Document rdLZ7vjM5nLJRpzR6q54aVZ7

FILE NAME: Exxon (EXX) DATE: 2004 Apr 23 DOC#: EXX053 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Legal - Deposition of Neill K. Weaver, M.D. with BC Notes, Volume 2 X jrs v tf / % / ^ /9 ' < 7 7 y zZ-y,-^, / ` -?S? 29 A W ' ^ - c ^ Y^ip <^- y " ^ ^ - f " ' ^ 71 ^ '<y ^ y uslero- Y Y ^ Y Y cshV) P & 4t-s?'Z,`^v ^ TM . , ^ . U/X W~-- a'"*'y? C~' ^ ^ -35 / W V >Yl~S~ ^ X sy y.-:? y y ?/7 y^ x V- > ' ^ - x / x / ,, ^ / / -w r, / J`" a-^ &? ^------------------------ x *^ ' 9 ^-- YY .?-,,YYYY y' y, ' * ' * z - '. yy- y^r y yo a ^ ;^AxsY>> ^ ^ 4 ' yK.st^v-'-s''- -~ -- - " - r . ^ o/ ^^y 4 xax ayfj>uVv//^sYy'/Y',^, SY Y Y/)jQ^-Pr.^ ( u~ ) '7/-3.77/ /C!_S;/a<i^ ^^ -*^U /o r^z& tr* .-***.*^* . ^ ^ > YY Y A &< 37? 37 i ' /9 Jx ,^Y *J * >/ /,*.*j&^.* *.'^~/ ?Y,*.//Y/YIv/sj CX X^ //' , *y ~ X . ^ rvy^ * 2yXK ^**XT ..t%/c'3,^L<^~**. --Ye J-- T J ^ . `" f-j Y ^AJ ',^ * b t* ^ ^ A . U'*''-^. %,. . '0 * 0 ^ <^,^ * !^ ^ sp /ru L ^ ^ . ^ . ^ .J-A. 3*0 X ?/^ X ^ l l i r ,. x / X s%d/ -yy ^b-pctsAT7AJciiz^ ^ ^ x L , X v GC>` kX ) Y z7t ^ 39^ ;-e <? p u > ~ ^ ' A ^ a . ^ .'7te^ J `^ ^ ^ T t u - y s l^ & r y s & ~ i*s' " j x 7 9 ? - ZJ & - \ t z , '-:> - ^ ^ ^ `r a ' ' ^ / < 9 9 ^ L/ ' ^ r CTs * fo s* -< U M /p y "t_ *'<^X ' ^ `r ^A 3 f p b fy r'/&2<?,7h/3 &1 .X ^ x ^ 1 - <*^' ^ / ^ y n'y-z-CsAj ty y x y^ A / x z l^ i */ ^ **&+** '*' ^ y -r ^ (* 5 $ & /c.A> u f itiy0*S- 'Stt -Y^- A 7 /3 / y ^ /3 4 ^ ^ 3^ c- >A^ r - d t p X ^ <- `>t- u ,s -y > 7 / ; / A / / X 7 ' %A O ^ Y / t ^ y . .. v , . '<<^- iMffji s-totf Y ^j ^YY V 7?7'.^,P ^ / ^ ? Z ^ Y -y^ Y J- ,: , w^ y -ff, 3Y 'Y - y ^ yn^H 7 *'"*> y & *. c ^ y ^ z gss&f^ lc,oYYy y*zY yyo'Y'^YYy ^ .^c & - Y - xcX YeYcj: '~lr^yYY<:--& 'Y * ^ Y iY*~^ y y Y Y '^ y y Y ^ ^ c p Y u-i ;//^^7 . X^X^y^A^V- /c^"` Y^^ocY' yY '1?'^ 4; _ X .,; f /yy&YYYrk? A <?yC^>4YY*'Or'*~^r - V vi' S...*A yW X i. .Y/ Yxr //YYay.Ysn/j? f.:'Xu' ^^,/Y'z/*& ./i',' /9'A<?'/V,,, Y Y u Y / a >.' A` ~ <z Aj?" ^'Yj "C Y-/ Y Y. z# ^^ .,y..Y.c:>J4L*.:s.^^.uAY-'/'Y,.'.k---., ,j-YYA^ / - 9 i^ s NEILL WEAVER 1 C .A . No. 08-CV-0588 Page 270 3 LOUISE ALTIMORE : 4 Plaintiff, :IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF 5 v. :GALVESTON COUNTY, TEXAS 6 QUIGLEY COMPANY, INC., : 405TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 7 et a l ., : 8 Defendants. : ^ Q -k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k 11 ORAL and VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF 12 NEILL K. WEAVER, M.D. 13 FRIDAY, APRIL 23, 2004 14 VOLUME 2 ^ ^ k-k-k'k-k'k-k'k'k'k'k-k'k'k'k'k-k'k'k'k'k-k'k-k'k-k'k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k'k-k'k-k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k'k-k 16 DEPOSITION OF NEILL K. WEAVER, M.D., produced 17 as an expert witness at the instance of the Defendant 18 EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION and duly sworn, was taken in 19 the above-styled and numbered cause on the 23rd day of 20 April 2004, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:40 p.m. before SHEILA 21 M. LYONS, RDR, CRR and Notary Public in and for the 22 District of Columbia, reported by machine shorthand, 23 at Steptoe & Johnson, 1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., 24 Washington, D.C., pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil 25 Procedure. Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 NEILL WEAVER Page 271 Page 273 1 APPEARANCES: 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 On behalf of the Plaintiff: 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This begins videotape 3 TROY D. CHANDLER, ESQUIRE 3 number 1 in the deposition of Dr. Neill K. Weaver, : 4 Heard, Robins, Cloud, Lubel 8i Greenwood 4 M.D., in the matter of Louise Altimore versus Quigley 5 One Allen Center 5 Company, Incorporated et al., in the District Court of 6 500 Dallas, Suite 3100 6 Galveston County, Texas, 405th Judicial District, ; 7 Houston, Texas 17002 7 civil action number 03-CV-0588. Today's date is : 8 (713) 650-1200 8 April 23, 2004. The time on the video monitor is j 9 9 10:01 a.m. the video operator is Joey Thrower, i 10 On behalf of Exxon Mobil Corporation: 10 employed by Olender Reporting in Washington, D.C. The ; 11 GLENNA M. KYLE, ESQUIRE 11 court reporter is Sheila Lyons, also from Olender 12 Exxon Mobil Counsel 12 Reporting. This video deposition is taking place at | 13 800 Bell Street 13 1330 Connecticut Avenue, Northwest, Washington, D.C. j 14 Corp-emb 1686M 14 Will counsel please identify yourselves and state the j 15 Houston, Texas 17002 15 parties you represent. 16 (713) 656-6522 16 MR. CHANDLER: Troy Chandler on behalf of 17 and 17 Mrs. Altimore. 18 CRAIG LEDET, ESQUIRE (by phone) 18 MS. KYLE: Glenna Kyle on behalf of Exxon 19 King & Spalding 19 Mobil. 20 1100 Louisiana, Suite 4000 20 MR. LEDET: Craig Ledet attending by 21 Houston, Texas 17002-5213 21 telephone back in Houston, also on behalf of Exxon 1 22 (713) 276-7426 22 Mobil. : 23 23 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you. Would the j 24 24 reporter please swear in the witness. ; 25 25 Whereupon, 1 INDEX 2 3 Witness: Page 4 DR. NEILL WEAVER 5 Examination by: 6 Troy Chandler 274 7 Glenna Kyle 497 8 Troy Chandler 518 9 10 11 EXHIBITS 12 (no new exhibits marked) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 272 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 Page 274 DR. NEILL K. WEAVER was called as a witness, and having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: CONTINUATION OF CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. CHANDLER: Q. Good morning again, Dr. Weaver. We are here in Washington, D.C. as part of the continuation of the i deposition that the jury has seen part of already in j this rase. And I think what I would like to do today ; is a couple of things. ; Number 1 ,1 have asked you pretty much the general knowledge questions on asbestos that I intended to ask you in this rase, so I would look to move to two other matters. Number 1, some of the issues that the Exxon lawyer brought up during her direct examination of you, and then, finally, some of the exhibits that were attached to your deposition and some of the exhibits that the jury will have seen in i this rase. Okay? A. Very well. Q. Okay. I understand the reason that you can't come to Houston, Doctor, is it because you are going on vacation at the end of the month and just out o f an i abundance of caution, the jury needs to see you this j way rather than in person; is that a fair j Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 2 (Pages 271 to 274) NEILL WEAVER Page 275 Page 277 1 characterization? 1 did that on tuberculosis in an industrial plant; ; 2 A. I appreciate that. That is usually the way 2 didn't you? ^ 3 my depositions have been held in Washington, D.C. 3 A. Yes. \ 4 Q. Okay. Let's talk about the issues raised by 4 Q. Why was it significant to you to investigate 5 Exxon on direct, pretty much in the order they came. 5 tuberculosis in an industrial plant? ; 6 One of the first things we talked about was your 6 A. It was of interest to us because in doing j 7 experience and your training, and you have been a 7 periodic examinations on employees, we found a number ; 8 medical doctor or a practicing medical doctor for 8 with a risk of tuberculosis, and again this is back in 9 many, many years; is that right? 9 the 1950s, so tuberculosis was not a rare or uncommon j 10 A. That is correct. 10 disease. And we chose to follow those cases. We i 11 Q. You were certified in occupational medicine. 11 wanted to see how they were getting along in the 12 Did you hold any other board certifications other than 12 working environment. 13 occupational medicine? 13 Q. What are some of the risk factors for getting 14 A. Yes, I'm certified first in internal 14 tuberculosis, Doctor? 15 medicine, and then the subspecialty of allergy and 15 A. Well, of course, exposure to a bacterium that 16 immunology, and then in the general board of 16 causes the disease, and the general state of health of 17 preventive medicine, with the subspecialty of 17 the patient. There may be susceptibilities. That 18 occupational medicine, and later in environmental 18 varies from person to person, but exposure to 19 medicine, as well. 19 infection is the main thing for consideration. 20 Q. Did you ever hold the certification, a board 20 Q. Are people who work in dusty environments at 21 certification in pulmonology and lung diseases? 21 a greater risk for either development or complication 22 A. No. 22 of tuberculosis? 23 Q. Doctor, briefly the field of occupational 23 A. That may be the case. 24 medicine is a very wide field covering a lot of 24 Q. In fact, we know that people who have 25 different areas, isn't it? 25 silicosis, for example, are at greater risk for Page 276 Page 278 1 A. Indeed. 1 getting tuberculosis, dusty environments like that, 2 Q. And occupational medicine covers everything 2 don't we? 3 from strained backs when you are picking up heavy 3 A. Yes. 4 boxes or equipment on the job site to diseases that 4 Q. Now, the paper on Exhibit 2, 'Tuberculosis in 5 are caused on the job because of occupational 5 an Industrial Plant," mentions nowhere in it asbestos 6 exposures; is that fair? 6 or asbestos diseases, does it? 7 A. That is correct. 7 A. I don't recall that It does. 8 Q. And it could cover things like carpel tunnel 8 Q. If you want to look at it, you take your time 9 syndrome on the wrist, that is an occupational disease 9 and look at anything I give you today. You feel free 10 that occupational medicine doctors would be aware of; 10 to read it all, because if you don't recall, I want 11 right? 12 A. It may be. 11 you to be sure that what I'm saying is right. 12 A. Well these things, you know, go back 30, 35, 13 Q. But occupational medicine in and of itself is 13 40 years, and I have not recently reviewed these 14 not the subspecialty of lung diseases or pulmonology, 14 things, but we will proceed as you wish. 15 is it? 16 A. No, it is not. 15 Q. Yes, sir. 'Tuberculosis in an Industrial 16 Plant," published in 1961, mentions nothing about dust 17 Q. One of the papers we discussed first, I think 17 diseases in plants, does it? 18 it may be attached, yes, it is, Exhibit 2 to your 18 A. I don't know. 19 deposition, entitled, 'Tuberculosis in an Industrial 19 Q. Okay. Here, take a look at it and just, I 20 Plant," out of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and you were 20 just want an affirmative answer for the ladies and 21 one of the authors on that; is that right? 21 gentlemen of the jury one way or the other. 22 A. That is correct. 22 A. The summary contains the following sentence: 23 Q. And that actually got published in a magazine 23 "None of the affected workers had significant 24 like a lot of doctors do, they publish their 25 literature, their work in medical journals, and you 24 occupational exposure to silica, asbestos, or 25 recognized pulmonary irritants." So that, indeed, we Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 3 (Pages 275 to 278) NEILL WEAVER Page 279 Page 281 1 were cognizant of the potential possible significance 1 members public health officials from, say, the Public 2 of exposure to the dusty trades. 2 Health Service, did it? 3 Q. Good. Then let me ask re-ask my question. 3 A. No. 4 See, that's why we need to look at these. Dr. Wier - 4 Q. The American Petroleum Institute did not have 5 sorry. Dr. Wier is another doctor who is testifying 5 as its members - let me re-ask the question. The 6 in this case who made quite an impression. That is 6 American Petroleum Institute did not have as members 7 why he is on my mind. 7 officials from any state, local or federal government 8 Dr. Weaver, in the summary of your paper on 8 oversight agencies at all, did it? 9 tuberculosis, one of the things that you mentioned is 9 A. No. 10 that none of the patients had significant occupational 10 Q. It was exclusively a membership of people 11 exposure to silica, asbestos or recognized pulmonary 11 interested in those things relevant to the petroleum 12 irritants; is that right? 12 industry; is that fair to say? 13 A. That is correct. 13 A. True. 14 Q. And the reason you think that is relevant to 14 Q. And one of the things the American Petroleum 15 point out in a tuberculosis article is because, as we 15 Institute did, and you alluded to it in your prior 16 talked about, working in dusty environments is a risk 16 deposition, was lobby for the interests of the 17 factor in the development and progression of 17 petroleum industry. That's fair, isn't it? 18 tuberculosis; is that right? 18 A. Yes. I think I also mentioned that the 19 A. It may be. 19 institute was primarily a technical and scientific 20 Q. So dusty environments in plants is certainly 20 organization, and I believe I mentioned that in my 21 something that by 1961 was recognized; is that fair? 21 entire career, 12 years there, I had met only two 22 A. Oh, yes. 22 lobbyists within the institute. 23 Q. Okay. And what industrial plant were you 23 Q. Yes, sir. That is because your part of the 24 looking at? What kind of an industrial plant were you 24 institute was in the medical side, not the lobbying 25 looking at in your article back in 1961? 25 side, that's fair to say, right? Page 280 Page 282 1 A. This was the Baton Rouge refinery and 1 A. Yes. 2 petrochemical plant. 2 Q. They didn't have Dr. Weaver go to up D.C. and 3 Q. Very similar to the plant in Baytown, Texas, 3 lobby. You live here in Virginia, but it's not 4 or at least they made the same kinds of things; right? 4 because you were lobbying for the industry, it's just 5 A. Yes, very similar. 5 where you live; right. 6 Q. Baytown was bigger, as I understand it? 6 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 7 A. Not at that time. Baton Rouge was somewhat 7 THE WITNESS: What is your definition - 8 bigger. 8 MS. KYLE: Excuse me. Objection, form. Just 9 Q. Okay. Now, you were for many years the 9 give me some time. Thanks. 10 medical director of the American Petroleum Institute; 10 THE WITNESS: I was on occasion invited to 11 is that right? 11 appear before governmental organizations in a 12 A. Yes. 12 scientific context, and, so, you know, what is your 13 Q. The American Petroleum Institute is an 13 definition of lobbying? I did not feel that I was a 14 organization made up of what kind of companies, sir? 14 lobbyist. I was a technical, scientific advisor. 15 A. The American Petroleum Institute is 15 BY MR. CHANDLER: 16 comprised, the membership is comprised of petroleum 16 Q. So one of the things you did as a medical 17 corporations. 17 director of the American Petroleum Institute is go to 18 Q. Like Exxon, like Texaco, like Mobil, those 18 government bodies and tell them the state of the 19 kinds of companies? 19 medicine or the state of the research done by the 20 A. That is correct. It is open to the whole 20 American Petroleum Institute, give them kind of the 21 industry. There are no constraints or constrictions 21 industry side of the story. Is that fair, or am I 22 with respect to membership. 22 mischaracterizing it? 23 Q. Although there are no restrictions with 23 A. I think that is somewhat mischaracterizing, 24 respect to membership among the petroleum industry, 24 because the basis was the scientific facts that were 25 the American Petroleum Institute did not have as its 25 available from the knowledge, literature. Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 4 (Pages 279 to 282) NEILL WEAVER Page 283 Page 285 p: 1 publications, research. And we had an active research 1 Dr. Weaver. My question is did you ever go in front 2 program and this, of course, was shared with 2 of any government agency and admit to them that I 3 governmental organizations. 3 petroleum workers were at higher risk for any type of f 4 Q. But while you were speaking to the 4 disease, and if so, tell us what diseases those were 5 governmental organizations, you were employed and paid 5 that you admitted to a government agency petroleum | 6 by the American Petroleum Institute. That is 6 workers were at higher risk for. 7 certainly true, isn't it? 7 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 1 8 A. Yes. 8 THE WITNESS: I'm bothered by, when you say 1 9 Q. Did you ever once testify in front of a 9 high risk, but I don't know. I can't answer your | 10 government agency, and if so give me the example, 10 question. | 11 where you said the petroleum industry is not doing an 11 BY MR. CHANDLER: 1 12 effective Job in taking care of its workers. Did you 12 Q. Okay. It is true, isn't it, that members of 13 ever do that? 13 the American petroleum industry, whether it was you or | 14 A. I can't really answer that, but offhand I 14 not, actually lobbied to lower the restrictions on 1 15 would say no, that wouldn't be the point of 15 asbestos exposure. Part of their input in the I 16 testifying. 16 development of the regulations was we don't think they | 17 Q. Okay. So none of your testimony to any 17 need to be that low. That is a true statement, isn't I 18 government agency admitted any flaws with the 18 it? | 19 petroleum industry, as far as protecting the workers 19 A. I'm not aware that the American Petroleum I 20 in the petroleum industry. Is that a fair 20 Institute had any stated positions with respect to p 21 characterization? 21 asbestos sanders. P 22 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 22 Q. But you weren't involved in any American P 23 THE WITNESS: That would not have been a 23 petroleum institute activities with respect to the p 24 relevant part of the type of information I was 24 asbestos regulation? P 25 involved in. 25 A. No. p Page 284 Page 286 P 1 BY MR. CHANDLER: 1 Q. Would it surprise you if the American P 2 Q. Okay. Tell us what type of information you 2 petroleum institute did in fact lobby the federal 3 were involved in, then. 3 government to try to raise the permissible exposure p 4 A. Scientific research with respect to the 4 limits to asbestos? P 5 occupational and environmental environment. 5 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 6 Q. And whether workers - whether safety 6 THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of any such 7 standards were being met or not, you don't consider 7 activities. 8 relevant in the areas you testified to in front of 8 BY MR. CHANDLER: 9 government agencies? 9 Q. My question wasn't whether you were aware, 10 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 10 Dr. Weaver. My question is would it surprise you to 11 THE WITNESS: Yes, regulation would have been 11 learn that the American Petroleum Institute did in 12 relevant. 12 fact lobby for higher exposures to asbestos among 13 BY MR. CHANDLER: 13 workers? 14 Q. But at no time did you go in front of any 14 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 15 governmental agency and say we are having a problem in 15 THE WITNESS: I would need to know the 16 industry and I'm here to tell but it. That has never 16 context and the nature of the communication that: you 17 happened, has it? 17 are referring to. I can't answer that. 18 A. I don't know. 18 BY MR. CHANDLER: 19 Q. Do you recall an instance where it might have 19 Q. Fair enough. Nobody ever consulted you from j 20 happened? 20 the American Petroleum Institute when they did any : 21 A. In discussions of toxicity, potential 21 work with the federal government on lobbying asbestos 22 toxicity of hydrocarbons, there was indeed 22 regulations; is that fair? 23 considerable focus on potential harm or dangers that 23 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 24 might occur, yes. 24 THE WITNESS: The American Petroleum 25 Q. And my question is a little bit different, 25 Institute was not involved in asbestos-related Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 5 (Pages 283 to 286) NEILL WEAVER Page 287 Page 289 ; 1 concerns, since asbestos is not a product of the 1 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 2 industry. 2 THE WITNESS: I recall no such communication. ! 3 MR. CHANDLER: Objection, non-responsive. 3 BY MR. CHANDLER: 4 BY MR. CHANDLER: 4 Q. Okay. And that, and you have had 5 Q. Dr. Weaver, my question wasn't whether 5 communications with OSHA, the Occupational Safety and ! 6 asbestos was a product of the industry. I think we 6 Health Administration, as director of the API; right? 7 will get to that, because the fact of the matter is 7 A. Yes, and these matters were with respect to 8 there were certain products that Exxon made in which 8 hydrocarbons. 9 asbestos floats were a component of the product; isn't 9 Q. Yes, sir. And you have had communications 10 that right? 10 with the Environmental Protection Agency as director 11 A. Yes. 11 of the American Petroleum Institute; right? 12 Q. In fact, Exxon Company made a product that 12 A. Yes. 13 had asbestos as a part of it. Didn't it? 13 Q. You have had communications with the National ; 14 A. Yes. 14 Institute of Occupational Safety and Health as 15 Q. So it is a true statement that the Exxon 15 director of the American Petroleum Institute; right? 16 Company made certain asbestos-containing products, 16 A. Yes. 17 didn't they? 17 Q. And in none of the conversations you have 18 A. Yes. 18 ever had, regardless of whatever you were talking 19 Q. Okay. Now, my question to you about the 19 about with the federal government agencies, none of ; 20 regulations is a little different, and it's because 20 them ever told you, Dr. Weaver, we recognize a level 21 I'm asking bad questions, I know it is, but here is 21 of asbestos exposure below which mesothelioma will not 22 the question. Nobody from the American Petroleum 22 occur. Is that a fair statement? | 23 Institute approached you, Dr. Weaver and asked you 23 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 24 what you thought about whether the American Petroleum 24 THE WITNESS: That would be true. 25 Institute should lobby the federal government to try 25 BY MR. CHANDLER: Page 288 Page 290 s 1 to keep exposure limits to asbestos higher. Is that a 1 Q. Okay. I guess I should have started with 2 true statement? 2 this, but I'm just kind of going in the order that ; 3 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 3 Ms. Kyle went in your deposition, because it seems 4 THE WITNESS: That is a somewhat compound 4 like a logical order that she did at the time and for 5 statement, but, no one - 5 me to do today, so my next subject is your consulting 6 MS. KYLE: Would you like it reread? 6 fees. You were a loyal Exxon employee for many, many 7 THE WITNESS: Yes, please restate the 7 years, weren't you, Dr. Weaver? 8 question. 8 A. I think so. 9 BY MR. CHANDLER: 9 Q. And Exxon was a loyal employer to you for 10 Q. No one from the American Petroleum Institute 10 many, many years, don't you think? 11 approached you to be involved in their lobbying 11 A. I think so. 12 efforts to try to keep asbestos regulations higher 12 Q. That is good, loyalty between employer and 13 than the federal government wanted to institute; is 13 employee, isn't it? 14 that right? 14 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 15 A. I'm not aware of any such contacts. 15 BY MR. CHANDLER: 16 Q. Okay. You did, however, work, while you were 16 Q. That is a good thing. 17 director of the American Petroleum Institute, with 17 A. I think it's desirable. 18 different government agencies like OSHA, like EPA, and 18 Q. And it should never been one -sided, so that 19 like NIOSH, didn't you? 19 the company is always loyal to the employee, but the 20 A. Yes. 20 employee is not loyal to the company. You agree that 21 Q. None of those agencies, OSHA, EPA or NIOSH, 21 it shouldn't be a one -sided thing? 22 ever communicated to you, as the medical director of 22 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 23 the American Petroleum Institute, that they thought 23 THE WITNESS: Well, in such 24 there was a level of asbestos below which mesothelioma 24 interrelationships, there are, you have loyalty on the 25 would not occur, did they? 25 one hand and you have ethical principles and moral Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 6 (Pages 287 to 290) NEILL WEAVER Page 291 Page 293 1 principles are also involved. 1 Q. Yes, sir. That's my fault. Wouldn't you 2 BY MR. CHANDLER: 2 agree, Dr. Weaver, that Mike Altimore deserved the 3 Q. Yes, sir. And my point is just very simple. 3 same kind of loyalty from Exxon that he gave to them? 4 Whatever ethical or moral principles you want to talk 4 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 5 about, loyalty between an employer and an employee and 5 THE WITNESS: You are speaking of a 6 his family is a good thing; wouldn't you agree? 6 reciprocal relationship. In general terms, that would 7 A. When it's desirable, it is a good thing. 7 seem to make sense, yes. 8 Q. Is there ever a point when loyalty from an 8 BY MR. CHANDLER: 9 employer to an employee and his family is not 9 Q. Okay. That's all I was getting at. Thank 10 desirable, Dr. Weaver? 10 you, sir. You shared information - I'm sorry, I was 11 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 11 talking about one subject and want to get off it. As 12 THE WITNESS: When you say loyalty, one may 12 a loyal employee of Exxon for many, many years, did 13 be loyal to an organization and yet criticize or find 13 you ever make the kind of money you are making today 14 fault or be unhappy with some of the things that are 14 for testifying, $350 an hour, Dr. Weaver? 15 going on. 15 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 16 MR. CHANDLER: Objection, non-responsive. 16 THE WITNESS: I don't understand the 17 BY MR. CHANDLER: 17 question. 18 Q. I guess my point is much simpler than I am 18 BY MR. CHANDLER: 19 trying to make it, than I am making it, Dr. Weaver, 19 Q. Yes, sir. You left Exxon in 1974; right? 20 and the question is this. Mr. Altimore by all 20 A. Yes. 21 accounts, nobody will dispute, he was a very loyal 21 Q. Do you remember, and if you don't, that's 22 Exxon employee for 35 years. You certainly don't 22 fine, what your rough annual salary was at the time 23 dispute that, do you? 23 you left as the corporate medical director of what at 24 A. I have no basis to dispute that. 24 the time was the largest corporation in the world? 25 Q. And in fact, I think the evidence is going to 25 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. Page 292 Page 294 1 be in this case that Mike Altimore received awards for 1 THE WITNESS: I really don't remember what my 2 his work at Exxon. Did you know that? 2 salary was at that time. 3 A. I didn't know that, but I would not be 3 BY MR. CHANDLER: 4 surprised. 4 Q. Okay. Now, we are here 30 years later, so we 5 Q. Did you know what the CYI program was? 5 have to adjust for inflation, I'm sure? 6 A. Offhand I don't place that. 6 A. That's why I was reluctant to try to answer. 7 Q. Cash for your ideas or your improvements, 7 Q. Yes, sir, I understand. But here 30 years 8 something like that. I'm not quite sure exactly what 8 later, even with adjustment for inflation, you never 9 Exxon called it. 9 made anywhere near the kind of money you are making 10 A. I don't recall that. 10 today for your time consulting with the company; 11 Q. But it was a program from when employees 11 right? 12 actually made Exxon a better place, they were 12 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 13 acknowledged and rewarded. Did you know that there 13 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 14 was a program in place and that Mike Altimore was a 14 BY MR. CHANDLER: 15 recipient of that kind of award? 15 Q. Do you think you made, even if we adjust it 16 A. I didn't know that, but that doesn't surprise 16 for inflation, something in the area of $350 an hour 17 me. 17 while you were the corporate medical director of 18 Q. Okay. My point is, don't you agree that Mike 18 Exxon? 19 Altimore deserved the same kind of loyalty from his 19 A. No. 20 employer that he gave to them? 20 Q. I didn't think you did. 21 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 21 A. Let me correct this. I was not corporate 22 THE WITNESS: Sir, I'm having some, my 22 medical director of Exxon. 23 hearing is not acute today, and please speak up just a 23 Q. Tell me your title. I'm sorry. Go ahead. 24 little bit and please repeat the question. 24 What was your title? 25 BY MR. CHANDLER: 25 A. Well, I was associate medical director. Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 7 (Pages 291 to 294) NEILL WEAVER Page 295 Page 297 1 Q. Of the entire corporation; right? 1 A. No. 2 A. Yes. 2 Q. Okay. There was another time that you have 3 Q. So that's a great point. Thank you for 3 consulted other than this case? 4 clearing that up. Any time I screw anything up, tell 4 A. Yes. 5 me, because we want to make a very clean record, and I 5 Q. So that would really be two? 6 will do that a lot today. At the time you were the 6 A. Yes. 7 associate corporate medical director for Exxon, it was 7 Q. What was the other consulting experience 8 the largest corporation in the world, wasn't it? 8 about? What were we talking about? 9 A. I don't know. 9 A. I don't recall the case. The reason the 10 Q. At the time you were associate corporate 10 reason I have this somewhat precisely in mind is 11 medical director for Exxon, you never made anywhere 11 because of income tax, showing earned income. 12 near the kind of money you are making today for 12 Q. Yes, sir. But do you remember the kind of, 13 testifying here - 13 was it about - let me re-ask the question. In the 14 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 14 other case was it about a toxic substance or something 15 BY MR. CHANDLER: 15 that had to do with medicine or injuries at Exxon? 16 Q. - is that fair? 16 A. The other case in the past 12 months had to 17 MS. KYLE: I'm sorry, Troy. Objection, form. 17 do with asbestos. 18 THE WITNESS: On a monthly basis or annual 18 Q. Okay. Did the other case that had to do with 19 basis, you know, what Is your basis for comparison 19 asbestos have to do with cancer, mesothelioma or lung 20 here. What are you driving at? 20 cancer? 21 BY MR. CHANDLER: 21 A. I don't recall the focal point of the disease 22 Q. Yes, sir. That's fair. Okay. I'm driving 22 in the other case. 23 at your hourly rate. Doctor, it's $350 an hour today, 23 Q. Did you give a deposition in that case, 24 isn't it? 24 Dr. Weaver? 25 A. Yes, for a deposition. 25 A. No. I prepared for a deposition, but I don't Page 296 Page 298 1 Q. And even if we adjust it for inflation back 1 recall, the case I recalled did not involve a 2 to 30 years, that is nowhere near the kind of hourly 2 deposition. 3 rate you were being paid when you were associate 3 Q. Okay. How many other associate medical 4 corporate medical director of the entire corporation? 4 directors were there of the Exxon Corporation at the 5 A. All right. On an hourly rate, that is 5 time you retired in 1973? 6 correct. 6 A. One. 7 Q. Okay. That's all I'm getting at. 7 Q. Okay. So how many, there was only one 8 A. However, I'm not working at this rate for 365 8 corporate medical director; right? 9 days a year. 9 A. Right. 10 Q. And you certainly didn't work 365 days a year 11 for Exxon either, did you? 10 Q. So of all the medical doctors in the entire 11 Exxon Corporation, you are either number 2 or 3 in the 12 A. I may have approached that. 12 chain of command; is that fair? 13 Q. Sorry to hear that. They expected a lot out 14 of their employees, didn't they, and you gave a lot, 15 didn't you? 16 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 13 A. Yes. That was essentially true, yes. 14 Q. Were you 2 or were you 3, or was it equal? 15 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 16 THE WITNESS: I can't answer that. 17 THE WITNESS: I think I was highly motivated 18 yes, to do my job at Exxon or wherever. 19 BY MR. CHANDLER: 17 BY MR. CHANDLER: 18 Q. I mean, the other associate medical 19 directors, did they have similar responsibilities to 20 Q. Thank you. That's all I'm getting at. How 21 many times do you think in the course of the last, 20 you or did they have another area of responsibility? 21 A. Another area of functional organization. 22 say, year, just in the last 12 months, have you 22 Q. Who was that person? 23 consulted for Exxon on any subject? 24 A. In the last 12 months, one time. 25 Q. That is for this case? 23 A. Dr. Robert Wise. 24 Q. W-i-s-e? 25 A. W-i-s-e. Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 8 (Pages 295 to 298) NEILL WEAVER Page 299 Page 301 1 Q. Dr. Robert Wise had a different function than 1 reviewed reports by a Dr. Wier and a Dr. Dyson; 2 you as the corporate medical director? 2 correct? 3 A. Yes. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. What was his function, sir? 4 Q. Did you review any reports from a Dr. Sam 5 A. Production, operations of the company. 5 Hammer in this case? 6 Q. So there was an associate medical director 6 A. No. 7 whose position or responsibility was for production, 7 Q. Have you reviewed any reports from a Dr. Jay 8 the production side of the company? 8 Segarra in this case? 9 A. Yes. 9 A. I don't recognize the name. 10 Q. What does that entail, the production side of 10 Q. Okay. So the only reports that you have 11 the company? 11 reviewed in this case are those reports of - and I 12 A. The upstream operation, and that is not 12 will represent to you they are experts retained by 13 clear. The drilling, the bringing of the petroleum 13 Exxon. The only reports you have reviewed are those 14 out of the ground, the search for petroleum sources. 14 reports written by Exxon-retained experts; correct? 15 That is the production and exploration segment of the 15 A. No. 16 industry. 16 Q. Tell me what other reports you have reviewed? 17 Q. Okay. Was your segment of the industry the 17 A. I indicated that I reviewed a book 18 actual making of the products in the refineries and 18 publication, authoritative book, the section on 19 plants? 19 asbestos, yes. 20 A. Yes. That was part of my responsibility. 20 Q. I'm sorry, sir. I was thinking in my mind of 21 Q. And okay, so let's make this clear for the 21 a different subject, so I will object as 22 jury. Of all the medical directors at Exxon, you were 22 non-responsive, but my question is this. As far as 23 the top guy when it came specifically to the health 23 reports prepared specifically for the Altimore case by 24 and safety of refinery workers in the plants; right? 24 experts - 25 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 25 A. Oh. Page 300 Page 302 1 THE WITNESS: Refining and petrochemical 1 Q. - the only reports that you have reviewed 2 manufacturing was one of my responsibilities. 2 are those reports that are by experts retained by 3 BY MR. CHANDLER: 3 Exxon in this case? 4 Q. But you were the top guy with that specific 4 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 5 responsibility of monitoring health and safety of the 5 THE WITNESS: That is true, with respect to 6 plant workers; is that fair? 6 these two reports, yes. 7 A. Yes, but reporting to the corporate medical 7 BY MR. CHANDLER: 8 director. 8 Q. The Exxon lawyers haven't given you any 9 Q. Yes, sir. 9 reports of any of the plaintiffs retained doctors, 10 A. That was the chain of command, yes. 10 like Dr. Hammer or Dr. Jay Segarra; is that true? 11 Q. Certainly. You had a boss to whom you 11 A. I have not received such reports. 12 reported, but that boss, the corporate medical 12 Q. Okay. Are process operators - you told us 13 director, didn't have as his direct responsibility the 13 in your last deposition that process operators are 14 same things you did; right? 14 those people who actually see the operations. They 15 A. True. 15 make certain that temperature and pressure 16 Q. And the responsibilities that you did have 16 requirements are met, and see to the input and outflow 17 were for the health and safety on the refinery or 17 of products and materials. That is the process 18 plant side of the company; right? 18 people; right? 19 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 19 A. Yes. 20 THE WITNESS: That was part of my 20 Q. And the maintenance people are those guys who 21 responsibility, a major part of my responsibility. 21 keep all the processes running? 22 BY MR. CHANDLER: 22 A. That's one way to state it, yes. 23 Q. Okay. That's all I was getting at. I 23 Q. Do the process operators interact with the 24 noticed in your report or your deposition when we were 24 maintenance workers? 25 here a couple weeks ago or so that you mentioned you 25 A. Yes. Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 9 (Pages 299 to 302) NEILL WEAVER Page 303 Page 305 1 Q. When the maintenance operators come on a 1 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 2 unit, for example, the polyolefin unit, it's the 2 THE WITNESS: I'm aware that that may be the 3 process people at the polyolefin unit that would tell 3 case. 4 them where things are, don't touch that kind of line, 4 BY MR. CHANDLER: 5 because it's full of chemicals or something like that. 5 Q. Okay. Is it fair to say that a process 6 It that fair? 6 operator, a guy who is not the maintenance worker but 7 A. It could be stated that way, yes. 7 he keeps the unit, he does what you describe as making 8 Q. And my point is, when maintenance work is 8 sure temperature, pressure requirements are met, those 9 being done on a unit, process folks at Exxon don't 9 kinds of things. Is it fair to say that if 10 leave. They stay there and kind of oversee what is 10 maintenance work is being done, that that process 11 going on, don't they? 11 operator could have potential exposure to whatever 12 A. Process people are always on duty. 12 chemical or substance the maintenance workers are 13 Q. And even if maintenance is going on, process 13 having exposure to? 14 operators are there on the unit? 14 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 15 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 15 THE WITNESS: Here we need an understanding 16 THE WKNESS: Yes. When the unit is 16 of what you mean by exposure. 17 operating, yes. 17 BY MR. CHANDLER: 18 BY MR. CHANDLER: 18 Q. Yes, sir. I will give you an example then. 19 Q. But even if the unit is not operating, and 19 Thank you. If a maintenance worker like an insulator 20 maintenance is being done, process operators have to 20 or a machinist or a pipefitter is working on insulated 21 be there, don't they? 21 lines or turbines and they are removing asbestos such 22 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 22 that it's creating visible clouds of asbestos dust, 23 THE WKNESS: Not invariably, no. 23 that is what I'm talking about. Do we have that 24 BY MR. CHANDLER: 24 understanding. 25 Q. Certainly it's not uncommon for process 25 A. All right. Page 304 Page 306 1 operators to stay on their unit when maintenance 1 Q. Under that kind of scenario, is it fair to 2 workers are doing their work. You would agree with 2 say that if a process operator is there on the unit 3 that? 3 and he is overseeing their work, he could have 4 A. I would agree to that. 4 potential exposure to the same kinds of dust? 5 Q. Okay. Why would a process operator have to 5 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 6 stay on the unit when maintenance workers are doing 6 THE WKNESS: Yes, but in looking at this 7 their craft? Tell us what their responsibility might 7 potential exposure, is it meaningful, is there a 8 be during maintenance? 8 significant physiologic, potentially harmful exposure. 9 A. Well, they are responsible for, assuming the 10 unit is operating, and so if the operations are 9 Here we get into the consideration of a dose, 10 intensity and duration, and so this may or may not be 11 underway while some type of maintenance work is being 11 of consequence. 12 carried out, of course the operators are there to 12 Q. Yes, sir. And certainly if the insulator or 13 continue their responsibility. 13 the machinist is right there ripping it off, he has 14 Q. Because not all maintenance work on a unit 15 shuts the whole unit down, does it? 14 the most intensive exposure, as opposed to somebody 15 who may be five or 10 feet away. We can all agree t:o 16 A. No, not all maintenance work, no. 16 that; right? 17 Q. Some maintenance work shuts it down? 17 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 18 A. Uh-huh. 19 Q. And some maintenance work can be done while 20 the unit is up; that's fair? 18 THE WKNESS: Well, there's a difference with 19 an observer. However, depending on the climatic wind 20 conditions, the individual farther, 5 feet away might 21 A. Right. 21 actually have more exposure than the personal taking 22 Q. Now, have you ever seen process operators 23 stay on their units even when the whole thing is shut 24 down to kind of oversee what the maintenance workers 25 err doing? 22 off the asbestos. 23 BY MR. CHANDLER: 24 Q. Sure. Because if he is up wind of the 25 asbestos, he may not be getting any exposure; right? Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 10 (Pages 303 to 306) NEILL WEAVER Page 307 Page 309 1 A. Yes. 1 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 2 Q. But if he is down wind, he could be getting 2 THE WITNESS: That I would have to speculate 3 more than the guy ripping it off? 3 to, you know, what was in somebody's mind. I can't do 4 A. Yes, but, of course, he should not be 4 that. 5 standing down wind. 5 BY MR. CHANDLER: 6 Q. Yes, sir. Why shouldn't he be standing down 6 Q. Okay. When the Exxon Company issued safely 7 wind of asbestos when it's getting ripped off, by the 7 manuals that said, and I'm paraphrasing, don't be 8 way? 8 exposed to excessive levels of dust, what did that 9 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 9 mean? What was it supposed to mean to the worker in 10 THE WITNESS: Our general operating procedure 10 the field? 11 was to not have exposure to a dust, to maintain it as 11 A. To don't breathe it. 12 low as feasible. 12 Q. Don't breathe - 13 BY MR. CHANDLER: 13 A. Very simple terms. 14 Q. Yes, sir, and the reason he shouldn't be 14 Q. Don't breathe excessive levels; right? 15 standing down wind of asbestos dust is because you 15 A. In counseling workers, I well recall a nurse 16 don't want to get some kind of physiologically 16 simply saying, "Don't breathe asbestos dust. It can 17 significant level of exposure that might cause harm. 17 kill you." And so that the consideration of what is 18 That's fair, isn't it? 18 visible and what is invisible would not be adequately 19 A. That's fair. 19 addressed in a statement like that. 20 Q. Okay. Can you point to the ladies and 20 Q. Yes, sir. And that is exactly my point. If 21 gentlemen of the jury a single publication ever 21 the worker doesn't see the asbestos dust, is it fair 22 published that was given to any Exxon employee 22 to say you, as an expert, that he may not even know he 23 anywhere in the corporation that told them that there 23 is breathing it, if the levels are Invisible? 24 could be hazardous levels of asbestos that are 24 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 25 invisible? 25 THE WITNESS: No. If he is aware of the, Page 308 Page 310 1 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 1 that some material has asbestos in the content, and so 2 THE WITNESS: I can't answer that. There 2 whether or not it's invisible, I think he would be 3 were publications that were available to Exxon 3 aware that exposure was possible. 4 employees that in all probability would have included 4 BY MR. CHANDLER: 5 that information. 5 Q. Okay. Can you point to the ladies and 6 BY MR. CHANDLER: 6 gentlemen of the jury to a single publication in the 7 Q. Okay. And in fact, if there is, if there are 7 entire history of the Exxon Corporation that wrote 8 Exxon safety manuals, you agree that they should 8 down for a man like Mr. Altimore or anybody else that 9 include information about hazardous levels of asbestos 9 invisible levels of asbestos dust could kill you, as 10 being present, even though the levels can't be seen. 10 this nurse, you claim, said? 11 You agree to that, don't you? 11 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 12 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 12 THE WITNESS: I'm not familiar with all the 13 THE WITNESS: I can't really respond to that. 13 publications in the Exxon Corporation with respect to 14 BY MR. CHANDLER: 14 this point. 15 Q. Okay. Let me re-ask it then. You agree that 15 BY MR. CHANDLER: 16 there can be hazardous levels of asbestos in the air, 16 Q. If there was a publication in which the Exxon 17 yet have those levels be invisible to the naked eye. 17 Corporation communicated to its workers that even 18 We can agree to that? 18 invisible levels of dust could kill, would you have 19 A. Yes. That could be the case. 19 expected as the corporate medical director to have 20 Q. Okay. Now, if you tell an employee, you as 20 seen that throughout your career? 21 the corporate medical director, sir, told an employee, 21 A. I may have seen it, but I can't recall 22 "Don't be exposed to excessive levels of asbestos," 22 whether such a publication exists or not. I can't 23 and that is what you told them, what in your mind is 23 remember. 24 the expectation that that employee will have in his 24 Q. Yes, sir, and we are here on the second day 25 mind about those levels? 25 of your deposition, and the first day was a couple of Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 11 (Pages 307 to 310) NEILL WEAVER Page 311 Page 313 1 weeks ago. At any time in the last couple weeks since 1 A. Ph.D. 2 we took a break in your deposition, has any Exxon 2 Q. Okay. Now Jim Hammond was an engineer; is 3 representative or lawyer showed you a publication in 3 that right? 4 which they said here it is. We are warning workers 4 A. Industrial hygiene engineer. 5 that even invisible levels of dust could kill. Have 5 Q. And Mr. Hammond was actually at the Baytown 6 you seen that at all? 6 plant where Mr. Altimore worked, wasn't he? 7 A. I have not seen any publication that stated 7 A. Yes. 8 that or did not state that. 8 Q. Mr. Hammond, 55 years ago in 1949, helped put 9 Q. Okay. Dr. Weaver, would you look at Exhibit 9 together the document titled, "Summary of Plant 10 5 to your previous deposition, and I will represent to 10 Industrial Hygiene Problems" that is marked, "Company 11 you that that is a report on the, "Summary of Plant 11 confidential, not for publication in present form;" 12 Industrial Hygiene Problems," dated April 12, 1949. 12 right? 13 Go ahead, sir. It's Exhibit 5. 13 A. Yes. He is listed as one of the authors. 14 MS. KYLE: I pieced this together. Let's 14 Q. Okay. And this report went all the way up to 15 make sure. Yes. Okay. 15 the headquarters of the Exxon Company up there in 16 BY MR. CHANDLER: 16 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New York. 17 Q. Now, the report entitled, "Summary of Plant 17 A. Yes. 18 Industrial Hygiene Problems" is written by four 18 Q. What was the purpose for writing the Exhibit 19 different people. All the way back, boy, we are 19 5, "Summary of Plant Industrial Hygiene Problems," all 20 talking 55 years ago now; right? 20 the way back in 1949? 21 A. Yes. 21 A. Well, I was not with the corporation at that 22 Q. And some of those people were actually 22 time, so I can speculate that the four industrial 23 working at Baytown, weren't they, the Baytown 23 hygiene engineers, well, one was a safety engineer, 24 refinery? 24 Mr. Bonsib, their responsibility was to point out 25 A. Yes, one of them was, J.W. Hammond. 25 potential problems, things that might be considered Page 312 Page 314 1 Q. Wasn't Mr. -- Dr. Berry at Baytown, also? 2 A. No, he was not at Baytown. No. 1 that could be corrected or should be looked at then. 2 Q. Okay. 3 Q. Would you look at page 64 of your deposition, 3 A. And so that is my understanding of why this 4 line 6. I believe you told the ladies and gentlemen 4 was written. 5 of the jury under direct examination that Dr. Clyde 5 Q. Fair enough. Let's talk about a couple of 6 Berry was at Baytown. Is that not right? 6 matters that were discussed in the document, Doctor. 7 A. That is a, the statement should have read, 7 First of all, do you know why it's marked company 8 "Dr. Clyde Berry at Bayway." 8 confidential? And if you don't, just tell me. 9 Q. Okay. Very good. 9 A. I don't know. 10 A. I have not seen this deposition. It has not 10 Q. Okay. It is a fair statement that the 11 been corrected, but the statement was that he was at 11 information that is imparted to the headquarters of 12 Bayway refinery, not Baytown. 12 the company up there in New York in Rockefeller Plaza 13 Q. That's why we get the opportunity to review 13 is it kind of information the workers in the plant 14 these and correct them. Bayway is a different 14 should be getting. You agree to that, don't you? 15 refinery than Baytown? 15 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 16 A. Indeed. 16 THE WITNESS: No, not necessarily. 17 Q. Where it Bayway, by the way? 17 BY MR. CHANDLER: 18 A. In New Jersey. 18 Q. Okay. Now, let's go to the page that 19 Q. In New Jersey. Okay. So Dr. Clyde Berry, 19 Mr. Hammond actually helped provide. And they are, 20 one of the authors of the "Summary of Plant Industrial 20 it's, I don't know if it has a number on it, Doctor, 21 Hygiene," was the doctor at the New Jersey plant? 21 but it's Bates stamped at the bottom 3125, looks like. 22 A. He was the industrial hygiene engineer at the 22 A. My copy has numbers at the top. 23 Bayway refinery. 23 Q. But this page doesn't. 24 Q. You call him a doctor. Was a medical doctor 24 A. Here it is. All right. 25 or Ph.D.? 25 Q. Now what you are looking at is a page that is Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 12 (Pages 311 to 314) NEILL WEAVER Page 315 Page 317 1 in the 1949 document and it's got a subtitle on it 1 A. Yes. 2 called, "Industrial hygiene problems observed in the 2 Q. One of them hydrogen, organic sulfides. That 3 Baytown refinery," by J.W. Hammond, MS; right? 3 is probably a number of different products; right? 4 A. That is correct. 4 A. Yes. It's particularly for hydrogen sulfide, 5 Q. So this part of the report is specific to 5 but there are others, as well, yes. 6 Baytown and other parts of the report are specific to 6 Q. And then lead. That is only one; right? 7 other plants in the company; right? 7 A. Yes. 8 A. Yes. Of course there could be overlap. 8 Q. Mercury. That is only one; right? 9 Q. Certainly. And I want to talk to you about a 9 A. Yes. 10 few of the issues that Mr. Hammond brings out in his 10 Q. And then we have zinc, metal fumes. That 11 report, specifically on the appendix that is the 11 could potentially be a few different chemicals or 12 summary of preliminary industrial hygiene survey at 12 materials at the Baytown plant in 1949, right? 13 Baytown. That is what it is. We are going to the end 13 A. Yes, metal fumes is rather a general, all 14 of it now on the summary. 14 inclusive, yes. 15 MS. KYLE: Do you have it? 15 Q. Then we have chromates and beryllium, and 16 BY MR. CHANDLER: 16 lastly we have silica and asbestos; right? 17 Q. It's the next page sir, very next one. 17 A. Uh-huh. 18 A. Thank you. 18 Q. But of the thousands of different chemicals 19 Q. Now, the information that is in the summary 19 or materials being used at Baytown in 1949, we have a 20 of the preliminary industrial hygiene survey is that 20 very, very small percentage of them in Mr. Hammond's 21 information for the Baytown, Texas refinery, isn't it? 21 report; right? 22 A. As so stated in the title. It, of course, 22 A. Yes. 23 could be applicable to other locations, as well, but 23 Q. And one of the materials that Mr. Hammond 24 that is the focus of it, yes. 24 notes of the very, very small percentage of the 25 Q. Yes, sir. By the way, did the Exxon Company 25 thousands of different chemicals and processes being Page 316 Page 318 1 have for the most part uniform industrial hygiene 1 used at Baytown is asbestos. It makes the list, 2 policies and practices throughout the corporation? 2 doesn't it? 3 A. In general, yes. 3 A. Of course. 4 Q. One plant wasn't allowed to do things more 4 Q. Of course. Why do you say of course. 5 lax than another, were they? 5 A. Because that was a material that industrial 6 A. They would be compatible. 6 hygienists were trained and had experience in working 7 Q. Okay. Under "Materials or conditions," 7 with. 8 Mr. Hammond from Baytown lists silica and asbestos; 8 Q. Okay. And one of the potential diseases 9 right? 9 identified all the way back in 1949 from silica and 10 A. Yes, at the bottom of the list. 10 asbestos exposure, of course, is silicosis. That is 11 Q. How many different materials or conditions 11 caused by exposure to silica particles; isn't it? 12 were actually being used at the Baytown refinery, say 12 A. Yes. 13 in 1951, when you joined? It's potentially hundreds 13 Q. And the other, it says "fiberosis," but I 14 of different chemicals; isn't it? 14 think it means "fibrosis;" right? 15 A. Yes, thousands. 15 A. I assume that is the case. 16 Q. Okay. In the Baytown refinery, at least in 16 Q. And fibrosis is caused both by silica and 17 1951, when you joined it, they were using thousands of 17 asbestos; isn't it? 18 different chemicals in making the products, right? 19 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And other is erythema. Am I pronouncing that 20 THE WITNESS: Including the streams to make 20 correct? I don't know if I am or not. Erythema. 21 the products and the products, yes. 21 What is that? 22 BY MR. CHANDLER: 22 A. I don't know. 23 Q. And what Mr. Hammond does is he just lists a 23 Q. I don't know what that is, either, because I 24 summary of six different, at least categories of 24 didn't think it was arrythmia, but I assumed he was 25 materials or conditions; right? 25 trying to say that. Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 13 (Pages 315 to 318) NEILL WEAVER Page 319 Page 321 1 A. No, it's not arrythmia. 1 under silica and asbestos, cancer of the lung is 2 Q. All right. You don't know what that 2 listed; right? 3 potential disease might be? 3 A. It is listed. 4 A. There's some error here. I can't account for 4 Q. And so the logical Inference from that is it 5 it. 5 was being referenced because of asbestos and not 6 Q. Okay, fine, and the last one - 6 because of silica; right? 7 A. And I won't try to explain it. 7 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 8 Q. I don't blame you. The last one Is cancer of 8 THE WITNESS: That would be the Inference, 9 the lungs; correct? 9 yes. 10 A. Yes. 10 BY MR. CHANDLER: 11 Q. Now, the state of the medical and scientific 11 Q. But it would be a correct inference, a 12 literature at the time certainly had zero indication 12 logical one In your mind, wouldn't it? 13 that silica was a cancer-causing agent, isn't that 13 A. Not that this Is correct, no. 14 fair? 14 Q. Okay, but the logical Inference from 15 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 15 Mr. Hammond's report is that the cancer of the lungs 16 BY MR. CHANDLER: 16 under potential diseases does not apply to silica; 17 Q. Let me re-ask the question. She's right. 17 right? 18 It's kind of weird. There was no evidence in the 18 A. Right. 19 medical or scientific literature in 1949 that silica 20 caused cancer, was there? 19 Q. Okay. Now, the departments or crafts 20 affected by the recommendation of Mr. Hammond under 21 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 21 the diseases he listed next to silica and asbestos did 22 THE WITNESS: No conclusive or nothing to 22 not just include insulators, did it? 23 bring the scientific community to that decision. 23 A. Right. 24 BY MR. CHANDLER: 24 Q. It included brick masons and even their 25 Q. Well, I work on a number of silica cases, 25 helpers, didn't it? Page 320 Page 322 1 Doctor, and if the Exxon Company has any indication 1 A. Yes. 2 that silica might have caused lung cancer back in '49, 2 Q. And included insulators who we all agree are 3 I would love to know it, because I have never found 3 exposed to asbestos, don't you think? 4 any evidence all the way back in 1949 that anybody 4 A. Uh-huh. 5 thought silica caused lung cancer. Do you have any 5 Q. We can all agree to that? 6 information? 6 A. Yes. 7 A. I'm sure your review is accurate in that 7 Q. It also included laborers under the potential 8 context. 8 diseases caused by silica and asbestos. Can you 9 Q. Okay. So let me try to bring it home. I 9 explain why they might be listed? 10 thought so, because if Exxon knew that it causes lung 10 A. Because laborers might be handling or in the 11 cancer in '49,1 would love to know that. Here is the 11 transport of asbestos-containing materials. 12 question. 12 Q. And why would a pipebender be listed under a 13 MS. KYLE: No comment. I wish I could 13 craft affected by the potential diseases of silica and 14 respond. 14 asbestos, including silicosis, fibrosis and cancer of 15 BY MR. CHANDLER: 15 the lungs? 16 Q. We will, for purposes of this, we will 16 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 17 stipulate, you had no knowledge silica could cause 17 THE WITNESS: Because asbestos-containing 18 lung cancer. Let me get back to what we are doing. 18 materials would be, could be present on pipes as 19 In 1949 there was certainly no evidence in the medical 19 insulation. 20 or scientific literature at all anywhere that silica 20 BY MR. CHANDLER: 21 was a cancer-causing substance, isn't that fair? 21 Q. Are pipebenders the ones removing the 22 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 22 insulation? 23 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 23 A. They might, yes. 24 BY MR. CHANDLER: 24 Q. Certainly. Other crafts at Exxon removed 25 Q. So the one thing we do know, though, is that 25 Insulation other than just insulators, and that is why Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 14 (Pages 319 to 322) NEILL WEAVER Page 323 Page 325 i; 1 other crafts are listed; right? 1 Mr. Hammond about this document, the "Summary of Plant |; 2 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 2 Industrial Hygiene Problems," didn't you? ii 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. 3 A. I don't recall discussing it with || 4 BY MR. CHANDLER: 4 Mr. Hammond. ii 5 Q. Okay. Under the, go to the next page, 5 Q. You did see this report. Certainly in the j 6 Doctor, for me, please. Exhibit, page 3. Under the 6 medical field there at Exxon, one of the things they ii 7 materials or conditions continuing at Baytown, they 7 might give you is a summary of the plant industrial ; 8 list silicates and coke dust. Do you see that, the 8 hygiene problems that was created just two years ; 9 first one? 9 before you got there? \ 10 A. Silicates and coke dust, yes. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Asbestos is a silicate, isn't it? 11 Q. They would do that; right? I 12 A. Yes. 12 A. I have probably seen it, but I don't recall i 13 Q. I'm curious - 13 specifically. i 14 A. It may be, yes. 14 Q. At any time in your career at Exxon, did you ; 15 Q. And do silicates and coke dust, you were not 15 ever tell Mr. Hammond you were wrong in your i 16 specifically talking about, at least this report 16 April, 12,1949 summary of industrial hygiene problems j. 17 doesn't specifically talk about asbestos. If we want 17 at Baytown? 18 to refer to asbestos, we need to go to page 2 of the 18 A. I don't recall ever discussing it with ; 19 appendix, not this page; right? 19 Mr. Hammond. i 20 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 20 Q. At any time in your career at Exxon, which i 21 THE WITNESS: I think I follow you, yes. 21 spanned how many years, sir? i 22 BY MR. CHANDLER: 22 A. 22. i 23 Q. My point is there are all kind of silicates, 23 Q. Including the highest position over the ; 24 silica is a silicate, asbestos is a silicate, and 24 health and safety of plant refinery workers as the 25 there could be many other types of silicates? 25 associate corporate medical director; right? Page 324 Page 326 1 A. Yes. 1 A. Yes. That was my responsibility, yes. 2 Q. But for the two specific once, silica and 2 Q. In any of your 20-plus years' time at Exxon, 3 asbestos, those are mentioned on a prior page; right? 3 did you ever author a document, a memo to the 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Now, under materials or conditions under the 6 appendix at page 3, under silicates and coke dust, we 4 president of the company, to any other doctor, that 5 says Dr. Hammond or Mr. Hammond, rather, was not 6 correct about some of the things in his April 12,1949 7 list fibrosis and possibly lung tumors; right? 7 summary of plant industrial hygiene problems at the 8 A. Yes. 8 Baytown refinery. Is that a document you ever 9 Q. So there's an indication that we are not so 10 sure, it's just possible; correct? 9 authored? 10 A. I never authored any commentary on this 11 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 11 report. 12 THE WITNESS: That is what is stated here. 12 Q. Did you ever make a phone call to anybody at 13 BY MR. CHANDLER: 13 Exxon Company that said Mr. Hammond was wrong, on 14 Q. Now, if you will go back to the prior page 14 April 12, 1949? 15 where silica and asbestos are listed, can you go back 15 A. I don't know. 16 there? 16 Q. Okay. Is that something that you have any 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. The word "possible" does not exist next to 19 cancer of the lung on silica and asbestos; does it? 20 A. That is the case, yes. 21 Q. Okay. Do you think Mr. Hammond was a 22 reasonably competent industrial hygienist, sir? 23 A. He is a highly competent industrial 24 hygienist. 25 Q. Is there any - in fact you talked to 17 recollection of today doing? 18 A. I have no such recollection. 19 Q. Okay. Tell me if I'm wrong. As you pointed 20 out to me before, and I'm glad, I will refer your 21 attention to Defendants' Deposition Exhibit 6, which 22 is an article titled, "Humble Oil and Refining 23 Company's Baytown" - restart the question. Exhibit 6 24 to your deposition is an article titled, "Humble Oil 25 and Refining Company's Baytown Refinery;" right? Do Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 15 (Pages 323 to 326) NEILL WEAVER Page 327 Page 329 1 you have it? Is it in there? 1 scientific literature; right? 2 MS. KYLE: What number is it? 2 A. That's generally correct. I'm not saying it 3 BY MR. CHANDLER: 3 was withheld from other people, individuals, no. But: 4 Q. I'm sorry, Exhibit 6. Yes, there we go. 4 the objective here was for the overall Esso Standard 5 A. Thank you. 5 organizations, medical organizations. 6 Q. Now, Exhibit 5 was something that was marked 6 Q. This was, to whom was it intended to go. 7 company confidential. It wasn't for publication in 7 That is I guess what I'm getting at. Was it only the 8 its present form. I'm sorry, Doctor, I'm being 8 doctors, or was it plant safety people, plant medical 9 confusing and it's not on purpose, but let me refer 9 people, plant industrial hygiene people? Tell me who 10 your attention back to Mr. Hammond's article. This 10 was the intended audience. 11 was something that was not to be published out in the 11 A. The intended audience would be the medical 12 public. It wasn't for publication in present form, 12 personnel, medical department personnel. This medical 13 Doctor or Mr. Hammond's and Mr. Berry and Mr. Bonsib 13 bulletin was really only published once a year and was 14 and Mr. Hendricks' April 12, 1949 report. 14 based on the meeting of the medical department 15 A. That is what is stated, yes. 15 physicians, industrial hygienists, and papers were 16 Q. They didn't go out and publish this in the 16 prepared and presented at this annual meeting, and 17 medical and scientific literature, did they, Exhibit 17 some or most of those papers were published in this 18 5, the summary of plant and industrial hygiene 18 medical bulletin. 19 problems? 19 Q. Okay. This medical bulletin reference a 20 A. No. It hadn't been proofread and corrected, 20 number of meetings that occurred in the very same year 21 so it wasn't ready for outside publication. 21 that Mr. Hammond and Mr. Barry or Dr. Berry and 22 Q. And it was even stamped "company 22 Mr. Hendricks and Mr. Bonsib all prepared the report 23 confidential," right? 23 on summary of the plant industrial hygiene problems; 24 MS. KYLE: I don't know, was it? 24 right? 25 BY MR. CHANDLER: 25 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. Page 328 Page 330 1 Q. Or typed on it, not stamped, whatever you 1 THE WITNESS: I don't understand. 2 want to say. 2 BY MR. CHANDLER: 3 A. Yes. 3 Q. That's okay. The medical bulletin, it 4 Q. Now, Exhibit 6 is the medical bulletin, 4 references meetings held in April of 1949. For 5 Humble Oil and Refining Company's Baytown Refinery. 5 example, on the second page marked 465, it says from 6 Do you see that? 6 April 1, 1949 to September 1, 1950, inclusive, 3,000 7 A. The medical bulletin is the top line, and 7 skin examinations have been made. It references 8 then "Humble Oil and Refining Company, Baytown 8 things that happened in the very same year that the 9 Refinery" is the main title. 9 Exhibit 5 to your deposition was created; right? 10 Q. This Exhibit 6, Humble Oil and Refining 10 A. Yes. 11 Company, Baytown Refinery, the medical bulletin, is 11 Q. And, in fact, on the first page it discuss as 12 something that was meant for public consumption. It 12 meeting held in February of 1949, doesn't it? 13 was published and available to folks who wanted to 13 A. Yes. 14 read it; right? 14 Q. And it discusses a meeting in May, one month 15 A. The medical bulletin referred to here is a 15 after the report marked company confidential, the 16 publication by Esso Standard, and while not, and was 16 report on the summary of the plant industrial hygiene 17 not generally available, it listed in medical 17 problems, as on page 467, we see a meeting happening 18 libraries and things like this. This Is, so it was a 18 the very next month, May of 1949. No. No. Let me - 19 corporate publication and was not listed in the 19 that is totally incorrect. Let me redact all that. 20 Cumulous Index Medcicus, for example. 20 Let me re-ask the question. 21 Q. Perfect. Thank you. Now I understand. 21 The medical bulletin marked as Defendants' 22 Great. Defendants' Deposition Exhibit 6, the medical 22 Deposition Exhibit 6 references even adding doctors in 23 bulletin, was an internal Exxon medical bulletin meant 23 May of 1949 on page 467. It's the next page, sir, 24 for publication among Exxon employees or officials, 25 but not generally published in the medical or 24 flip the page. There we go. It's on this side. 25 Somewhere down there. Very bottom of that page. Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 16 (Pages 327 to 330) NEILL WEAVER Page 331 Page 333 1 A. Yes. This speaks of some expansion of the 1 '72, or is that still your position? 2 medical staff, yes. 2 A. It is still my position. 3 Q. And my point is, we are looking at a medical 3 Q. There is another exhibit to your deposition 4 bulletin intended for the doctors among the Exxon 4 and it's Exhibit 7, sir, and I know you have seen 5 Corporation that included events happening at the very 5 this. You told us on direct examination you thought 6 same time and immediately before and immediately after 6 it was an excellent document, and that is the 1937 7 the summary of plant industrial hygiene problems 7 Bonsib report. Do you recall that? 8 marked as company confidential was published; right? 8 A. I recall the report, yes. 9 A. Yes. 9 Q. And two, a couple weeks ago when we were 10 MS. KYLE: We need to take breaks on the 10 here, you told Mrs. Kyle, the Exxon lawyer taking your 11 hour. So either - 11 examination, that you thought the Bonsib report was an 12 MR. CHANDLER: Sure. Let me just finish this 12 excellent document, and you still hold that position 13 one line of questioning and we will break in one 13 today? 14 minute. 14 A. I would hold that position today, yes. 15 MS. KYLE: Okay. 15 Q. I want to direct your attention to one or two 16 BY MR. CHANDLER: 16 of the things in this excellent document authored by 17 Q. Nowhere in Exhibit 6, and correct me if I'm 17 Roy Bonsib, the chief safety inspector of the Standard 18 wrong, because I could be. Nowhere in the medical 18 Oil Company and Willard J. Denno, the general medical 19 bulletin that went to the Humble Oil medical doctors 19 director of the Standard Oil Company, which, of 20 does it mention asbestos as a problem, does it? 20 course, is Exxon; right? 21 A. I don't know. 21 A. The parent company of Exxon, yes. 22 Q. You have a copy in front of you. Take a look 22 Q. I will direct your attention to the 23 at it and just tell us whether I'm right. 23 conclusion of the Bonsib report, and on page 81, sir, 24 A. I can't - I don't question that, but I don't 24 all the way to the back, it's the second to last page 25 know. 25 of the Bonsib report, under, "Conclusion." Page 332 Page 334 1 Q. Okay. I will tell you what. It's only four 1 A. 81, conclusion; right. 2 pages. If at any time today you find, whether you are 2 Q. Yes, sir. I'm looking at the last paragraph, 3 on a break or at lunch or whatever, if at any time 3 page 81, where it reads, "One common sense answer is 4 today you find that it does mention asbestos, bring it 4 that any atmosphere in which dust is visible to the 5 to my attention; all right? 5 naked eye is certainly too dusty to be breathed with 6 A. I would not expect it to mention asbestos. 6 safety by human beings. And the Wise, farsighted and 7 Q. Okay. Even though Mr. Hammond, Dr. Berry, 7 human employer will immediately start to decrease the 8 Mr. Bonsib, Mr. Hendricks identified specifically at 8 dust content in any atmosphere where dust is visible. 9 the Baytown refinery asbestos and silica and the 9 After he has eliminated visible dust, there may still 10 potential diseases being fibrosis and cancer of the 10 remain enough very small, invisible dust to cause harm 11 lungs, right? 11 to the health of those who breathe it, but in any 12 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 12 event, if he has exerted sufficient well directed 13 THE WITNESS: Yes. We referred to that 13 effort to remove the visible dust, it is certain that 14 report. 14 much of the smaller, invisible and probably most 15 MR. CHANDLER: Okay. We will take a break. 15 harmful dust has also been removed." Did I read that 16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The 16 correctly? 17 time is 11:09. 17 A. Yes, you read it correctly. 18 (Recess) 18 Q. And you agree that very small, invisible dust 19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going back on the 19 can cause harm to the health of those who breathe it, 20 record. The time is 11:19. 20 don't you? 21 BY MR. CHANDLER: 21 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 22 Q. Sir, since your last deposition when we met, 22 THE WITNESS: Yes. 23 have you changed your position at all as to whether 23 BY MR. CHANDLER: 24 lung cancer was not established as being caused by 24 Q. And you agree that it's just common sense, as 25 exposure to asbestos until the early 1970s, 1971 or 25 Mr. Bonsib states, that any atmosphere in which dust Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 17 (Pages 331 to 334) NEILL WEAVER Page 335 Page 337 : 1 is visible to the naked eye is certainly too dusty to 1 no law preventing it. That is not reasonable, is it? 2 be breathed with safety by human beings. Do you agree 2 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 3 with that? 3 THE WITNESS: The concept of feasibility must : 4 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 4 be entered here, of course, but in general, well, go 5 THE WITNESS: Well, yes, in a general context, 5 ahead with your line of questioning. ; 6 in a very general context, I would agree. 6 BY MR. CHANDLER: 7 BY MR. CHANDLER: 7 Q. Nothing Mr. Bonsib talked about in 1937 was ; 8 Q. Yes, sir. Dr. Weaver, is there anything in 8 unfeasible; right? j 9 the Bonsib report of 1937 that you have ever told 9 A. I don't know. 10 anybody at the Exxon Company you disagreed with, you 10 Q. Well, point out if you can anything in ; 11 thought they were way off, he was wrong about certain 11 Mr. Bonsib's report where you say, well, he may have 12 things? 12 said it, but that wasn't feasible at the time. ; 13 A. I'm not aware of anything. I don't know, but 13 A. I'm not aware of anything. 14 I'm not aware of anything. 14 Q. All right. So everything that they are : 15 Q. The Bonsib report is telling the Exxon 16 Company and anybody else who wanted to read it, 17 because as I understand it, you shared the Bonsib 15 talking about in 1937 are feasible things, like : 16 wetting asbestos down, like using a hose and making i 17 sure it's wet when you sweep it, those kind of things. I 18 report with members of industry, didn't you? 18 Though are all feasible and readily available and all 19 A. That's my understanding. 19 very, very possible to do; right? 20 Q. In fact, you had assistance from the Exxon 20 21 Company - not you specifically, sir=, but the Exxon 21 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. THE WITNESS: As far as I know, that would be 22 Company had assistance from the U.S. Public Health 22 correct. 23 Service in preparing the Bonsib report, didn't it? 24 A. Among other sources, yes. 25 Q. Yes, sir. The U.S. Public Health Service, 23 BY MR. CHANDLER: 24 Q. Okay. I forgot my question. Go back two or 25 three questions, before his answer that as long as it Page 336 Page 338 1 the U.S. Bureau of Mines, The Division of Industrial 1 was feasible. 2 Hygiene, Department of Labor, all of those 2 (The record was read as requested) 3 organizations came together to try to help the Exxon 3 BY MR. CHANDLER: 4 Company and Mr. Bonsib specifically prepare his report 4 Q. Sir, Dr. Weaver, you agree that it would not 5 entitled, "Dust-Producing Operations in the Production 5 be a reasonable position for a company to take that 6 of Petroleum Products and Associated Activities," 6 just because there is no law making them do something, 7 published all the way back in July, 1937; right? 7 they didn't have to do it. That is not reasonable, is 8 A. I would believe that they were consultants in 8 it? 9 this effort. 9 A. No. 10 Q. Yes, sir. And it's fair to say that one of 10 Q. Okay. For example, if a company knew there 11 the things the government was telling Exxon and that 11 were hazards that could affect the health of their 12 Exxon was telling anybody who wanted to read the 12 workers, they should take precautions to protect those 13 report is that it is important to suppress dust; 13 workers, even if the federal government doesn't make 14 right? 14 them; right? 15 A. Yes. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And it doesn't take a state regulation, 16 Q. And if a company knows there are hazards that 17 whether it was published and issued in 1958 or a 17 affect the health of the workers, they should take 18 federal regulation, whether it was published in 1972 18 those precautions even if the state government doesn't 19 or whenever, it doesn't take laws to make companies do 19 make them do it; right? 20 the right thing, does it? 20 A. Yes. 21 A. A company should do what is believed the 21 Q. Okay. I just love that picture. On picture, 22 correct thing without laws, yes. 22 Exhibit 8, do you know what trade those guys had? 23 Q. Because if a company doesn't do what they 23 A. No. 24 think is the correct thing, it's not reasonable for 24 Q. They are not managers though, are they? 25 them to say, well, we could do it, because there was 25 A. No. Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 18 (Pages 335 to 338) NEILL WEAVER Page 339 Page 341 1 Q. Those are the guys in the field, aren't they? 1 he testing for at the moment. And that may have 2 A. Right. 2 nothing to do with an eight-hour time period or have 3 Q. Sir, I know you told us under direct 3 nothing to do with the regulation. 4 examination by Ms. Kyle that you personally observed 4 Q. What is the highest peak exposure that any of 5 industrial hygiene sampling being done for asbestos at 5 the regulations allowed for asbestos dust, if you 6 the Baytown refinery; is that right? 6 know? 7 A. Yes. 7 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. Would you repeat 8 Q. Tell us for how long they took that sample, 8 that question for me. 9 how long was the monitor on? 9 BY MR. CHANDLER: 10 A. I don't remember any specific example. 10 Q. And by peak exposure I mean ceiling limit. 11 Q. Do you know how long a monitor should be on 11 A. I don't know. 12 In order to get an adequate sample of dust where a 12 Q. Do you know whether - how many different 13 worker might be working? 13 air samples do you think you saw being done at the 14 A. It depends on the particular circumstances at 14 Baytown refinery in your career? 15 the time. 15 A. I can't estimate that. 16 Q. What we are looking for, though, is what his 16 Q. Have any of those samples been shared with 17 average eight-hour exposure might be; right? 17 you in preparation for your deposition today? 18 A. That's, you look for a TLV for an eight-hour 18 A. No. 19 time. 19 Q. Have any of the samples been shared with you 20 Q. Yes, sir. I mean would a reasonable 20 in preparation for your deposition that we had here a 21 industrial hygienist come in and just say take a 21 couple weeks ago? 22 sample for two minutes, or would it be an hour, or two 22 A. No. 23 hours, or three? Does he have to do the whole eight? 23 Q. What kind of activity would you expect to 24 Tell us -- 24 release asbestos dust? 25 A. It depends on his objective at that 25 A. Sir, please speak up a little bit. Page 340 Page 342 1 particular time. 1 Q. I'm sorry. What kind of activity, 2 Q. Would a reasonable industrial hygienist do 2 Dr. Weaver, would you expect to release asbestos dust 3 the sampling for the whole eight hours? 3 in a refinery? 4 A. Ordinarily that is not feasible, but I can't 4 A. Asbestos dust might be released in activities 5 say that it was never done by switching filters and 5 that involve products that contain asbestos. 6 things like that. But that would not, that would be 6 Q. L ik e - 7 out of the ordinary, definitely. 7 A. The application of insulation, the removal of 8 Q. Would a reasonable industrial hygienist take 8 insulation are two obvious examples. 9 the other extreme and say take a sample just for two 9 Q. Yes, sir. I understood you when we were here 10 minutes? 10 earlier to say that you didn't think it was necessary 11 A. He might. 11 just to take a representative sample of every job 12 Q. In an environment where we know there are 12 that, with experience, an industrial hygienist could 13 hundreds of fibers per cubic centimeter, why might he 13 look at a job and just make the conclusion there were 14 take a sample only for two minutes in order to get an 14 no samples necessary for a specific job that might 15 eight-hour average. Tell me why that might happen. 15 involve asbestos; is that right? 16 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 16 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 17 THE WITNESS: It depends on the 17 THE WITNESS: I think I was referring to the 18 circumstances, his objective at the time. He may not 18 fact that an experienced industrial hygienist who has 19 have an interest in the eight-hour, time-weighted 19 taken many, many samples in the course of his 20 average. He may be looking for a peak level under 20 monitoring of a refinery, he develops a background of 21 particular circumstances. 21 experience that enables him to use professional 22 Q. Why might an industrial hygienist not be 22 judgment with respect to deciding when he has to take 23 interested in what the eight-hour average is if that 23 a sample. 24 is what the regulations require? 24 BY MR. CHANDLER: 25 A. Well, he is interested in that, but what is 25 Q. Is there anything in the history of any Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 19 (Pages 339 to 342) NEILL WEAVER Page 343 Page 345 1 experience of any industrial hygienist in the world at 1 they were seeing they didn't need to take a sample. 2 any time that you have ever been aware of that has 2 That occurred, didn't it? 3 allowed that industrial hygienist to see invisible 3 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 4 dust? 4 THE WITNESS: There might be an occasion 5 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 5 where that could occur. 6 THE WITNESS: I don't understand the 6 BY MR. CHANDLER: 7 question. 7 Q. Have you ever seen any Exxon documents where 8 BY MR. CHANDLER: 8 the Exxon industrial hygienists or safety inspectors 9 Q. Yes, sir. Let me re-ask it then. You don't 9 are acknowledging as late at 1971, sir, that workers 10 claim the Exxon industrial hygienist had super powers 10 are not wearing respirators like they should? Have 11 and could see the invisible, do you? 11 you ever seen anything like that? 12 A. No. 12 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 13 Q. And there's no trained industrial hygienist 13 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 14 that you are aware of in the entire world history that 14 BY MR. CHANDLER: 15 has ever been able to say I can see the invisible dust 15 Q. Have you ever seen any Exxon documents that 16 and therefore I know what level it is. I don't need 17 to sample. That is just completely unreasonable, 16 indicate as late at 1971 that Exxon workers are still 17 performing dry sweeping when it comes to asbestos as 18 isn't it? 19 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 18 late at 1971? 19 A. I don't know. 20 THE WITNESS: No. That's compound again. If 20 Q. Dry sweeping of asbestos should not have been 21 the dust is invisible, why, that, he can't see it. 21 occurring in 1971, should it? 22 BY MR. CHANDLER: 22 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 23 Q. That's my point, exactly. So since you have 24 given Ms. Kyle the objection to the question, 25 compound, let me re-ask it. There is no industrial 23 THE WITNESS: In general, no. 24 BY MR. CHANDLER: 25 Q. And adequate respiratory protection should Page 344 Page 346 1 hygienist that has ever had any experience, no matter 1 have been available as late as 1971 to workers and for 2 how great, that could tell what the levels of 2 decades before that; right? 3 invisible dust were without taking a sample; is that a 3 A. In general adequate respiratory protection 4 fair statement? 4 should be available. 5 A. I can conceive of situations where he may 5 Q. Dry sweeping, you would agree, is something 6 have taken samples of an activity and measured the 6 with respect to asbestos that was pretty much taboo, 7 invisible dust with an electron microscope so that, 7 wasn't it? 8 and if the same situation would be duplicated again, 8 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 9 his experience and judgment would enable him to know 9 THE WITNESS: Pretty much taboo. I can 10 what the situation is. And so that is my answer. 10 conceive of an instance where a dry sweeping could be 11 Q. And that is what happened at Exxon, isn't it, 11 properly utilized, but in general, the material would 12 sir? Some of the industrial hygienists would see a 12 be wetted down or a vacuum would be used. 13 job occurring. They would take a sample, even if it 13 BY MR. CHANDLER: 14 was invisible dust, and just based on that sample, 14 Q. Yes, sir. Sir, you told us under direct 15 they would apply that to other jobs and making their 15 examination that you, when you got to Exxon, there was 16 determinations whether another job might have to have 16 a worker who was a very high executive, one of the top 17 sampling, even if we are talking about invisible 18 levels. That is what they did at Exxon, isn't it? 19 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 17 management people in the refinery and he was dying, 18 and you were asked to go to the Tulane Medical Center 19 by Dr. Hanson, who was the medical director of the 20 THE WITNESS: The industrial hygienists would 20 Baton Rouge refinery at the time. Do you recall that? 21 use his best professional judgment in deciding what to 21 A. Yes. 22 do or what not to do. 22 Q. And you recall that incident pretty well even 23 BY MR. CHANDLER: 23 though it's 50-some years later, don't you? 24 Q. And it occurred at Exxon that industrial 24 25 hygienists eyeballed jobs and decided based on what 25 A. In general, I recall it well. Q. That very high executive, one of the top Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 20 (Pages 343 to 346) NEILL WEAVER Page 347 Page 349 1 management people at the Baton Rouge refinery was 1 and you worked hard and you came up through the ranks 2 dying of mesothelioma back in, was it 1951, sir? 2 to the top; isn't that fair? 3 A. Yes. 3 A. That's an ideal situation, isn't it. 4 Q. At that time you made the conclusion that 4 Q. And that is what - 5 that worker, that very high executive's mesothelioma 5 A. Success story. 6 was not caused by exposure to asbestos, right? 6 Q. That is what Exxon was in 1951. If you 7 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 7 wanted be a top executive of that company, you started 8 THE WITNESS: Based on the information that I 8 at the bottom, you worked your way up through the 9 had at that time, that was my conclusion, yes. 9 ranks, you did a good job and you became an executive. 10 BY MR. CHANDLER: 10 A. No. 11 Q. Based on the information you know today, sir, 11 Q. You don't agree with that? 12 do you believe that that very high executive's 12 A. No. 13 mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos at the 13 Q. Tell me why that is not true. 14 Baton Rouge refinery? 14 A. Most high executives had, were highly 15 A. I don't recall his past work history, but it 15 educated, engineering backgrounds or other disciplines 16 is entirely likely that the mesothelioma was not 16 and -- 17 caused by exposure to asbestos in the Baton Rouge 17 Q. Do you remember what the work experience of 18 refinery. 18 this, what you called a very high executive, one of 19 Q. Why do you say that? Tell me all the bases 19 the top management people in the refinery was back in 20 for that opinion? 20 1951? 21 A. Well, very simply, at least one out of five, 21 A. I don't recall his work history at this time. 22 20 percent mesotheliomas are not related to asbestos 22 Q. It was not uncommon for management people to 23 exposure. 23 go into the refineries and supervise the operations. 24 Q. But 80 percent of them are, in your opinion; 24 Was it, or did they stay behind a desk all the time? 25 right? 25 You tell me. Page 348 Page 350 1 A. Well, those numbers vary somewhat, but up to 1 A. It's not uncommon. 2 80 percent are. All right. 2 Q. So even if you were a high very executive and 3 Q. So why are you taking the one out of five 3 you were one of the top management people at Exxon, 4 instead of the four out of five in reaching your 4 you routinely toured the refinery, didn't you? 5 assumption that a very high executive who worked at 5 A. I did. 6 the Baton Rouge refinery in 1951 had a mesothelioma 6 Q. And other executives, especially if they were 7 that was not caused by asbestos? 7 at the refineries, went around the refinery to look at 8 A. That was the conclusion I derived from my 8 work, didn't they? 9 investigation of what was known about the cause of 9 A. They did. 10 mesothelioma at that time. 10 Q. Now, in 1951, is it more likely than not that 11 Q. Yes, sir. But I mean looking back today, now 11 an executive would have worked his way up through the 12 that you know everything you have in your history as 12 ranks or that he would have got hired as an executive 13 associate medical director of Exxon, even today you 13 at that time? What is more likely? 14 are not going to admit that that very high executive 14 A. Not hired as an executive, but hired with a 15 had an asbestos-related mesothelioma, are you? 15 rather extensive educational background. 16 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 16 Q. Yes, but the more likely scenario in 1951 is 17 THE WITNESS: Today I would classify his 17 that, let's say you had a college degree and you were 18 mesothelioma as idiopathic, unrelated to asbestos 18 an engineer. The first thing you would do is you 19 exposure. 19 would go out to the plant and you would work there. 20 BY MR. CHANDLER: 20 You wouldn't immediately become a top management 21 Q. In 1951 how did you get to be a very high 21 person, would you? 22 executive in the Exxon refinery at Baton Rouge? 23 A. By recognized talent and ability. 24 Q. But Exxon in 1951, sir, was like a lot of 25 good American companies. You started at the bottom 22 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 23 THE WITNESS: Not top management, no. He 24 would be a technical employee. 25 BY MR. CHANDLER: Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 21 (Pages 347 to 350) NEILL WEAVER Page 351 Page 353 j 1 Q. And as a technical employee, when he would 1 Q. No, sir. My statement is correct, that is 2 have started with Exxon Company, you would agree that 2 part of the reason you are charging $350 an hour 3 he would have had to go out to the plant, and that is 3 today, because they have hired you as an expert, as a 4 where he really would have started, out in the plant, 4 consultant in the field of occupational medicine. 5 not behind a desk In the office. 5 A. Because of my professional qualifications. 6 A. Well, let's agree that they had experience 6 Q. Yes, sir. And because of your professional 7 out in the field, yes. 7 qualifications, you know that mesotheliomas, at least 8 Q. Okay. And even though this top management 8 80 percent of the time when we consider everything, 9 official would have had experience out in the field at 9 are caused by asbestos, in your opinion; right? 10 the Baton Rouge refinery, you are not going to admit 10 A. Up to 80 percent. 11 to this jury that his mesothelioma, even with 11 Q. Now, if you take out all the background 12 everything you know today, was an asbestos related, 12 exposures, where nobody can find the asbestos 13 are you? 13 exposure, if you consider only asbestos exposed 14 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 14 individuals, is that short enough and clear enough? 15 THE WITNESS: Please repeat the question. 15 We are looking at a cohort that is only asbestos 16 BY MR. CHANDLER: 16 exposed individuals, okay. Do you understand the 17 Q. Yes, sir. Even though management people back 17 parameters? 18 in 1951 had experience in the field when they started 18 A. No, I don't understand, because it is not 19 with the company, you are not going to admit to this 19 clear. 20 jury that that top executive, knowing everything you 20 Q. Yes, sir. Let me try to make it clear. 21 know now, must have had an asbestos-related 21 A. When you say asbestos exposed individuals, 22 mesothelioma, are you? 22 you have to get into the concept of intensity and 23 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 23 dose. i 24 THE WITNESS: I still don't understand the 24 Q. For purposes of my question, I want you to 25 question. You will have to rephrase it. 25 assume that everybody in the cohort were people who Page 352 Page 354 j 1 BY MR. CHANDLER: 1 had whatever you consider to be enough exposure to 2 Q. Yes, sir, and I will rephrase it as many 2 cause mesothelioma. i 3 times as we need to. You are not going to agree, no 3 A. Good. : 4 matter what the plaintiffs in this case say, that that 4 Q. All right. Now, in that cohort of asbestos ; 5 top executive would have had asbestos exposure in the 5 exposed individuals, what percentage of mesotheliomas i 6 Baton Rouge refinery that was a causative agent in his 6 found in that cohort would be related to asbestos? 7 mesothelioma, even today, knowing everything you know; 7 Would it still be only 80 percent or would it be ; 8 right? 8 higher? : 9 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 9 MS. KYLE: Objection. 10 THE WITNESS: This is unanswerable. You are 10 THE WITNESS: It might be higher, but there 11 asking me to speculate. 11 would still be individuals whose mesothelioma would 12 BY MR. CHANDLER: 12 have occurred irrespective of the exposure to ^ 13 Q. Well, sir, I will represent to you - 13 asbestos. 14 A. Break it down into a couple of 14 BY MR. CHANDLER: 15 straightforward questions and I will indeed try to 15 Q. Then among the asbestos exposed cohort, sir, : 16 answer to the best of my ability. 16 what would you put the percentage as, of mesotheliomas i 17 Q. I will try. You know that the Exxon Company 17 caused by that asbestos exposure? * 18 has designated you as an expert in the field of 18 A. I don't know. 19 occupational medicine. You know that; right? 19 Q. But it's definitely higher than 80 percent? 20 A. Yes. 20 A. It would be higher than 80 percent. It would 21 Q. It's part of what you are charging $350 an 21 not be 100 percent. i 22 hour today for, for that consulting work; right? 22 Q. Okay. And you have no idea where in the ; 23 A. That is relevant. 23 spectrum that falls, whether it's the 99, 98, 81 or 24 Q. But it's right, isn't it? 24 82? 25 A. I think I earn it. 25 MS. KYLE: Objection. Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 22 (Pages 351 to 354) NEILL WEAVER Page 355 Page 357 1 THE WITNESS: Or lower; right. 1 occupational health? 2 BY MR. CHANDLER: 2 A. No. 3 Q. For that we would need to speak to like an 3 Q. Has anybody other than the Industry ever 4 epidemiologist, wouldn't you agree? 4 hired you as a consultant in occupational health? 5 A. No. 5 A. No. 6 Q. Who would know the answer then, if not an 6 Q. The only people who have sought out your 7 epidemiologist? 7 knowledge In the field of occupational health and your 8 A. It's unanswerable. 8 expertise have been members of industry, like Exxon 9 Q. You think it's unanswerable? 9 and other petroleum companies; is that fair? 10 A. Yes. The epidemiologist cannot answer that 10 A. The reason I'm hesitating, I'm trying to 11 question. 11 think of instances where I was hired as a consultant 12 Q. Okay. You are not an epidemiologist, are 12 to address a particular problem, and if I could recall 13 you? 13 them all, I probably have been hired as a consultant 14 A. No. 14 to address a particular question by individuals or 15 Q. You don't have a Ph.D. in epidemiology? 15 bodies other than industry. 16 A. No. 16 Q. Like who, you have, give me a specific 17 Q. You have a medical degree? 17 recollection of any time in a specific case anybody 18 A. Yes. 18 other than a member of industry has hired you as a 19 Q. Have you ever worked for -- I know you were 19 consultant or an industry lawyer. 20 in the Army for quite some time. We went over that a 20 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 21 lot in your direct examination, but have you ever 21 BY MR. CHANDLER: 22 worked for the Public Health Service? 22 Q. If you have a specific recollection. 23 A. No. 23 A. I was once asked by an individual in the 24 Q. Have you ever worked for, since Exxon was 24 governmental organization of the state of Connecticut 25 headquartered in New York, any New York public health 25 to address a problem. Page 356 Page 358 1 service in that state? 1 Q. What was the problem? 2 A. Have I ever? 2 A. It related to a hydrocarbon. 3 Q. Yes, sir. 3 Q. Did the State of Connecticut hire you as a 4 A. No. 4 consultant, sir? 5 Q. Have you ever worked for any public health 5 A. I was paid by a branch of the State of 6 organization or agency of any state? 6 Connecticut, to address a particular problem. 7 A. No. 7 Q. What branch of the State of Connecticut? 8 Q. All right. How about organizations like the 8 A. I don't recall now. 9 American Cancer Society? Have you ever worked for 9 Q. But it was about hydrocarbons, not asbestos? 10 them or done any work for them? 10 A. Yes, hydrocarbon. 11 A. No. 11 Q. Because hydrocarbons is overwhelmingly what 12 Q. Has the Environmental Protection Agency ever 12 you spent your time on? 13 hired you as a consultant? 13 A. Absolutely. 14 A. No. 14 Q. Other than that one instance, where somebody 15 Q. Has OSHA ever hired you as a consultant, the 15 from the State of Connecticut hired you to look into 16 Occupational Safety and Health Administration, as 16 hydrocarbons, can you think of any other time you have 17 opposed to just talking with you while you were with 17 been hired by somebody other than industry or an 18 the American Petroleum Institute. Have they ever 18 industry lawyer? 19 hired you as a consultant? 19 A. Well, my consulting with the governmental 20 A. No. 20 agencies was on a voluntary or invitation basis, but 21 Q. Has the Department of Justice ever hired you 21 not for, to be paid. 22 as a consultant in the field of occupational health? 22 Q. While you were working for the American 23 A. No. 23 Petroleum Institute; right? 24 Q. Has any governmental agency or non-profit 24 A. Yes. 25 agency ever hired you as a consultant In the field of 25 Q. So the work that you gave and consulted with Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 23 (Pages 355 to 358) NEILL WEAVER Page 359 Page 361 1 in the government, with the government was while you 1 A. It was done within the industrial hygiene 2 were a member and while you were on the payroll of the 2 laboratory, the counts were made. 3 American Petroleum Institute? 3 Q. At Exxon? 4 A. Yes. 4 A. Yes. I don't know if they had electron 5 Q. Have you - strike that. Since the last 5 microscopy, if they may have been sent out. There may 6 deposition we have had, have you come across any of 6 have been some sent out on an experimental basis or a 7 these brochures that you talked about that you claim 7 particular basis, but the ordinary routine counts were 8 were in the infirmaries at refineries of Exxon that 8 done in the Baytown laboratory. 9 mention asbestos? Have you seen any of those? 9 Q. So it was the Baytown Exxon industrial 10 A. I haven't seen any and I don't have them in 10 hygienist who was doing the asbestos dust counts. 11 my files. 11 They weren't sending them out to a private 12 Q. I will represent to you that we have safety 12 organization, a neutral third party; right? 13 manuals from Exxon that have survived over 50 years 13 A. Not on a routine basis. 14 with the company. Have you seen any of these 14 Q. Do you think it would be a good idea for a 15 pamphlets about asbestos disease you claim were in the 15 company to send samples out to a neutral third party 16 infirmaries survive? 16 to say tell us what is here, so that everybody knows 17 A. No, but I haven't seen safety manuals, 17 we are not being biased in our counts? Would that be 18 either. They could well survive, but I haven't, they 18 a good idea? 19 haven't come into my vision. 19 A. I have confidence in the professional 20 Q. Okay. No one from the Exxon Company has 20 abilities of the industrial hygienists and their 21 produced to you any of these pamphlets you claim were 21 trained technologists, and so I think their experience 22 in the infirmaries at Exxon about asbestos disease? 22 and knowhow in this business would be equal to or 23 A. No. I haven't requested any. 23 better than they might be sent out. 24 Q. And they haven't volunteered to show you 24 MR. CHANDLER: Objection, non-responsive. 25 them, have they? 25 BY MR. CHANDLER: Page 360 Page 362 1 A. True. 1 Q. My question was different than that, sir. My 2 Q. Okay. Well, you know we are here speaking 2 question is do you think it would be, and if you * 3 about an asbestos disease case; right? 3 disagree, just tell me. Do you think it would be a 4 A. Indeed. 4 good idea for a neutral third party to count asbestos 5 Q. And you never said to any of the Exxon 5 samples for Exxon, so that nobody could allege there 6 lawyers, hey, why don't you find some of those 6 was any bias involved in the counts? 7 pamphlets that were in the infirmaries about asbestos. 7 A. I don't know, that there may have been 8 You never did that? 8 circumstances where this in fact was done, but, again, 9 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 9 I come back to the point that I had confidence in the 10 THE WITNESS: I didn't say that. 10 professional abilities of the industrial hygiene staff 11 BY MR. CHANDLER: 11 and accepted their data. 12 Q. Why not? 12 MR. CHANDLER: Objection, non-responsive 13 A. I didn't feel it was my responsibility to 14 request such things. 15 Q. Well, as a paid consultant earning $350 an 13 again, sir. 14 BY MR. CHANDLER: 15 Q. I'm not asking you whether it was done, 16 hour, you understand that you can request information 16 because I understand you don't know. I'm not asking 17 from Exxon to form your opinions. You know that; 18 right? 17 you about your confidence in the lab. The question is 18 much simpler than that. I'm trying to make it anyway. 19 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 19 Do you think it would be a good idea for a company 20 THE WITNESS: I don't understand. 20 like Exxon to send out their dust monitoring data, so 21 BY MR. CHANDLER: 21 that a neutral third party might do the counting, so 22 Q. Okay. That's fine. We will move on. Who 22 there could be no allegation that there was a bias in 23 did the - if there were asbestos dust samples being 23 the counting. Would that be a good idea or not, do 24 done at Baytown, who counted them? Was it Exxon or 24 you think? 25 did they send it out? 25 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 24 (Pages 359 to 362) NEILL WEAVER Page 395 Page 397 1 Q. And you were not reporting occupational 1 Q. Or the state of Louisiana, where you were? 2 cancers to the state of Louisiana, were you? 2 A. Or Louisiana, excuse me. I don't know what 3 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 3 was required. 4 THE WITNESS: I don't know the answer. 4 Q. Well, if, you were the guy, the head medical 5 Whether the refinery was or not, I don't know. 5 doctor of the largest refinery in the world in 1958, 6 BY MR. CHANDLER: 6 weren't you? 7 Q. You certainly -- 7 A. Yes. 8 A. Again, the question is occupational cancers, 8 Q. And you don't have any recollection of 9 not all cancers. The Kettering study was involved 9 occupational cancers being reported to the state of 10 with all cancers. 10 Louisiana, do you? 11 Q. Yes, sir. In 1958, your position at the 11 A. I don't have recollection of the occurrence 12 Baton Rouge facility was what? 12 of occupational cancers. 13 A. Medical director. 13 Q. And therefore you certainly weren't telling 14 Q. You were the medical director of the entire 14 the state of Louisiana you had any, did you? 15 plant, weren't you? 15 A. If we had any and were required to do so, we 16 A. Yes. 16 would have done, would have reported them. 17 Q. And you were not aware of anybody reporting 17 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 18 occupational cancers to state health departments, were 18 THE WITNESS: Most assuredly. 19 you? 19 BY MR. CHANDLER: 20 A. I have no recollection of such knowledge. 20 Q. Is it your claim as you sit here today to the 21 Q. Well, if Exxon wasn't reporting cancers that 21 ladies and gentlemen of this jury that in 1958, no 22 were occupationally related to state health 22 matter what type of cancer it was, lymphoma, leukemia, 23 departments, you would agree that they couldn't 23 whatever, you don't think in 1958 you had any of those 24 possibly report the kind of information Kettering was 24 in Baton Rouge. Is that what you are saying? 25 looking for in 1958; is that fair? 25 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. Page 396 Page 398 1 A. No. 1 THE WITNESS: We had all tumors that occur, 2 Q. Okay. 2 you know, representative tumors that occur in a 3 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 4 BY MR. CHANDLER: 5 Q. What Kettering was looking for was 3 population. Yes. 4 BY MR. CHANDLER: 5 Q. Okay. So you had all of these tumors in 6 essentially the inclusion of items customarily 7 required for notification of occupational cancers to 6 Baton Rouge that occur in populations; right? 7 A. That occur naturally in populations. 8 state health departments. You agree that is what it 8 Q. We are talking leukemia; correct? 9 says; right? 9 A. Yes. 10 A. Yes, that is what it says. 10 Q. Lung cancer; right? 11 Q. And in 1958 as the medical director of what 11 A. Yes. 12 was at the time the largest refinery in the world, 12 Q. But what you are saying is you made the 13 wasn't it? 14 A. Yes. 13 decision in 1958 none of those were occupationally 14 related; correct? 15 Q. You were not reporting occupational cancers 16 to the state of Louisiana? 17 A. That doesn't follow, that the refinery was 18 not reporting. 19 Q. But you as the medical director of the 20 refinery didn't know if they were, did you? 21 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 15 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 16 THE WITNESS: There was no basis for 17 considering them occupationally related. 18 BY MR. CHANDLER: 19 Q. And therefore Exxon wouldn't have been 20 sending that information to the Kettering study, 21 because they were looking for occupationally related 22 THE WITNESS: I have no recollection at this 23 time what was required by the state of Texas in the 24 way of reporting. 25 BY MR. CHANDLER: 22 cancers. 23 A. No, they used forms that were compatible with 24 those that the states use. Kettering was looking for 25 all tumors. Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 33 (Pages 395 to 398) NEILL WEAVER Page 363 Page 365 1 THE WITNESS: I see no need for that. 1 maintenance workers with process workers that you 2 BY MR. CHANDLER: 2 considered the unexposed population; correct? 3 Q. Okay. We agree that process -- we went 3 A. Unexposed. That is correct, yes. 4 through this earlier, but I need to come back to this 4 Q. Now, you agree that in an epidemiologic study 5 for my next line of questioning. Maintenance workers 5 or any study the control group or the unexposed 6 versus process workers, we talked about that 6 population, and in this case it was the process 7 distinction; right? 7 workers you considered to be the control group; right? 8 A. Yes. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. We talked about the fact that process workers 9 Q. You agree that that control group should in 10 can be present while maintenance work is going on; 10 fact be people who were not exposed to the substance 11 right? 11 you are trying to study in the exposed group, like 12 A. Yes. 12 maintenance workers? 13 Q. All right. If you will look at page, what is 13 A. With reference to the dose, the amount of 14 Exhibit 9 to your deposition, sir, that is what you 14 exposure, intensity and duration, the control workers 15 have discussed with Ms. Kyle on direct examination. 15 are a proper control to be compared with the exposed, 16 It is a letter dated 1966 from you to Mr. Dooley at 16 who had been defined by observation and judgment had 17 Texaco, and it's dated April 6,1966. Do you see 17 been exposed. So this gets into what constitutes an 18 that? It's Exhibit 9. 18 exposure, and I will support the comparison that was 19 A. What number? 19 made. 20 Q. Nine, sir. 20 MR. CHANDLER: Objection, non-responsive. 21 MS. KYLE: It's not in that book. I'm not 21 BY MR. CHANDLER: 22 sure I have got it. 22 Q. And you can support the comparison you made 23 MR. CHANDLER: You can use my copy. The 23 all you want, because I know Ms. Kyle is going to have 24 whole thing, right here. 24 more questions for you. You will have an opportunity. 25 THE WITNESS: Thank you. I will return it. 25 My question is different. It's just general. My Page 364 Page 366 1 BY MR. CHANDLER: 1 question is general at this point. We will get to the 2 Q. That's what you were discussing under direct 2 specifics. So you agree if you need to study, say, 3 examination. Is a letter from you to somebody at 3 asbestos among exposed populations, if you are going 4 Texaco that essentially says we compared asbestos 4 to compare them to a control group, the control group 5 exposed individuals to non-asbestos exposed 5 should in fact be a group that is not being exposed to 6 individuals and we don't see any excess of cancer. Is 6 asbestos. That is basic; right? 7 that a fair characterization of what you believe 7 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 8 Exhibit 9 is, the letter dated 1966? 8 THE WITNESS: No. 9 A. Yes, within the limitation and constraints of 9 BY MR. CHANDLER: 10 this, what is reported here. 10 Q. You don't agree that the exposed group 11 Q. So what you did back in 1966 in order to 11 shouldn't be exposed to asbestos? 12 determine whether you had an excess level of disease 12 A. Well, we are all exposed to asbestos, so it's 13 among employees was you took maintenance workers, 13 all relative. 14 right, and you compared them with process workers; 14 Q. Do you believe the process workers at Exxon 15 right? 15 are exposed to asbestos the same way that a housewife 16 A. Yes. 16 or somebody who doesn't work in a refinery might be? 17 Q. And one of the assumptions you made was that 17 A. Yes. 18 it was the maintenance workers who were the exposed 18 Q. So that is the basic assumption that you were 19 populations and the process workers who were the 19 using in 1966. You assumed process workers were 20 unexposed populations; right? 20 getting the same exposure as anybody else in the 21 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 21 country, like a housewife or truck driver; right? 22 THE WITNESS: Only selected maintenance 22 A. Within the range of ambient exposures, yes. 23 workers were considered to be exposed. 23 Q. Now, so if your assumption is wrong - let me 24 BY MR. CHANDLER: 24 ask it this way. You agree that if the control group 25 Q. Okay. And then you compared those selected 25 is being exposed to levels that are above the Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 25 (Pages 363 to 366) NEILL WEAVER Page 367 Page 369 I 1 background levels of asbestos, if that is happening, 1 workers who were known to be exposed to asbestos with 2 then your conclusions are not going to be correct? 2 workers who were known not to be exposed to asbestos, 3 A. I can't - that is hypothetical. I can't 3 within the occupational exposure context. 4 assume that that is the case. 4 BY MR. CHANDLER: 5 Q. Well, let me ask you this then. If a control 5 Q. And that group that you thought was known not 6 group is indeed exposed to asbestos above background 6 to be exposed to asbestos was the process workers, the 7 level, then you are not going to get a fair comparison 7 people who ran the unit, who kept the pressure and the 8 when you try to compare the exposed populations like 8 lines going? 9 maintenance workers to the process workers. Can you 9 A. Yes. 10 agree to that? 10 Q. Even though you admit at times they are 11 A. No. That was not the case. 11 present while maintenance work is going on; right? 12 Q. Okay. I know you are saying that was not the 12 A. Yes. 13 case. You believe that was not the case. That is not 13 Q. Okay. If the process workers are being 14 the point. The point of my question is, you agree 14 exposed to levels of asbestos above a housewife, they 15 that if the process workers are an exposed population 15 are going to have higher levels of asbestos disease, 16 above background level, they are not an appropriate 16 wouldn't you agree? 17 control group to compare to maintenance workers, 17 A. Here we get into the threshold concept. 18 because you are going to get artificially inflated 18 Q. Yes, sir. 19 levels of cancer in the control group. Do you agree 19 A. And so that I don't necessarily agree with 20 to that? 20 what your statement was. 21 A. That is again hypothetical. 21 Q. Okay. Well, let me ask you this. If a 22 Q. But given the hypothetical, do you agree? 22 process worker at Exxon's plant is exposed to more 23 A. It might be the case, but that was not the 23 asbestos than just a guy who works in a supermarket, 24 case here. 24 he is not an appropriate control group to compare to 25 BY MR. CHANDLER: All right. Objection as 25 maintenance workers who you do believe are exposed to Page 368 Page 370 1 non-responsive to everything after, "That might be the 1 asbestos. Do you agree to that? 2 case." 2 A. We have very extensive evidence from multiple 3 BY MR. CHANDLER: 3 epidemiologic studies that the employees such as 4 Q. What you did in your letter in April, 1966 4 process workers do not have excess levels of diseases 5 was to compare maintenance workers with what you 5 due to asbestos. There's a tremendous volume of 6 thought was an unexposed population, process workers; 6 evidence to establish this. 7 right? 7 MR. CHANDLER: Objection, non-responsive. 8 A. I did not use maintenance workers in a 8 BY MR. CHANDLER: 9 generic context. 9 Q. Sir, my question is much more basic than we 10 Q. You used specific maintenance workers you 10 are trying to make it and much less specific than you 11 thought were exposed to asbestos, and you compared 11 are trying to make it. You agree that if you include 12 them to the people on the unit, like the operators who 12 in the control group workers who were exposed to 13 were running the unit; right? 13 asbestos above background level, that is not an 14 A. All right. Yes. 14 appropriate control group. Do you agree to that? 15 Q. You did not compare the specific maintenance 15 A. No. 16 workers to people like office workers or to people who 16 Q. Okay. Good. Thank you. But there is no 17 didn't work in the refineries at all. You didn't do 17 question in your mind in 1966 what you did was control 18 that, did you? 18 specific maintenance workers with process workers who 19 A. I did not do that. 19 were guys whose job it was to stay on the unit, even 20 Q. You compared one maintenance worker who was a 20 though maintenance work may be done. You don't 21 specific maintenance worker you believed worked with 21 disagree with that? 22 asbestos with another refinery worker whose job It was 22 MS. KYLE: Objection.to form. 23 to stay on a unit, didn't you? 23 THE WITNESS: I agree with that. Yes. 24 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 24 Q. We have 3 minutes; 2-1/2 left on the tape 25 T H E W ITNESS: I com pared selected m aintenance 25 now. You can change it. We have again going. Well, Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 26 (Pages 367 to 370) NEILL WEAVER Page 371 Page 373 1 45 minutes. You tell me what you want to do. We will 1 they be? 2 keep going if you want to. 2 A. Sales, bulk sales, in some case retail sales. 3 MS. KYLE: He's going to change it? 3 Q. So the marketing employees you looked at 4 MR. CHANDLER: Yes. 4 aren't people who work in the refinery, are they? 5 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The 5 A. No. 6 time is 12:07. This marks the end of videotape number 6 Q. And you go on to say that, "Diagnoses 7 1, volume 2 of the deposition of Dr. Neill Weaver. 7 selected for study were restricted to the following: 8 (Recess) 8 Number 1, bronchiectasis, A; B, bronchitis, C, asthma, 9 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the beginning 9 and D, emphysema, pulmonary fibrosis and cystic 10 of videotape number 2 of volume 2 in the deposition of 10 disease of the lung." Did I read that correctly? 11 Dr. Neill Weaver. We are going back on the record. 11 A. Yes. 12 The time is 12:19. 12 Q. The next sentence, "Pulmonary tuberculosis 13 BY MR. CHANDLER: 13 and cancer of the lung were excluded;" right? 14 Q. Dr. Weaver, I want to direct your attention 14 A. Yes. 15 to Exhibit 10 now from your deposition that was 15 Q. You specifically excluded cancer of the lung 16 discussed with you by the Exxon lawyer the last time 16 in your study of 1960, entitled, "Chronic Pulmonary 17 we met here. And it is a cohort study entitled, 17 Disease in Industrial Population," didn't you? 18 "Chronic Pulmonary Disease in Industrial Populations," 18 A. Yes. 19 that you did with another doctor. Do you remember 19 Q. All right. Why did you do that? 20 that study? 20 A. Because cancer is not a chronic pulmonary 21 A. I do. 21 disease. 22 Q. What year was that done, by the way? 1960, 22 Q. You were only looking for diseases that take 23 wasn't it? 23 a lot of years; is that right? 24 A. Is that the date of the report? 24 MS. KYLE: Objection to form. 25 Q. Yes, sir. 25 BY MR. CHANDLER: Page 372 Page 374 1 A. Yes, it was done in the two, three years 1 Q. A lot of years to develop? 2 prior to 1960. Two years prior to 1960. 2 A. Chronic. 3 Q. In the report entitled, "Chronic Pulmonary 3 Q. Chronic. Is that your definition of chronic 4 Disease in Industrial Population," did you look for 4 disease? 5 specifically asbestos-related diseases in that report? 5 A. Yes. Yes. In contrast to acute, which is 6 A. We did. 6 something happening very quickly, chronic occurs over 7 Q. Okay. I want to talk to you about some of 7 a period of years. 8 the results in that study. I want to talk to you 8 Q. You understand that - so the only asbestos 9 about the first page, because I want to talk to you 9 disease you were looking for was, would have been 10 about what you looked for in the study. On the first 10 asbestosis; right? 11 page of the report, that is 381, sir. 11 A. Yes. 12 A. Thank you. 12 Q. So you understand that asbestosis has a Very 13 Q. If s the paragraph marked, "Method of Study." 13 significant latency period; right? 14 You say and Dr. Thorpe says - by the way, was 14 A. Yes. 15 Dr. Thorpe an Exxon doctor? 15 Q. What is the average latency period of 16 A. Yes. 16 asbestosis? 17 Q. Okay. So this is a report done by two Exxon 17 A. It depends on the exposure time. In severe 18 physicians; right? 18 exposures of the textile Industry, it may take seven, 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. No independent, outside third parties here? 19 eight, nine, 10 years. In other occupations where the 20 exposure is less, the latent period would 21 A. Yes. 21 correspondingly be longer. 22 Q. Okay. "Die study, you and Dr. Thorpe write 22 Q. Let me ask re-ask the question this way then. 23 that "The study population totaled 23,142 males 23 Among workers like insulators or pipefitters or 24 engaged in refining and marketing petroleum." Who are 24 somebody like that, what do you understand the latency 25 marketing employees? That is my question. Who would 25 period to be among, for the disease asbestosis? Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 27 (Pages 371 to 374) NEILL WEAVER Page 375 Page 377 1 A. Well, again, it would depend on the exposure. 1 products processes. Those would be the guys who, 2 As we would expect in refineries, the exposure, we 2 well, were the guys on the unit that we have already 3 don't expect to find this disease. 3 been discussing? 4 Q. What is the average latency period among 4 A. Yes. 5 asbestos exposed individuals, like insulators, for 5 Q. And you included the guys who were the same 6 example, we will use them. 6 process people, but on the chemical plant side, as 7 A. Insulators where? 7 opposed to the petroleum side; right? 8 Q. Wherever you want - let's say Dr. Selikoffs 8 A. Yes. 9 study of 1964. What was the average latency period he 9 Q. And you included metal trades; right? 10 found? 10 A. Yes. 11 A. I don't recall in his specific study, but let 11 Q. Finally you included, or firstly, however you 12 me answer it this way. In the exposures of severe 12 want to say it, you included the dusty trades workers? 13 nature in confined spaces in shipbuilding, the latency 13 A. Yes. 14 period could be as short as five, six, seven, 10 14 Q. Now, the level of disease among which trade 15 years. In Dr. Selikoffs cohort, where the exposure 15 for chronic pulmonary diseases - let me re-ask the 16 included shipbuilding, but also some refinery work and 16 question. We trade had the highest level of chronic 17 other industry exposures, we would expect the latency 17 pulmonary disease in an industrial population, in your 18 period to be longer. 18 study in 1960? 19 Q. Is it fair to say then, just on average, if 19 A. The dusty trades group, which included 20 we consider the extremes on both ends, that the 20 insulators, brick masons, sand blasters. 21 average latency period for asbestos diseases is 21 Q. Yes, sir, it did. So when you isolate just 22 somewhere in the range of 20 to 30 years? 22 the people like insulators, even insulators in a 23 A. I would accept that. 23 refinery, they had the highest level of chronic 24 Q. Okay. Now, the study that you looked at, 24 pulmonary disease? 25 "Chronic Pulmonary Diseases in Industrial Population," 25 A. They were in the group that had the highest Page 376 Page 378 1 did not just include workers of dusty trades in the 1 level of chronic, of emphysema and fibrosis. 2 petroleum industry; right? 2 Q. Now, we discussed earlier petroleum process 3 A. No. 3 workers that you compared in your first letter to 4 MS. KYLE: Objection to form. 4 Texaco. You said I'm comparing process workers to 5 BY MR. CHANDLER: 5 maintenance workers. Do you remember that? 6 Q. It included people who worked in offices, 6 A. Yes. 7 didn't it? 7 Q. In your study, you found a higher level of 8 A. Yes. 8 chronic pulmonary diseases among process workers than 9 Q. It included people who were outdoor salesmen, 9 you did for people like administrative or clerical 10 didn't it? 10 workers; right? 11 A. Yes. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. It included people who were in other 12 Q. There's something going on among process 13 mechanical groups, according to page 382. Do you know 13 workers, according to your study in 1960, that made 14 what "other mechanical groups" would have included? 14 them have over twice the level of chronic pulmonary 15 A. I would have to read the context to get that 15 disease than did administrative or clerical workers. 16 context, but, well, it could have been meter readers 16 Something was going on there, right? 17 in the refinery, things like that, technologists, 17 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 18 technicians. 18 THE WITNESS: That was the finding. 19 Q. I see. Okay. I will accept that definition. 19 BY MR. CHANDLER: 20 Meter readers. So you included meter readers in your 20 Q. What was that something that was going on. 21 study? 21 Do you know? 22 A. Uh-huh. 22 A. Exposure to irritating dust. 23 Q. Yes? 23 Q. Exactly. Process workers were getting more 24 A. Yes. 24 exposure to irritating dust than office workers, 25 Q. Okay. And you included the petroleum 25 weren't they? Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 28 (Pages 375 to 378) NEILL WEAVER Page 379 Page 381 1 A. Yes. 1 reported, accurately reported. 2 Q. In fact, process workers were getting 2 Q. Yes, sir, but since you can't get an accurate 3 exposure to irritating dust, causing twice the level 3 judgment about people, of up to 20 percent of the 4 of chronic pulmonary diseases, over twice the level of 4 people you included in your study, about those 5 chronic pulmonary diseases, than was being experienced 5 people's work environment, do you consider that to be 6 by administrative or clerical workers; correct? 6 high? 7 A. Yes, and, again, the distinction is that the 7 A. Again, the study speaks for itself. We found 8 process workers were out in the field, whereas the 8 remarkable correlation, unexpected, remarkable 9 office workers were in air conditioned, filtered air. 9 correlation, when was this, 1960, with respect to 10 Q. Exactly. People out in the field, even 10 potential exposure to dust. It was some 10,15 years 11 process workers, were getting exposure to chronic, 11 later that the Environmental Protection Agency began 12 irritating pulmonary dust. 12 to pay attention to the possible deleterious effects 13 A. Yes. It showed remarkable sensitivity in 13 of breathing "dust." "Dust" in quotation marks. 14 this study. 14 MR. CHANDLER: Objection, non-responsive. 15 Q. Okay. In fact, one of the things you learned 15 Read back the answer - never mind. I will just do it 16 in your study was that as people got older, they got 16 later. 17 more chronic pulmonary disease? 17 BY MR. CHANDLER: 18 A. Yes. 18 Q. All right. So the ladies and gentlemen are 19 Q. That is consistent with latency. It's 19 perfectly clear about the study you did in 1960 that 20 consistent with just getting older, you get more 20 the Exxon lawyer went over with you, there is no 21 disease; right? 21 question in your mind that one out of every five of 22 A. Yes. 22 the workers, you could not tell anybody who read this 23 Q. Is it also consistent with a latent effect? 23 study what their work environment was like, but you 24 A. Yes. 24 included them in your study anyway? 25 Q. All right. So as you saw a latent period 25 A. Which is entirely proper for a concurrent Page 380 Page 382 1 increase in 1960, you saw more chronic pulmonary 1 observational study. And again, the study speaks for 2 disease? 2 itself with the quite surprising and remarkable 3 A. Chronic pulmonary disease, yes. 3 correlations that we report. 4 Q. Yes, sir. Now, in the study that you did in 4 MR. CHANDLER: Objection, non-responsive. 5 1960 that you discussed with the Exxon lawyer on 5 BY MR. CHANDLER: 6 direct examination, it is true that about 20 percent 6 Q. Is that Exhibit 10? Yes, it is. I have my 7 of the cases in that study had data that were 7 exhibits out of order, that's why. All right. The 8 inadequate to make any judgment about their work 8 next study that the Exxon lawyer went over with you 9 environment at all; isn't that right? 9 under direct examination was Exhibit 11, and it's 10 A. As best I can recall. 10 entitled "An Epidemiological Study of Cancer Among 11 Q. 20 percent of the people you couldn't even 11 Employees in the American Petroleum Industry," and is 12 tell us what their work environment was like in that 12 dated March, 1958; is that right? 13 study in 1960, could you? 13 A. Yes. 14 A. As best I can recall. 14 Q. Now this study was paid for by the American 15 Q. Is that a significant number in your mind, 20 15 petroleum industry, wasn't it? 16 percent of the workers being unable to tell anything 16 A. Yes. 17 about their work environment? 17 Q. And it was not for publication at the time it 18 A. The publication speaks for itself. 18 was done, wasn't it? 19 Q. Yes, sir. Is 20 percent of the work 19 A. I believe that is correct. 20 environment for which you could not make any judgment 20 Q. It is not a publication that was put forth in 21 about their work environment, is that a high rate in 21 the medical and scientific literature, was it? 22 your mind? 22 A. The report was not published in a journal. 23 A. Again, the publication speaks for itself. 23 The report was archived in the library of the American 24 This is an observational study, concurrent 24 Petroleum Institute, where it was available to anyone 25 observational study, and that is how the data are 25 who wanted to see it. Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 29 (Pages 379 to 382) NEILL WEAVER Page 383 Page 385 1 Q. Yes, sir, but - 1 circumstances, Dr. Weaver. Whatever the details and 2 A. It was released extensively throughout the 2 circumstances are, we can agree that the Kettering 3 petroleum industry, to all the participating companies 3 Laboratory terminated the study back in 1958 because 4 and reported widespread throughout the whole petroleum 4 they weren't getting the data they needed; right? 5 industry, which is rather broad. 5 A. I don't know that that is right. 6 Q. I don't doubt that the people who paid for 6 Q. Okay. Well, let's look at it and tell the 7 the study got to see it. I'm not disputing that. 7 ladies and gentlemen of the jury. The Kettering 8 Those people you talked about as being "participating 8 Laboratory did rely on the member companies, the 9 companies" paid for the study; right? 9 petroleum member companies for the data; right? 10 A. Yes. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. So they got to see it. 11 Q. They got their data from people like Exxon, 12 A. Yes. 12 Texaco. That is where they were getting it? 13 Q. That's normal? 13 A. Yes. 14 A. Sure. 14 Q. Kettering Laboratory people didn't go to 15 Q. But what did not happen with this 15 Exxon and look through Exxon files. The reality is 16 epidemiologic study that you talked about with the 16 people like Exxon or any other company sent to the 17 Exxon lawyers is it did not go to any medical or 17 Kettering Laboratory the information? 18 scientific journal to be subject to peer review by 18 A. Yes. I'm sure the Kettering Laboratory 19 reviewers of the study for publication in the 19 people did in fact inspect and study the corporate 20 widespread medical or scientific literature, did it? 20 files, medical files. 21 A. Yes, because that was not an objective of 21 Q. But it's Exxon who sent Kettering Laboratory 22 this preliminary groundbreaking study. 22 the information, and all of the other participating 23 MR. CHANDLER; Okay. Objection as 23 companies? 24 non-responsive to everything after, "Yes." 24 A. The industry was the source of the 25 BY MR. CHANDLER: 25 information. Page 384 Page 386 1 Q. You considered - well, let me ask you this. 1 Q. Right. Now, let's look at what the summary 2 What you consider a "groundbreaking study" was a study 2 and conclusions were, and it's the fourth page of the 3 that was terminated because industry didn't fully 3 Kettering Laboratory study, which was terminated in 4 cooperate with the Kettering Laboratory, isn't that 4 1958. He needs a copy, Glenna. It's Exhibit 11, sir. 5 true? 5 MS. KYLE: I don't have it by that number, is 6 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 6 the problem. 7 THE WITNESS: The study was terminated 7 MR. CHANDLER: There it is. 8 because the practicality or feasibility led the 8 THE WITNESS: Thank you. What page? 9 industry to stop participating. 9 BY MR. CHANDLER: 10 BY MR. CHANDLER: 10 Q. Well, it doesn't have page numbers on mine. 11 Q. Industry failed to cooperate with the 11 It's the fourth page, sir, marked, Summary and 12 Kettering Laboratory, and therefore the Kettering 12 conclusions." There you go, yes, sir. 13 Laboratory terminated the study of cancer among 13 A. All right. 14 employees in the American petroleum industry back in 14 Q. Now, the real purpose of the study that was 15 March of 1958. Is that fair or true? 15 undertaken was for detecting the presence of 16 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 16 carcinogenic substances in the petroleum products. 17 THE WITNESS: I don't know the detailed 17 That is what the companies were making; right? 18 circumstances that led to the termination of the 18 A. Yes. To see if it was feasible to find 19 study. I know that the effort required was beyond 19 evidence of deleterious effects from the products of 20 what the companies could carry out. 20 the industry. 21 MR. CHANDLER: Okay. Objection, 21 Q. The purpose of the Kettering Laboratory study 22 non-responsive, to everything after "the detailed 22 that was sponsored by the American petroleum industry 23 circumstances." 23 and its members in March of 1958 was not to look at 24 BY MR. CHANDLER: 24 asbestos-related diseases, was it? 25 Q. Let's talk about the details and 25 A. True. Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 30 (Pages 383 to 386) NEILL WEAVER Page 387 Page 389 1 Q. In fact, it was only to look at diseases in 1 BY MR. CHANDLER: 2 the things that y'all at Exxon and companies like you 2 Q. Why is it important not to consider data that 3 were actually making? 3 have a "very definite bias in their selection.'' Why 4 A. Yes. 4 would it be important not to consider that data? 5 Q. And although Exxon did make at least one 5 MS. KYLE: Objection form. 6 specific asbestos-containing product, of which we have 6 THE WITNESS: You are aware of the limitation 7 discussed, the vast majority of its products did not 7 and as they very clearly stated, you are aware of the 8 contain asbestos; right? 8 limitations, but they nonetheless chose to go ahead 9 A. Yes. 9 and see what analysis could be made. 10 Q. Now, at the bottom of the summary and 10 BY MR. CHANDLER: 11 conclusions page, it was acknowledged back in 1958 in 11 Q. Why did the member companies make selections 12 the middle of the last paragraph, "The reports 12 that had a "very definite bias" in their selection, 13 received were not only few, but there was very 13 sir? 14 definite bias in their selection." Do you see where 14 A. Because the medical departments had different 15 that is written? 15 records. They had no standardized medical record 16 A. Yes. 16 within the company, within the different corporations. 17 Q. Did I read that sentence correctly? 17 Q. One of the desirable objectives of the study 18 A. Yes. 18 that they tried to figure out in 1958 before 19 Q. So what we were being told by this study that 19 terminating it was the following: Number 1, 'To 20 you consider groundbreaking back in 1958 was, number 20 ascertain the incidence and prevalence rates of 21 1, they were getting very few data from the member 21 neoplastic disease in the employee population of the 22 companies; right? 22 various participating petroleum companies." If you go 23 A. They got lots of data, but of course the 23 to, flip, sir, five more pages for me. That is where 24 investigators always wanted more. 24 I read that from. Let's start over on the tape. Five 25 Q. And they wrote that they considered they were 25 more pages. Page 388 Page 390 1 getting only few data, right? That is what they 1 A. It's under planning and development? 2 called it. They called it few data. 2 Q. No, sir, one more page. 3 A. All right. Uh-huh. 3 A. One more page. 4 Q. Correct? 4 Q. It starts, the paragraph I think, try one 5 A. All right. Uh-huh. 5 more. There's it is. It starts where it reads, sir, 6 Q. And they also acknowledged what they were 6 "After careful consideration," do you see that? 7 getting from the member companies had a "very definite 7 A. Yes. 8 bias in their selection." That is what they 8 Q. Okay. Let me re-ask the question. 9 acknowledge in the report. 9 A. All right. 10 A. Yes. That bias was based upon the variation 10 Q. One of the objectives, at least the certain 11 between the companies in the information submitted. 11 desirable objectives of the 1958 study sponsored by 12 Q. They couldn't trust what was coming from the 12 the American petroleum industry was, "To ascertain the 13 companies, that is the point, because all of the data 13 incidence and prevalence rates of neoplastic disease 14 varied so widely among the member companies. 14 in the employee population of the various 15 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 15 participating petroleum companies." Do you see that? 16 BY MR. CHANDLER: 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Right? 17 Q. That's a desirable objective, you would 18 A. I have forgotten the starting of your 18 agree? 19 statement or question. 19 A. It's desirable. 20 (The record was read as requested) 20 Q. Yes, sir. Were there some petroleum 21 THE WITNESS: I don't think the sentence 21 companies in the American petroleum industry who chose 22 really makes sense. They trusted the data that they 22 not to participate in this study? 23 got. They wanted more data and they would like to 23 A. I would assume that is the case. There's 300 24 have had more equal submissions from the different 25 companies. 24 different companies in the industry. 25 Q. Well, you would agree that if a company Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 31 (Pages 387 to 390) NEILL WEAVER Page 391 1 1 chooses not to participate in a study - let me re-ask 2 2 the question. Strike that. Page 393 THE WITNESS: And Kettering was in a position to go ahead and conduct analyses. 3 Do you know the reason those companies chose 3 BY MR. CHANDLER: 4 not to participate in a study of cancer among their 4 Q. And we will talk about the analysis Kettering 65 employees? Do you know why those companies might not have wanted to participate in a cancer study? 56 Laboratory did, sir, and what it really means, but I will object to non-responsive after, "That was part of 87 MS. KYLE: Objection to form. THE WITNESS: Well, it might be because they 9 have no medical department. 10 BY MR. CHANDLER: 11 Q. Okay. Any other reason a company might 12 consider I don't want to be involved in a study of 87 the problem." Sir, in 1958, did the Exxon Company have to 9 report to state health departments - let me re-ask 10 the question. In 1958 was Exxon required to report 11 cancer among its employees to state health 12 departments? 13 cancer among my employees. Do you know? 13 A. I'm sure they were not. 14 A. I think if you look at it on the other hand, 14 Q. They were not? 15 quite a number of companies did want to be involved in 15 A. No. 16 a study of cancer in the industry. 16 Q. Okay. Would you flip a couple more pages, 17 Q. So many companies wanted to be involved that 17 sir. Three more pages in the study. I wish they were 18 the study actually had to be stopped because they were 18 numbered, but mine are not. It's one more, sir. Yes, 19 getting such few data, though. That's true, isn't it? 19 sir. Right there. On Kettering's laboratory report, 20 A. Well, you can look at the amount of data they 20 it states - You just tell the ladies and gentlemen 2212 did have. They had a large number of reports of cancers in the industry. A very large number. In 23 fact sufficient number to make, carry out analyses. 2221 whether I read it correctly. "With this limited authorization, clinical and occupational history 23 record forms were devised based essentially upon the 24 Q. But even though they were getting what you 24 format and the inclusion of items customarily required 25 characterize as very large numbers of reports of 25 for notification of occupational cancers to state Page 392 1 1 cancer in the industry, they still said we are not 2 2 getting enough data. We can't do an adequate study. Page 394 health departments." Did I read that correctly? A. I don't see where that is. I'm sorry. 3 We are going to terminate it. That is a true 3 Q. Very top of the page, sir. 4 statement, isn't it? 4 A. Oh, yes. Now. 65 A. The termination was not entirely by Kettering. The termination was by agreement between 65 Q. I will read it again. The Kettering Laboratory wrote in 1958, "With this limited 7 Kettering and the committee representing the industry. 8 8 Q. Exactly. The American petroleum industry 9 said stop this study, as well; didn't they? 10 10 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 11 11 THE WITNESS: No. 7 authorization, clinical and occupational history record forms were devised based essentially upon the 9 format and the inclusion of items customarily required for notification of occupational cancers to state health departments." Did I read that correctly? 12 BY MR. CHANDLER: 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. The American petroleum industry participated 13 Q. Yet it's your claim in 1958 Exxon wasn't even 14 in the decision to terminate the Kettering study, 14 required to report occupational cancers to state 15 didn't they? 15 health departments, were they? 16 A. Because of lack of feasibility. 16 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 17 Q. And the feasibility you claim there was a 17 THE WITNESS: I was not aware that Exxon was 18 lack of is they weren't getting the data they needed 18 required to report occupational, to report cancers, 19 from the member companies, were they? 19 occupational cancers to state health departments. 20 A. That was part of the problem. 20 BY MR. CHANDLER: 2212 Q. Yes, sir. A. On the other hand, they also had a large 23 quantity of data that had been reported. 2212 Q. Where were you working in 1958, sir? A. At the Baton Rouge refinery. 23 Q. You were one of the doctors at a major 24 Q. Yes, sir. 24 refinery in 1958; right? 25 MR. CHANDLER: Objection, non-responsive. 25 A. Yes. Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 32 (Pages 391 to 394) NEILL WEAVER Page 399 Page 401 1 Q. They were looking for inclusion of items 1 page, because we are increasing the level of 2 customarily required for notification of occupational 2 participation by three years later, 1955, 1.800 3 cancers to state health departments, right? 3 reports had been received from 16 companies. We are 4 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 4 still a very low percentage of participating 5 THE WTTNESS: This is related to the form 5 companies, aren't we? 6 that was devised for reporting, but Kettering was 6 A. Yes, a low percentage of the total. We don't 7 looking for a complete reporting of all cancers that 7 know what percentage that would be of those with 8 were diagnosed, occupational or non-occupational. 8 medical departments and records that would permit them 9 BY MR. CHANDLER: 9 to report. 10 Q. And as the medical detector of the largest 10 Q. Now, didn't the Kettering Laboratory inform 11 refinery in the entire world in 1958, you have no idea 11 the American petroleum industry that, "In order to get 12 what the state of Louisiana's requirements were at 12 a sufficiently large group of cases, a much longer 13 that time for reporting of occupational - 13 collection period would be required" than was actually 14 A. I don't recall at this time. 14 being done in this study in 1958. And that is at the 15 Q. Okay. How many different refinery - no, let 15 bottom of that page. Do you see that? 16 me ask you this. How many different members were 16 A. Yes. That was a problem encountered. 17 there in the American petroleum industry in 1958, 17 Q. So, now look at the next page. I want to ask 18 approximately? 18 you if I'm reading this correctly. This is a 19 A. I don't know, but a few hundred. 19 groundbreaking study, as you told the Exxon lawyer in 20 Q. A few hundred. Okay. Would you turn the 20 direct examination; right? 21 page for me, sir. This is the next page. There were 21 A. Yes. 22 a few hundred members in the American petroleum 22 Q. "Late in April, 1956 the medical advisory 23 industry in 1958, but by Kettering's own statements, 23 committee, upon the recommendation of the subcommittee 24 only 13 companies had forwarded records, right, on the 24 of carcinogenicity, decided to terminate the 25 top of the page, the second sentence. 25 epidemiological investigations as of July 1,1956. Page 400 Page 402 1 A. Somehow I'm not finding it, but I'm not 1 The justification for this action stemmed essentially 2 questioning it. 2 from the failure of the medical advisory committee to 3 Q. It's the second sentence, I will read the 3 secure complete cooperation and greater participation 4 entire top of the page. "The historical and current 4 in the reporting of cases. Since the sample would be 5 case records came in slowly. By March of 1952, 900 5 limited both in number and kind and the results 6 records had been forwarded from 13 companies." At 6 forthcoming would be of doubtful validity, the 7 least by that time. 7 committee was unwilling to support the longer study 8 A. Yes, okay. 8 period required to overcome the reporting deficit. 9 Q. Now there were a couple of hundred members of 9 Inasmuch as the occupational coding and transference 10 the American petroleum industry by that year, weren't 10 to cards could not be completed in the two remaining 11 there? 11 months, it seemed wise to stop all work immediately 12 A. All together, yes. 12 and reassign the statistical staff to other ongoing 13 Q. A very, very tiny percentage of companies 13 projects of the Kettering Laboratory." Did I read 14 even chose to participate in this study, didn't they? 14 that correctly? 15 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 15 A. You did. 16 THE WITNESS: Yes and very few companies had 16 Q. In 1958, the Kettering Laboratory was telling 17 medical departments or medical records - 17 the American petroleum industry that the results 18 MR. CHANDLER: Okay. Objection, 18 forthcoming would be of doubtful validity, weren't 19 non-responsive. 19 they? 20 THE WITNESS: - that would enable them to 20 A. That is what is stated, yes. 21 participate. 21 Q. And in fact, on the next page, the Kettering 22 MR. CHANDLER: Objection, non-responsive, to 22 Laboratory tells the advisory committee of the 23 everything after "Yes." 23 American Petroleum Institute, "It was recognized that 24 BY MR. CHANDLER: 24 these comparisons would not be satisfactory and that 25 Q. All right. Now, look at the top of the next 25 little reliance could be placed on the findings." Did Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 34 (Pages 399 to 402) NEILL WEAVER Page 403 Page 405 1 I read that correctly? 1 BY MR. CHANDLER: 2 A. You did. 2 Q. At the time it was done, you got a copy? 3 Q. Finally the next page, the third piece of 3 A. I'm sorry. 4 advice the Kettering Laboratory was giving. Tell the 4 Q. You got a copy of the study? 5 ladies and gentlemen of the jury whether I read this 5 A. The report, you are speaking of. 6 correctly. "The relative short period of collection 6 Q. Yes, sir, this report. 7 and the admittedly small sample of the cases and 7 A. Yes. 8 deaths which occurred during this period also limited 8 Q. It was kept in the files of the Exxon 9 seriously the number of comparisons that could be 9 Company? 10 readily made." Did I read that correctly? 10 A. Yes. 11 A. You did. 11 Q. It was kept as part of the normal business 12 Q. No less than three times -- go to the next 12 operations of Exxon; right? 13 page. We have another one. The last sentence of the 13 A. Well, I wouldn't relate this to business 14 fourth paragraph. "The inadequacies of reporting are 14 operations, no. 15 quite apparent, even with only a superficial study of 15 Q. It was kept in the normal course of your job? 16 table 1 of the appendix 2." Did I read that 16 A. This report was made available to the medical 17 correctly? 17 director of Exxon Corporation. 18 A. Yes. 18 Q. And was kept in your files? 19 Q. That is four different times so far that the 19 A. No. It did not come to me. 20 inadequacies of this study are being reported to the 20 Q. I'm sorry. Whose files was it kept in? 21 American Petroleum Institute. So far we have four; 21 A. The medical director. 22 right? 22 Q. Of Exxon? 23 A. Yes. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Okay. The conclusion of the American 24 Q. Thank you. 25 petroleum - the conclusion of the Kettering 25 A. It may have come to me at a later date, but Page 404 Page 405 1 Laboratory was that, "At best, therefore, one will 1 this report did not come to me at the Baton Rouge 2 believe that less than half of the cases were reported 2 refinery. 3 to their researchers." Would you agree with that? 3 Q. Okay. Look on what is marked page 21, sir, 4 A. If that is what it says, yes. 4 at the top. It's one of the few pages with the actual 5 Q. Okay. Let's go to another criticism in the 5 page number on it. 21. It's a second paragraph, 6 Kettering Laboratory study, and it's on the page with 6 under, "Primary site," and these are primary sites of 7 the title, "Occupational History" at the top, sir. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And it's the second paragraph. Let the 7 all cancers; right? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. It states, "It will be noted that the 10 ladies and gentlemen of the jury know whether I read 10 proportion of tumors of the digestive system and 11 this correctly. "The answers received proved most 11 peritoneum having their onset among males prior to 12 troublesome, both in coding and in the preparation of 13 work tables. As can be seen in the accompanying 14 case" - let me restart. 15 "The answers received proved most troublesome 12 1950 was much larger than that found in the United 13 States as a whole and among the current cases reported 14 after 1950;" right? 15 A. Yes. 16 both in coding and in the preparation of work tables. 16 Q. Now, you understand that in 1964 Dr. Selikoff 17 As can be seen in the accompanying summary, table 1, a 17 did find an excess incidence of the cancer of the 18 fairly sizable proportion, 35 percent of the cases, 19 could not be categorized, even with the use of very 18 digestive system and the peritoneum, specifically 19 peritoneal mesothelioma, among insulation workers, 20 broad occupational groupings." Did I read that 21 correctly? 20 didn't he? 21 A. That was reported in a preliminary way by 22 A. You did. 23 Q. By the way, this study was given to the Exxon 24 Company, right? 25 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 22 Dr. Selikoff. 23 Q. And it's not - okay. Sir, under table 3, if 24 you will go to table 3 of the study. Do you see that? 25 A. Yes. Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 35 (Pages 403 to 406) NEILL WEAVER Page 407 Page 409 1 Q. If we look at the different breakdowns in 1 Q. And one of the reasons it's not comparable is 2 age, what table 3 does for the ladies and gentlemen of 2 because the members of the insulators union cooperated 3 the jury, is breaks down disease by the age of the 3 with Dr. Selikoff and he did not have to terminate his 4 participants; right? 4 study for failure of participation, did he? 5 A. Yes. 5 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 6 Q. And what you are seeing among the cancers of 6 BY MR. CHANDLER: 7 the digestive system and the respiratory system are 7 Q. Is that a true statement? 8 that the older the person gets, the more cancer you 8 A. He continued with the study. 9 are finding; right? 9 Q. Okay. Now, what you found - pardon me. 10 A. Yes. 10 What the study here found was that cancers in the 11 Q. That is consistent with a latent effect in 11 digestive and respiratory system increased with the 12 cancer. That is what happens with cancer. There's a 12 age of the study participants; right? 13 latent effect between exposure and development of the 13 A. Which is a normal pattern for cancer 14 cancer, isn't there? 14 occurrence. 15 MS. KYLE: Objection. 15 Q. It's also a normal pattern among occupational 16 THE WITNESS: No, that isn't due to latent 16 cancers, too, isn't it? 17 effect. That is the way cancers are distributed by 17 A. Yes. 18 age. It's not latency. 18 Q. Okay. If you will go into the discussion 19 BY MR. CHANDLER: 19 section, sir. Just tell the ladies and gentlemen of 20 Q. It is true that in occupational cancers - 20 the jury whether I have read this correctly. "From 21 A. In occupational cancers, yes. 21 several points of view, this attempt to estimate by 22 Q. - in occupational cancers, there is a 22 epidemiologic techniques the hazards of occupational 23 significant latent effect; right? 23 cancer from exposure to petroleum and its fractions 24 A. Of course, this study deals with all tumors. 24 cannot be considered an entirely successful venture. 25 Q. Yes, sir. I'm only talking specifically 25 Only two relatively simple approaches were implemented Page 408 Page 410 1 about two of the primary sites that are mentioned on 1 and neither was expected to do more than to indicate 2 table 3, the digestive system and respiratory system. 2 the presence of a possible hazard. Even though the 3 Okay. Do you see that? 3 limited objectives were selected, a number of old and 4 A. Yes. 4 current cases assembled proved far too small to permit 5 Q. We can agree that Dr. Selikoff in 1964 did 5 detailed or elaborate analyses." Did I read that 6 find excess incidents of both digestive and 6 correctly? 7 respiratory system cancers among insulators in 1964; 7 A. You did. 8 right? 8 Q. Sir, if you will go to the appendix, and its 9 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 9 page 1/18,1 believe, at the very top. You are 10 THE WITNESS: His report in 1964 was a 10 getting there. Do you see that? 11 preliminary report, and was to be subject to further 11 A. No. Not there yet. There. 12 study and confirmation - 12 Q. Do you see where it's marked literature 13 BY MR. CHANDLER: 13 survey? Item 7. Do you see that? 14 Q. And his report wasn't terminated because of 14 A. Yes. 15 lack of cooperation among the insulators union, was 15 Q. Now one of the things that was done for the 16 it? 16 members of the American Petroleum Institute was that 17 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 17 there were literature surveys done so that the member 18 THE WITNESS: His, he continued with further 18 companies didn't have to go out and research all the 19 studies. 19 medicine. That was done for you. It was kind of 20 BY MR. CHANDLER: 20 summarized and put in an abstract format and issued to 21 Q. But he did not terminate the report because 21 all of the members by 1958; correct? 22 the members failed to cooperate, did he? 22 A. I believe that was the case, yes. 23 A. Since his study has continued, this is not a 23 Q. So what was going on, is that there were 24 comparable situation in any way, but he was able to 24 researchers collecting everything that was known in 25 continue with further studies. 25 the medical and scientific community, kind of Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 36 (Pages 407 to 410) NEILL WEAVER Page 411 Page 413 1 summarizing it and giving it to the members of the 1 report. If you go to the summary and conclusions, it 2 American Petroleum Institute, including Exxon; 2 is the 5th page of the report. The very first thing 3 correct? 3 that we are being told is, "A mortality study of 4 A. That was the purpose. 4 petroleum refinery workers was carried out in 17 5 Q. So it's fair to say if there were medical or 5 refineries. The study group consisted of every worker 6 scientific articles that appeared in the published 6 employed in the refinery for at least a year between 7 literature, that the Exxon Company, through its 7 January 1, 1962 and December 31, 1971." Do you see 8 association with the American Petroleum Institute, got 8 that? 9 at least abstracts or summaries of those articles, 9 A. Yes. 10 wouldn't you agree? 10 Q. So we are only looking at employees who 11 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 11 worked for a maximum of a - would that be 10 or nine 12 THE WITNESS: I can't comment on what, how 12 years, 10 years? 13 extensive or what abstracts or what the nature of the 13 A. No, no. 14 review that was carried out. 14 Q. They only worked during that 10-year period. 15 BY MR. CHANDLER: 15 A. They worked during that 10-year period, yes. 16 Q. But do you know there was a service by which 16 Q. That's fair. Thank you. Let me re-ask the 17 Exxon got abstracts of the medical and scientific 17 question. The study group that was considered was 18 literature as it relates to occupational cancer as 18 every worker in the refinery, not just insulators and 19 early as 1958. Thafs fair? 19 not just process operators; correct? : 20 A. That was reported as reported here. 20 A. Yes. ; 21 Q. Okay. I'm done with that Exhibit 11. If you 21 Q. Like your other study, it would include 22 want to keep going, we will, or if you want to take a 22 clerical workers; right? ; 23 break. Whatever you would like to do. 23 A. Yes. i 24 (Discussion off the record) 24 Q. Security guards; right? 25 BY MR. CHANDLER: 25 A. Yes. Page 412 Page 414 1 Q. Let's turn to the next study that you talked 1 Q. Okay. And if they worked for at least a : 2 about with the Exxon lawyer on direct examination, and 2 year, so they could, the study group included people 3 that is what is identified as Exhibit 12 to your 3 who only worked a year, and it included people who 4 deposition. The title of the report is "A mortality 4 worked more than that; right? 5 study of petroleum refinery workers, project OH-1, 5 A. Yes. 6 September 15,1974, prepared for the American 6 Q. Now, the bulk of the population were what 7 Petroleum Institute." 7 they considered long-term employees at that part. Do 8 A. I'm having trouble finding things. 8 you agree with that? 9 Q. Ms. Kyle has her copy. Ifs this one - 9 A. I do. 10 A. Thank you. 10 Q. That is, 60 percent of the employees were 11 Q. Sir. All of the studies on direct 11 long term, according to the study; right? 12 examination, regardless of what they were, all of the 12 A. Yes. 13 studies attached to your deposition and discussed with 13 Q. That means 40 percent were not long term, 14 you by the Exxon lawyer were studies that were done 14 doesn't it? 15 for and paid by the American Petroleum Institute; 15 A. Yes. 16 correct? 16 Q. All right. Sir, when you consider 17 A. I believe that is the case. 17 epidemiological studies, what does the dilution effect 18 Q. Okay. In fact, on the preface of this 18 mean? 19 report, we can see on the second page, sir, the 19 A. I can't answer that without a context in 20 preface, they state, "This report is based on research 20 which to place it. 21 sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute." 21 Q. Well, do you agree that there are biases that 22 That's fair; right? 22 can be included in an epidemiological study? 23 A. Yes. 23 A. Indeed. 24 Q. I want to talk to about a few things that 24 Q. And one of those biases is what is called a 25 were not discussed in direct examination on this 25 dilution bias, where you include people in the study Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 37 (Pages 411 to 414) NEILL WEAVER Page 415 Page 417 1 who were not really exposed to the substance you are 1 we? 2 trying to look at? 2 A. Yes. 3 A. Oh, yes. Yes. 3 Q. All right. Now, if you look at page 8, what 4 Q. Okay. There is also another bias called the 4 they tell us in the study, and you tell us whether I'm 5 healthy worker effect; right? 5 reading this correctly, is that, "The overwhelming 6 A. Yes. 6 majority of the study population was part of the 7 Q. And what that means is if you look at people 7 current work force at the time the study began." Did 8 who were working, naturally they are going to be 8 I read that right? 9 healthier than people who were sick and therefore not 9 A. I don't see it, but I don't question it. 10 working? 10 Q. I'm sorry, page 8. 11 A. Yes. 11 A. Page 8? 12 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 12 Q. Yes, sir. At the top. Dr. Weaver, the 13 BY MR. CHANDLER: 13 overwhelming majority of the study population was part 14 Q. Now, I want to look at the data collected in 14 of the current fork force, so they were part of that 15 the study. It's on page 5. The numbers of the pages 15 healthy workers, weren't they? 16 are on the bottom, sir. It's page 5. In this study 16 MS. KYLE: Objection. 17 the data that was collected was on all eligible 17 BY MR. CHANDLER: 18 workers in each sample refinery were included in the 18 Q. The overwhelming percentage. 19 study. Now an eligible worker was defined as an 19 A. They were a part of the workers, yes, the 20 hourly employee who wasn't clerical, who had worked in 20 work force. 21 the refinery for at least one year between January 1, 21 Q. H ie overwhelming majority of the study 22 '62 and December 31, 1971; right? 22 population were workers who were currently working. 23 A. Yes. 23 A. Yes. That was the objective, to study the 24 Q. So we are not looking, doesn't look like we 24 current workers. 25 are looking at secretaries here, if It's not clerical; 25 Q. Yes, sir, and workers with cancer probably, Page 416 Page 418 1 correct? 1 would you agree, wouldn't be current workers? 2 A. Yes. 2 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 3 Q. But we are looking at people like truck 3 THE WITNESS: All right. Yes. 4 drivers and security guards? 4 BY MR. CHANDLER: 5 A. Yes. 5 Q. Okay. And workers with severe respiratory 6 Q. Okay. Now, if you will look at the next 6 diseases wouldn't be in the current work force, would 7 page, I want to talk about the different categories of 7 they? 8 people that were included in this study, and it starts 8 A. If they are unable to work, they would not be 9 at the top of the page. "In consultation with a 9 in the work force. 10 refinery safety engineer, job titles were divided into 10 Q. That's right. 11 three broad exposure categories. Although specific 11 A. Yes. 12 job titles differed from one refinery to another, the 12 Q. Sir, on page 12 of the study, even though we 13 high exposure category contained laboratory, 13 considered security guards, truck drivers, guys who 14 maintenance and salvage recovery jobs, while the low 14 were in the purchasing department, on the last 15 exposure contained plant security, utility, purchasing 15 paragraph, what they found was, "Some of the 16 and motor transport jobs. All other jobs were 16 malignancies showed an upward trend; namely, lung 17 considered to be medium, those including people like 17 cancer leukemia and lymphomas. Only the last of these 18 laborers." Did I read that correctly? 18 has more deaths than expected." So we did show an 19 A. Yes. 19 upward trend in lung cancer in this study, didn't we? 20 Q. So we got people in this study who were 20 A. The upward trend is relating to the age 21 people who were in charge of purchasing materials; 21 effect, and which is the normal way that lung cancers 22 right? 22 occur. 23 A. Yes. 23 Q. Yes, sir. And on page 13 what we found was, 24 Q. We got the security guards, as we discussed, 24 on the last paragraph, the cancers which showed an 25 and we have got people who even drive trucks, don't 25 increased risk with increasing exposure are those of Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 38 (Pages 415 to 418) NEILL WEAVER Page 419 Page 421 1 the buccal cavity and pharynx, respiratory system and 1 follow up were not included, yes. 2 genital organs; right? 2 Q. And the deaths that couldn't be included 3 A. Yes. 3 because of follow up were disproportionate to the 4 Q. So even though in this study we considered 4 deaths in this. That means higher, according to the 5 truck drivers, security guards and purchasing agents, 5 report; right? 6 we still discovered an increasing risk of respiratory 6 A. It could have been, yes. 7 system cancer, didn't we? 7 Q. Okay. If you look at page 16, let's talk 8 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 8 about what they are looking at, what exposures are 9 THE WITNESS: No, not necessarily. 9 being looked at in this study. This is the only place 10 BY MR. CHANDLER: 10 in the entire study where I have found exactly the 11 Q. Did I read it correctly, page 13. "The 11 exposure they were was looking at, and if I'm wrong, 12 cancers which showed an increased risk with increasing 12 you tell me. It states in the middle of the last 13 exposure are those of the buccal cavity, pharynx, 13 paragraph, "Also, the exposure being measured is to 14 respiratory system and genital organs." Did I read 14 atmospheric hydrocarbons. So that the medium or low 15 that correctly? 15 exposure may sometimes imply a relatively high 16 A. Yes. All right. 16 exposure to other substances." Did I read that 17 Q. So you would agree with that statement that I 17 correctly? 18 made, that even though we included all workers in the 18 A. Yes. 19 plant, we still found increased risk with increased 19 Q. Is there anywhere In this study that you have 20 exposure in respiratory system cancer; right? 20 identified, because I haven't - tell me if I'm 21 A. Yes. There may be other explanations for 21 wrong -- where they looked at exposures to asbestos 22 this, but that is what is stated. 22 the way they did atmospheric hydrocarbons. 23 Q. Yes, sir. Now, look at page 14. I want to 23 A. This gets back to the objective of the study. 24 ask if you this concerns you at all when we are 24 The study was to focus on hydrocarbons. 25 talking about the validity of a study. "It is 25 Q. Exactly. Page 420 Page 422 1 possible that the observed SMR or standard mortality 1 A. The petroleum industry is not involved with 2 rate in this study may be low because there are a 2 asbestos. 3 disproportional number of deaths among 1,120 workers 3 Q. It is not a fair use of this study to say we 4 who were not found." Did I read that correctly? 4 looked at asbestos disease in our plant with this 5 A. Yes. 5 particular study and found it was lower. That is not 6 Q. So what happened is they were trying to find 6 a fair use of this study, is it? 7 all these workers. They couldn't find 1,120 of them. 7 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 8 They wanted to include it, right. They wanted to 8 THE WITNESS: That is not correct. 9 Include; correct? 9 BY MR. CHANDLER: 10 A. That would have been to have 100 percent 10 Q. You weren't looking for asbestos disease in 11 follow up, yes. 11 this study. The only thing being measured was 12 Q. Yes, sir. But there were over a thousand 12 atmospheric hydrocarbons. Is that right? 13 guys they couldn't find that they wanted to Include. 13 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 14 Is that a fair statement? 14 THE WITNESS: Again, the study speaks for 15 A. That is what, they noted they couldn't find 15 itself. 16 that many employees. 16 BY MR. CHANDLER: 17 Q. And what they note is that there may be low 17 Q. Sir, and because it speaks for itself, the 18 standard mortality In this because there are a 18 jury should not leave with the impression that this 19 disproportional number of deaths, that means more than 19 study did one single sample or consideration of 20 could be expected, among all the guys you couldn't 20 asbestos exposure, did it? 21 find; right? 21 A. On the contrary, this study sheds 22 A. Yes. 22 considerable light, evidence, with respect to 23 Q. So that disproportional number of deaths was 23 asbestos-related diseases. 24 not included in this study, was it? 24 Q. Can you find for me any reference to asbestos 25 A. Those deaths that could not have been in 25 whatsoever in this study? Please look for the Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 39 (Pages 419 to 422) NEILL WEAVER Page 423 Page 425 1 reference and find it for me, because I can't find it. 1 a study if you were looking for asbestos disease, 2 A. But that doesn't - I don't, the study was 2 would we? 3 not focused on asbestos - 3 A. I don't think you would. 4 Q. Exactly. 4 Q. Okay. Let's go to what is marked Exhibit 13, 5 A. - but the asbestos-related diseases are well 5 the Banbury report. The Banbury report that you 6 covered in this study. 6 discussed with the Exxon lawyer on direct examination 7 Q. Asbestos-related diseases are things like 7 is another report that was sponsored and paid for by 8 respiratory cancer, aren't they? 8 the American Petroleum Institute, isn't it? 9 A. Yes. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Turn to page 19, please, of I guess it's the 10 Q. In fact, the information provided in the 11 appendix. Whatever page 19 is marked. It's on the 11 Banbury report in 1981 is information that was 12 third full paragraph. "Respiratory and genital 12 provided by the member companies. 13 cancers increase with increasing exposure." You agree 13 A. Which is the only way the study could have 14 to that, don't you? 14 been carried out. 15 A. Increasing exposure to hydrocarbons. 15 Q. Yes, sir. The people who did the study 16 Q. Okay. That is the point. But don't 16 relied upon the members of the American petroleum 17 respiratory cancers also increase with increasing 17 industry to give them the information; right? 18 exposure for asbestos? That's true, isn't it? 18 A. Yes. That's the only way it could have been 19 A. Yes, just as they increase with age. Yes. 20 Q. Okay. But not just age, increasing exposure 19 carried out. 20 Q. Yes, sir. And if there was a bias in the 21 is the point. That is what we need to consider, 21 selection of information, that would affect the 22 increasing exposure to asbestos increases the risk of 22 results of the report, wouldn't it? 23 lung cancer. 23 A. Again, that's hypothetical. 24 A. No, no. This word "exposure" here is not 24 Q. But that's true. If I didn't report 25 related to asbestos. 25 accurately, the study results would be inaccurate. Page 424 Page 426 1 Q. That's the point I was trying to get at in my 1 A. Yes. If the data are inaccurate, the study 2 last line of questioning. Nowhere is the exposure 2 is impaired. 3 considering asbestos? 4 A. Not related to asbestos. 3 Q. Now, again, in this study, the Banbury 4 report, at the bottom of page 247, sir - 5 Q. Okay. Thank you. I'm done with that study. 5 6 Let's go to the next one. We are moving along quite 6 7 quickly. Sir, did security guards have exposure to 7 MS. KYLE: 1981, you said? MR. CHANDLER: Yes, ma'am. BY MR. CHANDLER: 8 hydrocarbons in a plant? 8 Q. In the Banbury report - 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. How? 9 A. What page? 10 Q. 247, sir, I think it's the first page, the 11 A. By being there. 11 first real page of the study. 12 Q. Did security guards have exposure to asbestos 13 in a plant? 14 A. They may or may not. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. There you go. Let's talk about who was 14 included in this study. One of the groups of people 15 Q. You can say definitely for hydrocarbons, but 15 were all full-time, active employees at the units. 16 you are not willing to admit for asbestos, even though 17 they were there at the same place; right? 18 A. Right. 19 Q. Do truck drivers have exposure to 20 hydrocarbons in a plant? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Do truck drivers have exposure to asbestos in 23 a plant? 24 A. Probably not. 25 Q. You wouldn't want to include truck drivers in 16 All full-time, active employees; right? 17 A. I believe so. I'm not finding it right now. 18 Q. It's at the bottom of the page, sir. Let me 19 read it from page 247. "The study population is 20 defined by the population census. This consists of 21 basic demographic and employment information on every 22 individual who was attached to a division or plant 23 that had been entered into the study. All full-time, 24 active employees at these units are listed in the 25 initial population census and constitute the active Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 40 (Pages 423 to 426) NEILL WEAVER Page 427 Page 429 | 1 study population;" correct? 1 A. Yes. 2 A. Yes. 2 Q. So cancer occurring wasn't reported, but when 3 Q. So this one, this study did not exclude 3 it was applicable, if they could get it when they 4 clerical workers like the prior one, did it? 4 died, that is when they counted it? 5 A. Did not exclude. 5 A. Yes. Yes. 6 Q. It included secretaries, truck drivers, 6 Q. If they could get it, and as we know from the 7 security guards, guys who worked in a warehouse, all 7 prior page, it wasn't routinely collected. Deaths or i 8 those people? 8 illness of cancer among those who were no longer i 9 A. That was the design of the study. 9 actively employed, right, page 248? i 10 Q. Yes, sir. It was specifically designed to 10 A. Yes. ! 11 include all those people, wasn't it? 11 Q. All right. This study does acknowledge on 12 A. Yes. 12 page 252 that there was - on page 252, sir, you are ; 13 Q. Another thing, population included were 13 there. Item 3 under mortality figures, there was in ; 14 individuals who are annuitants of this plant. That 14 fact an underreporting of deaths, wasn't there? i 15 means people who were retired and getting a pension; 15 A. That's always the case. Yes. i 16 right? 16 Q. And that was the case in this study. It 17 A. Yes. 17 underreported the deaths, didn't it? 18 Q. Now, it was in 1981 an option for an employee 18 A. Yes, as is true in all studies. | 19 leaving Exxon to, rather than take a pension, they 19 MR. CHANDLER: Objection, non-responsive from i 20 could take a cash lump sum, couldn't they? 20 the answer of "yes." 21 A. I don't know. 21 BY MR. CHANDLER: j 22 Q. All right. We will get to that later in the 22 Q. Now, I want to talk to you about the summary | 23 study. 23 of the mortality study that is reported that you did i 24 A. I don't know. 24 not go over in your direct examination with the Exxon 25 Q. Now, what this report did is it had, it's on 25 lawyer, and it's page 255, sir. I think it's the next | Page 428 Page 430 i 1 page 248, sir, the Banbury report, it included deaths 1 page of the document. | 2 among annuitants, and those were reported, the deaths 2 A. Summary of mortality. 3 among the annuitants. It's on the first paragraph. 3 Q. Under summary of mortality study, you tell 4 "Deaths that occur among the annuitants are reported. 4 the ladies and gentlemen whether I read this | 5 However, as they are no longer actively employed, 5 correctly. "As we have discussed, there is a number 6 reports of illness or cancer incidents are not being 6 of factors that may have contributed to an 7 collected routinely." Did I read that correctly? 7 underestimation of mortality." 8 A. Yes. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. All right. 9 Q. All right. 10 A. It wasn't possible to do that. 10 A. I'm with you now. i 11 Q. Wasn't possible to get the reports of all the 11 Q. Let's discuss some of the factors that may 12 cancer or illness on the retired people and it wasn't 12 have contributed to an underestimation of deaths. 13 included in this study, was it? 13 Number 1, do you know - let me ask you. Do you know i 14 A. Yes. 14 what the factors are that may have contributed to an : 15 Q. Now, this study did not, on page 250, this 15 underestimation of the deaths in this study? 16 study did not include cancer that was diagnosed after 16 A. Because no study can have absolute 17 somebody retired, did it? 17 perfection. There are shortcomings in any study of : 18 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 18 this nature. i 19 BY MR. CHANDLER: 19 Q. Let me talk to you about some of the trends 20 Q. Under methodology, it's the third paragraph 20 or some of the, we will call them issues with this 21 under methodology. I will read the paragraph. 21 study. This study specifically. And it's under 22 "Consequently, cancers diagnosed subsequent to 22 summary of the cancer incidence, sir. Yes, same page, 23 retirement were not included in the incidence 23 all right. Actually it's not. It's a couple more 24 analysis, but were analyzed, when applicable, in the 24 pages. 25 mortality analysis." 25 A. Oh, yes. Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 41 (Pages 427 to 430) NEILL WEAVER Page 431 Page 433 1 Q. Isn't it true that this study was supposed to 1 became notified of deaths among workers who have left 2 be considered only preliminarily, because the period 2 employment?" And the answer is, "When an employee is 3 of observation was too short and because the number of 3 entitled to any kind of benefit, the company is 4 older workers included had been limited and because of 4 notified and we get the death certificate from the 5 the underdegree of reporting, particularly of deaths. 5 benefit department." So it's only employees who were 6 Isn't that true? 6 entitled to death benefits that were reported, because 7 A. Yes. This is a preliminary study. 7 if they weren't entitled to death benefits, the 8 Q. And it was preliminary because of a number of 8 company didn't know about it and therefore it would 9 issues. Number 1, the observation time was too short. 9 not have been included in your study; correct? 10 In fact, I think it was 1.6 years, the study will 10 A. Yes, but, of course, in the petroleum 11 show; right? 11 industry most employees, very high percentage, are 12 A. Yes. 12 entitled to a death benefit. 13 Q. And because the number of older workers were 13 Q. And we will talk about that later, because I 14 limited, right? 14 think we will find later that if an employee chose a 15 A. I don't know where you are reading, but I'm 15 cash option, instead of retirement pension, he was not 16 not questioning it. Have I got the right page? Oh, 16 included. That doesn't surprise you, does it? 17 yes. Okay. I have got it now. 17 A. Yes, but I don't know when that was 18 Q. The number of older workers included in the 18 instituted. 19 analysis was limited, wasn't it? 19 Q. We will get to that. 20 A. Uh-huh. 20 A. I can't respond to that. 21 Q. It's the older workers that we would expect 21 Q. We will get to it. One of the criticisms of 22 to find occupational cancer, if it existed, that's who 22 one of the commentators, anyway, is that they thought 23 we would expect to find it in, right? 23 the analysis should be for men hired at the latest 24 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 24 before 1965, instead of 1980, which is what was done 25 THE WITNESS: Yes, but that limitation is 25 in this study; right? Page 432 Page 434 1 always present in such studies, yes. 1 A. That's a comment. 2 MR. CHANDLER: Objection, non-responsive to 2 Q. Yes, sir. And that means the commentator 3 everything after, "Yes." 3 thought you should have gone back 15 more years and 4 BY MR. CHANDLER: 4 caught people who were hired at the latest before '65 5 Q. Another reason this was supposed to be 5 instead of 1980. 6 preliminary was because there was a degree of 6 A. Yes, but this is a prospective concurrent 7 underreporting. That's true as well. And it was true 7 study, and so there's a reason why that was done that 8 specifically as it related to deaths; right? 8 way. 9 A. As is always the case, yes. 9 Q. Let me ask you this. This is a study that 10 Q. You did not tell the ladies and gentlemen of 10 was issued in 1981, isn't it? 11 the jury in the direct examination that this was a 11 A. Yes. That's the date. 12 preliminary study because of all these issues, did 12 Q. And it included people who would have been 13 you? 13 hired prior to 1980, just a year before, didn't it? 14 A. I don't know. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. All right. Now, what was done at the end of 15 Q. There's absolutely no way in those people 16 the study, if you will turn to page 261, is that there 16 hired prior to 1980 we would expect to find any cancer 17 were researchers who were allowed to make comments and 17 that was the result of latency in the refinery; is 18 submit questions about the data. That is pretty 18 that true? 19 common in epidemiological studies, isn't it? 19 A. That is true, but that is not the purpose of 20 A. Yes. 20 the study. 21 Q. I want to go over some of the questions or 21 Q. Yes, sir. There were people included in this 22 comments that were made about this study at the time 22 study for whom we could not possibly have had adequate 23 it was being made. If you look at the top of page 23 latency in order to see whether occupational cancers 24 261, Mr. Silberstein or Dr. Silberstein, whoever It 24 were being found. Is that a true statement? 25 is, asked the following question: "How Is it that you 25 A. Yes, but this was not designed, the study, Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 42 (Pages 431 to 434) NEILL WEAVER Page 435 Page 437 1 was not part of the design of the study, just to find 1 died of cancer, I would not be included in this study, 2 occupational cancers. 2 would I? 3 Q. All right. Here is where I was talking about 3 A. Yes, could not be included, yes. 4 the lump sum part and how people might not be 4 Q. That's right. Sir, do you subscribe to the 5 considered in the death benefit. It's on page 262. 5 theory, "junk in, junk out?" Do you know what I'm 6 I'm starting where commentator Stewart asks questions 6 referring to when I say that? 7 and the following -- you tell the ladies and gentlemen 7 A. Indeed, I do. 8 whether I read this correctly. "Do you hear of a 8 Q. What does it mean? 9 death just because benefits have been awarded to them? 9 A. The validity of data is all important. 10 Correct. Then presumably the man has subscribed to 10 Q. Yes, sir. If the data isn't accurate, the 11 this benefit while working. Can workers opt for a 11 results are not accurate, correct, that's all that 12 lump sum benefit payment when they leave? Yes. This 12 means? 13 is a great catch, because sick people are most likely 13 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 14 to do this. They won't wait. They want their money 14 BY MR. CHANDLER: 15 in their pockets." Did I read that correctly? 15 Q. That's all that means; right? 16 A. You did. 16 A. That's what it means, but who is deciding 17 Q. So what we see is if I'm leaving sick, I'm 17 what is correct and what is incorrect. 18 not getting the death benefit. I opt out for a lump 18 Q. Yes, sir. And in the studies, all the 19 sum payment, and therefore would not be Included in 19 studies that we have just been going over, the people 20 this study; isn't that true? 20 who decided who was being reported were the member 21 A. Yes. Of course, the question is how 21 companies of the American Petroleum Institute, weren't 22 significant is that number. 22 they? 23 Q. Yes, sir. Is there anywhere in the study 23 A. The protocol was established mainly by the 24 that tells us that? 24 investigator, not by the companies. 25 A. There is no way to find out. 25 Q. The protocol was established by Kettering, Page 436 Page 438 1 Q. Yes, sir. There is no way to find out how 1 but the data, the people deciding who was included 2 many sick people left and opted out, is there? 2 were the member companies who gave that data, weren't 3 A. We don't know. 3 they? 4 Q. And sick people might be people with cancer 4 A. Yes. In accordance with the protocol, yes. 5 who were not included in the study? 5 Q. Yes, sir. Let's take a break. 6 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 6 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The 7 BY MR. CHANDLER: 7 time is 1:45. This marks the end of videotape number 8 Q. Isn't that right? 8 2, volume 2 of the this deposition. 9 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 9 (Whereupon, at 1:45 p.m., the hearing was 10 Q. Sir? 10 recessed, to be reconvened at 2:15 p.m. this same 11 A. The sick people might, might have cancer, 11 day.) 12 yes. 12 13 Q. One of the other things that, one of the 13 14 other groups of people who were not included in this 14 15 study, sir, if you look at page 264, in the middle of 15 16 the page, it's commentator Wynne, "The death 16 17 certificates were collected only on those deceased in 17 18 active service or those on a retirement pension." The 18 19 answer is, "Yes. Those terminated were not included." 19 20 Next, "The table that you presented did not include 20 21 any so-called long term retirees. The retirees were 21 22 not included. All those were active service deceased 22 23 people." Correct? Did I read that correctly? 23 24 A. Yes, you read it correctly. 24 25 Q. So if I quit before retirement age, and I 25 Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 43 (Pages 435 to 438) NEILL WEAVER Page 439 Page 441 1 AFTERNOON SESSION (2:16 p.m.) 1 A. Yes. 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This marks the beginning 2 Q. I want to talk to you about this report in 3 of videotape number 3 in volume 2 of the deposition of 3 more detail. Included in the cohort were all men who 4 Dr. Neill Weaver. We are going back on the record. 4 were classified as hourly, non-clerical workers on 5 The time is 2:16. 5 their last job in the participating refineries who had 6 CONTINUATION OF CROSS EXAMINATION 6 worked continuously for at least a year between 1962 7 BY MR. CHANDLER: 7 and 1971. So we are looking at a similar kind of 8 Q. Dr. Weaver, I want to jump ahead now and go 8 cohort that included everybody from insulators to 9 to the last epidemiological study that we discussed in 9 truck drivers and security guards; right? 10 the direct examination with Ms. Kyle, and that is what 10 A. This is in fact the same cohort. 11 is marked Exhibit 15 to your deposition, "The 11 Q. It's the same cohort we have been talking 12 Occurrence of Mesothelioma in a Mortality Study of 12 about all morning? 13 Petroleum Refinery Workers Preliminary Report," 13 A. Yes. 14 August 7,1984, prepared for the American Petroleum 14 Q. All right. Very good. Now, this study found 15 Institute. Okay. 15 several deaths related to - this study found several 16 A. Yes, sir. We will find it in a minute. 16 death certificates, at least, listing mesothelioma as 17 MS. KYLE: 1984 is the study? I don't have 17 the cause of death, didn't it? 18 it. Why don't you let him see it. 18 A. After a special search, they were found. 19 BY MR. CHANDLER: . 19 Q. Yes, sir. Now, I want you to follow along 20 Q. Certainly. It was Exhibit 15 to your 20 with me on page 2 of the report. It's actually the 21 deposition, sir. We may need to go get a copy made. 21 third page, but it's the one numbered page 2, and let 22 I will get a copy made real quickly, Doctor. Sorry. 22 the ladies and gentlemen of the jury know whether I 23 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the 23 read this correctly. "There were causes of death in 24 record. The time is 2:17. 25 (Recess) 24 which the observed number of deaths exceeded the 25 expected number by more than 10 percent. One of these Page 440 Page 442 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going back on the 1 was benign neoplasms, the excess being slightly over a 2 record. The time is 2:27. 2 third. Three of the deaths from benign neoplasm had a 3 BY MR. CHANDLER: 3 diagnosis of mesothelioma. 4 Q. Dr. Weaver, you agree that any 4 "Because of the organization of the 5 epidemiological study can be manipulated to achieve 5 international classification of diseases, mesothelioma 6 any result if the people who are running the study or 6 deaths may occur under any one of several codes. In 7 providing the information want to do that? 7 addition to being coded under benign neoplasms, they 8 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 8 could be coded as cancer of the peritoneum, cancer of 9 THE WITNESS: All epidemiologic studies have 9 the lung, cancer of the respiratory organs, including 10 weaknesses, all epidemiologic studies have biases. 10 the pleura and mediastinum, or as stated on the death 11 The investigator, the principal who is carrying out 11 certificate as malignant mesothelioma, with a site not 12 the study is all important. And you rightfully point 12 mentioned." Did I read that correctly? 13 out that the data that are the input are also all 13 A. You did. 14 important. 14 Q. So basically on the death certificate 15 BY MR. CHANDLER: 15 mesothelioma can be categorized by a number of 16 Q. Yes, sir. And with that in mind I want to 16 different causes of death. It may not say 17 talk to you about Defendants' Deposition Exhibit 15, 17 mesothelioma. They may categorize it as lung cancer. 18 "The Occurrence of Mesothelioma and Mortality Study of 18 Is that right? Is that what we are hearing? Is what 19 Petroleum Refinery Workers Preliminary Report," dated 19 I'm levering from this? 20 August 7,1984, prepared for the American Petroleum 20 A. Yes, because the World Health Organization 21 Institute. Now this was actually sent to your 21 had no specific code for mesothelioma. 22 attention, wasn't it? 22 Q. Okay. Now, nine of the death certificates 23 A. Yes. 23 you found listed mesothelioma, actually mesothelioma, 24 Q. Okay. And the American Petroleum Institute, 24 didn't it? 25 again, paid for the study, didn't they? 25 A. Yes. Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 44 (Pages 439 to 442) NEILL WEAVER Page 443 Page 445 1 Q. I mean, as opposed to one of these other 1 Q. Thank you. Okay. 2 several codes that the World Health Organization had, 2 A. They were found by a hand search of death 3 like benign neoplasm, lung cancer, cancer of the 3 certificates after running computer codes where, any 4 respiratory organ, you found nine that specifically 4 place where we thought mesothelioma might be coded 5 said mesothelioma. 5 rightfully or wrongly. 6 A. That is true. 6 Q. Okay. Now I understand. So in -- let me 7 Q. And so what you wanted to try to do, what you 7 summarize this. Doctor, in this study that you found 8 did after the study, Doctor, is you investigated those 8 death certificates that actually listed the word 9 nine to find out how many of those nine were really 9 "mesothelioma," even though they may have been encoded 10 mesothelioma as opposed to something else, and that is 10 under something else, because the World Health 11 what we heard you talk about on direct examination. 11 Organization just didn't code mesothelioma; right? 12 A. Yes. 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. So of the ones that really, that said 13 Q. Now, is it true that mesothelioma is often 14 actually, "mesothelioma," you investigated to see how 14 miss diagnosed? 15 many of those might have been something else; right? 15 A. Yes. 16 A. Yes. 16 Q. So somebody could die of cancer of the lung 17 Q. Did you also find death certificates that 17 and the doctor, just because it's such a rare 18 were listed as cancer of the lung? 18 disease - strike that. It's true that a man could 19 A. Of these nine, you mean - 19 die of mesothelioma, but because mesothelioma is such 20 Q. No, sir - 20 a rare disease, doctors quite often list it as cancer 21 A. - or in the overall search. 21 of the lung, don't they? 22 Q. -- of this cohort, in the overall search. 22 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 23 A. Oh, yes. Cancer of the lung is the most 23 THE WITNESS: Mesothelioma is both 24 common cancer of all. 24 overdiagnosed and underdiagnosed. 25 Q. Yes, sir, and you found cohorts that listed 25 BY MR. CHANDLER: Page 444 Page 446 1 some of these codes under which mesothelioma might be 1 Q. Yes, sir. 2 listed, like benign neoplasm, cancer of the 2 A. It is a difficult diagnosis to make. 3 respiratory organ, you found all of those things. In 3 Q. Yes, sir. So you could see a death 4 your cohort, all of those things existed? 4 certificate that said lung cancer, and in fact that 5 A. It took a special search to find the 5 happens, that that person could really have 6 mesothelioma cases from related codes where they might 6 mesothelioma, but it's just such a rare disease the 7 be perhaps mistakenly coded in or listed in, yes. 7 doctor may not know about it. That exists, doesn't 8 Q. But my point is there were codes for all 8 it? 9 these things, lung cancer, cancers of the respiratory 9 MS. KYLE: Objection. 10 organ, that type of thing; is that right? 10 THE WITNESS: Yes. That is true. You might 11 A. Yes. 11 also find a listing of mesothelioma, where in 12 Q. But there were nine specifically that were 12 actuality the tumor is a lung cancer. 13 coded as mesothelioma? 13 BY MR. CHANDLER: 14 A. Not coded as, but were found by a search of 14 Q. Yes, sir. 15 the death certificates. 15 A. Mistakes are made both ways. 16 Q. What were they coded as, do you remember? 16 Q. Now, the nine individuals that were listed as 17 A. These various things that are listed here. 17 having mesothelioma on the death certificate, you went 18 Q. Okay. Thank you. 18 through and you really wanted to find out is this a 19 A. Yes. 19 case where it was misdiagnosed, because, as you say, 20 Q. So when you look back at the death 20 sometimes mesothelioma is misdiagnosed; right? 21 certificates, mesothelioma, did you have any ~ re-ask 21 A. Yes. 22 the question. Were there any death certificates that 22 Q. Now, so what you did was you went to the 23 specifically listed mesothelioma? 23 death certificates and you specifically, if you could 24 A. These nine cases included the name 24 find it, you went and got the biopsy material and you 25 mesothelioma on the death certificate. 25 looked at it, didn't you? Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 45 (Pages 443 to 446) NEILL WEAVER Page 447 Page 449 1 A. Yes. 1 A. Well, again, this is the information we sent 2 Q. And by doing that, you were able to whittle 2 to the National Cancer Institute. So they were 3 this nine number down to a lower number of actual, 3 amassed by the usual parameters of age, sex, and so 4 real mesotheliomas. Is that what you are telling us? 4 this was developed to be the best possible mass that 5 A. Yes. 5 could be derived. 6 Q. So let's go through the study and see what 6 Q. Is there any other population group in the 7 you did. I beg your pardon? 7 United States or the world where you would expect to 8 A. I'm sorry. I'm just hoping I can remember. 8 find 3.4 mesothelioma in a population of 20,000 9 Q. Oh, I see. Now, how big a cohort was this? 9 people, Doctor? 10 Remind the ladies and gentlemen of the jury how big 10 A. I don't know. 11 the cohort was? 11 Q. I want to find out whether it was the 12 A. 17 refineries, 20 - 21,000 workers. 12 National Cancer or the American Cancer Institute, 13 Q. Okay. Ttiis is not a test, so any time you 13 actually the National Cancer Institute here that 14 need to refer to it, please do. I'm not trying to 14 provided you with that number, or whether these 15 stretch your memory. So is it your testimony, did I 15 researchers came up from that number from data the 16 understand you right under direct examination that in 16 National Cancer Institute gave out? 17 a cohort of 20,000 people, you expected to find 3.73 17 A. No, no. The National Cancer Institute 18 mesotheliomas? Is that what you are telling us? 18 specialists developed that number. 19 A. We had no idea what to expect. The 3.4 19 Q. Let's go through this. It's on page 4, sir. 20 mesotheliomas resulted from a special request to the 20 Let's start in this paragraph. I'm about a third of 21 National Cancer Institute, who are given the 21 the way down. It says, "In addition, age specific 22 definition of the cohort as listed, and the National 22 incident rates for white males for the years 1969 23 Cancer made special effort, runs, to find out for us 23 through 1971 from the third national cancer survey 24 what the expected number would be. And this was, the 24 were provided to SRI." SRI, those are the people 25 expected number was 3.4. 25 accumulating all the data and actually doing the Page 448 Page 450 1 Q. Is the expected number among your cohort the 1 report; right? I 2 number that you might be expected to find in a 2 A. Yes. 3 background level or is it the number you would expect 3 Q. And that information was provided to SRI by ^ 4 to find in a refinery? How do we compare the two? 4 the National Cancer Institute, the age-specific 5 A. The number you would be expected to find in 5 incident rate; right? 6 the population at large. 6 A. Yes. I'm trying to find where you are. ; 7 Q. So what you are telling the ladies and 7 Okay. Yes. All right. Yes. 8 gentlemen of the jury is that you expected to find 3.4 8 Q. Now, "Person years by five-year age intervals 9 mesotheliomas in the same number of people in the 9 separately for white and non-white males were : 10 population at large? 10 available from the Monson program by five-year 11 A. Yes, that was the determination by 11 calendar time intervals. The age-specific rates for 12 specialists in the National Cancer Institute. 12 1969 through 1971 were applied to the person years up 13 Q. You are not telling us that 3.4 mesotheliomas 13 to and including 1974 and the SEER rates for 1973 ji 14 occur among every 20,000 people in the United States, 14 through 1978 were applied to the person years ; 15 are you? 15 accumulated for 1975 to 1980." | 16 A. No. This was a particular cohort. The 16 Now here is what I want to focus your 17 cohort, the study population was not representative of 17 attention on. "According to this calculation, the i 18 the population of the United States. So the expected 18 expected number of mesotheliomas in this study cohort 19 number was derived to match as closely, as perfectly 19 was3.73." 20 as possible by the National Cancer Institute 20 A. I stand corrected. I think I said 3.4. I 21 specialists. 21 had forgotten the precise number. Sorry. > 22 Q. I'm confused on where, who you are comparing 22 Q. "If that number is taken as the expected i 23 this cohort to. What other cohort exists in which you 23 number of deaths from this cause, the nine deaths from 24 would expect to find 3.4 mesothelioma among 20,000 24 mesothelioma give a standard mortality rate of 241. i! 25 people? 25 If not corrected for unknown deaths." Did I read that Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 46 (Pages 447 to 450) NEILL WEAVER Page 451 Page 453 1 correctly? 1 Q. Well, let's do the math. We have heard that 2 A. Yes. 2 it's approximately one to two cases for every million 3 Q. So my question to you is who performed this 3 people in the country. That is when you count all 4 calculation? "According to this calculation, the 4 cases of mesothelioma in the country, right? If you 5 expected number of mesotheliomas was 3.73." Who did 5 accept my 3,000 cases a year number. 6 that calculation? 6 A. Uh-huh. 7 A. National Cancer Institute. 7 Q. Can we agree to that? 8 Q. It wasn't SRI? 8 A. Yes. 9 A. No, not SRI. SRI did not have the raw 9 Q. All right. But in your cohort, the National 10 database to do that sort of thing. That could only be 10 Cancer Institute told you in this cohort of 20,000 11 done from national statistics. 11 refinery workers, we would expect to see 3.73 12 Q. In the National Cancer Institute, your 12 mesotheliomas. Is that a fair characterization of 13 understanding is who runs that organization? 13 what the National Cancer Institute told you? 14 A. I'm speaking of the federally, the federal 14 A. That is what they determined. 15 governmental organization. 15 Q. So if we multiply the denominator in that, in 16 Q. I just want to make sure. 16 other words, the cohort size, and we make it equal to 17 A. Yes. 17 the rate in America, 20,000, and we change it to 18 Q. All right. The cohort, though, in which 3.73 18 one million, then I have multiplied that by 50 times; 19 mesotheliomas was expected was a cohort of 20,000 19 right? 20 refinery workers, wasn't it? 20 A. You can't compare the age group of the 21 A. Yes. 21 refinery workers to the population at large. The age 22 Q. Okay. This is not a cohort of 20,000 22 group here does not include children, infants, 23 Americans that you - you would not expect to find 23 children, teenagers. 24 3.73 mesotheliomas in 20,000 Americans who had never 24 Q. Thank you. Okay. That is where I'm 25 worked at refineries; right? 25 confused. What is the population age group in the Page 452 Page 454 1 A. I don't know. 1 United States that I can compare your study to? 2 Q. Would it surprise you to learn that the 2 A. I don't know. 3 background level of mesotheliomas in America - 3 Q. 3.73 mesotheliomas in a cohort of 20,000 4 A. I have forgotten what it is. Tell me. 4 people is remarkably high, wouldn't you agree, if the 5 Q. - it's 1 per million or 2 million people in 5 background - 6 the United States. There are approximately, the 6 A. Yes, I'm aware of that, and yet I accept it 7 ladies and gentlemen have heard, approximately 3,000 7 as the best yardstick that could be developed for this 8 mesothelioma cases diagnosed in the United States 8 study. 9 every year. 9 Q. So what you did is you went in to these 10 A. Uh-huh. 10 mesotheliomas and you said let's see if any of these 11 Q. So that means it's only one mesothelioma case 11 are overdiagnosed and see if it's a real number; 12 for every 1 to 2 million people in the entire country? 12 right? 13 A. Yes. That's very rare. 13 A. Insofar as possible. 14 Q. But in this refinery -- in this cohort of 14 Q. Okay. So you went through and one of the 15 refinery workers of just 20,000 people, what the 15 things you realized is some of these were benign. 16 National Cancer Institute is telling you is that among 16 They weren't really malignant, and you knocked those 17 this refinery cohort, the expected rate of 17 numbers off. 18 mesotheliomas is 3.73, almost 4, per every 20,000 18 A. Yes. 19 people; right? 19 Q. Then you went through and you found some of 20 A. Yes. 20 them worked in the shipyard industry in addition to 21 Q. Do you know how much higher the expected 21 the refinery workers and you discounted those shipyard 22 incidence rate of mesothelioma in a refinery then is 22 workers, didn't you? 23 over the background population? 23 A. They worked in, did not have asbestos 24 A. There is something here that is eluding me. 24 exposure in their refinery work classification, but 25 I can't account for. 25 they had asbestos exposure in the shipyard. Henjum Goucher Repotting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 47 (Pages 451 to 454) NEILL WEAVER Page 455 Page 457 1 Q. So you took the shipyard people and you threw 1 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 2 them out, too - 2 THE WITNESS: We endeavored to ascertain the 3 A. Yes. 3 correct diagnosis. 4 Q. - even though they worked in a refinery. 4 BY MR. CHANDLER: 5 A. Yes. 5 Q. And you wanted, you even looked at tissue. 6 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 6 You said let's find the tissue of those people, those 7 BY MR. CHANDLER: 7 claims that died of mesothelioma and let's see if it's 8 Q. So after throwing out the people you claim 8 really mesothelioma. You did that, didn't you? 9 were misdiagnosed as benign, and after throwing out 9 A. That is the usual procedure when you want to 10 the people who worked both in the shipyards and in the 10 corroborate a diagnosis, yes. 11 refineries, you got the number down to the expected 11 Q. You agree with me that mesothelioma is both 12 number or around the expected number of 3.73 for every 12 overdiagnosed and underdiagnosed; correct? 13 20,000; right? 13 A. Yes. 14 A. Yes. This is the proper way to further 14 Q. But you did nothing to find out whether it 15 evaluate the study here. 15 was being underdiagnosed here, did you? 16 Q. But you did not, sir, go back through all of 16 A. We did what was possible to do. 17 the reported deaths to see if mesothelioma was being 17 Q. Sir, this is my question. You went and got 18 underdiagnosed. You only checked to see if it was 18 pathology samples of these mesotheliomas and you 19 being overdiagnosed, didn't you? 19 looked at that tissue, didn't you? 20 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 20 A. When possible. 21 THE WITNESS: There is no way to -- again, we 21 Q. You did nothing to go look for the tissue of 22 found all death certificates that listed the word 22 people who were diagnosed as lung cancer to find out 23 mesothelioma that we could possibly find. 23 whether the lung cancer was really a mesothelioma, did 24 BY MR. CHANDLER: 24 you? 25 Q. Yes, sir. And then you went through every 25 A. Not feasible. Page 456 Page 458 1 one of them and you looked for any excuse to prove it 1 Q. Okay. It was feasible for you to try to 2 wasn't mesothelioma and you threw it out, didn't you? 2 reduce the number, but what you are telling us is it 3 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 3 wasn't feasible to try to find out if there was an 4 BY MR. CHANDLER: 4 underdiagnosis? 5 Q. Correct? 5 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 6 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 6 BY MR. CHANDLER: 7 BY MR. CHANDLER: 7 Q. Is that right? 8 Q. Is that right, sir? 8 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 9 MS. KYLE: You can answer. 9 THE WITNESS: Well, of course, in finding | 10 THE WITNESS: We endeavored to ascertain the 10 these nine cases, we took extreme, extreme effort to 11 validity of the diagnosis in each of the nine cases 11 locate them. I 12 insofar as possible. If a case had a diagnosis of 12 BY MR. CHANDLER: 13 mesothelioma and 10 years later he died, he was run 13 Q. Sir, tell the ladies and gentlemen of the 14 over by a truck, obviously this is an exaggerated 14 jury what you did to find out whether mesothelioma was 15 example, but obviously he did not have mesothelioma. 15 being underdiagnosed in your population, because we 16 And where possible, whenever possible, we had the 16 already know you went to find out if it was being 17 tissues examined by a pathologist, who was absolutely 17 overdiagnosed. Did you look at any lung tissue of i 18 totally credible. So we did everything we could to 18 people who had lung cancer to find out whether It was ; 19 ascertain the validity of these nine cases with 19 really mesothelioma? i 20 respect to diagnosis. 20 A. Not feasible. 21 MR. CHANDLER: Objection, non-responsive. 21 Q. Then you didn't do it, did you? 22 BY MR. CHANDLER: 22 A. No. We didn't do it. 23 Q. Sir, my question is, you made an affirmative 23 Q. But you did look at tissue for people who 24 attempt to try to determine whether mesothelioma was 24 claim to have mesothelioma; right? 25 being overdiagnosed here; right? 25 A. Yes. Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 48 (Pages 455 to 458) NEILL WEAVER Page 459 Page 461 1 Q. And you claim that is feasible, but the other 1 that. 2 way around is not? 2 A. Uh-huh. 3 A. Yes. The logic is simply clear. 3 Q. Yes. Is that a yes? 4 Q. Fine. I think it is clear. I think it's 4 A. Yes. 5 exactly clear, sir. Tell us each and every step you 5 Q. In order to find out whether something is 6 took to find out whether mesothelioma was being 6 really mesothelioma, a number of special tests have to 7 underdiagnosed in your study? 7 be done on it, doesn't it? 8 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 8 A. Yes. 9 THE WITNESS: There is no way to do that. 9 Q. The reality is from a medical and scientific 10 BY MR. CHANDLER: 10 point of view, mesothelioma is more often 11 Q. Because you didn't do anything to find out 11 underdiagnosed than it is overdiagnosed. That is a 12 whether it was being underdiagnosed, did you? 12 true and correct statement, isn't it? 13 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 13 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 14 THE WITNESS: There was no way to do that. 14 THE WITNESS: No. 15 BY MR. CHANDLER: 15 BY MR. CHANDLER: 16 Q. Sir, my question is you did nothing to find 16 Q. You disagree with that? 17 out whether mesothelioma was being underdiagnosed, did 17 A. I disagree with that. 18 you? 18 Q. If the Surgeon General, a former Assistant 19 A. We couldn't do anything to find out if it was 19 Southern General of the United States tells the ladies 20 being underdiagnosed in this, in the format of this 20 and gentlemen of the jury that mesothelioma is much 21 study. 21 more underdiagnosed than it is overdiagnosed, tell us 22 Q. Okay. Well, let's talk about what you found 22 each and every fact you have to refute that statement. 23 out, what you did to try to reduce the number and see 23 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 24 if it was being overdiagnosed. One of the things is 24 THE WITNESS: I think it's a matter of the 25 you got tissue; right? 25 era that we are in. I think in the, if you go back, Page 460 Page 462 1 A. When possible. 1 10,15, 20, 30 years, I think the diagnosis was being 2 Q. Where did you get it? The tissue, where did 2 underdiagnosed. I think in the present time, with all 3 you get it? 3 the attention that individuals such as you and Glenna 4 A. From the hospital source, wherever the tissue 4 and I have placed on this diagnosis, it is now being 5 was. 6 Q. You had people die of lung cancer that had 5 overdiagnosed. 6 BY MR. CHANDLER: 7 biopsies taken, didn't you? 7 Q. Yes, sir. 20 years ago mesothelioma was 8 A. Uh-huh. 8 being underdiagnosed; is that what you are saying? 9 Q. Is that a yes? 9 MS. KYLE: Objection form. 10 A. Yes. 10 THE WITNESS: Well, at some time in the past, 11 Q. Why didn't you go get lung cancer tissue, 11 yes. I can't - 12 like you did mesothelioma tissue, to find out if it 12 BY MR. CHANDLER: 13 was being underdiagnosed? 13 Q. Whatever your number is, whether it was 15, 14 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 14 as you said, or 20 years - 15 BY MR. CHANDLER: 15 A. W e ll- 16 Q. To find out whether mesothelioma was being 16 Q. - is that right? 17 underdiagnosed. Why didn't you do that? 17 MS. KYLE: There is a question? Would you 18 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 18 repeat the question? 19 THE WITNESS: Because the number of lung 19 BY MR. CHANDLER: 20 cancers are so, so great and the likelihood of 20 Q. Let me re-ask the question. Today you agree 21 misdiagnosis of lung cancer is far, far less than the 21 mesothelioma - you think today mesothelioma is 22 likelihood of misdiagnosis of mesothelioma. 22 overdiagnosed? 23 BY MR. CHANDLER: 23 A. I think it's likely that it's overdiagnosed 24 Q. Yes, sir. But the likelihood of misdiagnosis 25 of mesothelioma Is quite high, right? We agree to 24 now. 25 Q. But 20 years ago, if there was a Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 49 (Pages 459 to 462) N ELL WEAVER Page 463 Page 465 1 misdiagnosis, it was more likely than not an 1 study. Has anybody that you are aware of done that? 2 underdiagnosis? 2 A. No. 3 A. 20 years ago it might have been the time when 3 Q. You only checked for overdiagnosis, not for 4 it was about right. And sometime in the past is when 4 underdiagnosis. Isn't that a fair statement? 5 it was in particular being underdiagnosed. 5 A. We were checking for correct diagnosis. 6 Q. Sir, these study groups are people who died 6 Q. But only on the nine identified as 7 more than 20 years ago. People who died in what 7 mesotheliomas; correct? 8 years, sir? When was your cohort looked at? 8 A. Yes. 9 A. I'm aware of the fact that you are making. I 9 Q. You did nothing to find out whether something 10 have forgotten the date of the - 10 that was listed as lung cancer was really a 11 Q. These were people who started work no later 11 mesothelioma. That didn't happen, did it? 12 than 1980, right, Dr. Weaver? 12 A. No. 13 A. I would have to go back to the Tabershaw- 13 Q. You only tried to reduce the number by 14 Cooper report. 14 checking overdiagnosis. You didn't try to increase 15 Q. Sir, nobody included in the Tabershaw-Cooper 15 the number by checking underdiagnosis, did you? 16 report died after 1984, because this report was issued 16 A. We did what was feasible. We didn't do what 17 in 1984. 17 was not possible to do. 18 A. Okay. Right. 18 Q. It was possible to get mesothelioma lung 19 Q. Mesothelioma, particularly 20 years ago, was 19 tissue from the hospitals, wasn't it? 20 an extremely rare disease, wasn't it? 20 A. In a few cases. 21 A. And is today. 21 MS. KYLE: All I would ask is that the 22 Q. And 20 years ago it was much more 22 argument stop. Your voices are being raised. It is 23 misdiagnosed by underdiagnosing it than it is today. 23 inappropriate. 24 Wouldn't you agree? 24 MR. CHANDLER: I agree, and I apologize. 25 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 25 BY MR. CHANDLER: Page 464 Page 466 1 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 1 Q. Dr. Weaver, I'm sorry. I'm trying to get out 2 BY MR. CHANDLER: 2 of here and be quick, but Ms. Kyle is right, and I 3 Q. Sir, are you telling the ladies and gentlemen 3 apologize. Dr. Weaver - I'm sorry, did you think I 4 of the jury that 20 years ago you believe 4 was being rude to you, because I really didn't mean to 5 mesotheliomas were not underdiagnosed? Didn't you 5 be, and if you did, I apologize. Dr. Weaver, in the 6 tell us earlier you thought It was 15 years ago it was 6 mesothelioma cases, the nine that were specifically 7 much more common to underdiagnose it. Because if we 7 identified in this case, you went to go find, you made 8 have to, we will read back when you said. 8 an affirmative attempt to try to go find as much as 9 A. All right. It is possible that at that time 9 you could the pathology specimens, didn't you? 10 was an era of underdiagnosis - 10 A. Yes. We wanted to confirm wherever possible. 11 Q. Okay. 11 Q. And where did you get that tissue? 12 A. - and today may be an era of overdiagnosis. 12 A. The tissue would be in a repository in the 13 Q. So when this study, the Tabershaw-Cooper 13 hospital. 14 report was done, if mesothelioma was being 14 Q. Why would they keep the tissue? Do 15 misdiagnosed, more likely than not it was an 15 hospitals - let me re-ask the question. Hospitals 16 underdiagnosis, not an overdiagnosis. We can agree to 16 routinely keep biopsy samples, right, it's not just 17 that? 17 mesotheliomas they keep? 18 A. It's possible, yes. 18 A. Yes. 19 MS. KYLE: Objection to form. 19 Q. So if it's colon cancer, they keep that 20 THE WITNESS: It's possible. 20 tissue routinely; correct? 21 BY MR. CHANDLER: 21 A. Well, not always. It's up to the hospital. 22 Q. Okay. All right. Now, has anybody gone back 22 It varies from location to location. 23 to those cases of lung cancer or any other code that 24 might have been encoded to find out what degree of 25 underdiagnosis was being done 20 years ago, in your 23 Q. But there's nothing , 20 years ago there was 24 nothing about mesothelioma tissue samples that made 25 hospitals keep that any more than any other tissue Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 50 (Pages 463 to 466) NEILL WEAVER Page 467 Page 469 1 samples? 1 the jury that this study includes all the 2 A. No. 2 mesotheliomas that were occurring in refineries 3 Q. That's a correct statement? 3 without accurately checking the level of 4 A. That is correct. 4 underdiagnosis with the same level of zeal that you 5 Q. Okay. So if there was lung tissue from 5 tried to find the overdiagnosis cases. You cannot 6 somebody who was Identified as dying from lung cancer, 6 tell them that, can you? 7 that would be saved on about an equal basis as 7 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 8 mesothelioma tissue would be saved; is that fair? 8 THE WITNESS: We made the special effort to 9 A. Yes, I think so. 9 find all mesothelioma cases, and when we found them, 10 Q. So you went back and got the mesothelioma 10 we did everything possible to ensure the accuracy of 11 tissue, but you didn't go back to get the lung cancer 11 the diagnosis. 12 tissue, did you? 12 BY MR. CHANDLER: 13 A. That is true. All right. We had no basis 13 Q. Sir, that is untrue, isn't it? You did not 14 for trying to find - our focus of the study was 14 look at lung cancers to find out whether they were 15 mesothelioma. That is what we were studying. 15 underdiagnosed. You didn't do that? 16 Q. You were trying to get an accurate account of 16 A. No. I said we started out by finding out all 17 the mesothelioma, weren't you? 17 the mesothelioma cases that we could find. 18 A. Yes; correct, accurate and correct. 18 Q. And to find them, you looked at death 19 Q. That's why, if it was overdiagnosed, you took 19 certificates, and if the death certificate said 20 them out; right? 20 mesothelioma, that is what you looked at; right? 21 A. Yes. 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. But If It was underdiagnosed, you did not 22 Q. You did not look at death certificates that 23 include it? 23 said lung cancer to find out whether it was really a 24 A. We did what we could. 24 mesothelioma, true; is that true? 25 Q. But you could go get lung cancer tissue if 25 A. To find the mesothelioma cases, you look for Page 468 Page 470 1 you wanted look at it, couldn't you? You could do 1 death certificates that have the word mesothelioma on 2 that. 2 it. We don't look at stomach cancers or skin cancers 3 A. It is possible. 3 or so on. We do what in research is feasible and what 4 Q. But you didn't do it, did you? 4 is the objective of the study. 5 A. Because it was not feasible. 5 Q. Yes, sir. Did you not believe the death 6 Q. Why is it more -- 6 certificates, did you? 7 A. I'm sorry, let me explain. There are simply 7 A. Pardon? 8 too many cases. 8 Q. You didn't believe the death certificates 9 Q. Way too many cases of lung cancer; right? 9 when they said mesothelioma, did you? 10 A. Yes, it's the commonest cancer of all. 10 A. I didn't dis -- we started out with the 11 Q. And the more common lung cancer, the more 11 assumption that they were correct, yes. 12 likely it is that there is underdiagnosed 12 Q. Then you tried to find out how many cases 13 mesotheliomas; isn't that true? 13 were not mesothelioma. You went to affirmatively try 14 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 14 to reduce the number, didn't you? 15 BY MR. CHANDLER: 15 A. No. We simply tried to get the correct 16 Q. The larger - is that true? 16 number, the correct diagnosis. 17 A. Not necessarily. 17 Q. Only, but the only way you looked was for a 18 Q. The larger the population, the more 18 reduction in numbers. You did not look in any 19 likelihood for error, wouldn't you agree? 19 instance under any circumstances for an increase in 20 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 20 numbers. Is that fair? 21 THE WITNESS: Okay. 21 A. This gets back to the thing we discussed 22 BY MR. CHANDLER: 22 before of feasibility. We couldn't take every lung 23 Q. All right. 23 cancer, every stomach cancer that had been listed and 24 A. Yes. 24 review all of their, all their slides. 25 Q. You cannot tell the ladies and gentlemen of 25 Q. How about taking a representative sample of Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 51 (Pages 467 to 470) NEILL WEAVER Page 471 Page 473 1 lung cancers. Did you try to take a representative 1 MS. KYLE: Craig, have you counted how many 2 sample? 2 times this question has been asked? 3 A. No. 3 MR. LEDET: I think three or four is about 4 Q. In science, in fact, that is all an 4 right. 5 epidemiological study is, isn't it? It's just a 5 MS. KYLE: I thought it was 10. 6 representative sample of the population, isn't it? 6 Q. Let me ask it, because I have screwed it up 7 A. Well, yes, that's part of it. 7 so many times by saying "reasonably foreseeable" 8 Q. I'm not saying - 8 instead of "feasible," that I don't think there is a 9 A. Well, not necessarily. Sometimes you are 9 dean answer on the record. It was reasonably 10 studying something that is highly non-representative, 10 feasible in 1984 to take a representative sample of 11 but anyhow, let's go ahead. 11 lung cancers to find out if mesothelioma was being 12 Q. I'm not saying you had to examine every -- 12 underdiagnosed; is that fair? 13 I'm not saying you had to examine every single case of 13 A. It could have been done. 14 lung cancer. But you didn't even try to take a 14 Q. And it was not done? 15 representative sample to investigate whether there was 15 A. It was not done. 16 underdiagnosis in just a representative sample of the 16 Q. So it is a true statement that you did not do 17 lung cancers, did you? 17 everything reasonable feasible at the time to get an 18 A. We did not. 18 accurate count of the mesotheliomas. Would you agree 19 Q. You didn't - okay. If you are only trying 19 to that statement? 20 to find out overdiagnosis and you are only excluding 20 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 21 workers based on prior exposure, does it surprise you 21 THE WITNESS: Well, within the limits of our 22 at all that at the end of the day, you got the number 22 research effort, I think we did what we could to 23 down to a number where you wanted it? 23 ascertain the correct diagnosis. And if all nine 24 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 24 cases had been valid, that would have been the number 25 THE WITNESS: Our effort was simply to get 25 we were talking about here today. Page 472 Page 474 1 the correct number. 1 BY MR. CHANDLER: 2 BY MR. CHANDLER: 2 Q. Well, if it was reasonably feasible to look 3 Q. But you know today, you know today, now, sir, 3 at a representative sample of lung tissues to find out 4 you don't have the correct number, because no attempt 4 if there was underdiagnosis going on, if that was 5 was made to find out the degree of underdiagnosis; is 5 reasonably feasible, why didn't you do it? 6 that fair? 6 A. Cost and effort, but let's go on. 7 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 7 Q. Did you say cost and effort? 8 THE WITNESS: As researchers, we could only 8 A. Yes. 9 deal with the information that we had available, and 9 Q. Thank you. At the end of the day, 10 we did to the best of our ability everything 10 Dr. Weaver, the study that you discussed with the 11 reasonably feasible to determine the correct number. 11 Exxon lawyer on direct examination that was specific 12 MR. CHANDLER: Objection, non-responsive. 12 to mesothelioma, even after you took out the cases of 13 BY MR. CHANDLER: 13 mesothelioma that you wanted to, even after you took 14 Q. It was reasonably foreseeable in 1984 to take 14 those numbers out, it's a true statement that the 15 just a representative sample of the deaths listed as 15 increased risk of mesothelioma in the cohort was still 16 lung cancer and check those. That was reasonably 16 noteworthy and was most likely to be real. Don't you 17 foreseeable? 17 agree? 18 A. I answered that before, yes. 18 A. I don't know. 19 Q. I'm sorry, that was reasonably feasible, 19 Q. Would you look at page 6 of the report. 20 wasn't it? I said foreseeable, I just need to correct 20 A. I'm sorry. 21 it. It is reasonably fore - feasible - I'm screwing 21 Q. Look at page 6 of the report. I f s the 22 it up. 22 conclusion. 23 A. We've been through that three times, so - 23 A. Yes. 24 MR. CHANDLER: Well, there is not an answer 25 on the record. 24 Q. It's on the conclusion, the very last 25 paragraph. "In any event" - Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 52 (Pages 471 to 474) NEILL WEAVER Page 475 Page 477 1 A. I'm not on the right page. I don't have the 1 BY MR. CHANDLER: 2 right report. 2 Q. Yes, sir. 3 Q. Is that the 1984 report? 3 A. You have to give me time to respond. 4 A. Yes. 4 Q. Let me know whether I read this correctly. 5 Q. It's really the 7th page, but it says 6 at 5 "Although there is probably a real excess of risk for 6 the bottom. Okay. Right before the references. Do 6 mesothelioma in the OH-1 cohort, the possibility that 7 you see that? The last paragraph right before 7 it's related to factors other than occupational 8 references. 8 exposures within the petroleum industry cannot be 9 MS. KYLE: What page are you on? 9 ruled out. It is true that there are asbestos 10 MR. CHANDLER: The page right before the 10 exposures within the industry, and that some of the 11 references. It's really page 7, but if s identified 11 individuals who died from mesothelioma have evidence 12 as page 6 on the report. You had the right one in your 12 from their occupation and employer listed on the death 13 hand. 13 certificates, that they worked in jobs in the industry 14 MS. KYLE: That is page 34. There are 14 with asbestos exposure. 15 two-page 6s. 15 "In addition, for all these individuals, the 16 MR. CHANDLER: Let me see the front of your 16 long interval between onset of employment in the 17 report. I'll find it for you. One is like appendix 17 participating refineries and death from this cause is 18 something or other. 18 compatible with the occupational exposures in the 19 MS. KYLE: Okay. Go ahead. 19 petroleum industry being the cause of the excess risk 20 BY MR. CHANDLER: 20 of mesothelioma. 21 Q. Okay. We are on the same page literally now? 21 "However, four of the nine individuals were 22 A. Yes. Your question please. 22 first hired after World War II and two of the others 23 Q. Yes, sir. I will direct your attention to 23 were hired in 1943 and 1944 respectively. For these 24 this report on page 6 about mesotheliomas. Just tell 24 individuals, at least, employment in a shipyard during 25 the ladies and gentlemen of the jury whether I read 25 World War II is a possibility that cannot be ruled out Page 476 Page 478 1 this correctly. "In any event, the increased risk of 1 at present. Such employment was known to result in 2 mesothelioma in the cohort is noteworthy and is most 2 extensive asbestos exposure with documented increased 3 likely to be real." Did I read that correctly? 3 risk of mesothelioma. 4 A. Yes. 4 "Although eight of these nine individuals 5 Q. That's after you would have taken out the 5 worked in refineries located in areas where 6 people who worked in both the shipyard 7 A. No, no. This is before we had - we in fact 6 shipbuilding activity was likely to be extensive, this 7 point is not particularly useful, because 8 proceeded as the investigator recommended - 8 approximately 90 percent of the cohort worked in such 9 Q. Got you. 9 refineries." 10 A. - to confirm the diagnosis and see if they 10 11 have shipbuilding exposure. We did precisely what he 11 Did I read that correctly? A. You did. 12 recommended. 12 Q. So what you did was you went out to go see if 13 Q. Well, didn't this report consider the workers 13 you had any people who worked in both shipyards and 14 in the shipyards? This report took that into 14 refineries? 15 consideration, didn't it? 16 A. No. We didn't have past occupational 17 histories in the basic study. No. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And you excluded those people? 17 A. If their refinery occupation did not entail 18 Q. Okay. Lefs go to page 5, sir, the previous 18 asbestos exposure. 19 page before that. The last paragraph, and let me know 19 Q. And tell me what the occupation those people 20 whether I read this correctly. "Although there is 20 who you excluded that worked in shipyards had In the 21 probably a real excess of risk from mesothelioma" ~ 22 A. I'm not with you. Please bear with me. 23 MS. KYLE: What page now? 24 THE WITNESS: All right. Okay. I have got 25 it. Bottom paragraph of page 5. I'm sorry. 21 refinery, sir? 22 A. Here we go into what constitutes occupational 23 exposure to asbestos, and they did not have what was 24 considered to be valid occupational exposure to 25 asbestos in their refinery work. Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 53 (Pages 475 to 478) NEILL WEAVER Page 479 Page 481 1 Q. What was their trade in the refineries? 1 A. There might be in a few cases a laborer who 2 A. I don't know now. 2 was transporting packages of asbestos in storage, in 3 Q. Well, at the time that you excluded them, did 3 transport. 4 you consider that pipefitters had viable occupational 4 Q. Did you consider a laborer who transported 5 exposure to asbestos? 5 asbestos materials to have enough asbestos exposure so 6 A. That would have been considered, yes. 6 that if he got mesothelioma, you could relate it to 7 Q. And would, is pipefitters a trade that had 7 that exposure and therefore leave him in the study? 8 occupational exposure to asbestos - 8 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 9 A. Because oftentimes pipefitters may have 9 THE WITNESS: Let me get back. I don't 10 worked as insulators before attaining the skill of 10 understand. 11 pipefitter. 11 BY MR. CHANDLER: 12 Q. And so pipefitter could be a guy exposed to 12 Q. Well, you looked at your workers and you said 13 asbestos in the refinery; right? 13 those kinds of workers didn't have asbestos exposure. 14 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 14 We can kick them out and assign all of their exposure 15 THE WITNESS: In our classification of 15 to the shipyards. That is what happened, right? 16 asbestos workers, their current classification may be 16 A. No. 17 pipefitter, but he may have worked for six, eight, 10 17 Q. You had workers who worked in shipyards and 18 years previously as an insulator. And in that case, 18 refineries at the same time. You had three of those. 19 he is always retained on the list as exposed to 19 33 percent of the mesotheliomas fell under that 20 asbestos - 20 category? 21 Q. Sir, I want - 21 A. Yes. 22 A. - even though his current occupation does 22 Q. And with 33 percent of the mesotheliomas that 23 not have occupational exposure to asbestos. 23 fell in that category, you kicked them out, because 24 Q. I want you to tell the ladies and gentlemen 24 you took it unto yourself to say they had a job that 25 of the jury so they can assess the credibility of what 25 did not have enough exposure to asbestos in the Page 480 Page 482 1 you did, tell us all of the occupations in the 1 refinery to cause the mesothelioma; is that right? 2 refinery that you would have considered at the time as 2 A. That is right. 3 being that's not an occupation that would have been 3 Q. So tell me the jobs that you would have said 4 exposed to asbestos in the refinery, and therefore we 4 we need to leave them in, because he had the kind of 5 can discount that exposure and assign all of his 5 job that would have caused enough asbestos exposure in 6 exposure to the shipyard, and therefore exclude it 6 a refinery so that we can't kick him out of the study. 7 from the list. What kinds of trades would you have 7 Tell me those jobs. 8 said were not exposed to asbestos and therefore 8 A. I'm trying to list the criteria that we used 9 excluded? 9 in our refinery. 10 A. We are not getting anyplace. I mean, I can 10 Q. Tell me. 11 say office workers. 11 A. And that is jobs that entail occupational 12 Q. Okay. What else? 12 exposure to asbestos for a proper period of time. 13 A. We had criteria for designation of a worker 13 Q. What are those jobs? 14 exposed to asbestos, and all occupations which did not 14 A. Okay. So we said insulators. In some cases 15 meet that criteria would not be listed as asbestos 15 there were laborers -- 16 exposed. 16 Q. Okay. 17 Q. What were the occupations that were included 17 A. - who were involved in transport of asbestos 18 then. Let's do the shorter list. What occupations 18 materials. The tags would split and there could be 19 did you consider to have enough asbestos exposure to 19 spills. And then, anyhow, there were a few 20 have caused mesothelioma, and therefore would have 20 individuals such as that. There were, well, you 21 left in the number? 21 brought up the subject of petroleum products. Certain 22 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 22 lubricants, greases. Say a grease, say a degrease. 23 THE WITNESS: Well, principally insulators. 23 The individuals who dumped the fibrous material into 24 BY MR. CHANDLER: 25 Q. Okay, who else? 24 the vat until it was engineered so it was, no longer 25 entailed exposure, they were listed as asbestos Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 54 (Pages 479 to 4^ NEILL WEAVER Page 483 Page 485 1 exposed. 1 Q. So the point is you took it upon yourself to 2 Q. Were pipefitters listed as asbestos exposed? 2 assign which trades in your opinion would have been 3 A. No. 3 exposed to asbestos, and if that trade also worked in 4 Q. Okay. Were machinists listed as asbestos 4 the shipyard, you reduced and took out that number 5 exposed? 5 from the study, if there was a mesothelioma there; is 6 A. No. 6 that true? 7 Q. Were carpenters listed as asbestos exposed? 7 A. I think I follow you. That if their work 8 A. No. 8 history in the refinery did not entail occupational 9 Q. Were electricians listed as asbestos exposed? 9 exposure to asbestos and they had previously worked in 10 A. No. Again, all these no's, unless there were 10 a shipyard, they were not considered to be 11 special things about the individuals work history that 11 mesothelioma cases due to refinery work. 12 had him working with asbestos, particularly if he had 12 Q. And if those work histories included work as 13 been an insulator in the past. 13 a pipefitter, a machinist, a carpenter, those would 14 Q. Yes, sir, but if a worker had never been an 14 all be work histories you would have taken out, 15 insulator, he was not considered - strike that. If a 15 because you would have made the decision those were 16 worker like Mr. Altimore was a machinist and never 16 not occupationally exposed workers; is that true? 17 been an insulator, he was not somebody you would have 17 A. Yes. 18 kept in the study? 18 Q. Okay. Would you look at page 9, sir. 19 A. No. He was not occupationally exposed to 19 MS. KYLE: Troy, I have a question. You said 20 asbestos. 20 a while back you had a few minutes left. How much do 21 Q. Okay. So you kicked - if the three people 21 you have? 22 you kicked out were pipefitters, you would have 22 MR. CHANDLER: Five. 23 excluded them from the study, if they were the same 23 BY MR. CHANDLER: 24 people who worked in the shipyard; right? 24 Q. Sir, on page 9, the third, the second full 25 A. Yes. 25 paragraph, it states, "In the course of carrying out Page 484 Page 486 1 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 1 this additional task" - 2 BY MR. CHANDLER: 2 A. Wait a minute. Oh, yes. 3 Q. If one of the three workers who worked in the 3 Q. Right above data analysis. 4 shipyard was a machinist, you would have kicked him 4 A. Yes. 5 out of the study, if he also worked in the shipyard? 5 Q. Let me know whether I read in correctly. "In 6 A. If he had no prior service as an insulator or 6 the course of carrying out this additional task, it 7 something else in the refinery where he was exposed, 7 was discovered that 264 of the death certificates were 8 occupationally exposed, yes. 8 not in the records and apparently had become separated 9 Q. If the worker was a carpenter and never was 9 and had disappeared between SRI's original preparation 10 an insulator, you kicked him out of the study if he 10 of the records for shipment to API and the return of 11 also worked in the shipyard; right? 11 the records from API to SRI. These missing death 12 A. If he was not occupationally exposed to 12 certificates were requested from the refineries and 13 asbestos, yes. 13 from the states for those that the refineries did not 14 Q. And you don't, you hold the opinion that 14 have on file." Did I read that correctly? 15 carpenters, if they were never insulators, were not 15 A. You did. 16 occupationally exposed to asbestos, such that if they 16 Q. Did the missing death certificates get 17 also worked in the shipyard, you would have kicked 17 shipped back to SRI, sir? 18 them out of the study; right? 19 A. Yes. 18 A. I don't know. 19 Q. Do you know how death certificates came up 20 Q. Okay. How about, let's see. I'm trying to 20 missing somewhere between SRI and the American 21 think of the other trades that might go out on a job. 22 If a supervisor got mesothelioma and prior to coming 23 to the refinery that supervisor also worked at a 24 shipyard, you would have excluded him; right? 25 A. Yes. 21 Petroleum Institute? 22 A. I don't know. 23 Q. And you can't tell us whether they were ever 24 returned from the American Petroleum Institute or 25 whatever happened to these missing 264 death Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 55 (Pages 483 to 486) NEILL WEAVER Page 487 Page 489 1 certificates, can you? 1 is greater than machinist on this list, is there? 2 A. At this time, I cannot say. 2 A. That is true. 3 Q. Okay. I don't remember if I asked this 3 Q. Okay. 4 before. Do you know Admiral or Dr. Richard Lemen of 4 A. I would say what is their statistical 5 the United States Public Health Service, sir? 5 significance. 6 A. No. 6 Q. I will tell you the significance. 7 Q. Do you have any reason to disagree that he is 7 Mr. Altimore was a machinist, wasn't he? 8 an internationally renowned epidemiologist in the 8 A. Yes. 9 field of asbestos science and medicine? 9 Q. Thank you. Sir, you knew at the time this 10 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 10 was written that the literature supported the fact 11 THE WITNESS: I can't respond to that. I 11 that mesotheliomas are missed, didn't you? 12 don't know. 12 A. Are -- 13 BY MR. CHANDLER: 13 Q. Are missed. You knew that. 14 Q. Okay. Would you look at table 7 on this 14 A. Yes. 15 report, some ways back. It's really page 23 of the 15 Q. The report told you that, didn't it, on page 16 report, because 24 is the next page. Do you see the 16 27, sir. Go farther back in the report, Dr. Weaver. 17 table? 17 The very last sentence on page 27, under the heading, 18 A. Yes. Table 7. 18 "Mesothelioma." You have got it. The very last 19 Q. What we are looking at on table 7 are the 19 sentence reads - and you let the ladies and gentlemen 20 nine men who had mesothelioma on the death certificate 20 of the jury know whether I read this correctly. "In 21 and their occupations; right? 21 addition, the literature contains supportive evidence 22 A. Yes. 22 that some mesotheliomas are missed." Correct? 23 Q. Now, so we have got a machinist, an 23 A. Yes. 24 insulator, another machinist, another machinist - by 24 Q. Page 29, again, Doctor, the Increased risk - 25 the way, what trade was Mr. Altimore? 25 this is the second full paragraph on page 29. "The Page 488 Page 490 1 A. Machinist. 1 increased risk of mesothelioma in the OH-1 cohort is 2 Q. You have got a maintenance supervisor, a 2 noteworthy and is most likely real." Did I read that 3 welder, a utility division, a welder, and a 3 correctly? 4 pipefitter; right? 4 A. Yes. The continuing sentence -- well, okay. 5 A. Yes. 5 Q. "Further investigation to document the degree 6 Q. Now, in looking at these nine, you decided 6 of misclassification of the diagnosis and/or to rule 7 after looking at their occupational histories three of 7 out previous shipyard employment as a possible 8 these men worked in a shipyard and did not have 8 explanation may be appropriate." Is that what you 9 occupational exposure to asbestos based on their trade 9 wanted to comment on? 10 at the refinery; right? 10 A. Yes, and that is what we did. 11 A. Yes. 11 Q. The further investigation, nowhere in this 12 Q. Which three? 12 document does it limit the further investigation to 13 A. Well, this table doesn't Identify the ones 13 document the degree of misclassification only to 14 with previous work history in the shipyards. 14 overdiagnosis. Nowhere in this document does it say 15 Q. But machinist is the most common occupation? 15 just consider the overdiagnosis, does it? 16 A. Yes; right. 16 A. I think we have been through that before. 17 Q. The most common occupation among the 18 mesotheliomas found on this cohort of the American 17 Q. Well, my question is different now, though. 18 Nowhere in this document do the researchers say when 19 Petroleum Institute, even before you reduced it to the 19 you go and do further investigation to document the 20 number you got, was machinist; isn't that right? 20 degree of misclassification, do they tell you only 21 A. There are three machinists here, yes. 22 Q. That is the greatest occupation represented 21 consider overdiagnosis. 22 A. You have read it correctly, and they do not 23 in this study cohort for mesotheliomas, isn't it? 23 talk about over or underdiagnosis in either way. 24 A. That is three out of nine. 25 Q. Yes, sir. There's no other occupation that 24 Q. Well, they do. On page 27. 25 A. All right. Well, yes, that was - Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 56 (Pages 487 to 490) NEILL WEAVER Page 491 Page 493 1 Q. On page 27, they acknowledge mesotheliomas 1 Q. Okay. Nowhere in the document that the jury 2 are missed; right? 2 will see, because this is the only thing they get to 3 A. Yes. 3 see. Nowhere in this entire document does it say, 4 Q. And they tell you further investigation to 4 hey, you researchers only consider one side of the 5 document the degree of misdassification may be 5 story. Don't consider underdiagnosis, does it? 6 appropriate. 6 A. I think - well, your statement, yes. 7 A. Misdassification, yes. 7 Q. That's correct? 8 Q. But nowhere do they limit misdassification 8 A. I think so. 9 only to the overdiagnosed cases; right? 9 Q. Okay. Mr. Raddiff in this case has told the 10 A. True. 10 jury, "Now it's time for the rest of the story." Who 11 Q. Who is it that made the decision only to look 11 is famous for saying that? 12 at overdiagnosis and not to consider underdiagnosis? 12 A. I didn't hear you. 13 Who made that decision? 13 Q. Yes, sir. Mr. Radcliff is a lawyer that the 14 A. I don't know. 14 ladies and gentlemen of the jury has met. He is 15 Q. It was somebody at the American Petroleum 15 trying the case for the Exxon Company. You have never 16 Institute, wasn't it? 16 met him, have you? 17 A. I don't know. 17 A. No. 18 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 18 Q. He told the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, 19 BY MR. CHANDLER: 19 "Now it's time for the rest of the story," in his 20 Q. Who conducted the investigation? 20 opening statement. Who is the famous person that says 21 A. Dr. Kaplan. 21 that? Paul Harvey. Do you recognize the name? 22 Q. When the further investigation to document 22 A. It doesn't ring a bell to me. 23 the degree of misdassification was done, you are 23 Q. Okay. Whatever the rest of the story is on 24 telling the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that 24 any underdiagnosis of mesothelioma, we will never 25 Dr. Kaplan did that? 25 know, will we? Page 492 Page 494 1 A. Dr. Kaplan was involved in that, and of 1 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 2 course the data, the information, had to come from the 2 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I'm following 3 petroleum industry. 3 this, but -- 4 Q. So the people who made the determination only 4 BY MR. CHANDLER: 5 to look at overdiagnosis was somebody from the 5 Q. We will never know the degree of 6 petroleum industry? 6 underdiagnosis of mesothelioma because you never 7 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 7 looked for it? 8 THE WITNESS; This gets back to feasibility, 8 A. We will never know the degree of 9 and Dr. Kaplan was involved in the follow-up studies 9 underdiagnosis. We will never know the degree of 10 that were done. 10 overdiagnosis. 11 BY MR. CHANDLER; 11 Q. Well, isn't that exactly what you did? You 12 Q. I'm just trying to find out who made the 12 went and specifically looked for overdiagnosis. We 13 decision, Doctor, that it wasn't feasible even to do a 13 know exactly what that was, don't we? i 14 representative sample of the lung cancer tissue. Who 14 A. We corrected the diagnosis as best we could. i 15 made that decision? 15 Q. Yes, sir. We do know the degree of i 16 A. I don't know. 16 overdiagnosis, because you specifically went to do \ 17 Q. Okay. It was somebody at the American 17 that; right? i 18 Petroleum Institute, though, wasn't it? 18 A. Oh, you are speaking -- all right. The nine S 19 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 19 cases. : 20 BY MR. CHANDLER: 20 Q. Yes, sir. I'm speaking of the study. : 21 Q. Can you say with reasonable certainty, 21 A. All right. ^ 22 Doctor, that it was somebody at the American petroleum 22 Q. Let me re-ask the question then. It's my ; 23 industry, regardless of who it was? 23 fault, because I wasn't specific. In this study, we ; 24 A. It could have been somebody at Stanford 24 will never know the rest of the story and never know 25 Research Institute. 25 the degree of underdiagnosis, because it was never Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 57 (Pages 491 to 494) NEILL WEAVER Page 495 Page 497 1 specifically looked for the way overdiagnosis was, 1 Q. Somebody shouldn't wait until it goes off the 2 will we? 2 market to substitute a dustier product for a less 3 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 3 dusty product, should they? That should just be done 4 THE WITNESS: We went as far as we could to 4 as soon as it's feasible to do it. 5 find the correct diagnosis. There still could be, 5 A. Assuming you have the knowledge and assuming 6 within these nine cases, examples of under or 6 the other alternate material speaks specifications. 7 overdiagnosis. 7 Q. Yes, sir. Assuming you know it's dustier 8 BY MR. CHANDLER: 8 than other products and assuming there are other 9 Q. Sir, it is not true that you did everything 9 feasible products available that are less dusty, 10 you could. Didn't you tell us earlier -- 10 specifically asbestos-containing products, the less 11 A. All right, we -- 11 dusty products should be used. Wouldn't you agree? 12 MS. KYLE: I'm going to object to form. I 12 A. Yes. 13 resent the fact that you are calling this witness a 13 Q. All right. Dr. Weaver, thank you for your 14 liar. 14 time today. I appreciate it. I know Ms. Kyle is 15 MR. CHANDLER: I'm not saying that. 15 going to have some questions for you and I will pass 16 MS. KYLE: So I object to form. It's 16 the witness. 17 totally inappropriate, and I don't want that repeated 17 (Recess) 18 in that fashion. 18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the 19 BY MR. CHANDLER: 19 record. The time is 3:38. 20 Q. Sir, it is not an accurate statement to say 20 (Recess) 21 you did everything that was feasible. We do know it 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going back on the 22 was feasible to look at a representative sample of 22 record. The time it's 3:48 23 lung tissue, don't we? We do know that to be true. 23 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 24 Sir? 24 BY MS. KYLE: 25 A. Yes, it could have been done. 25 Q. Dr. Weaver, I have just a few questions for Page 496 Page 498 1 Q. And it wasn't done? 1 you. I do hope a few. The studies that Mr. Chandler i 2 A. It wasn't done. 2 just covered, if I can generally refer to them as the 3 Q. So if somebody tells the ladies and gentlemen 3 API studies. They began with the 19 - 1 have the 4 of the jury we did everything that was feasible at the 4 1958 Kettering study, the 1964 Cooper-Tabershaw, and ; 5 time, that is not entirely accurate, is it? 5 they basically cover the next several years until the 6 A. We did what we could. 6 1984 Kaplan SRI report. Can I refer to those as the 7 Q. By the way, the ladies and gentlemen of the 7 API studies? 8 jury see you looking to your left. Who is sitting 8 A. I understand. You may. 9 next to you? 9 Q. Or refinery studies, either one. Is that i 10 A. Glenna Kyle, attorney. 10 okay with you? i 11 Q. For Exxon; right? 11 A. Yes. 12 A. Yes. 12 Q. The 1984 study, who did that? 13 Q. Okay. Doctor, if there was an asbestos 13 A. Dr. Kaplan. That is Stanford Research 14 product that people at the Exxon refinery knew to be 14 Institute. 15 worse from a dust angle, you know, was more dusty than 15 Q. Mr. Chandler referred to you doing the study; 16 other asbestos products that were feasible to use, 16 is that correct? : 17 should they have used those other products, the less 17 A. No. 18 dusty products? 18 Q. Who, again, did this study? : 19 A. It was our desire to reduce all dust 19 A. Who did the study? Dr. Kaplan. ; 20 exposures as low as feasible and substitution is one 20 Q. And he is where? Where was he located? 21 of the mechanisms to achieve that. 21 A. The senior epidemiologist at Stanford 22 Q. And it was feasible to substitute a dustier 22 Research Institute, International, in San Francisco. 23 product with a less dusty product, that should be 23 Q. And who funded the refinery studies? 24 done, given feasibility? 25 A. Yes. 24 A. I am having trouble hearing you. 25 Q. Who funded the refinery studies? Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 58 (Pages 495 to 498) NEILL WEAVER Page 499 Page 501 1 A. The American Petroleum Institute. 1 Q. Were they age matched for sex - excuse me, 2 Q. Did the government come to you and ask if 2 were they matched for sex? 3 they could do these refinery studies, fund them? 3 A. Yes. 4 A. They did not. 4 Q. Were there lung cancers in the general 5 Q. Did labor come to you and ask you if they 5 population? 6 could dot refinery studies and fund them? 6 A. Yes. 7 A. No. 7 Q. Would it have been feasible to have reviewed 8 Q. Did any other organization come to you when 8 the pathology for the lung cancers in the general 9 you were at the API and ask that they be able to do 9 population? 10 these studies? 10 A. It would not have been feasible to do so. 11 A. No. 11 Q. How many thousand lung cancer cases are 12 Q. If it had not been for refinery members of 12 reported annually in the United States? 13 the API, would these studies have been done? 13 A. I don't know, but it's the most common 14 A. They could not have been done otherwise. 14 cancer, so the number is extremely large. 15 Q. What is epidemiology? 15 Q. How many years would it have taken to review 16 A. The science of study of populations, with 16 the lung cancer cases reported in the United States on 17 respect to state of health, well being, illnesses, 17 an annual basis? 18 cause of death, in an effort to improve the health of 18 A. More years than there are available to do it. 19 the population under study. 19 Q. If in fact we have a misdiagnosis, an 20 Q. Are they basically -- strike that. Do epi 20 underdiagnosis of mesothelioma in refinery workers, 21 studies incorporate statistical samples of certain 21 would you expect an underreporting of mesothelioma in 22 populations? 22 the general population? 23 A. Ordinarily they do, yes. 23 MR. CHANDLER: Objection, form. 24 Q. Statistics plays a significant role in 24 THE WITNESS: You would think they would err 25 epidemiology studies; is that correct? 25 in the same direction, that if there is underreporting Page 500 Page 502 1 A. Yes, and in the present time they play an 1 in one population, you would expect the same thing to 2 exceedingly important role, overly stressed role. 2 be reflected in the other population. 3 Q. Mr. Chandler asked you more than once 3 BY MS. KYLE:- 4 regarding the feasibility of redoing pathology or 4 Q. Isn't that a basic tenet for epidemiology? 5 reviewing pathology for lung cancer cases in the 5 A. Yes. The epidemiology is fraught with 6 refinery cohort. 6 weaknesses and with possible errors, and of course 7 A. He did. 7 competent investigators know of this. They even point 8 Q. Would it be valid to look at lung cancer 8 it out in the report, which makes criticism relatively 9 cases in the refinery cohort without looking at the 9 easy to be arrived at. 10 lung cancer cases in the general population, which was 10 Q. In fact, if you have random error in one 11 the comparison group for these refinery workers? 11 population, you expect to have the same random error 12 A. To be done properly, you would have to look 12 in the other population; is that correct? 13 at the studies of both populations. 13 MR. CHANDLER: Objection, leading. 14 Q. Let's break this up a little bit. The 14 THE WITNESS: You would expect that to be the 15 refinery cohort consisted of how many individuals? 15 case. 16 A. 20-, 21,000 people, is that correct? I 16 BY MS. KYLE: 17 think so. 17 Q. Do you expect the random error in the study 18 Q. These 21,000 people, who were they compared 18 population, as well as the general population? 19 to? 19 A. Yes. In most cases they would tend to 20 A. The population at large. The United States 20 balance out. 21 population based on census or Social Security numbers. 21 Q. If a physician was presented with a 22 Q. Were the members of the refinery cohort age 22 mesothelioma patient who had occupational exposure to 23 matched with the general population? 23 asbestos, would you expect the diagnosis, for 24 A. Yes. They were age matched in the Monson 24 instance, in a refinery cohort to be a misdiagnosis, 25 program. 25 an overdiagnosis or underdiagnosis, when compared to Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 59 (Pages 499 to 502) NEILL WEAVER Page 503 Page 505 1 an individual from the general population? 1 Petroleum Institute's Industrial hygiene committee. 2 MR. CHANDLER: Objection, form. 2 They were, had invited comments such as this from 3 THE WITNESS: Well, with the exposure to 3 member companies, because of questions that had been 4 asbestos or presumed exposure to asbestos, this would 4 raised about the potential deleterious effects on the 5 tilt the balance over to overdiagnosis. 5 health of asbestos exposed workers. 6 BY MS. KYLE: 6 Q. Is this a listing of disease incidents in 7 Q. In which cohort? 7 exposed workers? 8 A. The refinery cohort. 8 A. Yes. This is a listing of health effects 9 Q. Dr. Selikoff - Mr. Chandler also referred to 9 found in asbestos exposed workers as compared to 10 Dr. SelikofPs studies. Are you familiar with the 10 non-asbestos exposed workers. 11 Selikoff studies? 11 Q. The data in its entirety for both exposed and 12 A. Somewhat. 12 non-exposed Is set out in this letter; is that 13 Q. Did Selikoff do an epidemiology study of 13 correct? 14 insulators? 14 A. Yes. This is based on the medical file and 15 A. He did. 15 the evaluation of the each worker. 16 Q. We have also discussed follow up. Did 16 MS. KYLE: What is the 1960 document? What 17 Dr. Selikoff have 100 percent follow up In his 17 exhibit Is that? 18 insulator population? 18 MR. CHANDLER: Exhibit 3. 19 A. No, he did not. 19 BY MS. KYLE: 20 Q. Do you know what percent follow up 20 Q. Dr. Weaver, not to change documents on you 21 Dr. Selikoff had in his population? 21 too quickly, but to get through here today, Exhibit 22 A. I don't know at this time, but I would like 22 Number 3, would you remind the jury what Exhibit 23 to, well, you can refer to the follow-up in the 23 Number 3 is? 24 refinery studies, if you choose to do so. 24 A. This is a published medical study by Dr. John 25 Q. Do you recall the follow-up in the Selikoff 25 Thorpe and myself. It's dated 1960, and the title is, Page 504 Page 506 1 cohort? 1 Chronic "Pulmonary Disease in an Industrial 2 A. No, I do not. It was well short of 100 2 Population." 3 percent. It was, I think less than 90 percent. 3 Q. Did you look for the incidence of 4 Q. Do you know of any epidemiology study 4 pneumoconiosis In this particular study? 5 reported to date that has achieved 100 percent follow 5 A. Yes, we In particular looked for cases that 6 up? 6 would be properly diagnosed as an occupational dust 7 A. Not any sizable study, no. 7 disease, pneumoconiosis. 8 Q. Just one moment. Is the Dooley letter 8 Q. Would that include asbestosls? 9 Exhibit 5? 9 A. It would, Indeed, include asbestosis. 10 MR. CHANDLER: No. That is the Bonsib 10 Q. Did you find an increased incidence of 11 report. The Dooley letter is Exhibit 9. 11 asbestosis in this study? 12 BY MS. KYLE: 12 A. We found no cases of asbestosis. We found no 13 Q. Dr. Weaver, would you look at Exhibit 9. 13 pneumoconiosis, no case of occupational dust disease. 14 What is that, what Is Exhibit 9? 14 Q. I happen to agree with Mr. Chandler, you 15 A. This is a letter dated April 6,1966, from 15 can't see Invisible dust. 16 myself to a Mr. Dooley at Texaco. 16 MS. KYLE: I do agree with you, Troy. 17 Q. Does that cover letter report an epidemiology 17 MR. CHANDLER: Let's all just kiss and make 18 study? 18 up then and go home. 19 A. No. This would not be considered in any 19 BY MR. CHANDLER: 20 light an epidemiology study. 20 Q. Well, actually, excuse me - strike that. 21 Q. What are you doing In Exhibit 9? What are 21 Were insulators followed both industrial hygiene-wise, 22 you reporting to Dr. Dooley? 22 as well as medical-wise, if I can use those phrases, 23 A. We are reporting our experience with study, a 23 at Exxon as a, in any particular fashion? 24 study of the health condition of asbestos, of 24 A. Yes, they were. 25 insulators as part of an inquiry from the American 25 Q. How were they followed? Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 60 (Pages 503 to 506) NEILL WEAVER Page 507 Page 509 1 A. Well, with respect to the work environment, 1 possibility, not likelihood, but a possibility that 2 the industrial hygiene and safety and advisors and the 2 dust could be developed, and of course the working 3 first-line foremen were aware and made the workers 3 conditions, different methods of dust suppression can 4 aware of the potential hazards of asbestos in causing 4 be considered, but the overall objective was to reduce 5 diseases. 5 dust in the inhalation area to the lowest feasible 6 In the medical evaluation program, they were 6 amount, as possible. 7 studied with emphasis on efforts to find if they had 7 Q. Let's now refer to the dust clouds and the 8 any evidence of an asbestos related disease. And this 8 invisible dust. What was the PLV for asbestos 9 would be done by the medical, all tools of medical 9 exposure from the 1930s through the 1960? 10 type available, the physical examination, taking the 10 A. It was 5 million particles per cubic foot, 11 history, chest x-rays in particular, laboratory tests, 11 was the guideline, first by the SHIGH, the American 12 pulmonary function tests, electrocardiograms. All of 12 conference of Industrial Hygienists, and this same 13 this was done with respect to medical monitoring. 13 level was accepted, promulgated first by the 14 Q. Do you know what advice they received 14 Department of Labor, and then by OSHA, when OSHA was 15 regarding respiratory protection on the job? 15 established, and both SHIGH and the Department of 16 A. Would you please - 16 Labor and OSHA moved quickly to reduce this level in 17 Q. Do you know what advice, warnings they were 17 the early 1970s. But that 5 million particles per 18 given regarding respiratory protection to be worn on 18 cubic foot was the guideline in use during this long 19 the job? 19 period of time that you referred to. 20 A. In general, they were, had training sessions 20 Q. If a worker was exposed to 5 million 21 on how to use a respiratory protective device, which 21 particles per cubic foot, an insulator, for any 22 type of device would be appropriate for a particular 22 significant period of time, would you expect to see 23 condition. There's different devices to choose from. 23 some dust in the area? 24 They were taught how to wear the device, to properly 24 A. Certainly in the majority of instances, the 25 protect the intake to the airway and they were 25 dust would be visible. Again, the asbestos would be Page 508 Page 510 1 instructed with respect to the dust conditions, dust 1 mixed with a carrier dust, with other components, and 2 exposure conditions during which they should use these 2 from the mixture of dust in virtually every case, you 3 devices. 3 would expect to have a visible component. 4 This instruction would take place at safety 4 Q. Was 5 million particles per cubic foot 5 meetings or in training sessions with respect to a 5 considered a safe working level for an insulator from 6 turn around or a particular job. The point I'm making 6 the 1930s through the 1960s? 7 is that this was something that was done repetitively 7 MR. CHANDLER: Object to the form. 8 and in general terms, and also in specific terms for a 8 THE WITNESS: It was considered safe, 9 particular work task. 9 protective in virtually all instances. It was a 10 Q. Did you personally advise insulators to wear 10 guideline, and I think as we mentioned before, we 11 respiratory protection when doing rip out? 11 always were striving to go below the guideline, well 12 A. I did. 12 below the guideline in our work environment. 13 Q. Did you tell them to wait until they saw 13 BY MS. KYLE: 14 clouds of dust? 14 Q. I believe during the direct which we, which 15 A. I'm sorry - 15 you did last week or the week before, you referred to 16 Q. Did you tell them to wait and wear 16 the Kettering study as having some weaknesses. You 17 respiratory protection only when they saw clouds of 17 also referred to it, as Mr. Chandler remarked today, 18 dust? 19 A. No. 18 as groundbreaking. What do you mean by 19 groundbreaking? 20 Q. When did you tell them to wear their 20 A. It was the first of its kind with respect to 21 respiratory protection? 21 studying an industrial population with a primary focus 22 A. When the material -- well I didn't tell them, 22 on the occurrence of cancer, and as we mentioned 23 but the instruction process, standing operating 23 before, this was ahead in time of comparable data from 24 methodology here is when material they were working 24 the general population. So that there was, this was 25 with contained asbestos and when there was a 25 before any yardsticks for comparison were really Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 61 (Pages 507 to 510) NEILL WEAVER Page 511 Page 513 1 available. This was ahead of any studies by the 1 A. According to the design, it could report 2 Department of Labor or the National Cancer Institute 2 either or both. 3 or other organizations, other industries of any type. 3 Q. Does it report either morbidity or mortality 4 Q. Efforts to investigate disease incidents in 4 for the cohort regardless of what specific chemical or 5 refinery cohorts, did they end in 1958 after the 5 fiber initiated the study? 6 Kettering study? 6 A. Yes. 7 A. No. That is an important feature of the 7 Q. Why did refineries and chemical plants use 8 Kettering study. With the recognized weaknesses, yet 8 asbestos-containing products? 9 the Kettering investigators have data that they saw 9 A. Repeat the question. 10 fit to analyze and they, which they did, and which 10 Q. I'm sorry. Why did refineries and/or 11 they reported. But this was, opened the door for more 11 chemical plants use asbestos-containing products? 12 sophisticated, more complete, more meaningful studies 12 A. Why do refineries use asbestos products? 13 that followed, and we mentioned previously there are 13 Q. Yes. 14 now well over 100 epidemiologic studies in refinery 14 A. Because of the desirable features of 15 workers. 15 asbestos, uniquely desirable features of asbestos to 16 Q. If we can again then refer to the refinery 16 meet specifications, engineering specifications and to 17 studies, I understand that some were initiated to 17 achieve the needs of the product. 18 investigate hydrocarbon exposure. However, if a lung, 18 Q. Did it make the site safer, a safer 19 if a cancer is reported in one of the refinery 19 workplace? 20 studies, does one know if it's caused by hydrocarbon, 20 MR. CHANDLER: Objection, leading. 21 zinc, lead or any other material? 21 THE WITNESS: As used, asbestos products have 22 A. No. There is no label in any given cancer 22 been extremely useful in making work safer and in 23 case with respect to causation. 23 saving lives and in prolonging life. 24 Q. If you have a deficit in lung cancer and the 24 BY MS. KYLE: 25 refinery epi studies, you simply have a deficit in 25 Q. Who was the chief industrial hygienist for Page 512 Page 514 1 lung cancer; is that correct? 1 the Baytown complex in the 1940 through 1970 time 2 A. That is indeed correct. 2 frame? 3 MR. CHANDLER: Objection leading. 3 A. Mr. J.W. Hammond. 4 BY MS. KYLE: 4 Q. Did you receive industrial hygiene monitoring 5 Q. That's a strange question. Let's go off the 5 or review industrial hygiene monitoring from Baytown 6 record a minute. 6 when you were associate medical director? ; 7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going off the 7 A. Did I observe. 8 record. The time is 4:14. 8 Q. Or review. : 9 (Recess) 9 A. Or review. Yes, I would monitor reports i 10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Woo are going back on the 10 would often cross my desk, as well as Mr. Hammond's 11 record. The time is 4:17. 11 desk, or he would show the reports to me, yes. i 12 BY MS. KYLE: 12 Q. Are you aware of how frequent industrial 13 Q. Pardon the interruption, Dr. Weaver. Let's 13 hygiene sampling was done at the Baytown plant? 14 see if I can do a better job of asking that question. 14 A. It was done very frequently, as compared to 15 Regardless of what specific chemical product or fiber 15 other refineries or other industries, because of the 16 is the basis for an epidemiology study, the disease 16 fact that not only Mr. Hammond in Houston was close by ; 17 incidents reported reflects either morbidity or 17 to the Baytown refinery, but he also had associate or 18 mortality for that population; is that true? 18 assistant industrial hygienists who were assigned ; 19 MR. CHANDLER: Objection, leading. 19 specifically to Baytown, as well as to corporate 20 THE WITNESS: That would be a type of 20 headquarters. And they were readily available for 21 epidemiology study, yes, morbidity and mortality. 21 monitoring in the Baytown refinery. And for most 22 BY MS. KYLE: 22 procedures they had two or more technologists who were 23 Q. And in light of that objection, let me ask 23 trained to carry out the industrial hygiene analyses 24 you this. Does an epidemiology study report either 24 or measurements, whatever was needed. So this, the 25 morbidity or mortality in the cohort studied? 25 Baytown refinery was a subject of extremely effective Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 62 (Pages 511 to 514) NEILL WEAVER Page 515 Page 517 1 industrial hygiene monitoring and environmental 1 frequency of monitoring, asbestos monitoring at the 2 control. 2 plant. How were you familiar with the frequency? You 3 MR. CHANDLER: Objection, non-responsive. 3 explained that earlier. Would you reexplain for the 4 (Discussion off the record) 4 jury? 5 BY MS. KYLE: 5 A. I would see reports of the industrial 6 Q. Were you satisfied that - is it Professor 6 hygienist who was doing the monitoring, would discuss 7 Hammond? 7 it with me. The physicians in the medical department 8 A. Yes, he is also known as Professor. He was a 8 were aware of this, and when I was visiting, they 9 professor in the department of environmental medicine 9 would discuss these things with me, and of course 10 at Baylor University Medical Center. 10 personal observation. 11 Q. Were you satisfied that Professor Hammond 11 Oftentimes when I went to Baytown, it would 12 appreciated the potential harm associated with 12 be because Mr. Hammond or Mr. Diserans or Mr. Meyer, 13 significantly elevated asbestos exposures? 13 industrial hygiene engineers, would say, hey, Neill, 14 MR. CHANDLER: Object to the form. 14 I'm going to Baytown this afternoon. You want to come 15 THE WITNESS: Indeed, asbestos was a, 15 along? And I would call the medical director, 16 throughout his tenure at Baytown and corporate 16 Dr. Pipkin, and say I would like to come by, that is 17 headquarters, he never lost focus on asbestos, and I 17 okay, and he would say sure. And so many of my visits 18 will say along with silica and lead, three components 18 to Baytown happened to be in the company of an 19 that might be, not forgotten, but pushed to a lower 19 industrial hygienist. 20 rung because of their overfamiliarity, but Jim 20 Q. Did they have a lab at Baytown? 21 Hammond - 21 A. Yes. The corporate industrial hygiene 22 BY MS. KYLE: 22 laboratory was situated in the Baytown facility. 23 Q. Let me ask another question, so we don't draw 23 MS. KYLE: Okay. I'm going to pass the 24 another objection. How did you have this 24 witness. Do you want to do some more? Do you have 25 appreciation? Why? I asked if you were satisfied. 25 any other questions, Troy. Page 516 Page 518 1 Now I'm asking you why you were satisfied. 1 RECROSS EXAMINATION 2 A. I have already answered a good part of that, 2 BY MR. CHANDLER: 3 but his, he continued throughout his career to focus 3 Q. Just a few. Doctor, you can continue to look 4 on asbestos and the two others of the triad, silica 4 at - 1 know your hearing is - let me get to the 5 and lead. This prompted the other industrial 5 other side. Doctor, was Mr. Hammond's's office at the 6 hygienists and the technologists and the safety 6 Baytown plant or was it in Houston at the corporate 7 advisors and the medical staff to be, continue to be 7 headquarters? 8 aware of the potential of asbestos to induce disease 8 A. He had, at times had offices at both 9 in workers and to keep us their preventive efforts of 9 locations. In the later years, the '60s, his major 10 any disease being conditioned disease, evoking 10 base was at corporate headquarters. And at that time 11 conditions to exist. 11 there was another, he had a secondary industrial 12 Q. Prior to coming to Exxon, was Professor 12 hygienist who might be based in both locations. 13 Hammond an industrial hygienist in the textile 13 Q. Okay. So what percentage of Mr. Hammond's 14 industry? 14 time was spent at Baytown, versus in corporate 15 A. Yes. He was assigned I think as a U.S. 15 headquarters in Houston or anywhere else? 16 Public Health Service employee to North Carolina, and 16 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 17 I recall talking with him, that he had experience, 17 THE WITNESS: That's difficult to determine. 18 some personal observations in the textile mills in 18 As I say, the proximity to the Baytown refinery, it 19 North Carolina. There was a time at a later date when 19 was convenient for him to go there, so his time, he 20 the NJ Chemical Company had a textile mill there and 20 spent far more time at Baytown than at the other 21 he and I both visited. So we had occasion, I had 21 seven, eight, nine refineries. I can't come up with a 22 occasion to talk with him about the fact that he had 22 percentage. Of course he traveled extensively on 23 experience in the early or mid 1940s with the textile 23 behalf of the corporation and would be at neither 24 industry in North Carolina. 24 location much of the time, too, some of the time, as 25 Q. I asked you if you were familiar with the 25 well. Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 63 (Pages 515 to 518) NEILL WEAVER Page 519 Page 521 1 BY MR. CHANDLER: 1 procedures, weren't they? 2 Q. Whatever time he, Mr. Hammond spent at 2 A. I think there's a double negative here 3 Baytown, he also split his time among eight or nine 3 someplace. 4 other refineries; is that right? 4 Q. Okay. Let me re-ask it. The procedures 5 A. Yes, he would visit other refineries as well 5 outlined in Mr. Bonsib's report of 1937 were standard 6 in the course of a year. 6 operating procedures for insulating operations, as he 7 Q. And he would also be at corporate 7 described in that report; correct? 8 headquarters in Houston; right? 8 A. Yes, and they were generally in use. 9 A. Yes. 9 Q. And if they weren't being followed, the 10 MS. KYLE: Go off the record. 10 methods that Mr. Bonsib described in 1937, then 11 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The 11 Exxon's own standard operating procedure was being 12 time is 4:30. 12 violated; correct? 13 (Recess) 13 A. Yes, within the reason of judgment, deciding 14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are going back on the 14 when, what procedure should be used, but those 15 record. The time is 4:33. 15 procedures were known and utilized as deemed 16 BY MR. CHANDLER: 16 appropriate. 17 Q. Dr. Weaver, you discussed the standard 17 Q. Did you communicate the standard operating 18 operating procedure for telling insulators when they 18 procedure with respect to asbestos insulation to any 19 needed to wear their respirators. Do you recall that 19 trade other than the insulators, sir? 20 just a few moments ago? 20 A. Meetings where such discussions were held 21 A. I don't recall the specific words I used, but 21 could be limited to insulators, but in many occasions, 22 yes, we covered that point. 22 for example, a turn around or a major refinery repair 23 Q. Yes, sir. But the standard operating 23 task, other crafts would be present. The people 24 procedure being communicated to insulators is not 24 working on the task, whatever their craft, would be 25 anything you ever did. You are just saying that was 25 included on occasion. Page 520 Page 522 1 the standard procedure, so I assume it was done. Is 1 Q. And that is because we know that during 2 that fair? 2 significant maintenance operations insulators and 3 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 3 other trades like machinists work side by side 4 THE WITNESS: With this exception. On a few 4 sometimes, don't they? 5 occasions I was invited by the safety advisor or a 5 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 6 foreman to talk to the insulators or the asbestos 6 THE WITNESS: Their work may be staggered, 7 workers, and on a few occasions I participated in such 7 according to a scheduling program, or, yes, certainly 8 a training program. 8 at times they would work in the same vicinity on a 9 BY MR. CHANDLER: 9 task that had responsibilities for more than one 10 Q. Do you remember when the earliest year it was 10 craft. 11 you would have participated in a training program for 11 BY MR. CHANDLER: 12 insulators? 12 Q. All right. Did you ever personally advise - 13 A. It would have been in the 1950s, but I don't 13 did you personally, sir, ever advise any other craft 14 recall the earliest year, no. 14 other than insulators - sir, did you ever personally 15 Q. Were you telling insulators yourself as early 15 advise any other craft other than insulators about the 16 as the 1950s about the hazards of asbestos, sir? 16 hazards of asbestos? 17 A. In accordance with the knowledge existing in 17 A. Well, I mentioned I attended, I was invited 18 the scientific community at the time, yes. 19 Q. So if insulators at Exxon were using asbestos 18 to lecture at a few meetings, and I don't think the 19 attendance at those meetings was limited to 20 in such a way so that it wasn't being wetted down and 20 insulators. I want to further state that our criteria 21 wasn't being hosed down before being swept up or in 21 for asbestos exposed was not limited to insulators. 22 none of the common industrial hygiene methods 22 That point was made previously. And at the time of 23 described by Mr. Bonsib in his report in 1937 were 23 periodic examination, when the doctor is one-on-one 24 being done, if that is the way insulators were 24 with an employee, asbestos avoidance could be 25 working, they were violating Exxon standard operating 25 discussed with a pipefitter or even a machinist. Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 64 (Pages 519 to 522) NEILL WEAVER Page 523 Page 525 1 Anybody, supervisors, as the conversation, the history 1 CERTIFICATE OF DEPONENT 2 taking, medical discussion proceeded. 2 I hereby certify that I have read the 3 MR. CHANDLER: Objection, non-responsive. 3 foregoing pages of my deposition testimony in the 4 BY MR. CHANDLER: 4 proceedings, and with the exception of changes and/or 5 Q. So it's not true, if somebody tried to say 5 corrections, if any, find them to be a true and 6 the only craft that Exxon considered asbestos exposed 6 correct transcription thereof. 7 was insulators, that is not a true statement, is it? 7 8 A. That is contrary to what I have already 8 9 stated. 9 Deponent 10 Q. Yes, sir. Sir, is it your opinion that the 10 11 5 million particles per cubic foot standard that was 11 12 in effect at any time in history was ever meant to 12 Date 13 protect somebody from the development of malignancy or 13 14 cancer? 14 NOTARY PUBLIC 15 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 15 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16 THE WITNESS: Well, would you repeat the 16 day of , 2004. 17 question please. 17 18 BY MR. CHANDLER: 18 19 Q. Sir, is it your opinion that the 5 million 19 20 particles per cubic foot was at any time ever meant to 20 21 protect a worker from getting cancer? 21 22 MS. KYLE: Objection, form. 22 23 THE WITNESS: This guideline originated to 23 24 protect workers against asbestosis. As indicated 24 25 previously, we tried to keep below the guideline, well 25 Page 524 Page 526 1 below the guideline, and as the scientific, as the 1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 2 evidence before the scientific community became 3 acceptable, that asbestos in fact did cause lung 4 cancer, this initial guideline was lowered in the 5 early 1970s. 6 Q. Yes, sir. And 5 million particles per cubic 7 foot was never meant to protect specifically cancer, 8 was it? 9 A. It was not designed for that purpose. I say 10 it was designed to protect against asbestosis. 11 MR. CHANDLER: Pass the witness. We are at 12 one minute of tape. That's why I quit. 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 3 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) 4 I, Sheila M. Lyons, the reporter before 5 whom the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby 6 certify that the witness whose testimony appears in 7 the foregoing deposition was sworn by me; that the 8 testimony of said witness was taken by me in machine 9 shorthand and thereafter reduced to typewriting under 10 my direction; that said deposition is a true record of 11 the testimony given by said witness; that I am neither 12 counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the 13 parties to the action in which this deposition was 13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record. The 14 taken; and, further that I am not a relative or 14 time it 4:40. This marks the end of videotape number 15 employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the 15 3. Volume 2 in the deposition of Dr. Neill Weaver. 16 This concludes this deposition. 17 (Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the deposition was 18 concluded) 19 20 21 22 23 24 16 parties hereto, or financially or otherwise interested 17 in the outcome of this action. 18 Sheila M. Lyons 19 Notary Public in and for The District of Columbia 20 21 My Commission expires October 31, 2007. 22 23 24 25 25 Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 65 (Pages 523 to 526) NEILL WEAVER _________ A_________ abilities 361:20 362:10 ability 348:23 352:16 472:10 able 343:15 408:24 447:2 499:9 above-styled 270:19 absolute 430:16 absolutely 358:13 434:15 456:17 abstract 410:20 aabbustnrdacatnsc4e1217:49:,1234,17 accept 375:23 376:19 453:5 454:6 acceptable 524:3 accepted 362:11 509:13 accompanying 404:13 404:17 account 319:4 452:25 467:16 accounts 291:21 accumulated 450:15 accumulating 449:25 accuracy 469:10 accurate 320:7 381:2 437:10,11 467:16,18 473:18 495:20 496:5 accurately 381:1 425:25 469:3 achieve 440:5 496:21 513:17 achieved 504:5 acknowledge 388:9 429:11 491:1 acknowledged 292:13 387:11 388:6 acknowledging 345:9 action 273:7 402:1 526:13,17 active 283:1 426:15,16 426:24,25 436:18,22 actively 428:5 429:9 activities 285:23 286:7 336:6 342:4 activity 341:23 342:1 344:6 478:6 actual 299:18 406:4 447:3 actuality 446:12 acute 292:23 374:5 adding 330:22 addition 442:7 449:21 454:20 477:15 489:21 additional 486:1,6 address 357:12,14,25 358:6 addressed 309:19 adequate 339:12 345:25 346:3 392:2 434:22 adequately 309:18 adjust 294:5,15 296:1 adjustment 294:8 Administration 289:6 356:16 administrative 378:9 378:15 379:6 Admiral 487:4 admit 285:2 348:14 351:10,19 369:10 424:16 admitted 283:18 285:5 admittedly 403:7 advice 403:4 507:14,17 advise 508:10 522:12 522:13,15 advisor 282:14 520:5 advisors 507:2 516:7 advisory 401:22 402:2 402:22 affect 338:11,17 425:21 affirmative 278:20 456:23 466:8 affirmatively 470:13 afternoon 439:1 517:14 age 407:2,3,18 409:12 418:20 423:19,20 436:25 449:3,21 450:8 453:20,21,25 500:22,24 501:1 agencies 281:8 284:9 288:18,21 289:19 358:20 agency 283:10,18 284:15 285:2,5 289:10 356:6,12,24 356:25 381:11 agent 319:13 352:6 agents 419:5 age-specific 450:4,11 ago 300:25 311:1,20 313:8 333:9 341:21 462:7,25 463:3,7,19 463:22 464:4,6,25 466:23 519:20 agree 290:20 291:6 292:18 293:2 304:2,4 306:15 308:8,11,15 308:18 314:14 322:2 322:5 334:18,24 335:2,6 338:4 346:5 349:11 351:2,6 352:3 355:4 363:3 365:4,9 366:2,10,24 367:10 367:14,19,22 369:16 369:19 370:1,11,14 370:23 385:2 390:18 390:25 395:23 396:8 404:3 408:5 411:10 414:8,21 418:1 419:17 423:13 440:4 453:7 454:4 457:11 460:25 462:20 463:24 464:16 465:24 468:19 473:18 474:17 497:11 506:14,16 agreement 392:6 ahead 294:23 311:13 337:5 389:8 393:2 439:8 471:11475:19 510:23 511:1 air 308:16 341:13 379:9,9 airway 507:25 a! 270:7 273:5 allegation 362:22 allege 362:5 Allen 271:5 allergy 275:15 allowed 316:4 341:5 343:3 432:17 alluded 281:15 alternate 497:6 Altimore 270:3 273:4 273:17 291:20 292:1 292:14,19 293:2 301:23 310:8 313:6 483:16 487:25 489:7 amassed 449:3 ambient 366:22 America 452:3 453:17 526:2 American 280:10,13,15 280:25 281:4,6,14 282:17,20 283:6 285:13,19,22 286:1 286:11,20,24 287:22 287:24 288:10,17,23 289:11,15 348:25 356:9,18 358:22 359:3 382:11,14,23 384:14 386:22 390:12,21 392:8,13 399:17,22 400:10 401:11 402:17,23 403:21,24 410:16 411:2,8 412:6,15,21 425:8,16 437:21 439:14 440:20,24 449:12 486:20,24 488:18 491:15 492:17,22 499:1 504:25 509:11 Americans 451:23,24 amount 365:13 391:20 509:6 analyses 391:23 393:2 410:5 514:23 analysis 389:9 393:4 428:24,25 431:19 433:23 486:3 analyze 511:10 analyzed 428:24 and/or 490:6 513:10 525:4 angle 496:15 annual 293:22 295:18 329:16 501:17 annually 501:12 annuitants 427:14 428:2,3,4 answer 278:20 283:14 285:9 286:17 294:6 298:16 308:2 334:3 337:25 344:10 352:16 355:6,10 375:12 381:15 395:4 414:19 429:20 433:2 436:19 456:9 472:24 473:9 answered 472:18 516:2 answers 404:11,15 anybody 310:8 320:4 326:12 335:10,16 336:12 357:3,17 366:20 381:22 395:17 464:22 465:1 523:1 anyplace 480:10 anyway 362:18 381:24 433:22 API 289:6 486:10,11 498:3,7 499:9,13 apologize 465:24 466:3 466:5 apparent 403:15 apparently 486:8 appear 282:11 APPEARANCES 271:1 _______________ Page 1 appeared 411:6 % appears 526:6 \ appendix 315:11 | 323:19 324:6 403:16 | 410:8 423:11 475:17 j applicable 315:23 1 428:24 429:3 f application 342:7 \ applied 450:12,14 I apply 321:16 344:15 | appreciate 275:2 i 497:14 j appreciated 515:12 \ appreciation 515:25 f approached 287:23 | 288:11296:12 | approaches 409:25 | appropriate 367:16 \ 369:24 370:14 490:8 ! 491:6 507:22 521:16 \ approximately 399:18 I 452:6,7 453:2 478:8 f April 270:13,20 273:8 I 311:12 325:16 326:6 I 326:14 327:14 330:4 I 330:6 363:17 368:4 \ 401:22 504:15 f archived 382:23 f area 294:16 298:20,21 | 509:5,23 | areas 275:25 284:8 I 478:5 | argument 465:22 | Army 355:20 | arrived 502:9 I arrythmia 318:24 I 319:1 \ article 279:15,25 326:22,24 327:10 j articles 411:6,9 | artificially 367:18 I asbestos 274:12 278:5 I 278:6,24 279:11 I 285:15,21,24 286:4 286:12,21 287:1,6,9 287:13 288:1,12,24 289:21 297:17,19 301:19 305:21,22 306:22,25 307:7,15 307:24 308:9,16,22 309:16,21 310:1,9 316:8 317:16 318:1 318:10,17 321:1,5,21 322:3,8,14 323:11,17 323:18,24 324:3,15 324:19 331:20 332:4 Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 NEILL WEAVER 332:6,9,25 337:16 339:5 341:5,24 342:2 342:4,5,15 345:17,20 346:6 347:6,13,17,22 348:7,18 351:12 352:5 353:9,12,13,15 353:21 354:4,6,13,15 354:17 358:9 359:9 359:15,22 360:3,7,23 361:10 362:4 364:4 366:3,6,11,12,15 367:1,6 368:11,22 369:1,2,6,14,15,23 370:1,5,13 374:8 375:5,21 387:8 421:21 422:2,4,10,20 422:24 423:3,18,22 423:25 424:3,4,12,16 424:22 425:1 454:23 454:25 477:9,14 478:2,18,23,25 479:5 479:8,13,16,20,23 480:4,8,14,15,19 481:2,5,5,13,25 482:5,12,17,25 483:2 483:4,7,9,12,20 484:13,16 485:3,9 487:9 488:9 496:13 496:16 502:23 503:4 503:4 504:24 505:5,9 507:4,8 508:25 509:8 509:25 513:12,15,15 513:21 515:13,15,17 516:4,8 517:1 520:6 520:16,19 521:18 522:16,21,24 523:6 524:3 asbestosis 374:10,12,16 374:25 506:8,9,11,12 523:24 524:10 asbestos-containing 287:16 322:11,17 387:6 497:10 513:8 513:11 asbestos-related 286:25 348:15 351:21 372:5 386:24 422:23 423:5,7 ascertain 389:20 390:12 456:10,19 457:2 473:23 asked 274:11 287:23 346:18 357:23 432:25 473:2 487:3 500:3 515:25 516:25 asking 287:21 352:11 362:15,16 512:14 516:1 asks 435:6 assembled 410:4 assess 479:25 assign 480:5 481:14 485:2 assigned 514:18 516:15 assistance 335:20,22 assistant 461:18 514:18 associate 294:25 295:7 295:10 296:3 298:3 298:18 299:6 325:25 348:13 514:6,17 associated 336:6 515:12 association 411:8 assume 318:15 353:25 367:4 390:23 520:1 assumed 318:24 366:19 assuming 304:9 497:5 497:5,7,8 assumption 348:5 366:18,23 470:11 assumptions 364:17 assuredly 397:18 asthma 373:8 atmosphere 334:4,8,25 atmospheric 421:14,22 422:12 attached 274:17 276:18 412:13 426:22 attaining 479:10 attempt 409:21 456:24 466:8 472:4 attendance 522:19 attended 522:17 attending 273:20 attention 326:21 327:10 332:5 333:15 333:22 371:14 381:12 440:22 450:17 462:3 475:23 attorney 496:10 526:15 audience 329:10,11 August 439:14 440:20 author 326:3 authored 326:9,10 333:16 authoritative 301:18 authorization 393:22 394:7 authors 276:21 312:20 313:13 available 282:25 308:3 328:13,17 337:18 346:1,4 382:24 405:16 450:10 472:9 497:9 501:18 507:10 511:1 514:20 Avenue 270:23 273:13 average 339:17 340:15 340:20,23 374:15 375:4,9,19,21 avoidance 522:24 award 292:15 awarded 435:9 awards 292:1 aware 276:10 285:19 286:6,9 288:15 305:2 309:25 310:3 335:13 335:14 337:13 343:2 343:14 389:6,7 394:17 395:17 454:6 463:9 465:1 507:3,4 514:12 516:8 517:8 a.m 270:20 273:9 B B272-.ll 373:8 back 273:21 277:8 278:12 279:25 296:1 311:19 313:20 318:9 320:2,4,18 324:14,15 327:10 332:19 333:24 336:7 337:24 347:2 348:11349:19 351:17 362:9 363:4 364:11 371:11 381:15 384:14385:3 387:11,20 421:23 434:3 439:4 440:1 444:20 455:16 461:25 463:13 464:8 464:22 467:10,11 470:21 481:9 485:20 486:17 487:15 489:16 492:8 497:21 512:10 519:14 background 342:20 350:15 353:11 367:1 367:6,16 370:13 448:3 452:3,23 454:5 backgrounds 349:15 backs 276:3 bacterium 277:15 bad 287:21 bags 482:18 balance 502:20 503:5 Ba4n2b6u:3r,y8442258::51,5,11 Barry 329:21 base 518:10 based 329:14 344:14 344:25 347:8,11 388:10 393:23 394:8 412:20 471:21488:9 500:21 505:14 518:12 bases 347:19 basic 366:6,18 370:9 426:21 476:17 502:4 basically 442:14 498:5 499:20 basis 282:24 291:24 295:18,19,19 358:20 361:6,7,13 398:16 467:7,13 501:17 512:16 Bates 314:21 Baton 276:20 280:1,7 346:20347:1,14,17 348:6,22 351:10 352:6 394:22 395:12 397:24 398:6 406:1 Baylor 515:10 Baytown 280:3,6 311:23,23 312:1,2,6 312:12,15 313:5 315:3,6,13,21 316:8 316:12,16 317:12,19 318:1 323:7 325:17 326:8,23,25 328:5,8 328:11332:9 339:6 341:14 360:24 361:8 361:9 514:1,5,13,17 514:19,21,25 515:16 517:11,14,18,20,22 518:6,14,18,20 519:3 Bayway 312:8,12,14,17 312:23 bear 476:22 beg 447:7 began 381:11 417:7 498:3 beginning 371:9 439:2 begins 273:2 behalf271:2,10 273:16 273:18,21 518:23 beings 334:6 335:2 believe 281:20 312:4 336:8 347:12 364:7 366:14 367:13 369:25 382:19 404:2 410:9,22 412:17 452160::1174 464:4 470:5,8 believed 336:21 368:21 _______________Page 2 bell 271:13 493:22 | benefit 433:3,5,12 ! 435:5,11,12,18 ! benefits 433:6,7 435:9 i benign 442:1,2,7 443:3 I 444:2 454:15 455:9 | Berry 312:1,6,8,19 1 327:13 329:21 332:7 h beryllium 317:15 I best 344:21 352:16 ! 380:10,14 404:1 ! 449:4 454:7 472:10 f 494:14 l better 292:12 361:23 I 512:14 | beyond 384:19 | bias 362:6,22 387:14 1 388:8,10 389:3,12 I 414:25 415:4 425:20 I biased 361:17 J biases 414:21,24 I 440:10 I big 447:9,10 | bigger 280:6,8 | biopsies 460:7 \ biopsy 446:24 466:16 | bit 284:25 292:24 I 341:25 500:14 | blame 319:8 | blasters 377:20 | board 275:12,16,20 ! bodies 282:18 357:15 f Bonsib 313:24 327:13 I 329:22 332:8 333:7 | 333:11,17,23,25 t 334:25 335:9,15,17 I 335:23 336:4 337:7 I 504:10 520:23 I 521:10 j Bonsib's 337:11 521:5 I book 301:17,18 363:21 { boss 300:11,12 | bothered 285:8 | bottom 314:21 316:10 | 330:25 348:25 349:8 I 387:10 401:15 i 415:16 426:4,18 ! 475:6 476:25 f boxes 276:4 \ boy 311:19 \ branch 358:5,7 break311:2 331:13 332:3,15 352:14 411:23 438:5 500:14 breakdowns 407:1 breaks 331:10 407:3 Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 NEILL WEAVER breathe 309:11,12,14 309:16 334:11,19 breathed 334:5 335:2 breathing 309:23 381:13 brick 321:24 377:20 briefly 275:23 bring 319:23 320:9 332:4 bringing 299:13 brings 315:10 broad 383:5 404:20 416:11 brochures 359:7 bronchiectasis 373:8 bronchitis 373:8 brought 274:15 482:21 buccal 419:1,13 bulk 373:2 414:6 bulletin 328:4,7,11,15 328:23,23 329:13,18 329:19 330:3,21 331:4,19 Bureau 336:1 business 361:22 405:11 405:13 _________ C_________ C 273:1 373:8 calculation 450:17 451:4,4,6 calendar 450:11 call 312:24 326:12 430:20 517:15 called 274:2 292:9 315:2 349:18 388:2,2 414:24 415:4 calling 495:13 cancer 297:19,20 319:8 319:20 320:2,5,11,18 321:1,15 322:14 324:19 332:10,24 356:9 364:6 367:19 373:13,15,20 382:10 384:13 391:4,6,13,16 392:1 393:11 397:22 398:10 406:17 407:8 407:12,12,14 409:13 409:23 411:18 417:25 418:17,19 419:7,20 423:8,23 428:6,12,16 429:2,8 430:22 431:22 434:16 436:4,11 437:1 442:8,8,9,17 443:3,3,18,23,24 444:2,9 445:16,20 446:4,12 447:21,23 448:12,20 449:2,12 449:12,13,16,17,23 450:4 451:7,12 452:16 453:10,13 457:22,23 458:18 460:6,11,21 464:23 465:10 466:19 467:6 467:11,25 468:9,10 468:11 469:23 470:23,23 471:14 472:16 492:14 500:5 500:8,10 501:11,14 501:16 510:22 511:2 511:19,22,24 512:1 523:14,21 524:4,7 cancers 391:22 393:25 394:10,14,18,19 395:2,8,9,10,18,21 396:7,15 397:9,12 398:22 399:3,7 406:7 407:6,17,20,21,22 408:7 409:10,16 418:21,24 419:12 423:13,17 428:22 434:23 435:2 444:9 460:20 469:14 470:2 470:2 471:1,17 473:11 501:4,8 cancer-causing 319:13 320:21 carcinogenic 386:16 carcinogenicity 401:24 cards 402:10 care 283:12 career 281:21 310:20 325:14,20 341:14 516:3 careful 390:6 Carolina 516:16,19,24 carpel 276:8 carpenter 484:9 485:13 carpenters 483:7 484:15 carried 304:12 411:14 413:4 425:14,19 carrier 510:1 carry 384:20 391:23 514:23 carrying 440:11 485:25 486:6 case 274:9,13,19 277:23 279:6 292:1 296:25 297:3,9,14,16 297:18,22,23 298:1 301:5,8,11,23 302:3 305:3 308:19 318:15 324:20 352:4 357:17 360:3 365:6 367:4,11 367:13,13,23,24 368:2 373:2 390:23 400:5 404:14 410:22 412:17 429:15,16 432:9 446:19 452:11 456:12 466:7 471:13 479:18 493:9,15 502:15 506:13 510:2 511:23 cases 277:10 319:25 380:7 401:12 402:4 403:7 404:2,18 406:13 410:4 444:6 444:24 452:8 453:2,4 453:5 456:11,19 458:10 464:23 465:20 466:6 468:8,9 469:5,9,17,25 470:12 473:24 474:12 481:1 482:14 485:11491:9 494:19 495:6 500:5,9 500:10 501:11,16 502:19 506:5,12 cash 292:7 427:20 433:15 catch 435:13 categories 316:24 416:7,11 categorize 442:17 categorized 404:19 442:15 category 416:13 481:20,23 caught 434:4 causation 511:23 causative 352:6 cause 270:19 307:17 320:17 334:10,19 348:9 354:2 441:17 450:23 477:17,19 482:1 499:18 524:3 caused 276:5 318:11,16 319:20 320:2,5 322:8 332:24 347:6,13,17 348:7 353:9 354:17 480:20 482:5 511:20 causes 277:16 320:10 441:23 442:16 causing 379:3 507:4 caution 274:24 cavity 419:1,13 ceiling 341:10 census 426:20,25 500:21 Center 271:5 346:18 515:10 centimeter 340:13 certain 287:8,16 302:15 334:13 335:11 390:10 482:21 499:21 certainly 279:20 283:7 291:22 296:10 300:11 303:25 306:12 315:9 319:12 320:19 322:24 325:5 334:5 335:1 395:7 397:13 439:20 509:24 522:7 certainty 492:21 certifcate 433:4 442:11,14 444:25 446:4,17 469:19 487:20 525:1 526:1 certificates 436:17 441:16 442:22 443:17 444:15,21,22 445:3,8 446:23 455:22 469:19,22 470:1,6,8 477:13 486:7,12,16,19 487:1 certification 275:20,21 certifications 275:12 certified 275:11,14 certify 525:2 526:6 chain 298:12 300:10 Chandler 271:3 272:6 272:8 273:16,16 274:5 282:15 284:1 284:13 285:11 286:8 286:18 287:3,4 288:9 289:3,25 290:15 291:2,16,17 292:25 293:8,18 294:3,14 295:15,21 296:19 298:17 300:3,22 302:7 303:18,24 305:4,17 306:23 307:13 308:6,14 309:5 310:4,15 311:16 314:17 315:16 316:22 319:16,24 320:15,24 321:10 322:20 323:4 323:22 324:13 327:3 327:25 330:2 331:12 331:16 332:15,21 334:23 335:7 337:6 _______________ Page 3 337:23 338:3 341:9 | 342:24 343:8,22 I 344:23 345:6,14,24 346:13 347:10 348:20 350:25 i 351:16 352:1,12 354:14 355:2 357:21 ! 360:11,21361:24,25 ; 362:12,14 363:2,23 I 364:1,24 365:20,21 t 366:9 367:25 368:3 I 369:4 370:7,8 371:4 \ 371:13 373:25 376:5 ! 378:19 381:14,17 i 382:4,5 383:23,25 ! 384:10,21,24 386:7,9 l 388:16 389:1,10 I 391:10 392:12,25 I 393:3 394:20 395:6 I 396:4,25 397:19 | 398:4,18 399:9 | 400:18,22,24 405:1 407:19 408:13,20 I 409:6 411:15,25 I 415:13 417:17 418:4 I 419:10 422:9,16 I 426:6,7 428:19 I 429:19,21432:2,4 | 436:7 437:14 439:7 I 439:19 440:3,15 I 445:25 446:13 455:7 ! 455:24 456:4,7,21,22 I 457:4 458:6,12 I 459:10,15 460:15,23 I 461:15 462:6,12,19 I 464:2,21465:24,25 I 468:15,22 469:12 I 472:2,12,13,24 474:1 | 475:10,16,20 477:1 I 480:24 481:11 484:2 ! 485:22,23 487:13 i 491:19 492:11,20 I 494:4 495:8,15,19 I 498:1,15 500:3 I 501:23 502:13 503:2 f 503:9 504:10 505:18 I 506:14,17,19 510:7 I 510:17 512:3,19 I 513:20 515:3,14 518:2 519:1,16 520:9 I 522:11523:3,4,18 ! 524:11 J change 370:25 371:3 I 453:17 505:20 changed 332:23 | changes 525:4 \ Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 NEILL WEAVER characterization 275:1 283:21 364:7 453:12 characterize 391:25 charge 416:21 charging 352:21 353:2 check 472:16 checked 455:18 465:3 checking 465:5,14,15 469:3 chemical 305:12 377:6 512:15 513:4,7,11 516:20 chemicals 303:5 316:14 316:18 317:11,18,25 chest 507:11 chief 333:17 513:25 children 453:22,23 choose 503:24 507:23 chooses 391:1 chose 277:10 389:8 390:21 391:3 400:14 433:14 chromates 317:15 chronic 371:18 372:3 373:16,20 374:2,3,3 374:6 375:25 377:15 377:16,23 378:1,8,14 379:4,5,11,17 380:1 380:3 506:1 circumstances 339:14 340:18,21 362:8 384:18,23 385:1,2 470:19 civil 270:24 273:7 claim 310:10 343:10 359:7,15,21 392:17 394:13 397:20 455:8 458:24 459:1 claims 457:7 classification 442:5 454:24 479:15,16 classified 441:4 classify 348:17 clean 295:5 473:9 clear 299:13,21 353:14 353:19,20 381:19 459:3,4,5 clearing 295:4 clearly 389:7 clerical 378:9,15 379:6 413:22 415:20,25 427:4 climatic 306:19 clinical 393:22 394:7 close 514:16 closely 448:19 Cloud 271:4 clouds 305:22 508:14 508:17 509:7 Clyde 312:5,8,19 code 442:21 445:11 464:23 coded 442:7,8 444:7,13 444:14,16 445:4 codes 442:6 443:2 444:1,6,8 445:3 coding 402:9 404:12,16 cognizant 279:1 cohort 353:15,25 354:4 354:6,15 371:17 375:15 441:3,8,10,11 443:22 444:4 447:9 447:11,17,22 448:1 448:16,17,23,23 450:18 451:18,19,22 452:14,17 453:9,10 453:16 454:3 463:8 474:15 476:2 477:6 478:8 488:18,23 490:1 500:6,9,15,22 502:24 503:7,8 504:1 512:25 513:4 cohorts 443:25 511:5 coke 323:8,10,15 324:6 collected 415:14,17 428:7 429:7 436:17 collecting 410:24 collection 401:13 403:6 college 350:17 colon 466:19 Columbia 270:22 526:3,19 come 274:22 303:1 339:21 359:6,19 362:9 363:4 405:19 405:25 406:1 492:2 499:2,5,8 517:14,16 518:21 comes 345:17 coming 388:12 484:22 516:12 command 298:12 co3m0m0:e1n0t 320:13 411:12 434:1 490:9 commentary 326:10 commentator 434:2 435:6 436:16 commentators 433:22 comments 432:17,22 505:2 Commission 526:21 committee 392:7 401:23 402:2,7,22 505:1 common 334:3,24 432:19 443:24 464:7 468:11 488:15,17 501:13 520:22 commonest 468:10 communicate 521:17 communicated 288:22 310:17 519:24 communication 286:16 289:2 communications 289:5 289:9,13 community 319:23 410:25 520:18 524:2 companies 280:14,19 336:19 348:25 357:9 383:3,9 384:20 385:8 385:9,23 386:17 387:2,22 388:7,11,13 388:14,25 389:11,22 390:15,21,24 391:3,5 391:15,17 392:19 399:24 400:6,13,16 401:3,5 410:18 425:12 437:21,24 438:2 505:3 company 270:6 273:5 287:12,16 290:19,20 294:10 299:5,8,11 300:18 309:6 313:10 313:15 314:7,12 315:7,25 320:1 326:4 326:13 327:7,22 328:8,11 330:15 331:8 333:18,19,21 335:10,16,21,22 336:4,21,23 338:5,10 338:16 349:7 351:2 351:19 352:17 359:14,20 361:15 362:19 385:16 389:16 390:25 391:11393:8 404:24 405:9 411:7 433:3,8 493:15 516:20 517:18 Company's 326:23,25 328:5 comparable 408:24 409:1 510:23 compare 366:4 367:8 367:17 368:5,15 369:24 448:4 453:20 454:1 compared 364:4,14,25 365:15 368:11,20,25 378:3 500:18 502:25 505:9 514:14 comparing 378:4 448:22 comparison 295:19 365:18,22 367:7 500:11 510:25 comparisons 402:24 403:9 compatible 316:6 398:23 477:18 competent 324:22,23 502:7 complete 399:7 402:3 511:12 completed 402:10 completely 343:17 complex 514:1 complication 277:21 component 287:9 510:3 components 510:1 515:18 compound 288:4 343:20,25 comprised 280:16,16 computer 445:3 conceive 344:5 346:10 concept 337:3 353:22 369:17 concerns 287:1 419:24 concluded 524:18 concludes 524:16 conclusion 333:23,25 334:1 342:13 347:4,9 348:8 403:24,25 474:22,24 conclusions 367:2 386:2,12 387:11 413:1 conclusive 319:22 concurrent 380:24 381:25 434:6 condition 504:24 507:23 conditioned 379:9 516:10 conditions 306:20 316:7,11,25 323:7 324:5 508:1,2 509:3 co5n1d6u:c1t1393:2 conducted 491:20 _______________Page 4 conference 509:12 | confidence 361:19 1 362:9,17 j confidential 313:11 I 314:8 327:7,23 i 330:15 331:8 | confined 375:13 | confirm 466:10 476:10 i confirmation 408:12 \ confused 448:22 I 453:25 f contusing 327:9 | Connecticut 270:23 I 273:13 357:24 358:3 ! 358:6,7,15 | consequence 306:11 | Consequently 428:22 | consider 284:7 353:8 I 353:13 354:1 375:20 f 381:5 384:2 387:20 f 389:2,4 391:12 I 414:16 423:21 I 476:13 479:4 480:19 I 481:4 490:15,21 I 491:12 493:4,5 | considerable 284:23 1 422:22 j consideration 277:19 I 306:9 309:17 390:6 I 422:19 476:15 j considered 313:25 I 364:23 365:2,7 384:1 f 387:25 409:24 f 413:17 414:7 416:17 I 418:13 419:4 431:2 I 435:5 478:24 479:6 ! 480:2 483:15 485:10 I 504:19 509:4 510:5.8 I 523:6 considering 398:17 424:3 consisted 413:5 500:15 consistent 379:19,20 379:23 407:11 consists 426:20 constitute 426:25 constitutes 365:17 478:22 constraints 280:21 364:9 constrictions 280:21 consultant 353:4 356:13,15,19,22,25 357:4,11,13,19 358:4 360:15 consultants 336:8 Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 NEILL WEAVER consultation 416-.9 consulted 286:19 296:23 297:3 358:25 consulting 290:5 294:10 297:7 352:22 358:19 consumption 328:12 contacts 288:15 contain 342:5 387:8 contained 416:13,15 508:25 contains 278:22 489:21 content 310:1 334:8 context 282:12 286:16 320:8 335:5,6 368:9 369:3 376:15,16 414:19 continuation 274:4,7 439:6 continue 304:13 408:25 516:7 518:3 continued 408:18,23 409:8 516:3 continuing 323:7 490:4 continuously 441:6 contrary 422:21 523:8 contrast 374:5 contributed 430:6,12 430:14 control 365:5,7,9,14,15 366:4,4,24 367:5,17 367:19 369:24 370:12,14,17 515:2 convenient 518:19 conversation 523:1 conversations 289:17 Cooper 463:14 cooperate 384:4,11 408:22 cooperated 409:2 cooperation 402:3 408:15 Cooper-Tabershaw 498:4 copy 314:22 331:22 363:23 386:4 405:2,4 412:9 439:21,22 corporate 293:23 294:17,21 295:7,10 296:4 298:8 299:2 300:7,12 308:21 310:19 325:25 328:19 385:19 514:19 515:16 517:21 518:6,10,14 519:7 corporation 270:18 271:10 293:24 295:1 295:8 296:4 298:4,11 307:23 310:7,13,17 313:21316:2 331:5 405:17 518:23 corporations 280:17 389:16 Corp-emb 271:14 correct 275:10 276:7 276:22 279:13 280:20 294:21 296:6 301:2,14 312:14 315:4 318:20 319:9 320:23 321:11,13 324:10 326:6 329:2 331:17 336:22,24 337:22 353:1 365:2,3 367:2 379:6 382:19 388:4 398:8,14 410:21 411:3 412:16 413:19 416:1 420:9 422:8 427:1 433:9 435:10 436:23 437:11,17 456:5 457:3,12 461:12 465:5,7 466:20 467:3 467:4,18,18 470:11 470:15,16 472:1,4,11 472:20473:23 489:22 493:7 495:5 498:16 499:25 500:16 502:12 505:13 512:1,2 521:7 521:12 525:6 corrected 312:11 314:1 327:20 450:20,25 494:14 corrections 525:5 correctly 334:16,17 373:10 387:17 393:21 394:1,11 401:18 402:14 403:1 403:6,10,17 404:11 404:21 409:20 410:6 416:18 417:5 419:11 419:15 420:4 421:17 428:7 430:5 435:8,15 436:23,24 441:23 442:12 451:1476:1,3 476:20 477:4 478:10 486:5,14 489:20 490:3,22 correlation 381:8,9 correlations 382:3 correspondingly 374:21 corroborate 457:10 cost 474:6,7 counsel 271:12 273:14 526:12,15 counseling 309:15 count 362:4 453:3 473:18 counted 360:24 429:4 473:1 counting 362:21,23 country 366:21 452:12 453:3,4 counts 361:2,7,10,17 362:6 County 270:5 273:6 couple 274:10 300:25 310:25 311:1314:5 333:9 341:21 352:14 393:16 400:9 430:23 course 277:15 283:2 296:21 304:12 307:4 315:8,22 318:3,4,4 318:10 333:20 337:4 342:19 387:23 405:15 407:24 433:10 435:21458:9 485:25 486:6 492:2 502:6 509:2 517:9 518:22 519:6 court 270:4 273:5,11 526:1 cover 276:8 498:5 504:17 covered 423:6 498:2 519:22 covering 275:24 covers 276:2 craft 304:7 322:13 521:24 522:10,13,15 523:6 crafts 321:19 322:24 323:1 521:23 Craig 271:18 273:20 473:1 created 325:8 330:9 creating 305:22 credibility 479:25 credible 456:18 criteria 480:13,15 482:8 522:20 criticism 404:5 502:8 criticisms 433:21 criticize 291:13 cross 274:4 439:6 514:10 CRR 270:21 cubic 340:13 509:10,18 509:21 510:4 523:11 523:20 524:6 Cumulous 328:20 curious 323:13 current 400:4 406:13 410:4 417:7,14,24 418:1,6 479:16,22 currently 417:22 customarily 393:24 394:9 396:6 399:2 CYI 292:5 cystic 373:9 C.A 270:1 D D 271:3 272:1 273:1 373:9 Dallas 271:6 dangers 284:23 data 362:11,20 380:7 380:25 385:4,9,11 387:21,23 388:1,2,13 388:22,23 389:2,4 391:19,20 392:2,18 392:23 415:14,17 426:1432:18 437:9 437:10 438:1,2 440:13 449:15,25 486:3 492:2 505:11 510:23 511:9 database 451:10 date 273:7 371:24 405:25 434:11 463:10 504:5 516:19 525:12 dated 311:12 363:16,17 364:8 382:12 440:19 504:15 505:25 day 270:19 310:24,25 438:11 471:22 474:9 525:16 days 296:9,10 deal 472:9 deals 407:24 death 433:4,6,7,12 435:5,9,18 436:16 441:16,17,23 442:10 442:14,16,22 443:17 444:15,20,22,25 445:2,8 446:3,17,23 455:22 469:18,19,22 470:1,5,8 477:12,17 486:7,11,16,19,25 487:20 499:18 Page 5 deaths 403:8 418:18 420:3,19,23,25 421:2 ( 421:4 428:1,2,4 > 429:7,14,17 430:12 | 430:15 431:5 432:8 1 433:1441:15,24 ! 442:2,6 450:23,23,25 \ 455:17 472:15 i decades 346:2 f deceased 436:17,22 | December 413:7 f 415:22 I decided 344:25 401:24 I 437:20 488:6 | deciding 342:22 344:21 I 437:16 438:1521:13 f decision 319:23 392:14 i 398:13 485:15 ! 491:11,13 492:13,15 f decrease 334:7 | deemed 521:15 I Defendant 270:17 j Defendants 270:8 I 326:21328:22 | 330:21440:17 I deficit 402:8 511:24,25 I defined 365:16 415:19 f 426:20 f definite 387:14 388:7 \ 389:3,12 j definitely 340:7 354:19 I 424:15 I definition 282:7,13 I 374:3 376:19 447:22 | degrease 482:22 \ degree 350:17 355:17 | 432:6 464:24 472:5 I 490:5,13,20 491:5,23 I 494:5,8,9,15,25 j deleterious 381:12 386:19 505:4 demographic 426:21 Denno 333:18 denominator 453:15 department 329:12,14 336:2 356:21 391:9 418:14 433:5 509:14 509:15 511:2 515:9 517:7 departments 321:19 389:14 393:9,12 394:1,11,15,19 395:18,23 396:8 399:3 400:17 401:8 depend 375:1 depending 306:19 Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 NEILL WEAVER depends 339:14,25 340:17 374:17 Deponent 525:1,9 deposition 270:11,16 273:3,12 274:8,17 276:19 281:16 290:3 295:25 297:23,25 298:2 300:24 302:13 310:25 311:2,10 312:3,10 326:21,24 328:22 330:9,22 332:22 333:3 341:17 341:20 359:6 363:14 371:7,10,15 412:4,13 438:8 439:3,11,21 440:17 524:15,16,17 525:3 526:5,7,10,13 depositions 275:3 derived 348:8 448:19 449:5 describe 305:7 described 520:23 521:7 521:10 deserved 292:19 293:2 design 427:9 435:1 513:1 designated 352:18 designation 480:13 designed 427:10 434:25 524:9,10 desirable 290:17 291:7 291:10 389:17 390:11,17,19 513:14 513:15 desire 496:19 desk 349:24 351:5 514:10,11 detail 441:3 detailed 384:17,22 410:5 details 384:25 385:1 detecting 386:15 detector 399:10 determination 448:11 492:4 determinations 344:16 determine 364:12 456:24 472:11 518:17 determined 453:14 develop 374:1 developed 449:4,18 454:7 509:2 development 277:21 279:17 285:16 390:1 407:13 523:13 develops 342:20 device 507:21,22,24 devices 507:23 508:3 devised 393:23 394:8 399:6 diagnosed 399:8 428:16,22 445:14 452:8 457:22 506:6 Diagnoses 373:6 diagnosis 442:3 446:2 456:11,12,20 457:3 457:10 462:1,4 465:5 469:11 470:16 473:23 476:10 490:6 494:14 495:5 502:23 die 445:16,19 460:6 died 429:4 437:1 456:13 457:7 463:6,7 463:16 477:11 differed 416:12 difference 306:18 different 275:25 284:25 287:20 288:18 299:1 301:21 311:19 312:14 316:11,14,18,24 317:3,11,18,25 341:12 362:1 365:25 388:24 389:14,16 390:24 399:15,16 403:19 407:1 416:7 442:16 490:17 507:23 509:3 difficult 446:2 518:17 digestive 406:10,18 407:7 408:2,6 409:11 dilution 414:17,25 direct 274:16 275:5 300:13 312:5 333:5 333:15,22 339:3 346:14 355:21 363:15 364:2 371:14 380:6 382:9 401:20 412:2,11,25 425:6 429:24 432:11 439:10 443:11 447:16 474:11 475:23 510:14 directed 334:12 direction 501:25 526:10 director 280:10 282:17 288:17,22 289:6,10 289:15 293:23 294:17,22,25 295:7 295:11 296:4 298:8 299:2,6 300:8,13 308:21 310:19 325:25 333:19 346:19 348:13 395:13,14 396:11,19 405:17,21 514:6 517:15 directors 298:4,19 299:22 dis 470:10 disagree 362:3 370:21 461:16,17 487:7 disagreed 335:10 disappeared 486:9 disciplines 349:15 discount 480:5 discounted 454:21 discovered 419:6 486:7 discuss 330:11 430:11 517:6,9 discussed 276:17 314:6 363:15 371:16 378:2 380:5 387:7 412:13 412:25 416:24 425:6 430:5 439:9 470:21 474:10 503:16 519:17 522:25 discusses 330:14 discussing 325:3,18 364:2 377:3 discussion 409:18 411:24 515:4 523:2 discussions 284:21 521:20 disease 276:9 277:10 277:16 285:4 297:21 319:3 359:15,22 360:3 364:12 369:15 371:18 372:4 373:10 373:17,21 374:4,9,25 375:3 377:14,17,24 378:15 379:17,21 380:2,3 389:21 390:13 407:3 422:4 422:10 425:1 445:18 445:20 446:6 463:20 505:6 506:1,7,13 507:8 511:4 512:16 516:8,10,10 diseases 275:21 276:4 276:14 278:6,17 285:4 318:8 321:16 321:21 322:8,13 332:10 370:4 372:5 373:22 375:21,25 377:15 378:8 379:4,5 386:24 387:1 418:6 422:23 423:5,7 442:5 507:5 Diserans 517:12 disproportional 420:3 420:19,23 disproportionate 421:3 dispute 291:21,23,24 disputing 383:7 distinction 363:7 379:7 distributed 407:17 District 270:4,6,22 273:5,6 526:3,19 divided 416:10 division 336:1 426:22 488:3 doctor 274:22 275:8,8 275:23 277:14 279:5 295:23 312:21,24,24 314:6,20 320:1323:6 326:4 327:8,13 371:19 372:15 397:5 439:22 443:8 445:7 445:17 446:7 449:9 489:24 492:13,22 496:13 518:3,5 522:23 doctors 276:10,24 298:10 302:9 329:8 330:22 331:4,19 394:23 445:20 document 313:9 314:6 315:1 325:1 326:3,8 333:6,12,16 430:1 490:5,12,13,14,18,19 491:5,22 493:1,3 505:16 documented 478:2 documents 345:7,15 505:20 doing 277:6 283:11 304:2,6,25 320:18 326:17 361:10 447:2 449:25 498:15 504:21 508:11 517:6 Dooley 363:16 504:8 504:11,16,22 door511:ll dose 306:9 353:23 365:13 dot 499:6 double 521:2 doubt 383:6 dDoru2b7t2fu:4l 420723::63,12874:1,6 279:4,5,8 282:2 _______________Page 6 285:1286:10 287:5 287:23 289:20 290:7 i 291:10,19 293:2,14 I 297:24 298:23 299:1 I 301:1,1,4,7 302:10 f 302:10 311:9 312:1,5 I 312:8,19 326:5 1 329:21 332:7 335:8 ! 338:4 342:2 346:19 I 371:7,11,14 372:14 1 372:15,22 375:8,15 | 385:1406:16,22 1 408:5 409:3 417:12 I 432:24 439:4,8 440:4 f 463:12 466:1,3,5 ! 474:10 487:4 489:16 I 491:21,25 492:1,9 I 497:13,25 498:13,19 I 503:9,10,17,21 I 504:13,22 505:20,24 I 512:13 517:16 I 519:17 524:15 f draw 515:23 I drilling 299:13 | drive 416:25 | driver 366:21 | drivers 416:4 418:13 1 419:5 424:19,22,25 I 427:6 441:9 | driving 295:20,22 | dry 345:17,20 346:5,10 I due 370:5 407:16 I 485:11 1 duly 270:18 274:2 j dumped 482:23 f duplicated 344:8 | duration 306:10 i 365:14 | dust 278:16 305:22 | 306:4 307:11,15 I 309:8,16,21310:9,18 I 311:5 323:8,10,15 I 324:6 334:4,8,8,9,10 ! 334:13,15,18,25 I 336:13 339:12 341:5 1 341:24 342:2,4 343:4 I 343:15,21 344:3,7,14 I 360:23 361:10 I 362:20 378:22,24 I 379:3,12 381:10,13 ! 381:13 496:15,19 506:6,13,15 508:1,1 508:14,18 509:2,3,5 550109::27,8,23,25 510:1 dustier 496:22 497:2,7 Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 NEILL WEAVER dusty 277:20 278:1 279:2,16,20 334:5 335:1 376:1 377:12 377:19 496:15,18,23 497:3,9,11 Dust-Producing 336:5 duty 303:12 dying 346:17 347:2 467:6 Dyson 301:1 D.C 270:24 273:10,13 274:7 275:3 282:2 E E 272:1,11 273:1,1 earlier 342:10 363:4 378:2 464:6 495:10 517:3 earliest 520:10,14 early 332:25 411:19 509:17 516:23 520:15 524:5 earn 352:25 earned 297:11 earning 360:15 easy 502:9 educated 349:15 educational 350:15 effect 379:23 407:11,13 407:17,23 414:17 415:5 418:21 523:12 effective 283:12 514:25 effects 381:12 386:19 505:4,8 effort 334:13 336:9 384:19 447:23 458:10 469:8 471:25 473:22 474:6,7 499:18 efforts 288:12 507:7 511:4 516:9 eight 339:23 340:3 374:19 478:4 479:17 518:21 519:3 eight-hour 339:17,18 340:15,19,23 341:2 either 277:21 296:11 298:11 318:23 331:11 359:18 490:23 498:9 512:17 512:24 513:2,3 elaborate 410:5 electricians 483:9 electrocardiograms 507:12 electron 344:7 361:4 elevated 515:13 eligible 415:17,19 eliminated 334:9 eluding 452:24 emphasis 507:7 emphysema 373:9 378:1 employed 273:10 283:5 413:6 428:5 429:9 526:12,15 employee 290:6,13,19 290:20 291:5,9,22 293:12 307:22 308:20,21,24 350:24 351:1 389:21 390:14 415:20 427:18 433:2 433:14 516:16 522:24 526:15 employees 277:7 292:11 296:14 308:4 328:24 364:13 370:3 372:25 373:3 382:11 384:14 391:5,13 393:11 413:10 414:7 414:10 420:16 426:15,16,24 433:5 433:11 employer 290:9,12 291:5,9 292:20 334:7 477:12 employment 426:21 433:2 477:16,24 478:1 490:7 enable 344:9 400:20 enables 342:21 encoded 445:9 464:24 encountered 401:16 endeavored 456:10 457:2 ends 375:20 engaged 372:24 engineer 312:22 313:2 313:4,23 350:18 416:10 engineered 482:24 engineering 349:15 513:16 engineers 313:23 517:13 ensure 469:10 entaU 299:10 478:17 482:11 485:8 entailed 482:25 entered 337:4 426:23 entire 281:21 295:1 296:4 298:10 310:7 343:14 395:14 399:11 400:4 421:10 452:12 493:3 entirely 347:16 381:25 392:5 409:24 496:5 entirety 505:11 entitled 276:19 311:17 336:5 371:17 372:3 373:16 382:10 433:3 433:6,7,12 environment 277:12 284:5 340:12 380:9 380:12,17,20,21 381:5,23 507:1 510:12 environmental 275:18 284:5 289:10 356:12 381:11 515:1,9 environments 277:20 278:1 279:16,20 EPA 288:18,21 epi 499:20 511:25 epidemiologic 365:4 370:3 383:16 409:22 440:9,10 511:14 epidemiological 382:10 401:25 414:17,22 432:19 439:9 440:5 471:5 epidemiologist 355:4,7 355:10,12 487:8 498:21 epidemiology 355:15 499:15,25 502:4,5 503:13 504:4,17,20 512:16,21,24 equal 298:14 361:22 388:24 453:16 467:7 equipment 276:4 era 461:25 464:10,12 err 304:25 501:24 error 319:4 468:19 502:10,11,17 errors 502:6 erythema 318:19,20 especially 350:6 ESQUIRE 271:3,11,18 essentially 298:13 364:4 393:23 394:8 396:6 402:1 Esso 328:16 329:4 establish 370:6 established 332:24 437:23,25 509:15 estimate 341:15 409:21 et 270:7 273:5 ethical 290:25 291:4 evaluate 455:15 evaluation 505:15 507:6 event 334:12 474:25 476:1 events 331:5 everybody 353:25 361:16 441:8 evidence 291:25 319:18 320:4,19 370:2,6 386:19 422:22 477:11 489:21 507:8 524:2 evoking 516:10 exactly 292:8 309:20 343:23 378:23 379:10 392:8 421:10 421:25 423:4 459:5 494:11,13 exaggerated 456:14 examination 272:5 274:4,16 312:5 333:5 333:11339:4 346:15 355:21 363:15 364:3 380:6 382:9 401:20 412:2,12,25 425:6 429:24 432:11 439:6 439:10 443:11 447:16 474:11 497:23 507:10 518:1 522:23 examinations 277:7 330:7 examine 471:12,13 examined 456:17 example 277:25 283:10 303:2 305:18 328:20 330:5 338:10 339:10 375:6 456:15 521:22 examples 342:8 495:6 exceeded 441:24 exceedingly 500:2 excellent 333:6,12,16 exception 520:4 525:4 excess 364:6,12 370:4 406:17 408:6 442:1 476:21 477:5,19 excessive 308:22 309:8 309:14 exclude 427:3,5 480:6 excluded 373:13,15 478:16,20 479:3 480:9 483:23 484:24 excluding 471:20 exclusively 281:10 excuse 282:8 397:2 456:1 501:1 506:20 executive 346:16,25 348:5,14,22 349:7,9 349:18 350:2,11,12 350:14 351:20 352:5 executives 349:14 350:6 executive's 347:5,12 exerted 334:12 exhibit 276:18 278:4 311:9,13 313:18 323:6 326:21,23 327:4,6,17 328:4,10 328:22 330:9,22 331:17 333:3,4 338:22 363:14,18 364:8 371:15 382:6,9 386:4 411:21 412:3 425:4 439:11,20 440:17 504:9,11,13 504:14,21 505:17,18 505:21,22 exhibits 272:12 274:17 274:18 382:7 exist 324:18 516:11 existed 431:22 444:4 existing 520:17 exists 310:22 446:7 448:23 expansion 331:1 expect 332:6 341:23 342:2 375:2,3,17 431:21,23 434:16 447:19 448:3,24 449:7 451:23 453:11 501:21 502:1,11,14 502:17,23 509:22 510:3 expectation 308:24 expected 296:13 310:19 410:1 418:18 420:20 441:25 447:17,24,25 448:1,2 448:5,8,18 450:18,22 451:5,19 452:17,21 455:11,12 experience 275:7 297:7 318:6 342:12,21 343:1344:1,9 349:17 351:6,9,18 361:21 504:23 516:17,23 experienced 342:18 ex3p7e9r:i5mental 361:6 expert 270:17 309:22 Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 NEILL WEAVER 352:18 353:3 expertise 357:8 experts 301:12,14,24 302:2 expires 526:21 explain 319:7 322:9 468:7 explained 517:3 explanation 490:8 explanations 419:21 exploration 299:15 exposed 308:22 309:8 322:3 353:13,16,21 354:5,15 364:5,5,18 364:23 365:10,11,15 365:17 366:3,5,10,11 366:12,15,25 367:6,8 367:15 368:11 369:1 369:2,6,14,22,25 370:12 375:5 415:1 479:12,19 480:4,8,14 480:16 483:1,2,5,7,9 483:19 484:7,8,12,16 485:3,16 505:5,7,9 505:10,11 509:20 522:21 523:6 exposure 277:15,18 278:24 279:2,11 285:15 286:3 288:1 289:21 305:11,13,16 306:4,7,8,14,21,25 307:11,17 310:3 318:10,11 332:25 339:17 341:4,10 347:6,13,17,23 348:19 352:5 353:13 354:1,12,17 365:14 365:18 366:20 369:3 374:17,20 375:1,2,15 378:22,24 379:3,11 381:10 407:13 409:23 416:11,13,15 418:25 419:13,20 421:11,13,15,16 422:20 423:13,15,18 423:20,22,24 424:2,7 424:12,19,22 454:24 454:25 471:21 476:11 477:14 478:2 478:18,23,24 479:5,8 479:23 480:5,6,19 481:5,7,13,14,25 482:5,12,25 485:9 488:9 502:22 503:3,4 508:2 509:9 511:18 exposures 276:6 286:12 353:12 366:22 374:18 375:12,17 421:8,21 477:8,10,18 496:20 515:13 extensive 350:15 370:2 411:13 478:2,6 extensively 383:2 518:22 extreme 340:9 458:10 458:10 extremely 463:20 501:14 513:22 514:25 extremes 375:20 Exxon 270:18 271:10 271:12 273:18,21 274:15 275:5 280:18 287:8,12,15 290:6,9 291:22 292:2,9,12 293:3,12,19 294:18 294:22 295:7,11 296:11,18,23 297:15 298:4,11 299:22 301:13 302:3,8 303:9 307:22 308:3,8 309:6 310:7,13,16 311:2 313:15 315:25 320:1 320:10 322:24 325:6 325:14,20 326:2,13 328:23,24 331:4 333:10,20,21 335:10 335:15,20,21 336:3 336:11,12 343:10 344:11,18,24 345:7,8 345:15,16 346:15 348:13,22,24 349:6 350:3 351:2 352:17 355:24 357:8 359:8 359:13,20,22 360:5 360:17,24 361:3,9 362:5,20 366:14 371:16 372:15,17 380:5 381:20 382:8 383:17 385:11,15,15 385:16,21 387:2,5 393:8,10 394:13,17 395:21 398:19 401:19 404:23 405:8 405:12,17,22 411:2,7 411:17 412:2,14 425:6 427:19 429:24 474:11 493:15 496:11,14506:23 516:12 520:19,25 523:6 Exxon's 369:22 521:11 Exxon-retained 301:14 eye 308:17 334:5 335:1 eyeballed 344:25 F facility 395:12 517:22 fact 277:24 286:2,12 287:7,12 291:25 308:7 324:25 330:11 335:20 342:18 362:8 363:9 365:10 366:5 379:2,15 385:19 387:1391:23 402:21 412:18 425:10 429:14 431:10 441:10 446:4 461:22 463:9 471:4 476:7 489:10 495:13 501:19 502:10 514:16 516:22 524:3 factor 279:17 factors 277:13 430:6 430:11,14 477:7 facts 282:24 failed 384:11 408:22 failure 402:2 409:4 fair 274:25 276:6 279:21 281:12,17,25 282:21 283:20 286:19,22 289:22 295:16,22 298:12 300:6 303:6 304:20 305:5,9 306:1 307:18 307:19 309:21 314:5 314:10 319:14 320:21 336:10 344:4 349:2 357:9 364:7 367:7 375:19 384:15 395:25 411:5,19 412:22 413:16 420:14 422:3,6 453:12 465:4 467:8 470:20 472:6 473:12 520:2 fairly 404:18 falls 354:23 familiar 310:12 503:10 516:25 517:2 family 291:6,9 famous 493:11,20 far 283:19 301:22 337:21 403:19,21 410:4 460:21,21 495:4 518:20 farsighted 334:6 farther 306:20 489:16 fashion 495:18 506:23 fault 291:14 293:1 494:23 feasibility 337:3 384:8 392:16,17 470:22 492:8 496:24 500:4 feasible 307:12 337:12 337:15,18 338:1 340:4 386:18 457:25 458:1,3,20 459:1 465:16 468:5 470:3 472:11,19,21 473:8 473:10,17 474:2,5 492:13 495:21,22 496:4,16,20,22 497:4 497:9 501:7,10 509:5 feature 511:7 features 513:14,15 February 330:12 federal 281:7 286:2,21 287:25 288:13 289:19 336:18 338:13 451:14 federally 451:14 feel 278:9 282:13 360:13 fees 290:6 feet 306:15,20 fell 481:19,23 fiber 512:15 513:5 fiberosis 318:13 fibers 340:13 fibrosis 318:14,16 322:14 324:7 332:10 373:9 378:1 fibrous 482:23 field 275:23,24 309:10 325:6 339:1 351:7,9 351:18 352:18 353:4 356:22,25 357:7 379:8,10 487:9 figure 389:18 figures 429:13 file 486:14 505:14 files 359:11 385:15,20 385:20 405:8,18,20 filtered 379:9 filters 340:5 finally 274:16 377:11 403:3 financially 526:16 find 291:13 332:2,4 353:12 360:6 375:3 386:18 406:17 408:6 420:6,7,13,15,21 _______________Page 8 422:24 423:1,1 431:22,23 433:14 f 434:16 435:1,25 I 443463::117443494:1:56 444463::191 | 446:18,24 447:17,23 I 448:2,4,5,8,24 449:8 | 449:11450:6 451:23 f 455:23 457:6,14,22 I 458:3,14,16,18 459:6 ! 459:11,16,19 460:12 I 460:16 461:5 464:24 I 465:9 466:7,8 467:14 1 469:5,9,14,17,18,23 ! 469:25470:12 ! 471:20 472:5 473:11 1 474:3 475:17 492:12 1 495:5 506:10 507:7 I 525:5 I finding 378:18 400:1 I 407:9 412:8 426:17 I 458:9 469:16 f findings 402:25 | fine 293:22 319:6 | 360:22 459:4 I finish 331:12 I first 274:2 275:6,14 f 276:17 310:25 314:7 ! 323:9 330:11350:18 | 372:9,10 378:3 413:2 I 426:10,11428:3 I 477:22 509:11,13 I 510:20 1 firstly 377:11 first-line 507:3 fit 511:10 five 306:15 347:21 348:3,4 375:14 381:21 389:23,24 485:22 five-year 450:8,10 flaws 283:18 flip 330:24 389:23 393:16 floats 287:9 focal 297:21 focus 284:23 315:24 421:24 450:16 467:14 510:21 515:17 516:3 focused 423:3 folks 303:9 328:13 follow 277:10 323:21 396:17 420:11421:1 421:3 441:19 485:7 503:16,17,20 504:5 Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 NEILL WEAVER followed 506:21,25 511:13 521:9 following 278:22 373:7 389:19 432:25 435:7 494:2 follows 274:3 follow-up 492:9 503:23 503:25 foot 509:10,18,21 510:4 523:11,20 524:7 force 417:7,14,20 418:6,9 fore 472:21 foregoing 525:3 526:5 526:7 foreman 520:6 foremen 507:3 foreseeable 472:14,17 472:20 473:7 forgot 337:24 forgotten 388:18 450:21 452:4 463:10 515:19 fork 417:14 form 282:6,8 283:22 284:10 285:7 286:5 286:14,23 288:3 289:1,23 290:14,22 291:11 292:21 293:4 293:15,25 294:12 295:14,17 296:16 298:15 299:25 300:19 302:4 303:15 303:22 305:1,14 306:5,17 307:9 308:1 308:12 309:1,24 310:11313:11 314:15 316:19 319:15,21 320:22 321:7 322:16 323:2 323:20 324:11 327:8 327:12 329:25 332:12 334:21 335:4 337:2,20 340:16 341:7 342:16 343:5 343:19 344:19 345:3 345:12,22 346:8 347:7 348:16 350:22 351:14,23 352:9 357:20 360:9,17,19 362:25 364:21 366:7 368:24 370:22 373:24 376:4 378:17 384:6,16 388:15 389:5 391:7 392:10 394:16 395:3 396:3 396:21 397:17,25 398:15 399:4,5 400:15 404:25 408:9 408:17 409:5 411:11 415:12 418:2 419:8 422:7,13 428:18 431:24 436:6,9 437:13 440:8 445:22 455:6,20 456:3,6 457:1 458:5,8 459:8 459:13 460:14,18 461:13,23 462:9 463:25 464:19 468:14,20 469:7 471:24 472:7 473:20 479:14 480:22 481:8 484:1487:10 491:18 492:7,19 494:1 495:3 495:12,16 501:23 503:2 510:7 515:14 518:16 520:3 522:5 523:15,22 format 393:24 394:9 410:20 459:20 former 461:18 forms 393:23 394:8 398:23 forth 382:20 forthcoming 402:6,18 forwarded 399:24 400:6 found 277:7 320:3 354:6 375:10378:7 381:7 406:12 409:9 409:10 418:15,23 419:19 420:4 421:10 422:5 434:24 441:14 441:15,18 442:23 443:4,25 444:3,14 445:2,7 454:19 455:22 459:22 469:9 488:18 505:9 506:12 506:12 four 311:18 313:22 332:1 348:4 403:19 403:21 473:3 477:21 fourth 386:2,11 403:14 fractions 409:23 frame 514:2 Francisco 498:22 fraught 502:5 free 278:9 frequency 517:1,2 frequent 514:12 frequently 514:14 FRIDAY 270:13 front 283:9 284:8,14 285:1 331:22 475:16 full 303:5 423:12 485:24 489:25 fnUy 384:3 full-time 426:15,16,23 fumes 317:10,13 function 299:1,4 507:12 functional 298:21 fund 499:3,6 funded 498:23,25 further 408:11,18,25 455:14 490:5,11,12 490:19 491:4,22 522:20 526:14 G G 273:1 Galveston 270:5 273:6 general 274:12 275:16 277:16 293:6 307:10 316:3 317:13 333:18 335:5,6 337:4 345:23 346:3,11,24 365:25 366:1 461:18,19 500:10,23 501:4,8,22 502:18 503:1 507:20 508:8 510:24 generally 328:17,25 329:2 498:2 521:8 generic 368:9 genital 419:2,14 423:12 gentlemen 278:21 307:21 310:6 312:4 381:18 385:7 393:20 397:21 403:5 404:10 407:2 409:19 430:4 432:10 435:7 441:22 447:10 448:8 452:7 458:13 461:20 464:3 468:25 475:25 479:24 489:19 491:24 493:14,18 496:3,7 getting 277:11,13 278:1 293:9 296:7,20 300:23 306:25 307:2 307:7 314:14 329:7 366:20 378:23 379:2 379:11,20385:4,12 387:21 388:1,7 391:19,24 392:2,18 410:10 427:15 435:18 480:10 523:21 give 278:9 282:9,20 283:10 297:23 305:18 325:7 357:16 425:17 450:24 477:3 given 302:8 307:22 343:24 367:22 404:23 447:21 496:24 507:18 511:22 526:11 giving 403:4 411:1 glad 326:20 Glenna 271:11 272:7 273:18 386:4 462:3 496:10 go 278:12 282:2,17 284:14 285:1 294:23 311:13 314:18 323:5 323:18 324:14,15 327:4,16 329:6 330:24 337:4,24 346:18 349:23 350:19 351:3 373:6 383:17 385:14 386:12 389:8,22 393:2 403:12 404:5 406:24 409:18 410:8 410:18 413:1 424:6 425:4 426:13 429:24 432:21 439:8,21 447:6 449:19 455:16 457:21 460:11 461:25 463:13 466:7 466:8 467:11,25 471:11 474:6 475:19 476:18 478:12,22 484:21 489:16 490:19 506:18 510:11 512:5 518:19 519:10 goes 497:1 going 274:22 290:2 291:15,25 303:11,13 315:13 332:16,19 348:14 351:10,19 352:3 363:10365:23 366:3 367:2,7,18 369:8,11,15 370:25 371:2,3,5,11 378:12 378:16,20 392:3 410:23 411:22 415:8 437:19 438:6 439:4 439:23 440:1 474:4 495:12 497:15,18,21 512:7,10 517:14,23 519:11,14 524:13 _______________Page 9 good 274:6 279:3 ; 290:12,16 291:6,7 I 312:9 348:25 349:9 | 354:3 361:14,18 ! 362:4,19,23 370:16 | 441:14 516:2 | government 281:7 | 282:18 283:10,18 I 284:9 285:2,5 286:3 I 286:21287:25 I 288:13,18 289:19 I 336:11338:13,18 I 359:1,1499:2 J governmental 282:11 I 283:3,5 284:15 | 356:24 357:24 I 358:19 451:15 f grease 482:22 | greases 482:22 | great 295:3 328:22 ! 344:2 435:13 460:20 | greater 277:21,25 f 402:3 489:1 j greatest 488:22 | Greenwood 271:4 | ground 299:14 | groundbreaking i 383:22 384:2 387:20 1 401:19 510:18,19 | group 365:5,7,9,11 | 366:4,4,5,10,24 ! 367:6,17,19 369:5,24 | 370:12,14 377:19,25 I 401:12 413:5,17 I 414:2 449:6 453:20 | 453:22,25 500:11 ! groupings 404:20 I groups 376:13,14 426:14 436:14 463:6 guards 413:24 416:4 416:24 418:13 419:5 424:7,12 427:7 441:9 guess 290:1 291:18 329:7 423:10 guideline 509:11,18 510:10,11,12 523:23 523:25 524:1,4 guy 299:23 300:4 305:6 307:3 369:23 397:4 479:12 guys 302:20 338:22 339:1 370:19 377:1,2 377:5 418:13 420:13 420:20 427:7 H ... Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 NEILL WEAVER H272-.ll half 404:2 Hammer 301:5 302:10 Hammond 311:25 313:2,5,8 314:19 315:3,10 316:8,23 317:23 321:20 324:21 325:1,4,15,19 326:5,5,13 329:21 332:7 514:3,16 515:7 515:11,21516:13 517:12 519:2 Hammond's 317:20 321:15 327:10,13 514:10 518:13 Hammond's's 518:5 hand 290:25 391:14 392:22 445:2 475:13 handling 322:10 Hanson 346:19 happen 340:15 383:15 465:11 506:14 happened 284:17,20 330:8 344:11 420:6 481:15 486:25 517:18 happening 330:17 331:5 367:1 374:6 happens 407:12 446:5 hard 349:1 harm 284:23 307:17 334:10,19 515:12 harmful 306:8 334:15 Harvey 493:21 hazard 410:2 hazardous 307:24 308:9,16 hazards 338:11,16 409:22 507:4 520:16 522:16 head 397:4 heading 489:17 headquartered 355:25 headquarters 313:15 314:11 514:20 515:17 518:7,10,15 519:8 health 277:16 281:1,2 289:6,14 299:23 300:5,17 325:24 334:11,19 335:22,25 338:11,17 355:22,25 356:5,16,22 357:1,4 357:7 393:9,11394:1 394:11,15,19 395:18 395:22 396:8 399:3 442:20 443:2 445:10 487:5 499:17,18 504:24 505:5,8 516:16 healthier 415:9 healthy 415:5 417:15 hear 296:13 435:8 493:12 heard 271:4 443:11 452:7 453:1 hearing 292:23 438:9 442:18 498:24 518:4 heavy 276:3 held 275:3 330:4,12 521:20 help 336:3 helped 313:8 314:19 helpers 321:25 Hendricks 327:14 329:22 332:8 hereto 526:16 hesitating 357:10 hey 360:6 493:4 517:13 high 285:9 346:16,25 347:5,12 348:5,14,21 349:14,18 350:2 380:21 381:6 416:13 421:15 433:11 454:4 460:25 higher 285:3,6 286:12 288:1,12 354:8,10,19 354:20 369:15 378:7 421:4 452:21 highest 325:23 341:4 377:16,23,25 highly 296:17 324:23 349:14 471:10 hire 358:3 hired 350:12,14,14 353:3 356:13,15,19 356:21,25 357:4,11 357:13,18 358:15,17 433:23 434:4,13,16 477:22,23 historical 400:4 histories 476:17 485:12 485:14 488:7 history 310:7 342:25 343:14 347:15 348:12 349:21 393:22 394:7 404:7 483:11 485:8 488:14 507:11 523:1,12 hold 275:12,20 333:12 333:14 484:14 home 320:9 506:18 hope 498:1 hoping 447:8 hose 337:16 hosed 520:21 hospital 460:4 466:13 466:21 hospitals 465:19 466:15,15,25 hour 293:14 294:16 295:23 331:11 339:22 352:22 353:2 360:16 houriy 295:23 296:2,5 415:20 441:4 hours 339:23 340:3 housewife 366:15,21 369:14 Houston 271:7,15,21 273:21 274:22 514:16 518:6,15 519:8 human 334:6,7 335:2 Humble 326:22,24 328:5,8,10 331:19 hundred 399:19,20,22 400:9 hundreds 316:13 340:13 hydrocarbon 358:2,10 511:18,20 hydrocarbons 284:22 289:8 358:9,11,16 421:14,22,24 422:12 423:15 424:8,15,20 hydrogen 317:2,4 hygiene 311:12,18 312:21,22 313:4,10 313:19,23 315:2,12 315:20 316:1325:2,8 325:16 326:7 327:18 329:9,23 330:16 331:7 336:2 339:5 361:1 362:10 505:1 507:2 514:4,5,13,23 515:1 517:13,21 520:22 hygiene-wise 506:21 hygienist 324:22,24 339:21 340:2,8,22 342:12,18 343:1,3,10 343:13 344:1 361:10 513:25 516:13 517:6 517:19 518:12 hygienists 318:6 329:15 344:12,20,25 345:8 361:20 509:12 514:18 516:6 hypothetical 367:3,21 367:22 425:23 I idea 354:22 361:14,18 362:4,19,23 399:11 447:19 ideal 349:3 ideas 292:7 identified 318:9 332:8 412:3 421:20 465:6 466:7 467:6 475:11 identify 273:14 488:13 idiopathic 348:18 11477:22,25 illness 428:6,12 429:8 illnesses 499:17 immediately 331:6,6 334:7 350:20 402:11 immunology 275:16 impaired 426:2 imparted 314:11 implemented 409:25 imply 421:15 important 336:13 389:2,4 437:9 440:12 440:14 500:2 511:7 impression 279:6 422:18 improve 499:18 improvements 292:7 inaccurate 425:25 426:1 inadequacies 403:14 403:20 inadequate 380:8 inappropriate 465:23 495:17 Inasmuch 402:9 incidence 389:20 390:13 406:17 428:23 430:22 452:22 506:3,10 incident 346:22 449:22 450:5 incidents 408:6 428:6 505:6 511:4 512:17 include 308:9 321:22 370:11 376:1 413:21 414:25 420:8,9,13 424:25 427:11 428:16 436:20 453:22 467:23 506:8 506:9 included 308:4 321:24 ______________ Page 10 322:2,7 331:5 375:16 ; 376:6,9,12,14,20,25 I 377:5,9,11,12,19 f 381:4,24 414:2,3,22 ! 415:18 416:8 419:18 I 420:24 421:1,2 I 426:14 427:6,13 I 428:1,13,23 431:4,18 | 433:9,16 434:12,21 I 435:19 436:5,14,19 I 436:22 437:1,3 438:1 I 441:3,8 444:24 I 463:15 480:17 f 485:12 521:25 j includes 469:1 | including 316:20 ! 322:14 325:23 411:2 | 416:17 442:9 450:13 j inclusion 393:24 394:9 I 396:6 399:1 j inclusive 317:14 330:6 \ income 297:11,11 I incorporate 499:21 | Incorporated 273:5 ! incorrect 330:19 1 437:17 j increase 380:1 423:13 I 423:17,19 465:14 I 470:19 j increased 409:11 i 418:25 419:12,19,19 I 474:15 476:1 478:2 | 489:24 490:1 506:10 increases 423:22 increasing 401:1 418:25 419:6,12 423:13,15,17,20,22 independent 372:20 Index 328:20 indicate 345:16 410:1 indicated 301:17 523:24 indication 319:12 320:1 324:9 individual 306:20 357:23 426:22 503:1 individuals 329:3 353:14,16,21 354:5 354:11357:14 364:5 364:6 375:5 427:14 446:16 462:3 477:11 477:15,21,24 478:4 482:20,23 483:11 ind5u00c:e15516:8 industrial 276:19 277:1 Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 NEILL WEAVER 277:5 278:5,15 279:23,24 311:12,18 312:20,22 313:4,10 313:19,22 315:2,12 315:20 316:1318:5 324:22,23 325:2,7,16 326:7 327:18 329:9 329:15,23 330:16 331:7 336:1339:5,21 340:2,8,22 342:12,18 343:1,3,10,13,25 344:12,20,24 345:8 361:1,9,20 362:10 371:18 372:4 373:17 375:25 377:17 505:1 506:1,21 507:2 509:12 510:21 513:25 514:4,5,12,18 514:23 515:1 516:5 516:13 517:5,13,19 517:21 518:11 520:22 industries 511:3 514:15 industry 280:21,24 281:12,17 282:4,21 283:11,19,20 284:16 285:13 287:2,6 299:16,17 335:18 357:3,8,15,18,19 358:17,18 374:18 375:17 376:2 382:11 382:15 383:3,5 384:3 384:9,11,14 385:24 386:20,22 390:12,21 390:24 391:16,22 392:1,7,8,13 399:17 399:23 400:10 401:11 402:17 422:1 425:17 433:11 454:20 477:8,10,13 477:19 492:3,6,23 516:14,24 infants 453:22 infection 277:19 inference 321:4,8,11,14 infirmaries 359:8,16 359:22 360:7 inflated 367:18 inflation 294:5,8,16 296:1 inform 401:10 information 283:24 284:2 293:10 308:5,9 314:11,13 315:19,21 320:6 347:8,11 360:16 385:17,22,25 388:11 395:24 398:20 425:10,11,17 425:21 426:21 440:7 449:1 450:3 472:9 492:2 inhalation 509:5 initial 426:25 524:4 initiated 511:17 513:5 ipjuries 297:15 input 285:15 302:16 440:13 inquiry 504:25 insofar 454:13 456:12 inspect 385:19 inspector 333:17 inspectors 345:8 instance 270:17 284:19 346:10 358:14 470:19 502:24 instances 357:11 509:24 510:9 institute 280:10,13,15 280:25 281:4,6,15,19 281:22,24 282:17,20 283:6 285:20,23 286:2,11,20,25 287:23,25 288:10,13 288:17,23 289:11,14 289:15 356:18 358:23 359:3 382:24 402:23 403:21 410:16 411:2,8 412:7 412:15,21 425:8 437:21 439:15 440:21,24 447:21 448:12,20 449:2,12 449:13,16,17 450:4 451:7,12 452:16 453:10,13 486:21,24 488:19 491:16 492:18,25 498:14,22 499:1 511:2 instituted 433:18 Institute's 505:1 instructed 508:1 instruction 508:4,23 insulated 305:20 insulating 521:6 insulation 322:19,22 322:25 342:7,8 406:19 521:18 insulator 305:19 306:12 479:18 483:13,15,17 484:6 484:10 487:24 503:18 509:21 510:5 insulators 321:22 322:2,25 374:23 375:5,7 377:20,22,22 408:7,15 409:2 413:18 441:8 479:10 480:23 482:14 484:15 503:14 504:25 506:21 508:10 519:18,24 520:6,12,15,19,24 521:19,21 522:2,14 522:15,20,21 523:7 intake 507:25 intended 274:13 329:6 329:10,11 331:4 intensity 306:10 353:22 365:14 intensive 306:14 interact 302:23 interest 277:6 340:19 interested 281:11 340:23,25 526:16 interests 281:16 internal 275:14 328:23 international 442:5 498:22 internationally 487:8 interrelationships 290:24 interruption 512:13 interval 477:16 intervals 450:8,11 invariably 303:23 investigate 277:4 471:15 511:4,18 investigated 443:8,14 investigation 348:9 490:5,11,12,19 491:4 491:20,22 investigations 401:25 investigator 437:24 440:11 476:8 investigators 387:24 502:7 511:9 invisible 307:25 308:17 309:18,23 310:2,9,18 311:5 334:10,14,18 343:3,11,15,21 344:3 344:7,14,17 506:15 509:8 invitation 358:20 invited 282:10 505:2 520:5 522:17 involve 298:1 342:5,15 involved 283:25 284:3 285:22 286:25 288:11 291:1 362:6 391:12,15,17 395:9 422:1 482:17 492:1,9 irrespective 354:12 irritants 278:25 279:12 irritating 378:22,24 379:3,12 isolate 377:21 issued 309:6 336:17 410:20 434:10 463:16 issues 274:15 275:4 315:10 430:20 431:9 432:12 Item 410:13 429:13 items 393:24 394:9 396:6 399:1 ________ J _________ J 333:18 January 413:7 415:21 Jay 301:7 302:10 Jersey 312:18,19,21 Jim 313:2 515:20 job 276:4,5 283:12 296:18 342:11,13,14 344:13,16 349:9 368:22 370:19 405:15 416:10,12 441:5 481:24 482:5 484:21 507:15,19 508:6 512:14 jobs 344:15,25 416:14 416:16,16 477:13 482:3,7,11,13 Joey 273:9 John 505:24 Johnson 270:23 joined 316:13,17 journal 382:22 383:18 journals 276:25 judgment 342:22 344:9 344:21 365:16 380:8 380:20 381:3 521:13 Judicial 270:6 273:6 July 336:7 401:25 jump 439:8 junk 437:5,5 jury 274:8,18,24 278:21 299:22 307:21 310:6 312:5 351:11,20 385:7 397:21 403:5 404:10 407:3 409:20 422:18 432:11 441:22 ______________Page 11 447:10 448:8 458:14 ; 461:20 464:4 469:1 | 475:25 479:25 f 489:20 491:24 493:1 i 493:10,14,18 496:4,8 I 505:22 517:4 j Justice 356:21 | justification 402:1 1 J.W 311:25 315:3 I 514:3 | K ... | K 270:12,16 273:3 I 274:1 I Kaplan 491:21,25 f 492:1,9 498:6,13,19 I keep 288:1,12 302:21 I 371:2 411:22 466:14 I 466:16,17,19,25 I 516:9 523:25 | keeps 305:7 I kept 369:7 405:8,11,15 ! 405:18,20 483:18 |j Kettering 384:4,12,12 | 385:2,7,14,17,18,21 f 386:3,21392:6,7,14 I 393:1,4 394:5 395:9 I 395:24 396:5 398:20 I 398:24 399:6 401:10 | 402:13,16,21403:4 I 403:25 404:6 437:25 I 498:4 510:16511:6.8 I 511:9 | Kettering's 393:19 I 399:23 | kick 481:14 482:6 I kicked 481:23 483:21 I 483:22 484:4,10,17 | kill 309:17 310:9,18 I 311:5 I kind 279:24 280:14 282:20 290:2 292:15 292:19 293:3,13 294:9 295:12 296:2 297:12 303:4,10 304:24 306:1307:16 314:13 319:18 323:23 337:17 341:23 342:1 395:24 402:5 410:19,25 433:3 441:7 482:4 510:20 kinds 280:4,19 305:9 306:4 480:7 481:13 King 271:19 kiss 506:17 Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 NEILL WEAVER knew 320:10 338:10 489:9,13 496:14 knocked 454:16 know 277:24 278:12,18 282:12 284:18 285:9 286:15 287:21 292:2 292:3,5,13,16 294:13 295:9,19 309:3,22 314:7,9,20 318:20,22 318:23 319:2 320:3 320:11,25 326:15 327:24 331:21,25 333:4 335:13 337:9 337:21 338:22 339:3 339:11 340:12 341:6 341:11,12 343:16 344:9 345:13,19 347:11 348:12 351:12,21 352:7,17 352:19 353:7 354:18 355:6,19 360:2,17 361:4 362:7,16 365:23 367:12 376:13 378:21 384:17,19 385:5 391:3,5,13 395:4,5 396:20 397:2 398:2 399:19 401:7 404:10 411:16 427:21,24 429:6 430:13,13 431:15 432:14 433:8 433:17 436:3 437:5 441:22 446:7 449:10 452:1,21 454:2 458:16 464:1 472:3,3 474:18 476:19 477:4 479:2 486:5,18,19,22 487:4,12 489:20 491:14,17 492:16 493:25 494:5,8,9,13 494:15,24,24 495:21 495:23 496:15 497:7 497:14 501:13 502:7 503:20,22 504:4 507:14,17 511:20 518:4 522:1 knowhow 361:22 knowing 351:20 352:7 knowledge 274:12 282:25 320:17 357:7 395:20 497:5 520:17 known 348:9 369:1,2,5 410:24 478:1 515:8 521:15 knows 338:16 361:16 Kyle 271:11 272:7 273:18,18 282:6,8 283:22 284:10 285:7 286:5,14,23 288:3,6 289:1,23 290:3,14,22 291:11 292:21 293:4 293:15,25 294:12 295:14,17 296:16 298:15 299:25 300:19 302:4 303:15 303:22 305:1,14 306:5,17 307:9 308:1 308:12 309:1,24 310:11311:14 314:15 315:15 316:19 319:15,21 320:13,22 321:7 322:16 323:2,20 324:11 327:2,24 329:25 331:10,15 332:12 333:10 334:21 335:4 337:2 337:20 339:4 340:16 341:7 342:16 343:5 343:19,24 344:19 345:3,12,22 346:8 347:7 348:16 350:22 351:14,23 352:9 354:9,25 357:20 360:9,19 362:25 363:15,21 364:21 365:23 366:7 368:24 370:22 371:3 373:24 376:4 378:17 384:6 384:16 386:5 388:15 389:5 391:7 392:10 394:16 395:3 396:3 396:21 397:17,25 398:15 399:4 400:15 404:25 407:15 408:9 408:17 409:5 411:11 412:9 415:12 417:16 418:2 419:8 422:7,13 426:5 428:18 431:24 436:6,9 437:13 439:10,17 440:8 445:22 446:9 455:6 455:20 456:3,6,9 457:1 458:5,8 459:8 459:13 460:14,18 461:13,23 462:9,17 463:25 464:19 465:21 466:2 468:14 468:20 469:7 471:24 472:7 473:1,5,20 475:9,14,19 476:23 479:14 480:22 481:8 484:1 485:19 487:10 491:18 492:7,19 494:1 495:3,12,16 496:10 497:14,24 502:3,16 503:6 504:12 505:16,19 506:16 510:13 512:4 512:12,22 513:24 515:5,22 517:23 518:16 519:10 520:3 522:5 523:15,22 L lab 362:17 517:20 label 511:22 labor 336:2 499:5 509:14,16 511:2 laboratory 361:2,8 384:4,12,13 385:3,8 385:14,17,18,21 386:3,21 393:5,19 394:6 401:10 402:13 402:16,22 403:4 404:1,6 416:13 507:11 517:22 laborer 481:1,4 laborers 322:7,10 416:18 482:15 lack392:16,18 408:15 ladies 278:20 307:20 310:5 312:4 381:18 385:7 393:20 397:21 403:5 404:10 407:2 409:19 430:4 432:10 435:7 441:22 447:10 448:7 452:7 458:13 461:19 464:3 468:25 475:25 479:24 489:19 491:24 493:14,18 496:3,7 large 391-.21,22,25 392:22 401:12 448:6 448:10 453:21 500:20 501:14 larger 406:12 468:16 468:18 largest 293:24 295:8 396:12 397:5 399:10 lastly 317:16 late 345:9,16,18 346:1 401:22 latency 374:13,15,24 375:4,9,13,17,21 379:19 407:18 434:17,23 latent 374:20 379:23 379:25 407:11,13,16 407:23 latest 433:23 434:4 law 337:1 338:6 laws 336:19,22 lawyer 274:15 311:3 333:10 357:19 358:18 371:16 380:5 381:20 382:8 401:19 412:2,14 425:6 429:25 474:11 493:13 lawyers 302:8 360:6 383:17 lax 316:5 lead 317:6 511:21 515:18 516:5 leading 502:13 512:3 512:19 513:20 learn 286:11 452:2 learned 379:15 leave 303:10 422:18 435:12 481:7 482:4 leaving 427:19 435:17 lecture 522:18 led 384:8,18 Ledet 271:18 273:20 273:20 473:3 left 293:19,23 370:24 433:1436:2 480:21 485:20 496:8 Lemen 487:4 letter 363:16 364:3,8 368:4 378:3 504:8,11 504:15,17 505:12 let's 275:4 299:21 311:14 314:5,18 350:17 351:6 375:8 384:25 385:6 386:1 389:24 404:5 412:1 421:7 424:6 425:4 426:13 430:11 438:5 447:6 449:19,20 453:1 454:10 457:6,7 459:22 471:11 474:6 476:18 480:18 484:20 500:14 506:17 509:7 512:5 512:13 leukemia 397:22 398:8 418:17 level 288:24 289:20 307:17 340:20 343:16 364:12 367:7 367:16 370:13 377:14,16,23 378:1,7 ______________Page 12 378:14 379:3,4401:1 ; 448:3 452:3 469:3,4 I 509:13,16 510:5 i levels 307:24 308:9,10 ! 308:16,17,22,25 i 309:8,14,23 310:9,18 I 311:5 344:2,18 I 366:25 367:1,19 I 369:14,15 370:4 I levering 442:19 | liar 495:14 | libraries 328:18 | library 382:23 1 life 513:23 | light 422:22 504:20 i 512:23 ! likelihood 460:20,22,24 I 468:19 509:1 f limit 341:10 490:12 | 491:8 | limitation 364:9 389:6 I 431:25 | limitations 389:8 | limited 393:21 394:6 i 402:5 403:8 410:3 I 431:4,14,19 521:21 | 522:19,21 j limits 286:4 288:1 | 473:21 | line 303:4 312:4 328:7 | 331:13 337:5 363:5 | 424:2 I lines 305:21 369:8 I list 316:10 318:1 323:8 I 324:7 445:20 479:19 | 480:7,18 482:8 489:1 I listed 313:13 321:2,3 ! 321:21322:9,12 I 323:1 324:15 328:17 I 328:19 426:24 I 442:23 443:18,25 I 444:2,7,17,23 445:8 I 446:16 447:22 | 455:22 465:10 f 470:23 472:15 f 477:12 480:15 | 482:25 483:2,4,7,9 f listing 441:16 446:11 ! 505:6,8 I lists 316:8,23 literally 475:21 literature 276:25 282:25 319:12,19 320:20 327:17 329:1 382:21 383:20 410:12,17 411:7,18 Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 NEILL WEAVER 489:10,21 little 284:25 287:20 292:24 341:25 402:25 500:14 live 282:3,5 lives 513:23 lobbied 285:14 lobby 281:16 282:3 286:2,12 287:25 lobbying 281:24 282:4 282:13 286:21 288:11 lobbyist 282:14 lobbyists 281:22 local 281:7 locate 458:11 located 478:5 498:20 location 466:22,22 518:24 locations 315:23 518:9 518:12 logic 459:3 logical 290:4 321:4,12 321:14 long 337:25 339:8,9,11 414:11,13 436:21 477:16 509:18 longer 374:21 375:18 401:12 402:7 428:5 429:8 482:24 long-term 414:7 look 274:13 278:8,9,19 279:4 311:9 312:3 331:22 339:18 342:13 350:7 358:15 363:13 372:4 385:6 385:15 386:1,23 387:1 391:14,20 400:25 401:17 406:3 407:1 415:2,7,14,24 416:6 417:3 419:23 421:7 422:25 432:23 436:15 444:20 457:21 458:17,23 468:1 469:14,22,25 470:2,18 474:2,19,21 485:18 487:14 491:11 492:5 495:22 500:8,12 504:13 506:3 518:3 looked 314:1 372:10 373:3 375:24 421:9 421:21 422:4 446:25 456:1 457:5,19 463:8 469:18,20 470:17 481:12 494:7,12 495:1 506:5 looking 279:24,25 306:6 314:25 331:3 334:2 339:16 340:20 348:11 353:15 373:22 374:9 395:25 396:5 398:21,24 399:1,7 413:10 415:24,25 416:3 421:8,11 422:10 425:1441:7 487:19 488:6,7 496:8 500:9 looks 314:21 lost 515:17 lot 275:24 276:24 295:6 296:13,14 348:24 355:21 373:23 374:1 lots 387:23 Louise 270:3 273:4 Louisiana 271:20 276:20 395:2 396:16 397:1,2,10,14 Louisiana's 399:12 love 320:3,11 338:21 low 285:17 307:12 401:4,6 416:14 420:2 420:17 421:14 496:20 lower 285:14 355:1 422:5 447:3 515:19 lowered 524:4 lowest 509:5 loyal 290:6,9,19,20 291:13,21 293:12 loyalty 290:12,24 291:5 291:8,12 292:19 293:3 Lubel 271:4 lubricants 482:22 lump 427:20 435:4,12 435:18 lunch 332:3 lung 275:21 276:14 297:19 320:2,5,10,18 321:1 324:7,19 332:24 373:10,13,15 398:10 418:16,19,21 423:23 442:9,17 443:3,18,23 444:9 445:16,21 446:4,12 457:22,23 458:17,18 460:6,11,19,21 464:23 465:10,18 467:5,6,11,25 468:9 468:11 469:14,23 470:22 471:1,14,17 472:16 473:11474:3 492:14 495:23 500:5 500:8,10 501:4,8,11 501:16 511:18,24 512:1 524:3 lungs 319:9 321:15 322:15 332:11 lymphoma 397:22 lymphomas 418:17 Lyons 270:21 273:11 526:4,18 M M 270:21 271:11 526:4 526:18 machine 270:22 526:8 machinist 305:20 306:13 483:16 484:4 485:13 487:23,24,24 488:1,15,20 489:1,7 522:25 machinists 483:4 488:21 522:3 magazine 276:23 main 277:19 328:9 maintain 307:11 maintenance 302:20,24 303:1,8,13,20 304:1 304:6,8,11,14,16,17 304:19,24305:6,10 305:12,19 363:5,10 364:13,18,22 365:1 365:12 367:9,17 368:5,8,10,15,20,21 368:25 369:11,25 370:18,20 378:5 416:14 488:2 522:2 m^jor 300:21 394:23 518:9 521:22 majority 387:7 417:6 417:13,21 509:24 making 291:19 293:13 294:9 295:12 299:18 305:7 316:18 337:16 338:6 344:15 386:17 387:3 463:9 508:6 513:22 males 372:23 406:11 449:22 450:9 malignancies 418:16 malignancy 523:13 malignant 442:11 454:16 man 310:8 435:10 445:18 management 346:17 347:1 349:19,22 350:3,20,23 351:8,17 managers 338:24 manipulated 440:5 manuals 308:8 309:7 359:13,17 manufacturing 300:2 March 382:12 384:15 386:23 400:5 marked 272:12 313:10 314:7 327:6 330:5,15 330:21 331:8 372:13 386:11 406:3 410:12 423:11 425:4 439:11 market 497:2 marketing 372:24,25 373:3 marks 371:6,9 381:13 438:7 439:2 524:14 masons 321:24 377:20 mass 449:4 match 448:19 matched 500:23,24 501:1,2 material 310:1 318:5 346:11 446:24 482:23 497:6 508:22 508:24 511:21 materials 302:17 316:7 316:11,25 317:12,19 317:23 322:11,18 323:7 324:5 416:21 481:5 482:18 math 453:1 matter 273:4 287:7 344:1352:4397:22 461:24 matters 274:14 289:7 314:6 maximum 413:11 ma'am 426:6 mean 298:18 305:16 309:9,9 339:20 341:10 348:11 414:18 437:8 443:1 443:19 466:4 480:10 510:18 meaningful 306:7 511:12 means 318:14 393:5 414:13 415:7 420:19 421:4 427:15 434:2 437:12,15,16 452:11 meant 328:12,23 523:12,20 524:7 measured 344:6 421:13 ______________Page 13 422:11 s measurements 514:24 i! mechanical 376:13,14 \ mechanisms 496:21 | Medcicus 328:20 | mediastinum 442:10 ; medical 275:8,8 276:25 I 280:10 281:24 | 282:16 288:22 | 293:23 294:17,22,25 I 295:7,11296:4 298:3 | 298:8,10,18 299:2,6 I 299:22 300:7,12 I 308:21310:19 f 312:24 319:11,19 I 320:19 325:6,25 ! 327:17 328:4,7,11,15 I 328:17,22,23,25 ! 329:5,8,11,12,12,14 I 329:18,19 330:3,21 1 331:2,3,18,19 333:18 f 346:18,19 348:13 I 355:17 382:21 I 383:17,20 385:20 1 389:14,15 391:9 | 395:13,14 396:11,19 1 397:4399:10 400:17 | 400:17 401:8,22 | 402:2 405:16,21 I 410:25 411:5,17 I 461:9 505:14,24 ! 507:6,9,9,13 514:6 I 515:10 516:7 517:7 I 517:15 523:2 j medical-wise 506:22 | medicine 275:11,13,15 | 275:17,18,19,24 I 276:2,10,13 282:19 | 297:15 352:19 353:4 1 410:19 487:9 515:9 | medium 416:17 421:14 | meet 480:15 513:16 | meeting 329:14,16 1 330:12,14,17 | meetings 329:20 330:4 508:5 521:20 522:18 522:19 member 357:18 359:2 385:8,9 387:21 388:7 388:14 389:11 392:19 410:17 425:12 437:20 438:2 505:3 members 281:1,5,6 285:12 335:18 357:8 386:23 399:16,22 Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 NEILL WEAVER 400:9 408:22 409:2 410:16,21 411:1 425:16 499:12 500:22 membership 280:16,22 280:24 281:10 memo 326:3 memory 447:15 men 433:23 441:3 487:20 488:8 mention 331:20 332:4 332:6 359:9 mentioned 279:9 281:18,20 300:25 324:3 408:1 442:12 510:10,22 511:13 522:17 mentions 278:5,16 Mercury 317:8 mesothelioma 288:24 289:21 297:19 347:2 347:5,13,16 348:6,10 348:15,18 351:11,22 352:7 354:2,11 406:19 439:12 440:18 441:16 442:3 442:5,11,15,17,21,23 442:23 443:5,10,14 444:1,6,13,21,23,25 445:4,9,11,13,19,19 445:23 446:6,11,17 446:20 448:24 449:8 450:24 452:8,11,22 453:4 455:17,23 456:2,13,15,24 457:7 457:8,11,23 458:14 458:19,24 459:6,17 460:12,16,22,25 461:6,10,20 462:7,21 462:21 463:19 464:14 465:11,18 466:6,24 467:8,10,15 467:17 469:9,17,20 469:24,25 470:1,9,13 473:11 474:12,13,15 476:2,21 477:6,11,20 478:3 480:20 481:6 482:1 484:22 485:5 485:11 487:20 489:18 490:1 493:24 494:6 501:20,21 502:22 mesotheliomas 347:22 353:7 354:5,16 447:4 447:18,20 448:9,13 450:18 451:5,19,24 452:3,18 453:12 454:3,10 457:18 464:5 465:7 466:17 468:13 469:2 473:18 475:24 481:19,22 488:18,23 489:11,22 491:1 met 281:21 284:7 302:16 305:8 332:22 371:17 493:14,16 metal 317:10,13 377:9 meter 376:16,20,20 Method 372:13 methodology 428:20 428:21 508:24 methods 509:3 520:22 521:10 Meyer 517:12 microscope 344:7 microscopy 361:5 mid 516:23 middle 387:12 421:12 436:15 Mike 292:1,14,18 293:2 mill 516:20 million 452:5,5,12 453:2,18 509:10,17 509:20 510:4 523:11 523:19 524:6 mills 516:18 mind 279:7 297:10 301:20 308:23,25 309:3 321:12 370:17 380:15,22 381:15,21 440:16 mine 386:10 393:18 Mines 336:1 minute 331:14 439:16 486:2 512:6 524:12 minutes 339:22 340:10 340:14 370:24 371:1 485:20 mischaracterizing 282:22,23 misclassification 490:6 490:13,20 491:5,7,8 491:23 misdiagnosed 446:19 446:20 455:9 463:23 464:15 misdiagnosis 460:21,22 460:24 463:1 501:19 502:24 missed 489:11,13,22 491:2 missing 486:11,16,20 486:25 mistakenly 444:7 Mistakes 446:15 mixed 510:1 mixture 510:2 Mobil 270:18 271:10 271:12 273:19,22 280:18 moment 341:1 504:8 moments 519:20 money 293:13 294:9 295:12 435:14 monitor 273:8 339:9,11 514:9 monitoring 300:5 342:20 362:20 507:13 514:4,5,21 515:1 517:1,1,6 Monson 450:10 500:24 month 274:23 330:14 330:18 monthly 295:18 months 296:22,24 297:16 402:11 moral 290:25 291:4 morbidity 512:17,21 512:25 513:3 morning 274:6 441:12 mortality 412:4 413:3 420:1,18 428:25 429:13,23 430:2,3,7 439:12 440:18 450:24 512:18,21,25 513:3 motivated 296:17 motor 416:16 move 274:14 360:22 moved 509:16 moving 424:6 multiple 370:2 multiplied 453:18 multiply 453:15 M.D 270:12,16 273:4 N N 272:1 273:1 naked 308:17 334:5 335:1 name 301:9 444:24 493:21 national 289:13 447:21 447:22 448:12,20 449:2,12,13,16,17,23 450:4 451:7,11,12 452:16 453:9,13 511:2 naturally 398:7 415:8 nature 286:16 375:13 411:13 430:18 near 294:9 295:12 296:2 necessarily 314:16 369:19 419:9 468:17 471:9 necessary 342:10,14 need 279:4 285:17 286:15 305:15 323:18 331:10 343:16 345:1 352:3 355:3 363:1,4 366:2 423:21 439:21 447:14 472:20 482:4 needed 385:4 392:18 514:24 519:19 needs 274:24 386:4 513:17 negative 521:2 Neill 270:12,16 272:4 273:3 274:1371:7,11 439:4 517:13 524:15 neither 410:1 518:23 526:11 neoplasm 442:2 443:3 444:2 neoplasms 442:1,7 neoplastic 389:21 390:13 neutral 361:12,15 362:4,21 never 284:16 290:18 294:8 295:11 320:3 326:10 340:5 360:5,8 381:15 451:24 483:14,16 484:9,15 493:15,24 494:5,6,8 494:9,24,24,25 515:17 524:7 new 272:12 312:18,19 312:21 313:16,16 314:12 355:25,25 nine 363:20 374:19 413:11442:22 443:4 443:9,9,19 444:12,24 446:16 447:3 450:23 456:11,19 458:10 465:6 466:6 473:23 477:21 478:4 487:20 488:6,24 494:18 495:6 518:21 519:3 NIOSH 288:19,21 NJ 516:20 ______________Page 14 non-asbestos 364:5 : 505:10 { non-clerical 441:4 non-exposed 505:12 non-occupational 399:8 I non-profit 356:24 non-representative I 471:10 J non-responsive 287:3 ! 291:16 301:22 | 361:24 362:12 1 365:20 368:1 370:7 1 381:14 382:4 383:24 I 384:22 392:25 393:6 I 400:19,22 429:19 432:2 456:21 472:12 | 515:3 523:3 I non-white 450:9 I normal 383:13 405:11 f 405:15 409:13,15 I 418:21 I North 516:16,19,24 f Northwest 273:13 I Notary 270:21 525:14 I 526:19 I note 420:17 | noted 406:9 420:15 ! notes 317:24 \ noteworthy 474:16 I 476:2 490:2 f noticed 300:24 | notification 393:25 | 394:10 396:7 399:2 \ notified 433:1,4 no's 483:10 I number 273:3,7 274:11 | 274:14 277:7 298:11 I 314:20 317:3 319:25 I 327:2 329:20 363:19 ! 371:6,10373:8 380:15 386:5 387:20 389:19 391:15,21,22 391:23 402:5 403:9 406:5 410:3 420:3,19 420:23 430:5,13 431:3,8,9,13,18 435:22 438:7 439:3 441:24,25 442:15 447:3,3,24,25 448:1 448:2,3,5,9,19 449:14,15,18 450:18 450:21,22,23 451:5 453:5 454:11 455:11 455:12,12 458:2 459:23 460:19 461:6 Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 NEILL WEAVER 462:13 465:13,15 470:14,16 471:22,23 472:1,4,11 473:24 480:21 485:4 488:20 501:14 505:22,23 524:14 numbered 270:19 393:18 441:21 numbers 314:22 348:1 386:10 391:25 415:15 454:17 470:18,20 474:14 500:21 nurse 309:15 310:10 N.W 270:23 ________ O_________ 0273:1 object 301:21 393:6 495:12,16 510:7 515:14 objection 282:6,8 283:22 284:10 285:7 286:5,14,23 287:3 288:3 289:1,23 290:14,22 291:11,16 292:21 293:4,15,25 294:12 295:14,17 296:16 298:15 299:25 300:19 302:4 303:15,22 305:1,14 306:5,17 307:9 308:1 308:12 309:1,24 310:11314:15 316:19 319:15,21 320:22 321:7 322:16 323:2,20 324:11 329:25 332:12 334:21 335:4 337:2 337:20 340:16 341:7 342:16 343:5,19,24 344:19 345:3,12,22 346:8 347:7 348:16 350:22 351:14,23 352:9 354:9,25 357:20 360:9,19 361:24 362:12,25 364:21 365:20 366:7 367:25 368:24 370:7 370:22 373:24 376:4 378:17 381:14 382:4 383:23 384:6,16,21 388:15 389:5 391:7 392:10,25 394:16 395:3 396:3,21 397:17,25 398:15 399:4 400:15,18,22 404:25 407:15 408:9 408:17 409:5 411:11 415:12 417:16 418:2 419:8 422:7,13 428:18 429:19 431:24 432:2 436:6,9 437:13 440:8 445:22 446:9 455:6,20 456:3 456:6,21 457:1 458:5 458:8 459:8,13 460:14,18 461:13,23 462:9 463:25 464:19 468:14,20 469:7 471:24 472:7,12 473:20 479:14 480:22 481:8 484:1 487:10 491:18 492:7 492:19 494:1 495:3 501:23 502:13 503:2 512:3,19,23 513:20 515:3,24 518:16 520:3 522:5 523:3,15 523:22 objective 329:4 339:25 340:18 383:21 390:17 417:23 421:23 470:4 509:4 objectives 389:17 390:10,11 410:3 observation 365:16 431:3,9 517:10 observational 380:24 380:25 382:1 observations 516:18 observe 514:7 observed 315:2 339:4 420:1 441:24 observer 306:19 obvious 342:8 obviously 456:14,15 occasion 282:10 345:4 516:21,22 521:25 occasions 520:5,7 521:21 occupation 477:12 478:17,19 479:22 480:3 488:15,17,22 488:25 occupational 275:11,13 275:18,23 276:2,5,9 276:10,13 278:24 279:10 284:5 289:5 289:14 352:19 353:4 356:16,22 357:1,4,7 369:3 393:22,25 394:7,10,14,18,19 395:1,8,18 396:7,15 397:9,12 399:2,8,13 402:9 404:7,20 407:20,21,22 409:15 409:22 411:18 431:22 434:23 435:2 476:16 477:7,18 478:22,24 479:4,8,23 482:11 485:8 488:7,9 502:22 506:6,13 occupationally 395:22 398:13,17,21 483:19 484:8,12,16 485:16 occupations 374:19 480:1,14,17,18 487:21 occur 284:24 288:25 289:22345:5 398:1,2 398:6,7 418:22 428:4 442:6 448:14 occurred 329:20 344:24 345:2 354:12 403:8 occurrence 397:11 409:14 439:12 440:18 510:22 occurring 344:13 345:21 429:2 469:2 occurs 374:6 October 526:21 offhand 283:14 292:6 office 351:5 368:16 378:24 379:9 480:11 518:5 offices 376:6 518:8 official 351:9 officials 281:1,7 328:24 oftentimes 479:9 517:11 Oh 279:22 301:25 394:4 415:3 430:25 431:16 443:23 447:9 486:2 494:18 OH-1412:5 477:6 490:1 Oil 326:22,24 328:5,8 328:10 331:19 333:18,19 okay 274:19,21 275:4 278:19 279:23 280:9 283:17 284:2 285:12 287:19 288:16 289:4 290:1 292:18 293:9 294:4 295:22 296:7 297:2,18 298:3,7 299:17,21 300:23 301:10 302:12 304:5 305:5 307:20 308:7 308:15,20 309:6 310:5 311:9,15 312:9 312:19 313:2,14 314:2,10,18 316:7,16 318:8 319:6 320:9 321:14,19 323:5 324:21 326:16,19 329:19 330:3 331:15 332:1,7,15 337:24 338:10,21 351:8 353:16 354:22 355:12 359:20 360:2 360:22 363:3 364:25 367:12 369:13,21 370:16 372:7,17,22 375:24 376:19,25 379:15 383:23 384:21 385:6 390:8 391:11393:16 396:2 398:5 399:15,20 400:8,18 403:24 404:5 406:3,23 408:3 409:9,18 411:21 412:18 414:1 415:4 416:6 418:5 421:7 423:16,20 424:5 425:4 431:17 439:15 440:24 442:22 444:18 445:1,6 447:13 450:7 451:22 453:24 454:14 458:1 459:22 463:18 464:11,22 467:5 468:21 471:19 475:6 475:19,21 476:18,24 480:12,25 482:14,16 483:4,21 484:20 485:18 487:3,14 489:3 490:4 492:17 493:1,9,23 496:13 498:10 517:17,23 518:13 521:4 old 410:3 older 379:16,20 407:8 431:4,13,18,21 Olender 273:10,11 once 283:9 324:2 329:13 357:23 500:3 ones 322:21 443:13 488:13 one-on-one 522:23 ongoing 402:12 onset 406:11 477:16 ______________Page 15 open 280:20 f opened 511:11 | opening 493:20 f operating 303:17,19 ! 304:10 307:10 | 508:23 519:18,23 I 520:25 521:6,11,17 f operation 299:12 | operations 299:5 I 302:14 304:10 336:5 ! 349:23 405:12,14 I 521:6 522:2 | operator 273:9 304:5 1 305:6,11306:2 I operators 302:12,13,23 I 303:1,14,20 304:1,12 I 304:22 368:12 I 413:19 | opinion 347:20,24 I 353:9 484:14 485:2 f 523:10,19 | opinions 360:17 f opportunity 312:13 ! 365:24 [ opposed 306:14 356:17 i 377:7 443:1,10 ! opt 435:11,18 f opted 436:2 % option 427:18 433:15 \ ORAL 270:11 I order 275:5 290:2,4 | 339:12 340:14 I 364:11 382:7 401:11 I 434:23 461:5 \ Ordinarily 340:4 | 499:23 | ordinary 340:7 361:7 | organ 443:4 444:3,10 | organic 317:2 | organization 280:14 \ 281:20 291:13 ! 298:21 356:6 357:24 ! 361:12 442:4,20 f 443:2 445:11451:13 I 451:15 499:8 \ organizations 282:11 283:3,5 329:5,5 I 336:3 356:8 511:3 \ organs 419:2,14 442:9 | original 486:9 | originated 523:23 % OSHA 288:18,21 289:5 1 356:15 509:14,14,16 { outcome 526:17 | outdoor 376:9 % outflow 302:16 | Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 NEILL WEAVER outlined 521:5 outside 327:21 372:20 overall 329:4 443:21 443:22 509:4 overcome 402:8 overdiagnosed 445:24 454:11455:19 456:25 457:12 458:17 459:24 461:11,21 462:5,22 462:23 467:19 491:9 overdiagnosis 464:12 464:16 465:3,14 469:5 471:20 490:14 490:15,21 491:12 492:5 494:10,12,16 495:1,7 502:25 503:5 overfamiliarity 515:20 overlap 315:8 overly 500:2 oversee 303:10 304:24 overseeing 306:3 oversight 281:8 overwhelming 417:5 417:13,18,21 overwhelmingly 358:11 _________ P_________ P 273:1 packages 481:2 page 272:3 312:3 314:18,23,25 315:17 323:5,6,18,19 324:3 324:6,14 330:5,11,17 330:23,23,24,25 333:23,24 334:3 363:13 372:9,11 376:13 386:2,8,10,11 387:11 390:2,3 394:3 399:21,21,25 400:4 401:1,15,17 402:21 403:3,13 404:6 406:3 406:5 410:9 412:19 413:2 415:15,16 416:7,9 417:3,10,11 418:12,23 419:11,23 421:7 423:10,11 426:4,9,10,11,18,19 428:1,15 429:7,9,12 429:12,25 430:1,22 431:16 432:16,23 435:5 436:15,16 441:20,21,21 449:19 474:19,21 475:1,5,9 475:10,11,12,14,21 475:24 476:18,19,23 476:25 485:18,24 487:15,16 489:15,17 489:24,25 490:24 491:1 pages 332:2 389:23,25 393:16,17 406:4 415:15 430:24 525:3 paid 283:5 296:3 358:5 358:21 360:15 382:14 383:6,9 412:15 425:7 440:25 pamphlets 359:15,21 360:7 paper 278:4 279:8 papers 276:17 329:15 329:17 paragraph 334:2 372:13 387:12 390:4 403:14 404:9 406:5 418:15,24 421:13 423:12 428:3,20,21 449:20 474:25 475:7 476:19,25 485:25 489:25 parameters 353:17 449:3 paraphrasing 309:7 pardon 409:9 447:7 470:7 512:13 parent 333:21 part 274:7,8 281:23 283:24 285:15 287:13 299:20 300:20,21 315:5 316:1 352:21 353:2 392:20 393:6 405:11 414:7 417:6,13,14,19 435:1,4 471:7 504:25 516:2 participants 407:4 409:12 participate 390:22 391:1,4,6 400:14,21 participated 392:13 520:7,11 participating 383:3,8 384:9 385:22 389:22 390:15 401:4 441:5 477:17 participation 401:2 402:3 409:4 particles 318:11 509:10 509:17,21 510:4 523:11,20 524:6 particular 339:14 340:1,21 357:12,14 358:6 361:7 422:5 448:16 463:5 506:4,5 506:23 507:11,22 508:6,9 particularly 317:4 431:5 463:19 478:7 483:12 parties 273:15 372:20 526:13,16 parts 315:6 party 361:12,15 362:4 362:21 pass 497:15 517:23 524:11 pathologist 456:17 pathology 457:18 466:9 500:4,5 501:8 patient 277:17 502:22 patients 279:10 pattern 409:13,15 Paul 493:21 pay 381:12 payment 435:12,19 payroll 359:2 peak 340:20 341:4,10 peer 383:18 pension 427:15,19 433:15 436:18 people 277:20,24 281:10 302:14,18,20 303:3,12 311:19,22 329:3,8,9,9 346:17 347:1 349:19,22 350:3 351:17 353:25 357:6 365:10 368:12 368:16,16 369:7 373:4 376:6,9,12 377:6,22 378:9 379:10,16 380:11 381:3,4 383:6,8 385:11,14,16,19 414:2,3,25 415:7,9 416:3,8,17,20,21,25 425:15 426:14 427:8 427:11,15 428:12 434:4,12,15,21 435:4 435:13 436:2,4,4,11 436:14,23 437:19 438:1 440:6 447:17 448:9,14,25 449:9,24 452:5,12,15,19 453:3 454:4 455:1,8,10 457:6,22 458:18,23 460:6 463:6,7,11 476:6 478:13,16,19 483:21,24 492:4 496:14 500:16,18 521:23 people's 381:5 percent 347:22,24 348:2 353:8,10 354:7 354:19,20,21 380:6 380:11,16,19 381:3 404:18 414:10,13 420:10 441:25 478:8 481:19,22 503:17,20 504:3,3,5 percentage 317:20,24 354:5,16 400:13 401:4,6,7 417:18 433:11 518:13,22 Perfect 328:21 perfection 430:17 perfectly 381:19 448:19 performed 451:3 performing 345:17 period 341:2 374:7,13 374:15,20,25 375:4,9 375:14,18,21 379:25 401:13 402:8 403:6,8 413:14,15 431:2 482:12 509:19,22 periodic 277:7 522:23 peritoneal 406:19 peritoneum 406:11,18 442:8 permissible 286:3 permit 401:8 410:4 person 274:25 277:18 277:18 298:22 350:21 407:8 446:5 450:8,12,14 493:20 personal 306:21 516:18 517:10 personally 339:4 508:10 522:12,13,14 personnel 329:12,12 petrochemical 280:2 300:1 petroleum 280:10,13 280:15,16,24,25 281:4,6,11,14,17 282:17,20 283:6,11 283:19,20 285:3,5,13 285:19,23 286:2,11 286:20,24 287:22,24 288:10,17,23 289:11 289:15 299:13,14 336:6 356:18 357:9 358:23 359:3 372:24 ______________ Page 16 376:2,25 377:7 378:2 ; 382:11,15,24 383:3,4 f 384:14 385:9 386:16 I 386:22 389:22 ; 390:12,15,20,21 i 392:8,13 399:17,22 I 400:10 401:11 1 402:17,23 403:21,25 I 409:23 410:16 411:2 I 411:8 412:5,7,15,21 f 413:4 422:1425:8,16 I 433:10 437:21 ! 439:13,14 440:19,20 I 440:24 477:8,19 f 482:21 486:21,24 f 488:19 491:15 492:3 I 492:6,18,22 499:1 I 505:1 j pharynx 419:1,13 I phone 271:18 326:12 f phrases 506:22 | physical 507:10 | physician 502:21 | physicians 329:15 | 372:18 517:7 f physiologic 306:8 1 physiologically 307:16 I Ph.D 312:25 313:1 I 355:15 | picking 276:3 | picture 338:21,21 | piece 403:3 | pieced 311:14 | pipebender 322:12 | pipebenders 322:21 1 pipefitter 305:20 I 479:11,12,17 485:13 f 488:4 522:25 | pipefitters 374:23 I 479:4,7,9 483:2,22 j pipes 322:18 I Pipkin 517:16 place 273:12 292:6,12 | 292:14 414:20 421:9 I 424:17 445:4 508:4 | placed 402:25 462:4 I Plaintiff 270:4 271:2 plaintiffs 352:4 plaintiff's 302:9 planning 390:1 plant 276:20 277:1,5 278:5,16 279:23,24 280:2,3 300:6,18 311:11,17 312:20,21 313:6,9,19 314:13 316:4 317:12 325:1,7 Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 NEILL WEAVER 325:24 326:7 327:18 329:8,8,9,23 330:16 331:7 350:19 351:3,4 369:22 377:6 395:15 416:15 419:19 422:4 424:8,13,20,23 426:22 427:14 514:13 517:2 518:6 plants 278:17 279:20 299:19,24 315:7 513:7,11 play 500:1 plays 499:24 Plaza 313:16 314:12 please 273:14,24 288:7 292:23,24 323:6 341:25 351:15 422:25 423:10 447:14 475:22 476:22 507:16 523:17 pleura 442:10 PLV 509:8 pneumoconiosis 506:4 506:7,13 pockets 435:15 point 279:15 283:15 291:3,8,18 292:18 295:3 297:21 303:8 307:20 309:20 310:5 310:14 313:24 323:23 331:3 337:10 343:23 362:9 366:1 367:14,14 388:13 423:16,21 424:1 440:12 444:8 461:10 478:7 485:1 502:7 508:6 519:22 522:22 pointed 326:19 points 409:21 policies 316:2 polyolefin 303:2,3 population 365:2,6 367:15 368:6 372:4 372:23 373:17 375:25 377:17 389:21 390:14 398:3 414:6 417:6,13,22 426:19,20,25 427:1 427:13 448:6,10,17 448:18 449:6,8 452:23 453:21,25 458:15 468:18 471:6 499:19 500:10,20,21 500:23 501:5,9,22 502:1,2,11,12,18,18 503:1,18,21 506:2 510:21,24 512:18 populations 364:19,20 366:3 367:8 371:18 398:6,7 499:16,22 500:13 position 299:7 325:23 332:23 333:1,2,12,14 338:5 393:1 395:11 positions 285:20 possibility 477:6,25 509:1,1 possible 279:1 310:3 324:10,18 337:19 381:12 410:2 420:1 428:10,11 448:20 449:4 454:13 456:12 456:16,16 457:16,20 460:1 464:9,18,20 465:17,18 466:10 468:3 469:10 490:7 502:6 509:6 possibly 324:7 395:24 434:22 455:23 potential 279:1 284:21 284:23 305:11 306:4 306:7 313:25 318:8 319:3 321:16 322:7 322:13 332:10 381:10 505:4 507:4 515:12 516:8 potentially 306:8 316:13 317:11 powers 343:10 practicality 384:8 practices 316:2 practicing 275:8 precautions 338:12,18 precise 450:21 precisely 297:10 476:11 prefoce 412:18,20 preliminarily 431:2 preliminary 315:12,20 383:22 406:21 408:11431:7,8 432:6 432:12 439:13 440:19 preparation 341:17,20 404:12,16 486:9 prepare 336:4 prepared 297:25 301:23 329:16,22 412:6 439:14 440:20 preparing 335:23 presence 386:15 410:2 present 308:10 313:11 322:18 327:8,12 363:10 369:11432:1 462:2 478:1 500:1 521:23 presented 329:16 436:20 502:21 president 326:4 pressure 302:15 305:8 369:7 presumably 435:10 presumed 503:4 pretty 274:11 275:5 346:6,9,22 432:18 prevalence 389:20 390:13 preventing 337:1 preventive 275:17 516:9 previous 311:10 476:18 488:14 490:7 previously 479:18 485:9 511:13 522:22 523:25 primarily 281:19 primary 406:6,6 408:1 510:21 principal 440:11 principally 480:23 principles 290:25 291:1,4 prior 281:15 324:3,14 372:2,2 406:11427:4 429:7 434:13,16 471:21 484:6,22 516:12 private 361:11 probability 308:4 probably 317:3 325:12 334:14 357:13 417:25 424:24 476:21 477:5 problem 284:15 331:20 357:12,25 358:1,6 386:6 392:20 393:7 401:16 problems 311:12,18 313:10,19,25 315:2 325:2,8,16 326:7 327:19 329:23 330:17 331:7 procedure 270:25 307:10 457:9 519:18 519:24 520:1521:11 521:14,18 procedures 514:22 521:1,4,6,15 proceed 278:14 proceeded 476:8 523:2 proceedings 525:4 process 302:12,13,17 302:23 303:3,9,12,13 303:20,25 304:5,22 305:5,10 306:2 363:3 363:6,9 364:14,19 365:1,6 366:14,19 367:9,15 368:6 369:6 369:13,22 370:4,18 377:6 378:2,4,8,12 378:23 379:2,8,11 413:19 508:23 processes 302:21 317:25 377:1 produced 270:16 359:21 product 287:1,6,9,12 387:6 496:14,23,23 497:2,3 512:15 513:17 production 299:5,7,8 299:10,15 336:5 products 287:8,16 299:18 302:17 316:18,21,21 317:3 336:6 342:5 377:1 386:16,19 387:7 482:21 496:16,17,18 497:8,9,10,11 513:8 513:11,12,21 professional 342:21 344:21 353:5,6 361:19 362:10 professor 515:6,8,9,11 516:12 program 283:2 292:5 292:11,14 450:10 500:25 507:6 520:8 520:11 522:7 progression 279:17 project 412:5 projects 402:13 prolonging 513:23 prompted 516:5 promulgated 509:13 pronouncing 318:19 proofread 327:20 proper 365:15 381:25 455:14 482:12 properly 346:11 500:12 506:6 507:24 proportion 404:18. 406:10 ______________Page 17 prospective 434:6 $ protect 338:12 507:25 ! 523:13,21,24 524:7 I 524:10 I protecting 283:19 f protection 289:10 ! 345:25 346:3 356:12 I 381:11507:15,18 | 508:11,17,21 } protective 507:21 | 510:9 ! protocol 437:23,25 I 438:4 | prove 456:1 | proved 404:11,15 I 410:4 j provide 314:19 | provided 425:10,12 f 449:14,24 450:3 | providing 440:7 | proximity 518:18 1 public 270:21 281:1,! I 327:12 328:12 ! 335:22,25 355:22,25 1 356:5 487:5 516:16 I 525:14 526:19 | publication 301:18 I 307:21310:6,16,22 | 311:3,7 313:11 327:7 f 327:12,21328:16,19 I 328:24 380:18,23 I 382:17,20 383:19 f publications 283:1 308:3 310:13 I publish 276:24 327:16 | published 276:23 I 278:16 307:22 | 327:11328:13,25 I 329:13,17 331:8 336:7,17,18 382:22 411:6 505:24 pulmonary 278:25 279:11371:18 372:3 373:9,12,16,20 375:25 377:15,17,24 378:8,14 379:4,5,12 379:17 380:1,3 506:1 507:12 pulmonology 275:21 276:14 purchasing 416:15,21 418:14 419:5 purpose 313:18 327:9 386:14,21 411:4 434:19 524:9 purposes 320:16 Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 NEILL WEAVER 353:24 pursuant 270:24 pushed 515:19 put 313:8 354:16 382:20 410:20 p.m 270:20 438:9,10 439:1 524:17 _______ Q_______ qualifications 353:5,7 quantity 392:23 question 279:3 281:5 284:25 285:1,10 286:9,10 287:5,19,22 288:8 291:20 292:24 293:17 297:13 301:22 319:17 320:12 326:23 330:20 331:24 337:24 341:8 343:7 343:24 351:15,25 353:24 355:11 357:14 362:1,2,17 365:25 366:1 367:14 370:9,17 372:25 374:22 377:16 381:21 388:19 390:8 391:2 393:10 395:8 413:17 417:9 432:25 435:21 444:22 451:3 456:23 457:17 459:16 462:17,18,20 466:15 473:2 475:22 485:19 490:17 494:22 512:5,14 513:9 515:23 523:17 questioning 331:13 337:5 363:5 400:2 424:2 431:16 questions 274:12 287:21 337:25 352:15 365:24 432:18,21 435:6 497:15,25 505:3 517:25 quick 466:2 quickly 374:6 424:7 439:22 505:21 509:16 Quigley 270:6 273:4 quit 436:25 524:12 quite 279:6 292:8 355:20 382:2 391:15 403:15 424:6 445:20 460:25 quotation 381:13 _________R ............... R 273:1 Radcliff493:9,13 raise 286:3 raised 275:4 465:22 505:4 ran 369:7 random 502:10,11,17 range 366:22 375:22 ranks 349:1,9 350:12 rare 277:9 445:17,20 446:6 452:13 463:20 rate 295:23 296:3,5,8 380:21 420:2 450:5 450:24 452:17,22 453:17 rates 389:20 390:13 449:22 450:11,13 raw 451:9 RDR 270:21 reaching 348:4 read 278:10 312:7 328:14334:15,17 335:16 336:12 338:2 373:10 376:15 381:15,22 387:17 388:20 389:24 393:21 394:1,5,11 400:3 402:13 403:1,5 403:10,16 404:10,20 409:20 410:5 416:18 417:8 419:11,14 420:4 421:16 426:19 428:7,21 430:4 435:8 435:15 436:23,24 441:23 442:12 450:25 464:8 475:25 476:3,20 477:4 478:10 486:5,14 489:20 490:2,22 525:2 readers 376:16,20,20 readily 337:18 403:10 514:20 reading 401:18 417:5 431:15 reads 334:3 390:5 489:19 ready 327:21 real 386:14 426:11 439:22 447:4 454:11 474:16 476:3,21 477:5 490:2 reality 385:15 461:9 realized 454:15 really 283:14 294:1 297:5 308:13 329:13 351:4 388:22 393:5 415:1 443:9,13 446:5 446:18 454:16 457:8 457:23 458:19 461:6 465:10 466:4 469:23 475:5,11 487:15 510:25 reason 274:21 279:14 297:9,10 307:14 353:2 357:10 391:3 391:11 432:5 434:7 487:7 521:13 reasonable 336:24 337:1 338:5,7 339:20 340:2,8 473:17 492:21 reasonably 324:22 472:11,14,16,19,21 473:7,9 474:2,5 reasons 409:1 reassign 402:12 recall 278:7,10 284:19 289:2 292:10 297:9 297:21 298:1 309:15 310:21 325:3,12,18 333:7,8 346:20,22,24 347:15 349:21 357:12 358:8 375:11 380:10,14 399:14 503:25 516:17 519:19,21 520:14 recalled 298:1 receive 514:4 received 292:1 302:11 387:13 401:3 404:11 404:15 507:14 Recess 332:18 371:8 439:25 497:17,20 512:9 519:13 recessed 438:10 recipient 292:15 reciprocal 293:6 recognize 289:20 301:9 493:21 recognized 278:25 279:11,21 348:23 402:23 511:8 recollection 326:17,18 357:17,22 395:20 396:22 397:8,11 recommendation 321:20 401:23 recommended 476:8 476:12 reconvened 438:10 record 295:5 332:16,20 338:2 371:5,11 388:20 389:15 393:23 394:8 411:24 438:6 439:4,24 440:2 472:25 473:9 497:19 497:22 512:6,8,11 515:4 519:10,11,15 524:13 526:10 records 389:15 399:24 400:5,6,17 401:8 486:8,10,11 recovery 416:14 RECROSS 518:1 redact 330:19 REDIRECT 497:23 redoing 500:4 reduce 458:2 459:23 465:13 470:14 496:19 509:4,16 reduced 485:4 488:19 526:9 reduction 470:18 reexplain 517:3 refer 323:18 326:20 327:9 447:14 498:2,6 503:23 509:7 511:16 reference 329:19 365:13 422:24 423:1 referenced 321:5 references 330:4,7,22 475:6,8,11 referred 328:15 332:13 498:15 503:9 509:19 510:15,17 referring 286:17 342:17 437:6 refineries 299:18 349:23 350:7 359:8 368:17 375:2 413:5 441:5 447:12 451:25 455:11 469:2 477:17 478:5,9,14 479:1 481:18 486:12,13 513:7,10,12 514:15 518:21 519:4,5 refinery 280:1 299:24 300:17 311:24 312:12,15,23 315:3 315:21 316:12,16 325:24 326:8,25 328:5,9,11 332:9 339:6 341:14 342:3 342:20 346:17,20 347:1,14,18 348:6,22 349:19 350:4,7 ______________Page 18 351:10 352:6 366:16 l 368:22 373:4 375:16 I 376:17 377:23 i 394:22,24 395:5 I 396:12,17,20 397:5 ! 399:11,15 406:2 I 412:5 413:4,6,18 I 415:18,21416:10,12 I 434:17 439:13 f 440:19 448:4 451:20 I 452:14,15,17,22 | 453:11,21 454:21,24 I 455:4478:17,21,25 I 479:13 480:2,4 482:1 | 482:6,9 484:7,23 I 485:8,11488:10 I 496:14 498:9,23,25 | 499:3,6,12 500:6,9 | 500:11,15,22 501:20 ! 502:24 503:8,24 | 511:5,14,16,19,25 I 514:17,21,25 518:18 f 521:22 | refining 300:1 326:22 I 326:25 328:5,8,10 ! 372:24 f reflected 502:2 | reflects 512:17 | refute 461:22 | regarding 500:4 507:15,18 regardless 289:18 412:12 492:23 512:15 513:4 regulation 284:11 285:24 336:16,18 341:3 regulations 285:16 286:22 287:20 288:12 340:24 341:5 relate 405:13 481:6 related 347:22 351:12 354:6 358:2 395:22 398:14,17,21 399:5 423:25 424:4 432:8 441:15 444:6 477:7 507:8 526:12 relates 411:18 relating 418:20 relationship 293:6 relative 366:13 403:6 526:14 relatively 409:25 421:15 502:8 release 341:24 342:2 released 342:4 383:2 Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 NEILL WEAVER relevant 279:14 281:11 283:24 284:8,12 352:23 reliance 402:25 relied 425:16 reluctant 294:6 rely 385:8 remain 334:10 remaining 402:10 remarkable 379:13 381:8,8 382:2 remarkably 454:4 remarked 510:17 remember 293:21 294:1 297:12 310:23 339:10 349:17 371:19 378:5 444:16 447:8 487:3 520:10 remind 447:10 505:22 removal 342:7 remove 334:13 removed 322:24 334:15 removing 305:21 322:21 renowned 487:8 repair 521:22 repeat 292:24 341:7 351:15 462:18 513:9 523:16 repeated 495:17 repetitively 508:7 rephrase 351:25 352:2 report 300:24 311:11 311:17 313:14 315:5 315:6,11 317:21 321:15 323:16 325:5 326:11 327:14 329:22 330:15,16 332:14 333:7,8,11,23 333:25 335:9,15,18 335:23 336:4,13 337:11371:24372:3 372:5,11,17 382:3,22 382:23 388:9 393:9 393:10,19 394:14,18 394:18 395:24 401:9 405:5,6,16 406:1 408:10,11,14,21 412:4,19,20 413:1,2 421:5 425:5,5,7,11 425:22,24 426:4,8 427:25 428:1 439:13 440:19 441:2,20 450:1 463:14,16,16 464:14 474:19,21 475:2,3,12,17,24 476:13,14 487:15,16 489:15,16 498:6 502:8 504:11,17 512:24 513:1,3 520:23 521:5,7 reported 270:22 300:12 364:10 381:1 381:1 383:4 392:23 397:9,16 403:20 404:2 406:13,21 411:20,20 428:2,4 429:2,23 433:6 437:20 455:17 501:12,16 504:5 511:11,19 512:17 reporter 273:11,24 526:1,4 reporting 273:10,12 300:7 395:1,17,21 396:15,18,24 399:6,7 399:13 402:4,8 403:14 431:5 504:22 504:23 reports 301:1,4,7,10,11 301:13,14,16,23 302:1,2,6,9,11 387:12 391:21,25 401:3 428:6,11 514:9 514:11 517:5 repository 466:12 represent 273:15 301:12 311:10 352:13 359:12 representative 311:3 342:11398:2 448:17 470:25 471:1,6,15,16 472:15 473:10 474:3 492:14 495:22 represented 488:22 representing 392:7 request 360:14,16 447:20 requested 338:2 359:23 388:20 486:12 require 340:24 required 384:19 393:10,24 394:9,14 394:18 396:7,23 397:3,15 399:2 401:13 402:8 requirements 302:16 305:8 399:12 reread 288:6 research 282:19 283:1 283:1 284:4 410:18 412:20 470:3 473:22 492:25 498:13,22 researchers 404:3 410:24 432:17 449:15 472:8 490:18 493:4 resent 495:13 respect 280:22,24 284:4 285:20,23 289:7 302:5 310:13 342:22 346:6 381:9 422:22 456:20 499:17 507:1,13 508:1,5 510:20 511:23 521:18 respectively 477:23 respirators 345:10 519:19 respiratory 345:25 346:3 407:7 408:2,7 409:11 418:5 419:1,6 419:14,20 423:8,12 423:17 442:9 443:4 444:3,9 507:15,18,21 508:11,17,21 respond 308:13 320:14 433:20 477:3 487:11 responsibilities 298:19 300:2,16 522:9 responsibility 298:20 299:7,20 300:5,13,21 300:21 304:7,13 313:24 326:1 360:13 responsible 304:9 rest 493:10,19,23 494:24 restart 326:23 404:14 restate 288:7 restricted 373:7 restrictions 280:23 285:14 result 434:17 440:6 478:1 resulted 447:20 results 372:8 402:5,17 425:22,25 437:11 retail 373:2 retained 301:12 302:2 302:9 479:19 retired 298:5 427:15 428:12,17 retirees 436:21,21 retirement 428:23 433:15 436:18,25 return 363:25 486:10 returned 486:24 review 301:4 312:13 320:7 383:18 411:14 470:24 501:15 514:5 514:8,9 reviewed 278:13 301:1 301:7,11,13,16,17 302:1 501:7 reviewers 383:19 reviewing 500:5 rewarded 292:13 re-ask 279:3 281:5 297:13 308:15 319:17 330:20 343:9 343:25 374:22 377:15 390:8 391:1 393:9 413:16 444:21 462:20 466:15 494:22 521:4 Richard 487:4 right 275:9 276:11,21 278:11 279:12,18 280:4,11 281:25 282:5 287:10 288:14 289:6,11,15 293:19 294:11 295:1 296:5 298:8,9 299:24 300:14,18 302:18 304:21 305:25 306:13,16,25 309:14 311:20 312:6 313:3 313:12 314:24 315:3 315:7 316:9,18,25 317:3,6,8,12,16,21 318:14319:2,17 321:2,6,17,18,23 323:1,19 324:3,7 325:11,25 326:25 327:23 328:14 329:1 329:24 330:9 331:8 331:23 332:5,11 333:20 334:1 336:7 336:14,20 337:8,14 337:19 338:14,19 339:2,6,17 342:15 346:2 347:6,25 348:2 352:8,19,22,24353:9 354:4 355:1 356:8 358:23 360:3,18 361:12 363:7,11,13 363:24 364:14,15,20 365:7 366:6,21 367:25 368:7,13,14 369:11 372:18 373:13,19,23 374:10 374:13 376:2 377:7,9 378:10,16 379:21,25 ______________Page 19 380:9 381:18 382:7 ! 382:12 383:9 385:4,5 ! 385:9 386:1,13,17 i 387:8,22 388:1,3,5 I 388:17 390:9 393:19 ! 394:24396:9 398:6 | 398:10 399:3,24 I 400:25 401:20 I 403:22 404:24 I 405:12 406:7,14 I 407:4,9,23 408:8 I 409:12 412:22 | 413:22,24 414:4,11 | 414:16 415:5,22 I 416:22 417:3,8 418:3 I 418:10 419:2,16,20 | 420:8,21421:5 422:12 424:17,18 I 425:17 426:16,17 I 427:16,22 428:9 | 429:9,11430:9,23 I 431:11,14,16,23 ! 432:8,15 433:25 I 435:3 436:8 437:4,15 ! 441:9,14 442:18 | 443:15 444:10 I 445:11446:20 f 447:16 450:1,5,7 | 451:18,25 452:19 | 453:4,9,19 454:12 I 455:13 456:8,25 I 458:7,24 459:25 f 460:25 462:16 463:4 1 463:12,18 464:9,22 466:2,16 467:13,20 | 468:9,23 469:20 I 473:4 475:1,2,6,7,10 f 475:12 476:24 | 479:13 481:15 482:1 f 482:2 483:24 484:11 484:18,24 486:3 I 487:21488:4,10,16 ! 488:20 490:25 491:2 I 491:9 494:17,18,21 I 495:11496:11 497:13 519:4,8 I 522:12 I rightfully 440:12 445:5 | ring 493:22 I rip 508:11 f ripped 307:7 | ripping 306:13 307:3 I risk 277:8,13,21,25 ! 279:16 285:3,6,9 | 418:25 419:6,12,19 I 423:22 474:15 476:1 1 Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 NEILL WEAVER 476:21 477:5,19 478:3 489:24 490:1 Robert 298:23 299:1 Robins 271:4 Rockefeller 313:16 314:12 role 499:24 500:2,2 Rouge 276:20 280:1,7 346:20 347:1,14,17 348:6,22 351:10 352:6 394:22 395:12 397:24 398:6 406:1 rough 293:22 routine 361:7,13 routinely 350:4 428:7 429:7 466:16,20 Roy 333:17 rude 466:4 rule 490:6 ruled 477:9,25 Rules 270:24 run 456:13 rung 515:20 running 302:21 368:13 440:6 445:3 runs 447:23 451:13 ________ S_________ S 272:11 273:1 safe 510:5,8 safer 513:18,18,22 safety 284:6 289:5,14 299:24 300:5,17 308:8 309:6 313:23 325:24329:8 333:17 334:6 335:2 345:8 356:16 359:12,17 416:10 507:2 508:4 516:6 520:5 salary 293:22 294:2 sales 373:2,2,2 salesmen 376:9 salvage 416:14 Sam 301:4 sample 339:8,12,22 340:9,14 342:11,23 343:17 344:3,13,14 345:1 402:4 403:7 415:18 422:19 470:25 471:2,6,15,16 472:15 473:10 474:3 492:14 495:22 samples 341:13,16,19 342:14,19 344:6 360:23 361:15 362:5 457:18 466:16,24 467:1 499:21 sampling 339:5 340:3 344:17 514:13 San 498:22 sand 377:20 sanders 285:21 satisfactory 402:24 satisfied 515:6,11,25 516:1 saved 467:7,8 saving 513:23 saw 341:13 379:25 380:1 508:13,17 511:9 saying 278:11309:16 329:2 367:12 397:24 398:12 462:8 471:8 471:12,13 473:7 493:11 495:15 519:25 says 318:13 326:5 330:5 364:4 372:14 396:9,10 404:4 449:21 475:5 493:20 scenario 306:1 350:16 scheduling 522:7 science 471:4 487:9 499:16 scientific 281:19 282:12,14,24 284:4 319:11,19,23 320:20 327:17 329:1 382:21 383:18,20 410:25 411:6,17 461:9 520:18 524:1,2 screw 295:4 screwed 473:6 screwing 472:21 search 299:14 441:18 443:21,22 444:5,14 445:2 second 310:24 330:5 333:24 399:25 400:3 404:9 406:5 412:19 485:24 489:25 secondary 518:11 secretaries 415:25 427:6 section 301:18 409:19 secure 402:3 security 413:24 416:4 416:15,24 418:13 419:5 424:7,12 427:7 441:9 500:21 see 274:24 277:11 279:4 302:14,16 309:21 323:8 325:5 328:6 330:17 343:3 343:11,15,21 344:12 363:1,17 364:6 376:19 382:25 383:7 383:11 386:18 387:14 389:9 390:6 390:15 394:2 401:15 406:24 408:3 410:10 410:12,13 412:19 413:7 417:9 434:23 435:17 439:18 443:14 446:3 447:6,9 453:11 454:10,11 455:17,18 457:7 459:23 475:7,16 476:10 478:12 484:20 487:16 493:2 493:3 496:8 506:15 509:22 512:14 517:5 seeing 345:1 407:6 seen 274:8,18 304:22 308:10 310:20,21 311:6,7 312:10 325:12 333:4 345:7 345:11,15 359:9,10 359:14,17 404:13,17 SEER 450:13 Segarra 301:8 302:10 segment 299:15,17 selected 364:22,25 368:25 373:7 410:3 selection 387:14 388:8 389:3,12 425:21 selections 389:11 Selikoff 406:16,22 408:5 409:3 503:9,11 503:13,17,21,25 SeUkofTs 375:8,15 503:10 send 360:25 361:15 362:20 sending 361:11 398:20 senior 498:21 sense 293:7 334:3,24 388:22 sensitivity 379:13 sent 361:5,6,23 385:16 385:21 440:21 449:1 sentence 278:22 373:12 387:17 388:21 399:25 400:3 403:13 489:17,19 490:4 separated 486:8 separately 450:9 September 330:6 412:6 seriously 403:9 service 281:2 335:23 335:25 355:22 356:1 411:16 436:18,22 484:6 487:5 516:16 SESSION 439:1 sessions 507:20 508:5 set 505:12 seven 374:18 375:14 518:21 severe 374:17 375:12 418:5 sex 449:3 501:1,2 shared 283:2 293:10 335:17 341:16,19 sheds 422:21 Sheila 270:20 273:11 526:4,18 SHIGH 509:11,15 shipbuilding 375:13,16 476:11 478:6 shipment 486:10 shipped 486:17 shipyard 454:20,21,25 455:1 476:6 477:24 480:6 483:24 484:4,5 484:11,17,24 485:4 485:10 488:8 490:7 shipyards 455:10 476:14 478:13,20 481:15,17 488:14 short 353:14 375:14 403:6 431:3,9 504:2 shortcomings 430:17 shorter 480:18 shorthand 270:22 526:9 show 359:24 418:18 431:11 514:11 showed 311:3 379:13 418:16,24 419:12 showing 297:11 shut 304:23 shuts 304:15,17 sick415:9 435:13,17 436:2,4,11 side 281:24,25 282:21 299:8,10 300:18 330:24 377:6,7 493:4 518:5 522:3,3 sided 290:18,21 significance 279:1 489:5,6 significant 277:4 278:23 279:10 306:8 307:17 374:13 ______________Page 20 380:15 407:23 ! 435:22 499:24 ! 509:22 522:2 j significantly 515:13 | Silbcrstcin 432:24,24 I silica 278:24 279:11 I 316:8 317:16 318:9 | 318:11,16 319:13,19 f 319:25 320:2,5,17,20 f 321:1,6,16,21322:8 I 322:13 323:24 324:2 I 324:15,19 332:9 I 515:18 516:4 | silicate 323:11,24,24 | silicates 323:8,10,15,23 f 323:25 324:6 | silicosis 277:25 318:10 ! 322:14 I similar 280:3,5 298:19 I 441:7 j simple 291:3 309:13 I 409:25 | simpler 291:18 362:18 I simply 309:16 347:21 l 459:3 468:7 470:15 I 471:25 511:25 f single 307:21 310:6 1 422:19 471:13 ! sir 278:15 280:14 i 281:23 289:9 291:3 1 292:22 293:1,10,19 I 294:7 295:22297:12 I 299:4 300:9 301:20 I 305:18 306:12 307:6 I 307:14 308:21 I 309:20 310:24 I 311:13 315:17,25 I 324:22 325:21 I 330:23 332:22 333:4 I 333:23 334:2 335:8 I 335:21,25 336:10 | 338:4 339:3,20 I 341:25 342:9 343:9 I 344:12 345:9 346:14 I 346:14 347:2,11 I 348:11,24 351:17 I 352:2,13 353:1,6,20 I 354:15 356:3 358:4 I 362:1,13 363:14,20 I 369:18 370:9 371:25 l 372:11 377:21 380:4 \ 380:19 381:2 383:1 I 386:4,11,12 389:13 I 389:23 390:2,5,20 I 392:21,24 393:5,8,17 ! 393:18,19 394:3,21 | Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 NEILL WEAVER 395:11399:21 404:7 405:6 406:3,23 407:25 409:19 410:8 412:11,19 414:16 415:16 417:12,25 418:12,23 419:23 420:12 422:17 424:7 425:15,20 426:4,10 426:18 427:10 428:1 429:12,25 430:22 434:2,21 435:23 436:1,10,15 437:4,10 437:18 438:5 439:16 439:21 440:16 441:19 443:20,25 446:1,3,14 449:19 455:16,25 456:8,23 457:17 458:13 459:5 459:16 460:24 462:7 463:6,8,15 464:3 469:13 470:5 472:3 475:23 476:18 477:2 478:21 479:21 483:14 485:18,24 486:17 487:5 488:25 489:9,16 493:13 494:15,20 495:9,20 495:24 497:7 519:23 520:16 521:19 522:13,14 523:10,10 523:19 524:6 sit 397:20 site 276:4 406:6 442:11 513:18 sites 406:6 408:1 sitting 496:8 situated 517:22 situation 344:8,10 349:3 408:24 situations 344:5 six 316:24 375:14 479:17 sizable 404:18 504:7 size 453:16 skUl 479:10 skin 330:7 470:2 slides 470:24 slightly 442:1 slowly 400:5 small 317:20,24 334:10 334:18 403:7 410:4 smaller 334:14 SMR 420:1 Social 500:21 Society 356:9 somebody 306:14 358:14,17 364:3 366:16 374:24 428:17 445:16 467:6 483:17 491:15 492:5 492:17,22,24 496:3 497:1 523:5,13 somebody's 309:3 someplace 521:3 somewhat 280:7 282:23 288:4 297:10 348:1 503:12 soon 497:4 sophisticated 511:12 sorry 279:5 293:10 294:23 295:17 296:13 301:20 327:4 327:8 342:1 394:2 405:3,20 417:10 439:22 447:8 450:21 466:1,3 468:7 472:19 474:20 476:25 508:15 513:10 sort 451:10 sought 357:6 source 385:24 460:4 sources 299:14 335:24 Southern 461:19 so-called 436:21 spaces 375:13 Spalding 271:19 spanned 325:21 speak 292:23 341:25 355:3 speaking 283:4 293:5 360:2 405:5 451:14 494:18,20 speaks 331:1 380:18,23 381:7 382:1 422:14 422:17 497:6 special 441:18 444:5 447:20,23 461:6 469:8 483:11 specialists 448:12,21 449:18 specific 300:4 315:5,6 324:2 339:10 342:14 357:16,17,22 368:10 368:15,21 370:10,18 375:11 387:6 416:11 442:21 449:21 474:11 494:23 508:8 512:15 513:4 519:21 specifically 299:23 301:23 315:11 323:16,17 325:13 332:8 335:21 336:4 372:5 373:15 406:18 407:25 427:10 430:21 432:8 443:4 444:12,23 446:23 466:6 494:12,16 495:1497:10 514:19 524:7 specifications 497:6 513:16,16 specifics 366:2 specimens 466:9 spectrum 354:23 speculate 309:2 313:22 352:11 spent 358:12 518:14,20 519:2 spills 482:19 split 482:18 519:3 sponsored 386:22 390:11 412:21 425:7 SRI 449:24,24 450:3 451:8,9,9 486:11,17 486:20 498:6 SRI's 486:9 staff 331:2 362:10 402:12 516:7 staggered 522:6 stamped 314:21 327:22 328:1 stand 450:20 standard 328:16 329:4 333:17,19 420:1,18 450:24 519:17,23 520:1,25 521:5,11,17 523:11 standardized 389:15 standards 284:7 standing 307:5,6,15 508:23 Stanford 492:24 498:13,21 start 334:7 389:24 449:20 started 290:1 348:25 349:7 351:2,4,18 463:11 469:16 470:10 starting 388:18 435:6 starts 390:4,5 416:8 state 273:14 277:16 281:7 282:18,19 302:22 311:8 319:11 336:16 338:18 356:1 356:6 357:24 358:3,5 358:7,15 393:9,11,25 394:10,14,19 395:2 395:18,22 396:8,16 396:23 397:1,9,14 399:3,12 412:20 499:17 522:20 stated 285:20 303:7 311:7 315:22 324:12 327:15 389:7 402:20 419:22 442:10 523:9 statement 285:17 287:15 288:2,5 289:22 309:19 312:7 312:11314:10 344:4 353:1 369:20 388:19 392:4 409:7 419:17 420:14 434:24 461:12,22 465:4 467:3 473:16,19 474:14 493:6,20 495:20 523:7 statements 399:23 states 334:25 393:20 398:24 406:9,13 421:12 448:14,18 449:7 452:6,8 454:1 461:19 485:25 486:13 487:5 500:20 501:12,16 526:2 statistical 402:12 489:4 499:21 statistics 451:11 499:24 stay 303:10 304:1,6,23 349:24 368:23 370:19 stemmed 402:1 step 459:5 Steptoe 270:23 Stewart 435:6 stipulate 320:17 stomach 470:2,23 stop 384:9 392:9 402:11 465:22 stopped 391:18 storage 481:2 story 282:21 349:5 493:5,10,19,23 494:24 straightforward 352:15 strained 276:3 strange 512:5 streams 316:20 Street 271:13 stressed 500:2 ssttrreiktceh34549:75:13591:2 445:18 483:15 _____________ Page 21 499:20 506:20 | striving 510:11 I studied 507:7 512:25 I studies 370:3 408:19 I 408:25 412:11,13,14 f 414:17 429:18 432:1 I 432:19 437:18,19 ! 440:9,10 492:9 498:1 I 498:3,7,9,23,25 I 499:3,6,10,13,21,25 I 500:13 503:10,11,24 f 511:1,12,14,17,20,25 I study 365:4,5,11 366:2 I 371:17,20 372:8,10 f 372:13,22,23 373:7 | 373:16 375:9,11,24 I 376:21377:18 378:7 I 378:13 379:14,16 I 380:4,7,13,24,25 I 381:4,7,19,23,24 I 382:1,1,8,10,14 ! 383:7,9,16,19,22 I 384:2,2,7,13,19 ! 385:3,19 386:3,14,21 387:19 389:17 390:11,22 391:1,4,6 391:12,16,18 392:2,9 392:14 393:17 395:9 398:20 400:14 401:14,19 402:7 403:15,20 404:6,23 405:4 406:24 407:24 408:12,23 409:4,8,10 409:12 412:1,5 413:3 413:5,17,21414:2,11 414:22,25 415:15,16 415:19 416:8,20 417:4,6,7,13,21,23 418:12,19 419:4,25 420:2,24 421:9,10,19 421:23,24 422:3,5,6 422:11,14,19,21,25 423:2,6 424:5 425:1 425:13,15,25 426:1,3 426:11,14,19,23 427:1,3,9,23 428:13 428:15,16 429:11,16 429:23 430:3,15,16 430:17,21,21 431:1,7 431:10 432:12,16,22 433:9,25 434:7,9,20 434:22,25 435:1,20 435:23 436:5,15 437:1 439:9,12,17 440:5,6,12,18,25 441:14,15 443:8 Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 NEILL WEAVER 445:7 447:6 448:17 450:18 454:1,8 455:15 459:7,21 463:6 464:13 465:1 467:14 469:1470:4 471:5 474:10 476:17 481:7 482:6 483:18 483:23 484:5,10,18 485:5 488:23 494:20 494:23 498:4,12,15 498:18,19 499:16,19 502:17 503:13 504:4 504:7,18,20,23,24 505:24506:4,11 510:16 511:6,8 512:16,21,24 513:5 studying 467:15 471:10 510:21 subcommittee 401:23 subject 290:5 293:11 296:23 301:21 383:18 408:11 482:21 514:25 submissions 388:24 submit 432:18 submitted 388:11 subscribe 437:4 subscribed 435:10 525:15 subsequent 428:22 subspecialty 275:15,17 276:14 substance 297:14 305:12 320:21 365:10 415:1 substances 386:16 421:16 substitute 496:22 497:2 substitution 496:20 subtitle 315:1 Success 349:5 successful 409:24 sufficient 334:12 391:23 sufficiently 401:12 Suite 271:6,20 sulfide 317:4 sulfides 317:2 sum 427:20 435:4,12 435:19 summaries 411:9 summarize 445:7 summarized 410:20 summarizing 411:1 summary 278:22 279:8 311:11,17 312:20 313:9,19 315:12,14 315:19 316:24 325:1 325:7,16 326:7 327:18 329:23 330:16 331:7 386:1 386:11 387:10 404:17 413:1 429:22 430:2,3,22 super 343:10 superficial 403:15 supermarket 369:23 supervise 349:23 supervisor 484:22,23 488:2 supervisors 523:1 support 365:18,22 402:7 supported 489:10 supportive 489:21 supposed 309:9 431:1 432:5 suppress 336:13 suppression 509:3 sure 278:11292:8 294:5 305:8 306:24 311:15 320:7 324:10 331:12 337:17 363:22 383:14 385:18 393:13 451:16 494:2 517:17 Surgeon 461:18 surprise 286:1,10 292:16 433:16 452:2 471:21 surprised 292:4 surprising 382:2 survey 315:12,20 410:13 449:23 surveys 410:17 survive 359:16,18 survived 359:13 susceptibilities 277:17 swear 273:24 sweep 337:17 sweeping 345:17,20 346:5,10 swept 520:21 switching 340:5 sworn 270:18 274:3 525:15 526:7 syndrome 276:9 system 406:10,18 407:7 407:7 408:2,2,7 409:11 419:1,7,14,20 T T 272:11 Tabershaw 463:13 Tabershaw-Cooper 463:15 464:13 table 403:16 404:17 406:23,24 407:2 408:2 436:20 487:14 487:17,18,19 488:13 tables 404:13,16 taboo 346:6,9 take 278:8,19 331:10 331:22 332:15 336:16,19 338:5,12 338:17 339:21 340:8 340:9,14342:11,22 344:13 345:1 353:11 373:22 374:18 411:22 427:19,20 438:5 470:22 471:1 471:14 472:14 473:10 508:4 taken 270:18 342:19 344:6 450:22 460:7 476:5 485:14 501:15 526:5,8,14 talent 348:23 talk 275:4 291:4 314:5 315:9 323:17 372:7,8 372:9 384:25 393:4 412:24 416:7 421:7 426:13 429:22 430:19 433:13 440:17 441:2 443:11 459:22 490:23 516:22 520:6 talked 275:6 279:16 324:25 337:7 359:7 363:6,9 383:8,16 412:1 talking 289:18 293:11 297:8 305:23 311:20 323:16 337:15 344:17 356:17 398:8 407:25 419:25 435:3 441:11 473:25 516:17 tape 370:24 389:24 524:12 task 486:1,6 508:9 521:23,24 522:9 taught 507:24 tax 297:11 technical 281:19 282:14 350:24 351:1 technicians 376:18 techniques 409:22 technologists 361:21 376:17 514:22 516:6 teenagers 453:23 telephone 273:21 teU 282:18 284:2,16 285:4 294:23 295:4 301:16 303:3 304:7 308:20 314:8 325:15 326:19 329:9 331:23 332:1 339:8,24 340:15 344:2347:19 349:13,25 361:16 362:3 371:1 380:12 380:16 381:22 385:6 393:20 403:4 409:19 417:4,4 421:12,20 430:3 432:10 435:7 452:4 458:13 459:5 461:21 464:6 468:25 469:6 475:24 478:19 479:24 480:1 482:3,7 482:10 486:23 489:6 490:20 491:4 495:10 508:13,16,20,22 telling 335:15 336:11 336:12 397:13 402:16 447:4,18 448:7,13 452:16 458:2 464:3 491:24 519:18 520:15 teUs 402:22 435:24 461:19 496:3 temperature 302:15 305:8 tend 502:19 tenet 502:4 tenure 515:16 term 414:11,13 436:21 terminate 392:3,14 401:24 408:21 409:3 terminated 384:3,7,13 385:3 386:3 408:14 436:19 terminating 389:19 termination 384:18 392:5,6 terms 293:6 309:13 508:8,8 test 447:13 testified 274:3 284:8 testify 283:9 testifying 279:5 283:16 293:14 295:13 testimony 283:17 447:15 525:3 526:6,8 526:11 ______________Page 22 testing 341:1 % tests 461:6 507:11,12 I Texaco 280:18 363:17 f 364:4 378:4 385:12 I 504:16 1 Texas 270:5,24 271:7 I 271:15,21273:6 ! 280:3 315:21 396:23 f textile 374:18 516:13 ! 516:18,20,23 1 thank273:23 293:9 | 295:3 296:20 305:19 I 315:18 327:5 328:21 I 363:25 370:16 I 372:12 386:8 405:24 f 412:10 413:16 424:5 | 444:18 445:1453:24 1 474:9 489:9 497:13 | Thanks 282:9 | theory 437:5 | thereof525:6 I thing 277:19 290:16,21 \ 291:6,7 304:23 I 320:25 336:20,22,24 \ 350:18 363:24 413:2 I 422:11427:13 \ 444:10 451:10 | 470:21 493:2 502:1 ! things 274:10 275:6 1 276:8 278:12,14 I 279:9 280:4 281:11 I 281:14 282:16 I 291:14 300:14303:4 \ 305:9 313:25 316:4 I 325:6 326:6 328:18 ! 330:8 333:16 335:12 I 336:11337:15,17 I 340:6 360:14 376:17 | 379:15 387:2 410:15 ! 412:8,24 423:7 I 436:13 444:3,4,9,17 i 454:15 459:24 I 483:11517:9 I think 274:9 276:17 I 279:14 281:18 ! 282:23 285:16 287:6 I 290:8,10,11,17 | 291:25 294:15,20 | 296:17,21310:2 I 318:14,24322:3 ! 323:21324:21 I 336:24 341:13 i 342:10,17 352:25 | 355:9 357:11358:16 | 361:14,21362:2,3,19 ! 362:24 388:21 390:4 \ Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 NEILL WEAVER 391:14 397:23 425:3 426:10 429:25 431:10 433:14 450:20 459:4,4 461:24,25 462:1,2,21 462:23 466:3 467:9 473:3,8,22 484:21 485:7 490:16 493:6,8 500:17 501:24 504:3 510:10 516:15 521:2 522:18 thinking 301:20 third 361:12,15 362:4 362:21 372:20 403:3 423:12 428:20 441:21 442:2 449:20 449:23 485:24 Thorpe 372:14,15,22 505:25 thought 287:24 288:23 320:5,10 333:5,11 335:11 368:6,11 369:5 433:22 434:3 445:4 464:6 473:5 thousand 420:12 501:11 thousands 316:15,17 317:18,25 three 337:25 339:23 372:1 393:17 401:2 403:12 416:11 442:2 472:23 473:3 481:18 483:21 484:3 488:7 488:12,21,24 515:18 threshold 369:17 threw 455:1 456:2 Thrower 273:9 throwing 455:8,9 tdt 503:5 time 273:8 278:8 280:7 282:9 284:14 290:4 293:22,24 294:2,10 295:4,6,10 296:24 297:2 298:5 311:1 313:22 319:12 325:14,20 326:2 331:6 332:2,3,17,20 337:12 339:15,19 340:1,18 341:2 343:2 346:20 347:4,9 348:10 349:21,24 350:13 353:8 355:20 357:17 358:12,16 338721::167,123,9166:1327,42:317 399:13,14 400:7 405:2 417:7 431:9 432:22 438:7 439:5 439:24 440:2 447:13 450:11 462:2,10 463:3 464:9 473:17 477:3 479:3 480:2 481:18 482:12 487:2 489:9 493:10,19 496:5 497:14,19,22 500:1 503:22 509:19 509:22 510:23 512:8 512:11514:1516:19 518:10,14,19,20,24 518:24 519:2,3,12,15 520:18 522:22 523:12,20 524:14 times 296:21 352:3 369:10 403:12,19 453:18 472:23 473:2 473:7 518:8 522:8 time-weighted 340:19 tiny 400:13 tissue 457:5,6,19,21 458:17,23 459:25 460:2,4,11,12 465:19 466:11,12,14,20,24 466:25 467:5,8,11,12 467:25 492:14 495:23 tissues 456:17 474:3 title 294:23,24 315:22 328:9 404:7 412:4 505:25 titled 313:9 326:22,24 titles 416:10,12 TLV 339:18 today 274:9 278:9 290:5 292:23 293:13 294:10 295:6,12,23 326:17 332:2,4 333:13,14 341:17 347:11 348:11,13,17 351:12 352:7,22 353:3 397:20 462:20 462:21 463:21,23 464:12 472:3,3 473:25 497:14 505:21 510:17 Today's 273:7 told 289:20 302:12 307:23 308:21,23 312:4 333:5,10 335:9 339:3 346:14 387:19 401:19 413:3 453:10 453:13 489:15 493:9 493:18 tools 507:9 top 299:23 300:4 314:22 328:7 346:16 346:25 349:2,7,19 350:3,20,23 351:8,20 352:5 394:3 399:25 400:4,25 404:7 406:4 410:9 416:9 417:12 432:23 total 401:6 totaled 372:23 totaUy 330:19 456:18 495:17 touch 303:4 toured 350:4 toxic 297:14 toxicity 284:21,22 trade 338:22 377:14,16 479:1,7 485:3 487:25 488:9 521:19 trades 279:2 376:1 377:9,12,19 480:7 484:21 485:2 522:3 trained 318:6 343:13 361:21 514:23 training 275:7 507:20 508:5 520:8,11 transcription 525:6 transference 402:9 transport 322:11 416:16 481:3 482:17 transported 481:4 transporting 481:2 traveled 518:22 tremendous 370:5 trend 418:16,19,20 trends 430:19 triad 516:4 tried 389:18 465:13 469:5 470:12,15 523:5,25 trouble 412:8 498:24 troublesome 404:12,15 Troy 271:3 272:6,8 273:16 295:17 485:19 506:16 517:25 truck 366:21 416:3 418:13 419:5 424:19 424:22,25 427:6 441:9 456:14 trucks 416:25 true 281:13 283:7 228885::2122,8197:228472:9185:13 300:15 302:5,10 349:13 360:1 380:6 384:5,15 386:25 391:19 392:3 407:20 409:7 423:18 425:24 429:18 431:1,6 432:7 432:7 434:18,19,24 435:20 443:6 445:13 445:18 446:10 461:12 467:13 468:13,16 469:24,24 473:16 474:14 477:9 485:6,16 489:2 491:10 495:9,23 512:18 523:5,7 525:5 526:10 trust 388:12 trusted 388:22 try 286:3 287:25 288:12 294:6 319:7 320:9 336:3 352:15 352:17 353:20 367:8 390:4 443:7 456:24 458:1,3 459:23 465:14 466:8 470:13 471:1,14 trying 291:19 318:25 357:10 362:18 365:11 370:10,11 415:2 420:6 424:1 447:14 450:6 466:1 467:14,16 471:19 482:8 484:20 492:12 493:15 tuberculosis 276:19 277:1,5,8,9,14,22 278:1,4,15 279:9,15 279:18 373:12 Tulane 346:18 tumor 446:12 tumors 324:7 398:1,2,5 398:25 406:10 407:24 tunnel 276:8 turbines 305:21 turn 399:20 412:1 423:10 432:16 508:6 521:22 twice 378:14 379:3,4 two 274:14 281:21 297:5 302:6 324:2 325:8 333:9,15 337:24 339:22,22 340:9,14 342:8 372:1 372:2,17 402:10 408:1 409:25 448:4 453:2 477:22 514:22 _____________ Page 23 516:4 I two-page 475:15 type 283:24 284:2 ! 285:3 304:11 397:22 ! 444:10 507:10,22 I 511:3 512:20 j typed 328:1 | types 323:25 | typewriting 526:9 f _________ U________ Uh-huh 304:18 317:17 322:4 376:22 388:3,5 431:20 452:10 453:6 460:8 461:2 unable 380:16 418:8 unanswerable 352:10 355:8,9 uncommon 277:9 303:25 349:22 350:1 underdegree 431:5 underdiagnose 464:7 underdiagnosed 445:24 455:18 457:12,15 458:15 459:7,12,17,20 460:13,17 461:11,21 462:2,8 463:5 464:5 467:22 468:12 469:15 473:12 underdiagnosing 463:23 underdiagnosis 458:4 463:2 464:10,16,25 465:4,15 469:4 471:16 472:5 474:4 490:23 491:12 493:5 493:24 494:6,9,25 501:20 502:25 underestimation 430:7 430:12,15 underreported 429:17 underreporting 429:14 432:7 501:21,25 understand 274:21 280:6 293:16 294:7 328:21 330:1 335:17 343:6 351:24 353:16 353:18 360:16,20 362:16 374:8,12,24 406:16 445:6 447:16 481:10 498:8 511:17 understanding 305:15 305:24 314:3 335:19 451:13 understood 342:9 Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 NEILL WEAVER undertaken 386:15 underway 304:11 unexpected 381:8 unexposed 364:20 365:2,3,5 368:6 unfeasible 337:8 unhappy 291:14 uniform 316:1 union 408:15 409:2 uniquely 513:15 unit 303:2,2,3,9,14,16 303:19 304:1,6,10,14 304:15,20 305:7 306:2 368:12,13,23 369:7 370:19 377:2 United 406:12 448:14 448:18 449:7 452:6,8 454:1461:19 487:5 500:20 501:12,16 526:2 units 304:23 426:15,24 University 515:10 unknown 450:25 unreasonable 343:17 unrelated 348:18 untrue 469:13 unwilling 402:7 upstream 299:12 upward 418:16,19,20 use 342:21 344:21 363:23 368:8 375:6 398:24 404:19 422:3 422:6 496:16 506:22 507:21 508:2 509:18 513:7,11,12 521:8 useful 478:7 513:22 usual 449:3 457:9 usually 275:2 utility 416:15 488:3 utilized 346:11 521:15 U.S 335:22,25 336:1 516:15 _________ V________ v 270:5 vacation 274:23 vacuum 346:12 valid 473:24 478:24 500:8 validity 402:6,18 419:25 437:9 456:11 456:19 variation 388:10 varied 388:14 varies 277:18 466:22 various 389:22 390:14 444:17 vary 348:1 vast 387:7 vat 482:24 venture 409:24 versus 273:4 363:6 518:14 viable 479:4 vicinity 522:8 video 273:8,9,12 VIDEOGRAPHER 273:2,23 332:16,19 371:5,9 438:6 439:2 439:23 440:1 497:18 497:21 512:7,10 519:11,14 524:13 videotape 273:2 371:6 371:10 438:7 439:3 524:14 VIDEOTAPED 270:11 view 409:21 461:10 violated 521:12 violating 520:25 Virginia 282:3 virtually 510:2,9 visible 305:22 309:18 334:4,8,9,13 335:1 509:25 510:3 vision 359:19 visit 519:5 visited 516:21 visiting 517:8 visits 517:17 voices 465:22 volume 270:14 370:5 371:7,10 438:8 439:3 524:15 voluntary 358:20 volunteered 359:24 ________ W _________ wait 435:14 486:2 497:1 508:13,16 want 278:8,10,20 291:4 293:11 295:5 307:16 315:9 323:17 328:2 333:15 353:24 365:23 371:1,2,14 372:7,8,9 375:8 377:12 391:12,15 401:17 411:22,22 412:24 415:14 416:7 419:23 424:25 429:22 432:21 435:14 439:8 440:7 440:16 441:2,19 449:11 450:16 451:16 457:9 479:21 479:24 495:17 517:14,24 522:20 wanted 277:11 288:13 328:13 335:16 336:12 349:7 382:25 387:24 388:23 391:6 391:17 420:8,8,13 443:7 446:18 457:5 466:10 468:1471:23 474:13 490:9 War 477:22,25 warehouse 427:7 warning 311:4 warnings 507:17 Washington 270:24 273:10,13 274:7 275:3 wasn't 286:9 287:5 295:8 312:1 313:6 316:4 327:7,12,21 337:12 346:7 371:23 382:15,18 394:13 395:21 396:13 408:14 415:20 427:11 428:10,11,12 429:2,7,14 431:19 440:22 451:8,20 456:2 458:3 463:20 465:19 472:20 489:7 491:16 492:13,18 494:23 496:1,2 520:20,21 was3.73 450:19 way 274:25 275:2 278:21 302:22 303:7 307:8 311:19 312:17 313:14,20 315:25 318:9 320:4 333:24 335:11 336:7 349:8 350:11 366:15,24 371:22 372:14 374:22 375:12 396:24 404:23 406:21 407:17 408:24 418:21 421:22 425:13,18 434:8,15 435:25 436:1 449:21 455:14 455:21 459:2,9,14 468:9 470:17 487:25 490:23 495:1 496:7 520:20,24 ways 446:15 487:15 weaknesses 440:10 502:6 510:16 511:8 wear 507:24 508:10,16 508:20 519:19 wearing 345:10 Weaver 270:12,16 272:4 273:3 274:1,6 279:8 282:2 285:1 286:10 287:5,23 289:20 290:7 291:10 291:19 293:2,14 297:24 311:9 335:8 338:4 342:2 371:7,11 371:14 385:1417:12 439:4,8 440:4 463:12 466:1,3,5 474:10 489:16 497:13,25 504:13 505:20 512:13 519:17 524:15 week510:15,15 weeks 300:25 311:1,1 333:9 341:21 weird 319:18 welder 488:3,3 went 290:3 313:14 331:19 350:7 355:20 363:3 381:20 382:8 446:17,22,24 454:9 454:14,19 455:25 457:17 458:16 466:7 467:10 470:13 478:12 494:12,16 495:4 517:11 weren't 285:22 290:7 311:23 361:11 378:25 385:4 392:18 395:15 397:6,13 400:10 402:18 417:15 422:10 433:7 437:21 438:2 454:16 467:17 521:1,9 wet 337:17 wetted 346:12 520:20 wetting 337:16 We've 472:23 whatsoever 422:25 white 449:22 450:9 whittle 447:2 wide 275:24 widely 388:14 widespread 383:4,20 Wier 279:4,5 301:1 Willard 333:18 willing 424:16 wind 306:19,24 307:2,5 307:7,15 _____________ Page 24 wise 298:23 299:1 334:6 402:11 I wish 278:14 320:13 1 393:17 1 withheld 329:3 | witness 270:17 272:3 ! 273:24 274:2 282:7 t 282:10 283:23 I 284:11 285:8 286:6 I 286:15,24 288:4,7 I 289:2,24 290:23 f 291:12 292:22 293:5 I 293:16 294:1,13 I 295:18 296:17 | 298:16 300:1,20 i 302:5 303:16,23 I 305:2,15 306:6,18 | 307:10 308:2,13 I 309:2,25 310:12 ! 314:16 316:20 I 319:22 320:23 321:8 I 322:17 323:3,21 ! 324:12 330:1 332:13 I 334:22 335:5 337:3 I 337:21340:17 I 342:17 343:6,20 I 344:20 345:4,13,23 I 346:9 347:8 348:17 I 350:23 351:15,24 f 352:10 354:10 355:1 ! 360:10,20 363:1,25 i 364:22 366:8 368:25 ! 370:23 378:18 384:7 | 384:17 386:8 388:21 | 389:6 391:8 392:11 | 393:1 394:17 395:4 ! 396:22 397:18 398:1 I 398:16 399:5 400:16 ! 400:20 407:16 f 408:10,18 411:12 I 418:3 419:9 422:8,14 I 431:25 440:9 445:23 I 446:10 455:21 I 456:10 457:2 458:9 I 459:9,14 460:19 f 461:14,24 462:10 I 464:1,20 468:21 | 469:8 471:25 472:8 i 473:21476:24 I 479:15 480:23 481:9 1 487:11492:8 494:2 I 495:4,13 497:16 I 501:24 502:14 503:3 I 510:8 512:20 513:21 I 515:15 517:24 1 518:17 520:4 522:6 ! Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 NEILL WEAVER 523:16,23 524:11 526:6,8,11 Woo 512:10 word 324:18 423:24 445:8 455:22 470:1 words 453:16 519:21 work 276:25 277:20 286:21 288:16 292:2 296:10 303:8 304:2 304:11,14,16,17,19 305:10 306:3 319:25 347:15 349:17,21 350:8,19 352:22 356:10 358:25 363:10 366:16 368:17 369:11 370:20 373:4 375:16 380:8,12,17,19,21 381:5,23 402:11 404:13,16 417:7,20 418:6,8,9 454:24 463:11 478:25 483:11 485:7,11,12 485:12,14 488:14 507:1 508:9 510:12 513:22 522:3,6,8 worked 313:6 348:5 349:1,8 350:11 355:19,22,24 356:5,9 368:21 376:6 413:11 413:14,15 414:1,3,4 415:20 427:7 441:6 451:25 454:20,23 455:4,10 476:6 477:13 478:5,8,13,20 479:10,17 481:17 483:24 484:3,5,11,17 484:23 485:3,9 488:8 worker 305:6,19 309:9 309:21 339:13 346:16 347:5 368:20 368:21,22 369:22 413:5,18 415:5,19 480:13 483:14,16 484:9 505:15 509:20 523:21 workers 278:23 283:12 283:19 284:6 285:3,6 286:13 299:24 300:6 302:24 304:2,6,24 305:12 309:15 310:17 311:4 314:13 325:24 338:12,13,17 334653::69,,916336446:1:13,13463,1:85 364:19,23 365:1,1,7 365:12,14 366:14,19 367:9,9,15,17 368:5 368:6,8,10,16,16 369:1,2,6,13,25 370:4,12,18,18 374:23 376:1 377:12 378:3,4,5,8,10,13,15 378:23,24 379:2,6,8 379:9,11 380:16 381:22 406:19 412:5 413:4,22 415:18 417:15,19,22,24,25 418:1,5 419:18 420:3 420:7 427:4 431:4,13 431:18,21 433:1 435:11 439:13 440:19 441:4 447:12 451:20 452:15 453:11,21 454:21,22 471:21 476:13 479:16 480:11 481:12,13,17 484:3 485:16 500:11 501:20 505:5,7,9,10 507:3 511:15 516:9 520:7 523:24 working 277:12 279:16 296:8 305:20 311:23 318:6 339:13 358:22 394:21 415:8,10 417:22 435:11 483:12 508:24 509:2 510:5 520:25 521:24 workplace 513:19 works 369:23 world 293:24 295:8 343:1,14 396:12 397:5 399:11 442:20 443:2 445:10 449:7 477:22,25 worn 507:18 worse 496:15 wouldn't 283:15 291:6 293:1321:12 350:20 355:4 369:16 398:19 405:13 411:10 418:1 418:6 424:25 425:22 454:4 463:24 468:19 497:11 wrist 276:9 write 372:22 writing 313:18 written 301:14 311:18 314:4 387:15 489:10 wrong 325:15 326:13 326:19 331:18 x ..... 335:11 366:23 421:11,21 wrongly 445:5 wrote 310:7 387:25 394:6 Wynne 436:16 W-i-s-e 298:24,25 x 270:2,9 272:1,11 x-rays 507:11 _________ Y ............. yardstick 454:7 yardsticks 510:25 year 296:9,10,22 329:13,20 330:8 371:22 400:10 413:6 414:2,3 415:21 434:13 441:6 452:9 453:5 519:6 520:10 520:14 years 275:9 278:13 280:9 281:21290:7 290:10 291:22 293:12 294:4,7 296:2 311:20 313:8 325:8 325:21 326:2 346:23 359:13 372:1,2 373:23 374:1,7,19 375:15,22 381:10 401:2 413:12,12 431:10 434:3 449:22 450:8,12,14 456:13 462:1,7,14,25 463:3 463:7,8,19,22 464:4 464:6,25 466:23 479:18 498:5 501:15 501:18 518:9 York313:16,16 314:12 355:25,25 y'all 387:2 _________ Z_________ zeal 469:4 zero 319:12 zinc 317:10 511:21 o...$ $350293:14 294:16 295:23 352:21 353:2 360:15 03-CV-0588 273:7 08-CV-0588 270:1 ________ 1________ 1273:3 274:11,14 330:6,6 371:7 373:8 387:21 389:19 401:25 403:16 404:17 413:7 415:21 430:13 431:9 452:5 452:12 1,120 420:3,7 1.6431:10 1.800 401:2 1/18 410:9 1:45 438:7,9 10306:15 371:15 374:19 375:14 381:10 382:6 413:11 413:12 441:25 456:13 462:1 473:5 479:17 10-year 413:14,15 10:00 270:20 10:01273:9 100354:21420:10 503:17 504:2,5 511:14 11382:9 386:4 411:21 11:09332:17 11:19332:20 1100271:20 12 281:21296:22,24 297:16 311:12 325:16 326:6,14 327:14 412:3 418:12 12:07 371:6 12:19371:12 13 399:24 400:6 418:23 419:11 425:4 1330 270:23 273:13 14 419:23 15 381:10 412:6 434:3 439:11,20 440:17 462:1,13 464:6 16401:3 421:7 1686M 271:14 17413:4 447:12 17002 271:7,15 17002-5213 271:21 19423:10,11498:3 1930s 509:9 510:6 1937 333:6 335:9 336:7 337:7,15 520:23 521:5,10 1940514:1 1940s 516:23 1943 477:23 1944477:23 ______________Page 25 1949311:12 313:8,20 ! 315:1317:12,19 | 318:9 319:19 320:4 | 320:19 325:16 326:6 | 326:14 327:14 330:4 | 330:6,12,18,23 I 1950 330:6 406:12,14 | 1950s 277:9 520:13,16 I 1951 316:13,17 347:2 I 348:6,21,24 349:6,20 I 350:10,16 351:18 I 1952 400:5 I 1955 401:2 i 1956401:22,25 I 1958336:17 382:12 | 384:15 385:3 386:4 | 386:23 387:11,20 I 389:18 390:11 393:8 I 393:10 394:6,13,21 I 394:24 395:11,25 I 396:11397:5,21,23 ! 398:13 399:11,17,23 I 401:14 402:16 | 410:21 411:19 498:4 ! 511:5 1960371:22 372:2,2 | 373:16 377:18 ! 378:13 380:1,5,13 f 381:9,19 505:16,25 I 509:9 I 1960s 510:6 1 1961278:16 279:21,25 I 1962 413:7 441:6 ! 1964 375:9 406:16 | 408:5,7,10 498:4 i 1965 433:24 I 1966363:16,17 364:8 f 364:11 366:19 368:4 ! 370:17 504:15 f 1969449:22 450:12 I 1970 514:1 I 1970s 332:25 509:17 ! 524:5 I 1971332:25 345:9,16 1 345:18,21346:1 I 413:7 415:22 441:7 1 449:23 450:12 I 1972 336:18 I 1973 298:5 450:13 ! 1974293:19 412:6 | 450:13 I 1975 450:15 I 1978 450:14 ! 1980 433:24 434:5,13 I 434:16 450:15 ! 463:12 I Henjum Goucher Repotting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376 NEILL WEAVER 1981425:11426:5 427:18 434:10 1984 439:14,17 440:20 463:16,17 472:14 473:10 475:3 498:6 498:12 ....... 2 ....... 2 270:14 276:18 278:4 298:11,14 323:18 371:7,10,10 403:16 438:8,8 439:3 441:20 441:21 452:5,12 524:15 2-1/2 370:24 2:15438:10 2:16439:1,5 2:17439:24 2:27440:2 20347:22 375:22 380:6 380:11,15,19 381:3 447:12 462:1,7,14,25 463:3,7,19,22 464:4 464:25 466:23 500:16 20,000 447:17 448:14 448:24 449:8 451:19 451:22,24 452:15,18 453:10,17 454:3 455:13 20-plus 326:2 2004270:13,20 273:8 525:16 2007526:21 21406:3,5 21,000447:12 500:16 500:18 22 325:22 23 270:13 273:8 487:15 23rd 270:19 23,142 372:23 24 487:16 241450:24 247426:4,10,19 248428:1429:9 250428:15 252 429:12,12 255 429:25 261432:16,24 262435:5 264436:15 486:7,25 27489:16,17 490:24 491:1 274 272:6 276-7426 271:22 29489:24,25 _________ 3 ......... 3298:11,14 323:6 324:6 370:24 406:23 406:24 407:2 408:2 429:13 439:3 505:18 505:22,23 524:15 3,000330:6 452:7 453:5 3.4447:19,25 448:8,13 448:24449:8 450:20 3.73 447:17 451:5,18 451:24 452:18 453:11 454:3 455:12 3:38497:19 3:48497:22 30 278:12 294:4,7 296:2 375:22 462:1 300390:23 31413:7 415:22 526:21 3100271:6 3125 314:21 33481:19,22 34 475:14 35 278:12 291:22 404:18 365 296:8,10 381372:11 382 376:13 ________ 4________ 4449:19 452:18 4:14512:8 4:17512:11 4:30519:12 4:33 519:15 4:40270:20 524:14,17 40 278:13 414:13 4000 271:20 405th 270:6 273:6 45 371:1 465 330:5 467330:17,23 49320:2,11 497272:7 ________ 5_______ 5 306:20 311:10,13 313:19 327:6,18 330:9 415:15,16 476:18,25 504:9 509:10,17,20 510:4 523:11,19 524:6 5th 413:2 50359:13 453:18 50-some 346:23 500 27,1:6 518272:8 55 311:20 313:8 .. 6 ____ 6312:4 326:21,23 327:4 328:4,10,22 330:22 331:17 363:17 474:19,21 475:5,12,24 504:15 6s 475:15 60414:10 60s 518:9 62415:22 64312:3 65434:4 650-1200 271:8 656-6522 271:16 _________ 7________ 7333:4 410:13 439:14 440:20 475:11 487:14,18,19 7th 475:5 713 271:8,16,22 72 333:1 8 ________ ...... ... 8338:22 417:3,10,11 80347:24 348:2 353:8 353:10 354:7,19,20 800 271:13 81333:23 334:1,3 354:23 82354:24 ______ __ 9 ....... _____ 9 363:14,18 364:8 485:18,24 504:11,13 504:14,21 90478:8 504:3 900 400:5 98354:23 99354:23 Henjum Goucher Reporting Services, LP 1-888-656-3376