Document b5XjO0kBmmvOE4610rZdavvYy
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JOAN MAERTIN, Executrix of
)
the Estate of Lothar
)
Maertin, JOAN MAERTIN,
)
individually and in her
)
own right, et al.,
)
Plaintiffs, )
vs.
)
ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES,
) )
INC.,
)
VS.
)
MONSANTO COMPANY AND AMERICAN)
MINERAL SPIRITS COMPANY,
)
Defendants. )
Cause No. L-95-CV 02849 (JBS)
DEPOSITION OF GEORGE LEVINSKAS Taken on Behalf of the Defendants
November 10, 1997 Condensed Transcript and Word Index
Taylor & Associates Reporting, Inc.
cm k i' ki.toimi:ks
7494 ETHEL AVE. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63117
PHONE: (314) 644-2191 1-800-280-DEPO
deponet^
STLCOPCB4027801
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)
1 INDEX OF QUESTIONERS
2 QUESTIONS BY:
Page
3 Mr. Turet Hr. O'Connor
4 Hr. Lipshutz Mr. Davidson
4 142 161 164
5
INDEX OF DEFENDANT'S DEPOSITION EXHIBITS
6
VO.
DESCRIPTION
MARKED
7
1 Memo dated 10/13/71
e 2 Memo dated 12/6/74
44 50
3 Letter dated 12/17/74
9 4 Letter dated 1/14/75
5 Memo dated 1/13/75
10 6 Letter dated 3/24/7S
55 63 65 69
7 Letter dated 5/1/75
ii 8 Report dated 3/24/7S
74 77
9 Letter dated 8/4/75
12 9--A Letter dated 7/18/75
83 83
10 Memo dated 8/22/75 13 11 Bonus recommendation
12 Bonus recommendation 14 13 Memo dated 10/16/75
14 Letter dated 10/17/75 15 15 Report
16-A Toxicity study
93 101 107 112 115 117 124
16 16- B Toxicity Study 16-C Reproduction Study
124 124
17 16- D Teratogenic Study
17 Report dated 10/14/81
18
124 140
Exhibits attached
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
2
JOAN MAERTIN, Executrix of )
3 the Estate of Lothar
Maertin, JOAN MAERTIN,
4 individually and in her ) Cause No. L-9S-CV
own right, et al.,
) 02849 (JBS)
5 Plaintiffs,
vs.
6
ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES,
7 INC.,
vs.
8 MONSANTO COMPANY AND AMERICAN:
MINERAL SPIRITS COMPANY,
9 Defendants.
10 11 DEPOSITION OP GEORGE LEVINSKAS,
12 produced, sworn and examined on the 10th day of
13 November, 1997, between the hours ofeight
14 o'clock in the forenoon and sixo'clock in the
15 afternoon of that day, at the offices of Taylor
16 ft Associates, Inc., 7494 Ethel, St. Louis,
17 Missouri, before Nancy A. Kuncaitis, a
18 Registered Professional Reporter and Notary
19 Public within and for the State of Missouri in
20 the cause now pending in the United States
21 District Court for the District of New Jersey,
22 wherein Joan Maertin et al. are the Plaintiffs,
23 and Armstrong World Industries, Inc., and
24 Monsanto Company and American Mineral Spirits
25 Company are the Defendants.
Multi-Page TM
Witness: George Levinskas November 10; 1997
Page 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12 13 14 15 16
17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
APPEARANCES
For the Plaintiff:
LAW OFFICES OF GARY D. GINSBERG BY: Brian P. O'Connor Attorney at Law Atrium n. Suite 101 3000 Atrium Way Mt. Laurel, New Jersey 08054
For the Defendant Monsanto Company:
LATHAM & WATKrNS BY: Christopher M. DiMuro One Newark Center Newark, New Jersev 07101*31 74 (973)639-7298 '
SMITH HELMS MULUS & MOORE. I..L.P BY: Gerard H. Davidson, Jr. 300 North Greene Street, Suite 1400 P. O. Box 21927 Greensboro, North Carolina 27420
For the Defendant Armstrong World Industries, Inc.:
DUANE, MORRIS & HECKSCHER, LLP BY: Craig F. Turet One Liberty Place Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-7396 (215) 979-1000
For the Defendant (Present Telephonically)
WrLSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER BY: Gary Lipshutz Two Gateway Center Newark, New Jersey 07102-5311
Page 3
Page 2
1
2
Page 4 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Counsel for the Plaintiff and Counsel for the Defendant that this deposition may be taken by Nancy A. Kuncaitis, Notary Public and Registered Professional Reporter, thereafter transcribed into typewriting, with the signature of the witness being expressly reserved.
GEORGE LEVINSKAS, of lawful age, being produced, sworn and examined on behalf of Defendant, testified as follows:
EXAMINATION
QUESTIONS BY MR. TURET:
16 Q.Good morning, Dr. Levinskas.
17 A. Good morning.
18 Q.My name is Craig Turet. We met a few moments
19 ago. I'm an attorney representing Armstrong
20 World Industries in this case. Have you been
21 deposed before, sir?
22 A. Yes, I have.
->
23 Q. I know you're familiar with what will take place
24 here, sir. I'll ask you a series of questions.
25 You will be expected to answer as completely as
Page 1 - Page 4
STLCOPCB4027802
jQan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997
Witness: George Levinskas
Page 5
Page 7
1 you can, but not to speculate or guess. If I
l projects that were going on at the University of
2 ask you a question and you don't know the
2 Pittsburgh at the time?
3 answer, just say, I don't know. If you don't 4 hear the question or don't understand it, let me
3 A. We had several grants and contracts with various 4 government agencies, and I was the primary
5 know and I'll be happy to repeat it. And if you
5 researcher on several of them.
6 do answer a question that will indicate that you
6 Q. Did any of them have to do with chlorinated
7 both heard the question and understood the
7 hydrocarbons?
8 question, okay?
8 A.No.
9 A. Okay.
9 Q.How long did you end up working with the
10 Q.Also, if you need to take a break at any point,
10 University of Pittsburgh?
11 just let me know. I'll be happy to accommodate
11 A. Until 1958.
12 you as long as there is not a question
12 Q. And with whom were you employed after that?
13 outstanding. And you understand, Dr. Levinskas,
13 A. The American Cyanamid Company.
14 that if for any reason you're not available at
14 Q. Where was that based?
15 trial, the testimony that's being taken down by
15 A. Initially at Stamford, Connecticut; later at
16 the court reporter today will be available at
16 Princeton, New Jersey.
17 trial just as if you were testifying there?
17 Q. How long were you employed by American Cyanamid?
18 A. Yes.
18 A. Until 1971.
19 Q. Dr. Levinskas, are you employed by Monsanto as
19 Q. What was the first job that you held with
20 of today?
20 American Cyanamid?
21 A.No, I'm retired.
21 A. I joined the company as a research
22 Q. And can you give us just a brief overview of
22 pharmacologist and shortly thereafter I was
23 your educational background?
23 named the director of their environmental health
24 A. I have a bachelor degree in chemistry from
24 laboratory.
25 Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut.
25 Q.I'm sorry, director of --
Page 6
Page 8
1 I have a doctorate in pharmacology from
1 A. The environmental health laboratory.
2 University of Rochester in Rochester, New York.
2 Q. Was that in approximately 1958?
3 Q.Do you have a master's as well as a doctorate?
3 A. Well, that would probably be about the end of
4 a.No master's.
4 '58, beginning of '59.
5 Q. What year did you get your doctorate?
5 Q. How long did you say you had worked with
6 A. 1953.
6 American Cyanamid?
7 Q. Did you begin employment in the private sector
7 A. Until 1971.
8 once you received your doctorate?
8 Q. Did you remain as director of the environmental
9 A. My first employment after that was teaching at
9 health laboratory throughout that time?
10 the graduate school of public health at the
10 A. Yes.
11 University of Pittsburgh.
11 Q. Why did you ultimately leave American Cyanamid?
12 Q. What courses did you teach?
12 A. The company decided to close out the laboratory
13 A. I taught a course in applied toxicology and I
13 so it was phased out gradually, and since there
14 gave lectures in several other courses that
14 were no other job opportunities of interest to
15 others were giving in the department.
15 me in the company, I left.
16 Q.Now, was your position as an instructor or
16 Q. What were your duties as director of the
17 professor?
17 environmental health lab at American Cyanamid?
18 A. I started as a research associate, became a
18 A. We did animal toxicity tests on Monsanto -- I'm
19 research associate lecturer and I was assistant
19 sorry, Cyanamid company products.
20 professor when I left.
20 Q. Those were toxicological studies that were done ~
21 Q. While you were at the University of Pittsburgh,
21 in-house?
22 did you also do any consulting work for
22 A. Yes.
.
"
23 companies?
23 Q.Did you also oversee any toxicity studies done
24 a.No, I did not.
24 by outside independent laboratories?
25 Q.Did you participate in any large scale research
25 A.Not while at Cyanamid.
^
Page 5 - Page 8
STLCOPCB4027803
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997'
Page 9
Page 11
1 Q. What -- during the time period that you worked
1 and Drug Administration.
2 for American Cyanamid, what types of products
2 Q. When you say presented studies to them, did that
3 did that company manufacture?
3 involve forwarding a copy of your written report
4 A. They were strong in pesticides. They had a
4 to them or was it something more than that?
5 variety of organic and industrial chemicals and
5 A. Generally the written reports were submitted by
6 we tested products from those groups.
6 people who had regular dealings with the
7 Q.And did any of the studies that you participated
7 regulatory agencies. 1 would go down on
8 in while at American Cyanamid involve
8 occasion either at the request of an agency to
9 chlorinated hydrocarbons?
9 expand or discuss a study or the regulatory
10 A.No.
10 people in the company would ask me to accompany
11 Q. What was the size of the environmental health
11 them when they presented the data.
12 lab during the period of time that you were
12 Q. At American Cyanamid when you were director of
13 there? Let's say what was the largest that it
13 the environmental health laboratory, were you
14 got?
14 part of a larger department within the company?
15 A. It was about 12 to 15 people when I got there.
15 A. I was part of the corporate medical department.
16 It reached, at its top it was probably about 30
16 Q. And were you answerable to a medical director,
17 people. And then as I say, it started to be
17 is that who was your supervisor?
18 disbanded.
18 A. 1 had a supervisor who was a nonphysician in the
19 Q. When would you approximate that it reached its
19 medical department. He in turn reported to the
20 largest size?
20 director of the medical department.
21 A. I would say probably '68, '7, '8, '9, somewhere
21 Q.Now, during your employment at American
22 about there.
22 Cyanamid, did you ever have occasion to work
23 Q.Then there was a couple years phase out?
23 directly with any of the people employed at
24 A. Yes.
24 Monsanto?
25 Q. Did you ever perform toxicological testing while
25 A. I had met some people from Monsanto, as I did
Page 10
Page 12
1 you were employed by American Cyanamid that led 1 from other companies over the years, at
2 to a conclusion that a particular product was
2 meetings, in conferences and I had had contacts
3 carcinogenic?
3 with them along those lines. I did not -- 1 do
4 A. I do not recall that we found any compounds that
4 not recall having a contact in the sense of a
5 we tested to be carcinogenic.
5 testing -- joint studies or anything of that
6 Q.Now, other than supervising or actually
6 sort with these people.
7 performing toxicological studies on American
7 Q.The people that you saw over the years, were
8 Cyanamid products, did you have any other job
8 those fellow toxicologists?
9 responsibilities during your employment with
9 A.They were predominantly toxicologists, some
10 that company?
10 physicians and a few industrial hygienists.
11 A. I'm not sure what you mean by other job
11 Q. Was Dr. Kelly, the medical director at Monsanto,
12 responsibilities. Certainly administrative
12 one of the people you were mentioning that you
13 functions were involved as director of a
13 met over the years?
14 laboratory. And also responsibility for
14 A. Interestingly enough, 1 never met Dr. Kelly
15 assessing test results and writing and
15 until I came to work for Monsanto.
16 distributing reports within the company. On
16 Q.How about Elmer Wheeler?
17 occasion we would present our studies to
17 A. Elmer Wheeler I met as an industrial hygienist.
18 regulatory agencies if there were regulatory
18 Q.How about Dr. Hunt?
19 issues involved with the products we were
19 A. Bill Hunt I met as a toxicologist, yes.
20 studying.
20 Q.Any others that you can remember that you got to -
21 Q.What were some of the regulatory agencies that
21 know over the years?
22 you had occasion to present reports to during
22 A. From Monsanto, Wheeler and Hunt were the two. 1
23 the course of your employment?
23 should go back. I did meet very casually but
24 A. At that time it would have been predominantly
24 did not have any dealings with Jack Garrett, who
25 the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food
25 was an industrial hygienist also reporting to
t
Page 9 - Page 12
STLCOPCB4027804
Jqan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997
Witness: George Levinskas
Page 13
Page 15
1 Elmer Wheeler.
1 witness.
2 Q.How did your employment with Monsanto come
2 Q.Was there any difference substantively in your
3 about?
3 duties between the time you served as manager of
4 A. After I left Cyanamid, I was looking for a job.
4 product safety or whatever the title was, and
5 They made me a job offer -- invited me for an
5 manager of environmental assessment and
6 interview made me a job offer and I accepted.
6 toxicology?
7 Q. By the way, just to complete the profile, I take
7 A. Initially when I joined the company, Dr. Hunt
8 it your next job after American Cyanamid was
8 was the toxicologist. Dr. Hunt died somewhat
9 with Monsanto?
9 over a year after I joined the company. After
10 A. Yes.
10 his death, I took over the responsibilities for
11 Q. How long were you employed by Monsanto?
11 the toxicology. That would be the most
12 A.'71 -- 1971 to 1991.
12 substantive change.
13 Q.At that point you retired?
13 Q.Did you take over for Dr. Hunt fairly soon after
14 A. Yes.
14 his death?
15 Q.Have you done periodic consulting work with the
15 A.Relatively soon. I don't recall exactly when I
16 company since your retirement?
16 was told I had that responsibility.
17 A. I have done consulting work, but I would not say
17 Q.Was it somewhere around 1972?
18 periodic. It has not been a regular or a fixed
18 A. It would have been the latter part of '72.
19 interval sort of thing.
19 Q.Okay. Did your position change at all from
20 Q.Has that typically been in connection with
20 manager of environmental assessment and
21 litigation?
2) toxicology from 1972 or so to the time you
22 A. I think all of it has been in connection with
22 retired?
23 litigation, that is with Monsanto Company.
23 A. Later, it was retitled director of environmental
24 Q.Have you also done consulting work with other
24 assessment and toxicology and then a few years
25 companies since you retired?
25 before I retired I was a senior toxicology
Page 14
Page 16
1 A. I have done a certain amount, yes.
1 consultant. That was the title, but I was still
2 Q.Has your consulting work for others also
2 a company employee.
3 involved litigation?
3 Q. When did you serve as director of environmental
4 A. Some of it's been litigation, some of it has
4 assessment and toxicology?
5 just been general information and guidance.
5 A.I don't recall specific dates, but it would have
6 Q. Has all of the litigation work you just referred
6 been the latter part of the 1970s until probably
7 to related to PCBs?
7 about 1985,'87.
8 A. The non-Monsanto work is definitely not PCBs.
8 Q. Then you were senior toxicology consultant from
9 Q. What was the position you assumed when you
9 that point on until your retirement in '91?
10 started with Monsanto in 1971?
10 A.That's correct.
11 A. I think my first title was probably manager of
11 Q. Going back to your time as manager of product
12 environmental -- I'm sorry, manager of product
12 evaluation or -- I'm sorry, product safety, what
13 safety or some such title, and that was changed
13 were your duties and responsibilities?
14 after a while to manager of environmental
14 a. At that time Monsanto was trying to pull
15 assessment and toxicologist.
15 together various assessment procedures it had
16 MR. DAVIDSON: Craig, I would like to
16 for safety of products and my function was to
17 clarify something you just talked about, just
17 work with the operating units to put together a
18 for clarification purposes. You used the word
18 more formalized procedure for evaluating
19 "consulting" and that is a term of art. I
19 potential health and environmental effects of
20 think if you delve into it, I believe Dr.
20 chemicals and to review the status of knowledge "
21 Levinskas has been presented by deposition, such
21 on products and make recommendations for testing
22 as your requesting this deposition, and that is
22 or judgments about their potential safety for
23 the extent of what he might refer to as
23 new products and new uses of existing products,
24 consulting work for Monsanto. It's really
24 to try to anticipate the issues which could be
25 nothing more than being presented as a fact
25 raised by those products.
t
Page 13 - Page 16
STLCOPCB4027805
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 1G, 1997'
Page 17
Page 19
1 Q. So was this an assignment that brought you to
1 material, what testing, if any, was to be
2 each of the plants to evaluate products being
2 recommended and as the initial samples went out,
3 manufactured at those plants?
3 they would have that information if the product
4 A. The people in the operating units that had the
4 looked like it was feasible or had prospects we
5 products or had the interest in the products
5 might do further testing or more extended
6 would bring the information to me. I did not
6 testing.
7 visit plants with any frequency.
7 Q. Again, as of this 1971, '72 period when more
8 Q. Just so I understand, did this relate to safety
8 testing was required, was it done in-house at
9 of products as it affected the workers of
9 Monsanto or was it done by an independent
10 Monsanto or is it something broader than that?
10 laboratory?
11 A. This would include workers, which would include
11 A. At that time Monsanto did not have a toxicology
12 customers and also taking into consideration
12 laboratory in-house so the testing was done at
13 environmental issues.
13 outside what I call contract laboratories.
14 Q.And did this undertaking proceed product line by
14 Q. Just so I'm clear, what is your definition of an
15 product line throughout the company?
15 outside contract laboratory?
16 A. I indicated that this was for new products and
16 A. It's a laboratory that provides a service and
17 new uses of existing products. We were going to
17 you contract with them for the provision of that
18 start with those things.
18 service.
19 Q.Did any of those undertakings involve PCBs or
19 Q.So you or somebody at Monsanto would tell the
20 PCB containing products manufactured by
20 outside contract lab what type of a study you
21 Monsanto?
21 wanted done on a particular product and they
22 A. For practical purposes in most cases PCBs were
22 would do it and report back to you?
23 existing products and they were not in my
23 A. That would be the general intent, yes.
24 purview when I first started working with
24 Q.During that same 1971 to '72 period, was one of
25 Monsanto.
25 the outside contract labs that was utilized by
Page 18
Page 20
1 MR. LIPSHUTZ: Could the court
1 Monsanto Industrial Bio-Test Labs?
2 reporter read back that answer?
2 A. Yes.
3 (Answer read)
3 Q.And will you understand what I'm talking about
4 Q.Did they become in your purview while you were
4 if I call it IBT?
5 the manager of product safety?
5 A. Yes.
6 A. I'm not sure when, but later on when we got more
6 Q. Were there other outside contract labs that were
7 involved and caught up on some of these things,
7 utilized by Monsanto at the time?
8 then I got more involved with PCBs. That would
8 A. Yes.
9 have been sometime later.
9 Q. As best you can estimate, what percentage of the
10 Q.And can you tell me in the abstract what was
10 work being done by outside contract labs on
11 involved in developing these -- without putting
11 behalf of Monsanto was being done in IBT in this
12 words in your mouth, tell me what it is that was
12 1971,' 72 time period?
13 involved in these undertakings you're describing
13 A. I would say probably the greater part of it, but
14 as manager of product safety for any one
14 I was not involved in the testing program when 1
15 product.
15 first came and I'm not too sure of how much was
16 A. Well, it was sort of a product specific issue.
16 done, but I would think the greater part of it
17 We would look at what was known about the
17 was being done by IBT.
18 chemical, its chemical, physical properties. We
18 Q.Now, to whom did you report while you were
19 would look at what the intended uses were and
19 manager of product safety?
20 what the potential was for exposure under those
20 A. Elmer Wheeler.
-
21 conditions of use. We would take a look at
21 Q. Before I go on, just to finish out the analysis,
22 similarity or what was known about somewhat
22 once you had gone through a, particular product
23 similar products and we would make
23 and looked at the chemical and its properties
24 recommendations to the operating unit as to what
24 and developed information about safe handling
25 precautions should be taken in handling the
25 and/or possibility of exposure was there a
Page 17 - Page 20*
STLCOPCB4027806
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997
Witness: George Levinskas
Page 21
. Page 23
1 written work product that emerged?
l plasticizer products. I'm not sure which ones
2 A. What I indicated was that we would make
2 and when, but yes, there was some uses which
3 recommendations to the operating units as to
3 were new products that we looked at.
4 what we thought should be done. In some cases,
4 Q. Do you remember if any of them related to
5 no testing at the initial limited amount of
5 Santicizer products?
6 sampling that was done would be required. In
6 A. Santicizer is a trade name for a class of
7 other cases, the timing and the schedule of the
7 plasticizers and it would include several items,
8 testing would be left to the discretion of the
8 and yes, Santicizer as such would have been
9 operating units because they knew how they
9 included.
10 wanted to progress on the timetable of
10 Q. Now, jumping back, you said you reported to
11 developing that product. If testing was done,
11 Elmer Wheeler?
12 reports would be issued, yes.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q.Okay. I probably threw things off by focusing
13 Q. What was Mr. Wheeler's position at the time?
14 on that aspect. I'm talking about generally
14 A. I'm not sure what his forma] title was, but for
15 once you finished an analysis of a particular
15 practical purposes all of the non-physician
16 product line looking at all the properties and
16 persons in the medical department reported to
17 looking at all the recommendations that you had,
17 Elmer Wheeler. He was probably assistant
18 did you develop some sort of a written
18 medical -- I shouldn't say medical director, but
19 recommendation with respect to that product?
19 a director reporting to Dr. Kelly who was the
20 A. I think in most cases a written report was sent
20 medical director.
21 back to the operating unit, yes.
21 Q. When you came over to Monsanto in 1971, what did
22 Q. What is an example of an operating unit? What
22 you do to prepare for the position if you can
23 are you talking about when you talk about an
23 recall?
24 operating unit?
24 A. 1 don't recall that 1 did anything specific to
25 A. We had a phosphates and detergents group and
25 prepare other than get myself moved out here.
Page 22
Page 24
1 they made phosphate chemicals that are used in
1 Q. When you showed up at work, were there materials
2 detergents, and some food contact uses -- food
2 that you reviewed to get up to speed on what had
3 uses, not food contact, but ingredients of
3 come before you had arrived?
4 foodstuffs, so they're the people that are
4 A. No.
5 responsible for the research on the products.
5 Q. Did you take it upon yourself to review any of
6 for the development of uses, for peddling the
6 the historical studies that had been done on
7 products to customers. That's the operating
7 particular products manufactured by Monsanto?
8 unit for that group. And much of Monsanto was
8 A.No.
9 created in separate blocks of chemicals that
9 Q. Did you speak with others with whom you were
10 were related to each other and they're what I
10 then working to develop some of the history for
11 call business groups.
11 yourself about Monsanto's products?
12 Q.Was the plasticizers group also a business
12 A. I've indicated that my interests, or I was
13 group?
13 assigned new products and existing uses -- or
14 A. Plasticizers were a business group, yes.
14 new uses of existing products. There would be
15 Q.As of this 1971, '72 period, who was the head of
15 no history on the new products in this instance
16 that particular group if you can remember?
16 and new uses might or might not have a prior
17 A. Which group?
17 history. The first several months 1 met with
18 Q. Of the plasticizer group?
18 people in various parts of the company to get
19 A.I really can't recall who would have been at
19 some familiarity with company products, to get
20 that time.
20 some idea of what sort of resources were within ~
21 Q.Do you remember doing any of this investigative
21 the company that I could rely on or call upon to
22 work, for lack of a better word, on specific
22 familiarize myself with things and that sort of
23 plasticizer products?
23 thing and we started looking at new products. 1
24 A. If you're talking about these environmental
24 don't want to create the impression there was a
25 reviews I talked about, yes, I did them on
25 big flood gate of new products that suddenly
v
Page 21 - Page 24
STLCOPCB4027807
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas> November 10, 1997
Page 25
Page 27
1 engulfed me. So as a few came in and we worked
l to be spotlighted as environmental contaminants
2 on them and in collaboration with other people
2 and I was led to believe that Monsanto had
3 in some cases, then the tempo picked up a bit.
3 undertaken studies that were in progress and
4 Q. Let's jump ahead to the point at which you
4 they were going along well and I saw no reason
5 became manager of environmental assessment
5 to get myself involved in them.
6 toxicology. And if I understood you correctly
6 Q. These studies that were underway were being done
7 before, that was the point at which you also
7 by IBT?
8 picked up responsibility for toxicology that Dr.
8 A. Yes.
9 Hunt had had previously?
9 Q.And is that the set of four tests or so that
10 A. Yes.
10 were published in or around 1971?
11 Q. What was the nature of those duties that were
11 A. I'm not sure which publications, I don't recall
12 added to your portfolio?
12 any 1971 publications. I mean, at this time I
13 A. Well, when I came here Dr. Hunt had gone -- he
13 don't recall any.
14 would go to periodic contract labs and keep tabs
14 Q. Did the medical department at Monsanto during
15 on studies being done. And he might make
15 this, let's say '72, '73, '74 period, have
16 comments back to the operating units. The
16 periodic meetings?
17 operating units placed the studies, I presume in
17 A. I don't recall that they were scheduled with any
18 consultation with the medical department and so
18 regularity, periodic meetings, no.
19 forth. So that most of the studies that were
19 Q. Were there any means of communication other than
20 underway when Dr. Hunt died were known and were 20 just informal discussions between two people
21 to some degree being shepherded by the operating
21 down the hall?
22 unit personnel. So there was very little actual
22 A. It was a small group and we were all in one
23 change. And after Dr. Hunt died, then I began
23 general area of the building and most of the
24 to get more involved in getting caught up on
24 contact was casual and informal in the course of
25 what was underway and what was under test, but
25 the day, across the counter at lunch time.
Page 26
Page 28
1 again, I can't say that I suddenly read every
1 Q. Was there any kind of a status report that was
2 report and brought myself up-to-date on every
2 circulated to keep people abreast generally of
3 product that was out.
3 developments within the medical department?
4 Q. Obviously, this case allegedly relates to PCBs.
4 A.I don't recall any.
5 So let's focus on PCB products for the moment.
5 Q. When did Mr. Wheeler retire?
6 As you assumed these additional duties as a
6 A.I would guess it was in the latter '70s. I
7 toxicologist, what did you do to familiarize
7 don't recall. I would say probably something
8 yourself with PCBs in particular?
8 like '76 to '78, '9, somewhere in there.
9 A. I really wasn't doing much to familiarize myself
9 Q.To the best of your recollection, was it before
10 with PCBs. Elmer Wheeler was handling most of
10 or after Dr. Kelly retired?
11 the PCB issues.
11 A. It was after Dr. Kelly retired.
12 Q.Did Mr. Wheeler seek out anybody's assistance as 12 Q.Do you remember when Dr. Kelly retired?
13 he was staying abreast of developments relating
13 A.It was about '74, 1974, '75, about that time.
14 to PCBS?
14 Q. When do you recall taking on a more active role
15 MR. DiMURO: I'll object to the
15 relating to PCBs?
16 form. You can answer.
16 MR. DiMURO: Object to the form. He
17 A. I don't know what he may have done with other
17 can answer.
18 people, but we did have occasional discussions
18
THE WITNESS: Beg your pardon?
19 with not very much detail on PCBs. I don't
19 MR. DiMURO: I object to the form of
20 think he ever came in and specifically asked me
20 the question. You can answer.
~
21 my opinion on PCBs.
21 A. Well, my personal feeling is 1 got involved with
22 Q.And what types of discussions did you have with
22 PCBs when Dr. Kimbrough came to Monsanto to
23 him that related to PCBs?
23 comment that she had observed liver cancers in
24 A. They were getting to be recognized as
24 female rats fed Aroclor 1260 and that was
25 environmental contaminants. They were getting
25 probably the end of '73 or beginning of '7_4___________.4t K Page 25 - Page 28
STLCOPCB4027808
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997
Witness: George Levinskas
Page 29
Page 31
1 somewhere about there. And the reason I got
l Q. He was a physician?
2 invited was that Dr. Kimbrough came to Monsanto
2 A. Yes.
3 to present her findings and I was asked if I 4 knew Dr. Kimbrough and I said yes I had known
3 Q. Were there other physicians at that time in the 4 medical department?
5 her for several years, so I was asked to go to a 6 meeting. That, to me, is the focal point from
5 A. Yes, there was a Dr. Murray Johnson who was the 6 assistant director or associate director, 1
7 which I got involved in PCBs.
7 guess, of the department. And there was a
8 Q.That will teach you to volunteer information.
8 clinician, Ray Mezaras (phonetic) who was in the
9 A. Knowledge of acquaintances, you know.
9 clinic that they had at the site here in St.
10 Q.How had you gotten to know Dr. Kimbrough before 10 Louis. There were other physicians at other
11 1974?
11 locations and I did not have very much contact
12 A. Dr. Kimbrough was with the Center for Disease
12 with them.
13 Control outside of Atlanta. I had met her
13 Q.Are these like plant physicians?
14 supervisor, a physician who was her immediate
14 A. Yes, plant physicians.
15 supervisor some years earlier, and in the course
15 Q.And who became medical director when Dr. Kelly
16 of meetings, toxicology and so forth, I was
16 retired?
17 introduced to Dr. Kimbrough.
17 A. Dr. George Roush.
18 Q. Just to finish out your employment history a
18 Q. Who became medical director after Dr. Roush left
19 little bit, did your responsibilities change at
19 the company?
20 all from the time you were manager of
20 A.Barry - let me see, what's his last name -- he
21 environmental assessment and toxicology to the
21 was there a few years before I left and he has
22 time when you were senior toxicology consultant?
22 since left Monsanto. Barry Friedlander.
23 A. Yes, we built a laboratory for toxicology
23 Q.To the best of your knowledge has Dr. Kelly
24 testing. I had a great deal of involvement with
24 passed away?
25 that. 1 was director of it at the time --1
25 A. Yes, he passed away a few years ago.
Page 30
Page 32
1 shouldn't say director -- it was reporting to me
1 Q.Dr. Wheeler as well?
2 until it started to get functional. Then
2 A. Yes, earlier than Dr. Kelly.
3 because of other work pressures and so forth.
3 Q. And from the time you joined Monsanto through
4 that was assigned to another person. And as the
4 your tenure there, were there additional
5 group of toxicologists grew at Monsanto, I got
5 physicians added to the medical department again
6 into more of a teaching role with mentoring
6 focusing on the medical department in which you
7 younger toxicologists and I got a little further
7 served, not the plant physicians?
8 removed from the day-to-day testing, but for
8 A. In the last couple years there was a Jim Spraul
9 practical purposes it was a continuum.
9 that came to join us after Dr. Roush was medical
10 Q.When was the toxicology lab built by Monsanto?
10 director. Jim, unfortunately, died of liver
11 A.It's down here in St. Louis near the Washington
11 cancer some years back. He was a really young
12 University Medical School.
12 fellow. There were two other physicians -- I
13 Q. Perhaps a better question is when did it become
13 can see the faces, I can't put a name on them.
14 operational?
14 One of them who came from Olin Matheson worked
15 A.I think they started moving into it about 1977.
15 for a couple years then went to Olin Matheson.
16 The -- I think it was about 1977 that they
16 Don Coleman was more or less his assistant or
17 started people moving into that laboratory.
17 associate medical director of Dr. Roush. He
18 Q. And who was the person who assumed control or
18 left after a couple of years. Before I left a
19 responsibility for the toxicological lab?
19 young woman physician, Becky, was hired by
20 A. The first director was Paul Wright.
20 Monsanto, so there have been other people in the "
21 Q. Let me take you back through the structure of
21 corporate medical department as distinct from
22 the Monsanto medical department for a few
22 the clinics, but toward the end of my time at
23 minutes. Going back to 1971, you mentioned the
23 Monsanto the medical department people started
24 medical director was Dr. Kelly; right?
24 spending more time in the clinic at the
25 A. Right.
25 headquarters site than they had previously.
t
Page 29 - Page 32
STLCOPCB4027809
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997*
Page 33
Page 35
1 q.AIso back in 1971 you mentioned Elmer Wheeler
1 Q. How many toxicologists were on staff at Monsanto
2 was there and he was industrial hygienist?
2 by the mid'80s?
3 A. Yes.
3 A. At the peak I had 16, counting myself. We had
4 Q. And Jack Garrett was also an industrial
4 16 Ph.D.s maybe about 14, 14, 15 Ph.D.s one or
5 hygienist?
5 two master's and half dozen clerical staff.
6 A. Yes.
6 MR. L1PSHUTZ: I'm having a little
7 Q. Were there any other hygienists in the medical
7 trouble hearing the witness.
8 department as of 1971 ?
8 Q. Those are all toxicologists?
9 A. There was Dr. Carl Bole, he was an industrial
9 A. Yes, exclusive of those that were in the
10 hygienist working with Garrett. Those are ~
10 laboratory downstairs.
11 near as I can tell that was about the extent of
11 Q. Okay. When you joined Monsanto in 1971 were
12 the medical department.
12 there any epidemiologists on staff?
13 Q. Toxicologists, you mentioned?
13 A.No.
14 A.BillHunt.
14 Q.Did there come a time while you were employed by
15 Q. By the way, industrial hygienists, again between
15 Monsanto that an epidemiologist was hired?
16 you're talking 1971 and the year you retired,
16 A. Yes.
17 were there additional industrial hygienists
17 Q. Who was that?
18 added to the medical department?
18 A. Bill Gaffey.
19 A. Yes. The industrial hygiene -- after I came,
19 Q.He was the first epidemiologist, to the best of
20 the industrial hygiene department, or section, I
20 your knowledge, hired by Monsanto for the
21 guess, rather than department, expanded by
21 medical department during your tenure there?
22 adding several more industrial hygienists both
22 A. They had a young lady, Judy Zack, who was here
23 at headquarters and at plants and the toxicology
23 for a while. I had very little contact with
24 section expanded.
24 Judy, but she did some epidemiology work, but
25 Q. Who were the ones that you can recall being
25 Bill Gaffey was the first one that headed a
Page 34
Page 36
1 added let's say in the 1970s in the medical
1 formalized epidemiology section.
2 department?
2 Q. When did Mr. Gaffey or Dr. Gaffey join the
3 A. I would have trouble getting their names for the
3 medical department of Monsanto?
4 hygienists because some of them would come and
4 A.I would - again, I don't have a clear
5 go or spend time at the plants and go back. I'm
5 recollection of the time, but somewhere about
6 really not in a position to do that.
6 1980 I guess, might have been a little earlier.
7 Q. Toxicologists, there was Bill Hunt before you.
7 Q.Now, as of the early 1970s when you joined the
8 Was there anybody else there in 1971 when you
8 medical department, what was the function that
9 joined Monsanto?
9 was served by that department?
10 a.No.
10 MR. DiMURO: You're talking about the
11 Q.And after your arrival, were there additional
11 day he joined the department what the function
12 toxicologists added?
12 was?
13 A. We hired Paul Wright in, would have been about
13
MR. TURET: Yeah, that approximate
14 the middle, or before Bill Hunt died to work
14 time frame.
15 with me on the environmental assessment
15 A. You mean the function of the medical
16 schemes. And at the time we made an offer to
16 department?
17 him, between the time we made an offer to him
17 Q. Yes.
18 and he arrived, Bill Hunt died. And that would
18 A.I don't think that was ever stated to me. I
19 have been more or less mid third quarter of
19 presume it was like many other medical
20 '72. Then '73, we hired Fred Johannsen as a
20 departments. I don't recall a specific
,,
21 toxicologist and beyond that we kept adding
21 statement of what their function was. 1
22 toxicologists with some regularity for some
22 indicated what I was being hired for, and that
23 years as we got more involved in the testing
23 I'm familiar with.
24 programs on a day-to-day basis we kept adding
24 Q.You were there for how many years, 1971 --
25 staff.
25 A. To '91.
iJ Page 33 - Page 36^
STLCOPCB4027810
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS);November 10, 1997
Witness: George Levinskas
Page 37
Page 39
1 Q.Twenty years. Based on your experiences while
1 information to the operating units so they could
2 you were there, what was the function of the
2 get the registrations or the approvals for the
3 medical department to the company as a whole?
3 use of pesticides. To a large extent, at that
4 A. Well, over the years we developed, at least I
4 time, there were relatively few regulations
5 can speak a little more definitely on that, with
5 dealing with anything, so most of this was that
6 the passage of time, we began to talk about what
6 was what in the judgment of the individuals
7 the function was, what the function of
7 involved could be done or ought to be done.
8 toxicology was and the environmental assessment
8 Q. You mentioned the issue of commissioning studies
9 procedure we were developing, so we began to
9 where appropriate. Was that one function, to
10 formalize and put down some of these things that
10 recommend outside studies by outside contract
11 we were supposedly doing. But I don't know
11 labs?
12 whether there was a written statement of a
12 A. My understanding of it was that the
13 charter or a mission statement for the medical
13 recommendations -- the operating units were
14 department. I really don't have any knowledge
14 responsible for the testing to some extent
15 of such a thing.
15 because they were the ones who would have to
16 Q.I'm not asking for a formal written statement.
16 fund it. The medical department would provide
17 I'm just asking for your experiences based on
17 support and maybe some expertise in dealing with
18 the time you were working in the medical
18 those studies. But that was to a large extent
19 department what function it served.
19 an operating unit responsibility. When I came
20 A. Well, I would assume like any function for any
20 here the intent was to formalize and pull this
21 medical department. One is to work -- the
21 together under a central control in the medical
22 industrial hygiene people go out and make
22 department.
23 measurements in the plants to see that the
23 Q. Was it not within your purview to recommend to
24 exposures were either controlled or within
24 operating units that further testing might be
25 permissible limits of whatever standards were
25 appropriate or desirable?
Page 38
Page 40
1 set. The physicians had the responsibility to
1 A. 1 indicated that that was, to deal with,
2 see that the health surroundings of the
2 initially we were dealing with new products and
3 employees was maintained. And the toxicologists
3 new uses of existing products. But whatever was
4 were to provide what support they could by
4 out there already was not in my purview when we
5 virtue of doing testing or reviewing published
5 started.
6 literature to come up with information that
6 Q. Did there come a time later - let me withdraw
7 could be used in assessing safe working
7 that. What about where there were gaps in
8 conditions and safe uses of chemicals. And then
8 testing that had been conducted in the past on
9 later on, more recently, about the time I came
9 existing products?
10 here was concerns about the environmental
10 MR. DiMURO: Object to the form. You
11 safety. So all of these things contributed
11 can answer.
12 something to the big picture. Beyond that
12 A. When you say gaps, in the absence of any
13 generalization I really don't know how to gather
13 requirements, I don't see how you could say a
14 your question.
14 gap. I'm trying to indicate that that was a
15 Q. I understand it's a broad question. This may be
15 question of judgment on people whether something
16 repetition of some of the things you just said,
16 should or shouldn't be done. We were starting
17 but was one function to gather information
17 to look at new products and new uses because we
18 concerning toxicity of products being
18 could deal with those. There was no way we
19 manufactured by Monsanto?
19 could go back and automatically and instantly
20 A. One was to keep abreast of information that was
20 look at everything that the company had ever
~
21 available on the products that Monsanto, or
21 done and had on record. The resources and such
22 related -- products related to those Monsanto
22 weren't there. But to say gaps, in the absence
23 was selling. There were some instances where
23 of a definition of what's needed, I don't see
24 regulatory approval was required for products
24 how you could see there was a gap. There is
25 such as pesticides. It was to help provide to
25 probably no product on earth that somebody
Page 37 - Page 40
STLCOPCB4027811
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas, November 10, 1997
Page 41
Page 43
1 wouldn't like to know more about.
l was or was not required or appropriate.
2 Q. Well, you mentioned that one of the functions of
2 A. Well, I guess my feeling would be that if we got
3 the medical department would be to stay abreast
3 information, we would certainly convey it to the
4 of developments being published in the
4 operating units with a recommendation. The
5 literature, for example. If a study came out
5 recommendation might or might not include
6 from some other source and suggested that there
6 further testing.
7 could be a toxicity problem with a particular
7 Q. Okay. Did the medical department also serve the
8 product at Monsanto, would it not be the medical
8 function of gathering toxicity information into
9 department that would make a recommendation that 9 one place from which it could be available to
10 further testing was desirable or appropriate?
10 others such as customers?
11 MR. DiMURO: Object to the form.
11 A. Yes.
12 A. If a report came out with, quote, adverse
12 Q.And did the medical department also make that
13 findings in a study, I think the first question
13 information available to researchers or others
14 would be, is that possible with the Monsanto
14 in the public at large?
15 product under the conditions of Monsanto use.
15 A. I don't know of any mechanism by which you could
16 If somebody were injecting intravenously a fluid
16 make it available to the public at large except
17 of some sort that was not intended for injecting
17 taking out a newspaper ad, and we were not doing
18 intravenously in people, I don't think I would
18 that. But we certainly attempted, as far as I
19 get -- we would tell people, be careful but it
19 know, we attempted to make the information
20 had no relevance. So the first thing we would
20 available to our own people and when 1 had
21 do would be to assess whether the information
21 queries from outside I would tend to respond and
22 was relevant to the particular product and the
22 include that information in response to them.
23 use of our product. I mean, it doesn't
23 But the public at large, I don't see a mechanism
24 necessarily call for testing.
24 for getting that information out there.
25 Q.If you reached the conclusion that the testing
25 Q. Fair enough. But for Monsanto employees, for
Page 42
Page 44
1 was relevant to the use of the product, would it
1 customers, for people who asked for it, would
2 not then be a medical department recommendation
2 such information come from the medical
3 that more testing was necessary or desirable or
3 department?
4 appropriate?
4 A. Yes.
5 MR. DiMURO: I'll object to the
5 Q.How about government agencies?
6 form.
6 A. There were two reasons for going with government
7 A. I think it could be equally applicable that you
7 agencies. At that time one would be we were
8 would review your handling precautions and you
8 seeking regulatory approval and providing them
9 might decide that you did not have to test. The
9 information they requested, or the other would
10 purpose of testing, if somebody raises a
10 be that they may have come to us and asked about
11 question about a chemical, and assuming that
11 a product because of something else they were
12 that is a valid result, to do the thing over
12 dealing with. And in both those cases 1 think
13 again and confirm that it happens, there is some
13 we responded.
14 merit to that. But if it happens in animals, no
14 Q. Responded by giving whatever information you
15 amount of testing is going to obliterate it, I
15 had?
16 mean overcome it. So you would look at your
16 A. Providing them with what we had, yes.
17 handling procedures, you would look at the uses,
17 Q.AU right.
18 you might curtail uses, you might change your
18
MR. TURET: Off the record for a
19 handling procedures or something, but it does
19 second.
20 not automatically in my judgment lead to a
20 (Lunch recess.)
"
21 requirement for the testing.
21 MR. TURET: Back on the record.
22 Q.No, I'm not asking if it automatically leads to
22 Q.Dr. Levinskas, 1 would like to have the court
23 anything. I'm asking whether the medical
23 reporter mark as Levinskas 1 a document 1 would
24 department would find it within its purview to
24 like you to take a look at.
25 make suggestions about whether further testing
25 _________(_M__e_m__o _d_a_te_d__1_0__/1_3_/_7_1______________________
Page 41 - Page 44
STLCOPCB4027812
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997
Page 45
Page 47
1 marked as Exhibit No. 1
1 that would be a cancer of a bladder in a rat.
2 for identification.)
2 Q. The memo goes on to say that sections of both
3 Q.I don't want to rush you, sir. Just for the
3 bladders were sent to NCI. Is that the National
4 record, this has Bates number MAE 054084-085.
4 Cancer Institute?
5 It's an October 13, 1971, memorandum to the
5 A. Yes.
6 file. Dr. Levinskas, have you ever seen this
6 Q.For diagnosis of Drs. Strauss and Katherine
7 document before?
7 Snell?
8 A. Yes.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q.And down at the veiy bottom of the second page,
9 Q.They're both affiliated with National Cancer
10 are those your initials handwritten on it?
10 Institute as of October, 1971?
11 A. Yes.
11 MR. DiMURO: I'll object to the form.
12 Q.And so is this a document that you authored?
12 Q. To the best of your knowledge?
13 A. Yes.
13 A. As I recall, Dr. Kimbrough said she sent the
14 Q.Now, this memo starts out saying that you had
14 slides of the bladders to the National Cancer
15 spoken with Dr. Kimbrough today, the memo is
15 Institute and then the information she got back
16 dated October 13, 1971. Is this the
16 was from Drs. Strauss and Snell. I would assume
17 conversation you referred to earlier today when
17 they're probably institute employees, but I
18 you offered to contact her since you had known
18 don't know.
19 her from previous years?
19 Q. Is there any significance. Dr. Levinskas, to the
20 A. No.
20 fact that Dr. Kimbrough chose the National
21 Q. What was the nature of the conversation that is
21 Cancer Institute to have a second look at her
22 involved in this memorandum?
22 slides?
23 A. My recollection is that someone, it may have
23 MR. DiMURO: Objection to the form.
24 been Wheeler or Kelly, had heard that there was
24 You can answer if you know.
25 sort of a rumor floating around of a possible
25 A. Well, two reasons: One is it's another
Page 46
Page 48
1 bladder tumor in rats fed Aroclor 1260 and that
1 government agency, and to an extent some of the
2 Dr. Kimbrough was doing and talking about it and
2 most knowledgeable people in cancer would be at
3 I said I knew Dr. Kimbrough and I would be
3 the National Cancer Institute. I think it's a
4 willing to call her to inquire further, get some
4 logical choice, but other than that, assuming
5 further information on this and this is a
5 that's why she made her choice.
6 summary of my discussion with her on the phone
6 Q. Was it your understanding at the time that as
7 about that study.
7 you refer in your memorandum here, the diagnosis
8 Q.Had you spoken with Dr. Kimbrough before October 8 of carcinoma in the female was confirmed?
9 13 of 1971 as a Monsanto employee?
9 A. Yes.
10 A. Not that I recall.
10 Q.To your knowledge, was the lesion that was
11 Q.Now, the memo suggests that Dr. Kimbrough had
11 detected in the male ever resolved?
12 seen two lesions in bladders of rats that were
12 A. If I remember correctly, later in the year there
13 fed Aroclor 1260. Is that your understanding of
13 was -- there was a meeting at Quail Roost, a
14 what had prompted your call to her?
14 conference at which several people were involved
15 A. I say two lesions in the memo. It may have been
15 including people from Monsanto, Dr. Kimbrough
16 there were lesions in the bladder, I don't know
16 herself, people from the FDA I was told, and
17 if it was two or not, but she said she had seen
17 people from Bio-Test and others and that they
18 those.
18 looked at the slides and with respect to the
19 Q.It says one of the tumors was diagnosed as a
19 male cancer, they decided that -- the conclusion
20 malignant anaplastic carcinoma of the bladder.
20 as reported to me was that it was a cancer but
"
21 What exactly is that?
21 it was not related to the feeding with PCBs.
22 A.I'm not a pathologist, but that would be -
22 That was the consensus of the various people,
23 malignant is one that would be aggressive like
23 including the pathologist that looked at the
24 definitely cancer. And the anaplastic
24 lesion.
25 description of the type of tissues they saw, but
25 Q.Do you have any understanding of how it's
Page 45 - Page 48
STLCOPCB4027813
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas, November! 6, 1997
Page 49 1 determined or on what basis it's determined that 2 cancer that's found is related to the PCBs? 3 MR. DiMURO: Object to the form. 4 A. I think there is a variety of things. The first
1 2 3 4
Page 51 Exhibit Levinskas 10. This is a December 6, 1974, memorandum from Frederick Johannsen to George Roush. Dr. Levinskas, have you ever seen
this document before?
5 thing that would occur to me is that it says it 6 occurred in a female which died after six 7 months. Six months would be rather short for
5 A. Yes. 6 Q.And had you seen it before the deposition in 7 which it was marked as an exhibit?
8 induction of cancer by almost any chemical. 9 Q.I thought we were talking about the diagnosis of 10 the male? 11 A.The male is eight months; it's still a short
8 A.I'm quite sure that I did.
9 Q.Who is Frederick Johannsen? 10 A. A toxicologist who was reporting to me working 11 at Monsanto.
12 time. 13 Q. So the answer is the same with respect to the
12 Q.Now, this refers to a telephone conversation 13 between Dr. Kimbrough and you. I don't know if
14 male? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. There is a reference in here to porphyria. I
14 I asked you this last time, were you in regular
15 contact with Dr. Kimbrough through the late 16 1974, into 1975 period?
17 may be mispronouncing it.
17 MR. DiMURO: I'll object to the
18 MR. DiMURO: Last paragraph, first 19 sentence first page? 20 MR.TURET: Yes. 21 A. I see it. 22 Q. What is porphyria?
18 form. 19 A. We had contacts following her visit to Monsanto 20 to talk about her 1260 study. I wouldn't 21 characterize them as regularly, but I would say 22 now and then.
23 A. It's the secretion of chemicals or compounds 24 called porphyrins in the mine. 25 Q.Is there any significance to that observation
23 Q. When did Dr. Kimbrough first come to Monsanto to 24 share with you her findings about 1260? 25 A. My best recollection it was probably in the
Page 50
Page 52
1 here in these rats, to your knowledge?
1 latter part of '74, mid to latter part of '74,
2 MR. DiMURO: I'll object.
2 but I really don't recall a specific date.
3 A.I'm not aware there is any particular -- it's an
3 Q.And was that a meeting at which you were
4 observation made. I'm not sure anybody made a
4 actually present?
5 causal connection or a causal connection if any
5 A. Yes.
6 is known. It happens with exposure to some
6 Q. Who else was present, from Monsanto in
7 chemicals.
7 particular?
8 Q. And down at the very last, this is apparently
8 A.I don't recall everyone else that was present
9 how Weiseburg learned about them. Who is the
9 there. Dr. Kelly was there. Elmer Wheeler was
10 Weiseburg that refers to?
10 there, and I suspect there were several other
11 A.That would be John Weisburger who at that time
11 people or some other people from the operating
12 was with the National Cancer Institute.
12 units, but 1 don't -- 1 don't recall the makeup
13 Actually, it should be Weisburger -- no, it's
13 of the meeting.
14 Weiseburg. I stand corrected, it's Weiseburg. 14 MR. LIPSHUTZ: Would you identify
15 Q.He was a pathologist with the National Cancer
15 that document again for me?
16 Institute?
16 MR. TURET: This is one of the ones
17 A. Yes.
17 that's going to be faxed your way. I'm waiting
18 (Memo dated 12/6/74
18 for the other copies to be bought in so I can
19 marked as Exhibit No. 2
19 fax you the bunch. But if you want, we can send
20 for identification.)
20 along this first set of documents to you and
~
21 MR. O'CONNOR: Off the record.
21 supply the rest to you later.
22 (Discussion off the record)
22 MR. LIPSHUTZ: 1 don'tmeed to see
23 MR. TURET: I'm showing the witness a 23 the documents right now. What was that marking,
24 document that has been marked in a previous
24 though?
25 deposition in another litigation as Deposition
25 MR. TURET: This was produced by
Page 49 - Page 52
STLCOPCB4027814
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997
Page 53
Page 55
1 Monsanto as an exhibit to one of the transcripts
1 being looked at as a possible replacement for
2 that was requested.
2 the other Aroclors, the more highly chlorinated
3 MR. LIPSHUTZ: I'm sorry, I'm not
3 Aroclors.
4 hearing. Was that marked in connection with
4 Q. And what was MCS 1043 if you know?
5 this deposition?
5 A. MCS is an acronym for Monsanto Company Sample,
6 MR. TURET: It has been now as
6 and I don't know without -- I'm sure the records
7 Levinskas 2, but it was previously marked as
7 are somewhere, but I don't know what the number
8 Levinskas 10 in another litigation.
8 1043 would be without checking out something
9 MR. LIPSHUTZ: Now I understand.
9 else. I just don't know.
10 That's what confused me. Okay.
10 (Letter dated 12/17/74
11 Q.Dr. Levinskas, there is a comment here about Mr.
11
marked as Exhibit No. 3
12 Johannsen having made a call to Dr. Sidney
12 for identification.)
13 Siegel at NCI. Do you know who Dr. Siegel is?
13 Q.For the record, the document that has been
14 A. He was one of the administrative people and
14 marked as Levinskas 3 is a December 17, 1974,
15 researchers at the National Cancer Institute.
15 letter reportedly from Dr. Levinskas to Dr.
16 Q. Was he the person who one would contact at the
16 Donovan Gordon of IBT and has an enclosure, a
17 time at the National Cancer Institute to find
17 letter from Dr. Kimbrough and some other
18 the status of toxicological studies being done?
18 materials and it's Bates number MAE 051687
19 A. He would be one of the people we could call. We
19 through 694. Just so you know, Dr. Levinskas,
20 had the advantage that I had met him, didn't
20 you're welcome to read the whole document
21 know him well, but I had met him, so he agreed
21 beginning to end, but I would also refer you to
22 to call him.
22 the parts that I would ask you about. Have you
23 Q.Were you aware as of early December of 1974 that 23 ever seen that document before, sir?
24 NCI was conducting studies like the one
24 A. Yes.
25 described in this memo?
25 Q. What is it?
Page 54
Page 56
1 MR. DiMURO: Object to the form.
1 A. After Dr. Kimbrough came to Monsanto, I asked
2 A. I think, it would seem to me the memo is fairly
2 for further information about the details of
3 self-explanatoiy, in talking to Dr. Kimbrough,
3 this study and this is the information that she
4 she thought NCI was doing a study on Aroclor
4 sent to me.
5 1254, and I asked Dr. Johannsen if he would call
5 Q. Okay. The cover letter on this is forwarding
6 Dr. Siegel and inquire, see if he could get some
6 the information you received onto Dr. Gordon?
7 information about that study.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q.Did the information about the status of that
8 Q. And what was Dr. Gordon's position with IBT at
9 study come back to you as well others?
9 the time?
10 A. I would have seen Dr. Johannsen's memo and that
10 A. He was a pathologist up there.
11 was the distribution as indicated on that memo
11 Q. And down at the CC section on that cover letter
12 that he would have made.
12 there is a reference to Dr. JC Calandra. Who is
13 Q.Down at the bottom there is a handwritten note
13 Dr. Calandra?
14 signed WR at the bottom. Who is WR if you know? 14 A. He was the owner at that time, the president of
15 A. I do not know.
15 the laboratory.
16 Q.Do you know whether it's William Richard?
16 Q.Now, there is a reference here to a subsequent
17 A.It could be, but I don't know.
17 discussion with them that's coming up. What
18 Q.Do you have any understanding of what those
18 subsequent discussion was being referred to, if
19 handwritten notes refer to?
19 you know?
_
20 A.I don't know that I've seen the handwritten
20 A. We were planning -- I say we were planning. It
21 notes before, but I don't have any knowledge of
21 was our intention that Dr. Gordon would look at
22 what they are or why they were put there.
22 the slides on-the studies Monsanto had done at
23 Q. What was Aroclor 1016 if you know?
23 IBT on Aroclor 1260 to look at those lesions
24 A. It was a PCB which had a lower average of degree
24 again, and to go down and look at the lesions
25 of chlorination than Aroclor 1254 and it was
25 that Kimbrough had described. And have
^
Page 53 - Page 56
STLCOPCB4027815
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas November 10, 1997'
Page 57
Page 59
1 Kimbrough look at slides from the Monsanto
1 MR. TURET: I'm asking for his
2 studies so that we could attempt to resolve the
2 opinion.
3 apparent differences in observations between the
3 A. In terms of the number of animals involved, I
4 two studies.
4 don't think that's a significant difference.
5 Q. And was there a meeting set up for that purpose?
5 Q.Next section says nodular hyperplasia and
6 A. Yes.
6 hepatomas. What are hepatomas?
7 Q. When was that meeting to take place, if you
7 A. A hepatoma is a liver tumor which is, at that
8 know?
8 time was generally, and I think today is also
9 A. Well, it would have been subsequent to this. I
9 considered to be a benign tumor.
10 think it probably was early '75.
10 Q.And are those hepatomas tumors that occur
11 Q.Now, there is a reference down in the last
11 spontaneously in humans or are they only as a
12 paragraph right at the end that you anticipate
12 result of exposure-
13 that Dr. Gordon, Dr. Kimbrough and Bob Squires
13
MR. DAVIDSON: In humans?
14 as well as you would attend. Who was Bob
14 Q. Let me rephrase the question. Are hepatomas
15 Squires?
15 benign tumors that occur in Sherman strain rats
16 A. Bob Squires was a pathologist. I believe he was
16 spontaneously or do they occur only as a result
17 at the National Cancer Institute at that time.
17 of some other phenomenon?
18 Q. Flipping to the next page, the one Bates
18 MR. DiMURO: I'll object to the
19 numbered MAE 051688, is that a letter you
19 form. If he has a personal opinion -
20 received from Dr. Kimbrough?
20 A. The strain of rats that Kimbrough used, which is
21 A. Yes.
21 from -- this document says obtained from the
22 Q. When she talks about a brief outline of the
22 NCDC animal farm at Lawrenceville, and the
23 experiment that, I guess Aroclor 12-72-A, is
23 Sherman strain, I have no knowledge of the
24 that the document that follows it?
24 Sherman strain, I have not worked with them. 1
25 A. Yes.
25 don't know what the incidence would be of
Page 58
Page 60
1 Q.Now, flipping forward, I guess Bates number MAE
1 hepatomas that do occur or can occur
2 051691, says at the top. Preliminary List of
2 spontaneously in some animals, in some rats, as
3 Microscopic Findings?
3 evidenced by the fact - well -- it's difficult
4 A.Uh-huh.
4 because she combined nodular hyperplasia and
5 Q.Down in the section that says liver, under tumor
5 hepatomas, so I don't know, of that 154 in the
6 type?
6 high level, I don't know how many hepatomas
7 A. Yes.
7 alone, or whether it's 153 nodular hyperplasias
8 Q. First one is nodular hyperplasia. What is that?
8 and one hepatoma.
9 A.It's a swelling of the structures within the
9 Q.Do you have any understanding of how nodular
10 cell, but they're like nodules, they're little
10 hyperplasia here can be in a separate category
11 lumps and they're scattered. It's not a large
11 and not be lower than a category with both
12 mass.
12 nodular hyperplasia hepatoma?
13 Q. And do nodular hyperplasias occur spontaneously? 13 A. I don't know how she put this table together or
14 A. They can.
14 what her reasoning was or the background. All I
15 Q. You notice under the control section it's
15 know is what she provided in this table.
16 reported there were three nodular hyperplasias
16 Q.Do you have any understanding personally as to
17 and under the experimental rats there are seven?
17 whether there is a significance to seeing 154
18 A. Yes.
18 nodular hyperplasias and hepatomas in the rats
19 Q.Is there any significance to the fact there is
19 exposed to the Aroclor 1260 as opposed to one in
20 seven in the rats that were exposed to Aroclor
20 the control group?
-
21 1260 versus three in the control?
21 MR. DiMURO: Object to the form. You
22 MR. DiMURO: Object to the form to
22 can answer.
^
23 the extent you're asking for expert testimony,
23 A. Obviously the number is greater and on a
24 I'm going to direct him not to answer. If you
24 statistical basis I would expect it to be
25 want his opinion, that's fine.
25 greater. It's not statistically significant.
Page 57 - Page 60
STLCOPCB4027816
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997
Page 61
Page 63
1 Q.Can one derive from looking at that number that
l
(Letter dated 1/14/75
2 nodular hyperplasia and hepatomas increase in
2 marked as Exhibit No. 4
3 experimental rats is caused by the Aroclor 1260? 3 for identification.)
4 MR. DiMURO: i'll object to the
4 Q.For the record, I'm showing the witness a
5 form. You're asking for expert testimony on one
5 document that's dated January 14, 1975, which
6 study, on one person's conclusions.
6 purports to be a letter from Dr. Levinskas to
7 MR. TURET: I'm asking for his
7 Dr. Gordon of IBT. It's a document that was
8 opinion based on this. I'm not asking for
8 marked as Deposition Exhibit Levinskas 13 in a
9 expert testimony.
9 prior deposition. Doctor, have you seen the
10 A. There is no question but 154 is markedly greater
10 document that's been presented to you before?
11 than one. It's a statement of fact.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Yes, I understand one is a larger number than
12 Q.And although there is no signature line at the
13 the other. Did you hear my question? Can you
13 bottom, is this a letter that you sent to Dr.
14 derive from that, just from the numbers that
14 Gordon?
15 fact that there were 154 in the rats exposed to
15 A. Yes.
16 Aroclor 1254 versus one in the non-exposed
16 Q.Now, the letter purports to send along three --
17 control group, does that translate into the fact
17 are they studies, toxicological studies?
18 that Aroclor 1260 caused the nodular hyperplasia
18 A.They're reprints of studies.
19 and hepatomas in the exposed rats?
19 Q.And is it fair to say these reprints were sent
20 MR. O'CONNOR: Object to the form.
20 along to Dr. Gordon in anticipation of a meeting
21 Just so the record is clear, Craig, I think
21 that he and Dr. Richter were going to have with
22 you're referring to Aroclor 1260. You mentioned
22 Dr. Kimbrough and Dr. Squire?
23 Aroclor 1254.
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. TURET: That was my mistake. I
24 Q. Is this leading up to the same meeting that was
25 intended to say 1260.
25 referred to in the letter we discussed a couple
Page 62
Page 64
1 A.l think the basic premise is correlation is not
1 moments ago?
2 causation. Correlation and causation may go
2 A. Yes.
3 together. Correlation does not prove
3 Q. Did you personally select the three reprints
4 causation. So there is no question that a
4 that were going on to these gentlemen?
5 larger number of observations that were made in
5 A.l don't recall how I got these reprints, but we
6 the treated animals, but it is going beyond the
6 had them and they talked about these things in
7 data that that's the conclusion one is drawing,
7 the first sentence, due to liver tumorigenesis
8 but the data are consistent with that conclusion
8 of PCBs, and since that was a subject of the
9 but they don't necessarily make that a
9 meeting, I thought it was prudent to inform them
10 conclusion.
10 of what was published in the literature
11 Q. Moving onto the next item, hepatocellular
11 regarding the subject that was under discussion.
12 carcinomas, what is hepatocellular carcinomas?
12 Q.Did you select these three reprints as being
13 A. Well, hepato, is a liver cell and the carcinoma
13 leading authorities at the time on the issue of
14 is a cancer of the liver.
14 liver tumorigenesis?
15 Q.And what is an adenofibrosis?
15 A.l did not select them on that basis. My
16 A.Adenofibrosis, I'm not that good a pathologist,
16 recollection is these were reprints that we had
17 I don't think that's a tumor. It may be a
17 or had been called to our attention and.
18 fibrous tissue tumor, but it's not been
18 therefore, 1 included them or sent them on to
19 considered a carcinogen, but --1 would like to.
19 Don Gordon.
20 if I might add, in one bladder papilloma which
20 Q. So is there any particular significance in the
-*
21 is a tumor, you will see one in the control
21 fact that these three articles are here as
22 animal and none were seen in the treated
22 opposed to other articles that>might have
23 animals.
23 covered the same topics?
24 Q.I'm not going to ask anything further on that
24 MR. DiMURO: I'm going to object to
25 one.
25 the form. I think he told you twice why he
Page 61 - Page 64
STLCOPCB4027817
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)_________________ _____________________________ November 10, 1997;
Page 65
Page 67
1 selected them, but you can answer.
1 rat consistently or regularly, one develops a
2 A. I think these were available and known to us.
2 background information and we had no such
3 They were not selected from a larger bailiwick.
3 background information against which to assess
4 They might have been called to our attention by
4 the data that Kimbrough presented.
5 Kimbrough. I don't know how they came to my
5 Q. What did you mean by the sentence that follows
6 attention.
6 that, despite the absence of historic control
7 Q.Did the meeting that's referred to here as a
7 data, her results would be hard to refute?
8 January 31, 1975, meeting ultimately take place?
8 A. I think any time you have an adverse finding of
9 A. Yes, the meeting did take place.
9 any sort in an animal study and you try to
10 Q.Did you participate in that meeting?
10 repeat it, and if you don't repeat it, it
11 A. I attended.
11 doesn't negate the fact that it was seen the
12 Q.Did Drs. Richter and Gordon also attend?
12 first time and that's why I say her results
13 A. Yes.
13 would be hard to refute.
14 Q. Was Dr. Kimbrough there as well?
14 Q. The following page, top paragraph, you were
15 A. Yes.
15 referring to you and Dr. Gordon and Dr. Richter,
16 Q.How about Dr. Squire?
16 it says, after we left and they conceded the
17 A. Yes.
17 occurrence of hepatic carcinomas, there was
18 (Memorandum dated 1/31/75
18 little else to do. Do you have any recollection
19 marked as Exhibit No. 5
19 one way or the other as to whether Drs. Gordon
20 for identification.)
20 and Richter conceded the occurrence of hepatic
21 Q.For the record, Levinskas 5 is a two-page
21 carcinomas in that study?
22 memorandum that is entitled at the top, Aroclor
22 A. The recollection I have is when we left, as we
23 1260 meeting at NCI, January 31, 1975. It's
23 were going back to the airport, they said, and
24 Bates number MAE 027812.
24 they were looking at some of the selected
25 Dr. Levinskas, have you seen the
25 tissues from Kimbrough's study that a few of the
Page 66
Page 68
1 document that's just been shown to you before
1 ones they saw, there was no question but the
2 today?
2 changes in those livers were more severe than
3 A. Yes.
3 what they had seen in the IBT studies and that
4 Q.Down at the bottom of the second page there are
4 some of those were hepatic carcinomas.
5 the three initials G-J-L. Are those your
5 Q.ln the Kimbrough study?
6 initials?
6 A. Yes.
7 A. Yes.
7 Q.Now, there is also a reference in the following
8 Q.Was that a document that you authored?
8 paragraph to the only palliative course of
9 A. Yes.
9 action would be to publish our two-year study on
10 Q.Now, down in the paragraph that begins, control
10 Aroclor 1260 before Dr. Kimbrough gets into
11 animals in this study, the sense is control
11 print. That was your assessment at the time?
12 animals in this study have very clean livers.
12 A. My recollection was that if we published
13 What did that mean at the time you wrote it?
13 simultaneously or almost simultaneously, both
14 A. I would say the next sentence is explanatory,
14 studies, the one that was negative and the one
15 which says, the incidence of spontaneous
15 that was positive, we were presenting all the
16 changes, in other words there are differences
16 information available, and people could draw
17 that occur in animals as they age, so the
17 their own conclusions. Once she has published a
18 incidence of spontaneous change was quite low.
18 study indicating it causes the cancer, for us to
19 And then my next sentence, I say insofar as
19 go out and say we did a study and it's negative,
20 could be determined, Dr. Kimbrough has no data
20 you can't offset the fact that somebody has
_
21 from other two-year studies which could be used
21 already said it caused cancer and the idea is
22 to assess the spontaneous tumor incidence of
22 lodged in people's minds. ^
23 this strain of rats. There are differences in
23 Q. I take it the next sentence, this would at least
24 the types of pathology and the incidences in
24 blunt the impact of her publication, that
25 various strains of rats. And if one is using a
25 remains your view today?
Page 65 - Page 6~
STLCOPCB4027818
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997
Page 69
Page 71
1 A. Yes.
1 a. Yes.
2 (Letter dated 3/24/75
2 Q. Down below there is a reference to in summary --
3 marked as Exhibit No. 6
3 MR. DiMURO: What page?
4 for identification.)
4 MR. TURET: Same page, further down.
5 Q.Dr. Levinskas, I've just shown you a document
5 A. About seven or eight lines from the bottom?
6 that's been marked in this litigation as
6 Q. Right. Is your understanding of her study the
7 Levinskas 6, marked in a prior litigation as
7 same as what's reported in that summary?
8 Levinskas 15. The cover letter, at least, is a
8 MR. DiMURO: Are you asking whether
9 March 24,1975, letter from Dr. Gordon to you.
9 he agrees with that line?
10 And there are some enclosures, some trip
10 MR. TURET: Yes, the sentence starts
11 reports. Do you remember seeing this document
11 in summary, and ends with test animals, period.
12 before today?
12 A. The information there is consistent with the
13 A. Yes.
13 earlier exhibit where Dr. Kimbrough sent me the
14 q.Do you remember receiving it from Dr. Gordon?
14 table you questioned me about the hepatomas.
15 A. Yes, it came in the mail.
15 And that is consistent with that table. They
16 Q.And is this referring to the same meeting with
16 did not look at all the slides from all the
17 Dr. Kimbrough that we've been discussing now for 17 animals. So if you read that. Dr. Gordon's
18 a little while?
18 statements to say that in summary, Kimbrough
19 A. Yes.
19 makes statements, and these are the statements,
20 Q.Dr. Gordon, the first trip report is one which
20 then that's correct. If you are reading into
21 you'll see if you flip on a few pages ahead that
21 this that Dr. Gordon is saying he saw the high
22 was prepared by Dr. Gordon, at least has his
22 incidence and all those other things in the
23 signature at the bottom?
23 Kimbrough study, that's incorrect because he
24 A. Yes.
24 didn't look at enough slides to make that
25 Q.Dr. Gordon states in the first page of his trip
25 statement. So I guess it's how do you want to
Page 70
Page 72
1 report, the purpose of the meeting was to review
1 read the words, the context in which you're
2 the slides and data from a 23-month oral feeding
2 reading.
3 study with Aroclor 1260 in rats that was
3 Q.So you're saying that Dr. Gordon didn't see
4 conducted by Dr. Kimbrough while at the EPA.
4 enough slides to be able to say one way or the
5 Where was Dr. Kimbrough now as of February of
5 other what the Kimbrough study showed?
6 1975?
6 A.No, I'm saying that the statement that Kimbrough
7 A. The Center for Disease Control, when I first met
7 found a rather high incidence of all these
8 Kimbrough was under the Public Health Service,
8 things, he didn't look at enough slides from
9 and then subsequently there was -- I don't know
9 enough animals to know what the incidence is.
10 the administration shifts, but when the
10 He did see some of these things, hyperplastic
11 Environmental Health Science was created and so
11 nodules and neoplastic hepatomas, carcinomas,
12 forth, and EPA, they juggled around the
12 lesions of livers, he did see some of all these
13 relationships and I don't know whether this
13 things, but not enough to have an idea of
14 statement while she was at EPA is correct or not
14 whether it was high or low or intermediate level
15 in this case. But we met at the National Cancer
15 of incidence.
16 Institute and when I first met Kimbrough she was
16 Q. I understand. And is it your understanding that
17 with the Public Health Service and was stationed
17 Dr. Squire of the National Cancer Institute
18 at Chamblee, Georgia, outside of Atlanta. I
18 reviewed all the slides from the Kimbrough
19 think she was in there rather than -- prior to
19 studies?
20 EPA, but location is somewhat irrelevant, I
20 A.I don't know how many he looked at.
-
21 think.
21 Q.Do you have an understanding as to whether he
22 Q. I understand what you're saying. The purpose of
22 ultimately concurred in her-findings?
23 the meeting as described by Dr. Gordon, is that
23 A. I think the statement here, he says, the slides
24 the same as your understanding of the purpose of
24 were subsequently reviewed by Dr. Squire.
25 that meeting?
25 That's my understanding that she went to Dr.
Page 69 - Page 72
STLCOPCB4027819
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas ______ November 10, 1997
Page 73
Page 75
1 Squire and he helped her with the classification
1 051695 to 696. Do you recognize the document?
2 and review of the slides.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q.As it's your understanding also as Dr. Gordon
3 Q. What is it?
4 reported that Dr. Squire concurred with her
4 A. It's a memo from of a meeting we had with Dr.
5 findings?
5 John Weisburger -- it is Weisburger -- who used
6 A. Yes, because she used a classification scheme
6 to be at the National Cancer Institute and was
7 that Dr. Squire had helped develop just prior to
7 currently at the American Health Foundation in
8 this.
8 Valhalla, New York.
9 Q.Okay. Let me flip ahead to the trip report from
9 Q. What was the name of that organization?
10 Dr. Richter which is the last two pages of this
10 A.It's the American Health Foundation.
11 document. Is it your understanding that Dr.
11 Q. Okay. And that was essentially a letter you
12 Gordon -- let me withdraw the question. Is it
12 wrote to Dr. Weisburger; is that right?
13 your understanding that there was some
13 A. Yes.
14 discrepancy between one person's definition of a
14 Q.Now, down at the bottom of the page, first page,
15 carcinoma and another person's definition of a
15 there is a reference to, our concern -- I take
16 carcinoma among this group of people who
16 it that's concern of the medical department of
17 evaluated the slides?
17 Monsanto based on Dr. Kimbrough's study?
18 A. I think the definition of what is a carcinoma or
18 A. Yes.
19 not is influenced by several things, which is a
19 Q.Now, it asks for Dr. Weisburger's recommendation
20 person's experience and it's a judgmental
20 as to what should be done as a result of this
21 issue. And that there are differences of
21 information and thoughts as to how you might
22 opinion among pathologists when they look at
22 proceed. Was Dr. Weisburger actually retained
23 slides. That's one reason they review them to
23 and paid for his recommendations to your
24 come to some sort of a consensus agreement.
24 knowledge?
25 Q.Is it your understanding in this instance that
25 MR. DiMURO: Objection to the form;
Page 74
Page 76
1 there were differences of opinion as to whether
1 paid by who?
2 there were or were not carcinomas in the slides
2
MR. TURET: Paid by Monsanto.
3 taken from the Kimbrough study?
3 A. The last part first, to my knowledge we did not
4 A.I think that it's already been said in the
4 pay Dr. Weisburger anything to my knowledge.
5 summaries that the lesions seen in Kimbrough's
5 John had been with the National Cancer
6 study were more advanced than those seen in the
6 Institute. I'd known him for some time and had
7 IBT study. I think there was general agreement
7 dealings with him earlier. When the question of
8 on that.
8 carcinogenics came out, we turned to several
9 Q.That wasn't the question I asked, though. Do
9 attempts to try to resolve the questions as to
10 you agree that Dr. Richter concurred in Dr.
10 differences that arose between our studies and
11 Kimbrough's findings that there were carcinomas
11 Kimbrough's. And among the people I contacted
12 in the slides from the Kimbrough study?
12 was John Weisburger who had left the National
13 A. I thought I just said that.
13 Cancer institute and was up here in New York.
14 Q. And do you also agree that Dr. Gordon also found
14 John had a very busy schedule and he said he was
15 carcinomas in the slides from Dr. Kimbrough's
15 flying through from the East Coast to the West
16 study?
16 Coast somewhere and he had a stop in St. Louis
17 A. I think I said that.
17 and so he agreed to meet with us at the airport
18 Q.And Dr. Squire also concurred with Dr.
18 in St. Louis. And if 1 recall correctly, Dr.
19 Kimbrough's findings?
19 Roush and I drove up to meet him and we talked
20 A. Yes.
20 for a couple hours in the airport between
"
21 (Letter dated 5/1/75
21 flights, and there is a listing of the
22 marked as Exhibit No. 7
22 information 1 sent to him.~1 said we would
23 for identification.)
23 appreciate if you would review this information
24 Q.Dr. Levinskas, you're now being shown a two-page 24 and on the basis of it give us your
25 document dated May 1st, 1975, Bates number MAE 25 recommendations as to what steps we might take ^ -
Page 73 - Page 76
STLCOPCB4027820
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997
Page 77
Page 79
1 to grapple with the issue of carcinogens. If
1 look at all of the available livers. The
2 you look at the last paragraph, I say we shall
2 practice would be to look at the tissue, and if
3 be waiting at the airport to meet your flight
3 there were no marked abnonnalities grossly that
4 and promise to get you on the next flight. We
4 they would only look at a sample to see what
5 did meet with him. I do not have any
5 sorts of changes. So we ask them to go back and
6 recollection that he ever came back to us with
6 look at all of the livers that were available
7 any comments other than saying I have no further
7 from those three studies. And this is the
8 recommendations to make on what you're doing.
8 pathological evaluation of additional, the extra
9 Other than that sort of casual comment, I don't
9 liver sections from that study, so this would be
10 recall that he had anything else to say about
10 a report of the microscopic examinations of
11 it.
11 liver tissues from that study.
12 MR. O'CONNOR: Are you saying the
12 Q.Now, this one was focused on Aroclor 1254. To
13 meeting didn't take place?
13 your knowledge, were there similar additional
14 a.No, it did. We met at the airport a couple
14 studies done with regard to Aroclor 1260?
15 hours, but we didn't have any formal report that
15 A. Yes.
16 I'm aware of or any written comments as to what
16 Q. And also 1242?
17 we should be doing in addition to what we were.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You don't know of any informal comments?
18 Q.Now, we're looking at a study that's dated March
19 A. He had no additional recommendations for what we 19 24,1975. To your knowledge, was there a
20 were doing.
20 previous version of this report with terminology
21 MR. TURET: Off the record a minute
21 that was different?
22 then.
22 MR. DiMURO: Object to the form, if
23 (Brief recess.)
23 you want to tell me what version means.
24 MR. TURET: Back on.
24 MR. TURET: Perhaps Dr. Levinskas, if
25 (Report dated 3/24/75
25 he understands my question, he can answer.
Page 78
Page 80
1 marked as Exhibit No. 8
1 MR. DiMURO: Sure.
2 for identification.)
2 A. As I understand, these were additional liver
3 MR. O'CONNOR: This is Levinskas 8?
3 sections looked at from the two-year study which
4 MR. TURET: Yeah.
4 is conducted prior to this reexamination. So
5 Q.For the record, this document is a report to
5 there is an earlier report and there is this
6 Monsanto Company dated March 24, 1975, IBT
6 report.
7 report Bates numbers MAE 001342-56.
7 Q.The earlier report, was that done in about 1971?
8 MR. DiMURO: Go ahead, shoot.
8 A. '71 or '2 probably yes.
9 Q.Dr. Levinskas, have you ever seen this report
9 Q. Was a previous version of the March 24, 1975,
10 before today?
10 report that used different terminology?
11 A. Yes.
11 MR. DiMURO: Object to the form
12 Q.Did you receive it at or about March of 1975
12 again. You can answer.
13 from IBT?
13 A. My recollection is that and this is where the -
14 A.I don't recall when I received it.
14 I was handed two sets of reports from IBT. on
15 Q. Do you remember -- let me withdraw that
15 each of those three studies. Each of the
16 question. What was the purpose behind this
16 reports dealt with the additional evaluation of
17 study?
17 tissues. And I made a side by side comparison
18 A. It was in the comments I just made about the
18 of the two versions of those reports. I don't
19 meeting with Dr. Weisburger. When Kimbrough
19 recall which was the first or which was the
20 raised the question of carcinogenicity of
20 second in that sense of timing or sequence.
21 Aroclor 1260 and her results were different from
21 Q. When you talk about first and second, you're
22 what IBT had found, and since we had looked at
22 referring to the 1973 -ish reports?
23 only a small section of the animals in the IBT
23 A.No, I'm talking about two versions of these
24 study, which was customary for studies of that
24 additional slides.
25 nature at that time, we asked IBT to go back and
25 Q. Why were there two separate versions of these
Page 77 - Page 89^
STLCOPCB4027821
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas November 10, 1997'
Page 81
Page 83
1 two additional slides? 2 A.I can't answer that. I don't know.
3 Q. So just to see if I'm understanding you
4 correctly, you were handed two different reports
5 that reflected iBT's reevaluation of the slides
6 relating to Aroclor 1254? 7 A. Yes.
8 Q.Did they cover the same undertaking by IBT?
9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And they were not identical? 11 A. Word for word, no, they were not identical. 12 Q. What do you remember were the differences 13 between the one report relating to Aroclor 1254 14 dated March 24, '75 and the other? 15 A. My recollection is there were three reports that
1 report. 2 Q. The other version of this one, so one of them 3 said tumorigenic and the other one said does not 4 appear to be carcinogenic? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And the both relating to the studies done on 7 Aroclor 1254 by IBT? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. At the same time? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q.The same studies done by IBT. the same 12 conclusions? 13 A. Yes. 14 (Letter dated 8/4/75 15 marked as Exhibit No. 9
16 came in, as I said, and I don't have the
16 for identification.)
17 documents, and I did a point -- I was asked to
18 do -- I was handed two sets of reports and I was
17 MR. TURET: For the record, this 18 document that has been marked Levinskas 9 is an
19 asked to compare them and look at them and I
20 made a point by point comparison of them. And
19 August 4, 1975 -- actually, wait a minute. I 20 think I mixed two of them. There are two
21 in the second version, IBT had changed the 22 wording on two of the three reports and I said
21 letters that went together. Can we mark that as 22 Levinskas 9-A.
23 to them, since the findings are similar in all
24 three reports and you used the same language the 25 first time, then you changed two the second
23 24 25
(Letter dated 7/18/75 marked as Exhibit No. 9-A for identification.)
Page 82
Page 84
1 time, why don't you change all three the second
1
MR. DiMURO: You want him to look at
2 time, just to be consistent.
2 9-A first?
3 Q.I know I asked this already. Do you have any 3 MR. TURET: Yes.
4 recollection as to why there were two reports on
4 Q. Levinskas 9-A is a July 18, 1975, letter from
5 the same undertaking at the same time?
5 Dr. Levinskas to Dr. Calandra of IBT and Bates
6 A. I have no idea where they came from, how they
6 numbered MAE 051966. Focusing on Levinskas 9-A
7 came. I was handed them and asked to review
7 first, Dr. Levinskas, have you seen this
8 them.
8 two-page letter before today?
9 Q.Let me direct your attention, I guess it's Bates
9 A. Yes.
10 number MAE 001344, sentence, in conclusion,
10 Q. Is this a letter that you wrote to Dr. Calandra
11 Aroclor 1254 does not appear to be carcinogenic
11 of IBT on or about July 18, 1975?
12 in rats fed for two years at levels up to and
12 A. Yes.
13 including 100 parts per million. See that
13 Q.In the first -- I guess it's the second
14 sentence?
14 paragraph, where -- first refers to the two
15 A. Yes.
15 instances in which "slightly tumorigenic" was
16 q.Do you have any recollection as to whether there
16 changed to "does not appear to be carcinogenic,"
17 was anything in that sentence that was different
17 is that the reference to what you described a
18 in one of the reports versus the other?
18 moment ago?
19 A. My general recollection is that the earlier
19 A. Yes.
20 reports, that the earlier version said something
20 Q. In this letter did you ask Dr. Calandra to
..
21 like it was tumorigenic, and this one as you
21 change the conclusion from "slightly
22 read it.
22 tumorigenic" to "does not appear to be
23 Q. When you say the earlier version, are we talking
23 carcinogenic"?
24 about the 1971 one?
24 a. I say may we request that the Aroclor 1254
25 A.No, talking about the other version of this
25 report be amended to say does not appear to be
STLCOPCB4027822
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)_________________________________ _November 10, 1997
Page 85
Page 87
1 carcinogenic, yes.
l supplemental report number one and two?
2 Q. And that you requested it be changed?
2 A. It's the same thing. If you look at number 600
3 A. I said may we request it.
3 to 800 under 1260 and so forth, then 1 say this
4 Q.That's a yes?
4 is -- in 42, you've got these numbers. And in
5 A.I asked him if he would make a change. I didn't
5 1260 you've got these numbers. It's the same
6 say he had to.
6 transposition, to me, that the threes, sevens
7 Q.Down below there is a reference to, with Aroclor
7 and these two blocks of numbers are. In a
8 1254 confusion is compounded, appears to be
8 shorthand manner. I'm saying go back and look at
9 confusion regarding the numbering of the
9 your numbers. These two go together and these
10 animals. Do you have any recollection of what
10 two go together. I don't know whether this is
11 that confusion involved?
11 the 1242 or that's the 1242, but somehow you've
12 A. If you look at the last page, there should be a
12 inverted two sets of numbers and got this and
13 third page attached that was a table. And this
13 this, and I'm saying did this one want to go
14 is the basis of which I made the request. If
14 this way or did this one want to go that way.
15 you look at the left column, Aroclor 1260, 54,
15 I'm not sure which it is but those two don't
16 42, and this hepatomas that they did describe in
16 match.
17 the original study, they had an incidence in the
17 Q. Okay, and we're in a written deposition. That
18 three study respective, of three, six and
18 entire discussion won't make any sense. Tell me
19 seven. And he says slightly tumorigenic in
19 if this is correct: Essentially IBT swapped
20 every instance. In the second report that I was
20 some numbers by mistake, some of the results
21 asked to compare they had made the change in
21 that should have been for 1242 showed up for
22 1260 from slightly tumorigenic to does not
22 1260 or vice versa?
23 appear to be carcinogenic. They made a similar
23 A. I don't know what happened, but my surmise would
24 change for 42. And 54, they kept the original
24 be somehow the 1242 got mislabeled as 1260 and
25 terminology, slightly tumorigenic. And I was
25 the 1260 got mislabeled as 1242 in one or the
Page 86
Page 88
1 trying to say to Dr. Calandra, if you made this
1 other sets. Instead of ABC, they have ABC and
2 change for those three, or change for two of the
2 CBA. And I don't know whether the A and C are
3 three, why not be consistent and make the change
3 wrong on the top or the C, A on the bottom is
4 for all three. If you look at hepatomas under
4 wrong, but it should be ABC and ABC instead of
5 1260, the number they give for 1260, they say
5 ABC and CBA.
6 three, and in the second set of reports it says
6 Q. It's a pretty sloppy set of reports for an
7 seven. You look at the last line and you see a
7 important study, is it not?
8 seven and a three. And I don't have the
8 MR. DiMURO: Objection.
9 original records, but I say you're not
9 A. I have no comment. When I looked at the reports
10 consistent. These groups are mixed up. Either
10 I looked at what I called internal consistency,
11 1260 is in the wrong place in one or the other
11 does it make sense. And the first thing is they
12 columns. I could spend a lot of time going back
12 don't match. So I got a right hand and a left
13 over the numbers if you want, but that's the
13 hand and I say which one is it and I don't
14 gist of what I was try to convey in a shorthand
14 know. It could be a typo error, I don't know
15 form to Dr. Calandra that if you had 3 in the
15 what the problem is. I'm just calling it to your
16 1260 column once and 3 in that column the next
16 attention.
17 time, and 42 has a 7 in that column and a 3 in
17 Q. Would you expect a properly done study to be
18 that column.
18 internally consistent?
19 Q.This is the report on the very same studies?
19 A. Yes.
-
20 A. Yeah, you've got the numbers mixed up or
20 MR. DiMURO: Objection.
21 something. I don't know what you've done. It
21 Q. Let me direct your attention, to Levinskas 9
22 doesn't make sense to me.
22 which is an August 4, 1975, letter from Mr.
23 Q. What is, the column that you've listed as range
23 Calandra to you. Bates numbered MAE 052975.
24 of test animal numbers, what is it you're trying
24 Have you seen this document before?
25 to convey there the differences between
25 A. Yes.
^
Page 85 - Page 88
STLCOPCB4027823
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997
Page 89
Page 91
1 Q. Is that a letter you received from Dr. Calandra
l know if you would call that adverse publicity.
2 back in August of 1975?
2 Q.I'm talking about specifically the request from
3 A. Yes.
3 Monsanto that there by a change to this
4 Q. And Dr. Calandra's reference here to amending
4 particular report. Do you remember seeing that
5 his statement in the last paragraph, Page 2 of
5 in a newspaper or magazine article?
6 Aroclor 1254 to state does not appear to be
6 A.I can't recall that I did. I may have. I don't
7 carcinogenic instead of slightly tumorigenic, is
7 recall specifically.
8 that a response to your request?
8 Q.Do you remember anyone bringing to your
9 A. Yes.
9 attention that you were named in the magazine or
10 Q. And he also down below refers to what you
10 newspaper article for having requested a change?
11 pointed out about the transposition of the
11 MR. DiMURO: 1 didn't hear the
12 numbers. There is also a reference in Paragraph
12 question.
13 4 of that letter to discrepancies in animal
13 (Question read).
14 identification numbers. Is that something
14 Q. Do you understand the question?
15 different than what we've discussed already?
15 A. With respect to PCBs, I don't recall it. I may
16 A. I would have to have the reports before me to be
16 have been, but I don't recall it specifically.
17 sure, but be says in the report on reevaluation
17
MR. O'CONNOR: Off the record.
18 of the additional sections dated March '75,
18 (Discussion off the record)
19 there was a typo on Page 1 which referred to
19 MR. TURET: Back on the record.
20 1 260 instead of 1254. Perhaps that is the basis
20 Q. Dr. Levinskas, the report we've been talking
21 of your confusion. So he's saying we could have
21 about now, Levinskas 8, the March 24 study?
22 mixed up the 54s and 60s. I don't recall
22 A. Okay.
23 specifically what follows on this thing. I
23 Q. Do you recall Dr. Calandra sending you a revised
24 don't have a recollection, but he does
24 page with the terminology changed from slightly
25 acknowledge, or I think he acknowledges that I
25 tumorigenic to does not appear to be
Page 90
Page 92
l might have said something to ring a bell.
1 carcinogenic?
2 Q.Do you remember just in general the issue of
2 MR. DiMURO: For Aroclor 1254?
3 some animals having turned up both in a control
3 Q. For Aroclor 1254?
4 group and in the experiment group?
4 A. I don't specifically recall it, but 1 assume it
5 A. I would have to go back and look at the tables
5 was done. While it may be addressed to me, it
6 in detail. I just don't have that kind of
6 may not have been called to my attention, just
7 recollection.
7 filed.
8 Q.Do you remember anybody other than yourself
8 Q. Do you have any knowledge one way or the other
9 criticizing these particular IBT studies for
9 whether the date was changed to reflect that the
10 having used the very same identification numbers
10 report had been revised subsequently?
11 in both categories?
11 A. At this time I don't recall the dates. I don't
12 A. I don't recall anybody raising the question, no.
12 think I paid much attention to them.
13 Q.Do you recall any adverse publicity to Monsanto
13 Q. Based on your experience as a toxicologist for
14 that resulted from these changes from slightly
14 30 or 40 years, when a report is revised, is it
15 tumorigenic to does not appear to be
15 customary for the date to be revised as well?
16 carcinogenic?
16 A.I don't think 1 could say what is customary in
17 MR. LIPSHUTZ: Objection to the
17 terms of the general practices at that tune. I
18 form.
18 suspect it was done both ways. I mean, some
19 MR. DiMURO: Objection.
19 people might have amended the report, some
20 A.I don't recall any adverse publicity. I don't
20 people may have just made a change in the date. _
21 really know what you mean by that, and I don't
21 Q. So if the report was amended months later, in
22 know how I would assess adverse publicity.
22 your mind it would be jusLa common practice to
23 Certainly this question of the environmental
23 have it back dated to the date of the original
24 impact of PCBs and cancer was all coming up at
24 report?
25 this time and I'm sure it got noticed. I don't 25 MR. DiMURO: Object to the fonn, but
Page 89 - Page
STLCOPCB4027824
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997
Page 93
Page 95
1 you can answer.
l compile and my recollection is, 1 don't really
2 A. I think I just said I don't think there was a
2 know what was done with the information. I
3 standard practice. I think some laboratories
3 don't recall.
4 probably back dated them and some didn't. I
4 Q. What prompted this effort to compile information
5 can't speak to the practices of all
5 from department 246, if you know?
6 laboratories. I don't know.
6 A. This was part of the subsequent actions Monsanto
7 MR. LIPSHUTZ: Can we take a short
7 took after Dr. Kimbrough announced the
8 break?
8 carcinogenicity of Aroclor 1260 in rats. Among
9 MR. TURET: Can you hold out five
9 the things we wanted to do was see if there was
10 minutes?
10 any supportive evidence of indication of this in
11 MR. LIPSHUTZ: Something just popped 11 the workers who were making the material and
12 up. I apologize.
12 presumably would have higher degree of exposure
13 MR. O'CONNOR: We'll take a
13 than people who had casual contact with the
14 five-minute break.
14 material.
15 (Memo dated 8/22/75
15 Q.Was Dr. Johannsen the one primarily involved in
16 marked as Exhibit No. 10
16 this action?
17 for identification.)
17 A. Dr. Johannsen was the toxicologist and deemed
18 (Brief recess. )
18 the man who could probably take the best look at
19 MR. TURET: Back on the record.
19 the information, so he was given that
20 Q.This document that's been marked as Levinskas 10 20 assignment.
21 is an August 22, 1975, memorandum from Frederick 21 Q.Now, the information is summarized by Dr.
22 Johannsen to George Roush, Bates number MAE
22 Johannsen in this memorandum. Do you have any
23 022030, dash 033. Dr. Levinskas, have you seen
23 independent basis, knowledge as to the accuracy
24 the document that has been marked Levinskas 10
24 of that information?
25 before today?
25 A. No, I have nothing beyond what Dr. Johannsen
Page 94
Page 96
1 A. Yes.
1 reported here.
2 Q. I notice you're CC'd at the top. Do you
2 Q.Do you remember seeing any other memoranda
3 remember receiving a copy of this document in or
3 regarding status updates of such a
4 about August of 1975?
4 compilation --
5 A.I don't specifically recall receiving it, but --
5 A.I may have. I don't have a specific
6 Q.Do you remember seeing this document in that
6 recollection of it.
7 general time frame as opposed to in litigation
7 Q.I didn't get to finish the question. I think
8 more recently?
8 you understood the gist of it, relating to this
9 A.I'm sure it crossed my desk. But I don't have a
9 compilation of information?
10 particular recollection of it, put it that way.
10 A. (Witness nods).
11 Q. Do you remember a time when medical data was
11 Q.Did I understand you to say you don't have any
12 compiled on the workers in department 246 at the
12 recollection?
13 Krummrich plant?
13 A.I don't recall receiving any other information.
14 A. I know that Dr. Johannsen was attempting to look
14 Q. Do you remember hearing from any corridors other
15 at the records in department 246 in Krummrich to 15 than in this memorandum that the rate of
16 see if there was sufficient information to do an
16 respiratory cancer deaths was higher in
17 epidemiology study.
17 department 246 than in the general population in
18 Q. Just to clarify, department 246 at the Krummrich
18 St. Louis?
19 plant is what?
19 A. I have heard Dr. Roush make that comment, yes.
20 A.I believe that's where we were making the PCB
20 Q. Have you seen any written documents that
..
21 Aroclors.
21 referred to such an increased respiratory cancer
22 Q.Do you know one way or another whether Dr.
22 death rate?
^
23 Johannsen succeeded in compiling that data in
23 A.I can't think 'of any. I just don't recall any.
24 that plant?
24 Q. On Page 2 of this document, there is a reference
25 A. This memo summarizes the data they were able to
25 to an opinion shared by Dr. William Gaffey* ,-
tj
Page 93 - Page
STLCOPCB4027825
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Leyinskas.
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997
Page 97
Page 99
1 manager, epidemiology, Tabershaw-Cooper
1 IBT when I joined the company in 1971.
2 Associates. Is that the same William Gaffey who
2 Q. While he was employed by IBT, do you know
3 later became an employee of Monsanto?
3 whether Dr. Wright worked on projects
4 A. Yes, if memory serves me correctly, Dr. Gaffey
4 specifically for Monsanto?
5 did come from Tabershaw-Cooper.
5 A. I know he worked at IBT and IBT did studies for
6 Q. What was Tabershaw-Cooper?
6 many companies, including government agencies,
7 A.That was a consulting firm. I'm not sure
7 and I would not be surprised if he had worked on
8 whether they specialized in epidemiology or
8 Monsanto projects, but I don't have specific
9 among other things, epidemiology.
9 knowledge of what he did.
10 Q.Down at the bottom of that same page there was a
10 Q.Do you remember how Dr. Wright's rehiring by
11 reference to, it is recommended that an
11 Monsanto came about in or about 1972?
12 experienced epidemiologist be contracted to
12 A. Yes.
13 further evaluate this data. Do you have any
13 Q. How did that come about?
14 knowledge one way or another as to whether an
14 A. Elmer Wheeler decided, or I should say he
15 experienced epidemiologist was ultimately
15 finally agreed with me that I needed some
16 contracted to evaluate the data?
16 assistance, so we began discussing possibilities
17 A. Ultimately Dr. Gaffey was hired and I think I
17 and Elmer mentioned the fact that Paul Wright
18 said earlier that Judy Zack worked in the
18 might be interested in rejoining Monsanto since
19 medical department for a little while on
19 he had worked for Monsanto. I had not met Paul
20 epidemiology.
20 Wright before 1 came to Monsanto, though 1 had
21 Q.Do you know if Judy Zack worked specifically on
21 met him once or twice at IBT. So I made
22 that assignment?
22 inquiries within Monsanto, particularly among
23 A.I don't have a good knowledge of what Judy was
23 the people Paul had worked for and with before
24 working on, so I can't comment directly.
24 he left Monsanto, all of whom had high
25 Q.Dr. Levinskas, you mentioned earlier that at
25 recommendations for his professional competency,
Page 98
Page 100
1 some point in time Paul Wright was hired by
1 his technical ability, and therefore I pursued
2 Monsanto in the medical department?
2 the investigation and we decided it would be a
3 A. Yes.
3 good idea to make Paul an offer. Paul was
4 Q. When was that?
4 offered a job to work with me on the
5 A. I think Paul joined us at the end of '72,
5 environmental assessment. That offer was made
6 towards the end of '72. It was after Bill
6 before Bill Hunt died. Paul joined us shortly
7 Hunt's death and Bill died, I think, August
7 after Bill died, and so people have tended to
8 '72.
8 think of Paul as Bill Hunt's replacement, but in
9 Q. Where had Dr. Wright come from?
9 reality he was hired for a different purpose.
10 A.IBT.
10 Q. Did he end up working with you on those
11 Q.Do you know what position he held at IBT?
11 environmental assessments or did he end up being
12 A. I do not know his title.
12 sidetracked to the things Dr. Hunt was doing
13 Q.Do you know whether Dr. Wright had worked for
13 previously?
14 Monsanto before going to IBT?
14 A.That's what happened, when Dr. Hunt died, Elmer
15 A. Yes.
15 Wheeler said that since Paul had better
16 Q. What was his role at Monsanto before he left?
16 knowledge of Monsanto products, having worked
17 A. My understanding is that he worked in a
17 for the company earlier, that he might take over
18 nutrition unit, animal nutrition unit in the
18 the day-to-day operation of the functions Bill
19 agricultural division of Monsanto, that that
19 Hunt had had and I would continue on with
20 program had been phased out, that there was no
20 environmental assessment, and that's what was "
21 comparable opening for Dr. Wright at Monsanto so 21 done.
22 he left and went to IBT.
22 Q.When Dr. Wright came back to Monsanto was he
23 Q.And how long before 1972 had he left Monsanto to 23 under your supervision?
24 go to IBT?
24 A. Yes.
25 A. I don't know when he left Monsanto but he was at
25 Q.And both of you were under Dr. Wheeler's
,.
Page 97 - Page 100
STLCOPCB4027826
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997
Page 101
Page 103
1 supervision still?
1 Q. Was it your understanding at the time that Dow
2 A. Yes.
2 had encountered lung tumors in rats fed maleic
3 Q. Who was the one who evaluated Dr. Wright for
3 anhydrides?
4 performance reasons, personnel reasons within
4 A.That's information Dow gave to Monsanto, yes.
5 Monsanto?
5 Q. Maleic anhydrides was a chemical manufactured by
6 A. When it was necessary, I did that.
6 Monsanto?
7 Q. Can you just describe generally the nature of
7 A. Yes.
8 the supervision that you did over Dr. Wright's
8 Q. Was it your understanding at the time that Dow
9 work?
9 wanted to report its findings to the FDA
10 A. Well, I guess since there were two of us in the
10 immediately?
11 group, we would meet frequently, had offices
11 A. No, my understanding is that Dow was conducting
12 adjacent to each other, we would talk about what
12 a study with maleic anhydride, the details of
13 was going on among ourselves or with people from 13 which were not that clear to us, but they
14 the operating units if they were around, or
14 conveyed this information to Elmer Wheeler who
15 across lunch, so just sort of keeping general
15 in turn gave it to me and then we looked at it
16 tabs and seeing that things were moving along.
16 and we did perhaps, somewhat analogous to what
17 There was no day-to-day instructions or
17 I've been saying about PCBs, Dow asked us what
18 specifics. We just dealt with issues as they
18 they thought we should do with this
19 came along.
19 information. And we went back and made
20 (Bonus recommendation
20 suggestions and recommendations to them and it's
21 marked as Exhibit No. 11
21 for Dr. Wright's handling of that situation that
22 for identification.)
22 I made the recommendation of the performance
23 MR. TURET: For the record, this is a
23 award.
24 document that says Monsanto at the top, refers
24 Q. In the performance award suggestion
25 to a nominee Pa\il Wright and it has Dr.
25 recommendation, it says that Dow felt they had
Page 102
Page 104
1 Levinskas' name at the bottom.
1 to report these findings to the Food and Drug
2 Q. Dr. Levinskas, have you seen this document
2 Administration under their product stewardship
3 before?
3 program. Am I reading that correctly?
4 A. Yes.
4 A. Yes, okay.
5 Q.Is this a performance evaluation form that you
5 Q.And was it your understanding that Dr. Wright
6 completed with respect to Dr. Wright?
6 contacted Dow's toxicologists and convinced Dow
7 A.It's really a recommendation for a bonus, if you
7 that it would be foolhardy to act precipitously
8 will, for Dr. Wright, so it's not a periodic
8 by reporting to the FDA right away?
9 performance review in that sense of the word.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q.Okay. But it recommends a merit based bonus;
10 Q. Was it your understanding that based on Dr.
11 correct?
11 Wright's suggestions that Dow ultimately agreed
12 A. Yes.
12 to not contact the FDA right away?
13 Q. And that's your signature down at the bottom;
13 A. No. Dow did submit the information to FDA. 1
14 correct?
14 don't know exactly when or how, but the basis of
15 A. Yes.
15 discussions I had with Dr. Wright and our
16 Q.Did you recommend the merit bonus for Dr. Wright 16 recommendations to Dow were that they should
17 in this form?
17 consider alternatives and should consider all
18 A. Yes.
18 the possibilities and angles and develop an
19 Q. And you agreed his performance is excellent?
19 approach as to what they were going to do as a
20 A. In this instance for this particular action,
20 result of this information and present that
~
21 yes.
21 entire package to Dow. In other words, go to
22 Q. Was it your understanding at the time that Dr.
22 FDA and here's what we found out, here's what we
23 Wright had done work with Dow, I take it that's
23 suspect, and here's what we intend to do about
24 Dow Chemical Company?
24 it. And if you, FDA. has additional
25 A. Yes, that's Dow Chemical Company.
25 information, or suggestions we'll be happy to
t
Page 101 - Page 104
STLCOPCB4027827
Joan Macrtin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997'
Page 105
Page 107
1 entertain them. In other words, we're here to
1 Q.That was roughly 9 or 10 percent of his annual
2 try to work with you for resolution of questions
2 salary?
3 that have come up as distinct from throwing
3 A. I don't remember at that time what his salary
4 something at them and saying here's what we
4 was. It could have been. I don't recall his
5 found, we don't know what to do with it, which
5 salary at the time.
6 was basically the way Dow came to us with that
6 Q. If the document that you said he filled out
7 information.
7 listed his annual salary as $28,980 -
8 Q.I want to clarify one piece at a time. Your
8 A. Yeah, that would be less than 10 percent.
9 document says Dr. Wright advised Dow to defer
9 Q.And down at the bottom it says award amount is
10 contacting FDA until they thoroughly documented
10 $2,500, does that refresh your recollection?
11 their findings and a subsequent course of action
11 A. Two things; one is the 25 is less than 10
12 had been developed, et cetera, and Dow agreed to
12 percent, and that's the amount that somebody put
13 this. Am I reading that correctly?
13 in there. I did not have a specific dollar
14 A. I would say that Dow deferred going to FDA by
14 amount. My recommendation does not include a
15 coming to Monsanto first, so we were simply
15 specific dollar amount, just to make the
16 saying to them, we think you're doing the right
16 recommendation that he be considered.
17 thing, you're looking at the problem before you
17
(Bonus recommendation
18 rush off to FDA. I think that's the right thing
18 marked as Exhibit No. 12
19 to do, and that's what I think I just said. But
19 for identification.)
20 Dow had the option of going to FDA before they
20 Q. For the record, this is a similar document from
21 came to us. We did not say, don't go to FDA
21 Monsanto that relates to Dr. Wright and lists
22 until after you talk to us.
22 George Levinskas as a signature at the bottom.
23 Q.Dr. Wright suggested they hold off going to FDA;
23 Dr. Levinskas, is that document I've shown you
24 correct?
24 marked Levinskas 12 a document you've seen
25 A. They came to us before they went to FDA. If
25 previously?
Page 106
Page 108
1 they were going to go precipitously to FDA, they
1 A.Yes.
2 would have gone there before they came to us.
2 Q. Is this, too, a form that you filled out and
3 They came to us for our advice and our opinion
3 signed recommending a merit bonus for Dr.
4 and that's what we gave them.
4 Wright?
5 Q. Was it your understanding at the time that the
5 A.Yes.
6 very intent to conduct a study promptly would
6 Q. The technical accomplishment of significant
7 serve to forestall precipitous action against
7 results include Dr. Wright's excellent analysis
8 the product by FDA?
8 and synthesis of widely scattered observations
9 A. Yes.
9 played a prominent role in forestalling EPA's
10 Q. Ultimately the FDA went along with that approach
10 promulgation of unrealistic regulations to limit
11 as well?
11 discharge of PCBs?
12 A. Yes.
12 A.Yes.
13 Q.And in conclusion it says that, thus we believe
13 Q.And on that basis you recommended that he
14 Dr. Wright played a singular outstanding role in
14 receive a merit bonus of $1,000?
15 preventing FDA from publicly proclaiming that
15
MR. DiMURO: I'm going to object to
16 maleic anhydride was a suspect carcinogen? Am I 16 the form, doesn't say that.
17 reading that correctly?
17 Q.Did you recommend he receive a merit bonus of an
18 A. Yes.
18 amount not determined?
19 Q.And it was on the basis of that activity that
19 A. I recommended he receive a merit bonus, yes, on
20 Dr. Wright was nominated for a merit bonus?
20 this occasion. 1 did not specify amounts.
-
21 A. Yes.
21 Q.Did Dr. Wright ultimately receive a merit bonus
22 Q.And he received the merit bonus?
22 based on your recommendation?
23 A. Yes, I assume he did. I have no independent
23 A. I presume he did.
24 confirmation, but on the basis of this I assume
24 Q. Is it fair to say in both those instances in two
25 he did get it.
25 successive years Dr. Wright was recommended for
Page 105 - Page 108
STLCOPCB4027828
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997
Page 109
Page 111
1 a merit bonus based on his efforts to slow down
l Q. Do you know who the others were who were
2 government regulation of a chemical substance?
2 convicted from IBT?
3 MR. DiMURO: Objection to the form
3 A. Keplinger, Moreno Keplinger, Dr. Keplinger was
4 and recharacterization.
4 one. Jim Plank was one. And 1 think Dr.
5 MR. LIPSHUTZ: Join in that
5 Calandra had been indicted but during that time
6 objection.
6 he underwent open heart surgery for, I think it
7 A. I may not get the technical terms here. EPA had
7 was a valve replacement, and he was separated
8 proposed regulations for limiting, as I recall.
8 from the trial. To the best of my knowledge he
9 discharge of PCBs into the water and the
9 was never retried. So there were three
10 environment. And they called for comments on
10 convictions, would have been Moreno Keplinger,
11 the recommendations. And Dr. Wright put
11 Paul Wright and Jim Plank.
12 together a lot of our environmental data, some
12 Q. Did Dr. Calandra ultimately pass away?
13 of which may be Monsanto and some of which may 13 A. The last 1 knew he was alive.
14 have been literature and he put together a
14 Q. Was Paul Wright stripped of his certification or
15 presentation and submitted that to EPA in
15 license of a toxicologist to your knowledge?
16 response to their published articles or
16 A. As far as I know, toxicologists such as myself
17 whatever, their Federal Register, calls for
17 and Paul Wright are not licensed. We are
18 comments on proposed regulations. They took
18 certified, there were certifying organizations.
19 time to study this and to come up with what some
19 I do not know whether Paul was certified or not
20 people would call realistic regulations. And
20 or whether he was stripped of certification, 1
21 since Paul contributed to that, that's why I'm
21 do not.
22 making the recommendation for this achievement
22 Q. Do you know whether Dr. Wright ultimately died?
23 award, with reference to chlorinated
23 A.Dr. Wright died in the early part of '73. The
24 isocyanurates in addition to the PCBs.
24 reason 1 know that is I was not in St. Louis at
25 Q. Was Dr. Wright ultimately fired by Monsanto?
25 the time. I was out for sometime and when I
Page 110 1 A. Dr. Wright, when he was last employed by 2 Monsanto, Dr. Wright was no longer reporting to 3 me. 1 don't know the terms under which he left 4 Monsanto.
1 2 3 4
Page 112 came back one of the librarians at Monsanto mentioned to me that Dr. Wright had died and she did send me a copy of his obituary notice.
MR. DiMURO: You mean 1993?
5 Q. Do you know whether he was criminally convicted? 6 A. At a later date he was found guilty, yes. 7 Q. Was that for the felony of falsifying data 8 submitted to authorities? 9 A.I don't recall the specifics. What I read about 10 it in the newspapers was he was indicted and 11 convicted with others for submitting -- using 12 the mails to defraud and one case was mails, the 13 other case was wire. But for submitting 14 information which was later alleged to be false, 15 he and others were convicted for several 16 studies, but not for Aroclor studies. 17 Q.But it was scientific studies and scientific 18 data that was falsified? 19 A. I don't know whether it was falsified; for 20 submitting false data or false reports. I don't 21 know the basics of it, but yes, as a result of 22 the IBT files he was one of those people 23 convicted. But at that time he was not working 24 for me and I don't know the terms of his leaving 25 Monsanto.
5 A. Yeah, '93, I'm sorry. I was out of the country
6 for a couple months and when I came back I was
7 informed that he had died.
8 Q. Do you know whether he died of natural causes?
9 A. I saw the obituary notice that he had died and
10 he was not living in the St. Louis area, and it
11 made no mention of the cause of death.
12 Q. Do you know whether he ever worked again as a
13 toxicologist after leaving Monsanto?
14 A. I really don't know what he was doing.
15 MR. O'CONNOR: Off the record.
16 (Memo dated 10/16/75
17 marked as Exhibit No. 13
18 for identification.)
19 (Discussion off the record)
20
MR. TURET: Back on the record then.
-
21 Q.Dr. Levinskas, we've just marked a document as
22 Levinskas 13 which is an October 16, 1975 letter
23 or memo with Bates number MAE 022089. Is this a
24 document you've seen before?
25 A. Yes.
Page 109 - Page 112
STLCOPCB4027829
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)
Multi-Page TM
Witness: George Levinskas. November 10, 1997'
Page 113
Page 115
1 Q.Is it a memo that you wrote back in October of
1 Q. What one?
2 1975?
2 A. A breast tumor, mammary tumor, and 1 think he
3 A. Yes.
3 had one liver tumor. I may be confused. I
4 Q.It refers to a Dr. Pour, P-O-U-R. Who is Dr.
4 think he had one liver tumor that he thought
5 Pour?
5 came from some other organ. And then he said he
6 A. Dr. Pour is a pathologist at the Eppley
6 had something like that 30 or 40 slides which
7 Institute of Cancer in Omaha, Nebraska, and he
7 showed some activity in the sections like
8 was working at that time with Dr. Phil Shubik.
8 something was going on in the sections, but he
9 Dr. Shubik was the former director of the cancer
9 couldn't tell, without further information or
10 institute and had formerly been with the
10 additional information, he couldn't tell whether
11 National Cancer Institute, and he was again, one
11 it was a developing lesion or one that was
12 of these very, very long term researchers in
12 resolving itself and disappearing. It was in a
13 cancer. We went to him with the results of our
13 state of change but he couldn't tell whether it
14 studies and the Kimbrough studies and asked
14 was getting worse or getting better, but 1
15 Shubik what steps would he take to resolve the
15 believe he concluded there were no carcinomas in
16 contradictions or discrepancies, the differences
16 the Kimbrough study.
17 between the findings of Dr. Kimbrough and
17 (Letter dated 10/17/75
18 ourselves. And among his recommendations was
18
marked as Exhibit No. 14
19 the fact that we ought -- he had a pathologist,
19 for identification.)
20 Dr. Pour, that it would be useful if the same
20 Q.For the record, the document marked as Levinskas
21 pathologist looked at all of the slides from the
21 14 is an October 17, 1975 letter from Dr. Gordon
22 IBT studies and all of the slides from the
22 of IBT to Dr. Levinskas, Bates number MAE
23 Kimbrough study. So we contacted this Dr. Pour
23 051697. Dr. Levinskas, have you seen this
24 to undertake that. And this is a memo
24 letter before today?
25 forwarding Dr. Pour's report on the review of
25 A. Yes.
Page 114
Page 116
1 the IBT slides.
1 Q. And do you remember receiving it in or about
2 Q. Was it your understanding at the time that Dr.
2 October of 1975 from Dr. Gordon?
3 Pour had concluded there was no evidence of
3 A. I don't recall it specifically, but yes, 1 did
4 carcinoma except for one animal in Dr.
4 get it, yes.
5 Kimbrough's study? It's in the middle of the
5 Q. This is the Dr. Gordon of IBT that we talked
6 first paragraph.
6 about earlier today?
7 A. No, I think, as I said, this is reviewing the
7 A. Right, the pathologist.
8 IBT studies. He's saying after reviewing the
8 Q. There is a reference to black and white
9 liver sections of the rat studies in IBT he
9 photomicrographs of Aroclor lesions in rat
10 concluded there was no evidence of carcinoma
10 livers that were taken by Dr. Pour, and --
11 except for one animal, and that animal had a
11 MR. DiMURO: Says liver, not livers.
12 lesion or a tumor, that he thought might be a
12 Q. Pardon me, rat liver. Is it your understanding
13 metastatic lesion that had spread to the liver
13 that Dr. Pour took essentially photographs of
14 from another organ. He is scheduled, supposed
14 the slides that he saw when he went to look at
15 to be meeting with Dr. Kimbrough this week to
15 the slides of Dr. Kimbrough?
16 review liver sections from her study. He has
16 A. I believe these are -- the photomicrographs, I
17 not yet looked at Kimbrough's study.
17 think are ones that he took of the IBT slides,
18 Q.Do you know whether Dr. Pour ultimately did
18 although I'm not sure of that. He's saying he
19 examine Dr. Kimbrough's slides?
19 sent copies of Kimbrough's findings and reports
20 A. Yes.
20 on Aroclor which I had sent to him earlier in -
21 Q. What is your understanding of his findings?
21 the year he's returning. I don't think at this
22 A. My recollection of his theory is that he
22 stage that Pour has seen Kimbrough's slides.
23 concluded there were no carcinomas in
23 I'm not sure of that at this time, but sounds to
24 Kimbrough's study. He had one, I think he had a
24 me like he's saying that Pour has looked at the
25 mammary tumor somewhere, that he described.
25 IBT slides and Gordon says, 1 do not concur with
Page 113 - Page 116
STLCOPCB4027830
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10,1997
Witness: George Levinskas
Page 117
Page 119
1 his classification and interpretation of some of
1 one of those. It's the sort of thing that I
2 the liver lesions and that would be findings of
2 would have written and probably did write.
3 all kinds in the livers. I think he's talking
3 Q.In the middle of the first page it states: As a
4 specifically. I don't recall. I don't think
4 class, the Aroclors are relatively harmless
5 he's talking here about the Kimbrough slides.
5 materials for routine industrial handling under
6 Q.Do you know what it was about the liver lesions
6 ambient conditions. Was that your understanding
7 that Dr. Gordon disagreed with Dr. Pour on?
7 as of January, 1976?
8 A. He says, I do not concur. I do not look through
8 A. Yes.
9 microscopes. I am not a pathologist. I listen
9 Q.Is that your understanding as of the time you
10 to them and try to put together and assimilate
10 retired from Monsanto?
11 and digest what they say, but I don't make a
11 A. Yes.
12 diagnosis.
12 Q.Is that still your opinion today?
13 Q.Do you have a layperson's understanding of what
13 A. Yes.
14 the difference was between Dr. Gordon and Dr.
14 Q.Now, second page, under the heading. Summary of
15 Pour specifically with regard to these studies?
15 Monsanto's Long-term Toxicity Studies on
16 A.I think it's analogous to what we talked about
16 Commercial PCBs, there is a reference to, I
17 earlier about the differences between Richter,
17 think it's four studies, a two-year lifetime
18 Gordon, Squire and Kimbrough and it's another
18 feeding study of rats, two-year feeding study of
19 opinion on this thing, but no, I don't know the
19 dogs, three-generation rat reproduction studies
20 specifics of what he's referring to.
20 with two litters cast per generation, and a rat
21 (Report
21 teratology study and dominant lethal mutagenic
22 marked as Exhibit No. 15
22 studies in mice. I don't know what that last
23 for identification.)
23 one is.
24 Q.Dr. Levinskas, you're being shown a document
24 A. The rat teratology studies, mutagenic studies
25 that's been marked as Levinskas 15, that's
25 are different studies.
Page 118
Page 120
1 entitled, Toxicity and Environmental Effects of
1 Q.So it's five studies. Is it your understanding
2 Commercial PCBs. This particular document was
2 that each of those five studies were done on
3 marked at a prior deposition as Levinskas 29.
3 Aroclor 1254?
4 Dr. Levinskas, I note at the very end of the
4 A. Yes.
5 text of this document there are the initials GJL
5 Q. Are those the studies that were done in or about
6 handwritten on Bates number 19643. Are those
6 1971?
7 your initials?
7 A. The rat two-year studies were finished about
8 A.They're my initials, but I didn't put them
8 1971. And so these studies would all have been
9 there.
9 done in the time frame before that or initiated
10 Q.Is this a document that you authored?
10 in the time frame before that, into the '71-'2
11 A. Looking at the content of it and the type of
11 era.
12 style, I think I probably have authored a fair
12 Q.So for the two-year study somewhere around 1969
13 part of this document, but I don't recognize it
13 through 1971?
14 in this form. It may have been part of
14 A. Yes '68, '69, I'm not sure when they started but
15 something else I wrote. I don't recall.
15 they were finishing up around 1971. And some of
16 Q.Do you know whose handwritten notes are at the
16 them, the longest studies would be the two-year
17 top of the first page?
17 lifetime study in rats and two-year dog feeding.
18 A.No, I really don't. I don't know who put them
18 Q. What's the difference between an acute study and
19 there.
19 a chronic study?
20 Q.Do you remember doing a paper in general that
20 A. At that time, probably still today they're
"
21 related to toxicity and environmental effects of
21 somewhat loose terms. Acute is one or a few
22 commercial PCBs that covered these issues and
22 doses given in a very short period of time as
23 these conclusions?
23 distinct from chronic which is over an extended
24 A. I have written statements along these lines a
24 period of time. You can argue where you want to
25 couple different times, and this could well be
25 draw the line between them, but acute is either
Page 117 - Page 120
STLCOPCB4027831
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas, November 10, 1997'
Page 121
Page 123
1 a single dose or a few doses in a short interval
] monsters, malformed, misshapen.
2 of time, hours or days, versus chronic which is
2 Q. How about the dominant lethal mutagenic study?
3 repeated dosing over a long period of time.
3 A. The dominant lethal mutagenic study is one that
4 Q. What's the shortest period of time that you've
4 really is designed to measure the effect of
5 seen a chronic study -- let me rephrase. What's
5 chemicals on the potency of males, on the sperm
6 the shortest period of time that you would
6 of males, so it's a short-term study. But it
7 consider to be a chronic study?
7 may affect the offspring of that male that's
8 A. I would say to some extent it would depend on
8 been dosed, may have a poor survival rate and so
9 the kind of study, but for practical purposes
9 forth, so it looks at a change in the genetic
10 anything much less than a year I would not
10 composition of the sperm. And so that's why
11 consider chronic. It would have to be better
11 it's a mutagenic study. It measures something
12 than a year for me to consider it a chronic
12 different, the ability to transmit changes.
13 study.
13 genetic changes in the male to the next
14 Q.And can you have an acute study that follows the
14 generation.
15 subject over a longer period of time?
15 Q.This battery of tests, the five tests described
16 A. The acute and the chronic refers to dosing
16 on the second page of this document, were they
17 period. I could dose a rat today and follow it
17 also performed on Aroclor 1260, to your
18 for its lifetime. I would consider that an
18 knowledge?
19 acute study because he was dosed only once even
19 A. Those were, all those tests were done on 42, 54
20 though I followed him for a lifetime. I don't
20 and 60.
21 know if anybody does it that way. A short-term
21 Q. 1242, 1254, and 1260. And that was all done by
22 study is terminated in the short term. So to
22 IBT?
23 me, acute and chronic refers to the dosage
23 A. I believe they were all done by IBT, yes.
24 schedule, not the duration of the study.
24 MR. TURET: How about we mark these
25 Q. These studies that are described in long-term
25 16 A, B, C, and D.
Page 122
Page 124
1 toxicity studies, these are chronic studies, are
1 (Documents
2 they not?
2 marked as Exhibits Nos. 16-A, 16-B, 16-C,
3 MR. DiMURO: Talking about the ones
3 16-D for identification.)
4 described in the document?
4 Q. For the record, that means that Levinskas 16-A
5 MR. TURET: Yes, on Page 2, the
5 is the Two-year Chronic Oral Toxicity Study with
6 two-year, three-year feeding?
6 Aroclor 1254 in Beagle Dogs. That's MAE 038398
7 A. The two-year lifetime is chronic. The two-year
7 to 475. 16-B is the Two-year Chronic Oral
8 feeding to dogs is chronic. The
8 Toxicity with Aroclor 1254 in Albino Rats, and
9 three-generation, that's kind of -- that's
9 that's Bates number MAE 001743. Levinskas 16-C
10 really not chronic. That's to study the effects
10 is Three-Generation Reproduction Study with
11 on successive generations. In other words, the
11 Aroclor 1254 in Albino Rats, and that's Bates
12 animals are dosed for a period of time. Their
12 number MAE 003505. And Levinskas 16-D is
13 offspring are observed, maybe reared and in him
13 Teratogenic Study with Aroclor 1254 in Albino
14 mated again, so while it was an extended period
14 Rats, Bates number MAE 002241. Dr. Levinskas,
15 of time, no animal is on observation for that
15 you've just been handed four different
16 entire length of time. So I don't know that
16 Industrial Bio-Test study reports that have been
17 that's chronic. The teratology studies, again
17 marked Levinskas 16-A 16-B, 16-C and 16-D. Are
18 are sort of a subset of the rat reproduction
18 you familiar with these documents?
19 studies. And the dominant lethal mutagenic are
19 A. I have seen them before.
20 not chronic. So the only chronic studies are
20 Q. Did you receive them while you were toxicologist "
21 the rat and dog feeding studies.
21 with Monsanto back in or about 1971?
22 Q. What are the rat teratology studies?
22 A. I don't recall, but I don't think these reports
23 A. Well, the word for rat is the Greek word for
23 were directed to me. If you will look at the
24 monster, so the rat teratology study is looking
24 dates, says November 1, 1971 and I didn't join
25 for malformations of the fetuses, production of
25 the company until July '71, so these studies
Page 121 - Page 124
STLCOPCB4027832
loan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas November 10, 1997
Page 125
------"I
1 would have been finished and I would assume they
1 A. Not aware of any other than what I saw later at
2 originally went to Elmer Wheeler. I did see
2 Monsanto.
3 them at a later date, not when they first came.
3 Q.Do you know of any chronic studies that
4 Q.Let's start with the first one, the study on
4 addressed dennal exposure to Aroclor 1254?
;
5 Beagle dogs. What is your understanding of the 6 bottom line findings on this particular study?
5 6
MR. DiMURO: At any time? MR. TURET: Prior to the 1973 IBT
:
7 A. Well, since I indicate I've looked at them
7 studies?
8 somewhat later and I didn't pay that much
8 A.No, I don't think I can recall any.
9 attention to them, I don't have a good
9 Q. While we're on this same document, Chronic
10 recollection other than looking at the reports,
10 Toxicity study in Beagle Dogs, flipping ahead to
11 taking time to read it or specific comments on
11 Bates number 038402, Paul Wright is one of the
;
12 portions of the report.
12 signatories of that study, is he not?
13 Q. Is it your understanding that this is one of the
13 A. Yes.
14 battery of chronic tests we saw referred to in
14 Q.And he was section head of toxicology for IBT at
15 the previous documents?
15 the time?
16 A. This is one of the studies that were done on the
16 A. Yes.
17 three Aroclors 1242, 1254 and 1260. This is on
17 Q. Let's flip ahead briefly to the others. The
18 1254, yes.
18 next one, Levinskas 16-B is the Chronic Oral
19 Q.Based on the reviews of studies that you've done
19 Toxicity Study in Albino Rats?
20 in your tenure as an employee of Monsanto, are
20 A. Yes.
21 you aware of any chronic testing on Aroclor 1254
21 Q. Similar question as to do you have any knowledge
22 done by Monsanto before these studies?
22 one way or the other about what the bottom line
23 A. There are some published inhalation studies by
23 conclusions of this report are?
24 Joseph Trion (phonetic) who was at the Kettering
24 A. Other than the -- to me two things come out:
25 Institute at the University of Cincinnati at
25 One is that they did produce liver damage in the
Page 126
Page 128
1 that time. I believe those studies were at
1 rats, and the other one is that the conclusion
2 least in part sponsored by Monsanto. The only
2 was it was not carcinogenic under the conditions
3 reason I mention that is because at a later date
3 of the test.
4 just before I went to Monsanto Trion went to
4 Q. And flipping ahead to the same signature line
5 Atlas, and he made me a job offer, Atlas Company
5 Paul Wright was a signator on this report as
6 in Maryland. And I think at that time may be
6 well; correct?
7 the first time I took a serious look at PCBs to
7 A. Yes.
8 read on to get some background information on
8 Q. Flipping ahead to the third document,
9 Joe Trion, but other than those inhalation
9 Three-Generation Reproduction Study, same
10 studies at that time, I had no other knowledge
10 question, do you have any personal knowledge
11 of studies Monsanto had sponsored.
11 about what the bottom line conclusions are of
12 Q.Do you know one way or another whether the Trion 12 this report?
13 study from the 1950s is viewed to be
13 A.I really don't recall the reproduction studies
14 authoritative in the toxicological industry?
14 that well. I would have to look at the report
15 MR. DiMURO: Objection to form.
15 to refresh my memory, but I don't recall
16 MR. LIPSHUTZ: Same objection.
16 specifically the details on it, the details of
17 A. It has been used to establish so-called
17 findings.
18 threshold limit values which were originally
18 Q.I don't remember if I asked this, a global
19 published by the American Conference of
19 question with regard to all four of these, are
20 Governmental Industrial Hygienists. It was used
20 all four of these studies that you recall having
-
21 as a basis for establishing threshold limit
21 seen while you were in the medical department of
22 values, and on the basis of that, I would say
22 Monsanto?,
23 that they were recognized and accepted.
23 A. I would have seen them later on but not when
24 Q.Do you know of any other chronic ingestion
24 they came in.
25 studies?
25 Q. Sometime during the mid 1970s, sometime after ^
Page 125 - Page 128
STLCOPCB4027833
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas. November 10, 1997
Page 129
Page 131
1 1974 but during the 1970s?
1 one, I think we may have touched upon earlier.
2 A. We had one of the earlier documents which
2 It states, at ordinary temperatures the Aroclor
3 summarized Monsanto toxicity test data and I
3 chlorinated polyphenols have not presented
4 indicated that's the kind of thing I would have
4 industrial toxicological problems. Was that
5 written and I would have referred to these to
5 your understanding as of the early 1970s when
6 write that summary.
6 you were employed in the medical department of
7 Q.Same question with regard to the Levinskas 16-D
7 Monsanto?
8 the Teratogenic study. Do you have any
8 A.That would be my understanding, yes.
9 recollection of what the bottom line conclusions
9 Q. Was that also your understanding, say, as of the
10 were in that report?
10 mid 1980s?
11 A.I can't say specifically, but -- I wouldn't
11 A. Yes.
12 hazard a guess. I could look at it and give you
12 Q. Is it still your understanding today?
13 a comment on it, but I don't know.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Flipping ahead to the signatures page on that
14 Q.Now, what was your understanding as of the time
15 document, which is 002244, Paul Wright's name is 15 you came to Monsanto about the adverse health
16 not listed there. Had he already joined
16 effects that could be caused by exposure to
17 Monsanto as of September of 1971?
17 Aroclor 1254?
18 A. No, he had not been at Monsanto.
18 MR. DiMURO: Objection to form.
19 Q.Do you have any knowledge as to why he was not
19
MR. O'CONNOR: Objection.
20 called upon to sign that when he signed the
20 A.I think I've indicated that other than the fact
21 other IBT reports?
21 that Joe Trion had done work on these materials
22 MR. DiMURO: Objection to the form.
22 and since he had made an offer of employment to
23 A. Can I speculate?
23 me and I wanted to know more about the guy, I
24 MR. DiMURO: No.
24 looked up some of the work that he had done, and
25 A.I don't know why he didn't sign it.
25 that's about all 1 knew about the pcbs at that
Page 130
Page 132
1 Q.Each of these reports was also signed by ML
1 time. The studies he reported in the literature
2 Keplinger, Ph.D.
2 seemed to be well-done. They had been accepted
3 A. Yes.
3 and used. From what I understood there were no
4 Q.Is that correct, as manager of toxicology?
4 other problems as long as one kept the air
5 A. Yes.
5 levels below those limits specified by the tlv
6 Q.And he's one of the ones you indicated was
6 committee.
7 convicted as well?
7 Q.I'm referring to excessive levels, levels in
8 A. Yes.
8 excess of those levels. Was it your
9 Q. Several of them are also signed by James Plank.
9 understanding that the Trion study suggested
10 Is that the Dr. Plank you referred to?
10 that there were adverse health effects that
11 A. Yes, that would be the same James Plank. I
11 could be caused if one exceeded the ACGlH
12 don't believe he was a doctor.
12 standards?
13 Q. Just briefly I want to take you through a
13 MR. DiMURO: Object to form. You can
14 document that, portion of a document that was
14 answer.
15 marked previously as Exhibit Orem 3, Bates No.
15 A. If a TLV value is set, my feeling would be that
16 MAE 040881 through 934. And I apologize, I'm
16 under the pending conditions if you stayed below
17 going to show you my marked up copy. This is
17 that level you wouldn't have any difficulty. I
18 the toxicity and safe handling section.
18 don't know that I had focused much on what would
19 (Brief recess.)
19 be the potentiality if you got above that
20 Q.Dr. Levinskas, I've just handed a couple pages
20 because the question would be how much higher ~
21 to you, Bates No. MAE 040931 to 932. These are
21 are you going to go and how long are you going.
22 excerpts from a technical bulletin that relates
22 If the number is .5 and you~got .51,1 don't
23 to the Aroclor plasticizers, and this is the
23 think you would see anything go haywire. So
24 section relating to toxicity and safe handling.
24 it's a question of how much you exceeded and how
25 I want to ask about a few pieces of this. First
25 long you exceeded that gets into pr la'y a--s--t-o w--h--a-t
t
Page 129 - Page 132
STLCOPCB4027834
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)_________________________________ November 10, 1997
Page 133
Page 135
1 the effects would be. In chlorinated
l liver, breakdown of liver cells which could be
2 hydrocarbons, as a rule they tend to be liver
2 life threatening if it would be prolonged in
3 factors, I would expect there may be some liver
3 duration, but basically a liver failure, not a
4 damage. Beyond that, I don't know that I would
4 cancer effect.
5 speculate.
5 Q. Did you have an understanding back in the mid
6 Q.How about the occurrence of chloracne, is it
6 1970s that the liver damage that could result
7 your understanding that chloracne could occur
7 was reversible on removal from the exposure
8 from excessive exposure to Aroclor 1254?
8 source?
9 A. Chloracne has been a point of dispute. It
9 A. In most cases, if not all, certainly in many
10 occurs, there is no disputing it occurs, but the
10 cases, if the exposure ceases, the condition
11 causative agent, in the early days there were
11 will either stay as it is or will improve.
12 mixtures of other chlorinated terphenyls, not
12 There may be cases, but it's hard for me to
13 just biphenyls, in a class of compound called
13 think of any, where removing some of the
14 halowaxes which were notorious for producing
14 exposure, the thing continues to intensify and
15 chloracne. And because of the analytical
15 get worse. Stopping the exposure usually will
16 methods being used, some of those early mixtures
16 stop the progression or result in regression.
17 were probably contaminated with the
17 Q. What if one is exposed to levels of Aroclor
18 polychlorinated terphenyls and other materials.
18 vapors above the ACGIH standard, must one
19 so it's hard to say. I'm of the opinion that a
19 necessarily feel irritation to the eyes or
20 pure biphenyl probably would not produce
20 throat?
21 chloracne.
21 MR. DAVIDSON: Object to the form.
22 Q. Could a polychlorinated biphenyl?
22 MR. DiMURO: You can answer.
23 A. When I say pure, a biphenyl without a
23 A. I think if you're dealing, in the first place to
24 chlorinated triphenyl or polyphenol, the halowax
24 get levels of above the -- that approach TLVs,
25 compound, I don't know it would produce
25 you have to do one of two things, you have to
Page 134
Page 136
1 chloracne or not.
1 either aerosolize it or heat it. And 1 think
2 Q.Is Aroclor 1254 a pure biphenyl as you've
2 either one of those would produce sensory
3 described it?
3 irritation to the eyes, nose and respiratory
4 A. To my understanding, I think that probably is a
4 tract. 1 think it would be noticeable, either
5 clean biphenyl. I don't think it has a
5 noticeable or downright uncomfortable, depending
6 chloracne.
6 on the degree. And I wouldn't expect people to
7 Q. Other than liver damage or chloracne, with the
7 tolerate that for any length of time.
8 caveats you've stated about what may be required
8 Q.That's to reach a level that exceeds the ACGIH
9 to produce chloracne, are there any other
9 standard?
10 adverse health effects that you understood back
10 A. If you get appreciably above it, if the level is
11 in the 1970s could be caused by elevated
11 constant. You get short increases, I don't know
12 exposures to Aroclor 1254?
12 that would be noticeable, but if there is a
13 MR. DiMURO: Object to the form.
13 consistent elevated number, I think respiratory
14 A. If there were vapors it could be irritating to
14 tract, sensory irritation of the eyes and throat
15 the eye or the respiratory tract, but I would be
15 and such would be noticeable.
16 of the opinion that the sentinel sign of
16 Q. If there is, again, a buildup of vapors beyond
17 exposure would be liver damage and if one kept
17 the ACGIH levels, would there also be an
18 the exposure low enough to prevent liver damage
18 associated odor that would be detectable?
19 it would be most unlikely you would see serious
19
MR. DiMURO: Objection to the form.
20 biological effects in people.
20 You can answer.
21 Q.The liver damage you're referring to now is
21 A. I really don't know about the odor. I would
22 benign as opposed to malignant?
22 think there could be an odor, but I really don't
23 A.I'm not talking about cancer; I'm talking about
23 know. I think you would get somewhat of a sharp
24 just frank liver damage, cirrhosis of the liver
24 and acrid odor, something that would be not as
25 is what some people call frank damage to the
25 objectionable in my opinion as the sensory
^
Page 133 - Page 136
STLCOPCB4027835
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848QBS)November 10,1997
Page 137
Page 139
1 irritation would be, but that's just sort of
1 pull together and evaluate the information
2 hying to put together lots of different things.
2 presented as a package. And that would go to
3 Q.Have you ever personally smelled vapors that
3 the operating units. On occasion we might
4 have resulted from any of the Aroclor PCB
4 condense it or rephrase it to put in a product
5 products?
5 bulletin. In later years we would put the
6 MR. DAVIDSON: And lived to tell
6 information in the material safety data sheet.
7 about it?
7 Whether that information then was given to PR
8 A. I smelled some Aroclors at room temperatures and
8 and how it was distributed, I'm really not
9 I don't have a recollection that they smelled
9 involved. I would answer queries that came to
10 particularly bad, but I haven't worked in an
10 me but I was not in charge of distributing
11 elevated - biphenyl itself has been used as a
11 information. We relied on the operating units,
12 coolant around nuclear reactors and there have
12 our technical information and assessment of it
13 been complaints of irritation and odors from
13 to the operating units and others who want to
14 biphenyl itself and that's where I draw my
14 use it.
15 conclusions about the chlorinated biphenyls.
15 Q. Were there others in the public relations of
16 Q.You may have been joking a moment ago, but did
16 Monsanto that you remember consulting you about
17 you actually smell Aroclor products?
17 the information about Aroclor PCB products?
18 A.I've sniffed the products. The lower
18 A.I think Larry O'Neil was one that I had some
19 chlorinated ones tend to be liquid and the 1260
19 dealings with. I've talked on one occasion or
20 I think is a solid. You don't smell much of a
20 another with others in PR, people I can't recall
21 wax. And I've sniffed a couple of samples and I
21 specifically what ones, talking about PCBs.
22 don't recall -- nothing striking about the odor,
22 Q. How about Jim McKee?
23 at least at room temperature, at least not to
23 A. I don't really recall talking to Jim McKee. 1
24 me.
24 may have, but 1 don't have a recollection of
25 Q.Who is Dan Bishop?
25 talking to him about it.
Page 138
Page 140
1 A. Dan Bishop was in public relations with Monsanto
1 Q. One last document to show you. Dr. Levinskas.
2 Company at different parts of the company at
2 (Report dated 10/14/81
3 different times.
3 marked as Exhibit No. 17
4 Q.And did you ever serve as a source of
4 for identification.)
5 information for Mr. Bishop on toxicological
5 Q.Dr. Levinskas, I'm showing you a document that's
6 issues for his PR publications?
6 entitled Toxicity of Aroclor Products 1242, 1254
7 A. We have talked about the issues, yes.
7 and 1260 to the Liver of Albino Rats, dated
8 Q.Was there a standard set of information that was
8 October 14, 1981, and Bates number MAE 014404.
9 supplied for public relations purposes when
9 Is this a document that you recognize, Dr.
10 required back in the mid 1970s, let's say?
10 Levinskas?
11 A. I don't ever recall writing a statement
11 A. Yes.
12 specifically for public relations. Some of the
12 Q. What is it?
13 statements I had written would be analogous to
13 A. It's a review, compilation to some extent of the
14 some we had in earlier exhibits, may have been
14 liver sections, all of the liver sections from
15 picked up and used by PR people. But I don't
15 the original 1242, 1254 and 1260 Aroclor studies
16 recall writing a statement that was intended for
16 in rats that were reevaluated by IBT and, let me
17 use only by PR people.
17 check before I go too far out, and it presents
18 Q.Was the information that was supplied to
18 the findings on each of those studies for rats
19 customers with regards to toxicity or safe
19 that were sacrificed at three, six, 12 months on
20 handling of Aroclor products also used for
20 test and at the end of the study. And it gives
21 public relations purposes?
21 an accountability, if you will, for all the rats
22 MR. DiMURO: I'll object to the form,
22 that presumably, that we believe were on that
23 but you can answer.
23 study and what happened to them.
24 A. When I wrote summaries of what -- pulled
24 Q.And just very quickly, a footnote 1 on Page 1,
25 together information, I attempted to do this, to
25 right at the very bottom paragraph, talks about
Page 137 - Page 149^
STLCOPCB4027836
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)____________________November 10,1997
Page 141
Page 143
1 information being made available to various
1 talked about one of them here. And I was trying
2 government groups and if you look in the
2 to explain my position, my understanding of it,
3 footnote there are dates of correspondence and
3 so it was a more extended version but it was --
4 contact.
4 Q. Of a similar nature?
5 A. Yes.
5 A. Of a similar nature.
6 Q. Where are those drawn from?
6 Q. What are the plaintiff's claims in that
7 A. These would have come from the records we had at
7 particular case, personal injury or property
8 Monsanto. You'll see the first one is Wheeler,
8 damage?
9 October '69, April, '70, on Page 8 I think it
9 A. The deposition that was videotaped was personal
10 is. These are dates that predated my time with
10 injury.
11 Monsanto, so they would have had to come out of
11 Q. What was the specific claim itself?
12 the company files. No. 2, R.D. Kimbrough that
12 A. Counsel will have to help me. That was a
13 personal communication, that's where I began to
13 cancer, a person that died from cancer wasn't
14 get into the act. It's an attempt to summarize
14 it?
15 what -- where we stood and how we got there, if
15 Q. You don't have to guess. I can get hold of the
16 you will, and also what our position was at the
16 transcript.
17 time, to make this information available to
17 A. I think -
18 somebody that wanted to look at it. I don't see
18
MR. DAVIDSON: There was more than
19 a date on this thing.
19 one plaintiff.
20 Q. Right on the front under your name?
20 A. I think there was a cancer, but I'm not positive
21 A. October 14, 1981. I got to get my bifocals
21 about that. The reason I say that is we were
22 changed. I had cataract surgery on one eye and
22 shown Polaroids, colored Polaroids of a wasting
23 I do have to get my prescription changed.
23 individual in the deposition. They were passed
24 MR. TURET: I have no further
24 around and that's why that sticks in my memory,
25 questions at this time.
25 Scott's widow was suing for alleged cancer.
Page 142
Page 144
1 1 Q. Do you know what kind of PCB exposure was
2 EXAMINATION
2 alleged in that case?
3 QUESTIONS BY MR. O'CONNOR:
3 A.No, I don't. I think it was used in the
4 Q. Doctor, I was introduced earlier in the day. My
4 dielectric industry. I don't know whether -- 1
5 name is Brian O'Connor. I'm an attorney and I
5 think it was one of the PCB containing
6 represent the plaintiffs in this case that have
6 dielectric fluids. I don't think this was pure
7 bought a lawsuit against Armstrong World
7 PCB alleged in that case, but I don't remember.
8 Industries. How many times have you been
8 Q. Were you paid for the testimony you gave in
9 deposed related to PCB litigation?
9 that?
10 A. In total for all the things, I don't know,
10 A. I was working for Monsanto when I gave that
11 probably a dozen or 14, 15 times.
11 deposition and Monsanto paid my regular salary.
12 Q.Have you testified in court at all?
12 Q.How about today, are you being paid?
13 A. No, I have not testified in court.
13 A. I have not been paid for my testimony for
14 Q.Have you been videotaped, any of your testimony
14 Monsanto since I retired.
15 been videotaped to show to a jury?
15 Q.Did you review any documents prior to today's
16 A. Yes.
16 deposition?
17 Q. When was that?
17 A. Yes, I met with attorneys and they did show me a
18 A. About 10 years ago in Texas, two-day deposition
18 few documents to refresh my memory.
19 that was videotaped.
19 Q. I don't want to know about any specific
20 Q. What was the basis of your testimony in that
20 conversations you had with the attorneys, but
-
21 case?
21 could you tell me and identify any documents you
22 A. Some of it was more or less rehashed here now.
22 reviewed?
->
23 It was the same thing, what did Monsanto do,
23 A. Some of these are in this pile. I was -- I did
24 what did they know, what was my part in it. Did
24 look at the copy of the Scott deposition. There
25 I request changes to be made in reports and
25 was some others but in that general vein.
.
Page 141 - Page 144
STLCOPCB4027837
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas November 10, 1997
Page 145
Page 147
1 Q. When were you first contacted about appearing
l Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, a
2 for a deposition in this case?
2 bound volume annually, and in about '89, '88,
3 A. Three or four weeks ago more or less, I had a
3 ' 89, Renate Kimbrough wrote a review on the
4 call from one of the paralegals at Monsanto and
4 health effects - and Renate Kimbrough is an
5 then the attorneys.
5 M.D., a pathologist, and the title was something
6 Q. Contacted by counsel?
6 like The Chronic or Health Effects of
7 A. Yes, they asked me if I would be willing to be
7 Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Polybromated
8 deposed and I said yes and then I was contacted.
8 Biphenyls and she is doing a review of
9 these meetings were set up.
9 information, animal studies as well as human
10 Q.How many times have you met with counsel prior 10 data, and towards the end of the review she
11 to today's deposition for the purpose of the
11 makes the statement more or less, it's not a
12 deposition today?
12 direct quote, but the gist of it was while they
13 A. I met with them Tuesday last week a couple hours 13 are interesting chemicals biologically, they do
14 and this morning.
14 not appear to present significant human health
15 Q. You are a toxicologist, correct, you're not an
15 hazards at the current levels of exposure. So
16 M.D.?
16 taking Kimbrough, keeping in mind she is the
17 A.I'm not an M.D.
17 woman that first raised the serious queries
18 Q.In that case in Texas did you offer any opinions
18 about carcinogens in PCBs has come around to
19 or were you basically just giving the facts as
19 saying, 1 don't think there is a serious health
20 you recall them with regard to your contact with
20 risk for man. So between her data and Bill
21 PCBs at Monsanto?
21 Gaffey's review is what I relied upon.
22 A. I was not --
22 Q. Have you ever talked to Dr. Kimbrough personally
23 MR. DiMURO: For the record, he was
23 about PCBs in relationship to the allegation
24 not identified as an expert witness. Subject to
24 that they're carcinogenic?
25 that you can answer.
25 A. Yes. She came to Monsanto, presented her
Page 146
Page 148
1 A. I was not asked for -- the questions -- the
1 findings.
2 discussions were limited to the animal toxicity
2 Q. Since then have you talked to her?
3 testing, Monsanto's relationships with H3T, the
3 A. Yes, I've seen her off and on over the years and
4 IBT situation and so forth. I don't think that.
4 we've talked along those lines.
5 having reviewed the documents just recently, I
5 Q.The data that you made reference to, you stated
6 still don't recall, I don't think I was asked
6 at certain levels of exposure, what levels of
7 anything about causation in terms of humans.
7 exposure was Dr. Kimbrough dealing with in the
8 trying to establish that it was a carcinogen in
8 latter piece of literature that you just cited?
9 animals, how good were the data, that sort of
9 A. Kimbrough did one study. In her study she had
10 thing.
10 one level of exposure which was, I think a
11 Q. You don't hold yourself out as an expert on the
11 hundred parts per million, and she had only
12 effect of PCBs on human beings, do you?
12 female rats. The Monsanto studies were done at
13 A. No.
13 1,10 and a hundred parts per million. So we
14 Q. So the opinions that were elicited here today
14 had multiple levels. So Kimbrough had one level
15 that you believe that PCBs may cause liver
15 in a high dose and, you know, we've talked back
16 abnormalities but not necessarily cancer, what
16 and forth, but just on the same basis of trying
17 training do you have to offer that opinion?
17 to see what would be a basis for the different
18 A. Well, there are two things that I would say that
18 conclusions and the different opinions that were
19 lead me to that. One is Dr. Gaffey, he is an
19 being held on that subject.
20 epidemiologist, he reviewed the available
20 MR. LIPSHUTZ: Sorry to interrupt, -
21 epidemiological data and in his report he
21 I'm having a little trouble hearing. If you
22 concluded that the evidence for carcinogenicity
22 could try to speak up a little louder.
23 of PCBs in humans under these conditions that
23
THE WITNESS: I said that -
24 existed was flimsy or nonexistent. The other 24 MR. O'CONNOR: That's all right. He
25 one that's sort of interesting, there is an
25 can get the transcript.
Page 145 - Page 148
STLCOPCB4027838
Joan Macrtin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas
'Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10,1997
Page 149
1 Q. Doctor, can you tell us generally what your
1
2 understanding was of the relationship between
2
3 Monsanto and IBT back in the early '70s?
3
4 A. Well, IBT had a large testing laboratory which
4
5 was used extensively by various people, various
5
6 companies. It had been used by Cyanamid before
6
7 I got to Cyanamid, but when Cyanamid built its
7
8 lab, they kept their work in-house. But most of
8
9 the major chemical companies had used IBT. The
9
10 government agencies institute had used IBT and
10
11 my understanding of them on the basis on which
11
12 we proceeded was they were a competent
12
13 laboratory whose competency was recognized by
13
14 various people and they were being used by them
14
15 and we were just another customer of theirs.
15
16 Q.Do you know roughly what Monsanto paid IBT for
16
17 all the studies and testing they did on lab
17
18 animals and PCBs?
18
19 A. No. And the reason I would say that is that,
19
20 first of all, these were all contracts set up
20
21 before I got to Monsanto, so I don't know what
21
22 arrangements were made or how they were made.
22
23 Until later in the game, when virtually all
23
24 testing was being conducted through the auspices
24
25 of the medical department, then we would have
25
Page 151 ultimately came to me, asking if we could identify studies on this list that we had submitted to them. So we did that and the studies that we had submitted to support registration of pesticides or food contact chemicals were on the list so we started to go back and look at IBT, to get the information from IBT so we could verify those studies. So many people descended on, apparently on IBT at that time, that IBT basically went out of business; they closed them down. So we spent a good deal of time trying to retrieve records from IBT to reconstruct and validate the studies. Monsanto took a three-step approach. We said that anything that we sent to an agency that was used to request an agency take action such as a food additive petition, that we had an obligation to determine whether or not the data we had submitted to the government was valid. So those became our high priority items. The second category was items that had not been subject to regulatory action, but we thought were important, either from a commercial standpoint or potential health, we'd make a attempt to validate those studies. And the
Page 150
Page 152
1 some idea of what was being negotiated, if you
1 third category was either discontinued products
2 will, or the prices, but at that time the
2 or products that never became a reality and we
3 operating units were paying the bills and that
3 would not worry about those. Similar letters
4 was part of their fiscal responsibility and we
4 went to many companies. We went in with the
5 had no involvement in it.
5 first validation studies on the pesticides, and
6 Q. Earlier you had made reference to the IBT trial
6 EPA not only accepted our proposed validation
7 and the IBT business, what were you making
7 procedure, they subsequently held it out for a
8 reference to?
8 model for the rest of the industry to follow.
9 A. I was asked a question about whether Paul Wright
9 So as a result, these four studies that were
10 was indicted and was found guilty. The
10 from four different companies that were
11 allegations were made that IBT had submitted
11 requested by the government, those are the basis
12 data on, first it was one or two drugs and as I
12 of the charges brought against the IBT officials
13 recall there were four different compounds
13 that we mentioned.
14 involved, and the allegations were somewhat
14 Q.What time frame are we talking about where IBT
15 similar in each case, that they had submitted
15 was alleged to have submitted false data?
16 false data, and that they had used the wires or
16 A. Boy, so many things were going on about that
17 the mail to do it. A case of fraud, I guess,
17 time, I have trouble. There were so many things
18 using the mails to commit that fraud, and
18 because we were opening up the lab and various
19 submitting false data to agencies. This, in a
19 other things--this would be in the latter
20 different connection some EPA inspectors had
20 '70s, '77, '8, later than '77; '78, '79, '80.
"
21 gone up to look at IBT studies and they started
21 Q.Do you know if Monsanto did anything to go back
22 raising questions and basically the government
22 and validate the studies thaTlBT had performed
23 came down and said anybody submitted - they
23 on the lab rats with reference to the PCBs?
24 sent out lists of various studies to various
24 A. This is part of the endeavor. We had never
25 companies, to Monsanto, not directly to me but
25 submitted -- the agencies that asked Monsanto
t
Page 149 - Page 152
STLCOPCB4027839
Joan Maertin v Annstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas _______November 10", 1997 '
Page 153
Page 155
1 for PCB data, and that was made available to 2 them, some of the references in here refer to
l was necessary to the symposium at Chicago. 2 Q.What data did he present?
3 it, but these are made at the request of the
3 A. I think he presented the dog results and I don't
4 FDA, for instance, and epa. We had never
4 know whether he presented the feeding studies on
5 submitted them to an agency, asked them for any 6 regulatory action on PCBs. And at that time
5 the rats. My recollection is, I have some 6 recollection that he talked about the dog
7 they were taking no regulatory action. Since
7 feeding studies, and 1 really don't recall the
8 they were not the basis, they were not our high
8 details of his presentation.
9 priority item, but they were of sufficient
9 Q. Well, do you know whether or not you had
10 interest as environmental contaminants and
10 requested that Dr. Calandra change some of the
11 health risk we made an effort to do something,
11 studies that he had written with regard to 1242,
12 and rather than do the entire study, we looked
12 1254 and 1260, the slightly tumorigenic and
13 at this question of the liver tumors. The IBT
13 changed that language to does not appear to be
14 data were cited by FDA when they set up
14 carcinogenic, did he do that before he went to
15 tolerances on food levels for PCBs, but the
15 Chicago?
16 levels were set predominantly on the basis of
16 A.I can't remember. I don't know.
17 the Yusho experience which are the human poison 17 Q. What is the difference in your mind between
18 cases in Japan. The Monsanto data on animals
18 slightly tumorigenic and carcinogenic?
19 were consistent with and in a sense supportive
19 A. Tumorigenic to me is a more general term. A
20 of human data, but they were not the basis that
20 mole such as this is a tumor. And cancer of the
21 FDA used to set the food tolerances, although
21 lip would be a tumor. So it's a generic term.
22 there had been newspaper articles and magazines
22 And a carcinogen is a very specific, or
23 alleging that Monsanto sent false data to FDA
23 carcinoma is a veiy specific type of tumor.
24 for that purpose. They asked for the data, we
24 Since the discussion was focused on whether or
25 gave it to them and we continued to try to keep
25 not the materials produced cancer, and since I
Page 154
Page 156
1 them posted as developments went on with PCBs.
1 saw in the second set of reports that I had that
2 Q.If I'm understanding your testimony, then, other
2 we talked about earlier, that they had used the
3 than the endeavor that you just described to
3 term "is not carcinogenic."
4 validate the testing and data that IBT provided
4 Q. Does not appear to be carcinogenic?
5 to Monsanto, is the answer no, then, that the
5 A. Does not appear to be carcinogenic. My request
6 tests were never validated in full?
6 to him was based on the fact that if we are
7 A.That's right, sir, we never went back to look at
7 trying to deal with the issue of carcinogenicity
8 the complete.
8 we should be as specific in the terminology as
9 Q.Dr. Calandra, he appeared with a gentleman named 9 we could. And since it was more directly to the
10 Papageorge at a seminar in Chicago with the
10 cancer and he had made the change twice already,
11 Environmental Protection Agency in 1975; were
11 it would be preferable to have the third change
12 you aware of that?
12 read the same way, since tumorigenic is a less
13 A. Yes.
13 specific term and didn't quite deal with the
14 Q.Did you attend that seminar?
14 issues under discussion.
15 A.No.
15 Q.Do you know when Dr. Calandra appeared in front
16 q.Do you know what the basis of the information
16 of the epa in Chicago in 1975 whether or not he
17 was that Calandra provided or what the
17 discussed his opinion that the Aroclor lines
18 substance, I should say, at that seminar?
18 were tumorigenic in the lab animals that they
19 A.I don't recall specifics of the discussion he
19 worked on?
20 had but the intent was -- well, Monsanto had
20 A.I don't recall exactly what the proceedings were -
21 paid for the data and it was probably Monsanto
21 in the large volume. I don't recall exactly
22 data, Joe Calandra had developed the data in his
22 what Joe Calandra said. 1 do have a vague
23 laboratory and he should be the man who should
23 recollection that he talked about the dog
24 present it because he should be in the better
24 studies and 1 don't know what he said about the
25 position to defend it or explain it if either
25 rat studies.
Page 153 - Page 156
STLCOPCB4027840
Joan Macrtin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)
_______________ __________________________November 10, 1997
Page 157
Page 159
1 Q.Do you know at any time, if Monsanto ever made
1 correct?
2 any effort to let a governmental or state agency
2 A. Yes.
3 know that Mr. Calandra's preliminary opinion was
3 Q. What was your understanding back in the '70s as
4 that the Aroclor 1242, 1254 and 1260 were
4 to what was the basis for the allegation that
5 slightly tumorigenic?
5 PCBs were an environmental contaminant?
6 A.They -- trying to think of --1 don't recall the
6 MR. DAVIDSON: Just in the '70s?
7 phrasing in the original two-year rat reports.
7 MR. O'CONNOR: Yeah, just in the
8 But they could have the two-year rat reports.
8 '70s.
9 Q. And you don't recall the specific --
9 A. They were being described -- first there was a
10 A. And I don't recall how this was phrased in the
10 DDT in the environment and then there was --
11 two-year rat reports, they do have the original
11 reports were beginning to come out from
12 reports.
12 different places, a few reports at least from a
13 Q. You came on with Monsanto in what year, sir?
13 few place that something other than PCBs was in
14 A. 1971.
14 that mixture. Then it says the analytical
15 Q.Do you recall seeing any literature that was
15 methodology got better - I should say that
16 provided by Monsanto to customers who had
16 something other than DDT was involved in this
17 purchased PCBs from Monsanto?
17 environmental contamination. As they refined
18 A.I don't recall that I saw any such literature.
18 their analytical methods, they identified the
19 Q.Did you in your working with PCBs at Monsanto
19 PCBs which probably were mixed in with the DDT
20 ever come across an article from the journal
20 earlier and weren't recognized as separate. So
21 referred to as Chemical Week?
21 they were beginning to have an awareness that
22 A. I'm sure things from Chemical Week have been
22 there were PCBs as environmental contaminants
23 sent across my desk more than once, but I don't
23 and that was done probably in the late '60s and
24 know specifically what you're referring to.
24 early '70s.
25 Q. Specifically I'm referring to an article on PCBs
25 Q. Your focal point was not PCBs in the 1970s?
Page 158
Page 160
1 that appeared in the early '70s that was
1 A. Right. As 1 said, 1 was to work on new products
2 provided to customers of Monsanto who had
2 and new uses of existing products. PCBs were in
3 purchased PCBs. Do you have any recollection
3 existing products, no new uses, so they really
4 other personal knowledge of that particular
4 were not in my purview.
5 article?
5 Q.The studies that were done on employees at
6 A. No, I do not.
6 Monsanto that were working in the area or
7 Q.Did you see any of the letters that were
7 working with the manufacture of the Aroclors, do
8 generated by Monsanto informing customers that
8 you know the name of the outside contractor that
9 Monsanto was ceasing to manufacture and
9 performed those studies?
10 distribute the Aroclor lines?
10 A. No.
11 A. I know that that decision -- I heard the
11 Q. And was there data that was collected that was,
12 decision was made. I do not rec. ii seeing the
12 was it Dr. Johannsen that interpreted that data?
13 letters sent to customers.
13 A. No, my recollection is Dr. Johannsen was given
14 Q.Was it within your purview in the medical
14 the assignment to look at the records and see
15 department in the role that you were filling in
15 what information was there and was there enough
16 Monsanto at that time?
16 information to work with. And as I was reading
17 A. I think not, not my involvement at that time.
17 his -- I really hadn't remembered while I was
18 My involvement at that time, such as it was,
18 reading it earlier, Frederick's assignment was
19 with PCBs did not include seeing anything like
19 to see what's available and is there enough
20 that.
20 information there that we could make some sense "
21 Q.Let me ask you, earlier this morning you were
21 out of it, or it would be useful. Because like
22 asked when you first learned about PCBs, and I
22 everything ejse, the fact thaPyou've got a
23 believe you responded to one of Mr. Turet's
23 number of people working in an area and nobody
24 questions you first heard of PCBs in the context
24 has a history of what they have been doing or
25 that PCBs were environmental contaminants;
25 what their exposures or are what their health,
^
Page 157 - Page 160
STLCOPCB4027841
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)_________________ _____________________________ November 10, 1997
Page 161
Page 163
1 is it meaningful having so many bodies without
1 Company?
2 some indication as to what they're related to,
2 A. I've had heard the company in --I've seen the
3 isn't a meaningful exercise.
3 name in various chemical magazines that I've
4 Q.I guess I should have asked you whether or not
4 read, but 1 don't know anything about it.
5 you knew whether an independent contractor had
5 Q.Have you ever discussed PCBs with any
6 been hired to collect the data or was that
6 representative of American Mineral Spirits?
7 strictly an in-house study performed by Dr.
7 A.Not that I can recall.
8 Johannsen?
8 Q.Do you have any knowledge of Monsanto's sales to
9 A. My recollection is that Dr. Johannsen's initial
9 American Mineral Spirits as a distributor of
10 effort was to see what was available, was there
10 PCBs?
11 enough material that we could work with to do
11 A. No.
12 something further.
12 Q.Do you know the name of any Monsanto current
13 MR. O'CONNOR: I don't have anything
13 employee or former employee who would know the
14 else.
14 types of warnings or brochures which were given
15 MR. DiMURO: Gary?
15 to distributors of Monsanto PCBs products?
16 16 A. I would not know who would have been in charge
17 EXAMINATION
17 of such things that would have handled that,
18 QUESTIONS BY MR. LIPSHUTZ:
18 other than to say somebody in the functional
19 Q.Dr. Levinskas, my name is Gary Lipshutz. I'm
19 fluids business group that handled PCBs, but I
20 speaking to you from New Jersey on the
20 don't know who would have had responsibility for
21 telephone. Can you hear me okay, sir?
21 it.
22 A. Yes.
22 MR. LIPSHUTZ: I have no further
23 q.Mr. O'Connor, the attorney just asked you some
23 questions.
24 questions, asked you whether you recalled ever
24
MR. TURET: I have no questions.
25 seeing any brochures distributed to customers of
25
MR. DAVIDSON: I have one question.
Page 162
Page 164
l Monsanto regarding PCBs. I believe your answer
1
EXAMINATION
2 was that you had not recalled seeing any
2 QUESTIONS BY MR. DAVIDSON:
3 brochures; is that correct?
3 Q. Dr. Levinskas, Mr. Turet asked you about bunch
4 A. Yes, that's correct.
4 of questions about Exhibit 3 which was Dr.
5 Q. Would that be correct also in regards to
5 Kimbrough's letter to you providing some
6 distributors for PCBs, Monsanto distributors?
6 information about her studies, do you recall
7 A. I guess I have some difficulties with the
7 that?
8 question.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q.Let me rephrase it for you, sir. Do you recall
9 Q. My only question is, was the data and her study
10 ever seeing brochures that Monsanto gave to
10 subsequently published in the scientific
11 distributors, that Monsanto gave to its
11 literature?
12 distributors regarding PCBs?
12 A. Her study was published, yes.
13 A. My answer of not seeing brochures is absolute.
13
MR. DiMURO: We'll read and sign.
14 I did not know they had such separate ones for
14
MR. TURET: Tomorrow we start at
15 customers and distributors. I have not seen any
15 nine.
16 such bulletins that I can recall.
16 (Witness excused)
17 Q.I'mtiying to understand what you said. You're
17
18 saying that you don't recall seeing any
18
19 brochures which would have been given by
19
20 Monsanto to either customers or distributors; is
20
21 that correct?
21
22 A.That's right. I don't recall seeing any product
22
^
23 bulletins on PCBs shortly after I came to
23
24 Monsanto.
24
25 Q.Have you ever heard of American Mineral Spirits
25
^
Page 161 - Page 164
STLCOPCB4027842
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
Witness: George Levinskas
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)November 10, 1997
Page 165
1 STATE OF
)
2 COUNTY OF
)
3 I, GEORGE LEVINSKAS, do hereby certify:
4 That I have read the foregoing deposition;
5 That I have made such changes in form
6 and/or substance to the within deposition as
7 might be necessary to render the same true and
8 correct;
9 That having made such changes thereon, I
10 hereby subscribe my name to the deposition.
11 I declare under penalty of peijury that
12 the foregoing is true and correct.
13 Executed this
day of
14 ,, 1997,
15 at , .
16
17
18 NOTARY PUBLIC
19
20 Mv Commission expires:
21
22
23
24 GEORGE LEVINSKAS
25
Page 166 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 STATE OF MISSOURI ) 3 ) SS 4 COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS ) 5 I, NANCY A. KUNCAITIS, a Registered 6 Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and 7 for the State of Missouri, the officer before 8 whom the foregoing deposition was taken, do 9 hereby certify that the witness whose testimony 10 appears in the foregoing deposition was duly 11 swom by me; that the testimony of said witness 12 was taken by me to the best of my ability and 13 thereafter reduced to typewriting under my 14 direction; that I am neither counsel for, 15 related to, nor employed by any of the parties 16 to the action in which this deposition was 17 taken, and further that I am not a relative or 18 employee of any attorney or counsel employed by 19 the parties thereto, nor financially or 20 otherwise interested in the outcome of the 21 action. 22
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the
23 State of Missouri 24 My commission expires 11-22-01
25
N
Page 165 - Page 166
STLCOPCB4027843
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-9S-CV02848(JBS)
Multi-Page''
$l,uuu - acronym Witness: George Leyjnskas
-$-
$1,000 [l] 108:14 $2,500 [l] 107:10 $28,980 [l] 107:7
2 [2] 80:8 120:10
'58 [l] 8:4 '59 [I] 8:4 `60s [l] 159:23
'68 [2] 9:21 120:14
'69 m 120:14 141:9 *7 [i] 9:21 '70 [ii 141:9 '70s [81 28:6 149:3
152:20 158:1 159:3,6,8 159:24
'71 [4] 13:12 80:8 120:10
124:25
'72 [10] 15:18 19:7,24
20:12 22:15 27:15 34:20 98:5,6,8
'73 [4] 27:15 28:25 34:20
111:23
'74 [5] 27:15 28:13,25
52:1,1
'75 [4] 28:13 57:10 81:14
89:18
'76 [l] 28:8 '77 [2] 152:20,20 '78 [2] 28:8 152:20 '79 [l] 152:20
'8 [2] 9:21 152:20
'80 [l] 152:20 '80s[i] 35:2 '87 [i] 16:7
'88 [l] 147:2
'89 [2] 147:2,3 '9 [2] 9:21 28:8 '91 [2] 16:9 36:25 '93 [l] 112:5
.5 [l] 132:22 .51 [I] 132:22
0- -
001342-56 [i] 78:7 001344 [i] 82:10 001743 [i] 124:9 002241 [I] 124:14 1002244 [ii 129:15 003505 [i] 124:12 014404 [ii 140:8 022030[i] 93:23 022089 m 112:23 027812 [ii 65:24 02849 [l] 2:4
033 [l] 93:23
60:19 61:3,18,22,25 65:23 1981 [2] 140:8 141:21 696 [l] 75:1
038398[1] 124:6 038402 m 127:11 040881 [i] 130:16
68:10 70:3 78:21 79:14 85:15,22 86:5,5,11,16 87:3,5,22,24,25 89:20 95:8 123:17,21 125:17
1985[i] 16:7
1991[i] 13:12 1993 m 112:4
7(3] 1:10 74:22 86:17
040931m 130:21
137:19 140:7,15 155:12 1997 [2] 2:13 165:14
7/18/75(2] 1:12 83:23
051687 m 55:18
157:4
1st [l] 74:25
74[i] 1:10
051688 m 57:19 051691 [1] 58:2 051695 [ii 75:1 051697 m 115:23
13(7] 1:14 45:5,16 46:9 63:8 112:17,22
14 [9] 1:14 35:4,4 63:5
115:18,21 140:8 141:21
142:11
.
2- -
2(7] 1:8 50:19 53:7 89:5 96:24 122:5 141:12
7494(1] 2:16 77[i] 1:11
8- -
051966 m 84:6 052975 m 88:23
140 [ij 1:17 1400 m 3:12
215[i] 3:18 21927[i] 3:12
8(5] 1:11 78:1,3 91:21 141:9
054084-085 m 45:4 142 [i] 1:3
22[i] 93:21
8/22/75(2] 1:12 93:15
07101-3174 m 3:9
15(7] 1:15 9:15 35:4 69:8 23-month [i] 70:2
8/4/75(2] 1:11 83:14
07102-5311 [i] 3:22
117:22,25 142:11
24 [6] 69:9 78:6 79:19
800(1] 87:3
08054 m 3:5
153 [i] 60:7
80:9 81:14 91:21
83(2] 1:11,12
154(4] 60:5,17 61:10,15 246 [5] 94:12,15,18 95:5
1- -
I [8] 1:7 44:23 45:1 89:19 124:24 140:24,24 148:13
1/13/75 m 1:9
16(4] 35:3,4 112:22 123:25
16-A[4j 1:15 124:2,4,17 16-B [5] 1:16 124:2,7,17
96:17
25 [i] 107:11 27420[i] 3:13 29(1] 118:3
-9-
9(5] 1:11 83:15,18 88:21 107:1
9-A [6] 1:12 83:22,24
1/14/75 [2] 1:9 63:1 1/31/75 m 65:18 10 [ii] 1:12 51:1 53:8
93:16,20,24 107:1,8,11 142:18 148:13
10/13/71 [2] 1:7 44:25 10/14/81 [2] 1:17 140:2
127:18
16-C[4] 1:16 124:2,9,17
16-D[5] 1:17 124:3,12
124:17 129:7
161 [l] 1:4 164 [ij 1:4
17(4] 1:17 55:14 115:21
-3-
3(8] 1:8 55:11,14 86:15 86:16,17 130:15 164:4
3/24/75(4] 1:10,11 69:2
77:25
30 [3] 9:16 92:14 115:6
84:2,4,6
93(1] 1:12 932(1] 130:21 934(1] 130:16 973(1] 3:10 979-1000(1] 3:18
10/16/75 [21 1:14 112:16 140:3 10/17/75 [2] 1:14 115:17 18 [2] 84:4,11
300[i] 3:12 3000 [l] 3:5
-A-
100 [l] 82:13
19103-7396m 3:17 31 [2] 65:8,23
ABC [5] 88:1,1,4,4,5
101 [2] 1:13 3:4
1016m 54:23 1043 [2] 55:4,8 107 [i] 1:13
10th[i] 2:12
II [2] 1:13 101:21
11-22-01 m 166:24 112 [i] 1:14
1950s [l] 126:13
ability m 100:1 123:12
1953 [l] 6:6
166:12
1958 [2] 7:11 8:2
19643 m 118:6 1969[i] 120:12 1970s [10] 16:6 34:1
128:25 129:1 131:5 134:11 135:6 138:10 159:25
36:7
4(6] 1:3,9 63:2 83:19 88:22 89:13
40 [2] 92:14 115:6 42 [5] 85:16,24 86:17 87:4
123:19
44 [l] 1:7
able [2] 72:4 94:25
abnormalities [2] 79:3 146:16
above [4] 132:19 135:18 135:24 136:10
abreast [4] 26:13 28:2 38:20 41:3
115 [l] 1:14
1971 [34] 7:18 8:7 13:12 475[i] 124:7
absence m 40:12,22
117[i] 1:15 12 [5] 1:13 9:15 107:18
107:24 140:19
12-72-A[i] 57:23 12/17/74 m 1:8 55:10
14:10 19:7,24 20:12 22:15 23:21 27:10,12 30:23 33:1
-5-
33:8,16 34:8 35:11 36:24 45:5,16 46:9 47:10 80:7 82:24 99:1 120:6,8,13,15
5(3] 1:9 65:19,21
5/1/75(2] 1:10 74:21
124:21,24 127:6 129:17 50[i] 1:8
67:6 absolute [ij 162:13 abstract [i] 18:10 accepted [4] 13:6 126:23
132:2 152:6
12/6/74 [2] 1:8 50:18
157:14
54(3] 85:15,24 123:19
accommodate [i] 5:11
124 [4] 1:15,16,16,17
1971-ish [ii 80:22
54s [1] 89:22
accompany [ij 11:10
1242(12] 79:1687:11,11 1972(4] 15:17,2198:23 55 [il 1:8
87:21,24,25 123:21
99:11
accomplishment m 108:6
125:17 140:6,15 155:11 157:4
1974 [7] 28:13 29:11 51:2
51:16 53:23 55:14 129:1
6- -
accountability m 140:21
1254(33] 54:5,25 61:16 1975 [24] 51:16 63:5 65:8 6(4] 1:10 51:1 69:3,7
accuracy [i] 95:23
61:23 79:12 81:6,13 82:11 65:23 69:9 70:6 74:25
60[i] 123:20
ACGIH [4] 132:11
83:7 84:24 85:8 89:6,20 78:6,12 79:19 80:9 83:19
92:2,3 120:3 123:21 124:6 84:4,11 88:22 89:2 93:21
124:8,11,13 125:17,18,21 94:4 112:22 113:2 115:21
127:4 131:17 133:8 134:2 116:2 154:11 156:16
134:12 140:6,15 155:12 157:4
1976[i] 119:7 1977 [2] 30:15,16
600(1] 87:2 60s [l] 89:22 63 [i] 1:9 639-7298m 3:10 65 [i] 1:9
135:18 136:8,17 achievement m 109:22 acknowledge [ij 89:25 acknowledges [i] 89:25 acquaintances [i] 29:9
1260(38] 28:24 46:1,13 51:20,24 56:23 58:21
1980 [l] 36:6 1980s [1] 131:10
69[i] 1:10 694[i] 55:19
acrid [i] 136:24 acronym [i] 55:5
Index Page
STLCOPCB4027844
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-PageTM
act - bell
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)
Witness: George Levinskas
act p] 104:7 141:14
agreed p] 4:1 53:21
60:2 62:6,23 66:11,12,17 arrangements [ij
110:8
action [11] 68:9 95:16
76:17 99:15 102:19
71:11,17 72:9 78:23 85:10 149:22
automatically p] 40:19
102:20 105:11 106:7
104:11 105:12
90:3 122:12 146:9 149:18 arrival [i] 34:11
42:20,22
151:16,22 153:6,7 166:16 agreement p] 73:24
153:18 156:18
arrived p] 24:3 34.18 available [17] 5:14,16
166:21
74:7
announced [i] 95:7
art[i] 14:19
38:21 43:9,13,16,20 65:2
actions [1] 95:6
agrees [l] 71:9
annual [3] 107:1,7 147:1
active [i] 28:14
agricultural [xj 98:19 annually [i] 147:2
activityp] 106:19 115:7 Agriculture [X] 10:25 answer [27] 4:25 5:3,6
actual [i] 25:22
ahead [9] 25:4 69:21 73:9 18:2,3 26:16 28:17,20
article [5] 91:5,10 157:20 157:25 158:5
68:16 79:1,6 141:1,17 146:20 153:1 160:19 161:10
articles [4] 64:21,22 109:16 153:22
average [l] 54:24
acute [7] 120:18,21,25 121:14,16,19,23
ad [i] 43:17
add[i] 62:20
added [5] 25:12 32:5 33:18 34:1,12
adding [3] 33:22 34:21 34:24
78:8 127:10,17 128:4,8 129:14
airp] 132:4
airportp] 67:23 76:17 76:20 77:3,14
al[2] 2:4,22
Albino [5] 124:8,11,13 127:19 140:7
40:11 47:24 49:13 58:24 60:22 65:1 79:25 80:12 81:2 93:1 132:14 135:22 136:20 138:23 139:9 145:25 154:5 162:1,13
answerable [l] 11:16
anticipate [2] 16:24 57:12
anticipation [i] 63:20
asksp] 75:19
aspect [i] 21:14
assess [4] 41:21 66:22 67:3 90:22
assessing [2] 10:15 38:7
assessment [i4] 14:15 15:5,20,24 16:4,15 25:5 29:21 34:15 37:8 68:11
award [4] 103:23,24 107:9 109:23
aware [6] 50:3 53:23 77:16 125:21 127:1 154:12
awareness [l] 159:21
away [5] 31:24,25 104:8 104:12 111:12
addition p] 77:17
alive [i] 111:13
109:24
allegation p] 147:23
additional [i4] 26:6 32:4 159:4
anybody's [i] 26:12
apologize [2] 93:12 130:16
100:5,20 139:12 assessments [i] 100:11
-B-
assigned p] 24:13 30:4 B[i] 123:25
33:17 34:11 77:19 79:8 79:13 80:2,16,24 81:1 89:18 104:24 115:10
additive [l] 151:17
allegations p] 150:11 150:14
apparent [i] 57:3
alleged p] 110:14 144:2,7 152:15
143:25
appear [is] 82:11 83:4
84:16,22,25 85:23 89:6 90:15 91:25 147:14
assignment pj 17:1 95:20 97:22 160:14,18
assimilatep] 117:10 assistance p] 26:12
bachelor [i] 5:24 background [S] 5:23
60:14 67:2,3 126:8
bad [l] 137:10
addressed [2] 92:5 127:4 allegedly [l] 26:4
155:13 156:4,5
99:16
bailiwick [i] 65:3
adenofibrosis p] 62:15 alleging [i] 153:23
62:16
almost p] 49:8 68:13
adjacent [i] 101:12
alone [i] 60:7
appeared [3] 154:9 156:15 158:1
appearing [i] 145:1
assistant^] 6:19 23:17 31:6 32:16
associate [4] 6:18,19
Barry p] 31:20,22
based [12] 7:14 37:1,17 61:8 75:17 92:13 102:10
administration p] ll:i along [io] 12:3 27:4
applicable [i] 42:7
31:6 32:17
104:10 108:22 109:1
70:10 104:2
52:20 63:16,20 101:16,19 applied [i] 6:13
associated [i] 136:18
125:19 156:6
administrative p] 10:12 53:14
advanced [i] 74:6 advantage [i] 53:20 adverse p] 41:12 67:8
90:13,20,22 91:1 131:15 132:10 134:10 advice [1] 106:3
advised [i] 105:9
aerosolize [i] 136:1 affect [l] 123:7
affected [i] 17:9
affiliated [i] 47:9
106:10 118:24 148:4
appreciably [i] 136:10
alternatives [i] 104:17 appreciate [i] 76:23
ambient [i] 119:6
approach [4] 104:19
amended p] 84:25 92:19 106:10 135:24 151:14
92:21
appropriate [5] 39:9,25
amending [i] 89:4
41:10 42:4 43:1
American pi] 2:8,24 7:13,17,20 8:6,11,17 9:2 9:8 10:1,7 11:12,21 13:8 75:7,10 126:19 162:25 163:6,9
approval [2] 38:24 44:8
approvals [l] 39:2 approximate [2] 9:19
36:13
among[8] 73:16,22 76:11 April [1] 141:9
95:8 97:9 99:22 101:13 area [4] 27:23 112:10
113:18
160:6,23
Associates P] 2:16 97:2 basic [i] 62:1
assxunep] 37:20 47:16 basics [i] 110:21
92:4 106:23,24 125:1
basis [24] 34:24 49:1
assumed [3] 14:9 26:6 30:18
assuming [2] 42:11 48:4
Atlanta p] 29:13 70:18
60:24 64:15 76:24 85:14 89:20 95:23 104:14 106:19,24 108:13 126:21 126:22 142:20 148:16,17 149:11 152:11 153:8,16
Atlas p] 126:5,5
153:20 154:16 159:4
Atrium pj 3:4,5 attached [2] 1:18 85:13 attempt [3] 57:2 141:14
151:25 attemptedp] 43:18,19
Bates pi] 45:4 55:18 57:18 58:1 65:24 74:25 78:7 82:9 84:5 88:23 93:22 112:23 115:22 118:6 124:9,11,14 127:11 130:15,21 140:8
afternoon [i] 2:15
amount p] 14:1 21:5 argue [i] 120:24
138:25
battery p] 123:15 125:14
again [14] 19:7 26:1 32:5 33:15 36:4 42:13 52:15 56:24 80:12 112:12 113:11 122:14,17 136:16
[against [4] 67:3 106:7 1 142:7 152:12
age [2] 4:10 66:17
agencies [io] 7:4 10:18 10:21 11:7 44:5,7 99:6 149:10 150:19 152:25
agency PI 11:8 48:1 151:15,16 153:5 154:11 157:2
agent [i] 133:11
aggressive [x] 46:23
agop] 4:19 31:25 64:1 84:18 137:16 142:18 145:3
agree p] 74:10,14
42:15 107:9,12,14,15 108:18
amounts [i] 108:20
analogous [3] 103:16 117:16 138:13
analysis [3] 20:21 21:15 108:7
analytical [3] 133:15 159:14,18
anaplastic P] 46:20,24
angles [l] 104:18
anhydride pj 103:12 106:16
anhydrides p] 103:3,5
animal [13] 8:18 59:22 62:22 67:9 86:24 89:13 98:18 114:4,11,11 122:15 146:2 147:9
animals [19] 42:14 59:3
Armstrong [5] 2:6,23 3:14 4:19 142:7
attempting [i] 94:14 attempts [i] 76:9
Beaglep] 124:6 125:5 127:10
Aroclor[59] 28:24 46:1 46:13 54:4,23,25 56:23 57:23 58:20 60:19 61:3 61:16,18,22,23 65:22 68:10 70:3 78:21 79:12 79:14 81:6,13 82:11 83:7 84:24 85:7,15 89:6 92:2,3 95:8 110:16 116:9,20 120:3 123:17 124:6,8,11 124:13 125:21 127:4 130:23 131:2,17 133:8
attend [3] 57:14 65:12 154:14
attended [i] 65:11
became [7] 6:18 25:5 31:15,18 97:3 151:20 152:2
attention [io] 64:17 65:4 Becky [1] 32:19
65:6 82:9 88:16,21 91:9 92:6,12 125:9
attorney pj 3:4 4:19 142:5 161:23 166:18
attorneys [3] 144:17,20 145:5
become [2] 18:4 30:13 Beg[i] 28:18 began [S] 25:23 37:6,9
99:16 141:13 begin [i] 6:7
134:2,12 135:17 137:4,17 (August[6] 83:19 88:22 138:20 139:17 140:6,15 89:2 93:21 94:4 98:7
beginning [sj 8:4 28:25
55:21 159:11,21
"
156:17 157:4 158:10
auspices [i] 149:24
begins [i] 66:10
Aroclorsm 55:2,3 94:21 119:4 125:17 137:8 160:7
arose [l] 76:10
authored [4] 45:12 66:1? behalf pj 4:11 20:11
118:10,12
behind [i] 78:16
authoritative [i] 126:14 beings [i] 146:12
authorities p] 64:13 bell [i] 90:1
Index Page 2
STLCOPCB4027845
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-Page TM
below - conditions
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)
Witness: George Levinskas'
below [5] 71:2 85:7 89:10 briefly [2] 127:17 130:13 150:17
20:23 42:11 49:8 102:24 commercial [4] 118:2
132:5,16
bring [i] 17:6
cases [10] 17:22 21:4,7
102:25 103:5 109:2 149:9 118:22 119:16 151:23
benign p] 59:9,15 134:22 bringing [i] 91:8
21:20 25:3 44:12 135:9
157:21,22 163:3
commission [2] 165:20
best [9] 20:9 28:9 31:23 broad [I] 38:15
35:19 47:12 51:25 95:18 111:8 166:12
broader [i] 17:10
135:10,12 153:18 cast[i] 119:20 [casual [3] 27:24 77:9
chemicals [io] 9:5 16:20 166:24
22:1,9 38:8 49:23 50:7 commissioning [i]
123:5 147:13 151:6
39:8
[better [7] 22:22 30:13
1 100:15 115:14 121:11 154:24 159:15
between pi] 2:13 4:2 15:3 27:20 33:15 34:17
brochures [6] 161:25 162:3,10,13,19 163:14
brought [3] 17:1 26:2 152:12
building [i] 27:23
95:13 casually [1] 12:23 cataract [i] 141:22 categories [i] 90:11
51:13 57:3 73:14 76:10 buildup [i] 136:16
category [4] 60:10,11
76:20 81:13 86:25 113:17 built [3] 29:23 30:10
151:21 152:1
117:14,17 120:18,25
149:7
caught [2] 18:7 25:24
147:20 149:2 155:17
bulletin [2] 130:22 139:5 causal [2] 50:5,5
beyond [6j 34:21 38:12 62:6 95:25 133:4 136:16
bifocals [1] 141:21
big [2] 24:25 38:12 I Bill [H] 12:19 33:14 34:7
34:14,18 35:18,25 98:6,7
bulletins [2] 162:16,23
bunch [2] 52:19 164:3 business [6] 22:11,12,14
150:7 151:11 163:19 busy[i] 76:14
causation [4] 62:2,2,4 146:7
causative [i] 133:11 caused[6] 61:3,18 68:21
131:16 132:11 134:11
causes [2] 68:18 112:8
100:6,7,8,18 147:20
caveats [l] 134:8
[bills [l] 150:3
Bio-Test [3] 20:1 48:17 124:16
[biological [i] 134:20
biologically [i] 147:13 [biphenyl [7] 133:20,22
C [4] 3:1 88:2,3 123:25
CBA [2] 88:2,5 CC [1] 56:11
Calandra[i8] 56:12,13
84:5,10,20 86:1,15 88:23 89:1 91:23 111:5,12 154:9
CC'd[i] 94:2 ceases [i] 135:10
154:17,22 155:10 156:15 ceasing [i] 158:9
1 133:23 134:2,5 137:11,14 156:22
cell [2] 58:10 62:13
chemistry [i] 5:24
commit [1] 150:18
Chicago [4] 154:10 155:1 committee [i] 132:6
155:15 156:16
common [i] 92:22
chloracnepj 133:6,7,9 133:15,21 134:1,6,7,9
chlorinated [io] 7:6 9:9 55:2 109:23 131:3 133:1 133:12,24 137:15,19
chlorination [i] 54:25
choice [2] 48:4,5
communication p] 27:19 141:13
companies [9] 6:23 12:1 13:25 99:6 149:6,9 150:25 152:4,10
company [40] 2:8,8,24 2:25 3:7 7:13,21 8:12,15
chosen] 47:20
8:19 9:3 10:10,16 11:10
Christopher [i] 3:8
chronic [25] 120:19,23 121:2,5,7,11,12,16,23 122:1,7,8,10,17,20,20 124:5,7 125:14,21 126:24 127:3,9,18 147:6
Cincinnati [i] 125:25
circulated [i] 28:2
cirrhosis [i] 134:24 cited [2] 148:8 153:14
claim [i] 143:11
11:14 13:16,23 15:7,9 16:2 17:15 24:18,19,21 31:19 37:3 40:20 55:5 78:6 99:1 100:17 102:24 102:25 124:25 126:5 138:2,2 141:12 163:1,2
comparable [i] 98:21
comparepi 81:19 85:21
comparison p] 80:17 81:20
competency p] 99:25 149:13
biphenyls [4] 133:13 137:15 147:7,8
Calandra's [2] 89:4 157:3
Bishop [3] 137:25 138:1 [calls [i] 109:17
cells [i] 135:1
Center[4] 3:9,21 29:12
70:7
claims [i] 143:6 clarification [i] 14:18 clarify [3] 14:17 94:18
competent [i] 149:12
compilation [3] 96:4,9 140:13
138:5
cancer [43] 32:11 46:24 central [i] 39:21
105:8
compile [2] 95:1,4
[bit [2] 25:3 29:19
black [i] 116:8 lbladder[5] 46:1,16,20
47:1,4,9,14,21 48:2,3,19 48:20 49:2,8 50:12,15
certain [2] 14:1 148:6
53:15,17 57:17 62:14
certainly [5] 10:12 43:3
68:18,21 70:15 72:17 75:6 43:18 90:23 135:9
47:1 62:20
76:5,13 90:24 96:16,21 CERTIFICATE [i]
bladders [3] 46:12 47:3 47:14
113:7,9,11,13 134:23 135:4 143:13,13,20,25
blocks [2] 22:9 87:7 blunt [i] 68:24 Bob [3] 57:13,14,16 bodies [i] 161:1 Bole[i] 33:9
146:16 155:20,25 156:10
cancers [i] 28:23 [carcinogen [4] 62:19
106:16 146:8 155:22 carcinogenic [is] 10:3
10:5 82:11 83:4 84:16,23
bonus [15] 1:13,13 101:20 85:1,23 89:7 90:16 92:1
166:1
certification[2] lll:l4 111:20
certified [2] 1I1:18,19 certify [2] 165:3 166:9 certifying[i] 11i:i8 cetera [i] 105:12 Chamblee[i] 70:18
class [3] 23:6 119:4
[compiled [i] 94.12
133:13
compiling [i] 94:23
classification [3] 73:1 73:6 117:1
complaints [i] 137:13
clean [2] 66:12 134:5
complete [2] 13:7 154:8
clear [4] 19:14 36:4 61:21 completed [i] 102:6
103:13
completely [i] 4:25
clerical [i] 35:5
composition [i] 123:10
clinic [2] 31:9 32:24 clinician [i] 31:8 clinics [i] 32:22 close [i] 8:12
compound p] 133:13 133:25
compounded [i] 85:8
compounds [3] 10:4 49:23 150:13
102:7,10,16 106:20,22
128:2 147:24 155:14,18 [change [22] 15:12,19
closed [i] 151:11
conceded p] 67:16,20
107:17 108:3,14,17,19,21 109:1
bottom [19] 45:9 54:13 54:14 63:13 66:4 69:23 71:5 75:14 88:3 97:10 102:1,13 107:9,22 125:6 127:22 128:11 129:9 140:25
[bought [2] 52:18 142:7 bound [11 147:2
Box[1] 3:12
Boyp] 152:16 [break [3] 5:10 93:8,14 breakdown [i] 135:1 breast [i] 115:2
Brian [2] 3:3 142:5 brief[5] 5:22 57:22 77:23
93:18 130:19
156:3,4,5
carcinogenicity [4] 78:20 95:8 146:22 156:7
carcinogenics [i] 76:8
carcinogens pi 77:1 147:18
carcinoma [9] 46:20
48:8 62:13 73:15,16,18 114:4,10 155:23
carcinomas pi] 62:12
62:12 67:17,21 68:4 72:11 74:2,11,15 114:23 115:15
careful [l] 41:19 Carl [i] 33:9 Carolina [i] 3:13 case [14] 4:20 26:4 70:15
110:12,13 142:6,21 143:7 144:2,7 145:2,18 150:15
1 25:23 29:19 42:18 66:18 82:1 84:21 85:5,21,24 86:2,2,3 91:3,10 92:20 115:13 123:9 155:10 156:10,11
[changed[io] 14:13 81:21 1 81:25 84:16 85:2 91:24
92:9 141:22,23 155:13
changes [9] 66:16 68:2 79:5 90:14 123:12,13 142:25 165:5,9
characterize [i] 51:21
charge [2] 139:10 163:16
charges [i] 152:12
charter [i] 37:13
check [i] 140:17
checking [i] 55:8
chemical [i3] 18:18,18
Coast [2] 76:15,16 Coleman [i] 32:16 collaboration [i] 25:2 collect [l] 161:6 collected [i] 160:11 colored [l] 143:22
concern p] 75:15,16 concerning [i] 38:18 concerns [i] 38:10 concluded [3] 114:3,10
114:23 115:15 146:22 conclusion [io] 10:2
column [6] 85:15 86:16 41:25 48:19 62:7,8,10
86:16,17,18,23
82:10 84:21 106:13 128:1
columns [lj 86:12
conclusions [9] 61:6
combined [i] 60:4
68:17 83:12 118:23
coming [3] 56:17 90:24 105:15
127:23 128:11 129:9
137:15 148:18
,,
comment [7] 28:23 53:11 concur [2] 116:25 117:8
77:9 88:9 96:19 97:24
concurred [4] 72:22 73:4
129:1.3
^ 74:10,18
comments [8] 25:16i 7. 7'::7 condense [i] 139:4
77:16,18 78:18 109:10, 18 condition [ij 135:10
125:11
conditions [7] 18:21
Index Page'T
STLCOPCB4027846
Joan Macrtin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-Page TM
conduct - direction
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)
Witness: George Levinskas
38:8 41:15 119:6 128:2 contract [9] 19:13,15,17 Craig [4] 3:16 4:18 14:16 dealt[2] 80:16 101:18 desk p] 94:9 157:23
132:16 146:23
19:20,25 20:6,10 25:14
61:21
death [5] 15:10,14 96:22 despite [1] 67:6
conduct [l] 106:6
39:10
create [i] 24:24
98:7 112:11
detail pj 26:19 90:6
conducted [4] 40:8 70:4 contracted p] 97:12,16 created [2] 22:9 70:11 deaths [i] 96:16
details [5] 56:2 103:12
80:4 149:24
contractor [2] 160:8
criminally [i] 110.5
December [3] 51:1 53:23 128:16.16 155:8
conducting [2] 53:24 103:11
161:5
criticizing [i] 90:9
[contracts p] 7:3 149:20
crossed [i] 94:9
55:14 decide [i] 42:9
detectable [l] 136:18 detected [x] 48: ll
conference [2] 48:14 126:19
conferences [l] 12:2 confirm [i] 42:13 confirmation [i] 106:24 confirmed [i] 48:8
contradictions [i] 113:16
contributed p] 38:11 109:21
control [I3j 29:13 30:18 39:21 58:15,21 60:20 61:17 62:21 66:10,11 67:6
current [2] 147:15 163:12 curtail [x] 42:18
customary pj 78:24 92:15,16
customer [i] 149:15
customers [12] 17:12
decided [4] 8:1248:19 99:14 100:2
decision [2] 158:11,12 declare [i] 165:11 deemed [i] 95:17 defend [i] 154:25
detergents p] 21:25 22:2
determine [l] 151:18
determined [4] 49:1,1 66:20 108:18
develop [4] 21:18 24:10
confused [2] 53:10 115:3 70:7 90:3
22:7 43:10 44:1 138:19 Defendant [5] 3:7,14,19 73:7 104:18
confusion [4] 85:8,9,11 [controlled [i] 37:24
157:16 158:2,8,13 161:25 4:3,11
developed [4] 20:24
89:21
Connecticut [2] 5:25 7:15
conversation p] 45:17 45:21 51:12
[conversations [i]
connection [6] 13:20,22 144:20
50:5,5 53:4 150:20
convey [3] 43:3 86:14,25
consensus [2] 48:22 73:24
conveyed [X] 103:14
consider [6] 104:17,17 121:7,11,12,18
convicted [6] ll0:5,li 110:15,23 111:2 130:7
consideration [i] 17:12 convictions [l] 111:10
considered [3] 59:9
convinced [i] 104:6
62:19 107:16
coolant [i] 137:12
consistency [i] 88:10 copies [2] 52:18 116:19
consistent p] 62:8 71:12,15 82:2 86:3,10
copy [S] 11:3 94:3 112:3 130:17 144:24
88:18 136:13 153:19
corporate pj 11:15
consistently [i] 67:1
32:21
constant [i] 136:11
consultant [3] 16:1,8 29:22
consultation [i] 25:18
correct [17] 16:10 70:14 71:20 87:19 102:11,14 105:24 128:6 130:4 145:15 159:1 162:3,4,5 162:21 165:8,12
consulting [9] 6:22
corrected [l] 50:14
13:15,17,24 14:2,19,24 97:7 139:16
correctly [8] 25:6 48:12 76:18 81:4 97:4 104:3
contact [14] 12:4 22:2,3 105:13 106:17
27:24 31:11 35:23 45:18 51:15 53:16 95:13 104:12
correlation pj 62.1,2,3
141:4 145:20 151:5
correspondence [i]
contacted [6] 76:11
141:3
104:6 113:23 145:1,6,8 corridors [l] 96:14
162:15,20
Cyanamid[i9] 7.13,17 7:20 8:6,11,17,19,25 9:2 9:8 10:1,8 11:12,22 13:4 13:8 149:6,7,7
-D-
D p] 3:3 123:25 damage [10] 127:25
133:4 134:7,17,18,21,24 134:25 135:6 143:8 Dan p] 137:25 138:1 dashfi] 93:23 data [43] 11:11 62:7,8 66:20 67:4,7 70:2 94:11 94:23,25 97:13,16 109:12 110:7,18,20 129:3 139:6 146:9,21 147:10,20 148:5 150:12,16,19 151:18 152:15 153:1,14,18,20,23 153:24 154:4,21,22,22 155:2 160:11,12 161:6 164:9
date [9] 52:2 92:9,15,20 92:23 110:6 125:3 126:3 141:19
dated [38] 1:7,8,8,9,9,10 1:10,11,11,12,12,14,14,17 44:25 45:1650:1855:10 63:1,5 65:18 69:2 74:21 74:25 77:25 78:6 79:18
DEFENDANT'S m 37:4 105:12 154:22
1:5 developing [4] 18:11
Defendants pi 2:9,25 21:11 37:9 115:11
defer [i] 105:9
development [i] 22.6
deferred in 105:14
definitely [3] 14:8 37:5 46:24
developments [4] 26:13 28:3 41:4 154:1
develops [i] 67:1
definition [5] 19:14
diagnosed [i] 46:19
40:23 73:14,15,18
diagnosis [4] 47:6 48:7
defraud [l] 110:12
49:9 117:12
degree [S] 5:24 25:21
DICKER [i] 3:20
54:24 95:12 136:6
died [is] 15:8 25:20,23
delve [l] 14:20
department^] 6:15 10:25 11:14,15,19,20 23:16 25:18 27:14 28:3
32:10 34:14,18 49:6 98:7 100:6,7,14 111:22,23 112:2,7,8,9 143:13
dielectric p] 144:4,6
30:22 31:4,7 32:5,6,21,23 difference pj 15:2 59:4
33:8,12,18,20,21 34:2
117:14 120:18 155:17
35:21 36:3,8,9,11,16 37:3 differences [io] 57:3
37:14,19,21 39:16,22 41:3 66:16,23 73:21 74:1 76:10
41:9 42:2,24 43:7,12 44:3 81:12 86:25 113:16
75:16 94:12,15,18 95:5
117:17
96:17 97:19 98:2 128:21 131:6 149:25 158:15
different po] 78:21 79:21 80:10 81:4 82:17
departments [l] 36:20 89:15 100:9 118:25
depend [i] 121:8
119:25 123:12 124:15
depending [i] 136:5
deposed [3] 4:21 142:9 145:8
137:2 138:2,3 148:17,18 150:13,20 152:10 159:12
difficult [l ] 60:3
deposition [28] 1:5 2:11 difficulties [i] 162:7
contacting [1] 105:10
contacts pj 12:251:19 containing p] 17:20
144:5 contaminant [i] 159:5 contaminants [S] 26:25
27:1 153:10 158:25 159:22
contaminated [i] 133:17
contamination [i] 159:17
content [i] 118:11
context p] 72:1 158:24
continue pj 100:19
continued [i] 153:25
continues [i] 135:14
continuum [i] 30:9
counsel p] 4:2,2 143:12 145:6,10 166:14,18
counter [X] 27:25
counting [i] 35:3
country [i] 112:5
COUNTY p] 165:2
166:4
couple [12] 9:23 32:8,15 32:18 63:25 76:20 77:14 112:6 118:25 130:20 137:21 145:13
course [6] 6:13 10:23 27:24 29:15 68:8 105:11
courses p] 6:12,14
court [7] 2:1,21 5:16 18:1 44:22 142:12,13
cover [4] 56:5,11 69:8 81:8
covered [2] 64:23 118:22
81:14 83:14,23 89:18 92:23 93:4,15 112:16 115:17 140:2,7
dates [5] 16:5 92:11 124:24 141:3,10
Davidson [io] 1:4 3:11 14:16 59:13 135:21 137:6 143:18 159:6 163:25 164:2
day-to-day [4] 30:8 34:24 100:18 101:17
days p] 121:2 133:11
DDT [3] 159:10,16,19
deal [6] 29:24 40:1,18 151:12 156:7,13
dealings] 39:5,17 40:2 44:12 135:23 148:7
dealings [4] 11:6 12:24 76:7 139:19
4:3 14:21,22 50:25,25
difficulty [i] 132:17
51:6 53:5 63:8,9 87:17 118:3 142:18 143:9,23 144:11,16,24 145:2,11,12 165:4,6,10 166:8,10,16
derive [2] 61:1,14
digest [ij 117:11
DiMurO[52] 3:8 26:15 28:16,19 36:10 40:10 41:11 42:5 47:11,23 49:3 49:18 50:2 51:17 54:1
dermal [i] 127:4
58:22 59:18 60:21 61:4
descended [i] 151:9
describe^] 85:16 101:7
described in] 53:25 56:25 70:23 84:17 114:25 121:25 122:4 123:15 134:3 154:3 159:9
64:24 71:3,8 75:25 78:8 79:22 80:1,11 84:1 88:8 88:20 90:19 91:11 92:2 92:25 108:15 109:3 112:4 116:11 122:3 126:15 127:5 129:22,24 131:18 132:13 134:13 135:22 -
describing [l] 18:13
136:19 138:22 145:23
description [2j 1:6
161:15 164:13
46:25.
^ direct [4] 58:24 82:9
designed [l] 123:4
88:21 147:12
desirable [3] 39:25 41:10 directed pj 124:23
42:3 direction [i] 166:14
Index Page 4
STLCOPCB4027847
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)
Multi-Page TM
directly - experiences Witness: George Levinskas
directly [4] 11:23 97:24 144:15,18,21 146:5
91:20,23 93:23 94:14,22 elicited [i] 146:14
146:8
150:25 156:9
doesn't [4] 41:23 67:11 95:7,15,17,21,25 96:19 Elmer[i4] 12:16,17 13:1 establishing [i] 126:21
Idirectorpjj 7:23,25 8:8 86:22 108:16
8:16 10:13 11:12,16,20 dog [5] 120:17 122:21
12:11 15:23 16:3 23:18
155:3,6 156:23
23:19,20 29:25 30:1,20 30:24 31:6,6,15,18 32:10 32:17 113:9
dogs [5] 119:19 122:8 124:6 125:5 127:10
disagreed [l] 117:7
dollar [2] 107:13,15
'disappearing [i] 115:12 dominant [4] 119:21
122:19 123:2,3
disbanded [l] 9:18
Don [2] 32:16 64:19
discharge [2] 108:11 109:9
done [53] 8:20,23 13:15 13:17,24 14:1 19:8,9,12
discontinued [i] 152:1 19:21 20:10,11,16,17 21:4
discrepancies p] 89:13 21:6,11 24:6 25:15 26:17
113:16
27:6 39:7,7 40:16,21
96:25 97:4,17,25 98:9,13 98:21 99:3,10 100:12,14
100:22,25 101:3,8,25 102:2,6,8,16,22 103:21
104:5,10,15 105:9,23 106:14,20 107:21,23 108:3,7,21,25 109:11,25 110:1,2 111:3,4,12,22,23 112:2,21 113:4,4,6,8,9,17
113:20,23,25 114:2,4,15 114:18,19 115:21,22,23 116:2,5,10,13,15 117:7,7 117:14,14,24 118:4 124:14 130:10,20 140:1,5
140:9 146:19 147:22 148:7 154:9 155:10
20:20 23:11,17 26:10 33:1 52:9 99:14,17 100:14 103:14 125:2
ELSERp] 3:20
emerged p] 21:1
employed [i2] 5:197:12 7:17 10:1 11:23 13:11 35:14 99:2 110:1 131:6 166:15,18
employee [7] 16:2 46:9 97:3 125:20 163:13,13 166:18
employees [4] 38:3 43:25 47:17 160:5
Estate [i] 2:3 estimate [i] 20:9
et[3] 2:4,22 105:12
Ethel [i] 2:16 evaluate [4] 17:2 97:13
97:16 139:1 evaluated [2] 73:17
101:3
evaluating [i] 16:18 evaluation [4j 16:12
79:8 80:16 102:5
evidence^] 95:10 114:3 114:10 146:22
discrepancy pi 73:14 53:18 56:22 75:20 79:14 156:15 160:12,13 161:7,9 employment [8] 6:7,9 evidenced pj 60:3
discretion [i] 21:8
discuss [l] 11:9 discussed [4] 63:25
89:15 156:17 163:5
80:7 83:6,11 86:21 88:17 92:5,18 95:2 100:21
102:23 120:2,5,9 123:19 123:21,23 125:16,19,22 131:21,24 148:12 159:23
161:19 164:3,4
draw [3] 68:16 120:25 137:14
drawing [l] 62:7
1 10:9,23 11:21 13:2 29:18 131:22
[enclosure [i] 55.16
enclosures [i] 69:10
exactly [5] 15:15 46:21 104:14 156:20,21
EXAMINATION [4] 4:14 142:2 161:17 164:1
discussing pi 69:17
160:5
drawn [i] 141:6
encountered [i] 103:2 examinations [l] 79:10
99:16
Donovan [i] 55:16
drove [i] 76:19
end [13] 7:9 8:3 28:25
examine [i] 114:19
discussion [u] 46:6 50:22 56:17,18 64:11 87:18 91:18 112:19 154:19 155:24 156:14
discussions [s] 26:18 26:22 27:20 104:15 146:2
I Disease [2] 29:12 70:7
dispute [i] 133:9
disputing [i] 133:10
distinct [3] 32:21 105:3 120:23
distribute [l] 158:10
distributed [2] 139:8 161:25
distributing [2] 10:16 139:10
distribution [i] 54:11
distributor [i] 163:9
distributors [7] 162:6,6 162:11,12,15,20 163:15
[District^] 2:1,1,21,21
division [i] 98:19
doctor^] 63:9 130:12 142:4 149:1
[doctorate [4] 6:1,3,5,8
document [54] 44:23 45:7,12 50:24 51:4 52:15 55:13,20,23 57:24 59:21 63:5,7,10 66:1,8 69:5,11 73:11 74:25 75:1 78:5 83:18 88:24 93:20,24 94:3
dosage [i] 121:23
dose [3] 121:1,17 148:15
dosed [3] 121:19 122:12 123:8
doses [2] 120:22 121:1
dosing [2] 121:3,16
Dow [19] 102:23,24,25 103:1,4,8,11,17,25 104:6 104:11,13,16,21 105:6,9 105:12,14,20
Dow's [l] 104:6
down [25] 5:15 11:7 27:21 30:11 37:10 45:9 50:8 54:13 56:11,24 57:11 58:5 66:4,10 71:2,4 75:14 85:7 89:10 97:10 102:13 107:9 109:1 150:23 151:11
downright [i] 136:5
downstairs [i] 35:10
dozen [2] 35:5 142:11
Dr [238] 4:16 5:13,19 12:11,14,18 14:20 15:7,8 15:13 23:19 25:8,13,20 25:23 28:10,11,12,22 29:2 29:4,10,12,17 30:24 31:5 31:15,17,18,23 32:1,2,9 32:17 33:9 36:2 44:22 45:6,15 46:2,3,8,11 47:13 47:19,20 48:15 51:3,13 51:15,23 52:9 53:11,12 53:13 54:3,5,6,10 55:15
Drs [4] 47:6,16 65:12
67:19
Drug [2] 11:1 104:1 drugs [i] 150:12 DUANE [i] 3:16 due[i] 64:7 dulyp] 166:10 duration [2] 121:24
135:3 during [ii] 9:1,12 10:9
10:22 11:21 19:24 27:14 35:21 111:5 128:25 129:1 duties [5] 8:16 15:3 16:13 25:11 26:6
-E-
E[2] 3:1,1
early [io] 36:7 53:23 57:10 111:23 131:5 133:11,16 149:3 158:1 159:24
earth [i] 40:25
East[i] 76:15
EDELMANp] 3:20
educational [i] 5:23
effect [3] 123:4 135:4 146:12
effects [11] 16:19 118:1 118:21 122:10 131:16 132:10 133:1 134:10,20
32:22 55:21 57:12 98:5,6 100:10,11 118:4 140:20 147:10
endeavor [2] 152:24 154:3
endsp] 7i:ll
engulfed [i] 25:1
entertain [i] 105:1
entire [4] 87:18 104:21 122:16 153:12
entitled [3] 65:22 118:1 140:6
environment [2] 109:10 159:10
environmental [36] 7:23 8:1,8,17 9:11 11:13 14:12,14 15:5,20,23 16:3 16:19 17:13 22:24 25:5 26:25 27:1 29:21 34:15 37:8 38:10 70:11 90:23 100:5,11,20 109:12 118:1 118:21 153:10 154:11 158:25 159:5,17,22
EPApo] 70:4,12,14,20 109:7,15 150:20 152:6 153:4 156:16
EPA'sp] 108:9
epidemiological pj 146:21
epidemiologist [5j
35:15,19 97:12,15 146:20
epidemiologists pj
examined [2] 2:12 4:11
example^] 21:22 41:5 exceeded [3] 132:11,24
132:25
exceeds [i] 136:8
excellent [2] 102:19 108:7
except [3] 43:16 114:4 114:11
excerpts [l] 130:22
excess [i] 132:8
excessive [2] 132:7 133:8
exclusive [i] 35:9
excused pj 164:16
Executed [i] 165:13
Executrix pj 2:2
exercise [i] 161:3
exhibit [24] 45:1 50:19 51:1,7 53:1 55:11 63:2,8 65:19 69:3 71:13 74:22 78:1 83:15,24 93:16 101:21 107:18 112:17 115:18 117:22 130:15 140:3 164:4
exhibits [4] 1:5,18 124:2 138:14
jexistedp] 146:24
existing [9] 16:23 17:17 17:23 24:13,14 40:3,9 160:2,3
94:6 96:24 101:24 102:2 105:9 107:6,20,23,24 112:21,24 115:20 117:24
55:15,17,19 56:1,6,8,12 147:4,6 56:13,21 57:13,13,20 63:6 jeffort[4] 95:4 153:11 63:7,13,20,21,22,22 65:14 157:2 161:10
35:12
expand pj 11:9
epidemiology [7] 35:24 1 36:1 94:17 97:1,8,9,20
expanded [2]
33:21,24
118:2,5,10,13 122:4 123:16 127:9 128:8 129:15 130:14,14 140:1,5 140:9
documented [l] 105:10
documents [12] 52:20 52:23 81:17 96:20 124:1
65:16,25 66:20 67:15,15 68:10 69:5,9,14,17,20,22 69:25 70:4,5,23 71:13,17 71:21 72:3,17,24,25 73:3 73:4,7,10,11 74:10,10,14 74:15,18,18,24 75:4,12 75:17,19,22 76:4,18 78:9 78:19 79:24 84:5,5,7,10
efforts [l] 109:1
eight [3] 2:13 49:11 71:5 |either[i2] 11:8 37:24
86:10 120:25 135:11 136:1,2,4 151:23 152:1 154:25 162:20 [elevated [3] 134:11
Eppleyp] 113:6 [equally [i] 42:7
erap] 120:11
errorji] 88:14
^
essentially pj 75:11 87:19 116:13
expect [4] 60:24 88:17
133:3 136:6
-
expected [l] 4:25
experience [3] 73:20 92:13 153:17
experienced [2] 97:12 1 97:15
124:18 125:15 129:2
84:20 86:1,15 89:1,4
136:13 137:11
establish [2] 126:17
experiences [2] 37:1,17
Index Page 5
STLCOPCB4027848
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)
Multi-Page TM
experiment - handled Witness: George Levinskas
experiment p] 57:23 feasible [i] 19:4
flimsy [i] 146:24
frame [5] 36:14 94:7
139:7 160:13 162:19
90:4
February [i] 70:5
flip [3] 69:21 73:9 127:17 120:9,10 152:14
163:14
experimental [2] 58:17 fed [5] 28:24 46:1,13 61:3 82:12 103:2
flipping [6] 57:18 58:1 frank [2] 134:24,25 127:10 128:4,8 129:14 fraud [2] 150:17,18
giving [3] 6:15 44:14 145:19
expert [5] 58:23 61:5,9 Federal [i] 109:17
floating [i] 45:25
Fred[i] 34:20
GJLp] 118:5
145:24 146:11
feeding [I0] 48:21 70:2 flood [l] 24:25
Frederick [3] 51:2,9
global [l] 128:18
expertise [l] 39:17
119:18,18 120:17 122:6,8 fluid [l] 41:16
93:21
goesp] 47:2
expires [2] 165:20 166:24 122:21 155:4,7
fluids [2] 144:6 163:19 Frederick's [l] 160:18 gone [4] 20:22 25:13
explain [2] 143:2 154:25
explanatory [i] 66:14
exposed [S] 58:20 60:19 61:15,19 135:17
exposure [19] 18:20 20:25 50:6 59:12 95:12 127:4 131:16 133:8 134:17,18 135:7,10,14,15 144:1 147:15 148:6,7,10
feeling [3] 28:21 43:2 132:15
fellow [2] 12:8 32:12 felony [i] 110:7
felt[i] 103:25 female [4] 28:24 48:8
49:6 148:12 fetuses [i] 122:25
flying [i] 76:15
focal [2] 29:6 159:25
focus [i] 26:5 focused [3] 79:12 132:18
155:24
focusing [3] 21:13 32:6 84:6
follow [2] 121:17 152:8
frequency [i] 17:7 frequently [i] 101:11
Friedlanderp] 31:22
front [2] 141:20 156:15
full [l] 154:6 function [i3] 16:16 36:8
36:11,15,21 37:2,7,7,19 37:20 38:17 39:9 43:8
106:2 150:21
good [8] 4:16,17 62:16 97:23 100:3 125:9 146:9 151:12
Gordon [29] 55:16 56:6
56:21 57:13 63:7,14,20 64:19 65:12 67:15,19 69:9 69:14,20,22,25 70:23 71:21 72:3 73:3,12 74:14
exposures [3] 37:24 134:12 160:25
few [16] 4:18 12:10 15:24 25:1 30:22 31:21,25 39:4 67:25 69:21 120:21 121:1
expressly [l] 4:7
130:25 144:18 159:12,13
extended [4] 19:5 120:23 fibrous [i] 62:18
122:14 143:3
filep] 45:6
followed [l] 121:20
following [3] 51:19 67:14 68:7
follows [5] 4:12 57:24 67:5 89:23 121:14
functional [2] 30:2 163:18
115:21 116:2,5,25 117:7 117:14,18
functions [3] 10:13 41:2 Gordon's[2] 56:8 71:17
100:18
government [ii] 7:4
fund[i] 39:16
44:5,6 48:1 99:6 109:2 141:2 149:10 150:22
extensively [i] 149:5 extent [9] 14:23 33:11
39:3,14,18 48:1 58:23 121:8 140:13 extra [i] 79:8 eye [2] 134:15 141:22 eyes [3] 135:19 136:3,14
-F-
Fpj 3:16 faces [i] 32:13
filed [i] 92:7 files [2] 110:22 141:12 filled [2] 107:6 108:2 filling [i] 158:15
finally [i] 99:15
financially [i] 166:19
finding [i] 67:8
findings [20] 29:3 41:13 51:24 58:3 72:22 73:5 74:11,19 81:23 103:9 104:1 105:11 113:17
food [9] 10:25 22:2,2,3 104:1 151:5,17 153:15,21
-G-
foodstuffs [1] 22:4
G-J-L[i] 66:5
151:19 152:11
governmental [2] 126:20 157:2
foolhardy [i] 104:7
Gaffey[9] 35:18,25 36:2 gradually pj 8:13
footnote [2] 140:24
36:2 96:25 97:2,4,17
graduate [i] 6:10
141:3 foregoing [4] 165:4,12
166:8,10 forenoon [i] 2:14 forestall [i] 106:7 forestalling [i] 108:9
146:19
Gaffey'sp] 147:21 [gamep] 149:23 gap [2] 40:14,24 gaps [3] 40:7,12,22
grants [i] 7:3 grapple [i] 77:1 great [i] 29:24
greater [5] 20:13,16
60:23,25 61:10
Garrett [3] 12:24 33:4,10 Greek [1] 122:23
fact [15] 14:25 47:20 58:19 60:3 61:11,15,17 64:21 67:11 68:20 99:17 113:19 131:20 156:6 160:22
[factors [l] 133:3
facts [i] 145:19
failure [i] 135:3 [fair [4] 43:25 63:19
108:24 118:12 [fairlyp] 15:13 54:2
false [7] 110:14,20,20 150:16,19 152:15 153:23
falsifiedpj 110:18,19
falsifying [i] 110:7
familiar [3] 4:23 36:23 124:18
familiarity [l] 24:19
familiarize [3] 24:22 26:7,9
| far [3] 43:18 111:16 140:17
114:21 116:19 117:2
form[38] 26:16 28:16,19 Gary [4] 3:3,21 161:15
125:6 128:17 140:18
40:10 41:11 42:6 47:11
161:19
148:1 finep] 58:25
47:23 49:3 51:18 54:1 58:22 59:19 60:21 61:5
gatepj 24:25
61:20 64:25 75:25 79:22 Gateway pi 3:21
finish [3] 20:21 29:18
80:11 86:15 90:18 92:25 gatherp] 38:13,17
96:7 102:5,17 108:2,16 109:3 [gathering [i] 43:8
finished [3] 21:15 120:7 125:1
finishing [i] 120.15
fired [i] 109:25
118:14 126:15 129:22 131:18 132:13 134:13 135:21 136:19 138:22 165:5
general p3] 14:5 19:23 27:23 74:7 82:19 90:2 92:17 94:7 96:17 101:15 118:20 144:25 155:19
firmp] 97:7
first [5i] 6:9 7:19 14:11 17:24 20:15 24:17 30:20 35:19,25 41:13,20 49:4
formal [3] 23:14 37:16 iggneralization pj
77:15
g ^38:13
formalize [2] 37:10 39:20
generally [6] 11:5 21:14 28:2 59:8 101:7 149:1
49:18,19 51:23 52:20 58:8 64:7 67:12 69:20,25 70:7 70:16 75:14 76:3 80:19 80:21 81:25 84:2,7,13,14
88:11 105:15 114:6 118:17 119:3 125:3,4 126:7 130:25 135:23 141:8 145:1 147:17 149:20 150:12 152:5
formalized [2] 16:18 36:1
former [2] 113:9 163:13
formerly [i] 113:10
forth [8] 25:19 29:16 30:3 70:12 87:3 123:9 146:4 148:16
forward [i] 58:1
generated pj 158:8
generation [2] 119:20 123:14
generations [i] 122:11 [generic [i] 155:21 genetic [2] 123:9,13 gentleman [i] 154:9
158:22,24 159:9
forwarding [3] li:3
gentlemen [i] 64:4
Greene pj 3:12 Greensboro pj 3:13 grew [i] 30:5 grossly [i] 79:3 group [17] 21:25 22:8,12
22:13,14,16,17,18 27:22 30:5 60:20 61:17 73:16 90:4,4 101:11 6T,9~'
groups [4] 9 6 -2-T'-"'
86:10 141:2
U s [17] 5:1 28:6 31:7 33:21 36:6 43:2 57:23 58:1 71:25 82:9 84:13 101:10 129:12 143:15 150:17 161:4 162:7 guidance [i] 14:5
guilty [2] 110:6 150:10
guy [l] 131:23
-H- .........
H[i] 3:11
half [i] 35:5
farmp] 59:22
fiscal [i] 150:4
56:5 113:25
George [8] 2:11 4:9 31:17 hall [i] 27:21
_
fax[i] 52:19 |faxed[i] 52:17
FDA [22] 48:16 103:9
104:8,12,13,22,24 105:10 105:14,18,20,21,23,25 106:1,8,10,15 153:4,14 153:21,23
five [4] 93:9 120:1,2 123:15
five-minute [i] 93:14 fixed [i] 13:18 flight [2] 77:3,4 flights [i] 76:21
found [9] 10:4 49:2 72:7 74:14 78:22 104:22 105:5 110:6 150:10
51:3 93:22 107:22 165:3 165:24
Georgia [i] 70:18 ^
halowax [1] 133:24 halowaxespj 133:14
Foundation [2] 75:7,10 Gerard [i] 3:11
hand [2] 88:12,13
four [9] 27:9 119:17
124:15 128:19,20 145:3 150:13 152:9,10
GINSBERG [i] 3:3
handed [6] 80:14 81:4,18 82:7 124:15 130:20
gist [3] 86:14 96:8 147:12 handled [2] 163:17,19
I given [6J 95:19 120:22
Index Page 6
STLCOPCB4027849
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)
Multi-Page TM
handling - judgments Witness: George Levinskas'
handling [xi] 18:25
hold [4] 93:9 105:23
m-housep] 8:21 19:8 ingredients [i] 22:3
25:24 27:5 28:21 29:7
20:24 26:10 42:8,17,19
143:15 146:11
19:12 149:8 161:7
inhalation p] 125:23
34:23 39:7 45:2248:14
103:21 119:5 130:18,24 138:20
handwritten [6] 45:10 54:13,19,20 118:6,16
happy [3] 5:5,11 104:25
hours [5] 2:13 76:20 77:15 121:2 145:13
human [S] 146:12 147:9 147:14 153:17,20
humans [4] 59:11,13
Inc [4] 2:7,16,23 3:15
incidence p] 59:25 66:15,18,22 71:22 72:7,9 72:15 85:17
[incidences [i] 66:24
126:9
59:3 85:11 95:15 139:9 150:14 159:16
initialp] 19:2 21:5 161:9
initials [6] 45:10 66:5,6
involvement [4] 29:24 150:5 158:17,18
118:5,7,8
irrelevant [i] 70:20
initiated [i] 120:9
|hard [4] 67:7,13 133:19 146:7,23
include [8] 17:11,11 23:7 injecting p] 41:16,17 irritating [i] 134:14
135:12 harmless [i] 119:4 haywire [i] 132:23 hazard [i] 129:12 hazards [i] 147:15 head [2] 22:15 127:14 headed [i] 35:25 beading [i] 119:14 headquarters [2] 32:25
hundred p] 148:11,13 Hunt [18] 12:18,19,22
15:7,8,13 25:9,13,20,23 33:14 34:7,14,18 100:6 100:12,14,19
Hunt's [2] 98:7 100:8 I hydrocarbons pj 7:7
9:9 133:2
hygiene pj 33:19,20 37:22
43:5,22 107:14 108:7 158:19 included [2] 23:9 64:18 including [4] 48:15,23 82:13 99:6 [incorrect [i] 71:23 increase [i] 61:2
increased [i] 96:21
increases [i] 136:11
injury p] 143:7,10
inquire Pi 46:4 54:6 inquiries [ij 99:22 insofar [i] 66:19 inspectors [i] 150:20 instance [S] 24:15 73:25
85:20 102:20 153:4
instances p] 38:23 84:15 108:24
irritation pj 135:19 136:3,14 137:1,13
isocyanurates [i] 109:24
issue p] 18:16 39:8 64:13 73:21 77:1 90:2 156:7
issued [i] 21:12
issuesp] 10:19 16:24 17:13 26:11 101:18 118:22 138:6,7 156:14
33:23
[hygienist [5] 12:17,25
health [24] 6:10 7:23 8:1 33:2,5,10
8:9,17 9:11 11:13 16:19 38:2 70:8,11,17 75:7,10 131:15 132:10 134:10
hygienists p] 12:10 33:7,15,17,22 34:4 126:20
147:4,6,14,19 151:24
hyperplasia p] 58:8
153:11 160:25
59:5 60:4,10,12 61:2,18
hear [4] 5:4 61:13 91:11 hyperplasias [4] 58:13
161:21
58:16 60:7,18
heard [7] 5:7 45:24 96:19 [hyperplastic [l] 72:10
158:11,24 162:25 163:2
hearings 35:7 53:4
-I-
96:14 148:21
IBTpij 20:4,11,17 27:7
[heart [l] 111:6
55:16 56:8,23 63:7 68:3
heat[i] 136:1
74:7 78:6,13,22,23,25
HECKSCHERp] 3:16
held [4] 7:19 98:11 148:19 152:7
HELMS [l] 3:11
80:14 81:8,21 83:7,11
84:5,11 87:19 90:9 98:10 98:11,14,22,24 99:1,2,5,5 99:21 110:22 111:2 113:22 114:1,8,9 115:22
[help [2] 38:25 143:12
116:5,17,25 123:22,23
helped [2] 73:1,7
[hepatic [3] 67:17,20 68:4 [hepatop] 62:13
127:6,14 129:21 140:16 146:3,4 149:3,4,9,10,16 150:6,7,11,21 151:7,8,9 151:10,13 152:12,14,22
hepatocellular [2]
153:13 154:4
62:11,12
IBT'sp] 81:5
hepatoma pj 59:7 60:8 60:12
[hepatomas [14] 59:6,6 59:10,14 60:1,5,6,18 61:2 61:19 71:14 72:11 85:16 86:4
idea [6] 24:20 68:21 72:13 82:6 100:3 150:1
identical p] 81:10,11
identification [20] 45:2 50:20 55:12 63:3 65:20 69:4 74:23 78:2 83:16,25
independent pj 8:24 19:9 95:23 106:23 161:5
INDEXp] 1:1,5
indicate p] 5:6 40:14 125:7
indicated [9] 17:16 21:2 24:12 36:22 40:1 54:11 129:4 130:6 131:20
indicating [i] 68:18
indication p] 95:10 161:2
indictedp] 110:10 111:5 150:10
individual [i] 143:23
individually [i] 2:4
individuals [i] 39:6
induction [i] 49:8
industrial [18] 9:5 12:10 12:17,25 20:1 33:2,4,9,15 33:17,19,20,22 37:22 119:5 124:16 126:20 131:4
Industries pj 2:6,23 3:14 4:20 142:8
industry p] 126:14 144:4 152:8
influenced [i] 73:19
inform [i] 64:9
informal p] 27:20,24 77:18
[information pi] 14:5
instantly [i] 40:19 instead [4] 88:1,4 89:7
89:20 institute pi] 47:4,10,15
47:17,21 48:3 50:12,16 53:15,17 57:17 70:16 72:17 75:6 76:6,13 113:7 113:10,11 125:25 149:10 instructions [i] 101:17
instructor [i] 6:16
intend [i] 104:23 intended [4] 18:19 41:17
61:25 138:16 intensify [l] 135:14 intent [4] 19:23 39:20
106:6 154:20 intention [i] 56:21 interest p] 8:14 17:5
153:10 interested p] 99:18
166:20
interesting pj 146:25 147:13
Interestingly [i] 12:14
interests [i] 24:12
intermediate [i] 72:14 interna] pj 88:10 internally [i] 88:18
interpretation [i] 117:1
interpreted [i] 160:12
item pj 62:11 153:9 items [3] 23:7 151:20,21
itself [4] 115:12 137:11 137:14 343:11
-J-
Jackp] 12:24 33:4 James p] 130:9,11 January [4] 63:5 65:8,23
119:7
Japan [i] 153:18 JBS[i] 2:4 JC[i] 56:12
Jersey [7] 2:1,21 3:5,9,22 7:16 163:20
[Jim [6] 32:8,10 111:4,11 139:22,23
Joan p] 2:2,3,22 [job [10] 7:19 8:14 10:8,11 1 13:4,5,6,8 100:4 126:5
Joe [4] 126:9 131:21 154:22 156:22
Johannsen [is] 34:20 51:2,9 53:12 54:5 93:22 94:14,23 95:15,17,22,25 160:12,13 161:8
Johannsen's pj 54:10 161:9
John [5] 50:11 75:5 76:5 76:12,14
hereby [4] 4:1 165:3,10 89:14 90:10 93:17 101:22 17:6 19:3 20:24 29:8 38:6 interrupt [i] 148:20
Johnson [i] 31:5
166:9
herself [i] 48:16 [high [8] 60:6 71:21 72:7
72:14 99:24 148:15
107:19 112:18 115:19 117:23 124:3 140:4
identified [2] 145:24 159:18
38:17,20 39:1 41:21 43:3 43:8,13,19,22,24 44:2,9
44:14 46:5 47:15 54:7,8 56:2,3,6 67:2,3 68:16 71:12 75:21 76:22,23
interval pj 13:19 121:1 join [4] 32:9 36:2 109:5
interview [i] 13:6
124:24
intravenously p] 41: 16 joined [12] 7:21 15:7,9
41:18
32:3 34:9 35:11 36:7,11
151:20 153:8 [higherp] 95:12 96:16
identify p] 52:14 144:21 94:16 95:2,4,19,21,24
151:2
96:9,13 103:4,14,19
introduced p] 29:17 142:4
98:5 99:1 100:6 129:16 |joint [i] 12:5
132:20
II [l] 3:4
[highly [i] 55:2
immediate [i] 29:14
hired [10] 32:19 34:13,20 immediately [i] 103:10 35:15,20 36:22 97:17 98:1 impact [2] 68:24 90:24 100:9 161:6
104:13,20,25 105:7 110:14 115:9,10 126:8
138:5,8,18,25 139:1,6,7 139:11,12,17 141:1,17 147:9 151:7 154:16
inverted [l] 87.12 investigation [i] 100:2 investigative [i] 22:21 invited p] 13:5 29:2
joking [i] 137:16 Joseph [X] 125:24 [journal [i] 157:20
Jr [i] 3:11
~
historic [l] 67:6
historical [i] 24:6 [history [5] 24:10,15,17
29:18 160:24
important pj 88:7 151:23
impression [l] 24:24
improve [i] 135:11
160:15,16,20 164:6 informed [i] 112:7 informing [i] 158:8 ingestion [x] 126:24
involve p) 9:8 11:3 17:19
involved p2] 10:13,19 14:3 18:7,8,11,13 20:14
judgment [3] 39:6 40:15 42:20
judgmental [i] 73:20
judgments [i] 16:22
Index Page 7
STLCOPCB4027850
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-Page TM
Judy - master's
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)
Witnej :: George Levinskas
Judy [5] 35:22,24 97:18 30:10,19 149:8,17 152:18 145:3 147:11 156:12
literature [9] 38:6 41:5
97:21,23
152:23 156:18
lethal [4] 119:21 122:19 64:10 109:14 132:1 148:8
-M-
juggled [l] 70:12 July [3] 84:4,11 124:25 jump[i] 25:4 jumping [i] 23:10
laboratories [4] 8:24 19:13 93:3,6
laboratory [17] 7:24 8:1 8:9,12 10:14 11:13 19:10 19:12,15,16 29:23 30:17
123:2,3
letter [37] 1:8,9,10,10,11 1:12,14 55:10,15,17 56:5 56:11 57:19 63:1,6,13,16 63:25 69:2,8,9 74:21
157:15,18 164:11
litigation [ii] 13:21,23
14:3,4,6 50:25 53:8 69:6 69:7 94:7 142:9
litters [i] 119:20
M[i] 3:8 M.D [2] 145:17 147:5 M.D. [l] 145:16 MAE [20] 45:4 55:18
jurym 142:15
35:10 56:15 149:4,13
75:11 83:14,23 84:4,8,10 lived [l] 137:6
57:19 58:1 65:24 74:25
154:23
-K-
labs [6] 19:25 20:1,6,10
Katherine [i] 47:6
25:14 39:11
keep [4] 25:14 28:2 38:20 lack[i] 22:22
153:25
ladym 35:22
keeping pi 101:15 147:16
language p] 81:24 155:13
84:20 88:22 89:1,13 112:22 115:17,21,24 164:5
letters [4] 83:21 152:3 158:7,13
level [7] 60:6 72:14 132:17 136:8,10 148:10 148:14
liver [38] 28:23 32:10
58:5 59:7 62:13,14 64:7 64:14 79:9,11 80:2 114:9 114:13,16 115:3,4 116:11 116:12 117:2,6 127:25 133:2,3 134:7,17,18,21 134:24,24 135:1,1,3,6 140:7,14,14 146:15
78:7 82:10 84:6 88:23 93:22 112:23 115:22 124:6,9,12,14 130:16,21 140:8
Maertin [4] 2:2,3,3,22
magazine [2] 91:5,9
magazines [2] 153:22 163:3
Kelly [12] 12:11,14 23:19 large [9] 6:25 39:3,18
28:10,11,12 30:24 31:15 43:14,16,23 58:11 149:4
31:23 32:2 45:24 52:9
156:21
Keplingerp] 111:3,3,3 larger^] 11:14 61:12
levels [14] 82:12 132:5,7 132:7,8 135:17,24 136:17 147:15 148:6,6,14 153:15 153:16
153:13
livers [8] 66:12 68:2
72:12 79:1,6 116:10,11 117:3
mail [2] 69:15 150:17
mails [3] 110:12,12 150:18
111:10 130:2
62:5 65:3
Levinskas [70] 2:11 4:9 living [i] 112:10
maintained [i] 38:3
kept [6] 34:21,24 85:24 largest p] 9:13,20
4:16 5:13,19 14:21 44:22 LLP [l] 3:16
major [i] 149:9
132:4 134:17 149:8
Larry [i] 139:18
Kettering [l] 125:24
Kimbrough [63] 28:22 29:2,4,10,12,17 45:15 46:2,3,8,11 47:13,20 48:15 51:13,15,23 54:3 55:17 56:1,25 57:1,13,20
last [17] 31:20 32:8 49:18 50:8 51:14 57:11 73:10
i 76:3 77:2 85:12 86:7 89:5
110:1 111:13 119:22 140:1 145:13
late [2] 51:15 159:23
59:20 63:22 65:5,14 66:20 LATHAM [i] 3:8
67:4 68:5,10 69:17 70:4,5 70:8,16 71:13,18,23 72:5 72:6,18 74:3,12 78:19
latter [7] 15:18 16:6 28:6 52:1,1 148:8 152:19
95:7 113:14,17,23 114:15 Laurel [i] 3:5
115:16 116:15 117:5,18 Law [2] 3:3,4
141:12 147:3,4,16,22
lawful [i] 4:10
148:7,9,14
Lawrenceville [i]
Kimbrough's [14] 67:25 59:22
44:23 45:6 47:19 51:1,3 53:7,8,11 55:14,15,19 63:6,8 65:21,25 69:5,7,8 74:24 78:3,9 79:24 83:18 83:22 84:4,5,6,7 88:21 91:20,21 93:20,23,24 97:25 102:2 107:22,23,24 112:21,22 115:20,22,23 117:24,25 118:3,4 124:4 124:9,12,14,17 127:18 129:7 130:20 140:1,5,10 161:19 164:3 165:3,24
Levinskas'[i] 102: J
Liberty [i] 3:17
librarians [i] 112:1
license [i] 111:15
location [i] 70:20
locations [i] 31:11
lodged [i] 68:22
logical [i] 48:4
long-term p] 119:15 121:25
longer[2] 110:2 121:15
longest [i] 120:16
look [46] 18:17,19,21 40:17,20 42:16,17 44:24 47:21 56:21,23,24 57:1 71:16,24 72:8 73:22 77:2 79:1,2,4,6 81:19 84:1 85:12,15 86:4,7 87:2,8 90:5 94:14 95:18 116:14
makes [2] 71:19 147:11
makeup [i] 52:12 male [7] 48:11,19 49:10
49:11,14 123:7,13
maleic [4] 103:2,5,12 106:16
males [2] 123:5,6
malformations m 122:25
malformed [l] 123:1
malignant [3] 46:20,23 134:22
mammary [2] 114:25 115:2
man [3] 95:18 147:20
74:5,11,15,19 75:17 76:11 114:5,17,19,24 116:19,22 164:5
kind [6] 28:1 90:6 121:9 122:9 129:4 144:1
kinds [1] 117:3
knew [6] 21:9 29:4 46:3 111:13 131:25 161:5
knowledge [30] 16:20 29:9 31:23 35:20 37:14 47:12 48:10 50:1 54:21 59:23 75:24 76:3,4 79:13 79:19 92:8 95:23 97:14 97:23 99:9 100:16 111:8 111:15 123:18 126:10 127:21 128:10 129:19 158:4 163:8
knowledgeable [i] 48:2
known [8] 18:17,22 25:20 29:4 45:18 50:6 65:2 76:6
Krummrichpj 94:13 94:15,18
Kuncaitis [3] 2:17 4:4 166:5
-L-
lawsuit [i] 142:7
layperson's [i] 117:13
lead [2] 42:20 146:19
leading [2] 63:24 64:13
leads [i] 42:22 learned [2] 50:9 158:22
least [8] 37:4 68:23 69:8 69:22 126:2 137:23,23 159:12
leaven] 8:11 leaving [2] 110:24
112:13
lecturer [i] 6:19
lectures [i] 6:14
led [2] 10:1 27:2
left [20] 6:20 8:15 13:4 21:8 31:18,21,22 32:18 32:18 67:16,22 76:12 85:15 88:12 98:16,22,23 98:25 99:24 110:3
length [2] 122:16 136:7
lesion [5] 48:10,24 114:12,13 115:11
lesions [10] 46:12,15,16 56:23,24 72:12 74:5 116:9
licensed [i] 111:17
life [i] 135:2
lifetime [5] 119:17 120:17 121:18,20 122:7
limit [3] 108:10 126:18 126:21
limited [2] 21:5 146:2
limiting [i] 109:8
limits [2] 37:25 132:5
line [12] 17:14,15 21:16 63:12 71:9 86:7 120:25 125:6 127:22 128:4,11 129:9
lines [6] 12:3 71:5 118:24 148:4 156:17 158:10
lipm 155:21
Lipshutz[i7] 1:4 3:21 18:1 35:6 52:14,22 53:3,9 90:17 93:7,11 109:5 126:16 148:20 161:18,19 163:22
liquid [l] 137:19
list [3] 58:2 151:2,6
listed [3] 86:23 107:7 129:16
117:8 124:23 126:7 128:14 129:12 141:2,18 144:24 150:21 151:7 154:7 160:14
looked [18] 19:4 20:23 23:3 48:18,23 55:1 72:20 78:22 80:3 88:9,10 103:15 113:21 114:17 116:24 125:7 131:24 153:12
looking[ii] 13:4 21:16 21:17 24:23 61:1 67:24 79:18 105:17 118:11 122:24 125:10
looks [i] 123:9
loosen] 120:21
Lotharm 2:3
lotsm 137:2
louder [1] 148:22
Louis [9] 2:16 30:11 31:10 76:16,18 96:18 111:24 112:10 166:4
low [3] 66:18 72:14 134:18
lower [3] 54:24 60:11 137:18
lumps [i] 58:11
^
154:23 '
manager [i4] 14:11,12 14:14 15:3,5,20 16:11 18:5,14 20:19 25:5 29:20 97:1 130:4
manner [i] 87:8
manufacture p] 9:3 158:9 160:7
manufactured [5] 17:3 17:20 24:7 38:19 103:5
March [8] 69:9 78:6,12 79:18 80:9 81:14 89:18 91:21
mark [3] 44:23 83:21 123:24
marked [39] 1:6 45:1
50:19,24 51:7 53:4,7
55:11,14 63:2,8 65:19
69:3,6,7 74:22 78:1 79:3
83:15,18,24 93:16,20,24
101:21 107:18,24 112:17
112:21 115:18,20 117:22
117:25 118:3 124:2,17
130:15,17 140:3
-
markedly [i] 61:10
marking [i] 52:23
L-95-CV [i] 2:4
117:2,6
listen [l] 117:9
lunch [3] 27:25 44:20
Maryland [i] 126:6
L.L.P [l] 3:11
less [9] 32:16 34:19 107:8 listing [i] 76:21
101:15
massm 58:12
|
lab [10] 8:179:12 19:20 107:11 121:10 142:22
lists [2] 107:21 150:24 lung[i] 103:2
master's [3] 6:3,4 35:5
Index Page 8'
STLCOPCB4027851
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-9S-CV02848(JBS)
Multi-Page "
matcn - obtained Witness: George Levinskas'
match [2] 87:16 88:12 mentoring [i] 30:6
30:10,22 31:22 32:3,20 53:17 57:17 70:15 72:17 .notice [4] 58:15 94:2
mated [l] 122:14
merit [U] 42:14 102:10 32:23 34:9 35:1,11,15,20 75:6 76:5,12 113:11
112:3,9
material^ 19:195:11 95:14 139:6 161:11
102:16 106:20,22 108:3 108:14,17,19,21 109:1
[materials [6] 24:1 55:18 met [19] 4:18 11:25 12:13
119:5 131:21 133:18 155:25
Matheson[2] 32:14,15
may [34] 4:3 26:17 38:15 44:10 45:23 46:15 49:17 62:2,17 74:25 84:24 85:3
12:14,17,19 24:17 29:13 53:20,21 70:7,15,16 77:14 99:19,21 144:17 145:10 145:13
metastatic [i] 114:13
methodology [ij 159:15
91:6,15 92:5,6,20 96:5 methods p] 133:16
109:7,13,13 115:3 118:14 159:18
123:7,8 126:6 131:1 133:3 Mezarasii] 31:8
134:8 135:12 137:16 138:14 139:24 146:15
|mice[i] 119:22
36:3 38:19,21,22 41:8,14 natural [l] 112:8
41:15 43:25 46:9 48:15 51:11,19,23 52:6 53:1 55:5 56:1,22 57:1 75:17
nature [6] 25:11 45:21
78:25 101:7 143:4,5
76:2 78:6 90:13 91:3 95:6 NCDC [l] 59:22
noticeable [4] 136:4,5 136:12,15
noticed [1] 90:25
notorious [i] 133:14
97:3 98:2,14,16,19,21,23 NCI [5] 47:3 53:13,24 [November p] 2:13
98:25 99:4,8,11,18,19,20 54:4 65:23
. 1 124:24
99:22,24 100:16,22 101:5 near [2] 30:11 33:11
now [33] 2:20 6:16 10:6
101:24 103:4,6 105:15 107:21 109:13,25 110:2,4
Nebraska [ij 113:7
110:25 112:1,13 119:10 necessarily [4] 41:24
124:21 125:20,22 126:2,4 62:9 135:19 146:16
126:11 127:2 128:22
necessary [4] 42:3 101:6
11:21 20:18 23:10 36:7 45:14 46:11 51:12,22 52:23 53:6,9 56:16 57:11 58:1 63:16 66:10 68:7 69:17 70:5 74:24 75:14
129:3,17,18 131:7,15
1 155:1 165:7
75:19 79:12,18 91:21
138:1 339:16 141:8,11 need [2] 5:10 52:22
95:21 119:14 131:14
McKee [2] 139:22,23
MCS[2] 55:4,5 [mean [io] 10:11 27:12
36:15 41:23 42:16 66:13 67:5 90:21 92:18 112:4 [meaningful [2] 161:1,3
means [3] 27:19 79:23 124:4
measure [l] 123:4
microscopes [i] 117:9 microscopic [2] 58:3
79:10
mid [7] 34:19 35:2 52:1 128:25 131:10 135:5 138:10
[middle [3] 34:14 114:5 119:3
Middletown [ij 5:25 might [24] 14:23 19:5
142:23 144:10,11,14 145:4,21 147:25 148:12 149:3,16,21 150:25
needed [2] 40:23 99:15 negate [i] 67:11
151:14 152:21,25 153:18 negative p] 68:14,19
153:23 154:5,20,21 157:1 negotiated [ij 150:1
157:13,16,17,19 158:2,8 158:9,16 160:6 162:1,6
neitherpj 166:14
162:10,11,20,24 163:12 neoplastic [i] 72:11
163:15
|never[7] 12:14 111:9
Monsanto *S [4] 24:11 152:2,24 153:4 154:6,7
119:15 146:3 163:8
new [28] 2:1,21 3:5,9,22
134:21 142:22
nuclear [i] 137:12
number [27] 45:4 55:7 55:18 58:1 59:3 60:23 61:1,12 62:5 65:24 74:25 82:10 86:5 87:1,2 93:22 112:23 115:22 118:6 124:9,12,14 127:11 132:22 136:13 140:8 160:23
measurements [ij 37:23
measures [i] 123:11
24:16,16 25:15 36:6 39:24 monster [i] 122:24
42:9,18,18 43:5,5 62:20 64:22 65:4 75:21 76:25
monsters [i] 123:1
6:2 7:16 16:23,23 17:16 numbered [3j 57.19 84:6
17:17 23:3 24:13,14,15
88:23
24:16,23,25 40:2,3,17,17 numbering [i] 85:9
mechanism [2] 43:15 43:23
90:1 92:19 99:18 100:17 months [7] 24:17 49:7,7 75:8 76:13 160:1,2,3
114:12 139:3 165:7
49:11 92:21 112:6 140:19 161:20
numbers [14] 61:14 78:7 86:13,20,24 87:4,5,7,9,12
medical[S4] 11:15,16,19 million [3] 82:13 148:11 MOORE [i] 3:11
[Newark [3] 3:9,9,22
87:20 89:12,14 90:10
11:20 12:11 23:16,18,18 148:13
Moreno [2] 111:3,10
newspaper [4] 43:17 nutrition [2] 98:18,18
23:20 25:18 27:14 28:3 mind [3] 92:22 147:16 morning [4] 4:16,17
91:5,10 153:22
30:12,22,24 31:4,15,18
155:17
145:14 158:21
newspapers [i] 110:10
-O-
32:5,6,9,17,21,23 33:7,12 33:18 34:1 35:21 36:3,8 36:15,19 37:3,13,18,21 39:16,21 41:3,8 42:2,23 43:7,12 44:2 75:16 94:11 97:19 98:2 128:21 131:6 149:25 158:14
meet[6] 12:23 76:17,19 77:3,5 101:11
minds [1] 68:22 Mineral [5] 2:8,24
162:25 163:6,9 minute [2] 77:21 83:19 |minutes[2] 30:23 93:10
mislabeled p] 87:24,25
mispronouncing [i] 49:17
MORRIS [i] 3:16 MOSKOWITZ [i]
3:20
next[ii] 13:8 57:18 59:5 62:11 66:14,19 68:23 77:4
0 [1]
3:12
most [11] 15:11 17:22
86:16 123:13 127:18
[o'clock [2] 2:14,14
21:20 25:19 26:10 27:23 nine[i] 164:15
0'Connor[i6] 1:3 3:3
39:5 48:2 134:19 135:9 149:8
mouth [1] 18:12 moved [1] 23:25
nobody [i] 160:23
nods [i] 96:10 nodularpi] 58:8,13,16
59:5 60:4,7,9,12,18 61:2
50:21 61:20 77:12 78:3 91:17 93:13 112:15 131:19 142:3,5 148:24 159:7 161:13,23
O'Neil [i] 139:18
meeting [22] 29:6 48:13 52:3,13 57:5,7 63:20,24 64:9 65:7,8,9,10,23 69:16 70:1,23,25 75:4 77:13 78:19 114:15
misshapen [i] 123:1
mission [i] 37:13
Missouri [5] 2:17,19 166:2,7,23
moving [4] 30:15,17
62:11 101:16
Mt[i] 3:5
MULLISm 3:11
61:18 nodules [2] 58:10 72:11 nominated [i] 106:20 nominee [i] 101:25
obituary [2] 112:3,9
[object [25] 26:15 28:16 1 28:19 40:10 41:11 42:5
47:11 49:3 50:2 51:17
meetings [5] 12:2 27:16 27:18 29:16 145:9
!mem0[23] 1:7,8,9,12,14 44:25 45:14,15 46:11,15 47:2 50:18 53:25 54:2,10 54:11 75:4 93:15 94:25 112:16,23 113:1,24
memoranda [i] 96:2 [memorandum [9] 45:5
45:22 48:7 51:2 65:18,22 93:21 95:22 96:15
mistake [2] 61:24 87:20 multiple [i] 148:14
mixed [5] 83:20 86:10,20 Murray [i] 31:5
89:22 159:19
mustpi 135:18
mixture [i] 159:14
mutagenic [6] 119:21
mixtures [2] 133:12,16 119:24 122:19 123:2,3,11
non-exposed [i] 61:16 54:1 58:22 59:18 60:21
non-Monsanto [i] 14:8
61:4,20 64:24 79:22 80:11 92:25 108:15 132:13
non-physician [ij
134:13 135:21 138:22
23:15
objection [14] 47:23
nonep] 62:22
75:25 88:8,20 90:17,19
ML [i] 130:1
model [ij 152:8
-N-
nonexistent [i] 146:24 109:3,6 126:15,16 129:22 nonphysician [i] 11:18 131:18,19 136:19
molem 155:20
moment p] 26:5 84:18 137:16
N[i] 3:1
nor[2] 166:15,19
name[i4] 4:18 23:6 31:20 North [2] 3:12,13 32:13 75:9 102:1 129:15 NoS[i] 124:2
objectionable [i] 136:25
obligation [i] 151:18
nemoiy[4] 97:4 128:15 moments [2] 4:18 64:1
143:24 144:18
Monsanto [157] 2:8,24
nentionp] 112:11 126:3
nentioned [xoj 30:23 33:1,13 39:8 41:2 61:22 97:25 99:17 112:2 152:13
nentioning [ij 12:12
3:7 5:19 8:18 11:24,25 12:11,15,22 13:2,9,11,23 14:10,24 16:14 17:10,21 17:25 19:9,11,19 20:1,7 20:11 22:8 23:21 24:7 27:2,14 28:22 29:2 30:5
141:20 142:5 160:8 161:19 163:3,12 165:10
named [3] 7:23 91:9 154:9
names [l] 34:3
nose[i] 136:3
Notary [5] 2:18 4:4 165:18 166:6,23
[note [2] 54:13 118:4
.
obliterate [i] 42:15
observation p] 49:25
50:4 122:15
"
observations [3] 57:3 62:5 108:8
Nancy [3] 2:17 4:4 166:5 notes.[3] 54:19,21 118:Ti5 observed [2j 28:23
National [i6] 47:3,9,14
47:20 48:3 50:12,15 53:15
nothings 137:22
14:25 95:25
122:13 obtained [i] 59:21
Index Page^-
STLCOPCB4027852
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-Page TM
Obviously - polychlorinated
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)
Witness: George Levinskas
Obviously [2] 26:4
122:3 130:6 137:19
89:5,19 91:24 96:24 97:10 126:7 131:25 139:21
pharmacologist [i]
60:23
139:21 162:14
118:1'' 119:3,14 122:5
145:21 146:12,15,23
7:22
occasion^ 10:17,22 11:8,22 108:20 139:3,19
occasional [i] 26:18
occur [9] 49:5 58:13 59:10,15,16 60:1,1 66:17 133:7
occurred [ii 49:6
occurrence p] 67:17,20 133:6
occurs [2] 133:10,10 lOctoberpi] 45:5,16
46:8 47:10 112:22 113:1
onto [2] 56:6 62:11
123:1c 129:14 140:24
open[i] 111:6
141:9
opening p] 98:21 152:18
operating [23] 16:17
17:4 18:24 21:3,9,21,22 21:24 22:7 25:16,17,21 39:1,13,19,24 43:4 52:11
pages [3] 69:21 73:10 130:20
paid [io] 75:23 76:1,2 92:12 144:8,11,12,13 149:16 154:21
101:14 139:3,11,13 150:3 palliative [l] 68:8
operation [l] 100:18 Papageorge [i] 154:10
operational [i] 30:14 paper [i] 118:20
opinion [17] 26:21 58:25 papilloma [i] 62:20
59:2,19 61:8 73:22 74:1 paragraph [ii] 49:18
147:18,23 149:18 152:23 153:6,15 154:1 157:17,19 157:25 158:3,19,22,24,25 159:5,13,19,22,25 160:2 162:1,6,12,23 163:5,10 163:15,19
peak[i] 35:3 peddling [1] 22:6
penalty [i] 165:11
pending [2] 2:20 132:16 Pennsylvania [i] 3:17
people [56] 9:15,17 11:6
pharmacology [2] 6:1 147:1
phase [l] 9:23 phased [2] 8:13 98:20 phenomenon [i] 59:17 Phil [i] 113:8 Philadelphian] 3:17
phone [i] 46:6 phonetic [2] 31:8 125:24 phosphate [i] 22:1 phosphates [i] 21:25
115:21 116:2 140:8 141:9 141:21
odor [5] 136:18,21,22,24 137:22
[odors [11 137:13
Off [12] 21:13 44:18 50:2; 50:22 77:21 91:17,18 105:18,23 112:15,19 148:3
96:25 106:3 117:19 119:12 133:19 134:16 136:25 146:17 156:17 157:3
opinions [3] 145:18 146:14 148:18
opportunities [i] 8:14
opposed [4] 60:19 64:22 94:7 134:22
offer [10] 13:5,6 34:16,17 option [i] 105:20
100:3,5 126:5 131:22 145:18 146:17
oral [4] 70:2 124:5,7 127:18
offered [2] 45:18 100:4 ordinary [i] 131:2
officer [i] 166:7 [offices [3] 2:15 3:3
101:11 officials [i] 152:12 [offset [l] 68:20
offspring [2] 122:13 123:7
Olinp] 32:14,15 Omaha [i] 113:7
Orem[i] 130:15
organs 114:14 115:5
organic [i] 9:5 organization [i] 75:9
organizations [i] 111:18
original p] 85:17,24 86:9 92:23 140:15 157:7 157:11
once [8] 6:8 20:22 21:15 originally p] 125:2
68:17 86:16 99:21 121:19 1 126:18
157:23
otherwise [i] 166:20
one [122] 3:9,17 12:12
ought [2] 39:7 113:19
18:14 19:24 27:22 32:14 35:4,25 37:21 38:17,20 39:9 41:2 43:9 44:7 46:19
ourselves [2] 113:18
101:13
57:12 66:10 67:14 68:8 77:2 84:14 89:5,12 114:6 140:25
paralegals [l] 145:4
pardon [2] 28:18 116:12
part[i7] 11:14,15 15:18 16:6 20:13,16 52:1,1 76:3 95:6 111:23 118:13,14 126:2 142:24 150:4 152:24
participate [2] 6:25 65:10
participated [i] 9:7
particular [20] 10:2 19:21 20:22 21:15 22:16 24:7 26:8 41:7,22 50:3 52:7 64:20 90:9 91:4 94:10 102:20 118:2 125:6 143:7 158:4
particularly [2] 99:22 137:10
parties [2] 166:15,19
parts [6] 24:18 55:22 82:13 138:2 148:11,13
pass [i] 111:12
passage [i] 37:6
passed [3] 31:24,25 143:23
past[i] 40:8
11:10,23,25 12:6,7,12 17:4 22:4 24:18 25:2 26:18 27:20 28:2 30:17 32:20,23 37:22 40:15 41:18,19 43:20 44:1 48:2 48:14,15,16,17,22 52:11 52:11 53:14,19 68:16 73:16 76:11 92:19,20 95:13 99:23 100:7 101:13 109:20 110:22 134:20,25 136:6 138:15,17 139:20 149:5,14 151:9 160:23
people's [l] 68:22 per [4] 82:13 119:20
148:11,13
percent [3] 107:1,8,12
percentage [i] 20:9
perform [i] 9.25
performance [6] 101:4 102:5,9,19 103:22,24
performed [4] 123:17 152:22 160:9 161:7
performing [i] 10:7
perhaps [4] 30:13 79:24 89:20 103:16
period [18] 9:1,12 19:7 19:24 20:12 22:15 27:15 51:16 71:11 120:22,24 121:3,4,6,15,17 122:12 122:14
photographs [i] 116:13 photomicrographs [2]
116:9,16
phrased [i] 157:10 phrasing [i] 157:7 physical [i] 18:18
physician [3] 29:14 31:1 32:19
physicians [9] 12:10 31:3,10,13,14 32:5,7,12 38:1
picked [3] 25:3,8 138:15 picture [i] 38:12
piece[2] 105:8 148:8
pieces [l] 130:25
pilem 144:23 Pittsburgh [4] 6:11,21
7:2,10
place [io] 3:17 4:23 43:9 57:7 65:8,9 77:13 86:11 135:23 159:13
placed [i] 25:17
places [i] 159:12 plaintiff [3] 3:2 4:2
143:19
plaintiff's[i] 143:6 plaintiffs [3] 2:5,22
142:6
46:23 47:25 52:16 53:1 outcome [l] 166:20
pathological [i] 79:8 periodic [6] 13:15,18 Plank [5] 111:4,11 130:9
53:14,16,19,24 57:18 58:8 outline [i] 57:22
pathologist [12] 46:22 25:14 27:16,18 102:8
130:10,11
60:8,19 61:1,5,6,11,12,16 'Outside[13] 8:24 19:13
62:7,20,21,25 66:25 67:1 19:15,20,25 20:6,10 29:13
67:19 68:14,14 69:20 72:4 39:10,10 43:21 70:18
73:14,23 79:12 81:13
160:8
82:18,21,24 83:2,2,3 86:11 87:1,13,14,25 88:13 92:8 94:22 95:15 97:14
outstanding [2] 106:14
5:13
101:3 105:8 107:11
overcome [l] 42:16
48:23 50:15 56:10 57:16 peijuryni I65.n
62:16 113:6,19,21 116:7 permissible [i] 37:25
117:9 147:5
person [4] 30:4,18 53:16
pathologists [l] 73:22 143:13
pathology [l] 66:24
person's [4] 61:6 73:14
Paul [22] 30:20 34:13 98:1 73:15,20
98:5 99:17,19,23 100:3,3 personal [7] 28:21 59:19
planning [2] 56:20,20
plant[6] 31:13,14 32:7 94:13,19,24
plants [6] 17:2,3,7 33:23 34:5 37:23
plasticizer [3] 22:18,23 23:1
110:12,22 111:4,4 112:1 113:11 114:4,11,24 115:1 115:3,4,11 119:1,23 120:21 123:3 125:4,13,16 126:12 127:11,18,22,25 128:1 129:2 130:6 131:1 132:4,11 134:17 135:17 135:18,25 136:2 139:18 139:19 140:1 141:8,22 143:1,19 144:5 145:4 146:19,25 148:9,10,14 150:12 158:23 163:25
ones [li] 23:1 33:25 39:15 52:16 68:1 116:17
oversee [i] 8:23
100:6,8,15 101:25 109:21 128:10 141:13 143:7,9
overview [i] 5:22
111:11,14,17,19 127:11
158:4
own [3] 2:4 43:20 68:17 owner [i] 56:14
128:5 129:15 150:9
pay [2] 76:4 125:8 paying [1] 150:3
personally [4] 60:16 64:3 137:3 147:22
personnel [2] 25:22
-P-
PCB [12] 17:20 26:5,11 101:4
54:24 94:20 137:4 139:17 persons [i] 23:16
P [4] 3:1,1,3,12 P-0-U-R[i] 113:4
142:9 144:1,5,7 153:1
pesticides [5] 9:4 38:25
PCBS[63] 14:7,817:19 39:3 151:5 152:5
package [2] 104:21 139:2
page [26] 1:1 45:9 49:19 57:18 66:4 67:14 69:25 71:3,4 75:14,14 85:12,13
17:22 18:8 26:4,8,10,14 26:19,21,23 28:15,22 29:7
petition [i]
151:17
48:21 49:2 64:8 90:24
Ph.D[i] 130:2
91:15 103:17 108:11
Ph.D.S [2] 35:4,4
109:9,24 118:2,22 119:16
plasticizers [4] 22:12 22:14 23:7 130:23
playnj 132:25
played [2] 106:14 108:9 point [12] 5:10 13:13 16:9
25:4,7 29:6 81:17,20,20 98:1 133:9 159:25 pointed [i] 89:11
poison [i] 153:17 Polaroidsm 143:22,22
Polybromatedm 147:7
polychlorinated [3]
Index Page 10
STLCOPCB4027853
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)
Multi-Page TM
polyphenol - reexamination Witness: George Levinskas'
133:18,22 147:7
president [i] 56:14
polyphenol [ij 133:24 pressures [i] 30:3
progression pj 135:16 projectsp] 7:1 99:3,8
reared [i] 122:13
-o- reason^] 5:14 27:4 29:1
polyphenols [i] 131:3 presumably p] 95:12 prolonged [i ] 135:2
Quail [1] 48:13
pooru] 123:8
140:22
prominent [ij 108:9
quartern] 34:19
popped [I] 93:11 population [I] 96:17
presume P] 25:17 36:19 108:23
promise [i] 77:4 prompted [2] 46:14 95:4
queries [3] 43:21 139:9 147:17
porphyria pi 49:16,22 pretty [1] 88:6
promptly [i] 106:6
questionednj 71:14
porphyrins [i] 49:24 prevent [i] 134:18
promulgation [i]
QUESTIONERS [ij
portfolio [i] 25:12
preventing [i] 106:15
108:10
1:1
portion [i] 130:14
portions [i] 125:12
position [ii] 6:16 14:9 15:19 23:13,22 34:6 56:8
previous [5] 45:19 50:24 properly [i] 88:17
79:20 80:9 125:15
properties p] 18:18
previously p] 25:9
20:23 21:16
32:25 53:7 100:13 107:25 130:15
property [i] 143:7
questions [i6] 1:24:15 4:24 76:9 105:2 141:25 142:3 146:1 150:22 158:24 161:18,24 163:23 163:24 164:2,4
98:11 141:16 143:2 154:25
prices pi 150:2
proposed [3] 109:8,18 152:6
quickly [i] 140:24
positive [2] 68:15 143:20 possibilities [2] 99:16
primarily [i] 95:15 primary pj 7:4
104:18
Princeton [ij 7:16
prospects [l] 19:4 Protection [i] 154:11 proven] 62:3
quite [3] 51:8 66:18 156:13
quote [2] 41:12 147:12
possibility [i] 20:25 print [i] 68:11
provide [3] 38:4,25 39:16
possible [3] 41:14 45:25 priority p] 151:20 153:9 provided [5] 60:15 154:4
-R-
55:1
private [i] 6:7
154:17 157:16 158:2
R[i] 3:1
73:23 111:24 126:3 143:21 149:19
reasoning [i] 60:14
reasons [4] 44:6 47:25 101:4,4
recalled [2] 161:24 162:2
receive [6] 78:12 108:14 108:17,19,21 124:20
received [6] 6:8 56:6 57:20 78:14 89:1 106:22
receiving [5] 69:14 94:3 94:5 96:13 116:1
recently [3] 38:9 94:8 146:5
Irecess [4] 44:20 77:23 93:18 130:19
recharacterization [i] 109:4
[recognize [3] 75:1 1 118:13 140:9
posted [l] 154:1
potency [i] 123:5 potential [4] 16:19,22
18:20 151:24
potentiality [i] 132:19
Pour [13] 113:4,5,6,20,23 114:3,18 116:10,13,22,24 117:7,15
Pour's [1] 113:25
problemp] 41:7 88:15 provides [i] 19:16
R.D [i] 141:12
105:17
providing [3] 44:8,16 raised [3] 16:25 78:20
problems p] 131:4
164:5
147:17
132:4
provision [i] 19:17
raises [i] 42:10
procedurep] 16:18 37:9 152:7
procedures p] 16:15 42:17,19
prudent [ij 64:9
public [16] 2:19 4:4 6:10 43:14,16,23 70:8,17 138:1 138:9,12,21 139:15
raising [2] 90:12 150:22
range [i] 86:23
rat [19] 47:1 67:1 114:9 116:9,12 119:19,20,24
proceed [2] 17:14 75:22 165:18 166:6,23
120:7 121:17 122:18,21
recognized [4] 26:24 126:23 149:13 159:20
recollection [33] 28:9 36:5 45:23 51:25 64:16 67:18,22 68:12 77:6 80:13 81:15 82:4,16,19 85:10 89:24 90:7 94:10 95:1 96:6,12 107:10 114:22 125:10 129:9 137:9 139:24 155:5,6 156:23
PR [5] 138:6,15,17 139:7 proceeded pj 149:12 publication [i] 68:24
139:20
proceedings [ij 156:20 publications pj 27: ll
practical [4] 17:22 23:15 proclaiming [ij 106:15 27:12 138:6
122:22,23,24 156:25 157:7,8,11
rate [3] 96:15,22 123:8
158:3 160:13 161:9
recommend [4] 39:10 39:23 102:16 108:17
30:9 121:9 practice [3] 79:2 92:22
93:3
practices [2] 92:17 93:5
precautions p] 18:25 42:8
precipitous [ij 106:7 precipitously [2] 104:7
106:1
predated [i] 141:10 predominantly pj
10:24 12:9 153:16 preferable pj 156:11
preliminary p] 58:2 157:3
produce [J] 127:25 133:20,25 134:9 136:2
produced [4] 2:124:10 52:25 155:25
producing [i] 133:14
product pi] 10:2 14:12 15:4 16:11,12 17:14,15 18:5,14,15,16 19:3,21 20:19,22 21:1,11,16,19 26:3 40:25 41:8,15,22,23 42:1 44:11 104:2 106:8 139:4 162:22
production [i] 122:25
products [55] 8:19 9:2,6 10:8,19 16:16,21,23,23 16:25 17:2,5,5,9,16,17,20
publicity [4] 90:13,20 rather [5] 33:21 49:7
90:22 91:1
70:19 72:7 153:12
publicly [ij 106:15
publish [i] 68:9
published [ii] 27:10 38:5 41:4 64:10 68:12,17 109:16 125:23 126:19 164:10,12
rats [33] 28:24 46:1,12 50:1 58:17,20 59:15,20 60:2,18 61:3,15,19 66:23 66:25 70:3 82:12 95:8 103:2 119:18 120:17 124:8,11,14 127:19 128:1 140:7,16,18,21 148:12
pull [3] 16:14 39:20 139:1 152:23 155:5
recommendation [i7j 1:13,13 21:19 41:9 42:2 43:4,5 75:19 101:20 102:7 103:22,25 107:14,16,17 108:22 109:22
recommendations [i4] 16:21 18:24 21:3,17 39:13 75:23 76:25 77:8,19 99:25 103:20 104:16 109:11 113:18
pulled [l] 138:24
Raym 31:8
recommended [5] 19:2
purchased pj 157:17 158:3
pure [4] 133:20,23 134:2 144:6
purports [2] 63:6,16
reach [i] 136:8
97:11 108:13,19,25
reached [3] 9:16,19 41:25 recommending [i]
reactors [i] 137:12
108:3
read [is] 18:2,3 26:1
recommends [i] 102:10
55:20 71:17 72:1 82:22 reconstruct [ij 151:13
premise pj 62:1
17:23 18:23 22:5,7,23
purpose [9] 42:10 57:5 91:13 110:9 125:11 126:8 record [2S] 40:21 44:18
prepare pj 23:22,25 prepared [ij 69:22 prescription [i] 141:23
23:1,3,5 24:7,11,13,14,15 24:19,23,25 26:5 38:18 38:21,22,24 40:2,3,9,17 100:16 137:5,17,18
present [ii] 3:19 10:17 138:20 139:17 140:6
10:22 29:3 52:4,6,8
152:1,2 160:1,2,3 163:15
104:20 147:14 154:24 155:2
professional pj 2:18 4:5 99:25 166:6
presentation pj 109:15 professor pj 6:17,20
155:8
profile [i] 13:7
presented pi] 11:2,11 14:21,25 63:10 67:4 131:3 139:2 147:25 155:3,4
program p] 104:3
20:14 98:20
presenting [i] 68:15
programs [i] 34:24
presents]!] 140:17
progress [2] 21:10 27:3
70:1,22,24 78:16 100:9 145:11 153:24
156:12 163:4 164:13 165:4
purposes [7] 14:18 17:22 reading [7] 71:20 72:2
23:15 30:9 121:9 138:9 104:3 105:13 106:17
138:21
160:16,18
pursued [i] 100:1
realistic [ij 109:20
purview [7] 17:24 18:4 reality [2] 100:9 152:2
39:23 40:4 42:24 158:14 really [23] 14:24 22:19
160:4
26:9 32:11 34:6 37:14
put [IS] 16:17 32:13 37:10 38:13 52:2 90:21 95:1 ^
54:22 60:13 94:10 107:12 102:7 112:14 118:18
109:11,14 117:10 118:8 122:10 123:4 128:13
118:18 137:2 139:4,5
136:21,22 139:8,23 155:7
putting [i] 18:11
160:3,17
44:21 45:4 50:21,22 55:13 61:21 63:4 65:21 77:21 78:5 83:1791:17,18,19 93:19 101:23 107:20 112:15,19,20 115:20 i 124:4 145:23
[records [6] 55:6 86:9 94:15 141:7 151:12 _ 160:14
reduced [ij 166:13
reevaluated [ij 140:16
reevaluation [2] 81:5 89:17
reexamination [i] 80:4
Index Page 11
STLCOPCB4027854
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind. Cause No.: L-95-CV02848QBS)
Multi-Page TM
refer - sentence Witne:ss: George Levinskas
refertS] 14:23 48:7 54:19 relationships p] 70:13 reproduction [6] 1:16 review[i8] 16:20 24:5 scattered pj 58:11 108:8
55:21 153:2
reference po] 49:16 56:12,16 57:11 68:7 71:2 75:15 84:17 85:7 89:4,12 96:24 97:11 109:23 116:8 119:16 148:5 150:6,8 152:23
references [l] 153:2
referred [ii] 14:6 45:17 56:18 63:25 65:7 89:19
146:3 relative [i] 166:17 relatively pj 15:15 39:4
119:4 relevance [i] 41:20 relevant p] 41:22 42:1 relied[2] 139:11 147:21 rely [1] 24:21 remain [i] 8:8
119:19 122:18 124:10 128:9,13
request [10] 11:8 84:24 85:3,14 89:8 91:2 142:25 151:16 153:3 156:5
requested [6] 44:9 53:2 85:2 91:10 152:11 155:10
requesting [i] 14:22
required [6] 19:8 21:6 38:24 43:1 134:8 138:10
42:8 70:1 73:2,23 76:23 schedule [3] 21:7 76:14
82:7 102:9 113:25 114:16 121:24
140:13 144:15 147:1,3,8 147:10,21
scheduled pj 27:17 114:14
reviewed [6] 24:2 72:18 72:24 144:22 146:5,20
scheme [i] 73:6
reviewing 3] 38:5 114:7 schemes [i] 34:16
114:8
school [2] 6:10 30:12
reviews [2] 22:25 125:19 Science [i] 70:11
revised [4] 91:23 92:10 scientific p] 110:17,17
96:21 125:14 129:5 130:10 157:21
referring p] 61:22 67:15 69:16 80:22 117:20 132:7 134:21 157:24,25
remains [i] 68:25
remember p7] 12:20 22:16,21 23:4 28:12 48:12 69:11,14 78:15 81:12 90:2 90:8 91:4,8 94:3,6,11 96:2
requirement [ij 42:21
requirements [i] 40:13 research [S] 6:18,19,25
7:21 22:5
refers [8] 50:10 51:12
96:14 99:10 107:3 116:1 researcher [i] 7:5
84:14 89:10 101:24 113:4 118:20 128:18 139:16
researchers p] 43:13
121:16,23
144:7 155:16
53:15 113:12
92:14,15
Richard [l] 54:16 Richterp] 63:21 65:12
67:15,20 73:10 74:10 117:17
right [20] 2:4 30:24,25 44:17 52:23 57:12 71:6 75:12 88:12 104:8,12
164:10
Scott [l] 144:24
Scott's [l] 143:25
second [i6] 44:19 45:9
47:21 66:4 80:20,21 81:21 81:25 82:1 84:13 85:20 86:6 119:14 123:16 151:21 156:1
refined [i] 159:17
remembered [i] 160:17 reserved [i] 4:7
105:16,18 116:7 140:25 secretion [i] 49:23
reflect [1] 92:9 reflected [i] 81:5
removal [i] 135:7 removed [i] 30:8
resolution [i] 105:2 resolve [3] 57:2 76:9
141:20 148:24 154:7 160:1 162:22
section [11] 33:20,24
36:1 56:11 58:5,15 59:5
refresh [3] 107:10 128:15 removing [i] 135:13
113:15
ring[i] 90:1
78:23 127:14 130:18,24
144:18
Renatep] 147:3,4
resolved [i] 48:11
risk [2] 147:20 153:11 sections [10] 47:2 79:9
refute [2] 67:7,13
regard [6] 79:14 117:15 128:19 129:7 145:20 155:11
regarding [5] 64:11 85:9 96:3 162:1,12
regardsp] 138:19 162:5
Register^] 109:17
Registered p] 2:18 4:5 166:5
registration [i] 151:5
render [i] 165:7
repeat [3] 5:5 67:10,10
repeated [i] 121:3
repetition [i] 38:16
rephrase [4] 59:14 121:5 139:4 162:9
replacement p] 55:1 100:8 111:7
reportpo] 1:11,15,17 11:3 19:22 20:18 21:20 26:2 28:1 41:12 69:20
resolving [ij 115:12
resources p] 24:20 40:21
respect [5] 21:19 48:18 49:13 91:15 102:6
respective [i] 85:18
respiratory [5] 96:16,21 134:15 136:3,13
respond [i] 43:21
responded p] 44:13,14 158:23
Rochester [2] 6:2,2
role [6] 28:14 30:6 98:16 106:14 108:9 158:15
80:3 89:18 114:9,16 115:7 115:8 140:14,14
sector [i] 6:7
room [2] 137:8,23
see [32] 31:20 32:13 37:23
Roost [i] 48:13
38:2 40:13,23,24 43:23 49:21 52:22 54:6 62:21
roughly [2] 107:1 149:16 69:21 72:3,10,12 79:4
Roush [8] 31:17,18 32:9 81:3 82:13 86:7 94:16
32:17 51:3 76:19 93:22 95:9 125:2 132:23 134:19
96:19
141:8,18 148:17 158:7
routine [i] 119:5
160:14,19 161:10
rulepj 133:2
seeing [15] 60:17 69:11
registrations [i] 39:2 regression [i] 135:16 regular [4] 11:6 13:18
51:14 144:11
regularity p] 27:18 34:22
regularly [2] 51:21 67:1
70:1 73:9 77:15,25 78:5,7 78:9 79:10,20 80:5,6,7,10 81:13 83:1 84:25 85:20 86:19 87:1 89:17 91:4,20 92:10,14,19,21,24 103:9
104:1 113:25 117:21 125:12 127:23 128:5,12 128:14 129:10 140:2
response [3] 43:22 89:8 109:16 .
responsibilities pj
rumor [i] 45:25 rush [2] 45:3 105:18
10:9,12 15:10 16:13 29:19 responsibility pj 10:14
-S-
15:16 25:8 30:19 38:1
S [i] 3:1
39:19 150:4 163:20
sacrificed [i] 140:19
91:4 94:6 96:2 101:16 157:15 158:12,19 161:25 162:2,10,13,18,22
seek[i] 26:12 seeking [l] 44:8 seemp] 54:2
selectp] 64:3,12,15
regulation [i] 109:2
regulations [5] 39:4 108:10 109:8,18,20
146:21
responsible p] 22:5
reportedp] 11:19 23:10 39:14
23:16 48:20 58:16 71:7 rest [2] 52:21 152:8
safe [6] 20:24 38:7,8 130:18,24 138:19
safety [U] 14:13 15:4
selected [3] 65:1,3 67:24
self-explanatory [ij
54:3
regulatory [10] 10:18,18 10:21 11:7,9 38:24 44:8 151:22 153:6,7
73:4 96:1 132:1
reportedly [l] 55:15 reporter [7] 2:18 4:5 5:16
result [9] 42:12 59:12,16 75:20 104:20 110:21 135:6,16 152:9
16:12,16,22 17:8 18:5,14 20:19 38:11 139:6
salary [S] 107:2,3,5,7
selling [i] 38:23
seminar p] 154:10,14 154:18
rehashed [l] 142:22
18:2 44:23 166:1,6
resulted [2] 90:14 137:4 144:11
send [3] 52:19 63:16
rehiring [i] 99:10
rejoining [i] 99:18
relate [i] 17:8
related [12] 14:7 22:10 23:4 26:23 38:22,22 48:21 49:2 118:21 142:9 161:2 166:15
relates [3] 26:4 107:21
reporting [6] 12:25 23:19 results [8] 10:15 67:7,12
30:1 51:10 104:8 110:2
78:21 87:20 108:7 113:13
reports [36] 10:16,22 11:5 155:3
21:12 69:11 80:14,16,18 retained [1] 75:22
80:22 81:4,15,18,22,24 retire [i] 28:5
82:4,18,20 86:6 88:6,9 89:16 110:20 116:19 124:16,22 125:10 129:21
130:1 142:25 156:1 157:7
retired [12] 5:21 13:13 13:25 15:22,25 28:10,11 28:12 31:16 33:16 119:10 144:14
sales [i] 163:8
sample p] 55:5 79:4
samples [2] 19:2 137:21 sampling [i] 21:6
Santicizerp] 23:5,6,8
saw [ii] 12:7 27:4 46:25 68:1 71:21 112:9 116:14 125:14 127:1 156:1
112:3
sending [i] 91:23
senior p] 15:25 16:8 29:22
sense [9] 12:4 66:11 80:20 86:22 87:18 88:11 102:9 153:19 160:20
sensory p] 136:2,14,25
130:22
relating P] 26:13 28:15 81:6,13 83:6 96:8 130:24
relations [S] 138:1,9,12 138:21 139:15
relationship p] 147:23 149:2
157:8,11,12 159:11,12
represent [i] 142:6 representative [ij
163:6
representing [ij 4:19
reprints [6] 63:18,19 64:3,5,12,16
retirement pj 13:16 16:9
retitled [l] 15:23 retried [i] 111:9 retrieve [i] 151:12 returning [i] 116:21 reversible [i] 135:7
157:18
sent [16] 21:20 47:3,13
says [22] 46:19 49:5 58:2 56:4 63:13,19 64:18 71:13
58:5 59:5,21 66:15 67:16 76:22 116:19,20 150:24
72:23 85:19 86:6 89:17
151:15 153:23 157:23
101:24.103:25 105:9 ^ 158:13
106:13 107:9 116:11,25 sentence [10] 49:19 64:7
117:8 124:24 159:14
66:14,19 67:5 68:23 71:10
scale [i] 6:25
82:10,14,17
____________________
j
Index Page 12
STLCOPCB4027855
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-Page TM
sentinel - summing
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)
Witness: George Levinskas"
sentinel [i] 134:16
signators 128:5
sorts [i] 79:5
startings 40:16
66:11,12 67:9,21,25 68:5
separate [5] 22:9 60:10 80:25 159:20 162:14
separated [ij 111:7
Septembers 129:17
signatories [ij 127:12
signatures 4:6 63:12 69:23 102:13 107:22 128:4
sounds [i] 116:23 sources 41:6 135:8
138:4
Speaks 24:9 37:5 93:5
starts [2] 45:14 71:10 States 2:19 89:6 115:13
157:2 165:1 166:2,7,23
statement [13] 36:21
68:9,18,19 70:3 71:6,23 72:5 74:3,6,7,12,16 75:17 78:17,24 79:9,11,18 80:3 85:17,18 88:7,17 91:21 94:17 103:12 106:6
sequence [ij 80:20
signatures [ij 129:14
148:22
|series[i] 4:24
signed [S] 54:14 108:3
serious [4] 126:7 134:19 129:20 130:1,9
147:17,19
significances 47:19
[serve [4] 16:3 43:7 106:7 49:25 58:19 60:17 64:20
138:4
significants 59:4
served [4] 15:3 32:7 36:9 60:25 108:6 147:14
37:19
similar[io] 18:23 79:13
serves m 97:4
81:23 85:23 107:20 127:21 143:4,5 150:15
service [4] 19:16,18 70:8 152:3
70:17
similarity [i] 18:22
set [14] 27:9 38:1 52:20 57:5 86:6 88:6 132:15
simply s 105:15
138:8 145:9 149:20
simultaneously [2]
153:14,16,21 156:1
68:13,13
sets [4] 80:14 81:18 87:12 singles 121:1
88:1 singular [i] 106:14
seven [6] 58:17,20 71:5 85:19 86:7,8
sevens [ij 87:6
sites 31:9 32:25
situations 103:21 146:4
several [13] 6:14 7:3,5
23:7 24:17 29:5 33:22
six [5] 2:14 49:6,7 85:18 140:19
speaking [l] 161:20
specialized [i] 97:8
specific [18] 16:5 18:16 22:22 23:24 36:20 52:2 96:5 99:8 107:13,15 125:11 143:11 144:19 155:22,23 156:8,13 157:9
specifically [is] 26:20 89:23 91:2,7,16 92:4 94:5 97:21 99:4 116:3 117:4 117:15 128:16 129:11 138:12 139:21 157:24,25
specifics S 101:18 110:9 117:20 154:19
specified [i] 132:5
specify [ij 108:20
speculate p] 5:1 129:23 133:5
speed [l] 24:2
spends 34:5 86:12
spending [i] 32:24
48:14 52:10 73:19 76:8 110:15 130:9
[severe [i] 68:2
sizes 9:11,20
spent [ij 151:11
slides [32] 47:14,22 48:18 sperms 123:5,10
56:22 57:1 70:2 71:16,24 Spirits [5] 2:8,24 162:25
shall [ij 77:2
72:4,8,18,23 73:2,17,23 163:6,9
37:12,13,16 61:11 70:14 71:25 72:6,23 89:5 138:11 138:16 147:11
statements [5] 71:18,19
71:19 118:24 138:13
States [sj 2:1,20 69:25
119:3 131:2
stationed s 70:17 statistical [i] 60:24 statistically [i] 60:25 status [5] 16:20 28:1
53:18 54:8 96:3
Stays 41:3 135:11 Stayed [1] 132:16 Staying [i] 26:13
steps s 76:25 113:15 stewardship [i] 104:2
sticks [i] 143:24 Stills 16:1 49:11 101:1
119:12 120:20 131:12 146:6
STIPULATED [i] 4.1
Stood [l] 141:15 Stops 76:16 135:16 Stoppings 135:15
109:19 113:23 114:5,16 114:17,24 115:16 119:18 119:18,21 120:12,17,18 120:19 121:5,7,9,13,14 121:19,22,24 122:10,24 123:2,3,6,11 124:5,10,13 124:16 125:4,6 126:13 127:10,12,19 128:9 129:8 132:9 140:20,23 148:9,9 153:12 161:7 164:9,12
studying [ij 10:20
styles 118:12
subjects 64:8,11 121:15 145:24 148:19 151:22
submit [l] 104:13
submitted [12] 11:5 109:15 110:8 150:11,15 150:23 151:3,4,19 152:15 152:25 153:5
submitting s 110:11 110:13,20 150:19
subscribe [1] 165:10
subsequent [s] 56:16 56:18 57:9 95:6 105:11
subsequently [5] 70:9 72:24 92:10 152:7 164:10
share [i] 51:24
74:2,12,15 80:24 81:1,5 spoken s 45:15 46:8 Strains 59:15,20,23,24 subset [l] 122:18
shared [i] 96:25 sharp [i] 136:23 [ sheet [l] 139:6
shepherded [i] 25:21 Sherman [3] 59:15,23,24
113:21,22 114:1,19 115:6 116:14,15,17,22,25 117:5
slightly[ii] 84:15,21 85:19,22,25 89:7 90:14 91:24 155:12,18 157:5
sloppy [l] 88:6
sponsored s 126:2,11
spontaneous s 66:15 66:18,22
spontaneously s 58:13 59:11,16 60:2
66:23
strains [1] 66:25 Strauss s 47:6,16 Streets 3:12 strictly [i] 161:7
substance [3] 109:2 154:18 165:6
substantives 15:12 substantively [ij 15:2 succeeded [i] 94:23
shifts [i] 70:10
slows 109:1
spotlighted m 27:1
Striking [i] 137:22
successive s 108:25
shoot [ij 78:8
small [2] 27:22 78:23
short [71 49:7,11 93:7 smells 137:17,20
120:22 121:1,22 136:11 smelled [3] 137:3,8,9
short-term pi 121:21 SMITH [1] 3:11
123:6
Snells 47:7,16
shortest[2] 121:4,6 [shorthands 86:14 87:8
sniffed s
137:18,21
so-called [i] 126:17
shortly [3] 7:22 100:6 162:23
solid [1] 137:20
[show[4] 130:17 140:1 someone [ij 45:23
142:15 144:17
sometimes 18:9
Spraul [i] 32:8
spread [i] 114:13
Squires 63:22 65:16 72:17,24 73:1,4,7 74:18 117:18
Squires [33 57:13,15,16
SS El] 166:3 St S 2:16 30:11 31:9
76:16,18 96:18 111:24 112:10 166:4 Staffs 34:25 35:1,5,12
Stripped s 111:14,20 122:11
strongs 9:4
such [22] 14:13,21 23:8
Structure [l] 30:21
37:15 38:25 40:21 43:10
structures [1] 58:9 studies [105] 8:20,23 9:7
44:2 67:2 96:3,21 111:16 136:15 151:17 155:20 157:18 158:18 162:14,16
10:7,17 11:2 12:5 24:6
163:17 165:5,9
25:15,17,19 27:3,6 39:8 39:10,18 53:18,24 56:22
suddenly [2] 24:25 26:1
57:2,4 63:17,17,18 66:21 sufficients 94:16
68:3,14 72:19 76:10 78:24 153:9
79:7,14 80:15 83:6,11
suggested [3j 41:6
86:19 90:9 99:5 110:16
105:23 132:9
showed [4] 24:1 72:5
111:25 128:25,25
Stage [i] 116:22
110:16,17 113:14,14,22 suggestion [1] 103:24
87:21 115:7
showing [3] 50:23 63:4 140:5
shown [6] 66:1 69:5 74:24 107:23 117:24 143:22
Shubik[3) 113:8,9,15 sides 80:17,17 [sidetracked [i] 100:12
Sidney [i] 53:12
Siegels 53:13,13 54:6 signs 129:20,25 134:16
164:13
somewhat [8] 15:8 18:22 Stamfords 7:15
70:20 103:16 120:21 125:8 136:23 150:14
somewhere s 9:21 15:17 28:8 29:1 36:5 55:7 76:16 114:25 120:12
soons 15:13,15
sorry [7] 7:25 8:19 14:12 16:12 53:3 112:5 148:20
sort [17] 12:6 13:19 18:16
21:18 24:20,22 41:17 45:25 67:9 73:24 77:9 101:15 119:1 122:18 137:1 146:9,25
stand pi 50:14
standards 93:3 135:18 136:9 138:8
standards s 37:25 132:12
standpoint [ij 151:24
Starts 17:18 125:4 164:14
Started[i3] 6:18 9:17 14:10 17:24 24:23 30:2 30:15,17 32:23 40:5 120:14 150:21 151:6
114:8,9 117:15 119:15,17
119:19,22,24,24,25 120:1
120:2,5,7,8,16 121:25
122:1,1,17,19,20,21,22
124:25 125:16,19,22,23
126:1,10,11,25 127:3,7
128:13,20 132:1 140:15
140:18 147:9 148:12
149:17 150:21,24 151:2,4
151:8,14,25 152:5,9,22
155:4,7,11 156:24,25
160:5,9 164:6
^
Study(97j 1:15,16,16,17
11:9 19:20 41:5,13 46:7
51:20 54:4,7,9 56:3 61:6
suggestions [4] 42:25 103:20 104:11,25
suggests [1] 46:11
suing [i] 143:25
Suites 3:4,12
summaries [2] 74:5 138:24
summarize [i] 141:14"
summarized s 95:21 129:3
summarizes [l] 94:25 summary s 46:6 71:2
71:7,11,18 119:14 129:6
Index Page LX
STLCOPCB4027856
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-Page TM
supervising - up
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)
Witness: George Levinskas
supervising [i] 10:6 [termpj 14:19 113:12
149:24
training [i] 146:17
two-day [i] 142:18
supervision p] 100:23 101:1,8
121:22 155:19,21 156:3 [throughout p] 8:9 17:15 transcribed [i] 4:6
156:13
throwing [i] 105:3
[transcript pj 143:16
two-page [3] 65:21 74:24 84:8
supervisor [4j 11:17,18 29:14,15
| supplemental [i] 87:1
supplied p] 138:9,18
supply [i] 52:21
support P] 38:4 39:17 151:4
supportive p] 95:10 153:19
supposed [i] 114:14
terminated m 121:22 I terminology pj 79:20 1 80:10 85:25 91:24 156:8
terms P] 59:3 92:17 109:7 110:3,24 120:21 146:7
teiphenylsp] 133:12 133:18
test [8] 10:15 25:25 42:9 71:11 86:24 128:3 129:3 140:20
times [5] 118:25 138:3 142:8,11 145:10
timetablep] 21:10
timing[2] 21:7 80:20 [tissue [2] 62:18 79:2
tissues [4] 46:25 67:25 79:11 80:17
title p] 14:11,13 15:4 16:1 23:14 98:12 147:5
TLV p] 132:5,15
supposedly [i] 37:11 tested p] 9:6 10:5
TLVs [l] 135:24
surgeiyp] 111:6 141:22 testified p] 4;ll 142:12 today [20] 5:16,20 45:15
1 148:25
transcripts [i] 53:1 translate pj 61:17 transmit [i] 123:12
transposition p] 87:6 i 89:11 treated [2] 62:6,22
trial [4] 5:15,17 111:8 150:6
[Trionp] 125:24 126:4,9 126:12 131:21 132:9
trip [4] 69:10,20,25 73:9
two-year [17] 66:21 68:9
80:3 119:17,18 120:7,12 120:16,17 122:6,7,7 124:5 124:7 157:7,8,11
type [5] 19:20 46:25 58:6
118:11 155:23
types [4] 9:2 26:22 66:24
163:14
typewriting pj 4:6
166:13
typically pj 13:20
typo pj 88:14 89:19
surmise [i] 87:23 surprised pi 99:7
142:13 testifying [i] 5:17
45:17 59:8 66:2 68:25 69:12 78:10 84:8 93:25
triphenyl [i] 133:24 trouble [4] 34:3 35:7
-u-
surroundings [i] 38:2
survival p] 123:8 suspect [4] 52:10 92:18
104:23 106:16 swapped [1] 87:19 swelling [i] 58:9 sworn p] 2:12 4:10
166:11
testimony pi] 5:15 58:23 61:5,9 142:14,20 144:8,13 154:2 166:9,11
testing [34] 9:25 12:5 16:21 19:1,5,6,8,12 20:14 21:5,8,11 29:24 30:8 34:23 38:5 39:14,24 40:8 41:10,24,25 42:3,10,15 42:21,25 43:6 125:21
115:24 116:6 119:12 120:20 121:17 131:12 144:12 145:12 146:14
today's pj 144:15 145:11
together [14] 16:15,17 39:21 60:13 62:3 83:21 87:9,10 109:12,14 117:10 137:2 138:25 139:1
148:21 152:17
U.S[1] 10:25
true p] 165:7,12
ultimately [i3] 8:11 65:8
try [8] 16:24 67:9 76:9 86:14 105:2 117:10 148:22 153:25
72:22 97:15,17 104:11 106:10 108:21 109:25 111:12,22 114:18 151:1
trying [12] 16:14 40:14 86:1,24 137:2 143:1 146:8
uncomfortable [i] 136:5
348:16 151:12 156:7
under [24] 18:20 25:25
157:6 162:17
39:21 41:15 58:5,15,17
symposium [i] 155:1 synthesis [i] 108:8
-T-
146:3 149:4,17,24 154:4 tolerances p] 153:15,21 Tuesday [i] 145:13
tests pj 8:18 27:9 123:15 tolerate [i] 136:7 123:15,19 125:14 154:6 Tomorrow [i] 164:14
tumor [17] 46:1 58:5 59:7 59:9 62:17,18,21 66:22
Texas p] 142:18 145:18 too [3] 20:15 108:2 140:17 114:12,25 115:2,2,3,4
64:11 70:8 86:4 87:3 100:23,25 104:2 110:3 119:5,14 128:2 132:16 141:20 146:23 156:14 165:11 166:13
Tabershaw-Cooper
p] 97:1,5,6
tablets] 60:13,15 71:14 71:15 85:13
tables [l] 90:5
tabs pj 25:14 101:16
taking [6] 17:12 28:14 43:17 125:11 147:16 153:7
textp] 118:5
took [7] 15:10 95:7
theirs [l] 149:15
109:18 116:13,17 126:7
theory [i] 114:22
151:14
thereafter p] 4:5 7:22 top [8] 9:16 58:2 65:22
166:13
67:14 88:3 94:2 101:24
therefore [2] 64:18 100:1 118:17
| thereon pj 165:9
I topics [l] 64:23
thereto pj 166:19
total [i] 142:10
third [5] 34:19 85:13
touched [i] 131:1
155:20,21,23
tumorigenesis pj 64:7 64:14
tumorigenic [i6] 82:21 83:3 84:15,22 85:19,22 85:25 89:7 90:15 91:25 155:12,18,19 156:12,18 157:5
tumors [5] 46:19 59:10 59:15 103:2 153:13
understand [13] 5:4.13 17:8 20:3 38:15 53:9 61:12 70:22 72:16 80:2 91:14 96:11 162:17
understands [i] 79.25
understood [5] 5:7 25:6 96:8 132:3 134:10
undertake [l] 113:24
undertaken pj 27:3
talks p] 57:22 140:25
128:8 152:1 156:11
[toward [i] 32:22
Turet[36] 1:3 3:16 4:15 undertaking pj 17:14
taught [i] 6:13 Taylor [i] 2:15 teach p] 6:12 29:8
thoroughly [i] 105:10
thought [9] 21:4 49:9 54:4 64:9 74:13 103:18 114:12 115:4 151:22
towards p] 98:6 147:10 [toxicity pi] 1:15,16 8:18
8:23 38:18 41:7 43:8 118:1,21 119:15 122:1
4:18 36:13 44:18,21 49:20 81:8 82:5
50:23 52:16,25 53:6 59:1 undertakings p] 17:19
61:7,24 71:4,10 76:2
18:13
77:21,24 78:4 79:24 83:17 underway p] 25:20,25
teaching pj 6:9 30:6
thoughts [l] 75:21
technical [5] 109:7 130:22
100:1 139:12
108:6
threatening [i] 135:2 [three [24] 58:16,21 63:16
telephone p] 51:12 161:21
64:3,12,21 66:5 79:7 80:15 81:15,22,24 82:1
Telephonically iij
85:18,18 86:2,3,4,6,8
3:19 111:9 125:17 140:19
temperature [i] 137:23 145:3
temperatures pj 131:2 three-generation [4]
124:5,8 127:10,19 129:3 84:3 91:19 93:9,19 101:23 27:6
130:18,24 138:19 140:6 146:2
112:20 122:5 123:24 127:6 141:24 163:24
underwent [i] 111:6
toxicological p] 8:20 164:3,14
unfortunately [i] 32:10
9:25 10:7 30:19 53:18 Turet'sp] 158:23
unit [9] 18:24 21:21,22
63:17 126:14 131:4 138:5 tump] 11:19 103:15 toxicologist [12] 12:19 122:13
21:24 22:8 25:22 39:19 98:18,18
14:15 15:8 26:7 34:21
turned [2] 76:8 90:3
United p] 2:1,20
51:10 92:13 95:17 111:15 112:13 124:20 145:15
Twenty pj 37:1
units [16] 16:17 17:4 21:3
21:9 25:16,17 39:1,13,24
137:8 tempo [l] 25:3
119:19 122:9 124:10 128:9
toxicologists [13] 12:8
12:9 30:5,7 33:13 34:7,12
twice p] 64:25 99:21 156:10
43:4 52:12 101:14 139:3 139:11,13 150:3
tend [3] 43:21 133:2
three-step pj 151:14
34:22 35:1,8 38:3 104:6 two [41] 3:21 12:22 27:20 University [8] 5:25 6:2
137:19
three-year [i] 122:6
111:16
32:12 35:5 44:6 46:12,15 6:11,21 7:1,10 30:12
tended [l] 100:7
[threes [i] 87:6
tenure [3] 32:4 35:21
threshold [2] 126:18,21
125:20
[threw [i] 21:13
Teratogenic p] 1:17 throatp] 135:20 136:14
124:13 129:8
through [11] 20:22 30:21
teratology [5] 119:21,24 32:3 51:15 55:19 76:15
122:17,22,24
117:8 120:13 130:13,16
toxicology pi] 6:13 15:6,11,21,24,25 16:4,8 19:13 25:6,8 29:16,21,22 29:23 30:10 33:23 37:8 127:14 130:4 147:1
tract [3] 134:15 136:4,14
trade [l] 23:6
46:17 47:25 57:4 73:10
125:25
~
80:14,18,23,25 81:1,4,18 81:22,25 82:4,12 83:20
unlikelyp] 134:19
83:20 84:14 86:2 87:1,7,9" unrealistic pj 108:10
87:10,12,15 101:10
up [36] 7:9 18:7 24:1,2
107:11 108:24 119:20
25:3,8,24 38:6 56:10,17
127:24 135:25 146:18
57:5 63:24 76:13,19 82:12
150:12
86:10,20 87:21 89:22 90:3
Index Page 14
STLCOPCB4027857
Joan Maertin v Armstrong World Ind.
Multi-Page'
Cause No.: L-95-CV02848(JBS)
90:24 93:12 100:10,11 105:3 109:19 120:15 130:17 131:24 138:15 145:9 148:22 149:20 150:21 152:18 153:14
up-to-date [i] 26:2 |updates[i] 96:3
-w-
wait [i] 83:19 waiting pj 52:17 77:3 [warnings pj 163:14 Washington pi 30:11
98:13,17 99:3,5,7,19,23 100:16 112:12 137:10 156:19
workers [4] 17:9,11 94:12 95:11
World [5] 2:6,23 3:14 4:20 142:7
urine [X] 49:24
wasting [i] 143:22
worry [i] 152:3
Used [27] 14:18 22:1 38:7 water [i] 109:9
WOrsep] 115:14 135:15
59:20 66:21 73:6 75:5 WATKINS [i] 3:8
80:10 81:24 90:10 126:17 126:20 132:3 133:16
waxp] 137:21
137:11 138:15,20 144:3 wayspi 92:18
149:5,6,9,10,14 150:16 | week [4] 114:15 145:13
151:16 153:21 156:2
1 157:21,22
useful pi 113:20 160:21 weeks [i] 145:3
WRp] 54:14,14
Wright p9] 30:20 34:13 98:1,9,13,21 99:3,17,20 100:22 101:3,25 102:6,8 102:16,23 104:5,15 105:9 105:23 106:14,20 107:21 108:4,21,25 109:11,25
uses [17] 16:23 17:17
Weisburgerp] 50:11
110:1,2 111:11,14,17,22
18:19 22:2,3,6 23:2 24:13 50:13 75:5,5,12,22 76:4 111:23 112:2 127:11
24:14,16 38:8 40:3,17
76:12 78:19
128:5 150:9
42:17,18 160:2,3
Weisburger's [l] 75:19 Wright's [6] 99:10 101:8
using p] 66:25 110:11 jWeisebxirg[4j 50:9,10
150:18
1 50:14,14
103:21 104:11 108:7 129:15
usually [i] 135:15
welcome [l] 55:20
writep] 119:2 129:6
Utilized [2] 19:25 20:7 ! well-done [i] 132:2
writing [3] 10:15 138:11
-V-
[vague [1] 156:22 Valhalla [i] 75:8 valid [2] 42:12 151:19 validate w 151:13,25
152:22 154:4 validated [i] 154:6
[Wesleyan [i] 5:25 Westpj 76:15
Wbeeler[i9] 12:16,17
12:22 13:1 20:20 23:11 23:17 26:10,12 28:5 32:1 33:1 45:24 52:9 99:14 100:15 103:14 125:2 141:8
Wheeler's pj 23:13
138:16
written [is] 11:3,5 21:1 21:18,20 37:12,16 77:16 87:17 96:20 118:24 119:2 129:5 138:13 155:11
wrong [3] 86:11 88:3,4
wrote pj 66:13 75:12 84:10 113:1 118:15 138:24 147:3
validation [2] 152:5,6 100:25
lvalue [X] 132:15
[wherein [i] 2:22
-Y-
[values [2] 126:18,22
white [i] 116:8
year[8] 6:5 15:9 33:16
valve[i] lll:7
whole p] 37:3 55:20
48:12 116:21 121:10,12
[vapors [4] 134:14 135:18 widely [i] 108:8
157:13
136:16 137:3 [variety p] 9:5 49:4
widow [i] 143:25
years [25] 9:23 12:1,7,13 12:21 15:24 29:5,15 31:21
William [3] 54:16 96:25 31:25 32:8,11,15,18 34:23
various [13] 7:3 16:15
97:2
36:24 37:1,4 45:19 82:12
24:18 48:22 66:25 141:1 [willing p] 46:4 145:7
92:14 108:25 139:5
149:5,5,14 150:24,24 152:18 163:3 |veinp] 144:25
verify [i] 151:8
WILSON [l] 3:20
142:18 148:3
wirep] 110:13
yetpj 114:17
wires [i] 150:16
York [3] 6:2 75:8 76:13
[withdrawp] 40:6 73:12 young pj 32:11,19 35:22
versa [i] 87:22
! 78:15
younger [i] 30:7
version [9] 79:20,23 80:9 81:21 82:20,23,25 83:2
143:3
within [13] 2:19 10:16 11:14 24:20 28:3 37:24 39:23 42:24 58:9 99:22
versions [3] 80:18,23,25 101:4 158:14 165:6
yourself [5] 24:5,11 26:8 90:8 146:11
Yushop] 153:17
versus [4] 58:21 61:16 82:18 121:2
without [6] 18:11 55:6,8 115:9 133:23 161:1
-Z-
vice[i] 87:22
witness [12] 4:7 15:1
Zack [3] 35:22 97:18,21
Ivideotaped [4] 142:14 28:18 35:7 50:23 63:4
142:15,19 143:9
96:10 145:24 148:23
view[i] 68:25
164:16 166:9,11
viewed [i] 126:13
woman [2] 32:19 147:17
[virtually [i] 149:23
WOrdpj 14:18 22:22
virtue [i] 38:5
81:11,11 102:9 122:23,23
[visit pj 17:7 51:19
wording [i] 81:22
[words [6] 18:1266:16
volume p] 147:2 156:21 ! 72:1 104:21 105:1 122:11 'volunteer [i] 29:8
worked [is] 8:5 9:1 25:1
!VS p] 2:5,7
32:14 59:24 97:18,21
Ujj~iu~uatv
Witness: George Levinskas'
Index Page STLCOPCB4027858