Document LJLM1pgKgGRb18LgXekrXmw7d

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA JAMES M. ADKINS, Administrator of the Estate of Ralph E. Adkins, Deceased, et al, Plaintiffs, YS. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )No Deposition of FERDINAND C. MEYER taken on behalf of the plaintiffs. Reporter: M. Joy Springer J am es M ay R eporting S ervice CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS R R 2 BOX 65 E D W A R D S V IL L E ILL IN O IS 62025 1321 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 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA JANES N. ADKINS, Administrator of the Estate of P.aloh E. Adkins, Deceased, et al, Plaintiffs, VS'. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware Ccrcorat icr., Defendant. No. 81-2098 APPEARANCES: Messrs. Calwell, McCormick Peyton, by VI. Stuart Calwell, Jr., Esc., Messrs. Bowles, McDavid, Graff 4 Love, by Charles M. Love, III, Esc., For the Plaintiffs; Per the Defendant. IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiffs and counsel for the defendant that the deposition of FERDINAND C. MEYER may be taken pursuant to Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro cedure, on behalf of the plaintiffs, on July 6 , 1 9 8 3 , at the padisson Hotel, Room 215, 9th Street and Convention Plaza, St. Louis, Missouri, before M. JOY SPRINGER a Notary Fublic within and for the County of Madison, State JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE !1 tJ 1 f of Illinois; that the issuance of notice and dedinus is 1 2 V^waived, a n d `that this deposition may be taken with the same 3 '.force and effect as if all Federal rules and statutory 4 requirements had been complied with. 1 5 IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that any 6 and all objections to all or any part of this deposition 7 except objections as to form of the questions asked or 4 8 answers given, are hereby reserved and may be raised on 1 1 1 9 the trial of this cause; and that the sIgnature o f - h t l v e ; v .. 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 \ 20 deoonent is not waived, wVttVWWWnffR ; #'.Kyv ',v FERDINAND C. MEYER., produced, sworn and examined on behalf of the plaintiffs, deposes and says as follows: ..... . _ EXAMINATION BY ME. CALVELL: u ^ 1, | .1 1 l 1 11 1 1 1 21 (Whereupon the reporter marked the 2 2 following exhibits for the purposes of 2 3 identification: Plaintiff's Deposition 2 4 Exhibit #252 (Monsanto's I.D. #8323313 2 5 through 8323315, inclusive), consisting of JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE !i 1 1 1 ! i 1 t 1! '1 2 1 lJ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 , ,three pages; Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit #253 (Monsanto's I.D. #8323245 through 8323248, inclusive), consisting of four pages; Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit #254 (Monsanto's I.D. #231728 through 231737, inclusive), consisting of ten Daces; Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit -255 (Monsanto's I.D. #832323*1 and 8323235), consisting of two pages; Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit #258 (Monsanto's I.D. #8323217 through 8 3 2 3 2 1 9 , inclusive), consisting.. of three pages; Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit *257 (Monsanto1s I.D. #8323177 and 3323178), consisting of two pages; Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit *259 (Monsanto 's I.D. #233-95), consisting of one page; Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit #259 (Monsanto's I.D. #8323203 through 8323205, inclusive), consisting of three pages; Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit #20 (Monsanto's I.D. #8323173, 8 3 2 317*1, 8323176 and 8323175), consisting of four pages; Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit 261 (Monsanto's I.D. #83231*15 and 8323146), consisting of two pages; Plaintiff's Deposition #262 (Monsanto's I.D. #832 3065 through 8323070, inclusive), consisting of six pages; Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit #263 1 , 1 ' 1 1 JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE i * t 1 (Monsanto's I.D. #8323037 and 8323033), con 2 sisting of two pages: Plaintiff's Deposition 3 Exhibit .#26** (Monsanto's I.D. #2 313 86 through 4 321668, inclusive), consisting of three pages; 5 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit #265 (Monsanto's I.D. #83231^7 through 93231^9, inclusive), con 7 sisting of three pages; Plaintiff's Deposition 8 Exhibit #266 (Monsanto's I.D. #8330067 and 9 8 3 3 0 0 6 8 ), consisting of two pages; Plaintiff's 10 Deposition Exhibit #267 (Monsanto's I.D. #8331208 n 8331209), consisting of two pages; Plaintiff's 12 Deposition Exhibit #268 (Monsanto's I.D. #8331208 13 and 6331209), consisting of two pages; Plaintiff's 14 Deposition Exhibit *269 (Monsanto's I.D. #832238*0, 15 consisting of one page; Plaintiff's Deposition 16 Exhibit #270 (Monsanto's I.D. #8330036), con 17 sisting of one page; Plaintiff's Deposition 18 Exhibit r271 (Monsanto's I.D. #236066 through 19 2 3 6 0 6 9 , Inclusive), consisting of four pages; 20 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit #272 (Monsanto's 21 I.D. #236065), consisting of one page; Plaintiff's 22 Deposition Exhibit #273 (Monsanto's I.D. #8325873, 2 3 8 3 2 5 8 7 ** and 8 3 2 5 8 7 2 ), consisting of three pages; 24 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit #27** (Monsanto's 25 I.D. #2 3 6 1 8 0 and 2 3 6 1 8 1 ), consisting of two pages; i JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE * *1 t I1 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 Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit #275 (Monsanto's I.D.. #8326129 through 33261*12, inclusive, and #83261*19 through 8 3 2 6 1 6 0 , inclusive), consisting of twenty-six pages; Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit #276 (Monsanto's I.D. #8331279 and 8 3 3 1 2 8 0 ), consisting of two pages; Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit #277 (Monsanto's I.D. #235630), consisting of one page; Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit #273 (Monsanto's I.D. #2362*19 through- 236252, inclusive), consisting of four pages; Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit #279 (Monsanto's I.D. #8323392 through 832339*1, inclusive), con~ sisting of three pages; Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit #26l (Monsanto's I.D. #83233*10 through 33233*12, inclusive), consisting of three pages; Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit #2c2 (Monsanto's I.D. #83331273 and 833127*1), consisting of two pages; Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit #283 (Monsanto's I.D. #8330731), consisting of one page; Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit #28*1 (Monsanto's I.D. #8300999), consisting of one page; Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit #285 (Monsanto's I.D. #8300998), consisting of one page; Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit #286 (Monsanto's I.D. #832560*1), consisting of one Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit #280 (Monsanto's I* . ^ JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE P7 ? 7 7 7*3 pdyi -- 5 t 11 - 1 1 page; Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit "#287 2 (Monsanto's I.D. #5331712), consisting of one 3 page; and finally, Plaintiff's Deposition 4 Exhibit *288 (Monsanto's I.2. *8331572), con- 5 sistir.g of one page. 6 Q Would you state your name, please? 7 A. Ferdinand C. Meyer. 8 Q. And where do you live? 9 A I live at #15 Roclare Lane in Town and 10 Country, Missouri, 3131. 11 Q. And are you employed? 12 A No. I retired about three and a half years 13 ago, February of 1 9 8 0 . 14 Q. Retired from Monsanto? 15 A Yes. 16 f. When you were employed by Monsanto, what 1 7 was your last Job with them? 18 A I was Director of Special Projects in the 19 Department of Medicine and Environmental Health. 2 0 Q In St. Louis? 21 A Yes. 22 Qi Where did you attend college? 2 3 A Shurtleff College in Alton, Illinois. 2 4 Q And what degree did you receive? ' 2 5 A A .3 . JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 1i 6 1 J 1 1 q Was there any major field that you studied? 2 A. Chemistry. 3 0, What year did you graduate? 4 A. 1938. 5 Upon graduation did you do graduate work? A. Yes. At the University of Illinois. 7 Q. What degree did you receive? 8 A. Master's Degree, M.S. degree. 9 a What in? 10 A. In organic chemistry. 11 Cl What year did you receive that degree? 1 2 A. .1 9 * 4 0 V: 13 a Did you take further courses? 14 A. Yeah. I went to the University of Wisconsin. 15 a What did you do there? ' 1 6 A. Took the Doctor's Degree there in Organic 17 and Biochemistry. 18 Q Is that a Ph.D.? 19 A. Ph.D. in 19*43. 2 0 Q> V/ere you in the military? 21 A. U o . 22 a What was your doctoral thesi3? 23 A- Was on the Synthesis and Hydrogenation of 2 4 Methyl Phenanthrenes. 2 5 Q How do you spell that? . JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE l- 4 7 f 11 1 Q How do you spell that? 2 A. M.-e-t-h-y-l, p-h-e-n-a-n-t-h-r-e-n-e-s . 3 It's been a long time ago. I can't hardly remember that. 4 Q After receiving your Ph.D. did you seek 5 employment? 6 A. Yes. I came to St. Louis with Monsanto in 7 June of 19^3, and I had worked in St. Louis laboratories 8 the summer before I graduated as a summer em.Dloyee. 9 Q When you came to work for Monsanto as a . 10 full-time employee, what were you doing? 11 A. Oh, my first assignment was in the chemical 12 warfare, Classified Chemical Warfare Project, and I was 13 involved in that until 19^5. I then was transferred to 14 the Chemical Warfare Plant for about eight or nine months 15 across the river in Monsanto, Illinois, I guess at that 16 time. It's now Sauget. 17 C 'What kind of work were you doing in this 18 position? Was it Just laboratory work? 19 A. I was doing laboratory work in both 20 synthesis and development of procedures which could be 21 transferable into the plant across the river. 22 When you say you do laboratory work, does 23 that mean you actually work with chemicals? 24 A. Manipulated chemicals in the laboratory. 25 G. Conducted experiments? JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE ` 8 A. Conducted experiments, right. Q During your course work and training, did you receive any instruction on handling dangerous or poisonous or toxic substances in the laboratory? 1a. Well,yougot most of that -- unfortunately, in schools you didn'tget a lot of that. You got most of that after you got intheindustry, I'm sorry to say. 1 After you got in the industry? A. They were much more cognizant of that in.-., industry than at school levels. They were pretty lax on-., that. You had a seminar or two in grad school, but it wasn't emphasized as strong as it is in industry. X hope it is today, but at that time it was pretty lax. Q So when you started working for Monsanto the first of the summer as an intern or employee, I guess, did you receive any particular training or. the handling of those kinds of substances? A. V/el'l, they had regular safety programs and safety meetings in Monsanto. At that time I can't recall, you know, the exact frequency of them, but this was a common part of our overall training. Anyone connected with the laboratory went to the regular safety meetings where both physical safety and chemical handling were discussed and fire safety and all aspects of safety on the Job. ^ Did that training continue throughout the JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE i Jt I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i tine you were -- i i A. ! Always. Throughout the tine I was with the company. C So you were with the Classified Chemical Warfare Project when you first went to work with Monsanto until 19^5? A Yeah. Until the war ended. Came back from across the river, I guess, that was September of '45. That's my best recollection. 0, Did you have a title during that period of time? A Research Chemist. . Q, What was your next position with the company job? A Well, let's see, in '^9 I was made Group Leader. Q Of what? A In general chemical processes. Mo particu- lar field at that time. Q Were you assigned to a particular operating unit of the company? A Yes. I was in the St. Louis Research Deoartment of the then Organic Division that it was called at that time. Q And you were a group leader, is that right? JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE i 10 t 1r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes. I think that happened in 19*19. Q Were there manufacturing facilities within the Organic Division? A. Oh, sure. Our laboratory v/as rirht on the site down here that's South Second Street. That was our original Queer.;/ Plant was located at that 3ite, and as a matter of fact, the hor.e office was there at that tine. Q Were there other manufacturing plants in that group? A. Yes. The ones that I recall at the time, I think, were the Krummrich Plant across the river, and I'm not certain at that tire whether the Nitre Plant was part of Organic Division or r.ot. It nay have been, but I don't recall. At one time it was called the Puhber Service Division. I'm Just not recalling for sure whether it was actually a part of the Crcanic Division at that tine. CX How long did you remain as a group leader In the Organic Division? A. Until 195*1. Q Do you recall if during that period of time the Mitro Plant v/as within the Organic Division? A. I think it was. Q You were a group leader of research chemists' > A. Yes. Normally that would consist of anywhere from two to five chemists. Groups were fairly snail in the JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE t i 11 1 1l 1 Organic Division. 2 Q, What was your mission as a group leader of 3 research chemists? 4 A. Well, the mission was to do both exploratory 5 and process development when a product reached a point of 6 potential commercial interest. 7 Q Did you do any testing for hazardous or 8 toxic substances? 9 A. Did I personally do any? 10 g Well, was your research group ever involved 11 in that kind of thing during the 1949-54 period? 12 A. N o . 13 0. During that period did you have anything to 14 do with the development of a process to manufacture 2,4,5 T? 15 A. To the best of my recollection, no. I was 16 involved more generally in the general pharmaceutical inter17 mediate group. Sulfa drug intermediates, various animal 18 oil intermediates, antihistamines. One of our products is 19 still marketed by Eli Lilly in the antihistamine area. 2 0 Q, Was there a group that you were aware of 21 during that period 1949 to '54, a research group, doing 2 2 work with 2,4,5 T? 2 3 A. I'm not sure about 2,4,5 T. I was aware of 2 4 a group, I think, the Dvornokaff group, who had done some 2 5 work on 2,4 p. JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 1 * 12 1 l1 1 .Q What was his nar.e? 2 A. Man by the nar.e of Dvomokaff. He's dead 3 now. D-v-o-r-n-o-k-a-f-f. He was of Russian attraction. 4 Q He was a group leader, as you were? 5 A. Yes. He was a group leader at that tine. 6 Q During this period of tine when you were a 7 group leader, did you do any work at all, that you can 8 recall, for the Nitro Plant? 9 A. No, I don't recall that I was ever involved 10 because, generally, you see, we had a method of operation 11 that when a particular research group developed a process, 12 they stayed with it as it went into the nilot plant and went * 13 Into the plant for demonstration on a production level; and 14 we, I don't recall any, either myself or any member of my 15 group, ever been involved in a demonstration at Nitro. If 16 we had done work on it in the laboratory, we would have gone 17 to Nitro for the demonstration and pilot plant or production 18 Q That was the procedure, then? - >k 19 A. ` That was the procedure at that time. 20 Q You don't recall ever going to Nitro for 21 that sort of thing and, therefore - 22 A* No, I did not. 2 3 G. v/hat was your next position with the company 7 2 4 A. Assistant Director of Research at the same 2 5 site. JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 1 13 1 11 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 q And did that begin in about 195^ or sometime during that year? A. Yeah. I think there was a reorganization of the company at that time, and that's when it occurred. C; And how long did that Job last? A. Around three years. Until 1957. Q during that Job, 1954 to 1957, did you have any connection with the .\Titro Plant? A. I had charge of an oil additive group at that time, and I never visited the Nitre Plant. I think there was a defoanine ament made at Nitro that had been develooed at Dayton that was a part of the oil additive activities, but we had nothing to do with that in our . chemistry grcuos in St. Louis. That was already in pro- duction. It core out of our Dayton Laboratory. I don't recall ever having any direct contact with the Nitro Plant at that time during that particular period. Q Now, as Assistant Director of Research, what was your Job or mission? A. at that time. Well, I had several groups reporting to me 3 These would be like research grouos? A. Several research groups, and they were primarily in the oil additive section and some pharnaceutical intermediates at that time. f JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 14 1 During that three-year period? 2 A. During that three-year Deriod. Things like 3 vanillin, ethyl vanillin, flavor intermediates, oharr.aceutica 4 intermediates. ?\ost of the products at Queenv Plant and 5 across the river that Yonsanto had leased the Chemical 6 Warfare Plant, and at the end of the war we were orcducing 7 some oil additives in that plant that had formerly been used 8 for chemical warfare oroduction. 9 & You talkir.r about Dharm.aceuticals? 10 A. Yes. 11 C. What classification, if any, would 2,^,5 T 12 fall into? 13 A. That would have teen a pesticide and an 14 agricultural chemical. 15 C When you were Assistant Director of Research, 16 did any of the research grouts involved in the pesticide or 17 agricultural products recent to you? 18 A. I honestly can't recall that they did. 19 That's a long time amo, but that's my best recollection. 20 Were there ether assistantdirectors of 21 research? 22 A. Yes, there were. 23 And was this research effort divided into 24 categories, like, pharmaceuticals and pesticides and 25 agricultural? JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 15 I 1i 1 A. Yes, it was. 2 d Do you recall who was the Assistant Director 3 of Research who might have been responsible for the pesti- 4 cides and organic chemicals? 5 A. At some point in time -- I don't recall the 6 exact time -- a man by the name of Dr. O l i v e r DiOarir.el 7 (phoenetic) was made Assistant Director of Research, and 8 the testing of agricultural chemicals -- we had a greenhouse 9 and so on that were developed sometime in the early r50*s, 10 as I recall. He was cut in charge of that effort. Now, 11 i t 's po s s i b l e or ever, p robable that some of the p r o c e s s w o r k 12 may have bee n u n d e r his d i r e c t i o n at that time too, b u t I ( 13 can't be certain of that. He r.ight have had charge o f the M t e s t i n g and the process wor k m.imht have still been in some 15 other group, but i t 's possible that that did report to h i m 16 at that time. 17 d What was your next Job? 18 A. My next Job, I 'was t r a n s f e r r e d to Dayton 19 to our Central Research facility in Dayton, Ohio, as an 20 Associate Director of Research under Earl Gresinkamp, who 21 was director of that laboratory. 22 a And what category of substances were you 23 working with in that Job? 24 A. Well, I had the organic, e s s e n t i a l l y the 25 organic chemical portions of that, and the e n g i n e e r i n g and t JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE ) 16 1 11 1 process portions of the effort. 2 ft Did that involve any pesticides or agri3 cultural products? 4 A. Well, we had primarily exploratory programs 5 at that site, and so it involved the synthesis of many types 6 of chemicals as a natter of routine course were screened as 7 Desticides, rubber chemicals, plasticizers, all kinds, you 8 know, the whole gamut, that Monsanto night have been involvec 9 in. So, yes, some of those chemicals, undoubtedly a good10 many of then, were tested. That testing was done -- ori-. ' 11 finally,there again,a small herbicide testing program in 12 Dayton, but when the Organic Division became actively13 involved, that testing program was transferred to the 14 Organic Division and only as synthesis, the preparation of 15 new compounds for testing, stayed in Dayton. 16 ft And that's when you arrived on the scene in 17 Dayton? 18 A. That's correct. In 1957, spring of 1957. 19 ft How long did you remain in that position? 20 A. Well, until we cane back to, my recollection 21 we came back to St. Louis, another reorganization and they 22 moved the whole laboratory back to the new laboratory in 23 St. Louis. That was in 1961. 24 ft You were there for several years, then? 25 A. Yes. About four and a half years, something JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 17 f 11 1 like that. 2Q During that period of tine, 1957 to 1961, 3 do you remember doing any work with the synthesis of 4 2,4,5 T? 5 A- No, we wouldn't have been involved in that 6 kind of work. That's one that would have been the respon- \7 / sibility of the Organic Division where I was in St. Louis, 8 or in Nitro, some other area. 9 Q, You say it would have been the responsibilit;f 10 of the Organic Division in St. Louis where you spent 1954 11 to '57? That would have been simply under another assistant 12 director of research? 13 A. Yes, my best recollection. M Q. For example, that Oliver DiGamel? 15 A. That would be ny best guess as far as 16 St. Louis is concerned. Some of that work, in my recollec- 17 tion also, I think may have gone on in Nitro at the Nitro 18 laboratory. I can't be certain who the person was down 19 there, but it may well have been Wendell Metsner at that 20 time, and subsequently in late '50's Dr. George Staly would 21 have been in charge of the work at the Nitro laboratories. 22 Both those gentlemen are deceased now. 23 Now, as an Associate Director of Research 24 at Dayton, what was your Job? Did you have groups reporting 25 to you that were involved in research? JAMES May r e p o r t in g s e r v ic e > 18 1 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 U 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I had two groups. One under Milton Gosner and one under Rudolph Schuler, who was in charge of the engineering and orocess development function in Dayton. There was a third polymer program that reported directly to Gresinkanp, the director of the laboratory. M o w , during the tine that you were Assistant Dir e c t o r of Research and later as an A s s o ciate Di r e c t o r of Research, was there a medical department at Mo n s a n t o during that period of time? A. Yes, ' '/as it called the Medical Department? A. Yes. And do you remember who the head of that was? A. Dr. Emmet Kelly was head of M o n s anto's Medical Department for almost since I came to the company until he retired in, I don't recall exactly. Dr. Roush had been brought in previous to that and then he took over as Director of the Medical Department whenever Dr. Emmet Kelly retired. Q During the time you were Assist ant Director of Research and Associate Director of Research, was there a corporate policy or any reporting channel you followed to the Medical Department regarding any of the findings that you were aware of? A. Well, any t o x i c o l o g y that was d e v e loped on JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE r * 19 1 11 1 our products went through the Medical Department. They had 2 toxicologists and industrial hygienists there. 3 Q In the Medical Deoartm.ent? 4 A. In the Medical Department. And that would 5 have followed through, maybe not directly through the 6 Medical Director. He would have been copied in and 7 knowledgeable about it. But Elmer Wheeler at that time 8 back in that day, I think, was our toxicologist. Jack 9 Garrett was an industrial hygienist. Those are the-two';.- 10 names I remember working with at that day. 11 G. And those two erentlemen were, of course, In 12 the Medical Department? *. 13 A. Yes. 14 G. Mow, as a Research Chemist or really as an 15 Assistant Director of a grouo or groups of research chemists 16 and as an Associate Director of Research, I guess, groups of 17 research chemists, how would you know that you had a toxi- 18 cology finding or something that would be of interest to a 19 toxicologistthat you should reocrt it to the Medical 20 Department through appropriate channels? 21 A. Well, generally from your knowledge of 22 knowing chemicals and their toxicology, you reason the 23 potential toxicology of new chemicals that you work with, 24 and in general, acute tcxicities were obtained on any new 25 materials we would be involved with as a first step. If we JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE * 20 4 1 are going into a production level or something of that kind 2 along the way, there would be some chronic tests run and 3 usually, I suspect, back in that day there were probably 4 more three-month chronic tests that would be carried out on 5 products. We would work with the Medical Deoartrr.ent. We 6 had no animal testing, at Monsanto at that time. Animal 7 testing was done by outside laboratories and the Medical 8 Department would arrange for those tests. 9 C During your course work and on-the-job 10 training at Monsanto, did that include some studies of 11 toxicology? I may be using the tern loosely. 12 A Yeah. Of the nature of chemicals and their 13 effects on mammalian species, yes. In terns of our actually 14 running the tests ourselves, no, but knowledge of how they 15 were run and of their effects, we were always conscious of 16 products that we were working with in terns of their 17 potential toxicology as a cher.ist. And you were being 18 trained, you learned that aeror.atic nitro compounds were 19 something to be careful of, and aeronatic amino compounds 20 were sonething to be careful with, and so this was part of 21 your general training in chemistry that you went through in 22 school and after you got out of school. 23 Q> That's something you kept abreast of? 24 A That's sonething you had to keep abreast of. 25 You were responsible for that aspect of your own safety JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 21 1 activities, and if you had a group, you were responsible 2 for the health and safety of the group that were involved 3 when they were dealing with chemicals. 4 Q So if I understand your testimony, then, as 5 your various research people would find these toxic sub 6 stances or toxicities that would occur, you might report 7 that, then, to the Medical Department through some channel? 8 A. We would report to the Medical Department 9 on those products that we were taking beyond an inltil:V\i.',v ' * V- *.'t * v i' '* v V ; ' * ' ' * * ' 9 10 laboratory stage and ask for toxicity studies to be .arranged 11 on them, it was something we were going to develop other 12 than purely making a sample and setting it on a shelf and 13 testing it. If we were going beyond that point, we would 14 get outside toxicology tests run on them. But we would not 15 every time something was synthesized in the laboratory as a 16 new material, we wouldn't routinely report that to the 17 Medical Department and say, we think this is or is not 18 toxic. It was only when It was going to go beyond an ini 19 tial exploratory stage that we would then discuss with the 20 Medical Department. 21 Q You're familiar with a family of substances 22 generally referred to as dioxins? 2 3 A. Yes, I an. 2 4 When did you first find out about this 25 family of substances called the dioxins? JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 1 11 1 A. (%*- ,, V * I guess, to my best recollection, it was in 2 'the late *60.'s or early '70's when some toxicology began to 3 be reported. I think maybe the American, either one of the 4 national agencies or American Cancer Institute, or one of 5 those, had reported some toxicology on them. 6 G Would you have learned that Just through 7 your general reading in connection with your profession? 8 A. Yeah, because I wasn't really connected to 9 anything with pesticides at that time. When I came-* b ack to . 10 St. Louis, I became part of the New Enterprise Division-thd' 11 was involved in completely unrelated new business sales and 12 so on in commercial development activities and so on, so..;! 13 would not have seen any Organic Division reports any longer 14 on the chemistry of those various kinds of things. I would 15 have picked that up from general reading of the literature, 16 technical literature. 17 Q So that family of substances would not have 18 occurred in the kinds of work that you were involved in 19 during the- 'SO's and '6 0 's? 20 A. No. Even though I was familiar with 2,^,5 T 21 I mean, I knew 2,^,5 T and how it was made and all that 22 kind of thing; but as I recall, those particular impurities 23 were not identified until the late '50's, *58 or '59. I 24 don't know the exact date. 25 G When did you become aware of how 2,^,5 T was JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 23 1 iI 1 made and what was in it? 2 A. Well, I would have probably been aware of 3 that in the middle '40's. I think that was when 2,4 D and 4 2,4,5 T -- that's Just a general time frame. I don't know 5 the exact dates. When they were tested and developed as 6 herbicides, I would have been fully aware of how they were 7 manufactured and that kind of thing. 8 Q That was during some of your course work? 9 A. N'o. I think I would have learned that after * . * 10 I came to Monsanto. I doubt whether -- I'm not s u r e 2,4 D 11 -- well, 2,4 D may have been known back at the time I was 12 in school, but I'm not sure If it was a production chemical 13 at that time. There has been a lot of work done on natural 14 hormones, the auxins, so on - - 15 Q The natural dioxin? 16 A. The natural auxins. These were plant 17 hormones that had been discovered, and later it was found 18 that products like 2,4 2 and 2,4,5 T would mimic the 19 activity and be much more active than the natural material, 2 0 the auxins, so to speak. As I recall, some of the auxins 21 were indoleacetic acid was one. There was work being done 22 on a lot of testing of synthetic hormones of that kind that 23 affected plant growth, but I don't recall that those things 24 were lr. production before I graduated. They might have 25 been, but I don't recall that they were. I may have learned JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 24 about the production aspects of those after I came to Monsanto. And when did you learn that there were impurities associated with the production of 2,^4,5 T? A I don't think I would have known that until I learned the effects of dioxins, the toxic effects, because I Just didn't have any connection with those programs at Monsanto during the '60's. I was in a completely different division and we had products that had no relationship .to. pesticides or ag chemicals. Cl During the period of time that you were Assistant Director of Research, were you aware of any health problems associated with 2,^,5 T at the Mitro Plant? A I really don't recall at that time. I'm sure somewhere along the line I read about an accident that took place In 19^2 in the company announcement, but I don't recall any follow-up knowledge of that at the time. Q What about during the time you were Associate Director of Research? A Mo. I made visits with several of our people maybe once a year to Mitro from Dayton. We used to drive down to coordinate work -- we synthesized new products and they would test them at Mitro and rubber chemicals primarily because none of the pesticide testing was done at Mitro; so we would send materials that were new materials JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 1 i 1 that were a potential interest as rubber chemicals. They 2 had the Rubber Evaluation Laboratory at Mitro at that time. 3 We would go down and meet, perhaps, once a year, reviewing 4 testing data and products that we had synthesized in the 5 Dayton Laboratory to coordinate that work and see where we 6 went from there in terns of planning new programs for 7 exploratory rubber chemicals. So I went to the Mitro Plant, 8 to the Research Plant. 9 Q During 1957 to '6l. 10 A. '57 to *6l period. But I really wasn't 11 aware of any health problems. That wasn't a subject that 12 was of interest to us or we discussed at the time. Don't 13 recall ever being involved with that at that time. 14 (1 After 1961 what did you do? 15 A. Well, let's see, I was in the Mew Enterprise 16 Division and made Director of Evaluation and Control, which 17 was sort of a business development and new business develop 18 ment function. I think that was around 1952 or three when 19 I changed ttf that role. 20 ^ I'm sorry, the Director of -- 21 A. Director of Evaluation and Control. 22 0, What's that mean? 23 A. Well, I guess that's sort of a pseudonym 2 4 for commercial development and budgetary control. We were 25 really trying to develop new businesses in electronics, and JAMES Ma y r e p o r t in g s e r v ic e 26 1 It 1 we began to do some work in enzyme chemistry, biochemistry 2 at that time Jin the New Enterprise Division. It was an 3 outgrowth of'the former Central Research Department which 4 was followed in with other new projects throughout the 5 company division into what was called the New Enterprise 6 Division. They decided for unrelated new products and 7 businesses they would set up a New Enterprise Division to 8 develop those, and so there were some textile projects 9 nulled out of the Textile Division and out into New^^t'ftEr.^Y 10 prise. The little bit of biochemical work we had 11 Central Research - - we did some enzvvr.e work in Cenwi.-lj.;v:\ ' --V 12 Research in Dayton under Dr .Darlington. That war.hbulied/ 13 into this function. So we nulled a goodly number of 14 exoloratory new product functions that were unrelated to 15 the existing lines of businesses Into that New Enterprise 16 Division. 17 C. And that was located in St. Louis? 18 A. That was located in St. Louis, although, ' t i ' t "* 19 y some'J&f-'thetresearch was done other daces. There was v.- p j 20 still some things done In Dayton related to It, there were / '* * 21 - -some things done at the Textiles Research Triangle In 22 North Carolina that related to that division. 23 Now, as Director of Evaluation and Control, 24 did you have any connection with the Nitro Plant? 25 A. Nearly as I can recall, no. ' JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 27 * xr l q How long did you remain in that Job? A. Ch, let's see, probably until - - I'm 2 guessing -- '68 or '59- I'r. a little hazy on these dates 3 because it's been quite a while ago. Then I became 4 5 Director of Biomedical Technology. 6 Cl In '68, '69? A. Yeah. That's into research development 7 8 again. This was more of a commercial nroducts introduction 9 and development function. 10 C. The Birector of Evaluation and Control Job? 11 A. Fight. 12 Q. Th er. you noved i r.to what, ncw? 13 A. Primarily research related to biochemistry 14 and biomedical research. See, I had related experience in 15 rharmaceutical chemistry field and I had taken a minor in biochemistry in school and so or., and we were increasing 16 17 our effort there and I moved into that. 18 Q '.'That operating unit was that? 19 A. That was mart of the Mew Enterprise Division 2 0 at that time. 21 G. Was that a lateral move or advancement? 2 2 A. It was a lateral move. 23 Cl And what did that job involve? The same 2 4 kind of thing, Just a different Job? 2 5 A. Yeah. Same kinds of things, different JAMES May r e p o r t in g s e r v ic e > 28 J l! 1 subjects. I had several groups reporting to rce and we had 2 work going on, sene work in trying to develop new phar3 maceuticals, sor.e work in enzyme chemistry. We carried on 4 some outside contract research with different contract S laboratories and so on. 6 G, fid that work involve any products or sub- 7 stances they use at the Mitro Plant? 8 A. Let me see. They were so unrelated to 9 anythin" related to rubber chemicals or pesticides that I 10 don't -- let's see -- as you know, there were a lot o f n materials made at Mitre. That's why I'm trying to think 12 carefully. 13 C. Yes, sir. ' U A. Mo. Insofar as I'm aware, nothing that we 15 were coin." in the biomedical field related directly to 16 anythin." that was going on at Mitro in pesticides. See, 17 by that time we folded everything related to pesticides or 18 to biologically active agricultural chemicals into an Agri- 19 cultural Division. That was about 19^2. All of that kind 20 of research was done, then, from that point on as a part 21 of Agricultural Division. 22 Agricultural Division? 23 A. Yes. I don't think that anything we did 24 and were involved in at that time had any relationship to 25 the \itro FIant cr the Mitro products. JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE > 29 1 1< 1 q And it was during this pe r i o d of time when 2 you became Director of Evaluation and Control and moved 3 over to your other position that you first learned about 4 the dioxin, is that right? 5 A- Y e a h . It would have been in the per iod of 6 the late '60 's , early '70 's . Probably be late '60 's . 7 0, Did you receive any t r a i n i n ' or information 8 from, your company regarding that p a r t i c u l a r substance or 9 family, group of substances? 10 A. V e i l , yes , I 'm sure . I didn 't receive n information, but I was aware -- I don't recall receiving 12 any direct nemos on dioxin toxicity or anything at that - 13 tine with Monsanto; but, of course, I was aware of the 14 problems that people were raisinr with resne.ct to Agent 15 Oranre and I was aware at the time the coreany went out of 16 business of m a k i n g 2,^,5 T. But other than that, I had no 17 direct relationship to the technical w o r k that was going on 18 in that area. 19 Q At that time in the late '6C's and early 20 1 9 7 0 fs who was raisinr questions about Agent Grange? 21 A. I just remember literature, reading lltera- 22 ture about different activist groups that were concerned 23 about the sp r a y i n g that was b e i n g done on the Jungles and 24 people raising questions w h e t h e r that was a d e s i rable thing 25 for the populace and so on. 1 '' JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 30 t 1l 1 Q Again, that was part of your general reading? 2 A. Fart of my general reading, yes. 3 Q , Was there any snecific reading that care 4 from your company regarding that situation? 5 A. I don't recall any. I wouldn't have been 6 probably on a list that would have seen that kind of informa- 7 tion at that tine, a3 I recall, because I was in a completely 8 different field and different area. 9 C. N'ow, during this period of time when you . 10 were made Assistant Director of Research and then moved.* on 11 up to your positions held in the late '6 0 's and early r70'3, 12 was there a corporate policy in place designed to communi- 13 cate information about toxicity and health hazards to the 14 workers in the work place? 15 A. I'm trying to think when I would have become 16 - - I wasn't involved in production, of course. There were 17 always corporate policies in terms of from the time I came 18 to the company of the proper protection of operators and 1 9 so on in our plant. I personally was involved in many 20 transfers of chemicals technology from the laboratory into 21 a oilot plant and into internal scale production in talking 22 to operators about hazards involved in the chemicals that 2 3 we were making, and I have worked personally with operators 2 4 in the plant, say -- 2 5 Q I didn't mean to interrupt. Was that part JAMES Ma y r e p o r t in g s e r v ic e I 31 X iE 1 of your job as, say, Assistant Director of Research? 2 A. That was not part of my Job as Assistant 3 Director of Research. I was still doing that kind of work 4 as grouo leader. I would go out into the plant personally 5 on demonstrations and work with operators when I was in the 6 Chemical Warfare Plant. I was actually with the operators 7 as new products was being put into production and communi- 8 eating verbally and so on the potential hazards involved 9 when operators were involved in products. I'm not quite 10 sure what your original question was. When I was aware n there were direct orocrans of communication? 12 Q I Just asked if during that oeriod of time 13 there was some nolicy that set up the procedure of communi- 14 catinsr -- 15 A. Well, I can't speak for our plants because 16 I wasn't in the plant. I would presume there was such a 17 policy because whenever I was involved in the plants that I 18 was involved in, there certainly was policy of both the 19 production materials and when we were there we were on new 2 0 materials, and we assumed some resnonsibility with that as 21 research people along with the production people. 22 Cl So this function of communicating to the, 23 as far as you're concerned, the communicating, say, to the 24 ODerator, you carried that out more when you were a group 25 leader, I suppose? JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 32 J Jl 1 A. That's correct. When I was at the assistant 2 director level, I probably would be out on an inspection 3 for maybe an hour and I wasn't directly involved during the 4 ooeration. I have worked many a shift work, stayed with a 5 process through midnight and into the early shift to be sure 6 that the chemistry and everything was properly carried out 7 when the new product was going into production, and I 8 wouldn't have beer, involved with that at the assistant 9 director level. 10 C. As a group leader did you understand that U was part of your responsibility -12 A Oh, absolutely. At that point, yea. 13 Q, And how would you know what to tell these 14 oeocle about the toxicitv? 15 A Well, I would know either from the toxicity 16 that v;e had run ourselves in the company or from my general 17 knowledge of the structures of the materials and their 18 potential toxicitles. 19 Q Were there occasions when you advised people 20 about long-term health effects? 21 A I can't cite you a specific example because 22 back in that day you didn't run long-term studies, two-year 23 studies on everything you worked with. 24 a Yes, sir. 25 A I could cite those products that were known Ul JAMES May r e p o r t in g s e r v ic e 3 1 in the literature and by structural relationships -- for 2 example, aeroir.atic amines, if you were making an aeromatic amine, 3 you automatically assumed that was a toxic material because 4 it caused aplastic anemia. Anilines and everything related 5 to anilines you'd have to make that same assumption and 6 would so communicate. 7 G, So, at least, from your own personal knowl 8 edge, that kind of information would have been transferred 9 to the operator? 10 A. Yes, it certainly would have been in the 11 case where I was involved on a project. 12 C Did you have any communication with the 13 Medical Department in terms of increasing your knowledge 14 about the toxicity of the things you worked with so to 15 better inform the operator? 16 A Ve had regular safety meetings in which all 17 aspects of safety were discussed and reviewed with the 18 toxicity of products that Monsanto made or used in their 19 manufacture, and those were meetings that were regularly 20 carried out within the company. Monsanto was proud of -- 21 I think we were second best to duPont with safety. But 22 they were proud of their record in safety, and that was 23 something that was drilled into me from the time I came 24 into the company. 25 Q. So if health information or toxicity JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 3*1 information about a particular substance that Monsanto knew about wasn't communicated to the workers or the supervisors or the operators, would that amount to a deviation from corporate policy? A, It certainly would have been in any opera tion I was connected with. 9 When you were Assistant Director of Research, you had group leaders, I guess, reporting to you? A. Yes. ' V- 9 lid you instruct them along the lines that you have just testified about in terms of communicating this health information to workers? A- Yes. We had regular meetings with our peoDle, and in all those meetings the safety aspects were paramount. We set up very early in Monsanto partially as a result of an accident that one of r.y products had back in the early '^O's, we set up an engineering review group. Before any product could be taken out of the laboratory, it had to have a formal review of the hazard aspects of the scale-up, taking it from, the laboratory to a larger scale, which included chemical toxicity, which included fire safety, what could happen if it overheated, all of the aspects, and before any product could be put into a pilot plant for interim scale production-- Dr. Robert Howard at that time was the Engineering Director and he was a JAMES May r e p o r t in g s e r v ic e 1 1l 1 member of that group and then the assistant director and 2 the group leader of the project involved and then, as I 3 recall, there were a couple people from unrelated groups 4 that would be involved in that. So that was part of. our 5 operating procedures in the Organic Division going back, oh, 6 not more than two or three years after I came to the company 7 back in the middle '^O's and on. 8 Q, That is a long-standing policy? 9 A. Yes, it was. I had an accident. r blew \up.;, 10 a reaction. Fortunately, nobody was injured. In about 11 19^5. I was starting up a new project and I was with 12 another chap. I went hone at five o'clock. He told me, 13 well, I'll stay with it. He was an engineer. He called me 14 about six-thirty and said, you're reactor Just blew up. 15 *!y Hod. Fortunately, it was about a hundred-gallon kettle 16 -- I'll tell you, that made a believer out of me. I never 1 7 left another reactor until it was complete from that time 18 on. Fortunately, it happened about the time that the 19 operators were out of the building. It just blew the top 2 0 off the kettle and sprayed stuff out around. We have had, 21 say, from experience long-time policies to review carefully 2 2 before we went out of the laboratory. 2 3 Mow, at some tine did you learn that it was 4 determined in 1957 that the dioxin was a cause of chloracne? 2 5 MR. LOVR: Object. JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE > *3 < I 1t 1 A., N o . 2 MR. LOVE: Object to the form of the 3 question. 4 A. No. 5 MR. LOVE: In that you haven't laid 6 a basis for it. 7 Cl You can go ahead and answer it. 8 A. What was the question again? 9 Q Well, did you learn at some point in time 10 that In 1957 dioxin was determined to be the cause of 11 chlcracne at the Nitro Plant? 12 A. I didn't learn anything about the -- I 13 learned somewhere along the line In my general reading that 14 dioxins had been identified in 1958 or '59, not that they 15 were the cause of the chloracnes. I don't remember when I 16 learned -- I learned of their toxicity in the late '60's. 1 7 I don't know when it was learned that the dioxins might be 18 the cause of chloracne. See, it wasn't unusual. The sens!- 1 9 tivities of people to chemicals are quite a well-known 2 0 phenomenon. I had the people, for example, In the laboratory 21 that have had some sensitivity, say, to a nitrochlorobenzene 22 You r.irht get a skin rash, and you took people out of con- 2 3 nection with anything like that. You couldn't really ore- 2 4 diet what chemicals people might develop a sensitivity to 2 5 If they Just had some contact with them of any kind. So I JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 37 I XI 1 Just don't recall at any particular point in tine when I 2 knew that dioxins night. cause a chloracne. I learned about 3 the toxicity of the dioxins in the late '60's. I'm not 4 aware that I knew anything about - - if I knew about chlor5 acne, I probably would have assumed it was trichlorophenols 6 that were the product of the reaction at the accident in 7 Mitro might have been that cause rather than dioxin because 8 I Just didn't know anything about the dioxin toxicity. 9 C\ According to the company policy, would the 10 causal connection between dioxin and the chloracne be the. 11 kind of thing that would have been communicated? 12 ! * ? . . LOVE: Objection to the form of * 13 the question again. Go ahead and answer it. 14 A. Could 1 have it again? 15 CAIyV.'ZLL: Read it back. . 16 ('''hereupon the reporter read back the 17 preceding question.) 18 A. Communicated to the workers? 19 Q Yes, sir. 20 A. It would be my opinion, yes. 21 Ci -hat question, of course, was in connec- 22 tion with cur discussion about communicating toxicity and 23 health hazards to the workers that^ you were familiar with? 24 A. Yeah. 25 Q, `.`l a s it your experience in the laboratory JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 33 1 that if someone developed a sensitivity to a particular 2 substance, he was removed? 3 A. Oh , immediately . 4 C. Was that person re-e xocsec subsequently? 5 A. * No. They were out in completely different 6 areas. 7 G Why was that? 8 A. Why was it? 9 Q Yes, sir. V 10 A- Well, you don't deliberately expose people , 11 to something that's causing them, physical harm. 12 G. Even if it's Just a rash? 13 A. Hven if it's just a rash. T remember a 14 particular case when a man in our enzyme research, most 15 people aren't affected by enzyme, but there are a small 1 number of people who are. This chap got breaking out on 17 his hands, and he was taken out of that area and put in 18 another laboratory in another area and it cleared up, and 19 we never put him back or. that project. 20 Q Is that some kind of a principle of hygiene 21 or something that exists in your field? I near, how do you 22 knew to do that? Where did the idea come from, if you know? 23 A. Well, it's Just common sense, I guess, more 24 than anything else. 25 Q' Did you ever receive any instruction from JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 39 1 J1 1 1 Monsanto in that sort of thing? 2 A. Well, I guess I can't answer that because I 3 don't recall. I would have from ny own knowledge known 4 that. Whether I learned that from my general knowledge of 5 the literature or whether sor.ebody in the Medical Department 6 instructed me, I don't recall. 7 Cl As an assistant -8 A. It's possible or even probable in the case 9 of the one that I'm remembering in the enzyme area that we 10 did in fact discuss this with the Medical Department and' n probably their reccmnendation also was that he be taken out 12 of that. I would have done that from my own knowledge as 13 well, but I'm sure we would -- he would have gone over to 14 the Medical Department for treatment anyway, and I'm sure 15 that would have been their recommendation. That's Just a 16 well-kr.cwn general principle, as far as that's concerned. 17 Cl Did the person that you're talking about 18 have any discretion as to whether he stayed there or moved 1 9 on? 2 0 A. Did he have discretion? 21 Uh huh. I mean, did the company Just tell 2 2 him, you're going over to another place? 2 3 A. I guess, the answer was he was given the 2 4 opportunity, and I don't think he would want to stay where 2 5 his hands were breaking out. JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE > i 11 1 q Now, did this situation involve research 2 chemists? 3 A Yeah, it was a technical person handling 4 enzymes. 5 Q When you were a group leader, did you 6 instruct your people along those lines? 7 A. You mean as far as sensitivities were con- 8 cemed? 9 4 Yes, sir. 10 A. I don't recall specifically doing that, but 11 I'm sure if I had a case, I would have, yes, without ques- 12 tion. 13 Q When you became Assistant Director of Researc h. 14 did you instruct the group leaders that were under you along 15 the same lines? 16 A That would have been part of our general 17 safety meetings that we had. 18 4 And, I assume, that would have held true > 19 when you became an associate director? You would have 20 instructed the directors and they in turn would have 21 instructed group leaders? 22 A T h a t 's correct. 23 Q To your knowledge, was that an accepted 24 corporate policy? 25 A I think that's a fair statement. JAME5 MAY REPORTING SERVICE 1 41 1 -1 1 1 q Do you know if production people were 2 covered by these same policies? 3 /L Prom my personal knowledge, I don't know. 4 q Do you know second-hand? 5 A. Will you restate the question? 6 q Do you know second-hand whether production 7 people in Monsanto Company who may have developed a sensi8 tivity are covered by the same policy of being removed and 9 never re-exposed? 10 A. It would be my opinion they were. Hot ' n being directly Involved in production, I didn't personally 12 remove anybody from contact with the chemical. 13 q All right. We have gotten you up to the U early '70's. 15 A. Uh huh (yes). 16 q What did you do next for the company? 17 A. Well, I stayed In the biomedical program 18 until,.I guess, about '77. Then the New Enterprise Division 19 -- another reorganization -- the New Enterprise Division 2 0 was kind of folded back in different areas, and I went over 21 to the Medical Department. 22 q And what did you do in the Medical Depart23 ment? Did you have a title? 24 A. I was called Director of Special Projects. 25 q And what did that Job entail? JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE ) it? A. Well, It Involved a number of projects related to mostly attempting to develop a thorough and com plete background of the personnel and health records for our various production plants. We were organizing and developing a complete epidemiology program for the company. Q Now, when did this begin, this effort? A. Well, It was under way -- some work had been done over the years on an outside contract basis. Q Kind of piecemeal? A. We didn't have a separate department per se within the company until, I guess, mld-'70's, something of that kind, and we had some Individuals Involved In that prior to my going there, but I Increased It and got It going. At the same time I was reaching a point where I was Intending to retire In a couple, three years, so I was also looking for an outside man we could bring in to continue the effort. Q So if I understood what you were saying there, when you moved over to the Medical Department in 1977, you set about kind of pulling together and getting an effort under way to develop some epidemiology? A. Pulling together and increasing the effort. Q Towards the development of what? A. Cf a epidemiology function, which included the computerizing of all of our plant personnel records and getting data into shape so that health and environmental JAM ES MAY R EPORTING SERVICE 43 1 11 1 health studies could be continued. 2 At the sane tine you had an eye towards 3 leaving the company and were looking for a fellow to take 4 over for you? 5 A. Yes. a Did you find a guy to do that? 7 A. Ultimately. 8 Q Who was that? 9 A. Dr. Gaffey. 1 0 Q Did he work with you or under you prior to 11 your retirement? 1 2 A. 13 effort. When he cane on board, he took over that 14 Q When did he cone on board? Just whatever 15 your recollection Is. 1 A. Would have been the latter part of '78 or 17 early *79, that general area. 18 Q Late '78, early '79? 19 A. That's my best recollection. 2 0 Q So for about eighteen months or so you were 21 kind of a prime mover of this epidemiology effort? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q And was that entire function turned over to 24 Dr. Gaffey? 25 A. Dr. Gaffey. JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 44 1 ,11 II 1 Q Is he an M.D. or a Ph.D.? 2 A. H e 's a Ph.D. 3 Q Did you have any specialized training in 4 epidemiology? 5 A. Do I? 6 Q Yes, sir. 7 A. No. Many of the techniques and the experi8 mental procedures, the statistical treatments and so on, are 9 very similar to those you have in a biomedical research 10 function, and so it was something that was -- 11 Q It was compatible? 12 A. Not foreign to my experience in terms of the 13 methodology. We had epidemiologists also that worked under 14 m e . 15 So based on your experience in the b i o m e d i 16 cal field and then y o u r approximate eighteen months sojourn 17 as the mover of this epidemiology p r o g r a m in Monsanto, did 18 you generally become aware of the field of epidemiology? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q What is the purpose of an epide m i o l o g y 21 p r o g r a m at Monsanto? 22 A. It's to follow the effects or potential 23 effects of the work place on the h e a l t h of our employees 24 over a period of time and to identify at as early a stage 25 as possible any adverse effects that might be involved. JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE \ *5 1 ,JI . 1 q To identify causation? 2 A. You never, quote, I guess, identify causa- 3 tion. You associate efforts with chemicals. I guess a 4 true epidemiologist would never say he has an absolute 5 answer to something of that kind. Just all the more work 6 to be done. 7 Q Is it a complex multifactoral process? 8 A. Like any biological research. 9 Q Is that a term of art in epidemiology? ;:`v 10 A. What? ...:* "* .* * 1,i 11 q Complex multifactoral process. 12 A. I don't know that as a specific tern. .That's 13 something I Just heard you say. 14 q Have you heard epidemiologists talk about a 15 webb of causation? 16 A. A webb of causation? I'm not sure I under- 17 stand what that question is about. 18 Q You haven't heard it, then? 19 A Not In that particular form:. 20 MB. LOVE: Let me object to the form of 21 the question. Are you asking him if he's heard 22 a specific phrase? 23 MR. CALWELL: Yes. 24 A I don't think I've heard that specific 25 phrase, in answer to that. That's why I was hesitating % JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE ,1 J 1 1 giving an answer. I 'm not sure what you meant by it. 2 Q You become aware of the basic measurements 3 used in epidemiology during your period of time as Director 4 of Special Projects? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q And was this in connection with the develop7 ment of the epidemiology program at Monsanto? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q, Now, you have testified that you began to 10 pull together, I guess, what had been some kind of an ongoing * 11 effort on behalf of Monsanto to develop some epidemiology 12 program. Could you tell me what that ongoing effort con- ' 13 sisted of as you found it in 1977? 14 A. Yes. We had about three people involved, 15 which Judy Callan at that time was the first formal epi16 demiologist. That function had had some work done with the 17 industrial hygienist function. They have some background 18 in epidemiology, although, they are not Just trained in 19 that field, and we were beginning -- we had the intent at 20 the time to try to pull all of our plants worldwide, and 21 that's a lot of plants, as you recognize, into a common 22 system where we could get all of our back records and so on 23 on the computer so that studies of that kind could be done 24 with a reasonable amount of effort. Epidemiology is a very 25 painstaking kind of research, as you can probably appreciate JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE \ U7 t 1J ` 1 It involves thousands and thousands of individual work 2 records and health records and so on, and without ultimately 3 having that kind of information completely computerized, you 4 have a mammoth Job to do epidemiology on the scale that is 5 needed for a company as diverse as Monsanto. 6 ft If you know, is epidemiology the only way 7 that Monsanto has attempted to associate illnesses in the 8 workplace with certain chemicals? 9 A. Oh, no. Obviously, there are many individual 10 observations made by physicians in plants and that kind of 11 thing and before formal epidemiology was instituted. 12 ft When was that, if you know? 13 A. When formal epidemiology was instituted? 1 4 ft Yes. 1 5 A. As a discipline? 1 6 ft Well, that you know. You said before. 17 What tine did you understand it? 18 A. Well, I guess, epidemiology has been around 1 9 a long time, but it really came, I guess, to the forefront 2 0 when Sir Richard Dahl in England first identified and corre- 21 lated the effects of cigarette smoking on lung cancer. He's 2 ? sort of the dean of epidemiology, and that happened, I 2 3 guess, in the m i d - '50's, late '50's that that began to be 2 4 appreciated, maybe not wholly accepted, but, at least, 2 5 there was good methodology applied. It had been known. JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 48 earlier, of course, back in the early 1900's of the effects of coal tar on the chimney sweeps in England, but I think the coming of age of real statistical analysis and applica tion of good experimental methods and provision of adequate controls and so on, probably Sir Richard Dahl was a key mover in that field, to my knowledge, Q Do you know when Monsanto first availed itself of the principles of epidemiology? A. I'm trying to think back on programs we m a y have worked on outside the company. Inside the company the formal development of the function as an in-Medical Depart ment function would have been in the m i d - '7 0 's. q What about Monsanto's availing Itself of outside contractors, I suppose, for that function? A. Well, that could have been done as early as in the '50's, I would guess. There was work done in pulling together some medical records by outside contract people, I think, as early as the '50's; but as a function within the Medical Department, only a few companies had recognized that as an essential function until the '6 0 's and '70's, and, I guess, it was the mid-'70's before that was set up. There aren't too many companies have it internally now. There are still a number of them that have to rely on outBide contractors. Q But as far as you know, the outside JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE i|C J V1 ' 1 contractors were available in the middle '50's? 2 A. I don't know that, I really don't. That was 3 a developing function, and just when that became a function 4 you can contract for outside, I don't recall. I wasn't 5 involved in it at that time. 6 Q Aside from the evidence discipline utilized 7 to associate illnesses or diseases with substances in the 8 workplace, did Monsanto follow any other discipline or 9 course of action to make those kinds of associations at any 10 time that you're aware of? 11 A. Well, of course, they have always had a 12 medical examination program on a periodic basis and usually 13 annually going back as far as I can remember. 14 Q Would that be like a plant physician pri15 marily involved in that? 16 A. Plant physician for annual physicals and 17 that kind of thing. And I suspect the first one that I 18 would be aware of was a program on para-amino-biphenyls. 19 Q PAB's? 20 A. In which that association was made with 21 people in the PA3 Department. 22 d Do you know how that association was made? 23 A. Well, from the fact that those people in 24 those departments were showing up with a problem. That was 25 the association of the Medical Department and the individual JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE > 50 1 cases that were being exhibited. 2 q As far as you know, that determination was 3 made more in a clinical sense as opposed to epidemiology? 4 A. May have been some outside work done at that 5 time to associate to. I'm not sure specifically what was done outside of the fact that a program of medical monitoring 7 and so on was begun back at that time, and all of the 8 people who had any association with PAB's were regularly 9 monitored for bladder irregularities and so on. *,**> 10 Q When you became the Director of Special 11 Projects in the Medical Department, was it necessary for 12 you to avail yourself of the history of Monsanto's efforts 13 to determine these associations between workplace exposures 14 and illness? 15 A. Well, not in a normal way. We began to pull 16 together all of the personnel records and health records 17 from all of our plants and to examine them in an organized 18 way both from the point of view of the health records per se 19 and the point of view of the records of deceased personnel 20 as well because that's something of equal importance in 21 looking back is what happened to those who died, have they 22 had abnormal patterns compared to other control populations 23 and so on. 24 Q As you began this function, did that include 25 the Nitro Plant? rl JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE \ 5 1 ,11 1 'A. .. Yes, it did. 2 ('hereupon a short recess was taken, 3 after which the following proceedings were 4 had:) 5 Q Doctor, Just before we took a little break 6 you were talking about your efforts in your new Job as 7 Director of Special Projects. You were beginning, I think, 8 to tell us about your efforts, including the Nitro Plant. 9 If you could continue. 10 A. What question was that? 11 Q, I asked you, I think, if your review of 12 these various records and so forth included the Nitro Plant, 13 and so I asked you what did in fact you do with those 14 records, what records are you talking about? 15 A. Veil, this is all the personnel records as 16 far back as we had then and the health records, and we were 17 getting those together to put them in the computer so we 18 could do complete epidemiological studies regarding the 19 Nitro Plant. 20 Q New, at that point in time did you have 21 some protocol or design for the epidemiology studies that 22 you were going to do? 23 A. Well, we would have a general design for 24 whole-plant studies. We had been involved in it, a corre25 sponding study at our Springfield Plant; and so, yes, the JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE \ 52 j ,11 1 answer to that would have been we did have an overall plant 2 design study for those kinds of efforts and it would corre3 late in number of departments in a given plant with the 4 people that had worked there versus controls who had not 5 worked there and so on. 6 Q, S o you had a whole-plant design? 7 A. Which could be adapted to individual depart8 ment designs at any time we needed to pull out given data. 9 Wherever the data were sufficient to do that, it could be 10 adaptable either to a whole-plant study or if we had the n records adequately transferred to the computer, you alter12 natively could pull out designs that would apply to a given * 13 department if you had those records complete. 14 Q, Did you have more than one classification 15 of whole-plant design for this epidemiological study? 16 A. I 'm not sure I understand the question. 17 Well, did you Just have one standard whole18 plant design for the various manufacturing plants in the 19 Monsanto Company that you simple adapted to various plants? 20 A. Well, methodology t h a t 's useful for one 2T plant would be adaptable to another plant, yes. Although, 22 specifics would vary depending on the longevity of the 23 records and other things, and that varied. 24 Q You say you had a similar study ongoing at 25 Springfield? JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE \ 53 1 ,11 1 A. Yes. We had a whole-plant study. I don't 2 know the exact tiding*. I think the Springfield study was 3 further along In our prograr, than the Nltro Plant was at 4 that time, but both plants were under study during that 5 period. 6 Now, at the Nltro Plant what did the method7 ology call for? 8 A. Well, It called for both a study of the 9 deceased persons from the Nltro Plant as well as a health 10 study, health examinations of workers who were not deceased 11 and still working at the plant and those who had retired. 12 That part of the study as well as consulting on the deceased 13 study was carried out by an independent group at the Uni14 versity of Cincinnati under Dr. Suskind. 15 Q Now, those were the two basic areas in the 16 methodology of the Nltro undertaking, right? 17 A- Y9 3 . 18 Q The deceased persons and then a health 19 study on those presently employed and those retired? 20 A. That 's correct. 21 C Now, would the information gathered per22 taining to those two classifications at the Nltro Plant 23 then become the raw data for your epidemiological study? 24 A. That's correct. And for ongoing. See, the 25 goal was to have all of our plants with ongoing data that JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 1 , 5^ 1 ,11 1 would be kept current, then, on the computers so that we 2 would very quickly be able to spot any trends or any adverse 3 effects In the future as well as determining those which 4 night have occurred In the past that we had no knowledge of 5 at the time. 6 Now, with reference to the health study, I 7 assume that there were controls used? 8 A. No study is worthwhile if there isn't. 9 q Who designed the controls? 10 A. The study design specifically was Dr. 11 Suskind's . 12 q And the health study cart? " \` , 13 A, On the health study part. We had an input 14 in looking at his design because we were going to pay for it. 15 We could add things, but we certainly had no ability to do 16 the other way. In other words, if we wanted other tests 17 that weren't scheduled, we could add to it. 18 Q You could add to it but you couldn't take 19 it away? 20 A. But there's no way we affected that study. 21 In wanting to get more complete data -- it was our advantage 22 since we were going to pay for the study to have it as com- 23 plete and definitive as possible, and that was our goal. 24 ^ Now, what was -- I know this is a very 25 broad question -- but what role did you play in the bringing JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 5! 1 t 1 t o g e t h e r o f this health study part that we are talking 2 a b o u t a t t h e Nitro Plant? 3 A. Well, I was the contact with Dr. Suskind in A arranging to have the study done, to have the tests done, 5 to pay for it, to budget for it, and to ensure that all of 6 the records that were available were r.ade available to 7 Dr. Suskind's tearr., all of the past records that we had in 8 addition to the current work that he was going to do in 9 examining people. ' >' *** * 10 C New, when was the decision made, i f ` y o u k n o w , 11 to implement this health study phase of this e p i d e m i o l o g y 12 effort we have been talking about? 13 A. Ch, I got to think back a little bit. 14 Probably in the last half of 1978, as I recall, to my best 15 recollect ion. 16 , You know who made that decision? 17 A. 'Well, the ultimate decision would have been 18 made by Dr. Roush, but there would have been people who had 19 to c o n c u r i n it, of course, which we did. Would be the 20 Nitro Plant management who also had tc make available the 21 records and the people to help with their categorizing it 22 and so on. 23 C. Do you know whose idea it was to start with? 2A A* well, the idea for the study came from the 25 Medical Department originally because we had scheduled all JAM ES MAY REPO R TIN G SERVICE 56 1 of our plants at some point In time when we had the capa 2 bilities to do that. We had other studies ongoing as well 3 at the time. I mentioned the Springfield Plant. There were 4 some other plants as well. So you can't do everything at 5 once. We had the Nitro Plant was one that was high on priorities as well as Springfield, and we had work going on 7 for Texas City, we had work going on for some of our textile 8 plants and so on. 9 What was the goal of the health study?"10 A. Well, the goal of the health study was to 11 determine the state of health of the current employees and 12 to attempt in that process to define if there were any 13 ongoing problems that could be traced to their work environ 14 ment . 15 1 To create an association between their 16 health problems and the workplace? 17 A. If such existed. 18 Q Who was studied at the Nitro Plant? 19 A. All of the current employees, plus all of 20 the identifiable retirees, including 3cne who were brought 21 in from Florida, as I remember. I guess, they retired in 22 other areas. So as completely as possible we tried to 23 identify everyone who's still in the plant or if they have 24 left the company but we still knew that they were in the 25 Nitro area,they would have been included too in addition to JAM ES MAY R EPORTING SERVICE ) *>7 retired people. q Was that all employees or Just certain employees at the plant at Nitro, in other words, the entire work force? A. It was the entire -- let me think a minute. Yeah, it was the entire work force. Q Do you know the approximate number? A. If you included the retired and so on, I think something inthe range of thirteen to fifteen hundred examinations. T h a t 's my best recollection. ft So that I understand, the health study aspect of this epidemiological process we have been talking about at Nitro was to include all persons who had worked at the Nitro Plant regardless of where in the plant they worked? A. That 's correct. ft And what time period was that to include? A. Well, it went back as far as we had records. That is, if they had come to work in 1930, if they were still at the plant, they were part of that study. And, of course, the study of deceased would have included as many people as could be identified regardless of where they were. ft And you believe that that ultimately totaled approximately thirteen hundred people? A. That's my best recollection, f t Who decided that the Nitro study should 1 include all employees, both, I guess, present and past? 2 A. Well, to do a well-controlled study it was 3 most desirable and necessary to include, if you're going to 4 be able to pick out five departments, like, a 2,4,5 T 5 department, if you wanted to look at that as a separate 6 thing, you had to have essentially all of the other employees 7 as well to have adequate controls and to have a complete 8 picture of what might be involved at that plant. The best 9 you can do is get everyone you can into the study, including 10 retirees and others who are known to be in the area. 11 Q Now, was that part of Dr. Suskind's design 12 or Monsanto's? 13 A. That was part of Dr. Suskind's design but 14 concurred in and agreed by Monsanto as well. 15 Could you have vetoed that? 16 A. Not and have him do the study. We wouldn't 17 have wanted to, but we could have. He wouldn't have done 18 the study unless it could have been done to his specifica 19 tions . 20 Q Now, was there a control group identified 21 in connection with the health study portion? 22 A. Well, as far as the whole plant was con 23 cerned, the control group would have to be the community. 24 Q Which community? 25 A. It would be the Nitro and the Charleston JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE \ ,1 J f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 U 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 community. Well, that would have to do with rates of disease of various kinds within, say, a given county and a given state which you always have to do if youre going to compare a given plant. You have to compare the general populace of that people in the plant as a control. Q So for the whole-plant study which sought to include everybody who ever worked at the Nitro Plant and, of course, the limitation was where you had records, obvi- ously. . . ,v. A. Yeah. ' Q The control group was the Nitro/Kanawha County area? A. Yeah, wherever such data is available of , county records or local records. Epidemiologists will often use a state, they will often use national numbers, but the best numbers are as close as you can get for a control group, say, within a given county where other people live. Q Do you know if this particular study relied on Kanawha County? A. I can't recall that specifically. I think it probably did, but I don't recall specifically. I've not seen Dr. Suskind's formal results from this study. I retired before he made a formal report on that study. Q Now, were there other control groups identified for other parts of the health study? JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE SO 1 1 )f 1 * V A. , There were control groups that were identi- 2 - '"'V-'fied' within the plant that, for example, if you were going 3 to study one department and you could identify all the 4 people in the plant who had never worked in that department, 5 they could serve as a control to compare the health status 6 for people in that department. So it's possible you could 7 use an in-plant control. 8 q So if I understood you correctly, the study 9 had several levels. You had the whole-plant study,%*ftridi$he^;; 10 control was , you believe to be, Kanawha County, for example?':: 11 A. Uh huh (yes). > 12 q Then, apparently, there were some depart- : : - 13 mental studies or, at least, a part of the health study 14 focused on the in-plant departments? 15 A. Y e s . 16 Q And for those departmental inquiries you 17 identified an in-plant control? 18 A. T h a t fs correct. % 19 a And the in-plant control group would have 20 been those workers identified as having not been in the 21 particular department you were studying? 22 A. That would be the procedure, yes. 23 Q Now, if you recall, which departments of 24 the Nitro Plant were studied or focused on? 25 A. Well, certainly one of the departments that JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 61 1 1 >< 1 would be most closely focused on would be 2,4,5 T because 2 -of the concern on the part of a number of groups with the 3 potential effects of the impurities, dioxins, in those departments. 4 5 d In connection with the 2,4,5 T Department 6 study, that was done, what were the parts of the study? 7 A. Y o u m e a n as f a r as S u s k i n d ' s h e a l t h s t u d y ? 8 Q Yeah. Right now we are talking about health 9 aspects of this epidemiological effort that Monsanto^.began 10 t o u n d e r t a k e in 1977. 11 A. W e l l , t o t h e d e g r e e t h a t I a m k n o w l e d g e a b l e 12 a b o u t the r e s u l t s o f t he st u d y , all o f t he p e o p l e t h a t w e 13 c o u l d i d e n t i f y f r o m p e r s o n n e l r e c o r d s t h a t h a d h a d an 14 a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h t h e 2 , 4 , 5 T D e p a r t m e n t a n d its p r e c u r s o r , 15 t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l s -- I f o r g o t t he n u m b e r s o f t h o s e d e p a r t 16 m e n t s -- a n d in the l a b o r a t o r i e s , w h o e v e r h a d a n a l y z e d t h e m 17 in t he c o n t r o l l a b o r a t o r i e s a n d w h e r e t h e r e w as a n y c o n n e c 18 t i o n in t h e i r p e r s o n n e l r e c o r d s w i t h t h a t d e p a r t m e n t a l o n g * r* * 19 t h e w a y o v e r s o m e t w e n t y y e a r s u n t i l t h e d e p a r t m e n t w a s s hut 20 d own, t h a t w o u l d h a v e b e e n one, say, d e p a r t m e n t a l g r o u p 21 a s s o c i a t e d w i t h 2 , 4 , 5 T p r o d u c t i o n . 22 Q L et me a s k y o u a b o u t t h a t . W o u l d p e o p l e 23 w h o w e r e i d e n t i f i e d as m a i n t e n a n c e p e o p l e h a v e b e e n i n c l u d e d 74 in t h e d e p a r t m e n t a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f t h o s e e x p o s e d to 25 2 . H . 5 T? JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE I 62 1 i ir 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. - *...* 3 I My recollection is to the extent -- you see, soma of them were general. They weren't specifically assigned to that department, and wherever there was a ques tion about it, they would have been included, assumed they did work in that department. I don't recall exact numbers of maintenance people, but where there was knowledge of supervisors or of the people themselves, if during their examination they were asked that question, "well, you were a maintenance person, did you ever spend any time in that ;. department," they would have been included as a parfc^ of the exposed group. There is a gray area in some of the maintenance people because if they didn't remember that they had worked there or didn't show up as being assigned to that department at some point, they might be overlooked, but I'm sure they were asked that question as part of methodology if they were maintenance people. t Q So the general maintenance were not included unless there was some indication from their personnel records or..riless the guy would show up and say, listen, I worked in there? A. That's my recollection of the way it was handled. That's a specific detail, but I think that's the way it was handled. ^ So that gave you the departmental people to find in terms of this health study? JAM ES MAY R E PO R TIN G SER VIC E J ! 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n 12 13 u 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. U h h u h ( y e s ). q Now, who was the control group for that departmental group? A. T h e c o n t r o l g r o u p w o u l d h a v e b e e n a ll o f t h e other people who worked In the plant over that period of years If we were talking about the deceased study or -- Q We are talking about the live study now. A. We are t a l k i n g a b o u t t h e l i v e study, all the people that were now still In the plant currently."and w h o h a d r e t i r e d but w e r e s t i l l a live a n d c o u l d be Itfenilile'd. Q Now, what time period was the 2,4,57 departmental study concerned with7 ^ ,1 j-.e * A. I can t e l l y o u not e x a c t d a t e s b e c a u s e I 'm not exactly sure when 2,4,5 T started up. I think, as I recall, a specific accident occurred in 1948. Then that would have been from that point -- the department might have b e e n g o i n g f o r a y e a r o r so b e f o r e that. I 'm n o t sure e x a c t l y w h e n that de p a r t m e n t s t a r t e d up, but I t h i n k it * w a s shut down in '69. Q So to your recollection the time period of t h e 2 , 4 , 5 T d e p a r t m e n t s t u d y w as a b o u t 1 9 4 8 o r '49 t h r o u g h , say, 1969? A. T h a t ' s my b e s t r e c o l l e c t i o n . Q Now, was the control group similarly identified In that time period? JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE \ 64  1 VL Mo. T h e c o n t r o l g r o u p w o u l d h a v e b e e n all 2 of those who were still in the plant who had worked at that 3 time period plus those -- now, my recollection is a little 4 bit hazy here -- I think it included those people who had 5 come to w o r k a f t e r !69 w h o w e r e s t i l l a p a r t o f t he p l a n t . 6 In other words, they are exposed to everything else in the 7 plant but they were never exposed to 2,4,5 T, obviously, 8 it's been shut down and torn down by that time, but they 9 w o u l d s t i l l be i n c l u d e d i n t h e c o n t r o l g r o u p because* w e - . ^ ; 10 s wanted as many controls as we could get. The b i g g e r ^the.vW;? 11 c o n t r o l , the b e t t e r f o r c o m p a r a t i v e p u r p o s e s . I t ra. m y ^ 12 r e c o l l e c t i o n t h a t it i n c l u d e d b o t h t h e p e o p l e w h o hftd 13 w o r k e d at s o m e t i m e d u r i n g t h a t t w e n t y y e a r s a n d w e r e s t i l l 14 t h e r e but h a d n e v e r h a d a n y a s s o c i a t i o n , as b e s t w e c o u l d 15 d e t e r m i n e f r o m t h e i r p e r s o n n e l r e c o r d s , o r if t h e r e w e r e 16 q u e s t i o n s , I m e a n , i n d i v i d u a l s w e r e q u e s t i o n e d at t h e t i m e 17 o f the e x a m too, p l u s t h e p e o p l e w h o h a d c o m e to w o r k a f t e r 18 t h e e x p o s u r e p e r i o d in 2 , 4 , 5 T a n d a l s o w e r e n e v e r e x p o s e d 19 t o 2 , 4 , 5 T i S u t t h e y w o u l d h a v e b e e n o f u s e p o t e n t i a l l y f o r 20 o t h e r d e p a r t m e n t s i n t h e p l a n t u l t i m a t e l y as far as 21 e p i d e m i o l o g y w a s c o n c e r n e d . S o w h a t y o u t r i e d t o do w i t h 22 the 2 , 4 , 5 T D e p a r t m e n t s t u d y w a s to i d e n t i f y t h o s e w h o h a d 23 s o m e c o n n e c t i o n w i t h 2 , 4 , 5 T a n d u se as a c o n t r o l e v e r y b o d y 24 else in the plant that you could reasonably identify who 25 was not exposed and who was retired and we could contact. , JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 65 I , 1( 1 Q Do you have a recollection as to the number 2 of people in the control group? 3 A. W e l l , I a n a l i t t l e b i t h a z y h e r e , b u t my 4 recollection would be of the order of magnitude of three 5 hundred, perhaps, that were associated with 2,^,5 T, and 6 the rest of the thirteen hundred, make eight hundred to a 7 thousand -- don't hold me to those numbers because I Just 8 don't remember the exact ones -- eight hundred to a thou39 and nay be control group. Maybe three times the controls- 10 t h a t we h a d t h a t w e r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h 2 , ^ , 5 T D e p a r t m e n t . 11 Q Do y o u k n o w w h y the c o u n t y w a s n ' t u s e d as 12 a c o n t r o l g r o u p ? 13 A. W ell, t he b e s t c o n t r o l g r o u p t h a t y o u c a n W have are other people as closely s i m ilar to the people 15 t h a t y o u ' r e s t u d y i n g a n d go out f r o m th e r e . In o t h e r w o r d s , 16 if y o u h a v e a l a r g e e n o u g h g r o u p for a c o n t r o l , t he i n - p l a n t 17 c o n t r o l s w o u l d p r e s u m a b l y c o n e f r o m s i m i l a r e t h n i c b a c k 18 g r o u n d s a n d p e r s o n a l h a b i t s a n d a ll t he r e s t o f the t h i n g s 19 t h a t m i g h t a f f e c t h e a l t h w h o are a s s o c i a t e s o f t h e s e p e o p l e 20 b ut w h o d i d not h a v e an a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h t h a t g i v e n d e p a r t 21 m e n t or c h e m i c a l s i n v o l v e d w o u l d be t he b e s t c o n t r o l y o u 22 c o u l d have. Mow, t h e r e o f t e n are l i m i t a t i o n s in n u m b e r s , 23 a n d t h a t ' s one o f the r e a s o n s we w a n t e d as m a n y as p o s s i b l e . 74 T h a t 's w hy we t r i e d to e x a m i n e e v e r y b o d y in t h e p l a n t . 25 T h e n the n e x t b e s t c o n t r o l g r o u p is a g r o u p f r o m t he a r e a JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 66 I (It 1 or the oounty who then have some differences because some 2 o f t h e m may w o r k at duPont and be e x p o s e d to s o m e t h i n g else 3 or heavy drinkers or maybe any number of reasons why they 4 have different personal habits, different ethnic backgrounds, 5 what have you, that would affect a general kind of health 6 study. After that you go to state figures and after that 7 you go to national figures. But other things being equal, 8 the best groups you can have are those that work in the 9 same general environment but not specifically exposed to 10 the p r o d u c t s that y o u w a n t to l o o k at, but y o u do a l l of 11 t h e m g e n e r a l l y if t he d a t a are a v a i l a b l e . 12 q W e r e y o u a b l e to d e f i n e t he p h y s i c a l - 13 p a r a m e t e r s o f e x p o s u r e to 2,*J,5 T d u r i n g the d e p a r t m e n t a l 14 s t u d i e s ? 15 MR. LOVE: I d on't u n d e r s t a n d y o u r 16 q u e s t i o n . 17 A Y o u ' l l h a v e to d e f i n e that for me. 18 Q W o u l d y o u d e f i n e a p h y s i c a l l o c a t i o n o f 19 w h e r e a p e r s o n w o u l d h a v e to h a v e b e e n in o r d e r to h a v e 20 b e e n e x p o s e d to 2,*1,5 T w i t h i n t he N i t r o P l a n t d u r i n g the 21 t i m e p e r i o d '*1S to 1969? 22 A Yeah, the m o s t p r e c i s e p h y s i c a l l o c a t i o n , 23 o f course, w o u l d be the d e p a r t m e n t s t h e m s e l v e s . 24 Q Which would be the building? 25 A The buildings that those departments were JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 1 7 1 < I< 1 located In, the laboratory area where samples were analyzed, 2 for, say, analytical people who were analyzing s a m p l e s . 3 Obviously, you can't say that a mechanic night have gotten 4 sons on his shoe and walked out of there into an alley and 5 might have spread a little bit in the alley. There are no 6 ways to completely define that. Y o u define this as best 7 y o u 1re a b l e to f r o m t h e d e p a r t m e n t s t h a t a r e i n v o l v e d . 8 0 So as far as you know, the d e f i n i t i o n for 9 p h y s i c a l l o c a t i o n for t h e 2,*1,5 T d e p a r t m e n t a l s t u d y nv 10 i n c l u d e d the b u i l d i n g s w h e r e t h e p r o c e s s w a s c a r r i e d on 11 a n d the l a b o r a t o r y ? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q Where it night have been tested? 1 4 A. Y e s . . 15 Q Any warehouses on site where it night have 16 b e e n s t o r e d ? 1 7 A. T h a t ' s c o r r e c t . 18 Q A n y b u i l d i n g t h a t was a s s o c i a t e d ? 1 9 A. A n y i m m e d i a t e a d j a c e n t a r e a s -- as y o u k n o w , 20 t h e r e w a s an a c c i d e n t in '*lS, a n d i m m e d i a t e l y a d j a c e n t a r e a 21 in t e r n s o f the a l l e y w a y and so on f r o m t h a t b u i l d i n g , 22 there was some fogging out of material there and there were 23 people either going through or from that department at the 24 tine who were affected. Those are included in such studies 25 where they were k n o w n to be close to that d e p a r t m e n t at the JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 68 j r >< 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 time or the y came down, they h a d some skin e r u p t i o n as a result of it, so on, during the accident period. Q What about people who would have worked in the adjacent areas during the production time period of to '59? A. T h e r e ' s n o w a y -- are y o u s u g g e s t i n g an operator might cone over and visit with another operator, something of that kind? Cl If I u n d e r s t o o d w h a t y o u s a i d e a r l i e r , in '^3 this a u t o c l a v e failed and s p e w e d some m a t e r i a l all o v e r the place and there is some i n d i cation that, perhaps, got into an area, perhaps, outside the immediate building. A. In the a l l e y w a y . Z In the alleyway. If I understand your testimony, you were able tc identify people who might have go t t e n in that al leyway on cleanup crew, cr whatever, and included them in the 2,^,5 T -- A. V h e r e t h e r e w e r e r e c o r d s o r t h e y so i n d i c a t e d it was true. Q My follow-up question was, there was adjacent buildings where other processes were carried on. Were the p e o p l e in t h o s e b u i l d i n g s a d j a c e n t to t he o n g o i n g 2 , ^ , 5 T. p r o c e s s in B u i l d i n g 91, w e r e t h e y i n c l u d e d in the 2,*i,5 T departmental study? A. r r o b a b l y o n l y i f t h e y i n d i c a t e d t h e y h a d JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 59 1 < <1 1 some effects from that accident. If they said, "well, I 2 was standing in the building down there and I had a little 3 skin rash," and they recorded same, yes, they would have 4 been included. We have no other way to identify who would 5 have been involved other than in that case they themselves 6 made some statement to that effect either because they 7 reported their rash to the Medical Department or to the 8 nurse at the plant or they so i n d i c a t e d at the time of 9 t h e i r p hysical exam i n a t i o n when it was c a r ried out 10 c; W a s any i n q u i r y m a d e ab o u t t h o s e people- in 11 a d j a c e n t a r e a s w h o w e r e t h e r e d u r i n g t he n o r m a l p r o d u c t i o n 12 o f 2 , 0 , 5 T? * 13 A. I d o n ' t k n o w . I d o n 't t h i n k I can a n s w e r 14 that. Say that question again. 15 C- 2,11,5 - w as p r o d u c e d a b o u t a t w e n t y - y e a r 16 p e r i o d at the p l a n t ? 1 7 A. T h a t ' s c o r r e c t . 18 Q T h e r e was an i s o l a t e d i n c i d e n t in 19^9, a n d 19 you, a p p a r e n t l y , m a d e s p e c i f i c i n q u i r y a b o u t p e o p l e w h o 20 m i g h t h a v e b e e n e x p o s e d t h e r e ? 21 A. Yes . 22 Q New, there was the ongoing production of 2 3 2,1*,5 T. W a s a n y i n q u i r y m a d e o f p e o p l e w h o h a d w o r k e d in 2 4 a d j a c e n t a r e a s to the o n g o i n g p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s o f 2,**,5 T? 2 5 A- U n l e s s it 3 h o w e d up in the p e r s o n n e l r e c o r d s , JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 70 1 w h i c h it w o u l d not, o r u n l e s s t h e y v o l u n t e e r e d the i n f o r m a - 2 t i o n at tfte.'time o f t he m e d i c a l exam, I d o n ' t t h i n k t h e y 3 would have been included. In other words, I don't think a 4 routine questioning was done of all the people outside of 5 the medical examination even when they were examined. 6 Q But you were specific on the 19U9 incident 7 tc try to get all those people? 8 A. Yes. Y o u c a n ' t do a p e r f e c t J ob o f i d e n t i 9 f y i n g p e o p l e 's l o c a t i o n s t h i r t y y e a r s a f t e r t h e facts,, so, 10 yes, we c a n ' t say one h u n d r e d p e r c e n t t h a t we got e v e r y 11 s i n g l e i n d i v i d u a l . We m a d e e v e r y a t t e m p t to do t hat, b u t 12 y o u h a v e to w o r k w i t h i n the l i m i t a t i o n s o f t he s i t u a t i o n . 13 Am. I c o r r e c t , t h e n , i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t 14 a b a s i c a s s u m p t i o n that was m a d e on t he 2 , ^ , 5 7 d e p a r t m e n t a l 15 study was that unless you were associated in that department 16 by the criteria we have Just talked about or unless you 17 made some specific complaint to those doing the e x a m i n a 18 tions, you were considered not to have been exposed to 19 2,4,5 T? 20 A. U n l e s s y o u a n s w e r e d in the n e g a t i v e at the 21 t i m e o f t he e x a m i n a t i o n . As I r e c a l l , I t h i n k p e o p l e w e r e 22 a s k e d w h e n t h e y t o o k t h e i r e x a m i n a t i o n , d id t h e y h a v e any 23 a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h that d e p a r t m e n t as a p a r t o f the o t h e r 24 s t u d i e s in w h i c h t h e y w e r e i n v o l v e d ; a n d if t h e y d i d n ' t 25 say they had and if we didn't h a v e t h e m listed in the JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE } 1 l J' 1 personnel from those departments or the laboratories that 2 analyzed them or the warehouse, what have you, they would 3 not have been Included. 4 Q Were air studies looked for or consulted 5 In reaching the decision to make the assumption that expo- 6 sures did not occur outside the 2,4,5 T Department? 7 A. No. T h o s e s t u d i e s w e r e n ' t b e i n g d one 8 routinely at that time in any industrial operations that 9 I'n aware of. 10 Q Would that have been something that you 11 w o u l d have c o n s u l t e d h a d t h e y exi s t e d ? 12 A. If the d a t a h a d b e e n a v a i l a b l e , we c e r t a i n l y 13 w o u l d h a v e l o o k e d for it, sure. 14 Q Was a n y i n v e s t i g a t i o n m a d e as to t h e 15 h a n d l i n g o f the dust f r o m t h e 2 , 4 , 5 T p r o c e s s b u i l d i n g ? 16 A. At w h a t p e r i o d o f t i m e ? D u r i n g t h i s s tudy? 17 Q W h a t I ' m t a l k i n g a b o u t is t h e w a y y o u set 18 up the c o n t r o l s a n d p a r a m e t e r s o f t he 2 , 4 , 5 T D e p a r t m e n t 19 study. 2 0 A. W e l l , I g u e s s I h a v e to t e l l y o u I d o n ' t 21 know, but since routine studies of air and dust, other 22 than in immediate reaction areas were used to make routine 23 s t u d i e s of s o l v e n t c o m p o u n d s a n d so o n i n t h e r e a c t o r s ; 24 b ut in t erms o f the general plant environment, 25 r o u t i n e s t u d i e s o f a i r a n d d u s t w e r e n ' t a v a i l a b l e at t h a t JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 72 J l '' 1 time, they weren't carried out in that day. So the answer . \ 2 would be we wouldn't have any data at that time available. 3 Q Do you kno w if it was lo o k e d for? 4 K I'm sure we looked for every bit of data 5 we could find. But that's only a statement that we tried 6 to find every piece of data affecting that plant that we 7 could find, analytical and otherwise; and it's my opinion 8 that very little data would have been available related to 9 the air concentrations. That wasn't a routine operation 10 in t h o s e days. I t ' s p o s s i b l e . Y o u m i g h t h a v e to q u e r y 11 s o m e b o d y f r o m t he pl a n t . I t ' s p o s s i b l e t h e r e m i g h t h a v e 12 b e e n some l a t e r s t u d i e s n e a r t he e n d o f t h e t i m e w h e n the 13 p l a n t w as f i n a l l y shut d o w n t h a t w e r e m a d e o f dust, b u t I 14 d o n ' t k n o w if t h e r e w e r e a n y o r not. It's m y g u e s s t h e r e * 15 c a y not h a v e b e e n a n y a v a i l a b l e . 16 Q If the m e m b e r s o f y o u r c o n t r o l g r o u p w e r e 17 e x p o s e d to c o n c e n t r a t i o n s o f 2 , 4 , 5 T dust, w o u l d t h a t h a v e 18 a f f e c t e d t h e v a l i d i t y o f t he c o n t r o l group. 19 A. I f t h a t e x p o s u r e h a d b e e n s u b s t a n t i a l , It 20 c o u l d h a v e . 21 Q D i d y o u d e t e r m i n e a n y e x p o s u r e c r i t e r i a f o r 22 the 2 , 4 , 5 T d e p a r t m e n t a l s t u d y ? 23 A. Ho, b e c a u s e t h e r e ' s n o d a t a a v a i l a b l e on 24 s p e c i f i c l e v e l s o f e x p o s u r e . 25 Q D i d y o u c o n s u l t a n y o r a s k for o r s ee any JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 7*3 'J t 1 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 laboratory, teats or results of 2,4,5 T products during the 1949-69 period for levels of dioxin? A. L et m e h a v e t h e q u e s t i o n a g a i n . MR. CALWELL: Strike that question. Q Let me do this. You testified that you did not establish any exposure criteria for the 2,4,5 T itself? A. T h a t ' s c o r r e c t , b e c a u s e t h e r e w e r e n o d a t a available. Q What were the substances that you were looking for In the 2,4,5 T departmental study of exposure? MR. LOVE: Substances? MR. CALWELL: Yeah. . Q Were you Just looking for 2,4,5 T product exposure? A. We w e r e l o o k i n g f or p e o p l e w h o h a d w o r k e d in 2,4,5 T Department and related areas which we could find w h e r e any e f f e c t s on h e a l t h m i g h t be a p p a r e n t f r o m a st u d y of deceased and a study of people who were currently employed or retired from a physical examination and health study. Q Did you consider dioxin levels in the 2,11,5 T? A. levels. We do not have any data available on dioxin Q D u r i n g ^the p e r i o d *49 to '69? A. I c a n * t s a y s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e r e w e r e n o t any JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE i 74 '1 1 1 in the last year or so. I don't know. I'm not sure at 2 what point in time there would have been an analytical 3 method for dioxins. There probably was a dioxin specifica- 4 tion somewhere in the '60's, but I don't recall the specific 5 time that that night have been the case. 6 Q Did you look for records of dioxin levels 7 in the 2,*1,5 T product at Nitro in connection with this 8 study? 9 A. Yes. People did look at those records as 10 part of the study. 11 Q Do you know who did that? 12 A. I can't tell you specifically who did that. 13 It's probably the analytical people at Nitro that made the 14 data available. 15 Q, Who would they have made it available to? 16 A. Let me think a minute. I guess, I don't 17 knew. 18 Q Now, aside from the 2, *1,5 T departmental 19 study, were there other departmental studies carried on 20 with connection with the whole-plant study? 21 A. I'm not sure at that time what had been 22 done by Suskind other than 2, *1,5 T at this point. I didn't 23 see his final result. He would have been looking at other 24 areas, I'm sure, but I don't know what results might have 25 come forth from his analysis. JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE \ 75 t 11 1 ft 2 looking at? Do you know what areas he would have been 3 A. W e l l , I ' m s u r e t h e r e w o u l d h a v e b e e n d a t a 4 that would have come up from the PAB D e p a r t m e n t . They 5 certainly would show up in a disease study and in a health 6 study where anyone has had a bladder problem. Probably 7 other rubber chemicals, probably nercaptobenzothiazole. 8 ft Is that M3T? 9 A. U h h u h ( y e s ) . 10 Cl A n y t h i n g e l s e ? 11 A. T h o s e are t h e o n e s I w o u l d r e c a l l m o s t 12 c l o s e l y . I J u s t d o n ' t r e c a l l any o t h e r s t h a t m i g h t h a v e 13 b e e n p o t e n t i a l c a n d i d a t e s t o examine for. 14 ft N o w , we h a v e t a l k e d a bout t he 2 , 4 , 5 T 15 d e p a r t m e n t a l s t u d y a n d h o w y o u w e n t a b o u t i d e n t i f y i n g t h e 16 members of the 2,4,5 T Department and the control group and 17 so on. Was the same p r o cess c a r r i e d out for MBT? 18 A. I d o n ' t k n o w t h a t it was. 19 ft A g a i n , I a m J u s t t a l k i n g a b o u t t h e live -- 20 A. I d o n ' t k n o w t h a t it w a s n ' t e i t h e r . I J u s t 21 d on't rec a l l . 22 ft W h a t a b o u t P AB? 23 A. T h a t m a y h a v e b e e n a p p a r e n t f r o m S u s k i n d ' a 24 data. W h e t h e r he a n a l y z e d t h a t d a t a f o r t h e o t h e r d e p a r t 25 m ents I ' m n o t s u r e b e c a u s e I h a v e n ' t s e e n h is o t h e r r e p o r t . JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE ' \ 76 i t ** 1 The data would be available to do so because from personnel 2 records we can tie back to people that were there. 3 Q You Just don't know? 4 A. I don't know. His primary purpose was the 5 2 , U t 5 T Department and dioxin. 6 And why was that? 7 A. Well, he had been Involved years ago as a 8 referral physician for a number of the more severe cases of 9 skin eruptions from that accident, which I think you're 10 well aware of, and he had followed for many years ~ he-got 11 Into public health and was the Director of Public Health 12 at the University of Cincinnati -- other activities related 13 to dioxin and similar kinds of materials, and he was Intently' 14 interested in following up the long-range effects of some 15 of these things. I think HIOSH had also been requesting 16 what he night know about further cases of dioxin effects 17 over a long period of time. So he had an interest as part 18 of his professional life to define any long-term effects 19 that might be resulting from association with dioxin, 20 2,4,5 T. 21 Q In the course of your duties as a Director 2 2 of Special Projects, right? 23 A. Uh huh (yes). 24 Q Did you have occasion to review Suskind's 25 earlier reports and studies on the Mitro Plant? JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE \ 77 1 1 A. Yes. Those reports and studies were in 2 p e r s o n n e l medical records at Mitro and in the Medical 3 Department. 4 Q Were those reports and studies, to your 5 knowledge, in each of the medical personnel files of the 6 examined employees, is that where you found them? 7 A. I don't recall whether they were part of 8 the personnel files or personnel and medical files. I Just 9 don't recall. 10 C, You don't know whether these studies were 11 actually in the medical files or not? 12 A. Well, I looked at both personnel and medical 13 files, and they were in one or both. I don't recall whether 14 they were in both or in medical files and not in personnel. 15 I Just don't recall that. 16 0 I'm going to hand you what has been previous! y 17 marked Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit *3 and ask you if you 18 can identify that. 19 (Whereupon a short recess was taken, 20 after which the following proceedings were had.) 21 C* Doctor, you have had an opportunity to look 22 at Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit #3, have you not? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q Do you recognize that document? 25 A. Yes. JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE 78 i , .1 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 Q And what is it? A. It's a report of follow-up cases on the N i t r o Plant in 1953 that Suskind was asked to make after he had been called in as consultant. 3 And you have seen that before? A. I've seen it before. Q And where did you see that document? A. I saw this document in the Monsanto medical file in St. Louis. As I recall, that's where I first saw it. Was that document in the individual m e d i c a l records files of the affected individuals involved in that study? A. This whole document? r' Yes. A. I don't recall that the whole document -- r\ V/as a part of that in there? A. Well, reports on individuals would have been found in the personnel or medical files at Nitro, I mean, reports on those individuals that are mentioned in there, yes. Those reports were separately in the files down at Nitro. Q report? Now, are you referring to parts of that A. It would be part of the report about indi- viduals because I first, as I recall, I first saw some . JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE 79 1 i ' 1 i n d i v i d u a l reports of individual's treatments that were 2 r e l a t e d ' p r i o r to a complete, this complete study, as such. 3 T h a t 's my be s t recollection. In other words, those names 4 were familiar to me before I ever saw this report as being 5 some of the more severely affected people at the Nitre Plant. 6 And those that were sent for further consultation with 7 Suskind. 8 Q Are you saying that your recollection is 9 that there were summaries of Plaintiff's Deposition E x h i b i t 10 #3 pertaining to each individual identified in E x h i b i t 3-- 11 in the individual medical files? 12 A To the best of my recollection, those 13 individuals who had follow-up treatment that were referred 14 to here were in the medical files, and whatever treatment 15 was done locally who may not have been referred to Suskind 16 originally because only the mere severe ones -- a number of 17 them were treated by physicians in the Kanawha Valley. I 18 don't remember the names of the physicians, but there were 19 two or three of them. Those records of all the people, 20 i n c l u d i n g the ones that Suskind is referring to, the more 21 severe cases that he was involved in, were in either medical 22 or personnel files or both, and I don't recall specifically 23 which. 24 Q Were those reports that you're referring to 25 reports by Dr. Suskind that you saw in those files? JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE 80 1 S' 1 A Where he was involved in examining the 2 individuals, yes. 3 Q ?or example, in Plaintiff's Exhibit #3 there 4 are some thirty-six people identified by name and there are 5 test results contained in the exhibit and results of exami- 6 nations. Did you see medical reports by Dr. Suskind con- 7 talning this information in each of the individual's medical 8 files? 9 A. I can't tell you that I saw every one of - 10 those in every individual file because I don't remember; . 11 Q Did you see any of them? 12 A. But I saw a number of those names and 13 recognize a number of those names from the results that I . U picked up in the files down at Nitro before I saw this 15 report. 16 C; But there were papers in there by Dr. Suskind 17 In those individual files, that's what I'm trying to get at. 18 A I don't recall whether they were summaries 19 of his results or whether they have his signature at the 2 0 bottom. If you're asking that, I don't recall. 21 Q You don't know that there were any papers 22 in there by Suskind of summaries of Suskind's results? 23 A I don't know which. 74 Q But there were some things about -- 25 A But the results were there in terms of the JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 81 examinations of Suskind. Whether they were summaries trans ferred from a signed report of his, I don't recall. I really can't recall. Q And where did you see those files? A That would have been at Nitro originally, and then we had all of those files reproduced and they were -- we had copies in St. Louis in the Medical Department. That's a horrendous volume of stuff, if you can remember. Also, they were available to Suskind, copies were sent to Suskind, is my recollection of it. Q Was that on microfilm or hard copy? A I think -- we would have likedto have done it on microfilm. We had hard copy in St. Louis, and I don't recall if we sent hard copy or microfilm to Suskind. Q Let me hand you what's been marked Plaintiff1 Deposition Exhibit 2. MR. LOVE: This appears to be a thirteen-page document. The last page ends in an incomplete sentence. I would suggest, perhaps, the document's not complete. MR. CALWELL: May not be. A The summary's not finished. They didn't finish the summary. Q Okay. Doctor, have you seen Exhibit 2 before? JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE t 14 1 A. Yes, I 've seen this exhibit. 2 Q And is that likewise a Dr. Suskind report? 3 A. It looks like a follow-up of Dr. Suskind's 4 report, but it doesn't say anywhere that it is. 5 Q And you have seen that before, right? 6 A. Yes, I have. 7 4 And was that report -- where did you see 8 that report? 9 A. This probably va3 in our files in St. Louitf, 10 but I think I first saw it in Nitro in the files down there, 11 this particular one. 12 Q Would that have been in the individual * 13 medical files or in some other file at Nitro? 14 A. It may have been in a special file of all 15 the records from an accident. I'm not certain -- I don't 16 think the whole report would have been in any one medical 17 file, but I think I saw this first at Nitro. 18 Q And when would that have been? 19 A. When we started the study, what did I say 20 -- probably late ' 7 8 or early ' 7 9 . 21 4 'When you undertook this new Job? 22 A. We didn't really get the Nitro study 23 started for, you know, a few months to a year after I got 24 the new Job, so I think it would have been in *78 sometime. 25 Q All right. Doctor, now, going back to the JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE \ 8? 1 overall epidemiological study that you were trying to put 2 together for Monsanto as Director of Special Projects, we 3 have Just talked about the health study aspect on the live 4 and retired people at the Nitro Plant. I would like to ask 5 you now about the aspect of that study that had to do with 6 the deceased employees or ex-employees of the Monsanto 7 Company. As I understand it, that was the second arm of 8 this two -- 9 A. Yeah, that was completed, of course, before .n ' * 10 the other was completed because the data were available. 11 Q. Who performed that study? 12 A Well, the protocol was developed by us and 13 discussed and approved by Dr. Suskind, and the actual 14 details of gathering the data and so on, again, were done 15 by us; but the review of the data and the statistical 16 treatment and the conclusions were Jointly developed by 17 Dr. Suskind and Judy Zack at that time. 18 Q Was that what we would call the mortality 19 study? 20 A That was a mortality study. I believe that 21 was published, as I remember. 22 G And that was Zack and Suskind. Now, can you 23 tell me what the design of that study was, what did you rely 2 4 on? 25 A Well, we relied on the data that were JAM ES MAY R EPORTING SERVICE \ i. .. J 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 available-from plant records of deceased people. $ What records would that have been? A. W e l l * t h a t w o u l d h a v e b e e n p e r s o n n e l r e c o r d s . Q And the medical records? A And medical records. Q Anything else? A And, of course, every death certificate is run down from wherever they come from. If the people are moved from the area and we know where they died, wa g o t o - w h a t e v e r a r e a o f the c o u n t r y th e y di e d in, fr o m the. c o u n t y T h o s e a r e p u b l i c r e c o r d s , d e c e a s e d r e c o r d s . A n d so. t h a t would have included all of the people that were deceased over the time period involved. ' Q Do you know if there was a comparison made between the medical personnel records and the death certi- ficates in arriving at the cause of death? A The answer to that is no because the cause of death la certified by someone outside of Monsanto who has presumably no access to our in-house medical records. I mean, if they died at home, or w h e r e v e r they died, it w o u l d only be h a p p e n s t a n c e if the p h y s i c i a n was the same as our plant physician. So the actual cause of death would be reported by the person's physician and so recorded on the death certificate. Q So in t e r m s o f t h e c a u s e of' d e a t h , as far as JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE \ 85 1 . ' 1 you know, you relied exclusively on the cause listed on the 2 death certificate? 3 A A l w a y s h a v e to do t h a t . T h a t 1a t h e o n l y 4 c a u s e t h a t fs a v a i l a b l e u n l e s s s o m e b o d y d ies in o u r p l a n t a n d 5 our plant physician determines he was overcome or asphyxiated 6 or something else. Any cause of death outside of the plant 7 a r e a w o u l d b e a r r i v e d at b y t h e -i n d i v i d u a l p h y s i c i a n 8 involved. 9 Q And so this aspect of the study did you 10 likewise try to identify everyone who was ever employed at 11 the p l a n t w h o died? 12 A That's correct. 13 Q And were you able to determine what degree 14 of success that effort -- 15 A Well, it was p r e t t y high degree o f success, 16 but I can't give you an exact number. You usually are not 17 happy with any kind of epidemiology study unless you can get 18 at least ninety percent of the people that y ou know that are 19 dead that you can identify and where they died and get their 20 death certificate. If you ask me the exact number, I don't 21 recall. Judy Zack maybe can remember, but I don't recall 22 the exact number. 23 Q What was the control group? 24 A Well, there again, the control group would 25 have been similar to what we described on the other health JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE > 86 I 1 '1 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 study, It would have been in-plant people, and then you always do local, state and national if the numbers are available for a given deceased category. Q And did you do that in this case? A. Yes, I'm pretty certain we did. I haven't seen the paper for four years, but if the data were available, I think they would have all been utilized. Q Now, aside from the Susklnd-Zack mortality study and the health study, were there any other studies performed on the Nitro population in connection with this epidemiological undertaking? A. Yes. I'm aware of Irving Selikoff. Vhether he did that at their instigation or what the connection was as part of the union activities. He carried out a less complete study. He did it outside the plant and people volunteered for the study. He did it outside the plant and people volunteered for the study. They weren't given time off per se to go to the study, but he did it on weekends and I don't know when. I know a doctor by the name of Moses involved on his staff in that. I called him several times after he completed his study wondering if he had data or if he was going to have any data to supply because it could have been helpful in the study we had under way. We gave him lists of people at the plant and lists of people who worked in that department, as I recall. He had 1 JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 87 1 l *1 1 asked for that list. 1 don't know whether he published 2 anything or not. 3 Q Did you give him the same lists that you 4 had? 5 A. No, because we hadn't completed everything 6 I gave him. We gave him lists of people that worked in that 7 department. I don't think he had the list of everyone that 8 worked in the plant. I'm not sure -- 9 Q I don't mean to interrupt, but on the 10 2,4,5 T Departmental study that we Just talked about, did 11 you provide Dr. Selikoff with a list of the people that you 12 identified as being in the 2,4,5 T Department? 13 A. My recollection I did, yeah. 14 Q And that list, as I recall, even included 15 those general maintenance people that there was some indi16 cation that worked there? 17 A. I don't recall exactly whether it would 18 have been Included. I assume it would. There was not an 19 exact time correlation between when he asked for information 20 and we had all the information together. I couldn't tell 21 you precisely that he had every single piece of data we had 22 available for our study. I don't know that. We had no 23 control over that study. We did not see the protocol in 24 advance to what degree it was going to be properly controlled 25 and anything else about it. CO CO JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 1 1 . 11 1 1 $ In addition to the Selikoff study, are there 2 any others that you're aware of? 3 A, During that general tine period at the Nitro 4 Plant? 5 Q Yes, sir. 6 A. No, I don't think I'm aware of any others in 7 that general tine frame. You're referring to the mortality a studies or health studies or both? 9 Q Both. 10 A. I don't recall* that there were that related 11 to the Nitro Plant. 12 Q In connection with your work as Director of * 13 Special Projects, did you learn that 2,^,5 T produced at 14 Nitro from 19^9 to 1969 had a contaminant associated with 15 it called 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin? 16 A. Yeah. 17 Q And when did you learn that? I S A. To the best of ny knowledge, it probably was 19 not until toxicity data began to be published and somebody 2 0 would tie that back into all the producers of 2,11,5 T. 21 My beat recollection would be in the late '60'a, early '70*8. 22 See, at that time I had no connection with that plant and 2 3 I would have gotten that from general reading, and I would 2 4 have concluded that from my general reading 2,*J,5 T, If it 2 5 has small traces of it, that Monsanto probably had it too. JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE \ 89 I 1 It 1 q W h e n y o u s a y t h e l a t e *60*3, e a r l y ' 7 0 fs, 2 is that when Monsanto knew? 3 A. I c an't s p e a k f o r M o n s a n t o at t h a t p o i n t . 4 I can speak for myself and that I knew from what was being 5 published when the toxicology data was published and tied 6 into potential impurities and various industrial products, 7 i n c l u d i n g 2, h ,5 T. I t h i n k t h a t ' s t h e f i r s t c o n n e c t i o n I 8 w ould have had any knowledge of at that point. 9 Q Personally? * 10 A. Y e s . 11 q D u r i n g y o u r w o r k as D i r e c t o r o f S p e c i a l 12 P r o j e c t s , w e r e y o u a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e if M o n s a n t o k n e w 13 d u r i n g t he 1 979, '77, '78 p e r i o d w h e n y o u w e r e D i r e c t o r o f 14 S p e c i a l P r o j e c t s , t h a t its 2 , ^ , 5 T c a r r i e d w i t h it a c o n - 15 t a m i n a n t c a l l e d 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 7 C D D ? 16 A. I d o n ' t r e c a l l t h a t I k n e w s p e c i f i c a l l y 17 w h e n t h e y knew. I d o n ' t k n o w t hat I e v e r a s k e d t h a t q u e s - 18 t i o n o r saw a n y t h i n g t h a t w o u l d h a v e s p e c i f i c a l l y t o l d m e 19 t h a t . I w o u l d p r e s u m e t h e y k n e w as s o o n as I k n e w b e c a u s e 20 it w a s r e p o r t e d in t he l i t e r a t u r e a n d h a d p e o p l e t h a t w e r e 21 i n v o l v e d d i r e c t l y in this k i n d o f t h i n g . 22 Q A n d y o u k n e w in t h e l a t e '60's, r i g h t ? 23 A. T h a t ' s m y r e c o l l e c t i o n t h a t t h a t ' s t h e 24 first t i m e I k n e w t h a t t h a t h a p p e n e d , w h e n t h e t o x i c o l o g y 25 came out. It w a s n ' t a f i e l d I w a s c o n n e c t e d w i t h at t h a t JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE > 90 , . 1 tine. 2 MR. CALWELL: It*3 ten after twelve. 3 Do you want to break to get a sandwich? 4 MR. LOVE: That's fine. 5 (Whereupon the lunch recess was taken, 6 after which the following proceedings were had.) 7 Q Okay. Doctor, let me hand you what's been 8 marked Plaintiff's Exhibit #252 (Monsanto's I.D. #8323313 9 through 8323315, inclusive), and ask you to Just take a 10 glance at that, if you would, please. 11 Okay. Doctor, you have had an opportunity to look 12 at Exhibit 252, have you not? 13 A Uh huh (yes). 14 And do you recognize that as a Monsanto 15 Company document? 16 A Yes. 17 Cl And it's dated August 20th, 1979, and signed 18 by F. J. Kolzapfel, and you're indicated as a person who was 19 present at a Nitro Health Study Task Force? 20 A Yes. 21 Q You were a member of the Nitro Health Study 22 Task Force? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And when did you become a member of that? 25 A I don't recall exactly when it was set up, JAM ES MAY R EPORTING SERVICE 91 but I was a member when it was set up. Q You were a charter member, right? A. Yes. Q Do you understand or know why the Nitro Health Study Task Force was brought into existence? A. Yeah. We wanted support and we wanted a forum which we could expedite the studies that were going on at Nitro. Holzapfel was production chief. We had to have budgetary support for the plant as well as from the Medical Department, and this was a task force that was set up to help achieve that expediting those studies as rapidly as possible at Nitro. Q Do you know whether D. R. Bishop is a member of that task force? A. He's a guy from Public Relations. Q Do you know why a Public Relations man -- A. Well, we had environmental, Clayton Callis was Head of Environmental Work at the company, Holzapfel was Director of Production for the operation that included the Nitro Plant, Phocicn Park, Barney Wander, he was from Environmental Work. Phocion Park was our Environmental Counsel from the Medical Department. Q Do you know why it was necessary to expedite these health studies that you referred to? A. Because we wanted to get the information as 1 1 <1 1 rapidly as possible. 2 Q And why was that? 3 A. So we would have a basis to determine 4 whether we had any exposures and any problems at the Nitro 5 Plant with the health of our people. 6 Q Do you know why it was decided in 1979 that 7 you needed to get this information very quickly? 8 A No more so than the fact that there was a 9 lot of concern about 2,^,5 T and dioxin both from the point 10 of view of the Vietnam veterans as well as various plants, 11 and NIOSH was concerned about it as well. We had one of 12 the original long-term groups that had been exposed. I 13 think ours was the first accident that had been reported 14 back in f^8 and would have had probably the most represents15 tive group to determine long-term effects of any group that 16 could be chosen. 17 Q Do you know how long Monsanto knew that it 18 had one of those very first groups involved in such an 19 exposure? 20 A I guess, as soon as the people realized 21 that dioxin could be involved. 22 Q And that would have been, as far as you 23 know, in the early '60fs? 24 A Late '60*8, as far as I know personally. 25 Because at the time it happened nobody knew what was really JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE 1 93 1 , 1' 1 Involved. 2q Do you know why you waited until 1979 to 3 get to the heart of the matter, find out why? 4 A. I h a v e n o w a y t o r e s p o n d t o t h a t . T h e 5 toxicities of the materials weren't known, until the early 6 * 7 0 'a. We h a v e a lot o f e m p l o y e e s , lot o f p l a n t s , a n d w e 7 were trying to get to a lot of projects all at the same time 8 f o r the comp a n y , and w h y t h i s w a s d o n e In *79 I can * t t e l l 9 you. 1 0 Q H o w do y o u k n o w t h a t t h e t o x i c i t i e s w e r e n 't 11 k n o w n until the early *70*s? 12 A. I s a i d m y k n o w l e d g e o f It w a s t h e l a t e '60's 13 o r e a r l y *70 *s . 1 4 Q. Y o u d o n ' t k n o w w h e n M o n s a n t o w o u l d h a v e 15 become aware of It? 1 6 A. I d o n ' t k n o w t h a t t h e y b e c a m e a w a r e o f It 17 before that. I can't answer that. 18 4 In your work on the Nitro Health Study Task 19 Force did you find out when Monsanto -- 2 0 A. No, I ' m n o t a w a r e If t h a t w a s d i s c u s s e d In 21 any of the Task Force meetings, I don't remember. 22 Q Okay. Do you know who I might ask for the 23 answer to the question of when Monsanto knew about dioxin 24 and Its toxicity? 2 5 A. I w o u l d p r e s u m e , Borne m e m b e r o f t h e M e d i c a l JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE t 9* 1 Department 2 ft 3H Which member would that be? L e t * s see w h o 's s t i l l th e r e . T h e h e a d o f 4 the toxicology group, George Levinskas, might be the person 5 w h o 's m o s t k n o w l e d g e a b l e a b o u t t h a t . 6 ft D o y o u k n o w h o w l o n g h e 's b e e n w i t h the 7 company? 8 A. H e c a m e s o m e t i m e b e f o r e I w a s in t h e M e d i c a l 9 Department. I guess, ten years. - 10 Cl D i d y o u e v e r a s k a n y b o d y a b o u t t h i a ^ U l o x i n * 11 i n t h e M e d i c a l D e p a r t m e n t ? D i d y o u e v e r a s k t h e m w h a t w a s 12 g o i n g on w i t h it? 13 A. I d i d n 't h a v e t o a s k a n y b o d y a b o u t w h a t w a s 14 g o i n g on. 15 Q, W h y d i d n 't y o u h a v e t o ? 16 A. B e c a u s e o f w h a t I k n e w f r o m t h e l i t e r a t u r e 17 m y s e l f . At t h a t p o i n t in t i m e w h e n I got t o t he M e d i c a l 18 D e p a r t m e n t , I w a s w e l l f a m i l i a r w i t h t he p u b l i s h e d t o x i c o l o g y 19 a n d so o n as f a r as d i o x i n w a s c o n c e r n e d . 20 ft C o u l d y o u t e l l m e w h a t y o u k n o w a b o u t the 21 t o x i c i t y o f d i o x i n in h u m a n s ? 22 A. T e l l y o u w h a t I k n o w ? 23 ft Y e s . 24 A. W e l l , in the f irst p l a c e , i t 's a f a m i l y of 25 m a t e r i a l s a n d t h e y v a r y in t o x i c i t y . T h e t o x i c i t y in JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 95 t 1 1' 1 animal, is quite pronounced, particularly In small animals, 2 mice, rats, and b o on. 3 Q Prom your reading of the literature do you 4 know when that was determined? 5 A. I t h i n k I s a i d t h e l a t t e r p a r t o f t h e 'SO's 6 would have been the first time that I would have been 7 familiar with that. That's my best recollection. 8 q What about the studies that you read or the 9 literature that you're referring to? .^ 10 A. T h a t c a m e f r o m t h e l a t e '60's. That- w o u l d :' 11 h a v e b e e n a g e n e r a l a w a r e n e s s f r o m p u b l i s h e d l i t e r a t u r e . 12 q H a v e y o u r e a d a n y t h i n g a b o u t the. e f f e c t s o f 13 2 , 3 i 7 , 8 TCDD on t h e h u m a n b o d y ? 14 A. Y e s . 15 q What have y o u read? 16 A. I've re a d some of the t h i n g s th a t y o u gave 17 me to l o o k at in terms o f S u s k l n d ' s work. I ' m a w a r e o f the 18 s t u d i e s h a v i n g to do w i t h S e v e s o a n d t h e fact t h a t a n u m b e r i,'1 * "r 19 vo f t r a n s i e n t , r e l a t i v e t r a n s i e n t e f f e c t s h a v e b e e n o b s e r v e d , 20 i n c l u d i n g chloracne, w h i c h is a k n o w n p h e n o m e n o n that was 21 n o t l i m i t e d to d i o x i n s . I w a s a w a r e o f c h l o r a c n e h a v i n g t o 22 do at an early time with some of the c h l o rinated naphthalenes 23 that there were transient effects r e l a t e d to m u s c u l a r weak- 24 ness and so on from Susklnd's study, that any additional 25 Btudies that had been done c o n c e r n i n g the S e v e s o incident JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 96 1 had not shown any long-term toxicology effects In human 2 beings, and quite fortunately, I should add, because had the 3 toxicity been similar to what was observed In the small 4 animals, might have been many more effects showed up than 5 anything I was aware of or am aware of. Q Do y o u k n o w a n y t h i n g e l s e a b o u t t h e e f f e c t s 7 of dioxin on the human body -- when I say dioxin, I mean 8 2,3,7,8 TCDD. 9 A. Yeah. No, o t h e r t h a n t h e s m a l l a n i m a l 10 s t u d i e s a nd the p u b l i s h e d s t u d i e s a n d t h e w o r k we h a v e f r o m 11 S u s k i n d i n t e r n a l l y a n d S e v e s o . I a m f a m i l i a r w i t h a r e c e n t 12 s t u d y t hat w a s r e p o r t e d out o f E n g l a n d h a v i n g t o do w i t h 13 s o m e e f f e c t s on the c h r o m o s o m e s . O t h e r t h a n t hat, I h a v e n ' t U read anything recently about human effects. That was an 15 u n c o n t r o l l e d s t u d y w h i c h w as c i t e d as b e i n g s i g n i f i c a n t , I l but the investigator himself denied that significance, that 17 it w as not a n y t h i n g t h a t he c o u l d a s s o c i a t e w i t h d i o x i n . 18 It w a s a p o l i t i c a l f o o t b a l l , I guess, was o n e o f t he s t a t e 19 m e n t s m a d e a b o u t it. 20 Q W h i l e s e r v i n g on th e N i t r o H e a l t h S t udy 21 T a s k F o r c e , did y o u d e t e r m i n e t h a t a n y o t h e r p r o d u c t at 22 N i t r o h a d t h e c a p a b i l i t y o f p r o d u c i n g one o f t he d i o x i n 23 i s o m e r s ? 24 A. I ' m t r y i n g to t h i n k w h a t e l s e was p r o d u c e d 25 at N i t r o . I f t h e r e w a s , I d o n 11 r e c a l l . JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 1 97 I 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 Q Would you look at paragraph two of Exhibit 252, p a r a g r a p h references to some suggested changes by Dr. S u a k i n d and the draft of Monsanto mortality study, do you see that? A. Yeah. Q Do you have a recollection as to what that is about? A. There were minor wording differences, and I think I was Involved in that over the telephone to do the final polishing. No differences in conclusion. Q Do you recall what the minor wording was? A. I don't. I really don't know specifically what the wording was. It was not of substance. It was the way in which something was stated. C; And the paragraph goes on to say that Dr. Gaffey and possibly other DYEH personnel will visit Suskind during the week of August 2Cth to resolve these differences. Do you know if that meeting took place? A. I don't remember. I really don't. It's Just been too long ago. Q So you wouldn't remember whether you were there or not, right? A. No, I don't remember whether I was there. If a meeting took place, it's possible I could have been, but I don't remember. ` JAMES m a y r e p o r t in g s e r v ic e ) 93 Q Okay. If you'll turn to paragraph seven of Exhibit 252. Do you know what Dr. Gaffey Is referring to there regarding the relative youth of the control group raking comparison difficult? A. I guess I have to speculate on what he is referring to. My speculation would be that we mentioned earlier that both people at the Nitro Plant since the plant had been closed down and the people before from 19^8 to '69 were there and that's quite a few, and I don't recall the percentage, but quite a few of the control group were rela tively recent in the plant, say, in the last ten years. In other words, the age of the workforce may have been referred to there. That's probably what he's referring to. Q To you remember that as being a subject of the criteria that you were establishing when you were putting the design of these studies together? A. Yes. But you correct for age, when you're comparing a given group, you correct for average age with the sample of people that you're going to compare them with on both the controls,and otherwise your results are meaning less because if you have an aged population versus a younger population, they are always going to show up higher percentage of cancers, and you have to correct for the average age level of the population. There are ways to deal with this, and if you don't deal with it -- much data JAM ES MAY R EPORTING SERVICE ) 1 *1 1 has come out with NIOSK and some of the government agencies 2 that's not corrected for that and the data is meaningless 3 without that kind of a correction. 4 c; I assume, then, from your testimony that 5 some correction was made to control for this discrepancy? 6 A. That's routinely in any epidemiology study 7 that will withstand the Jury of your peers, if you will. 8 If you don't adjust them for differences in age between the 9 groups, the data doesn't mean anything. .. 10 You testified earlier that depending on the 11 amount of dust that may or nay not have been present at thav 12 'Jitro Plant from the 2 , *4,5 T process would have had some . 13 effect or could have had some effect on the validity of the 14 control group, and now there is this indication about the 15 use of the control group that you had to control for. Were 16 there any other problems that you had to control for with 17 the control group as constituted from the Nitro work popu- 18 lation. 19 A. I don't know of any unusual problems. 20 Q What were the usual ones? 21 A. Well, we have mentioned these. 22 Were there any others? 23 A. Of the limitations of work records and this 24 kind of thing. 25 Q And the youth? JAM ES MAY REPO R TIN G SERVICE 1 10i . 1 Yeah. No, I don't know of any others at 2 this peiht' in tine, I don't reneraber any others. See, 3 after the accident there was a good deal of tightening up 4 in a lot of areas in the way in which products were handled. 5 I have no way to know to what degree dust outside the 6 department nay have been a problem. 7 Q Were you aware of a lawsuit that was filed 8 by the John Amos Nursery against Monsanto alleging that a 9 nursery where they grow trees had been damaged by soaping . . 10 dust from the Nitro 2, *1,5 T production unit in the;. r 6 0 r B f . - ,V 11 A. No, I 'm not aware of that. I never heard - 12 of it. 13 Q Let me hand you what's been marked as " M Plaintiff's Deposition Exhibit *253 (Monsanto's I.D. 15 #33232^5 through 8 3 2 3 2 *18, inclusive) . I an interested in 16 paragraph E on page three, Doctor. If you want to read 17 the whole thing, Doctor, certainly do it. 18 A. Yeah. 19 Qv Okay. Doctor, again, this is a Monsanto 20 document, is it not? 21 A. Uh huh (yes) . 22 Q And you recognize its form? 23 A. Yes. 24 G It's dated July 20th, 1979, and authored by 2 5 Dan R. Bishop? JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE 101 . 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 A. Uh huh (yes). q And appears to reflect the minutes of a July 20th, 1979, meeting of the task force, Is that correct? A. Yes. Q, And you're Indicated as having been present at that meeting? A. Yes. Q Paragraph E on page three of that exhibit makes reference to a meeting that you had with Dr. Suskind .. in Cincinnati on July 17th, I presume, 1979. Do you recall that meeting? A. Yes. Q What was Suskind'a role in the mortality study that's referred to there? A. His role was to review our original protocol, and he didn't need to ask to be a co-author because he was automatically included as a co-author and that he reviewed the summaries of data of study statistics and the conclusion and the report and his name was included on the paper that was published as a result of it. Q Did Judy Zack design the protocol for the mortality study? A. Primarily. I had some input, Dr. Roush had some input, Suskind had some input, and that's essentially it. JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE l 102 4 I believe you testified earlier that this *- m o r t a l i t y st u d y , o f c o u r s e , r e l i e d o n t h e c a u s e s o f d e a t h Indicated in the death certificates? A. Y e a h . Q And I believe you testified also that you referred to other medical records- in addition to the death certificate. What was the purpose of looking at the other medical records? A T h e p u r p o s e o f l o o k i n g at t h e other':s e d i c a l : A records was to define the sample because in order ta..dt#r- ^ '** * ' -- - mine who was in a given department versus people in other *s departments in the plant as a whole, other medical-records were useful purpose in doing that. In some cases you might not have all the data on a record, yet at some point in time you'd find on a medical record that someone had had chlor- acne, so from that record they could be included. No single s o u r c e is by i t s e l f the o n l y s ource o f d a t a y o u h a v e to use when you're going back some thirty, forty years to try to put together information. 4 W a s the m o r t a l i t y st u d y , then,, a 2,lJ,5 T Department study? A And a total plant study. As I recall, I think that was intended to be both. Q If that's the case, would the same control groups apply that we talked about in connection with the JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE \ 1 1 *` 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 health study? A. ' Yeah. We talked about If we were going to d o t h e 2,1*,5 T study, y o u r b e s t s a m p l e w o u l d be t h e i n - p l a n t study. If you're going to do a whole-plant study, then you would use a control group that was outside of the plant, n a m e l y , t h e a r e a o r t h e c o u n t y o r t h e s t a t e o r the U. S. numbers, and where they are available they usually use both c o u n t y a n d U. S. figures. 4 And as far as you know, that's what'was. , done in this particular mortality study? A. In w h a t w a s p u b l i s h e d , I h a v e n ' t r e v i e w e d what was p u blished. It m a y have bee n that this particular- study -- I don't recall whether this particular publication gave the results from both the local plant study or the 2,1,5 T study. T h i s p a r t i c u l a r p u b l i c a t i o n m a y h a v e p u l l e d out the 2,1,5 T r e s u l t s . Q And if it did, the c o n trol group w o u l d have b e e n the in-plant people -- what I mean is, did it pull out J u s t t he 2,-A,5 T D e p a r t m e n t stu d y , as f a r as y o u k n o w ? A. It m a y h a v e u s e d b o t h . S i n c e I d o n ' t h a v e it in front of me, It may have used both. I 'm a little bit unclear as to whet h e r all the controls were used in each study or whether they may have used the county or United States figures on that. Q Okay. This document I'm handing you, JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE * 10 Doctor, is Exhibit 2 5 (Monsanto's I.D. #231728 through 2 3 1 7 3 7 * . i n c l u s i v e ) , and again, do you recognize that as a M o n s a n t o - d o c u m e n t , recognize its form? A. Yes. 4 And it appears and is a memo over Jack P. Gar: Roush, and you 're shown on the A. Yes. Q Do you recall : the attachments? A. Yes. I 'm sure v'Cff,; V Q All right. A. I was aware of but I did receive this and I 'm sure I glanced at it. . - Q If you would turn to page, I guess, it's slide no. 6 and it's page seven of the exhibit. A. Uh huh (yes). Q It's a reproduction of a slide captioned " C a r c i n o g e n i c Properties of TCDD"? A. Uh huh (yes) . Q We talked earlier about the policy of com municating health information to employees at Monsanto, if you'll recall. A. Uh huh (yes). Q Is theinformation contained t h e r e on page JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE 11 1 1 seven of Exhibit 25^ the kind of information that would be 2 communicated to p r oduction people, for example, at a nanu- 3 facturing facility like the Nitro Plant? 4 A. I c a n ' t g i v e y o u an a n s w e r to t h a t . I can 5 give you an opinion. 6 Q Okay. 7 A. T h a t t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n w o u l d n ' t m e a n a n y t h i n g 8 to anybody unless there was a great deal of added explana9 tions and so on that went w i t h it. A p r o d u c t i o n man w o u l d 10 look at that and w o u l d n ' t k n o w what it meant. 11 Q W o u l d it be M o n s a n t o ' s p o l i c y t o m a k e t h e 12 explanation and share this with the worker? 13 A I t h i n k t h e y w o u l d s h a r e it in a g e n e r a l . M way. The general information that in animals there were 15 t u m o r s c a u s e d by t h e s e p r o d u c t s . 16 Q. Do y o u k n o w if e m p l o y e e s at t he N i t r o P l a n t 17 w e r e e v e r t o l d o f t h e c a r c i n o g e n i c p r o p e r t i e s o f T C D D ? 18 A P r o m m y o w n p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e , I d o n ' t 19 know. 20 Q Do you know who would know? 21 A I presume somebody in the Production 22 Department. 23 Q W h o w o u l d be r e s p o n s i b l e , if y o u k n o w , for 24 s e e i n g to it t h a t k n o w l e d g e a b o u t t h e c a r c i n o g e n i c p r o p e r 25 ties o f T C D D a r e c o m m u n i c a t e d t o t h e a f f e c t e d w o r k f o r c e ? JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE > 106 A. W ell, t h e u l t i m a t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y w o u l d b e with the plant manager, I presume, and the vehicle by which such Information would be transmitted would be through the Industrial hygienist and the department supervisors In a plant. Nowy specifically, I don't know how such was handled at a given plant such as Nitro. Q Would It be your u n d e r s t a n d i n g that t hat's Monsanto's policy? A. T o i n f o r m e m p l o y e e s a b o u t t h e t o x i c nature?. Q, T h r o u g h t h e p l a n t m a n a g e r . . A. T h a t w o u l d b e one w a y t o do it. T h e y a l s o have plant newsletters by which such information la'trans mitted as well. There may be other means, departmental means or whatever, but there might be any one or a number of them; but officially that kind of information would be the ultimate responsibility of a plant manager and through various supervisory groups, including industrial hygienists. I f y o u know, w h o s e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y w o u l d it be to inform the plant manager? A. W ell, that w o u l d c o m e f r o m t he M e d i c a l Department and the Environmental Manager for that particular division in the plant, one or both. Q As far as you know, is that one of the responsibilities of the Medical Department? A. To c o m m u n i c a t e t o x i c o l o g y i n f o r m a t i o n t o all JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE l 11 l 1 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 the segments of the company? Q Yes. Pu Yes. Q Is there a form that Monsanto relies on for the transmittal of that information? A. There are many forms. I'm not sure speclfi- cally which one might be -- Well, tell me the ones you know about. A. Well, there are a whole variety of forms. There is labeling information that has toxicology data in It. There are various reports that come out of the Medical Department on almost a monthly basis on results of toxicology studies, and where those apply to a given plant, they will be communicated to those people. To isolate Just one piece of paper and say we always use this as a means to communicate, I can't tell you there is a specific piece of paper to do that. Q I don't mean to interrupt, Doctor, but you said there's some kind of report that appears with some regularity. A. On strictly toxicology? Q Yes, A. No. There is a monthly report that all departments in the company will issue, and the Medical Department will go to key figures in the department. JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE \ 108 J 1 *1 1 Q Kow would you identify that? 2 A. . I guess a departmental monthly report. 3 Q Have you heard of a document called Materials 4 Safety Health Data Sheet? 5 A. Yeah. That's one of the many forms that I 6 mentioned that has to go with labeling, the labeling informa- 7 tion that goes onto products. 8 Q Do you know where the Materials Data Sheet 9 goes that emanates from the Medical Department, do you know 10 where it ends up? 4,,*. `A ,k.;* 'J ' - - . * n A. Well, several people have inputs into them." y 12 They relate to the Environmental Health Directors of t h e 13 operating units and of the industrial hygienists in the 14 plant, Medical Department will have a member that helps 15 put that together. As I recall, when I left, they were , 16 actually issued by the Medical Department but many people 17 contributed to them in terms of what data might be available 18 to go into them. The industrial hygienist would have infor19 mation from the plant. The toxicologist would have data 20 from toxicology laboratory, either internal or externally. 21 The chemical data would come from a research leader. The 22 background data on the literature on the toxicology would 23 come probably from the Environmental Health Officer for 24 that product or for that department. So there were a number 25 of people that contributed to them. As many products as we JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE \ 109 It *1 1 had, it was a continuing; process of updating them because 2 as moretoxicology is obtained, both in-house and from the 3 literature and various government laboratories, you have to 4 keep updating that information all the time to make it 5 current. 6G Would dioxin be the subject of a Materials 7 Safety Data Sheet? 8 A. Well, whether it would be the subject per se 9 I 'm not sure because it's not a product per se. I t 1 10 possible that someone might have put a report in that fora 11 for dioxin, but I Just don't recall. 12 C Are these Material Data Sheets or Safety 13 Data Sheets, are they made available to production super- 14 visors or people out in the plant? 15 A. It's my understanding they are. 16 G Is that Just part of the regular distribu- 17 ticn? 18 A. I believe t h a t 's true, but that's my 19 opinion. 20 Q If y o u 'll look at page eight of that exhibit 21 which is designated slide no. 7, I believe. 22 A. Yeah. 23 G It is, again, a reproduction of a slide? 24 A. Uh huh (yes) . 25 G That's captioned "Symptoms of Toxicity of JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE lie 1 TCDD in Man"? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q la this the kind of information that would 4 be transmitted to workers in an effective production unit 5 regarding TCDD? 6 A. I w o u l d h a v e t o s t a t e an o p i n i o n t h a t it 7 would b e , 8 And do you know what form this kind of 9 information would take in the context of Monsanto's o p e r a 10 t i o n ? il A. No. It w o u l d h a v e to be one o f t h e c o n m m n i 12 c a t i o n s i n a p l a n t o f some t ype, a nd I d o n ' t k n o w s p e c i f i c a l l y 13 w h a t w o u l d h a v e b e e n u s e d for t h a t t y p e o f i n f o r m a t i o n . 14 Q A n d w o u l d t h i s t y p e o f i n f o r m a t i o n come 15 f r o m t he M e d i c a l D e p a r t m e n t i n i t i a l l y ? 16 A. The i n i t i a l d a t a w o u l d come f r o m t h e M e d i c a l 17 D e p a r t m e n t , y e s . 18 Q A n d in t h e n o r m a l c o u r s e of e v e n t s it w o u l d 19 f i n d its w a y to the p l a n t m a n a g e r ? 20 A. Yes, t h a t w o u l d be a n o r m a l way. H e w o u l d 21 be a w a r e o f it. It m i g h t h a v e b e e n t r a n s m i t t e d to a n i n d u s 22 t r i a l h y g i e n i s t in w h i c h t h e p l a n t m a n a g e r w a s c o p i e d in 23 a n d so on, but he s h o u l d b e a w a r e o f it. 24 Q So it w o u l d n ' t be u n u s u a l , it w o u l d be the 25 n o r m a l t h i n g to e x p e c t w h e n M o n s a n t o b e c a m e a w a r e o f t h e s e JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE rn 1 1 11 1 symptoms of toxicity of TCDD in man to have this information 2 transmitted, then, to the appropriate production level and 3 disseminated to the worker? 4 A I guess I don't know how to answer that. 5 I guess it would be a normal thing. 6 Q And that, of course, is based on your years 7 of experience with Monsanto? Like you say, you're really 8 giving your opinion based on your experience more than any- 9 thing else? 10 A T h a t ' s r i ght. 11 Ci Y o u d on't k now, as a m a t t e r o f fact, w h e t h e r 12 the i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d on p a g e e i g h t o f E x h i b i t 25*1 w a s 13 in fact d i s s e m i n a t e d to t he w o r k e r s at N i t r o , do y o u ? 14 A No. 15 MR. LOVE: C a n y o u s p e c i f y t he t i m e 16 p e r i o d y o u ' r e t a l k i n g about. 17 Q A n y t i m e d u r i n g the p e r i o d o f t i m e t h a t y o u 18 w e r e e m p l o y e d b y M o n s a n t o . 19 A V h a t ' s t he q u e s t i o n r e f e r to? Y o u s a i d I 20 d i d n ' t -- 21 Q As a m a t t e r o f fact, y o u d i d n ' t k n o w ? 22 A No. 23 Q Mr. L o v e w a n t e d t o k n o w w h a t t i m e p e r i o d we 24 w e r e t a l k i n g a bout. 25 A No. | JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE > 112 1 q At least for the time you worked there you, 2 as a matter of fact, don't know that It was, Is that right? 3 A. R i g h t , b e c a u s e t h i s Is a s t a t e m e n t a f t e r the 4 fact. Statements of toxicity of TCDD. Well, these symptoms 5 were being observed. Nobody knew what TCDD was. 6 Q How do you know that? 7 A. W e l l , b e c a u s e at t h e t i m e t h a t S u s k l n d 8 reported these results from people at Nltro, nobody knew 9 there was such a thing as TCDD, nobody knew what It was 10 t h a t c o u l d c a u s e t h e s e k i n d s o f s y m p t o m s . S o w h e n t h e y a r e 11 s a y i n g h e r e s y m p t o m s o f t o x i c i t y o f T C D D In h u m a n s , t h a t ' s 12 an I n f e r e n t i a l t h i n g , t h a t ' s an a s s u m p t i o n t h a t It w a s T C D D , and 13 it w a s s p e c i f i c a l l y u n k n o w n at t h e t i m e It w a s c a u s i n g t h e s e 14 k i n d s o f e f f e c t s . T h a t ' s a l l I ' m saying. 15 4 Are you talking about 1953? 16 A. I ' m talking about 195 3. Nobody knew there 17 was a TCDD In the first place, that some chemical Involved 18 In those departments, whether It was the products or raw 19 materials o r what, If these were being caused there was 20 s o m e t h i n g t here, but no one knew what it was. They are 21 labeled after the fact. That it was TCDD, that's an assump 22 tion . 23 24 in 1953? 25 But these symptoms were known to Monsanto Oh, yes. Yes. JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 1 > '' - 1 q And Monsanto knew there was at least a 2 t e m p o r a l a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h 2,4 , 5 T a n d t h e s e s ymptoms, Is 3 that correct? 4 A That's correct. 5 Q And In keeping with Monsanto*s policy, then, 6 workers who were exposed to 2,4,5 T and exhibited the 7 symptoms listed on page eight of Exhibit 254 would neces- 8 sarily, then, have been removed from further exposure to 9 2,4,5 T, isn't that correct? 10 A Would necessarily have been removed? 11 Q As w o u l d th e l a b o r a t o r y t e c h n i c i a n w h o h a d 12 the rash that you talked earlier. f* 13 A Not necessarily. That was a large eruption 14 o f materials. It was not k n o w n at that time w h e t h e r u n d e r 15 operating conditions that any of these things would be 16 formed. There were people that had very high exposures 17 because of an accident that happened in the plant. 18 Q But in keeping with Monsanto's -- 19 HR. LOVE: Let h i m finish. 20 A Up until that accident none of this had 21 come about and they had been exposed before that period of 22 time to the degree that the department had been operated 23 successfully. 24 Q Monsanto knew that some or all of these 25 symptoms listed on page eight of 254 were present in workers JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE \ 111 1 1 1 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 1 exposed after the 19^9 explosion engaged in Just the pro- duction of 2,4,5 T, did it not? A. I t h i n k t h a t ' s t h e c ase, yes. d Were these workers when they began to exhibit -- MR. LOVE: Excuse me. Was your ques- tion directed to those exposed in the autoclave incident? MR. CALWF.LL: No. A f t e r w a r d s . In t h e production. MR. LOVE: In normal produc t i o n after the autoclave incident? MR. CALWELL: Yeah. A. I g uess y o u h a v e to r e p e a t t he q u e s t i o n . You said after the accident. d As a matter of fact, Monsanto knew that there were workers at the Nitro Plant who had not bee n exposed -- A. W h o h a d t h e s e s y m p t o m s . d Some or all of them? A. S o m e o r all o f t h e m . d Who had not been exposed to the 1949 autoclave incident? A I'm not sure I can make that statement because no one knows what was formed at that point in time JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE1 > 115 X1 1 1 In and around the accident In the buildings that necessarily 2 w o u l d say that that o p e r a t i o n If it was c o n t i n u e d u n d e r 3 proper conditions would cause any of these things. 4 Q I understand. My question Is that M o nsanto 5 slnply knew that people working in the 2,4,5 T production 6 who were not exposed In 1949 exhibited some or all the 7 symptoms listed on page eight? 8 A. H o , I c a n ft say t h a t t h e y did. f/ \ < \ 9 Q Not even with reference to chloracne?* 1 0 A. C h l o r a c n e , I w o u l d s a y t h a t ' s a true, s t a t e - 11 ment b e cause there were o c c a s i o n a l cases of c h l o r a o n e that 12 occurred after the accident, yes. - 13 Q And in keeping with Monsanto's -- 1 4 A. But I can't s a y t h a t a b o u t any o f t h e s e 15 o t h e r t h i n g s b e c a u s e it Just isn't a v a i l a b l e . 16 d At least that you know about? 1 7 A. Y e s . 18. Q In k e e p i n g w i t h M o n s a n t o ' s policy, do y ou 19 know if these workers who exhibited chloracne were removed 20 from further exposure to 2,4,5 T? 21 A. I d o n ' t k n o w w h a t t h e p o l i c y w a s at N i t r o 22 at that time. It's my opinion that there was an optional, 23 I believe I remember there was an optional situation with 24 respect to workers in that department; and that's what I 25 remember hearing, that there waB an option to people whether JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE \ 11 i  i y 1 they wanted to work in that department after the accident. 2 People were very upset, as you can w e l l imagine, in forty- 3 eight hours when you have that many people exposed and they 4 get chloracne. 1 don't know exactly how the plant did 5 handle that, in answer to the question, but I know there 6 was an optional situation whether people wanted to go back ( (r 7 in the department or not. (i 8 Q In your work on the Nitro Health Task Force 9 I believe you testified that you learned In at least the 10 late 160's o r e a r l y '70's t h a t d i o x i n w a s s u s p e c t e d as 11 b e i n g t he c a u s e o f at l east t he c h l o r a c n e . - 12 A. 13 Q, 14 e i g h t ? Yeah. And these other symptoms listed on page IS A Yeah. 16 Q, Do y o u k n o w if t h a t w a s c o m m u n i c a t e d to the 17 a f f e c t e d w o r k e r s w h o o v e r t h e y e a r s h a d e x h i b i t e d c h l o r a c n e ? IS A T h a t w as a f t e r the p l a n t w a s shut d o w n a n d 19 t h e w o r k e r s w e r e d i s p e r s e d ir. o t h e r areas, I d o n ' t k n o w t h e 20 a n s w e r to that. 21 Q A r e y o u s a y i n g b e c a u s e t h e w o r k e r s w e r e 22 d i s p e r s e d , y o u c o u l d n ' t h a v e g o t t e n t o t h e m t o t e l l t h e m ? 23 A No. I ' m s a y i n g I d o n ' t k n o w . I j u s t c om24 m e n t e d that t h e w o r k e r s by t h a t t i m e , t h e d e p a r t m e n t w a s 25 shut d o w n a nd t h e e q u i p m e n t d i s m a n t l e d , and I Just d o n ' t JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE > 11' 1t know whether that was communicated to them. Some of these situations X recognize as things that came out as a result of studies from the Seveso thing which happened after the dioxins were known and some similar types of temporal activi ties that were being reported. Q Which of those do you recognize as coming from the Seveso? A. The fatigue -- Q Let me make sure I understand what'you're saying. These are symptoms that you recognize as resulting from the Seveso incident in Italy -- A- That were reported. Q And not symptoms that werereported in Mitro? A. No, I didn't say that. % Okay. A. I said by that time you had had two situa tions where you had had a similar type of accident and had some of these same symptoms. That tends to reinforce that people are making the assumption that the dioxins were implicated in some of these things in the earlier accident. The fact that from Seveso I recognized several of these conditions from there would tend to support the inference that it was TCDD that would be involved as of the time that data was reported. JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE ) 11 < 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 1 q All right. So fatigue was one of those? - A. Yeah. Fatigue in addition to the chloracr.e. Q What else? A. Easy fatigability, those are two that are very close. I think I recognize the loss of libido fror. the Seveso thing as well. Those were the only two I'm sure of. Q All right, sir. A. It's been about, I guess, four or five year since I saw the results of Seveso too. Q Let me hand you, if I can hand that one back, hand you Exhibit 255 (Monsanto's I.D. #832323^ and 323235), asl,: y u to take a look at that. Paragraph E of Exhibit 255 makes reference to, apparently, some disagreement over 3cr.e data that's going to be released. What are they talking about there, that data? L Well, that's a result of the - - those were the results of the mortality study. ` Q Excuse me, Doctor. VJe forget to do this. This does appear to be a Monsanto document to you, is that true? A. Yes. Q Dated July 16th, '79? A. Yes. JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE 111 1 1 -t I 1 Q And is the minutes of the Nitro Health Study 2 Task Force, apparently, prepared by Dan R. Bishop. Now, you 3 were about to say that paragraph B was referring to the 4 mortality study. 5 A I'm trying to look at the date and see 6 whether that's mortality or health study. Yes, i t 's the 7 mortality study. f. \ i 8 Q Do you know what the reason for the urgency 9 was there to get this information released? 10 A. I guess primarily to alleviate concern and 11 to get data out for people to know the results that people 12 at Nitro were well aware over a period of time that we were 13 doing all the personnel and the health studyj even prior to 14 the time we had the physical examinations done, and we 15 wanted to alleviate those concerns with the data as soon as 16 it was available. 17 % Do you understand what Mr. Eishop is talking 18 about there in the last sentence of paragraph B where it 19 says, -*We feel it could compromise his credibility and his 20 independence -- extremely important aspects of our overall 21 strategy"? 22 A You're talking strictly about Bishop's 23 opinion. There was never any idea that Suskind was going 24 to issue a Joint release with Monsanto as a news release. 25 As a technical publication subject to review of his peers JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE \ 124 (1 1 1 1 and ao on, yes, but that's strictly a statement that Bishop 2 made without knowing anything about the situation. 3 Q Do you know what the overall strategy was 4 that's referred to there? 5 A. Well, that merely says that we wanted the 6 data that we were putting together and health studies to be 7 a3 independent as they could possibly be so Monsanto could i 8 not be accused of biasing the data that was done. In other 9 words, It had been our intent from the beginning to have ' 10 Suskind propose this study, develop the criteria for it. 11 All we did was pay for it. We had no control once that 12 study was decided upon. Like I say, we made suggestions of 13 additional things for completeness, but in no way were you U influencing what Suskind wanted to dc relative to the health 15 examination, nor would we have had any influence over what 16 he was willing to sign his name Jointly with us as a party 17 of the development of the protocol and the analysis of data 18 on the mortality study. So Bishop may have felt without 19 knowing what the situation was when he made a statement 20 like that, issue a joint news release. There was never any 21 idea that Suskind would Join Monsanto in the news release 22 regardless of the facts that were involved. That would have 23 been strictly Monsanto's province as to what use they can 24 make of the technical study with relationship to informing 25 their employees so they could alleviate concerns on the part JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE > 121 1 of the employees that they are all being exposed to eleven 2 different kinds of cancer when you have data that says what 3 It says, they are or they aren't; so that's what's Involved 4 In regard to this paragraph. The overall strategy was Just 5 that. Our overall strategy was we wanted an Independent 6 study to be made and conducted that Monsanto would not be 7 In a position of being said we biased the study. 8 Q The fact is on the mortality study It was 9 Judy Zack's study, wasn't it? 10 A. No. 11 Q She did it, didn't she? 12 A. She did the details. Suskind doesn't have 13 people to go down and get the records. We put all the U records together, they Jointly developed the protocol. 15 When the data was there, she summarized it and went over 16 the data with him carefully from a statistical point of view 17 Any conclusions for publication, that went into the publi 18 cation, had Suskind's complete approval. That was a Joint 19 effort in terms of -- you can hire a kid to go out and put 20 all the data together, but the conclusions and the analysis 21 of the data and the protocol for the study in which it's 22 put together so it will withstand a statistical, careful 23 statistical analysis, are the important things in epidemiology 24 studies, and that was all done with Suskind's knowledge and 25 approval before anything was published. JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE 12J, 1 ^ Has the Nitro health study on the live and 2 retired people been completed? 3 A. I g u e s s I h a v e t o sa y -- A Q Was It c o m p l e t e d at the time y o u retired, 5 as far as y o u know? 6 A. T h e p h a s e o f t h e a c t u a l e x a m i n a t i o n s a n d t 7 the collection of the raw data was complete at the time I { i 8 retired. 9 Q Do you know if there were any conclusions 10 d r a w n f r o m that p h a s e o f it? 11 A. Y o u c a n ' t r e a l l y d r a w a d e f i n i t i v e c o n c l u 12 s i o n u n t i l y o u get a l l t h e d a t a s u m m a r i z e d a n d a n a l y s e d a n d 13 so on. WQ Were there preliminary conclusions reached? 15 A. I can t e l l y o u h e a r s a y . 16 Q F i n e . 17 A. T h a t S u s k i n d ' s p e o p l e w e r e o f t h e o p i n i o n 18 t h a t w h a t t h e y f o u n d w a s c h l o r a c n e a n d s o m e r e s i d u a l e f f e c t s 19 o f c h l o r a c n e a n d n o t h i n g else. 20 Q W h a t are r e s i d u a l e f f e c t s of c h l o r a c n e ? 21 A. T h e r e w a s a c e r t a i n a m o u n t o f s c a r r i n g . 22 I f y o u n o t i c e a k i d w i t h J u v e n i l e a c n e , t h e y l e a v e a c e r t a i n 23 a m o u n t o f s k i n l e s i o n s a n d so on. T h a t was t h e o n l y t h i n g 24 at t h e t i m e that w as r e p o r t e d in g e n e r a l . T h a t r e a l l y is 25 m e a n i n g l e s s b e c a u s e u n t i l a ll t h e d a t a is a n a l y z e d , y o u JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 123  < 1 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 can't draw conclusions from a study of that. Q What was the source of that information? A. It came from somebody in Suskind's camp. I don't know who. It might have been some of the people working with him. Q Was it written? A. No, I don't know that it was written. I think that was a verbal conclusion. We were curious our- selves, you know, ''well, what did you find." He said that he hadn't gotten all the data together but it doesn't look like there is anything that stares you right in the face. - Now, as I say, that'8 a very preliminary conclusion. I - don't want to attach anything more to it because that's not the fact of the study. That's Just an off-the-top-of-the- head kind of comment. Q Looking at paragraph G, page two, there is a reference made to Phil Interline. A. Yes. Q Can you tell me who he is? A. Dr. Interline is a very well-known epidemio- logist who used to be with the government. I forgot whether it was with National Institute of Health, but he's been a very well-respected and very well-known at the University of Pittsburgh Public School of Health. He was one of our consultants since we were Just getting our feet JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE \ 12j 1 wet and beginning to build up our capabilities in epidemi 2 ology. We used the best talents we could find. We had him 3 in about once a month to review our protocol and to criti A cize what we were doing. We sometimes are critical of the 5 way the government agencies do things. We want to be damn 6 sure we had the best people available to critique our own 7 things so we weren't accused of doing the same things. 8 Q How did you get Dr. Interline's name? 9 A. Dr. Roush knew him from earlier things. 10 Q Are they contemporaries age-wise? 11 A. Probably. 12 Q How old is Dr. Roush? 13 A. I could think back and reconstruct it, but M offhand I don't know. 15 All right, Doctor. Let me have that one 16 back. I'm going to hand you Exhibit 256 (Monsanto's 17 I.D. #8323217 through 8323219 > inclusive), and ask you to 18 take a look at that. 19 - A. Okay. 20 Q Doctor, can you identify that document for 21 the record, please. 22 A. Ye 8 . 23 Q 2A by you? Is it a July 9th, 1979, memorandum prepared 25 A. As it says on the front, that was part of a JAMES m a y r e p o r t in g s e r v ic e \ 125 1< ! 1 DMEH monthly report that I prepared for the department. 2 Q If you'll look at paragraph no. 1 on page 3 two of the exhibit, the next-to-the-last sentence refers to 4 120 people Involved In the 19^9 accident and over 150 people 5 In the subsequent 19^9 to '69 period developed chloracne, 6 Including some with additional symptoms. 7 A. Uh huh (yes). 8 Q Of the 150 people you wrote about that 9 developed chloracne In the subsequent '^9 to '69 period, 10 subsequent to the explosion, what additional symptoms did 11 you know about? 12 A. I don't remember which of the other symptoms 13 might have been involved there. 14 2 If I would hand you Exhibit 25^ and ask you 15 to look at page eight of that exhibit, would that refresh 16 your recollection? 17 A. No, I wouldn't be able to pick out any 18 single one of those because it was probably based upon some 19 statement that was in the health file and might have been 20 somebody reporting into the department easy fatigability or 21 something. I don't remember specifically which ones were 22 involved. I can't with any accuracy pinpoint that. 23 Q Eo you know if any of the 150 people 24 involved in the 19^9 and 1969 subsequent period were removed 25 from further exposure to 2,li,5 T as a result of the chemical JAMES m a y REPORTING SERVICE ) 12( rash they developed? A. I don't know from direct memory whether that was the case or not. Q That would have been In keeping with Monsanto policy, would It not? A. Some of them may well have been, depending how severe they were and whether It was a problem ongoing with then. Q And sticking with Monsanto's policy, -they would have been notified of that option, right? A. Yes, I think It was their policy that work In that department was optional. ^ And the reason why? A. I have to assume that. I don't know. I wasn't Involved In the contact. Q Now, If you'll look at paragraph three of page two, the last sentence -- and would you correct me If I'm wrong -- "Thus, the Monsanto population exposed up to * thirty year previously to dioxin became of significant worldwide Interest In attempting to answer questions about the long-term health effects, If any, of dioxin exposure." I assume the population referred to In that paragraph Is the population exposed In the 19^9 explosion, Is that right? A. That would have been the longest, yes, but some will be twenty, some ten. If you're going to develop any carcinogenic effects from a chemical, the usual number people tal k about is ten to t h i r t y years. T h a t ' s a spread. I think PAB's may have shown up in ten years or less, some o f t h e m p o s s i b l y l o n g e r , b u t t h a t 's w h y t h e s t a t e m e n t was made. That was the first accident that happened and we thought it indeed would be of considerable scientific Interest to have data on that subject. ( Q Now, from the period 19^9 when the first of these men were examined for this problem up until the Suskind studies of the late *70*3 and early '80*3, I suppose, what monitoring, if any, occurred in this population that was exposed to 2,U,5 T? A. Vfhat do y o u m e a n b y m o n i t o r i n g ? Y o u m e a n health? Q Yes. A. I t h i n k t he u s u a l e x a m i n a t i o n s o n a p e r i o d i c basis to define whether any progression or regression of some of the skin lesions was concerned. Of course, Suskind Ti re looked at some of t h e m in '53, and w h e t h e r some o f t h e m may have been during that period of time sent to local, over the years were sent to local dermatologists, I don't recall. I think there were some of this kind but I don't recall details, so there was monitoring on a continuing basis in that department. Of course, one of these other documents indicates there were considerable attempts to JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 12^ 11 <1 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 button up, b o to speak, the departments best they could to be sure the exposure was as low as possible. Q Was there a health plan, so to speak, for these men who were being exposed to 2,^,5 ? In the nature of the ?AB plan which appears to be a rather well-developed health monitoring plan? A. Y o u m e a n r e g u l a r e x a m i n a t i o n s ? . / ''* Q Yes. A. I d e n t i f y it as such, 2 , ^ , 5 T people?../;; Q Yes. 1 A. I c an't a n s w e r t hat. I d o n ' t k n o w , / O t h e r t h a n the fact they can be loo k e d at on a r e g u l a r b a s i l in terms of their physical exams, but whether there was a file that says these are PAB people and we are going to do some- thing different with them, I can't answer that. Q As it r e lates to 2,^,5 T? A. Y e s . Q Would the plant physician be the person charged with that responsibility, is he the front line guy? A. H e ' s the front l i n e g u y , b u t t h e i m p e t u s for that might come from the Medical Department. He might be c a r r y i n g it out for t h e m o r might i n i t i a t e s o m e t h i n g for them with their knowledge. I can't say how that might have bee n h a n d l e d at the tine. B a c k at that t i m e there was obviously less probably direct inputs from the corporate JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE > 121 lj It ' 1 Medical Department to the operating plants as there were as 2 the company grew, so I don't know what degree that would 3 have been Influenced or carried out by the corporate depart4 ment versus the plant people. 5 Q All right, sir. I'll hand you Exhibit 257 6 (Monsanto'3 I.D. 8323177 and 8323178), Dr. Meyer. 7 A. I don't know if I have the same exhibit or 8 not. 9 Q Is that the one with 3ishop? 10 A. 3ishop took the chair because Holzapfel was 11 away on vacation. 12 C, Yeah. Quite frankly, I don't know why that's 13 in here. I assume it's a Monsanto document. M A. Yes. 15 Q And with that I 'll ask you to hand it back 16 tc me. Exhibit 258 (Monsanto's I.D. * 232595) Is now being 17 handed to you. Take a minute and look at it. I suspect 18 I'm going to be asking you about a paragraph A2, but you 19 can go a h e a d and look at the whole document, if you like. 20 A. I can't agree with that statement. That's 21 Tan Bishop's statement who is a public relations man. 22 Q Dr. Meyer, this is a Monsanto document, is 23 it not? 24 A. Yes, it is. 25 Q And you recognize the form? JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE 1 130 1 ** 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 A. Sure. ^ And It18 dated July 5th, 1979? A. Uh huh (yes ). Over Dan R. Bishop's signature? A. Yeah. Q And you're shown a3 a person who, apparently, got a copy of this document? A. Yes. s If you'll look at paragraph A2, there is astatement that, "We did not recognize that chloracne wasrelated to dioxin exposure until dioxin was chemically identified in 1957." Now, you were about to say you didn't agree with that. A I don't believe we recognized that dioxin was causing chloracne in '57 because there was no data on that. Just because you isolate a chemical doesn't necessarily mean that's it. So I don't know that that says anything other than Dan Bishop doesn't know any chemistry. He's a public relations man. I guess what it would say is since it's a highly chlorinated compound, somebody might have inferred that because chlorinated naphthalenes, which are highly chlorinated materials, have been known to cause chloracne. But Just the fact you chemically identify this compound wouldn't tell you anything necessarily until somebody tested it in animals or humans. In the absence of that JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE 131 1 kind of data which I'm not familiar with at this point, that 2 statement is not a correct statement in its inference. Now, 3 I'm Just telling you my opinion. 4 d Now, is there some sp e c i f i c document or 5 study that you based that opinion on? t 6 A. It's J u s t t h a t y o u c a n ' t p r e d i c t in a d v a n c e 7 what chemical is going to cause c h l o r a c n e . Because you know' 8 a chemical structure doesn't tell you anything whether it's ' 9 going to cause chloracne until you try it and see. 10 Q D o y o u k n o w w h a t w a s i d e n t i f i e d in 1 9 5 7 ? 11 A. U n t i l d i o x i n w a s c h e m i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d . As 12 I r e c a l l , t h a t w a s a t e t r a c h l o r o d i o x i n , a n d w h a t e l s e Is 13 k n o w n a b o u t It o t h e r t h a n its c h e m i c a l s t r u c t u r e I d o n ' t 14 know. But y o u c o u l d not c o n c l u d e J u s t b e c a u s e y o u s a i d y o u 15 i d e n t i f i e d t h i s t h a t it w as a c h l o r a c n e g e n u n t i l y o u 16 t e s t e d it. Y o u m i g h t i n f e r it, y o u m i g h t g u e s s at it. 17 Q If there is a study that was done in 1957 18 that positively linked dioxin in that isomer or that form 19 to chloracne, would that change your opinion? 20 A Y es. It w o u l d c h a n g e m y o p i n i o n t h a t 21 c h l o r a c n e w a s r e l a t e d to d i o x i n , yes. 22 Q A n d if t h a t w e r e t h e case, in k e e p i n g w i t h 23 M o n s a n t o ' s p o l i c y , w o u l d t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n t h e n in l i g h t of the ongoing chloracne problem at Nitro have been communi cated to the workers? JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE I 132- 1 MR. LOVE: At what point in time? 2 Q In '57. 3 A. Well, it depends on whether it was a defini 4 tive study that one could document relative to humans. 5 Q Who makes the decision as to what study is 6 definitive or not in Monsanto? 7 A The Medical Department from the scientific 8 point of view. It's their determination whether a study 9 Justifies scientific credibility. 10 Q And is that one of the criteria thatf-uaed 11 before following Monsanto's policy of informing people in 12 the workplace of hazards? 13 A Is what the criteria? 14 Q That a study is definitive in Monsanto's 15 opinion. 16 A Not always the case, no. If there is pub 17 lished studies, some opinions will be made as to whether 18 it's a credible study or not. 19 Q All right, Doctor. Let me have that one 20 back. Here is Exhibit 259 (Monsanto's I.D. #8323203 through 21 8323205, inclusive), and I 'm interested in paragraph A on 22 page one. 23 A Okay. 24 Q You'll note in the second sentence of 25 paragraph A which reads, "Agreed that we should issue a news 4 JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE \ 133 It 1' 1 re l e a s e b a s e d on this by July 15th, if possible, to beat : .k -** 2 any p o s s i b l e release by Selikoff," and, of course, the 3 r e f e rence is to the analysis of mortality study of those 4 involved in the 19^9 incident. Now, is that the same study 5 we have been talking about, the mortality study that Suskind 6 and Zack did? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q And did that study only involve those persons 9 who were involved in the 19^9 incident? -vX\ 10 A. Have to let me think a minute. I din.*t., 11 for certain. I think it involved all of them. It*a ny 12 recollection of it, but I'd have to see it to be a b s o l u t e l y 13 certain. I think it involved all of them. 14 Q And was releasing the results of this study 15 before Selikoff part of the overall strategy referred to in 16 the earlier document? 17 A. If we had data that was meaningful that 18 would alleviate concerns of employees, we wanted to release 19 it as soon as possible. 20 Q 21 Selikoff? Why did you want to release it before 22 A. Because we feel Selikoff is a sensationalist 23 who will interpret data any way he sees fit to gain publicity 24 Q I'm handing you Exhibit 260 (Monsanto's 25 I.D. #8323173, 832317^, 8323176 and 8323175), and I'm JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE \ m 1 I> 1 i n t e r e s t e d in the last two paragraphs on page two of that x te - ; 2 -/.exhibit,. jr 3 . A. * Right. 4 Q What relationship, If any, would the Stamford 5 Research Institute -- 6 A. Oh, Stamford Research Institute is a con- 7 suiting firm, and they had a team of people that were 8 capable of keypunching plant data and so on into usable 9 form for the computer. Since we had limited in-house cape- 10 bllity, we were contracting them to do part of the w o r k for* ' Vr* 11 the plant. * 12 Q Was that effort undertaken in c o n n e c t i o n 13 with this overall epidemiological project that you kind of 14 breathed life Into when you got to the job of Director of 15 Special Projects in 1977? 16 A. Yes. In all of our plants. They were 17 assisting in getting the work done to help us get going 18 faster. 19 Q And was this effort completed by the time 20 you w e r e r e t i r e d ? 21 A. Not completed. No. We have fifty plants 22 worldwide and we took those that we felt were the most 23 significant, potential problems In terms of the chemicals 2 4 we made and the exposures that we had, so on. 2 5 Q Now, which of those plants -- if I understand JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE 1 n what you're saying, you put the plants in some kind of priority order, is that right? - A. Yeah. Q For purposes of this study? A. Not one, two, three, but this group we are going to try to get done and this group we can let go. Q And was Nitro in the first group? A. I 'm sure it was, yes. Q And was this work on the first group of plants, including Nitro, completed by the time you retired? A. I can't honestly say that all of them were. Q What about Nitro? A. I 'm not even certain that Nitro had been completely all in the computer. We had all the records together and they were keypunched. Whether that had all been put on the computer I can't say for certain. Q Now, what information was put into the com puter regarding Nitro in connection with this effort by the Stamford Research Institute? A. Would you restate your question. Q What information was put into the computer relative to the Nitro Plant? A. I don't recall whether we had all of the data in for all of the records at Nitro keypunched. The data relative to the studies for statistical analysis and It ' 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 so on was done by computer analysis. W h e t h e r all the basic d a t a had b e e n hand treated to get it into that shape for the c o m p u t e r or whether it had all been keypunched -- you know, that's a horrendous Job when you go back and keypunch every piece of data in every department in there. Whether that whole Job at Nitro was completed prior to our analysis of the study with the use of the computer for statistical analysis, I can't say for certain. I Just don't recall the timing for the various plants, when they were going t o be r completed. They were done by different groups. Some were^/,. done in-plant by the local plant, some were done by some outside outfits, Stamford University did some. V. Q My question is to you what information -- A. Ultimately it was to include all of the personnel information relative to who worked where when and all of the data that was available in their health files, all their physical examinations, anything else relating to employee health, and ultimately, then, starting when we were getting good measurements in each plant, and that varies throughout the '70's as to the degree that we were sampling and how quickly we could set up with industrial hygienists and the various analytical techniques on which you monitored on a day-to-day basis, that computer system would include the exposure information and analytical detail, much of which was not available back in the '50's and '60's, plus JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE t 13 11 1 all of the medical data relating to the employees* health 2 from the past and then It would be keypunched Into the com3 puter on an ongoing basis for the future so we wouldn't have 4 to do all this over again and the personnel data as far back 5 as we have It, It would locate where people are at a given 6 point In time. It was that kind of a system Instead of 7 taking the brute force method that's having to collect all 8 these Individually and go through them as we were having to 9 do when we first started this work. We have all th#:7d at 4 & > . ^ 10 available and we could monitor and If we saw trends of 11 chemicals that were being released above specs and so on, 12 we could Immediately tie that Into employee health a n d wh a t . 13 was happening. In other words, we wouldn't be In a posl14 tlon where we always had to look after the fact to find out 15 whether or not we were having problems with people. We 16 could anticipate where we were going to have problems of a 17 health nature relating to our employees. That was the grand 18 slam, that was the strategy, so to speak, and I think that's 19 pretty well complete now. See, I have been retired for 20 th r e e years. That was a horrendous Job. We were one of the 21 first, if not the first, company to have such a system in 22 place. It had a name. I 'm trying to think what the name 23 of it was. 24 Q Frior to the implementation of this grand 25 scheme you have detailed for us, was there any policy or JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE 1 136 II ' 1 p l a n In the Monsanto Company to look for that signals of 2 he a l t h p r o b l e m s In plants among the workforce? 3 A. There are various Individual plants through- 4 out the various operating plants, but you say is there one 5 overall grand strategy, no, I can't tell you. 6Q 7 one? For example, a plant like Nitro may have had i \ 8 A. Yes. 9 And that would have cone - 10 A. Of some nature. 11 Q Where would that have come from? 12 A From either the plant management safety 13 groups themselves or for those who already had industrial 14 hygienists, were large enough to support their own industry 15 hygienist, would cone from that group or from the medical 16 group in that plant; or if there were products that we had 17 reason in the Medical Department to be suspicious of from 18 something published in the literature, the incentive to 19 monitor nay cone from the Medical Department. I can't say 20 in a specific case that there is a grand plan in place at 21 any point in time. 22 Q Let me hand you what's been marked Exhibit 23 261 (Monsanto's I.D. *83231^5 and 8 3 2 3 1 ^6 ). Let's look at 24 paragraph D on page one. 25 A. Uh huh (yes ). JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE \ 13 1 q All right. Dr. Meyer, you have before you 2 Exhibit 261, and it's a Monsanto document w h o s e forr. you 3 recognize, Is that correct? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q And it's dated July 21st, 1979, and, appar- 6 ently, prepared by F. J. Holzapfel, is that correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q And, once again, appears to be ninutes of 9 a m e e ting of the Mitro H e alth Study Task Force, and you're 10 indicated as having been present on June 28th, 1979? 11 A- Yeah. 12 I direct y our attention to p a r agraph D and 13 ask you if you remember what data you werereferring to u there for the partial response to publication ofSelikoff's 15 data. 16 A. Well, it says I was referring to data on 17 the personnel in the 19^9 incident. 18 Q What data was that? 19 A. That would have been a part of the study 20 that involved those people only. 21 C, 'What s p e c i f i c a l l y was that? 22 A. 'What else can I answer? 23 Q I mean, were they documents? 24 A. It would have been mortality data that was 25 In the process of being analyzed. JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE U: 11 1' 1 Q But what is that? 2 A. Well, that's data involving the people that 3 were identified as being involved in the incident, those 4 that we were able to run down as being deceased and what 1 5 their cause of death was determined from their death certi- 6 ficate and analysis of whether those ratios of causes of / \, 7 death were different from control groups that would be used\- 8 to compare them with. 9 Q Did you have some criteria for establishment 10 of ratios as between the group being studied and your con- 11 trol group? 12 A. What do you mean by criteria? 13 Q Well, you mentioned the word "ratio" and 14 that there was some ratio that constituted a part of the 15 data you were referring to in paragraph D. 16 A. Yeah. 17 Q Veil, what is it you were talking about? 18 A. That1s usual, what percentage of the deaths 19 involved a cancer of the stomach, what percentage involved 20 cancer of the lung, what percentage involved heart attacks, 21 heart failure, what percentage involves respiratory causes, 22 and then those are compared with the percentages of those 23 causes of death in your control group so you can see if they 24 are out of line. 25 Q In this specific instance was the control JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE 1 1 group the in-plant control or the county group? 2 A. I don't recall exactly. I 'd have to look 3 at my paper to see. It's been long enough that I don't 4 recall exactly which group was used. I would imagine, 5 perhaps, both were used. 6 Q Okay. I 'll hand you what's been marked 7 262 (Monsanto' a I.D. #8323065 through 8 3 2 3 0 7 0 , inclusive). 8 A. Uh huh (yes). i 1 9 Q Doctor, you have had an opportunity to look 10 through Exhibi t 262, which is a Monsanto form that you 11 recognize, is that correct? 12 A. Uh huh (yes). 13 Q, And it appears to be a June 21st, 1979, 14 trip report fron Jan Yung to you? 15 A. Uh huh (yes ). 16 Q By the way, who is Jan Yung? 17 A- She is an epidemiological data technician. 18 Q The exhibit lists a number of names of 19 employees? 20 A. Yeah. 21 Q On various attachments? 22 A. Uh huh (yes ). 23 Q Who are identified as having participated 24 in some physical examinations? 25 A. Uh huh (yes). JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE 1&2 1 J< 1 A. O u r re s p o n s i b i l i t y was to coordinate with 2 the plant in providing any help we could be in scheduling 3 the e x a m s . We worked with them in providing the facilities A that they had to carry out the exams. We arranged to have 5 the actual laboratory clinical work done at a laboratory up 6 East for the test work, those that could be done as routine 7 analysis, because the University of Cincinnati Laboratory 8 did the special exams, but they d i d n 't have the facilities \\9 to do all the routine clinical exams. So we were g e n e r a l l y 10 in a position of a s sisting in the exa m where we could h e l p 11 p aying the bills and e x p e d i t i n g t h e i r visit down t h e r e . 12 Q Were you lo o k i n g for a n y t h i n g o t h e r t h a n 13 l o n g-term effects of dioxin exposure, any o t her chemicals? 14 A. We were looking for the whole plant, as I 15 said before. That's why the whole plant was involved in the 16 study. That was o n e of the prime reasons was for dioxin 17 and 2,4,5 T because that was also one of Suskind's interests. 18 There were many people interested in the results of such a 19 s t u d y . 20 Q What are some of the other interests? 21 A. Any other chemicals in the plant that might 22 have come up as b e ing related to defects that would show 23 up in a physical exam. We have m e n t i o n e d some of those. 2A Q C a rbon disulfide, was that one of them? 25 A That's one of the materials that was used JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE V 1* as raw material. Q MBT? A. Yeah. Q And were these men, as far as you know, told that they were being examined for effects of exposure to MBT or carbon disulfide? A I can't specifically tell you. I wasn't present when the supervisors talked to the men In the plant about the exact objectives of the physical examination, so If you ask me details of that kind, I really can't tell you that. Q Did you tell the supervisors to tell them? A The supervisors told them what Susklnd and his people felt they should be told about the examination that was going on. This was Susklnd's study. G Didn't you brief the supervisor? A I personally, no. G Did you tell someone to brief' them? A The Nltro Plant personnel, the plant manager Bill, I don't recall whether 3111 Gaffey was on board yet or not, but Bill Gaffey at one point In time talked to the Nltro supervisor as well. I don't recall the timing of that particular visit. That's the only way I can answer that. G As Director of Special Projects, wasn't It your responsibility to tell your subordinates what to JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE J . 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 communicate to the people who would be participating in this study? A. Q A. Not necessarily. Well, was it or wasn't it? As far as our activities. The plant manager is the conduit through which that kind of information, and we had meetings with the plant manager and industrial hygienist and safety director at the Nitro Plant relative fj i1 v VVM1 to the purposes and objectives of the epidemiology studies that were going on. From that point forward it was the plant authorities' Job to inform their people of the results of those teBts . C, 'Whose responsibility was it to tell the plant manager to tell - - A. That would have been the Department of Medici ne and Environmental Health. $ You had no responsibility about that? A. Oh, yes. That was our department. Q Well, what did you tell the plant managers to tell them? A We told the plant manager what was going on. It's his responsibility to tell them. I don't order the plant manager to tell someone anything. Q was going on? What did you tell the plant manager what JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE , 1H6 A. The details of the epidemiology study that was going on. In addition to that, when Suskind arrived -- I 'm not a medical man -- when Suskind arrived, a detailed protocol which he discussed with the plant manager and key people in the plant. 4 Were you there? A. No, I was not. My people was there. Q Did you see the detailed protocol? A. Yes, I 'd seen it at some point in time.. I have a copy of it. Q Did you tell the plant manager at Nitro that the men participating in the study were being examined for long-term health effects as a result of being exposed to M3T or its component parts? A- I wouldn't have singled out every single chemical in the plant. You can ask that about any single chemical in the plant. I can go to Nitro and say your people are being studied with regard to this chemical, this chemical, no. The plant manager knew the overall study was to examine the health of people related to their various exposures to the plants which would show up in their per sonnel records and for the primary function and the most urgent function because of the great interest in the func tion was 2,^,5 T; but this was am overall study that applied to other products as well and it wasn't limited or delimited 1 11 1 to any one chemical involved. You can ask me that about any 2 s i n g l e c h e m i c a l . I d i d n 't go th r o u g h the list and say, we 3 are going to study all this. A Q Did you give a list to the plant manager -- 5 A. The plant m a n a g e r knows what h e 's making. 6 Q Your testimony is y ou d i d n 't tell the plant m 7 manager really what these men were being tested for? \ 8 A. T h a t 's not true. The plant m a nager knew 9 the overall study related to the men in his departmonta vies.* < \ 10 over a p eriod of thirty years. Some of those chemicals' 11 possibly w e r e n 't even bei n g made at the time the s t u d y w a s 12 done. I t 's not necessary for me to go down each d t t a i l e d 13 chemical of which there might be 5 0 0 if I go into all the M raw materials and say, we are going to study this one and 15 this one and this one. In a general way the health of his 16 plant related to those assignments of his workers that 17 could be p i n p o i n t e d from t h eir personnel records would be 18 included In the overall physical e xamination studies that 19 w e r e made. 20 Q In the p r e l i m i n a r y reports to you from 21 Dr. Suskind, did he mention an y t h i n g about adverse health 22 effects or lack t h e r e o f as a result of b e i n g exposed to 23 >TET, carbon disulfide, H2S in addition to 2,^,5 T and/or 2A dioxin? 25 A. I d o n 't remember. JAM ES MAY REPO R TIN G SERVICE . '1 l 1 Q Was it your understanding that when Dr. Suskind's study was completed, that it would address those 2 issues as well as 2,^,5 T and dioxin? 3 A. If abnormalities in health would show up in 4 5 those studies, they would be related back to whatever 6 department those men might have been exposed to over a v^ i 7 period of time. It's my understanding that such a study 8 would have to include those kinds of data. 9 0, Which kind of health problems do you know I 1 10 about that are suspected to be associated with 11 A. I don't remember any offhand. 12 Q . Carbon disulfide? 13 A. There could well be health studies on either 14 of those. I Just don't recall what the toxicologies of 15 these two chemicals are. I haven't been connected with this 16 for three and a half years. 17 C But you did know at one tire, is that right? 18 A. I would have known at one time if there were 19 health problems with some of those intermediates. Not all 2 0 500. 21 C, You did suspect YBT and carbon disulfide, 2 2 though, didn't you? 2 3 A. I didn't suspect M3T. Carbon disulfide was 2 4 one I was aware of there might be a problem. 2 5 Q What kind of problem did you suspect there? JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE I A. I d on't r e c a l l . Q Do you recall how you became aware there might be a problem with carbon disulfide? A. Prom something I read about carbon disulfide ml and its toxicity. Q Do you know when that might have occurred? "M l A. No, I d o n ' t r e m e m b e r . V\ Q When you became Director of Special Projects? A. I m i g h t h a v e k n o w n t h a t b e f o r e . Q I.see. A. I m i g h t h a v e h a d an a w a r e n e s s o f c a r b o n disulfide as a solvent before I became associated with DMEH. Q Who at Monsanto would know? A. K n o w wh a t ? Q, A b o u t the p r o b l e m s o f c a r b o n d i s u l f i d e t h a t were suspected. A. Well, in t he f i r s t p l a c e , I d o n ' t k n o w . I guess if I pick someone that would be most knowledgeable, it would be Director of Toxicology, would be George Levinskas, again. I'm sure there are others, but if you want the most likely one, it would be the Director of Toxicology. Q I gather from what you say it's true that Monsanto doesn't have any kind of a centralized or any real corporate policy or exert any real effort to find out much about these chemicals and these toxicities? You were the JAMES May r e p o r t in g s e r v ic e 150 Director of Special Projects. A. That's absolutely untrue. Q You were the Director of Special Projects. You seem to know very little about these chemicals and problems. A. I didn't say I had a long history in toxi cology . Q Prom the time you were in school. A. Wait a minute. What was your q u e s t i o n ? Q Well, you don't seem to have much k n o w l e d g e about these chemicals and their toxicity and don't se e m to know the people in Monsanto who would have. It seems like it's a very little knowledge that you have. A. That 's not true . Q Tell me about carbon disulfide and the problems that you were worried about or that you suspected. A. I said I didn't remember specifically what its toxicology details were. Q Well, generally what is it? A. There are some fifty thousand organic chemicals produced Industrially, and you're asking me do I have detailed knowledge of the toxicity of any one or each of those chemicals. Q I Just want to know generally what you know. A. Generally what do I know about what? JAM ES MAY R EPORTING SERVICE \ 15 1 Q The toxicity of carbon disulfide. 2 A. I don't know something specific. I have a 3 feeling in my mind there is a toxicity problem. 4 Q What is that feeling? 5 A. But I have been retired for three anda half years. I 've not been reading about carbon disulfide speci 7 fically . 8Q Prior to your retirement what was your 9 general knowledge about it? .* ; 10 A. I said I don't recall. I wouldn't have 11 recalled something now I didn't recall then. How could I 12 recall it then if I tell you I don't recall it now? 13 Let me have 262 back. Here's 263 (Monsanto's 14 I.D. #8323037 and 8323038). 15 A. Ckay. 16 Q All right. Dr. Meyer, if you would look at, 17 I guess, it's the indented portions there of that second 18 paragraph. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q You're reporting by way of this Monsanto 21 document, are you not, you're the author of this document? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q It's dated June 18th, 1979? 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q And it appears to report the substance of a JAM ES MAY R EPORTING SERVICE 15: phone conversation that you had with Dr. Selikoff, is that right? A. Uh huh (yes). Q Do you know if Dr. Suskind did porphyrin studies in his test? A. I can't recall that detail, but I think he did. Q What are porphyrin studies, if you know? A. It has to do with pigments in blood and presumably dioxins have had some reported effect on por phyrin . Q And immunological studies, were those done by Suskind also? A I think that's the case, yes. C; Clinical chemistries, you know what that refers to? A That refers to all the blood chemistries that were done. Some twenty-four different analyses. They were done in an automated machine. Q Do you know if Suskind did that? A Yes. Q, And nerve conduction studies? A He did that. Q And nerve behavioral data? A Yes . JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE 1 Q Neuro-behavioral, is that the same thing? 2 Now, do you recall any additional studies that Suskind did 3 in addition to those listed there? 4 A Well, of course, he did a hands-on physical 5 study: heart, lungs and the usual thing that a physician 6 does. I don't recall others than this group. 7 Q This is 26'*i (Monsanto's I.D. #231686 8 through 231688, inclusive). 9 A. Uh huh (yes) . 10 Q Doctor, do you recognize Exhibit 26^"as a 11 Monsanto document? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q And is a form that you're familiar with, 14 is that right? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q And Document 26^ appears to be a memo written 17 by Dan Bishop dated June 12th, 1979, addressed to you and, 18 apparently, it enclosed another Monsanto document, which is 19 a letter from Joseph Nolan and dated June 4th, 1979, to 20 Pierre Wilkins, is that accurate? 21 A Yes. 22 d Who is, if you know, this Joseph Nolan? 23 A He was the corporate head of advertising 24 in P.R., as I recall, at that time at the corporate level. 25 Q And is Pierre Wilkins likewise in the JAM ES MAY R EPORTING SERVICE \ advertising or F.R. business? ; A. I think, as I remember, Pierre Wilkins may have Just taken Bishop's place while he was on vacation or something. He was associated, anyway, with Dan Bishop, as' I recall. That's the best of my knowledge. Q Let me ask you to turn to page three of the exhibit, which is page two of Mr. Nolan's letter, and ask i you to look at the second paragraph on that page where it's stated, "It is important to distinguish between the'tiro studies." I assume the reference is to the Selikoff- Suskind studies -- "Dr. Suskind's will be rigorously con fined to dioxin and the delayed effects, if any, of worker exposure." Now, is that Suskir.d study referred to there the one that you and I have been talking about? A. Yes, it is. i Q Is it true his test was rigorously confined to dioxin and the delayed effects, if any, of worker expo sure? A. No, I don't think it was rigorously confined to that. Q Do you know why this statement is made in Mr. Nolan's letter? A. I presume because he didn't know. Q Did you correct him? A. I don't know that I corrected him or not. JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE Q Do you know if the Suskind study was adver tised as being rigorously confined to dioxin? A. Its primary emphasis was on dioxin because that was of great concern to us and to others at the time. & That doesn't alter your testimony that the purpose of the Suskind study was to undertake a broad sweeping test of some, you know, fifty or sixty or a hundred or five hundred products and chemicals used at the Nitro Plant? A. To the decree that can be done through a physical exam, that was the intent of the study. Q Only through the physical exams? A. No. Through the physical exam and the mortality study. Cl 'When you say physical exams, you're including the clinical workup and everything that was done, is that right? A. That's correct. Q All right. Can you tell me who in Monsanto likewise understood and knew that the Suskind study was this broad gauge, broad-based undertaking besides yourself? A. Dr. Roush. a Anybody else? A. Well, this is the most likely one. Q Do you know people on the Nitro Health Study JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE \ 11 * 1 Task Force, if they understood that? 2 A. I guess I have to believe they did. 3 Q Was there some written protocol describing 4 the study that Suskind was undertaking that described it as 5 this broad-based undertaking that you have described here 6 today? 1 1j7 A. I think so, but, you know, I don't have it 8 in front of me. 9 What would be the name of it? ..V 1 10 A. I don't know. It could be called a protocol 11 for Kitro Health Study. 12 Q Would it be in Borne contract of Suskind'a? 13 A. It would be in connection with the contract. 14 Now, whether it was actually a part of it or submitted 15 before we would sign the contract, we'd have to see the 16 protocol, so somewhere along the line it would be a written 17 protocol. 18 Sc if you're accurate in what you're saying, 19 we could find this broad-based description in the protocol? 20 A. There would be some protocol of what he was 21 going to do. 22 Here's 265 (Monsanto's I.D. #83231^7 through 23 83231^9, Inclusive), Dr. Meyer, if you take a look at that, 24 please. 25 Doctor, on that exhibit I'm interested in paragraph JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE \ 157 I 1 three there. Qo ahead and read the entire thing if you 2 choose. 3 A. Okay. 4 r\ ** All right. Doctor, you have before you what 5 appears to be a Monsanto document, is that correct? 6 A. Yes. 7 a And it's a form you recognize? 8 A. Yes, memo form. 9 Q And it appears to be a June 13th, 1979, 10 memorandum from you to Fred Holzapfel? 11 A Uh huh (yes). 12 In paragraph three you talk about having 13 analyzed the 1976 , '77 and 17S health examination records 14 for Nitro employees, 2 , ,5 ? exposed and non-exposed. 15 A rJh huh (yes). 16 0, Did you do the same thing for employees 17 exDOsed to MBT? 18 A The answer to that is I don't think so. 19 Q Did you collect any data at all about 20 employees exposed to MB?? 21 A We collected all employee data, whether MBT 22 or 2,*1,5 T. 23 Q Did you create a group of persons exposed to 24 MBT and a group not exposed to MB?? 25 A. Not at this point. JAM ES MAY R EPORTING SERVICE I 1 Q After this point did you? 2 A. I can't answer that, whether that was speci3 fically done later in the study, because there was no, 4 during my connection with it, we did not do a separate 5 analysis. 6 Q You state that, "We have analyzed the 1 9 7 6 , 7 '77, '78 health examination records." Is that department, 8 when you say "we" -- 9 A Yeah, that's the Medical Health Department, 10 Dr. Roush assisted in that, and those are health examina 11 tion records. lie assisted in that health examination. 12 Q Which health examination records are you 13 referring to? 14 A These are the Nitro employees. 15 c; And where would those records have been? 16 A They were at Nitre but copies of them would 17 have been at St. Louis. 18 Q 19 A 20 yes. Were those the employee medical files? They would have teen in the medical files, 21 Q Were there any other records referred to? 22 A These are listed. That's my only recollec 23 tion, as to what's In the memo. 24 Q The criteria that we earlier talked about 25 for 2,^,5 T Department study a3 to who was exposed to \ JAM ES MAY R EPORTING SERVICE 159 2,^,5 T and who was not? A. I'm trying to reconstruct In ray mind the p u r p o s e of the particular years that were Involved, and I guess the purpose of those particular years was that they were the closest to what would be obtained on a current health study; and we had better data from the recent years than we had in earlier years. So I think what we were trying to do is to see whether we already had information in our records that would give us some clues and p r e l i m i n a r y indication of what would be found in a current, as of now, kind of health study. Q And was it your intention to use these pre liminary results to respond to any Selikoff allegations? A It could be helpful if we had such informa tion prior to a current study to assist us in commenting on the Selikoff study. Q What if Sr. Suskind's study supported Selikoff's and not your preliminary conclusions? A Then this would be superseded by better data. Q You were pretty sure that wasn't going to be the case, though, weren't you? A be the case. No. I had no idea whether it was going to (Whereupon discussion was had off the record.) Q Doctor, I want to hand you what's been mar k e d P l a i n t i f f 's Exhibit No. 255 (Monsanto's I.D. #9330067 and 8330068), and ask you to take a look at that. I am primarily interested in the first paragraph. A. Yeah. c; All right. Doctor, in the first paragraph there is reference to exposure classifications. A. Uh huh (yes). Q You have before you a Monsanto do c u m e n t whose form you recognize, is that correct? A. Yes. C, And it appears to be a letter from R a y m o n d Suskind over Judith Zack's signature, does it not? A. Yes. Q The date iswhat, sir? A- The date? c; Yes. A. April 13th, 1579. Q And you're indicated as having a blind copy o f that? A. Yes . Q In the firstparagraph of that document there is some reference to exposure classification. Could you tell me what that means? A. That's elaborated on in the next three items. JAM ES MAY R EPORTING SERVICE \ 1 Q Well, could you, for the record, tell us 2 what that's about? 3 A. Well, the exposure was broken down Into an 4 intermittent group with other groups, and it could be talked 5 about generally or generally versus the intermittent group. 6 Q The intermittent group would be like the 7 general maintenance people who would not be assigned speci 8 fically to 2,U,5 T? 9 A. That'8 right. 10 Q Were there any other Job classifications- 11 included in the intermittent exposure? 12 A. For example? 13 Q Well, generalmaintenance, I think you said, 14 was included in the intermittent exposure? 1 5 A. Yeah. 16 Q Now, were there any other people in the 1 7 plant that would have been included in the intermittent 18 exposure group? 19 A. Others withplant-wideresponsibility, that 20 what you're referring to? 21 Q Yeah. 22 A. Or, like, people in the Medical Department 23 or in the Safety Department or what have you. I guess that's 24 what that would refer to. 25 Q You know what salarycodes, what'sreferred to there by salary codes? JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE 1 162. 1 II 1' 1 A. W h e r e is that listed? Oh, wage and salary. 2 Oh, t h a t 's Just an additional indication if it's a wage 3 e m p l o y e e it gives an hourly number. If it's a salaried 4 employee, they are in certain salary grades and that grade ]5 is listed. That tells you something about whether they |6 were a supervisor or Just a worker and so on. 7 Q Okay. Let me have that back. Here is 8 Exhibit 267 (Monsanto's I.D. #8331208 and 8331209). 9 A. Okay. s] 10 Q Doctor, Exhibit 26? is a Monsanto f o r m that 11 you recognize, is that correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q And appears to be a memorandum dated M April 16th, 1979, over Judy Zack's signature addressed to 15 you, is that correct? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q In the first paragraph of that document on 18 page one the last sentence says, "We indicated that we have 19 not identified or traced all of the terminated employees 20 and could not easily do so within a short period of time." 21 Is that all employees who were fired or laid off, or what's 22 that mean? 23 A. Yes. That means going all the way back, if 24 you take a given plant, there are people that are in, there 25 are some are students, some employed temporarily on probatior JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE \ 16 that will be terminated over short periods of tine and so on. To go back and catch anyone who ever worked at the plant is a horrendous Job to trace them down as to where they might be, and to do that you generally have to employ outside people who specialize in, like, detective agencies and so on. They may be living in California and you com pletely lost trace of them, and that's what she's referring to. Q Did you undertake to do that -- A. Mo. As I remember, we undertook to do that only for the people, because of the horrendous nature of the Job, we chose to limit that to the 2,^,5 T people . exposed in the accident, as I remember. Q Okay. A Eecause that was a manageable thing in terms of the time that we had available. Q All right. Let me have 267 back. MR. CALWELL: Now, for the record, No. 268 (Monsanto's I.D. #8331208 and 8331209) is identical to 267. I don't know how that happened, but it did. I think we'll pass over 268 but leave it there so people will know what happened. Q I want to hand you a document 269 (Monsanto I.D. #8 3 2 2 3 8 ^), Dr. Meyer. I'm really only interested in the first paragraph of that exhibit. A. Okay. not? Q Exhibit 269 is on Monsanto letterhead, Is it A yes. Q And is this a letter that was written by you on or about March 29th, 1979? A That's correct. Q If you'll look at the last two paragraphs, you appear to be advising Dr. Marion Moses of Mount Sinai Medical Center about lists of employees that were supplied to then, I guess, for the Selikoff study, is that correct? A With the upcoming Selikoff study. Q In the last paragraph you state, "Not included in the enclosed lists are other employees with occasional or accidental opportunity for exposure, such as maintenance, control lab, etcetera personnel." Are the lists that you sent to Dr. Moses pertaining to the 2,^,5 T Departmental study the same that were relied on in the Suskind study? What I 'm getting at, it appears these lists do not include the general maintenance people. A It's my recollection it was a matter of timing and we had not identified all of this third group yet at the time Selikoff was plowing ahead with his study. So we gave then, it's my recollection, what we had at that time. That was on March 29th. . fI Q So ultimately for the Nitro health study that we earlier talked about and, I guess, kind of a sub study, the 2,14,5 T Departmental study, the list that Suskind ultimately worked from included the people identified here in the last paragraph of Exhibit 269 to the extent possible? A. That's my recollection, that's correct, because they were going to start their study upcoming and she or Dr. Selikoff had called me and asked me if we could cooperate with this list. Q Okay. Doctor, here is Exhibit 270 (Monsanto I .D . 8330036). A. Yeah. Q All right. Doctor, in thelast paragraph reference is made to microfilm tapes of the retrospective Nitro work history data to confirm these groups in order to meet the required medical study timing. Now, what documents are on that microfilm referred to there? A. That would haveincludedboth, in my recollection, both the personnel records and the health records. Q Okay. And we are referring, of course, to a Monsanto memorandum that's, apparently, written over your signature, is that right? A. Yes. JAM ES MAY REPO R TIN G SERVICE 166 Q Dated March 9th, 1979? A. Uh huh (yes ). - Q, And the work history data that's on the microfilm tapes simply the hard copies of the personnel and medical files? A. My recollection Is It was all of that data. Q And how Is It Indexed, If you know? A. Probably alphabetically by worker Initially and then it could be broken out at any point by department number or what have you since it was punched into the com puter. Q So it's your understanding that the docu ments that are on this microfilm have been or are punched into the computer? A- I think that's all in a computer. That probably was completed after I was gone, but that certainly should be in the computer by now. Q And so, of course, you have some menu that allows you to access the computer for this? A. I think in all probability Suskind has all that on the computer now because he made his own computer file of the data that was sent to him, and that was all of the copies of this material. Q All right. Let me have that one back, if you would, and I 'll hand you what's been marked Exhibit 271 JAM ES MAY REPO R TIN G SERVICE ( M o n s a n t o 's I.D. #236066 through 2 3 6 0 6 9 , inclusive). A. Okay. A4 > Q Doctor, Exhibit 271 is a Monsanto document, and it's dated December 5th, 1978, from, I guess, that's Jan Yung, is it? A. Yes. She's a datatechnician. Q Addressed to you and Judy Zack? A. Yeah. 0, Again, for my information, 271 is a `compIla~ tion of information used in the identification of the group to be studied in the 2,^,5 T Departmental study, is that what that's about? A. Yes. It was an attempt to bring that as current as possible, and it was followed up by also identi fying cross-checking, by identifying all of the people who filed for workmen's compensation in and around the 2,^,5 T Department Just to be sure that we didn't miss somebody or plant records were lost and they might have actually filed for w o r k m e n ' s comp and they'd have a record that they'd be involved. Q At the time you were develoDing this infor mation for what you and I have been calling the 2,^,5 T Departmental Nitro study, was there work also ongoing on the plant-wide study? A. Well, as far as the gathering together and 1 ' 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 categorizing the personnel and health data, yes, that was un d e r way and there were several visits made to find out -- for example, some of the records,they had moved a department out of the Nitro to Akron and some period of years we didn't think there were any records and then we found them in a t warehouse sonewhere and pulled them out; so that was a substantial time-consuming project over a period of several months to identify all those records. 1 J What were those records you found down in Akron? A Mot in Akron. I say the department moved ] to Akron. The records were left at Nitro but in a w a r e h o u s e and they weren't sure they were there. We dug around where they said they may be in the warehouse, and we found the records we thought might have been taken with them. h Those were records of what? A Some records of certain years from the plant and records of people that were in the Research Department and so on. It was Just a source of old records that went back beyond some of the records they had in the current personnel office at the plant. Q Were they medical records? A As I recall, they were primarily personnel records, but there may have been medical records involved in it too. JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE \ 169 1 '1 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 q Were there any laboratory records or process records Involved in that? A. No, I don't think so. I think these were primarily related to personnel and/or health records. We Just were pleased at the time that we found better records of the older employees in the plant than we thought might be there from the first look in the current department. In other words, they had stored some of the older records in a warehouse down there and, apparently, the current people, the people that had stored them moved on to some other Job, and the current people in the Personnel Department hadn't remembered they put them down there. They suggested we go down and look, and we found them. Cl But these records weren't in relation to any process that was moved fron Nitro to Akron? A. No. That was Just a Research Department that moved. Q Let me have 271 back and let me hand you what's been marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 272 (Monsanto's I.D. #2 3 6 0 6 5 ). A. Okay. Cl Doctor, Exhibit 272 is a memorandum authored by you? A. That's correct. Q Dated October 30th, 1979? Jfl JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE \ 170 1 1 1 1 A. Uh huh (yes). 2 Q And, again, this, likewise, refers to the 3 same study we have been talking about, the Nitro health 4 study, the 2,U,5 T Department study, particularly? 5 A. I think at this time it would have referred j 6 to that, but I think our immediate interest was identifying J 7 that accident group that happened thirty years previously, I 8 and we wanted to be certain that we had all the records. I 9 To be sure,we asked whether he might have made some r e c o r d s % 10 that somehow or another had gotten out of our files, so it { 11 was a cross-check of people in his medical files to see 12 whether the same people were in our medical files. Th a t 13 was the purpose of that. . 14 Q In the last paragraph you indicate that 15 Dr. Suskind suggests that you send him your list of corre- 16 spondence and document exchanges? 17 A. Yeah. 18 Q What correspondence and documents is that 19 referring to? Historical documents in *U9 and *50? 20 A. See, he did this in '^9 and *50. I fm not 21 sure he knew whether he could locate all the correspondence. 22 He wanted us to send copies to him we had so he could iden- 23 tify where they were in his files to see if he had them. 24 Q refer to lists of correspondence. Do 25 you have some filing system that calls for a listing of JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE \ 171 ! 1 c o r r e s p o n d e n c e received? i 2 A. No. This would have Just been correspondenci 3 in c o n n e c t i o n with -- there probably was a file in the Nitro 4 file relating to the 19^9 accident, and there was some 5 correspondence with Suskind in that file and that's what he 6 asked for. That's what we did so we could cross-check to 7 make sure our file is complete. And he was turning around 8 asking us the same thing. 9 Q Did you in fact send that to him? W e r e y o u 10 able to identifv the files referred to here and send it to 11 him? 12 I can't say for certain. I 'm assuming that 13 we did. 14 Cl Okav. Thank you. Doctor. 15 273 (Monsanto's I.D. 8325873, 832587^, 8 3 2 5 8 7 2 ). 16 A. Okav. 17 0 Ckav. Doctor, Exhibit 273 is a Monsanto 18 form that you recognize? 19 A. Yes. 20 & You'll note that it'sundated, butit 21 apDears to be over Fred J. HolzaDfel's signature? 22 A That's right. 23 Q You're indicated ashaving received a copy 24 of this memorandum. In the first paragraph on page one 25 there's some reference made to work, history data system. JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE ) 172 1 Is that the same comoilation of information we have been ' 2 talking about today that Stamford Research was involved in? 3 A That's correct, yes. 4 Q And in the second paragraph there's noted 5 the two skeletons in the Hitro closet. 6 A 2,^,5 T and dioxin. 7 Q Do you have any idea why Mr. Holzapfel 8 referred to those two things that way? 9 A I guess until we had data on it we didn't 10 know what effects they would be on our workers. Sea, dioxins 11 had been indicated in the literature to cause some tumors in 12 animals. That's not dioxin. That's dust a solvent, I 13 think one or more of the processes at Nitro used dioxin as M a solvent. Since we had been under intense scrutiny by 15 some people, that's the reason he used that terminology. 16 We had the plants under a lot of pressure at that time being 17 provided with a lot of data, and they had to take this out 18 of their budgets. 19 MR. LOVE: I would note for the purpose 20 of the record there is a word at the bottom of 21 the first page of Exhibit Mo. 272, which bears 22 Monsanto *,8325S73> which appears to be the word 23 "exhibit." I would further note that this document doesn't bear a date. I don't know what any of that means. I thought I better say JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE 173 1 something about it. 2 q Doctor, here is Exhibit 274 (Monsanto's 3 I.D. #236180 and 236181). 4 A. Uh huh (yea). 5 Q All right. Doctor, you have had a chance 6 to look at Exhibit 274, and it's a Monsanto document in a 7 form that you recognize, is that correct? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q And it's dated January 24th, 1979? 10 A. Yeah. 11 Q Over P. J. Holzapfel's signature. In the 12 third paragraph on the first page there is reference made 13 to the fact, and I quote, "Ours was a dirty process and we 14 were plagued with chloracne problems," referring to the 15 2,4,5 trichlorophenol. V.Tiat is your understanding of the 16 words, Mours is a dirty process"? 17 A. I don't know. You'd have to talk to 18 Holzapfel about that. 19 Q You have noidea what that means? 20 A. To theextent we hadsomechloracne problems, 21 it means there were some exposures. I guess that's what 22 he means by "dirty." We had an earlier accident and we 23 controlled the process very carefully after that because we 24 knew what the effects of overheating were. Somehow or 25 another that accident batch got overheated and developed JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE 17  *1 1 pressure and blew out a ruptured disc on the vessel. That's 2 the only thing I can conclude, It was dirty because some of 3 our employees were exposed somewhere along the way. We 4 didn't have It completely buttoned up, In other words. 5 Q Assuming you got a copy, since you're on J 6 the distribution list, and assuming you glanced through It, M 7 that would have been the meaning you took It to mean at the 8 time? 9 A. That's the way I Interpret It. 1 10 Here Is Exhibit 275 (Monsanto's I.D. 1 11 #8326129 through 83261*12, Inclusive, and 83261 9 through 12 8326160, Inclusive), and I'll tell you It's a multi-page 13 exhibit that's Introduced by Dan R. Bishop as being the M approved copy of Monsanto'B official position on the Agent 15 Orange Issue. You night want to take a minute to glance 16 through Mr. Bishop's document. 17 Doctor, I've handed you Plaintiff's Exhibit 275, 18 which is a multi-page exhibit dated March 19th, 1980, 19 under cover of a letter by Dan R. Bishop. You recognize 20 the form of that document? 21 A. Yes . 22 Q And have you seen -- you're indicated as 23 having received this at some point in time? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Is it fair to say you probably got this and JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE > MS' J* *' 1 1 looked at It? < 2 A. Yes. 3 Q, If you'll turn to page eight of the position 4 paper attached to Mr. Bishop's letter, In the Tr.iddle para- 5 graph on that page, second paragraph, that certain symptoms j 6 are Identified as associated with exposure to dioxin. fM 7 A. Yeah. m 8 Chloracne, eye and respiratory tract irrl- I 9 tatlon, headache, dizziness, nausea, muscle discomfort and 10 liver disorder. Do vou have any disagreement with those 11 observations In that paragraph? 12 A. No. 13 Q Do you have any information or do you know M what the final sentence in that paragraph is based on where 15 it reads, "All symptoms -- except some cases of residual 16 chloracne -- gradually disappeared"? 17 A. I guess it would have to be based on the 18 statements that Suskir.d made In some of his follow-up 19 studies and other literature statements over the years. 20 Q As far as you know, there were no inter- 21 mediate studies by Suskir.d or anybody else between 1953 and 22 the late 1970's pertaining to these 121 employees? 23 A. I 'm not aware of any at this point. As far 24 as organized studies of the group. There may have been 25 studies of individuals during that period of time and there JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE ) 176 may have been medical reports for individuals that were sent to local dermatologists and that kind of thing, but not an organized study in the sense that you asked the question. Q All right. Let me have 275 back. Doctor, here's Exhibit 276 (Monsanto's I.D. #8331279 and 8331280). A. Okay. Q Doctor, Exhibit 276 is amemorandum prepared by you and dated November 21st, 1979? A. Yes. Cl And you werethe author of thatexhibit, is that correct? A. Yes. Q, As far as you know, it's accurate as you prepared it, is that right? A. Yes. All right. Let mehave 276back. Doctor, here's 277 (Monsanto's I.D. #235680). All right. Exhibit 277 is a memorandum prepared by you? A. That's correct. Q In the normal course of yourbusiness with Monsanto, is that right? A Yes. G It's dated October 30th, 1979? A Yes. JAM ES MAY R EPORTING SERVICE 177 Q And addressed to, I guess, the file. A. Addressed to the people that got copies. know? a And that memo is accurate, as far as you A. Yes. Q Thank you. Let me have that one back. Let me hand you what's been marked 278 (Monsanto's I.D. #2362^9 through 238252, inclusive). A. Yes. 'Q All right. Doctor, Exhibit 278 is & Monsanto form that you recognize? A. Yes . Q, And it appears to be the minutes of a Nitro Health Study Task Force meeting of November 16th, 1973, and the letter is dated November 19th, 1379? A. Yes, that's correct. Q And you're indicated as having been in attendance at that meeting? A. Yes. Q In paragraph seven on page two there is reference made to dioxin content of cysts, and, apparently, three salaried employees who have recurring cysts are willing to participate in some kind of a sampling program? A. Yes . Q Do you know if that was ever done? A. My recollection is it was, but I don't remember what the results were or when they were obtained. It was the intent, of course, since some of the cysts did have fairly lone residual effects as far as the chloracne was concerned, there was an attempt to see whether or not . dioxins, if they were the cause, really remained in the hair follicles or skin follicles that long and to be able to i analyze for it; and I think an attempt was made to do that, but I don't recall any of the details following this memo. Q Okay. Would the Medical Department be the . c-ace to inquire about that? A. Yeah. That would have been followed up and, I guess, Bill Gaffey took over the coordination of that program after I left, and I would start there. 0, All right. Doctor, here is Exhibit 279 (Monsanto's I.D. #332339? through 832339^, inclusive), and I'm specifically interested in paragraph eight of page three of that exhibit. A. TJh huh (yes). Q All right. Doctor, Exhibit 279 is a Monsanto form that you recognize, is that correct? A. Yes. G And it appears to be minutes of a meeting of the Nitro Health Study Task Force, dated October 26th, 1579, and the date of the memo is October 29th, 1979? JAM ES MAY R EPORTING SERVICE \ I 1 Uh huh (yes) . 2 You were shown as having been present at 3 that meeting? 4 A. Yes . 5 On page three of the exhibit reference is 6 made to some question about birth defects in connection 7 with Suskind's examinations. Which examinations are those? 8 The Nitro health study examinations? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q Do you know if this question about birth 11 defects was pursued? 12 A. I don't remember. Was this after the study 13 was completed? If it was, it would have had to have been 14 considered at the time of the examinations. I don't recall. 15 I'm sure we must have followed up on it, but I don't recall 16 what the results were. 17 Do you know why the question came up about 18 birth defects? 19 A. I suspect somewhere in the literature when 20 ever you have something as toxic as dioxin, that's one of 21 the first areas people look for is that sometimes toxic 22 chemicals in general will. That's why you run this par 23 ticular toxicology' test. You do it on fetal results and 24 often a fetus does not have the metabolic enzymes and 25 metabolic systems in place to deal with the elimination of JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE \ ^3 0 any types of chemicals it might be exposed to, and so fetal damage is sometimes the first place that you will notice toxicology where it won't affect adults. I suspect this was a general question. Whether or not there had been specific evidence of that in dioxin animal studies I don't recall, but it's a logical question to ask for any material you suspect of having toxicity. Q, All right. I hand you Exhibit #280 i * # (Monsanto's I.D. #8323370 through 8323372, inclusive), and I'm going to ask you about paragraph two on the first page. r Doctor, Exhibit 280 is a Monsanto form that you recognize? " '* A. Yeah. Q And it's dated October 1st, 1979? A. Yes. G, And is, apparently, amemorandum of the minutes of a September 28th meeting of the Nitro Task Force? A. Yeah. Q Paragraph two on the first page makes reference to the following: "Suskind has completed his quibbling and the document has been received by the Journal of Occupational Medicine. about ? Do you know what he's quibbling A. The same wording we were talking about earlier, the wording of the report that was going to be JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE \ 1 submitted for publication. He was a very picky individual 2 and liked things stated in a specific way. 3 Q Doctor, Exhibit 28l (Monsanto's I.D. 4 #83233^0 through 83233^2, inclusive). I don't have any 5 questions about it. But if you'll Just identify that fes 6 a Monsanto document. Do you recognize that as a Monsanto 7 form, Doctor? 8 A. Yes. 9 0 And, again, it appears to be a memorandum 10 of minutes of the Nitro Health Study Task Force on Septem- 11 ber 7th, 1979, is that correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q And you, of course, are shown as having been 14 in attendance at that meeting? 15 A. Yes. 16 0, Doctor, here is Exhibit 288 (Monsanto's 17 I.D. *8331272) 18 A. Yeah. 19 Q All right. Doctor, Exhibit 288 is a memo- 20 * randum -prepared by you, is that correct? 21 A. That's correct. 22 0 Dated August 20th, 1979? 23 A. Uh huh (yes). 24 Q The last paragraph of that exhibit states 25 in part, "the lists we sent to Selikoff by agreement 1 J JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE 1 182 i n t e r n a l l y contained only those employees whose records c o n n e c t e d t h e m specifically with 2,^,5 T-related departments Now, again, is this relating to the study that Selikoff was attempting to undertake with Mount Sinai? A. That'8 right. ^ f Q And that was a study that Suskind's study was to be in response to, is that right? A. Net Just in response to Selikoff. was a more general study. Suskind's v . ? y - . * . Now, you observe in this document that by >>' y *+ *V agreement internally Selikoff was to get only those employees whose record connected them specifically with 2,U,5. T What do you mean by "agreement internally"? A. Well, because we felt there ought to be specific connections to that group of people and that where there were uncertainties relative to this separate group that may have had intermittent exposure or we weren't sure of the exposure, we didn't want Selikoff arriving at con c l u s i o n s that were not well-justified and documented as far as t h e i r exposures were concerned to 2,$,5 ?. Q But didn't you include these intermittent exposures in the group that Suskind studied? A. We did. At a time we had more information than at that time. At that tine we didn't have all our cohorts identified and we were trying to run people down. JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE ) 183 We gave him those we had very clear data on in terms of their exposures. Q Did you ever supplement the list you gave Dr. Selikoff to update him? A. Not to ny knowledge. Q Dr. Selikoff did not haveaccess to the same information you had access to, is that right? A. Not these particular cases, that'sright. Q Why was that? A. Because at the time he didn't ask for it../' Q Why wouldn't you have given Dr. Selikoff free access to the records the way you did Dr. Suskind? A. Because we had respect for Dr. Suskind's responsibiliy and ability to carry out an independent study. We did not have that respect for Selikoff, and we had not the data available at the time he requested it. Q Would the other reason be you would be able to shoot Selikoff's study down if he didn't have the same access as Suskind had? - A. I guess you could conclude that. Q Let me hand you what's been marked Plain tiff's Exhibit 282 (Monsanto's I.D. #8331273 and 833127*0. A. Yeah. Q All right. Doctor, Exhibit 282 is a memo prepared by you on Monsanto letterhead, is that correct? ,1 11 1 A. That's correct. !2 q On page one of that exhibit, paragraph 2C, 3 there's information there about the results of examinations 4 being sent to the physicians of those examined, is that. 5 correct? j1 6 A. That's correct, yes. 7 Q And this is about the Suakind examination |8 for the Nitro health study that we have been talking about? I119 A. Yes. 10 Q Were the results of these examination* sent . 11 directly to the employees also? 12 A. I don't think that was the case. I think -;*.V.c 13 in every case the results were sent to their physicians so 14 they could be properly interpreted -- they were in medical 15 terms, and the intent was to have their physcian interpret 16 data for them. 17 Q Did Monsanto discuss the results with the 18 employees directly? 19 A. Each individual employee? 20 ` Q Yes. 21 A. No. In Suskind's study, that was left to 22 him at this stage of the game. 23 Q Was that part of Suskind's contract? 24 A. 25 do this? Was it part of his contract that he was to JAM ES MAY REPO R TIN G SERVICE \ 18'. Q Yes. A. I have to assume it was or he wouldn't have done it. Q If an employee did not have a physician, ' would Monsanto undertake to inform the employee of any results? A. My recollection is if the employee had requested it and he had been sent a letter indicating that it was ready, Monsanto's physician would interpret it for him. Unless it was asked for, Monsanto wouldn't communicate the results to him? A. I don't know that, to tell you the truth. In this case they were all sent letters and given a form as to whether they wanted to see the information directly. Whether that is a routine policy current, I don't remember. Anything in a health file in Monsanto is available to the individual through either interpret at ion by a Monsanto physician, or at his request, his physician. That was my remembrance of our policy at the time that I was involved there. But we did not send medical reports out to an individual without an accompanying contact through medically trained personnel. Q All right, Doctor. I 'm going to hand you what's been marked 293 (Monsanto's I.D. #9330781). JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE A. Okay. " Q Doctor, Exhibit 283 appears to be a letter by R. Emmet Kelly, M.D., to Mr. Hoffman, dated March 30th, 1965, is that correct? A. Uh huh (yes). Cl Do you know who Mr. Paul Hoffman is? A. Let '3 see, at that time that was in the Agricultural Division in '65 and Paul was one of the commercial development managers, as I recall, related^ to . V* ^ *. . i "1 doing agricultural field tests and following the commercial /.' progress of given pesticides in the field. He later left Monsanto. Q Have you ever seen Exhibit 2 8 3 ? A. No, I was not aware of it. Q Were you aware in 19-5 that dioxin had been identified as a potent contaminant of 2,^,5 T? A. No. Were you aware that very conceivably it can be a potent carcinogen at that time? A. No. Q Do you know if that information was ever communicated to the workers at Nitro? A. I have noidea. Q In keeping with Monsanto's policy of advising affected workers in the workplace, would this be the kind of JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE information that would be communicated to them according to your policies? A. At some point in time. As I interpret this, this is a very preliminary type of communication, and at what point -- he talks about a rabbit test. I don't know whether that's an acute test or a 30-day test or 90-day or what. Very probably it would have to be something that had been confirmed by more than one group and would have to be something that would be significant in terms of its poten tial human activity, and for me to say whether it was policy based on what they have here, I can't Bay that for sure. I Just hadn't seen that previously. Q Let me show you what's been marked 28*4 (Vonsanto's I.D. #8300999). Doctor, Exhibit 28^ is a letter from Elmer P. Wheeler to W. P. Dunlap, dated 1967, is that correct? A Yes. Q Shows a copy to R. E. Kelly, M.D. Is Dr. Kelly, was he at the time the head of the Medical Department, as far as you know? A Yes . Q Do you know who W. P. Dunlap is? A You knew, I don 1't recall. Dick Dunlop no, I don't know who Dunlap is. I 'm guessing he must have been somebody in Agricultural. Q Ever seen this exhibit before? A. No. Q In your position as Director of Special Projects, did you have occasion to communicate with Dow Company regarding toxicity of dioxin? A. To the best of ny recollection, I don't think I ever did. I 'm trying to recall if I ever asked any question, directly myself, whether they had any data on their employees on 2,*1,5 T, and if I ever did I never got anything. Q Who would you have asked? A. Probably would have been their epidemiologist at that time. I'm trying to recall what his name was. They had a department before we did. They had an M.D. epidemiolo gist ud there, and I can't remember his name, I really can't. But I don't think I directly did. Someone may have and it may not have been me Just to determine whether they had data that could be made available, but we got no response in a positive way. Q I 'm going to hand you 285 (Monsanto's I.D. #8300998), Doctor. Again, it looks like it has a 1967 date on It but it's very faint. A. Ckay. All right. Doctor, Exhibit 285 is a letter, again, it looks like It's dated March, 1967, from Carl D. Bohl, I guess, to Dr. Kelly regarding chloracne. Have you * ever seen that document before? 2 A. I don't recall seeing It before, although, 3 It was In the Medical Department. Carl 3ohl Is an ir.dustria 4 hygienist. It's Just one I don't recall coming across 5 before. 6 Q In the course of your position as Director 7 of Special Projects at Monsanto, did you have occasion to 8 work with Mr. 3ohl? 9 A. After I went Into the Department of Environ 10 mental and Health only on an occasional basis. 11 Q Did you discuss with anybody In that depart 12 ment problems with chloracne and 2,4,5 T with anyone? 13 MR. LOVE: Tine period. 14 C When you moved Into that department In, 15 what was It, '77? 16 A. I'm trying to think. I don't recall speci 17 fically doing that, although, that doesn't mean I didn't 18 have seme discussion. I Just don't recall specifically 19 talking with Bohl about the subject. 20 Q This problem of chloracne and Agent Orange 21 and 2,4,5 T became thoroughly intense at the time period 22 you were in that position as Director of Special Projects, 23 isn't that true? 24 A. Yes. 25 c; Seems strange you didn't have some discussion JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE 191 about that. Like, it was the topic of conversation. That's what it was, wasn't it, pretty much? A. It was a topic of conversation. Q Didn't it pretty much dominate your time? A. I wouldn't say it dominated, but I had several projects. Q It was probably seventy-give, eighty percent of it? A. No, no. > Q What percentage of your time -- A. I 'd say twenty percent. We also had pro- grama under way in our Springfield plant and a number of other plants related to many other chemical problems in the company in attempts to get our data in position to do epidemiology' studies on a broad basis. This was one of a critical nature during a given period of time, but certainly it was not anywhere dominating my time in that sense. Q Didn't you try to find out all you could about it? - A. Oh, yes. Sure. Q Didn't you talk to people in the department? A. That doesn't mean I read every single bit of information that existed. Q Did you talk to Dr. Kelly about it? A. Dr. Kelly was retired, and I don't know that I talked to Dr. Kelly about It. Q You knew Dr. Kelly? A. Oh, yes, of course, I knew him. Q But It's Just something that really didn't cone up that much, right? A. What's something that didn't come up? Q Chloracne at Nitro. You seem to know so little about It. A. I didn't say I knew little about It.-; I knew a lot about It at some point In time, but you're sayi/ng, did" I know anything that went on back to day one, and the answer to that was I did not scan, and I don't know.-fcf:.~. any other single Individual, who necessarily scanned every piece of information that was ever written in Monsanto about chloracne because there is some thousands of pieces of correspondence over a period of time. But in the early 1965, '66, '67 seems as though you would have -- A. I had no connection with this department, absolutely none. I was off in a completely different area and completely different area of the company. Q But during the critical time in '77, '78 and *79 you were intimately involved with that problem, and yet you have no recollection of these earlier documents? A. That's correct. I 've not seen those JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE \ particular documents. Q And your curiosity didn't lead you to seek p eople out or anything like that, is that right? A. I*in not saying some of my people may not have been familiar with this particular document you showed me. Judy Zack might have been. I can't say for certain. C. Didn't you ever ask anybody, "When did we first find out, why Just now? When did we first find out about it, why didn't somebody tell me"? A In those exact terms -- Q Didn't you ever say, "Judy, when did we know about dioxin and this chloracne, what's going on, I Just got that Job"? A I first knew about it from all the litera ture I had. It wasn't particularly relevant to the study that I was going to make that I knew a particular document that had been written in 19-5. You really wouldn't have done anything about it at all unless it was brought up by the Agent Orange and Selikoff? A That's not correct at all. We had ongoing plans through the N'itro study, Springfield study. You have to remember there are lots of plants Monsanto was involved in, and this was one of a number we were involved in. Q When did you first decide to study 2,^,5 T JAM ES MAY R EPORTING SERVICE I w at Nitro? 2 A. The precise date which we decided? 3 Q Yes. Your recollection. 4 A. My best recollection would be about 1978. 5 Q And why did you Just in '78 -- you knew you 6 had a chloracne problem since 19^9 and the literature shows % 7 that dioxin probably caused it in '68, '69 or '70 and some 8 literature suggests you knew in 1957. Why did you wait 9 until 1978 to all of a sudden decide to get curious about 10 chloracne and dioxin? 11 A. We hadn't had a chloracne problem since 12 1969 when we shut the process down in that sense in terms 13 of an active file that would have come to my attention, and M I was not connected with any part of that until 1977. 15 C I know you had no responsibility for it at 16 all. 17 A. It came at the tire I was asked to undertake 18 setting up an expanded study at the Nitro Plant along with 19 a lot of other plants became important for a variety of 20 reasons. 21 Q 'hat are those reasons? 22 M?. LOVE: Stuart, let me object for 23 Just a moment. You have asked this question 24 several tines and he's given you an answer 25 several tines. I 'm going to ask you to give JAM ES m a y R EPO R TIN G SERVICE an answer again, but I would appreciate if 2 we could stop going over the same grounds time 3 and time again. 4 Q Why in f78 did you finally decide to study 5 dioxin in such detail? 6 A. Well, dioxin is only one of many materials 7 that we decided to study in the period of *76, '77 and '78, 8 and as I indicated to you, we had a number of plants for a 9 variety of materials that were involved that had potential 10 toxicities, and dioxin, 2,^,5 T was one of them. We had a 11 Springfield plant that made many monomers, vinyl chlorides, 12 styrenes, a variety of those. We needed to do work on the 13 Springfield plant. We had acrylonitrile involved in our 14 textile plants, we needed to do studies on that. We had 15 Texas City Plant where different kinds of monomers and 16 chemicals were made. This was a part of the overall studies 17 that were initiated on several plants -- 18 Q But, Dr. Meyer -- 19 A. ` So we had a lot of ground to make up. 20 . Q You're not answering ray question. 21 A. I 'm exactly answering your question. I 22 told you why we started in 177. 23 G If in 1978 all of the people had gotten over 24 their chloracne and the problems because they were Just 25 transient problems, as you've testified, in 1969 and in the \n JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE 19 13L- j k -- J 60's, why would you undertake to study dioxin, 2,^,5 T if 2 nobody had any problems because everybody got well? 3 A. Well, we undertook it because there were 4 many people interested in the longer-term effects and we 5 had not made a longer-term study other than the individual 6 examinations of individuals over the years. We had not 7 made an organized scientifically sound epidemiological study 8 as to what the long-term effects were. The only residual 9 effects we knew were related to chloracne; and there are 10 residual effects over a period of years, the scarring and 11 a variety of others. That was known. 12 Q But you knew individually that everybody 13 had gotten over everything with maybe the exception of 14 chloracne? 15 A. That w as n't said that everyone had gotten 16 over everything. 17 Q Is there one person or two people that you 18 know about that simply didn't get over their exposure to 19 2,^,5 T and carried with them systemic problems? 20 - A. I don't know that. T h a t 's what we undertook 21 to study to find out. 22 Q I 'm asking you why -- 23 A. Because it became important in a variety of 24 situations. 25 Q Tell me about those situations. JAM ES MAY REPO R TIN G SERVICE 19 A. Where chemicals had been produced over long 2 p e r i o d s of time or science in general didn't know what the 3 l o n g - t e r m e f fects were where acute effects might be known, 4 and c o n s e q u e n t l y it became important to a lot of chemical 5 companies to undertake longer-term tests when it was realized 6 the residual times required to bring forth symptoms of 7 cancer and some other conditions required those long terms. 8 Those were not problems that people were aware of back in 9 the '50*s and '60*s. 10 Q How did you become aware of them in^ 9 r7' 8-'V /SV . 3 11 such that you could associate dioxin and 2,^,5 T w i t h th o s e 12 kinds of problems? - . - f sAC\ . 13 A. I told you that I had a general awareness U of the toxicity of chemicals through my general knowledge 15 of the literature. 16 Q Is that what led Monsanto Company in 1978 17 to undertake this study? 18 A. That's not only what I understood but a lot 19 o f p e o p l e w e r e becoming aware of. I was Just one individual 20 who wa s as k e d to head up and develop and organize longer21 t e r m epidemiology studies relating to the effects of our pro 22 ducts so we could have data in a handlable form in all of our 23 plants so we could with some degree of competence and dis 24 patch achieve levels of the long-term effects of chemicals 25 that have not been available to people in the past. JAM ES MAY R EPORTING SERVICE 19' Q Did you undertake to make the study before 2 or a f t e r Selikoff announced he was going to? A. We undertook to develop the Nitro study at 3 a plant before Selikoff was involved in the study. See, 4 there was a great deal of concern about the dioxins long 5 before Selikoff announced he was going to do a study. 7 Q Doctor, I 'm going to hand you what's been 8 marked 286 (Monsanto I.D. #832560*0 and 287 (Monsanto's 9 I.D. #8331712),and ask you to look at these and tell me if -0 ,* v # 10 you've ever seen those two documents before? .V>\ .Y. * 11 A. This one I've not seen. 12 MR. LOVE: That 's 286. 13 Q 286 you've not seen? 14 A. I think I 've seen this one at some point in 15 tine . 16 Q 287? 17 A. Yes. After I went into DMEH. I think I 've 18 seen this document. 19 Q ' And where would you have seen this document 20 287? 21 A. I presume in a file somewhere in the Medical 22 Department as we were examining literature. 23 Q So you undertook to examine the literature 24 that was available on 2,*1,5 T and dioxin? 25 A. Yes, at some point we did, sure. This would JAM ES MAY REPO R TIN G SERVICE ) 196 ave b e e n In K e l l y 's m e d i c a l files that he would h a v e left and been re t i r e d at the time, but I think somewhere I 've seen this one. MR. CALWELL: Okay. Thank you, Doctor. Ferdinand* C. Meyer Kt 2 STATE OP ILLINOIS ) ) SS 3 COUNTY OP MADISON ) 4 5 6 7 I, M. JOY SPRINGER, a Notary Public, duly 8 commissioned and qualified in and for the County of Madison, 9 State of Illinois, do hereby certify that pursuant to n o t i c # 10 came before me on the 6th day of July, 1983, at the Radissori 11 Hotel, Room 215, 9th Street and Convention Plaza, St. Louis, 12 Missouri, FERDINAND C. MEYER, who was by me duly s w o r n to 13 testify to the truth and nothing but the truth of his 14 knowledge touching and concerning the matters in controversy 15 in this case; that he was thereupon carefully examined upon 16 oath, and his examination reduced to writing under my super 17 vision; that the deposition is a true record of the testi 18 mony given by the witness; and signature of the witness was 19 no t w a i v e d by agreement of counsel. 20 I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither attorney 1i 21 nor counsel for nor related to nor employed by any of the 22 parties to the action in which this deposition is taken; 23 and further, that I am not a relative or employee of any 2 4 attorney and counsel employed by the parties hereto, or 25 financially interested in the action. JAM ES MAY R EPO R TIN G SERVICE \ 20C IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my ^hand and affixed my notarial seal on this _________ day of , 1983. Va Notary Public within and ; for the County of Madlaoit, V V'In the State of Illlnola. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JAMES MAY REPORTING SERVICE