Document QXEB0B3KE6DNZMeQndBxbm81R

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MI DDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 2 COLU MBIA DIVISION 3 KATHERINE JOYCE BREWER, ) et al. , ) 4) Plaintiffs, ) Nos. 1-88-008 and 5 ) 1-88-0014 through -vs- ) 1-88-0368 6 ) Judge Wiseman MONSANTO CORPORATION, ) 7 e t al. , ) ) 8 Defendants. ) 9 10 11 12 DEPOSITION OF GEORGE ROUSH, M. D. 13 Taken on behalf of the Plaintiffs Decembe r 20 , 198 8 14 15 16 17 ORIGINAL 18 19 20 21 22 KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY Registered Professional Reporters 23 408 Olive Street, Suite 316 St. Louis, Missouri 63102 24 (314) 621-8883 25 KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9915 INDEX 1 Direct examination by Mr. CuJcer . . . . Roush Deposition Exhibit No. 1 marked . Roush Deposition Exhihit No. 2 marked . Roush Deposition Exhibit No. 3 marked . Roush Deposition Exhibit No. 4 marked . Cross examination by Mr. Buster . . . . Roush Deposition Exhibit No. 5 marked . Redirect examination by Mr. Cuker . . . . . Page 3 . . Page 40 . . Page 45 . . Page 55 . . Page 67 . . Page 81 . . Page 84 . . Page 84 Parties stipulated to attachment of first and last pages only of lengthy exhibits. HARTOLDMONOOQ9916 2 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MI DDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 2 COLU MBIA DIVISION 3 KATHERINE JOYCE BREW ER, ) et al. , ) 4) Plaintiffs, ) Nos. 1-88-008 and 5 ) 1-88-0014 through -vs- ) 1-88-0368 6 ) Judge Wiseman MONSANTO CORPORATION, ) 7 et al. , ) ) 8 Defendants. ) 9 DEPOSITION OF GEORGE ROUSH, M. D. produced, sworn and examined on the 2 0 th day of De cembe r, 1988, 10 between the hours of eight o'clock in the forenoon and six o'clock in the afternoon of that day, at the 11 Ka r powicz Reporting Compa ny Conference Room, 314 North Broadway, 11th Floor, in the City of St. Louis, 12 State of Missouri, before Gwen A. Huffman, a Registered Pr ofes sional Reporter, and Notary Public 13 within and for the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri, in a certain cause now pending in the 14 United States District Court, for the Middle District of Tennessee, Columbia Division, between Katherine 15 Joyce Brewer, et al., PI aintif f s, and Monsanto Corporation, et al., Defendants, taken on behalf of 16 the Plaintiffs. 17 APPEARANCES 18 SLAP, WILLIAMS & CUKE R One Franklin PIaza, Suite 96 0 19 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1 9102-12 27 BY t Mark R. Cuke r, Esq., .... For the Plaintiffs. 20 SMITH, HELMS, MULLISS & MOORE 21 500 NCNB Building P.0. Box 21927 22 Greensboro, North Carolina 27420 BY: David M. Moore, II, Esq., . For the Defendant 23 Monsanto Corporation. 24 25 KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9917 1 KING & SPALDING 2500 Trust Company Tower Atlanta, Georgia 30303 BY: Richard A. Schneider, Esq. J. Kevin Buster, Esq., . . . For the Defendant Duracell International. DEARBORN & EWING One Commerce Place, Suite 12 0 0 Nashville, Tennessee 37239 BY: M. Clark Spoden, Esq., . . . For the Defendant Emhart Industries, Inc. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AG REED by and between Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Counsel for the Defendants, that this deposition may be taken in shorthand by GWEN A. HUFFMAN, a Registered Professional Reporte r and Notary Public, and af te rwa r ds transcribed into typew riting, and that the signature of the witness is not waived. GEORG E ROUSH, M.D. , of 1awful age, being produced, sworn and examined on behalf of the Plaintiff s, deposes and say s: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CUKER: Q. Dr. Roush, can you just state your full name and address for the record, please? A. George Roush, Junior, R-o-u-s-h, and I 1ive at 10 Babler Lane, B-a-b-l-e-r, Lane. That' s KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9918 A 1 St. Louis, 63124. 2 Q. How old are you, sir? 3 A. S i xty-seven. 4 Q. Are you retired? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Okay. How long have you been retired? 7 A. April 30th. 8 Q. Of this year ? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Did you work for Monsanto up until April 11 30th of this year? 12 A. That's right. 13 Q. And my understanding is you began at 14 Monsanto around 1975? 15 A. '73. 16 Q. '73, okay. What year in '73? What 17 month in '73? 18 A. March. I think it was March 15th. 19 Q. Dr. Roush, as I think you know, my name 20 is Mark Cuke r and I represent a numbe r of workers at 21 the P. R. Mai1o ry Plant in Waynesboro, Tennessee. 22 I'm going to ask you a number of 23 questions a bout the relationship between Monsant o and 24 the Mailory Company during the time you were the 25 corporate medical director. If a t a nytime you don't KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9919 5 1 understand a ny of my questions, will you just let me 2 know and I will rephrase the question? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. What was your educational 5 background and experience before you began work for 6 Monsanto? 7 A. I had an MD from Washington University. 8 Q. In St. Louis here? 9 A. 1951. And I had an internship at 10 Milwaukee County Hospital. That's the Marquette 11 University teaching hospital. 12 In 1952, I went to the University of 13 Pittsburgh where I had an MPH in occupa tional 14 medicine, and from '53 to '54 -- maybe missed a year 15 someplace in there. 16 Q. That's okay. 17 A. ' 53-'54, I had a fellowship in 18 cardiology with the National Heart Institute. 19 And in '54, I went to the National 20 Cancer Institute at NIH and I was in the chemotherapy 21 section of the cancer section. 22 And ' 54 to '55, I was at Staten I si a nd 23 Marine Hospital in the residency and internal 24 medicine. 25 And the next year, '55 -- '56 to '57, x KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMON0009920  1 was a resident, internal medicine, at the University 2 of Pittsburgh. 3 Q. Okay. 4 A. Then I became assistant professor of 5 occupational medicine in the School of Public Health 6 at the University of Pittsburgh. 7 Q. Was that around 1958? 8 A. '57 . 9 Q. '57? . 10 A. On until 1 96 2. 11 Q. If I could stop you there. And in 12 addition to your teaching responsibility, did you 13 have treating responsibilities as an assistant 14 professor at the medical school? 15 A. I was instructor in medicine and I was 16 also the acting toxicologist for the medical school. 17 Q. What were -- what did your work involve? 18 A. Seeing all patients that someone thought 19 might be -- the disease might be related to 20 occupational exposure or something else that would be 21 a toxic effect. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. During that time, I was also medical 24 director of the Calle ry Chemical Company, 25 C-a-l-l-e-r-y, located north of Pittsburgh in the KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9921 7 1 Evans City area. 2 Q. What kind of chemicals did they make? 3 A. They made boron hydrides for the navy, 4 and they were to be a high energy fuel for rockets 5 and for the B-l airpiane. And the idea was that the 6 boron hydride fuel carry more energy than the what we 7 call petroleum de rivative things, carbon hydrogen. 8 Q. During that five years - 9 MR. CUKER: Off the record. 10 (A discussion was held off the record.) 11 (A break was taken.) 12 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Dr. Roush, during this 13 five years you were assistant professor of 14 occupational medicine at the University of 15 Pittsburgh, did you have any occasion to deal with 16 people exposed to PCBs? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Okay. What was your next position after 19 that ? 20 A. I went to the University of Louisvil1e 21 and had a fellowship in cardiology, which consisted 22 of doing cardiac catheterizations and similar 23 procedures. 24 Q, They were doing those in the early '60s? 25 A. Yes. As a matter of fact, in the '50s, KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9922 8 1 when I was at the University of Pittsburgh, in that 2 cardiac fellowship, I was doing a lot of them on dogs 3 and had done something on the order of two hundred of 4 them. 5 And following that year, I then went to 6 the University of Cincinnati in the department of 7 preventive medicine, and my title there was associate 8 professor of occupational medicine. 9 Q. Did these interests in cardiology and 10 occupational medicine intersect in any way or were 11 they just separate, independent interests that you 12 pursued? 13 A. One of the concerns in occupational 14 medicine is what do you do with peo pie who h ave hea r t 1 5 disease and going to work. So it had all the 16 pr obiems of evaluation of a man's disease a nd how 17 that influences his ability to work. 18 Q. So what year did you take the position 19 at the University of Cincinnati? 20 A. 1963. 21 Q. And you were assistant professor? 22 A. Associate professor. 23 Q. Associate pr ofessor, excuse me, of 24 preventive medicine? 25 A. Of occupational medicine. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9923 9 1 Q. Of occupational medicine. Within the 2 department of preventive medicine? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. How long did you hoid that position? 5 A. Until 1968. 6 Q. All right. During that fiveyears, did you have occasion to see a ny peo pie who were exposed 8 to PCBs? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. During that time,practically that whole 12 five years, I was also medical director of the Ethyl 13 Corporation, E-t-h-y-1, and their prime product was 14 tetraethyl lead. That's used to raise the octane of 15 gasoline. 16 And now the pr obiem is with present I 17 cars, the lead would poison the catalyst, so they had 18 to get rid of the lead so they could keep the 19 catalyst to keep the air pollution down. 20 Q. That's why we have lead-free ga soline. 21 A. That's right. 22 Q. So obviously there you dealt with 23 workers who were exposed to lead. 24 A. And also the whole environmental issue 25 a bout lead in the environment and the issue of who's KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9924 10 1 exposed and how much and the implications of that. 2 Q. Okay. After 1968. 3 A. I went down to T ulane University S chool 4 of Medicine. 5 Q. And what did you do there? 6 A. And there I was in the department of 7 medicine and I was professor of medicine and 8 environmental health. 9 Q. Professor of medicine and environment - 10 A. And environmental. Q. In the depar tment of medicine? 12 A. So my specialty was in environmental 13 health. 14 Q. Did you ever get any ce r tif ication in 15 spe cial medicine? 16 A. No. 17 Q. 0r in any field? 18 A. Occupational. 19 Q. Is there a board for occupational 20 medicine? 21 A. It's a pa rt of the preventive medicine. 22 There's an American Board of Preventive Medicine. 23 Q. What year were you certified in? 24 A. I believe in 1968. 25 Q. And how long did you work at Tulane? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9925 -------------------------------------------- ---------------- ------- 11 1 A. Five years. 2 Q. Did you hoid a ny com pa ny positions in 3 addition to your teaching positions? 4 A. I continued as medical director of Ethyl 5 Corporation e 6 Q. They were an office in New Orleans? 7 A. No, they're a -- they had -- their 8 operating headq uarters is in Baton Rouge. And so 9 they wanted me to continue being their representative 10 on the lead issue. 11 Q. Okay. 12 A. So moving down there was quite 13 conve nient for both. 14 Q. During those five years, '6 8 to '73, did 15 you have oc ca sion to see a ny peopie who were exposed 16 to PCBs? 17 A. No, sir. 18 Q . Okay. Was your next position with 19 Monsanto? 20 A. That brought us up to 1973. 21 Q. Okay. I think you said it was March of 22 '73 -23 A. Yes. 24 Q. -- you took that position? Did you 25 retain a ny teaching positions during the time you KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9926 12 1 were working for Monsanto? 2 A. No. 3 Q. What was your title atMonsanto? 4 A. I came to Monsanto as associate medical 5 director. 6 Q. Okay. 7 A. With the idea that I would be come 8 medical director when the cur rent medical director 9 retired. 10 Q. That was Dr. Emmet Kelly? 11 A. Yes. ' 12 Q. And did he retire in '75? 13 A. '74. 14 Q. When in '74? 15 A. I think it was November or December. 16 Q. Okay. Is Dr. Kelly still alive? 17 A. Yes, I'm sure he is. 18 Q. All right. Did you work here in 19 St. Louis? 20 A. Yes, our headquarters is in Creve Coeur, 21 or on the far west side of St. Louis. 22 Q. Okay. What were your duties as 23 corporate me dical director? 24 A. My responsibility was for the health cf 25 the workers. And in order to ensure the health of KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9927 13 1 the workers, my approach is you have to do the 2 industrial hygiene as well. So, again, industrial 3 hygiene of the entire Monsanto C ompa ny was a part of 4 our responsibility. 5 And when I came to Monsanto, they also 6 had a toxicology division. And so that was ongoing. 7 So the toxicology is to know the biology, the 8 bi ol o gi cal effect of the chemical s. The i.ndustr i al 9 hygiene is to look at the levels of exposure. And 10 the medical section is to provide the surveillance of 11 the workers. 12 Q. Okay. I want to get some nomenclature 13 straight. Was the medical section a department or a 14 division or a section or were al1 - 15 A. Al1 of these -- these were al1 part of 16 the department of medicine. Department of medicine. 17 Q. Okay. So within the department of 18 medicine, you had a toxicology - 19 A. Section. 20 Q. -- sect ion and an industrial hygiene 21 section? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Did those people report to the medical 24 director? 25 A. Yes. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9928 14 1 Q. Was there someone, a physician who was 2 let's say more immediately in charge of pi ant 3 medicine or administration of the corporate medical 4 program who worked beneath the corporate medical 5 director? 6 A. Shortly after I arrived there, we did 7 hire a physician to be the head of the division of 8 occupational medicine. 9 Q. Okay. 10 A. Dr. Don Coleman. 11 Q. Dr. C oleman? 12 A. C-o-l-e-m-a-n. 13 Q. When you be came the medical director, 14 was there a person who replaced you as the associate 15 medical director? 16 A. No. 17 Q. That position was left vacant? 18 A. That's right. 19 Q. Was that position just created so that 20 you could have a transitional phase? 21 A. Monsanto really doesn't believe in that 22 form of structure. 23 Q. What form of structure? 24 A. Of having an associate director. 25 Q. Had there been -- let's say before you KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9929 15 1 came on, was there an associate you replaced? 2 A. There was not. 3 Q. Okay. 4 A. They did have a phy sician there a year 5 or two before I arrived, and I'm not sure what his 6 title was. 7 Q. Okay. Now, Don Coleman, he also worked 8 in St. Louis? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. Is he still living? 11 A. No. 12 MR. CUKER: Off the record. 13 (A discussion was held off the record.) 14 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Okay. Who was the - 15 let's say in '73 when you came on, who was the head 16 of the toxicology division? 17 A. George Levinskas. 18 Q. How does he spel1 his name? 19 A. L-e-v-i-n-s-k-a-s, 20 Q. And who was in charge of industrial 21 hy giene? 22 A. Jack Garrett. When I came there, it was 23 Elmer W he ele r. 24 Q. Elmer Wheeler. When did Mr. Wheeler 25 leave the compa ny? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMON0009930 16 1 A. About two years after I arrived. 2 Q. Okay. Did he continue to work for the 3 compa ny on a ny kind of a cons ulting basis after he 4 left? 5 A. I don't think he did anything after he 6 left. They moved off to North Carolina. 7 Q You mean he -- his family, they meaning 8 his - 9 A. He moved his house. 10 Q. Okay. 11 A. And retired. 12 Q. Was Mr. Wheeler ever called a director 13 of environmental health? Was he ever given that 14 title? 15 A. I don't know what his title was. 16 Q. You recal1 whether there was such a 17 position as director of environmental health? 18 MR. MOORE j At what time, Mark? 19 MR. CUKERs At anytime that he worked 20 foe the company. 21 THE WITNESS; I don't think so. He did 22 have responsibility for environmental aspects of 23 PCBs. And with that, whether he had a different 24 title because of that, I don't know. 25 Q. (BY MR. CUKE R) All right. So how long KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9931 17 1 did Mr. Garrett remain in charge of -- as director of 2 industrial hygiene? 3 A. He retired two or three years ago. 4 Q. Okay. And how about Mr. Levinskas? 5 A. He's still active. 6 Q. Is he still head of the toxicology 7 division? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. How old is he? 10 A. Huh? Q. How old is he? 12 A. Sixty-two. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. We were talking about their organization 15 of the depa r tment s, when we -- I'm t rying to think of 16 the year when we put together a division of 17 epidemiology headed by Bill Gaffey. 18 Q. G-a-f-f-e-y? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. What was his -- did he have any initials 21 after his last name? 22 A. No. Well, he is Ph.D. 23 Q. Okay. 24 A. He was aPh.D. in biostatistics. 25 Q. Was Paul Wright ever the director of KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9932 18 1 toxicology when you were the - 2 A. No. 3 Q. What position did Mr. Wright hold? 4 A. He was one of the staff toxicologists. 5 Q. Okay. Was Bill Gaffey's Ph.D. in public 6 health ? 1 A. No, his was in biostatistics 8 Q. Biostatisties. When was that division 9 of biostatistics formed? 10 A. That's what I was trying to think of for 11 you. 12 Q. Oh, I'm sorry. 13 A. I wouldthink s ometime around 1980, 14 may be a little bit before. 15 Q. That was al1 within the corpora te 16 medical de pa r tme nt ? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. So al1 of these people report to you as 19 the head of the corporate medical department ? 20 A. Yes. And for -- we put togethe r a 21 Environmental Health Laborato ry where we did 22 toxicology. And we built that in about 1977 , 197 8. 23 Q. What was that called? 24 A. Environmental Health Labo ra to ry. 25 Q. who was the director of the laboratory? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9933 23 1 for trace amounts, also, as far as you know? 2 A. Or else they would form it out. 3 Q. To an out side lab. 4 A. All I'm saying is the testing for purity 5 of a product is quite different from looking for 6 trace levels in something, and that difference in 7 technology would make them go where it was most 8 expedient. And I'm not sure how it was done. 9 Q. Dr. Roush, have you authored any 10 articles in the area of occupational health, 11 industrial hygiene? 12 A. Wrote on the borons, the boron hydr ide. 13 Q. U h-h uh. 14 A. And wrote a review on metals, toxicol ogy 15 of metals. 16 Q. As a result of your experience with 17 lead? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. Okay. 20 A. Nothing else. 21 Q. Okay. Were you personally involved with 22 the activities of the Arnerican Industrial Hygiene 23 Association or the Arnerican Conference of 24 Governmental Industrial Hygienists? 25 A. I wasin the Arnerican Industrial Hygiene KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9934 24 1 Association for some time. 2 Q. When were you involved with them? 3 A. Probably late '50s and early '60s. 4 Q. You were not involved with them while 5 you were wor king for Monsanto? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Was anybody else at Monsanto involved 8 with them? 9 A. All the industrial hygienists 10 practically are members of it. 11 Q. In addition to being membe r s of it, did 12 they get involved actually in the -- participate in 13 its activities from any kind of a leadership 14 standpoint or from a ny a rticles or participating on 15 committees? 16 A. They participated inrecent years in 17 trying to write standards for chemicals that ACGIH 1 8 hadn't gotten to. 19 Q. In recent years meaning when? 20 A. The last five years. 21 Q. You know if a ny body a t Monsanto served 22 on the TLV committees? 23 A. I was a membe r of the ACGIH committee 24 for a bout five yea r s. 25 Q. When? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMON0009935 25 1 A. I retired from them about two years ago. 2 Q. So it would have been from '81 to '86? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Was that theTLV committee for any 5 spe cific chemical? 6 A. The ACGIH committee on toxicology has 7 about thirty members. 8 Q. Uh-huh. 9 A. And they divide up thatcommittee into 10 different categories. I had the hydrocarbons. That 11 include s benzene. And someone else would have the 12 chlorinated hydrocarbons and others would have the 13 nitrogen containing compounds and others would have 14 the metals. 15 Q. Did those committees work to formulate 16 TLVs ? . 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Or review TLVs? 19 A. Ye s. If they wanted me to update and do 20 the review for benzene, they would give me that as an 21 assignment and I would come back next year with a 22 booklet for modification, or at least an evaluation. 23 Q. You know if any one at Monsanto served on 24 the TLV committee for PCBs at anytime? 25 A. No, they did not. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9936 26 1 Q. As far as you know, they did not? 2 A. I don't think there was anyone that ever 3 participated in that. 4 Q. Okay. 5 A. While I was medical director, if we had 6 some information that we thought was pertinent to a TLV, we would gather that information together and 8 give it to the head of the AIHA, and then he would 9 parcel out as he thought was appropriate. And they 10 would take whatever action they thought was 11 appropriate. So it was only supplying information, 12 not evaluation of it that we did. 13 Q. Okay. Are you talking about generally 14 or specifically with regard to PCBs? 15 A. I -- nothing was done on PCBs while I 16 was there. 17 Q. Okay. Was Jack Garrett director of 18 industrial hy -- I think you said he was director of 19 industrial hygiene until 1986? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q . Okay . Now , my unde r sta ndi ng is there 22 were two PCB pi ants, one a t Sauget, Illinois a nd one 23 at Anniston, A1abama, is that correct? 24 A. Yes, but they got out of the PCB 25 business before I joined. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9937 27 1 Q. Alabama? 2 A. Yes, at Anniston. And then I'm not sure 3 when that took place, It was done before I joined, 4 Q. Before 173? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. So the only one left when you joined was 7 at Sauget? 8 A. Sauget. 9 Q. Sauget. Was that called the Krummrich 10 plant? 11 A. It's easier to pronounce, Krummrich. 12 Q. Was Krumm - 13 A. Krummrich was named for a Monsanto 14 employee. 15 MR. BUSTER: How do you spell 16 K rummrich? 17 THE WITNESS s K-r-u-m-m-r-i-c-h. 18 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) R-i-C-h? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Had you visited that pi ant? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. About how oftenwould you visit the 23 plant? 24 A. I had the physicians that worked in our 25 division. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9938 28 1 Q G U h-huh. 2 A. Had responsibility for all of the 3 plants. And so one of the physicians regularly 4 visited the Krummr ich pi a nt whenever it was indica ted 5 or on a periodic basis, both. 6 Q. 7 would be? You know how f req ue nt his routine visits 8 A. At least once a year, but usually with 9 K r umm rich, it would be two to three to four times a 10 year. 11 Q. Okay. Was that Dr. Osland? 12 A. Dr. 0 si a nd was the part-time physician 13 who was responsible on a day-to-day basis for the 14 questions a nd the evaluations and the examinations. 15 Q. Okay. So he actually -- 16 A. In his position, everything had to do 17 with the man at work, deciding whether he was fit for 18 work, whatever. 19 Q. Did they actually have an infirmary on 20 the plant? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And Dr. Osland wouldwork in the 23 infirma ry? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And he wouldbe thereon a daily or near I KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9939 29 1 da ily ba sis? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Depending on what his hours were? 4 A. Yes. And Dr. Spraul, who had 5 responsibility for that, would visit and work with 6 him as well as to do whatever else was needed. 7 Q. Dr. Spraul would be the one who visited 8 a coupie times a year? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. How do you spell his last name? 11 A. S-p-r-a-u-1. 12 Q. What was his first name? 13 A. James. He died two or threemonths ago. 14 Q. Was Dr. Osland, did he -- you know if 15 Dr. 0 sland had a ny special training in occupational 16 medicine? 17 A. No. 18 Q. He was more orless a general 19 practitioner ? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Did he also havea private practice on 22 the side? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Dr. Spraul, though, was he trained in 25 occupational medicine? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMON0009940 .30. 1 A. Yes, he was board certified and very 2 respected. 3 Q. Okay. 4 A. In the national scene. 5 Q. Now, how often would you personally 6 visit the K rummrich pi ant ? 7 A. When Dr. Spraul would say why don't we 8 go and look at this pi ant. 9 Q. Okay. Which was about how often? 10 A. I'd visit them every two, three, four 11 years. 12 Q. Okay. Did that pi ant -- what happened 13 to that pi a nt after they stopped ma king PCBs ? 14 MR. MOORE: The Krummrich plant now? 15 MR. COKER: Yeah. 16 Q. (BY MR. COKER) Did it remain in 17 operation? 18 A. Oh, yes, it's in ope ration, but that 19 faci1ity is growing. So it's a smaller plant than it 20 was then. 21 Q. Do they make other things there besides 22 PCBs, when they were making PCBs? 23 A. They make chlorodiphenyls, phthalate 24 esters, lots of big business. Let's see, they made 25 mercury to get chlorine. They're great chiorinators KARPOWICZ REPORT ING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9941 31 1 of chemicals, making chiorodiphenyls and things like 2 this. 3 Q. I see. Okay. So they have different 4 types of chi orination processes there? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q . Now, what was the corporate medical 7 program? 8 A. Corporate medical program was to look at 9 the exposure of our workers and to assure that no one 10 working was exposed over the TLV. 11 And one of the characteristics of a 12 chemical business is that the TLV is a time weighted 13 eight ho ur exposure level. Keep sue king it into a 14 pump and it traps it and then you measure it, find 15 out how much is there. And then you divide that by 16 how much air went through and divide what his average 17 expos ure was. 18 But in the chemical business, always 19 opening valves and you get little peaks, so the 20 understanding of that peak as it relates to that 21 average is important. And so the question of whether 22 that short-term peak is important, that's the 23 industrial hygiene responsibility. 24 Q. Let me stop you there. In addition to 25 TLVs, there's what's called ceilings, is that right? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9942 32 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Would the ceiling correspond to the 3 peak? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. That would be the regulatory eq uivalent 6 or regula r standa rd for the peak would be the 7 ceiling? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Okay. 10 A. The TLV is related to the average 11 concent ra tion. The ceiling means you don't -- that 12 the -- the ceiling implies that there could be a 13 hazard from the short-term exposure. 14 Q. Right. All right. Now, you said 15 ind us t rial hygiene's responsibi1ity inv olved peaks? 16 Please clarify. I don't want to put words in your 17 mouth. 18 A. Industrial hygiene is to look at the 19 exposures of the workers which includes both peaks as 20 well as the average exposure. 21 Q. How did he - - 22 A. And one of the quarrels is how short or 23 peak can you measure. And when it gets very short, 24 can you measure it at al1. 25 Again, it inv olves -- you're taking KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9943 33 1 quantity and measuring it. So that becomes an issue 2 as well as whether the ceiling value is impor tant. 3 And if you look at ACGIH book now on TLVs, a lot of 4 ceil i ngs have be en dropped because the data wasn't 5 documented that there was an acute effect. 6 And they are trying to go back now and 7 decide whether they have to go back and get the data 8 to show that those things are correct. 9 Q. Now, how does the industrial hygienist 10 do this, look at the peaks and exposure? 11 A. I'm sorry? 12 Q. How did the industrial hygienist 13 act ually look a t the peaks a nd the average exposure 14 in the work pi ace? 15 A. That is one of the responsibilities of 16 the industrial hygienist, to make that kind of 17 decisi on. 18 Q. You know how they did that at the 19 Krummrich plant? 20 MR. MOORE: What point in time, Mark? 21 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Let's say between '73 22 and '76. 23 A. Well, each one of these TLVs or exposure 24 levels has a different gadget. And you can't use the 25 same technique for measuring one. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9944 34 1 Q. Okay. Let me go back a little. By 2 measuring, I think you could also say -- use the term 3 sampling, is that fair? 4 A. Yes, but the sampling then includes the 5 measuring. 6 Q. I understand. 7 A. So that probiem of taking that 8 short-term sample as well as the other -9 Q. How frequently did they sam pie at 10 Krummrich? 11 A. Each single chemical has a different 12 strategy. 13 Q. PCBs. 14 A. PCBs. PCBs, because we don't think of 15 them as being an acute hazard -- an acute hazard is 16 because it has something to do with how long the 17 expos ure 1ev el is. How 1ong tha t -- that peak is 18 very short, but when it's like this and if it gets 19 wide, then you have to talk about ave ra ge expos ure. 20 So they were not doing ceiling values. 21 As a matter of fact, our exposure 1ev els 22 were -- had the level of detectability and that's 23 al 1. They were that 1ow. 24 Q. Okay. Which was less than a ce rtain 25 number? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9945 35 1 A. Yes. And I don't know what that is. 2 Q. Whatever the laboratory - 3 A. Whatever the 1ev el detecta bility is. 4 Q. About how frequently did they monitor - 5 did they check that? 6 A. The f req uency of -- that's a strategy of 7 indust rial hygiene. 11 has to do with whether the 8 pi ant operation has been modified since the last 9 sample has been taken and that last sampling was 10 done. 11 The sampling is done initially to decide 12 where in an operation the levels are high. So they 13 do -- theygo through and do a survey, find out where 14 the high points are. And then subsequently, the 15 strategy, go out and get enough samples at those high 16 points to determine whether they know what the level 17 of exposure in that area is. 18 Then they test the others just to make 19 sure that they're correct. And so that point over 20 there is a place where we've got to be wor rying 21 about. So they would take more sampling there and do 22 a concentrate. 23 Now, how much they concentrated would be 24 dependent on the levels of exposure in the rest of 25 the thing. If the whole room is above the TLV, they KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9946 3_6 1 have to do something to protect the man individually 2 or to change his exposure level. 3 Q. What did they do if they saw something 4 was above the TLV? 5 A. The question is is it like that all the 6 time or is it the man gets it be cause he -- if he 7 spends fifteen minutes a day over there. And the 8 question is now, how best do we enginee r it out by 9 putting 1 oca 1 ventilation to take it aw ay, whateve r. 10 And if nothing is fea sible engineering, then you put 11 a respirator on him, protect him for that fifteen 12 minutes. 13 Q. Okay. 14 A. So this -- all this has -- your question 15 was the sampiing strategy that's wrapped into that, 16 because it related -- now, if the exposure 1evel in 17 the whole pi ant is at the 1ev el of detectability, 1 8 they don't have to do very much. The only thing they 19 have to do is come back there and decide that, yes, 20 on subsequent, that it's in the same pi ace. Then 21 that becomes a 1ow level and they don't pay much 22 attention to that. 23 Q. And a s far a s you knew, the 1ev els a t 24 K r umm rich were always would you s ay within the level 25 of detectabi1ity? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9947 37 1 MR. MOORE; Well, I don't think that 2 fairly characterizes his testimony with rega rd to the 3 time frame. 4 Q. (BY MR. CUKE R) Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. 5 Between '73 and '77. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. It was always - 8 A. Below the 1evel of detectability. 9 Q. Below the 1ev el of detectability. So 10 PCBs were -- during the time that -- between '7 3 and 11 '77, they never actually found PCBs in the air above 12 detection limits? 13 A. I have to go back and check, but that's 14 my impres sion. 15 Q. Okay. 16 A. I think that's probably right. 17 Q. All right. Now, in addition to this 18 testing in the work pi ace, was there any periodic 19 examinations of the workers at that plant as part of 20 the corporate medical program? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. What was that? 23 A. Did ayea rly examination on al1 the 24 workers throughout Monsanto. 25 Q. At every level? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9948 38 1 A. At every level. 2 Q. White collar, blue col 1 a r? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. 5 A. But it was voluntary. 6 Q. Alongwith the examination, were there 7 lab tests done, blood tests? 8 A. 11 depends on what we' re talking about. 9 Q. Okay. Let's say for workers -- factory 10 wor kers in chemical pi ant s, a s part of their physical 11 e xam i na t i on , did they also receive a ny standard 12 tests? 13 A. They had chest x-rays, pulmonary 14 function, hearing test examination, physi cal 15 examination , blood count. 16 Q. CBC? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Okay. 19 A. And urinalysis. And other things were 20 added as Or . 0 si and or whoever thought was indicated. 21 Q. Okay. 22 A. That was in the past. Now we've added 23 an SMA-12. 24 Q. 25 added? I understand. Oh, SMA -12 has sinee been KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9949 39 A. Yes. Q. When was that added? 3 A. Sometime in the early -- mid '70s. 4 Q. Mid '70s? 5 A. (Witness nods head affirmatively.) 6 Q. While youwere -- okay. While you were 7 director or associate director? 8 A. While I was director. 9 Q. Do you know whether it was customary for 10 Dr. 0 si a nd or Dr. S pra ul to have SMA-12 and/or liver 11 function tests done routinely on workers at the 12 Krummrich pi ant ? 13 A. No. 14 Q. You don't know orthey did not? 15 A. They were not, untilwe instituted 16 everyone got them all the time. 17 Q. Okay. And everyone meaning eve ryone in 18 the whole company? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Dr. Roush, I'm going to show you a 21 document which was pr od u ced by Monsanto in the Pa oli 22 yard litigation. It's bate stamp numbe r PR R 0 0 2778, 23 a letter from Emmet Kelly dated May 10th, 1972. 24 MR. CUKER ! I'd like it to be marked as 25 Roush Exhibit 1. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMON0009950 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- 4J2 1 (Roush Deposition Exhibit No. 1 was 2 marked by the court reporter for ide ntif ica tion.) 3 MR. SCHNEIDER: Mark, you've produced a 4 document pa rked PR R 0 0277 8. We have not seen this 5 document here before. We have asked the plaintiffs 6 to produce all documents in their possession relating 7 to PCBs, and this document has not been produced. 8 MR. CUKER: For the record, the document 9 does not relate to PCBs at the Waynesboro plant. 10 MR. MOORE: You want the witness to look 11 at the document? 12 MR. CUKER: Yeah. 13 MR. MOORE: All right . And I would 14 point out for the record that the document is dated 15 May 1 0 , 1972, which was some time before Dr. Roush 16 became associated with Monsanto. Go ahead. 17 MR. BUSTER: And his name doesn' t appea r 18 anywhere on the document 19 MR. MOORE: That is correct. Go ahead. 20 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Dr. Roush, you see that 21 refers to certain tests which were done on workers a t 22 the Krummrich pi ant? 23 A. I'm not that far, but I see it. 24 Q. Okay. 25 A. Yes. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9951 Q. Okay. Did that list of tests contain all the components of an SMA-12? A e I think so. Q . Okay. Do you have a ny personal recollection of those tests being done or hearing about them after you joined the compa ny ? MR. BUSTER: Which tests are you referring to? MR. CUKE R: Really, all the tests that comprise the SMA-12. MR. BUSTER: Has he ever heard of al1 the MR. CUKER: No. If he doesn't understand my question, he can tell me. Q . (BY MR. CUKER) Do you unde r stand my question, Doctor? A. Please repeat it. Q. Okay. Did you hear -- do you have a ny recoilection of hearing or learning after you joined the company that that batte ry of tests had been given to the workers, to a group of workers at the Krummrich plant? MR. BUSTER: Object to form. Ambiguous. THE WITNESS: I didn't know it was done. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9952 11 1 Q. (BY MR, CUKER) Okay. You did not know 2 it was done? 3 A. No, And I saw I didn't see a report 4 of it that had been done. 5 MR. MOORE s You've answered the 6 question. 7 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Okay. Now, is this the 8 first time you've seen that report? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. All right. You don't -- do you know 11 whether that -- those tests were given to any more 1 2 than just the twenty-seven workers mentioned in that 13 letter? 14 A. I didn't know it was done, I wouldn't 15 know if it was more. 16 Q. Okay. Were there any documents that 17 described or gave guidelines for the implementation 18 of the corporate medical program? 19 MR. MOORE s Are you through with this 20 document? 21 MR. CUKER: Yeah, I am. 22 MR. SCHNEIDERS Let me see that. 23 THE WITNESS : There were guidelines that 24 had been given by Dr. Kelly, but this was al1 in 25 pi ace when I arrived. So that examination, as I KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMON0009953 43 1 described to you before, was examination that was a 2 part of the routine. This obviously was a special 3 examination. 4 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Okay. The examination 5 that was part of the routine, was that described in 6 the guideline through Dr. Kelly? 7 A. 11 was communicated and I'm not sure 8 just how it was communica ted. But when I would visit 9 plant s, that's what I wo uld hear. 10 Q. Okay. Did that have a name? Did that 11 document have a name? 12 MR. BUSTER: What document? 13 MR. CUKER: The document of guidelines 14 from Kelly for the implementation of the corporate 15 medical program. 16 MR. BUSTER: Obj ect to the form. 17 THE WITNESS: I don't think it -- it may 18 have. 19 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Okay. When the SMA-12 20 was added, was that inserted in the guidelines? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. What do you mean, through the whole 24 compa ny? ^ 25 Q. Yeah. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9954 44 1 A. Yes. Because, again, that was a special 2 examination. 3 Q. Okay. 4 MR. COKER: Off the record. 5 (A discussion was held off the record.) 6 Q. (BY MR. COKER) Now, did the corporate 7 medical de pa r tment have access to a medical 1ibra ry ? 8 A. We had our medical library. 9 Q. Okay. 0r toxicological1ibra ry? 10 A. It's part of it. 11 Q. I'm going to give you the names of 12 several treatises and just ask you whether these 13 books were in the library or whether you or other 14 Monsanto pe ople used this during the period '7 3 to 15 1 77. Patty, P-a-t-t-y? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Sax, S-a-x? 18 A. We used it. We have it, but we didn't 19 use it. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. We didn't ignore it, but by and large, 22 it wasn't a material we ever used. 23 Q. Clinical Toxicology of Chemical Products 24 by Glennon, Gosidge & Hodge? 25 A. Yes. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMON0009955 45 1 Q. The Me r k Index? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And Hamilton and He rdy Industrial 4 Toxicology? 5 A. And Hardy. 6 Q Hardy? The answer to that one is yes, 7 also? 8 A. Yes. 9 MR. CUKER: I'd like to have this marked 10 as Roush Exhibit 2. 11 (Roush Deposition Exhibit No. 2 was 12 ma r ked by the court reporter for identification.) 13 MR. MOORE: You want the witness to look 14 at this? 15 MR. CUKERs Yeah. 16 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Dr. Roush, if you don't 17 mind, while they're looking at that, I'm going to ask 18 you a question unrelated to that. Did anyone 19 calculate how much Monsanto spent for the corporate 20 aedical plan per worker? 21 MR. MOORE: At what point in time? 22 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Let's say between '7 3 23 and '77. 24 A. To ask your question again, is it local 25 or how big is your question? Are you talking about KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMON0009956 46 1 the whole company? 2 Q. Well, let's -- I'll take the answer any 3 way you can give it to me. Let's start with the 4 whole company, if you can give it to me as the whole 5 company. But I'm specifically interested in the 6 Krummrich pi ant. 7 A. I don't know. Their budget for their 8 program was theirs, so I don't know that. 9 Q. So that would come out of the div isional 10 budget? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. All right. where is the -- all right. 13 Go ahead. What would you know? 14 A. Our department. And it was something - 15 it went up and down. 16 Q. Sure. 17 A. It was someplace on the order of five 18 mill ion dollars plus toxicology. 19 Q, Plus the five to ten million for 20 toxicology you talked a bout before? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. All right. Your budget did not include 23 the environmental testing in the work place? 24 A. No. 25 Q. That came out of the divisional budget, KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9957 47 1 al so? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And you don't know what that would be ? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Okay. Have you ever seen Roush 6 Exhibit 2 before, Dr. Roush? 7 A. I might have. It's old and it's been 8 modified since AC IA took over maj or responsibility. 9 And Shell, who -- this came from Shell first and then 10 A IHA pic ked them up. 11 Q. When was it modified? 12 A. Al1 Iknow is AC IA took a maj or 13 responsibility for this after -- some time along in 14 there. 15 Q. I'm sorry, say - 16 A. Sometime in this time frame, that A IHA 17 cropped out of doing this kind of work. 18 Q. Can you recall approximately when that 19 was? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Was that before or after PCBs were 22 banned ? 23 MR. MOORE: Well, obj ect to the 24 characterization of the question. 25 MR. COKER: Okay. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9958 50 1 our custome rs was the responsibility of the operating 2 division. 3 Q. Okay. During the period '7 3 to '77, do 4 you know what protective measures were used by 5 worke rs at the Kr ummrich pi ant ? 6 A. They wear coveralls - 7 MR. BUSTER: In which part of the 8 K r umm rich pi ant ? 9 MR. CUKER : PCBs. 10 THE WITNESS: They wear coveralls, but 11 the whole pi ant wore coveral1s, so it was a chemical 12 indust ry type cover al1. 13 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Made of what? 14 A. Cotton. 15 Q. And when you say coveralls, did this -16 what did it cover? Are we talking about like an 17 apron like thing? 18 A. No, no. It's a suit. 19 Q. A whole body suit? 20 A. A whole body suit. 21 Q. Okay. 22 A. But that -- the whole pi ant did that. 23 Q. Okay. 24 A. And it's kind of characteristic. And 25 when I visit the pi ant s, they would -- whatever plant KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9959 51 1 I visit, they would be wearing that same coverall. 2 Q. And they'remade of cotton? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. 5 A. There was nota conce rn for them being 6 impe rvious to chemicals. They were clean enough so 7 that the man spilled something on him, his supervisor 8 or someone would say go change your clothes if they 9 thought that was a ppr opriate, de pending on the size 10 of that. 11 Q. Did the company provide the coveralls? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q . Did the company clean the coveralIs? 14 A. Within my framework, yes. And I'm not 15 sure if all of them did that. But, yes, my answer is 16 yes. 17 Q. What does my f ramewor k -- within your 18 framework? 19 A. The time when I was watching them. 20 Q. Oh, okay. Did they -- did these workmen 21 wear gloves? 22 A. They wore gloves when there was -- when 23 they were in possibility of having exposure to the 24 material. 25 Q. By exposure, you mean skin contact? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMON0009960 52 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. What kind of gloves? 3 A. I don't recall. i 4 Q Boots? 5 A. No. They wore shoes that they wore 6 there and didn't take home. 7 Q. The company provided the shoes, also? ! 8 A. I think they purchased them at reduced 9 price. 10 Q. Oh, so the employees would purchase them 11 from the company - 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. -- at like a subsidized price? 14 A. Yes. There would be someone come 15 through on a regular basis. 16 Q. Okay. Did a nyone -- did you ever see 17 anyone at the Krummrich plant wearing respirators? 18 A. Not with the PCBs. 19 Q. Okay. About how manytimes were you at 20 the Kr ummrich pi ant during the time PCBs were being 21 made there? 22 A. Two or three times. 23 Q. Okay. Do you know what wor kers were 24 told about what to do if PCBs did spill on their 25 clothing? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9961 53 1 A. No. You're asking specifically and I 2 can't answer that. 3 Q. Okay. I think you said earlier you 4 had -- you seemed to have some understanding that the 5 supe rvisor would, on occasion, tel1 them to change 6 their clothes if they saw a stain on them. 7 A. Yes, that was the general rule as 8 opposed to specific for PCB. 9 Q. It was general for any chemical? 10 A. Yes. 11 MR. BUSTER: I believe he said depending 12 on the size of the spill and the circumstances, 13 also. 1 4 MR. CUKER: Okay. 15 THE WITNESS: Yes. 16 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) In what way would the 17 size and circ umstance of the spill inf1uence that 18 decision? 19 A. If the man was there and got all of his 20 clothes sprayed, and depending on what the chemical 21 was, they would go and have him wash, shower right 2 2 then and put on clean clothing. And so s ome thing 23 less than that, they would say do something about 24 that, whatever that means. 25 Q. Did they have show er s on the premises? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9962 54 A. Yes . 2 Q. Were showers required of any group of 3 workers? 4 MR. MOORE: Relative to PCB product ion? 5 MR. CUKER: No, just -- 6 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) For instance -- well, 7 were sh owe r s r equired of a nybody who worked at the 8 K r umm rich pi ant? 9 A. I can't offhand recall. In order to be 10 sure of that, you'd have to have them go throu gh a 11 shower to make sure that take s pi ace. There's a lot 12 of pi a ce s that we recommend that showers be ta ken. 13 Q. Was itrecommended a t K r ummr i ch ? 14 A. I don't know. 1 5 Q. Okay. Did they have lockers, workmen 16 have lockers? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Okay. Werethe showersapproximate to 19 the loc ke rs? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Do you recallwhether there were signs 22 there saying you should shower before you go home? 23 A. No, I don't remembe r. 24 Q. Okay.About how ma ny peo pie worked in 25 the K r umm rich pi ant in the -- may be we should get a KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMON0009963 55 1 des cr iption of al1 the ope ration. You said they 2 had -- they were involved in a 1ot of chlorination 3 processes. 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. How many different buildings were there? 6 A. I don't know. 7 Q. Okay. 8 A. Didn't think of counting buildings. 9 Q. I unde rstand. The PCB process had its 10 own building? 11 A. Yes. 1 2 Q. Approximately how many workers worked in 13 that building? If you can recall. 14 A. About sixty. 15 Q. Okay. Dr. Roush, I 'm going to show you 16 a document produced by Monsanto in this 1 itiga tion 17 stamped BRW 000515. It's a handwritten memo from 18 David Wood dated 2/29/76, and attached to it is a 19 report from a Dr. Stopford dated January 30th, 1976. 20 MR. CUKER: Let this be marked as Roush 21 Exhibit 3. 22 (Roush Deposition Exhibit No. 3 was 23 marked by the court reporter for identification.) 24 THE WITNESS: Al1 right. 25 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Okay. Dr. Roush, let KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9964 55 1 just ask you generally, do you today have a ny 2 independent recollection of any dealings with the 3 Mallory Compa ny in the early part of 1 97 6? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Okay. Have you rev iewed a ny documents 6 relating to that before your deposition? 7 A. Therewas several of them. 8 Q. Okay. Was this one of them? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Okay. You are -- well, your name does 11 appea r on this doc ument. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Can you tell from the location of this 14 name whether you are a to, a from, or a cc? 15 A. I'm a cc. 16 Q. Okay. There's a statement in here, it 17 says "This is on medical department file." You see 18 that? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. "Do not put in our file. " 21 A. Right. 22 Q. Is that in or on? 23 A. On. 24 Q. On our file. 25 A. I don't unde rstand, but it says on our KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMON0009965 57 1 file, I think. 2 Q. Which medical depa r tment are they 3 talking about? 4 MR. MOORE: Well, wait a minute. It's 5 not fair for him to say what David Wood was talking 6 about. He said he had no recol1ection of that. 7 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Okay. Do you have -- do 8 you know on what file Dr. Stopf ord ' s report was kept? 9 MR. BUSTER: Object to form. 10 Ambiguous. 11 THE WITNESS: It says it's in the 12 medical de pa r tment file. That would be our file. 13 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Can you ever recall 14 getting Dr. Stopford's report, whethe r through this 15 memo or - 16 A. No. 17 Q. There 1s some handw riting in the upper 18 left-ha\nd corner of the second page. Do you 19 recognize the handw riting? 20 A. No. 21 Q. It's not your handw riting? 22 A. No. 23 Q. You know if it's Mr. Wood's? 24 A. No, I do not know. 25 Q. Okay. There is a reference here to you KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMON0009966 58 1 having some time restraints I think in the last 2 sentence of the letter. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Do you -- can you tell me what type of 5 time restraints that would be? 6 MR. MOORE: You're asking him to look at 7 the date and see if he recalls what his time 8 situation was? 9 MR. CUKE R: Just generally in the early 10 part of 1976. 11 THE WITNESS? They had me doing lots of 12 things. 13 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) They had us al1 doing 14 lots of things. 15 A. Yeah. 16 Q. Was it -- how -- was it -- strike that. 17 Did you eve r have meetings with other 18 companies that were using PCBs? 19 A. If -- no. If it was, it was rare. It 20 was not a common. 21 Q. Okay. What person or what group of 22 people in the company would be responsible for 23 handling that issue? 24 MR. BUSTER: What issue? 25 MR. CUKER; The issue of how PCBs were KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9967 59 1 being used at the plants of customers of Monsanto. 2 MR. BUSTER; I have to obj ect to the 3 form of that question as being overly broad. I think 4 it's so broad that it's not capable of a response. 5 MR. MOORE; It also assumes that those 6 kind of communications were going on. There really 7 is no evidence on this record about that at this 8 point. 9 THE WITNESS; Ask the question again, 10 can you? 11 Q. (BY MR. CUKE R) All right. who at 12 Monsanto -- well, strike that. I'll put some 13 evide nee in. 14 Were you aware that Monsanto had 15 required its customers to sign an indemnity agreement 16 rega rding the use of PCBs? 17 A. No. 18 Q. You were not aware of that - 19 A. No. 20 ' Q. -- in '73? Were you aware that Monsanto 21 had expressed a concern to its custome rs about 22 environmental contamination with PCBs? 23 MR. BUSTER: Obj ect to the form. 24 THE WITNESS: My of f hand answer is that 25 with -- we don't have any responsibi1ity for KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9968 60 1 e nvir onment al contamination. I would say yes. 2 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Okay. Do you know who 3 at the compa ny was responsible for deal i ng with the 4 customers to review how PCBs were used - 5 A. No. 6 Q. -- in terms of environmental discharges? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Do you know who at the compa ny was 9 normally responsible for answering questions about 10 the toxicology of PCBs that were asked by customers? 11 12 177? MR. BUSTER: Same time frame, '73 to 13 MR. CUKER: Yeah. 14 THE WITNESS: The business group, the 15 same division. 16 Q. (BY MR. CUKE R) Okay. Be that division 17 in the chemical c ompa ny ? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Did Mr. Papageorge work in that 20 division? 21 A. I -- I would say yes. 22 Q. Okay. 23 A. Al1 based on my same idea, my 24 unde rstanding of the division. And I'm putting 25 division where I think it should be. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9969 51 1 Q. Dr. Roush, I want to turn to page two of 2 Dr. Stopf ord's report. And there's a list here of a 3 program that he recommends. You see that? 4 A. (Jh- huh . 5 Q. I'm going to go through each item of the 6 list and ask you, as best as you can recall, whether 7 these were part of the Monsanto corporate program in 8 1 976 . 9 A. In general? 10 Q. In general, yeah. And when I -- in 11 general, but I unde r stand that thisis a compa ny wide 12 program, but we also unde rstandthat included in the 13 program were the PCB workers a tthe K r umm richpi a nt, 14 is that correct? 1 15 A. Yes. . 16 Q. Examination and hi story? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Physiologic parameters? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. All right. What is your unde rstanding 21 of what that term means? 22 A. I -- the only thing I can think of is 23 talking about blood pressure, respiratory rates and 24 such as that. 25 Q. Cholesterol and triglyce rides? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMON0009970 1 A. NO. 2 Q WBC count ? 3 A . Yes. 4 Q . Hemoglobin? 5 A o Yes. 6 Q . Pi atelet count? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q SGOT, LDH, Aik. Phos. , bilirubin, SG PT, 9 GGTP, LAP? 10 A NO. 11 Q . Okay. Are those all pa r t of an SMA-12? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q . Is it your testimony that the SMA-12 was 14 not pact of the corporate medical program in Janua ry 15 1 976? 16 A. That's about the time or before -- right 17 around that time we made it corporate wide. 18 Q. Okay. So it could have been, you're 19 not -- I don't want to pin you down to dates if 20 you're uncertain, but I just don't want it to be 21 understood that it was definitely not part of the 22 pi an in January '76. Your testimony is it could have 23 been - _ 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. -- but you're not sure? Okay. Thyroid KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9971 63 1 panel? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Urine porphyrins? 4 A. No. 5 Q Was one of the reasons for the tests 6 that Monsanto did as part of its corporate medical 7 program to ascertain whether people in the work place 8 were having any medical problems as a result of 9 exposure to chemicals? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. And was that also true of the 12 workers in the PCB depar tment at the Kr ummrich plant? 13 A. Yes, but they aren't all equa1. There 14 are some -- so some of them were being done as a part 15 of a routine and others were because we were 16 inte rested about that time. 17 Q. Okay. Interested -- what do you mean by 18 interested in them at that time? 19 A. Whether there was -- somebody reports an 20 effect that we want to know whether it's happe ning in 21 our worke rs. Or we had done some study in our 22 biologic testing and e nvironmental health 1aborat o ry 23 or someplace else that talks about an effect we may 24 want to be able to conclude. 25 Q. All right. When you say interested at KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9972 64 1 that time, you mean interested from a research point i 2 of view or -- 3 A. Understanding -4 Q. -- learning point ofview? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Attempting to learn what kinds of 7 probiems could result from chemical exposure? 8 A. Whether it's believable or not, whether 9 it happens or not. 10 Q. All right. Dr. Roush, it's my 11 understanding there were a variety of actions that 12 can be taken by a company in a situation where a I 13 worker has a positive finding on a exam. I think you 14 already testified about one of them, which was 15 engineering controls to 1 ower the level, if the 1 evel 16 was high, if it was in excess of the TLV. I also 17 recal1 one other thing is to pul 1 a man off the job. 18 That's another thing which com pa nie s do sometimes. 19 How did Monsanto determine what action 20 it would take upon a positive finding in a worker in I 21 one of these exams? 22 A. Got a man with an abnormality, you want 23 to know what to do with him. First, you have to 24 decide whether that effect was related to his work. 25 And so the first thing you have to decide is whether KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9973 55 1 there's a specific effect that may be related to that 2 chemical or are we talking about nonspecific effect s 3 that may be related. 4 Q. Okay. 5 A. So if it's one that we knew is related, 6 we'd have to decide whether it was sufficient -- it 7 would have to be removed. 8 Q. Meaning -- who would have -- you mean 9 the worker would have to be removed. 10 A. That wo uld be onepossibility. 11 Q. Oh-huh. 12 A. And the other possibility is to move him 13 from that high expos ure to anothe r pi a ce where 14 there's 1ower exposure, or to move him to another 15 place where such exposure couldn't occur. 16 And in order to do all that, si nee most 17 effects that we see are nonspecific, you'd have to 18 decide whether you think that that's related or not. 19 That's where the a rgument come s. 20 Q. Okay. So this was pretty much a very 21 individualized decision-making process by the plant 22 doctor? 23 A. How to get there. How to reach the 24 decision whether his effect was work-related or not. 25 Q. Okay. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9974 66 1 (A break was taken.) 2 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Dr. Roush, in the 3 situation where wor kme n would be moved to a different 4 area, either a less exposed area or a non-exposed 5 area, was it part of the c ompa ny policy to inform the 6 worker the reasons for moving him? 7 MR. MOORE: Now you're talking about 8 Monsanto, 1973 to '76? 9 MR. CUKER: Correct. 10 THE WITNESS: It's hard to speak for al1 11 plant s. It's hard to speak for al1 physicians that 12 do not work for us full-time. And we only had very 13 few full-time. 14 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) I'm talking about the 15 policy and the guidelines a s you un de r stood them. 16 A. They were to be told why they were being 17 moved. 18 Q. Okay. Do you know Thomas Evans? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q . Okay. Did he replace you? 21 A. No. 22 Q . Okay. 23 A. He was given responsibility for 24 industrial hygiene and safety and trace chemicals lab 25 that we talked about looking for env i r onment al KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9975 67 1 contaminants. 2 Q. Is thathis position with the company 3 today? 4 A. Yes, 5 Q Can you give anypersonal recollection 6 of a ny meeting with the Mai 1o ry peo pie in March of 7 1 976? 8 A. No. 9 MR. CUKER: For the record, why don't we 10 have marked as Exhibit Roush 3 - 11 MR. BUSTER: We've already -- this will 12 be Roush 4. 13 MR. CUKER: Roush 4, excuse me. This is 14 a memo from looks like J. A. A11ey to J. C. We be r, 15 and you1 re copied, dated March 19th, 1 976. 16 (Roush Deposition Exhibit No. 4 was 17 marked by the court reporter for identification.) 18 MR. MOORE: Mark, did you read the 19 production numbers in on this one? 20 MR. CUKER: Oh, I did not. 21 MR. MOORE: That's fine. I just want 22 the record to be clear that this appea rs to be a 23 number of documents stapled together which may or may 24 not be related, to the extent that they ought to all 25 be stapled together. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9976 68 1 In any event, they bear production 2 numbers from the Brewer case B RW 0 0187 7 through BRW 3 0018 86. Dr. Roush ha s just glanced a t these, so 4 let's decide what you want to do with these, Mark, 5 before we spend a lot of time on them. 6 Q. (BY MR. CUKE R) All right. Doctor, did you review those before today? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Okay. Let medirect yourattention 10 to -- let's see, the first page, item d. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. You see there's areference there, it 13 says "Bud would like to defuse the situation at 14 Mallory which has resulted from Stopford's 15 recommended course of action." Did anybody tell you 16 what situation at Mallory was that needed to be 17 defused? 18 A. No. 19 Q. You have a ny understanding of what that 20 was? 21 A. Pardon? 22 Q . You have any understanding of what that 23 was at all? 24 A No. 25 Q. Okay. The third page of Mr. A11ey's KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9977 69 1 memo, under h, under Watch outs. 2 MR. CUKER : Off the record. 3 (A discussion was held of f the record.) 4 Q. (BY MR. CUKE R) Under h, it says - 5 where it says "We should not exhibit a ny prior 6 know ledge of Dr. Stopf ord's recommendations," did 7 a nybody ever give you a ny reason for not 8 acknowledging Dr. Stopf ord's recommendations? 9 A. No. 10 Q. You have any unde rstanding what the 11 reasons were? 1 2 A. No. 13 Q. Now, in this memo itself -- rather, I'm 14 sorry, in the a 11 a chment s, if you'll turn to the next 15 to last page - 16 A. One with Wolsky? 17 Q. Yeah, the one with Wolsky, you'll see it 18 says "We have the f ol1owing q uest ions for Dr. Roush 19 of Monsanto." Do you recall ever answering those 20 questions? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Wasit your pr act ice to directly answer 23 questions like that posed by c u s tome r s or was it your 24 practice simply to tell them what Monsanto's own 25 policies were? 0r both? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9978 / U"7 ^ 1 A. I'm not sure I could generalize. 2 Q. All right. I'm going to just ask you 3 these questions today and ask you, if you can, to 4 tell me what your state of mind was back in Ma rch of 5 1976 with regard to these questions. 6 Did you agree with the recommenda tion of 7 the Industrial Hygiene Association that, quote, 8 "Persons who are regularly or repeatedly exposed to 9 chlorodiphe ny1s should be e xamined periodically to 10 detect early ev ide nee of skin irritation and/or liver 11 damage?" Did you agree with that back in 1976? 12 A. Not -- not in itself. Not as presented 13 here. 1 4 Q. Okay. What is the nature of your 15 disagreement? 16 A. If the exposure is almost zero, if you 17 can't detect it, you certainly wouldn't do that. 18 Q. Okay. 19 A. And sosomehow it's related to the level 20 of exposure. 21 Q. Well, this does say regularly or 22 repeatedly exposed in the question. 23 A. The que st ion is what's exposure. 24 Q. You mean 1evel ofexposure? 25 A. Yes. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9979 71 1 Q. Okay. 2 A. If the exposure is close to zero, if I 3 can measure it but it's not close to the TLV, then I 4 don't have the same level of concern if that level 5 was at or above the TLV. 6 Q. Okay. When you say close to the TLV, 7 what do you mean? 8 A. Depends on the chemical. 9 Q. PCBs. 10 A. Didn't worry much about PCBs. 11 Q. Even if they were close to the TLV? 12 A. Yes. That's based on history. We went 13 for many years without having had any problems with 14 the workers. 15 Q. But the levels of the Monsanto work 16 pi a ce were, I think you said, below detection levels? 17 A. When I was there. 18 Q. When you were there. Okay. 1 9 Number two, were you at the time 20 conce rned over dioxanes which might be formed on 21 heating PCBs? 22 A. I don't think dioxanes were formed. Not 23 dioxanes. Dioxane s is -- I'm not eve n sure why 24 dioxanes are here. 25 Q. Misnomer for dioxins, i-n-s? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMON0009980 72 1 A. Yes. But I don't think dioxins are 2 formed by PCBs. 3 MR. MOORE: Just to clarify, Dr. Roush, 4 is it correct that your testimony would be that you 5 do not relate dioxanes as spelled here or dioxins, 6 d-i-o-x-i-n-s, as being related to PCBs? 7 THE WITNESS: That's right. 8 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Just if I could go back 9 to number one, because I think your answer varied 10 with the 1ev el of e xposure. Is it your testimony 11 that in March of 1976 you would have agreed with that 12 for people who were exposed to levels in excess of 13 the TLVs? 14 A. I don't know. It would depend on the 15 situation. 16 Q. All right. Number three, back in 1976, 17 what was your understanding of what type of hygiene 18 measures should be taken to prevent physical contact 19 of personnel with PCBs? Would you recommend the use 20 of gloves, overalls, head covers, goggles, shoes, et 21 cetera? 22 A. I would - 23 MR. BUSTER: Obj ect to the form. It's 24 compound. 25 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) You can take those one KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9981 73 1 at a time if it's easier for you, Doctor. Would you 2 recommend gloves? 3 A. If there was hand contact with it, yes. 4 Q. Overalls? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Head cove rs? 7 A. It all depends on the circumstance in 8 which it's being used. If there was any evidence of 9 it being generated so that there would be head 10 expos ure, the answer would be yes. But if not, if we 11 only have to worry about there being skin cont act, we 1 2 don't have to do that. 13 Q. Goggles, your answer would be the same? 14 A. Yes. 1 5 Q. In other words, if there's a chance of 16 it getting in your eyes? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Shoes? 19 A. Shoes, all the time there. 20 Q. All the time, did you say? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. What was your unde rstanding in 23 March of 197 6 of the best method of cleaning PCBs 24 from the hands? 25 A. I don't know. It was a written policy KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9982 74 1 that had been going on for years and no one had 2 talked to me about it being a conce r n about getting 3 of f the skin. 11 never came -- it never came to my 4 attention as a problem. 5 Q. I'm sorry, you said it was a written 6 policy for years? 7 A, They have a policy within the operating 8 unit that make PCBs how -- where they go to wash of f 9 their hands, they use what is standa rd practice 10 there. And I'm not -- I don't know what that was. 11 Q. Okay. Well, didn't they wear gloves in 12 that unit? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Did itnormally get ontheir hands, as 15 far a s you knew ? 16 A. Not in gross quantities, but there could 17 be times when the man didn't expect to get it on his 18 hand and got it on his hand and went there and washed 19 it off. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. But it also could be the man wearing the 22 gloves, you would want him to wash his hands before 23 he left the unit. 24 Q. Now, going back to theannual physicals 25 that were done, was part of the annual physical to KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9983 iz 1 it's a big drop, it probably won't. But also if it's 2 a big drop, he won't get it in his lungs but he will 3 get it on his skin. 4 So most of all, that exposure is not 5 going to be a very fine s pr ay that would get down the 6 lung. So most of my pr obiem is related to the skin, 7 but I have to verify al1 of those things I just said. 8 Q All right. Let me take you to the next 9 pa ge. There were s ome questions the re. I'm just 10 going to ask you what your -- again, what your state 11 of mind was back in March of 1976 with regard to 12 these questions. 13 Number one, "What procedure is suggested 14 when a health problem which is not work-related is 1 5 discovered?" Let me just ask you -- let me clarify, 16 what was Monsanto's pr oced ure for that under the 17 corporate medical pi an? 18 MR. MOORE: At or about that time? 1 9 MR. COKER: Yeah, at that time. 20 THE WITNESS: Well, it just consists 21 with good medical practice. A man has some problem 22 that's not work-related, he should be told about it 23 so he can get somet h i ng done about it if indicated. 24 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) What information was 25 given the employee s conce rning the reasons for and KARPOWICZ REPORT ING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9984 1 results of the medical exams a t Monsanto? 2 A. The employee s were told that the 3 examination was part of the medical pol icy, but it 4 was not req uired that they take the examination. 5 Q. Okay. 6 A. It was just a part of our overall 7 general policy. 8 Q. Number three, "What kinds of medical 9 records" - 10 MR. BUSTER: Excuse me. I don't believe 11 he was finished answering the question. 1 2 MR. CUKER : I'm sorry. 13 THE WITNESS: The results of the 14 examinations? 1 5 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) Uh-huh. 16 A. The results of the examinations were 17 given to the man if it was related to the future 18 itself. It's the same old problem of do I tell you 19 your eyes aren't as good as they were last year or do 20 I tel 1 you if your vision wasn't quite the same as it 21 was last year. 2 2 Most things would be said, but one of 23 the quarrels we've got in medicine is what you tell a 24 man. You may have a heart probiem, but I'm not 25 sure. It has the same kind of an overtone. But KARPOWICZ REPO RTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9985 78 1 be twee n the employee and his doctor, the information 2 was given to the man. 3 Q. Okay. And the answer to number four, 4 were phy sicals under the Monsanto corporate medical 5 plan given before the employees commence employment 6 as a basis for com pa rison with later examinations? 7 A. An examination, we didn't -- we did what 8 was called a preplacement examination, which is 9 expl i cit or just exactly to your question. A 10 pre piacement exam is before he was given a job. 11 It was not perfect because when he 12 changed jobs, every once in a while a man would slip 13 thr ough and we wouldn't do a pr eplacement before he 14 moved to a new assignment, but may want it. But 15 that's part of the difficulty of making things 16 happen. But our goal was to have an evaluation for 17 compa rison with later exams. 18 Q. Okay. Do you remember a ny discussions 19 about Monsanto requesting that Mallory not take its 20 lawyer to this meeting? 21 A. No. 22 MR. MOORE: Well, he's already said - 23 well, Mark, before we get into a lot of these do you 24 recall, he said he doesn't have any recol1ection. 25 MR. COKER: There's not going to be a KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMON0009986 79 1 lot of them. 2 MR. BUSTER: Did you get the answer? 3 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) The answer is no? 4 A. Uh-huh. 5 Q . All right. Do you know whether any 6 Monsanto medical personnel evalua ting workers, PCB 7 workers a t the K r umm rich pi ant, were ever told to pay 8 a ny special attention to 1 iver abnormalities should 9 they show up in these workers? 10 A. NO, I don' t. 11 Q. You don't recall one way or the other? 12 A. NO. 13 Q. 0 r whether it was their practice t 0 14 take -- well, let me go back. I think you testified 15 earl ie r that certain effects in the worker were 16 suspected as possibly resulting from the chemical 17 exposure. Did Monsanto medical pe rsonnel ever 18 suspect liver symptoms as possibly resulting from PCB 1 9 exposure during the time that you were there? 20 A. Not that I know of. 21 Q. Is there anyone who would be more 22 f amilia r with that than you? 23 A. Dr. Osland. 24 Q. Okay. Would Dr. Spraul have been more 25 familiar with that than you? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9987 30 1 A. Probably so. 2 MR. CUKER: Okay. I have no more 3 questions. 4 MR. BUSTER: Can we take a break, 5 please? 6 (A break was taken.) 7 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) I just have one other 8 question. Before your de position, did you discuss 9 the case with a ny representatives of Mai1ory Company, 10 either Mr. Schneider or Mr. Buster? 11 A. I t alked to both of them. 1 2 Q. You did speak to both of them? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. For about how long? 15 A. Three hours. 16 Q. And what was your discussion? When was 17 this? 1 8 A. Last week. 19 Q. Okay. What was your discussion with 20 them? 21 A. Related primarily to these document s. 22 Q. Okay. What else did it relate to? 23 A. I don't think there was a ny thing else. 24 Q. Okay. Was there a ny discus sion about 25 the toxicity of PCBs? KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9988 81 1 A. Indirectly. 2 Q. Was there a discussion about a 3 similarity of position between the Mai 1o ry Company 4 and the Monsanto Compa ny on the toxicity of PCBs or 5 lack thereof? 6 A. No. 7 MR. CUKER: That's all I have. 8 CROSS EXAMINATION 9 BY MR. BUSTER: 10 Q. Dr. Roush, I'm Kevin Buster from the law 11 firm of King & Spalding. We represent D ura cel 1 12 International, Inc. in this litigation. 13 I'd like to direct your attention back 14 to Roush Exhibit 4, please, and specifically the 15 first page of this exhibit, point 3a, which appea r s 16 to be a list of proposed attendees at a meeting. You 17 see that? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. The last ent ry on the list is a fellow 20 named Dr. Len Goldwater, Cons ultant to Mallory. Do 21 you know a Dr. Leonard Goldwater? 22 A. I know himvery well. 23 Q. Did you know him back in the spring of 24 1 97 6? 25 A. Yes. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9989 82 1 Q. How did you know Dr. Goldwater? 2 A. He has a national reputation as a 3 toxicologist and his real strength is in k n owled ge of 4 mercury. His moving to Duke was a part of his 5 exper tise that they wanted to capture. 6 Q. Now, when you say toxicology, to your 7 knowled ge, was Dr. G oldwa te r knowledgeable in the 8 area of occupational medicine? 9 A. Yes, the applica tion of toxicology and 10 unde r standing and relationship to occupational 11 medicine was his forte. 12 Q. What was his reputation in occupational 13 medicine? When you said he had a national 14 reputation - 15 A. Yes, yes. 16 Q. When you said that, did you include 17 occupational medicine as well as toxicology? 1 8 A. Oh, yes. 19 Q. What was your practice in the spring of 20 '76 if a customer asked you whether it should perform 21 medical screenings for PCB workers, workers who came 22 into contact with PCB? 23 MR. CUKE R: Obj ection. You ca n answer. 24 THE WITNESS; If they asked me about 25 what they should do with exposure to PCBs, I would KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMON0009990 33 1 have to in some way get an evaluation of the 2 circumstances in which the PCBs were being used. 3 Q. (BY MR. BUSTER) Would you undertake to 4 do that your self or would you undertake to advise 5 them to have some knowledgeable consultant or someone 6 like that do that? 7 MR. CUKERj Objection. 8 Q. (BY MR. BUSTER) This would be a 9 cust ome r of Monsanto. 10 A. It would be a very unusual circum stance 11 if Monsanto did not ask me to do such a thing, and so 12 I would not do it myself and I would recommend that 13 someone did. But, you know, I can't foresee a 14 ci rcumstance -- some circum stance that I might not 15 have done it for Monsanto. 16 Q. All right. Outside of Monsanto, if a 17 customer came to you with that probiem, what would 18 your response have been? 19 A. I would recommend to get someone to 20 evaluate the circumstance. 21 Q. Based upon what you know about 22 Dr. Leonard Goldw ate r, is he or is he not a person 23 who would be suitable to perform such a 24 consultation? 25 MR. CUKER: Obj ection. KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9991 34 1 THE WITNESS: He is an excellent 2 physician with a great deal of experience and was 3 quite capable of doing something like this. 4 MR. BUSTER: No further questions. 5 MR. MOORE : Emhart? 6 MR. SPODEN: Emhart doesn't have any 7 questions. Thank you. 8 MR. MOORE: Any questions? 9 (Roush Deposit ion Exhibit No. 5 was 10 marked by the court reporter for identification.) 11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. CUKE R: 13 Q. Dr. Roush, I've had marked Roush 14 Exhibit 5 an exhibit produced by Monsanto in this 15 lawsuit numbe r B RW 002025 through 002040. It is a 16 sixteen page list of PCB related 1awsuits against the 17 Monsa nto Compa ny. I would like you to tell me first 18 of al1 whether you've given depositions in a ny of 19 those cases. And if the answer is yes - 20 A. One. 21 Q. In one? Okay. Which one was that, sir? 22 A. I don't know. 23 Q. Well, can you refresh your recollection? 24 A. No, I've not given -- in depositions, 25 they just tell me we're going to be there, and the KARPOWICZ REPORT ING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9992 85 1 relationship of that to some chemical had no meaning 2 to me at all, some company. 3 Q. I'm sorry, sir, I don't understand. 4 A. I had no understanding of why the 5 1aws uit was taking pi ace when I gave a depo sition or 6 when I would testify. 7 Q. Was it a PCB related lawsuit? 8 A. One, yes. 9 Q. Did you give a deposition in a PCB 10 related 1aws u i t ? 11 A. Yes. 1 2 Q. Where was that deposition given? 13 A. In Houston. 14 Q. Okay. You r emembe r who the lawyers 15 were? 16 A. Pa rdon? 17 Q . You remember who the lawyers were? 18 A. No. 19 MR. BUSTER: I'd like to point out that 20 this is in no way fol1ow-up to questioning I did. I 21 mean it seems a little inefficient. 22 THE WITNESS: No, but I'm sure I can get 23 that name. 24 Q. (BY MR. CUKER) All right. Wei 1, if you 25 can supply that to me through Mr. Moore -- KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9993 85 1 Sure. 2 e " " then I don't think that we need 3 bela bor that a ny further 0 4 MR. CUKE R: That ' s all I have. 5 MR. MOORE: Okay . All through. 6 7 8 9 this 10 11 GEORGE ROUSH, M.D. Subscribed and sworn to before me on day of , 1989. My commission expires 12 NOTARY PUBLIC 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9994 87 1 NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE 2 STATE OF MISSOURI 3 COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS ) ) ) 4 I, Gwen A. Huffman, a Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public duly commissioned and 5 qual ified in and for the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri, do he r e by certify that, purs uant to 6 agreement between Counsel, came before me on the 20th day of December, 1988, at the Karpowicz Reporting 7 Company Conference Room, 314 North Broadway, 11th Floor, St. Louis, Missouri, GEO RGE ROUSH, M.D., who 8 was by me first duly sworn on his oath to testify to the truth and nothing but the truth of his knowledge 9 touching and concerning the matters in controversy in this cause; that he was thereupon carefully examined 10 upon his oath, and his examination reduced to writing under my supervision; that the deposition is a true 11 record of the testimony given by the witness. 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto hand and affixed my seal this/^2^2 day of 13 1989. my 1 4 My commissi on will expire January 27th, 1991. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KAR POWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9995 1 KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPAni 408 Olive Street, Suite 316 2 St. Louis, MO 63102 3 January 11, 1989 4 Dr. George Roush 5 10 Babler Lane St. Louis, MO 63124 6 In Re: Katherine Joyce Brewer, et al. vs 7 Monsanto Corporation, et al. 3 Dear Dr. Roush: 9 This letter, incorporated as the last page of your deposition taken on December 20, 1988 will serve as 10 notice to you that your testimony is now ready for your reading and signing of same. 11 I would appreciate your contacting my office by 12 calling 314/621-8883 so that a r rangements can be made to accomplish this. 13 This letter is being mailed to you, as you know, by 14 Certified Mail with return receipt requested. If we have not heard from you within thirty days after 15 receiving your return receipt, this testimony will be filed with our indication of this offer of submission 16 to you and your refusal to sign. 17 I would appreciate hearing f rom you at your earliest convenience and appreciate your cooperation in this 18 regard. 19 Sincerely yours, 20 21 Gwen A. Huffman, RPR 22 CERTIFIED MAIL J P 714 737 465 23 MAIL ED ON: Janua ry 11, 1989 24 25 KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9996 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OP TENNESSEE 2 COLUMBIA DIVISION 3 KATHERINE JOYCE BREWER, et al . , 4 Plaintiffs, 5 -vs- 6 MONSANTO CORPORATION, 7 et al, 8 Defendants. ) ) ) ) Nos. 1-88-008 and ) 1-88-0014 through ) 1-88-0368 ) Judge Wiseman ) ) ) ) 9 AFFIDAVIT 10 I, GWEN A. HUFFMAN, a Registered 11 Professional Reporter and Notary Public within and 12 for the State of Missouri, do hereby certify that 13 unde r Certified Mail No. P 714 737 465 14 DR. GEORGE ROUSH 15 was duly notified that his deposition taken in the 16 above matter had been transcribed and could be read 17 and signed; that signed receipt was returned showing 18 signature date of _______________________ 19 That over thirty days have elapsed since the sending 20 of the aforementioned Certified Letter; that there 21 has been no response from this pa r ty or counsel; that 22 therefore, said deposition is herewith filed. 23 24 25 KARPOWICZ REPORTING COMPANY HARTOLDMONOOQ9997 86 Kat>cwica ^ 1323 Ai PAGE NO. 5 LINE NO. 17 KARPOV. IQ luirOi.llijb COMrAilY 316 MERCHANTS IA/LEUE BLCG. 408 OLIVE SlRtET ST. LOUIS, MO 63102 JoyOF! Rl-iPMPTr VS Monsanto UPON READING THE DEPOSITION AND BEFORE SUBSCRIBING THERETO, THE DEPONENT Geogge Roush, Jr.INDICATED THE FOLLOWING CHANGES SHOULD MADE. TO: 195H^*^I had a fellowship from the National STATEMENT OF REASON FOR CHANGE Heart Institute at the University of Pittsburgh in the Department of Biochemistry. 5 22 I was at the Staten Island Marine Hospital in a Residency in Internal Medicine. 7 7 what we call petroleum derivative chemicals. carbon hydrogen series. 9 18 so they could use the catalyst to keep the air pollution down. 10 7 I was Professor of Medicine in Environmental Health. 15 11 No, he is not living in St. Louis. He resigned to go into a consultation practice. 18 13 He was Director of Epidemiology which was formed sometime around 1980. 19 1 There have been a number of heads. 19 17 LC50s. We also did a number of subchronic studisis. . s\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------:---------------------------------- C. (Signature of/Witness) HARTOLDMONOOQ9999 KARPOWIC2 REPORTING COMPANY <D(aipouiiCfl ^etxnting Oowfxuy 316 MERCHANTS la leue bldg. s""`1323 A^wjMS^SSmMh 408 OLIVE SMELT ST. LOUIS. MO 63102 Jpyce Brewer VS Monsanto UPON READING THE DEPOSITION AND BEFORE SUBSCRIBING THERETO, THE DEPONENT George Roush, Jr.INDICATED THE FOLLOWING CHANGES SHOULD MADE. PAGE NO. 20 20 LINE NO. 1 25 CHANGE TO: 1 STATEMENT OF REASON FOR CHANGE biologic testinq laboratory. looking for trace concentrations of the product and not trvinq to determine the purity of the product. There were four major companies. They 21 19 were the chemicals, plastics, fibers. and ag chemicals. or else they would farm the analysis out 23 2 they would use a commercial testinq laboratory. 26 8 give it to the head of the ACGIH. 26 25 business at Anniston before I joined Mor santo. how much air went through the pump and 31 16 decide what his average exposure was. modified since ACGIH took over major 47 8 responsibility for TLVs. 47 17 dropped out of doing these Hygienic Gui< es. depending on the size of the contaminat* sd 51 10 spot or area. n ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- CSigt>/rnm-rajrj*'ture'o,fiyWjitness) HARTOLDMONO010000