Document OJXLjJ1d00g94NqkpzJee1xYM

FILE NAME: RT Vanderbilt (RTV) DATE: 2005 Apr 12 DOC#: RTV226 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Legal - Deposition of J. Kelse J. Keise -12/01/2004 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF HEW JERSEY TM D K OF V* I T M E S S R S LAW D2YISIO : MIDDLESEX COUHTY Docket Mo. MID-L-2706-03 AS witness DIRECT John K. Keise, Jr. ESTATE OF PETER S. HIRSCH. : Bi* M r . M o she: Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTIO ; D e p o s i t i o n of: GEORGIA PACIFIC, IMC.; HAHl-HLL fi GILLESPIE, IUC. R.T. YAUDER3ILT COMPANY, I H C ., JOHH W. KELSE, JR. {Volume I) V ---------- Defendants. T R A M S C R I P T of the stenographic notes of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter, as taken by and before HOLLY' JOHMSOM KOWALENKO, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and notary Public of the State of Hew Jersey, held at the offices of HOAGLAIID, LOMGO, MORA, DOMS? fi DOUKAS, L.L.P., 40 Paterson Street, Mew Brunswick, Mew Jersey, on Wednesday, December 1, 2004, commencing at approximately 10:15 in the forenoon. AAAAWYYNB F-BID -2Q A P P E A R * CES: printed J/e/0- I 11 D F. X OF EXHIBITS Kelss-I Kelse-2 Kelse-3 Kelse-4 Kelse-5 Keise-6 Kelse-7 Keise-3 Kelse-5 K e 1 s e - 10 D^scriotton For Identif cation notice of Deposition 6 dated 11/24/04 R e s u m e of J o h n W. 6 Keise. Jr. Han and attachments 58 USDS for HVTAL iOO 7< Letter/report dated 04 3/19/04 from Keise to Grimbergen "UYTAL" publication prepared by Vanderbilt 105 MIOSH 1980 Technical Report - Industrial Hygiene section 108 MIOSH 1980 Technical Report 109 MIOSH Final Report 115 of bulk talc sample analysis Unidentified reports 138 A I is n e or exhibit s LEVY, PHILLIPS fi KOMIGSBERG, L.L Attorneys for the Plaintiff 101 Grovers Hill Road Suite 105 Lawronceville, Mew Jersey 3 y : MOSHE MAIMOM, ESQUIRE MELSOM, MULLIMS, RILEY fi SCARBOROUGH, L.L.P. .Attorneys for the Defendant Georgia-Pacific Corporation Liberty Center 151 Meeting Street Charleston, South Carolina 2S401 By: G. MARK PHILLIPS, ESQUIRE MCGIVMSY, KLUGER fi GAMICI!, P.C. Attorneys for the Defendant Kami 11 fi Gi 1espie 23 Vreeland Road Florham Park, Uev Jersey 07532 By: JOEL R. CLARK, ESQUIRE HOAGLAHD, LOMGO, MORAII, DUHST A DOUKAS, L.L.P. Attorneys for the Defendant R.T- Vanderbilt Company, Inc. 40 Paterson Street Mew Brunswick, lie*,; Jersey 0890 3 By: MARC S. GAr FREY*, ESQUIRE MORA J. GR1MBEP.GEU, ESQUIRE AKIM, GUMP, STRAUSS. HAUER fi FELD, L.L.P. Attorneys for the Defendant R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc. 1333 Hew Hampshire Avenue. U.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 By: DEHHXS M. RACE, ESQUIRE S x h ib lr. Keise-i K e i s e - 12 K e i s e - 13 Kelse-14 K e i s e - 15 K e i s e - 16 Kelse-l" Kelse-13 Knl +.:-1 Kelse-20 Keise-2 i Ke 1s e -2 2 .grtpsiaa F<?r i 'y n M S i Analytical Reports daed 10/22/01 and 11/1/01 138 Article entitled "Mortality Among Talc Miners and Millers in Mew York State" 170 Three-ring binder entitled 178 "The Asbestiform and llonasbecciform Mineral Growth Habit and the Relationship to Cancer Studies" Flit! fold-ir licitlad " H u n a n , .-.nin.il l C a l l S c u d i a s F.TV Talc S p e c i f i c a l l y " 179 File folder entitled "Mineralogy Key Papers* 179 File folder entitled "General Reference Documents Fiber Sires Maso Lung Burden" 179 File folder entitled "Overviews Health i Minoralogy" 179 File folder entitled "Health Study Critiques" 1B0 r:i?: c o l d e r %-jstitied "MIOSH Correspondence" Pi 1 - f o l d e r e n t i t l e d "OSHA MI? Submissions Tc-i?t iraony M S H A " i 5V 180 r i le i is l d e r o ut i t ie d ""Hi rjsch C a s e F i l e " 160 File folder entitled "Anal ytical Reports" 180 VARHLEV ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 1 to Page 4 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 ---- 5 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 7 I H P E X OF R E Q U E S T S 1 and Mr. Kelse has produced today here at the 1. Copy of transcript from prior deposition of Kelse in Hew Jersey - Pg. 11 2. Copies of reports Kelse sent to Vanderbilt for inspections of Gouverneur talc facility while employed at Hartford - Pg. 45 2 deposition those documents which form his file as 3 an expert witness in this case, so we believe that 4 we have been responsive to the Notice as it relates 5 to him as an expert witness. 6 I presume that, similar to Or. Abraham, 3. All WYTAL 100 HSD sheets in Kelsa's file Pg. 9* 7 Mr. Kelse will be treated as an expert witness and 8 will be compensated as such for his appearance here 4. Film entitled "A Hatter of Fact" - Pg. 120 9 today; and we will be providing you with a bill for 5. Brochure entitled "A Matter of Fact" - Pg. 125 10 his hourly time, as well as his expenses in having 11 to stay at the hotel. I believe we have discussed 12 the hourly rate at 250 an hour. 13 So with that in mind, we're ready to 14 proceed. 15 MR. MAIMON: Well, I'll certainly pay any 16 expert fee and the reasonable hourly fees, (don't 17 know that I have ever paid hotel bills for an 18 expertto stayover, but I'msure we can work 19 something out in that regard. 20 MR. GAFFREY: Okay. 21 22 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MAIMON: 23 Q Good morning, Mr. Kelse. 24 A Good morning. 25 Q My name is Moshe Maimon, and I________ 6 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 8 1 (The below-described two-page Notice o f 1 represent the Estate of Peter Hirsch in this case, 2 Deposition was received and marked Kelse-1 for 3 Identification.) 2 and I'm here to take your deposition. 3 You have been designated as an expert for 4 {The below-described two-page Resume of John 4 R.T. Vanderbilt Company, and you are aware of that; 5 Vi. Kelse, Jr., was received and marked Kelse-2 for 5 are you not? 6 identification.) 7 6 A Yes. 7 Q Let me ask you a few questions, first 8 J 0 H 1! W. K E L S E , J R., having his office 9 at 30 Winfield Street, Norwalk, Connecticut, 8 of all. 9 Have you ever had your deposition taken 10 is duly sworn and testifies on his oath as 10 before? 11 follows: 11 A Yes, I have. 12 12 Q On how many prior occasions have you 13 HR. GAFFREY: Just before you begin, I just 1 4 want to put a short statement on the record. 15 We have marked as Kelse-1 for Identification 16 the Deposition Notice of Mr. Maimon from Levy 17 Phillips. In reading the Notice, we wanted to 18 respond to it literally; and it speaks in terms of 19 Hr. Keisa being produced as an expert witness; and 2 0 he is, in fact, being produced as an expert witness 21 today, not as a corporate witness or not as a 2 2 consultant, because we have used him as all three 2 3 categories in this case, but purely as an expert 24 witness. 25 We have reviewed the listings for documents, 13 had your deposition taken? 14 A 15 16 A I believe once. Q And do you recall when that was? I believe it was here in New Jersey, and! 17 believe it was-gee, eightyears ago or so. It's 18 quite a while. - 19 Q And in connection with - in what type 20 of proceeding did that deposition take place? 21 Was that a lawsuit? Was that a Workers' 22 Compensation hearing? Was it a regulatory hearing? 23 A No. It was a lawsuit 24 Q And were you personally involved in 25 that lawsuit, or was that a lawsuit involving your VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 5 to Page 8 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 1 employer? 2 A My employer. 3 Q That's the R.T. Vanderbilt Company, 4 right? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And do you recall if that was a case 7 that was filed here in NewJersey, or was it filed 8 somewhere else and you simply appeared in New 9 Jersey? 10 A I don't recall. 11 Q Do you recall what the subject matter 12 of that lawsuit was? 13 A Well, it was a health claim from exposure to 14 talc product. 15 Q Do you recall what the claimed injury 16 was in that case? 17 A 1better say I don't remember. 1think it 18 was lung cancer, but I'm not sure. 19 Q Do you recall what the product at 20 issue was as far as your employer, the R.T. 21 Vanderbilt Company, was in that case? 22 A Well, it was the industrial talc, Vanderbilt 23 talc. 24 Q Was it under the NYTAL trademark? 25 A 1don't recall. 9 J. Kelse-direct-Mr. Maimon 11 1 firm for the plaintiff that took your deposition 2 was? 3 A No, I'm afraid not. 1didn't review that. 4 Q Do you maintain a file in your office 5 concerning that case or the testimony that you gave 6 in that case? 7 A I don't know. 8 Q Do you maintain a copy of the 9 deposition that you gave in that case? 10 A I'm sure there - there is one available 11 probably at our corporate counsel, or Dennis Race 12 will probably have a copy. 13 MR. GAFFREY: Just listen to the question he 14 asks you. 15 A Do 1have a copy? No. 16 MR. MAIMON: Okay. I'm going to make a 17 demand for a copy of the transcript if it exists. 18 MR. GAFFREY: Okay. We'll consider the 19 request. 20 MR. MAIMON: Thank you. 21 Q Do you recall whether that case went 22 to trial or not? 23 A 1don't believe it did. 24 Q Now, aside from giving deposition 25 testimony in that case - some ofthe materials J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 10 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 12 1 Q Do you recall what the occupation was 1 that you have produced here reflect some of the 2 of the claimant in that case? 2 testimony that you have given at regulatory 3 A No, 1don't. 3 hearings or other types of hearings, and you have 4 Q Did you appear as an expert witness in 4 given such testimony in the past; correct? 5 that case or as a fact witness? 5 A Yes. 6 A 1don't recall. 6 Q Have you ever given testimony at any 7 Q Were you represented by counsel in 7 trials for lawsuits? 8 that case at the deposition? 8 A No. 9 A Yes, defending Vanderbilt 9 Q Aside from this case, the Hirsch case, 10 Q Right. 10 to the best of your knowledge and recollection, 11 And do you recall who the attorneys for 11 have you ever been designated as an expert witness 12 Vanderbilt were that appeared with you at that 12 in any other litigation? 13 deposition? 13 A No. 14 A No, 1don't 14 Q We have marked as Exhibit 1 for this 15 Q Do you recall what the outcome of 15 deposition the Notice of Deposition in this case, 16 that lawsuit was as far as your employer, R.T. 16 and I'd just like to go through it with you. 17 Vanderbilt, was concerned? 17 The first item that's requested on the 18 MR. GAFFREY: Just note my objection to the 18 -Notice of Deposition is your entire file concerning 19 question. It goes beyond his scope, but you can 19 this case, and you indeed have a folder file that's 20 answer the question. 20 titled "Hirsch Case File"; is that correct? 21 A 1don't recall. 21 A Yes. 22 Q Do you recall where in New Jersey that 22 Q And does this file contain all of the 23 deposition took place? 23 materials specific to the Hirsch case that you have 24 A I'm not sure. 24 assembled in your work on this case? 25 Q Do you recaII what the name of the law 25 A Yes. VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 9 to Page 12 J. Keise -12/01/2004 J. Keise - direct - Mr. Maimon 13 1 Q I'm going to skip around only to try 2 and make it easier. 3 No. 4 requests all submissions by you to any 4 governmental agency concerning the issues of 5 whether or not Vanderbilt talc contains asbestos, 6 and you have a file that you have produced here 7 today concerning exactly those submissions; is that 8 correct? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And does that file, to the best of 11 your knowledge, contain all of the submissions that 12 you have made? 13 A Yeah, yes. 14 Q Okay. No. 5 requests correspondence, 15 reports, or documents thatyou have ever exchanged 16 or shared with or received from a certain other 17 number of people, and 1noticed in looking through 18 some ofyour file thatyou do have correspondence 19 from Ann Wylie; is that correct? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And you do have some materials from 22 Arthur Langer; is that correct? 23 A Yes. 24 Q I'm not talking about things that were 25 provided to you bysomebody else, the attorneys for J. Keise - direct - Mr. Maimon 15 1 Grimbergen at the firm of Hoagland, Longo, Moran, 2 Dunst & Doukas? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Okay. In that report you refer to 5 various MSHA, which is Mine Safety & Health 6 Administration, documents; is that correct? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Have you brought with you all of the 9 MSHAdocuments that were referred to in your 10 report? 11 A Yes. They're in the data. 12 Q Okay. They're in one of the files, 13 right? 14 A Yes, the analytical reports. 15 Q Item No, 7 requests all documents, 16 reports, studies, and articles thatyou relied upon 17 in your March 19,2004, letter/report, and you have 18 those with you today; correct? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Item No. 8 asks for all documents that 21 supportthe allegation that "Vanderbilttalc has 22 been injected and implanted intothe pleural 23 cavities of rats and hamsters in two independent 24 studies". 25 Do you see that? J. Keise - direct - Mr. Maimon 14 J. Keise - direct - Mr. Maimon 16 1 Vanderbilt in this case orsomething else. 2 Do you have any correspondence, documents, 1 A Yes. 2 ' Q That quote comesfromyour report, 3 or reports thatyou have received from William 3 right? 4 Dyson ever? 5 A 1don't recall. 4A 5 Yes. Q And that's an accurate quote from your 6 Q What about Victor Roggli? 6 March 19,2004, letter/report; correct? 7A 8 Not that 1have received from him, no. Q What about John Craighead? 7A 8 Yes. Q Do you have documents that support 9 A Nonethat 1have received from him. 9 that allegation? 10 Q And what about Sheldon Rabinovitz? 10 A Yes. 11 A Samething. 11 Q Okay. And which file would those be 12 Q Okay. Item No. 2 requests articles, 12 contained in? 13 publications, reports, tests, and studies thatform 13 A It would be in the file labeled "Health 14 the basis for youropinions in this case; and you 14 Studies Human, Animal SCell". 15 have brought those with you, correct? 15 Q Item 9 requests all records, either 16 A Yes. /Mlthe analytical reports in 16 mortalityrecords or Workers' Compensation records, 17 chronological order, all the summary reports that 17 of mesotheliomas diagnosed in current or former 18 have been prepared on this issue. 18 Vanderbilt employees. 19 Q And we'll go through those by category 19 1want to ask you, does Vanderbilt maintain 20 and then some in detail later on. 20 mortality records itemizingthe cause of death of 21 A Okay. 21 current and/or former employees? 22 Q You wrote a report in this case dated 22 MR. GAFFREY: 1wanttojust interject an 23 March 19,2004; is that correct? 23 objection. This was a request onthe Notice that 24 A Yes. 24 1in particular had problems with. 25 Q And it was addressed to Nora 25 Number 1, it does notfall within his VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 13 to Page 16 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 17 1 position here as an expert in this case. 1saw 2 that request moredirected towards a corporate 3 witness or custodian of records of R.T. Vanderbilt, 4 which the Deposition Notice does not request. 5 Number 2, it's been well established here 6 in Middlesex County under Judge Keefe that Workers' 7 Compensation records of this type, requests for 8 this, need not be produced; and ifs somethingthat 9 Judge Keefe passedjudgment on several times 10 between 1978 and 1986, and we have an objection to 11 it on that basis as well. 12 So for those two reasons - Number 1, it 13 goes beyond the scope of the Deposition Notice 14 and, Number 2, it flies in the face ofJudge 15 Keefe's prior rulings - we have an objection to 16 that request, and we also have an objection to any 17 questions with respectto that category. 18 MR. MAIMON: Well, 1understand your 19 objection to the request. 20 To the extentthat this witness, as an 21 expert witness, is relying on the health experience 22 of Vanderbiltworkers, 1think that it's -1 23 believe that he's representing in his expert report 24 that he is relying on that history. 25 1think that it's directly relevantto the J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 19 1 40years within the typical latencyfor 2 mesothelioma." 3 Q And in some of those studies you 4 personally were involved in providing data and 5 information to the researchers who were conducting 6 those studies; is that correct? 7 A Not mortality data. They go for that 8 themselves. That's separate. 9 Q Okay. But, for instance, the company 10 itself opened up some of its mortalitydata to 11 various researchers who were looking at past and 12 present workers; is that correct? 13 A No. That is done separately. 14 The wayin which mortalitystudies are done 15 is thatthey ascertain the vital status of each 16 employee and then they track downthe death 17 certificates and information fromthe counties and 18 states. Theydon't collect it from the company. 19 See, it's independently- 20 Q My question is does the company 21 maintain such records itself. 22 A 1have to say I'mnotsure. 23 Q Who would be the best person to find 24 that outfrom? 25 A Probably the general counsel. J. Kelse-direct-Mr. Maimon 18 1 testimonythat he is beingoffered to give. 2 MR. GAFFREY: If you lay that foundation the 3 wayyoujust posed it, arguably it does fall within 4 the Deposition Notice; and 1can give you some 5 latitude. 6 As it's posed on this Notice, it's not 7 clear; and as it's posed here, 1have an objection 8 to it 9 So if you want to establish that foundation, 10 go ahead and do that. 11 Q Take a look at Page 3 of your report, 12 Mr. Kelse, the large paragraph there. 13 A Oh, the long one? 14 Q Yes. 15 Doyou make a statementthere concerning 16 whetherthere have been mesotheliomas, and 17 specifically mesothelioma deaths, attributable to 18 Vanderbilt talc, exposure to Vanderbilt talc, 19 there? 20 A Yes. The actual statement- shall 1read 21 it? 22 Q Please. 23 A "No mesothelioma deaths attributable to 24 exposure to Vanderbilt talc were reported in any of 25 these mortality studies. Studies span greater than J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 20 1 Q And who is that? 2 A That's Betty Lynn White. 3 Q So putting Workers' Compensation 4 records aside for a moment andjust looking at Item 5 No. 9, you don't knowwhetheror notVanderbilt 6 maintains mortality records which would reflect 7 whether or not mesotheliomas had been diagnosed in 8 current or formerVanderbilt employees; is that . 9 fair to say? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And are you involved in any way in 12 reviewingWorkers' Compensation claims or records 13 made against the company for work-related injuries? 14 MR. GAFFREY: I'm going to object to that. 15 Again, it fails outside the scope ofthe Deposition 16 Notice; but 111giveyou some latitude. 17 You can answer that question if you 18 understand it. 19 A 1do get inquiries on my opinion as to 20 whether a Comp case seems legitimate or not. To 21 that extent, yes. 22 Q Is there someone within the company 23 whose responsibility it is to keeptrack of all 24 Workers' Compensation cases filed against R.T. 25 Vanderbilt? VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 17 to Page 20 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 21 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 23 I MR. GAFFREY: Same objection. You can 1 MR. MAIMON: I understand that However, 2 answer the question. 2 his expertise, I think, to a large extent is based 3 A Yes. It's a shared responsibility. 3 on his factual experience within the company. 4 Q And who's that shared responsibility 4 In fact, I don't think he has any expertise 5 between? 6 A The insurance is typically handled by the 5 outside of that. 6 MR. GAFFREY: But you're not establishing 7 chief financial officer, Joe DeNaro, D-e-N-a-r-o. 7 the proper foundation; but if you do, I'll 8 Q You said it's shared between two 8 certainly determine whether or not I can have him 9 people. 9 answer that question; but without that foundation 10 One would be Mr. DeNaro, and the other? 10 it's beyond the scope of this Notice. I I A Jim McDonald. 11 MR. MAIMON: I understand that, but I don't 12 Q And what's his position? 12 think that it's incumbent on me under the rules to 13 A He works for Joe DeNaro. 13 establish foundations before I ask questions in a 14 And I would see general Workmen's Comp 14 discovery deposition of an expert witness of this 15 frequency in data so that I could compare it with 15 type, but I'll respect the instruction. 16 loss trends by plant and things of that nature, but 16 MR. GAFFREY: That's not correct because 17 I'm not involved in individual Comp cases. 17 -here, as I've established at the outset of this 18 MR. GAFFREY: Rememberto just answer the 18 deposition, Mr. Kelse has three roles in this case 19 question. 19 with respect to the defense. He's an expert, he's 20 THE WITNESS: Okay. 20 an employee of R.T. Vanderbilt and he's been a 21 Q The data that you receive in the 21 consultant for us; and I made it clear at the 22 normal course of your responsibilities within the 22 outset that your Deposition Notice, at least the 23 company, those wouldjust simply be trends or raw 23 waywe read it - and I think it's very clear on 24 data; it would not reflect the various types of 24 its face - that you're requesting him as an 25 claims that are brought or the various injuries 25 expert, not with respect to the other two___________ J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon j. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 24 1 that were being claimed within the context of those 1 categories. 2 Compensation claims; is that correct? 2 Certainly as a consultant there's a work 3 MR. GAFFREY: Do you understand the 3 product privilege; and as such, we've prepared him 4 question? 5 THE WITNESS: No, I don't. 4 as an expert to testify here today. We have 5 reviewed or had him review his files with respect 6 Q Okay. I think you told us that on 6 to an expert witness. 7 occasion you are asked about particular Workers' 7 I think it's unfair ofyou nowto ask him 8 Compensation claims. 9 Is that correct? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Aside from that, could you simply 12 describe for me in general terms what your 8 questions related to any other position that he may 9 have held with respect to the defense in this case. 1110 Ifyou can establish that any ofthis area of questioning pertained to the basis of his 12 opinions in this case, perhaps we can go further; 13 responsibility is as it deals with Workers' 13 butwithout that, it's unfair to the witness and 14 Compensation claims made against Vanderbilt? 14 unfair to us. 15 MR. GAFFREY: I'm going to object, Moshe, 15 MR. MAIMON: I respect your position. I 16 unless you can establish that the area of 16 disagree with it. 17 questioning is part of what formed the basis for 17 I think that the arbitrary decisions by 18 his opinions as an expert in this case. I think 18 defense counsel for an expert witness that they're 19 it's beyond the scope of the Deposition Notice. 19 offering to designate part of what they have to say 20 MR. MAIMON: Well, I don't think I have to 20 as expert, part of what they say as fact, and make 21 establish that. 22 MR. GAFFREY: Then I'm going to instruct the 21 those determinations by themselves - and 22 specifically with regard to this witness and the 23 client not to answer because the Deposition Notice 23 report that he has rendered in this case, which 24 is clear that he's here as an expert, not as a 24 deals specifically with the health ofVanderbilt 25 corporate representative.___________________ 25 workers throughout the body ofthe report- and VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732)246-4334 Page 21 to Page 24 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 25 1 we'll mark it in a few minutes. 2 Ithink that - 1haven't asked him 3 substantive questions about these issues. 4 I'm simply asking about what the realm of 5 his responsibility is with regard to it, but I'll 6 respect your instruction to him not to answer that 7 question, and I'll take my remedy to the Court with 8 an application afterwards, but I am not going to 9 conduct my deposition to satisfy your requirements 10 of foundation on any issue. 11 I'm going to ask my questions. I'll do it 12 in the way that I'm used to doing it and the way 13 that I choose to. 14 If the judge agrees with you, she'll deny my 15 motion. If she agrees with me, she'll grant my 16 motion. . 17 MR. GAFFREY: Okay. Just to respond, we're 18 not making any arbitrary decisions. We got served 19 with a Deposition Notice which lists certain 20 categories. 21 You made the decision. We're following the 22 decision. We produced him according to the 23 Deposition Notice. He prepared himself according 24 to the Deposition Notice, and if you want to ask 25 him questions that go beyond his scope - and I'll J. Kelse-direct-Mr. Maimon 27 1 that clearly states what his role is today for 2 today's proceeding, and that's how he was prepared, 3 and that's how he's being produced. 4 Questions regarding factual background of 5 the company, you had the option to serve the 6 appropriate Notice. You chose not to, for whatever 7 reason. 8 He's here as an expert witness pursuant to 9 this Notice. We are producing him for nine out of 10 the ten categories. One category, we believe, goes 11 beyond the scope of his position here as an expert. 12 MR. MAIMON: And I think we have both put 13 our positions on the record, and we can go forward 14 and deal wit* it later on. 15 Q We have marked as - oh, finally, Item 16 No. 10 on the Notice of Deposition is your current 17 CV, your resume. 18 A Right 19 Q And 1see a resume in the Hirsch Case 20 File. 21 Is that a current resume, Mr. Kelse? 22 A Yes. I've updated it. 23 Q I'd like to go through it. We have 24 marked this as Kelse-2 for today's deposition. 25 You attended Wagner College in Staten J. Kelse-direct-Mr. Maimon 26 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 28 1 read it into the record. 1 Island, New York? 2 "Testimony will be taken by deposition upon 2 A Uh-huh,yes. 3 oral examination of John Kelse, an expert witness 3 Q And when was that? 4 for defendant R.T. Vanderbilt Company." 5 It doesn't say "30B6 corporate witness'. 4 A Through 1968. 5 Q You received a BA in Experimental 6 Itjust says "expertwitness". That's what we 6 Psychology? 7 prepared him for, he prepared himself for, he 7 A Yes. 8 reviewed his file for; and anything beyond that 8 Q And you had a minor in Biology; is 9 I think is unfair and beyond the scope of this 9 that correct? 10 deposition. 11 MR. MAIMON: And I'm willing to abide by 10 A Yes. 11 Q After you graduated from Wagner, did 12 your decision to limit the deposition as such. 12 you go directly into the Air Force? 13 However, I'm telling you right now that I'm 14 going to move to limit his testimony at trial to 13 A 14 Yes. Q And you served there between 1968 and 15 preclude him referring to any factual elements as 15 1972; is that correct? 16 part of the expert testimony that he's going to 17 give in this case, so if he's going to base a 18 single opinion in this case about the health 19 experience of Vanderbilt workers I'm going to move 16 A Yes. 17 Q Where were you stationed? 18 A One year in Texas, Blackland and Brooks Air 19 Force Base; a year in California, Vandenburg Air 20 to preclude that because I was prevented from going 20 Force Base; and twoyears in Anderson Air Force 21 forward about it in this expert deposition; and I'm 21 Base in Guam. 22 here to take an expert deposition, not a 30B6 22 Q Now, I think you list three medical 23 deposition. 23 courses or three courses of training that you had 24 MR. GAFFREY: Well, if you wanted a 30B6, 24 while you were in the Air Force. 25 you should have requested one. You served a Notice 25 One is Basic Medical Course, second is_______ VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 25 to Page 28 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse-direct-M r. Maimon 29 1 Preventive Medicine and Industrial Hygiene Course, 2 and third is Supervised OJTIH Training; is that 3 correct? 4 A Yes. 5 Q The basic medical course, how long was 6 that? 7 A 1think it was three weeks. 8 Q And what topics were covered in that 9 basic medical course that took three weeks? 10 A That was a general medic, so general 11 medical, you know, caring for people who would be 12 injured on a battlefield or something of that 13 nature. 14 Q So emergency medical treatment? 15 A Emergency, right, triage type facts. 16 Q Is that type of course required for 17 all -- 18 A Yes. 19 To do the preventive medicine and industrial 20 hygiene you had to first go through this medical. 21 Then you were part of the medical group. 22 Q The preventive medicine and industrial 23 hygiene course that you took, that was a six-month 24 course? 25 A I believe so. J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 31 1 related diseases? 2 A 3 I don't believe so. Q What other aspects of industrial 4 hygiene were dealt with in that course? 5 A Basically we touched upon all the categories 6 under industrial hygiene, which are quite broad. 7 There were courses in general analytical 8 techniques, how - you know, what type of equipment 9 is used for what type of - like for gas monitoring 10 and gas chromatograph and what the function of 11 those machines are and what you do with it. 12 There were issues of control technology; 13 namely, ventilation engineering aspects, isolation, 14 administrative controls, personal protective 15 equipment, like respirators and things of that 16 nature. 17 The typical industrial hygiene gamut of, 18 you know, how to monitor, how to use the data, what 19 does it mean, how to control the exposure. 20 Q Was this what would be known as an 21 introductory course to industrial hygiene? 22 A Certainly it would be, yeah. . 23 Q And then you spent - you had a year 24 and a half of supervised OJTIH training, right? 25 A Yes. As part of the program you would work J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 30 1 Q And where was it that you took that 2 course? 3 A It was at Brooks Air Force Base. 4 Q That's in Texas? 5 A San Antonio. 6 Q Was the subject of asbestos or 7 asbestos-related diseases dealt with during that 8 six-month course? 9 A Monitoring or sampling of asbestos was 10 covered, along with every other substance that you 11 might monitor a sample for. 12 Q When you're talking about"sampling', 13 are you talking about sampling procedures? 14 A Yes, air monitoring. 15 Q Okay. Did you actually do actual air 16 monitoring, or did you learn how to do it? 17 A Both. 18 Q And was there air monitoring done 19 specifically for asbestos within that six-month 20 course, or was itjust a general learn-how-to-do? 21 A It was a general learn-how-to-do. 22 Q Okay. Aside from that sampling issue, 23 air sampling issue, were there any other parts of 24 the preventive medicine and industrial hygiene 25 course that dealt with asbestos and/or asbestos- J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 32 1 under another hygienist for about a year and a 2 half. You would be supervised, and that was an 3 extension of the training. It was actually 4 hands-on. 5 Q What does "OJT stand for? 6 A (On-the-job training. 7 Q Now, when you say "supervised OJTIH 8 training," does that mean that you supervised 9 others or you were part of the group that was being 10 supervised? 11 A That you were being supervised. 12 Q Okay. So you were being supervised 13 by trained industrial hygienists and received 14 on-thejob training for about a year and a half? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Was that separate and apart from the 17 six-month course? 18 A I would say ifs an extension of it. 19 Q When you on your resume counted a year 20 and a half, did that include the six months, or was 21 that supposed to be in addition to it? 22 A I think it probably included it because we 23 were supervised during that six months, so it 24 probably included it. 25 Q Okay. During the on-the-job training, VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 29 to Page 32 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 33 1 aside fromthe air sampling that we talked about 2 already, was there anything else dealing with 3 asbestos and/or asbestos-related diseases? 4 A I don't believe so. 5 Q Okay. That on-the-job training that 6 you received in industrial hygiene, did that 7 include both your time in Texas as well as 8 California? 9 A Yes. 10 Q What about the two years that you 11 spent in Guam? Did you do any industrial 12 hygiene-type work or training while you were 13 stationed there? 14 A Yes. At that point 1wasn't supervised; and 15 1basically ran the industrial hygiene program for 16 the site, for the base. 17 Q What type of industrial hygiene 18 concerns did you deal with in your capacity in 19 Guam? 20 A Well, like mostAir Force bases it's like a 21 micro industrial community. There were carpenter 22 shops and welding shops and maintenance shops for 23 the air - you know, for the jet engines, so it was 24 an industrial complex. 25 So my responsibilities were to essentially J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 35 1 Obviously a lot of noise work on the flight 2 line injet engine areas. 3 That-just general industrial hygiene, 4 broad-scope monitoring, and control systems. 5 Q Did you monitor for asbestos dust? 6 A I don't believe I did. 7 Q Okay. 8 A I don't recall doing it 9 Q Aside from hearing conservation, what 10 type of medical surveillance programs did you 11 assist in in setting up in Guam? 12 A Principally the hearing conservation 13 program. 14 Q Under your education listed on your 15 resume you have a miscellaneous section with 16 assorted safety courses and training; is that 17 correct? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Could you point to me which, if any, 20 of these dealt with asbestos and/or asbestos- 21 related diseases? 22 A I can't say that any specifically would 23 have. 24 Q Okay. After your discharge from the 25 Air Force you joined The Hartford Insurance Group J. Kelse-direct-M r. Maimon 34 '1 monitorthe exposures in these operations in these 2 industrial facilities, determine whether or not 3 these exposures were adequately protective. If 4 they were not, to devise control mechanisms to 5 provide proper protection for the employees. 6 And 1also worked under the flight surgeon, 7 a physician atthe hospital - we were all part of 8 a medical group - in terms of setting up medical 9 surveillance programs, like hearing conservation 10 programs. 11 With the Air Force a lot of the work was 12 excess noise, so noise issues. 13 Q Would that be part of the exposure 14 monitoringthat you did, noise levels? 15 A Sure, yes. 16 Q What other types of exposure levels 17 wereyou monitoringwhile you were in charge of 18 industrial monitoring in Guam? 19 A Very wide range. All the way from taking 20 general dust samples inthe carpenter shop that 21 dealt with material called pentachlorophenol, which 22 was used in the wood that was imported to Guam to 23 protect against termites, to various solvents that 24 were used in the machine shops, like 25 trichloroethylene and so forth. J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 36 1 in 1973? 2A 3 Yes. Q And you stayed there for about 12 4 years? 5 A Yes. 6 Q You list as your prior position The 7 Hartford Insurance Group, and 1think the title 8 would be industrial hygienist? 9A 10 Principally, yes. Q Okay. What other titles did you have 11 while you were with Hartford? 12 A 1think industrial hygienist throughout 13 under what was referred to as the Loss Control 14 Department, which would include safety and 15 environmental, product risk, things ofthat nature. 16 Q Industrial hygiene was part of the 17 Loss Control Department? 18 A 19 Yes. Q I'm not sure 1understood your answer. 20 Aside from the title of industrial 21 hygienist, did you hold any other titles or 22 positions while you were with The Hartford 23 insurance Group? 24 A 1did general risk assessment work in terms 25 of catastrophic risk for chemical plants. 1did VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732)246-4334 Page 33 to Page 36 J. Keise -12/01/2004 J.Kelse-direct-M r. Maimn 37 1 evaluations on medical facilities, hospitals, for 2 professional liability coverages. 3 I did a little bit of property work, very 4 little, fire; and most of it was Compensation, 5 employee safety and health, and the health part 6 went into the industrial hygiene, and occasionally 7 companies would contract with Hartford to have 8 industrial hygiene work done, and typically I would 9 be the person who would do that work. 10 Q Was there a staff of industrial 11 hygienists at Hartford while you were there? 12 A In the office in New York there were three. 13 Q Among those three, what were you? 14 Was there a pecking order of them? 15 A No. 16 Q You were just all part of a team? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Okay. During the time that you - 19 okay. ` 20 Aside from industrial hygienist, I just want 21 to know, did you hold any other title while you 22 were with Hartford? 23 A No. Just Loss Control industrial hygienist. 24 It was a broad - fairly broad category, but 25 that was the principal focus of my work. J. Keise - direct - Mr. Maimon 39 1 A Typically the NIOSH. There's a 7400 method. 2 This is the 1970's, 1think. 3 Q Going into the 1980's? 4 A Yeah, early 80`s; and that was predominantly 5 - the 7400 method was the one that was typically 6 used, you know. 7 Q Aside from air monitoring for asbestos 8 at the request of various insureds, did any of your 9 other work at The Hartford Insurance Group cause 10 you to deal with asbestos and/or asbestos-related 11 diseases? 12 A No. 13 Q While you were with Hartford, did you 14 in any way deal with the issue of the health 15 effects of exposure to talc and any of its 16 contaminants? 17 A No. 18 Q While you were with The Hartford 19 Insurance Group, were you familiar with any of the 20 health studies that had been conducted concerning 21 New York Talc and New York Talc miners and millers? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And how did you gain that awareness 24 while you were at Hartford? 25 A I was asked to do industrial hygiene work on J. Keise - direct - Mr. Maimn 38 1 Q And during the time that you were with 2 Hartford, did any of your responsibilities bring 3 you to deal with any issues relating to asbestos 4 and/or asbestos-related diseases? 5 A 1did asbestos sampling monitoringon a 6 number of occasions. 7 Q What types of situations would bring 8 you to conduct asbestos monitoring while you were 9 with Hartford? 10 A Typical would be - it would be an insured, 11 an account of the insurance company, that wanted 12 air sampling done to identify an asbestos exposure 13 that they suspected may or may not have existed; 14 and I would do that monitoring. 15 Q Did you do that monitoring yourself, 16 or did you contract out work for others to do it 17 and supervise that work? 18 A I believe I did it when it was done. 19 Q In doing so, did you follow any type 20 of standards for conducting air sampling for 21 asbestos and taking measurements for asbestos in 22 air sampling? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Could you tell me what those standards 25 were that you followed? J. Keise - direct - Mr. Maimon 40 1 a contract basis for Vanderbilt in the early 80's, 2 and one of the plants was the talc facility in New 3 York; and prior to doing the air sampling at that 4 facility I collected information that was pertinent 5 to that facility and what existed in 1982 or '83, 6 which would have included, I think, the NIOSH 7 report that we've been - Technical Report that was 8 put out in 1980,1 believe. 9 Q That was the one by Dement and 10 Zumwalde? 11 A Yes. I saw that when (worked for Hartford. 12 Q Aside from that, did you gain any 13 other familiarity with the studies that had been 14 conducted about the health effects of exposure to 15 talc? 16 While you were with Hartford. 17 A Other than that, no. 18 Q Okay. I'm sorry if I didn't catch 19 everything you said. 20 You did some air sampling at a talc facility 21 in New York for R.T. Vanderbilt in the 1980's; is 22 that correct? 23 A 24 Yes. Q And that was by contract from 25 Hartford, right? VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 37 to Page 40 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 41 1 A Yes. 2 Q What facility was that? 3 A That was the Gouverneur talc mine and mill. 4 Q And how long of a project was that 5 timewise? 6 A 1did noise and dust sampling. 1would - 7 it was at least twice, maybe three times. 8 Each survey would take two to three days. 9 Q Aside from the Gouverneur talc 10 facility in New York, did you do any other work, 11 contract work, for R.T. Vanderbilt while you were 12 employed at Hartford? 13 A For their other facilities, chemical 14 facilities, and other mines I did, yes. 15 Q And approximately how many other 16 projects did you work on aside from the Gouverneur 17 talc facility for Vanderbilt while an employee of 18 Hartford? 19 A At least for two years. 1would have 20 visited each site at leasttwice, maybe three 21 times. 22 Q Was that all part of a larger - of 23 one contract that Vanderbilt and Hartford entered 24 into for Hartford to provide industrial hygiene 25 services? J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 43 1 2A Q Okay. It was an annual - annual monitoring that 3 was provided. 4 Q Aside from the work that you've 5 described at the talc facility in New York for 6 Vanderbilt, during the time that you were employed 7 at The Hartford Insurance Group did you have any 8 other experience or involvement in looking at talc 9 facilities? 10 A No. 11 Q Was there anyone at Vanderbilt - 12 specifically, at the Gouverneur talc facility - 13 that you dealt with during the time that you did 14 work there while employed at Hartford? 15 MR. GAFFREY: Just for clarification, what 16 do you mean, "dealt with"? 17 Q Was there a contact that you had that 18 provided you access or you had to report to or you 19 would report to in the normal course? 20 A It would be the plant manager. 21 i mean, you would have to - you would have 22 to get permission to be on the site through the 23 plant manager; and at that time the plant manager 24 was George Erdman. 25 E-r-d-m-a-n, I believe. J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 42 1 A Yes. The waythat works is Vanderbilt was 2 an insured of the Hartford, and when you're an 3 insured you pay a premium, and a certain part of 4 their premium was devoted to loss control services 5 in those years. 6 What that meant was that you were provided 7 someone who would help you with your safety 8 programs and evaluate your risks at your 9 facilities. 10 1was not the representative that 11 represented Hartford for Vanderbilt; but because 1 12 did industrial hygiene work, 1was used to do that 13 aspect of the service. 14 Q This two-year period of time that 15 you're talking about did that immediately precede 16 the time that you left Hartford and went to work 17 for Vanderbilt? 18 A Well, 1went to work for Vanderbilt in 1985, 19 so it was a couple years before. 20 Q What I'm asking you is - let's say at 21 the time that you left Hartford. 22 Were you still conducting these types of 23 surveys for Vanderbilt in connection with that 24 contract work? 25 A Yes, 1believe 1did. J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 44 1 Q 1think you said that you did dust 2 sampling there approximatelytwo to three times; 3 is that correct? 4 A Yes. 5 Q The results of your dust sampling, 6 were they put into a report? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And who were they - who was that 9 report given to? 10 A It was sent to th e -to the company, to 11 Vanderbilt. 12 Q Did you draft the report that went to 13 Vanderbilt, or did you provide a part of that and 14 somebody else from Hartford put it into a larger 15 report? 16 A Generally it was my report separate. 17 Sometimes it may have been combined with other 18 safety-type reports. 19 MR. GAFFREY: When you say in general, are 20 you speaking specifically with regard to the report 21 to Vanderbilt or just reports in general that you 22 did for clients? 23 1just want the clarification. 24 THE WITNESS: Oh, it would be a specific 25 report on that monitoringeffort for Vanderbilt. VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 41 to Page 44 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 45 1 Q So, to the best of your recollection, 2 did you submit reports to Vanderbilt concerning 3 your findings of the air sampling? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Okay. And are those reports within 13 the documents that you've brought with you today? 7 A No. 8 Q Do you know if those reports exist? 9 A I believe they do. 10 MR. MAIMON: I'm going to request copies of 1 all reports that Mr. Kelse sent to Vanderbilt for 12 his inspections of the Gouverneur talc facility 13 while he was employed at Hartford. 14 Q Do you recall whether those reports 15 noted the presence of asbestos in the air sampling? 16 A They didn't. 17 Q While you were doing that air 18 sampling, did you follow the NIOSH 7400 method? 19 A Yes, for fiber sampling. 20 Q For fiber sampling. 21 A Right. Did a lot of other sampling. 22 Q For instance, you did noise levels? 23 A Did noise, general dust, talc, respirable 24 dust. 25 Q Okay. But you used the NIOSH 7400 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 47 1 you recall what it is that you were asked to do? 2 A I was - it would be the typical request for 3 any industrial hygiene survey, which was to 4 ascertain the amount of, you know, dust exposure 5 and determine whether that was a safe limit and, if 6 not, recommend controls to reduce the exposure. 7 Q At that time what did you refer to to 8 determine whether or not the amount of dust that 9 you had sampled was safe or not? 10 A Well, for general fiber there was no 11 standard, so it wasjust basically almost a bench 12 marking exercise. 13 I was familiar with the NIOSH study; and 14 part of the effort was to see whether mydata was 15 similar to theirs, which it was. In terms of total 16 fiber counts, very similar. 17 In terms of the total respirable in talc 18 dust specifically, there are specific standards for 19 those; and those I would compare to specific 20 standards and determine whetherthey were within 21 safe ranges or not. 22 Q What was the benchmark that you used 23 for general fiber? 24 A There is no benchmark. It wasjust a matter 25 of this is high or low and - but there is no_________ J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 46 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 48 1 method for fiber reporting, correct? 2 A On one occasion I did, yes. 1 benchmark. There is no standard for it 2 Q When you say it's high or low, those 3 Q This is while you were employed at 4 Hartford, right? 3 are relative terms. 4 What did you measure that qualitative 5 A 6 Right, yes. Q What definition did you use at that 5 assessment in relation to? 6 A It was like an internal comparison. 7 time for fibers or an asbestos fiber? 8 A I wasn't sampling for asbestos. I wasjust 7 In other words, we would see more particles, 8 elongated particles, under the NIOSH 7400 method, 9 sampling fibers per cc, whatever they were. 10 Q And did you report the - did you 9 meaning particles that had an aspect ratio length10 to-width ratio of three to one and a length of at 11 report your findings as to how many fibers per cc 11 least five micrometers. 12 you found in the air that you had sampled? 12 So what you do is you collect all of those 13 A 14 Yes. Q Okay. Do you recall whether or not 13 on an open-face filter - in those days I think it 14 was at two liters per minute - and you simply 15 that was above or below any OSHA limits at the 15 count them and then divide by the air flow to get 16 time? 17 A There are no OSHA limits or any other 16 so many fibers per cc. 17 But that's all that is. It's a total. It 18 standard for fibers per cc in general, no. 18 could be anything. If camel hair was in there, it 19 Q Within the context of the testing, air 19 would be on the filter; and you would count. 20 sampling testing, that you did at R.T. Vanderbilt 20 Q And when you were making the 21 while employed at Hartford, were you asked to 21 assessment of whether it was high or low, you were 22 determine whether or not there was any asbestos in 22 comparing it to other sampling that had taken place 23 the air that you were sampling? 23 on prior occasions? 24 A No. 24 A Yes. The NIOSH data in the NIOSH report did 25_____ Q With regard to the talc facility, do________ 25 have total fiber counts, and you could compare it VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 45 to Page 48 J. K e ls e -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 49 1 with that You could say, well, it was about the 2 same or more or less. 3 If it wasn'tsignificant in terms of health 4 risks, you wouldn't comment on it because there is 5 no standard for it. 6 What I did comment on mostly was total dust, 7 respirable dust and howthose fit, because there 8 were standards for those. 9 Q And when you're talking about the 10 NIOSH report, that wasthe 1980 - 11 A Technical. 12 Q -Technical Report? 13 A Right. 14 Q Did the 1980 Technical Report say that 15 it measured asbestos fibers in the air? 16 A It reported that 17 Q Did you make any attempt to do so in 18 your work? 19 A No, because -1 was familiar with the issue 20 because, you know, at that time 1did speak with 21 Dr. Thompson, C.S. Thompson, who is a mineralogist. 22 Q Dr. Thompson was a mineralogist at 23 Vanderbilt at the time? 24 A Yes. 25 Q And your familiarity with the issue J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 51 1 Hartford or anyone was atthat level of mineral 2 expertise, so wejust kept it at that 3 Q 1think you told us before that you 4 did do asbestos monitoringon a number of occasions 5 while employed at the Hartford; is that correct? 6 A Yes. Not-not very often, but 1did a 7 couple, I think. 8 Q And those were circumstances where an 9 insured wanted some air samplingdone because of 10 potential asbestos exposures, correct? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Did you follow the same procedures on 13 those airsampling projects as you did whenyou 14 went to the Gouverneur talc facility? 15 A In terms of collecting and counting, yes. 16 Q Okay. In the context of the air 17 monitoringthatyou did aside fromVanderbilt, did 18 you in your reports make an effort to quantify 19 asbestos fibers per cc? 20 A For Vanderbilt? 21 Q No, not Vanderbilt. 22 The other asbestos air monitoringthat you 23 did, did you report asbestos fibers per cc after 24 having conducted the sampling? 25 A 1reported what the labsent back; and J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 50 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 52 1 came from speaking with him? 1 whateverthat was, that's what 1reported. 2 A Yes. 2 Q Okay. That's because you didn't do 3 Q On how many occasions did you speak 3 the countingyourself? 4 with himduring the timethat you were doing this 4 A Analyze, no. 5 work while employed at Hartford? 5 Q You did the - 6 A 1believe it wasjust once. 6 A Collection. 7 Q And do you recall the sum and 7 Q - collection, right? 8 substance ofthat conversation? 8 A Yes. 9 A Basically, 1believe, 1asked to speak with 9 Q And after you collected the samples, 10 him because 1had read the NIOSH report and 1had 10 you sent it to the laboratory and they sent a 11 heard fromthe other Loss Control representative 11 report back to you with the results? 12 who, whatthey call, serviced the account that 12 A Yes. 13 there was an issue on identifying asbestos 13 Q The same would be true with the work 14 definitions and soforth; and, so, 1asked to speak 14 you did at Vanderbilt? You collected the sample, 15 to somebody at Vanderbiltthat could help me 15 sent it to the lab, and the labsentyou backthe 16 understand what that was about, if 1was goingto 16 results; correct? 17 take air samples specifically, if it had to do with 17 A In fibers per cc, yes. 18 that issue; and it was explained to me the 18 Q Right. 19 difference between cleavage fragments and actual 19 In 1985youjoined the R.T. Vanderbilt 20 asbestos and what was present at the Vanderbilt 20 Company? 21 talc mine, the fact that it was an issue at the 21 A Yes. 22 time; and.it was at that pointthat 1decided to 22 Q How was it that you became employed at 23 take fiber counts and not to get into the issue of 23 Vanderbilt? 24 identification. 24 Was it through your contactwith them having 25 1didn't think that the laboratoryat 25 donethis other type of industrial hygiene work for VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 49 to Page 52 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Keise - direct - Mr. Maimon 53 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 55 1 them over the lastseveral years? 1 Q And most of your involvement, hands-on 2 A Yes. They were familiar with me. 2 involvement, would be in health and safety? 3 Q I'd like you to trace your employment 3 A Yes. 4 at R.T. Vanderbilt for me from 1985 to the present; 4 Q What is product risk? 5 and let'sjust break it down as to the positions 5 A Well, again, the company is mainly a 6 that you've held and the years that those positions 6 chemical company, not- and, so, when you produce 7 encompassed, please. 7 a new chemicalyou haveto determine its risks, 8 A Okay. I'll try. Let's see. 8 sometimes with animal testing and studies. 9 1was hired to basicallyestablish a health 9 You then haveto haveit registered if 10 safety environmental program for the corporation. 10 you're goingto sell it in certainjurisdictions - 11 Atthe time there was no one at Vanderbiltthat 11 Europe, Canada, and so forth - and those 12 held that position. 12 registrations require certain data that you have to 13 Thefirst year, 1985,1believe 1spent the 13 produce. If you don't haveit, then you haveto 14 majority ofmytime writing material safety data 14 test and get the data. That's whya toxicologist 15 sheets. The company produces somewhere in the area 15 is very often used for that. 16 of 6 or 700 products, so lots of sheets. 16 If we are going to introduce a new product, 17 1worked for an individual, Alan Harvey, 17 we have to review it in terms of its potential 18 H-a-r-v-e-y. Then Harvey,!think a couple of 18 liability aspects, what it's goingto be used for, 19 years later, retired; and we began to change - we 19 what are its risks, is it goingto be safe or not, 20 beganto establish a department. 20 and how are we goingto - on material safety data 21 It tookfive or six years; but eventually 21 sheets we produce, that's part of product risk, 22 we got health and safety people in the plant. 22 where we have to relay the product risk to the best 23 particularlythe chemical plant. We were able to 23 of our ability, be sure that everyone gets those 24 hire in the last 10 years an environmental 24 sheets and is properly informed ofthe risks of the 25 engineer/toxicologistthat's used for product risk 25 products. There's a whole systemfor that. J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 54 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 56 1 and product registration issues. 1continued to 1 There's a lot in that area, in developing a 2 handlethe health and safety end. 2 new product. Partof that is the product risk. 3 So that was continuous from the very 3 Q Within your Product Risk Department, 4 beginningto present day. 1just - today Ijust 4 do you have people on-staffthat do animal testing 5 have more people and more help. 5 and studies, or doyou contractthat work out? 6 So, In effect, my responsibilities really 6 A They oversee and contract it out. 7 did not change. Theyjust grew, and then 1got 7 Q And Environmental, what is that 8 more assistance; and then 1broke outthe 8 section? 9 environmental and the toxicology and the product 9 A That would deal with air issues, air 10 riskto people who had more expertise in those 10 emissions from plants, RCRA- Resource 11 areasthan 1did, do. 11 Conservation RecoveryAct- effluent from the 12 Q On your resume you list your position 12 plants, resource reclamation issues, things of that 13 as the manager ofthe Corporate Risk Management 13 nature. 14 Department; is that correct? 14 Q Would this generally deal with 15 A Yes. 15 emissions from R.T. Vanderbilt facilities? 16 Q Could you tell me what the Corporate 16 A Environmental? 17 Risk Management Department is at R.T. Vanderbilt? 17 Q Yes. 18 A Ifs broken into the three segments that 18 A Yes. 19 1mentioned to you; Health and Safetythat I'm 19 Q Okay. Now, when you talk about health 20 predominantly involved in, Product Risk, and 20 and safety- and that'syour main hands-on area - 21 Environmental. 21 are you talkingabout health and safetyof 22 1oversee all three aspects. 22 Vanderbilt employees? 23 Q When you talk about - you oversee all 23 A Yes. 24 three, right? 24 Q When you joined Vanderbilt in 1985, 25 A Yes. 25 was there a Corporate Risk Management Department? VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 53 to Page 56 J . K e l s e - 12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 57 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 59 1 A No. 1 Another one of the files that you brought 2 Q When was that formed? 2 with you today is called "Health Study Critiques", 3 A I think I used that one for the first time 3 right? 4 in 1989 or 1990. 4 A Yes. 5 Q During the entire timethat there has 5 Q And the documents in this file deal 6 been a Corporate Risk Management Department at R.T. 6 with critiques of various health studies that have 7 Vanderbilt, have you been the manager of it?. 7 been done; is that right? 8 A 9 Yes. Q Prior to the formation of the 8 A Yes. 9 Q And is this something that you 10 Corporate Risk ManagementDepartment at RJ . 10 maintain in the ordinary course of your business? 11 Vanderbilt, what was your title there? 11 A Yes. 12 A Corporate industrial hygienist. 12 Q And you maintain it in the folder that 13 1think it was interchanged with manager of 13 you have brought with you today; is that correct? 14 Health and Safety as well. 14 What I'm trying to find out is if the 15 Q Now, you mentioned that while you 15 contents of this file is - is this a file that you 16 worked for Hartford you did air monitoring and 16 maintain; or is it something that you have put 17 noise sampling at the Gouverneur talc mine and mill 17 together specificallyfor this deposition, to 18 facility in New York; is that correct? 19 A Yes. 18 comply with the Notice of Deposition? 19 MR. GAFFREY: Do you understand his 20 Q Now, what's the corporate name of that 20 question? 21 facility? 21 A Oh, I put the information together in one 22 Is that the Gouverneur Talc Company or 22 place, in that file, yeah. 23 Corporation? Do you know? 23 Q But did you do that for purposes of 24 A It's called Gouverneur Talc Company, Inc. 24 this deposition and to comply with the Notice, or 25 Q For purposes of today's deposition, 25 is that something that you just already had J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 58 1 I'm going to refer to it as "GTC". 2 is that okay? 3 A Yes. 4 MR.GAFFREY: Before we move on to a 5 different topic beyond his CV, why don't we just 6 take five. 7 MR. MAIMON: Fine. 8 {At this point a short recess was taken.} 9 {The below-described eight-page document was 10 received and marked Kelse-3 for Identification.) 11 Q Mr. Kelse, I wanted to talk about some 12 of the papers that you brought with you today; but 13 before we do that Ijust want to, for the record, 14 talk about the.files because you've brought various 15 file folders with you today. 16 We've discussed one of them, which is your 17 Hirsch Case File; correct? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And I want to ask you, is this 20 something that you maintained throughout your 21 involvement in the Hirsch case, or is this 22 something that you have put together for purposes 23 of this deposition? 24 A No. I maintained it. 25 Q Okay. That's fine. J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 60 1 together in one place? . 2 A To comply with the Notice. 3 Q Okay. 4 A They were in different files. 5 Q So these were documents that you had 6 within your files elsewhere and you assembled them 7 and put them together under the category of "Health 8 Study Critiques"; is that right? 9 A Yes, as documents that I relied upon. 10 Q Okay. That's fine. 11 Another one of the files is titled "General 12 Reference Documents Fiber Sizes Meso Lung Burden", 13 correct? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And is this also a file that you put 16 together for purposes of complying with the Notice 17 of Deposition, taking materials from other sources 18 and now-putting them together in this file? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Okay. Another file is called "Human, 21 Animal & Cell Studies RTV Talc Specifically"; and 22 again, is this a file that you put together for 23 purposes of this deposition, taking materials from 24 other sources within your office and then 25 assembling them in this folder? VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 57 to Page 60 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 61 1 A Yes. 2 Q You have another one titled "NIOSH 3 Correspondence"; and again, is this material that 4 you puttogether for this deposition? 5 A Yes. 6 Q You also have something called "OSHA 7 NIP Submissions Testimony MSHA"; and again, this is 8 somethingyou put togetherfor purposes of this 9 deposition? 10 A Yes. 11 MR. GAFFREY: Just off the record. 12 {Discussion held off die record.) 13 Q You have another file entitled 14 "Mineralogy Key Papers", and that's something you 15 puttogether for today's deposition? 16 A Yes. 17 Q You have another file titled 18 "Overviews Health &Mineralogy", and that's 19 somethingyou put together for today's deposition? 20 A 21 Yes. Q Okay. And then the final folder that 22 you brought with you is called "Analytical 23 Reports", and that's somethingyou put together for 24 today's deposition, right? 25 A Yes. J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 63 1 information andthe composition - the geology of 2 that region. 3 Q Is this a document that you generated? 4 A One that, yeah, we searched forjust to get 5 an idea of howvariable the mineral composition in 6 that area mayor may not be. 7 Q Okay. The first page of this document 8 is a map, correct? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Pages 2 through 5 of the exhibit seems 11 to be information extracted from Dana Systemof 12 Mineralogy, the Sixth Edition, 1894, which is a 13 catalog of American localities of minerals for New 14 YorkState, which lists various counties; is that 15 correct? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Who generated these pages? 18 A 1asked one of myco-workers to do asearch; 19 and that's what was broughtto me, so... 20 Q When did you ask for this work to be 21 done? 22 A 23 Oh, probably -1 think about a month ago. Q And what was the purpose for you doing 24 this? Was it related to this case? 25 A Yes. J. Kelse-direct-Mr. Maimon 62 1 Q Okay. Then you have a spiral-bound 2 pictorial presentation, and that is contained in 3 the "Overviews Health &Mineralogy"; right? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Wejusthaditout. 6 And then you have a three-ring binder of 7 various studies, published studies - 8 A Right. 9 Q - that were referred to in the 10 pictorial presentation, right? 11 A Yes. 12 Q The contents of this binder, that's 13 notsomethingthatyou put together for today's 14 deposition, but that is asyou maintain it in your 15 office; correct? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Okay. From the file titled 18 "Mineralogy Key Papers" - I've marked one of those 19 documents as an exhibit, Exhibit No. 3; and I'd ask 20 you ifyou can tell us whatthis document is. 21 A Thisexhibit lists byvarious counties in 22 upstate New Yorkvarious mineral composition by 23 countyand area. 24 This was taken from, 1think, a computer 25 search, you know, data available on mineral J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 64 1 Q Okay. The final two pages - I'm 2 sorry. 3 The sixth page of this document is titled - 4 1think it's titled "Minerals in the NewYorkState 5 Mineral Catalog InternetSource", correct? 6 A That's what it says, yes. 7 Q And is that also information that one 8 ofyour co-workers assembled foryou? 9 A Yes. That's what he had received from his 10 query, 1guess. 11 Q And the final two pages seem to just 12 be artifact fromwhatwas - 13 A Yes. 14 Q - on the sixth page, correct? 15 A 16 Yes. Q Okay. Let's talk about-doyou know 17 where the mapcomes fromthat's Page 1? 18 A No, 1don't. 19 Q What was the project that you gave 20 this co-worker to do? 21 How didyou define it for himthat resulted 22 in Exhibit 3 being generated? 23 A 1told him 1was interested in some 24 background information, whatever might be available 25 on the variability ofthe geologyof that area; and VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Pa6e 6 1 10 Pa6e 64 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 65 1 I thought maybe a computer search, you know, might 2 generate something along that line, you know, could 3 he help me; and that's what he produced. 4 Q What area were you concerned with or 5 were you interested in to look at the variability 6 of the geology within it? 7 A Well the counties within - the St Lawrence 8 and Jefferson County predominantly. Certainly the 9 area associated with the Gouverneur Talc Company. 10 Q How would you define the area 11 associated with the GouverneurTalc Company? 12 A I'msorry. I don't understand. 13 Q You just indicated-or youjust used 14 the phrase "the area associated with the Gouverneur 15 Talc Company", and I'm asking you whatdo you 16 consider to be the area associated with the 17 Gouverneur Talc Company. 18 A It would be the, you know, Balmat mining 19 area, which I think is Jefferson County. 20 Q The map on Page 1 of Exhibit 3, is 21 that, do you know, a download from the Internet? 22 A 1believe that's where it came from. 23 Q Okay. The extract from Dana System 24 of Mineralogy, this again is a download from an 25 Internet search conducted byyour co-worker; J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 67 1 areas in that region that I have heard, you know, 2 referred to, some- specifically, obviously, our 3 own mine in Balmat and the Wollastonite mine in 4 Harrisviile. 5 The other areas are, you know, Talcville and 6 Fullerville; and these are areas - were towns that 7 I had heard that were mining regions, you know, in 8 the past 9 Q On the map there is circled the name 10 "Gouverneur", right? 11 A Yes. 12 Q And then below that there is Balmat, 13 right? 14 A Yes. 15 Q What is Gouverneur, as it is circled 16 on the map? 17 A Oh, it'sjust the town, the nearesttown, 18 the largesttown. 19 Q Okay. The mine that produces the talc 20 that goes into the NYTAL products, is that in 21 Balmat? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Aside from - is that one mine or 24 several mines? 25 A it's one mine. It's one mine. I would J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 66 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 68 1 correct? 1 characterize it as one mine now. 2 A Yes. 2 At onetime it was an underground mine and 3 Q And, in fact, it gives the page 3 an open pit and they have beenjoined, so its one 4 numbers for the information contained in it; right? 4 mine now. 5 A Yes. 5 Q Are you familiar with a company that 6 Q Okay. And then the final substantive 6 was known as international Talc? 7 page of the document lists various localities 7 A Yes. 8 within St. Lawrence County and minerals, correct? 8 Q Was that bought out by Vanderbilt or 9 A Yes. 9 GTC at any point in time? 10 Q Do you know if this, as we have it on 10 A Yes. 11 the document, is the format in which it was 11 Q When was that? 12 responded to bythe Internet query, or was this 12 A I believe 1974. 13 reformatted and abstracted bythe co-worker whoyou 13 Q And who bought it? 14 gave this project to? 14 A R.T. Vanderbilt Company. 15 A 1don't know. 15 Q Do you know where the talc mines that 16 Q Okay. On the map there are various 16 supplied the talc for the International Talc 17 names of either areas or towns - I'm not sure what 17 products were? 18 they are - that are circled. 18 A 1knowoftwo locations. 19 Do you see that? 19 Q Where? 20 A Yes. 20 A Well, one is the Balmat, the main open pit 21 Q Do you know who circled those? 21 mine, which we, you know, mined. Another was 22 A 1believe 1circled them. 22 Talcville, which is not - no longer mined; and 23 Q And what was the significance of 23 they may have had a couple of other locations. 24 circling any particular name? 24 I'm not sure where they were. 25 A These are areas that are typically mining 25 Q Okay. Is the Balmat mine, the VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732)246-4334 Page 65 to Page 68 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Keise - direct - Mr. Maimon 69 1 International Talc mine, from the same or a 2 different mine than the talc mine used by GTC for 3 NYTAL products? 4 A There was only one GTC mine up until 1974, 5 and that was an underground mine in Balmat. 6 When they purchased International Talc they 7 began to mine an adjacent mine called the Arnold 8 Pit, which has subsequently expanded; and now it 9 actually has gotten into the underground mine 10 workings. Ifs no longer an underground mine. 11 Q So prior to 1974 there was an 12 underground mine that GTC used and there was an 13 open pit mine that International used and since 14 they have kind of been merged together; is that 15 right? 16 A Yes. 17 Q The mineral catalogs, the Internet 18 download, for the minerals in the NewYork State 19 Mineral Catalog on Exhibit 3 list Balmat as the 20 first listed locality in St. Lawrence County; 21 right? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And it lists the minerals found in 24 that region; is that correct? 25 A On this listing, yes. J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 71 1 in 1974? 2 A Yes, 1believe so. 3 Q And 1believe you told us that that's 4 since closed down. 5 A Yes. 6 Q When was that? 7 A That was only a couple years after the 8 purchase, 1think, '75 or '76. 9 Q Do you know why it closed down? 10 A 1think it was a sales issue, that the grade 11 of talc was not selling very well. 12 Q At the time that Vanderbilt bought out 13 International Talc, do you know how many - 14 withdrawn. 15 After Vanderbilt bought out International 16 Talc, were there workers who had worked for 17 International Talc that came over and worked for 18 Vanderbilt? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Were there miners and millers who did 21 so? 22 A Yes. 23 MR. GAFFREY: I'mjust going to caution. 24 1think we may be getting beyond the scope of the 25 Deposition Notice. You can ask a few more J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 70 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 72 1 Q And would that be - withdrawn. 1 questions. If 1feel you are, I'll interpose that 2 This does not distinguish between the 2 objection again. 3 underground mine or the open pit mine; is that 3 Q GTC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of 4 correct? 4 Vanderbilt; is it not? 5 A 1would say it would probablyjust refer to 5 A Yes. 6 the area. I have no idea - 6 Q And do you know when that relationship 7 MR. GAFFREY: Do you know that? 7 was formed? 8 1mean, are you guessing, or do you know 8 MR. GAFFREY: Objection. 9 that based upon your own personal knowledge? 9 Q That it became a wholly-owned 10 THE WITNESS: 1have no -1 don't know what 10 subsidiary. 11 it would be referred to as. 11 MR. GAFFREY: It goes beyond the scope of 12 I'mjust -1 shouldn't assume, so 1don't 12 the deposition. 13 know. 13 If you want a corporate rep dep, then serve 14 Q You don't know. Okay. 14 the proper- 15 Do you know if there are any differences in 15 Q Some of these studies you have looked 16 the constituent minerals between the underground 16 at have been ofVanderbilt employees, correct? 17 mine that GTC used and the open pit mine that 17 A Say it again. 18 International Talc used prior to 1974? 18 Q Some of the studies that you brought 19 A 1don't believe there was a difference, a 19 with you today and that you relied upon are health 20 significant difference. 20 studies of R.T. Vanderbilt employees, correct? 21 Q You mentioned that International Talc 21 A Yes. 22 had done some mining over in Talcville; is that 22 Q Are some of those employees employees 23 correct? 23 who had worked for International Talc prior to the 24 A Yes. 24 takeover byVanderbilt in 1974? 25 Q Was that purchased also by Vanderbilt 25 A They would be included, yes. VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 69 to Page 72 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 73 J. Kelse-direct-Mr. Maimon 75 1 Q Okay. Was there ever a time when GTC 1 A Yes. 2 was operating mines and/or mills in Balmatwhen it 2 Q Prior to that time, were there MSD 3 was not owned by R.T. Vanderbilt? 3 sheets that had been- 4 A Could you repeat that? I'm sorry. 4 A There were. 5 Q Sure. 5 Q There were. 6 MR. MAIMON: Could you read that back. 6 Who was responsible for the MSD sheets 7 (At this point the pending question was read 7 before youjoined Vanderbilt? 8 back bythe reporter as follows: 8 A That was overseen byAlan Harvey. 9 "Was there ever a time when GTC was 9 Q Harvey? 10 operating mines and/or mills in Balmat when it was 10 A Harvey, H-a-r-v-e-y. 11 not owned by R.T. Vanderbilt?") 11 Q That was your superior you told us 12 A I don't know, no. 12 about who had retired- 13 Q Okay. Fair enough. 13 A Yes. 14 Now, earlier on in the deposition I think 14 Q -a fewyears after youjoined the 15 you told us that you did not know whetheror not 15 company, right? 16 there were mortality records which would reflect 16 A Yes. 17 whether or not any Vanderbilt employees had been 17 Q Did I cut you off? I'm sorry. 18 diagnosed and/or died of mesothelioma; is that 18 A That's okay. 19 correct? 19 Q Do you know when - withdrawn. 20 MR. GAFFREY: Object to form. I don't 20 Talc is still mined at the Balmat mine; is 21 believe that was his testimony. 21 that correct? 22 A There is mortality studies that reflect- 22 A Yes. 23 Q I'm not talking about the studies done 23 Q And the company that mines it, is that 24 by others. I'mtalking about internal company 24 GTC? 25 records, mortality records. 25 A Yes. J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 74 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 76 1 Do you know if such records exist? 1 Q Do you know how long GTC has been 2 A I'mnotsure. 2 mining talc at the Balmat mine? 3 Q Okay. Do you know whether such 3 A 1948 it started. 4 records existed for International Talc employees 4 Q After the talc is mined out of the 5 at any time? 5 ground, it's then milled; is that correct? 6 A I don't know. 6 A Crushed, then milled. 7 MR. MAIMON: Let's mark this as 4. 7 Q What company does the crushing? 8 (The below-described six-page Material 8 A GTC. 9 Safety Data Sheet was received and marked Kelse-4 9 Q And who does the milling? What 10 for Identification.) 10 company? Is that GTC also? 11 Q Mr. Kelse, I have marked as Exhibit 4 11 A Yes. 12 a material safety data sheet for NYTAL100. 12 Q Prior to 1948 - withdrawn. 13 Are you familiar with this document? 13 Who owns the mine? Is that GTC? Is that 14 A Yes. 14 the owner ofthe mine, as far as you know? 15 Q Is this a document that you had input 15 A 1don't knowwhatthe relationship - you 16 into the generation of? 16 know, the official relationship is. 17 A Yes. 17 it's a wholly-owned subsidiary, so... 18 Q And what responsibility did you have 18 Q GTC is a wholly-owned subsidiary o f- 19 for the contents of this document? 19 A Of R.T. Vanderbilt Company. 20 A I wrote it. 20 Q Has it been since 1948, as far as you 21 Q Okay. We talked about the-you told 21 know? 22 us that the first year that you were at Vanderbilt 22 A As far as 1know. 23 one ofyour primary responsibilities was for 23 Q Prior to 1948, was there mining done 24 writing material safety data sheets, such as this 24 in that mine? . 25 one; is that correct? 25 A It didn'texist VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732)246-4334 Page 73 to Page 76 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 77 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 79 1 Q NYTAL is a registered trademark of 1 Q What does the "HR" stand for? 2 Vanderbilt; is it not? 2 A I think it's High Hagman, which is a grind. 3 A Yes. 3 Q High what? 4 Q There are different grades of the 4 A High Hagman, it's called. 5 NYTAL industrial talc sold by Vanderbilt; is that 5 Q How do you spell "Hagman"? 6 correct? 6 A Well, H-a-g-m-a-n, I think. 7 A Yes. 7 Q And what does that signify? 8 Q The MSD sheet that you have is for 8 A It signifies a certain type of milling or 9 NYTAL 100, right? 9 grinding as a little finer than that NYTAL would 10 A Yes. 10 typically be ground to. . 11 Q And how many different grades are 11 Q And what's the difference - 12 there of this talc, NYTAL? 12 withdrawn. 13 A There are at least a dozen. 13 Is NYTAL 100 HR and NYTAL 100 from the same 14 Q in general terms, could you describe 14 ore? 15 what differentiates one grade from another? 15 A it's from the same mine; but it may be, 16 A Yes. As a general rule, the higher the 16 you know, in a different area of the mine or a 17 number - we have NYTAL 100 all the way upto NYTAL 17 different depth ofthe mine. It may be a little 18 200. 18 bit different. 19 The higher the number, the finer the 19 These blends are partially dictated by the 20 particle size. There are also some minor 20 area in which it's mined. They're partially 21 differences In the percentage composition of the 21 dictated by materials that are put in silos that 22 various minerals. Some may have moretalc and less 22 are quality-tested to have - this one has a little 23 amphibole, for example. 23 more talc; this one has a little more amphibole. 24 Q Is the difference in composition of 24 So if we want to makethis product, we may 25 the minerals, the difference in percentage 25 have to take some from this silo to add it to, you J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 78 J. Kelse-direct-Mr. Maimon 80 1 composition of the minerals, a result of having a 1 know, increase the amphibole content or increase 2 finer product, or is that by design that the 2 the talc content; and then the adjustments are made 3 different grades have purposely different 3 in terms of the milling process, and the material 4 percentage composition of minerals? 4 is then quality-tested for things like oil 5 A It's a function of both. 5 absorption and things of that nature. 6 You know, the other can be milled, ground, 6 Q If I understand correctly, various 7 you know, to different sizes; and then depending 7 parts of the mine, whether it's locations or depths 8 upon where in the mine - you know, there may be 8 within the mine, are mined and the ore that's taken 9 more amphibole and more talc; and certain grades, 9 from there is placed in various silos for further 10 you know, will be taken from certain areas of the 10 processing; is that correct? 11 mine. Certain grades will be taken from different 11 A To some degree, yes. 12 areas of the mine because they more closely 12 Q Okay. And then the next step would be 13 approximate the composition for that use. 14 NYTAL 100 is a ceramic grade, and it 13 the crushing of that material; is that correct? 14 A It's usually crushed before it's brought 15 typically has more grade than - more amphibole, 15 over. 16 actually, than talc; and the particles are larger. 16 Q To the silos? 17 Q And based on the experience that the 17 A To the mills, yeah, to the silos, because 18 company has gained over the years, it knows where 18 the boulders are too big. 19 in the mine there are greater concentrations of 19 Q And then, depending on what product 20 various minerals; is that correct? 20 is going to be sold, a different silo will be the 21 A 22 Yes. Q Okay. Now, 1have seen reference to 21 source for the talc or the product going out and 22 sometimes you'll take mixtures from different 23 not only NYTAL 100 but NYTAL 100 HR. 23 silos; correct? 24 Are you familiar with that? 24 A Yes. 25 A Yes. 25 Q Okay, in the MSD sheet - withdrawn. VARHLEY ASSOCIATES <732) 246-4334 Page 77 to Page 80 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 81 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 83 1 Do you know what the difference in 1 One looks to me like a recommendation for 2 percentage composition of the various minerals 2 safety eyewear - 3 there is between NYTAL100 and NYTAL100 HR? 3 A Yes. 4 A 1think it's more of the grind, the particle 4 Q - and one - is that a dust mask? 5 sizing, than it is the mixture. 5 A Yeah, respiratory protection. 6 Q Just as an example, the tremolite 6 Q Is there a specific type of 7 component of NYTAL 100 is listed as between 30 to 7 respiratory protection that's suggested here, or 8 50 percent by weight. 8 is this the icon forjust general respiratory 9 A Uh-huh. 9 protection? 10 Q Is that correct? 10 A It's a general icon; but I believe, if I'm 11 A Yes. 11 not mistaken, it says "NIOSH approved respirator 12 Q What will determine that variability, 12 for dust". 13 whether it's 30 percent or 50 percent, in any one 13 Q Okay. And then in the "Material Uses" 14 batch of NYTAL 100? 14 section it says that NYTAL 100 is used as an 15 A The quality tests i think that are run will 15 additive in paints and ceramics. 16 typically have to do with its ends application. 16 A Yes. 17 So, for example, oil absorption is very 17 Q And those are the uses that it's sold 18 importantfor a paint grade; and if it doesn't 18 for, correct? 19 absorb, you know, at a certain rate it may be that 19 A Yes. 20 it doesn't have the right mineral blend; and then 20 Q Now, in this case you've reviewed the 21 before that batch or that group is processed 21 testimony of Mr. Hirsch concerning his use of NYTAL 22 furtheryou may add, you know, more material to get 22 100; correct? 23 those qualities that we need for that grade. 23 A Yes. 24 Q Is NYTAL 100 an off-the-shelf type of 24 Q And did you review the purposes that 25 product that's sold widely by Vanderbilt around the 25 Mr. Hirsch indicated he was using the talc for? J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 82 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 84 1 country? 1 A To make a glaze. 2 A Very common, yes. 2 Q You did? 3 Q Okay. And for any bag, let's say, of 4 NYTAL 100, will there be in general between 30 to 5 50 percent tremolite? 6 A In that range, yes. 3 A That's what he said. 4 MR. GAFFREY: Just listen to his question. 5 Q You did review that, right? You did 6 review that testimony; didn't you? 7 8A 9 Q And 20 to 40 percent talc? Yes. Q And whether the bag of NYTAL 100 that 7 A Not- 8 MR. GAFFREY: Can you just repeat the 9 question? 1think there's some confusion. 10 1go out and buy has 20,30, or 40 percent talc in 11 it isjust a random function of how much talc was 12 in - or coming out of the silo in that batch? 10 MR. MAIMON: Sure. 11 Q Did you review the purposes that 12 Mr. Hirsch testified he was using the NYTAL 100 13 Is that right? 13 for? 14 A It would meet the specifications for that 15 product, whatever those were. 16 Q Okay. But everything sold under the 14 A Yes. 15 Q Okay. Based on your experience and 16 your knowledge of the product, were the uses that 17 label NYTAL 100 is generically sold as such; it's 18 not specially extra high in talc for this one or 17 he was putting - withdrawn. 18 Mr. Kelse, based on your experience and 19 low in tremolite for that one; right? 20 A That's right. 19 knowledge of the product, were the uses that 20 Mr. Hirsch was putting the NYTAL 100 to the normal 21 Q On the MSD sheet there is a section 22 for "Protective Clothing". 21 foreseeable uses of that product? 22 MR. GAFFREY: Objection to form. You can 23 24 A Do you see that? Yes. 23 answer the question. 24 A I'm not -1 would sayyes, but 1would 25 Q And there are two icons there. 25 defer to like a ceramics engineer or someone who VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 81 to Page 84 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 85 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 87 1 had more knowledge of the application than 1would. 1 A Predominantly it would be talc. 2 Q Based on your experience within the 2 Q In writing this, did you consider 3 R.T. Vanderbilt Company, if someone had indicated 3 whether any of the other constituent parts aside 4 that he used the NYTAL100 in a manner described by 4 from the talc would be responsible for causing the 5 Mr. Hirsch in his testimony, would that be 5 lung injury that you described in Section 3? 6 something that you would consider to be unexpected? 6 A Well, the data that exists on the 7 MR. 6AFFREY: Same objection. You can 7 nonasbestiform amphiboles treats it as particles 8 answer. 8 not otherwise regulated or nuisance dust; and 9 A No. 9 that's essentially a catchall that the regulatory 10 Q Okay. There is a section when it 10 agencies use for anything that they don't have a 11 breaks down the constituent parts of the product by 11 specific exposure limit for, and the general catch 12 percentage weight for TLV/PEL. 12 for mineral dust is that you shouldn't exceed a 13 Doyou see that? 13 certain overall level ofthat dust. 14 A Yes. 14 The assumption is if you do, all mineral 15 Q And then there's an acronym in here, 15 dust, whatever it is, you know, can cause lung 16 "PNOR". 16 injury if you're overexposed to it; butthey don't 17 A Yes. 17 have a specific study or data on that particular, 18 Q What is that? 18 you know, material, so it's kind of a catchall. 19 A Particles not otherwise regulated. 19 Q Okay. I'm asking about when you wrote 20 Q Okay. Section 3 is the "Hazard 20 the phrase, "Prolonged inhalation may cause lung 21 Identification" section ofthe MSD sheet. 21 injury." 22 A Yes. 22 Did you consider whether or not any of the 23 Q And were you also responsible for the 23 constituent parts of the product, aside from the 24 contents of this section? 24 talc, might be contributing to talcosis? 25 A Yes. 25 A Certainly looked at the health data that J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 86 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 88 1 Q Okay. In the "Emergency Overview' of 1 existed on nonasbestiform amphiboles. There didn't 2 Section 3 it says, "Prolonged inhalation may cause 2 seem to be much - you know, most of that data 3 the lung injury." 3 dealt with its carcinogenic potential, whether it 4 Do you see that? 4 did or didn't. 5 A Yes. 5 In terms of its anomaly of a respiratory 6 Q I'd like to talk - ask you a few 6 disease, there wasn't a lot of data available on 7 questions about that. 7 it. 8 What lung injury were you referring to when 8 I think from an industrial hygiene 9 you wrote that? 9 standpoint you should treat it like any other 10 A Talcosis. 10 mineral dust, where you want to keep the levels 11 Q And how do you define talcosis? 11 low. 12 A Well, it's a pneumoconiosis, aterm that 12 We see - in our talc workers who are over- 13 just simply means dusty lung; and it's 13 exposed to the dustyou can see, in talc workers, 14 characterized by interstitial fibrosis, similar to 14 talcosis, as you can see in any talc operation. 15 any other type of pneumoconiosis. 15 You don't seem to see it in any more prevalence 16 Depending upon the dust that produced it - 16 than anywhere else. In fact, less. 17 if it was calon, it would be calonosis. If it's 17 So to be able to separate this from that, 18 talc, it's talcosis. If it's asbestos, it's 18 1don't know that we can do that - 19 asbestosis; and that's what it means. 19 Q In a talc worker overexposed to 20 Q So would you consider talcosis to be 20 Vanderbilt talc who develops talcosis, you would 21 an interstitial fibrosis caused by talc? 21 consider the talc to be a contributing agent, 22 A Certainly. 22 causative agent, of that talcosis? 23 Q Okay. What constituent part listed in 23 A Yes. 24 Section 2 do you consider to be the causative agent 24 Q And if 1understand you correctly, you 25 of talcosis? 25 don't know whether or not the tremolite or VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 85 to Page 88 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 89 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 91 1 anthrophyllite would also be contributing agents to 1 You always like it as low as possible, but 2 thattalcosis? 2 it seems to be adequately protective. 3 A I wouldn't be certain. 3 I also compare that level against any 4 Q Okay. Getting back to the statement 4 established level, you know, that has been set up 5 in the MSO sheet that says, "Prolonged inhalation 5 by the government; like OSHA, for example. 6 may cause lung injury." 6 There is a permissible exposure limit for 7 What did you consider to be prolonged 7 talc itself. I believe it's two milligrams per 8 inhalation here? 8 cubic meter of respirable dust, so I want to be 9 A Well, basically there's, you know, acute and 9 sure that the exposure at that plant is well below 10 chronic. An acute risk, whether it's dust or any 10 that. 11 other exposure, is immediate, like an acid, 11 Sol use both, those standards that are out 12 immediately have upper respiratory or immediately 12 there plus what we see in medical surveillance, to 13 have a skin problem. Chronic would be, as the word 13 be able to gauge whetheror not those dust 14 infers, over a period of time; and that's basically 14 exposures are unsafe. 15 it 15 Q Who is the reader that the MSD sheet 16 Q Okay. Now, you have stated here that 16 is intended for? . 17 NYTAL100 is not an acute hazard; correct? 17 A The user of the product. 18 A It wouldn't be an acute hazard, no. 18 Q When you're talking about "prolonged 19 Q What do you mean-how long of a 19 inhalation" in Section 3 of the MSD sheet, are you 20 period is "prolonged", as you used the term here? 20 trying to give the reader a sense of concentration 21 A Well, it would be dictated by - you know, 21 or duration of exposure that might be injurious? 22 the exposure risk to anything - vapors, mist, dust 22 A Weil, it reads, "Prolonged inhalation may 23 - is dictated by the conservation and the 23 cause lung injury." 24 duration. 24 The word "may", qualifying term "may", 25 Obviously, you know, if you have a short 25 refers to the variables of concentration, which 1 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 90 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 92 1 period of time but a very high concentration, that 1 cannot - 1don't know what a user is going to use. 2 poses a risk thafs different than a long period of 3 time in a low concentration; and these can vary by 2 I don't know what his exposure is going to be. 3 Q The term "prolonged", that refers to 4 various materials, vary by individual 4 duration; does it not? 5 susceptibility, all these variables, so you have to 5 A Right. 6 talk in sort of generally speaking. 6 Q Okay. What duration did you mean to 7 You have to take into consideration type of 7 impart to your reader when you used the term 8 material, the concentration, exposure level, and 8 "prolonged"? 9 the duration of the exposure. 9 A Well, the typical interpretation of a 10 Q Okay. I'm referring specifically to 10 material safety data sheet is when you have 11 the MSD sheet for NYTAL 100 that you told us you 11 permissible exposure limits that are given up here 12 wrote. 12 as they're listed; and what is being said here is 13 When you used the term "prolonged", what 13 that prolonged exposure to dust levels above these 14 period of time were you referring to? 14 permissible limits are - you know, may cause lung 15 A It would depend on - well, it would depend 15 injury is essentially what that says. 16 - it depends on the exposure level. 16 Q And assuming a level above the PEL, 17 lnthecaseofVanderbilt,oneofthe 17 how long of a period is covered under the term 18 reasons 1take air samples is to gauge the overall 18 "prolonged"? 19 exposure level of the dust, whatever it is; and 20 then we have a medical surveillance to be sure that 19 A 20 It depends on how much over the PEL. Q Is there anything in this MSD sheet 21 the pulmonary functions and the - you know, the 21 that gives the reader that information? 22 lung x-rays do not show evidence of a dust disease; 22 A Weil, the typical expectation of a material 23 and when I don't see evidence of a dust disease, 23 safety data sheet is to tell the user of your 24 then I know that the dust exposure level, you know, 24 product what the risks are and to give them to the 25 seems to be adequate. 25 best of your ability what the safe limits are. It VARH LEY ASSOCIATES (732)246-4334 Page 89 to Page 92 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 93 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 95 1 is then up to that person to determine whether or 1 I... 2 not he's satisfyingthose safe limits. 2 Q In the normal course of your work, are 3 So if i were using this talc as a customer 3 you responsible for updating the MSD sheets on 4 and I wanted to know whether my use was an over- 4 Vanderbilt products? 5 exposure or might place me at undue risk, it would 5 A Yes. 6 be incumbent upon me to see whether or not those 6 Q Okay. And have the NYTAL products 7 levels that 1was exposed to exceeded these 8 established safe limits or not. 7 undergone revisions of their MSD sheets during the 8 time that you have been responsible for them? g Our role is to just give the information. 9 A Yes. 10 Q And the information - 10 Q Do you maintain a file of the MSD 11 MR. GAFFREY: Listen to his question and 11 sheets for the NYTAL products - 12 answer his question. 12 A Yes. 13 Q The information that you're giving on 13 Q - in their various forms? 14 duration, how much duration does the word 15 "prolonged'' - or was the word "prolonged" intended 16 to conveyto the reader? 14 A Yes. 15 MR. MAIMON: I'm goingto request the MSD 16 sheets for NYTAL 100 that Mr. Kelse has in his file 17 A It was intended to convey a chronic versus 18 acute hazard. 17 historically going back. 18 Q I'm going to show you what we've 19 Q And what period of time was intended 20 by you to differentiate between chronic and acute? 19 marked as Exhibit 5. 20 Is this a copy of your report in this case, 21 A "Prolonged" would refer to anything that is 21 the Hirsch case? 22 not an immediate risk. 23 Q Who is Sue Kelly? 22 A 23 Yes. Q The copythat 1have has a bar code on 24 A She's mysecretary. 24 the bottom of the front page. 25 Q Your secretary? 25 A Yes. J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 94 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 96 1 A Yes. 1 MR. GAFFREY: I'll represent to you that 2 MR. MAIMON: Okay. You can mark this as the 2 that's our internal scanning code. Every document 3 next one. 3 that comes into the office is scanned. 4 (The below-described five-page letter/ 4 MR. MAIMON: I'mduly impressed. 5 report was received and marked Kelse-5for 5 Q I'm looking at the first paragraph, 6 Identification.) 6 the last sentence says, "I have participated 7 Q Exhibit 4, which is the MSD sheet - 7 extensively in evaluations of the health of the 8 if you could just take a look at it and see if this 8 Gouverneur Talc employees and have participated in 9 is, as best you can tell in looking at it, the most 9 federal rule-makingas it relates to the Vanderbilt 10 current MSD sheet for NYTAL100. 10 Talc products." 11 A No, 1don't think it is. 11 Did 1read that correctly? 12 Q That shows you how good the Internet 13 is. 12 A 13 Yes. Q Can you tell me what has been your 14 A Exactly. 14 participation in evaluations of the health of GTC 15 Q Do you know if your company posts the 15 employees? 16 most current MSD sheet on the Internet? 16 A Well, 1helped to coordinate the medical 17 A They are supposed to. 17 surveillance program in which we review the 18 Q Okay. Do you know - can you tell me, 18 pulmonary function and chest x-rays of these talc 19 in looking at this document, what, if any, material 19 workers every two years. 20 changes have been made to it in its most current 20 Q Anything else? 21 form? 21 A Well, I've certainly assisted in providing 22 A 1don't believe anything as of now. Ijust 22 available exposure information, available work site 23 looked at the date. 23 information to researchers who have done mortality 24 Q What's the date on this one? 24 and morbidity studies on these workers. 25 A Oh, it was printed 5/18/2000. That's why 25 Q Anything else? - VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 93 to Page 96 J. K e ls e -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 97 1 A No. That pretty much sums it up. 2 Q Okay. The Gouverneur Talc employees 3 that are referred to in the last sentence of 4 Paragraph 1 ofyour report, do those include former 5 International Talc employees who came over to GTC 6 when International Talc was bought out in 1974? 7 A Yes, they would. 8 Q The medical surveillance program that 9 you're discussing, who is covered under that 10 medical surveillance program? Which employees? 11 A All. 12 Q Every two years there is a chest x-ray 13 and a pulmonaryfunction study done? 14 A And hearingtest, yes. 15 MR.GAFFREY: I'm going to interpose an 16 objection. 17 1think you're comingfull circle back to 18 the issue that 1objected to initially atthis 19 deposition. 1think you're getting into areas now 20 that are more inclusive of Mr. Kelse's 21 responsibility as industrial hygiene as it is - as 22 opposed to his position as an expert in this case. 23 1don't think you've laid a proper 24 foundation. I'll let you go a little bit further; 25 but 1just wantto put my objection on the record J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 99 1 Whether or not it overlaps with factual 2 information or not, I am- and I believe Tm 3 entitled to - and I think that it's an adoptive 4 statement by you in amendingyour Answers to 5 Interrogatories to serve this expert report 6 i'masking simply about whatthe content of 7 his expert report is in this case. 8 MR. GAFFREY: I don't read his report the 9 same as you do. I believe what he's doing here is 10 detailing his area of employment at R.T. 11 Vanderbilt. 12 You haven't yet established if the area of 13 your questioning and his responsesform the basis 14 of his expert opinions in this case; and that's the 15 issue that I'm raising here, is he serves not dual 16 roles in this case, buttri roles in this case as 17 an expert, a corporate fact witness, and as a 18 consultant; and to the extentthat your Deposition 19 Notice narrowly defined the purpose ofthis 20 deposition, we're relying upon that; and we have 21 prepared himas such. 22 So, again, you defined the categories here, 23 not us; and we're merely abiding by what you 24 defined. 25 MR. MAIMON: Yes, and you defined this as J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 98 1 that 1think it's going beyond the scope ofthe 2 Deposition Notice at this time, calling for him as 3 a fact witness and employee of R.T. Vanderbilt, as 4 opposed to an expert in this case. 5 Go ahead and ask your questions, but I'm 6 goingto put you on a short leash in terms of what 7 I'mgoingto allow Mr. Kelse to testify to. 8 MR. MAIMON: 1believe it's improper for you 9 to determine the scope ofthe deposition as such. 10 I'm asking- 11 MR. GAFFREY: I'm not You have by virtue 12 of the Deposition Notice that you served on us, and 13 we've prepared Mr. Kelse byvirtue of what you've 14 requested us to produce him as; and again, as 1 15 indicated at the outset, you've asked us to produce 16 him as an expert, not as a corporate witness or as 17 a fact witness, in his job capacity of industrial 18 hygiene, so you defined the scope of this 19 deposition, not us; and we're abiding by the Notice 20 that you submitted to us. 21 MR. MAIMON: 1understand that; and this is 22 his expert report, Exhibit 5, thatyou served as 23 his expert report in this case; and the questions 24 that I'm askingare based on the expert report that 25 1was served in this case. J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 100 1 his expert report in this case, and that's what I'm 2 asking questions about 3 MR. GAFFREY: Well, my position is that you 4 haven't laid the proper foundation. 5 MR. MAIMON: And 1don't think 1have to 6 satisfy you with asking certain questions first 7 when I'mjust asking questions aboutthe expert 8 reportthat was served upon me in this case. 9 MR.GAFFREY: Okay. Well, ask your 10 questions; and to the extent that 1have a problem 11 with you going forward, I'll note it on the record. 12 MR. MAIMON: Could I just have his last 13 answer back. 14 (At this point the previous answer was read 15 back by the reporter as follows: 16 "And hearing test yes.") 17 Q Aside from pulmonary function study, 18 chest x-ray, and hearing test, are there any other 19 parts of the medical surveillance program? 20 A 1believe they're given another - height, 21 weight, blood pressure by the coordinating 22 physician at the hospital; and then they're - then 23 the surveillance testing is over, and the employee 24 is given a report as to whatthe results of his 25 medical evaluation were. VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 97 to Page 100 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 101 1 Q When did this medical surveillance - 2 withdrawn. 3 When was this medical surveillance program 4 established? 5 A The records 1have seen is that chest x-rays 6 were taken from Day 1,1948; and then a more 7 formalized medical surveillance program was set up, 8 1believe, in the mid 1970's that established these 9 every-two-year studies. 10 Q The sentence before that you talk 11 about, "Based on mytraining and this experience". 12 Do you see that? 13 The second-to-the-last sentence of the 14 paragraph. 15 A Sorry. 1don't know where-oh, okay. 16 Yes. 17 Q Okay. The training, is that what we 18 talked about when we discussed your resume? 19 A General industrial hygiene, yes. 20 Q And this experience, you're talking 21 about working over die last 18 years in the 22 capacity as industrial hygienist and manager of 23 the Corporate Risk Management Department for R.T. 24 Vanderbilt; is that correct? ' 25 A Yes. J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 103 1 In the second full paragraph, which starts, 2 "Based on my understanding of Mr. Hirsch's usage" 3 -d o you see that? 4 A Yes. 5 Q You make reference in here to 6 Gouverneurtalc miners and millers. 7 Do you see that? 8 A Yes. 9 Q And you also make reference in here to 10 Vanderbilt talc workers. 11 A Yes. 12 Q Is that the same? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Okay. 1think you state in here that 15 it's your beliefthat the health experience of 16 Vanderbilt talc workers, both past and present, 17 directly bears on the reasonableness of the causal 18 association claimed in this case; right? 19 A Yes. 20 Q What do you mean by that? 21 A My main meaningto that is that 1don't see 22 excess lung cancer and mesothelioma being causally 23 linked to exposure to this talc in the mine and 24 mill, and that exposure is considerably greater 25 than the plaintiffs exposure would be. J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 102 1 Q And you refer to a familiarity that 2 you have gained concerning a number of medical, 3 mineralogical, and other studies that relate to 4 Vanderbilt talc; right? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Okay. Aside from -1 just want to 7 talk about types. 8 Aside from medical studies and aside from 9 mineralogical studies, what types of studies did 10 you intend the term "other" to encompass? 11 A Well, certainly the mortalitystudies of 12 these workers. 13 Q So you would include mortality under 14 the"other* category, as opposed to the medical? 15 A 1would include mortality studies as 16 speakingto medical conditions associated with. 17 Q Okay. What other types of studies did 18 you intend to be included in the term "other"? 19 A !just answered that. 20 Q Okay. 1just wanted to make sure that 21 there wasn'tanything that 1was missing. 22 A 1don'tthink so. 23 Q If you could turn to Page 2. Let me 24 askyou this question, and 1think it's probably a 25 good time to break for lunch. J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 104 1 it also suggests that the studies that have 2 been done on this talc were that animal studies and 3 cell studies don't support that kind of association 4 either. 5 Q Where in this sentence is there any 6 reference to animal studies? 7 A Well, there isn't. Itjust says "health 8 experience". 9 Q Let's talk about this sentence. 10 You talk about the health experience of 11 Vanderbilt talc workers, right? 12 A 13 Yes. Q The information that you have about 14 the health experience of Vanderbilt talc workers. 15 if 1understand correctly, comes from two sources, 16 one fromthe results ofthe medical surveillance 17 program and one from the mortality studies that 18 have been done by people outside of the company; 19 is that correct? 20 A That is correct. 21 Q And you believe that that health 22 experience has a direct bearing on the claim of 23 causation in this case, correct? 24 A Yes. 25 MR. MAIMON: 1think that it's a good time VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 101 to Page 104 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 105 1 to break for lunch, but HIjust state for the 2 record that I've satisfied with those two questions 3 every foundational objection that you have raised 4 to this point 5 MR. GAFFREY: Well, we'll go further; and 6 we'll see. 7 (At this point a short recess was taken.) 8 MR. MAIMON: Let's mark this as 6. 9 (The below-described document was received 10 and marked Kelse-6 for Identification.) 11 Q Mr. Kelse, I'm going to hand you 12 what's been marked as Exhibit 6 for today's 13 deposition. 14 A Uh-huh. 15 Q And I'm going to first ask you, are 16 you familiar with that document? 17 A 1have seen it. 1don't know if 1studied 18 it 19 Q Do you recognize this as a publication 20 put out by the R.T. Vanderbilt Company in 1966 21 titled ''NYTAL*? 22 A Yes, that's what it says. 23 Q And this obviously predates your 24 employment with the company by almost 20 years, 25 right? J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 107 1 Do you see that? 2A 3 Yes, yes. Q Okay. Do you know what area of mining 4 here the GTC mining was conducted in? 5 MR. GAFFREY: Just simply, are you asking 6 him, using the contour map in the middle of that 7 page, if he could identify it within that map? 8 MR. MAIMON: Yes. 9 10 A MR. GAFFREY: Okay. 1 don't think that 1could do that. I'm 11 sure there are people who could. I cant. 12 Q Okay. And if you could turn to Page 13 6. 14 A 15 Yes. Q This has listed here six different 16 grades of NYTALtalc, correct? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And the graph on Figure 8, is that 19 what you were referring to as far as the particle 20 size distribution, howfine they are? 21 Is that a representation of that? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Do you know whether or not this 24 publication, the NYTAL publication, has gone 25 through various reprintings? J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 106 1 A Yes. 2 Q But you nonetheless recognize this as 3 a publication put out by the company, correct? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Okay. If you look at Page 3 -w ell, 6 actually, turn back to Page 2. 7 There is a Figure 1 shading in the St. 8 Lawrence County New York talc area, correct? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Okay. And then if you look at Page 3 11 that has a title of, Section 3, "Geology and 12 Mineralogy", correct? 13 A Yes. 14 Q And then there are two figures there, 15 contour maps of the talc belts in the Balmat area; 16 is that correct? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Okay. There is a reference here to 19 the Arnold Mine. 20 Do you see that? 21 in both of those figures. 22 A Oh, yes. 23 Q And then there are other names of 24 mines there also; the Wight Mine, W-i-g-h-t, 25 Woodcock, American Mine, Balmat Zinc Mine. J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 108 1 A 1wouldn't know. 2 Q Okay. Let's go on to the next. 3 MR. MAIMON: This will be 7. 4 (The below-described NIOSH1980 Technical 5 Report was received and marked KeIse-7 for 6 Identification.) 7 Q I'll show you what was marked as 8 Exhibit 7 for today's deposition. 9 Do you recognize this to be a copy of the 10 NIOSH 1980 Technical Report that we have been 11 making reference to? 12 A It appears to be the industrial hygiene 13 section. 14 Q Okay. What other sections of this 15 report were there? 16 A 1don't know that there were other sections. 17 Q Okay. Is this what you have been 18 referring to as the 1980 Technical Report for 19 NIOSH? 20 A 21 22 A 23 Part. Q Okay. What other parts are there? The mortality and morbidity study itself. Q Do you have that in the studies that 24 you've broughtwith you? 25 A Yes. VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 105 to Page 108 J. K e ls e -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 109 1 Q Okay. Could you dig that out for us. 2 Is that this? 3 A No. This is the health study critiques. 4 It was the actual health studies themselves. 5 Here we go. It would be that one. 6 Q Can you just compare the two, just to 7 see if they're different. 8 A This is all the industrial hygiene section, 9 you know, the airsampling and analysis part, which 10 is reproduced in this portion of the report 11 Q That's the complete report, correct? 12 A Yes. What you have here would be this part. 13 Q Okay. Do you mind if we mark this? 14 A No. 15 MR. MAIMON: Okay. We'll mark this as 8. 16 (The above- and below-described document was 17 received and marked Kelse-8 for Identification.) 18 Q So we've marked as Exhibit 8 the 1980 19 OSHATechnical Report that you have been making 20 reference to, correct? 21 A NIOSH. 22 Q The NIOSH, right? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And this is titled "Occupational 25 Exposure to Talc Containing Asbestos"; is that J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 111 1 him afterwards? 2 A I don't recall. 3 Q Okay. You have a file titled 4 "Analytical Reports", correct? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And within this file did you attempt 7 to assemble all of the analyses of Vanderbilt talc 8 that you had? 9 A Yeah, I - yes, I tried to do that. 10 I should ask, analyses for what? 11 Q Analyses for Vanderbilt talc. 12 A 13 For? Q Well, what did you intend to assemble 14 in this file titled "Analytical Reports"? 15 A Those would be reports that speak to 16 asbestos. 17 Q Speak to asbestos? 18 A 19 Yeah. Q Whether it's present in Vanderbilt 20 talc or not, correct? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Okay. So they're all analytical 23 reports of analyses ofVanderbilt talc, correct? 24 A 25 In that regard, yes. Q Okay. Prior to coming over to work J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 110 1 right? 2 A Yes. 3 Q When is the first time you saw that 4 report? 5 A When 1was still working for Hartford. 6 Q And would that have been in connection 7 with the contract workthat you were doing at the 8 Gouverneur facility before you went over there? 9 A Yes. 1think 1referenced it myself. 1dug 10 it out 11 Q Now, when you say you dug it out, how 12 did you find it? 13 A 1really don't recall exactly how 1found 14 it 1really don't recall. 15 1know l had it. 1got it 1don't 16 remember how. 17 Q You mentioned earlier that you had 18 had a conversation or you had heard from the loss 19 representative at Hartford that there was an issue 20 about the definition of asbestos within the 1980 21 Technical Report? 22 A 1believe that's what 1referred to, yes. 23 Q And do you recall whether it was the 24 loss representative who gave you a copy of that or 25 whetheryou had it and had your conversation with J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 112 1 for Vanderbilt from Hartford, aside from the 1980 2 Technical Report did you review anyother written 3 materials concerning the question ofwhether the 4 talc mined at Gouverneur contains asbestos or not? 5 A 1don't recall. 1don't think so. 6 Q And 1think you told us that within 7 the context of the work that you did for Vanderbilt 8 while you were employed by Hartford you had a 9 conversation with Dr. Thompson about that issue. 10 correct? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Did he provide you with any written 13 materials at that time? 14 A 1recall sitting down with him and going 15 through the report because 1was concerned, 16 obviously, aboutthe report and 1was lookingfor 17 an explanation for the data in the back; and 18 Dr. Thompson provided me an explanation in regard 19 to counting cleavage fragments and particle sizes 20 and definitions and manyof the issues that 21 subsequently formed, you know, the basis of myown 22 understanding ofthe exposure. 23 Q Okay. When you say "of the 24 exposure", what exposure areyou referring to? 25 A The dust exposure at that Vanderbilt mine. VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 109 to Page 112 J. K e ls e -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimn 113 1 Q What data in the back of the 1980 2 report did you ask Dr. Thompson to give you an 3 explanation of? 4 A Well, 1was particularly concerned about 5 percentage of what was referred to as tremolite 6 asbestos. 7 Q What page specifically, if you can 8 find it? 9 A This maytake a while. 1know it's-well, 10 this would be an example. 11 Q What page are you referring to, if you 12 canjusttell us? 13 A This is in the Abstract, Roman Numeral IV, 14 under the section "Industrial Hygiene". 15 'Time weighted average, TWA, exposures to 16 asbestiform amphiboles, anthrophyllite and 17 tremolite" - calling them asbestiform just means 18 ifs asbestos - "were found to be in excess of 19 present U.S. Occupational Health & Safety and Mine 20 Safety &Health Administration exposure standards." 21 1believe in 1980that was something like 22 one or two fibers per cc, before they reduced it 23 to .l. Pretty high. 24 Q That's in the Abstract you're pointing 25 to, right? J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 115 1 If I'm in error, please tell me. 2 A All right. 3 (Discussion held off the record.) 4 5 (Witness excused.) 6 (At this point the luncheon recess was 7 taken.) 8 9 10 AFTERNOON SESSION 11 12 (The below-described Final Report was 13 received and marked Kelse-9 for Identification.) 14 15 J O H N W. KELSE, JR.,havingbeen 16 previously sworn, resumedthe stand and 17 testified further as follows: 18 19 CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MAIMON: 20 Q Before we broke for lunch, Mr. Kelse, 21 we had been discussingyour conversation with 22 Dr. Thompson at the time thatyou cameto the 23 Gouverneurtalc facility to conduct air sampling; 24 and 1believe you told us that you had questions 25 about some of the data in the 1980 NIOSH Technical J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimn 114 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 116 1 A Yeah. 1 Report and asked for explanation ofthat data; and 2 Q Where in the report-what was the 2 1asked you to please, in reference tothe report 3 data thatyou told us you asked Dr. Thompson for 3 itself, show us whatdata It was thatyou had asked 4 explanation of? 5 A Well, they appeared at the time to be using 4 for explanation on. 5 Have you been able to locate it over the 6 the fiber data, you know, the NIOSH 7400 method, 6 lunch period? 7 three to one longerthan five, and counting 7 A Yes. 8 anythingthat wasthree to one longerthan five, 8 Q Please show us. 9 that they Identified as tremolite or an amphiboie 9 A Okay. Weil, myfirst concern was it says, 10 and essentially characterizing those fibers 10 "Occupational exposure to talc containing 11 asbestos; and it was very worrisome. 11 asbestos". Up until 1saw this it was my 12 If that was actually asbestos, that would be 12 understanding that there was no asbestos in that 13 an extremely high exposure level. 13 talc deposit. 14 Q Okay. 1had asked you to point meto 14 So, Number 1,1 had that concern. 15 the data that you asked Dr. Thompson for an 15 Q Let mejust stop you there. 16 explanation of. 16 That understanding, that there was no 17 A Well, certainly that type of - you know, is 17 asbestos in that talc deposit, was based on what? 18 this actually asbestos amphiboie? 18 A Based on what 1had understood from the 19 Q You're referring again into the 19 file, you know, on that account. 20 Abstract. 20 So the guy that coordinated the account 21 1had understood - maybe 1understood 21 never suggested to methat this was an asbestos 22 incorrectly, Mr. Kelse - that there was some data 22 exposure situation. 1don't know whether he was 23 in the report, as opposed to a summary statement in 23 familiar with this or not; but 1never saw, you 24 the Abstract, that you had asked Dr. Thompson for 24 know, that reference until 1sawthis report. 25 an explanation of. 25 Q You're talking about the fellow over VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 113 to Page 116 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 117 1 at Hartford, right? 2 A Yeah, the person who would have been, you 3 know, basically in control of that account, 4 Vanderbilt 5 I was just contracting to work for them. 6 Q Okay. 7 A So, you know, I saw this myself. I don't 8 recall exactly how I got it, but I got it; and, of 9 course, it raised red flags. ' 10 Just the title raised red flags; and some 11 other examples in the air analysis section, let's 12 say- I think it's Page 7. 13 You know, it will say TWA, time weighted 14 average, exposure to asbestos fibers greater than 15 five micrometers in length exceeded five fibers per 16 cc for three of the six job categories, five fibers 17 per cc of asbestos. 18 If you look back at the tables, if you look 19 at some of these job titles and you look at fiber 20 counts greater than- 21 Q Where are we? Table? 22 A This would be Table 4. 23 Q Does it give a page corresponding? 24 A I think-yeah, Page 38. 25 Q Okay. J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 119 1 A 2 Yes, right. And I expressed these concerns. 1went over 3 this report, and that was actually the first time 4 that 1heard this issue raised about cleavage 5 fragments and dimensions and using fiber counting 6 dimensions as part of a definition of asbestos; and 7 that's what was happening in this report, according 8 to Dr. Thompson; and that's when I decided that, 9 you know, this issue was over my head at the time 10 certainly in terms of mineralogy and that if I were 11 to take anyfiber samples it would bejust that, 12 just fiber samples. 13 I would not attempt at that point with 14 Hartford to get into, you know, what's asbestos and 15 not asbestos. It seemed it was beyond us at the 16 time. 17 Q Okay. 18 A And that's pretty much why the samples that 19 I took werejust straight fibersamples, and I 20 could compare them with some of the straight fiber 21 samples in here, but I certainly - you know, we 22 did not identity them one way or the other. 23 Q Okay. I think you told us before that 24 the sampling that you took was consistent for total 25 fiber in the air with the numbers that were given J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 118 1 A This would be one table where you would see 2 numbers like 9.8 fibers per cc longer than five 3 micrometers. This is all fibers. It doesn't tell 4 me what ones, but it tells me this. 5 And then there is another table - if you go 6 to - again, I'm looking for fibers longer than 7 five micrometers, based on the NIOSH 7400 method; 8 and I see the NIOSH data and l see these numbers, 9 you know, for these activities; and these numbers, 10 when you compare them against the standard, which 11 at the time, I think, was one or two fibers per cc, 12 these kind of average like five - you know, five 13 times, so that's clearly what's being referred to 14 here. 15 Well, these are huge exposures. I mean, 16 they're great; and I know enough about asbestos to 17 know that those were very high exposures, and this 18 would be a serious concern, and I wanted to know 19 more about it, and l spoke to the person who was 20 working on the Vanderbilt account; and he set up an 21 appointment, you know, for Dr. Thompson to come to 22 New York and sit down with me and go over this 23 report, which he did. 24 Q So Dr. Thompson came to the Hartford 25 offices to go over this? J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 120 1 by the NIOSH Technical Report, total fibers; right? 2 A They were; and in other papers, you know, 3 there were tables that showed some of this data 4 that - when you just looked at five to one longer 5 than five micrometers, these were all within the 6 same ballpark. 7 Q Okay. But your sampling, your air 8 monitoring, showed numbers for total fibers 9 consistent with what NIOSH found in the 1980 10 report; right? 11 A Yeah, yes. 12 13 A Q Okay. Can 1pull these out? 14 Q Go ahead. Take those out 15 At the time that you met with Dr. Thompson, 16 did Dr. Thompson give you any written materials 17 concerning analyses of the material sampled at the 18 GTC facility? 19 A What he did was he actually showed me a film 20 that explained the cleavage fragment asbestos, what 21 was referred to as the issue at the time. 22 It was a film that Vanderbilt had very 23 recently produced, and 1found that quite helpful 24 and eye-opening because 1had never heard some of 25 these things before. VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 117 to Page 120 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 121 1 Q Do you know if that film is still in 2 existence in one form, whether its electronic or 3 still on film? 4 A Yes, it is. 5 Q And do you have that film? 6 A Yes, I have that film. 7 MR. MAIMON: That's another thing that I'm 8 going to make a request for. 9 Q Have you ever used that film in any 10 of the presentations on the subject that you have 11 made? 12 A Yes, I have. 13 Q Okay. Let me show you what we've 14 marked as Exhibit 9, and I'll ask you if you 15 recognize this as the NIOSH report of the bulk 16 sampling taken of the GTC talc that formed the 17 basis for the analysis contained in Exhibit 8. 18 A Yes. That's what it's listed as, bulk talc 19 sample analysis. 20 Q And you have seen this document 21 before? 22 A Oh, yes. 23 Q This talks about No. 1 mine and mill. 24 Do you see that in the title? 25 A Yes. J. Kelse-direct-Mr. Maimon 123 1 paper, correct? 2 A Yes. 3 Q It lists NYTAL 300 and 400, and we 4 have spoken about the NYTAL products and that the 5 numbers reflectjust a different fineness ofthe 6 particle and perhaps different percentage 7 constituents of the minerals depending on where it 8 was mined out of the mine; correct? 9 A Yes. 10 Q The other grades here -5 x , 325,x, 11 FT, and 3x - are you familiar with those grades? 12 A 13 14 A Yes. Q Are those NYTAL products? Well, th ey-I think these would be out of 15 the Arnold Pit. 16 They are typically - 1think these were 17 products that, because they came out of the Arnold 18 Pit, would have been International Talc, so they 19 may have been preceded by IT 3x or IT 325. 20 Q This is dated 1976, which would have 21 been after Vanderbilt had taken over the 22 International Talc facility; correct? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Okay. But that nomenclature might 25 have referred back to old International Talc________ J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 122 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 124 1 Q It's entitled "Industrial Hygiene 1 nomenclature, right? 2 Study of the Gouverneur Talc Company No. 1 Mine 2 A I probably shouldn't say. I don't know for 3 and Mill". 4 A Yes. 3 sure. 4 Q If you don't know an answer, please 5 Q Is that the underground Arnold Pit 5 feel free to tell me; okay? 6 that we were talking about? Do you know? 7 A It's the undergroundmine, not the Arnold 6 A All right. 7 Q This document contains the 1976 report 8 Pit. 9 Q So it's the underground mine and the 8 by Arthur Rohl at Mount Sinai to Dr. Dement, who 9 put the NIOSH report together; correct? 10 mill that milled the ore coming out of the 11 underground mine, correct? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And the Rohl April 29,1976, letter 12 A Yes. 12 is part of your file here within the analytical 13 Q The NIOSH 1980 Technical Report dealt 13 reports; correct? 14 exclusively with GTC and its facilities; is that 14 A Yes. 15 correct? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Okay. Not any other talc mines 15 Q In addition, it contains - I'm 16 talking about Exhibit 9 - a report from the 17 Walter C. McCrone Associates Company in Chicago, 18 operating in the region, correct? 18 Illinois, dated 12 December, 1975, of an 19 A Thafs correct, yeah. 19 examination of the same samples; is that correct? 20 Q If you can take a look at Exhibit 9, 20 A Yes. 21 specifically Page 3, with Table i on it 21 Q I don't know - and I'm going to give 22 Do you see that? 22 you back your file on analytical reports. 23 A Yes. 23 Is the McCrone report contained in your 24 Q This talks about different grades of 24 file? 25 talc that were the subjects of the analyses in this 25 A These are in chronological order, so if it's VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 121 to Page 124 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 125 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 127 1 not where it's supposed to be I would have to say 1 showed you in that meeting? 2 no. 2 A I don't recall. 3 No, this particular report is not in here. 4 Q I just wanted to make sure if I missed 3 4 A Q Okay. Those are fee ones that stick out in my 5 something. 6 A No. No, 1did. 7 Q Now, you told us that when you met 8 with Dr. Thompson he showed you that film. 5 memory. 6 Q If you go back to Exhibit 9, the NIOSH 7 report, which includes the Rohl letter and fee 8 McCrone report, this talks about various 9 A Yes. 9 methodologies that were used in fee analysis 10 Q And 1thinkyou answered that in 10 itself; is that correct? 11 response to a question that 1asked you as to 11 A Yes. 12 whether or not he had given you any written 12 Q Now, utilizing these types of 13 material, and 1knowthat he gaveyou - showed you 13 methodologies to identify particles, substances, 14 the film. 15 Did he give you any written material? 14 thafs not somethingyou do as an industrial 15 hygienist; but when you want something like that 16 A There was a brochure, as I recall, that went 16 done, you refer the materials out to other people 17 with it. It was a mimic of the film. With the 17 to do; correct? 18 same title, matter of feet Essentially the same 18 A Yes. 19 exhibits as what was seen in the film. 19 Q For instance, there's something called 20 Q Okay. Do you remember the title? 20 x-ray diffraction that's done here. 21 A It was called "A Matter of Fact", same as 21 A Yes. 22 the film. 22 Q Are you qualified to do x-ray 23 Q Do you know if that brochure still 23 diffraction? 24 exists? 25 A Sure. Yes, it does. 24 A 25 No. Q Are you qualified to use an electron J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 126 1 MR. MAIMON: Okay. I'm also going to ask 2 for the production of that brochure. 3 Q Any other written materials that 4 Dr. Thompson shared with you in that meeting? 5 A I remember he brought the NIOSH 7400 method 6 with him; and he showed me at the bottom of fee 7 method, which I had seen before, the precautionary 8 statement that NIOSH made in the method; that this 9 was a general fiber counting method, it is not 10 specific, you know, to asbestos; and there was 11 dialogue that ensued from feat, the fact feat this 12 method is typically used for asbestos sampling and 13 it's fine, you know, works well, if you know what 14 asbestos is and feat's what you're sampling. 15 If you don't know what asbestos is and 16 you're sampling in a mixed dust environment or 17 you're not sure, you can't use these fiber counting 18 dimensions as a definition of asbestos. It was 19 never intended feat way. That's not what the 20 method's for. Unfortunately, that's what it's 21 become. 22 Q Was that printed on the document that 23 he showed you, or is this what he explained to you? 24 A That's what he explained. 25 Q Okay. Any other documents feat he J. Kelse-direct-Mr. Maimon 128 1 microscope? 2 A 3 No. Q Okay. I don't know if 1asked you 4 this. 5 When did you first see a copy of what we've 6 marked as Exhibit 9 or any of its constituent 7 parts, either fee Rohl letter or the McCrone 8 report? 9 A 1don't recall seeingthese in 1982 or '83. 10 1do recall seeing themin the late 80's - '87, 11 '88 - when 1was focused moreon these issues and 12 I actually worked for Vanderbilt. 13 Q Okay. The information or the 14 conclusions expressed in Exhibit 9 are reflected in 15 the Technical Report that we've marked as Exhibit 16 8; is that correct? 17 A That's correct 18 Q The analysis of fee fibers found in 19 the talc analyzed here as given in Exhibit 8, as 20 reported in Exhibit 8, feat was the earliest such 21 analysis that you had actually read; is feat 22 correct? 23 A In terms of? 24 25 A Q Chronology. Well, yeah, this is fee first, so that would VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 125 to Page 128 J . K e i s e - 12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 129 1 have been '82, '83, or something. 2 Q You had not seen anything prior to 3 that, correct? 4 A No. 5 Q And have you seen - even when you 6 started looking into the issue more closely, did 7 you see any analyses that had predated the analyses 8 referred to in Exhibit 8? 9 A After I started working for Vanderbilt, 10 yeah. I had privy to the files, and I did see 11 earlier reports. I think they were in the- 12 around 75,76. 13 Q I'mjust looking at yourfile of 14 analytical reports, Mr. Kelse. 15 I have seen four reports that predate the 16 Rohl report to Dr. Dement. I`ll just ask you to 17 confirm that those are the ones that you're 18 referring to. 19 A They would predate October, 1976, yes. 20 Q Okay. There's one of January 30, 21 1976, from Dr. Dement to MSA, whatever that acronym 22 stands for; correct? 23 A Yes, Mine Safety Administration. 24 I think it predated the Mine Safety & Health 25 Administration. Sort of an earlier version. J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 131 1 A Yes. 2 Q Okay. When you met with Dr. Thompson 3 in 1982 or '83, whenever it was, did he tell you 4 that the McCrone Laboratory had done analytical 5 work on Vanderbilt talc for Vanderbilt? 6 A I don't recall him mentioning that. 7 Q Okay. This refers to some analytical 8 work that the McCrone Laboratory had done for 9 Vanderbilt; is that correct? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And specifically, if I understand 12 correctly, is it your understanding that McCrone's 13 charge in this matter was to try and see if there 14 was chysotile asbestos in the samples that they 15 were analyzing? 16 A The letter suggests that, yes. 17 Q And I think it's talking about two 18 different samples of materials that they analyzed; 19 is that correct? 20 A Samples, plural. Six samples were examined. 21 Q Okay. And they were labeled CPS-206-1 22 through -6; is that correct? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Do you have an understanding of what 25 that nomenclature refers to with respect to ________ J.Keise-direct-M r. Maimon 130 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 132 1 Q Did you understand that to be simply 1 specific grades of Vanderbilt talc? 2 referring to the same database and same analyses 3 that are contained in Exhibits 9 and 8 and not an 2 A No, I wouldn't. 3 Q Okay. The McCrone report here 4 independent analysis? 5 A As I look at it now, that's what I would - 4 indicated to Dr. Thompson that they did not find 5 chysotile fibers present; is that correct? 6 that's how I would interpret it, but I can't say 7 for sure. 8 Actually, it looks like the same type of 6 A That's correct. 7 Q Nor did they find chysotile fibrils; 8 is that correct? 9 table, so yeah. 10 Q And then there's one dated December 9 A That's correct. 10 Q There's an indication, however, here 11 23,1975, on the letterhead of the U.S. Department 11 that they found the - the fibers that they found 12 of the Interior, and that's one of those as well; 12 were amphiboles; is that correct? 13 is that correct? 14 A Yes. These are a list of fiber counts. 15 Q And that again is simply fiber counts 13 A Yes. 14 Q It doesn't distinguish here what 15 variety of amphibole was found upon analysis, 16 and no analysis as to whether or not the fibers are 16 correct? 17 asbestos fibers or other types of fibers, correct? 18 - A That's correct. 19 Q Okay. The one before that is in June, 17 A That's correct. 18 Q Do you have any data that would shed 19 light on the identification of the samples that the 20 June 9th, of 1975, from the McCrone Laboratory in 20 McCrone Laboratory analyzed and reported to 21 Chicago to Dr. Thompson at Vanderbilt; correct? 21 Dr. Thompson in this June 9,1975, letter? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And that predates the report that that 22 A I don't. 23 Q Okay. The final - this is a June 1, 24 same laboratory did for the NIOSH study; is that 24 1975, letter from the EMVentions Inc. Microanalysis 25 correct? 25 Laboratory in Rockville, Maryland, to Dr. Thompson; VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 129 to Page 132 J. Keise -12/01/2004 J. Keise - direct - Mr. Maimon 133 J. Keise - direct - Mr. Maimon 135 1 is that correct? ' 2 A Yes. 3 Q And it refers to an analysis that they 1 analysis of asbestos content? 2 A 1 don't know for sure. 3 Q Okay. Do you know whether in the 4 did for Vanderbilt of six talc samples, correct? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Is there any identification within the 7 letter that you can find to identify what those 8 talc samples were? 9 A Not that lean identify. 4 course of its business Vanderbilt ever conducted 5 comparison studies of its own talc products against 6 competitors in the market to see what their 7 products were like compared to the brands and 8 grades of talc that Vanderbilt was selling? 9 MR. GAFFREY: Object to form. I think it's 10 Q Is Dr. Thompson still living? 10 a little bit broad. 11 A 12 13 A Yes. Q Do you know where he lives? Yes. 11 You can answer if you can. 12 A You'd probably have to be more descriptive 13 in terms of their - the composition, in terms of 14 Q Is he still employed by Vanderbilt? 14 - 15 A 16 No. Q Where does he live? 15 16 A Q Yes, composition. 1can't-again, leant say for sure- 17 A He's in Norwalk, Connecticut. 17 Q Okay. 18 Q Okay. This report also, like the 19 McCrone report, reports as to finding no chysotile 18 A 19 -you know. Q If you don't know, just tell me you 20 asbestos fibers in the samples that had been 20 dont know. 21 submitted by Dr. Thompson; is that correct? 22 A That's correct. 23 Q Mr. Keise, are you familiar with the 24 term "product audit"? 25 A Just in a general sense. 21 A No. 22 Q Okay. 1think that we have talked - 23 1think we have said that you yourself have not 24 personally done an analysis of Vanderbilt talc to 25 determine whether or notthere's asbestos in it; is J. Keise - direct - Mr. Maimon 134 J. Keise - direct - Mr. Maimon 136 1 Q The contents of the file that you have 2 here entitled "Analytical Reports", 1think we have 3 talked about them as being reports of analyses of 1 that correct? 2 A That's correct. 3 Q And we can agree you're not qualified 4 Vanderbilt talc at various points in time; right? 4 to do so, correct? 5A 6 For? Q For asbestos content. 5A 6 Yes. Q You've read reports of others who have 7 Correct? 7 done such analyses, correct? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Okay. And some of these analyses have 10 been done at your request, correct? 11 A Yes. 8 A Yes. 9 Q And it's fair to say that in addition 10 to the written reports that you have read you've 11 probably received oral reports of such analyses as 12 Q Some of these have been done at the 13 request of attorneys for Vanderbilt; is that 12 well, correct? 13 MR. GAFFREY: Object to form. You can 14 correct? 14 answer. 15 A Yes. 15 A I'm not sure what you mean by "oral 16 Q Some of these have been done in the 16 reports". 17 scope of research studies, correct? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Okay. Have you ever been involved in 17 Q In other words, something that wasn't 18 eventually reduced to writing but someone reported 19 to you, "1analyzed Vanderbilt talc and found X, Y, 20 requesting an analysis of talc samples for asbestos 21 content other than Vanderbilt talc? 22 A No. 23 Q Do you know if Vanderbilt has ever 24 conducted any type of analysis of talc samples that 25 are not Vanderbilt talc but other talc samples for 20 andZ." 21 A 1don't recall that I've ever gotten just a 22 verbal report without a paper report. 23 Q Okay. Then that's fine. 24 Would it be fair to say, Mr. Keise, that on 25 the question of whether Vanderbilt talc contains VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 133 to Page 136 J. Keise -12/01/2004 J, Keise - direct - Mr. Maimon 137 1 asbestos or not, that's a matter that is beyond 2 your expertise and would be something that another 3 specialty of expert would be qualified to give an 4 opinion on? 5 MR. GAFFREY: Objection to form. You can 6 answer. 7 A Yes. . 8 Q Okay. If you can go to Page 2 of your 9 report. 10 A Yes. 11 Q At the bottom of the page there are 12 two sentences that read as follows: 13 "MSHA, the U.S. Department of Labor's Mine . 14 Safety & Health Administration, periodically tests 15 Vanderbilt talc for asbestos content In the 16 workplace air and occasionally obtains bulk samples 17 for analysis. MSHA does not find asbestos in 18 Vanderbilt talc or in the workplace air." 19 Do you see that? 20 A 21 That's correct. Q I have read it correctly, right? 22 A 23 Yes, you have. Q You mentioned, I think, earlier in 24 response to some questions that I had about the 25 Notice of Deposition that you do have documents J. Keise - direct - Mr. Maimon 139 1 Q Mr. Keise, in addition to the 2 documents that you had given me out of your file, 3 which we marked as Exhibit 10, we now have two more 4 documents that we've marked collectively as Exhibit 5 11, which are more MSHA analysis reports; correct? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Do these two exhibits contain all of 8 the MSHA reports that you have that you are 9 referring to on the bottom of Page 2 of your expert 10 report? 11 A 1believeso. 12 1would have been referringto the more 13 recent ones, but 1thinkthis is everything. I'm 14 pretty sure it's everything. 15 Q Okay. The most recent ones, which are 16 Exhibit 11, are dated October 22,2001, and 17 November 1,2001, respectively; is that correct? 18 A Yes. 19 Q One is a bulk sampling and one is an 20 air sampling, correct? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And both of them report no detection 23 of asbestos in the samples taken, correct? 24 A Yes. 25 Q I've looked at Exhibit 10, and 1did J. Keise - direct - Mr. Maimon 138 J. Keise - direct - Mr. Maimon 140 1 concerning MSHA tests of Vanderbilt talc for 1 not find any reports of sampling by the MSHA during 2 asbestos content in bulk sample analysis; correct? 2 the 1990's in this list of documents. 3 A Yes. 4 Q Could you show me where those are, and 5 we'll discuss them. 6 A Surely. 7 Q This is in the file entitled 8 "Analytical Reports"? 9 A Yeah, it would be in there. 10 The most recent one, I think, is maybe 3 Is that correct? 4 A That's correct. 6 Q Is there a reason why MSHA didn't do 6 any testing or analyses of Vanderbilt talc during 7 the 1990's? 8 A I'll probablyhave to say 1don't knowfor 9 sure. 1have a good inkling, but ifs an inkling. 10 Q Why don't you share that inkling with 11 earlier. I don't know if that's in here too. Let 11 us. 12 me see. 13 These are the type of reports that you have 14 over a period of time. 15 Q Okay. You have given me a group of 16 documents stapled together. 17 MR. MAIMON: I'd like to mark these 18 separately as Exhibit 10. 19 (The above- and below-described documents 12 A Because I think by the end of the 1980's it 13 seemed dear to MSHA that this was not an asbestos- 14 containing or an asbestos exposure, so they didn't 15 monitor for it anymore. 16 Q And what is that inkling based on? 17 A It's just my guess. Typically you don't 18 sample for something that's not there. 19 Q Do you know what led to the sampling 20 were received and marked Kelse-10 for 20 that's contained in Exhibit 11? 21 Identification.) 22 (At this point a short recess was taken.) 23 (The below-described two Analytical Reports 21 A 22 23 A Yes, 1do. G Tell me what, please. There was an issue where a vermiculite mine 24 were received and marked Kelse-11 for 25 Identification.) ` 24 in Libby, Montana, did actually contain some trace 25 amohibole asbestos, which did produce some excess VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 137 to Page 140 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse -direct -M r. Maimon 141 1 cancers among the workers. The mine was owned by 2 W.R. Grace. 3 It ended up a major news story even though 4 mortality studies had that been done in the mid 5 80's that showed that there was an asbestos 6 contamination, a real asbestos contamination, and 7 showed an excess of lung cancer in that group; but 8 apparently, you know, the material was dispersed 9 throughout the town.for various reasons and there 10 was an environmental concern about the exposure to 11 this material, this vermiculite with the 12 contamination; and this then became the source of 13 a, you know, major news story; and part of the news 14 story had - was asking how come the government, 15 meaning essentially the EPA and Mine Safety & 16 Health Administration, who is responsible for 17 regulating mines, didn't protect peopie better; and 18 as a result of those news stories and that 19 pressure, the assistant secretary for MSHA 20 essentially set out to monitor all the mines under 21 their privy that they were supposed to regulate to 22 do another round of sampling to be sure there were 23 no other mines like Libby where there was this 24 background level and that they wouldn't - and 25 that's why the sampling was done at Vanderbilt. J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 143 1 accurate, I don't know. 2 Q Well, for instance, there is a 3 sampling dated March 8,1983, which reports 4 detecting asbestos fibers; is that correct? 5 A Yeah. There's a reference to asbestiform 6 anthrophyllite. 7 Q And asbestiform asbestos tremolite; is 8 that correct? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And chysotile as well; is that 11 correct? 12 A 13 Right. Q Now, this particular sampling date, 14 March 8,1983, was in the No. 1 mine and No. 1 15 mill. 16 A Right. 17 Q That's where the sample was taken, 18 right? 19 A Yeah. 20 Q Now, there is a 1989 sample taken in 21 what's called the No. 2 mine. 22 Do you see that? 23 A Right. 24 Q What's the No. 2 mine? 25 A That was the Arnold Pit, the adjacent Arnold J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 142 1 It was done at many other mines as well. 2 Q Okay. Doyou know the-the 3 contaminants of the vermiculite at Libby, Montana, 4 that was an amphibole contaminant; is that correct? 5 A Amphibole asbestos? 6 Q Yes. 7 A Yes. 8 Q Do you know whether or not that 9 amphibole was a regulated fiber, asbestos fiber, 10 under OSHA? 11 A Some of it was. 12 Q And what was the regulated fiber? 13 A It was tremolite asbestos. 14 Q Now, as 1look over the reports from 15 MSHA in Exhibit 101 see reports going back as far 16 as 1979 and as late as 1989, so about a 10-year 17 period of time. 18 Fair to say? 19 A That's what they show. 20 Q And the reports in the early 1980's 21 report the presence of asbestos in the sampling; is 22 that correct? 23 A It may. 24 In the early reports from a lot of people 25 it was sometimes reported. Whether or not it's J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 144 1 Pit. 2 Q in 1989 were they still separate, an 3 open pit and an underground mine, or had they been 4 merged by that point in time? 5 A No. They were still separate. 1995 is when 6 they shut the underground mine down. 7 Q So after 1995 mining has only been 8 done in the open pit and not from the underground 9 mine? 10 A Thafs correct. 11 Q There are some bulk samples that are 12 reported in here in the 1980's, mid-1980's, that 13 are reported as showing no asbestos fibers found. 14 You're familiar with those, right? 15 A I've familiarwith the report. 1couldn't 16 tell you what the bulks were. 17 Q Okay. There are several reports in 18 here addressed to you from the RJ. Lee Group; is 19 that correct? 20 A That's correct. 21 Q And in connection with those there are 22 sample analyses of talc that you had sent to the 23 R.J. Lee Group for analysis; is that correct? 24 A That's correct. 25 Q If you sent a sample of a NYfAL VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 141 to Page 144 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 145 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 147 1 productto one of these analysts in, say, the year 1 Q Were you involved in any alterations 2 2000, how reliable would the analysis be, in your 2 or upgrades of that program? 3 opinion, concerning that same product line and 3 A Yes. 4 grade that had been sold, say, in the 1980's, as 4 Q And could you describe for me your 5 far as matching apples to apples? 5 role in that regard? 6 A My opinion is they would be very - very 6 A In the 1990's I wanted better dust control 7 similar, 1mean, if not exactly the same, because 7 on the packers, packing machines, because that's 8 these products have certain parameters, you know, 8 where I was getting my highest dust levels. 9 like 1said, oil absorption and brightness and a 9 Historically that's where most of the high dust 10 host of other criteria that are needed for them to 10 levels were, so I wanted more capture velocity. 11 function in a certain way; and if they don't meet 11 So they had to upgrade the air movers. We 12 those functions, you know, they're not going to be 12 needed to do some redesign on whafs known as the 13 used. 13 nozzie cowls that - these machines have these four 14 In order to meet those functions, those 14 nozzles on. 15 blends have to be the same. They have to be 15 Put the bags on the nozzles. They fill to 16 similar. 17 Q So with regard to NYTAL100-a s an 16 50 pounds, and then they drop down. They go down a 17 conveyor, and part of the issue was that - around 18 example, would an analysis of NYTAL 100 bought off 18 that nozzle there's a cowl, and part of the 19 the shelf in, say, the year 1997 have any relevance 19 ventilation system is hooked up to that, and, so, 20 to understanding the constituent components of 20 you have a narrow area, so you pull more velocity 21 NYTAL 100 that was sold in 1975, say? 21 through, so you can catch more particles and pull 22 A 23 1believe it would, yes. Q And would the constituent components 22 them into the system. 23 I wanted that expanded so that I had more 24 and relative proportions of those components for 24 velocity; and then 1wanted adjustments to the bag 25 NYTAL 100 have been the same in 1975 as they are, 25 pressure so that we wouldn't build up so much air J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 146 1 say, today? 2 A I believe they would. 3 Q And the mine ore that's being used for 4 - let's use NYTAL 100 as an example. 5 Is it your understanding that it's basically 6 the same as it was back in the 1970's and 1960's? 7 A It's my understanding. 8 Q Yes? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Okay. I saw a reference in one of 11 these documents to various dust control programs 12 that were put into place at the Gouverneur talc 13 facility. 14 A Yes. 15 Q When were those put into place? Do 16 you recall? 17 A It was over a period of years. 18 More controls were put into the mill, since 19 it's a fixed facility as opposed to a mine, which 20 is not more flexible. 21 Q And what span of years did the dust 22 control program encompass in the mill? 23 A I would think they probably would work on 24 improvements from Day 1 probably, from 1948 on, 25 some more than others. J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 148 1 pressure in the bag so that when they released you 2 didn't get as much dust, you know, coming out of 3 the bag. 4 So those were some of the things that - 5 Q Anything else that you would call 6 major endeavors on your part with regard to the 7 dust control program? 8 A Beyond that, no. 9 They continue to maintain their maintenance 10 programs and their housekeeping, which is very 11 important in keeping dust levels down, so you want 12 to make sure the conveyors and things of that sort 13 are tightly sealed and that they're constantly 14 collecting materials so that the vibration in the 15 plant doesn't regenerate it into the air. 16 These are the typical types of dust controls 17 anyone would use. 18 Q Is respirator use mandatory in the 19 mill? 20 A Yes, and mine as well. 21 Q And has that always been the case 22 during the time period that you've been with 23 Vanderbilt? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Take a look back at your report. VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 145 to Page 148 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 149 1 Also in the last paragraph there - 2 MR.GAFFREY: Page 2. 3 Q Yes, Page 2. 4 The fourth sentence of that paragraph, which 5 starts with the words "Most importantly". 6 A Uh-huh. 7 Q It says-and I'll read the whole 8 sentence - "Most importantly this talc has not 9 been shown to cause a health risk similar in 10 magnitude or scope to that of asbestos including 11 mesothelioma in animals or man regardless of 12 exposure level or duration." 13 I read that correctly? 14 A That's right. 15 Q What do you mean by the word 16 "magnitude"? 17 A The principal meaning of that is associated 18 with the fact that overexposure to talc and most 19 other mineral dust - actually, exposure to any 20 mineral dust - can produce, you know, pulmonary 21 impairment. 22 Some dusts are more risky than others, like 23 asbestos or crystalline silica, so smaller amounts 24 or levels of exposure may result in an effect, 25 whereas another material that may not be as risky J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 151 1 report in a bit; but the term "scope" here, what do 2 you mean by that? 3 A Scope has to do with the types of disease. 4 Although overexposure to this talc can cause 5 a pneumoconiosis, we don't believe that it's linked 6 to carcinogenicity either, lung cancer or 7 mesothelioma. 8 Q The next sentence says, "It is 9 commonly understood that asbestos is the only 10 mineral dust that has been linked to asbestos as 11 a causative agent, plaintiffs claimed" - 12 MR. GAFFREY: Mesothelioma. 13 Q - "linked to mesothelioma as a 14 causative agent, plaintiffs claimed condition in 15 this case." 16 Do you see that? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And you understand that Mr. Hirsch 19 made a claim for having suffered from mesothelioma, 20 correct? 21 A Yes. 22 Q You are not a doctor; are you? 23 A No. 24 Q And you're not qualified, can we 25 agree, to either confirm or dispute the diagnosis J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 150 1 you might be able to have more of an exposure 2 before you saw an effect. 3 So you can get this pneumoconiosis from your 4 exposure to asbestos or you can also get it through 5 overexposure to talc, our talc or anyone else's 6 talc, or to calon or mica or any other mineral 7 dust. 8 So when I use the word "magnitude", that's 9 what 1mean; that the type of pulmonary impairment, 10 you know, that we have seen among talc workers, 11 ours and others - and we do see them with people 12 who are overexposed to high dust levels - are not 13 the same. 14 You know, they don't appear as frequently 15 and at the dust levels that you see them in 16 asbestos-exposed worker populations. 17 I think in the medical review you have a 18 summaiy by Dr. Boehleche, who really oversees the 19 pulmonary program for the last 18 years -1 think 20 he summarizes that, almost these very words. 21 I don't know the type of effects in these 22 talc workers that you would see in asbestos, where 23 people who are actually exposed to asbestos would 24 have. 25 Q Okay. We're going to get to his J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 152 1 of mesothelioma in Mr. Hirsch or anyone else; 2 right? 3 A That's correct. ' 4 Q Do you consider yourself to be an 5 expert in the causes of mesothelioma? 6 MR. GAFFREY: Can Ijust maybe ask you to 7 clarify? 8 Are you asking him in a legal sense or in a 9 factual sense? 10 MR. MAIMON: I'm asking- 11 A Causes? 12 Q Yes, what causes mesothelioma. 13 Do you consider yourself to be an expert in 14 that subject? 15 MR. GAFFREY: I'm going to object to form. 16 You can answer if you can. 17 A Well, you know, I have an opinion based on 18 everything that l have read; and however valid or 19 invalid it is, the material that I have read would 20 be reflective. 21 My understanding is that the general 22 consensus seems to be that 70 to 80 percent of 23 mesotheliomas are associated with asbestos 24 exposure. There are people who say it's a higher 25 percent, and there are people who say it is a lower VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 PaSe 149 to Pa2e 152 J. Kelse-12/01/2004 J. Keise - direct - Mr. Maimon 153 1 percent In general it seems to be that range. 2 There have been other causes that I have 3 read that have either been confirmed or debated - 4 radiation is one. 5 There was an issue with a vaccine, you know, 6 that for a while seemed - a monkey vaccine or 7 something or other that seemed that it might be; 8 and most recently it appears that it's not. 9 There are certain metal salts - nickel, 1 10 think, has been implicated at one point 11 Whether these are valid or not, I don't 12 know; but I do know that these - there have been 13 other causes discussed. 14 Q Okay. What you know about 15 mesothelioma and its causes is based on the 16 materials that you've read; is that correct? 17 A Yes; and I wouldn't say it's an exhaustive, 18 you know, reading. 19 Q But it's not based on any independent 20 research that you have done; is that correct? 21 A No, it's not. 22 Q It's not based on any personal 23 knowledge that you have; is that correct? 24 MR. GAFFREY: I'm going to object If you 25 understand that-you maywant to - J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 155 1 lengths, at least 10 micrometer lengths. 2 That's what 1getfrom the literature. 3 Q 1understand that you have read some 4 of this material. 5 What I'mtalking about is whether or not as 6 a professional you feel that you're qualified to 7 give an expert opinion judgment on those questions 8 about what types of asbestos are capable of causing 9 mesothelioma. 10 A To the extent that I can refer to papers 11 that 1think are pretty authoritative on it. To 12 that extent, but only to that extent. 13 Q In other words, you would be quoting 14 the works of others? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Okay. I don't know if I asked you 17 this. 18 Do you consider yourself qualified to render 19 an expert opinion as to what levels of asbestos 20 exposure are capable of causing mesothelioma? 21 A No. 22 Q Okay. Are there grades of Vanderbilt 23 talc which by design contain less than 50 percent 24 amphiboles? 25 A By design? J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 154 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 156 1 MR. MAIMON: Let me rephrase it. It's a 1 Q I say "by design" because 1realize 2 poorly-phrased question, (appreciate that. 2 that there's a range in which they run. 3 Q You don't have any professional 3 A Right. I can't say for sure. 1doubt it. 4 training in determining the causes of diseases such 5 as mesothelioma; do you? 6 A No. 7 Q You talked about various materials 4 leant say for sure. 5 1can direct you to an analytical report of 6 various, you know, grades that break down, you 7 know, percentages; but other than that - 8 other than asbestos that have been discussed as 8 Q Well, the MSD sheets would reflect for 9 possible causes of mesothelioma. 9 every grade of your products what the constituent 10 Do you consider yourself qualified to 10 ranges are; is that correct? 11 analyze whether or not those indeed are causative 12 agents of mesothelioma or not? 11 A That's correct, yes. 12 Q Okay. A major component of Vanderbilt 13 A No. 13 talc is tremolite; is that correct? 14 Q Okay. Do you consider yourself 15 qualified to render an expert opinion as to the 14 A Yes. 15 Q And there's also a component of 16 amount of asbestos required to cause mesothelioma? 16 anthrophyliite within Vanderbilt talc; is that 17 A No. 17 correct? 18 Q Do you consider yourself qualified 18 A Yes. 19 to render an opinion as to the type of asbestos 19 Q The analyses that are contained in 20 capable of causing mesothelioma? 21 A I hesitate only because, you know, 1have 20 your file titled "Analytical Reports" have - those 21 that have looked to distinguish different 22 read enough; and what I've read suggests that 22 constituent talc have all identified both tremolite 23 amphibole asbestos, asbestiform amphiboles, are 24 more commonly implicated in mesothelioma, 23 and anthrophyliite in the talc; is that correct? 24 A Certainly the vast majority. 1don't know 25 particularly those of very thin widths and long 25 if they all do, but yes. VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 153 to Page 156 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 157 1 Q All right. Aside from simply doing 2 the mineraiogical identification ofeither 3 tremolite as a constituent part or anthrophyliite 4 as a constituent part, some ofthese analyses have 5 been determining whether or not the tremolite and/ 6 or anthrophyliite within the talc Is asbestiform or 7 nonasbestlform; is that correct? 8 A That's right. 9 Q One of the things I think you made 10 reference to in your resume as partof yourjob 11 responsibility has been appearance at NIOSH, OSHA, 12 and such regulatory body hearings on regulation 13 issues on behalfofthe company; is that correct? 14 A What regulations? 15 Q Regulations dealing with the 16 definition of asbestos. 17 A Yeah, yes. 18 Q And you have appeared at NIOSH and 19 OSHA hearings on behalfof R.T. Vanderbilt to 20 express the view held bythe company on those 21 issues; is that correct? 22 A OSHA hearings. There are no NiOSH hearings. 23 Q Okay. I'm sorry. 24 So you have appeared at OSHA hearings, 25 correct? J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 159 1 that correct? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Do you know how much money in grants 4 R.T. Vanderbilt has given to Dr. Wylie over-the 5 years? 6 A No, 1don't. 7 Q In addition to money in grants, has 8 Dr. Wylie been retained as an expertor an expert 9 consultant byVanderbilt in various legal settings? 10 A Yes. We have asked her to, yes. 11 Q And in conjunction with that she has 12 written expert reports for Vanderbilt in 13 litigation; is that correct? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And in conjunction with that she has 16 executed affidavits; is that correct? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Do you know how much money Vanderbilt 19 or those representingVanderbilt have paid 20 Dr. Wylie over the years in connection with her 21 consultation work for the company? 22 A No, 1don't know exactly. 23 Q Do you have a ballpark figure? 24 A 1knowit's not much, in some cases we paid 25 nothing. J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 158 1 A Yes. 2 Q When you have appeared at OSHA 3 hearings, you have appeared on behalf of the 4 company and not as an individual citizen; is that 5 correct? 6 A That's correct. 7 Q And you have expressed at those 8 hearings the company's position that the tremolite 9 and anthrophyliite that are part ofthe talc mined 10 at the Gouverneurfacility are non-asbestiform; is 11 that correct? 12 A That's correct 13 (At this point a short recess was taken.) 14 Q As one of the bases for that position 15 you have relied on the work ofAnn Wylie; is that 16 correct? 17 A That's correct. 18 Q And some of her publications and some 19 of her affidavits and some of her letter/reports 20 are contained in the materials thatyou have 21 brought with you today; is that correct? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Now, some of her publications and the 24 research that she has done have been supported by 25 grants provided by the R.T. Vanderbilt Company; is J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 160 1 Q Do you know how many cases there have 2 been brought againstVanderbilt, lawsuitsfiled 3 againstVanderbilt, claiming asbestos-related 4 injuries resultingfrom exposure to Vanderbilt 5 talc? 6 A No, 1don't. , 7 Q There was a litigation in upstate New 8 York -1 think it was the Baker case. 9 Do you recall that? 10 A The name is familiar, yes. 11 Q The Setright firm was the plaintiffs 12 firm handlingthat 13 Do you recall that? 14 A Seabright? 15 Q Setright. 16 A Setright. It doesn't sound familiar to me. 17 It could have been. 18 Q Aside from this case, the Hirsch case, 19 have you provided any consultation services to 20 Vanderbilt in connection with any other lawsuits 21 that have been brought against it claiming 22 asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure 23 to Vanderbilttalc? 24 MR. GAFFREY: Can you reread that question, 25 please. VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 157 to Page 160 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 161 1 (At this point the pending question was read 2 back by the reporter as follows: 3 "Aside from this case, the Hirsch case, have 4 you provided any consultation services to 5 Vanderbilt in connection with any other lawsuits 6 that have been brought against it claiming 7 asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure 8 to Vanderbilt talc?") 9 MR. GAFFREY: Do you understand the question 10 is consultation to Vanderbilt, not to counsel? 11 Consultation to Vanderbilt. 12 THE WITNESS: Oh, internally? 13 MR. GAFFREY: Yes. With respect to third- 14 party actions filed againstVanderbilt. 15 Do you understand that? 16 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure of the term 17 "consultation". 18 MR. GAFFREY: Then if you don't understand 19 the term, ask himto clarify. 20 Q If you don't understand the question, 21 just tell me. 22 A Yeah. I'm hung up on the word 23 "consultation". 24 Q Okay. 1think you have told us before 25 that you've not been - you've not served in the J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 163 1 is there a standard procedure in place in 2 Vanderbilt for responding to customer inquiries 3 concerning the subject of whetherthe Vanderbilt 4 talc has asbestos in it? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And describe that procedure for me. 7 A customer makes an inquiry, and what 8 happens then? 9 A it's rather simple. If it has to do with 10 that subject, the talc and whether it contains 11 asbestos or not, the question goes to me. 12 Q If the inquiry is made in writing, do 13 you generally respond in writing? 14 A 1would say more often than not there will 15 be some response, yes. 16 Q Are there occasions where the inquiry 17 is made by phone? 18 A Yes. 19 Q If it is, do you generally respond in 20 kind, or do you again respond in writing? 21 A Both, depending upon the nature of the 22 inquiry. 23 More often than notthey will ask for data, 24 you know, that pertains to whether it contains 25 asbestos or not and why do we say it doesn't and J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 162 1 capacity as an expert witness in any case for 2 Vanderbilt in the past before this one; is that 3 correct? 4 A Yes. 5 Q In connection with the issue of 6 whether Vanderbilt talc does or does not contain 7 asbestos in it, has Vanderbilt been approached by 8 any of its customers seeking information on that 9 subject? 10 A Yes. 11 Q And in the course of your employment 12 at Vanderbilt, have you had any responsibility for 13 responding to customer inquiries into that subject? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And could you tell me what your 16 responsibility has been? 17 A Essentiallyto direct them to the MSDS, 18 which 1think is an honest and straight-forward 19 characterization of the material in terms of what 20 it contains and in terms of its risks. 21 1will also point out the published studies. 22 you know, that exist on the material. On occasion 23 I'll supply them if they ask me to. 24 Q Is there a normal procedure - 25 withdrawn. J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 164 1 what do we have to show; and 1provide this type of 2 information. 3 Q If you could turn to Page 3 of your 4 report. 5 In the first full paragraph, which starts 6 with the words "Vanderbilttalc" - 7 A Yes. 8 Q The second sentence reads as follows: 9 "Vanderbilt talc has been injected and 10 implanted into the pleural cavities of rats and 11 hamsters in two independent studies." 12 Do you see that? 13 A Yes. 14 Q First of all, 1read that correctly; 15 did 1not? 16 A Yes, you do. 17 Q Could you identify the studies that 18 you're referring to? 19 A Tire Smith study and the Stanton study. 20 Q And if you could take those out. 21 Those are in the foldertitled what? 22 A This is titled "Human, Animal &Cell 23 Studies". 24 Q Okay. 25 A Okay. This is the Smith study, along with VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 161 to Page 164 J. Keise -12/01/2004 J. Keise - direct - Mr. Maimon 165 1 an earlier report on one of the samples; and this 2 is the Stanton study, along with an affidavit from 3 Dr. Wylie on the identification of what the samples 4 are. 5 Q Okay. Within the body of the Stanton 6 published article, which you have in here, is there 7 any-withdrawn. 8 Within the published article by Stanton, 9 which you have here, is there any identification of 10 any of the talc thatwas used as beingVanderbilt 11 talc? 12 A No. 13 Q You have two reports here by William 14 E. Smith, correct? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Okay. One is published and printed in 17 the text "Dusts and Disease", is that correct, 18 1979? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And the other is a private report to 21 the R.T. Vanderbilt Company, correct? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Okay. In the published paper by 24 Smith, isthere an identification of any of the 25 talc tested as beingVanderbilt talc? J. Keise - direct - Mr. Maimon 167 1 A No, 1don't. 2 Q You don't? 3A 4 1don't. Q Okay. The published Smith paper 5 refers to Sample No. FD14 as coming from 6 Whittiker, Clark & Daniels in New York City; is 7 that correct? 8 A That's right. 9 Q And it was labeled No. 13 talc, as 10 referenced bySmith in the article; right? 11 A Yes, if that's what it says. 12 Q Okay. Do you have any documents which 13 cross-reference Whittiker, Clark & Daniels No. 13 14 talc to any grades of Vanderbilt talc? 15 A 1don't knowfor sure. 1think we do. 1 16 think probably 1will find them. 17 Q There's also a reference in the 18 published Smith paper to Vanderbilt providing 19 preparations - or a preparation oftremolitie ore, 20 correct? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Do you have any internal or have 23 access to any internal Vanderbilt documents which 24 would document what they sent Smith in connection 25 with this paper? J. Keise - direct - Mr. Maimon 166 J. Keise - direct - Mr. Maimon 168 1 A Notspecific to Vanderbilt, no. 1 A 1believe 1could get those, yeah. 2 Q The Smith experiments predate your 2 Q Those exist? 3 employment with Vanderbilt; is that correct? 4 A That's correct. 5 Q Would it be fair to say, Mr. Keise, 3 A 1believe they do. 4 You know, 1can't swear to it; but I'm 5 rather certain - you know, we never questioned it; 6 that you have no firsthand knowledge concerning the 6 butwecandigitup. - 7 talc used by William Smith in his tremolite 7 Q But those are not in the materials 8 testing? 8 that you produced; is that correct? 9 A Yeah. Other than the documents in the file, 10 you know. 9A 10 No, they are not. Q The unpublished report to R.T. 11 Q You have no personal knowledge; is 12 that correct? 11 Vanderbilt refers to a sample of the tremolitie 12 portion of a typical NewYork State talc ore, which 13 I'mnot talkingsomethingthat you have 13 is given a designation of CPS-275-1. 14 read. I'mtalking about personal knowledge. 14 A Uh-huh. 15 You know, you saw, you were there. 15 Q Do you see that? 16 A 17 No. This is before my time. Q Okay. The report to R.T. - 16 A 17 Yes. Q Do you know what that designation 18 withdrawn. 19 The report or paper "Dusts and Disease" by 18 signifies? 19 A CPS and CPSC, as you sawsome other sampies 20 Smith was supported by a grant from the R.T. 20 in other documents, are code numbers that 21 Vanderbilt Company; is that correct? 21 Dr. Thompson would put on samples that were sent 22 A 1believe so, yes. 22 out. He had cross-references to those numbers. 23 Q Do you know how much money R.T. 24 Vanderbilt gave to Dr. Smith in connection with 23 Ifs one of the indications that it's our material. 24 Q Do you know what "CPS" stands for? 25 this study? 25 A Notoffhand, no. 1think he told me once, VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 165 to Page 168 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 169 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 171 1 but... 1 Are you familiar with that article? 2 Q Is it your understanding, Mr. Kelse, 2 A Yes, I am. 3 that the contents of the unpublished report by 3 Q This is the publication by Kleinfeld 4 Smith to R.T. Vanderbilt are contained within the 4 in 1967 entitled "Mortality Among Talc Miners and 5 published paper titled "Biologic Tests of Tremolite 5 Millers in New York State". It was published In 6 in Hamsters"? 6 the "Archives of Environmental Health". 7 A I believe so, yes.. 7 Is that correct? 8 Q Okay. I think you made reference also 8 A That's correct. 9 to the affidavit of Ann Wylie, which is dated 9 Q And when was it that you first saw a 10 November 1,1984; right? 11 A Yes. 10 copy of this article? 11 A Certainly not before I started working for 12 Q And in this I believe Dr. Wylie 12 Vanderbilt, so it would have been shortly 13 asserts that some of the talc used by Dr. Stanton 13 thereafter; probably '85, '86. 14 in his study was Vanderbilt talc; is that correct? 14 Q This is referenced in the 1980 NIOSH 15 A That's correct. 15 Technical Report that we have marked as Exhibit 8, 16 Q Aside from Dr. Wylie's affidavit, do 16 correct? 17 you have any other basis for the assertion that the 17 A Yes. 18 Stanton - any of the Stanton materials tested were 18 Q When you first looked at the NIOSH 19 Vanderbilt talc? 19 1980 Technical Report, did you look at any of the 20 A 21 No. Q Just so I understand correctly, the 20 references that were cited by those researchers 21 concerning the talc workers in the region that you 22 only documents that you have brought with you today 22 were goingto do air sampling in? 23 in response to the Notice of Deposition, 23 A No. 1was predominantly, almost 24 specifically Item No. 8, which support the 24 exclusively, focused on the industrial hygiene 25 allegation that Vanderbilt talc has been injected 25 part, the position - or the industrial hygiene J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 170 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 172 1 and implanted into the pleural cavities of rats and 2 hamsters in two independent studies is the Wylie 1 part of the NIOSH work, not the health part. 2 Q The Kleinfeld article reported a four- 3 affidavit; correct? 4 A For Stanton. 3 fold increase in lung cancer among the talc miners 4 and millers that were studied in that group; is 5 Q For Stanton. 5 that correct? 6 A Yes. 7 And for Smith the CPSC and references to the 8 Vanderbilt sample or Gouverneur material would be 6 A 221, yes. 7 Q The NIOSH report - do you recall what 8 percentage increase was reported by the NIOSH 1980 9 all that I have. 10 We'll find something more specific for you. 9 Technical Report? 10 A A little lower. It was similar. It was 11 Q So with regard to Stanton you have the 11 about two and a half, three times, something like 12 Wylie affidavit. 13 Do you believe you have anything else in 12 that. 13 I think I actually have that listed 14 your files on that subject aside from the Wylie 14 somewhere. . 15 affidavit? 15 Q If you want to check that out. 16 A No. 1don't believe there was any other 17 data, you know, that identified these materials. 16 A Sure. 270. 17 Q The NIOSH Technical Report had about 18 MR. MAIMON: Okay. Let's mark this as the 18 400 subjects; is that correct? 19 next. 20 (The below-described article, entitled 19 A 20 I believe so, yes. Q One of the materials that you brought 21 "Mortality Among Talc Miners and Millers in New 21 with you is the spiral-bound pictorial presentation 22 York State", was received and marked Kelse-12 for 22 that you prepared; is that correct? 23 Identification.) 24 Q I'll show you what we've marked as 23 A 24 That's correct. Q Okay. And in it you list some of the 25 Exhibit 12. 25 health studies, correct, some of the health studies VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 169 to Page 172 J .K e ls e -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 173 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon - 175 1 related to talc mining? 1 the first sentence of "Materials and Methods" it 2 A Just Vanderbilt. 2 says, "All talc miners and millers employed in 1940 3 Q Just Vanderbilt. 3 who had 15 or more years of exposure to talc dust". 4 You did not cite to the Kleinfeld study in 4- That's the first phrase there, right? 5 this document; is that correct? 5 A Yes. 6 A That's correct. 6 Q Therefore, you'd have to have somebody 7 Q Is the reason that you did not is 7 who was employed as a talc miner or miller in 1940 8 because Kleinfeld encompassed more than just 8 and who had 15 or more years of exposure; correct? 9 Vanderbilt talc miners and millers, but talc miners 9 A That's-yes. 10 and millers employed by other companies as well in 10 Q To qualify under that phrase, correct? 11 the region? 11 A That's how I read it. 12 A No. The reason is because they didn't 12 Q The next phrase says, "As well as 13 incorporate Vanderbilt at all. 13 those who achieved a minimum of 15 years of such 14 Q There were no employees of Vanderbilt 14 exposure between 1940 and 1965". 15 included in the Kleinfeld study? 15 So people who- 16 A No. 17 If you look at the years of study and the 16 A 17 Right. Q -were exposed for 15 years during 18 criteria for being entered into the cohort, you 18 the time period 1940 to 1965 were also included in 19 had to work X number of years and you had to begin 19 the study; is that correct? 20 before a certain year; and when you subtract those 20 A Yes. 21 years you see that it comes out before 1948. 21 Q Okay. Is there anything in the 22 In 1948 - prior to 1948 there was no 22 "Materials or Methods" or the procedures used here 23 Vanderbilt talc. 23 to require employment by the same employer during 24 Q All right. If you could show me in 24 the years of exposure? 25 the article where that is or how you figure that 25 A No. J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 174 J.Kelse-direct-M r. Maimon 176 1 out, I'd appreciate it. 1 Q So that for the 15 years of exposure 2 A Sure. Let's see. 2 a talc miner or miller could have spent five years 3 Okay. Under "Materials and Methods" on Page 3 with one company, another five years with a second 4 664. 4 company, and five years with a third company; 5 Q I'm with you. 5 correct? 6 A Okay. This would have included people who 6 A Certainly. 7 would have been employed in 1940 and who had had 7 Q And you said that the GTC mine was 8 15 or more years of exposure, as well as those who 9 achieved a minimum of 15 years between 1940 and 8 opened when? 9 A 1948. 1think they actually started moving 10 1965. 11 If you subtract - 10 ore, you know, early in 1949 or something. 11 Q Okay. So at least for the period of 12 Q So that if someone were employed from 12 1950 through 1965, which would be the inclusive 13 1950to 1965 they could be included in this study; 13 years within this study, there were workers working 14 is that correct? 14 in the Gouvemeur talc mine; is that correct? 15 A I don't-from 1950? 15 A Between what years? 16 Q That would be a minimum of 15 years - 16 Q '50 and'65. 17 A Yeah, yeah. I think that - 17 A Sure. 18 Q - during that period, right? 18 Q And if somebody was working for GTC 19 A That's true. 19 for that entire period of time as a talc miner, 20 So you did have two-year time period, but - 20 theoretically they would have qualified to be part 21 although they would have had to work, you know - 21 of this study; is that correct? 22 you know, they would have had to work 15 years. 22 A Fifteen years? They may have. 23 They would have had to have been employed in 23 Q And if they had worked for, let's say, 24 1940. No one was employed in 1940. 24 seven years before 1950 for another talc mine and 25 Q Well.no. 1think if you take-in 25 then moved over to Gouvemeur and did another eight VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 173 to Page 176 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 177 ------------- 179 ' years for Gouverneur between 1950 and 1960, they 2 would have qualified to be in this study; is that 3 correct? 4 A I would think. I would have to look at this 5 a little more closely, but it sounds right. 6 Q Okay. So can you say with any 7 certainty that this study did not include GTC 8 employees? 9 A I would say if it did it had to be minimal. 1 brought with him today, and let's mark as Exhibit 2 Kelse-13 the three-ring binder entitled The 3 Asbestiform and Nonasbestiform Mineral Growth Habit 4 and the Relationship to Cancer Studies". 5 (The above-described binder was received and 6 marked Kelse-13 for Identification.) 7 MR. MAIMON: The next folder that we'll mark 8 - and this will be Exhibit 14 - is the file 9 titled "Human, Animal & Cell Studies RTV Talc ' 0 Q And why is that? ' 1 A It couldn't have been that many people - 12 Q Why is that? 13 A - who qualified for those years. 4 Also, in terms of lung cancer, there is a ' 5 latency attached to that as well, so you may wonder 6 - you almost have to have exposures, you know, in 17 the 40's - 30's, 40's, 50's. '8 I don't - 19 Q Well, that would be talking about the 20 contribution of any exposure at GTC. I'm talking 21 about whether or not GTC employees were included in 22 this study or not 23 A I probably couldn't say for certain that 24 they were not. 25 Q Do you know, when GTC opened its mine J. Kelse - direct - Mr. Maimon 178 1 in 1948 and then was employing a work force, 2 whether or not that work force had experience in 3 general in die talc mining industry? 4 A l would say there's a high probability that 5 many of them would because you would want to hire 6 people who had experience. 7 Q And do you know what the mean or 10 Specifically". 11 (The above-described folder was received and 12 marked Kelse-14 for Identification.) 13 MR. MAIMON: Exhibit 15 we'll mark as the 14 file titled "Mineralogy Key Papers". 15 (The above-described file was received and 16 marked Kelse-15 for Identification.) 17 MR. MAIMON: Exhibit 16 will be the file 18 titled "General Reference Documents Fiber Sizes 19 Meso Lung Burden". 20 (The above-described folder was received and 21 marked Kelse-16 for Identification.) 22 MR. MAIMON: 17 will be the file titled 23 "Overviews Health and Mineralogy". 24 (The above-described folder was received and 25 marked Kelse-17for Identification.)________________ __ go 1 MR. MAIMON: Exhibit 18, we're going to mark 2 the file entitled "Health Study Critiques." 3 (The above-described folder was received and 4 marked Kelse-18 for Identification.) 5 MR. MAIMON: Exhibit 19 will be the file 6 entitled "NiOSH correspondence". 7 (The above-described folder was received and 8 average number of years in the industry was for the 9 workers who joined GTC when it opened its mines in 10 1948? 11 MR. GAFFREY: These questions answer from 12 personal knowledge. Don't guess. 13 A Idontknow. 14 Q Okay. Do you have any documents or 15 does the company have any documents that would help 16 you in answering that question? 17 A Not to my knowledge. 18 Q- Haveyou seen-withdrawn. 19 Do you know what mines the workers involved 20 in the Kleinfeld study were working at? 21 A No, I don't. 22 MS. GRIMBERGEN: Off the record. 8 marked Keise-19 for Identification.) 9 MR. MAIMON: Exhibit 20 will be the file 10 titled "OSHA NTP Submissions Testimony MSHA". 11 (The above-described folder was received and 12 marked Kelse-20 for Identification.) 13 MR. MAIMON: Exhibit 21 will be the file 14 entitled "Hirsch Case File". 15 (The above-described folder was received and 16 marked Keise-21 for Identification.) 17 MR. MAIMON: And Exhibit 22 will be the file 18 entitled "Analytical Reports". 19 (The above-described folder was received and 20 marked Kelse-22 for Identification.) 21 MR. MAIMON: We're going to adjourn the 22 deposition and agree upon a date after 23 (Discussion held off the record.) 23 Oconferencing next week. 24 MR. MAIMON: We're going to go back on the 25 record and mark the various items that Mr. Kelse 24 (Witness excused.) 25 (The deposition was concluded at 4:30 p.m.)______ VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 177 to Page 180 C E R T I F I C A T E OF J. Kelse -12/01/2004 rtsa OFFICER I, H O L L Y J O H M S O U K O W A L S M K Q # a C e r t i f i e d Shorthand Reporter and notary Public of the State of Hew Jersey hereby certify that prior to the commencement of the examination the witness was duly sworn by me. r DO FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcription of the testimony as tafcen s t e n o g r a p h i c a l l y b y a n d b e f o r e m e o n th e date, time, and place aforementioned. I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that 1 am neither a relative, employee, attorney, nor counsel to any parties involved; that 5 am neither related to nor employed by any such attorney or counsel; and that I am not financially interested in the outcome of this action. VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 181 to Page 181 '5 0 HI 17616 '6 5 IH 17616 '7 5 12) 71:612912 '7 6 12) 71:812912 '82 IH 1291 '8 3 (4) 40:5128:9129:1131:3 '85 IH 171:13 '8 6 IH 17113 *87 IH 12810 . '8 8 IH 12811 ................... o .... 07932 IH 21 4 0864811)2:5 08903 IH 2 19 O conferencing IH 180:23 1 1 (20) 1 1 9 5 :2 1 2 1 4 16:251712 64:17 65:2097:4 101:6106:7 113:2311614 121:23122:2132:23139:1714314 146:2416910 1 0 17) 2 7 1 6 53:24 1 38 1 8 139:3.25 14215155:1 1 0 -y e a r IH 142:16 1 0 / 2 2 / 0 1 IH 4:4 100 132] 3:15 5:6 74:12 77:9.17 78:14. 23 79:13 81:3.7.1424 82:4.9.17 83:14. 22 84:12.20 85:4 89:17 9 0 1194:10 95: 16145:17-18.2125146:4 101 IH 2:4 105 12) 2:4 3:18 1 0 8 IH 3 1 9 109 HI 3:21 10:15 IH 1:20 1 1 14) 5:3139:526140:20 1 1 / 1 / 0 1 IH 4:4 1 1 / 1 0 / 0 6 IH 181:23 1 1 /2 4 /0 4 1 1 1 3 :1 1 1 1 5 IH 3:23 12 13) 36:3124:18170:25 120 IH 5:7 125 IH 5:8 13 HI 167:9.13 1 3 3 3 IH 2:24 13812)3:24 4:4 14 RI 167:5179:8 15 HO) 174:8-9.1622175:3.8.13.17 176:1179:13 151 IH 2:9 16 HI 179:17 17 IH 179:22 170 IH 4:5 178 H I 4:7 179 HI 4:10.12.14.16 18 13) 10121150:19180:1 180 15) 4:18-192123-24 1894 HI 63:12 19 14) 14:2315:1716:6180:5 1940 !8| 174:7.924175:2.7,14,16 1948 H2) 76:3.122023101:6146:24 173:21-22176:9178:1.10 1949 IH 176:10 1950 15) 174:13.15176:1224177:1 1960 HI 177:1 1960'S IH 146:6 1965 HI 174:10.13175:14.18176:12 J. Keise -12/01/2004 Index Page 1 1966 IH 105:20 1967 Hi 171:4 1 9 6 8 12) 28:4.14 1970'S 131392101:6146:6 1972 IH 28:15 1973 IH 36:1 1974 HI 68:12 69:4.1170:18 71:172: 24 97:6 1975 HI 124:18130:11201322124 1452125 1 9 7 6 151123:20124:7.11129:1921 1978 IH 17:10 1979 m 142:16165:18 198011913292140:8492024108:4. 10,1810928110201122113:121 115:25120:9122:1317124.19172:8 1 9 8 0 'S [6] 3 9 3 4021140:1214220 144:12145:4 1 9 8 2 13) 40:5128:9131:3 1 9 8 3 121143:3.14 1984 IH 16920 1985 15) 4 2 2 8 52:19 53:4,13 56:24 1986 HI 1720 1989 14) 5 7 :4 1 4 2 2 6 1 4 3 2 0 1 4 4 2 1990 H I 57:4 1990'S P I 1402.7 147:6 1995 PI 144:5.7 1997 IH 14529 ~2 2 114) 5:414:1217:5.14 6320 8624 10223106:6137:8139:91432124 1492-3 20 14) 82:7.1010524180:9 200 IH 77:18 2000 IH 145:2 2 0 0 1 12] 139:1617 20036 HI 224 2004 I4| 1 2 9 1 4 2315.2716:6 2 1 IH 180:13 22121139:16180:17 221 HI 172:6 23 (212:14130:11 250 IH 7 22 270 IH 17226 29 IH 12421 29401 IH 220____________ _________ 3_____ 3 lisi 5:6182162:19 64:22 65:20 69: 19 85:20 86:2 8 7 5 91:19106520-11 122:21164:3 3/19/04 HI 326 30 (6) 6:9 81:723 82:420129:20 30'S H I 17727 300 HI 123:3 30B6 PI 26:52224 30X100084400 IH 181:24 325 HI 12329 325.X IH 12320 3474 IH 181:23 38 IH 117:24 3x 12] 1232129 4 "" 4 (6) 5:7 13:3 74:7,1194:7117:22 4 0 15J128 229192 82:7.10 40'S P I 17727 400 (2) 1 2 3 3 1 7 2 2 8 45 IU 5:5 Adequate HI 90:25 4:30 II] 180:25 Adequately P ! 3 4 3 91:2 5 5 1515:313:14 63:10 95:19 98:22 5 /1 8 /2 0 0 0 1 1 1 9 4 :2 5 50 (5! 81:813 82:5147:16155:23 50'S U1177:17 1Adjacent PI 69:7143:25 Adjourn IH 180:21 Adjustments PI 80:2 147:24 Administration P i I 5 :6 ii 3 :2 0 i2 9 : 2325137:1414126 Administrative Ul 312 5 8 IH 3:14 Adoptive IH 9 9 3 5 x IH 123:10 Affidavit 161165:2169:9.161703.12. 6 "" 15 6 ITI 3:11-12 53:16105:8.12107:13 Affidavits PI 158:1915926 131:22 664 IH 174:4 7 7 15) 3:515:15108:1811712 70 IH 152:22 Aforementioned HI 181:12 Afraid HI 1 1 3 "" Afterwards 1212531112 Agencies IH 8 7 2 0 Agency (H 13:4 Agent PI 86:24 88:21-22151:1124 700 IH 53:16 Agents P I 8 9 2 15422 741113:15 7 4 0 0 18139:1.545:1825 48:8114:6 118:7126:5 __________ 8__________ Ago PI 8 2 7 63:22 Agree PI 136:3151:25180:22 Agrees Pi 25:i4-is Ahead PI 18:10 9 8 5 1 2 0 2 4 8 114) 15:2010718109:151812117 Air 150] 28:12,18-2024 30:3,14-15.18.23 128:16.19-20129:8130:3143:3.14169: 2417115 8 0 IH 152:22 80'S 14) 39:4 4 0 1 1 2 8 1 0 1 4 1 :5 9 33:12023 342135:25 38:122022 39:7 40:32045:3.1527 4622.1923 4825 49: IS 50:17 513.13.1622 56:9 57:1690: 181093115:2311721119:25120:7 13726,18139:201472125148:15 171:22 9 [10) 16:15 2 0 5 121:14122:20124: AKIN IH 2 2 2 16127:6128:6.14130:3132:21 Alan PI 5 3 2 7 7 5 3 9.8 H1118:2 Allegation PI 15:2 1 1 6 3 169:25 94 IH 3:16 Allow IH 98:7 9 5 HI 5:6 Almost PI 4721105:24150:20171: 9 th IH 130:20 _________ A_________ Abide IH 26:11 Abiding 12)98:19 99:23 Ability 12| 55:2392:25 Able (51 53:23 88:17 9 1 2 3 1 1 6 :5 1 5 0 2 Above-described Hl I795.ii.i520. 241803.72125.19 Above-entitled HI 123 Abraham Hi 7:6 2317726 Alterations H11472 Amending HI 99:4 American PI 6323106:25 Amount PI 47:4315426 Amounts HI 149:23 Amphibole I ] 77:23 783.15 79:23 8021143.1813225140:25142:4-5.9 15423 Amphiboles PI 87:7 8 8 2 1 1 3 2 6 1 3 2 : 12 154:23 155:24 Absorb HI 8129 Analyses H71 lll.-7.io-ii.2312027 Absorption PI 8 0 5 8127145:9 Abstract |4] 113:1324114:2024 Abstracted H) 6 623 A ccess 12) 43:18167:23 According PI 25:22-23119:7 Account (6) 38:1150:12116:19-20 1173118:20 Accurate PI 1 6 5 1 4 3 2 1 8 1 2 0 Achieved 12)1743 175:13 122:25129:7 130:2134:33 136:721 140:6144:22156:19157:4 Analysis 12213:23109311721121: 17.1912731282821130:4.16132:15 133:3134:2024135:124137:17 138:2 139:5144:23145:2.18 Analysts HI 1452 Analytical poi 4 3 2 5 1 4 2 6 1 5 2 4 a t 7 61:22111:4.1422124:1222129:14 131:4.7134:2138:823156:5.2018028 Acid HI 89:11 Acronym P i 8 5 :isi2 9 :2 i Analyze PI 52:415421 Analyzed IH 128291312s 13220 Act IH 56:11 Action 1211518128 136:19 Analyzing HI 13125 Actions IH 16124 Activities IH 1183 Actual 1) 18:2030255029109:4 Acute |6i 893-1027-18 932820 Add |2| 79:2581:22 Addition 15) 32:2112425136:9139:1 159:7 Additive IH 83:15 Addressed Pi 14:2514428 Anderson HI 2&20 Animal PI 42016:14 5 5 3 56:4 60:21 104:2.6164:22 1793 Animals HI 14921 Ann PI 1 3 :1 9 1 5 8 2 5 1 6 9 3 Annual PI 43:2 Anomaly IH 8 8 3 Answer H9J 10:20 20:17 21:2.18 22: 23 2 3 3 25:6 3629 84:23 85:8 9322 VARHLEY ASSOCIATES From '50 to Answer 100:13-14124:4135:11136:14137:6 152:16178:11 Answered (21102:19125:l0 Answering (i| 178:16 Answers 111 99:4 Anthrophylltte tai 89:i H 3 :i 6 143:6 156:1623157:3.6158:9 Antonio IU 30:5 Apart HI 32:16 Appear 13 10:4150:14 Appearance Pi 7:8 i 5 7 :ii Appeared PI 9 :8 1 0 :12114:5157:18. 24158:2-3 Apples 121145:5 Application (3| 25:8 81:1685:1 Appointment 111 118:21 Appreciate PI 154:2174:1 Approached 111 162:7 Appropriate Hi 27:6 Approved tU 8341 Approximate Pi 78:i3 April Ul 124:11 Arbitrary Pi 24:i7 25:ie Archives Ul m * Area (23) 22:1624:1053:15 55:1.20 62:23 63:6 64:25 65:4.9-10.14.16.19 70: 6 79:1620 99:1022106:8.15107:3147: 20 Areas HOI 35:2 54:1166:172567:1.5 6 78:10.1297:19 Arguably HI 18:3 Arnold |8|69:7 10649122:5.7 123:15. 17 143:25 Arthur |2113:22124:8 Article |9| 4:5165:63167:10170:20 171:1.10172:2173:25 Articles PI 4 2 i5 :ie Artifact 11) 64:12 Asbestiform |9|4 :8 113:16-17143:5. 7 4:23157:6158:10179:3 Asbestos 1101) 13:5 30:6.9.192533:3 35:520 38:3.5.8.122139:7.10 45:15 46: 7-822 49:15 50:1320 51:4.10.1922-23 86:18109:25110:20111:16-17112:4 113:6.18114:11-12.18116:11-12.1721 117:1447118:16119:6.14-15120:20 126:10,1244-15.18130:17131:14133: 20134:620135:1.25137:1.1547138:2 139:23140:13-1425141:56142:5,9.13. 21143:4.7144:13149:1023150:446. 22-23151:910152:23154:8464923 155:849157:16162:7163:4.1125 Asbestos-exposed Hi i5 0 :ie Asbestos-related Hi 30:7 33:3 38:4 39:10160:322161:7 Asbestosis HI 86:19 Ascertain PI 194547:4 Aside (28) 11:2412:9 20:4 22:1130: 22 33:135:9 36:20 37:20 39:7 40:12 41: 946 43:4 51:17 67:23 87:3.23100:17 102:6a 112:1157:1160:13161:3169: 16170:14 Aspect 121 42:1348:9 Aspects HI 31:3.13 54:2255:18 Assemble PI iii:7 4 3 Assembled |3| 12:24 60:6 64:8 Assembling HI 60:25 Assertion HI 169:17 Asserts Hi 16943 Assessment PI 36:24 48:S21 Assist 111 35:11 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 Assistance H) 54:8 Assistant HI 141:19 Assisted H I 96:21 Associated H I 65a .ll.1 4 4 6 102:16 149:17 15223 Associates H) 12447 Association P I 10348 104:3 Assorted H I 3546 Assume Ul 7042 Assuming H I 9 2 4 6 Assumption hi 8744 Attached H I 17745 Attachments HI 344 Attempt P I 4947 1 1 1 * 11943 Attended Ul 27:25 Attorney P i I8i.44.i6 Attorneys P i 2:3*43.184310:1113: 25134:13 Attributable PI 184743 Audit Ul 133:24 Authoritative HI 15541 Available PI 1140 62:25 64:24 8 8 * 96:22 Avenue Ul 2:24 Average Hi 1 1 3 4 5 1 1 7 4 4 1 1 8 4 2 178:8 Aware Hi 8:4 Awareness HI 3923 _______________ B_______________ BA HI 2 8 * Background PI 27:4 6 4 2 4 1 4 1 2 4 Bag PI 82:3.9147:24 148 4 3 B ags HI 14745 Betty Ul 2 0 2 Between [ I 17:1021:5.8 28:M 50: 19702.1681:3.7 82:4 9320174:9175: 14176451774 Beyond (110:1917:13 224923:10 2 5 2 5 26:8-9 27:1158:5 7124 72:1198: 1119:151374148:8 Big HI 80:18 Bill Hi 7 * Bills Ul 7:17 Binder P I 4:7 6 2 * 4 2 1 7 9 2 5 Biologic H I 1 6 9 * Biology HI 28:8 B it P I 37:3 7 9 4 8 9 7 :2 4 1 3 5 4 0 1 5 1 4 Blackland U! 2848 Blend HI 8 1 2 0 Blends P I 7 94914545 Blood HI 10021 Body PI 2425157:12165* Boehleche Ul 15048 Bottom HI 95:24126:6137:11139:9 Bought P i 68:8.13 7142.15 9 7 * 145: 18 Boulders 11180:18 Bound HI 62:1 Brands Ul 135:7 Break HI 5 3 * 1 02:251054 1 5 6 * Breaks HI 8 5 :ii Brightness Ul 145:9 Bring PI 38:2.7 Broad PI 3 1 * 3 5 :4 3 7 2 4 1 3 5 4 0 Broad-scope Hi 3 5 * Brochure Hi 5 * 1254623126:2 Broke PI 5 4 * 11520 Baker Ul 1 6 0 * Ballpark PI 1 2 0 * 159:23 Balm at U4] 6 5 4 8 672.12216 8 2 0 2 s 69:5,19 73:2.10 75:20 7 6 2 1 064525 Bar HI 95:23 B ase PI 2 647 28:19-2130:3 3346 Based I17) 2 3 2 7 0 * 7847 8445.18 8 52 9824101:111032116:17-18118: 7 140:161524715345.1922 B ases PI 33:20158:14 B asic PI 2 8 2 5 29:5.9 Basis PI 1444 1 7 4 1 2 2 4 7 2 4 4 1 4 0 : 199:13112:21121:17 169:17 Batch P! 81:14218242 Battlefield HI 2942 Bearing H) 10422 B ears HI 10347 Becam e PI 5222 7 2 s 14142 B ecom e Ul 12621 Began PI 5349-2069:7 Begin PI 6:13173:19 Beginning U) 54:4 Behalf Pi 157:13.19158:3 Belief Ul 103 4 5 Below PI 4 6 4 5 67:12 91:9 ' Below-described U216 :1 .4 58:9 74: 8 94:4105:9 108:4 10946115:12 138: 19.23170:20 Belts Ul 106:15 Bench Hi 4741 Benchmark PI 472224 484 B est HI 1 2 4 0 1 3 :1 0 1 9 2 3 45:155:22 922594:9 Better PI 9 4 7 1 4 1 4 7 1 4 7 * Broken Hi 5448 Brooks PI 2 848 30:3 Brought PH 144815:8 2125 4 5 * 58:1244 59:143 6122 6349 7248 80: 1410824126* 15821160221161:6 169:22172:201794 Brunswick PI 1 4 8 2 4 9 Build HI 147:25 Bulk HI 3:2312145.1813746138:2 13949144:11 Bulks HI 14446 Burden PI 4:15 60:12179:19 Business PI 594 0 1 3 5 * Buy HI 8240 c C .S . U ) 4921 C.S.R. Ul 18124 California PI 2849 33:8 Calon (218647150:6 Calonosis HI 8647 Camel Hi 4848 Canada Hi 5541 C ancer 1814* 9 4 8 1 0 3 2 2 141:7 151: 6172:3 17744 179* Cancers HI 141-4 Cannot HI 9 2 4 Capable PI 1 5 4 2 0 1 5 5 *2 0 Capacity HI 3 3 4 8 9 8 :1 7 1 0 1 2 2 1 6 2 4 Capture HI 14740 Carcinogenic HI 8 8 * Carcinogenicity HI 1 5 1 * Caring HI 2941 Carolina HI 2 4 0 _______________ VARHLEY ASSOCIATES Index Page 2 Carpenter (213321 34:20 Case P 314 2 3 6 2 3 7:3 8:19:646.21 1 0 2 * * 11:5-6.9212512:9,15,19-2023 24144.142217:120:20 2248 2348 24:9.1223 26:17-18 27:19 5 8 4 7 2 1 6 3 : 24 8 3 2 0 9047 95:20-2197:22 9 8 * 2 3 . 25 99:7.14.161004* 10348104:23 1482115145160:8.18161:31624 180:14 C ases HI 20:24 2147159:24 1604 Catalog PI 63:13 64:5 6949 Catalogs HI 6947 Catastrophic HI 3 6 2 5 Catch PI 4048 87:11147:21 Catchall PI 87:9.18 Categories H! 6:23 2 4 4 2 5 2 0 2740 31:5 9922117:16 Category Pi 1 4 4 9 1 7 4 7 27403724 60:710244 Causal Ul 10347 Causally HI 10322 Causation U1104:23 Causative Pi 8624 88221514144 15441 Caused Ul 86:21 Causes Pi 152*41-121532.1345 154*.9 Causing HI 8 7 * 1 54 2 0 1 5 5 :8 2 0 Caution H i 7123 Cavities P i 1 5 :2 3 1 6 4 4 0 1 7 0 4 Cc H2| 46:9.11.18 4 8 4 6 5 1 4 9 2 3 52: 17 11322117:16-17 1182.11 Cell PI 44016:14 60:2 1 104:3 164:22 179:9 Center Hi 2:9 Ceramic HI 7844 Ceramics PI 8 3 4 5 8 4 2 5 Certain U9113:1625:1942:3 5540, 12 78:9-1179:8 8 1 4 9 87:13 8 9 :3 1 0 0 * 145:841153:9168:5173:2017723 Certainly u si 74 5 23* 242 31:22 65: 8 86:22 8 725 9 6 2110241114:17119: 10211562 17141176:6 Certainty U l 177:7 Certificates U l 1947 Certified PI 1:15181:4 Certify PI 181:6.9.13 Change Pi 5 349 54:7 Changes HI 9420 Characterization Hi 16249 Characterize Ul 68:1 Characterized Hi 864 Characterizing HI 11 4 4 0 Charge Pi 344713143 Charleston HI 2 4 0 Check HI 172:15 Chemical PI 362541:13532355:6-7 Chest HI 9 6 4 8 9 7 :1 2 1 0 0 4 8 1 0 1 * Chicago Pi 12447 13021 Chief HI 21:7 Choose Hi 2543 Chose Ul 27:6 Chromatograph HI 3 1 4 0 Chronic HI 8940.13 9 3 4 7 2 0 Chronological 121144712425 Chronology HI 12824 Chysotile Pi 1 3 1 4 4132:5.713349 14340 Circle Hi 9747 From Answer to Orele Circled PI 66:1821-22 67:9.X5 Circling HI 66:24 Circumstances in 51:8 Cite IX] 173:4 Cited Ul 171:20 Citizen ID 138:4 City ID 167:6 CIVIL HI 1:5 Claim 131 9:13104:2215149 Claimant Hi io:2 Claimed I5| 9:1522:1103:X 8151:11. 14 Claiming 13) 160:3.21161:6 Claims IS] 20:12 21:25 22:2.8.14 Clarification (2| 43:1544:23 Clarify HI 152:7161:19 Clark |3] 2:15167:6.13 Clear PI 18:7 22:24 23:21.23140:13 Clearly 12127:1118:13 Cleavage Hi 50.19112:19 i i 9 : 4 120: 20 Client H) 22:23 Clients HI 44:22 Closed (2171:4.9 Closely (31 78:12129:6177:5 Clothing HI 82:22 Co HI 65:25 Co-worker J3I 64:20 65:2566:13 Co-workers (21 63:18 64:8 Code |3) 95:23 96:2168:20 Cohort HI 173:18 Collect PI 19:18 48:12 Collected 13140:4 52:9,14 Collecting (2151:15148:14 Collection PI 52:6-7 Collectively HI 139:4 College HI 27:25 Combined Hi 44:i7 Coming IS] 82:12 97:17111:25122: 10148:2167:5 Com m encem ent H] 181:7 Commencing Ii] 1:20 Comment Pi 49:4.6 Commission HI 181:23 Common HJ 82:2 Commonly 12] 151:9154:24 Community HI 33:2i Comp PI 20:20 21:14.17 Companies 12] 3 7 :7 1 7 3 1 0 Company issi L-8 218.23 8:4 9:3.21 19:9.182020:1322 21:23 23:3 26:4 27: 5 38:1144:10 52:20 53:15 55:5-6 5722, 24 655.111517 68:514 73:24 75:1523 76:71019 7818 85:3 94:15104:18 1052024106:3122:2124:1715713. 20158:425159:21165:21166:21176: 3417815 Company's HI 158:8 Compare i7| 21 1 5 .4 7 1 9 48:25 9 1 3 109:611810119:20 Compared Hi 135:7 Comparing H! 48:22 Comparison Pi 48P 135:5 Compensated Hi 7:8 Compensation Hoi 8 :2 2 1 6 I 6 1 7 1 20:3.1224 22:28.14 37:4 Competitors HI 135:6 Complete Hi 10911 J. Keise -1 2 / 0 1 / 2 0 0 4 _____________________ Index Page 3 Complex HI 33:24 Comply 13) 5 9 1824 60:2 Complying HI 6016 Component Pi 811 i s s i a i s Components Pi 145:20,23-24 Composition HU 6 2 2 2 6 3 1 5 77:21. 24 781.4.13 81:2 13513.15 Computer P) 62:24 6 5 1 Concentration isi 90 :i3 .s 91:2025 Concentrations Hi 7819 Concern HI 116:9.14 118:18141 1 0 Concerned HI 1017 6 5:41 1 2 1 5 1 1 3 : 4 Concerning PS! 11:5121813:4.7 is : 15 39:20 45:2 83:21102:2112:3120: 171381145:3163:3166:6171:21 Concerns Pi 3348119:2 Concluded H) 180:25 Conclusions H) 12814 Condition HI 151:14 Conditions HI 10216 Conduct Pi 25:9 38:b 115:23 Conducted PI 39:20 4044 51:24 65: 25 107:4 134:24135:4 Conducting PI 19:538:2042:22 Confirm P) 12917 i5l:2S Confirmed HI 153:3 Confusion Hi 8 48 Conjunction PI 159111s Connecticut Pi 6:91331? Connection Hoi 8 1 9 42:23 h o p 144:21159:20160:20161:5162:5166: 24 167:24 C onsensus H) 152:22 Conservation IS] 34:9 35:9.12 5 6 1 1 89:23 Consider IIS] 1148 6 5 1 6 85:6 86:20. 24 87:2.22 88:2189:7 152:4.13154:10. 14.18155:18 Considerably H) 10314 Consideration HI 9 0 i Consistent PI 119:24120:9 Constantly Hi 14813 Constituent H 2I701685H 86:23 87:323128:6145:20.23 156:9.22157: 321 Constituents in 1231 Consultant P i 6:22 232124:2 9 91a 159:9 Consultation PI 159:2116049 161: 4.1011.1723 C ontact PI 43:17 52:24 Contain |6| 12:2213:11139:7 140:24 155:23162:6 Contained HO] 16:12 62:2 66:4121: 17124:23130:3140:20156:19158:20 169:4 Containing PI 109:25 H 6 :io i4 0 :l4 Contains PI 13:5112:4124:7.15136: 25 162:20 163:10.24 Contaminant HI M2:4 Contaminants PI 3 94 6 142:3 Contamination PI I4i:6.i2 Content PI 80:1-2 99:6134:6.21135: 1137:15138:2 Contents PI 59:15 62:12 74:19 85:24 134:1169:3 Context HI 22:146:1951:16112:7 Continue HI 148:9 Continued PI 54:1115:19 Continuous HI 54:3 Contour PI 106:15107:6 C overages HI 37:2 Covered HI 29:8 3 0 1 0 9 2 1 ? 9 7 s Contract HOI 37:7 38:16 40:1.24 41: COWl H I 147:18 112342:24 56:5-6110:7 Cow ls H I 147:13 Contracting HI 117:5 CPS P I 168:1924 Contributing P I 87:24 88:2189:1 CPS-206-1 H I 131:21 Contribution H I 177:20 CPS-275-1 H I 16843 Control H4| 31:12.19 34:4 35:4 36:13. CPSC P I 16849170:7 17 37:23 42:4 50:11117:3 146:1122 147:6148:7 Controls HI 31:14 47:6146:18148:16 Conversation PI 50:8110:1825 U 2: 9115:21 Convey PI 93:1617 Conveyor Hi 147:17 Conveyors HI 148:12 Coordinate HI 96:16 Coordinated HI 11620 Coordinating HI 100:2i Copies 1215:4 45:10 Copy HU 5:211:8.12.15.17 95:2023 108:9110:24 128:5 171:10 Corporate H6] 6:211141 17:2 22:25 26:5 54:1316 56:25 57:6.10.1220 72:13 98:1699:17 101:23 Corporation PI 2:8 53:1057:23 Correct H89] 12:42013:8.192214:15, 2315:6.1816:619:6.12 22:2,9 23:16 28: 9.15 29:3 35:17 40:22 44:3 45:151P.10 52:16 54:14 57:18 58:17 59:1360:13 62:15 63:8.15 64:5.14 66:19 69:24 70:4. 23 72:1620 73:19 74:25 75:2176:5 77: 6 78:20 80:10.1323 81:10 83:1822 89: 17 101:24 104:19-2023106:3,842.16 107:16109:1120111:42023112:10 122:11.1548-19123:1922124:943.19 127:1047 128:161722129:322130: 1347-182125131:94922132:669-9. 124617 133:1.421-22134:740,1447 136:1-2.4.742137:20138:2139:5.17. 20.23140:34 142:422143:4,841144: 1049-2023-24151:20152:3153:1620. 23 156:10-11.13.1723 157:7432125 158:5-64112461721159:1.1346162: 3165:144721166:34.1221167:720 168:8169:14-15170:3171:7-846172: 54822-2325173:5-6174:14175:8.10. 19176:5.1421177:3 Craighead H I 14:8 C riteria P i 1 4 5 4 0 1 7 3 4 8 C ritiq ues P I 4:18 59:2.6 60:8109:3 180:2 Cross PI 167:13168:22 C ross-reference HI 167:13 Cross-references H) 168:22 Crushed PI 76:68044 Crushing PI 76:7 80:13 C rystalline U l 149:23 Cubic U l 91:8 Current P) 16:172120:8 27462194: 104620 Custodian H I 17:3 Custom er HI 93:3162:131632.7 Custom ers H I 162:8 c u t HI 75:17 CV Pi 27:17 58:5 D D-e-N-a-r-o U )2 i:7 D.C. HI 2:24 Daed H I 4:4 Dana PI 63:1165:23 Daniels PI 167:6.13 Data p si 15:1119:4.74021452124 31:184744 48:24 53:14 55:12442062: 25 74:9.1224 87:64725 88:2.6 92:10. 23112:17113:1114:3.64522115:25 116:13118:8120:3132:18163:23 170:17 D atab ase Hi 130:2 Date PI 94:23-24143:13180:22181: 12 Dated PI 3:11.1614:22123:20124:18 130:10139:16143:3169:9 Days PI 41:84843 Deal PI 2744 334838:339:1044 56: Correctly 19) 80:6 88:24 9 6 :ll 104:15 131:12137:21149:13164:14169:21 9.14 59:5 Dealing PI 33:215745 Correspondence P) 4:2013:1448 14:261:3180:6 Corresponding HI 117:23 Counsel PI 10:? 11:1119:2524:1S Deals 12122:13 24:24 Dealt (9) 30:725 31:4 34:2135:20 43: 13.1688:3122:13 Death PI 16:2019:16 16140181:1446 Count PI 48:15.19 Counted H) 3249 Deaths PI 184723 Debated HI 153:3 D ecem ber 13) 1 4 9 1 2 4 4 8 i30:io Counties HI 1947 62:2163:14 65:7 Counting P ) 5145 52:3112:19114:7 119.-5126:947 Country ID 8 24 Counts PI 4746 48:25 50:23117:20 130:14-15 County PI 1:117:6 62:23 65:8.19 66:8 69:20106:8 Couple PI 42:19 51:7 5 3 4 8 68:23 71: 7 Course PH 21:22 28:25294.5.9.1623 Decided PI 50:22119:s Decision 13) 25:21-22 26:12 D ecisions P I 2447 2548 Defendant PI 2:8.13.182326:4 Defendants HI i:io Defending HI 10:9 Defense PI 2349 24:948 Defer HI 84:25 Define PI 64:216540 86:11 Defined PI 984899492224-25 24 30:2.8,2025 31:42132:17 4 349 59: 1095:2117:9 135:4 162:11 Definition PI 46:6 H 0 :2 0 il9 :6 126: 1815746 Courses HI 28:2331:7 35:16 D efinitions P I S 0 4 4 ii2 :2 0 Court PI 1 4 25:7 Degree HI 80: i i VARHLEY ASSOCIATES From Circled to Degree Demand Pi 1147 Dement PI 40*124:8129:16.21 DeNaro 13] 2 1 7 .10.13 Dennis 12) 2:2511:11 Deny Pi 25:14 Dep ID 72:13 D epartm ent 11213644.17 53:2054: 14.17 56:3.25 57:6.10101:23130:11 137:13 D eposit (2) 116:1317 D eposition 1691 1 * 3 :U 5:2 6:2.16 7: 2 8:2.9.131010:8.132311:1.9.24 12:15. 1817:4.1318:4 20:15 22:1913 23:1448. 22 25:9.1923-24 26:2.104211-23 27:16, 24 57:25 58:23 59:171814 60:1723 61: 4.9,154924 62:14 7115 72:12 73:14 97: 19 98:21,12.19 99:1820105:13108:8 137:25169:23180:2225 Depth 111 79:17 Depths HI 80:7 D escribe 14) 22:12 77:14 147:4 163:6 Described PI 43:5 85:4 87:5 Description PI 3:104:3 Descriptive Pi 135:12 Design (4) 7 8 2 155:2325156:1 Designate Pi 24:19 Designated PI 8:312:11 Designation PI 168:13.17 Detail Hi 1420 Detailing PI 99:io D etecting Pi 143:4 Detection Pi 13922 Determinations ill 2421 Determine PH 23:8 3 4 2 4622 47:5. 820 55:7 81:12 93:198:913525 Determining Pi 154:4157:5 Developing PI 56:i Develops 111 88:20 Devise Pi 34:4 Devoted PI 42:4 Diagnosed P i 1 6 4 7 20:7 73:18 Diagnosis PI 15125 Dialogue Pi I2 6 :ii Dictated Hi 79:1921892123 Died PI 73:18 Difference m 5 0:i9 7049 20 7724 25 79:1181:1 Differences PI 70:is 77:21 Different 1221 58:5 60:4 6 9 2 77:4.11 78:3,74179:16-18 80:2022 9 0 2107: 15109:7122:24123:50131:1815621 D ifferentiate Pi 9 3 2 0 D ifferentiates 111 77:15 D iffraction Pi 1272023 Dig P i 109:1168:6 Dimensions P i i i 9 :s o 12&18 Direct Pi 3:3 7:2210422115:19156: 5162:17 Directed PI 172 Directly P i 1 7 2 5 28:1210347 Disagree PI 24:16 Discharge Pi 3524 Discovery in 23: w Discuss in 138:5 Discussed PI 7:1158:16101:18153: 13154:8 DiSCUSSing Pi 97:9 11521 Discussion Pi 61:12115:3 17823 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 D isease (6| 88:6 90:22-23 151:3 165: 17166:19 D iseases Pi 30:7 31:133:3 35:2138: 4 39:11154:4 160:22161:7 Eight-page Pi 5 8 * Either Pi 16:156647 104:4 128:7 151:625153:31572 Electron P I 12725 Dispersed in M l * Dispute in 1 5 1 2 5 Electronic P I 1212 Elements PI 2645 Distinguish Pi 7 0 2 132:14156:21 Elongated Pi 4 8 * Distribution in 10720 Elsewhere Pi 6 0 * Divide PI 4 8 4 5 Emergency Pi 2944-15 86:1 DIVISION P i 1 4 Docket Pi IP Doctor P i 15122 D ocum ent POi 58:9 6 2 2 0 63:3.7 64: 3 66:7.117443.1549 9449962105:9. 161094612120124:7 1262216724 173:5 Documents P21444 6:2s 7 2 134s 1 4 2 1 5 :6 ,9 4 5 2 0 1 6 :8 45:6 59:5 60:5.9. 12 6 2 4 9 1 2 6 2 5 1 3 7 :2 5 1 3 8 4 6 4 9 1 3 9 : 2,4 1 4 0 2 1 46:11166:9 16742.23168: 2016922178:1415179:18 Done P2) 1943-14 30:18 37:8 38:1Z Emissions PI 5640.15 Employed poi 5 * 4 1 4 2 4 3 * 4 4 45: 1 3 4 6 :3 2 1 5 0 * 51:5 5222112:8 133: 1417340174:74223-24175:2.7 181: 16 Employee |7| 1 9 4 6 2 3 :2 0 3 7 :5 4 1 4 7 98:31002318144 Employees P9i 1 6 4 8 2 1 2 0 * 3 4 * 5 6 2 2 7 2 4 6 2 0 2 2 7 3 4 7 74:4 96:8.15 97:2*4017344177:8.21 Em ployer P i 9 4 -2 2 0 1 0 4 6 1 7 5 2 3 Em ploying in 1 784 Em ploym ent P i 53:3 9 9 4 0 1 0 5 2 4 18 5 1 :9 5 2 2 5 5 9 :7 6 3 2 1 7 0 2 2 7 3 2 3 7623 962397:13104:2,181274620 131:4.813440.124613524 136:7141: 4 ,2 5 1 4 2 4 1 4 4 :8 1 5 3 2 0 1 5 8 2 4 Doubt Pi 156:3 Doukas P i 1.-18 2 :1 7 1 5 2 Down (1211946 53:5 71:4.9 8541 1 1 2 4 4 1 1 8 2 2 1 4 4 :6 1 4 7 :1 6 1 4 8 4 1 156:6 Download P i 6 5 2 1 2 4 6948 Dozen Pi 7743 Dr |37| 7:6 4921-22112:9.181132 114:34524115221182124119:8 1204516124:8125:8126:4129:1621 130211312132:421.25133:1021 150:18159:4.820165:31662416821 1694213.16 Draft Pi 44:12 Drop Pi 14746 Dual P i 9945 Dug 121110:941 Duly PI 6:10 96.4 181:8 16241166:3175:23 EMVentions PI 13224 Encom pass PI 1024014622 Encom passed PI 53:7173* End PI 5 4 2 1 4 0 4 2 Endeavors Pi M S* Ended Pi M l* Ends Pi 8146 Engine in 352 Engineer Pi 8425 Engineer/toxicologist in 5325 Engineering in 3143 Engines P i 33:23 Ensued Pi 126:11 Entered PI 41:2317343 Entire P I 12:18 57:5 176:19 Entitled (261 1:134:5.7.10.12.1446.18 192123-24 5:7-8 61:13 99:3 122:1134: 2 138:717020171:4 17921802.5.1. 18 Environm ent P i 12646 Dunst Pi 147 2:17152 Duration PI 89:24 90:9 91:2192:4.5 934414942 During [161 30:7 32:2325 3 7 4 8 3 8 4 43:643 50:4 5 7 * 95:71404.6148:22 174:181754723 Dust 148] 3 4 2 0 35:S 4 1 * 4 4 4 5 45:23 24 47:4,848 49:5-7 83:4.12 86:16 87:8. 12-1345 88:10.13 8 9 4 0 2 2 904922-24 91:8.13 9243112:25126:161464121 147:65-91482.7.114614949-20150: 7424515140175:3 Dusts P i 149:22 165:17 166:19 DUSty P i 8 6 4 3 Dyson 111 M:4 Environm ental P i 3 6 4 5 5340 2 4 54: 92156:74614140171* EPA W 14145 Equipment PI 3 i* .i5 Erdman 1214324 25 Error PI U 5 4 ESQUIRE P i 2*40.1 5 2 0 2 5 Essentially P I 3 3 2 5 8 7 * 9245 1 1 4 : 1012548141:1520162:17 Establish m 18:9 22:162123:13 24: 1053*20 Established Pi 1 7 * 2347 9 1 * 9 3 * 9942101:4* Establishing in 2 3 * Estate P i 1:4 8 4 E ... Earliest PI 12820 Early is) 39:4 40:1142:2024 176:10 Easier Pi 132 Edition in 6342 Education PI 3544 Effect Pi 54:614924 150:2 Effects Pi 39:15 4 04415021 Effluent Pi 5641 Effort Pi 4 425 4744 51:18 Eight P i 8 4 7 58:9 17625___________ Europe Pi 5 5:ii Evaluate in 42:8 Evaluation Pi 100*5 Evaluations PI 3 7 4 96:7. Eventually P i 5 3 2 i 13648 Every-two-year PI 1 0 1 * Evidence Pi 9022-23 Exactly Pi 13:7944 11043117* 145:715922 Examination Pi 7:22 2 6 * 11549 12449181:7 VARHLEY ASSOCIATES Index Page 4 Examined in 13120 Example PI 77:23 81:6,17 9 1 * 113: 1014548146:4 Examples Pi 11741 Exceed P I 87:12 Exceeded Pi 93:711745 Excess 15134:121032211348140: 25141:7 Exchanged in 134s Exclusively P I 1 2 2 4 4 1 7 1 2 4 Excused P i 1 1 5 * 18024 Executed P I 15946 Exercise P i 4 7 4 2 Exhaustive in 15347 Exhibit 146] 3 4 0 4 :3 1 2 4 4 6 2 :1 9 2 1 634064:226520 6949 744194:795: 199822105:12108:81094812144. 17122:20124:16127* 128:6.14-154920129:8138:18139:3^1.162514020 142:151702517145179:1*43.17 1804*2.1347 Exhibits P I 125:19130:3139:7 Exist 15145:8744 7 6 2 5 1 6 2 2 2 1 6 8 2 Existed P i 38:13 40:5 74:4 8 8 4 Existence P I 1 2 1 2 Exists 1 3 1 1 1 4 7 8 7 *1 2 5 2 4 Expanded P i 69-* 14723 Expectation P i 9222 Expenses PI 740 Experience 117] 1 7 2 1 2 3 :3 2 6 4 9 4 3 : 8 78:17 8445.18 8 5 2 1 0 1 :1 1 2 0 1 0 3 4 5 104:840.14221782.6 Experimental Pi 2 8 * Experim ents P i 1662 Expert 153] 649-2023 7:3.5.7.16.18 8:3 10:4 124117:12123 2248.24 23:1449. 25 24:4.6.1820 26:3*4621-22 27:8,11 972298:4.1622-2499*7.14471004. 7 1372 139* 152:5,1315445155:7. 19159:8421624 Expertise Pi 232.4 5 1 2 5 4 4 0 1 3 7 2 Expires in 18123 Explained (4150-481202012623-24 Explanation PI 11247-18113* 114: 4.1625 116:1.4 Exposed 151 8843 93:7150:1623175: 17 Exposure 1591 9;1318:1824 3 1 4 9 34: 13.16 38:12 39:15 40:14 47:4,6 87:11 89412290:89.164924 91:6.921922. 1143 9 3* 962210323-2510925112: 2224-25 11320114:13116:1022117: 14 14044 1414014942.1924 150:1.4 1 5 2 2 4 1 S 5 2 0 1 6 0 :4 2 2161:7174:8 175:3.84424176:117720 Exposures 18) 34:1* 5 1 4 0 91:14 113: 1511845.1717746 Express Pi 15720 Expressed Pi 119* 128:14158:7 Extension PI 3 2 *4 8 Extensively PI 9 67 Extent il 1 7 * 0 202 1 2 3 :2 9 9 4 8 1 0 0 : 1015540.12 Extra ill 8248 Extract Pi 65:23 Extracted PI 6341 Extremely Pi 11443 Eye Pi 120:24 Eye-opening PI 12024 Eyewear Pi 832 From Demand to Eyewear J. Kelse -12/01/2004 Index Page 5 __________ F__________ F a c e 13| 17:14 23:24 48:13 Facilities P) 34:2 37:141:13-14 42:9 43:9 56:15122:14 Facility (22) 5:4 40:2.4-5.2041:2.10.17 43:5.12 45:1246:25 51:14 57:18.21 110:8115:23 120:18 123:22146:13.19 158:10 F a c t (1515:7-8 6:20 10:5 23:4 24:20 50: 216 6 :3 88:16 98:3.17 99:17125:18.21 126:11149:18 F a c ts ID 29:15 Factu al ISJ 23:3 26:15 27:4 99:1152:9 Fair (61 2 0 5 73:13136:9.2414248 166:5 Fairly CU 37:24 Fall 12) 16:2518:3 Falls (U 20:15 Fam iliar IlSl 39:19 47:13 49:19 53:2 68:5 74:13 78:24105:16116:23123:11 133:23144:14-15160:10.16171:1 Familiarity PI 40:1349:25102:1 Far (819:2010:16 76:1420.22107:19 142:15145:5 FD Hi 167:5 Fed eral (1196:9 F e e ID 7:16 F e e s ID 7:16 FELD ID 2:22 Fellow [11116:25 Few [51 8:7 25:171:25 75:14 86:6 Fiber [27J 4:15 4549-20 46:1.7 47:10. 1623 48:2550:23 60:12114:6117:19 119:5,11-12.19-20251263.17 130:14 1 5 1423.12179:18 Fibers [29146:7,9.11.18 48:16 49:15 51:1923 52:17113:22114:10117:14 16 118:2-3,6.11120:15128:1813046 1 7 132:5,11133:20143:4144:13 Fibrils ID 132:7 Fibrosis 12186:1421 Fifteen (D 176:22 Figure [41106:7107:18159:23173:25 Figures PI 1054421 File (63) 4:10.12.14,1628-192123-24 5: 6 7:211:4 12:16-20.2213:610.1816:11. 13 26:8 27:20 58:1517 59:5.1522 60:15. 182022 61:1327 62:17 95:10.16111:3. 614 116:19124:122224129:13134:1 138:7 139:2156:20166:9179:824-15. 1722180:25913-1427 Filed 15] 9:7 20:24 160:2161:14 Files [9] 15:12 24:5 58:14 59:160:4.6, 11129:10170:14 Fill ID 147:15 Film [13] 5:7 120:1922121:13.565 125:8.1417.19.22 Filter [21 48:1319 Final 17) 3:23 61:21 64:11166:6115: 12132:23 Finally id 27:is Financial ID 21:7 Financially ID 18117 Findings PI 45:346:11 Fine [6] 58:725 60:10107:20126:13 136:23 Finen ess III 123:5 Finer P ) 77:19 78:2 79:9 Fire ID 37:4 Firm |4) 1 1 1 1 5:1160:11-12 First 12218:7 12:17 29:20 53:13 57:3 63:7 69:20 74:22 96:5100:6105:15 110:31165119:3128:525164:5.14 1719.18175:14 Firsthand ID 166:6 Fit ID 49:7 Five 1181 48:1153:2158:6 94:4 114:7 8 117:1516118:2.7,12120:4-5176:2-4 Five-page ID 94:4 Fixed ID 146:19 Flags Pi 117:9-10 Rexible ill 146:20 Flies ID 17:14 Flight PI 34:635:1 Florham ID 2:M Flow ID 48:15 84:4822 85:7 9 3 4 1 9 6 4 9 745 9841 99:8100:35 105:5107:5.91355 136: 13137:5149:2151:12152:6.15153:24 160:241615.13.1817841 Gain PI 39:23 4042 Gained P 1 7 8 4 8 102:2 Gamut Hi 3 1 4 7 GANNON ID 2:12 Gas PI 315-10 Gauge PI 9048 91:13 Gee ID 847 General pzi 4 4 4 1 9 5 5 2144 2242 2 9 4 0 30:20-2131:7 34:20 35:3 36:24 44:192145:23464847:1023 604177: 1446 82:4 83:840 874110149126:9 133:25152:211534178:317948 Generally Pi 4 4 4 6 5 6 4 4 90:6 163:i3. Fo cu s ID 37:25 Focused PI 128:11171:24 Fold ID 172:3 Folder P3J 440.12.14.16.18-192123 19 Generate Hi 65:2 Generated Pi 63:347 64:22 Generation ID 7446 24 12:19 59:12 60:25 61:21164:21179: Generically ID 8247 7412024180:3.7.114549 Geology HI 6 3 4 64:25 6 5 :610641 Folders ID 5 8 4 5 George HI 43:24 Follow PI 38:19 45:18 51:12 GEORGIA ID 1:7 Followed ID 38:25 Georgia-Pacific ID 2:8 Following ID 25:21 Follows |7) 6:1173:8100:15115:17 137:12161:2164:8 Force HD 28:1249-2024 30:333:20 Gillespie PI 1:82:13 Given HD 12:2.4.6 44:9 9241100:20. 2411925125:121284913845139:2 159:4 15843 34:1135:25178:1-2 Glaze HI 8 4 4 Foregoing ID 1815 Gouverneur P9| 5:4 41:3.946 4 34 2 Forenoon ID D20 45:12 51:14 5747.2224 65:9.11.1447 Fo reseeab le ID 84:21 Form HD 7:214:1373:2084:2294:21 99:13121:21355 136:13137:5152:15 Formalized HI 101:7 Form at ID 66:11 Formation ID 5 7 5 Formed PI 22:17 57:2 72:7112:21 121:16 Form er 1) 16:172120:8 97:4 Form s Hi 9 5 : Forth Pi 34:25 50:14 55:11 Forward ID 26:2127:13100:11162: 18 Foundation P) 1 8 2 5 23:7.92540 97:24100:4 Foundational HI 105:3 Foundations Hi 23:13 Four PI 12945147:131725 Fourth HI 149:4 Fragm ent ID 120:20 Fragm ents PI 5 0 4 9 112491195 Free ID 124:5 Frequency ID 2145 Frequently ID 1 5 0 : Front Hi 95:24 67:10.15 96:8 9 7 2 103:6110:8112:4 11523122:2 1464215840170:8176: 14251774 Government PI 91:514144 Governmental HI 13:4 Grace HI 1412 Grade Pi 7140 7745 7844-is 8148. 23145:4 1565 Grades HD 77:4,1178:3.94110746 122:2412340-111324 135:8155:22 156:6167:14 Graduated Hi 2 8 4 i Grant PI 2545166-20 Grants P) 158251595.7 Graph HI 10748 Great id 11846 Greater P) 1825 784910324 ii7 : 1420 Grew HI 54:7 Grimbergen Hi 2 2 0 3 4 7 1 5 4 1 7 8 2 2 Grind PI 7 9 2 81:4 Grinding ID 7 95 Ground PI 76:578:6 79:10 Group fP l 2 9 2 1 3 2 5 34:8 3 5 2 5 36:7. 23 395.19 43:7 8121138:15141:7 1444823172:4 FT ID 12341 Grovers HI 2:4 Full 13] 9 7 4 7 1034 164:5 Growth PI 4:3 179:3 Fullerville ID 67:6 GTC (281 5 8 4 68:9 692.4.12 70:17 72: Function PI 31:10 78:5 8 2 4 1 9 6 4 8 3 73:1.9 7524 764.8.10434896:14 97: 9743100:17145:11 5 1 0 7 :4 1 2 0 4 8 1 2 1 4 6 1 2 2 4 4 176:7.18 Functions Pi 902114542.14 G ' > GAFFREY |55| 2:20 6:13 7:2010:1811:: 177:720-2125 1785 Guam 1612821334119344822 35: 11 Guess P! 64401404717842 134816:22 18:2 20:14 2 1 4 4 8 22:3.15. 2223:64625:17 26:24 4 3 4 5 4 4 4 9 5 8 : 4 5 9 4 9 6 1 :1 1 70:7 71:23 72:8.1173:20 Guessing Hi 70:8 GUMP HI 2 2 2 VARHLEY ASSOCIATES Guy ID 11620 H " H-a-r-v-e-y HI 7 5 4 0 Habit PI 4:8179:3 Hagman Hi 792,4-6 Hair HI 4 8 4 8 Half PI 3 1 2 4 3 2 2 4 4 2 0 1 7 2 4 1 Hamill ID 2:13 HAMMILL HI 1:8 Hampshire ID 22 4 Ham sters H) 1 5 2 3 164:11169:6170: 2 Hand ID 105:11 Handle HI 5 4 2 Handled ID 2 1 5 Handling ID 160:12 Hands PI 32:4 5 5 4 562o Hands-on PI 32:4 5 5 4 5 6 2 0 Harrisville ID 67:4 Hartford H2j 5:5 3 5 2 5 36:74122 37: 74122 38:2.9 395.13.1824 4 0 4 1 4 6 2 5 41424823-24 422.11452143:744 44: 14 45:13 46:42150:5 51 4 .5 5 7 4 6 1 1 0 : 5.191124511741182411944 Harvey P i 5347-18 75:8-10 HAUER HI 2:22 Hazard HI 8520 8947-ia 9 3 4 a Head ID 1 1 9 5 Health poi 4 4 6 4 8 9 4 3 1 5 :5 1 6 4 3 1 7 : 2 1 24:24 2 648 37:5 39:1420 4044 49: 3 5 3 5 2 2 5 4 2 4 9 5 5 :2 5 6 4 9 2 1 5 7 4 4 5 9 2 .6 6 0 :7 6 1 4 8 6 2 :3 7 2 4 9 8 7 :2 5 9 6 : 7.14103:15104:7.10.1421109:3-4113: 19-20129:2413744141461495171: 61724.25179:23 1802 Heard I 50:116 7 4 .7 110:1S 119:4 12024 Hearing P i 8 2 2 3 4 5 355.12 9744 100:1648 Hearings PI 12:3157:12492224 1582.8 Height ID 10020 Held PI 1 4 6 2 4 5 53:6 .1 2 6 1 4 2 1 1 5 2 15720178:23 Help PI 42:7 5 0 4 5 54:5 65:3178:15 Helped ID 9646 Helpful ID 12023 Hereby ID 181:6 Hesitate Hi 15421 High [Ml 4 7 2 5 4 8 2 2 1 7 9 2 -4 8 2 4 8 9041132311443118:171475150: 12178:4 Higher PI 7 7 4 6 4 9 1 5 2 2 4 Highest ID 147:8 Himself PI 25:23 26:7 Hire (2153:24178:5 Hired ID 5 3 5 Hirsch poi 1:4 4 2 3 8 4 12:920.23 27: 19584721832125 84:1220 85:5 95: 21151:13152:116048161:318044 Hirsch's ID 103:2 Historically PI 9 5 4 7 147:9 History ID 1724 H oagland!3!l47 2 4 7 i5 :i Hold 12136213721 HOLLY (3)144181:4.22 Honest ID 16248 Hooked ID 14749 Hospital PI 34:7 100:22____________ From Face to Hospital J. Kelse -12/01/2004 Index Page 6 Hospitals HI 3 7 4 Host HI 14 5 4 0 Hotel |2| 74117 Hour HI 7:12 Hourly Hi 7404246 Housekeeping HI 14840 HR 14! 78:23 7 9 4 4 3 8 1 :3 Huge HI 11845 Human IS] 44016:14 6040164:22 179:9 Hung HI 16142 Hygiene 132] 3 4 0 2 9 4 4 0 4 3 3044 3 1 4.6,17.2133:6424547 35:3 3646 37:6. 839:25414442:1247:3524588:897: 2198:181011910842109:811344 122417144.25 Hygiene-type HI 33:12 Hygienist Pi 3 2 4 36:8.1241374043 57421012212745 Hygienists 1213243 3741 .... I Icon HI 83:8.10 Icons HI 8245 Idea 12163:5 70:6 Identification |33i 3 4 0 4:3 6:3.645 50:24 5 840 74:10 85:2194:610540 108:6109:17 115:1313249133:6138: 2145157:2 165:3.94417043179:642. 16.2145180:48.124640 Identified 13! 1 1 4 4 1 5 6 4 2 1 7 0 4 7 Identify 171 3 8 4 2 107:7 119:22127: 13 133:7,9 16447 Identifying HI 5043 Illinois HI 12448 Immediate (2189419342 Immediately 0 1 4 2 4 5 8 9 4 2 Impairment (2114941150:9 Impart HI 92:7 Implanted Pi 15:22164401704 Implicated 1211534015444 Important 1218 i :i e i 4 8 4 i Importantly 121149:5.8 Imported HI 3442 Impressed 111 96;4 Improper HI 98:8 Improvements HI 146:24 Inc HI 1:7-9 2 :18435744 132:24 Include 171 32:2033:7 36:14 97:4 102: 13.15177:7 Included HOI 3242 4 4 40:6 7245 1024817345174:6.13175:18177:21 includes HI 127:7 Including HI 14940 Inclusive 121974017642 Incorporate HI 17343 Incorrectly Hi 11442 In crease HI 8 0 4 172:3.8 Incumbent 12123:1493:6 Indeed 121124915441 independent p i 1 5 4 3 130H 15349 164411704 Independently HI 1949 Indicated PI 6 543 8345 85:3 9845 132:4 Indication HI 13240 Indications HI 168:23 Individual HI 2147 5347 90:4 158:4 Industrial |4S13 4 0 9 4 2 294.1942 30:24 31:3.6.17.2132:13 33:6.1145.17. 2124 34:2,18 35:3 36:8424640 37:6,8, 104043 3 9 4 5 4 1 4 4 4 2 4 2 4 7 :3 52:25 57:12 77:5 88:8 974198:17101:1942 10842109:8113:141224127:14171: Itself 16119404191:7 10842116:3 127:10 IV HI 113:13 24-25 Industry P) 1 7 8 3 8 Infers Hi 8944 Information PQI 1 9 3 4 7 40:4 5 941 6344164:744 66:4 924193:9-1043 9642-23 994104:1312843162:8164: 2 Informed Hi 5544 Inhalation P) 8 6 4 8740 8 9 3 8 9149. 22 Injected P) 1 5 4 2 1 6 4 3 1 6 9 4 5 January HI 12940 Jefferson PI 65:849 Jersey H3| 1446.19 2:5.1449 5:3 8 46 9:7.9 10:22181:642 J e t |2133:2335:2 lim H I2i.il Jo b HI 98:17117:16.1915740 Joe PI 21:743 JO EL HI 2:15 John PI 1:7 3:442 6:414:6 2 6 3 Injured HI 2 942 JOHNSON PI 144181:442 Injuries PI 2 0 4 3 2 1 4 5 1 6 0 4 Joined (713545524956:24 68:375:7, Injurious HI 9 1 4 1 141783 Injury PI 9:15 86:38 87:5464189:6 Jr HI 1:7 3:4.136:5 91439245 Judge HI 173.944 25:14 Inkling 14) 1403-1046 Judgment PI 173155:7 Input HI 74:15 Ju n e HI 13049-201324143 Inquiries PI 2 0 4 9 1 6 2 :1 3 1 6 3 4 Inquiry HI 163:7.124642 Inspections Rl 5:4 45:12 Instance Hi 1 9 :9 4 5 4 2 1 2 7 4 9 1 4 3 4 Jurisdictions H! 55:io K K eefe PI 17:6.9 Instruct HI 22:22 Instruction PI 23:1525:6 Insurance PI 2 1 3 3 5 4 5 3 6 :7 4 3 38: Keefe's HI 1 7 : Keep PI 20:238840 Keeping HI 148:11 1139:9.1943:7 Kelly HI 9343 Insured HI 3 840424-351:9 Kelse 13211:7 3:44346 5:34 6:5,19 7: Insureds H I 39:8 Intend P) 102 4 0 4 8 1 1 1 4 3 Intended P I 9146 93:is.i7.i912649 Interchanged H) 57:13 Interested P I 64:2365318147 Interior H I 1 3 0 4 4 Interject H I 1642 Internal Pi 48:6 7344 96416742-23 Internally H) 16142 International H7| 683.16694.6.13 70484171434547 7243 74:4 9 7 3 6 123:184245 Internet HI 6 4 3 6 5 4145 6 6 4 4 6947 94:1246 Interpose PI 7 2 4 9 7 4 5 Interpret HI 1303 Interpretation HI 9 2 3 Interrogatories Hi 9 9 3 Interstitial PI 864441 Introduce HI 5546 Introductory HI 3 141 Invalid Hi 15249 Involved PI 8 4 4 1 9 :4 20:112147 54: 2013449147:1178:19181:15 1.74318:12 2 3 4 8 2 6 3 2 7 4 1454158: 1174:118448 9 5 4 6 98:7.13105:11 1144211540129:14133:23136:24 139:11663169:217845 Kelse's P I 5 3 9 7 4 0 Kelse-1 PI 34164.15 Kelse-10 PI 3:2413840 K etse-11 PI 4:4138:24 Kelse-12 PI 4 3 1 7 0 4 2 K else-13 PI 4:7 1794.6 Kelse-14 PI 440179:12 Kelse-15 PI 4:1217946 Kelse-16 P 1 4 4 4 17941 Kelse-17 PI 44617945 Kelse-18 PI 448180:4 Kelse-19 PI 4:19180:8 Kelse-213J3426:5 2744 Kelse-20 P] 441180:12 K else-211214 :2 3 1 8 0 4 6 KelSe-22 PI 4:24 180:20 Kelse-3 PI 3 4 4 58:10 Ketee-4 PI 3 4 5 7 4 3 Kelse-5 Pi 3:16943 Kelse-6t2| 3 4810540 Involvement HI 4 3 3 554 -2 5 8 4 1 Kelse-7 PI 3:19108:5 Involving HI 8 4 5 K else-8 PI 3:2110947 Island HI 2 8 4 Kelse-9 PI 343115:13 Isolation HI 3 i:i3 Kept HI 5 14 Issue P5| 9 4 0 1 4 4 8 2 5 4 0 3 0 4 2 -2 3 Key HI 4 4 3 6144 6248179:14 39:14 4 9 4945 50:13.18.2143 71:10 97: 18 9 9 4 5 1 1 0 4 9 1 1 2 3 1 1 9 :4 3 1 2 0 4 1 129:6140:2314747 153 3 1 6 2 3 Issues [12113:4 25:3 3142 34:12 38: 3 5 4 4 563.1211240128:11157:1341 Item PI 1247 144215:154016:1520: 4 274516944 Itemizing H i 16:20 Items HI 17845 Kind PI 69:14 8 7 :1 8 1 0 4 3 1 1 8 4 2 163:20 Kleinfeld PI 1 7 1 3 1724 173:4,845 178:20 KLUGER HI 2:12 Knowledge H21 m o 13:U 70:9 84: 16.19 8 5 4 15343166341.14 178:12. 17 Known PI 3 1 4 0 6 8 3 1 4 7 :1 2 VARHLEY ASSOCIATES Knows U) 7848 KNIGSBERG HI 2:3 KOWALENKO |3| I I S 181:442 LL.P. HI 23,7.1742 Lab PI 5 1 4 5 5 2 4 5 Label Hi 8247 Labeled P) 1 6 4 3 1 3 1 4 1 167:9 Labor's Hi 13743 Laboratory PI 5 0 4 5 5 2 4 0 1 3 0 4 0 4 4 131H.8132:2045 Laid 1219743100:4 Langer HI 13:22 Large PI 1 8 4 2 2 3 4 Larger PI 4142 4444 7846 Largest Hi 6748 Last PI 53444 96397310042101: 1341149:115049 LateP) 1284014246 Latency PI 1 9 4 1 7 7 4 5 Latitude PI 18:52046 Law PI 1 4 1 0 4 5 Lawrence HI 66:7 66:8 6 9 4 0 1 0 6 :8 Lawrenceville HI 2 3 Lawsuit P! 8 4 1 4 3 4 5 9 4 2 1 0 4 6 Lawsuits HI 12:7 160:2.201613 Lay HI 18:2 Learn PJ 3046,20-21 Learn-how-to-do PI 3040-21 Leash HI 9 8 3 Least PI 234241:7.19-20 484177:13 155417641 Led Hi 14049 Lee PI 1444643 Left PI 424641 Legal (21152:8159:9 Legitimate HI 20:20 Length P1489-1011745 Lengths Pi 1554 Less H) 4 9 4 77:22 8 8 4 6 1 5 5 4 3 Letter PI 94:412441127:7128:7 131461324144133:7 Letter/report PI 3 4 6 1 5 4 7 is:6 Letter/reports HI 15849 Letterhead HI i3 0 :ii Level |12] 51487 :1 3 9 0 :8 4 6 4 9 4 4 91: 34 9246114:1314144149:12 Levels (13) 34:1446 45:22 8 8 4 0 92: 13 93:7147:8.1014841149:24150:12. 1515549 Levy PI 2 3 6 4 6 Liability P I 374 5548 Libby P I 1 4 0 4 4 1 4 1 4 3 1 4 2 3 Liberty HI 2 9 U cense P I 181:2324 Light HI 132:19 Limit PI 26:1244 4 7 3 8 7 :1 1 9 1 3 Limits |7|4645.179241.144593:2.8 Line P I 35:2 65.2145:3 Linked HI 103:2315134013 List |7| 28:22 3 6 3 54:12 69:19130:14 1404 17244 Listed PI 35:14 69:20 81:7 8 6 4 3 92: 12107:1512148172:13 Listen 13)1143 84:4 93:11 Listing HI 69:25 Listings HI 6 45__________________ From Hospitals to Listings Lists PI 25:19 62:2163:14 66:7 69:23 123:3 Literally H I6 :ia Literature W 155:2 Liters HI 48:w Litigation |3i 12:12159:13160:7 Live tu 133:16 U ves HI 133:12 Living HI 133:10 LLP HI 1:18 Localities (2163:1366:7 Locality HI 69:20 L ocate HI 116:5 Locations 13) 68:18.23 80:7 Longo PI 1:17 2:1715:1 Look 115) 18:1165:594:8106:5.10 117:18-19122:20130:5142:14148:25 171:19173:17177:4 Looked 171 72:1587:2594:23120:4 139:25 156:21171:18 Looking ill) 13:1719:1120:4 43:8 94: 9,19 96:5112:16118:6 129:6.13 Looks 12183:1130:8 LOSS (8121:16 36:134.7 3 7 2 3 42:4 50: 11110:1824 Low (7147:25 48:22182:19 88:1190:3 914 Lower PJ 152:25172:10 Lunch [4| 1 0 2 :2 5 1 05:1115:20116:6 Luncheon HI 115:6 Lung 1191 4:15 9:18 6 0 4 2 86:3,8.13 87: 5.1520 89:6 90:22 91:23 92:14103:22 141:7 151:6172:3177:14179:19 Lynn HI 20:2 __________ M__________ Machine HI 34:24 M achines PI 3 i 4 i 147-.7.13 Magnitude PI 149:1046150:8 Maimon (SOI 2 3 6 :1 6 7 4 5 2 2 2 5 1 1 4 6 . 20 17:18 22:20 2 3 4 4 1 24:15 2641 27: 12 4 5 4 0 58:7 73:6 74:7 8 4 4 0 94:2 95: 15 96:4 98:82199:25100:5,12104:25 105:8107* 108:3109:1511549121: 7 1264138:1715240154:117048 17824179:7.134722180:1.5.9,13.17. 21 Main PI 5 6 :2 0 6 8 2 0 1 0 3 2 1 Maintain HOI 11 :4 * 1 6 4 9 1 9 2 1 5 9 : 10424662:14 9 5 4 0148* Maintained PI 5 8 2 0 2 4 Maintains HI 20:6 Maintenance PI 3322 m s s Major (4) 141:343148:6156:12 Majority P I 5 3 4 4 1 5 6 2 4 Man HI 14941 Management Pi 54:1347 562557:6. 1010123 Manager HI 4 3 2 0 2 3 5 4 4 3 57;7.i3 10122 Mandatory HI M 848 Manner HI 85:4 Map (91344 63:8 6 4 4 7 65:20 66:16 67:9.16107:6-7 Maps 1 10645 MARC (1| 2 2 0 M arch PI 1 4 2 3 1 5 4 7 1 6 3 1 4 3 :3 4 4 Mark [Ml 2 4 0 2 5 4 74:7 94:2105:8 10943.151384717048178251794. 7431804 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 Index Page 7 Marked P9| 62.5.151244 2 7 4524 5840 6248 74S.1194:5 9549105:10. 12108:5,710947-181154312144 128:6,151382024139:3-4170:2224 17145179:642.16.2125180:4.8.12,16. 20 M arket Hi 135:6 Marking HI 4742 Maryland Hi 13225 Mask HI 83:4 Matching HI 145:5 Material PBJ 3 4 2 1 53:14 55:2061:3 74:84224 803.13 8122 83:13 8748 90:8 9 2 4 0 2 2 9 4 4 9 1 2 0 4 7 125:1345 141:8.111492515249155:416249. 2216823170:8 Materials (24| 1 1 :2 5 1 2 2 3 1 3 2 1 6 0 : 1723 792190:41123.13120:16126: 3127461314814844 15346154:7 15820168:7 16948170:17 172:20 174:3 1754.22 M atter Pi 1 44 5:7-8 9 4 1 4 7 2 4 12& 1821131:131374 McCrone Pffl 1244723127:8128:7 13020131:4,8132:32013349 McCrone's HI 13142 McDonald Hi 21:11 McGIVNEY IH 2:12 Mean HS) 3149 32:8 4 3 4 6 2 1 7 0 :8 894992:610320118:1513645145: 71494 5 1 5 0 :9 1 5 1 2 178:7 Meaning Hi 4 8 :9 1 0 3 2 1 141:15 149: 17 Means P) 86:13.1911347 M eant HI 42:6 M easure HI 48:4 Measured HI 4945 M easurem ents Hi 3821 M echanisms Hi 34:4 Medic HI 2940 Medical P8J 2 82225 293.9.1144,20 2 1 34:8 3540 3 7 4 90:20 9142 9646 9 7 :8 4 0 1 004925 10142.7 1022.8.14. 1610446150:17 Medicine PI 294.192230:24 M eet PI 82:14 14541.14 Meeting PI 2:9126:4 1274 Memory Hi 127:5 Mentioned PI 5 4 4 9 5 7 4 5 7 0 2 1 HO: 1713723 Mentioning HI 131.-6 Merely HI 99-23 Merged PI 6944 4 :4 Meso PI 4:15 6042179:19 Mesothelioma 12211 8 4 7 2 3 1 9 2 73: 181032214941151:742-13491524. 54215345154:52.12.162024155:9. 20 M esotheliomas (4| 1 6 4 7 1 8 4 6 2 0 :7 15223 Met PI 120:1512541312 Metal HI 153:9 Meter m s i s Method H213 9 4 .5 4 5 4 8 4 6 4 48:8 114:6118:7 126:5.7-942 Method's HI 126:20 Methodologies Pi 127S.13 Methods PI 174:3175422 Mica HI 150:6 Micro HI 3321 Microanalysis HI 13224 Micrometer HI 1554 Micrometers PI 4 8 4 1 1 1 7 4 5 118:3. 7120:5 Microscope HI 1 2 8 4 Mid PI 101:8141:4 M id-1980's HI 14442 M ID-L-2706-03 H) 12 Middle HI 107:6 Middlesex PI 1 4 1 7 :6 Might PI 304164:24 6 5 4 87:24 91: 2193:5123241504153:7 Mill HU 2:4 41:3 5 7 4 7 1 0 3 2 4 12123 122:3.101434514648.2214849 Milled PI 76:5* 78:6122:10 Miller PI 175:7 1762 Millers HO] 4:6 3 9 2 1 7120103:6 17021171:5172:4173:9-10175:2 Milligrams HI 91:7 Milling PI 76:979:8 80:3 Mills PI 732.108047 Mimic HI 12547 Mind PI 7:1310943 Mine 176) 15:5 41:3 50:215747 67:3. 192325 684-2.4,2125 694-2.4-5.79-10. 12-13 70:3.17 75:20 76:2.13-14.24 78:8. 11-12.19 794547 80:7* 1 0 3 2 3 1 0 6 4 9 , 24-251122511349 121231222,7.9. 11123:8129:23-24 137:13140:23141: 145143:142124144:3.6.9146:3.19 148:20176:7.142417725 Mined PI 6821-22 7 5 2 0 76:4 79:20 80:8112:4 123:8158S Miner PI 175:7 1762.19 Mineral |17| 4 :8 5 1 4 62:2225 63:5 64:56947.1981208742.14 88:10 1494920150:615140179:3 Mineralogtcal PI 102:3,91572 Mineralogist PI 49.-21-22 Mineralogy H2| 443.1761444862:3. 18 6342 65:2410642 11940179:14. 23 Minerals |13| 63:1364:4 66:8 6948, 237046 77:222578:1.420 812123:7 Miners HOI 4:6 39:217120103:6 170:21171:4172:3173:9175:2 Mines (1414144 6724 68:15 7 3 2 4 0 7523106:2412247 141:172023142: 1 178S.19 Minimal HI 177:9 Minimum PI 174:9.1617543 Mining HI) 654866:2567:7 7 0 2 2 76: 223107:34144:7 1 7 3 4 1 7 8 3 Minor (2128:8 7720 Minute HI 4844 Minutes HI 2 5 4 Miscellaneous HI 3545 Missed HI 125-.4 Missing HI 10221 Mist HI 8922 Mistaken Hi 8341 Mixed H I 12646 Mixture HI 81:5 Mixtures HI 8022 Moment Hi 20:4 Money t4l 1 5 9 3 .7 4 8 166-.23 Monitor PI 3 0 4 1 3 1 4 8 3 4 4 35:5140: 1514120 Monitoring p il 30:9.14.1648 31:9 34: 14.17-18 35:4 38:5.8.14-15 39:7 4 3 2 44: 25 51:4.1722 5746120:8 Monkey Hi 153:6 Montana PI 1 4 0 2 4 142:3 Month PI 29:23 30:8.19 3 2 4 7 63:22 Months PI 32:2023 Moran 1311:17 2 4 7 1 5 4 Morbidity PI 96:2410822 Morning 1217:23-24 Mortality |201 4 :5 1 6 4 6 2 0 1 8 2 6 1 9 :7 . 10.1420:6734622259623102:14.13. 1510447108:22141:4 170:21171:4 Moshe (4) 2 S 3:5 7:25 2245 Most |14J 3 3 2 0 3 7 :4 5 5 4 8 8 2 943,16 2013840139:161473149:58.18153: 8 Mostly HI 49:6 Motion PI 2545-16 Mount H) 124:8 Move Pi 2 6 4 4 4 9 58:4 Moved HI 17625 Movers HI 14741 Moving HI 1 7 6 3 MSA 111 12921 MSD 120) 5:6 752.6 77:8 80:25 8 2 2 1 852189:590419145.19922094:7. 1046 95:3.7,10.15156:8 MSDS P] 3 4 5 1 6 2 4 7 MSHA H5| 4 :2 2 1 5 :5 9 61 :7 1 3 7 4 3 .1 7 1384139:5.8 1404.54314149 142: 1518040 MULLINS HI 2:7 N " ........ N.W. HI 224 Name Pi 7:251025 5720 6624 6 7 3 160:10 Namely HI 3143 Names PI 6647106:23 Narrow Hi 147:20 Narrowly HI 9949 Nature HI 2 1 4 6 29:13 3 1 4 6 36:15 56: 13 80:5163:21 N earest Hi 6747 Need PI 17:881:23 Needed PI 14540147:12 NELSON HI 2:7 Never Pi 1 1 6 2 1 2 3 120 24126 49 168:5 New |40| 144646-192:544.1924 4:6 5:3 8:16 9:7-81022 2 8 4 37:12 3 9 2 1 402214140 43:555:746562 5748 62:2263:13 64:4 6 9 4 8 1 0 6 :8 1 1 8 2 2 16041673168:12170211713 181: 622 News |4) 141:34348 Next PI 8042 94:3 1 0 8 2 1 5 1 3 1 7 0 : 19175:12179:718023 Nickel HI 1 5 3 3 Nine H) 2 7 3 NiOSH 144] 3 4 9 2 1 2 3 4 :2 0 3 9 4 4 0 3 45482547:13403.2449405040 61: 2 8341108:4.104910921-221143 115:2511B:7* 1204.9 1 2 1 4 5 1 2 2 4 3 1 2 4 3 1 2 6 3 .8 1 2 7 3 1 3 0 :2 4 1 5 7 4 1 4 8 . 22 171:1448 172:1.7*,17 1 8 0 3 NIP HI 4 21 Noise 18] 34:1244 3 5 4 4 1 3 45:22-23 57:17 Nomenclature PI 1 2 3 2 4 1 2 4 4 1 3 1 : 25 Non HI 158:10 Non-asbestiform HI 1584Q________ VARHLEY ASSOCIATES From Lists to Non-asbestiform Nonasbestiform PI 4:8 87:7 883 157:7 179:3 None ti) 149 Nonetheless m 106:2 Nora 12)2:2014:25 Normal 15121:2243:1984:2095:2 162:24 Norwalk 1216:9133:17 Notary |4| 1:16181:5.22-23 Note |2| 10:18100:11 Noted HI 45:15 Notes (111:13 Nothing 111 159:25 Notice (35) 3:116:1,16-17 7:412:15.18 16:2317:4,1318:4.6 20:16 22:1923 23: 1022 25:1923-24 26:25 27:6.9,16 59:18. 24 60:2.16 71:25 98:2.12.19 99:19137: 25169:23 Noticed H I 13:17 November 121139:17 9 3 0 Nozzle |2] 147:13.18 Nozzles I2| 147:1415 N T P 12] 61-7180:10 Nuisance HI 87:8 Number H3| 13:171 6 2 5i7:5.i2.i4 38:6 51.-4 77:1719102:2116:14 173: 19178:8 Numbers taj 66:4 ll8:2.8-9119:2S 120:8123:5168:2022 Numeral HI 113:13 NYTAL |50| 3:15.18 5:6 9:24 67:20 69: 3 74:12 77:1.59.12.17 78:1423 79:9.13 81:3.7.1424 82:49.17 83:142184:12. 20 85:4 89:17 90:1194:10 95:6.11.16 105:21107:1624123:34.13144:25 145:17-18.2125146:4_______________ __________ 0__________ Oath 1 6:io Object |7| 20:14 22:15 73:20135:9 136:13152:15153:24 Objected Hi 97:i8 Objection Hl 10:1816231720.15 1629 18:7 21:172:2.8 84:22 85:7 97:16. 251059137:5 Obtains Hi 137:16 Obviously |5] 3 5 :167:2 89:25105:23 112:16 Occasion [3| 22:7 46:2162:22 Occasionally I2| 37:6137:16 Occasions P] 8:12 38:6 48:23 50:3 51:4163:16 Occupation ti) io n O10ccupational |3j 1092 U 3 : 116: October P I 1 2 9 3 9 139:16 Off-the-shelf HI 81:24 Offered HI 18:1 Offering Hi 24:19 Offhand HI 168:25 O ffice |6|6:811:4 37:12 60:24 62:15 96:3 O fficer H i 21:7 O ffices P i 1:17118:25 O fficial H I 76:16 often (4151:6 55:15163:1423 O il 13)80:4 81:17145:9 O JT H I 32:5 OJTIH 13129:2 31:24 32:7 Old HI 12325 J. Kelse -12/01/2004 Index Page 8 On-Staff |1|'56:4 On-the-job HI 32:6,142533:5 Once (318:14 50:6 1 6 8 2 5 One 178111:10 15:12 18:13 21:10 26: 25 27:10 28:18.25 39:5 4 0 2 9 41:23 46: 2 48:10 53:1157:3 58:16 59:12160:1. 1 1 6 1 2 62:18 63:4.18 64:7 67:2325 68: 1-320 69:4 7 4 2 3 2 5 77:15 79:22-23 81: 13 82:18-19 83:1.4 90:17 94:324104: 1617109:5 11322114:7-8118:1.11 11922 1 2 0 :4 1 2 1 2 129:20130:10.12. 19138:10139:19145:1146:10153:4. 10157:9158:141622 165:1,1616823 172:2017424176:3 Ones (Si 118:4127:4 129:17 139:13.15 Open 18148:13 68:320 69:13 70:3.17 14439 Open-face ill 48:13 Opened Hi i9 :io 176:S 1 7 7 2 5 1 7 8 9 Opening Hi 12024 Operating PI 732.1012228 Operation 111 8834 Operations Hi 3 4 2 Opinion HOI 2 0 2 9 2 6 2 8 1 3 7 :4 145:3. 6152271542529 155:729 Opinions |4J 1424 2 2 2 8 24:12 9924 Opposed 15] 9 7 2 2 98-.410224114: 2314629 Option III 27:5 Oral (3) 26:3136:1125 Order (4] 1427 3 7 2 4 1 2 4 2 5 1 4 5 2 4 Ordinary HI 5920 Ore Hi 7924 8 0:812220 1 4 6 :3 1 6 7 : 19168:1217620 OSHA H314 :2 1 4 6 2 5 2 7 61:6 91:5 109:191422015721.1922.24 158:2 18020 Otherwise P) 852 9 8 7 :8 Outcome PI 10:15181:17 Outset (3) 23272298:15 Outside Pi 2 0 2 5 2 3 :5 1 0 4 2 8 Overall Pi 8 7 : 9 0 3 8 Overexposed Pi 8726 882915022 Overexposure P i 1 4 9 2 8 1 5 0 :5 151.4 Overlaps HI 9 9 2 Oversee PI 54:22-23 56:6 Overseen Hi 75:8 O versees HI 15028 Overview Hi 8 6 2 O verview s HI 4 2 6 612862:3179:23 Own HI 67:3 709112:21135:5 Owned H i 72:3.9 733.117627-18 1412 Owner HI 7624 Owns Hi 7 6 : ___________p__________ P.C .H I222 PACIFIC HI 1:7 Packers Hi 147:7 Packing H I 147:7 Paper |8) 1 2 3 2 1 3 6 :2 2 1 6 5 :2 3 1 6 6 2 9 167:4.1825169:5 Papers HI 4 2 3 5 8 2 2 6 1 :1 4 6 2 2 8 120:215520179:14 Paragraph P I 1822 96:5 97:410124 Pit (14! 68:320 693.13 70:3,17122:53 123:15.1814325144299 Place 10) 8 2 0 1 0 :2 3 48:22 5 9 2 2 6 0 3 93:5146:12.16163:118132 Placed HI 80:9 1032 1492.4164:5 Plaintiff PI 1:5 2:311:1 Param eters Hi 1 4 5 3 Plaintiffs HI 103:2515131.1416031 Park Hi 2 24 Part P6] 2227 2429-20 2626 29:21 31:25 3 2 9 34:7.13 3 6 2 6 37:5.16 41:22 42:3 4423 47:14 55:2156:2 86:23108: 201099.12119:612422 14123147: 17-18148:6157:3-4.101589171:25 1 722 176:20 Partially P i 7929-20 Plant P) 213643:20.23 5322-23919 148:15 Plants HI 3 6 2 5 4 0 2 5630.12 Pleural PI 1 5 :2 2164301702 Plural HI 13120 Plus HI 9 1 3 2 PM Hi 18025 Participated PI 963.8 Participation HI 9624 Particle Pi 7790 81:41072911229 1233 Particles PI 48:7-9 78:16 8 5 : 87:7 127:13147:21 Particular PI 16:24 22:7 66:24 8727 125:3 14323 P articularly PI 5 3 :2 3 1 1 3 9 1 5 4 2 5 Parties H I 18125 Parts PI 30:23 80:7 85:1187:323100: 19108:21128:7 Pneumoconiosis Hi 86:1245150-9 151:5 PNOR HI 8535 Point (181 3334 3 5 3 9 5 0 2 2 58:8 6 89 7 3 :7 1 0 0 3 4 105.-4.711 4 3 4 1 1 5 :6 1 1 9 : 1313822144:4153:10158: 1613 16221 Pointing in 11324 Points in 134:4 Poorly Hi 1 5 4 2 Poorly-phrased Hi 1542 Populations HI 15036 Party HI 16124 Portion PI 10930168:12 Passed HI 179 Posed Pi 18:3.6-7 Past PI 1 2 :4 1 9 2 1 67:810326162:2 Poses HI 9 0 2 Paterson P i 1 2 8 2 2 9 Position 1) 1 7 3 2 1 3 2 2 4 :8 . 2721 Pay 121725 42:3 Pecking HI 3 7 2 4 PEL 121922629 Pending PI 7 3 :7 1 6 1 2 Pentachlorophenol H l 34:21 People 120] 1327 2 1 9 2921 53:22 54: 520 56:4 104:18107211272614127 14224150212315224-25174:6175: 15177211783 Per H4| 46 9 .1 1 .1 8 4 8 2 4 2 6 5 1 2 9 2 3 52:17 91:7 11322117:15.17 118:2.11 Percent hoi 8 1 3 . 82:5.7.io 15222. 25153215523 Percentage PI 772125 78:4 8 1 2 85: 12113:51233172:8 P ercentages HI 156:7 Perhaps Pi 24221233 Period I ] 4 2 2 4 8 9 2 4 2 0 902-2.14 9227 9329116:6 13824 14227146: 1714822174382017538176:11.19 36:6 53:12 5432 97:22100:3 158:824 171:25 Positions Hi 27:13 36:22 53:56 Possible [21 9 1 2 1 5 4 :9 Posts il) 9 4 : Potential PI 5 1 3 0 5 5 3 7 8 8 3 Pounds HI 14735 Precautionary til 126:7 Precede Hi 4 2 : Preceded HI 12339 Preclude f2| 2 6 : 2 0 Predate Pi 1 2 9 : . 1662 Predated 121129:7.24 Predates Pi 1052313023 Predominantly PI 39:4 5 4 2 0 6 5 3 87317123 Premium PI 423-4 , Preparation HI 167:19 Preparations HI 167-. Periodically HI 13734 Prepared 1) 3 3 8 1 4 3 8 2 43 2523 Permissible 131913 9221.14 26:7 27:2 9 8 : 9921172:22 Permission Hi 4322 Presence PI 452514221 Person PI 1 9 2 3 3 7 9 933117:2118: 19 Personal PI 3124 70:9 15322166: Present (8119:12 502 0 53:4 54:4 103: 1611129113391323 Presentation P i 622.1017221 11.14178:12 Personally PI 824193135:24 Pertained in 2431 Pertains HI 16324 Presentations HI 121.-10 Pressure HI 1 0 0 2 1 1412a 14725 1483 Presum e Hi 7 3 Pertinent Hi 4 0 3 Pretty |5| 973113:23 U 9 :ia 13934 Page P3| 62.4 1 8 2 1 5 8 9 63:7 6 43. 14.17 65:20 66:3,7 74:8 94:4 95:24102: 23106:5-6.10107:722113:7.11117:12, 23-2412231137:8.111399 149:2-3 164:3174:3 Pages HI 63:10.17 64:1.11 Paid P I 7 2 7 1 5 9 2 9 2 4 Paint HI 8 1 2 8 Paints IH 8 3 2 5 Peter PI 1 9 8 3 Pg PI 5:3.5 Phillips P I 2:3.10637 Phone in 16337 Phrase P I 65:14 8 7 2 0 175:4.10.12 Phrased HI 1 5 4 2 Physician PI 34:710022 Pictorial P I 6 2 2 3 0 1 7 2 2 1 15531 Prevalence HI 8 8 : Prevented Hi 2 620 Preventive HI 293.19.22 3024 Previous HI 10034 Previously ID 11536 Primaty HI 7423 Principal P I 3 7 2 5 1 4 9 3 7 VARHLEY ASSOCIATES From Nonasbestiform to Principal J. Kelse -12/01/2004 Index Page 9 Principally 12)35:12 36:9 Printed |3| 94:25126:22 165:16 Private ID 165:20 Privilege in 24:3 Privy 12) 129:10141:21 Probability in 178:4 Problem id 8&i3 ioo:io Problems ID 16:24 Procedure ID 162:24 1634.6 Procedures ID 3 0 4 3 5142175:22 Proceed ID 7:i4 ' Proceeding 1218:20 27:2 Proceedings id i:i3 P rocess ID 80:3 P rocessed ID 81:21 Processing ID 80:10 Produce Pi 55:6.13.2198:14-151 4 a 25149:20 Produced |1216:19-20 7.-112:113:6 S17:8 25:22 27:3 65:3 86:16120:23168: Produces ID 53:1567:19 Producing ID 27:9 Product [31! 9:14.19 24:3 36:15 53:25 54:1.9.20 55:4.1621-22 56:2-3 78:2 79: 24 80:192181:25 82:15 84:16.19,2185: 1187:23 91:17 92:24 133:24 145:1.3 Production ID 12&2 Products U6] 53:1655:25 67:2068: 17 69:3 95:4.6,1196:10123:4,13.17 135:5.7145:8156:9 Professional Pi 37:2 154:3155:6 Program P51 3 1 2 5 3 3 4 5 3 5 4 3 5 3 4 0 96:17 97:8.10100:19101:3.7104:17 146:22147:2148:7150:19 Program s [6] 3 4 3 1 0 35:10 42:8146: 11148:10 Project 13] 41:4 64:19 66:14 Projects [2] 41:16 51:13 Prolonged IIS) 86:287:2089:5,7.20 90:13 91:1832 92:3.8.13.18 93:1521 Proper PI 23:7 34:5 72:14 97:23100:4 Properly in 55:24 Property ID 37:3 Proportions ID 145:24 Protect 12] 34:23141:17 Protection [4] 34:5 83:5.7,9 Protective HI 31:14 34:3 82:22 9 1 2 Provide Pi 34:5 41:24 44:13112:12 164:1 Provided I8113:25 42:6 43:3.18112: ia 158-25160:19161:4 Providing HI 7:919:4 9 6 21167:18 Psychology ID 28:6 Public HI 1:16181:5,22-23 Publication PI 3:18105:19106:3 107:24171:3 Publications PI 14 :1 3 158:1823 Published P01 62:7 162:21165:6.8. 16.23167:4.18169:5171:5 Pull 131120:13147:20-21 Pulmonary ID 90:2196:18 97 :1 3 100: 17149:201509.19 Purchase ID 7i:8 Purchased 12169:6 70:25 Purely ID 6:23 Purpose 12] 63:23 99:19 Purposely ID 78:3 Purposes PI 57:25 58:22 59:23 60:16. 2361:8 83:24 84:11 Pursuant ID 27:8 Put 128] 6:14 27:12 40:8 44:6,14 58:22 59:16.2160:7,1532 61:49,154933 62: 13 79:2197:26 98:6105:20106:3124: 914642.1548 147:15168:21 Putting HI 2 0 9 60:1884:1730 __________ Q__________ Qualified HD 127:2235136:31373 151:24 154:10.1548155:648176:20 177343 Quality ID 175:10 Qualifying ID 9134 Qualitative ID 48:4 Qualities ID 8 1 3 3 Quality ID 7932 80-.4 81:15 Quality-tested PI 793280:4 Quantity ID 51:18 Query 12164:io 66:12 Questioned ID 168:5 Questioning ID 2247 244199:13 Questions (2D 8:7 17:17 23:13 24:8 25:34135 27:4 7 2 4 86:7 98:633100:2. 6-7.10105:21153413734 155:7178: 11 Quite ID 8 4 8 31:6120:23 Quote ID 16:28 Quoting 111 155:13_________________ ___________ R__________ R J . 12] 144:1833 R.T. [3D 1:8 2:1833 8:4 9 :3 3 0 1 0 4 6 17:32034233026:4 4031414146: 20 52:19 53:4 5447 5 645 57:540 68: 14 7 2 3 0 73:34176:19 85:3 98:3 9940 10133105:20157:1915835159:4 165:21166473033168:10169:4 Rabinovitz ID 1440 Race 12)2:251141 Radiation ID 153:4 Raised HI 105:3117:9-10119:4 Raising ID 99:15 Ran ID 3 3 4 5 Random ID 8241 Range Hi 3 4 4 9 8 2 :6 1 5 3 4 1563 Ranges 121473115640 R ate 12) 7:12 8149 Rather 121163:9 l e s s Ratio 12148:9-10 R ats ID 1 5 3 3 1 6 4 4 0 1 7 0 4 Raw ID 21:23 Ray ID 10048 RCRA ID 5 640 Read 12711830 23:23 2 6 4 50:10 73:6 7 964199:81004412831136:640 1374231149:743 15248-19 153:346 15432155:31614 16444 16644175: 11 Reader PI 914530 924319346 Reading 121 6 47153:18 R eads 121 9132164:8 Ready ID 743 Real ID M l * Realize ID 1 5 6 4 Really Hi 5 4 3 h o -.i s m 1 5 0 : Realm ID 25:4 Reason Hi 27:7 140:5173:7.12 Reasonable ID 746 R easonableness ID 10347 Reasons PI 1742 9048141:9 Receive ID 2131 Received PD 6 3 5 1 3 4 6 1 4 3 .7 .9 28: 5 3243 33:6 5840 6 4 3 74:9 94:5105: 9108:5109471154313641138:20. 24 170:22179:541.15.2024 1803.7.11. 15.19 Recent PI 1384013943.15 Recently id 1203 3 1 5 3 3 R ecess PI 58:8105:7 115:6138:22 15843 Reclam ation ID 5 6 4 2 Recognize HI 1 0 5 4 9 1 0 6 .2 1 0 8 3 12145 Recollection Pi 1 2 4 0 4 5 4 Recomm end ID 47:6 Recomm endation ID 8 3 4 Record PD 6:14 2 6 4 27:13 58:13 61: 1112 9 7 :25100411053115317822 2335 Records PD 1645-1620173.71921 20:4.642734635744.4 1013 Recovery ID 5 6 4 i Red PI U7:9-io Redesign PI 14742 Reduce ID 47:6 Reduced PI 113:22136:18 Refer PI 15:4 47:7 5 8 4 70:5 9331 102:11274615540 Reference psj 444 6042 7822103: 5.9104:61064810841109201162. 24143:5146:1015740167:1347169: 817948 Referenced Pi 11031674017144 References PI 1 6 8 2 2 170:717120 Referred 12l 1 53 36:13 6 2 3 6 7 2 70: 1197:311022113:5118:1312021 12325129:8 Referring PD 264586:8 904044 10749108:18112241134111449 1294813021393.12164:18 Refers PI 91:25 92:3 131:7.25 133:3 1673168:14 Reflect PI 124 20:6 2124734632 1233156:8 Reflected ID 12844 Reflective Pi 152:20 Reformatted ID 6 6 4 3 Regard PD 749 2 4 2 2 2 5 3 442046: 2 5 1 1 1 2 41124814547 147:5148:6 17041 Regarding ID 27:4 R egardless ID 1 4 9 4 1 Regenerate PI 14845 Region PI 6 3 2 6 7 4 6 9 2 4 1 2 2 4 8 1712117341 Regions ID 67:7 Registered PI 5 5 3 77 4 Registration PI 54 4 Registrations ID 5 5 4 2 Regulate PI 14121 Regulated HI 85498731 4 2 :9 .1 2 Regulating P) 14147 Regulation ID 15742 Regulations 12115744-15 Regulatory Hi 8 2 2 1 2 2 8 7 3 1 5 7 4 2 Relate id 1023 Related PI 24:8 31:l 352 1 8324173: 118145 Relates PI 7:4 96:9 Relating ID 3 8 3 Relation P) 4 8 3 Relationship id 4 3 7 2 3 7645-16 179:4 Relative Pi 4 8 3 1 4 5 2 4 1 8 1 4 4 Relay HI 5 5 2 2 Released PI 1484 Relevance Pi 14549 Relevant ID 1725 Reliable Pi 1452 Relied HI 1546 6 0 3 72 :1 9 15845 Relying ID 1 721.249920 Remedy ID 25:7 Remember PI 947 214a iio:i6 125:20126:5 Render PI 154:15.1915548 Rendered Pi 2423 Rep PI 7243 Repeat PI 73:4 84:8 Rephrase Pi 1544 Report [105] 32032-2314:2215:4.10 1 6 2 1 7 :2 3 1 8 4 1 2 4 :2 3 2 5 4 0 :7 4 3 4 8 1 9 4 4:69.12.15-1620254640-114824 49404244 5040 51:23 524194:5 95: 2097:4 9822-24 993,7-81004.834 108:5.10454810940-11.19110:421 1122.15- 1 6 1 1 3 2 1 1 4 2 3 3 1 1 5 :1 2 1 1 6 : 1-2.2411823119:3.7 1 2 0 4 4 0 1 2 1 4 5 122:13 124:7.9.1623125:3 127:7-8 128:8451294613023132313348 1913622137:9139:10.2214221144: IS 1 4 8 2 5 1 5 1 4 1 5 6 3 164:4 165:130 16647.1916840169317145.19172: 7.9.17 Reported PD 18:24 4 9 4 6 51:25 5 2 4 12820132:20136481422514442 131722.8 Reporter P ) 1 4 5 7 3 :8 1 0 0 4 5 1 6 1 2 1813 Reporting P) 4 6 4 Reports 152] 3:24 4:4.25 5:4 1 3 4 5 1 4 : 3.13.16- 171544.164448.214523.8.11. 1451486123111:4.14-1523124:13, 221294144-1513349 1342-31363. 10-11,16138:8.1323139381404142: 14-152024 1433144:1715620159; 12165:1318048 Represent Pi 8 4 9 6 4 Representation p i 10721 Representative PI 22:25424050: 11110:1924 Represented Pi 10:7 4 2 4 i Representing PI 173315949 Reprintings PI 1 0 72s Reproduced Pi 10940 Request P31114916:23172.44649 39:84540472 95451218 1344043 Requested ID 12:17 2 6 2 5 9 8 4 4 Requesting PI 2 32413420 R equests Pi 1 3 3 4 4 1 4 4 2 1 5 4 5 16-. 1517:7 Require PI 5 5 4 2 1 7 5 2 3 Required Pi 2 9 4 6 1 5 4 4 6 Requirements PI 253 Reread PI 16024 Research Pi 13447153201582-1 R esearchers HI 1 9 3 .1 1 9 6 2 3 1 7 1 2 0 Resource PI 5640,12 Respect poi 1747 23:15.1925 2433. 15253 131:2516143 Respectively PI 13947 VARHLEY ASSOCIATES From Principally to Respectively J. Kelse -12/01/2004 Respirable HI 45:2347:17 49:7 91:8 Respirator 12)83:11148:18 Respirators 1 3 i:is Respiratory |S| 83:5.7-8 88:5 89:12 Respond IS| 6:1825:17163:13.19-20 Responded hi 66:12 Responding 12) 162:13163:2 R esponse (4i 125:11137:24 i6 3 :is 169:23 R esponses Ui 9 9 0 3 Responsibilities |5| 21:2233:2538:2 54:6 74:23 Responsibility uoi 20:23 21:34 22: 13 25:5 74:18 97:21157:11162:12.16 Responsible |6) 75:685:2387:4 95:3. 8141:16 Responsive ID 7:4 Result 15] 78:1141:18149:24 160:22 161:7 Resulted ID 64:21 Resulting ID 160:4 Results HI 44:5 52:11.16100:24 104: 16 R esum e (10) 3:12 6:4 27:17.1921 32: 19 35:15 54:12101:18157:10 Resum ed ID ii 5 :ie Retained ID 159:8 Retired 12| 53:19 75:12 Review |10| 11:3 24:5 55:17 83:24 84: 5-6.1196:17112:2 150:17 Reviewed HI 6:2524:5 26:8 83:20 Reviewing ID 20:12 Revisions ID 95:7 RILEY ID 2:7 Ring 131 4:7 62.-6179:2 Risk 1231 36:1524-25 53:25 54:1003. 1720 55:421-22 56:2-325 57:600 89: 1022 90:2 93:522101:23149:9 Risks |7J 42:8 49:4 55:7.19.24 92:24 162:20 Risky 121149:2225 Road |2| 2:4.14 Rockville ID 132:25 Roggli ID 14:6 ROhl 151124:8,11127:7 128:7 129:16 Role I3| 27:193:9147:5 Roles 131 23:18 99:16 Roman ID H 3 :i3 Round ID 141:22 Sam ples U8134:20 50:17 52:9 90:18 119:11-1208-1921124:19131:14.1820 132:19133:4.820134:2024-25137:16 139:23144:11165:13168:1921 Sampling H8130:9,12-13.22-2333:1 3 8 3 0 2 2 0 2 2 4 0 :3 2 0 4 1 :6 44:23 45:3. 1608-2146:8-92023 48:22 51:9.1324 57:17109:9115:23119:24120:7121: 16126:120406139:19-20140:1.19 141:2225142:21143:3.13171:22 San UI 30:5 Satisfied ID 105:2 Satisfy ID 25:9100:6 Satisfying ID 93:2 Saw [12117:140:11110:31160123 2 4 117:7146:10150:2166:15168:19 171:9 Scanned Ui 96:3 Scanning Ui 96:2 SCARBOROUGH UI 2:7 Scope U8110:1917:13 2005 22:19 23:10 25:25 26:9 27:1135:4 71:24 72: 1198:1908134:17149:10151:13 Seabright ID 160:14 Sealed ID 148-03 Search HI 62:2563:18 65:125 S earched ID 63: Second is; 28:25101;13103:1164:8 176:3 Second-to-the-last ID 101:13 Secretary PI 9324-25141:19 Section |18) 3:2035:15 56:8 82:2183: 14 85:1020-2124 86:2.24 87:5 91:19 106:11108:13109:8113:14117:11 Sections UI 108:i4.i6 S e e |49115:2519:19 21:14 27:19 47: 14 48:7 53:8 66:19 82:23 85:13 86:4 88: 12-15 90:23 91:12 93:6 94:8101:12 103:3.721105:6106:20107:1109:7 118:1.8121-24122:22128:5 129:7.10 13103135:61370913802142:15 143:22150:110522151:1616402 168:15173:21174:2 Seeing (2) 128:9-10 Seeking HI 162:8 Seem PI 640188:2.15 Segm ents ID 5408 Sell HI 5 500 Selling I2| 7101135:8 S en se Hi 91:20133:25152:8-9 S en t 1121 5:4 4 4 0 0 4 5 0 1 51:255200. Seven ID 176:24 Several HI 17 :9 5 3 0 67:24 14407 Shading ID 106:7 Shall H) 18:20 Sh are ID i40:io Shared PI m e 2 1:34,8126H Shed HI 13208 S h eet (161 74:9.12 77:8 80:25 82:21 85:2189:5 900191:15.19 92002023 94:7.1006 Sh eets H31 5:6 53U5-16 55:2124 74: 24 75:3.6 95:3.703.16155:8 Sheldon HI 1400 Shelf HI 8 1 0 4 1 4 5 0 9 Shop HI 34:20 Shops HI 33:2234:24 Short HI 6:14 58:8 89:25 98:6105:7 138:22158:13 Shorthand H U U 5i8i:5 Shortly (D 171:32 Show 1301 90:22 9508108:7116:3,8 12103138:4 142091640170:24173: 24 Showed HO] 120:3.8.19125:8.13126: 6231270141:5,7 Showing ID 14403 Shown HI 149:9 Shows UI 94:12 Shut ID 144.-6 Significance ID 66:23 Significant H)49:3 70:20 Signifies HI 79:81 6 8 0 5 Signify ID 79:7 Silica ID 149:23 Silo PI 79:25 80:20 82:12 SilOS PI 79:2180:9.16-1723 Similar PI 7:6 4705-16 86:14 145:7. 16149:917200 Simple HI 163:9 Simply HD 9.5 21:2322:1125:4 48: 14 86:13 99:6107:5 1300.151570 Sinai ID 124:8 Single ID 2608 Sit ID 118:22 Site HI 330641:20 43:2296:22 Sitting HI 11204 Situation ID 116:22 Situations Hi 38:7 Six [12] 29:23 30:809320720.2353: RTV (314:1160:21179:9 Rule 121 77:16 96:9 Rule-making ID 96:9 Rules UI 23:12 Rulings ID 17:i5 Run 12181:15156:2________________ ___________ S___________ S afe |7] 47:5.9.2155:19 92:25 93:2.8 Safely PS| 15:535:16 36:14 37.-5 42:7 44:18 53:10.1422 5-1:2.19 55:2.20 56:20 2 1 57:14 74:9.1224 83:2 92:1023113: 1920129:23-24 137:14141:15 Safety-type ID 44:i8 S ales ID 7i:io Salts UI 153:9 sam p le |13| 3:23 30:1152:14 121:19 138:2140:18143:1720144:2225167: 5168:11170:8 Sampled HI 46:12 47:9120:17 151440225167:24 168:21 Sen ten ce HD 96:6 97:310100,13 104:5,9149:4,8151:B 164:8 1750 Sentences H i 137:12 S ep arate Pi 19:83206 440 6 88:17 144:23 Separately H i 19:1313808 S e rio u s ID 118 :18 S e rv e PI 27:5 7203 99:5 S e rve d P i 2 5 0 8 26:25 28:14 98:12 2 2 . 25100:8161:25 Serves HI 9 9 0 5 Service UI 42:i3 S e rv ic e d ID 5002 Services HI 41:25 42:4 160:19161:4 S et HI 91:4101:7 118:20141:20 Setright PI 160:110616 Setting 12] 34:8 3 5 0 1 Settings ID 159:9_________________ 2174:8 1 07:1511706 131:20 133:4 Six-month HI 29:2330:8.193207 Six-page ID 74:8 Sixth P) 63:1264:3.14 Size HI 77:20107:20 Sizes P ! 4:15 60:12 78:7 11209179: 18 Sizing ID 81:5 Skin ID 8 9 0 3 Skip ID 130 Sm aller ID 149:23 Smith I14| 1640925165:1424166:2 72024167:400.1824 169:4170:7 Sold PJ 77:5 80:20 81:25 8206-17 83: 17 145:421 Solvents ID 34:23 Someone P) 2022 420 84:2585:3 136:1817402 Som etim es HI 44:17 55:8 80:22142: VARHLEY ASSOCIATES Index Page 10 25 Somewhere Pi 9:8 5 3 0 5 1 7 2 0 4 Sorry HI 40O8 64:2 6 5 0 2 73:4 7507 10105157:23 Sort PI 90:6129:2514802 Sound UI 16006 Sounds ID 177:5 Source PI 64:5 80:21141:12 Sources PI 600724 104:15 South UI 2 0 0 Span H) 18:25146:21 Speaking HI 44:20 5 0 0 9 0 :6 1 0 2 0 6 Speaks ID 6 0 8 Specially ID 82:ia Specialty ID 137:3 Specific HD 12:23 44:24 47:18-19 83: 68701.17126001320166017000 Specifically HD 4 :U 1 8 0 7 24-2224 30:1935:22430244:20 47:18 5007 59:17 60:2167:2 9000113:7122:21 13101169:2417900 Specifications UI 8 2 0 Spell ID 79:5 Spent HI 31:23 33:115303176:2 Spiral ID 6 2 0 Spiral-bound Hi 6 2 0 1 7 2 2 1 Spoken HI 123:4 S t HI 65:7 66:8 69:20106:7 Staff ID 3 700 Stand PI 32:5 7 9 0 1 1 5 0 6 Standard PI 4 6 0 8 4 7 :ii4 8 0 49:s 118:10163:1 Standards Hi 38:2024 47.182049:8 910111320 Standpoint ID 88:9 Stands HI 129:22168:24 Stanton 110] 1 6 4 0 9 1 6 5 2 5 5 1 6 9 :1 3 , 18170H-5.il Stapled ID 13806 Started PI 76:3129:6.917101176:9 Starts PI 103:1149:5 164:5 State 1121106 4:6 6 3 0 4 64H 6 9 0 8 10304105:116802170:22171:5181: 5.22 Statem ent Hi 6 0 4 i8 :i5 2 o 89H 99: 4 114231265 Staten Hi 27:25 States HI 1908 270 Stationed (2)28:17 3303 Status H) 1905 Stay Hi 701 0 8 Stayed ID 36:3 Stenographic ID D12 Stenographically ID 18101 Step HI 8O.-12 Stick i ll 127H Still HOI 42:22 75:20110:5 1210.3 1252313300.141442.5 Stop UI 11605 Stories ID 14108 Story PI 141:303-14 Straight Pi 11909-201620B Straight-forward ID 162 0 8 STRAUSS HI 222 Street HI 10 8 2:9.19 6:9 Studied HI 10507 172:4 Studies P2) 4:9-10140315062416: 1418:2519:35.14 3 920 40:13 55:8 56: From Respirable to Studies 5 59:6 60:2162:7 72:13.18.20 73:22-23 96:24 101:9 102:3.8-9.11.15.17 104:1-3. 6,17108:23109:4134:17135:5141:4 162:211 6 4 2 U 7 2 3 170:2172:25179: 49 Study 1291 4:1847:13 59:2 60:8 87:17 97:13100:17108:22109:3122:2130: 24164:1925165:2166:25169:14173: 4.15.17174:13175:19176:1321177:2. 722178:20 180:2 Subject 19] 9:1130:6121:10152:14 162:9.13163:3.10170:14 Subjects Pi 122:25172:18 Subm issions 16) 4 :2 1 13:3.7.1163L-7 180:10 Subm it ID 45:2 Submitted P] 98:2013321 Subsequently Pi 69:811221 Subsidiary ti 72:3.io 76:17-18 Substance P I 30:io 50:8 Substances Hi 12723 Substantive PI 25:366:6 S u b tract 12] 173:20 174:11 S u e HI 93:23 Suffered U J15129 Suggested P) 83:7 116:21 Suggests PI 104:113126154:22 Suite HI 2:4 Sum H i 50:7 Summarizes HI 15020 Summaiy P I 1427114:2315028 Sum s til 9 7 2 Superior P] 12 7521 Supervise IiJ 3827 Supervised HD 29:2 31:24 322.7-8. 10-1223 33:14 Supplied 111 6 8 2 6 Supply U] 162:23 Support [4] 15:2116:8104:3169:24 Supported PI 158:24166:20 Supposed HI 3 2 :219427 1 2 5 2 141: 21 Surely HI 138:6 Su rg eon ID 34:6 Surveillance |13] 34:9 3 5 2 0 9 0 2 0 91:12 96:17 97:820100:1923101:13. 7104:16 Survey P)41:8 47:3 Surveys ID 4 2 2 3 Susceptibility ID 9 0 s Suspected ID 3 8 2 3 Sw ear ID 168:4 Sworn PI 6:10115261819 System |5] 55:2563:116523147:19. 22 System s ID 35:4 _________ T_________ Table Pi 11721-221182.512221 1302 Tables Pi 11728120:3 Takeover ID 7224 Talc 1193] 3 2 3 4:6215:4 924,22-23 13515:21182824 39:152140:2.1520 41 :3 9 2 7 43.-59.12 45:1223 46:25 47: 17 50:2151:14 57:172224 60:2165:9. 1125.17 67:19 68:6.15-16 69:12,6 70: 182171:11232617 72:23 74:4 75:20 76:2.4 77:5.1222 78:926 79:23 80:221 82:7.10-11,18 83:25 86:182187:1.4,24 88:12-14292191:7 93:3 96:8.10.18 97: J. Kelse -12/01/2004 2.56102:4103:6.102623104:2.11.14 TLV/PEL ID 85:12 106:8.15107:1610925111:7.11.2023 112:4 115:23116:101327 121:16.18 122:22725123:182225128:19131:5 132:1133:4,8134:420212425135:5. 8.24136:19.25137:1528138:1140:6 144:22146:12149:B.ia 150:562022 151:4155:23156:132622-23157:6 To-Width ID 4 8 2 0 Today |18| 6 :2 1 7 2 .913:715:18 24:4 2 7 2 45:6 54:4 58:1225 59:2.13 72:19 1462158:21169221792 Today's P i 27:224 57-25 6125.1924 62:13105:12108:8 158:9 160:5,23161:8 162:6 163:420 Together HD 58:22 5 9 2 7 2 1 6 0 2 ,7 . 164:69165:10-1125166:7167:9.14 16.1822 61:4.8.15.1923 62:13 6924 168:12169:13142925170:21171:4. 124913826 21172:3173:1923175:2-3.7 176:2.14. Took P i 10:231 1 2 299.23 3 0 2 53:21 1924 178:3 179:9 TalCOSiS HO] 86:10-1128202587:24 88:14202289:2 Taicville PI 67:5 68:22 70:22 Talks 13) 121:23 122:24 127:8 Team HI 37:16 Technical tao) 3 2 9 2 1 4 0 :7 4921-12. 14 108:4.1028109:19110:21112:2 115-25120:1122:13128:15171:1529 1729.17 1192924 Topic ID 58:5 Topics HI 29:8 Total P I 47:15.17 48:1725 4 9 :6 119: 24120:19 Touched ID 31:5 Towards Hi 17:2 Town 14] 67:17-181419 Towns ID 66:17 67:6 Techniques Hi 31:8 Toxicologist ID 55:14 Technology ID 3122 Ten HI 27:io Toxicology CD54:9 Trace |2|53:3140:24 Term |13| 86:12 89:20 90:13 91:24 92: Track P) 192620:23 3.7.171022028133:24 1512 161:16. Trademark PI 9:24 77 2 19 Trained HI 3 223 Termites ID 34:23 Training H4] 28:23 29:2 31:24 32:3.6. Terms 121) 6:18 22:12 34:8 36:24 47: 8.1425 33:5.12 352610121.17 154:4 15.17 48:3 49:3 51:15 55:17 77:14 80:3 Transcript PI 5:2 U 2 7 88:5 9 8 :6 1 1 9 2 0 1 2 8 :2 3 1 3 5 2 3 16229 Transcription ID I8 1 2 0 2017724 T est HI 55:14 97:14100:1628 Treat Hi 8 8 9 Tested (1 79:22 80:4 165:2516928 Treated HI 7:7 Testified PI 84:1211527 Treatment Hi 2924 Testifies HI 620 Testily 12124:4 98:7 Testimony I17| 4:2211:5.25 12:2.4.6 1 8 2 26:2.14,1661:7 73:2183:2184:6 85:51802018120 Testing Hi 4629-20 55:8 56:4 100:23 140:6166:8 Treats HI 87:7 Tremolite HS| 8 1 82.-5.19 88 :2 5 113: 5271149142:13143:7 156:1322157: 3.5158:8166:7 169:5 Tremoiitic PI 1 6 7 2 9 1 6 8 2 1 Trends ID 212 6 2 3 Tri 1119926 T ests tsi 14:13 8 1 2 5 137:M 1382 Triage HI 2925 169:5 Texas 13128:18 30:4 33:7 Trial Pi 11:22 26:14 Trials ID 12:7 Text HI 16527 Trichloroethylene ID 34:25 Theirs ID 4 7 2 5 Tried HI 111:9 Themselves I3119:8 24:21109:4 True Pi 52:13174:1918120 Theoretically HI 176:20 Try 131132 53:813123 Thereafter Hi 17123 Trying PI 59:14 91:20 Therefore ID 175:6 Turn |4| 102:23106:610722164:3 Thin HI 154:25 TWA ID 11325 U 7 2 3 Third Pi 29:2 16123176:4 Twice ID 41:720 Thompson (2sj 49:21-221129.18 TWO 137! 62.4 15:2317:12 21:8 23:25 113:2114:3.15.24115:22118:2124 119:812025-16125:8126:4130:21 131:2132:4.21.251332021168:21 Three P3| 4:7 6:22 23:18 28:22-23 29: 7.9 3722-13 41:7-8.20 44:2 48:10 54:18. 2224 62:6114:7-8117:16 17221179:2 Three-ring PI 4:7 62:6179:2 28:20 332041:829 42:14 44:2 48:14 6 4 2 2 1 6 8 2 8 82:2591:7 96:19 97:12 1019 104:15105:2106:14109:6113: 22118:1113127 13722138:23139:3. 7 1642116523170:2172:11174:20 Two-page P ] 62-4 Two-year PI 4 2 2 4 1 7 4 2 0 Throughout Hi 24:2536:12 53:20 Type I26| 82917:7 2 3 :1 5 2 9 2 5 1 6 31: 1419 Tightly ID 14823 Timewise ill 41:5 Title |9| 36:72037:2157:11 10 6:11 117:10121:24 1252820 Tilled 120| 12:2060:1161:2.17 62:17 64:34 105:21109:24 111:3.14 156:20 164:21-22169:5 179:9.14.182218020 Titles Pi 36:1021117:19 89 3322.17 3 520 38:19 44:18 52:25 79:8 81:24 8 3 9 86:15 90:7114:17 130: 8 134:2413823150991154:19 164:1 Types H3112:3 21:24 34:16 38:7 42: 22 102:7.9.17127:12 13027148:16 151:3155:8 Typical P i 1 9 2 3127 38:10 47:2 92:9. 221482616822 Typically HD 21:6 37:8 39:1.5 66:25 VARHLEY ASSOCIATES Index Page 11 78:1579:10812612326126:12140: 17 u U.S. P i 1132913021137:13 U n der H D 9:2417:6 23:12 31:6 3 2 2 34:6 35:14 36:13 48:8 60:7 82:16 92:17 97:9102:1311324141:20142:10174: 317520 Undergone H! 95:7 Underground H4| 68:2 69:59-10,12 70:3.161.22:6.7,9.11144:3.6.8 Understood P) 36:19114:21116:18 1519 Undue ID 93:5 Unexpected ID 85:6 Unfair (4) 24:7.13-14 26:9 Unfortunately ID 126:20 Unidentified ID 3:24 Unless ID 2 2 2 6 Unpublished ID 168:10169:3 Unsafe HI 9124 Up (17| 1920 34:8 35:1169:4 77:17 91:4 922193:197:1101:7116:11118: 20141:3147:1995161:22168:6 Updated ID 2722 Updating ID 95:3 Upgrade Hi 147:U Upgrades ID 147:2 Upper ID 89:12 Upstate ID 62:22160:7 Usage ID 103:2 User PI 91:17 92:193 Uses |S1 8323.1784:16,1991 Utilizing HI 127:12 _______________ V _______________ Vaccine Pi 153:56 Valid Pi 1 5 2 2 8 1 5 3 2 1 Vandenburg HI 2829 Vanderbilt H86] i : 8 2 2 8 2 3 3 2 a 5:4 8:4 9:391-22109.12.1713.-514:115:21 16231917:3,2218:1894 20:599522: 14 23:20 24:24 26:429 40:19141:11.17 23 42:1.11.17-1893 43:6.1144:11,1391, 25 45:2.1146:20 49:23 50:15905127. 20-215224.199353:4,1154:17 56:15, 2294 57:72168:824 70:25 71:1225.18 72:4269024 73:3.1127 74:2275:7 76: 19 77:2.5 81:2585:3 88:2090:17 95:4 969 98:3 9921101:24102:410320. 16104:112410520111:7212993 112:1.7.25117:4118:201202212321 128:121299 130:21131:5.9132:1 133:424134:423219325135:4.824 136:199513725.181382140:6 M i ls 148:23155:22156:1226157:19 158:25 159:4.922.18-19 1602-42023 1619.8,101124 1622.6-7.121632-3 164:6.9165202125166:3-32124167: 14.1823168:11169:4.142925170:8 17122 173:2-3.9.13-1423 Vapors ID 89:22 Variability PI 64:25 6 5 9 8 1 2 2 Variable Hi 6 39 Variables ID 9 0 9 9125 Variety ID 13225 Various poi 1 5 9 1 9 2 1 2 1 2 4 -2 5 34: 23 39:8 58:14 59:6 62:721-22 63:14 66: 7.16 77:22 78:2080:6.9 8 1 2 90:4 95:13 107:25127:8134:41419 14621154: 7 1569 159:9178:25 Vary Pi 909-4_____________________ From Studies to Vary J. Kelse -12/01/2004 v a s t in 156:24 Velocity (31147:10.20.24 Ventilation Pi 3 i : i 3 7 ; i 9 Verbal in 136:22 Vermicuiite |3| 140:23141:11142:3 Version HI 129:25 Versus HI 93:17 Vibration HI 148:14 Victor HI 14:6 View HI 157:20 Virtue 12] 98:11.13 Visited HI 41:20 Vital HI 19:15 Volume Hi 1:8 Vreeland HI 2:14 Vs HI 1:6 Workplace PI I37:i6.ie Works HI 21:13 42:1126:13155:14 Worrisome HI i i 4 :i i Writing m 53:14 74:24 87:2136:18 163:12-1320 Written Pi 112:2.12120:16125:12.15 126:3136:10159:12 Wrote 15] 14:22 74:20 8 6 87:19 90:12 Wylie HU 13:19158:15159:4.8,20 165:3169:9.12170:2.12.14 Wylie's HI 169:16 W X W.R. HI 141:2 W agner |2| 27:25 28:11 W alter HI 124:17 Washington HI 2:24 W ednesday HI m s W eek HI 180:23 W eeks PI 29:7.9 Weight 13] 81:8 85:12100:21 Weighted PI 113:1S117:13 Welding HI 33:22 Whereas in 9:25 White HI 20:2 Whittiker PI 167:6.13 Whole 12] 55:25149;7 Wholly 141 72:3.9 76:17-18 Wholly-owned HI 72:3.9 76:17-18 Wide in 34:19 Widely HI 81:25 Width HI 48:10 Widths HI 154:25 Wight PI 105:24 William (3114:3165:13166:7 Willing HI 26:11 Winfield HI 6:9 Withdrawn H2| 7 0 :1 71:14 75:19 76: 17 70*17. Aft-2584*17 101*2 1fi2*25 1fifi? 7 166:18178:18 W itness 137] 3:36:19-21.24 73 5 .7 10: 4-512:1117:3.20-2121:20 22:5 23:14 24:6.13.1822 26:356 27:8 44:24 70:10 98:3.16-17 99:17 115:5161:123.6162:1 180:24 181:7 Wollastonite HI 67:3 Wonder Hi 177:15 Wood HI 34:22 Woodcock HI 106:25 word (7| 89:13 91:24 93:14-15149:15 150:8161:22 Words !6| 48:7136:17149:5150:20 155:13164:6 Work-related Hi 20:i3 Worker PI 65:2588:19150:16 Workers PH 17:2219:12 24:25 26:19 71:16 88:12*13 96:19.24102:12103:10, 16104:11.14 141:1150:10.22 171:21 176:13178:9.19 Workers' PI 8:2116:1617:6 20:3.12. 24 22:7.13 Workings Hi 69:io Workmen's HI 2 1 : x-------------------------x HI 1:10 X-ray HI 97.-12100:18127:20.22 X-rays PI 90:22 96:18101:5 Y Year I 1 28:18-19 31:23 32:1.14.19 42: 14 53:13 74:22 101:9 145:1.19 173:20 174:20 Years H8| 8:17 19:l 28:20 33:10 36:4 41:19 42:5.19 53:1.6.192124 71:7 75: 14 78:18 96:19 97:12101:21105:24 146:17.21150:19159:5201732729. 21174:89.16.22175:3.8.132.724176:144345,22.24 177:1.13178:8 York [21] 4:628:137:1239:2140:321 41:10 43:5 57:18 62:22 6 3 : 64:4 69: 18106:8118:22160:8167:6168:12 170:22171:5 Yourself PI 38:15 52:3135:23152:4. 13154:104448155:18 Zinc in 106:25 Zumwalde in 40:io VARHLEY ASSOCIATES Index Page 12 From Vast to Zumwalde J. Kelse - Volume il - 4/12/2005 .. 182 } SUPERIOR. COURT Or NEW JERSEY n pv n F WITHE LAW D ivisimi J MIDDLESEX COUNTY Pocket Mo. MID-L-2706-03 AS WITHERS DIRECT John W. Ke Ise, Jr. E S T A T E O F P E T E S S. K I R S C H : By Me. Escheiman: 165 S. S E S Plainciff. _ ViJ^ : CIVIL ACTQ jD e p o s i c i n of: 1! OF.:-: O F e :< H I a...T T s G E O R G I A P A C I F I C . I!!C.; H A H H I L L 5 C I L L E S P I E . II1C. R.T. VADERBILT COMPAMY. MC. , : J O HH W. KELSE, JR ( V o lume Il> : Defendants. TRAU S C R I P T of che stenographic notes of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter, as taken by and before HOLLY JOHNSON KOWALENKO, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and n o t a r y P u b l i c of the S t a t e o f H e w Jersey, h e l d at the Offices Of HOAGLAUD, LONGO, HORAN, DUUST 5 DOUKS, L.L.P., 40 Paterson Street, Hew Brunswick, Hew Jersey, on Tuesday, Aprii at approximately 1 0 : 2 0 in the 12. 2005, forenoon. commencing Exhibit Kelse-23 Kelse-24 Kelse-25 Kelse-2 Kelse-27 File folder entitled "Stanton Study Sample Source" File folder entitled "Smith Study SamplesSources" File folder entitled "Kieinf eld-Follow-up'* File folder entitled "Insurance Monitoring Fiber" File folder entitled "WYTAL USDS History" I d e n t i f i' 185 1S5 185 135 210 AAABGDLOR APPEARANCES*. 183 LEVY, PHILLIPS K KOIUGSBERG, L.L.P. Attorneys for the plaintiff 101 G r o v e r s M i l l P.oad Suite 105 Lawrencevilie. Mew Jersey GSe-^S By: THOMAS W. ESCKLEHAM, ESQUIRE H A R K S , O 'N E I L L , O 'B R I S N & C O U R T N E Y , P.C. Attorneys for the Defendant Georgia-?acific Corporation Cooper River West 6$S1 North Park Drive Suite 300 Pennsauken, New Jersey 0510? By: SEAN X. KELLY, ESQUIRE H-PRIZE printed 4 / 1 9 / 0 5 18 5 I (The below-described four file folders were I received and marked Kelse-23 through Kelse-26 for ) Identification.) t 5 MS. GRIMBERGEN: Beforewestart 1just want B to put a statement on the record that is going to 7 follow the statement that we put on the record the 8 first time when we were here back on December 1st; 9 that Mr. Keise is being produced here today as an 10 expert witness pursuant to the Deposition Notice II and not beingproduced in anyother capacity. HcGIVHEY, KLUGSR * GANNON, P,C. Attorneys for the Defendant Hamili Gillespie 23 vreeland Road Florham Park, New Jersey 07932 By: NICHOLAS OeMATTHEIS, ESQUIRE 14 JOHN W. KELSE. 152 Pulaski Highway, 15 Ansonia, Connecticut, is duly sworn and 16 testifies on his oath as follows: HOAGLAHD, LONGO, M O R A N , DUUST OOUKA5, L.L.P. Attorneys for the Defendant R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc. 40 Paterson Street New Brunswick, Hew Jersey 05903 By: M O R A J. GRJM 3 E R G E N , E S Q U I R E 17 18 CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ESCHLEMAN: 19 Q Good morning, Mr. Kelse. 20 A Hello. 21 Q Mynameis TomEschleman. I'mfrom 22 thefirmofSzafermanLakind. I represent the 23 plaintiffs in this case, the Estate of Mr. Hirsch. 24 I am going to continue the deposition of Moshe 25 Maimon, which beganon December 1,2004.1just VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 182 to Page 185 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 j. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 186 1 have a few brief instructions for you. 2 Obviously you've had your deposition taken 3 before, if I ask you a question and you don't 4 understand the question for whatever reason, please 5 let me know; okay? 6 A Yes. 7 Q All right, because if you answer the 8 question without letting me know we'll assume that 9 you understood the question; okay? 10 A {No audible response.) 11 Q If 1aska questionto whichyou don't 12 know the answer, the proper answer would be, "I 13 don't know." 14 Do you understand? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Okay. You can estimate and 17 approximate; but if you're going to do that, just 18 let us know that this is an estimation or 19 approximation; okay? 20 A 21 Yes. Q 1assumeyou're under no medications 22 or intoxicant that would lead you to be unable to 23 understand my questions or answer my questions; is 24 that correct? 25 A Not beyond the two coffees, no. J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 188 1 Do you recall? 2 A Ina-like a gel; and it actually involved 3 72 different samples, of which there were seven 4 talcs. 5 Q Okay. Now, what type of animals were 6 used in the study? 7 A 1believethese were rats. 8 Q What were the results of the studies, 9 if you recall? 10 A The purpose of the study was to test a 11 hypothesis that certain dimensions of durable 12 fibers were more carcinogenic than other dimensions 13 or to test the theory that those fibers that were 14 long and thin would more likely be fibers, if they 15 were durable, that would produce more tumors than 16 fibers that were short and fat. 17 And to do that he took 72 different samples, 18 many of which were asbestos samples; and he 19 carefully measured the sizes of the particles in 20 each sample, and then he injected them into the 21 pleural cavities of these rats and later counted 22 the number of tumors that were produced by each 23 sample and correlated those to the size of the 24 particles in each sample to see whether or not 25 there was a correlation between the size and the J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 187 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 189 1 Q Okay. The first thing I'd like to 1 number of tumors produced in the experiment. 2 cover are documents which you've brought here today 3 which were not provided during the first 4 deposition. 1believe we've marked thefiles 5 containing these documents. 2 And essentially he found that samples that 3 contained a high proportion of fibers that were 4 less than a quarter micrometer thick and longer 5 than eight micrometers long seemed to produce the 6 The firstfilethat 1wantto bringto your 7 attention is what's been marked as Kelse-23, and it 8 says "Stanton Study", and underneath that it says 9 "Sample Source". 10 Are you familiar with this folder? 6 most tumors. 7 Many of these samples were asbestos samples, 8 and amongthese 72samples he tested seven talcs; 9 and of the seven talcs, two of the talcs turned out 10 to be Vanderbilt talcs. 11 A 12 13 A 14 Yes. Q And did you bring it here today? Yes. Q And why did you bring it here today? 11 Q Okay. 12 A And at the last deposition there was some 13 question as to how did we know that these samples 14 - these talcs - they were listed Talc 1 through 15 A In response to questions as to the origin of 16 samples that were associated with this study by 17 Merle Stanton, National Cancer Institute. 18 Q All right. And just briefly, the 19 Stanton study dealt with - it was a study of 20 animals, correct? 15 7; they weren't designated by name - how did we 16 know two of these talcs were Vanderbilt talcs. 17 Thatwasthe-an issue. 18 Q All right. So just for my 19 understanding, the study concluded that the thinner 20 and longer the fibers, the more carcinogenic they 21 A 22 Yes. Q And it dealt with the injection of 21 were? 22 A Samples that contained a higher proportion 23 these animals with talc; is that correct? 23 of those types of fibers tended to be. There were 24 A Implantation. 24 some exceptions. 25 Q Okay. How was the talc implanted? VARHLEY ASSOCIATES 25 Q All right. (732) 246-4334 ......_ nn H Oft Page 186 to Page 189 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 190 A The talc samples didn't produce any tumors. Q The seven talcs samples - none of the 3 seven produced any tumors? 4 A The two that - Talc 6 and 7, which were 5 Vanderbilt talcs, produced no tumors. 6 A couple of the other talcs, the platy . talcs, just produced a background, one or two 3 tumors that werejust background, and are not 9 considered... 0 Q Okay. Could you point to me in the ` 1 study where it identifies 6 and 7 as Vanderbilt '2 talcs? 13 A Well, that was the issue. It didn't Q Okay. 5 A And the reason we knew that these were 6 Vanderbilt talcs was that Ann Wylie, Dr. Wylie, a 7 mineralogist, professor of mineralogy at University . 8 of Maryland, knew Dr. Stanton; and Dr. Stanton 19 died; and he actually willed Dr. Wylie his records 20 from this study, as well as the samples themselves. 21 So she actually went to his home, in his 22 attic, and got the data from - the background data 23 from the study that indicated the origin of the 24 samples, most of the samples, as well as some of 25 the samples themselves; and this is an affidavit J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 192 1 question you did some research, correct? 2 A Yes. I think we mentioned this affidavit at 3 the last - you know, at the last deposition; and I 4 don't know that that - you know, it didn't sound 5 like that seemed to be sufficient; but at this 6 point that's all we have. 7 Q When you say "this affidavit", you're 8 talking about the August 1,1984, letter; correct? 9 A Yes. 10 Q It's not an affidavit, correct? You 11 recognize that? 12 A Okay, letter. 13 Q Butjust so I'm clear, that's what 14 you're referring to, is the August 1,1982, letter? 15 That's what you're referring to when you say 16 "affidavit"? 17 A That's right. 18 Q Okay. So obviously this letter was 19 not produced in response to the questions at the 20 last deposition, correct? 21 A No. 22 Q All right I note that the letter 23 says, "In some cases the information is 24 incomplete." 25 Did you see that sentence in the letter?______ J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 191 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 1 9 3 1 that she produced identifying, you know, the origin 2 of some of these samples. 3 You see some wollastonite in talc samples. 4 These were the names of the samples. 6 and 7 is 1 A 2 3 A 4 Yes, I did. Q Do you know what that refers to? No, I don't. Q Okay. And do you know how Ms. Wylie 5 NYTAL. It's a typical Vanderbilt There was 6 actually one Asbestine - poor name, but that's 7 what it was named, and that was actually the 5 identified Talc 6 and 7 as Vanderbilt talcs? 6 A I believe she had records that identified 7 the name, you know, the brand name; and I believe 8 Vanderbilt name at one point. 9 She also analyzed those talcs and said, 8 she actually analyzed the talc. 9 Q All right. 10 "Yes, this is the typical, you know, Vanderbilt 11 type tremolitic talc." 12 So that's why we know these weren't those - 10 A Looked at it. 11 Q Do you know where the records are from 12 this study that identifies the Talc 6 and 7 as 13 those two samples weren't. 14 Q Let mejust take a look at this. 15 Now, included in this folder is a letter 16 from Ann Wylie from August 1,1982; is that 13 Vanderbilt talc? 14 A Her records, no. 15 Q Do you know where any records are that 16 would identity Vanderbilt talc as Talc 6 and 7, 17 correct? 18 A Yes. 19 Q All right Did you say - when did 20 she-strike that. 21 At the last deposition there was a question 17 other than this letter? 18 A No. That's something we'll have to get. 19 MR. ESCHLEMAN: I'd ask that be produced. 20 Q And you indicated that you believe she 21 analyzed the talc herself, correct? 22 about whether any of the talcs used in the study 23 were Vanderbilt talcs; is that correct? 22 A 23 Yes, I believe she did. Q Ail right. You're not sure, though; 24 A Yes. 25 Q All right. In response to that_________ 24 correct? 25 A No. You would have to ask hen___________ VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 190 to Page 193 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 j. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 194 11 Q And do you know whether or not any 2 records regarding her analysis of the Talc 6 and 3 7 4 A l don't have them. 5 Q Do you know whether she does? 6 A I don't know. 7 Q Have you spoken to Ms. Wylie about 8 this since the deposition of - 9 A No, I haven't. 10 Q All right. Have you ever spoken to 11 Ms. Wylie about this? 12 A Over the years, yeah. She's always referred 13 to these as Vanderbilt talcs. 14 Q But you never spoke to her 15 specifically in relation to this - the question 16 asked at the last deposition? 17 A No. 18 Q Okay. So other than this August 1, 19 1984, letter from Ms. Wylie you have no other 20 records or data in your possession that identifies 21 Talc 6 and 7 as Vanderbilt talc? 22 A Rightnow.no. 23 Q And again, in the actual Stanton study 24 itself there is no indication where Talc 6 and 7 |25 came from; correct? ______________ J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 196| marked as Plaintiffs Exhibit Kelse-24. It says on it - it's a file again. It says "Smith Study", and then underneath that it says "Samples-Sources". You have produced this document in response to questions asked by Mr. Maimon during the last deposition? A Yes. Q Okay. Could you pleasejust briefly tell me, the Smith study also concerned animal studies as well; is that correct? A Yes, it did. Q Okay. What type of animals in the Smith study were used? Do you recall? A This was an injection study into hamsters that involved five samples. Sample 14 and Sample , 275 were Vanderbilt talc samples. Sample 14 was an 8 off-the-shelf product talc, Vanderbilttalc; and 9 Sample 275 was the tremolite concentrate from the 20 talc, pure tremolite from the talc, from Vanderbilt talc. Q All right. What was the conclusion of the Smith study? . _, A That the samples 31 and 72 and 72N, which 25 were high-fiber tremolite, tremolite asbestos, J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 195 11 A I don't believe so, no. 2 Q I just notice on the Stanton study 3 itself Talc 6 and 7 are circled and then underneath 4 there is the letters "RTV talc", which 1assume 5 stands for Vanderbilt talc; correct? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Who made that notation? 8 A Oh, I did. 9 Q Okay. And when did you make that 10 notation? 11 A A number of years ago. 112 Whenever we used this study I wanted to 113 indicate which talcs were Vanderbilt, and that's 14 why I put that on. 15 Q All right. And what information did 16 you use to identify it as Vanderbilt talc? 17 A Well, the letter from Dr. Wylie. 18 Q So 1assume you have been in 19 possession of the letter from Dr. Wylie for a 20 number of years? 21 A The date is '84? 22 Q Yes. 23 A Yes. It was in the files when I arrived at J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 197| produced tumors at both those levels and that neither 14, product per se, or 275, the concentrated tremolite from Vanderbilt talc, produced any tumors at either dose level on the pleura. Q Now, you indicate that Samples 14 and 275 were Vanderbilt talc samples; is that correct? A Yes. ,, Q Now,just so I understand, 14 was an 111102 off-the-shelf product of Vanderbilt talc? A Y6S. Q Okay. Do you know whether that was 13 NYTAL? 14 A This is the description. FD14 is from 15 Whittaker, Clark & Daniels. That's the 16 distributor. It is known as 3X, which is now 17 similar - the same as NYTAL 200. 18 Q Okay. 19 A And 275 is the tremolite. 20 So that's a description there, plus some 21 correspondence from Dr. Smith in terms of - and 22 here's the IT 3Xtechnical data sheet in Vanderbilt 23 that identifies - you know, correlates these 24 Vanderbilt. I began work there in '85. |25 Q Okay. I'll show you what's been VARHLEY ASSOCIATES 24 numbers. 25 Q Qkav. Let me back up to make it <732) 246-4334 Page 194 to Page 197 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 j. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 198 simpler for myself. How did you identify that the Talc 14 and 3 Talc 275 were, in fact, Vanderbilt talcs? 4 A Well, they're obtained through the 5 distributor, and that was the product name, and 6 that's what the researcher said the product name 7 was. 8 Q All right. It's my understanding - did the study itself mention where the talc came 10 from? 1 A I think it said the Gouverneur district It 2 didn't specifically say Vanderbilt 13 Q And now you've come to believe that it 4 was, in fact, Vanderbilt; correct? 15 A Based on these documents, yes. 16 7 A Q All right. And we know the tremolite for sure because 8 we gave it to them. 9 Q All right. Show me the document that 20 indicates that Vanderbilt gave the tremolite for 21 the study. 22 A Okay. This is an internal Vanderbilt 23 document dated 1978. 24 Q All right. And it's to A.M. Harvey 25 from a K.C. Rieger. ________________ J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 200 assigned to that sample or - that was obtained 2 from the mine that Mr. Rieger worked on to extract 3 the tremolite, which he then provided to Dr. Smith. 4 5 A 3 Q All right I think that's all that it is. It's fairly descriptive in the paper. I'm , not going to sit and read this word-for-word, but 3 it's available to you to do th a t and you can - 9 Q Do you know, is there any indication 0 in that document or any of the documents you have 1 that that particular Sample 275 was delivered from 2 Mr. Rieger to Mr. Smith? 3 A This sample was submitted to William Smith 4 on March 31,1976. 5 As I say, it's in the documents. 16 Q Okay. 17 A I think, in looking at these documents, 18 probably this internal memo is probably the most 19 descriptive. 20 Q Okay. 21 A There are other references to, "I got this 22 sample from Mr. Harvey", and that sort of thing. 23 This is probably the best document in terms 24 of the origin of these samples. 25 Q Does that document also speak to the J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 199 1 A Rieger. 2 Q Is that correct? 3 A Correct. 4 Q All right. 5 A And what Mr. Rieger is doing is he is 6 explaining to Mr. Harvey how he prepared or took J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 201 1 origin of Sample No. 14? 2 A Yes. It states in origin, FD14 is No. 13 3 talc from Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, a 4 distributor. This 3X product was produced by the 5 former International Talc that Vanderbilt 6 purchased. The similar grade produced today would 7 out the tremolite from the talc. 8 This is what this preparation description is 7 be NYTAL 200. 8 Q Do you have the Smith study in front 9 all about. 10 Q Now, Mr. Rieger's connection to the 11 Smith study was what? 12 A Well, he is a ceramics engineer, so he has 13 the equipment, you know, to separate out some of 14 these mineral components, which he did in our 15 research and development laboratory. 16 Q So when it says "CPS 75-1" in the 17 preparation, that refers to the sample that was 18 used in the Smith study? 19 A That would be like an internal Vanderbilt 20 identification of a sample. 21 Q I'm soriy. 22 Is that particular designation the same 23 sample that was given to Smith, or was that just a 9 of you? 10 Okay. Thank you. 11 A I want to point out this additional 12 correspondence by Dr. Smith dated - 13 Q November 21,1986? 14 A 1986, in which Dr. Smith is describing the 15 origin of these samples as well. 16 So here he's talking about Sample 14, 17 Paragraph 3 of that letter, and in Paragraph 4 of 18 that letter, Sample 275, that being a sample 19 provided to him by Allen Harvey at Vanderbilt; and 20 that had been prepared in our laboratory from a 21 tremolitic talc. 22 So you got, I think, three documents that 23 you can put together to see where these samples 24 generic name for it, 275? 24 came from. 25 A It's probably a generic, it's just a number 25 Q Did you see whether there's any_______ VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 198 to Page 201 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 202 1 indication regarding what mine the 275 talc came 2 from? 3 A No. I would assume it would come from the 4 - the ore that we were mining, you know; and I 5 think at that time we only had - what year was 6 this? 7 Q 1978. 8 A '78? 9 It could have been from the - there was 110 only two mines. One was an open pit mine, known as 111 the Arnold Pit, and the other is an underground 12 mine, the original underground mine, that 13 Vanderbilt had, both located pretty much next to 14 each other, it would have come from either of J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 204! 1 Vanderbilt employees included in the Kleinfeld 2 study. 3 I don't know how many or if any, but they 4 could have been. Could have been some. 5 So that was pretty much what that discussion 6 was towards the end of that deposition. 7 So I went back and I pulled out, you know, 8 the Kleinfeld study; and, actually- 1think we 9 were talking about the Kleinfeld study that was 10 dated 1967; but, actually, the Kleinfeld did an 11 update on thatstudy- 1have included that in 12 here - which was actually published in 1974, where 13 he actually had this cutoff date at '69 versus - 1 14 think it was 1965 originally when we were talking 15 those two, one or the other. 16 And this is just a - this other document in 17 the folder is just a technical data sheet that 18 identifies IT 3X as a Vanderbilt product. 119 Q 1showyou what's been marked 20 Kelse-25. it says - again it's another folder. 21 It contains numerous documents. The folder itself 15 about it 16 Sol putthe update study in here. I think 17 this is the one you were operating off, but this 18 one was newer; okay? 19 Q Okay. 20 A It had the same criteria in it, so that 21 didn't change, it just included another couple of 22 is labeled "Kleinfeld-Foliow-up". 22 years. 23 Why did you produce these documents? 23 So I looked at that, and I still feel that 24 In response to what question were these documents 24 this - thatthe Kleinfeld study - because the 125 produced? _____________________ , 25 original question waswhen i produced health J. Kelse - confd direct - Mr. Eschleman 203 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 205 1 A At the very end of the last deposition there 1 studies that, to the best of my knowledge, 2 was a discussion on the Kleinfeld study. 2 addressed Vanderbilt workers - and I produced 3 Q Okay. 3 those in chronological order- 1didn't produce A And there was some confusion on my part as 4 the Kleinfeld study; and the reason for that is 5 to whether or not Vanderbilt employees would have 5 that I didn't feel that the Kleinfeld study 6 been included in the Kleinfeld study, and my 6 addressed Vanderbilt Talc workers. 7 original feeling was that there would not have been 7 There were studies that did, about six of 8 Vanderbilt employees involved in the study because 8 them specific to Vanderbilt. This one didn't. 9 of the criteria for inclusion in the study. 9 This was generalized north country talc workers, 110 Q What was the criteria for inclusion in 10 and I wasn't sure that there were any of our 11 the study? 11 workers even involved in this study, but I went 112 A Weil, there were two criteria; and, 12 back and looked at it, and one of the things that 13 unfortunately, I was just thinking of the first 13 -oneof thereasons I never really paid much 14 one, which I have listed here, which would have 14 attention to the Kleinfeld study was that the lung 115 been ail talc workers that were employed in 1940 15 cancers that he reported, which I think were very 16 that would have had accumulated 15 or more years of 16 fe w -it was 11. 117 exposure; and since the Vanderbilt mine opened in 17 He had a very small group of people that he 18 1948, that first criteria would not have been met, 18 looked at that met this criteria, 15 years or more. 19 so you would not have had Vanderbilt employees. 19 I think it was only 260. 120 However, there was a second criteria; and 20 Actually, in the '74 study they published it 21 that second criteria was that those that had 21 was only a total of 260 talc workers who met that 22 achieved a minimumof 15years of exposure between 22 15-year criteria. In '60 or '67 study I think it 23 1940 and 1969 could have been included as well; and 23 was 230, so a little bit bigger. 24 if you do the math, then you know that there is a 24 Any rate, he noted that when he broke down 25 period of time where there could have been 25 the lung cancers by years - you know, five-year VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 202 to Page 205 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 206 1 intervals - that the group of people who showed 2 the most lung cancers were the older group; and 3 based on the latency - he was talking about 4 exposures that occurred in the 30's and the 40's. 5 Again, that predated Vanderbilt, so these 6 would have been exposures linked to the lung 7 cancers that were really linked to exposures of 8 Vanderbilt. Another reason I felt that. 9 The other item was that we did have, as you 10 know, mortality studies done on our own workers 11 just specific to Vanderbilt, so I went back and 1 12 looked at the most recent one that we had that was 13 published in 2002. It actually took everything up 14 through 1990, and 1had a preliminary report bythe 15 authors of that study. 16 That study was done at the University of 17 Alabama. Elizabeth Delzell was the author at the 18 time. When it was published it was published under 19 Honda, and in that preliminary report she produced 20 a table of the lung cancer deaths of Vanderbilt 21 workers who worked for any period of time; and 22 unlike the published Honda study, in this 23 preliminary report the table was a little more 24 expansive. It gave us more information about the 25 lung cancer cases. J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 208 1 International Talc and the time they worked at 2 Vanderbilt or just the time they worked for 3 Vanderbilt? 4 A Just the time they worked for Vanderbilt. 5 There were - 1noticed there were two 6 deaths that did precede 1969; but the time at 7 Vanderbilt was three years, so they were included 8 in the Kleinfeld - if those individuals were 9 included in the Kleinfeld study, they would have 10 had to have worked at another talc mine for like - 11 let's say it was three years. They would have had 12 to work somewhere else for 12. 13 Q They could have worked for 14 International Talc, which would be the same mine; 15 would it not be? 16 A It could have. We don't know. 17 Q All right. So at least the criteria 18 used by Kleinfeld - at least one of the criteria 19 used by Kleinfeld could possibly include Vanderbilt 20 workers within the study? 21 A Yes, it could have included some. 22 So I tried to lay this out in a single sheet 23 to be clearer than me stumbling through the 24 explanation; but to the best of my ability this is, 25 you know, how I interpret, you know, Kleinfeld and J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 207 1 So I went back and 1looked at the date of 2 death, you know; and on the table she also 3 indicates the number of years that they worked at 4 Vanderbilt, and what 1was interested in doingwas 5 to see how many of the lung cancer deaths at 6 Vanderbilt are people that had had more than 15 7 years of exposure at Vanderbilt, and there were 8 only a couple, and their dates of death were after 9 1969, so-which was the cutoff date for 10 Kleinfeld. 11 So, in other words, Kleinfeld's lung cancers 12 that he reported on could not have included any 13 Vanderbilt lung cancers for people who worked at 14 Vanderbilt for more than 15 years. 15 Q When you say - just so I'mdear, 16 when you say "Vanderbilt", are you talking about 17 just Vanderbilt as its name now, or are you talking 18 about aiso prior companies which Vanderbilt took 19 over, like International Talc? 20 A It would b e -it would be everyone that 21 worked for Vanderbilt, which would include any 22 properties that we would have purchased, so, yes, 23 it would have included International. 24 Q And when you're talking about the 15 25 years, you're talking about the time they worked at j Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 209 1 its relationship to Vanderbilt. 2 Q All right. So this one-page typed 3 sheet, single-spaced, that says "Workers Exposed 4 Only To R.T. Vanderbilt Talc Would Not Have Been 5 Among Excess Pulmonary Cancers Observed By 6 Kleinfeld For The Following Reasons", that title, 7 for lack of a better term, that appears on the top 8 of that document is your notes o f- 9 A 10 It's what I believe, yes. Q Ail right. And when was this 11 prepared? 12 A Oh, about a week ago. 13 Q Okay. Thank you. 14 Then, finally, 1show you afolder thafs 15 been marked Kelse-26, which again is a folder which 16 contains numerous documents. The title of this 17 folder is "Insurance Monitoring Fiber". 18 Can you tell me why you produced this folder 19 today? 20 A Yes. At the last deposition 1was asked if 21 the folder I produced of all of the asbestos 22 sampling that had been done at Vanderbilt over the 23 years was complete; and I believe I said yes, to 24 the best of my knowledge, it was complete. 25 There had been some other samples, some VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 206 to Page 209 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 210 fiber samples, and things of that nature, but they 2 weren't specific to asbestos; and, in fact, I had 3 done that myself when 1had worked at Hartford, the 4 insurance company; and my recollection was that I 5 was asked, "Well, you know, could we get those 6 reports", or "Could they be produced"; and so I 7 produced them. (The below-described file folder was 1 received and marked Kelse-27 for Identification.) ) Q I'm showing you what's been marked ' 1 Plaintiffs Exhibit Kelse-27. Again, ifs a folder 2 containing numerous documents. The folder is 13 entitled "NYTAL MSDS History". 14 What does this folder contained? 15 A It contains some historical records of 16 material safety data sheets that I could find in my 17 files that I felt were pertinent to NYTAL 100 18 product grade. 19 Q How did you determine whether they 20 were pertinent to the NYTAL 100 product grade? 21 A Under the product identification it could 22 indicate - it should indicate what the product 23 grade is. 24 Q Looking through the material safety 25 data sheets, were there any differences in the data J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 212| 1 A You notice that? 2 You see 100 and 200 because they all are 3 the same; and from a material safety data sheet 4 standpoint, where you're trying to reflect to a 5 person using your product what the composition of 6 that product is and what file risks are that are 7 associated with that product, a combined MSDS for 8 all these NYTAL's is sufficient. 9 A number of years ago, five or six years 10 ago, we separated these into individual ones for 11 individual grades, predominantly to reflect quartz 12 level; and the reason for that was that the 13 standard for quartz was dropped, and people were 14 paying more attention to quartz levels in products, 15 and they varied - the quartz level varied a little 16 bit in each of these products; and whereas we used 17 to say like bulk less than 1 percent, which was 18 true for all these grades, people wanted to know, 19 well, is it .5, is it .3, is it .6; and what would 10 happen is we would send these samples - these !1 products out and have them analyzed for quartz, and 12 we would have some specific quartz data for specific grades, and they all were under 1 percent, but there was a variation. At one time no one cared about that Then J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 211 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 213| 1 sheets from, say, the most recent to the oldest? 1 quartz became something that everyone was concerned 2 A In my opinion, no. They reflect the same 2 about; and people who bought our talc wanted to 3 composition. They reflect the same basic warnings. 3 know more specifically, by specific grade, exactly 4 Q Are the compositions identical? 4 how much - how much quartz was there, even though 5 A The mineral blend for all of our Vanderbilt 5 it was less than 1 percent, so we broke them out 6 industrial-grade talcs at the mine milled in 6 into individual grades and put the specific number 7 upstate New York are essentially the same. 7 based on the last analysis that we had for quartz. 8 The difference between the names is .8 So if you bought my talc and you were 9 essentially particle size and slight variations in 9 putting it in a paint and you knew that you had to 10 mineral blend. There may be more talc in some, 10 report quartz on your MSDS or your label at greater 11 there may be more amphibole in others; but they're 11 than .1 percent by weight, you would have a number. 12 all - they all contain the same basic four or five 12 In my product - 1mighttakeyour talc and 13 mineral components. 13 I might take some silica, I might take some other 14 Q The mineral blendjust in the NYTAL 14 material, whatever it is, and then I add up all 15 100's, are they identical throughout? 15 that crystalline silicate content, and I come up 16 A You mean, in other words, all NYTAL 100's 16 with a percent, and that tells me whether or not I 17 would have the same exact mineral blend? 17 have to warn for that on my MSDS; or purchasers of 18 Q Right 18 our product or any other mineral filler want to 19 My understanding is the material safety data 19 know how much quartz, you know, is in that product. 20 sheets which you provided us deal with NYTAL 100. 20 Q So the individual - 21 A So that's why we broke them out. 21 Correct? 22 Q So the individual MSDS sheets, as 22 A Yes. 23 At one time, if you look back, you'll see 23 opposed to the composite sheets, came into use 24 they were composites. 24 because of the quartz contents. 25 Q Okay.____________ ________________ 25 A Yes. __________ ____ VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 210 to Page 213 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 214 Q Correct? A Yes. Q Is that the only reason why it came into - A Yeah, it is. 6 Q And you say that started approximately five, six years ago? A Five, six years ago. _ Q Again, Mr. Kelse, for my 0 understanding, it is your opinion that Vanderbilt 1 talc does not contain asbestos; correct? 2 A Based on the data that we have seen, yes. 3 Q And it's your opinion that Vanderbilt 4 talc does not cause lung cancer? 5 A That's my opinion, yes. 6 Q And is it also your opinion that 7 Vanderbilt talc does not cause any non-malignant 8 A Non-malignant respiratory disease? 9 Q Yes. 20 MS. GRIMBERGEN: Let him ask the questions. 21 MR. ESCHLEMAN: But that was the question. 22 Q That's also your opinion as well? 23 A Yeah. 24 Actually, the MSDS does a pretty good job of 25 describing the risk. If you really look through________ J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 216 1 you know, investigated. 2 Q So it is at least your belief that 3 prolonged exposure to Vanderbilt talc causes 4 different types of lung injury, correct? 5 A Excessive exposure, yes. 6 Q And you have denoted some of these 7 lung injuries as pleural thickening? 8 A It's an abnormality. I wouldn't call it an 9 injury. 10 Q All right. What is pneumoconiosis? 11 A 12 It just means dusty lung. Q All right Butyou don't-but you 13 don't believe prolonged exposure or excessive 14 exposure would cause lung cancer? 15 A I don't believe so. 16 There are some studies, some animal studies, 17 that show that you can produce tumors from fairly 18 inert dusts, carbon black and several other 19 examples, if you overload - it's called particle 20 overloading, where you basically overwhelm the 21 lungs' ability to clear the dust or take care of 22 it; and so you can get tumors - they've gotten 23 tumors in animal experiments in just about anything 24 if you overload the lung. 25 MS. GRIMBERGEN: Just to clarity, are you J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 215 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 217 the MSDS, you'll see it does say that overexposure 1 talking about Vanderbilt talc, or are you talking to our talc or any talc or any mineral dust is 3 capable of producing, you know, adverse pulmonary effects, pneumoconiosis. If it's talc, it's talcosis. If it's calon, 2 about any? 3 THE WITNESS: No. Any, any particles. 4 Q Are there any other folders or 5 documents that you have brought here today that we it's calonosis. If it's asbestos, it's asbestosis. 6 haven't marked? It's - any mineral dust, if you breathe enough of 8 it, is not good. 9 Some of it is morevirulent or more-you 10 know, takes less of it to produce an adverse affect 7 A 8 No. Q Okay. Now, going to your expert 9 report - you read the deposition testimony of 10 Mr. Hirsch; is that correct? 11 than other dust does. 12 Like crystalline silica is considered 13 something where you want to have less exposure to 11 A 12 Yes. Q Okay. And you've also read the report 13 of a Gerald - a Dr. Gerald Abraham; is that 14 it because lower exposure could cause an adverse 15 effect than some other dust; but any dust, if its 16 durable and respirable, you breathe enough of it, 17 you will have, you know, an adverse affect to it; 18 and it's true of our mineral dust, and it's true of 19 any mineral dust. 20 So - and we indicate that on the material 14 correct? 15 A The whole paper? -|g Q A report of a Dr. Gerald Abraham. 17 A Report? I'm sorry. 18 Q Do you have your- 19 A 20 State it again? Q Do you have your report in front of 21 safely data sheet. There's no question about it. 21 you? 22 We also, I think, indicate on the material 22 A My report? 23 safety data sheet that data has been, you know - 23 Q Yes. 24 under the discussion of health effects is a pretty 24 MS. GRIMBERGEN: May I? 25 long description thatsays that; that it's been,______ 25 MR. ESCHLEMAN: Yes.__________________ VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 214 to Page 217 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 218 1 MS. GRIMBERGEN: It's the report that 2 Dr. Abraham rendered in this case with regard to 3 Mr. Hirsch. 4 A Oh, yes. Yes, I did read it It's been a 5 while. 6 Q That's okay. 7 Now, in Mr. Hirsch's deposition he 8 identified that he used NYTAL100; is that correct? 9 Is that your understanding? 10 A 11 That's my understanding. Q All right. And he indicated that 12 NYTAL 100 came in 50-pound brown bags with black 13 lettering. ` 14 Is that your understanding? 15 A Yes. 16 Q All right Is that how NYTAL 100 is 17 packaged? 18 A Yes. 19 Q So that's an accurate description of 20 how that product's packaged? 21 A Yes. 22 Q How long has it been packaged that 23 way? 24 A I believe from the start. 25 Q Now, are you familiar with ______ j. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 220 1 glazes in his pottery business. 2 Are you familiar with that testimony? 3 A 4 Yes. Q Is it your understanding that that's 5 a proper use of Vanderbilt talc? 6 A 7 Yes, it is. Q At the time Mr. Hirsch was using 8 Vanderbilt talc, the material safety data sheet 9 that was in use at that time would have been the 10 composite sheet; is that correct? 11 A Yes. 12 Q All right. What type of respiratory 13 protection do Vanderbilt Talc workers wear, if you 14 know? 15 MS. GRIMBERGEN; Objection. That goes 16 beyond the scope of the Deposition Notice. 17 Q Well, in your report you indicate - 18 I know you don't have your report in front of you. 19 MS. GRIMBERGEN: It's in there somewhere. 20 THE WITNESS: I can probably get it. I have 21 it 22 in here. {At this point a short recess was taken.) 23 Q Looking at Page 2 of your report, the 24 first full paragraph, second sentence, it says, 25 "The mixing process was said to be very dusty and J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 219 1 Dr. Abraham? 2 A 3 4 A Yes. Q How are you familiar with him? Dr. Abraham has participated in a number of 5 - participated in the OSHA rule-making, has 6 submitted comments to other agencies, like the 7 Consumer Products Safety Commission, on play sand 8 and issues of that sort that have to do with 9 amphibole cleavage fragments; and he has made his 10 opinion known in terms of what he believes the 11 composition of Vanderbilt talc is. J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 221 1 he did not wear respirator protection", referring 2 to Mr. Hiredi." 3 Correct? 4 A That's my recollection of his documents. 5 Q Did you find it significant that he 6 didn't wear respiratory protection? 7 A It depends on the exposure level. If it was 8 avery high dust exposure level-I would 9 recommend that anybody wear respiratory protection 10 in any dusty environment; but what's high and 11 what's not is variable, depending upon people's 12 Q Now, in his deposition Mr. Hirsch 13 indicated that he bought the Vanderbilt talc from 12 opinions. 13 That's why we take air samples, to quantify 14 Hamill & Gillespie. 15 Do you recall that testimony? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Okay. Do you know whether Hamill & 18 Gillespie distributed NYTAL 100? 19 A I don't know. 20 Q Have you reviewed any documents 21 indicating whether they did, in fact, distribute 22 NYTAL 100? 23 A No, I haven't 24 Q Mr. Hirsch indicated in his deposition 25 testimony that he used that talc for specific 14 it. 15 Q In the second full paragraph of that 16 page, about three-quarters of the way down, you 17 indicate that, "I believe the health experience of 18 Vanderbilt Talc workers, past and present, directly 19 bears on the reasonableness of the causal 20 association claimed in this case." 21 Do you see that? 22 That's a correct reading of that sentence, 23 correct? 24 A That's right. 25 Q And the health experience of the______ VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 218 to Page 221 J. Keise - Volume II - 4/12/2005 J. Keise - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 222 J. Keise - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 224 Vanderbilt Talc workers is impacted by whether or . determine that these workers began wearing 2 not they wear protective clothing, correct? 2 respiratory protection in 1975, since you joined 3 A You mean respirators? Q Correct? A Yes, to some extent Q And do Vanderbilt workers wear respirators? A They have religiously since 1975. MS. GRIMBERGEN: I was going to say, clarify 0 what time period you are talking about 1 THE WITNESS: Since 1975. 2 MS. GRIMBERGEN: Are you talking now, or are 3 you talking-- 4 Q Since 1975 Vanderbilt Talc workers 5 have worn respiratory protection? 6 A It's improved over time. I would say- 7 around 1975 would have been the year that I would 3 the company in 1985. 4 A Well, you saw from the air monitoring data 5 from Hartford there were samples that 1took in, 6 you know, 1983, '82; and I know in the early 80's, 7 when I visited the facilities - 1would see talc } workers. 9 Some would wear respirators and some would 0 not, so I knew that there was some use; and l had 1 known from asking questions that respiratory .2 protection was somethingthat had been encouraged, 3 you know, in - from aboutthe mid 70's on. 4 1think it probably was encouraged even 5 before then, but 1don't knowwhat its use was. 6 I can't tell you specifically how religious it was, 7 but I do know that in the early 80's I could see 8 say most did and up through the years more and more 9 until, l would say, the last 10 years I can say 20 with some confidence that it's used properly. 8 some use. 19 Q Okay. So the early 80's you visited 20 the Vanderbilt talc mines while employed by 21 Q All right. And 1975 was approximately 21 Hartford, correct? 22 10 years before you began working at Vanderbilt, 23 correct? 24 A Yes. 25 Q All right How did you determine that 22 A Yes. 23 Q All right. And during that time you 24 personally saw workers wearing some sort of 25 respiratory protection, correct? ____________ _ J. Keise - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 223 J. Keise - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 225 I respiratory protection was being worn 10 years before you joined the company? MS. GRIMBERGEN: This doesn't address his expert role in this case. MR. ESCHLEMAN: Sure it does. 1 A Some. . 2 Q And what type of respiratory 3 protection did you see them wearing? 4 A Atthat time most were cartridge filters. 5 Q And that was in the early 80's, I mean, his conclusion is that the health 7 experience of Vanderbilt Talc workers directly 6 cartridge filters? 7 A Predominantly, yes. 8 bears on the reasonableness of these claims. The- 10 MS. GRIMBERGEN: You're asking how he knows I I that, and that's going a little into a different 12 area of his capability in this particular 13 deposition. 14 MR. ESCHLEMAN: Weil, I'm exploring the 15 facts upon which his premise is based. I have to 16 explore the facts. 8 Q Okay. 9 A |saw some with whafs referred to as 10 surgical masks, just dust masks. 11 Q How about in the mid 80's? Was it the 12 same cartridge filters and surgical masks? 13 A Around the mid 80's, after I joined the 14 company - 1think it was '86 or '87 - they moved 15 to what's known as Racel Air Supply airstream 16 respirators. Those are positive pressure 17 MS. GRIMBERGEN: But you're on the border, 18 so... 19 MR. ESCHLEMAN: Ijust can't be left with 17 respirators. 18 If you've ever seen them, they're on a 19 hardhat- 20 a conclusion without exploring the facts. 21 MS. GRIMBERGEN: All right. Just note my 20 Q Okay. 21 A -and then there's a plastic shield that 22 objection. 23 MR. ESCHLEMAN: I know the objection. I 24 appreciate it 25_____ Q 1 guess the question was how did you 22 comes down over your face. 23 The air is pulled in the back, it goes 24 through a filter, and then blown across your face 25 and out. ________________ _ VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 222 to Page 225 J. Kelse - Volume tl - 4/12/2005 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 226 Q And th ese-I'm sorry. You said these type of respirators came into vogue - in the mid 80's did you say? A Yes. I believe that's when they started purchasing them. Q And obviously that was a more advanced type of respiratory protection, correct, from what you had witnessed previously? A Yes. You don't have to worry about fit 0 testing. 1 Earlier respiratory protectors, you had to 12 - you know, if they didn't fit properly they ' 3 weren't of much use. 4 Q Why was the change made to the more 5 advanced respirators? 6 MS. GRIMBERGEN: To the extent that he knows 7 this. This is not part of his expert knowledge 8 because he was not - you know, you can ask him if 9 he was involved in the process; and if his answer 20 is yes, you know 21 MR. ESCHLEMAN: If he doesn't know why the J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 228 federal regulatory agency considered Vanderbilt 2 talc to be an asbestos-containing material." Is that a fair reading of that sentence? A That's correct 5 Q Okay. Which specific federal regulatory agencies are you referring to, though, that have studied Vanderbilt talc? 8 A Well, the regulatory agency that has direct 9 responsibility for mines, including ours, is Mine 0 Safety & Health Administration, MSHA. They do not 1 regulate any ofthe minerals in Vanderbilt talc 2 asbestos (sic). 13 OSHA does not. The EPA does not 4 Q Are those the agencies to which you 5 refer? 16 A I think they're the only three- 17 Q Okay. 18 A -th a t are regulatory agencies. 19 Q So MSHA - is that right? 20 A Yeah, Mine Safety & Health Administration. 21 Q - OSHA and the EPA? 22 change is made, he doesn't know. 23 Q Do you know why? 24 A Yeah. They're better respirators. 25 Q Okay. And are those the same type of 22 A Yes. 23 Q Are there other federal or state 24 non-regulatory agencies that consider Vanderbilt 25 talc to be asbestos-containing material?__________ J. Kelse - confd direct - Mr. Eschleman 227 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 229 I respirators that are being used today? A Yes. Q Were you involved in the decision to 1 A 2 3 Agencies? Q Or bodies. MS. GRIMBERGEN: Do you understand the go to the more advanced respirators? 5 A No. 6 Q You weren't asked for your opinion regarding the8 A No. They were already moving in that 4 question? 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. I'm not sure how to 6 answer it. 7 A There's debate with some, NIOSH in 8 particular; but I don't know if they would define direction when Ijoined the company, and I -1 was 10 happy about that. II Q Why were you happy about that? 9 the material asbestos. 10 Q Has NIOSH, to your knowledge, ever 11 defined the material asbestos? 12 A They're better respirators. 13 Q Did you feel better respiratory 12 A They did, yes. 13 Q And that was in 1980? 14 protection was needed at that time? 15 A I think in any dusty environment, you know, 14 A Yes. 15 Q Has NIOSH, to your knowledge, 16 the better the respirator, you know, the more 17 desirable it is. 16 published anything since 1980 indicating that 17 Vanderbilt talc is not asbestos, does not contain 18 These types of respirators, because they're 18 asbestos? 19 positive pressure, eliminates questions about fit, 20 which is a big issue. 21 Q And both miners and millers wear the 19 A No, they haven't. 20 Q So it's your understanding that NIOSH 21 still considers Vanderbilt talc to contain 22 respirators? 22 asbestos? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Now, going down to the last paragraph 25 of Page 2 of your report, you indicate that, "No 23 A I don't know. 24 Q At least you're aware of no opinion 25 from NIOSH that would indicate that they no longer VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 226 to Page 229 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 230 1 feel that Vanderbilt talc contains asbestos? 2 A I believe what NIOSH's position is today is 3 that they believe that amphibole cleavage fragments 4 that meet a certain dimension should be regulated 5 in the same way as asbestos, as a generic policy. 6 To the extent that that would apply to 7 Vanderbilt, it would applyto Vanderbilt, or 8 aggregates or any other, you know, mineral dust 9 thatthat would apply to. 110 I believe that's not NIOSH's current 11 position. 12 Q And how do you arrive at that belief? 13 A 14 They testified to that position to OSHA. Q And when was that? 115 A In 1990. 1iu6 Q You indicate in your report that many 17 highly-regarded mineral scientists further confirm 18 this finding, that Vanderbilt talc does not contain 19 asbestos; is that correct? 20 A That's right. 21 Q Do you also recognize that many 22 highly-regarded mineral scientists believe that 23 Vanderbilt talc does contain asbestos? 24 A I'm not sure that that's true. 25 Q So you're not aware that other J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 2321 1 A Yes, of course. 2 Q Okay. Now, you indicate that MSHA 3 periodically tests Vanderbilt talc for asbestos 4 content in the workplace air and occasionally 5 obtains bulk samples for analysis. 6 is that a correct reading of that sentence? 7 A Yes. 8 Q AH right. How often does MSHA 9 periodically test Vanderbilt talc for asbestos 10 content in the workplace air? 11 A Not that often. I think the most recent was 12 actually in 2000, and then prior to that it was 13 actually quite a while; seven, eight, ten years. 14 There was a period of time, l believe, based 15 on the data sheets that I have in the analytical 16 folder, in the early 80's, some in the late 70's, 17 I believe. They were a little more active at that 18 time. 19 Q Who determines when MSHA tests the 20 workplace air at Vanderbilt? 21 A Well, the typical approach would be - they 22 continue to test the dust- 1do this every year 23 myself - but they will not always test for 24 asbestos, just as I would not always test for 25 crystalline silica. ______ _____________ J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 231 1 scientists believe that Vanderbilt talc contains 2 asbestos? 3 A I believe there are some analysts that have 4 felt that there was asbestos in it. 5 Q Just so I'm clear, so you are aware 6 that other scientists - that some scientists do 7 believe that Vanderbilt talc contains asbestos? 8 A Well, its a complex mineral mix. All of 9 die information I've provided you explains why 10 people have confused this for years; but in my j 11 statement I say that the mineral scientists that, 12 I think, studied this material more, more j 13 extensively, than anyone else, and probably have 114 the best credentials and background, have reported 15 numerous times in the documents I provided to you 16 that they feel it does not contain asbestos, and 17 they have gone to great lengths to explain why and 18 why others have said otherwise; and that's what I 119 know. 20 Q All right I understand that. 21 I guessjust - what I'mtrying to establish 22 is just whether you're aware - not whether you 23 agree, but whether you are aware and whether you 24 will concede that other scientists believe that 25 Vanderbilt talc contains asbestos. VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 2331 1 If I don't pick up any on my air samples and 2 I do it over a period of time, whafs the point of 3 continuing to take samples for crystalline silica 4 if I know it's not there? 5 so what I will do is continue to take 6 samples for talc and total dust and things of that 7 nature that- 1wantto see whether it's higher or 8 lower and control for that, but I'm not going to 9 take samples for substances that I already see 10 aren't there. 11 So that would dictate to a large measure how 12 often you take samples for materials. 13 Q I guess my question's more - does 14 MSHA determine whether they test for asbestos 15 content in the workplace air, or does Vanderbilt 16 determine whether MSHA - strike that. 17 Does Vanderbilt request that MSHA come to 18 their mines and test the workplace air for 19 asbestos? 20 A No. They do it themselves. 21 Q Okay. And, to your recollection, the 22 last time they did it themselves was in 2000, you 23 believe? 24 A 1believe so. 25 Q And before that you believe the last 246-4334 Page 230 to Page 233 J. Ketse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 234 time was between seven to ten yearn ago, correct? 2 A I believe so. Q So it's very infrequently that this type of testing is done, correct? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Again, you indicate that MSHA 7 occasionally obtains bulk samples for analysis. 8 Could you define "occasionally"? 9 A Well, they did in the last effort in 2000. 0 I know that. 1 Q They did or they didn't? 2 I'm sorry. 3 A They did. I think there were five bulk - 4 samples thatthey took. 15 Q Prior to that, do you know when they J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 236 1 that correct? 2 A Yes, about two and a half times. 3 Q The earliest studies were first what? 4 A Well, it certainlywould include- I would 5 view this first NIOSH technical report that was 6 issued in 1980 as the earliest study specific to 7 Vanderbilt. 8 Q Is there any other studies that you 9 include in that earliest studies category? 10 A No. Specific to Vanderbilt, I would say it 11 would be the NIOSH study. 12 Q All right. And you indicate that the 13 moderately elevated risk that the NIOSH study found 14 was two and a half times; is that correct? 15 A I believe that that's what it was, something 6 took bulk samples? 7 A No, not specifically. 8 I believe they have done that, but I can't 9 say for certain what date or time. 20 Q Other than the 2000 bulk samples that 21 MSHA took, can you recall approximately how many 22 times during your course of employment with 23 Vanderbilt that MSHA took bulk samples? 24 A No, not specifically. 25 Q So when you use the word 16 in that range. 17 Q And you consider that a moderately 18 elevated risk? 19 A I would. 20 I've heard others refer to it as moderate. 21 I've others say that they felt it was probably 22 they consider it a little more significant than 23 moderate. 24 It depends on what you consider, you know. 25 significant and moderate. _____ J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 235 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 237 1 "occasionally", you're just referring to the 2000 2 sample? 3 A Specifically, yeah. 4 I had heard that they had in the past, but 5 I couldn't-- 6 Q You couldn't verify whether they had 7 in the past? 8 A Yeah. I couldn't put my finger on it. 9 I would have to go back. It might be in some of 10 these reports. 11 Q Do you recall who you heard from 12 regarding the occasional obtaining of the bulk 13 samples? 14 A No, not offhand. 15 Q You indicate on Page 3 of your report, 1 Q Okay. 2 A I think for a study population of that size, 3 small one, thatthat would be, 1wouldsay, you 4 know, moderate. 5 Significant, you know, would be significant; 6 but I don't think it would be - if it was five 7 times or seven times or something like that, I 8 would call that significant. 9 Q So five times you would consider 10 significant risk in a population study such as - 11 A Of that size, yes. 12 You probably could find epidemiologists that 13 would classify it, you know, differently. 14 Q Now, was there an elevated risk for 15 non-malignant respiratory problems? 16 the third - the second full paragraph, I should 17 say, that you looked at human cancer studies of 16 A Yes. 17 Q What was the elevated risk for those 18 Vanderbilt Talc workers; is that correct? 19 A 20 Yes. . Q Okay. And looking at these cancer 21 studies helps form your opinion regarding the 22 nature of Mr. Hirsch's claim; is that correct? 23 A Yes. 24 Q You indicate that the earliest studies 18 types of problems? 19 A Well, that would be, you know, the 20 pneumoconiosis that we talked about before. 21 Again, overexposure to any mineral dust can 22 produce that; and that's certainly true of excess 23 exposure to Vanderbilt talc or any talc or... 24 Q What was the elevated risk for that? 25 found a moderately elevated risk of lung cancer; is 25 Do you recall?________ _____________________ . VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 234 to Page 237 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 238 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 240 1 A Well, in mortality studies it would be 1 Q Okay. And that study found that 2 deaths that might be associated with pneumoconiosis 2 Vanderbilt talc contained asbestos, correct? 3 or talcosis, which is sometimes a little hard to 4 separate these out; but if you had - pneumo- 3 A That's what it reported. 4 Q But that's what their conclusion was, 5 coniosis is a dusty lung, so it's a fibrosis of the 5 correct? 6 lung. 7 So as your lung develops fibrotic lesions 6 A That's what they reported, yes. 7 Q And they found that the talc itself 8 it basically decreases the elasticity of the lung 8 caused the elevated risk of cancer in the 9 and decreases die amount of oxygen that can get 10 into your blood. So the more pneumoconiosis that 9 employees, correct? 10 A I think they referred to it as it appeared 11 you have, the more strain it puts on your heart, 11 to be die principal suspect or etiologic agent for 12 your cardiovascular system. 13 So if you have someone who has talcosis or 12 the excess lung cancers observed. 13 1link that's howthey putit, appeared to 14 asbestosis or calonosis or any of these 15 pneumoconioses from overexposure to dust, you know, 14 be. 15 Q In 1988 NIOSH issued a Health Hazard 16 you can have people that that will contribute to 16 Evaluation regarding the Vanderbilt talc mine; is 17 their death through heart failure and - you know, 18 predominantly heart failure. 19 And, unfortunately, it's not always a clear- 17 that correct? 18 A Yeah. They called it a technical report, 19 HHE, yeah. I think that's how that's referred to. 20 cut issue as to what was the main contributor to 21 that mortality; but certainly if there's an 20 Q HHE? 21 A I believe so, yeah, Health Hazard 22 indication that a person had a dust disease - in 23 other words, if you saw interstitial fibrosis in 22 Evaluation. 23 Q Have you read that HHE from 1980? 24 their x-ray and you knew that their pulmonary 25 function test tended to be-tended to be more ____ 24 A Yes. 25 Q All right. And you've read the NIOSH J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 239 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 241 1 restrictive versus obstructive - obstructive is 1 technical report as well from 1980? 2 the type where your airway is - like emphysema, 3 you know, typically associated with smoking 4 versus restrictive, which is typically associated 2 A Yeah, yes. 3 Q Okay. And have you used those reports 4 in forming your opinion in this case? 5 with you cant expand your lungs to the degree they 6 should be - they're not as flexible as they should 7 be because of the scarring and the fibrosis, and so 5 A Yes. . 6 Q All right. And how have those reports 7 and NIOSH's investigation in 1980 in total affected 8 the air exchange is restrictive. 9 So when you take these pulmonary function 8 your opinion in this case? 9 A Very significantly. 10 tests you can get an indication as to what the 11 adverse respiratory effect is. Does it tend to be 12 more obstructive or more restrictive? If it tends 10 Q How so? 11 A Well, I learned a lot from this entire 12 episode, this entire investigation of NIOSH. I 13 to be a restrictive, that's an indicator of a dust 14 disease. If you then link that to radiographic 15 evidence on an x-ray of interstitial fibrosis and 16 then with an exposure to dust, mineral dust, 17 whatever it may be, those three things together 13 learned that it takes more than just gauging the 14 amount of lung cancer deaths and then saying 15 because we have excess lung cancer that's obviously 16 caused by this exposure, I learned that you have to 17 be more discriminating than that, draw causal 18 would suggest to you that that individual, you -18 connections. 19 know, had a dust-linked, non-malignant respiratory 19 I learned that if you're going to call 20 disease that may have contributed to his death. 21 Q Okay. Now, the 1980 NIOSH technical 22 report, that dealt exclusively with Vanderbilt Talc 23 workers; correct? 24 A Anyone that had ever worked at Vanderbilt 20 substances things they're not it impacts the causal 21 association. If you call crushed-up cleavage 22 fragments asbestos when they're not and then you 23 have excess lung cancer, you're more likely to say 24 A caused B than if you characterize the exposure 25 for any period of time, yes.__________ _ 25 properly in the first place. VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 238 to Page 241 J. K eise-Volum e 11- 4/12/2005 ___________________ J. Keise - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 242 These are things I learned, rather important 2 things. 3 One of the issues with the NIOSH technical 4 report was that it did not adequately address that 5 causal connection. No one argued that there was an 15 excess lung cancer. The issue was was it caused by 7 this dust and did they show that it was caused by this dust, yes or no. Vanderbilt felt they didn't. A lot of other ) researchers felt they didn't. In fact, some of 11 them within NIOSH itself; and that's why subsequent 12 studies were done to get at that question, did that 13 dust exposure, whatever it was, cause that excess 14 lung cancer, yes or no. 15 Q So in forming your opinion in this 16 case you discounted the findings of the 1980 NIOSH 17 study, correct? 18 A No. We built upon them. We used it as a 19 beginning. This is what it said. These are the 20 questions we had. Now we needed to address those 21 questions. 22 MS. GRIMBERGEN: He was talking about 23 forming your opinion in this report, whether or not 24 you discounted that in formulating your opinion. 25 Is that a fa ir-__________________ ___ j. Keise - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 244 Q All right You indicate in your 2 report that a series of additional studies were 3 undertaken to address certain lapses, using your 4 terminology, in the 1980 NIOSH report; is that 5 correct? 6 A Yes. 7 Q What additional studies are you 8 referring to? 9 A Should we pull out the folder? 0 Q Have they been marked already? 1 A Yes. 12 Q O k a y. Whydon't you just pull them '3 out 14 MS. GRIMBERGEN: Off the record. 5 (Discussion held off the record.) 6 Q My question was - you identified in 7 your expert report a series of additional studies 8 which were undertaken to address certain lapses, as 9 you termed them, in the 1980 NIOSH technical 20 report; is that correct? 21 A That's correct. 22 Q And you relied on these additional 23 studies in forming your conclusion in this case? 24 A Yes, l did. 25 Q What studies did you rely upon in_________ J. Keise - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 1 MR. ESCHLEMAN: Yes. 2 A I guess the problem I have is that I don't 3 know that I discount things, like, "Oh, that's 4 nothing." 5 There's data in here that's useful, and I 6 wouldn't discount everything that this did. 7 There's dust exposure information, overall 8 dust exposure information, that's perfectly fine, 9 valid. The mortality breakdown is perfectly fine. 10 In fact, the database that this was built was 11 continued on by other researchers. 12 So this is - it's not that I would 13 discount. It's that I - 1wouldn't agree with the 243 J. Keise - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 245 1 forming your opinion in this report? 2 A Okay. Begin with the two animals studies 3 that we discussed earlier, Stanton- 4 Q Stanton and Smith? 5 A Stanton and Smith. 6 Q And just for Stanton and Smith, did 7 Vanderbilt have any participation in those studies? 8 A For Smith, yes. ForStanton.no. 9 Q Okay. What type of participation in 10 the Smith study? 11 A We contracted the study with Smith to test 12 the tremolite concentration. 13 Q So you paid him to conduct the study? 14 suggested causal association that was made in this 15 paper. 16 Q So you have no dispute then with the 17 study itself as it was conducted,just with its 18 conclusion? 19 A I have a dispute with the characterization 20 of the exposure as being non-asbestos exposure when 14 A Yes. 15 Q Other than that, other than paying 16 him, did you have any participation in that study? 17 A No. He saw from the file-h e got the 18 product sample through a distributor, and he got 19 the tremolite concentrate from us. 20 Q Okay. So you also provided some of 21 they characterize it as the opposite, as being 22 asbestos exposure; and I have a problem with their 23 suggesting that that dust exposure was responsible 24 for the excess lung cancers that they observed. 21 the samples, correct? 22 A The pure tremolite, yes. 23 Q And you indicate the Stanton study- 24 you guys had no - saying "you guys" meaning 25 That's what I have a problem with. __________ 25 Vanderbilt- VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 _______ ____________________ Page 242 to Page 245 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 246 1 A Yes. 2 Q - had no participation in that study? 3 A No. 4 5 A Q Okay. There's also a cell study-do you want to 6 read the whole thing into the - 7 8 A 9 Q Not really. I don't blame you. This study was done by Ann Wylie and Brooke 10 Mossman, University of Vermont. 11 12 A Q All right. That was basically on-site cytotoxic and 13 proliferative effects of fibrous talc, concentrated 14 talc fiberfrom our15 Q What sort of participation did 16 Vanderbilt have in that study? 17 A Provided the fiber concentrate, talc fiber 18 concentrate. 19 Q So provided samples for the study? 20 A Yes. Not all of them, just those they 21 tested against asbestos; and they had standard, you 22 know, they have in their lab. 23 24 A Q How about funding? Yes. We-we did fund some of this. j. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 248 1 A Well, this is mortality studies. 2 Q I guess you didn't then. 3 A 4 I was going to say. Then there were two studies, one - both of 5 them by Steve Lamm, L-a-m-m. One was published in 6 1988, and another - 7 Q What sort of participation did 8 Vanderbilt have in that study by Mr. Lamm? 9 10 A MS. GRIMBERGEN: Objection to form. Weil, this was another study we asked to 11 have done, so we contracted with Dr. Lamm, 12 mortality study. 13 There was another study by Lamm - same time 14 period, 1988,1believe - that was a comparison of 15 mortality patterns between Vanderbilt Talc workers 16 and Vermont Talc workers. 17 Q Again, Vanderbilt funded that study? 18 MS. GRIMBERGEN: Objection to form because 19 you're going on an assumption. 20 A Yeah, I believe they did. 21 Q All right. 22 A There was a nested case control study done 23 by John Gamble. Actually, he was with NIOSH at the 24 time. That was not funded by Vanderbilt 1993 25 Q How do you know that? Is that just 25 published. _____________________________ J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 247 J. Kelse - confd direct - Mr. Eschleman 249 1 from your own recollection, or is there something 1 Then there was the final one that was 2 within the document itself which makes you 2 published in 2002, Honda, H-o-n-d-a, Elizabeth 3 recollect that? 3 Delzell, D-e-l-z-e-i-l, that was Vanderbilt-funded. 4 A No. It's from my own recollection. I know. 4 Q What type of study was that? 5 Q Okay. 5 A Well, it was the latest updated mortality 6 A It might say at the bottom. I remember it 7 was ajoint effortsupported in part, yeah. 8 l know we didn't fund the whole thing, but 9 we did fund part of it 10 Q Okay. 11 A Okay. So that's the animal and the - the 12 two animals and the cell study. 13 Then there were a series of mortality 6 study. 7 Q Okay. Are those ail the studies you 8 relied upon in formingyour opinions in this case? 9 A Yes, specific to Vanderbilt 10 Q So other than the Stanton study and 11 the study done by Mr. Gamble in 1993, the remaining 12 of those studies which you relied upon specific to 13 Vanderbilt were funded by Vanderbilt itself. 14 studies after the 1980 NIOSH study. The first 14 A Yes. 15 of those was a study by Stifle and Tabershaw, 15 Q Correct? 16 T-a-b-e-r-s-h-a-w. It was published in 1982. 17 Q And what sort of involvement did 18 Vanderbilt have with that study? 19 A W e- 20 MS. GRIMBERGEN: Objection to the form. 16 A Yes. 17 MR. ESCHLEMAN: Off the record. 18 (Discussion held off the record.) 19 Q Now, you indicated that you relied - 20 this is one of the studies you relied upon in 21 22 A Q You can still answer if you'd like. Oh. We-w e asked for the study to be 21 forming your opinion; correct? 22 Referring to the Gamble study. 23 done, so we funded it. 24 Q Did you provide the samples for that 23 A Yes. 24 Q Now, you indicated that the Gamble 25 study as well? VARHLEY ASSOCIATES 25 study was published while Mr. Gamble was at NIOSH; (732) 246-4334 Page 246 to Page 249 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 250 1 is that correct? 2 A I assume that It's listed. 3 Q Was it published-if you could keep 4 that outjust for asecond. 5 A Sure. 6 Q Was that study published by NIOSH? 7 A I don't know. 8 Q Do you know whether it was published 9 by Mr. Gamble in his individual capacity, as 10 opposed to a representative of NIOSH? 11 A Probably- 1shouldn'tspeculate on It, so 12 I'll just say I don't know. 13 Q Okay. What involvement did Vanderbilt 14 have with the publishing of the John Gamble study? 15 MS. GRIMBERGEN: If you know. 16 Q If you know. 17 A Of the publishing of it? 18 Q Yes. 19 A None. 20 Q They didn't provide any of the 21 information which forms the basis of the study? 22 A Well, Dr. Gamblewasthe-an 23 epidemiologist that was assigned to do the updated 24 mortality study of Vanderbilt Talc miners and 25 millers; and heworked on that, 1believe, for a J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 252 1 available from earlier NIOSH data, dust data, that 2 was available from the - from MSHA when they had 3 taken samples, dust data that was available from 4 the insurance company, like my own, dust data that 5 was done by the company, me, later on. 6 All of that was assembled in, you know, one 7 big database. All the information on where people 8 worked and what years and which departments was all 9 assembled in one big database. 10 That'sjustwhatyou gothroughwhenyou do 11 these studies. 12 Q All right. So Vanderbilt had contact 13 with Mr. Gamble while he was employed by NIOSH, 14 correct? 15 A Of course, sure. 16 Q And the contact related to the 17 updating of the NIOSH mortality study in 1980, 18 correct? 19 A Yes. The company asked that it be updated. 20 Q When, if you know, did the company ask 21 that the 1980 NIOSH report be updated? 22 A 1believe the companybegan asking NIOSHto 23 go back and look at some of these issues and 24 update, you know, the issues that were raised. 25 When 1joined the companyin 1985therewas J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 251 1 couple of years, collected the underlying, you 2 know, mortality data, was trying to do what's known 3 as an exposure assessment. He was in the process 4 of trying to do that. 5 So he had worked with Vanderbilt for a 6 couple years, as any researcher would have to 7 to get into the personnel records and the work 8 histories and all these other documents that you 9 need to do these types of studies. 10 So to that extent, of course, he was 11 involved, you know, with the company, as any 12 researcherwould be; and 1believe that, you know, 13 he used that data that he had collected during that 14 couple-year process to produce that study. 15 Q Well, was the data provided by 16 Vanderbilt, if you know? 17 A The - like the work exposure data, you 18 know, where people worked and what periods of time, 19 that data, the stuff from the personnel records 20 that, you know, you have to do, yes. That's where 21 it would come from. 22 Q Any other type of data provided by 23 Vanderbilt, to your knowledge? 24 A There was-there was exposure data, you 25 know, overall dust exposure data, that was J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 253 1 - you know, they were asking then. 2 Q Why were they asking for the update? 3 A Because they felt that the original 4 technical report was not complete. 5 You know, it didn't - it didn't address 6 certain things that would have - that would have 7 established or not established the causal 8 association that was being suggested in the 9 original report; and we needed those things 10 addressed. 11 Q And those things which Vanderbilt 12 wanted addressed by the future reports are the role 13 of smoking-correct? 14 A Among others, yes. 15 (Discussion held off the record.) 16 Q The shortcomings which Vanderbilt saw 17 in the 1980 reportwhenyoujoined thecompany in 18 1985 werethe factthat theearlier report did not 19 consider the role of smoking, correct? 20 A 21 Among other things. Q Another shortcoming that Vanderbilt 22 saw in the early 1980's was that - a shortcoming 23 was that it involved a small population of workers, 24 correct? 25 A Yes. VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 2 5 0 10 Page 253 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 254 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 256 1 (Discussion held off the record.) 2 3 (Witness excused.) 4 (At this point the luncheon recess was 5 taken.) 6 7 8 AFTERNOON SESSION 9 10 THOMAS W. KELSE, havingbeen 11 previouslysworn, resumed the stand and 12 testified further as follows: 13 14 CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION BYMR. ESCHLEMAN: 15 Q Another shortcoming of file report 16 identified byVanderbiltwasthefailureto address 17 workerhistories; is that correct? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And, finally, Vanderbilt felt that the 20 reportdid not adequatelyaddressthe causal 21 connection inconsistencies within the report 22 itself; is that correct? 23 A Yeah, a couple things specifically relative 24 to that; butyes. 25 Q Okay. And those are-that wasthe 1 A Yes. 2 Q All right. And that updated study was 3 done by Mr. Gamble; is thatcorrect? 4 A He was the lead, yeah, epidemiologistthat 5 was assigned tothat update study eventually. 6 Q Do you consider this nested control 7 study by Mr. Gamble to bethe updatedstudy? 8 A Heused the data thathe collected forthe 9 data thathe used for that report, but NIOSH 10 published an update by-1 think it was Brown, and 11 that was NIOSH's official update. 12 Q All right So the official update to 13 the 1980 reportis notthe nested control study, 14 correct? 15 A No. Ifs aseparate. The update wasjust a 16 straightforward mortality, you know, SMR study. 17 Q And 1believe NIOSH came out with an 18 updated - is it HHE in 1990 regardingthe 1980 19 study? 20 A Yes. 21 Q All right. But, nonetheless, you 22 indicatethat the informationwhich you provided 23 Mr. Gamble during his timewith NIOSH in thistime 24 framethatwe're talking aboutformed the nested 25 control studyreport; correct? J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 255 1 position ofVanderbilt back in the early80'swhen 2 youjoined Vanderbilt, correct? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And those are also the same subject 5 mattersthatyou address inyour expert report in 6 this case, correct? 7 A Yes. 8 Inthe submissionsthere's afoldermarked 9 "Reviews", 1believe; and my- when 1arrived at 10 Vanderbilt, Vanderbilt had asked other 11 epidemiologiststo reviewthe NIOSHworkand advise 12 them as to the veracity of the study in their 13 opinion; and so therehad been a numberofefforts 14 on the partofthe companyto getotheropinions 15 fromother- you know, from.qualified 16 epidemiologists as to whether they felt the NIOSH 17 report was strong or weak or whatever. 18 Q Butjust so 1understand, thesame 19 concernsthat Vanderbilt had in 1985 regardingthe 20 1980 NIOSH reportarethe sameconcernsthat you 21 list inyourexpert report inthis case; correct? 22 A Yes. 23 Q All right. And based on those 24 concerns,Vanderbilt contacted NIOSHto askfor an 25 updated study of the 1980 report; correct? J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 257 1 A Certainlysome of it would have been. 2 Probablythe majority. 3 Q All right. 4 A Notall of it. 5 Q Did you have personal contact with 6 Mr. Gamble? 7 A Of course. 8 Q Okay. On how many occasions? 9 A Quite afew. Probablyat least a half- 10 dozen. 11 Q And what time period are we talking 12 about? 13 A Probably-I'd have to say it was over a 14 period oftime, and itwould haveto have been from 15 - around eitherlike late 1986 through early 1987 16 through 1989, something like that, a couple years. 17 Q And you quantify that as perhaps a 18 half adozencontacts? 19 A Yes. Sometimes at Morgantown and at least 20 once and maybetwice at the mineitself in New 21 York. 22 Q Okay. So you're talking about 23 personal meetingswith Mr. Kelse? 24 I'msorry. With Mr. Gamble. 25 A Yeah. Data, exposuredata, stuff like that. VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 254 to Page 257 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 J. Kelse - cont'd direct *Mr, Eschleman 258 Q All right. Did you communicate with 2 him also via letter? 3 A Sure, quite a few times. Send him information and... Q Can you quantify how many times you sent information to Dr. Gamble regarding this 7 mortality study? 8 A A general estimate, probably at least a half 9 a dozen times. 10 Q Now, the original 1980 NIOSH report 11 which you took a look at was conducted by NIOSH 12 investigators from what part of the country? 13 From Cincinnati, correct? 14 A Actually, Dr. Gamble's name is on that '80 15 report as well. He participated in that, and he 16 was from Morgantown. There may have been one or 17 two others from Morgantown. 18 The hygiene work and, I think, the mortality 19 portion of it was done in Cincinnati. 20 I think Dr. Gamble did the more - the non- 21 malignant respiratory disease portion of that early 22 report. 23 Q Now, at the time Dr. Gamble was 24 contacted he was working for Morgantown, correct, 25 the Morgantown facility? _______ J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 260 1 agree that these were lapses, that these were areas 2 that needed to be addressed, that needed to be 3 studied and, you know, tested, you know, that they 4 were more likely to pay attention to these other 5 variables than the original - you know, than some 6 of the folks in Cincinnati. 7 So there was some internal disagreement in 8 NIOSH at the time. 9 Q Let me show you what's marked as 10 Exhibit 14. It's a NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation 11 Report from 1990,1believe. 12 Are you familiar with this report? 13 A Oh, yes. 14 Q All right. How are you familiar with 15 this report? 16 A Weil, I've read it; and whenever NIOSH does 17 a report, you know, you, as a company - they 18 submit this to you as a company. 19 You have to share it with your employees, 20 and obviously you're going to read it. 21 Q All right. And this is the updated 22 Health Hazard Evaluation report to the original 23 NIOSH 1980 study at Vanderbilt, correct? 24 A 25 Yes. Q All right. And what did this Health_________ J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 259 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 261 1 A He worked there, yes. 1 Hazard Evaluation report find in regards to the 2 Q All right. Why was contact made with 2 1980 study? 3 the Morgantown facility, as opposed to the 4 Cincinnati? 3 A Well, it found the same elevated excess lung 4 cancer, the same rate that all the other studies 5 A The Morgantown facility did a lot of work on 6 mines. They had more of a relationship with the 5 showed. 6 So, in other words, the excess lung cancer 7 mining industry, you know, being in West Virginia 8 and coal and so forth. 9 Cincinnati office predominantly did mostly 10 chemical-type, you know, exposures and risks; and 11 it was mostly the folks in Morgantown, the ones 7 persisted over this period of time. 8 Q And reaffirmed the findings of the 9 1980 study; is that correct? 10 A There was excessive lung cancer in that 11 group of miners and millers, as did all the other 12 that had the experience more with the mining 13 operations, that tended to agree with some of the 12 studies. 13 Q So you don't dispute that there was 14 critiques that had appeared on the original NIOSH 14 excessive lung cancer - 15 report. 16 Some of them - some of the - Dr. Gamble 15 A 16 Oh, no. Q - among Vanderbilt miners and 17 for one, a couple others, felt that there were 18 weaknesses in the original NIOSH report in terms of 19 the cancer portion of it, the lung cancer portion 17 millers, correct? 18 A Excessive lung cancer among the people who 19 had worked at Vanderbilt for any period of time. 20 of it, that they felt needed to be addressed. 20 In that group I don't dispute that there was 21 Q So you felt the Morgantown 22 investigators shared a similar point of view with 23 Vanderbilt, as opposed to the Cincinnati 24 investigators? 25 A We felt that because they seemed to b e -______ 21 excessive lung cancer, no. 22 Q And it also found, did it not, that 23 smoking or excessive smoking was not the cause of 24 the lung cancer, the excess lung cancer? 25 A Well, that's not how it's expressed. It's VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 258 to Page 261 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 262 1 expressed as it's unlikely to account for the - 2 all the excess lung cancer, especially among the 3 miners. 4 Dr. Gamble disagreed with that. 5 Q Okay, it finds, does it not, that 6 possible compounding factors, such as cigarette 7 smoking and other occupational exposure or 8 employment elsewhere, may have contributed to these 9 risks as well, including - which mentions die risk 10 for both lung cancer and non-malignant respiratory 11 disease; correct? 12 A Right. So they are recognizing that 13 there are these other possibilities, which is 14 appropriately so. 15 Q They go on to say that, "Although the 16 contribution of these compounding factors could not 17 be totally quantified in the study it is unlikely 18 that they alone could account for the observed 19 excess risks." 20 A Uh-huh. 21 Q Did I properly read that? 22 A Yes. Thafs their opinion. 23 Q Okay. And that conclusion to you 24 means what? 25 A It means that this researcher and whatever J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 264 1 the people who had the lung cancer tended to be 2 people who were least exposed to the dust - in 3 other words, in this case he used tenure, which 4 would argue against the dust as the etiologic agent 5 for the lung cancer. 6 That's part of die issue with NIOSH, is that 7 they did not explain why it is that the lung cancer 8 cases were concentrated among the people who were 9 least exposed, whereas the non-malignant 10 respiratory disease, which is associated with the 11 exposure to the dust, was exactly the opposite; 12 that it's not what you should see if the dust 13 caused the lung cancer. You should see the two 14 should be the same. 15 Q Mr. Kelse, let me direct your 16 attention to a document found in Plaintiffs 17 Exhibit 19, which is a letter dated January 23, 18 1986, from you to John Gamble. 19 is this a letter you wrote? 20 A Yes. 21 Q All right. You recognize the letter? 22 A 23 Sure. Q All right. The first sentence of the 24 letter indicates as follows: 25 "Attached pleasefindfollow up work on" - _______ J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 263 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 265 1 statistical table he used for his smoking data 2 concludes that he didn't think that these other 1 "please find follow up on the work history gaps, 2 comment and data regarding fiber samples and 3 variables - other work, smoking - would have been 3 analysis." 4 sufficient to explain all the excess lung cancer. 4 Is that a fair reading of that statement? 5 That's what he means. Other researchers 5 A Yes. 6 feel differently. 6 Q Now, was this information that you 7 8 A Q Including Mr. Gamble, correct? Including, yes. 7 were providing for Mr. Gamble's report? 8 A Yes. Typical type of role that I would play 9 Q All right. So NIOSH's formal position 10 in 1990 is that cigarette smoking could not account 9 ina- 10 Q Okay. Explain to me the type of 11 for the observed excess risks in lung cancer and 11 information that you were provided. 12 non-respiratoiy disease? ' 12 A Well, when someone does a mortality study 13 A Couldn't account for all of it. That's 13 like this one of the things they're going to do 14 their position. 14 is - they want to do what I call an exposure 15 They will grant you that it contributed. 15 assessment, okay? 16 They don't know how much. Theyjust don't feel 16 I mean, there are two ways to gauge 17 that it would explain all of it. 18 Q Is it your understanding that 17 exposure. One is by tenure. You know, I worked 18 a year, I worked ten years. So the guy who worked 19 Mr. Gamble's opinion is that cigarette smoking 19 ten years is generally to be considered a person 20 accounts for all the excess risks of lung cancer 20 who is exposed more than a person who worked one 21 and non-respiratory diseases? 22 A Yeah. If you read his conclusion, he says 21 year, just by tenure. 22 The other measure is by actual dust levels, 23 that the excess lung cancer fits a smoking etiology 23 because you can always say, well, the person who 24 better than it does a dust etiology. 24 only worked a year may have had an awfully high 25 And it's notjust smoking. The fact that_________ 25 dust exposure, okay, as opposed to somebody who VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 262 to Page 265 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 266 1 worked ten years, and maybe that's short; but high 2 dust exposure may have contributed, you know, to 3 some end point disease. 4 So if you don't have actual dust exposure, 5 you're always subject to someone questioning you on 6 that, if you just use tenure as a surrogate for 7 exposure; okay? 8 Q Okay. 9 A And that was one of the issues in the 0 studies, was that it's very hard to get dust 11 exposure data, you know, historically that goes 12 back, you know, long enough and to have that dust 13 exposure correlated, you know, with the disease end 14 points. This is a horrendous undertaking, to see 15 if you got enough data and how it all matched up. 16 So this is what - part of what was 17 happening with NIOSH. They knew that one of the 18 criticisms of the original NIOSH report, not only - 19 by Vanderbilt but other people that criticized it, 20 was that the lung cancer cases tended to be among 21 the people who were least exposed. I mean, over 22 half the cases were people who worked less than 23 half a year. Something's fishy about that. 24 And part of the argument was, well, maybe 25 those people, short-term workers, just had a lot of J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 268 1 had data from that, and they had historic, and they 2 put all of that together. 3 And then you have to match that with up with 4 the differentjobs. You know, people who worked 5 underground, you know, what jobs did they have. 6 Five orsix categories in the mill, whatjobs did 7 they have. Then you have people who moved from one 8 job to the other, and you have to figure out how 9 long they worked in this job and that job; and then 10 you ted to figure out of the people who died, you 11 know, the deaths, where did they all work and how 12 did all this dust data, you know, link. 13 You see how horrendous a task this is? 14 And this is what was going on, because it 15 was important to try to get at least a sense of, in 16 addition to tenure as the exposure, what was the 17 actual dust levels. 18 in other words, where the people who had the 19 lung cancer were the people who had the actual dust 20 exposure or not, because from the tenure it didn't 21 look that way. It looked like it was the opposite; 22 but we'd always get an argument that, "Well, you 23 don't know for sure because you don't have the 24 data." 25 So that's the sort of thing that that's__________ J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 267 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 269 1 dust exposure and maybe that overdid it, you know; 2 but it ran counter to the typical thing you would 3 see, let's say, in an asbestos-exposed group. You 4 see people who worked the longest tended to have 5 the most disease, the most exposure. 6 So this is what we were trying to get at; 1 referring to, and that's what was going on. We 2 were correlating jobs, you know, job categories, 3 because NIOSH was not going to know, you know, who 4 worked at the mill and who packed and who worked at 5 the slusher and -they don't know. 6 Q Just to slow you down for a second. 7 and in order to get at that, they wanted to get 8 dust data. They wanted to find out how much dust 7 So you provided Mr. Gamble with the 8 information regarding what workers worked what type 9 data there was, what type it was. Was it just 10 total dust, respirable dust, fiber counts? You 11 know, what was it? Who did it? How descriptive 12 was this information? How historical was it? How 9 ofjobs? 10 A Yeah, and dust exposure information that we 11 had that would be related to those jobs. 12 Q So you provided that information to 13 far back did it go? 14 And in order to get that information they - 15 you know, whether it's our company or - whoever is 13 Mr. Gamble? 14 A Whatever we had, yes. 15 Q Okay. What other type of information 16 doing the study will work with a company and say, 17 you know, "We want you to go back to your records, 18 pull out all the dust data that you have records 19 of, whether you did it, whether a regulatory agency 16 did you provide? 17 A Theywanted to-one of the exercises in 18 this was they wanted to test the reliability cf the 19 dust data; and what that meant was when they got 20 did it, like MSHA, or like a state health 21 department did, or wherever it came from, an 22 insurance company. We want all of that; and then 20 all this dust data from various sources and they 21 assigned the dust data to various job categories, 22 could they independently separate from the dust 23 anything that NIOSH had in its file from its 24 original, you know, study in 1980, all that." 23 data, have another test to see If what they have in 24 their database matched up with this other test, an 25 They took their own air samples, and they 25 independent test._______ VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 266 to Page 269 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 270 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 272 t And what they did for that was they set up 1 particles per cubic foot; and the old Mine Safety 2 like a questionnaire for long-term workers, both 2 Administration used to take air samples using that; 3 hourly and salary; and they broke it into these job 3 and health departments, like New York State Health 4 categories and then over time blocks of - say a 4 Department, did this; and all that is, they used to 5 person worked in the mill from 1948 through 1990, 5 pull air into this little tube, and it had a little 6 or whatever the cutoff date was, '85. 7 During this time span in the mill how many, 6 bit of water in the bottom, and the dust would 7 collect in the water, and then they'd get rid of 8 you know, ventilation improvements were made, how 8 the water, and you'd only have the particles left. 9 many - you know, when did the things happen, 9 That would be put on a slide. The slide 10 engineering controls, that might have affected the 10 would be put under a microscope, and you would 11 dust levels; and then in the mine, what went on 11 literally count the particles; and they knew the 12 there over a period of time; and then, in addition 12 volume of air that they pulled, you know, through 13 to that, how would these individuals characterize 13 this solution; and then they would divide that by 14 the overall dust levels for these various areas 14 the volume, and then you get so many millions of 15 from 1 to 10; 1 being a low. 10 being the high. 15 particles per cubic foot of air, and that was just 16 Do this independent of the actual dust data; 16 an indicator of total dustiness, and that was 17 and then if these estimates correlated with the 17 everything - everything out there in the air is 18 engineering controls and they correlated with the 18 collected, and they count millions of particles per 19 actual dust data, then the dust data would have a 19 cubic foot. 20 higher level of reliability; okay? 21 MS. GRIMBERGEN: I'mjust going to - we're 20 And there were actually standards for this. 21 You couldn't have more than 200 million particles 22 going to get through this a lot quicker if you just 22 per cubic foot in your workplace and you couldn't 23 answer the question. 24 THE WITNESS: How do you want this simply 23 have this or that, whatever that was; okay? 24 Then, as the technology improved in air 25 put? 25 sampling and counting, it moved from a particle 1 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 271 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 273 1 2 A 3 Q It's not a simple subject. It's a big exercise. Q Let me ask you this. I may regret count against particles per cubic foot to 2 gravimetric, milligrams of dust per cubic meter 3 there; and instead of sucking it into a little tube 4 asking this. 5 How did you compile dust data? 6 A Well, you saw that there was insurance data. 4 with water on the bottom and then sticking it under 5 a microscope and counting it, you'd have these 6 little cellulose paper filters in little cassettes, 7 You saw the company - 8 MS. GRIMBERGEN: To the extent that this 7 plastic cassettes; and you drew the air through the 8 cassette, because the cassette was preweighed, what 9 question refers only to the information that he 9 it weighed; and then you'd draw the air through the 10 provided to Dr. Gamble for this particular exercise 11 that NIOSH was undertaking - 12 MR. ESCHLEMAN: That's all I'm asking. 1110 cassette, and it's going to collect all the dust. You weigh it against The difference is 12 what? Is the total dust. Now you have milligrams 13 MS. GRIMBERGEN: All right. 13 per cubic meter. 14 Q How did you compile the dust data for 14 Then they get, you know, even fancier. You 15 Mr. Gamble for this particular report? 15 get prefilters over this that would only suck in or 16 A I would - whatever copies of reports I had 16 take the particles at or below 10 micrometers in 17 I'd give him. 18 Q But, I mean, how was dust data 17 size, which is considered respirable particles that 18 would get into your air exchange region, and only 19 quantified? How did you quantify dust data? 19 collect those. 20 A Well, we had it - that was part of the 20 So these are all the ways you collect it. 21 problem. 22 We had it in - prior to around 1975 - and 21 If you're going to do fiber sampling, as you 22 would if you were going to do an asbestos sample - 23 this - data, dust data, was typically reflected in 23 it's the same time of filter, open face. 24 what's known as particle counts. 24 Collect the dust; but instead of weighing 25 It used to be referred to as million 25 it, they take the filters, almost like the old VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 270 to Page 273 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 274 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 276 1 thing when they used to collect it in a tube and 1 Q Well, in addition to that information 2 count the particles, and you put that - you 2 you provided, at least according to this letter, 3 dissolve the thing, and you put it under the 3 Mr. Gamble with an abbreviated copy of the intended 4 microscope, and you actually measure and count the 4 OSHAasbestos standard; is that correct? 5 fibers, and that's fibers per cubic centimeter 6 there. 7 So this is all the ways; and any one of 5 A 6 7 A That's right. Q Why did you do that? Well, at that time - I think it was 198 1 those methods, any one of those that Ijust 9 described to you, was done at Vanderbilt, as has 0 been done in most mines. 1 So when you go backand you look at that 2 database of air samples you get all these different 3 samples; and so you have to decide, all right, ` 4 which one do we have the most of? 15 You know, like if you have a total dust 16 sample, that gives you an idea of what - whatever 17 is in the dust, whatever it may be. 18 You know, fibers, not fibers, different 19 size, whatever it is, it's at least an indicator 20 that this is dustier than that. So whatever it is, 21 there's more of it there than over here. 22 And for the purposes of a causal association 23 epidemiologic study that is going to use exposure 24 data, that's usually sufficient. You don't have to 25 necessarily to get into issues so much of what it 8 '86 9 MS. GRIMBERGEN: I'm going to stop you 10 right here because this - why he did or didn't do 11 something in 1986 does not in any way bear upon 12 what his expert opinion is in his report in this 13 case. 14 MR. ESCHLEMAN: Well, it may bear upon the 15 report issued by Mr. Gamble, which he bases his 16 expert opinion upon. 17 MS. GRIMBERGEN: To the extent that he is 18 here as an expert witness - this is the kind of 19 thing that - what he did in 1986, he didn't do it 20 as an expert. He did it in a different capacity. 21 MR. ESCHLEMAN: I realize that; but if he 22 had contact with Mr. Gamble in the formation of a 23 report upon which he bases his expert opinion, I 24 mean, that is certainly within the scope of the 25 deposition, because the facts and the information J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 1 is, but we knowthere's more of it 275 J. Kelse - confd direct - Mr. Eschleman 277 1 which surrounds a report upon which he bases his 2 So typically what happened here was they 3 picked total dust data as the one because that's 4 what they had the most of and that's what went back 5 the longest, and they could even take the old 6 milIion-particies-per-cubic-foot count, and you 7 could take them into areas; and you run another 2 opinion is relevant. 3 MS. GRIMBERGEN: I'm not going to instruct 4 him not to answer, but just note my objection 5 because I think we're getting close to out of the 6 scope of the Deposition Notice. 7 A Actually, I have no problem answering. I'd 8 sample next to it, you know, for gravimetric 9 weight; and then you could have a correlation, say, 10 well, X number of million parts per cubic foot that 11 was taken by New York State Department in 1968 or 8 be happy to answer. 9 Yeah. At that time there was a major 10 rule-making afoot with OSHA as to whether or not 11 they would regulate amphibole cleavage fragments, 12 1970 would be equal to so many milligrams per cubic 13 meter, you know, by gravimetric; and you have to 14 take them parallel because humidity and other 15 things would affect. Ifs not like one formula. 16 So-everybody's eyes are glazing. See how 17 complicated this stuff gets? 18 Well, if you're really to do this, this is 19 the level at which you have to work; and this is 12 tremolite being one of them - 13 Q Which is contained in Vanderbilt talc? 14 A Yeah, at 40 to 50 percent so we are the 15 poster child for cleavage fragments; okay? 16 So, of course, people are going to be paying 17 attention to us. We probably have the biggest 18 exposure to amphibole cleavage fragments than any 19 other working population in the world, so we are 20 what was going on, and this is what we were doing. 20 going to be looked at. 21 So it's a long, exhaustive description; but 21 And OSHA, you know, for years had heard 22 I'm givingyou this because you need to appreciate 22 discussions, you know, from the mineral folks that, 23 how tough and how difficult a rigorous and proper 23 look, you know, there's a difference between 24 analysis is if you're going to talk about causal 24 cleavage fragments and asbestiform growth and this 25 associations. ______________ _ 25 and that; and OSHA eventually published - and it's VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 274 to Page 277 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 ________________ j. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 278 in these files - yeah, you know, we're going to 2 tty to straighten out our definition, make sure 3 everybody knows how we're regulating asbestos; but 4 in around 1986 they published a proposed - a 5 proposal that they were going to update their 6 asbestos standard and they were going to - true to 7 their word, they were going to make clear the } distinction between cleavage fragments and real 9 asbestos; but in the same vein they also said, 0 "We're going to regulate the cleavage fragments the 1 same way as asbestos anyway"; and we said, "Well, ' 2 why"; and the answer was, "Well, see, the ' 3 Vanderbilt studies show excess lung cancer and, you ' 4 know, NIOSH tells us that they think those cleavage 5 fragments act in the same way, and that's why we're 16 going to do it." 17 So once again Vanderbilt was the poster 18 child for a regulation that would have impacted - 19 not just Vanderbilt, but whole segments of the 20 mining industry that have similar types of cleavage 21 fragments - waste materiaIs from copper and 22 taconite - huge, huge issue - all based on 23 basically this 1980 technical report. 24 And because there were so many folks, 25 including Dr. Gamble and a couple others in NIOSH, J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 280 1 A Yeah, and its use in the way that OSHA, you 2 know, looked as though OSHA was going to use it. 3 Q You include in here to Mr. Gamble a 4 sentence that says, "Please feel free to share any 5 of all this material with Bob Rieger and/or Bob 6 Glenn but please avoid further distribution". 7 Why did you include that sentence? 8 A Well, Dr. Rieger and Glenn were researchers 9 at NIOSH who felt that there were deficiencies in 10 the original NIOSH work, agreed that the update 11 needed to be looked at closer. 12 I knew that there were people within NIOSH 13 who felt differently, which they had a right to; 14 but I also worried that their opinion, these three 15 researchers - that they would be, you know, told 16 basically to shut up and not say anything; and 17 that's what I was alluding to. 18 You know, in hindsight that wasn't very 19 bright of me to say that. I don't know whether 20 they would have spoken up whether I asked them to 21 or not, but I did. That's why I did it. 22 Q Well, why do you say in hindsight it 23 wasn't very bright to - 24 A Because you're using it now to suggest that 25 I'm encouraging someone to say something that they J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 279 1 who essentially said, "Look, we think there's some 2 real problems with that We don't know that that 3 really does establish that link. That's why we're 4 trying to do this update study. We got some real 5 issues" - and so I was basically telling 6 Dr. Gamble that, "Hey, to the extent that you 7 honestly believe that that study, that original 8 study, would not justify a regulation like that, 9 I would appreciate it if you'd speak up and, you ' 10 know, I know there's others that would disagree 11 with you and might, you know, not want you to speak 12 up but they're certainly being heard. You should 13 have the same right." 14 And that's what J did, and I'd do it again. 15 Q You indicate in the letter itself that 16 the best way to prohibit this proposed OSHA J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 281 1 don't believe. 2 Q Do you recognize it as being 3 appropriate to ask him not to share it with other 4 researchers_ 5 MS. GRIMBERGEN: Objection to the form of 6 the question. 7 Q - other than Bob Rieger and Bob 8 Glenn? 9 MS. GRIMBERGEN: Objection. What's the 10 relevance whether he considers it appropriate or 11 not? 12 Q Weil, you wrote the letter. 13 You didn't want this information shared with 14 anybody else at NIOSH other than Mr. Gamble, 15 Mr. Rieger, or Mr. Glenn; correct? 16 MS. GRIMBERGEN: He's already testified to 17 regulation, as you've described it, was to plead 18 the inadequacy of the 1980 report, is that correct? 19 A Well, I wouldn't say prohibit. I would say 20 that if people had doubts, as I knew they did, that 21 they should honestly speak up and express their 22 doubts so that OSHA would have, you know, the whole 17 th a t 18 Q I'll ask you to answer the question. 19 A Yes, because I wanted them, if they felt 20 that the original NIOSH work was inadequate, not to 21 base a major regulation on it, when they were in 22 the midst of doing an update, that i wanted them to 23 story, notjust part of astory. 23 say so. 24 Q Doubts as to the validity of the 1980 24 I wanted them to speak up; and I didn't want 25 study?___________________ ________________ 25 their voices suppressed by those who felt___________ VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732} 246-4334 Page 278 to Page 281 J. Kelse - Volume I! -4/12/2005 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 282 1 otherwise, because those who felt otherwise had no 2 problem expressing their opinion. 3 Q So you just wanted the information 4 shared with researchers who you believe supported 5 the position of Vanderbilt regarding the 1980 6 report? 7 A I wanted OSHA to know that there were people 8 other than Vanderbilt that thought that what they 9 were proposing to do was premature and 10 inappropriate. 11 MS. GRIMBERGEN: At this point I'm going to 12 reserve my right for a motion to strike all the 13 testimony with regard to Or. Gamble as outside the 14 scope of the deposition. 15 MR. ESCHLEMAN: Okay. 16 Q Did Vanderbilt's contacts with 17 Dr. Gamble during this time period lead to an 18 internal investigation by NIOSH? 19 A Yeah. Yes, it did. 20 Q And were you part of that internal 21 investigation? 22 A I was n e v e r-n o one spoke to me. 23 Q Did you know what the findings of that 24 internal investigation were? 25 A Just generally. There was an issue about J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 284 1 Q Stille and Tabershaw? 2 A Right. 3 Q All right. That mortality study was 4 exclusive to Vanderbilt talc? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Okay. And how big was the population 7 of that study? 8 A I'd have to look.It wasn't much larger 9 than NIOSH's.Might havebeen the same size. 10 So it would suffer from the small numbers as 11 well. 12 Q Whafs the problem with small numbers 13 of population as far as the reliability of a 14 report? 15 A Well, it sort of gets into - I'm not a 16 statistician or epidemiologist. 17 You should talk to, you know, an 18 epidemiologist or statistician, who's very good on 19 statistics; but, in general, the lower - the fewer 20 people you have in a group that you study - and 21 then you're trying to say they have a higher 22 frequency of some disease, whatever it is, compared 23 to some reverent group. In this case, the U.S. 24 population or maybe New York State or County. 25 Whatever the reference is, the smaller that J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 283 1 whether or not the Morgantown office had properly 2 gotten authorization to do the update, and I know 3 there are differences of opinion about that; and 4 I don't know, you know, what the resolution of that 5 was. 6 Q Have you ever seen the internal report 7 regarding Vanderbilt's contacts with Mr. Gamble 8 during this time period? 9 A l know-I heard that in the report there 10 were suggestions, you know, that because I visited 11 there, you know, so often that, I guess, the 12 inference was that I influenced them or something 13 of that sort, or could have. 14 Q All right You have testified that 15 one of the problems you believed with the 1980 16 NIOSH study was it involved a small population of 17 workers, correct? 18 A Yes. 19 Q I want to go to the mortality studies 20 that you have reviewed in connection with forming 21 your opinion in this case. 22 The first mortality study that you mentioned 23 wasbyaStillingham? 24 A AStille, S-t-M-l-e, I believe, and 25 Tabershaw. VARHLEY ASSOCIATES _____ (732) J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 285 1 pool of people that you study, the bigger the 2 impact would be for what they call confounding 3 variables, you know, other causative things, like 4 smoking or like other work. 5 When you have a larger and larger group, it 6 tends to even out those variables. Some of them go 7 in one direction, some of them in the other; and 8 the bigger the number of these people, the less 9 likely those confounding variables interfere, you 10 know, with that final number. 11 So you always want to have the biggest 12 population as possible to help, you know, make that 13 - make those confounding variables not as intense. 14 When you look at like the original NIOSH 15 report, I think it was maybe nine lung cancer 16 cases, and then in another one there's eleven; and 17 here you are basing, for example, a whole federal 18 OSHA standard on nine lung cancer cases? It's 19 pretty touchy. 20 You got to be really careful when you do 21 that sort of tiling, and that's the problem with 22 these small-small groups. 23 Q All right. So this particular study 24 was also a small group, if not smaller than the 25 NIOSH 1980 group; correct? 246-4334 Page 282 to Page 285 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 286 1 A Yeah, I don't know the number. 2 There's no - no question that all of these 3 studies - you know, if they're really good 4 studies, all mortality and epidemiology studies 5 will generally tell you what the strengths and 6 weaknesses of their study is. 7 They should say, "We did this and this and 8 that but we couldn't cover that and that and that, 9 so here's the strengths and here's the weaknesses." 10 And then, you know, in some of the studies 11 - 1think the Tabershaw people criticized aspects 12 of that study, and rightfully so. They also didn't 13 have smoking histories either. 14 You know, many of the criticisms that were 15 leveled against NIOSH could be leveled against 16 Tabershaw. 17 Q And that Tabershaw study was conducted 18 when, that mortality study? 19 A I would have to look. 20 It was published in 1982; and 1believe they 21 used a lot of the database that NIOSH had put 22 together, database meaning the death - you know, 23 the death records that they - you know, they 24 wouldn't go back and do all that again. 25 They wouldn't go and search death J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 288 1 maybe smoking, maybe - whatever; but if you saw a 2 difference, that would suggest that to you; and 3 that's what the Tabershaw report did, but it had 4 small numbers; and, you know, it could be 5 criticized for some of the reasons that the NIOSH 6 report was. 7 Q Do you know what the numbers of the 8 Tabershaw report were? 9 A You can-they-w hat they found-you 10 can read - 1mean, that's fair findings. 11 All I would tell you is what their findings 12 were and - correct me if I'm wrong but they found 13 that there was not excess lung cancer among the 14 people who only worked for Vanderbilt, that it was 15 concentrated only among the people who had worked 16 elsewhere. 17 Q Do you know how they defined a 18 Vanderbilt worker? 19 For instance, did it include someone who 20 also worked for International Talc or - 21 A Yeah, I don't know. 22 1think it would, and that was one of the - 23 that was an issue, and a correct one to raise too. 24 Q All right. You think it would include 25 but you're not certain if it did off the top of J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 287 1 certification for people in various states. That 2 was done. Use that database and update it. 3 So they actually would work with NIOSH for 4 this. 5 Q So Tabershaw did not include-they 6 did not consider the role of smoking in their 7 study? 8 A No. The purpose of their - you remember 9 I told you there were issues about how you make a 10 causal association? 11 One of them was did you control adequately 12 for other exposures besides just this talc, you 13 know, like prior exposures; and so they undertook 14 this study to look at that issue, and so they 15 stratified or broke the group into people who 16 worked elsewhere and just people who worked at 17 Vanderbilt. 18 Weil, were the lung cancers both for the 19 same groups, which would suggest - you know, argue 20 for it was the talc; or is it only here and not 21 there? 22 You know, if there's a difference, then this 23 would suggest, suggest, that it might not be the 24 dust exposure at Vanderbilt; it might have been 25 dust exposure somewhere else or some other thing - J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 289 1 your head? 2 A Myguess is it would have in'82. 3 Well, it depends on the vital status cut- 4 off, you know, when they stopped recording the 5 deaths. 6 Remember that they purchased International 7 Talc in 1974, so, for example, if they had the 8 vital status cutoff in 1978, which they may have 9 done, you know, you're talking four years, so 1 10 don't know how significant that would be. 11 Q Then there were two mortality studies 12 that you relied upon in 1988 by the same author, I 13 believe. 14 A Lamm, yes. 15 Q Okay. 16 A And what Dr. Lamm did is he looked at 17 another couple - a couple of - what he - again, 18 this is also - remember, a lot of these are 19 responding to the original questions that were 20 raised about the NIOSH study; how come, you know, 21 it seems like most of the lung cancers are among 22 the people who worked for the least amount of time; 23 and that's what Dr. Lamm took a look at. 24 His title suggests it, "Analysis of Excess 25 Lung Cancer Risk in Short Term Employees". VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 286 to page 289 J. Keise - Volume II - 4/12/2005 ____________________ J. Keise - confd direct - Mr. Eschleman 290 J. Keise - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 292 So what he's doing here really is he's 1 mortality report that you relied upon? 2 pointing out, you know, that when you include 2 A The most recent, yes; and that's the most 3 workers who worked in an environmentfor less than 3 critical. That's this one. 4 a year you might be - you might be putting a bias 5 in your study. 6 A lot of - a lot of mortality studies - 7 most epidemiologists will tell you that when they > do studies they would like to eliminate short-term 9 workers. ' 0 You know, some of them will say, "I wont" 1 -ju s t like Kleinfeld said, "I'm not including 2 anybody who didn't work 15 years"; or somebody else 13 may say, "I'm not including anybody who worked for 14 less than a year." 15 In the case of Vanderbilt, because we didn't 16 have that many people, NIOSH started down this road 17 of including eveiybody no matter how long they 18 worked. If he was there a day, he was in that 19 group. 20 Q Do you know whether that was a day for 4 Q Okay. 5 A This one is very important because 6 Dr. Gamble did an internal review of Vanderbilt 7 workers. That's why he called it case control. 8 He did that to try to get at the issue of 9 smoking and at the issue of whether outside 10 employment or inside employment, you know, may or ' 1 may not have had a bearing on this lung cancer. 2 You know, Lamm felt that it did or Tabershaw 13 felt that it did. Lamm was concerned about the 14 short term - you know, confounding short-term 15 workers in the group. 16 Gamble took the internal control to see if 17 the smoking and some of these other issues could 18 be, you know, looked at more carefully without 19 confounding from outside exposures and get full 20 smoking histories at least for the controls and the 21 Vanderbilt Talc, or could it have been an employee 21 cases. 22 from International Talc? 22 What the last report did was it actually 23 A It could have been. 23 ended up doing that cumulative dust exposure that 24 It could have been. You'd have to look at 24 I went on and on about a little while ago, where 25 the dates, and you'd have to look back in the________ 25 instead of using the short duration or the tenure J. Keise - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 291 1 records, and it probably was a little bit of both. 2 It probably was short term, who are people 3 who might have had other talc exposures in other 4 areas, including International or any number of any 5 other talc mines that may have been up there in 6 other regions, or it mayjust have been Vanderbilt 7 Talc. 8 So the answer would be it would probably be 9 both. 10 Q Okay. And did the 1988 mortality 11 reports by Dr. Lamm - would they consist of a 12 different population, or was it just an analysis of 13 die 1980 report? 14 A Pretty much an analysis of that same 15 database. 16 He added, I think, some years; and you can 17 find - 1know we have some files where you will - 18 and I'm sure Dr. Lamm has even more extensive files 19 of correspondence between himself and NIOSH, you 20 know, trying to figure out the deaths. 21 You know, do we have the same number of 22 deaths? Did we record them properly? Did 1miss J. Keise - confd direct - Mr. Eschleman 293 1 as a surrogate of exposure it actually used the 2 dust data that was there, correlated it to the lung 3 cancer cases and to the non-cases; and the issue 4 was the lung cancers, no matter how long they 5 worked, did they have a cumulative dust exposure 6 that was higher than the non-cases; and the answer 7 was no, they didn't, about 30 percent lower, which 8 is consistent with the tenure, you know, which was 9 not a surprise, but it confirms something that had 10 been only talked about for almost 10 years; that, 11 you know, no one could explain why it was that you 12 would have this excess lung cancer among the people 13 who, you know, worked the shortest period of time; 14 and the only explanation, if you wanted to link 15 those up, was they must have been exposed to a lot 16 of dust. Itjust overwhelmed them. 17 And the argument is, well, even long-term 18 workers when they started were shortterm and they 19 all had similarjobs and ifs not logical to think 20 that someone worked for six months or a year 21 that somehow they were selected out to have this 22 huge dust exposure, and that's what the actual dust 23 some? Did you miss some? 23 data shows. . 24 You know, that kind of stuff back and forth. 24 So that was very important. So what you had 25 Q You indicate that there was a 2002_______ 25 was an inverse dose response, and that's about as VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 290 to Page 293 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 294 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 296 11 conclusive a thing as you can pretty much say in a 1 Mortality During the Period 1950 Through 89 (809 2 mortality study. 2 Subjects) and Non-Cancer Mortality During 1960 3 Q What was the population used in this 3 Through 1989 (782 Subjects)". 4 study? 4 So for the two portions of the study they 5 A l think for the lung cancer part it was 5 had, you know, slightly different numbers. 6 something like 800, or something like that, about 6 Q Okay. It's my recollection - 1don't 7 two or three times the size of the original NIOSH. 7 know if it's yours - that the 1980 NIOSH 8 Again, that's not a huge number. You know, 8 investigation involved a little over 700. 9 there are studies with thousands of - a couple 9 A The update? 10 thousand - 5,000,10,000 - people. Those are 110 Q No. The original 1980 study itself. 11 good, big, full studies. 11 A This one? Well, if that's what it says. 112 So even here the number is not huge, but 12 I thought it was - 1thought it was fewer 13 it's certainly larger than the ones that preceded 13 than that, but whatever it is it is. 14 (At this point a short recess was taken.) 14 it. 15 Q And you said you think it's two to 15 Q Referring back to your report for a 16 three times larger than the 1980 NIOSH? 16 minute, you indicate in your report the following 17 A l think so. 17 sentence in the second full paragraph, two-thirds 118 What did it say? Let's look and see what 18 of the way down, "No mesothelioma deaths 19 the numbers were. It should give it up in the 19 attributable to exposure to Vanderbilt talc were 20 front. 20 reported in any of these mortality studies." 21 Is that a correct reading of that sentence? 21 MS. GRIMBERGEN: Off the record. 22 (Discussion held off the record.) 22 A That's correct. 23 Q Were there any mesothelioma deaths 23 A It's certainly larger. Exactly how much 24 larger-let me look. 24 reported in the mortality studies? |25 lean point outthat - you know, if you________ _ 125 A Yes. NIOSH reported one in the 1980; and J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 295 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 297 11 look through this Honda study, you will see it says 1 then there was a second one reported, which made 2 somewhere in there that what they saw in the study 2 two, in the most recent, which is the Honda study. 3 was not, you know, very different than what 3 Q So the 2002 study includes a j 4 everybody else has seen. Vanderbilt Talc worker's death from mesothelioma; I 5 Even though the numbers were a little 5 is that correct? 6 larger, that the characteristics of that population 6 A A person that worked at Vanderbilt that was 7 were no different, there still was excess lung 7 diagnosed as having mesothelioma and died, yes. 8 cancer at roughly about the same rate, excess lung 8 Q And how long had that person worked at 19 cancer is still concentrated among the miners and 10 not the millers when the dust levels in both areas I I are aboutthe same, that the people who worked for j12 the least amount of time were the most exposed, 13 and, on top of everything else, the overall dust 14 levels showed that the lung cancer cases were 15 actually exposed to less dust than the non-cases. 16 That's what the study shows. 17 Q Okay. And according to the 2002 18 study, it appears that 782 men were included in 19 that study. 20 A They had two numbers. They had one for - 9 Vanderbilt? 110 A The more recent one, the second one? I 11 think it was reported in the mortality study that 12 it was like five or six months. 13 1had originally heard that it was even 14 shorter than that and more a matter of weeks, but 15 we'll go with the five or six months in 1948. 16 Q So the death that's referenced in the 17 mortality study in 2002 occurred in 1948? 118 a No. That's when his exposure - he was a 19 draftsman; and he was - he was surveying property, 20 you know, to build, for some construction on the 21 they did - part of their study was non-malignant 21 property. 22 respiratory disease, and the numbers were a little 22 Q Okay. I just got lost. 23 differentfor - 1think up here it says- let me 23 You said in the 2002 mortality study one of 24 see. 24 the deaths reported was due to mesothelioma, |25 Yeah. It says, "Analysis Assessed Cancer 25 correct? ________________ _____ VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 294 to Page 297 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 298 A Yeah. There were two reported, one from the 2 original NIOSH report-- 3 Q And that was from 1948? 4 A No. I don't know whatthat-that individual's - it was discounted by NIOSH because 6 the latency was too short. In other words, die time from his employment at Vanderbilt and the time, you know, that he died v of mesothelioma was too short a span of time for 0 the exposure at Vanderbilt to have caused the 1 mesothelioma. 2 Q And do you recall how long that 3 exposure was? 4 A I think it was 15 years. 5 Q While employed at Vanderbilt 15 years, ' 6 correct? 7 A Well, the span of time between his first 8 exposure at Vanderbilt and his death. 9 Q Okay. And the second death? 20 A That was a fellow, as I said, that-I 21 think in the report they said he worked several 22 months - 1heard he worked several weeks, but 23 we'll go with several months - in 1948 as a 24 surveyor; and then, I believe, he died in the 25 mid80's,'84or'85. I'mnot sure. _____________ j. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 300 A Yes. Q Okay. Is there some sort of study upon which you base that opinion? 4 A I think i described my rationale for that. 5 You want me to read it? 6 Q No. I understand that you described your rationale for believing that. My question to you is was there any study 9 that supports that rationale. 10 A Notthat I'mfamiliarwith, although it's a 1 generally-recognized concept. 2 Q In the next sentence of that page you 3 indicate that the non-asbestiform amphibole 4 minerals most at question in Vanderbilt talc are 5 also present in other mining environments. 16 What minerals are you specifically referring 17 to? . 18 A Predominantly a mineral known as cummerit- 19 grunerite (sic), and that is the non-asbestiform 20 variety of amphicyte. 21 Q And what other mining environments is 22 that found in? 23 A Well, it was a huge - two big - unlike 24 Vanderbilt, small study - two huge studies, one 25 done on taconite miners in Minnesota, I believe, 1 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 299 Q All right And just so I understand 2 correctly, he worked at Vanderbiltfrom 1948 for a 3 couple months and then died in the 1980's? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Can you show me in the report where it 6 references that particular individual? 7A 8 9 Sure. MS. GRIMBERGEN: I think you have it. THE WITNESS: Is it here? 10 A Actually, there's a little discussion about 11 it. I think it's - here you go. 12 It begins here and it goes through here, so 13 down there. 14 Q The report indicates that the death of 15 the draftsman - strike that. 16 The report indicates the draftsman who died 17 - they could not find any history of asbestos 18 exposure; is that correct? J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 301 1 in the 1970's and another study of Homestate gold 2 miners in North Dakota, both of which groups were 3 exposed to waste material that contained quite a 4 bit of amphibole cleavage fragment, known as 5 cummerit-grunerite. 6 Q Are these studies included in the 7 documents that have been marked already? 8 A They're not in the studies that are specific 9 to Vanderbilt. I think I included them in another 10 folder, though, in support documents, so I think 11 they are in here. 12 Q And one study was from Minnesota, and 13 the other study was from? 14 A Homestate Mining in Leeds, North Dakota. 15 Q So when you say studies of these other 16 mining environments do not reflect excess pulmonary 17 cancers, you're referring to just those two 18 studies, the one in Minnesota and the one in North 19 A That's what they said. 19 Dakota? 20 Q Okay. In your report, on the fourth 21 page, you indicate that, "An elevated smoking 22 prevalence in an asbestos-exposed group is, 23 therefore, likely to enhance the potential of 24 mesothelioma in that group." 25 Is that a correct reading of that sentence? VARHLEY ASSOCIATES 20 A Yes. 21 Q The doctor which Vanderbilt employed 22 to review the x-rays of lungs, his name is 23 Dr. Brian - is it Boehlecke? 24 A 25 (732) 246-4334 Boehlecke. Q Boehlecke? _________________ Page 298 to Page 301 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 J. Ketse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 3 0 2 1 J. Keise - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 3041 A Boehlecke, B-o-e-h-l-e-c-k-e. 1 indicate that in general talc exposure causes Q And Dr. Boehlecke has been working in the capacity of reviewing x-rays of the lungs of these employees for the last 17 years? 2 mesothelioma? 3 A I don't know that any study says it causes 4 it. There are some that - they are suggestive A Yes. I believe the first reference to him looking at radiographs were in 1985. Q And you indicate that he has found no support for an asbestos-like risk based upon his review of the x-rays; is that correct? 0 A That's correct 1 Q All right. Are Dr. Boehlecke's 2 reports included? 3 A Yes, here. 4 Q All right.What folder are they 5 marked in? 6 A This is in the Vanderbilt Health Study 7 folder, 14. .8 Q All right. You indicate that 70 9 percent of the work force has been exposed to 20 Vanderbilt talc in excess of 15 years and 5 that it does. 6 Q Are any of those studies included in 7 any of the reports that you have provided? 8 A No, because it's not specific to Vanderbilt 9 Q How many studies are you aware of that 110 makes that causal connection between generically j 11 talc and mesothelioma? 112 A I'msorry? Generically talc or talc from 13 upstate New York? 114 Q Weil, are you aware of studies 15 regarding talc from upstate New York that indicate 16 that it causes or contributes to mesothelioma? 117 A That it may cause or contribute to? 18 19 A Q Yes. Yeah. Dr. Abraham did a case control - 20 actually, just a case study - in which he suggests 21 approximately 50 percent in excess of 20 years. 22 Is that correct? 23 A Yes. 24 What's the date on that? Is it 2004? 25 Q Yes. 21 that 22 Q Are there any other studies besides 23 Dr. Abraham regarding talc from upstate New York? 124 A There are-you know, there is-there was 25 an assessment of mesothelioma mortality rates in J. Keise - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 3031 J. Keise - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 3051 I A Yeah. I probably checked th e-th e medical 1 NewYork State done by - 1think it was Nicholas surveillance table that I have for that 2 Vianna, I believe, part of the New York State Q How many in excess of 40 years? 3 Health Department, in which he showed excess A I don't know. 4 mesothelioma rates in some counties in New York; Q And 40 years is the usual latency 5 and I believe, you know, he mentioned - 1think period for mesothelioma? 6 it's Jefferson County, which is, you know, south A Typically. 7 of St. Lawrence County. St. Lawrence is where the 8 Some typically between 30 to 40. It depends 8 talc mines are. on the exposure and the type of asbestos. 9 I think in his paper he suggested that might 10 Q You indicate in your report, "The 10 be - offer an explanation for. I I scientific evidence that deals specifically with 11 All the researchers who are careful will 12 Vanderbilt talc", and then parenthesis, "not mixed 12 usually say could or may, you know; and 13 or unknown exposures does not associate Vanderbilt 13 appropriately so. It's okay to speculate on those 14 talc as a causative factor for mesothelioma." 15 Is that a proper reading of that sentence? 16 A That's what I believe, yes. 17 Excuse me. Could I take that back if you're 14 things. 15 Q You indicate that miners and millers 16 are exposed to talc in different forms. 17 A Vanderbilt miners and millers? 18 done? 118 Q Yes. 19 Q Sure. 19 a They have - basically their exposure is the 20 Are you aware of studies regarding mixed 20 same in the sense that the mineral exposures they 21 talc use which shows something to the contrary? 21 have are the same, though obviously the millers 22 A I'm aware of studies that suggest something 22 will be exposed to more processed talc. 23 to the contrary for general talc exposure. That's 23 In other words, the material will be milled. 24 what I'm aware of. 124 It will be smaller particles and it will be closer 25 Q Okay. So you're aware of studies that 25 to the final product, you know, that somebody VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 302 to Page 305 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 306 1 ultimately uses, whereas in the mine they will be 2 exposed to the same types of dusts, same mineral 3 types of dusts, and anything else that may be, you 4 know, waste material that someone in the mine or in 5 the mill would not be exposed to. 6 So, for example, if they had silica 7 exposures - talc has little or no silica in it; 8 but there may be silica in the mine, you know, 9 lying around. 10 Q Are dust exposures the same for miners 11 and millers at Vanderbilt Talc? 12 A Overall dust exposures were very similar, 13 and it's very - you know, in the early years the 14 data showed that the dust levels tended to be 15 higher in the mill. 16 You could almost predict where they would 17 be, because smaller particles and - and then, as 18 time went on, and more and more dust controls went 19 on in the mill. 20 The levels in the mines tended to stay the 21 same over time, whereas in the mill they tended to 22 go down; but in general they were very similar in 23 terms of overall dust. 24 Q Are you familiar with a company called 25 Loomis Talc? J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 308 1 Vanderbilt acquired. 2 Q And do you know if they used any other 3 suppliers of talc, other than the companies they 4 acquired? 5 A Oh, that we would sell from other- 6 Q Or that you would take talc from other 7 mines. 8 ' MS. GRIMBERGEN: Wait, wait, wait I'm 9 confused by the question. 10 MR. ESCHLEMAN: Okay. 11 MS. GRIMBERGEN: You want to know if they 12 resold talc that was mined elsewhere? 13 Q Have they ever used-have they ever 14 themselves, Vanderbilt, used talc mined elsewhere? 15 It could be either milled or, I guess, 16 milled. 17 A Sort of like a toller operation, where 18 somebody will send you their ore and you mill it 19 for them, something like that? 20 Q Right, yes. 21 A To the best of my knowledge, no. 22 Q Any of the mortality studies upon 23 which you based your opinion, did they define both 24 the duration of exposure and the exposure dose? 25 A Yes. We talked about that at some length. J. Kelse - cont'd direct - Mr. Eschleman 1 A l`mnot intimately familiar with it. 2 I know that was a talc company that was in 3 that area that operated earlier than Vanderbilt. 4 Other than that, I don't know. 5 Q Did Vanderbilt acquire Loomis Talc? 6 A I don't believe they acquired any of their 7 property. 8 Q Did they use Loomis Talc as any type 9 of supplier? 307 1 309 MR. ESCHLEMAN: I don't have anything else. 2 MS. GRIMBERGEN: 1have nothing. 3 MR. DeMATTHEIS: 1have nothing. 4 5 (Witness excused.) 6 (Whereupon, the deposition was concluded at 7 2:45 p.m.) 8 9 10 MS. GRIMBERGEN: I'mjust curious. 10 11 How does this fit into his testimony as an 11 12 expert witness? 12 13 MR. ESCHLEMAN: Ijust want to know if those 13 14 workers were included in any of the studies. 14 15 We talked about Internationa! Talc workers 15 16 being included in some of the studies because that 16 17 was a predecessor to Vanderbilt. I don't know if 17 18 there are any other predecessors to Vanderbilt. 18 19 MS. GRIMBERGEN: You can ask him that. 19 20 If you know. 20 21 A No, 1- only International. That's the 21 22 only. 22 23 Q So, to your knowledge, International 23 24 Talc was the only predecessor to Vanderbilt Talc? 24 25 A Yeah, the only other talc operation that 25 VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732)246-4334 Page 306 to Page 309 CERTIFICATE J. Kelse - Volume II *4/12/2005 O ~ 33.0 0 F F I C ELE I, H O L L Y JOHIlSQtl K O W A L E U K G . a C e r t i t i e d Shorthand Reporter and notary Public of the State of M e w Jersey, do hereby certify that prior to the commencement of the examination the witness was duly sworn by me. I DO FURTHER C E R TIFY that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcription of the testimony as taken stenographies!!'/ by and before me on the date, time, and place aforementioned. I 00 FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither a relative, employee, attorney, nor counsel to any parties involved; that X am neither related to ncr employed by any such attorney or counsel; and that I a m not f i n a n c i a l l y int e r e s t e d in the -outcome of this action. My Commission Expires 11/10/06 C.S.R. License Mo. 30KIOQGS4400 VARHLEY ASSOCIATES (732) 246-4334 Page 310 to Page 310 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 Index Page 1 1 '6 0 1H 205:22 '6 7 HI 20522 '6 9 HI 204:13 '7 4 Hi 205:20 7 8 HI 202:8 '8 0 HI 258:14 '8 2 PI 224:6289:2 '8 4 PI 195:21298:25 '8 5 PI 195:24 270:6 298:25 '8 6 PI 225:14 276:8 '8 7 IH 225:14 0 0 7 9 3 2 HI 183:15 0 8 1 0 9 HI 18340 0 8 6 4 8 HI 183:5 0 8 9 0 3 HI 183:20 1 1 (121185:25189:1419146192:844 194:18 212:1723 213:5.11270:15 IO 171 222:1922 2 2 3 :1 2 7 0 4 5 273:16 293:10 1 0 , 0 0 0 HI 294:10 1 0 0 PI 210:1720 211:20 212:2 218:8. 12,16 219:1822 1 00'S PI 21145-16 1 0 1 HI 183:4 1 0 5 HI 183:4 1 0 :2 0 Hi 182:20 1 1 HI 20546 1 1 / 1 0 / 0 6 Hi 310:23 1 2 Pi 182:1920842 1 3 HI 201:2 1 4 (1211964617 197:2,6.9.14 198:2 201:1-2.16 260:10 302:17 1 5 HOl 2034622 205:18 207:6.14.24 290:12 298:14-15 302:20 15-year Hi 205:22 1 5 2 HI 18544 1 7 HI 302:4 1 8 5 PI 184:5414345-16 1 9 in 264:17 1 9 4 0 PI 203:1523 1 9 4 8 PI 203:18 270:5 297:1547 298: 3.23 299:2 1 9 5 0 HI 2 9 6 4 1 9 6 0 HI 296:2 1 9 6 5 HI 20444 1 9 6 7 HI 20440 1 9 6 8 HI 27541 1 9 6 9 PI 203:23 207:9 208:6 1970H I275:12 1 9 7 0 'S |11 3 0 1 4 1 9 7 4 Pi 20442289:7 1 9 7 5 (71222:8,ll.14j.75l 224:2 271: 22 1 9 7 6 HI 20044 1 9 7 8 PI 198:23 202:7 289:8 1 9 8 HI 276:7 1 9 8 0 1341 229:13.16 236:6 239:21 240:23 2414.7 24246 244:4.19 24744 252:1751253:17 255:2055 256:13.18 258:10260:23261:2.9 267:24 278:23 279:18.24 282:5 28 3 4 5 285:25 291:13 294:16296:7.1055 1 9 8 0 'S PI 253:22 299:3 1 9 8 2 HI 19146192:14 247:16 286:20 1 9 8 3 HI 224:6 1 9 8 4 (2) 192:8194:19 1 9 8 5 (5) 224:3 252:25 253:18 255:19 302:6 1 9 8 6 m 201:13-14 257:15 264:18 276:11.19 278:4 1 9 8 8 PI 240:15 248:6.14 289:12 291: IO 1 9 8 9 PI 25746 296:3 1 9 9 0 P ! 206:14 230:15 25648 260: 11263:10 270:5 1 9 9 3 PI 248P4 2 4 9 4 1 1 s t HI 185:8 2 2 PI 220:23227:25 2 0 HI 302:21 2 0 0 HI 197:17 201:7 212:2 272:21 2 0 0 0 PI 23242 233:22 234:9.20 235: 1 2 0 0 2 171 206:13249:2 291:25295:17 297:3.17.23 2004121185:25 302:24 2 0 0 5 HI 18249 2 1 HI 201:13 2 1 0 HI 18448 2 3 (2)183:14 264:17 2 3 0 HI 205:23 2 6 0 PI 205:19,21 2 7 5 HOl 196:17.19197:2.7.19198:3 199:24 200:11201:18 202:1 2 :4 5 HI 309:7 3 3 PI 20147 21249 235:15 3 0 PI 293:7 303:8 30'S HI 206:4 3 0 0 HI 18340 3 0 X 1 0 0 0 8 4 4 0 0 HI 310:24 3 1 21196:24200:14 3 4 7 4 HI 310:23 3X Hi 197:16,22 201:4 202:18 4 4 HI 20147 4 0 PI 182:18183:19 277:14 303:3.5.8 4 0 'S HI 206:4 5 5 HI 212:19 5 ,0 0 0 HI 29440 50121277:14302:21 50-pound HI 218 4 2 6 6 (Ili 190:441191:4193:5.12,16194: 2.2124195:3 21249 6 9 8 1 HI 183:9 . 7 7 111) 189:15190:441191:4 193:542. 16194:3.2124195:3 7 0 HI 302:18 7 O'S PI 224:13 23 2 4 6 7 0 0 HI 296:8 7 2 HI 188:347189:8 196:24 72N HI 196:24 7 5 -1 HI 19946 7 8 2 PI 29548296:3 ________________ 8________________ 80'S I>! 224:6.17.19 225:5.11.13 226: 3232:16255:1298:25 8 0 0 JH 294:6 8 0 9 HI 296:1 8 9 ID 296:1_______________________ A A.M. 1 198:24 Abbreviated Hi 276:3 Ability 12)208:24 216:21 Abnorm ality H I 216:8 Above-entitled HI 182:13 Abraham H I 217:1346 218:2 219:1.4 304:1923 According 121276:2 295:17 Account 14) 262:1.18 263:1043 Accounts HI 26320 Accumulated HI 203:16 Accurate |2) 218:19 310:10 Achieved HI 203:22 Acquire HI 307:5 Acquired HI 307:6308:1.4 Act HI 278:15 Action PI 182:5310:18 Active HI 232:17 Actual HI 194:23 265:22 266:4 268: 17.19 270:16.19 293:22 Add HI 213:14 Added 11129146 Addition (31268:16 270:12 276:1 Additional PI 201:11244:27,17.22 Address |91 223:3 242:4.20 244:3.18 253:5 254:16.20255:5 Addressed Pi 205:2.6 253:10.12 259: 20260:2 Adequately P I 242:4 254:20 2 8 7 :ii Adm inistration P i 228:1020272:2 Advanced PI 226:6.15227:4 Adverse P I 215:34044.17 239:11 Advise til 255:11 Affect P I 215:10.17 275:15 A ffected (2| 241:7 270:10 A ffidavit P I 190:25192:2.7.10.16 Afoot HI 277:10 Aforementioned HI 310:12 Agencies 16] 219:6 228:6.14.1824 229:1 Agency PI 228:1.8 267:19 Agent PI 240:11264:4 Aggregates HI 230:8 Ago t8| 195:11209:12 212:910 214:7 8234:129294 Agree P i 231:23243:13 259:13 260:1 Agreed HI 280:10 Air |22| 221:13 224:4 225:1523 232:4. 1 0 2 0 233:1.1548 239:8 267:25 272:2.5. 12454724 273:73.18 274:12 Airstream HI 225:15 Airway Hi 239:2 Alabama Hi 206:17 Allen HI 201:19 Alluding HI 280:17 Almost PJ 273:25 293:10 306:16 Alone HI 262:18 Amount 14) 238:9 241:14 289:22 295: 12 Amphibole HI 211:11219:9 230:3 277:1148300:13301:4 Amphicyte Hi 300:20 Analysis HO) 194:2 213-.7 232:5 234: 7 265:3 275:24 289:24 291:12,14 295: 25 Analysts HI 2 3 1 9 Analytical Hi 232:15 Analyzed HI 191:9193:821212:21 Animal ll 196:10 216:16.23 247:11 Animals PI 187:2023188:5196:13 245:2 247:12 Ann PI 1 9 0 :1 6191462469 Ansonia HI 185:15 Answ er |14| 186:74223 226:19 229:6 247:21270:23 277:4,8 278:12 281:18 2919293:6 Answering HI 277:7 Anyway HI 278:11 Appeared P i 240:10.13 259:14 Apply PI 230:6-7.9 Appreciate Pi 223:24 275:22 279 9 Approach Hi 232:21 Appropriate PI 281:3.10 Appropriately f2| 262:14 305:13 Approximate HI 186:17 Approximation HI 186:19 April H) 182:19 Area PI 223:12 307:3 Areas P I 2 6 0 4 27044 275:7 291:4 29540 Argue PI 264:4 2 8749 ' Argued 41242:5 Argument PI 266:24 268:22 293:17 Arnold HI 20241 Arrive HI 23042 Arrived PI 195:232559 Asbestiform PI 277:24 300:1349 Asbestine Hi 1 9 1 9 Asbestos (42| 18848189:7196:25 209:21210:2 214:11215:6 228:12 229: 941.17-1822 2 3 0 4 5 4 9 2 3 231:2.4.7.16, 25 232:3,924 233:1449 240:2 241:22 243:2022 246:21273:22 276:4 278:3.6, 941299:1722 302:8 3039 Asbestos-containing 12] 228:225 Asbestos-exposed Pi 2 6 7 9 299:22 Asbestos-like Hi 302:8 Asbestosis PI 215:6238:14 Aspects IH 28641 Assembled PI 252:6,9 Assessed HI 295:25 Assessment PI 251:3 26545 304:25 Assigned HI 200:1250:23 256:5 269: 21 A ssociate Hi 3 0343 Associated PI 187:16212:7 238:2 2 3 9 9 4 264:10 Association |6122 1 3 0 24191243:14 253:8 274:22 28740 Associations HI 275:25 Assume Pi 1869.21195:448 2029 250:2 Assum ption HI 24849 Attached H i 264:25 Attention PI 187:7 205:14 21244 260:4 26446 27747 Attic H i 190:22 Attorney P i 3104446 Attorneys H i 183:394348 VARHLEY ASSOCIATES From '60 to Attorneys J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 index Page 2 A ttributable ID 296:19 A udible ID is ftio A ugust ID 191:16192:8.14194:18 A uthor ID 206:17 289:12 A uthorization ID 283:2 Authors ID 206:15 Available 14] 200:8 252:1-3 Avoid ID 280:6 Aw are 111] 229:24 230:25 231:5.22.23 303:2022,24-25 304:9.14 A w fully ID 265:24 ________ B Background ID 190:7-8.22231:14 Bags ID 218:12 Base (2] 281:21300:3 Based no) 198:152063213:7 214: 12 223:16 232:14 255:23 278:22 302:8 308:23 B a s e s ID 27605 2 3 2 7 7 :1 B a sic HI 2113.12 B asing ID 285:17 B asis ID 250:21 B e a r (212 7 6 0 U 4 B earing ID 292:11 B e a rs 12) 22109223:8 B e ca m e ID 2 1 3 0 B egan ID 185:25195:24 222:22 224: 1252:22 Begin ID 245:2 Beginning ID 242:19 Begins ID 299:12 B e lie f 121216223002 B elieves ID 21 9 0 0 Below ID 2 7 3 0 6 Below-described Pi 1850 2103 B e st I7| 20023 2 0 5 0 208:24 209:24 231:14 279:16308:21 B etter 16] 209:7 226:24 227:12-13.16 263:24 Between m i 188.-2520322211:8 2 3 4 0 248:15 277:23 278:8 29109 298: 17 3 03 :8 3 0 4 0 0 Beyond P I 186:2522006 B ias ID 290:4 Big 17] 227:20 252:73 2 7 1 2 284:6 294:1130023 Bigger PI 205:23 285:13 Biggest PI 277:1728501 Bit tsi 2 0 5 2 3 2 1 2 0 6 2 7 2 3 291:1301: 4 Black PI 216:18218:12 Blam e ID 246:8 Blend HI 2H 5.ioo 4.i7 Blocks ID 270:4 Blood ID 2 3 8 0 0 Blown ID 22524 Bob 14] 280:5281:7 B odies ID 2 2 9 2 Boeh iecke 16] 30123-253020-2 Boeh lecke's ID 3 0 2 0 1 B order ID 22307 Bottom 131 247:6272:6273:4 Bought 13] 2 1 3 2 8 219:13 Brand ID 1930 Breakdown ID 243:9 Breathe PI 2152.16 Brian ID 3 0 1 2 3 Brief ID 186:1 B riefly PI 18708196:9 Bright Pi 2 800923 Bring 13) 187:602.14 Broke 15] 20524 213:521270:3 287: 15 Brooke ID 246:9 Brought ID 1 8 7 2 217:5 Brown P]218O 2 256O0 Brunsw ick P i 1 8 2 0 8 1 8 3 2 0 Build ID 29720 B uilt P I 24208 24300 Bulk (8121207232:5234:7,130620. 23235:12 Business ID 2 2 0 0 .....c C.S.R . ID 31024 Caln ID 215:5 Catonosis ID 215:6 23804 Cancer P D 18707 206:2025 207:5 21404 21604 235072025 240:8 241: 14-1523 242:604 25 9 0 9 2614.6.1004. 182124262200263:4.112023264:1 5.703266:20268:19 278:132850508 288:13 289:25 292 0 1 293:3.12 294:5 295:8-9.1425 2 9 6 2 Cancers U3] 2 0 5 0 5 2 5 2062.7 207: 1103 209:5 24002 24324 28708 289: 21293:430107 Capability ID 22302 Certified PI 182:15 310:4 Certify P) 310:6.9.13 Change Pi 20421226:1422 C haracteristics iD 295:6 Characterization ID 24309 Characterize PI 24124 24321 270: 13 Checked ID 3 0 3 0 Chemical ID 25 9 0 0 Chemical-type PI 25900 Child PI 277:15 278:18 Chronological ID 205:3 Cigarette |3j 262:6 263:10.19 Cincinnati Pi 258:13.19259:4.9.23 260:6 Circled ID 195:3 CIVIL ID 182:5 Claim ID 2 3 5 2 2 Claimed ID 22120 Claims ID 223:8 C larify P I 2 1 6 2 5 222:9 Clark P I 197:15 201:3 Classify ID 237:13 Clear (61192:13 207:15 2 1 6 2 1 231.-5 23809 278:7 Clearer ID 20823 Cleavage 1121219:9 230:3 24121 27701.1508.24 278:8.10.1420 301:4 Close ID 277:5 Closer PI 280:1130524 Capable ID 215:3 Capacity I'M18501250:9 27620 302: 3 Carbon ID 21608 Carcinogenic ID 188:1218920 Cardiovascular ID 23802 Clothing ID 2 2 2 2 Coal ID 259:8 Coffees ID 18625 Collect 16] 272:7 273:10,19-2024 274: 1 Collected ID 2510.13 256:8 272:18 Care ID 216:21 Cared ID 21225 Careful P I 285:20 30501 Carefully P J18809 29208 Cartridge P i 225:4.6.12 Case poi 185232182 22120223:4 241:45 24206 244:23 24822249:8 255:621264:3 27603 2832128423 290:15 292:7 30409-20 C ases 113] 19223 20 6 2 5 264:8 266: 202228506.18 29221293:3.6 295:14 15 C assette Pi 273:8.10 Cassettes P ! 273:6 7 Categories 14] 268:6 2 69221270:4 Category ID 236:9 Causal PD 221092410720242:5 243:14253:7 2 54202 7 4 2 2 2 7 5 2 4 2870030400 Causative P ) 285:3 303:14 Caused (7] 240:8 241:1624 242:6-7 264:1329800 C auses ID 216:3 30403.16 Cavities ID 18821 Cel! PI 246:5 24702 Cellulose ID 273:6 Centimeter ID 274:5 Ceram ics ID 19902 Certain 17] 188O1230:4 23409 244: 308253:6 28825 Certainly PI 236:4 237:22 23821 2570 27624 27902 29403.23 Certification ID 2 8 7 0 __________ Combined ID 212:7 C om m encem ent ID 3 1 0 2 Commencing ID 182:19 Comment ID 2 6 5 2 Comments ID 219:6 Commission P i 219:7 3 1 0 2 3 Communicate ID 2 5 8 0 Companies PI 20708308:3 Company PD 182:8 18309 210:4 2232 224:3 225:14 227:9 251:11252: 4-S.19-20.2225 253:17 2 55 0 4 260:17 18 267:15-16.22 271:7 306:24 3 0 7 2 Compared ID 284:22 Comparison ID 248:14 Compile P i 271:5.14 Complete P i 209:23-24 253:4 Complex ID 231:8 Complicated ID 27507 Components Pi 19904 21103 Composite PI 2 1 3 2 3 2 2 0 0 0 Composites ID 211:24 Composition P ) 211:3 212:5 219:11 Compositions ID 211:4 Compounding Pi 262:6,is Concede ID 231 2 4 Concentrate P i 196:19 24509 246: 17-18 Concentrated 15) 197:3 246:13 264: 8 288:15 295:9 Concentration ID 245:12 Concept ID 3 0 0 :ii Concerned PI 196:10213:1292:13 VARHLEY ASSOCIATES Concerns PI 25509-2024 Concluded PI 189:19 309:6 Concludes ID 2 6 3 2 Conclusion PI 19 6 2 2 223:6,20240:4 2430824423 262:2326322 Conclusive ID 2 9 4 0 Conduct ID 24503 Conducted P I 24307 2 5 8 0 1 286:17 Confidence ID 222:20 Confirm ID 23007 Confirm s ID 293:9 Confounding P ) 2852.9.13 29204.19 Confused P I 23100 308:9 Confusion ID 203:4 Coniosis ID 238:5 Connecticut ID 18505 Connection P i 1 9 9 0 0 2 4 2 :5 2 5 4 2 1 28320 30400 Connections ID 2 4 1 0 8 Consider tsi 22 8 2 4 236:172224 237: 9253:19256:6287:6 Considered P i 1902 21&12 2 2 8 0 26509273:17 Considers P i 2 2 9 2 1 2 8 1 0 0 C onsist ID 29101 Consistent ID 293:8 Construction ID 29720 Consum er ID 219:7 Contact PI 252:12.16 257:5 2 5 9 2 27622 Contacted P i 25524 25 8 2 4 Contacts P i 2570 8 2 8 2 0 6 2 8 3 :7 Contain PI 21 1 0 2 2 1 4 :ii 2 2 9 0 7 2 1 230:18.23231:16 Contained Pi 189:3,22 210 0 4 2 4 0 2 277:13 3 012 Containing PI 1 8 7 5 210:12 Contains P) 2 0 2 2 1 2 0 9 0 6 210 0 5 2 3 0 0 231:1.7,25 Content ID 213:15232:4.10 2 3 3 0 5 Contents ID 21324 Continue PI 18524 23222 233:5 Continued Pi 18508 2 4 3 0 1 2 5 4 0 4 Continuing P i 233:3 Contracted PI 24501 2 4 8 0 1 Contrary ID 3032123 Contribute Pi 238:1630407 Contributed ID 2 3 9 2 0 2 6 2 :8 26 3 0 5 2662 Contributes ID 30406 Contribution ID 2 6 2 0 6 Contributor ID 23820 Control PI 233:8 2 4 8 2 2 2565.1325 287:11292.7.16 304:19 Controls ID 270:1008 292:2030608 Cooper PI 183:9 Copies ID 27106 Copper Pi 27821 Copy PI 2 7 6 2 Corporation ID 183:8 Correct 195) 1 8 6 2 4 1 8 7 2 0 2 3 19i:i7. 231920.8,1020193212419425195: 519601197:7 198:14 1992-3 21121 214:1.11216:4 217:10,14 218:8 220:10 221:3.22-232222.423 2242125 226:7 228:4 230:19 232:6 234:1.4 2350822 236:1.14 23923 2 4 0 2 5 2 .1 7 2 4 2 0 7 244520-2124521249:15212500 252:1408 253030924 254:1722 255: From Attributable to Correct J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 Index Page 3 2.6.21.25 256:3.14.25 258:13.24 260:23 261:9.17 262:11263:7 276;4 279:18 281:15 283:17 285:25 288:12.23 296: 21-22 297:5.25 298:16 299:18.25 302:9 10.22 Correctly in 299:2 Correlated PI 1 8 8 3 3 2 6 6 1 3 2 7 0 1 7 18293:2 Correlates U! 197:23 Correlating HI 269:2 Correlation 12| 188:25275:9 Correspondence (31197:21201:12 291:19 Counsel |2| 310:i4.i6 Count 161272:11.18 273:1274:2.4 275:6 Counted Hi 188:21 Counter HI 267:2 Counties HI 305:4 Counting 121 272:25273:5 Country 121 205:9 258:12 Counts 121 267:10271:24 County HI 182:1284:24 305:6-7 Couple [141190:6 204:21207:8251:1. 6.14 254:23 257:16 259:17 278:25 289: 17 294:9299:3 Couple-year 111 251:14 C ourse |61 232:1234:22 251:10 252: 15 257:7 277:16 COURT IH 182:1 COURTNEY HI 183:7 Cover 121187:2 286:8 CPS H) 199:16 Credentials Hi 2 3 i:i4 Criteria HH 203:9-10.12.18.2021204: 20 205:1822 208:17-18 Critical HI 292:3 Criticisms HI 266:18286:14 Criticized 13) 266:19286:11288:5 Critiques HI 259:14 Crushed Hi 241:21 Crushed-up HI 241:21 Crystalline HI 213:15 215:12 232:25 233:3 Cubic HU 272:1.15.1922 273:1-2.13 274:5 275:6.10.12 Cummerit 12)300:18301:5 Cummerit-grunerite HI 301:5 Cumulative 12) 2 9 2 :2 3 2 9 3 5 Curious HI 307:10 Current HI 23010 Cut HI 238:20289:3 Cutoff HI 204:13 207:9 270:6 289:8 Cytotoxic HI 246:12 D Dakota |3| 301:214,19 Daniels PI 197:15 201:3 D ata 1641190:22 194:20197:22 202: 17 210:1625211:19 212:3.22 214:12 215:2123 220:8 224:4 232:15 243:5 251:2.13.15.17.192224-25 252:1.3-4 256:8-9 257:25 263:1265:2 266:11.15 2675-9.18 268:1.12.24 269:19-2123 270:16.19 271:5-6,14.18-192327424 275:3 293:223 306:14 D atabase P) 243:10252:7.9269:24 274:12 286:21-22 287:2 291:15 Date 18] 195:21204:13207:1.9 234: 19 270:630224 310:12____________ Dated HI 198:23 201:12 204:10 264: 17 Dates (2)207:8 290:25 Deal HI 211:20 Deals HI 303:11 Discount PI 2433.6.13 Discounted PI 242:1624 2 9 8 5 Discriminating H! 241:17 Discussed HI 245:3 DiSCUSSion PI 2 0 3 3 204:521534 Dustier HI 274:20 Dustiness HI 27216 Dusts PI 2 1618 306:2-3 Dusty PI 21611220:25221:10227: 15238:5 Dealt PI 187:1922 239:22 Death H21 207:2.8238:17 239:20286: 22-23.25 297:4.16 298:18-19 299:14 Deaths |12| 206:20207:5208:6238: 2 241:14 268:112895 291:2022 296: 18.23297:24 D ebate HI 229:7 December Pi 185525 244:15249:18253:15254:129432 299:10 Discussions HI 277:22 Disease |13| 214:18 238:22 239:1420 25831262:11263:12 264:10 266323 267:528432295:22 Diseases in 26331 Dispute HI 243:16.19261:1320 " E .. "** . Earliest HI 23534 236:3.6.9 Early Pl 224517.19 2 2 5 5 232:16 25332 2551 257:152583130613 Effect PI 21515239:11 Effects PI 215:4.24 246:13 Effort PI 234:9 247:7 Decide HI 274:13 Dissolve HI 274:3 Efforts HI 255:13 Decision HI 227:3 Distinction HI 2 7 8 3 Eight PI 1895 23213 Decreases PI 238:89 Distribute HI 21921 Either PI 197:4 20214 25715 286:13 Defendant PI 183:843.18 Distributed HI 219:18 30815 Defendants HI i82:io Deficiencies HI 280:9 Define Pi 229:8 234:8 308:23 Defined PI 229:11288:17 Definition HI 278:2 Degree HI 2 3 9 5 Delivered H) 20011 Delzeil PI 206:17 249:3 DeMATTHEIS Pi 183:15309:3 Denoted HI 2 1 6 5 Department HI 267:21272:4 275:11 305:3 Departments P) 252:8 272:3 Deposition P5J 182:6185:1024186: Distribution HI 2 8 0 5 Distributor HI 197:161985 201:4 245:18 District HI 198:11 Divide HI 272:13 DIVISION HI 182:1 Docket HI 182:2 Doctor HI 301:21 Document HOI 1965198:1923200: 102325 202:162095 247:2 264:16 Documents H 9118735i98:i5200: 10,15.17 20132 202:2123-24 209:16 210:12 2175 219:20 221:4 231:15 251: 8 301:7.10 Done (22| 206:10.16 20932 210:3 Elasticity HI 2385 Elevated PI 235:25236:1318237:14. 1724 240:8 261:3 29931 Eleven HI 28516 Eliminate HI 2905 Eliminates hi 22719 Elizabeth PI 2 0 6 1 7 2 4 9 3 Elsewhere PI 262:8 287:16 28816 308:1214 Emphysema Hi 2 3 9 3 Employed [612031522430252:13 29815301:2131016 Employee |21290:2131014 Employees is) 2035.819 2 0 4 1 2 4 0 : 9 26019 289:25302:4 2187:4189:12191:21192:3.20194:8. 16196:7 203:1204:6 209:20 217:9 218:7 219:1024 220:16 223:13 276:25 277:6 282:14 309:6 Described HI 274:9 279:17 300:4.6 Describing 12120114 21435 Description tn i84:io 197:14.20199; 8 215:25218:19275:21 Descriptive PI 2005.19 2 6 7 :ii Designated (i) 189:15 Designation HI 199:22 Desirable HI 227:17 234:4.18 242:12 246:9 247:23 248:11. 22 249:112525 2 5 6 3 258:19 274:9-10 2873 2893 300:25 303:18 305:1 Dose PI 197:4 2933530834 Doubts PI 279:202234 DOUKAS PI 182:15183:18 Down PI 20534 221:1622532227: 24 269:6 290:16 296:18 299:13 30632 Dozen P1 257:10,18258:9 Dr |39) 190:16,1819195:17.1919731 2 0 0 3 201:1224 217:13.16 2 1 8 3 219:1. 4 248:11250:22 2585242023 259:16 Employment Pi 23432 262:8 292:10 298:7 Encouraged PI 22412.14 Encouraging Hi 2 8035 End HI 2 0 3 1 204:6 266:3.13 Ended HI 29233 Engineer HI 19912 Engineering Pi 270-.io.i8 Enhance HI 29933 Entire PI 241:11-12 Entitled HI 182:13184:11.1315-16.18 Determine |5] 210:19 22 2 3 5 224:1 233:14.16 Determines HI 232:19 Development HI 199:15 Develops HI 238:7 262:4 271:10 278:25 2 7 9 5 280:8 282: 1327 289:1623 291:1128292:6 301: 23302:221304:1923 Draftsman PI 29729 299:15-16 Draw PI 241:17 2 733 21013 Environment PI 22110 22715 290:3 Environments PI 3 0 0 1 5 2130116 EPA PI 228:1321 Epidemiologic HI 274:23 Diagnosed Hi 297:7 Drew HI 273:7 Epidemiologist HI 250:23 256:4 284: Dictate HI 233:11 Died (71190:19268:10297:7 2 9 8 5 3 4 299:3.16 Difference PI 211:8273:1127733 28732 2883 . Differences 121210:282833 Drive HI 183.3 Dropped Hi 212:13 Due HI 29734 Duly PI 185:15 310:8 DUNST p] 182:17183:17 Durable Pi 188114521516 1618 Epidemiologists HI 2 3 7 1 2 2 5 5 1 1 . 16290:7 Epidemiology HI 286:4 Episode HI 24112 Equal HI 27512 Different (1188:3,17 216:4 223:11 Duration PI 2 9 2 : 30834 Equipment Hi 199:13 268:4 274:12.18 276:20291:122953.7. During fill 1 8 7 3 1 9 6 5 22433 234: Eschelm an HI 184:5 23296:5305:16 22 251:13 256:23 270:7 282:17 2835 Eschleman PH 183:51851821193: Differently PI 237:13 2 6 3 5 280:13 296:1-2 19 214:2121735 223:5141923 226: Difficult HI 275:23 Dust 1891 215:2.7.11.15,18-19 21631 2 1 2 4 3 1 24917 254:14 2 7 1 1 2 2 7 6 1 4 ; Dimension IH 230:4 221:8 225:10 230:8 232:22 233 5 237: 21282:15 30713 30810 3091 Dimensions PI 1881112 21238:15.22 239:13.16.19 242:7-8.13 Especially Hi 2 6 2 3 Direct jsi 1 8 4 3 185:18228:8254:14 243:7-8.23 25135 252:1.34 263:24 2643,4.1112 265:2225 2663.4,1012 ESQUIRE HI 183:5.11.1520 Essentially Hi 1 8 9 3 211:7.9 2 7 9 1 264:15 Direction PI 2 2 7 3 2 8 5 :7 267:15.10.18 268:1217,19 269:10,19 22 270:11.14.16.19 271:51418-1923 Establish PI 23131279:3 Directly PI 221:18 223:7 272:6 273:2.10,1224 274:15,17 275:3 Established PI 253:7 Disagree HI 279:io 287:24-25 292:23 2933.51622295:10.. Estate PI 182:418533 Disagreed HI 262:4 13.15 306:10.1214.18.23 Estimate PI 18616258:8 Disagreement HI 260:7__________ Dust-linked HI 23 9 1 9 Estim ates HI 27017______________ VARHLEY ASSOCIATES From Correct to Estimates Estim ation HI 186:18 Etiologio [21240:11264:4 Etiology PI 263:23-24 Evaluation tsi 2 4 0 2 6 2 2 260:1032 261:1 Eventually 121256:5 277:25 Evidence P! 239:15303:11 Exact HI 211:17 Exactly |31213:3 264:11294:23 Examination 131185:18254:14 310:7 Example PI 285:17 289:7 306:6 Examples ID 216:19 Exceptions ID189:24 Excess 128) 209:5 237:22 240:12 241: 1523 242:6,13 243:24 261:3.6,24 262:2. 19 263:4.11,20.23 278:13 288:13 289: 24 293:12 295:7-8 301:16 302:20-21 303:3305:3 E xcessive PI 216:5.13 261:10,14,18. 2123 Exchange 121239:8 273:18 Exclusive ID284:4 Exclusively ID 239:22 Excuse ID 303:17 Excused |2] 254:3309:5 Exercise 12] 2 7 l:2.io Exercises ID 269:17 Exhaustive ID 275:21 Exhibit I5J 184:10196:121 0 :1 1 2 6 0 : 10264:17 Expand ID 239:5 Expansive ID 206:24 Experience ID221:17,25 223:7 259: 12 Experiment ID 189:1 Experiments ID 216:23 Expert 1131185:10217:8 223:4 22 6 : 17 244:17 255:521276:12.1618,20.23 307:12 Expires ID 310:23 Explain PI 231:17 263:417 264:7 265:10293:11 Explaining ID 199:6 Explains ID 231:9 Explanation 13] 208:24 293:14 305:10 Explore ID 223:16 Exploring ID223:1420 Exposed 1151 209:3 264:2.9 265:20 266:21293:15295:1215 299:22 301:3 302:19 305:1622 306:2.5 Exposure 162] 203:17.22207:7 215: 13-14 216:35.1314 221:7-8 237:23 239: 16 241:1624 242:13 243:78.2022-23 251:3,1724-25 257:25 262:7 264:11 265:1417.25 266:2.4.7,1113 267:15 268:1620269:10 274:23 277:18287: 24-25 292:23 293:1522 296:19 297:18 298:1013.18299:18 303:923 304:1 305:19308:24 Exposures |13| 206:4.6-7 25920287: 12-13 291:3 292:19 303:13 305:20 306: 7.1012 Express ID 279:21 Expressed (21 261:25 262:1 Expressing P ! 282:2 Extensive ID 291:18 Extensively ID 231:13 Extent PI 2 2 2 5 226:16 230:6 251:10 271:8 276:17 279:6 Extract ID 200:2 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 Eyes ID 27516 25265:1 Following PI 209:6 296:16 F a ce PI 225:2224 273:23 Facilities ID 224:7 Facility PI 258:25259:3.5 Fact PI 198:314 210:2 219:21242:10 243:10253:18263:25 Factor ID 303:14 Factors PI 262:616 F a c ts 14) 223:151620276:25 Failure PI 238:17-1825426 Fair PI 228:3 242:25 265:4 288:10 Fairly PI 200:6 216:17 Familiar 19] 187:10 218:25219:3 22a 2 260:12,14 300:10 306:24 307:1 Fancier ID 273:14 Far PI 267:13284:13 F a t ID 188:16 FD PI 197:14 201:2 , Federal [4] 2281.523285:17 Fellow ID 298:20 Felt POi 206:8 210:17 231:4 236:21 2425-10 253:3 254:19 255:16 259:17. 20-2125 280:9,13 281:1925 282:1292: 12-13 Few 14] 186:1205:16 257:9 258:3 Fewer PI 284:19 296:12 Fiber lio) 184.-17196:25 20927 210: 1246:14.17 265:2 267:10 273:21 Fibers HD 188:12-14.16189:32023 274:5.18 Fibrosis 4] 238:523239:7.15 Fibrotic ID 238:7 Fibrous ID 246:13 Figure |3| 268:810 291:20 File (ID 184:11.13.15-16.18185:1187: 6196:2 210:8 245:17 267:23 Files PI 187:4 195:23210:17 278:1 291:17-18 Filler ID 213:18 Filter 121225:24 273:23 Filters PI 225:4.6.12273:625 Follows PI 185:16254:12 264:24 Foot Pi 272:115.1922 273:1275:610 Force ID302:19 Foregoing ID 310:9 Forenoon ID 1 8 2 2 0 Form PI 235:21247:20 248:918 281:5 Formal ID 263:9 Formation ID 2 7 6 2 2 Formed Hi 25624 Former ID 2 0 1 5 Forming Pi 241:4 242:1523 244:23 245:1249:821283:20 Form s Pi 2 5 0 2 1 305-16 Formula ID 275:is Formulating ID 242:24 Forth PI 259:829124 Four PI 185:1211:12289:9 Fourth HI 29920 Fragm ent ID 301:4 Fragm ents HD 219:9 230:3 241:22 277:1115.1824 278:8.10.15.21 Fram e HI 25624 Free HI 280:4 Frequency ID 28422 Front 141 201:8 217:20 220:18 294:20 Full (61220:24 221:15235:16292:19 294:11296:17 Function ID 238:25 239:9 Fund PI 24624 247:8-9 Funded PI 247:23 248:1724 249:313 Funding HI 246:23 Future ID 253:12 Gamble P7I 24823 2 4 9 -1 1 2 2 2 4 -2 5 250:91422 252:13 256:3.7,23 257:624 258:62023 259:16 262:4 263:7 264:18 269:7.13 271:10.15 276:31522 27825 279:6280:3 281:14 282:13,17 283:7 292:616 Gamble's PI 258:14 263:19 265:7 Final PI 249:1285:10 305:25 Finally PI 209:14 254:19 Financially ID 3 1 0 2 ? Findings Pi 242:16 261:8 282:23 288 10-11 Fine PI 243:8-9 Finger ID 235:8 Firm ID 1 8 5 2 2 First 115] 185:8187:1.3.6 203:1318 220:24 2 3 6 2 5 241:25 247:14 264:23 28322298:17 302:5 Fishy ID 26623 Fit 141226:9.12 227:19 307:11 Fits ID 263:23 Five (121196:16 205:25211:12212:9 214:7-8 234:13 237:6.9 268:6 297:12.15 Five-year ID 20525 Flexible ID 239:6 Florham ID 183:15 Folder p si 184:11,13!5-16.18187:10 191:15 202:1720-21209:14-1517-1821 210:8.11-1214 232:16 244:9 255:8 301: 10302:1417 Folders P)i8S:l2l7:4 Folks 14] 259:11260:6 277:22 278:24 Follow PI 184:15185:7 2 0 2 2 2 264: GANNON ID 183:13 Gaps HI 265:1 Gauge ID 265:16 Gauging Hi 241:13 Gel ID 1 8 8 2 General P i 258:8 284:19 30323304: 1306:22 Generalized ID 205:9 Generally (4) 265:19 282:25 286:5 300:11 Generally-recognized ID 300.-u Generic P) 19924-25 230:5 Genericaliy PI 304:ioi2 GEORGIA ID 182:7 Georgia-Pacific HI 1B3:8 Gerald P) 21713.16 Gillespie PI 182:8 183:14 2191418 Given HI 199:23 Glazes ID 2 2 0 1 Glazing Hi 27526 Glenn HI 2 8 0 :6.8 2 8 1 :8 2 S Gold HI 301:1 Gouverneur HI I 9 8 i i Grade PI 201:6 21028.2023 211:6 213:3 ____________ VARHLEY ASSOCIATES Index Page 4 Grades HI 2 1 2 2 1 1 8 2 3 213:6 Grant ID 26325 Gravimetric Pi 2 7 3 2 275:823 Great ID 23127 Greater ID 21310 GRIMBERGEN P9] 18320185:5 214:20 21625 217:24 218:12202529 222:922 223:3.10.172122626 229:3 242:22 244:14 247:20 248:9.18 250:15 270:21271:8.13 276:9.17 277:3 281:5. 9.16 282:11294:21299:8 3072029 308:8.11309:2 Group H6| 205:17 2062-2 2 6 1 2 1 .2 0 267:3 284:2023 285:5.24-25 287:15 290:19 29225 299:2224 Groups PI 285:22 287:19 301:2 Grovers ID 183:4 Growth ID 277:24 Grunerite Pi 30029301:5 Guess P I 223:25 231:21233:13 243: 2 248:2 28321 289:2 308:15 Guy ID 265:18 Guys 121245:24 H Half Pi 236:224 2573.18 258:8 266: 22-23 Hamill Pi 18323 219:1427 HAMMILL ID 182:8 H am sters ID 19625 Happy PI 22720-11277:8 Hard PI 238:3 2 6 6 2 0 Hardhat ID 22529 Hartford P) 210:3224:5.21 Harvey Hi 198:241 9 9 3 2 0 0:22 2 0 1 : 19 Hazard Pi 2 4 0 2 5 3 1 2 6 0 2 0 2 2 2 6 1 2 Head ID 2892 Health P7J 204:25 215:24 2212725 223:62282020240:15212602022. 25 267:20 272:3 30226 305:3 Heard PI 235:421236:20 277:21279: 12 283:9297:13298:22 Heart PI 2382127-18 Held PI 1 8 2 2 6 24425249-28253:16 2542 294:22 Hello HI 185:20 Help ID 285.12 Helps HI 235:21 Hereby ID 310-.6 Herself ID 193P1 HHE HI 24029-2023256:18 High PI 189:3196:25 221:8.10 265:24 2662 27025 High-fiber ID 196:25 Higher PI 189:22 233:7 27020284: 21293:6306:15 Highly PI 2302722 Highly-regarded Pi 2302722 Highway ID 18524 Himself HI 29129 Hindsight PI 2 8 0 :1 8 2 2 HirSCh PI 182:4 18523 21720218:3 21922.24 220:7 221:2 HirsCh'S PI 218:7 235:22 Historic (D 268:1 Historical PI 2102526722 Historically ID 266:ll Histories Hi 251:8 254:17 28623 292:20 From Estimation to Histories J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 Index Page 5 History HI 184:19 210:13 265:1299: 17 HOAGIAND 121182:17 183:17 HOLLY 13] 182:14 310:4.22 Home Hi 190:21 H om estate 12) 3014.14 Honda HI 206-J.9.22 249:2 29 5 :1 297: 2 Individual 18! 21220-11213:62022 239:18250:9299:6 individual's in 298:5 individuals P) 208:8 2 7 0 : Industrial in 211:6 Industrial-grade in 211:6 Industry PI 259:7 278:20 Inert H i 216H8 264:18 JOHNSON 131182:14 310:4.22 Joined HI 223:2 224:2 225:13 227:9 252:25253:17 255:2 Joint HI 247:7 Jr PI 182:7 184:4 Justify HI 279:8 _ - Less [101189:4 212:17 213:5215:10. 266:22 285:8 290:3.14 295:15 Letter PU 191:15192:8.12.14,1822, 25193:17194:19195:174.9 201:17-18 258:2 264:17492124 276:2 279:15 281: Lettering HI 2 1 8 : Letters Hi 195:4 Letting Hi 186:8 Honestly I2i 279:721 Horrendous |2] 266:14 268:13 Hourly Hi 270:3 Huge IT'S278:22 293:22 294:8.12 300: 23-24 Human 111235:17 Humidity HI 275:14 Hygiene HI 258:18 Hypothesis HI I 8 8 :ii i Idea Hi 274:16 Identical 1212 ii:4 .is Identification |S1184:10185:3199: 20 210:921 Identified HI 193:56 218:8 244:16 254:16 Identifies HI 190-.11193:12194:20 Inference HI 2 8 3 : Influenced in 2 8 3 : Information P ") 192.231 9 5 : 206: 24 231:9 243:7-8 250:21252:7 256:22 258:4.6 265:6,11267:12.14 269:84042, 271 276:1.25 281:13 282:3 Infrequently HI 234:3 Injected HI 188:20 Injection P i 1 8 7:221 9 6 : Injuries Hi 216:7 Injury 121216:4.9 Inside Hi 292:lO Instance HI 2 8 8 : Instead HI 273.-3.24 292:25 Institute Hi 187:17 Instruct in 277:3 Instructions H) 186:1 K .C . HI 198:25 Keep H I 250:3 KELLY U ll 8 3 :ll Kelse HI 2 :7 184:4 1 8 5 :9 . 214:9 257:23 264:15 Kelse-23 H I 1 8 4 : 185:2187:7 Kelse-24 PI 1 8 4 : 196:1 Kelse-25 PI 184-. 202:20 Kelse-26 13] 1 8 4 : 185:2 209:15 Kelse-27 H I 184:18 2 1 0 :9 . Kind (21276:18 291:24 Kleinfeld p oj 1 8 4 : 202:22 203:2.6 204:1.8-10.24 205:4-5,14 207:10 208:8 9.18-19.25 209:6 290:11 Kleinfeld's HI 2 0 7 : Kleinfeld-Follow-up PI 184:15202-. 22 Level HI 197:4 212:1245 221:7-8 270: 20 2 7 5 : Leveled PI 286:15 Levels HOI 197:1212:14 265:22 268: 17270:1144 295:1044 306:1420 LEW ill 183:3 License 121 310:23-24 Likely Hi 188:14 2 4 1 2 3 260:4 285:9 299:23 Link HI 239:14 268-42 279:3 293:14 Linked PI 206:6-7 239:19 List U) 255:21 Listed Pi 189:14 203:14 250:2 Literally HI 2 7 2 : LLP HI 182:18 Located Hi 2 0 2 : Logical HI 2 9 3 : 197:23202:18 Insurance Hi I8 4 :i7 2 0 9 : 210H KLUGER HI 1 8 3 : Long-term PI 270:2 2 9 3 : Identify 13| 193:16195-.16198:2 252:4 26732271:6 Knowledge HI 2 05:l 209:24 2 2 6 : Longest PI 267:4 275:5 Identifying Hi I 9 i :i II 11] 182:8 Im pact HI 285:2 Impacted 12) 222:1278:18 intended in 276:3 Intense HI 285-. Interested Pi 207:4 3 1 0 : Interfere HI 285:9 229:10.15 251:23 307:23 308:21 Known Hi 1 9 7 : 202:10 219:10 224: 225:15 251:2 271:24 300:18 301:4 Knows HI 223:10 226:16278:3 LONGO PI 1 8 2 : 183:17 Look H9| 191:14 211:23 214:25 252: 23 2 5 8 : 268:21274: 277:23 279:1 284:8 285:14 286:19 287:14 289:23 im pacts HI 241:20 Implantation 111 187:24 Implanted HI i87:2s Important HI 242-.1268:15292:5 293:24 Improved (21222:16272:24 Improvements Hi 270:8 Inadequacy Hi 279:18 inadequate Hi 281:20 Inappropriate H! 282:io Inc HI 182:7-9183:19 Include H] 207:21208:19 236:4.9 280:3,7 287:5 288:1924 290:2 Included ! 1 191:15 203:6,23 204:1. 1121207:1223 208:7.9.21295:18 301: 6,9 302:12 304:6 307:1416 Includes U) 297:3 Including HI 228:9 262:9 263:7-8 278:: 25290:11.13.17 291:4 Inclusion 121203:9-10 Incomplete Hi 192:24 Inconsistencies in 254-21 Independent HI 26925270:16 Independently U) 269:22 Indicate hoj 1 9 5 : 197:6 21 0 2 2 215:2022220:17221:1722725229: 25 230:16 232:2 234:6 235:1524 236: 12244:124523 25622279:1529125 internal 1! 198:22199: 200: 260:7 282:18.2024 283:6 292:6.16 International 1) 201:5 2 0 7 : ,23 208:1,14 288:20 289:6 290:22 291:4 307:152123 Interpret HI 208:25 Interstitial PI 2 3 8 :2 3 2 3 9 . Intervals Hi 2 06:i Intimately HI 307:i Intoxicant HI 186:22 Inverse HI 293:25 Investigated m 216:1 Investigation Hi 2 4 1 :7 . 282:1821. 24 296:8 Investigators 1312 5 8 : 259:2224 Involved HU 188:2196:16 203:8 205: 112 2 6 : 227:3 251:11253:23 2 8 3 : 2 9 6 :8 3 1 0 : Involvement P i 247:17 2 5 0 : Issue 1131189H71 9 0 : 227:20 238: 20 242:6 264:6 278:22 282:25 287:14 288:23292:8-9 293:3 Issued HI 236:6 2 4 0 : 2 7 6 : Issues HI 219:8 242:3 252:23-24 266: 9 274:25 279:5 287:9 292:17 Item HI 206:9 Itself ( 1 194:24195:3198:9 202:21 240:7 242:11243:17 247:2 249:13 254: KNIGSBERG HI 183:3 KOWALENKO 131182:15310:4.22 ' L ' .. L.L.P. PI 1 8 3 :3 . Lab HI 246:22 Label Hi 2 1 3 : Labeled Hi 202.22 Laboratory (211 9 9 : 201:20 Lack HI 209:7 Lakind HI 185:22 Lamm 11 2 4 8 :5 .8 . . 289:14.1623 291:11.18292:- Lapses HI 244:3.18260:1 Large HI 2 3 3 : Larger HI 284:8 285:5 294:13.15.23 24 295:6 L ast l ] 1 8 9 : 191:21192:3.20 194: 16196:6 203:1209:20 213:7 222:19 227:24 233:22.25 234:9 292:22 302:4 Late 121 232:16 2 5 7 : Latency HI 206:3 298:6 303:5 L atest HI 249:5 LAW HI 182:1 Lawrence PI 305:7 Lawrenceville HI 183:5 Lay HI 208:22 Lead 131186:22 256:4 282:17 290:24-25 294:18.24 295:1 Looked H311 9 3 :1 0 2 0 4 :2 3 2 0 5 : , 206:12 207:1235:17 268:21277:20 280:2. 289:16 292:18 Looking HI 2 0 0 : 210:24 220:23 235:20 302:6 LoomiS PI 306:25307:5.8 Lost HI 297:22 Low HI 270:15 Lower HI 215:14 233:8 284:19 293:7 Luncheon HI 254:4 Lung 1831205:1425 206:2.6,2025 207: 5.11. 214:14 216:4.7,114424 235:25 238:5-8 240:12 241:14-1523 242:6.14 243:24 259:19 261:3.6.1044482124 262:240 263:4412023 264:1.5.7.13 266:20 268:19 2 7 8 : 285:15. 287: 18288:13289:2125292:11293:2.442 294:5 295:7-8.14 Lungs P i 239:5 301:22 302:3 Lungs' HI 216:21 Lying ill 306:9 M Maimon PI 185:2S 196:6 Main HI 238-20 Major PI 277:9 281:21 Majority HI 257:2 Malignant HI 2 1 4 : - 2 3 7 . 239: 296:16 2 9 9 2 1 3 0 0 : 302:7.18 303:10 30 4 :1 . 305:15 Indicated HI 19023 i 9 3 2 0 2 l 8 .i i 219:.24 249:1924 Indicates HI 198:20207:3 264:24 299:14.16 Indicating 12) 2 1 9 2 1 2 2 9 : Indication Hi 19424 2 0 0 2 202:1 238:22239:10 Indicator PI 2 3 9 : 272-.16 274:19 22 257:20 279:15 296:10 J ... January HI 2 6 4 : Jefferson HI 305:6 Jersey HI 182:1.16. 183:5.10,15.20 310:622 Jo b PI 214:24 268:8-9 269:2.21270:3 Jo b s Pi 268:4-6 269:2,9.11293:19 John IS) 182:7184:4 248:23 250:14__ Learned HI 2 4 i : . .i s .i 9 242:i Least I ) 2 0 8 : - 216:2 229:24 2 5 7 :9 . 258:8 264:2.9 266:21268:15 2 7 4 : 276:2 289:22 292:20 295:12 Leeds HI 301: Left PI 223:19272:8 Length HI 308:25 Lengths HI 231.17 Lesions H i 238:7 _____________ 258:21262:10 264:9 295:21 March HI 200:14 Marked l l 185:2 187:4.7 1 9 6 :1 202: 19 209:15 210:9-10 217:6 244:10 255:8 260:9 301:7 302:15 MARKS HI 183:7 Maryland Hi 1 9 0 : Masks Pi 225:10. Match HI 268:3 ___________ VARHLEY ASSOCIATES From History to Match J. Kelse - Volume li - 4/12/2005 Index Page 6 M atched [21 266:15 269:24 Material im 21026.24 21129212:3 213:14 215:2022 220:8 228:2,25 229:9. 11231:12 280:5 301:3 305:23 306:4 M aterials 121233:12 278:21 Math Hi 203:24 M atter 4) 182:14 290:17 293:4 297: 14 M atters HI 255:5 McGIVNEY Hi 183:13 M ean |BJ 211:16 222:3 223:6 265:16 266:21271:18 276:24 288:10 M eaning (21 24524 286:22 M eans 14) 216:11262:24-25263:5 M eant HI 269:19 M easure 13) 233:11265:22 274:4 M easured HI 18829 M edical HI 303:1 M edications H) 186:21 M eet HI 230:4 M eetings H) 257:23 M em o H) 200:18 Men HI 295:18 Mention HI 198:9 Mentioned 13) 192:2283:22305:5 M entions HI 262.9 Merle Hi 187:17 M esothelioma (ISI 295:1823297:4. 7.24 298:9.11299:24 303:6.14 304:2,11. 16.25 305:4 Met 13) 203:18 205:1821 M eter PI 273:2.13 275:13 M ethods Hi 274:8 M icrom eter HI 189:4 M icrometers Pi 189:5 273:16 Microscope PI 272:10273:5274:4 Mid 15) 224:13225:11.13226:3 298:25 M ID -L-2706-03 HI 182:2 MIDDLESEX HI 182:1 Midst HI 281:22 308:7 iNIOSH'S PI 230:2.10 241:7 2 5 6 2 1 Minimum HI 20322 Mining PI 202:4 259:742 27820 300: 1521301:1446 Minnesota PI 30025301:12.18 Minute HI 296:16 Miss |2) 29122-23 Mix HI 231:8 Mixed |2| 303:1220 Mixing Hi 22025 Moderate Ml 236202325237:4 Moderately Pi 23525 236:1347 Monitoring Pi 184:17 209:17 224:4 Months 16) 293:20 297:12.15 298:22 23 299:3 MORAN 12) 1822718327 Morgantown HOI 25729 25826-17. 24-25 2 5 9:35,11212832 Morning HI 18529 Mortality psi 206:102 3 8 2 2 1 2 4 3 :9 2472324824225249:5 250:24 251:2 2522725626258:748265:12283:19. 22 284:3 286:4,18 28921290:6 29120 292 2 294:2 2962-2.2024 2972127.23 304:25308:22 Moshe Hi 185:24 Mossman HI 246:io Most 121] 189:6190:24 20028 206:2. 12 2112 22228 225:4 23221267:5 27420,14275:4 289:21290:7 292:2 295:12297:230024 Mostly 121 259241 Motion tu 282:12 Moved Pi 22524 268:7 272:25 Moving HI 227:8 MSDS P) 1 8 4 2921023 212:7 21320. 1722 214:24 2152 MSHA H31228:1049 232:2,849 233: 1446-17 234:621.23 252:2 267:20 M ust HI 293:15 263:9 284:9 Non (18) 214:17-18 228:24 237:15 239: 19 243:20 258:20 26 2 2 0 263:1221 264:9 293:3.6 2 9 5 2 521296:2 30023. 19 Non-asbestiform PI 300:1329 Non-asbestos Hi 243:20 Non-Cancer Hi 296:2 Non-cases Pi 293:3,6 29525 Non-malignant (7121427-is 2 3 7 2 s 2392926220 264:9 295:21 Non-regulatory HI 228:24 Non-respiratory PI 2632221 None PI 190:225029 Nonetheless HI 256:21 NORA HI 183:20 North PI 183:9 205:9 301:244,18 Notary Ml 18226310:522-23 Notation PI 195:720 Note PI 192:22 223:21277:4 Noted Hi 205:24 Notes PI 182:13 209:8 Nothing P ) 243:4 309:2-3 Notice |511 8 5 2 0 1 9 5 :2 2 1 2 2 2 2 0 2 6 277:6 Noticed HI 208:5 November Hi 201 2 3 Number H91188:2218921952120 199:25 207:3 212:9 213:621219:4 255:13 27520 285:8,10 2 8 6 2 291:4.21 294:8.12 Numbers H0| 197:24 2 8 4 2 0 2 2 288: 4.7 294:19 295:5.20.22 296:5 Numerous Ml 2 0 2 2 1 2 0 9 2 6 2 1 0 :1 2 23125 NYTAL 26) 18429191:5197:13,17 201:7 210234720 21124,1620 218:8. 1246 21928.22 NYTAL'S HI 212:8 N 0 Oldest HI 2 1 1 2 On-site HI 246:12 Once PI 257:2027827 One |63| 190:7191:6.8 20220.15 203: 14 204:17-18 205:842-13 206 2 2 208: 18 209:2 211:23 212:25 237:3 242:3.5 248:4-5 249:1.20 252:6.9 2 5 8 2 6 259: 17 2 6 5 2 32720 266:947 268:7 26927 274:7-8.14 275:345 27722 282:22 283: 15 285:7.16 28 7 2 1 288:22-23 292:35 29321295:2029621.25 2972.1023 2 9 8 2 300:24 301:1248 One-page HI 209:2 Ones PI 212202592129423 Open PI 20220273:23 Opened H! 20327 Operated HI 307:3 Operating Hi 20427 Operation PI 307:2530827 Operations Hi 25923 Opinion 130) 211:2 214204345-16.22 21920 227:6 22924 235:21241:4.8 2422523-24 2 452 249:21255:13262: 22 263:19 276:12,16.23 277:2 28024 282:2 283:321300:3 308:23 Opinions PI 221 2 2 249:8 25524 Opposed PI 213:23 2 5 0 2 0 259:3.23 265:25 Opposite Pi 243:2126421268:21 Order Pi 205:3 267:744 Ore PI 202:4 308:18 Origin 17118725190:231912 200:24 2012-2.15 Original poi 2 0 2 2 2 2 0 3 2 204:25 253:3.9 2 5 8 2 0 25924,18 260:5,22 266: 18 267:24 279:7 28020 28120285:14 289:19 294:7 29620 298:2 Originally PI 20424 297:13 OSHA114] 219:5 228:1321230:13 276:4 277202125 279:1622 2802-2 282:7 28528 Otherwise PI 2 3 1 2 8 2 8 2 2 Outcome Hi 31027 Might H5i 213:1213 235:9 238:2 247: 6 270:10 279:11284:9 287:23-24 290:4 291:3 305:9 Mill HO] 183:4 268:5 269:4 270:5.7 306:5,15,19.21308:18 Milled (4) 211:6305:23308:15-16 Millers (9) 227:21250:25261:1117 295:10 305:15.1721306:11 Milligrams Pi 273:242275:12 Million HI 271:25272:21275:6.10 Million-particles-per-cubio-foot Hi 275:6 Millions 121272:14.18 Mine H81 200:2202:1.1042 203:17 208:1044 211:6 228:920 240:16 257: 20 270:11272:1306:1.48 Mined 12] 308:1244 M ineral P2|199:14 2115,1023-14.17 213:18 215:2.74819 230:84722 231:8. 11237:21239:16 277:22 300:18 305: 20306:2 Mineralogist HI 190:17 Mineralogy Hi 19027 Minerals PI 228:11300:i446 Miners HU 227:21250:24 261:1146 262:3 295:9 300:25 301:2 305:1547 306:10 Mines 1101202:10 224:20 228:9 233: 18 259:6 274:10 291:5 305:8 306:20 Name pai i s s a i 18925191:6.8193: 7 198:56199:24 20727 258:14 301:22 Named Hi 1912 Nam es 121191:4 211:8 O'BRIEN HI 1 8 3 2 O'NEILL HI 183:7 Oath HI 18526 Objection PI 220 2 5 223:22-23 247: National 2 )1 8 7 2 7 Nature PI 2102 2332 23522 20 248:9.18 277:4 281:5.9 Observed PI 209:524022243:24 Necessarily HI 27425 Need PI 2 5 1 5 275:22 Needed |7| 22724 242:20 2 5 3 2 259: 20 2602 28021 Nested Ml 24822 255:6.13.24 262:1826321 Obstructive PI 239212 Obtained PI 198:4 2 002 Obtaining Hi 23 5 2 2 Obtains PI 232.5234:7 Never P) 19424 20523 28222 Obviously PI 186 :2 1 9 2 2 8 226:6 241; New 122118222648-19 183:54045. 20 211:7 257:20 272:3 2752 1 2 8 4 2 4 304:1345233052-2.4 310:6.22 Newer Hi 20428 Next PI 20223 275:8 30022 Nicholas Pi 18325 3052 Nine 1212852548 NIOSH 1721 229:740.152025 236:541. 13 23921240:1525 24122 242:3.11. 16 244:4.19 247:14 248:23 24925 250: 6.10 252:1434721-22 25521462024 256:9.1723 25820-11259:1448 260:8. 104623 264:6 26627-18 267:23 269:3 271212782425280:9104228124, 20 282:18 28326 2852425 286:1521 , 287:3 288:5 289:20 29026 29129 294: 7.16 296:725298:2.5________________ 15260:20305:21 Occasional HI 23 5 2 2 Occasionally Ml 232:4 234:7-8 2 3 5 2 O ccasions HI 257:8 Occupational Hi 2622 Occurred PI 206:4 29727 Off-the-shelf Pi i9 6 :is 19720 Offer H! 30 5 2 0 Offhand HI 23524 Office P )259:9 2832 Offices H! 18227 Official P i 25621-12 Often Ml 232:8.11233:12 28321 Old PI 2 7 2 2 273:25 275:5 Older HI 206:2 _______ VARHLEY ASSOCIATES Outside PI 28223292:9.19 Overall P ) 243:7 251:25 270:14 295: 13306:1223 Overdid Hi 2 6 7 2 Overexposure PI 2152 237:21238: 15 Overload PI 2162924 Overloading HI 216:20 Overwhelm HI 216:20 Overwhelmed HI 29326 Own PI 20 6 2 0 2472.4 252:4 267:25 Oxygen HI 238:9 P P.C. PI 183:7.13 PACIFIC HI 182:7 Packaged PI 21827.2022 Packed Hi 269:4 P ag e |7] 209:2 220:23 2 2 1 2 6 227:25 23525299:21300:12 Paid 121205:1324523 Paint HI 213:9 Paper PI 200:6 21725 243:15 273:6 305:9 Paragraph Hi 2 0 1 2 7 220:24 2 212s 227:24 235:1629627 Parallel HI 27524 Parenthesis HI 303 2 2 ___________ From Matched to Parenthesis Park Hi 183:9.15 Part tlS) 203:4 226:17 247:7.9 255:14 258:12 264:6 266:16.24 271:20 279:23 282:20 294:5 295:21305:2 Participated PI 219:4-5 258:15 Participation Il 245:7.9.16246:2.15 248:7 Particle PI 211.-9 216:19 271:24 272: 25 Particles U11884924 217:3 272:1. 8.11.15,18.21273:1.16-17 274:2 275:6 305:24 306:17 Particular PI 199:22 200:11223:12 229:8 271:10J 5 285:23 299:6 Parties tn 3i0:is Parts HI 275:10 P a st 131 221:18235:4.7 Paterson 12| 182:18183:19 Patterns HI 248:15 Pay HI 260:4 Paying |31 212:14 245:15277:16 Pennsauken HI i83:io People |44] 205:17 206:1207:6,13 212:13.18 213:2 231:10 238:16 251:18 252:7 261:18264:1-2.8 266:19.21-22,25 267:4 268:4.7.10,1819 277:16 279:20 280:12 282:7 284:20 285:1,8 286:11 287:1.1516 288:1415 289:22 290:16 291:2 293:12 294:10 295:11 People's 111 221:11 Per 1121 197:2 272:1.15.1822 273:1-2. 13 274:5 275:6.10.12 Percent I9| 212:17.23 213:5.11.16 277: 14 293:7 302:1921 Perfectly 121243:8-9 Perhaps HI 2 5 7 4 " Period H7) 203:25206:21222:10 232: 14 233:2 239:25 248:14 257:11.14 261: 7.19 270:12 282:17 283:8 293:13 296:1 303:6 Periodically Hi 232:3.9 Periods HI 2 5 i:ia Persisted HI 261:7 Person IS] 212:5 238:22 265:19-2023 270:5 297:6.8 Personal Hi 257:523 Personally Hi 224:24 Personnel Hi 251:7.19 Pertinent HI 210:1720 PETER HI 182:4 PHILLIPS HI 183:3 Pick HI 233:1 Picked HI 275:3 Pit HI 202:10-11 Place HI 241:25310:12 Plaintiff HI 182 5 1 8 3 :3 Plaintiffs HI 196:1210:11264:15 Plaintiffs H) 185:23 Plastic HI 225:21273:7 Platy HI 190:6 Play HI 219:7 265:8 Plead HI 279:17 Pleura HI 1975 Pleural HI 188:21216:7 Pius HI 197:20 PM (1) 309:7 Pneumo Hi 238:4 Pneum oconioses HI 238:15 Pneumoconiosis HI 215:4 216:10 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 237:20238:240 Point 112) 190:10191:8192:6201:11 220:22 233:2 254:4 259:22 266:3 282: 11294:25296:14 Pointing HI 290:2 Points HI 266:14 Policy H) 2305 Poo! HI 285:1 Proper Hi 186:12 2 2 0 5 275:23 303:15 Properly Hi 22220226:12 241:25 262:21283:1291:22 Properties Hi 20722 Property Hi 297:19.21307:7 Proportion HI 189:322 Proposal HI 2 7 8 5 Proposed PI 278:4 279:16 Poor HI 1 915 Population H212372,1025323 277: 19 283:16 284:64324 285:12 291:12 294:3 295:6 Portion |4| 258:19,21259:19 Proposing HI 282:9 Protection H21 22043221:1.6.9222: 15 223:1224:2.1225225:3 226:7 227: 14 Protective Hi 222-2 Portions HI 296:4 Protectors Hi 226:11 Position (7| 230:24143 255:1263:9. Provide PI 247:24 25020269:16 14 2825 Provided H8| 187:3 200:3 201:19 Positive Hi 225:16227:19 Possession Hi 1 9 4 2 0 195:19 Possibilities 111262:13 Possible HI 262:6 285:12 Possibly HI 208:19 Poster HI 277:16 278:17 Potential Hi 299:23 Pottecy HI 220:1 21120 231545 245:20 2464749 251: 152225622 26541269:7.1227140 276:2304:7 Providing 111 265:7 Public (4| 18246310:522-23 Published ( 1 2044220520206:13. 1822 22946 247:16248:525 249:225 250:35.8 25640 277:25278:4 286:20 Publishing 121250:1447 Precede HJ 2 0 8 5 Preceded HI 29443 Pulaski HI 18544 Pull HI 244:9.1226748272:5 Predated HI 2 0 6 5 Predecessor HJ 307::?.24 Pulled PI 204:7 2 2 5 2 3 2 7 2 4 2 Pulmonary HI 209:5 215:3 23824 Predecessors HI 307:18 Predict Hi 306:16 239530146 Purchased PI 201.6 20722 289:6 Predominantly Hi 2 l 2 :i i 225:7 238: Purchasers Hi 21347 18259:9 300:18 Prefilters HI 273:is Purchasing Hi 226:5 Pure Pi 196:20 24522 Preliminary HI 206:14.19.23 Purpose 121188:10287:8 Prem ature Hi 282:9 Purposes HI 2 7422 Premise HI 223:is Preparation (21199547 Prepared (311995 20120 20941 Present Hi 221:18300:15 Pressure Hi 225:16 227:19 Pretty (7] 202:13 204:5 214:24 215:24 Pursuant HI 18540 Put 1151185-.6-7195:14201:2320446 213:6 235:8 240:13 2 6 8 2 270:25 272: 9.102742-3 28621 Puts Hi 238:11 Putting 12] 213:9 290:4____________ 285:19291:14 294:1 Prevalence HI 299:22 Previously (2) 226:8 254:11 Preweighed HI 273:8 Principal in 24041 Problem HI 243:2.2225 2 7 l:2 i 277:7 282:2284:12285:21 Problems (41237:1548279:2 283:15 Proceedings Hi 182:13 __________ Q__________ Qualified in 25545 Quantified 12126247 27149 Quantify (4) 221:13 257:17 258:5 271: 19 Quarter Hi 1894 Quartz H21 2124143-1521*22 213:1.4, 7404924 Question's Hi 233:13 P rocess HI 220:25 226:19 251:3.14 Questioning ID 266:5 Processed HI 305:22 Produce HI 1 8 8:151895 190:1202: 23 205:3 215:10 216:17 237:22 25114 Produced 123) 185:941188:22 189:1 190:35.7 191:1192:19193:19196:5 197:1.4 2014.6 202:25 204:26 205:2 206:19 209:18.21210:6-7 Producing HI 215:3 product [191196:18197.2.10198:56 201:4 202:18 210:18.20-22 212:5-7 213: 12.18-19 245:18 305:25 Questionnaire Hi 2 7 0 2 Questions Hn 186:2318745192:19 196:6 214:20 2 244122749 24220-21 28949 Quicker Hi 270:22 Quite 14) 23 2 4 3 257:9 258:3 301:3 R ... R.T. PI 182:818348 209:4 Race! PI 225:15 Radiographic in 23944 Product's Hi 218:20 Radiographs in 302:6 Products (41 212:14.1621219:7 Raise HI 28823 Professor HI 190:17 Raised Hi 2 52 2 4 28920 Prohibit Hi 279:16.19 Ran Hi 2672 Proliferative Hi 246:13 Range Hi 23646 Prolonged HI 216:343 R ate PI 20524 261:4 295:8________ VARHLEY ASSOCIATES Index Page 7 R ates Hi 304:25305:4 Rather Hi 2424 Rationale PI 300:4.7.9 Rats Hi 188:721 Rays in 3022 Read 1131 200:7 217:9.12 218:4 240: 2325 246:6 2604620 262:21263:22 28840300:5 Reading (Z| 2 2122 228:3 232:6 265: 4 296:2129925303:15 Reaffirmed in 261:8 Real P1278:8 279:2,4 Realize Hi 2 ? 6 2 i Really HI 205:13206:7 21425246:7 27548 279:3 28520 286:3 2904 Reason Hi 186:4190:15 205:4 206:8 212:12 214:3 Reasonableness HI 22149223:8 Reasons PJ 20543 209:6 288:5 Received H) 1852210:9 Recent Hi 206:12 2 1 1 4 2 3 2 4 1 2 9 2 2 297240 R ecess PI 22022 254:4 29644 Recognize Hi 1 9 2 4 1 2 3 0 2 1 2 6 4 2 1 2812 Recognized HI 30041 Recognizing Hi 26242 Recollect HI 247:3 Recollection Hi 210:4 221H 23321 247:1.4 296:6 Recommend in 2212 Record HU 185:5-7 244:14-15249:17 18253:152544 2912229421-22 Recording Hi 289:4 Records (Ml 19049193:6.1144-15 194220 21045 251:749 26747-18 286:232914 Refer p i 228:15236:20 Reference in 28425 302:5 Referenced H) 29746 References in 20021299:6 Referred Hi 194:12225:9 2 404049 27125 Referring HU 192:14-15 2 2 1 4 228:6 2 3 5 4 244:8 24922 2 6 9 4 296:15 300: 16301:17 Refers Pi 193:219947 271:9 Reflecl Hi 2112-3 212:44130146 Reflected Hi 27123 Regard HI 2 1 8 2 282:13 Regarded Hi 23047.22 Regarding H611942 2 0 2 4 2274 235:1221240:16 255:19 256:18 258.-6 2652 269:8 282:5 2834 303:20 304: 1523 Regards Hi 2 6 1 4 Region HI 27348 Regions in 291:6 Regret HI 271:3 Regulate PI 2284127 7 4 1 2 7 8 4 0 Regulated HI 230:4 Regulating in 278:3 Regulation Hi 27 8 4 8 279:8.17 281: 21 Regulatory Hi 2284.6.8.1824 267:19 Related PI 252:16 26941 31045 Relation in 19445 Relationship Pi 2094 259:6 Relative in 254:23 31044 From Park to Relative J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 Relevance Pi 28i:io River HI 183:9 Relevant IH 277:2 Road 131183:444 29046 Reliability 13| 269:18 270:20 284:13 Role PI 223:4 253:12.19 265:8 287:6 Relied PI 244:22 249:8.12,19-20 289: Roughly PI 295:8 12 292:1 RTV PI 195:4 Religious in 224:16 Rule 121 219:5 277:10 Religiously M 222:8 Rule-making Pi 2i9:s 27740 Rely HI 244:25 Run PI 275:7_____________________ Remaining in 249:ii R em em ber U1 247:6 287:8 289:6.18 R endered PI 218:2 Report 184] 206:14.19.23 213:10217: 9.12.16-173022 218:1220:17-1833 227:25 230:16235:15 236:5 239:22 240:18 241:1242:433 244:2.44730 245:1252:21253:4.9.17-18 254:1520 2 1 255:5,1730-2135 256:9,13.25 258: 10.1522259:1548260:11-12.154722 261:1265:7 266:18 271:15 276:1245. 23 277:1278:23 279:18 282:6 283:6.9 284:14 285:16288:353 291:13292:1. 22 296:1616298:221299:5.144620 303:10 Reported [12120545 20742 231:14 ____________ s____________ Safety n n 2104624211492123 215:2123 219:7 220:8 228:1020 2724 Salary P I2703 Sam ple P5] 184:11187:9 188:20.23 2 4 196461749199:172023 200:111 1322 201:116.18 235:2 245:18 273:22 27446275:8 Sam ples |561184:13187:16188:34718189:2.7-843221904-22024-25191: 2-443196:4461724197:67200:24 2011523 209:26 210:1212:20 221:13 224:5 232:5 233:1.3.6.9.12 234:7.14.16. 20,23 235:13 245:21246:19 247:24 252:3 265:2 26735 272:2 274:12-13 240:3.6 296:2024-25 297:14134 298:1 Sam ples-Sources PI 196:4 Reporter Pi I82:i53i0:5 Sampling Pi 20932 27235 27331 Reports PI 210:6 235:10241:3.6 253: 12 271:16 29141 302:12 304:7 R epresent in 185:22 Representative in 25040 Sand in 219:7 Saw PH 224:4.24 225:9 23833 245: 17 253:1622 271:67 2884 2953 S carring ID 239:7 R equest HI 23347 R esearch PI 1 9 2 4 1 9 9 4 5 Scientific in 303:ii Scientists PI 23047222314.6.1124 R esearch er H) 198:6 251:6.12 262:25 Scop e (41 22046 276:24 277:6 282:14 R esearch ers 18] 2 4 2 4 0 2 4 3 4 1 2 6 3 : 5 280:8.15 281:4 282:4 305:11 Reserve PI 28242 Resold PI 308:12 Resolution ID 283:4 Respirable Pi 215:16267:10273:17 Respirator in 22746 R espirators P3] 222:3.7 224:9 225: 1617 226:24524 227:1.4.124832 Respiratory P3| 2 1 4 4 8 220:12 221:1. 6.9 22 2 4 5 223:1224:2.1125 225:2 226:7.1122743 237:1S 2394149 258: 21262:10 263:122126440 295:22 S e PI 1973 SEAN PI 18341 Search PI 286:25 Second PH 2 03302122034 221.15 235:16 250:4 269:6 296:17 297:1.10 29849 S e e 128) 18834191:3192:25201:23. 25 207:5 211:23 2123 2 154 221:21 224:7.17 225:3 233:7.9 264:1213 266: 14 267:3-4 268:13 269:23 27546 278: 12 29 2 4 6 294:18 295:1.24 Segm ents ID 27849 Selected in 29331 Responding PI 28949 Sell ID 308:5 R espon se Pi 1 8 6 4 0 1 8 7 4 5 1 9 1 :2 5 Send PI 21230258:330848 192:19196:5 202:24 293:25 Sense Pi 26845 30530 Responsibility PI 228:9 Responsible P) 24323 Sent PI 258:6 S en ten ce P3| 1923522034 22132 Restrictive PI 239:iA8.i2-i3 228:3 232:6 26433 280:4.7 2964721 Results PI 188:8 Resum ed PI 2 5 4 :ii Reverent PI 284:23 Review HI 2 5 541292:6 3 0 1 2 2 302:9 Reviewed Pi 219:2028320 Reviewing ID 302:3 Reviews PI 255:9 Rid PI 272:7 Rieger I9| 1 9 8 :2 5 1 9 9 4 5 2002.12 28 0 :5 3 281:7.15 Rieger's PI 19940 Rightfully PI 286:12 Rigorous PI 27523 Risk 1121214252352523643.18 23740444724 240:8 262:9 28925 302:8 Risks 11212:6 2 5 9 4 0 262:949 263: 1120 29935300:12303:15 Sep arate HI 19943238:4 256:15 26932 Separated in 21240 Series PI 2443.17 24743 Set P) 2704 Seven PI 188:3189:691903-3 232: 13 234:1237:7 Several Hi 21648 298:21-23 Share PI 26049 280:4 281:3 Shared PI 2593228143282:4 S h eet PI 197:22 202:17 20832209:3 212:3 215:2123 220:8.10 Sh eets (7) 210.1625 2114.20 21322 23232:15 Shelf PI 198:18197:10 Shield PI 225:21 Short 11411884622032 266:1.25 289:25 290:8 2 913 292:1425 293:18 296:14 298:6.9 Short-term P) 26636290:6 29244 Shortcoming PI 25331-22254:15 Shortcomings PI 25346 Shorter PI 29744 Shortest PI 293:13 Shorthand Pi I82:i53i0:5 Show 1911953519849 20249 209: 14 216:17 242:7 260:9 278:13 299:5 Showed PI 2 064 261:5 295:14 305:3 306:14 Showing Pi 21040 Shows PI 29333 29546 30331 Shut PI 28046 SiO PI 228:1230049 Significant PI 2 2 1 5 2 3 63235 237:5. 8.10289:10 Significantly PI 241:9 Silica |7] 21343 215:12 232:25 233:3 306:6-8 Silicate PI 21345 Similar m 19747 201:6 25932 278: 20293:19306:1232 Simple PI 2714 Simpler Pi 1984 Simply PI 270:24 S in g e P ! 20832 209:3 Single-spaced Pi 209:3 Sit PI 200:7 Six 181 205:7 212:9 214:7-8 268:6 293: 20297:12.15 Size 191188:2325 211:9 2373.11273: 17 274:19 284:9 294:7 Sizes PI 18849 Slide PI 272:9 Slight PI 2113 Slightly PI 296:5 Slow PI 269:6 Slusher PI 269:5 Small m i 205.17 2 37 3 253:23 283: 16 284:10.12 285:22.24 288:4 30034 Sm aller HI 2843528534305:24 306:17 Smith p i) 184:13196:3.10.1433197: 21199:114833 200:3.12-13201:8.12, 14 245:4-6.8.10-11 Smoking |20] 239:3 25343.19 26133 262:7 263:13.10.193335 285:4 286:13 287:6 2 8 8 4 292:9.1720 29931 SMR PI 25646 Solution PI 272:13 Som eone t?l 238:13 26542 266:5 28035 288:19 293:20 306:4 Something's Pi 266:23 Som etim es 121238:3257:19 Som ew here Hi 208:12220:19287: 252953 Sorry !6| 19931217:17 226:1234:12 25734 30442 Sort 1121 200:22 219:8 224:24 24645 247:17 248:7 268:25 283:13 284:15 285313003 30847 Sound PI 192:4 Source PI 184:12187-.9 S o u rces |3| 184:14 1964 269:20 South PI 305:6 Spaced PI 209:3 Sp an 131 270:7 298:9.17____________ VARHLEY ASSOCIATES Index Page 8 Specific p si 205:8 2 0 6 4 1 2 1 0 3 212: 22-23 213:3.6 21935 228:5 236:6.10 249:942301.8304:8 Specifically P0| 1 9 4 4 5 1 9 8 4 2 213:3 224:16 234:1734 235:3 25433 30046 30341 Speculate PI 250:11305:13 Spoken PI 194:7,1028030 St P1305:7 Stand PI 25441 Standard tsi 21243 246312764 2788 28548 Standards P i 27230 Standpoint PI 2124 Stands PI 195:5 Stanton |15| 184:11187:8.1749190: 1 8 1 9 4 3 3 1 9 5 3 245:3-6.8.23 249:10 Start PI 185:5218:24 Started HI 214:6 226:4 29046 293:18 State PH 182:16217:19228:23267: 20 272:3 27541284:24 305:1-2 310:5, 22 Statem en t HI 185:6-7 2 3 1 4 1 265:4 S tates PI 2 0 1 3 287:1 Statistical PI 263:1 Statistician PI 284-.i6.i8 Statistics PI 28449 Status P) 289:38 Stay PI 30630 Stenographic Pi i82:i2 Stenographically Pi 3 io :ii Steve PI 248:5 Sticking PI 2734 Still PI 20433 22931 247:21295:7,9 Stille HI 247:1528334 284:1 Stillingham Pi 28333 stop P) 2763 Stopped PI 2894 Story PI 27933 Straighten Pi 2783 Straightforward in 25646 Strain PI 23841 Stratified PI 28745 street PI 182:1818349 Strengths PI 286:59 Strike HI 19130 233:16 282:12 299: 15 Strong 111 25547 Studied (3] 228:7 231:12260:3 Studies PH 8 :8 196412054.7 206:10 216:16235472134 236:3,8-9 2 3 8 4 242:12244:2,7,1723252453,7 24744 248:1.4 249:74220 251:9 252: 11261:4.12 26640 278:13 283:19 286: 3-4.10 289:11290:68 294:94129630. 24 30034 301:68.15.18 3 0 3 3 0 3 2 3 5 304:6.9.1432307:14.16 30832 Study P531184:1143187:8.16.19 188:6.1018949190412033191:22 193:12194:231953.12196:3.1044-15. 2 3 1 9 8 :9 3 1 1 9 9 4 1 4 8 201:8 203:2.6,8 9 4 1 20438-9.114624 205:4-5.11.1420, 22 206:15-1622 2083.20 236:6.1143 2 3 7 3 4 0 2 4 0 4 24247 243:17 245:10 1143.1623 2 4 6 :2 8 3 4 6 4 9 247:12.14 16482225 248:8.1042-13.1722 249:4. 6.10-112225 250:6442124 251:14 252:17 255:1225 256:25.7.1346,1925 258:7 26033 2613.9 26247 265:12 26746.24 274:23 279:4.7-825 28346, 22 284:3.720285423 286:64247-18 From Relevance to Study J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 index Page 9 287:7.1 289:20 290:5 294:2,4 295:1-2. 16.18-19.21296:4.10 297:2-3.11.17,23 300:2,8,24 301:1.12-13 302:16 304:3.20 Stuff (41251:19 257:25 275:17 291:24 Task HI 268:13 Technical HOI 197:22202:17 2 3 6 5 239:21240:18 241:1242:3 244:19 253: 4 278:23 Tried Hi 2 0 8 2 2 True HI 212:18 215:18 230:24 23722 2785 31040 Try Pi 26845 2782 292:8 19 201:5.19 202:1348 203:5,8.17.19 2 0 4 4 2052.6.82065.84120 207:4.6-7. 13-1446-18212082-4.749 209:1.422 2 1 1 5 21440.13.17 216:3 2 1 7 4 21941, 13 2205.843 221:18 222:1,64422 223: Stumbling Ul 208:23 Technology HI 272:24 Trying PI 212:4 23121 2512.4 267:6 7 224202284.7.1124 2 2 9 :1 7 2 1 2 3 0 4 Subject (31255:4 266:5 271:1 Subjects 121 296:2-3 Submissions H) 255:8 Submit (11260:18 Submitted (2) 200:13 219:6 Ten PI 232:13 234:1265:18-19 266:1 Tend HI 239:11 Tended HO] 189:23238:25259:13 264:1266:20 267:4 306:14.2021 Tends 121239:12 285:6 279:4 28421 29120 Tube (31 2 7 2 5 2 7 3 :3 2 7 4 4 Tuesday Hi 18249 Tumors H31 18845.22189:1.61904. 35,81974.4 2164722-23 7.1823 231:1,7.25 232:3.920 233:1547 23 4 2 3 2354B 236:7.10 237:23 239:22. 24 240:246 2 4 2 5 245:725 246:16 247: 18 248:8,154724 249:35.13 2 504324 2515.1623 25242 25341.1621254: 1649 2554-2.10.1924 259:23 260:23 Subsequent HI 242:11 Su b stan ces 121 233:9 241:20 Suck HI 273:15 Sucking HI 273:3 Suffer HI 284:10 Sufficient (4) 192:5 212:8 263:4 274: 24 Suggest PI 239:18 280:24 287:1923 288:230322 Suggested PI 243:14253:8305:9 Suggesting HI 243:23 Suggestions HI 283:10 Suggestive HI 304:4 Suggests 12] 289:24 304:20 Suite HI 183:4.10 SUPERIOR HI 182:1 Supplier HI 307:9 Suppliers (U 308:3 Supply HI 225:15 Support (2| 301:10302:8 Supported 12)247:7 282:4 Supports Hi 300:9 Suppressed HI 281:25 Surgical (21 225:1012 Surprise HI 293:9 Surrogate (21266:6 293:1 Surrounds H) 277:i Surveillance Hi 303:2 Surveying HI 297:19 Surveyor HI 298:24 S u sp ect (11240:11 Sworn 131185:15 254:11310:8 System Hi 238:12 Szaferman Hi 185:22 Tenure PI 264:3 265:17,21266:6 268: 1690 292:25293:8 Term PI 209:7 266:25 270:2 289:25 290:8 291:2 292:14 293:18 Termed HI 244:19 Terminology HI 244:4 Terms Pi i97:2i 200:23 21940 259: 18 30623 Test (141188:10.13 232.-9.22.24 233:14. 18 238:25 245:11269:18.23-25 Tested PI 189:8246:21260:3 Testified 141 2 3 0 4 3254:1228146 283:14 Testifies HI 18546 Testimony HI 217:9 21 9 4 5 2 5 220:2 282:1330741 31040 Testing 12122640234:4 Tests (31 232:3.19 23940 Themselves PI 190:2025 233:2022 308:14 Theory HI 188:13 Therefore HI 29923 They've HI 216:22 Thick HI 189:4 Thickening HI 216:7 Thin ID 188:14 Thinking HI 203:13 Thinner HI 18949 Third HI 23546 Thirds HI 29647 THOM AS HI 183:5 Thousand HI 29440 Thousands HI 294:9 Three Pi 201:22208:7.1122846 239: 17 28044 294:7.16 Turned HI 1895 Twice HI 25720 Two 1291186:25189:946190:4.7191: 13 202:1045 20342 2085 236:2,14 2452 24742248:4 258:17 26443265: 16 28941294:7.15 295:20 296:4.17 297:2 298:130023-24 301:17 Two-thirds HI 29647 Type (2111885191:1119643 220:12 2252 226:2.726 234:4 2392 245:9 249:4 251:22 259:10 265:8,10 267:9 269:845303:9 307:8 Typed Hi 2092 Types PI 18923216:4 227:1823748 2515 278:203062-3 Typical PI 191:5.10 23221265:8 267: 2 Typically PI 239:34 2 7 1 2 3 2 7 5 2 303:7-8 U U.S. H) 28423 Ultimately HI 3 0 6 4 Unable HI 18622 Under PI 18621206:1821021212: 23 215:24 27240 273: 274:3 Underground Pi 20241-12 2685 Underlying HI 2 5 1 4 Underneath PI 187:8195:3196:3 Understood HI 1865 Undertaken Hi 244:3.is Undertaking HI 2664 2 7 i:ii Undertook HI 2 8743 Unfortunately Hi 20343 23849 University PI 19047 2 0646 24640 Unknown HI 30 3 4 3 26145.19 26 6 4 9 2 7 4 5 277:13 278:13. 17.19 2825.8 284:4 28747.24 288:14. 18 290:1521291:6 292:6 296 4 9 297:4. 69 298:84045.18 299:2 300:1424 301: 921302462030342-13 304:830547 30641307:3.547-1824 3 08444 Vanderbilt's HI 2 8 246283:7 Vanderbilt-funded Hi 249:3 variable HI 221:11 Variables PI 2 6 0 5 263:3 285:3.6.9,13 Variation Hi 212:24 Variations HI 2 1 1 5 Varied R) 21245 Variety HI 300:20 Various (4| 269:20-21270:14 2 8 7 4 Vein HI 278:9 Ventilation Hi 270:8 Veracity HI 25542 Verify Hi 2 3 5 5 Vermont HI 2 4 6 4 0 2 4 8 4 6 Versus PI 2044 3 2394.4 Via HI 258:2 Vianna Hi 305:2 view HI 2 3 6 5 259:22 Virginia HI 259:7 Virulent HI 2 1 5 5 Visited PI 224:7.19 283 4 0 Vital HI 289:39 Vogue HI 226:3 Voices Hi 281:35 Volume (31182:8 27242.14 Vreeland 111 18344 VS HI 182:6 w Three-quarters HI 22146 Unlike PI 2 0 6 2 2 3oa23 Wait PI 308:8 Tabershaw m i 247:15-16 283:25 284:1286:11.16-17 287:5 288:3.8 292: 12 Table [5| 206:2023 207:2 263:1303:2 Taconite PI 278:22300:25 Talc 11421187:23.25189:14190:1.4 191:3.11193:58.1213.1621194321. 24195:3-5.16196:171820.21197:3.7. 101982-38199:7 201:3,521202:1 203:15 205:6921207:19 208:1.1024 209:4 211:10 213:2,8.12 214:11.144.7 215:25 216:3 217:1219:11.1325 220: 5.8.13 221:18 222:114 223:7 224:720 228:2.7.1125 229:1721230:1.1823 231:1.725232:39 233:6 235:18 237: 23 239:22 240:2.7.16 246:13-1447 248: 15-16 250:24 277:13 284:4 2 8 7 4 2 2 0 288:20 289:7 290:21-22 291:35.7 296: 19 297:4 300:14 302:20 303:124421. 23 304:141-124523305:84622306:7. 1125 307:25.8.1524-25 308:3.64244 TalCOSiS PI 215:5238:3.13 Talcs 1221188:4189:8-104446190:2. 5*742.16191:922-23193:5194:13195: 13198:3211:6 Throughout HI 21145 Title PI 209:6.16289:24 Today PI 18521872,12.14 201:6 20949 2175 2274 2302 Together PI 20123 23947 2 6 8 2 28622 Toiler Hi 308:17 Tom HI 18521 Took [131188:17199:6 206:13 20748 2245 23444462123 258:1126725 289:2329246 Top PI 209:7 28825295:13 Total PI 2 0521 233:6 241:7 2 6 7 4 0 272462734227445275:3 Totally HI 262:17 Touchy HI 28549 Tough H 127523 Towards HI 204:6 Transcription Hi 3io:io Tremoiite |14| 19649-2025197:3.19 198:1720199:7 200:3 245:124922 27742 Tremolitic 1211 9 i 4 i 20121 Unlikely Hi 2 6 2 4 4 7 Up H611844 5 1 9 7 2 5 20222 20643 21344-15 222:18 233 4 24121 26425 2 6 5 4 2 6 645268:3 269:24 2 7 0 4 279: 9,1221280462028124 2915 29223 2935529449295:23 update (16) 20451.16 252:24 2 5 3 2 256540-1245 278:5 279:4 280:10 281: 22283:2 2872 2965 Updated Pi 249 5 25023 2525921 25525 256:2,7.18 26021 Updating HI 25247 Upstate |4J 211:7 30443.1523 Useful HI 2 4 3 5 U ses HI 3 0 6 4 Usual HI 3 0 3 5 Valid HI 2 4 3 5 Validity HI 27924 Vanderbilt H9l 182:8 183:18189:10. 161905.1146 1915.8.10.231935.13. 1619443211955,13.1624 196:17-18. 20197:3.7.10.22 198:3.124420.22199: VARHLEY ASSOCIATES Warn 111 2 1 3 4 7 Warnings HI 211:3 W aste PI 278:21301:3 306:4 W ater 14)272:69 273:4 Ways PI 26546 273:20 274:7 W eak HI 25547 W eaknesses Pi 25948 2869.9 W ear P) 2 2 0 4 3 2214.6.9 222:2.6 224: 9227:21 Wearing PI 2244.24 225:3 Week Hi 20942 W eeks HI 29744 298:22 Weigh HI 27341 Weighed Hi 2 7 3 5 Weighing HI 273:24 Weight HI 2 1 3 4 1 2 7 5 5 W est HI 1 8 3 5 259:7 W hereas PI 21246 2645 3064.21 Whittaker HI 197:15 201:3 Whole PI 21745 246:6 247:8 27849 279:2228547 Willed Ul 19049 From Study to Willed William in 200:i3 W itness 113) 184:3185:10 217:3 220: 20 222:11229:5 254:3 270:24 276:18 299:9 307:12 309:5 310:7 W itnessed 1 226:8 W ollastonite Hi 191:3 Word 14] 200:7 234:25278:7 Word-for-word HI 200:7 Words |B| 207:11211:16 238:23261: 6 2 6 4 3 268:18 298:7 305:23 Worker 12) 254:17 288:18 W orker's 111 297:4 W orkers 135) 203:15 205:2.6,9.1121 206:1021208:20 209:3 220:13 221:18 222:1,6.14 223:7 224:1.8.24 235:18 239:23 248:15-16 253'123 266:25 269:8 270:2 283:17 290:3.9 292:7.15 293:18 307:14-15 Workplace 16) 232:4.1020 233:15,18 272:22 World HI 277:19 Worn 121 222:15223:1 Worried HI 280:i4 Worry HI 2 2 6 3 Wrote HI 264:19281:12 Wylie 111) 190:16.19191:16193:4 194:7.11.19195:17.19 246:9 ........ X X------------------------- X H) 182:10 X-ray )2| 238:24 239:15 X-rays hi 301:2 2 3 0 2 :3,9 Y Y ear 1121 202:5205:25222:17 232:22 251:14 265:182124 266:23 290:4.14 293:20 Y ears 146) 194:12195:1120 203:1622 204:22 205:1825 207:3.7.1425 208:7, 11209:23 212:9 214:7 222:18-1922 223:1231:10 232:13 234:1251:15 252:8 257:16 265:18-19 266:1277:21 289:9 290:12 291:16 293:10 298:14-15 302:420-21303:3.5 306:13 York 111) 211:7 257:21272:3 275:11 284:24 304:131523 305:1-2.4 J. Kelse - Volume II - 4/12/2005 VARHLEY ASSOCIATES Index Page 10 From William to York