hold opinions that a certain level of 9 exposure to asbestos is necessary both in dose and 10 duration to cause asbestosis, is that correct? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And could youdescribe for us again 13 what your current opinion is on that? 14 A. Circa 25 to 50 fiber years. 15 Q. Now does that relate to fiber type or 16 are we talking about any fiber type there? 17 A. I think it's based on any fiber type. 18 Q. And are you of the belief that that 19 is a minimum or threshold level for exposure or is 20 that a level that is a mean or median or how would 21 you describe it? 22 A. I believe it's athresholdfigure. 23 Q. And we got - 24 MR. WILL: Excuse me, we're clear 25 that you're talking now about asbestos in DOYLE REPORTING. INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009113 637 1 Ilgren 2 general, because I think in the second 3 session of his deposition he gave you the 4 calculations for Calidria and said that 5 would be different. I want to be clear. 6 Q. I know he did that but let's clarify 7 that because I thought you told me a minute ago S that this was asbestos in general, the 25 to 50 9 fiber years? 10 A. Chrysotile -- that specific figure, 11 as I indicated in the last deposition, was a 12 figure cited from Julian Peto, 1985, and that 13 would have been based on the Rochedale textile 14 plant analysis which they presumed was largely 15 chrysotile, but. there was also substantial 16 crosidolite there. 17 Q. Now, would you agree with me that if 18 -- I'm going to ask this in the form of a 19 hypothetical question --if there is interstitial 20 fibrosis bilaterally in a Conwed worker such that 21 he meets the ATS guidelines for asbestosis, and if 22 that Conwed worker's only occupational exposure to 23 asbestos was at the Conwed plant, would you agree 24 with me that that particular worker has had 25 sufficient exposure to asbestos at the Conwed DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009114 638 1 Ilgren 2 plant to cause asbestosis? 3 MR. WILL: Without knowing how long 4 he worked there or what he did? 5 MR. BROWNSON: Right. 6 (Record read) 7 A. I would assume so. 8 Q. I'm just trying to establish the fact 9 that hypothetically if a worker's only exposure to 10 asbestos was at. Conwed and if he does have 11 asbestosis, it would follow that that exposure 12 caused the asbestosis? 13 A. Okay. 14 Q. Have you made any analysis of any of 15 the Conwed cases specifically to attempt to make 16 that determination, that is whether a worker at 17 Conwed has had enough exposure to cause 18 asbestosis? 19 A. No. 20 Q. And just so I'm clear on this, if you 21 were asked to make such an analysis and shown 22 records and data and such to do so, would you base 23 your analysis upon the Rochedale data that you 24 were telling us about at the last deposition or 25 would you base it upon some other data set? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009115 639 1 Ilgren 2 A. In terms of a fiber year threshold? 3 Q. Right. 4 A. I think the Rochedale isfairly good. 5 Q. So if we wanted to work through your 6 analysis and find the basis for your analysis, 7 that is the data we would look at and that you 8 would look at to do that? 9 A. It's a good data set. 10 Q. Okay. Have ypu seen this, apaper by 11 Julian Peto and other authors, it's just recently 12 published, in fact it may still even be in press, 13 about what they call continuing increase in 14 mesothelioma mortality in Britain? 15 A. I haven't -- could I see it for a 16 minute? 17 A. Julian Peto sent me -- I haven't seen 18 this, but he sent me a galley proof or something. 19 Q. Are you familiar with the notion by 20 Peto that he apparently intends to publish that 21 there is what he describes as, he uses the term 22 epidemic, but continuing increase of mesothelioma 23 mortality in Britain? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And as I understand it, Peto and his DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009116 640 1 Ilgren 2 co-authors apparently attempt to ascribe this to 3 exposures to building workers, plumbers and gas 4 fitters. Are you familiar with that? 5 A. Vaguely. 6 Q. My question is, have you seen any 7 data which indicates what the exposure to these, 8 what is described as building workers, plumbers 9 and gas fitters, have had to asbestos in Britain? 10 A. Say that again. 11 Q. Have you seen any data which would 12 indicate what the exposure is? 13 A. Kind of fiber type? 14 Q. Piber type and fiber levels and 15 duration of exposure that these sorts of workers 16 have had in Britain. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. You have? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And what data are those? 21 A. Good example would be the data from 22 Harris of Devonport dockyard workers cutting 23 pipes, amosite pipes or sawing pipes or doing 24 that - - 25 Q. Incidentally, does your book DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009117 641 1 Ilgren 2 Mesothelioma in Animals attempt to compile and 3 discuss papers concerning animal studies which 4 cause mesothelioma but not other tumors, correct? 5 In other words, if there was some animal study 6 where they were looking at fibrosis in rats, you 7 didn't attempt to include that in your book, did 3 you? 9 A. X believe I tried to include any 10 long-term asbestos study, say, that might have - 11 they might have been trying to induce fibrosis, 12 but if they didn't get mesotheliomas and there was 13 an appropriate duration, then I also would have 14 included the study, I believe. If it's a negative 15 study where they had only found fibrosis but it 16 was, say, a two-year study, it should be included. 17 Q. Okay, so I understand this, let's say 18 someone was doing a rat study for fibrosis and it 19 was an inhalation study or an injection study, but 20 no - - and let's say some fibrosis was found but no 21 mesotheliomas were found. 22 A. Right. 23 Q. You may have included that in your 24 book because that would have some bearing on the 25 question of mesothelioma in animals? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009118 642 1 Ilgren 2 A. Right. 3 Q. In a negative way? 4 A. Right. 5 Q. Okay. 6 MR. WILL: Are you going to mark 7 that Peto article that he looked at? 8 MR. BROWNSON: No. 9 Q. Actually, Imean I could -- I brought 10 it up only because I was trying to find out if you 11 knew these data about the exposures he's talking 12 about. 13 At the last deposition we looked at 14 what I call the two Mellon Institute reports, and 15 they were marked as Exhibits 23 and 24. And I'll 16 show them to you now. 17 My question is with respect to these 18 two Mellon Institute studies, which are Exhibits 19 23 and 24, is there some reason you did not 20 include those two in your book? 21 MR. WILL: He's already answered 22 that question the last time. 23 A. I received the papers after I 24 submitted the material for publication. 25 Q. Now have you done any updating or DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009119 643 1 Ilgren 2 further work in connection with the topic of 3 mesothelioma in animals since the time your book 4 was published? 5 A. I .just collect the animal 6 mesothelioma literature. I haven't updated the 7 book. 8 Q. Do you have any plans to update it? 9 A. Perhaps. 10 Q. If you did update the book or if you 11 published a supplemental or updated study along 12 the same lines as Mesothelioma in Animals, would 13 you include these two reports? 14 A. Probably. 15 Q. Have you done any further work since 16 the last session of your deposition in December in 17 looking intoi or investigating either of these two 18 reports? 19 MR. WILL: It was November. But t 20 anyway, go ahead. 21 A. No. 22 MR. BROWNSON: Thank you. 23 A. Can I keep this, this Gibbs, et al.? 24 Q. Yes. 25 (Whereupon, document dated April DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009120 644 1 Ilgren 2 22nd, 1974 entitled "Airborne Asbestos Dust 3 Levels" marked Ilgren Exhibit 28 for 4 identification, as of this date.) 5 Q. Our next exhibit, which is 28, is a 6 document dated April 22nd, 1974 entitled "Airborne 7 Asbestos Dust Levels," et cetera. Have you seen 8 this document before? 9 A. NO. 10 Q. Just take a moment and look through 11 it. 12 A. Okay. 13 . Q. Now that you've had a chance to look 14 at it ai little more briefly, do you recall ever 15 seeing this before? 16 A. No, I've never seen it before. 17 Q. Would you agree with me that it 18 appears to be a report prepared by Harrison Rhodes 19 and Mr. Klebeer of Union Carbide in 1974? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. You are familiar at least by name and 22 reputation with Mr. Rhodes? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. I wanted to take you back to table 1 25 at the end of this report or near the end. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009121 645 1 Ilgren 2 A. Okay. 3 Q. Which is entitled "Airborne Asbestos 4 Fiber Counts Dumping of Calidria Asbestos 5 Pellets." Have you ever seen this data before? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Whether in the form of this table or 3 presented in any other form? 9 A. No. 10 Q. I'll ask you the next question, 11 although I guess I know the answer. It's reported 12 here under "Ceiling concentrations," there's a 13 reference to ceiling tile manufacturer high purity 14 pellets, with some data reported. Do you know 15 what that ceiling tile manufacturer workplace was? 16 A. No. 17 Q. And specifically do you know if that 13 was Conwed? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Okay. Have you been given any 21 information that Union Carbide Calidria asbestos, 22 whether it was open fiber pellets, was used in the 23 manufacture of any ceiling tile other than Conwed 24 ceiling tile? 25 A. Could you say that again, I'm sorry. DOYLE REPORTING. INC. (212)867-8220 UGAREF00009122 646 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Do you have any information that 3 Union Carbide Calidria asbestos was used in any 4 ceiling tile other than Conwed ceiling tile? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Have you been shown any data or do 7 you have any information as to what paper 8 manufacturing operations Union Carbide Calidria 9 asbestos was used in? 10 A. As. in companies? 11 Q. Right. 12 A. No. 13 Wait. 14 No. 1 just thought I heard Reader's 15 Digest used a lot of the paper, but I don't know IS who they got the paper from. 17 Q. Now going back to theUxbridge plant 18 we were talking about this morning, the ceiling 19 tile plant in England. Do you know what 20 chrysotile they, used, was that Canadian 21 chrysotile? 22 A. I don't know. 23 Q. Are you aware that Union Carbide was 24 shipping Calidria chrysotile to England for 25 paper-making operations back in the '60s? DOYLE REPORTING. INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009123 647 1 Xlgren 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And do you know what those 4 paper-making operations were in England? Where 5 this asbestos was used? 6 A. Some I think was printed paper, 7 sanitary napkins, I can't remember. There's a 8 number of different uses. 9 Q. Okay. Do you know if the ceiling 10 tile operation at Uxbridge would fall under the 11 rubric of paper-making in Great Britain? 12 A. I wouldn't think so. 13 (Whereupon, letter dated October 29, 14 1984 from H.B. Rhodes to Mr. J.L. Myers 15 marked Ilgren Exhibit 29 for 16 identification, as of this date.) 17 Q. I'd like to show you nowExhibit 29, 18 which is an October 29, 1984 letter or memo from 19 H.B. Rhodes to Mr. J.L. Myers, and ask you have 20 you ever seen this before? 21 A. No. 22 Q. . And first of all, based upon your 23 prior review of Union Carbide correspondence, do 24 you understand this to be Harrison Rhodes, from 25 what it looks like? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009124 648 1 Ilgren 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And Mr. J.L. Myers, that would be 4 John Myers in King City? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Now have youever seen the label or 7 warning that is attached to this letter? 8 A. I seem to think I saw it on the bag 9 in King City. 10 Q. When you were out there a few weeks 11 ago? 12 A. I believe so. I'm not entirely sure, 13 but I believe so. 14 Q. And have you hadany input of any 15 sort into writing or drafting or changing or 16 presenting the warnings on the Calidria asbestos? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Has anyone ever asked you about that? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Now lookat the warningthat's 21 attached here, which is the second page of Exhibit 22 28, and it reads "Chrysotile asbestos, warning 23 cancer hazard." Do you agree? 24 MR. WILL: That's part of what it 25 says . DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009125 649 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Among other things, but that's the 3 bold letters at the top. Do you agree that 4 Calidria asbestos is a cancer hazard, as they seem 5 to be saying here? 6 A. Perhaps in phenomenal doses with 7 smoking. 8 Q. Have you been given any information 9 by Union Carbide or anyone else as to why it was 10 decided to go with this particular warning we see 11 in Exhibit 28 on the Calidria bags? 12 A. No. 13 MR. WILL: You're assuming that that 14 was used on Calidria bags. 15 MR. BROWNSON: I am assuming that, 16 right. That's what it says. 17 (Whereupon, multipage document dated 18 January 18, 1985 marked Ilgren Exhibit 30 19 for identification, as of this date.) 20 Q. Exhibit 30, which you are now looking 21 at, is a document that I'd like you to take a 22 minute and look at, and my question will be, have 23 you ever seen this before? And what it is is a 24 stapled bundle of separate letters that have been 25 sent out to various employees at King City. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009126 650 1 Ilgren 2 A. I've never seen these. 3 Q. Now you are, of course, familiar with 4 the OSHA wo rkplace asbestos standard which began 5 in 1972? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. a letters? Which is referenced here in these 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And would you agree with me that 11 workers at the mine and mill in King City are 12 subject to those OSHA regulations concerning 13 asbestos? 14 MR. WILL: You're asking him for a 15 legal opinion or just his understanding? 16 He's not in a position to give any sort of 17 legal opinion. 18 MR. BROWNSON: That's true. 19 Q Do you have an understanding that 20 these workers would be covered by the asbestos 21 standard? 22 A. I think they're under MSHA for some 23 reason, not OSHA. 24 Q. MSHA being Mine Safety Hazard 25 Administration? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. {212)867-8220 UGAREF00009127 651 1 Ilgren 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Which is, if I can uselaymen's 4 terms, the OSHA for miners? 5 A. I presume so. 6 Q. Okay, now what I want you to do is if 7 you look through these letters, these are 8 addressed to particular employees and they just 9 give last names, the first one is Mrs.-Hernandez, 10 then there's Mr. Harris, Mr. Perez actually, it 11 does have first names, the first one is Delores 12 Hernandez, and I'd like you to look through these 13 and tell me if you recognize any of these names as 14 being among the names on the 460 worker files that 15 you saw? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Which ones do you recognize? 18 A. Hernandez. 19 Q. That's Delores Hernandez, the first 20 one? 21 A. Yes. I believe Steve Perez. There 22 were some Valladarez. I don't know whether it was 23 Jorge. Clyde Bailey. Pedro Godinho. Manuel 24 Segobia, Leo Trevino, John Godinho, Isabel Flores 25 senior. That's it. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009128 652 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Let's look at Exhibit 30. I want you 3 to take a look at it here, and let's start by 4 looking at the first letter which concerns Mrs. 5 Delores Hernandez, and it's a letter to her from 6 D.J. Garcia, safety and health supervisor, 7 Calidria Corporation of January 18, 1985. 8 A. Right. 9 Q. And itreferencesCAL/OSHA asbestos 10 regulations. 11 | A. Right. 12 Q. And realizingyou're not a lawyer, do 13 you have an understanding that what they're 14 talking about are an OSHA-type asbestos regulation 15 enforced in California for these workers at King 16 City? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And again without asking you to 19 render a legal opinion, is it fair to characterize 20 this letter and this series of letters as notices 21 sent out to various workers at King City that an 22 OSHA asbestos limit had been exceeded in one of 23 their work areas at some point in time and so a 24 letter was sent out? 25 A. Yes. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009129 653 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Now some of these employees on 3 Exhibit 30, if you look at some of the letters, 4 they indicate what the employee was actually 5 doing? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And let's go to the first one of 8 those. 9 A. Trevino. 10 Q. Mr. Leo Trevino, it indicates that 11 he's an 038 bagger operator. First of all, do you 12 know what 038 means? 13 A. No. 14 Q. And based upon your tour of the mill 15 and what you understand from other information 16 about the mill,- do you know what a bagger operator 17 is? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And what is that? 20 A. Takes the dried palletized or 21 unpalletized asbestos and puts it into, just as I 22 understand. works the bagging machine, so the 23 stuff goes into the bag basically. 24 Q. And then there's also reference to 25 Mr. John Godinho except he's called an 039 RG24 DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009130 654 1 Ilgren 2 bag operator. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And I'm wondering if based upon your 5 information and your tour of the plant, if you 6 know what the differences are there separate 7 baggers for RG24 and RG144? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Also Mr. Raul Santibanez is listed as 10 an RG244 bagger operator? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. John Godinho, did we get him before? 13 A. Yes. 14 MR. WILL: I think Manuel Segobia is 15 your next one. 16 MR. BROWNSON: I know, I'm just 17 trying to put this in some order. It looks 18 like our bagger operators are Leo Trevino, 19 John Godinho, Raul Santibanez. 20 A. Juan Villasenor, two from the back. 21 Q. And Juan Villasenor, and I' m trying 22 to correlate these with the names you recognize 23 from the medical records. You recalled Trevino 24 and John Godinho? 25 A. Right. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009131 655 1 Ilgren 2 Q. So now that you've had a chance to 3 look at Exhibit 30, do you remember those two 4 gentlemen being bagger operators? 5 A. No. 6 Q. There's also a reference to a Mr. 7 Manuel Segobia as a pelletizer operator. Are you a familiar with what the pelletizer is? 9 MR. WILL: It's palletizer, 10 p-a-l-l-e-t. n A. I think it refers to pellet 12 formation. 13 MR. WILL: Do you know what it 14 refers to? 15 THE WITNESS: No, I don't know. 16 Q. I thought too that it was a 17 pellet-making machine, although it says 18 palletizer, as Trevor Will pointed out, so you 19 don't know specifically what that would be? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Then Mr.Isabel Flores senior is 22 listed as press/dryer circuit operator. Do you 23 know what that particular job is? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And what's that? DOYLE REPORTING. INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009132 ~-\; 656 1 Ilgren 2 A. It's to compress and take the water 3 out of a lot of the wet slurry chrysotile. 4 Q. And based upon information you've 5 received and/or your own visit to the mill, do you 6 have any opinion or knowledge as to whether that 7 is an operation involving the wet operation or the 8 dried asbestos? 9 A. Well, it's actually two operations. 10 there's the press and then there's the dryer 11 circuit, so he's doing two jobs. The press, as I 12 recall, is more on the wet side, the drying 13 operation is - 14 MR. WILL: Starts wet and ends up 15 dry. 16 A. Well, it's put through a long 17 cylinder, as you probably saw, rotating. But it's 18 not, as I recall, open to the atmosphere. 19 Q. Okay, Now, you said you had not seen 20 these particular letters in Exhibit 30 before. 21 Have you seen any other letters of this general 22 type in any of the employee medical files that you 23 reviewed? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Did you see any information of any DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009133 Ilgren 657 type in any of those employee medical files which indicated actual amounts of exposure to which particular employees may have been exposed? A. No. (Recess taken) (Whereupon, document dated May 12, 1982 marked Ilgren Exhibit 31 for identification, as of this date.) (Whereupon, document dated May 12 and July 26, 1982 marked Ilgren Exhibit 32 for identification, as of this date.) Q. Now we have Exhibits 31 and 32, which are both entitled "UCC Plenum Test Dust Count." And my question is, have you seen either of these before? A. No. Q. Now take alook at the 31 isthe big one, if you'd look at on the third page of the exhibit, there's a letter or a memo which kind of describes what they're doing here, and just take a look at that because I wanted to ask you some questions. A. Okay. Q. Okay. Let'slook first Exhibit 31, DOYLE REPORTING. INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009134 658 1 Ilgren 2 it'9 titled "May 12th, 1982 Plenum Test," and this 3 is something that - 4 MR. WILL: I don't mean to pick on 5 you, but that's not the title of it. 6 A. Subject - 7 MR. WILL: The subject is plenum a test. 9 MR. BROWNSON: Thank you for that 10 important correction. 11 Q. And this was done somewhere, but what 12 it is, if I can summarize, is a test chamber that 13 was set up to see how dusty various Union Carbide 14 Calidria asbestos is, whether in the form of 15 tailings or pelletsore. Do you see that? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And there's various data reported in 18 tabular form, table 1, for example. table 2, 19 table 3 reports their findings. Do you see that? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Now have you ever seen data of this 22 type reported for where someone is testing 23 Calidria asbestos to see what sort of dust it 24 generates or aerosolthat itgenerates? 25 A. No. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009135 659 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Have you ever seen any published data 3 concerning aerosolization or dustiness of 4 chrysotile in general? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And what would that be? 7 A. A whole series of different papers. 8 Graham Gibbs, he's published a lot. There's a 9 whole series of different papers. 10 Q. And in those papers have you ever 11 seen any data reported for Calidria asbestos in 12 particular for dustiness or aerosolization? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Have you read those papers? 15 A. The general chrysotile papers? 16 Q. Right. 17 A. Yes. But not for a while. 18 Q. Do you consider yourself to be an 19 expert in this area, that is the dust-generating 20 capacity or aerosolization capacity or whatever 21 you want to call it, of chrysotile asbestos? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Has anyone at Union Carbide or 24 representing Union Carbide ever told you that 25 Union Carbide had run tests of this sort that we DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009136 660 1 Ilgren 2 see in Exhibit 31 and 32? 3 A. Not that I recall, no. 4 Q. And I take it then that you don't 5 know why these particular tests were run in 1982? 6 A. No. 7 Q. The Gibbs that you mentioned who has 8 published papers you had seen concerning dustiness 9 of chrysotile, that was which Gibbs? 10 A. Graham. 11 Q. Graham Gibbs. Okay. 12 Q. For some reason I can't find those 13 papers so we'll move on. 14 Now as I understand your opinion, it 15 is that chrysotile asbestos, in uncontaminated 16 form, at least, will not cause mesothelioma, 17 correct? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. And that it is chrysotile asbestos in 20 uncontaminated form will probably not cause lung 21 cancer, correct? 22 A. Not necessarily. 23 Q. And by that, do you mean that it will 24 not cause lung cancer or it will cause lung 25 cancer? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009137 661 1 Ilgren 2 A. It may in very high doses with 3 fibrosis and smoking. 4 Q. So would it be fair to summarize your 5 opinion with respect to lung cancer by saying that 6 chrysotile asbestos in uncontaminated form can 7 cause lung cancer but only if there's been a high 8 enough dose to cause fibrosis and the person is a 9 smoker? 10 A. Probably, yes. 11 Q. And with respectto asbestosis, it's 12 my understanding that it is your opinion that 13 uncontaminated chrysotile can cause asbestosis but 14 you need the doses that we've talked about earlier 15 today, relatively high doses, correct? 16 A. I believe so. 17 Q. Now, have you done any work over the 18 course of your career, whether for Union Carbide 19 or otherwise, in connection with asbestos 20 regulations dealing with chrysotile? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Have you ever testified before 23 Congressional committees or regulatory agencies in 24 that regard? 25 A. No. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009138 662 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Are you generally familiar with the 3 federal government regulations as they exist 4 concerning chrysotile? 5 A. To some extent. 6 Q. Are you familiar with the fact that 7 the federal government today through both the EPA 8 and OSHA does not distinguish among fiber type in 9 its asbestos regulations? 10 A. I believe so, yes. 11 Q. Do you know what the current OSHA 12 level is for asbestos in the non-construction 13 workplace? 14 A. 1 can't remember. Point 2. 15 MR. WILL: PEL level, is that what 16 you want to know? There's a variety of 17 levels. 18 MR. BROWNSON: That's a good point. 19 Q. PEL, permissible exposure level? 20 A. I can't remember. 21 Q. If I told you that the current OSHA 22 asbestos standard is point 1 fiber per cc by phase 23 contrast microscopy, does that ring a bell with 24 you? 25 A. Yes, it does. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009139 663 1 Ilgren 2 Q. So you're generally familiar with 3 that? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And again, that's thepermissible 6 exposure level, not the excursion level, correct? 7 A. I think so. 8 MR. WILL: Do you know? 9 THE WITNESS: No. 10 MR. WILL: Don't be guessing then. 11 Q. I wanted to showyou the next 12 exhibit, which for some reason has a paper clip on 13 it and not a staple. Let me have her mark it 14 here. 15 (Whereupon, document dated December 16 3, 1990 marked Ilgren Exhibit 33 for 17 identification, as of this date.) 18 Q. And this is Exhibit 33. My question 19 is, have you ever seen that before? And for the 20 record, it's a December 3, 1990 report and letter 21 by Union Carbide to the docket officer of the 22 Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 23 A. No. 24 Q. At page 2 of that, the part I think 25 I've highlighted under "Executive Summary." DOYLE REPORTING. INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009140 Sit! / 664 1 Ilgren 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. You see that there. The statement is 4 made, "Union Carbide supports OSHA's proposal to 5 reduce the PEL of point 2 fiber per cc to half, to 6 point 1 fiber per cc. In most cases this change 7 would be feasible to achieve and could promote 8 employee health." Do you agree with that 9 statement? 10 MR. WILL: What? Which part of it? 11 MR. BROWNSON: That a change from 12 point 2 to point 1 fiber per cc could 13 promote employee health. 14 A. No. 15 Q. And why do you disagree with that 16 statement? 17 A. Because I think the amount of 18 Calidria chrysotile required -- we're talking 19 about Calidria chrysotile, right? We're talking 20 about Calidria? 21 Q- Well, in this deposition we have 22 been, although I think if you read this 23 throughout, I'll represent to you this talks about 24 all asbestos fiber types. 25 A. Well, what do you want -- I see, so DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009141 665 1 Ilgren 2 in this instance we're talking about asbestos 3 tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite. 4 Q. Right, and asbestos in this context 5 is defined as crosidolite, amosite and chrysotile? 6 A. So it's all fiber types. 7 Q. All fibers we're talking about? a A. Perhaps for crosidolite. 9 Q. Other than for crosidolite, do you 10 agree with that statement that changing the OSHA 11 permissible exposure level from point 2 to point 1 12 fiber per cc could promote employee health? 13 A. Probably not. 14 Q. Now if you go to page 27 of this 15 exhibit, it's signed by a gentleman named Robert 16 E. Plevan, Ph.D., assistant director of 17 occupational health. Do you know who that is? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Have you ever heard the name? 20 A. No. 21 (Whereupon, document dated December 22 31 marked Ilgren Exhibit 34 for 23 identification, as of this date.) 24 Q. This is now Exhibit 34, which is a 25 similar type document, it's a letter or report DOYLE REPORTING. INC. f2121 867 - 8220 UCAREF00009142 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ilgren 666 from Union Carbide to OSHA concerning a change in the permissible exposure level for asbestos. And you can look at it as long as you want, but I'm in particular going to about the middle of it, there is an attachment after the tables which is titled "Testimony for the Hearing on OSHA's Proposed Rule," et cetera, by Robert Plevan. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. And I take it this is the same Robert Plevan we saw in the - - MR. WILD: He has no way of knowing. . Q. -- previous exhibit. Let me get to this, but if you read this, this gives you more description as to who this Robert Plevan is and what his background is, and I'd like you to just look at that and then tell me after reviewing those qualifications if that helps you recall whether you have any recollection of this man? A. No recollection. Q. Have you ever been to theUnion Carbide headquarters in Danbury, Connecticut? A. No. Q. Other than going to the mine and mill DOYLE REPORTING. INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009143 667 1 Ilgren 2 at King City about a few weeks ago, have you ever 3 been to any of the other Union Carbide facilities? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Have you ever been to any of the 6 customer plants where Calidria asbestos was being 7 used in process? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Areyou awaregenerally of the 10 asbestos regulations in other countries other than 11 the United States? 12 A. Very vaguely. 13 Q. Very vaguely, okay. 14 Are you aware of the fact that Great 15 Britain regulates chrysotile asbestos although at 16 a different standard than crosidolite? 17 A. X believe so. 18 Q. Now at thelast session of the 19 deposition, I want to bring you back to a 20 different topic, we were talking about this paper 21 by Yeager and Kagan and Langer and others 22 concerning the dosing of the human macrophage 23 cells in vitro. You're familiar with that? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And at that time you advised us that DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009144 668 1 Ilgren 2 you were aware of what you called a 3 supplementation or a continuation of that study in 4 abstract form? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Published by Diane Russo? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. I wanted to ask you some more 9 questions about that. At the last deposition we 10 marked as Exhibit 13, the list you had prepared of 11 the papers, both published and unpublished, that 12 you have consulted in connection with your 13 opinions, do you remember that list? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And just again for the record, this 16 is a list you prepared? 17 A. Appears to be. 18 Q. If we go to the reference of the 19 Russo paper - 20 MR. BROWNSON: For the record, I 21 should note, Trevor, that I in my 22 inadvertent doodling put a blue arrow next 23 to it so I'd have an easy reference. 24 MR. WILL: Apparently highlighted 25 something above it too. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 ..... UCAREF00009145 669 1 Ilgren 2 MR. BROWNSON: That was something 3 different. 4 Q. But in any event, the Russo paper 5 reference is found at page 76 of your list, as we 6 see here, page 7? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. When we left the last deposition, I 9 had requested a copy of this and I got a letter 10 back from Mr. Will, I don't know if you're 11 familiar with this or not, but his response was 12 with respect to this Russo paper, I could find it 13 in the literature and I should go ahead and do it. 14 I want to tell you that since that time, I haven't 15 been able to find it in the literature and I'm 16 wondering, do you maintain a copy of that paper? 17 A. Yes. 10 Q. And as far as you know, is this 19 reference given at page 7 of Exhibit 13, the t 20 correct reference for the Russo paper? 21 A. I believe so. 22 Q. You want to take a look at it? 23 A. I believe that's the right reference. 24 Q. Now you stated that it was in a 25 volume called "Fed Proc." DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009146 Ilgren 670 A. Yes. Q. Can you tell us what that is? A. Federal proceedings. Q. And is it fair to characterize that, if I could, as a compilation of abstracts? A. Yes. Q. In other words, it doesn't -- it's not a journal or periodical in which actual papers are published but it's a reference material, reference series of books containing abstracts of various medical and scientific papers? A. I believe so. Q. And prior to the reference to Fed Proc on your citation, it says "Environ tox II," which I assume stands for environmental toxicology Roman numeral II? A. Right. Q. Do you know what that means? A. I think it was just some kind of perhaps presentational setting that they had where one session was entitled Environmental Toxicology. Maybe that's morning, I, afternoon, II. Q. But in any event, as you told us, you actually have a copy of the paper? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009147 . . 671 1 Ilgren 2 A. Yes. 3 MR. BROWNSON: I'd like to request, 4 if it's all right, Trevor, that we get Dr. 5 Ilgren's copy since I was unable to take 6 your helpful advice and find it in the 7 literature. 8 (Witness and counsel confer) 9 Q. Now again going back to the Russo 10 reference, and I'll give you the exhibit here, 11 again what we're talking about here is an abstract 12 of something, correct? 13 A. Right. . 14 Q. And it's listed as page 679, is that 15 a correct page reference? 16 A. 1 assume so, I'm not sure. 17 Q. Would it be fair to infer from that 18 that this abstract comprises one page or less? 19 A. Half a page. 20 Q. And also in the reference after Fed 21 Proc in brackets, you've put number 2574. Do you 22 know what that refers to? 23 A. Abstract number. 24 Q. Now do you know where -- do you know 25 if an actual paper was published from which this DOYLE REPORTING. INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009148 672 1 Ilgren . 2 abstract is derived? 3 A. I don't believe so. 4 Q. In any event, have you ever seen a 5 published full length paper? 6 A. Entitled "Russo, et al." 7 Q. Right. 8 A. No. 9 Q. Do you know if the abstract you're 10 referencing here, Russo, et al., 1988, is an 11 abstract for one of the earlier 1981 or 1983 12 papers on this topic or is it an abstract for 13 something additional? 14 A. I believe additional. 15 Q. Do you know that for sure one way or 16 another? 17 MR. WILL: You mean off the top of 18 his head without going back? 19 MR. BROWNSON: Yes. 20 A. I'd have to recheck it. 21 Q. And are you aware of any published 22 study on the topic of dosing human macrophage 23 cells with Calidria asbestos other than the 24 original Yeager, Kagan, Russo study in 1983? 25 A. No. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009149 673 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Now at the last session of the 3 deposition, we were talking at some length 4 concerning work by Pinkerton, Kent Pinkerton. 5 A. Right. 6 Q. I don't want to get into that again 7 in depth, in fact I don't want to get into it at S all, but have you had any -- since the time of our 9 last deposition have you had any further contacts 10 with Pinkerton -11 A. Yes. 12 Q. - - concerning this data? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And can you describe for us what 15 has been? 16 A. Several telephone calls and a 17 meeting. 18 Q. Do you know when and where the 19 meeting was ? 20 A. It was last May at University of 21 California, Davis. His office. At Davis. 22 MR. WILL: By last May? 23 THE WITNESS: May 1995. 24 Q. Just last month, you mean? 25 MR. WILL: This is June. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009150 674 1 Ilgren 2 A. What month is it? 3 Q. What was the topic at that meeting? 4 A. Can we take a small break just a 5 second? 6 (Pause) 7 A. The Pinkerton data. 8 Q. 9 by him? Was the meeting instigated by you or 10 A. By me. 11 Q. And what specific topic about the 12 Pinkerton data caused you to instigate this 13 meeting? In other words, what were you looking 14 for specifically? 15 A. Just wanted to have his personal 16 input on writing up and finalizing the data. 17 Q. And are you saying you wanted his 18 personal input on you writing up - - 19 A. Together. 20 Q. -- data? 21 A. Him and I. 22 Q. And is that a project that's in the 23 works where he and you are going to write up this 24 data? 25 A. Yes. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009151 675 1 Ilgren 2 Q. Has it been written up in any form? 3 A. You mean published? 4 Q. Well, I assume it's not been 5 published, but has it been published? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Has it been written up in written 8 form by you in some preparatory stage to 9 publishing it? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Is it your intent to try to publish 12 it at some point? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And who would the authors of that 15 publicationi be as you understand them at this 16 point? 17 A. Let's see. Pinkerton, Crapo, Morgan 18 and myself. 19 Q. And would Crapo be James Crapo, 20 C-r-a-p-o? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Would Morgan be Keith Morgan? 23 A. Arthur. 24 Q. Oh, Arthur Morgan, okay. 25 Are you familiar with Keith Morgan? DOYLE REPORTING. INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009152 676 1 Ilgren 2 A. Toronto in Canada? 3 Q. In Canada. 4 A. Just heard him lecture once. 5 Q. So he wasn't present at this meeting? 6 A. Who? 7 Q. At Pinkerton's office, was he? 8 A. Who? 9 Q. Keith Morgan, he has nothing to do 10 with this proj ect? 11 A. No. 12 Q. So when you made the reference to 13 Morgan, maybe I'm just mixed up, the Morgan you're 14 talking about is Arthur Morgan, not Keith Morgan? 15 A. Yes, that's correct. 16 Q. And as far as you know, this proposed 17 paper you 're talking about with respect to this 18 Pinkerton data, is that going to have some text to 19 it or is it just going to be publishing the 20 tabular results? 21 A. Would have text. 22 Q. Right. 23 A. Of course. 24 Q. And have you reached some conclusion 25 about this data that would be reported in the DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)067-8220 UCAREF00009153 Ilgren 677 2 text? 3 A. Preliminary. 4 Q. And are you and Pinkerton in 5 agreement on the conclusions or are you still kind 6 of talking about them? 7 A. I believe we're in agreement. 8 Q. Do you have any idea when this will 9 be submitted for publication? 10 A. Hopefully in a month. 11 Q. And do you know who it's going to be 12 submitted to? 13 A. No. 14 Q. I'm not going to mark this yet but a 15 minute ago I was looking for a reference by Graham 16 Gibbs, who you had mentioned? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And I've now found one and I want to 19 just show it to you and ask you if that's the 20 Graham Gibbs we're talking about. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And does this paper that I'm showing 23 you now report this data about dustiness and 24 aerosolization that we were talking about a minute 25 ago or is this something else? DOYLE REPORTING. INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009154 670 1 Ilgren 2 A. It's something else. It appears to 3 be something else. 4 Q. Generally this paper just concerns 5 itself with how much fiber of various asbestos 6 types there is in a given mass or a given volume 7 or a given weight, I'm not entirely sure, but is 8 that - - 9 A. Dimension, length and width 10 dimensions. 11 Q. That's not what you were talking 12 about a minute ago when we were talking about 13 dustiness? 14 A. Just absolute numbers of fibers. 15 Q. Right, so this is something different 16 than dustiness? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Okay. 19 (Recess taken) r 20 MR. BROWNSON: I'm going to mark one 21 more exhibit. 22 (Whereupon, curriculum vitae marked 23 Ilgren Exhibit 35 for identification, as of 24 this date.) 25 A. All right. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009155 679 1 Ilgren 2 Q. The next exhibit I marked 35 is a 3 curriculum vitae of yours that Mr. Will provided 4 to me since the time of your last deposition and I 5 received it on January 30th, I don't know exactly 6 when he sent it, but around that time. And 7 there's been some changes from your prior CV which 8 we had previously marked as exhibits in this case, 9 and I'll confess I didn't go through this and 10 compare line by line, but my question was what 11 changes have been updated or made on this CV, as 12 we see on Exhibit 35, from the prior ones which I 13 actually have with me. The first one was Exhibit 14 1, we also have an Exhibit 2, which is an old CV. 15 I don't know if you want to see that or not, you 16 probably don't need to. 17 A. No. Are you ready? 18 Q. Yes. 19 A. The initials after the name were 20 modified so that MAC path was deleted, MRC path 21 associate neropathology was deleted and MA OXON 22 was deleted. 23 Q. Why was the MA OXONdeleted? 24 A. I can't remember. 25 Q. And why were the other two deleted? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009156 1 w Ilgren 2 A. Well, MAC path was a 680 3 misunderstanding. I'm not a member of the 4 American College of Pathologist. And MRC path 5 associate neuropathology was deleted because the 6 Royal College said that individuals who were only 7 associates are not allowed to use whatever you 8 want, what do you call that? 9 Q. Initials? 10 A. Initials, thanks. 11 Q. And now what other changes are there? 12 A. At the bottom the member of faculty 13 of biological and agricultural sciences and 14 subfaculty of biochemistry. University of Oxford, 15 that was deleted because I am not presently a 16 member. 17 Q. Now I know this was a long time ago, 18 but when I had last questioned you about the CV, 19 you indicated that you were not sure what your 20 current status was, I think somewhere along those 21 lines of being on that faculty. Have you gotten 22 further information since that time that can 23 clarify that? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And what's that? DOYLE REPORTING, INC. {212)867-8220 UCAREF00009157 681 1 Ilgren 2 A. April 1992 on page 1, professional 3 experience, five lines from the bottom, the 4 university told me that I was on the faculty up 5 until April 1992. . 6 Q. Now, are there any otherchanges in 7 this CV, Exhibit 35, compared to Exhibit 1? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And what are those? 10 A. Well, on page 1 of the CV, how do I 11 identify this -- as Exhibit 1. On the first page 12 of the CV, that's Exhibit 1, the entire section 13 "Education" has been deleted. The section under 14 "Professional experience" has been edited or 15 annotated so that to begin with the category 16 "Student worker at Bryn Mawr College 1973" was 17 deleted. The next line "Doctorate of medicine" 18 was incorporated into a new section on the CV, 19 Exhibit number 35, entitled "Degrees and 20 Certifications." The date in the old CV, Exhibit 21 1, of 1971 for doctorate of medicine was corrected 22 from 1971 to 1974. 23 The next heading under "Research and 24 Professional Experience" in Exhibit 1 was deleted. 25 The next entry under "Research and/or Professional DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009158 682 1 Ilgren 2 Experience" on Exhibit l entitled "1974, assistant 3 pathologist" has been amended so that it is now 4 the first entry under "Professional experience" of 5 Exhibit number 35, and it no longer reads "1974, 6 assistant pathologist, New York Hospital," it 7 presently reads "June 1974, intern and resident in 8 pathology, New York Hospital..." 9 The entry once removed under 10 "Research and/or Professional Experience" on page 11 1 of Exhibit 1 entitled "1975 diplomate of 12 National Board of Medical Examiners" has now been 13 incorporated as the second entry on page 2 of 14 Exhibit number 35. It's 1975, diplomate. Board of 15 Medical Examiners. 16 The second entry up from the bottom 17 on page 1 of Exhibit 1, "Licensed in medicine and 18 surgery, 1975," has been incorporated into the 19 section "Degrees and certifications" on page 2 of 20 Exhibit 35 so that it is now "1975, licensure, 21 medicine and surgery..." 22 The final entry on page 1 of Exhibit 23 1, which is "1976, board certified, American Board 24 of Pathology, Anatomic Pathology," has been 25 modified and put on page 2 under "Degrees and DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009159 683 1 llgren 2 certifications" of Exhibit number 35, so that it 3 now reads with the date corrected from 1976 to 4 1977 to read "Board certification, American Board 5 of Pathology, Anatomic Pathology." 6 The entry on the top of page 2, the 7 first entry on the top of page 2 of Exhibit l, 8 which formerly read "1976, visiting worker, the 9 Imperial Cancer Research Fund," has been modified 10 to read on page 1 under "Professional experience" 11 of Exhibit 35, "March 1977-visiting 12 histopathologist, the Imperial Cancer Research 13 Fund, London, Dr. LSC Pang..." 14 Q. Can I just stop you there. What was 15 that change all about? What's the difference 16 between visiting research worker and visiting 17 histopathologist? 18 A. I think what I did is I went back to 19 a letter or a form which gave my so-called title 20 as visiting histopathologist rather than visiting 21 scientist. 22 Q. Okay, go ahead, is there anything 23 else? 24 A. Yes. Let's see. The second entry on 25 page 2 of Exhibit 1, which formerly read "1977, DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009160 684 1 Ilgren 2 visiting scientist, University Southern 3 California, San Diego Zoo," is now "May 1977, 4 visiting pathology investigator..." found on page 5 1 under "Professional experience" of Exhibit 35. 6 Q. Let me ask you this, can I stop you 7 on that one. That's on Exhibit 35, that's listed 9 as visiting pathology investigator, with capital 9 letters, which indicates to me it could actually 10 be a title. Is that actually a title you were 11 given or is that a description of what you were 12 doing? 13 A. I can't remember, I believe it was a 14 title. 15 Q. Okay. That would be with Mr. 16 Benirschke? 17 A. Professor Benirschke. 18 The third entry on page 2 of Exhibit 19 1 entitled "1977, Traveling Research Fellow..." is 20 now under a new category on page 2 of Exhibit 35 21 entitled "Fellowships and Grants," and the entry 22 there is "June 1977, traveling research 23 fellowship." "Traveling," by the way, is 24 misspelled, it should be two L's instead of one. 25 MR. GOLDMAN: It's acceptable either DOYLE REPORTING. INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009161 685 1 Xlgren 2 way, I know that as a fact. 3 A. I stand corrected, it's acceptable 4 either way. 5 Q. Can I stop you on that one too? 6 A. Yes, sure. 7 Q. Again, that's indicated with the 8 letters in caps. Is that again a title or is that 9 a description? 10 A. Which one? 11 Q. "Traveling research fellowship." Is 12 that a description of what you were doing or an 13 actual title of a research fellowship? 14 A. I think it was a description of an 15 actual research fellowship, as closely as I 16 remember. And also the date -- cancel that. The 17 next entry on page 2 of research and professional 18 experience of Exhibit 1. 19 Q. I will ask the additional question of 20 with respect to the new CV, Exhibit 35. I'm 21 interested in your telling us what corrections or 22 what would we say substantive changes would be as 23 opposed to just reorganizing things and shuffling 24 them around? 25 A. A major modification in Exhibit 1 of DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009162 686 1 Ilgren 2 the old CV was a deletion of the entire section 3 entitled "Research Experience" which occupied 4 pages 5, 6, 7 and 8. 5 Q. And in the new CV 35 that is deleted? 6 A. Deleted completely. 7 Q. Why was that deleted? 8 A. This old CV was originally intended 9 for grant applications, and I really didn't feel 10 that it was appropriate for -- it seemed like such 11 a non-standard thing to have in a resume of this 12 sort. The section entitled "Memberships" on page 13 3 of Exhibit 35 now had both the so-called 14 starting date and ending date. 15 Page 10 of Exhibit 1, which was the 16 original or the older CV, has been deleted. That 17 is entitled "Doctoral Dissertation Summary." And 18 I deleted it for the same reason I deleted the 19 research experience. 20 Q. Can I just go back to the memberships 21 on page 3 of the new CV since I don't have the old 22 one in front of me, which dates were changed on . 23 those memberships? 24 A. Well, St. Edmund Hall, Oxford, goes 25 from 1976 to 1981. DOYLE REPORTING. INC. f212\ 867 - 8220 UCAREF00009163 687 1 Ilgren 2 Q. On the new CV? 3 A. Yes. British Society Developmental 4 Biologists goes from 1979 to 1981. Tuberous 5 Sclerosis Association goes from 1981 to 1985. 6 Neurofibromatosis Foundation goes from 1981 to 7 185. Under memberships, the "Technical services 9 group, Washington" entry was deleted. The Oxford 9 University Computer Center Users Group was 10 deleted. The faculty of biological sciences 11 subfaculty of biochemistry were deleted. That 12 would be that. 13 Under "Publications" on Exhibit 1, 14 page 14, I deleted rev. 41. 15 Q. And again, I don't have that in front 16 of me. 17 A. It's Ilgren 1992, "Potential 18 Hypersusceptibility to the Induction of 19 Mesotheliomas in Hamsters..." A* nd that was sent 20 back for major alterations and revisions, which I 21 never did. 22 Q. Just so I'm clear, on the prior CV 23 Exhibit 1, there were how many publications? 24 A. There were 41 on Exhibit 1 and 25 there's 39 on Exhibit 35. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009164 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IIllggrreenn 688 Q. So reference 41 on the previous CV was deleted and the other one was deleted? A. Looks like Ilgren 1991, "Potential health effects, rev. 40, from glow dose exposure to tremolite." I think I deleted it because it was an abstract, not a full paper. Q. So the two publications, the two last publications 40 and 41 of the first CV, Exhibit 1, have now been deleted on the new CV? A. Yes. Q. I'm sorry, publication 40 was deleted because that was an abstract? A. Yes. Q. And 41 was deleted why? A. Because I never finished it. I submitted it and they sent it back for alterations and I never altered it. Q. Who was it who sent it back? A. I think Environmental Health Perspective. Q. Do you have any plans to resubmit that after making alterations? A. If I get the time perhaps. Q- Do you recall when it was that they DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009165 689 1 Ilgren 2 sent that back? 3 A. 1992, 1993, somewhere in that. That 4 would appear to be all of the corrections that I 5 can find. 6 Q. Now I have a couple of questions on 7 the new CV which I'm looking at, Bxhibit 35, under 8 the heading "Fellowships and Grants." The last 9 listing is August of 1990 to September of 1991, 10 W.R. Grace & Company research project. Have you 11 applied for any fellowships or grants since that 12 time? 13 A. No. 14 Q. Obviously youhaven'thad any since 15 that time, right? 16 A. Right. 17 Q. With respect to on page 3 under the 18 heading of "Invited Lectures," there's a lecture 19 in 1991, American College of Chest Physicians, 20 Environmental Lung Disease Fourth International 21 Conference. And what I'm wondering is with 22 respect to that particular lecture, did that 23 result in a written paper? 24 A. Just the abstract that I took off of 25 the reference list. DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009166 690 1 Ilgren 2 Q. And has that abstract been published 3 anywhere? 4 A. I don't believe so. It was just in 5 the book that was handed out. 6 Q. So it would be the abstract would 7 have been contained in a handout bool^ for 8 participants at the conference? 9 A. Exactly. 10 Q. Then were there any proceedings 11 published following that conference? 12 A. I don't believe so. 13 Q. Is that the sort of abstract that 14 goes into Fed Proc or are those abstracts that we 15 find in FedProc something different? 16 A. I don't know. 17 Q. But in any event, would it be fair to 18 say that this particular abstract is not cited in 19 Fed Proc? 20 A. 21 Q. 22 to them? I don't think so. Do you know if you ever submitted it 23 A. No, I never submitted it to them. 24 Q. Now with respect to that particular 25 conference, who was it who invited you to that DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009167 691 1 Ilgren 2 conference? 3 A. I'd have to go back and check, I 4 think it was -- I don't remember. 5 Q. I guess let me put it a little 6 differently. The reason I was asking the question 7 is it was sponsored by American College of Chest 8 Physicians, which I note that you're not a member 9 of, and I'm wondering is that a conference where 10 only members of the American College of Chest 11 Physicians are present or is that open to anybody? 12 A. Open. 13 Q. So they sponsor it, if you will, and 14 then anybody can participate? 15 A. I believe so, yes. 16 Q. And do you recall if you participated 17 by invitation of someone or did you just show up 18 or how did that work? 19 A. I believe it was invitation, but I'd 20 have to check the correspondence. 21 Q. That's all the questions I've got on 22 the CV, but I need before we conclude - 23 (Recess taken) 24 BY MR. BROWNSON: 25 Q. Dr. Ilgren, at the first session of DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009168 692 1 Ilgren 2 your deposition we asked you how much you have 3 charged Union Carbide for your work in connection 4 with this case, and I wanted to just follow up on 5 that since it's been nearly a year now. In the 6 past year, how much have you charged Union Carbide 7 for your work on this case? 8 A. I don't know. 9 MR. WILL: Just this as opposed 10 to - - 11 A. I don't know. 12 Q. Do you have a figure as to how much 13 you've charged Union Carbide generally for 14 asbestos-related work during the past year? 15 A. I don't have a figure. IS Q. Is your rate still $200 an hour? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And do you have any idea how many 19 hours you've devoted to asbestos-related matters 20 for Union Carbide in the last year? 21 A. It was over a thousand, I think. 22 Q. And some portion of that's for this 23 case and some portion would be for other cases? 24 A. Just there's just Conwed and Chicago. 25 Q. Conwed being this case and Chicago DOYLE REPORTING. INC. (212) 867 - 8220 UCAREF00009169 693 1 Ilgren 2 being the Chicago board of education case? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And over that period of time in the 5 past year, what percentage of your total income 6 from professional services has this constituted? 7 A. Maybe a third. 8 Q. And I was trying to limit that 9 question to - - I don't care to know about any 10 income you have from investments or other sources 11 but just in terms of your professional services I 12 was asking, so it's about a third of that income, 13 professional service income? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And of the remaining two-thirds of 16 your professional service income over the past 17 year, what portion of that has come from 18 litigation-related activities? 19 A. 90 percent probably. 20 Q. And has all that litigationbeen 21 related to asbestos litigation or is it other 22 kinds? 23 A. Other kinds. 24 Q. Has any of that been related to 25 asbestos litigation? DOYLE REPORTING. INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009170 694 1 Ilgren 2 A. Some. I couldn't tell you what. I 3 would think most of it is not asbestos - related. 4 (Discussion off the record) 5 Q. One final question just to finish up 6 this matter of the consultations and legal cases. 7 As I understand- it, in the past year, one-third of 8 your income from professional services has been 9 from the two Union Carbide cases, and then I'm 10 unclear about the remaining two-thirds. I think 11 you said 90 percent of the remaining two-thirds is 12 for litigation? 13 A. Right. 14 Q. So of total income from professional 15 services for the past year, would it be fair to 16 say that about 95 percent of that comes from legal 17 matters, litigation matters? 18 A. Yes, 90, 95. 19 MR. BROWNSON: Okay, very good, 20 that's all I've got. Thank you. 21 EXAMINATION BY 22 MR. WILL: 23 Q. I have one or two questions by way of 24 clarification. 25 Doctor, you were asked a number of DOYLE REPORTING. INC. f212) 867 - 8220 UCAREF00009171 695 1 Ilgren 2 questions this morning by Mr. Brownson concerning 3 the number of fibers that you would have to find 4 in the lung of a particular type of asbestos in 5 order to ascribe mesothelioma to that type of 6 asbestos fiber. And my question is, were those 7 numbers that you gave to Mr. Brownson absolute 8 minimums? That is, if the counts were below that 9 would you say that the fiber did not cause the 10 mesothelioma? 11 A. I don't think it's hard and fast, 12 those numbers aren't written in stone. Given the 13 fact that there aren't those many papers out 14 there, I would say there is no absolute. 15 Q. For example, you gave the figure of a 16 million crosidolite fibers. If you found somebody 17 where a mesothelioma and lung burden was done and 18 it came back, say, 800,000 crosidolite fibers, 19 what would your view be on whether crosidolite 20 caused that mesothelioma? 21 A. Well, it would be suspicious 22 particularly if- they were largely long fiber as 23 opposed to short fiber. 24 Q. And you mentioned that there hadn't 25 been very many studies of this type done, I think DOYI.E REPORTING. INC . (?. 1 2 \ 8 6 7 - 8 2 2 0 UCAREF00009172 IP 696 1 Ilgren 2 you said that as part of your earlier answer. 3 A. For crosidolite. 4 Q. How about for amosite or tremolite? 5 A. I mean I don't have an exact number 6 of how many lung burden analyses of mesothelioma 7 cases have been, done, but I would say that there 8 might be a couple of dozen out there the most. 9 Q. You were also asked some questions 10 both in this session of your deposition and in the 11 session last November about how many fiber years 12 of exposure one would need to cause asbestosis. 13 In both instances I believe you referred to the 14 data from the Rochedale plant. IS A. Correct. 16 Q. And the figure I believe you gave is 17 25 to 50 fiber years, is that correct? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. If the exposure was to Calidria 20 asbestos, would you expect it to take more or less 21 or the same number of fiber years to create 22 asbestosis? 23 A. Much more. 24 MR. WILL: That's all I have. 25 MR. BROWNSON: One final question. DOYLE REPORTING. INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009173 697 1 Ilgren 2 BY MR. BROWNSON.: 3 Q. With respect to the income for 4 professional services, where did the other 5 to 10 5 percent come from? 6 A. What? 7 Q. Where did the other 5 to 10 percent 3 come from? 9 A. I think it was theGlutumate 10 Association. As in MSG. 11 MR. BROWNSON: That's all I've got. 12 Thank you. 13 MR. WILL: We do want to read and 14 sign and we'll be providing corrections for 15 the entire deposition after we get this 16 part. And we give the reporter the 17 original exhibits, and please make copies 18 of those with the copies that you send out. 19 (Time noted: 4:10 p.m.) 20 21 22 Subscribed and sworn to before me 23 thisday of , 1995. 24 25 DOYLE REPORTING, INC. (212)867-8220 UCAREF00009174 698 1 2 3 4 STATE OP NEW YORK ) 5 ) S3 . : COUNTY OF NEW YORK 6 ) I, SARA DEUTSCH, a Shorthand 7 Reporter and Notary Public within and for 8 the State of New York, do hereby certify: 9 That I reported the proceedings in 10 the within entitled matter, and that the 11 within transcript is a true record of such 12 proceedings. 13 I further certify that I am not 14 related, by blood or marriage, to any of 15 the parties in this matter and that I am 16 in no way interested in the outcome of this 17 matter. 18 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto 19 rfck set my hand this ? day of 20 1995 . 21 22 SARA DEUTSCH 23 24 25 UCAREF00009175 2 June 22, 1995 3 Witness 4 Ed Ilgren, M.D. 5 INDEX 6 naiim Page 498 7 ILGREN FOR IDENTIFICATION 8 25 Document entitled Fiber 9 Levels and Disease in Workers From a Factory Predominantly 10 Using Amosite 11 26 Letter dated July 31st, 1989 from Dr. Duane Hyde to John 12 L. Myers Page 523 566 13 27 IARC paper from 1989 626 14 28 Document dated April 22nd, 643 1974 entitled Airborne 15 Asbestos Dust Levels 16 17 29 Letter dated October 29, 1984 from H.B. Rhodes to Mr. J.L. Myers 647 18 30 Multipage document dated 649 January 18,1985 19 31 Document dated May 12, 1982 657 20 32 Document dated May 12 and 657 21 July 26, 1982 22 33 Document dated December 3, 663 19 90 23 34 Document dated December 31 665 24 35 Curriculum vitae 678 25 DOYLE REPORTING. INC. (212)867- 8220 f UCAREF00009176