Document wqVmEd7yy2YaMQVz33dMoDmzd

ORIGINAL 1 1 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 2 PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL: NO. 284 M.D. 1990 3 SERVICES, PENNSYLVANIA : 4 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, : THIS DEPOSITION IS TO BE 5 PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY READ & SIGNED AND RETURNED : TO THE DEPOSING ATTORNEY: SEE INSTRUCTIONS TO WITNESS 6 COMMISSION, PENNSYLVANIA EMERGENCY: IN BACK OF TRANSCRIPT. 7 MANAGEMENT AGENCY,and PENNSYLVANIA: 8 DEPARTMENT OF STATE : 9 Plaintiffs : 10 Vs . : 11 UNITED STATES MINERAL PRODUCTS : 12 COMPANY, CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, : PLEASE DO NOT RETURN TRANSCRIPT BACK TO 13 COURTAULDS AEROSPACE, INC; : COURT REPORTING AGENCY 14 CHEMREX, INC; PHILIPS ELECTRONICS : 15 NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, : 16 ADVANCE TRANSFORMER COMPANY and : 17 MONSANTO : 18 Defendants : 19 Jurist-Begley Reporting Services 20 AN ESQUIRE COMMUNICATIONS, LTD. COMPANY 21 Philadelphia, PA New York, NY Princeton,NJ 22 215.546.1393 212.382.1330 609.844.0013 23 Wilmington, DE Nationally 24 302.426.9857 800.345.4940 Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046801 2 1 Oral Deposition of 2 Dr. George J. Levinskas, taken pursuant to Notice, 3 held at the Ritz-Carlton, 100 Carondelet Plaza, St. 4 Louis, Missouri 63105, on Thursday, April 16, 1998, at 5 10:30 a.xn., before John W. Begley, a Registered 6 Professional Reporter - Notary Public there being 7 present. 8 APPEARANCES: HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & MC CLAIN, ,P.C. 9 BY: JAMES M. ZIEGLER, ESQUIRE 10 221 West Lexington - Suite 400 11 Independence, Missouri 64051 12 Phone: 816 - 836-5050 13 Representing the Plaintiffs 14 15 WHITE & WILLIAMS L.L.P. 16 BY: THOMAS M. GOUTMAN, ESQUIRE 17 One Liberty Place - 18th Floor 18 1650 Market Street 19 Philadelphia, PA 19103 20 Phone: 215 - 864-7000 21 Representing the Defendant Monsanto 22 Corporation 23 24 Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046802 3 1 SMITH HELMS MULLISS & MOORE, L.L.P. 2 BY: GERARD H. DAVIDSON, JR., ESQUIRE 3 300 North Green Street - Suite 1400 4 Greensboro, North Carolina 27401 5 Phones 910 - 378-5267 6 Representing the Defendant Monsanto 7 Corporation 8 9 CRIVELLO, CARLSON, 10 MENTKOWSKI & STEEVES, S.C. 11 BY: JOHN R. PENDERGAST, ESQUIRE 12 The Empire Building 13 710 North Plankinton Avenue - Suite 500 14 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203 15 Phone: 414 - 271-7722 16 Representing the Defendant ChemRex, 17 Inc. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046803 4 1 DANAHER, TEDFORD, LAGNESE & NEAL, PC 2 BY.* FREDERICK B. TEDFORD, ESQUIRE 3 Capitol Place 4 21 Oak Street - Suite 700 5 Hartford, Connecticut 06106 6 Phone: 860-247-3666 7 Representing the Defendant U.S. Mineral 8 Company 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046804 5 1 2 INDEX 3 4 WITNESS PAGE 5 6 Dr. George J. Levinskas 7 By Mr. Ziegler 8, 136 8 By Mr. Pendergast 119 9 By Mr. Goutman 122 10 11 EXHIBITS 12 13 NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE 14 Levinskas 1 Letter to D.S. Cameron from 21 15 Elmer P. Wheeler dated 1/29/70 16 Levinskas 2 Letter to Otis E. Fancher from 22 17 Elmer P. Wheeler dated 5/25/70 18 Levinskas 3 Document prepared by 25 19 Martha Berlin dated 9/29/70 20 Levinskas 4 Letter to W.B. Papageorge from 38 21 Elmer P. Wheeler dated 6/24/71 22 Levinskas 5 Letter to Drs. J.G. Calandria 44 23 and Ward Richter from 24 George J. Levinskas dated 2/4/79 Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46805 6 1 Levinskas 6 Letter to George J. Levinskas 50 2 from D.E. Gordon dated 3/24/78 3 Levinskas 7 Document entitled "Report To 63 4 Monsanto" dated 3/24/75 5 Levinskas 8 Memorandum from W.B. Papageorge 66 6 enclosing copy of letter to 7 Dr. Philippe Shubik from 8 Paul L. Wright to Messrs. Bergen, 9 Gossage, Potter and Withers dated 10 6/4/75 11 Levinskas 9 Letter to Dr. J.C. Calandra 70 12 from George J. Levinskas dated 13 7/18/75 14 Levinskas 10 Handwritten note 73 15 Levinskas 11 Memorandum from G.J. Levinskas 84 16 to Messrs. Papageorge, Bishop, 17 et al. dated 11/17/75 18 Levinskas 12 Document to Dan 92 19 Levinskas 13 Handwritten letter on Industrial 106 20 Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc. 21 Letterhead 22 23 24 Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046806 1 DEPOSITION SUPPORT INDEX 2 3 DIRECTION TO WITNESS NOT TO ANSWER 4 PAGE LINE PAGE LINE 5 6 7 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 8 PAGE LINE PAGE LINE 9 10 11 12 STIPULATIONS 13 PAGE LINE PAGE LINE 14 15 16 17 QUESTIONS MARKED 18 PAGE LINE PAGE LINE 19 20 21 22 23 24 Jurist-Begley Reporting Services 7 TOWOLDMONOQ46807 8 1 THE COURT REPORTER: Usual 2 stipulations? 3 MR. ZIEGLER: That's fine. 4 MR. PENDERGAST That 's fine. 5 MR. TEDFORD: That's fine. 6 MR. GOUTMAN: That's fine, but I 7 would like the witness to read and sign the 8 transcript. 9 10 (It is hereby stipulated by and among 11 counsel for the respective parties that the 12 sealing, filing and certification are waived, 13 and that all objections, except as to the form 14 of the questions, be reserved until the time of 15 trial.) 16 17 Dr. George J. Levinskas, after having 18 first been duly sworn, was examined and 19 testified as follows: 20 21 EXAMINATION 22 23 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 24 Q. Could you state your full name and your Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046808 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 9 1 address for the record, please. 2 A. My name is George J. Levinskas. I live at 526 3 Fairways Circle. 4 Q. Are you currently employed? 5 I'm sorry. What city is that in? 6 A. St. Louis, Missouri. 7 Q. Are you still employed by Monsanto? 8 A. No. 9 Q. And just so I know how to address you, do you 10 have your Ph.D.? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. When did you retire from Monsanto, Dr. 13 Levinskas? 14 A. I think it was September of 1991. 15 Q. And how old were you when you retired? 16 A. 67 . 17 Q. Was there some reason why you stayed on past 18 the age of 65? Was there a particular reason? 19 A. Yes, two reasons; one is that I felt good 20 about my work and my health, and I didn't mind 21 working an extra two years and the company was 22 willing to hire me for that time. 23 Q. And how long did you work for Monsanto? 24 A. Twenty years. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046809 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 10 1 Q. And where did you get your -- you got a B.S.? 2 A. I have a B.A. degree. 3 Q. From what university? 4 A. Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut. 5 Q. What year did you graduate? 6 A. 1949. 7 Q. And where did you do your graduate work? 8 A. University of Rochester, Rochester, New York. 9 Q. And when did you get your -- what degree did 10 you get from the University of Rochester? 11 A. Ph.D. 12 Q. What year did you get your Ph.D., Dr. 13 Levinskas? 14 A. 1953. 15 Q. What did you do your disertation on? 16 A. The title was The Solubility Studies of 17 Hydroxylapatite, spelled APATITE, (Synthetic 18 Bone Material), and that was it. 19 Q. That substance doesn't have to do with 20 chlorinated hydrocarbons? 21 A. No, it is a bone material. 22 Q. And who did you go to work for after you got 23 your Ph.D.? 24 A. I taught at the Graduate School of Public Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46810 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 11 1 Health at the University of Pittsburgh. 2 Q. What courses did you teach while you were 3 there? 4 A. 1 had a course that was called applied 5 toxicology. I lectured in courses given by other 6 faculty members, and that was it. 7 Q. Did you have any other employment between 8 your tenure at the Graduate School of Public Health, 9 University of Pittsburgh and your employment at 10 Monsanto? 11 A. I worked for the American Cyanamid Company. 12 Q. What year did youstart with them? 13 A. 1958. 14 Q. What was your position while at American 15 Cyanamid? 16 A. I started off as their chief industrial 17 pharmacologist and I wound up being the director of 18 their environmental health laboratory. 19 Q. Did you do any animal studies with chlorinated 20 hydrocarbons while you were at American Cyanamid? 21 A. No. 22 Q. What was the nature of the research that you 23 did there? 24 A. It waspredominantly on Cyanamid products and Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46811 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 12 1 it covered everything that the company had an 2 interest in except for the drugs at the Lederle 3 Laboratory division. 4 Q. Health studies? 5 A. Animal studies. 6 Q. I#m sorry. Animal studies. 7 And in what year did you finish your 8 employment with American Cyanamid? 9 A. 1971. 10 Q. At that point you went to work for Monsanto; 11 is that correct? 12 A. That's right. 13 Q. And what was yourofficial title when you 14 first started with Monsanto? 15 A. I think it was something like manager of 16 product evaluation or some similar title. 17 Q. Can you recall,can you tell me what you 18 understood your job responsibilities to be when you 19 started with Monsanto? 20 A. Monsanto wasattempting to pull together, 21 coordinate, and centralize the various activities 22 that had been going on in the area of environmental 23 safety with their products, and I came in to start 24 heading up a new group in the medical department that Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046812 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 13 1 would take over those duties. 2 Q. One of your concerns, when you began with 3 Monsanto concerning the environment, had to do with 4 PCBs; is that correct? Generally. 5 A. I don't recall that PCBs were specifically 6 mentioned in any of the interviews leading up to my 7 employment. This was to look at new products, new 8 uses of existing products. 9 Q. How soon after you started working for 10 Monsanto did you become aware that the company was 11 concerned about PCB contamination in the environment? 12 MR. GOUTMAN: Obj ection to the form of 13 the question. 14 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure I could give 15 you a specific time. 16 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 17 Q. A week? A month? I don't want you to guess, 18 but your best estimate. 19 A. I'm not sure when I really became conscious of 20 the -- there were concerns being expressed generally 21 in the toxicology area about environmental 22 contamination, and I'm not really, I can't really say 23 whether I became aware of PCB contamination before I 24 came to Monsanto or afterwards. I can't recall the Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046813 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 14 1 first conscious recognition of it. 2 Q. And do you know who worked with you there at 3 the department that you talked with concerning PCBs 4 during your first year of employment? 5 MR. GOUTMAN: Obj ection. Overly broad. 6 You can answer. 7 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 8 Q. Give me an idea of who was there in the 9 department. 10 A. I probably talked to most of the people. It 11 was a fairly small department. I may have talked to 12 just about everybody in the department about PCBs in 13 the first year. 14 Q. And did somebody there at Monsanto bring you 15 up to speed on what the corporate knowledge was of 16 potential health problems of PCBs prior to your 17 employment with the company? 18 MR. GOUTMAN: Obj ection to the phrase 19 "corporate knowledge". I don't know what 20 that means. 21 You may answer if you know what that 22 means. 23 THE WITNESS: Well, I don't know what 24 you meaning by "corporate knowledge" either. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46814 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 15 1 but I don't recall anybody briefing me, 2 bringing me up to date on PCBs. As I indicated 3 in the earlier response, I joined Monsanto with 4 the view to looking at new products and new 5 uses of existing products, so that existing 6 products were essentially out of my purview. 7 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 8 Q. Really what I'm working my way toward is can 9 you tell me what the company knew, in terms of health 10 hazards and PCBs, prior to your employment with the 11 company in 1971? Are you able to do that? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Did you consider as part of your job while at 14 Monsanto to be familiar with the toxicology 15 literature regarding the environmental and health 16 effects of PCBs? 17 MR. GOUTMAN: Obj ection to the phrase 18 environmental effects of PCBs. 19 You can answer. 20 THE WITNESS: My capacity, both before 21 and after coming to Monsanto, was an a11empt to 22 keep some information or have some knowledge 23 about what was happening with respect to health 24 effects of chemicals that were being used. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46815 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 16 1 Predominantly by Monsanto, but also by others 2 and by reading literature and trying to keep 3 abreast of things, so it is just hard to say 4 when I became aware of this, that, or other 5 specific items. 6 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 7 Q. Did you ever hear it expressed by any of your 8 co-workers in the company that Aroclors had quite a 9 history of skin troubles and liver troubles? Did you 10 ever hear anything to that effect while you were 11 working in the company? 12 A. I don't recall that anybody consciously came 13 in and told me that there was a history of adverse 14 effects that you just mentioned in the use of 15 Aroclors. I don't recall being told that. 16 Q. Do you know whether, as of the time you 17 started with the company, whether you were aware that 18 Aroclors or PCBs had a history of skin problems? 19 MR. GOUTMAN: Objection to the form of 20 the question. 21 You can answer. 22 THE WITNESS: I would have to go back to 23 what I said before. PCBs, they have been 24 studied in the past, they are listed in the so Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46816 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 17 1 called Threshold Limit Values by the American 2 Conference of Governmental Industrial 3 Hygienists. The fellow, Joe Trion, who had 4 done the studies that lead to the listing, I 5 knew quite well before I came to Monsanto, so I 6 go back and say I have an awareness of these 7 things, but I can't tell you just when I got 8 them, who gave them to me or how I got it. 9 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 10 Q. So you would agree, for example, that PCBs are a 11 potential cause of chloracne; is that correct? 12 MR. GOUTMAN: Obj ection to the form of 13 the question. 14 You can answer. 15 THE WITNESS: When you say I would 16 agree, I'm not sure what I would be agreeing 17 to. There are some reports in literature 18 attributing chloracne to PCBs. Some of the 19 early literature, however, shows that PCBs were 20 highly contaminated with chlorinated 21 naphthalenes and retrospectively it has been 22 hard to determine how much of this is 23 attributable to PCBs by themselves and how much 24 to the chloronaphthalenes, the so-called Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46817 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 18 1 Halowax. So the literature is really not very 2 clear on that, but there are reports 3 attributing some chloracne to some PCBs. 4 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 5 Q. All right. Do you currently, as we sit here 6 today, would you dispute the literature that 7 attributes chloracne to PCBs? Would you dispute the 8 conclusions by the authors in those reports? 9 MR. GOUTMAN: What reports? 10 MR. ZIEGLER: The reports that he's 11 referring to. 12 THE WITNESS: I think my answer, which 13 would be a repeat of what I said, somewhat 14 repeat what I said earlier, that when people 15 did labor analysis of the materials that had 16 been called PCBs they found they were 17 contaminated with the chlorinated naphthalenes, 18 and retrospectively it is hard to determine how 19 much of that might have been due to PCBs and 20 how much was due to chloronaphthalenes. And so 21 it's not a question of disputing the 22 literature. When I look at the literature it 23 isn't clear to me. I can't draw a conclusion 24 as to how much came from this or that or from Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46818 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 19 1 either or both. 2 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 3 Q. And you worked for Monsanto for approximately 4 20 years; is that correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And during that time you were involved in 7 numerous toxicological studies involving PCBs; 8 correct? 9 MR. GOUTMAN: Obj ection to the form of 10 the question. 11 THE WITNESS: I would have to say no, 12 that's not correct. Virtually all of the 13 animal testing that Monsanto had done on PCBs 14 was completed before I j oined the company. 15 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 16 Q. Virtually all of it? 17 A. Virtually all of it. 18 Q. Wasn't there testing going on up through 197 5? 19 A. I say virtually all of it. There was some 20 monkey studies done, in which I was involved, but all, 21 the basic, much of the basic information on PCBs was 22 conducted before I joined the company, so I was not 23 involved with it. 24 Q. I see. And so during your 20 years with the Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46819 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 20 1 company you don't know of any attempts by the company 2 to determine whether chloracne is, in fact, caused by 3 PCBs; is that correct? 4 A. I guess there are two parts to that answer. 5 One is I did not do studies on people, so studies 6 that may have been done to look at workers or 7 employees or others with chloracne I would have no 8 knowledge, no participation in. There is an animal 9 test result called rabbit ear chloracne test that is 10 used to try to predict the probability of chloracne 11 from compounds. Monsanto did have some testing done 12 on various products, and I don't recall the specifics 13 of those details, of the nature of the compound, but 14 Monsanto had some tests done on the rabbit ear 15 chloracne test to see if it produced chloracne in 16 animals. I don't recall the specific compounds and I 17 can't give you the results of those tests. 18 Q. Who at Monsanto, if you know, at the time you 19 started with Monsanto would have had responsibility 20 for any studies having to do with PCB health effects 21 in humans? 22 A. I would not know. 23 Q. That was not your responsibility? 24 A. No. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046820 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 21 1 Q. And just to clarify, it was not your 2 responsibility to evaluate the product in any fashion 3 for health effects, to evaluate Aroclors with respect 4 to their health effects in humans during the time 5 that you worked at Monsanto; is that correct? 6 A. That's correct. 7 MR. ZIEGLER: Off the record. 8 (Off the record discussion) 9 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 10 Q. Let's go back on the record. 11 Did you have any responsibility for any 12 warnings which Monsanto gave to customers or placed 13 on their product packages? 14 A. There was a distribution section that was 15 responsible for labeling of products. There was a 16 form that was used by Monsanto that would be 17 circulated and it contains spaces on it for inclusion 18 of animal data. Yes, I did see that form and I was 19 asked to fill in animal data which we had in our 20 possession on many products. 21 Q. We might get to one or more of those documents 22 today? 23 MR. ZIEGLER: Let's go ahead and mark 24 this as an exhibit. (Indicating) Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46821 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 22 1 (The above-referred to document was 2 marked as Levinskas Exhibit 1 for 3 identification) 4 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 5 Q. Dr. Levinskas, if you could look at what's 6 been marked as Exhibit 1, if you could read that very 7 quickly. 8 A. All right. 9 Q. Who is Elmer Wheeler? Can you tell me? 10 A. Elmer Wheeler was the man that I was reporting 11 to, my immediate supervisor when I came to work for 12 Monsanto. He was the head of the industrial hygiene 13 group in the medical department. 14 MR. PENDERGAST: For the record, can we 15 just get a date and author of the document? 16 MR. ZIEGLER: This document is by Elmer 17 Wheeler, WHEELER, and it is dated January 18 29, 1970 and entitled, "Status of Aroclor 19 Toxicological Studies". 20 MR. GOUTMAN: Note my obj ection that 21 this letter does not refer to Dr. Levinskas and 22 indeed preceded his employment at Monsanto. 23 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 24 Q. Did you ever have an occasion to discuss with Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46822 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 23 1 Dr. Wheeler whether the PCBs were exhibiting a 2 greater degree of toxicity in the chronic studies 3 than he had anticipated? 4 MR. GOUTMAN s When? 5 MR. ZIEGLER; At the time he started 6 his employment or really any time thereafter. 7 THE WITNESS: Well, first, I repeat what 8 my attorney just said. This document is dated 9 before I joined the Monsanto Company. 10 BY MR. ZIEGLER; 11 Q. I understand. 12 A. I have never seen this documentbefore. 13 (Indicating). 14 Q. Let me ask you this. 15 A. Nor have I ever had or recallElmer Wheeler 16 ever telling me what you just said. I don't recall 17 Elmer Wheeler ever saying that they exhibited greater 18 toxicity than he expected. 19 MR. ZIEGLER; This will be Exhibit 2. 20 (Indicating). 21 (The above-referred to document was 22 marked as Levinskas Exhibit 2 for 23 identification). 24 MR. GOUTMAN; While the witness is Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46823 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 24 1 reading that, can you just identify for the 2 record what he's looking at? 3 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 4 Q. I'll be happy to. 5 Exhibit 2 is correspondence from Elmer 6 P. Wheeler dated May 25, 1970. 7 . I would ask you if you could read that. 8 Dr. Levinskas. I have a couple of questions for you. 9 A. All right. 10 Q. My question has to do with the second 11 paragraph. Are you aware of your department ever 12 duplicating tests on any animals because you were not 13 satisfied with the results of the original tests? 14 MR. GOUTMAN: Just note the same 15 objection, the use of this document, as the 16 previous one. 17 MR. ZIEGLER: Sure. I understand. 18 MR. GOUTMAN: Sorry to interrupt. 19 THE WITNESS: Well, this is a document 20 which predates my time with Monsanto. I can 21 only speak for my own experience. I cannot 22 recall ever redoing a test because I was not 23 happy with the results. Tests have been redone 24 if there seemed to be a reason why the result Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46824 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 25 1 was aberrant and Tests have been done on 2 occasion to confirm a finding which we may not 3 have anticipated, but wherever I have been 4 involved that that has been done, both test 5 results have been presented. 6 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 7 Q. Are you aware of Monsanto ever redoing a test 8 and using cleaner samples in the hope that they might 9 find higher no effect levels with respect to the PCB 10 at issue? 11 A. I would stand by the answer that I just gave. 12 I, personally, have never done that. I'm not aware 13 that Monsanto has done it, but, then, I can't speak 14 as convincingly for Monsanto because I don't know. 15 MR. ZIEGLER: Let's mark this as 16 Levinskas Exhibit 3. (Indicating) 17 (The above-referred to document was 18 marked as Levinskas Exhibit 3 for 19 identification) 20 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 21 Q. For the record. Exhibit Levinskas 3 is a paper 22 by, I can't read the first name - - 23 MR. GOUTMAN: M A T H A, it seems like. 24 Matha Berlin. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046825 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 26 1 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 2 Q. Berlin, spelled BERLIN, taken from PCB 3 conference Stockholm dated September 2 9, 1970 and 4 entitled, "PCB - effects on mammals". 5 I'm not going to ask you about the 6 entire document; just some items on the first page 7 and a few on the second page. 8 MR. GOUTMAN: I have the Same obj ection 9 as I made to Levinskas Exhibits 1 and 2. 10 MR. ZIEGLER: Sure. 11 THE WITNESS: Do you want me to read the 12 entire paper? 13 MR. GOUTMAN: Yes, I want you to read 14 the entire paper. 15 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 16 Q. Sure. If you could. 17 A. Okay. 18 Q. We got this document from Monsanto. Do you 19 know if this was a document that was maintained in 20 your office or in your department? 21 A. I do not recall seeing this document before. 22 I would not know whether it had been retained. 23 Certainly I did not have it in my office. 24 Q. You don't know the author or you have not Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046826 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 27 1 heard of the author of this particular paper? 2 A. I don't know who wrote it. As I say, I 3 haven't seen it before and I don't see a signature 4 unless this person at the beginning here, it says by 5 Matha Berlin from the Institute of Hygiene at the 6 University of Lund in Sweden. 7 Q. Do you know why Monsanto would maintain it in 8 its files? 9 A. I would have no idea. 10 Q. Do you know what potential uses that Monsanto 11 may have made of this paper? 12 A. I would have no idea what they would have done 13 with it. 14 Q. Would you agree that chlorinated biphenyls and 15 naphthalenes can be absorbed by the skin by 16 inhalation or by ingestion, as indicated by the 17 author? 18 MR. GOUTMAN: This is in animals you 19 are talking about? 20 MR. ZIEGLER: Yes. 21 THE WITNESS: I would go back to what I 22 had said earlier, when I indicated and I say so 23 here, that these effects are caused by 24 chlorinated biphenyls or chlorinated Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46827 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 28 1 naphthalenes. As I said earlier, when you look 2 back at the older literature animal studies 3 show adverse effects in exposure to compounds 4 which at one time were called chlorinated 5 biphenyls and later chemical analysis showed 6 that they were mixtures of chlorinated 7 biphenyls and chlorinated naphthalenes, but 8 retrospectively I don't see how you could sort 9 out which are which. 10 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 11 Q. So you are saying that you couldn't rule out 12 that the toxic effects were caused by chlorinated 13 naphthalenes; is that correct? 14 MR. GOUTMAN: Obj ection to the form of 15 the question. 16 THE WITNESS: I don't think I said that. 17 I said that the chemicals, materials, which 18 were studied were mixtures, so that when you 19 ,, report effects in animals it is hard to * 20 attribute how much of it came from the 21 naphthalenes and how much came from the 22 biphenyls. This is the point that I find 23 difficult. 24 BY MR. ZIEGLER: Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46828 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 29 1 Q. The author indicates on the first page in the 2 third paragraph, "A comparison between the 3 chlorinated naphthalenes and the biphenyls based on 4 existing studies indicates that the biphenyls are 5 more toxic." 6 Do you have any reason for disputing 7 that conclusion? 8 A. I see the statement, but I don't see anything 9 that - - I wish I could see what that statement is 10 based that I could draw, that I could evaluate. I 11 don't see any basis that I have for evaluating that 12 statement. 13 Q. My question is just a little bit different, 14 though. My question to you is sitting here today do 15 you have any information upon which you would dispute 16 this particular statement? 17 A. I don't have any information from which I 18 could evaluate that statement, so I would not be in a 19 position to dispute it or to accept it. 20 Q. During your time working at Monsanto do you 21 know if Monsanto developed any data upon which to 22 evaluate, in your lab, developed any data upon which 23 to evaluate this particular statement? 24 MR. GOUTMAN: Again, the statement being Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046829 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 30 1 the relative toxicity between biphenyls and 2 naphthalenes? 3 MR. ZIEGLER: Yes. 4 THE WITNESS: I don't recall ever 5 working with a chlorinated naphthalene, so I 6 would have no data of my own to make such a 7 comparison. 8 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 9 Q. And Monsanto, as far as you know, didn't 10 develop that kind of data? 11 A. I#m not aware that Monsanto developed any such 12 data. 13 Q. Now, going back to the statement we talked 14 about earlier, you would not dispute that chlorinated 15 biphenyls and naphthalenes can be absorbed by the 16 skin, inhalation or by ingestion. You would not 17 dispute that, would you? 18 A. I think the attached table, tables, that they 19 have show the animal results of skin application, of 20 oral studies and of vapor exposure, and they do have 21 reported effects in different animals by those routes 22 of exposure, so the question is the animal species, 23 the amount, the duration, all enter that. 24 Q. And during your employment with Monsanto this Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046830 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 31 1 proposition, in terms of the absorption of 2 chlorinated biphenyls, this is something that you 3 would have understood while you were employed by 4 Monsanto? 5 MR. GOUTMAN: Objection to the form of 6 the question. I'm not sure I know the meaning 7 of it. 8 THE WITNESS: I guess the question isn't 9 very clear to me either. Could I have the 10 question read back to me? 11 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 12 Q. Yes. During your employment with Monsanto you 13 understood that PCBs could be absorbed by the skin, 14 by inhalation or by ingestion? 15 MR. GOUTMAN: You are talking about 16 animals. 17 MR. ZIEGLER: Yes. 18 THE WITNESS: I think that is a somewhat 19 different emphasis than I thought was the first 20 time, but based on animal data, and as I just 21 said, the three tables at the end of this 22 report, show effects in animals that were those 23 by mouth, by skin, and by inhalation, so I 24 would say yes. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46831 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 32 1 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 2 Q. I'm talking about while you were employed with 3 Monsanto you understood what is stated in this 4 particular passage. 5 MR. GOUTMAN: What particular passage 6 are we on now? 7 MR. ZIEGLER: The one concerning how 8 PCBs are absorbed through the skin, inhalation, 9 and by ingestion. 10 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 11 Q. You understood that while you were employed by 12 Monsanto, didn't you? 13 A. You say you understood how? I don't know that 14 I understand how they were absorbed. I was aware 15 that they could be absorbed because Joe Treon, who 16 did the inhalation studies on PCBs when he was with 17 the Kettering Institute in Ohio, I knew Joe quite 18 well before his death and I was aware of the work he 19 had done, so, yes, I was aware that PCBs can be 20 absorbed, but I go back. I say when did I become 21 aware of it? 22 Q. When? 23 A. I don't know. I may have known this before I 24 came to Monsanto. I may have learned more about it Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46832 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 33 1 when I came to Monsanto. I can't pinpoint when I 2 received or became aware of specific information. 3 Q. With respect to the degree of toxicity of 4 PCBs, you understood while you were employed by 5 Monsanto that the toxicity of PCBs is proportional to 6 their degree of chlorination, did you not? 7 MR. GOUTMAN: Obj ection. Overly broad. 8 You may answer. 9 THE WITNESS: As a rough generalization, 10 the higher the degree of chlorination they 11 generally tend to be somewhat more toxic, yes. 12 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 13 Q. And you also understood, during your 14 employment with Monsanto, that PCBs could be 15 associated with liver atrophy and necrosis; isn't 16 that correct? 17 MR. GOUTMAN: Again, in laboratory 18 animals? 19 MR. ZIEGLER: Yes. 20 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 21 Q. We are talking about laboratory animals. 22 A. I'll go back to what I have said before. I'm 23 not sure, when you say when I was working, I may have 24 known it when I came to Monsanto, I may have learned Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46833 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 34 1 more about it when I got to Monsanto, but as a 2 general rule chlorinated hydrocarbons tend to produce 3 adverse liver effects such as you described, so that, 4 yes, I was aware of that. 5 Q. Also while you were employed at Monsanto, and 6 I'm looking at the conelusion of the study right 7 now - - 8 A. Which study? 9 Q. Exhibit 3. 10 MR. GOUTMAN: This is not a study. 11 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 12 Q. All right. This paper. You were also aware, 13 while you worked at Monsanto, that the scientific 14 community suspected that PCBs could be retained and 15 accumulated in the body with chronic exposure; is 16 that correct? 17 MR. GOUTMAN: Obj ection to the phrase 18 "the scientific community". 19 You may answer if you understand the 20 question. 21 THE WITNESS: This document is dated 22 before my employment with Monsanto. 23 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 24 Q. Yes. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46834 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 35 1 A. And so when you make statements about when I 2 worked for Monsanto, I go back to what I have said 3 earlier. There are many things that I have learned 4 over the years or I have been informed of over the 5 years, and I can't say when they come into 6 consciousness. When Rachel Carson in "Silent Spring" 7 put the emphasis on DDT accumulation I think that 8 many scientists at that time would begin to suspect 9 that there's a potential for accumulation of any 10 chlorinated hydrocarbon in an animal, and so these 11 things sort of come into consciousness, but it is 12 hard to say when, so when you say when you worked for 13 Monsanto you knew or you learned, I can't say when I 14 knew or learned, but, yes, some chlorinated 15 hydrocarbons will accumulate. I'm not sure when I 16 became aware of the accumulation of PCBs in animals. 17 Q. Can you give me a year when you became aware 18 of that? 19 MR. GOUTMANs He just said he couldn't 20 tell you when. 21 THE WITNESS: There are many - - 22 MR. GOUTMAN: Obj ection to the question, 23 THE WITNESS s There are many items of 24 information that I accumulate over the years. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046835 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 36 1 My mind is not such that I can tell you when I 2 learned about them. 3 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 4 Q. Can you tell me if it was before or after 5 1975? 6 A. I talked earlier about PCBs and Joe Treon. I 7 knew Joe Treon and I knew the work that he done on 8 PCBs long before I came to Monsanto. I knew they had 9 a TLV and I learned information on PCBs over the 10 years. So when did I become aware of the specific 11 item? I can't tell you. 12 Q. Can you tell me if it was before or after 13 1975? 14 MR. GOUTMAN: He's answered the 15 question. Do you want another answer? 16 THE WITNESS: I think I said I was 17 aware of certain things about PCBs before I 18 came to Monsanto and that I accumulated more 19 information. I can't tell you the time frame 20 in which I picked up specific items. 21 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 22 Q. In terms of the statement that we have been 23 discussing about the accumulation of PCBs, you would 24 not dispute that statement, would you? Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046836 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 37 1 MR. GOUTMAN: What statement? 2 Objection. I would like to know what 3 statement. 4 MR. ZIEGLER: The statement that we have 5 been talking about, Tom, on page three. 6 MR. GOUTMAN: Could you read it for the 7 record so that the record is clear? 8 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 9 Q. "There is a strong suspicion that chlorinated 10 biphenyls can be retained and accumulated in the body 11 with chronic exposure." 12 We have been discussing it for five 13 minutes. 14 A. I think I addressed that. I think I said that 15 Rachel Carson, when she said DDT, many scientists 16 began to wonder whether any chlorinated hydrocarbon 17 could accumulate, and this document says that there 18 is a strong suspicion. It doesn't say there is 19 evidence. So that ties in. When you have a 20 suspicion a scientist says I wonder if it could be 21 happening with this thing because this happened. By 22 analogy this may. That's what I think is a strong 23 suspicion. She doesn't say we have detailed evidence 24 of same. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46837 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 38 1 MR. ZIEGLER: Let's mark this document 2 as Exhibit Levinskas 4. (Indicating). 3 (The above-referred to document was 4 marked as Levinskas Exhibit 4 for 5 identification). 6 MR. PENDERGAST: Can you just identify 7 the date and author, please? 8 MR. ZIEGLER: I will. 9 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 10 Q. Exhibit 4 is a memorandum from Elmer P. 11 Wheeler dated June 24, 1971. The subj ect is, "Status 12 of Aroclor Toxicity Studies". 13 MR. GOUTMAN: Let me just interpose an 14 obj ection that this particular document is 15 Bates stamped from the Scott litigation and I 16 believe those documents were subj ect to a 17 confidentiality order. I would just inquire as 18 to how you obtained the document. I'll obj ect 19 to the use of it. 20 MR. PENDERGAST: This is Exhibit 4? 21 MR. ZIEGLER: Exhibit 4. We obtained 22 this document from, and I'm not - - we obtained 23 this document from a law firm in New Orleans, 24 Louisiana. I was not involved in obtaining, I Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046838 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 39 1 did have some involvement, but nothing was 2 expressed to us about any confidentiality 3 order. We are certainly unaware of any 4 confidentiality order, and if you want to 5 produce such an order, we are happy to consider 6 it. 7 THE WITNESS: Okay. 8 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 9 Q. Dr. Levinskas, what month did you start with 10 Monsanto in 1971? 11 A. July. 12 Q. So this - - July what? What day? 13 A. Actually the actual date was July 5th or 6th. 14 It was just after the fourth. 15 Q. So this document would have been written about 16 a week-and-a-half before you started with Monsanto; 17 is that correct? 18 A. That's correct. 19 MR. GOUTMAN: I also object on the same 20 basis as the other documents that predated his 21 employment and contain no indication that he 22 authored it, received it, or was otherwise 23 involved in its creation. 24 BY MR. ZIEGLER: Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046839 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 40 1 Q. Are you familiar with the studies that are 2 referred to in this particular document that were 3 underway at Monsanto in June of 1971? 4 A. I think the first paragraph says the studies 5 in rats and dogs completed two years of feeding test 6 diets in May. These studies were basically completed 7 when I j oined the company. I'm aware that the 8 company has done these studies, yes. 9 Q. Did you interface at all with Industrial 10 Bio-Test Lab -- 11 A. No. 12 MR. GOUTMAN: Excuse me. When? At 13 all? Is that the question? 14 MR. ZIEGLER: You cut me off before 15 I could finish my question. 16 MR. GOUTMAN: I am sorry. I thought you 17 were done. 18 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 19 Q. Did you interface with IBT with respect to any 20 of the studies that are described in this document? 21 A. I did not interface with IBT before they 22 issued their first reports on the studies. The first 23 awareness I had of these studies was basically when 24 they issued reports on them. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046840 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 41 1 Q. At some point in time you did start 2 interfacing with IBT with respect to 3 the toxicity studies and discussing those studies 4 with IBT before they finalized their reports. Do you 5 recall what year you began doing that? 6 MR. GOUTMAN: Obj ection to the form of 7 the question. 8 You can answer if you can. 9 THE WITNESS: Well, as I indicated, when 10 I joined the company environmental assessments 11 of new products and new uses of products were 12 my concern. I had no more than peripheral 13 involvement with existing products. In about 14 August 1972 Dr. Bill Hunt, who was an older 15 toxicologist in the department, died. At that 16 point I was given responsibility for toxicity 17 testing which Dr. Hunt had been handling. 18 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 19 Q. And what were those responsibilities, if you 20 could give me a general description of them? 21 A. It was basically to keep an eye, if you will, 22 or to liaison, if necessary, with the laboratory that 23 was doing the studies. 24 Q. And what were your responsibilities as liaison Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46841 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 42 1 with IBT? 2 A. Well, in actuality, for quite some time I 3 never did any of those. At that time we had hired a 4 second person to work with me and he reported to the 5 department just after Bill Hunt's death, so he was 6 given the responsibility of liaison with the 7 laboratory, so it was another year or so before I 8 actually got much interaction with the laboratory. 9 Q. Can you give me -- are you talking about 1973? 10 A. I would say probably about late summer or 11 early fall of '73. 12 Q. And your main contact at IBT was Dr. Calandra; 13 is that right? 14 A. Dr. Calandra was the head of the laboratory. 15 Initially, Dr. Otis Fancher was the second in command 16 whom we dealt with mostly, and then depending on the 17 nature of the study my direct contact was either the 18 director or it could be another person, persons. 19 Q. Did you have any interaction with IBT with 20 respect to toxicity tests of Aroclors, Aroclor 21 1254's, in rats, dogs, and chickens? 22 A. I don't recall anything of consequence with 23 the dogs or chickens. I did have some review of some 24 of their reports, I say, after they had been issued. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46842 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 43 1 Q. What about rats? 2 A. Well, I should have specified. On the rat 3 reports is what I had some interaction with them on 4 reports. 5 Q. And those were the ones concerning the 6 carcinogenicity of PCBs. 7 A. The lifetime feeding studies of Aroclors 1242, 8 1254, and 1260? 9 Q. And was that your only involvement with 10 respect to the rat studies, your only involvement 11 with IBT and the rat studies? 12 MR. GOUTMAN; Obj ection to the form of 13 the question. 14 THE WITNESS: Within the context of the 15 studies on this memo, I'd say my contact was on 16 the rat studies for the 1242, 54, and 6 0, yes. 17 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 18 Q. If I understand you correctly, you didn't have 19 any contact with IBT with respect to toxicity studies 20 for dogs and chickens. 21 MR. GOUTMAN: That's what he said twice 22 now. 23 THE WITNESS: I don't recall having any 24 contacts. I may have made a comment to Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46843 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 44 1 somebody, but I don't recall any specific 2 detailed review or examination, or so forth. 3 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 4 Q. Who is Dr. Kimbrough? 5 A. Dr. Kimbrough is a woman physician who has 6 some special training, I believe, in pathology. She 7 used to work at the Center for Disease Control in 8 Chamblee, Georgia outside of Atlanta. The last time 9 I saw her and was aware of it, she was working at the 10 EPA in Washington, DC. 11 Q. And Dr. Kimbrough had conducted a study with 12 respect to the carcinogenicity of Aroclors in mice. 13 Is that not correct? 14 A. Yes, she did do a study on mice. I'd sort of 15 forgotten that. Yes, she did do a study on mice. I 16 don't recall the findings on that. I think it was 17 essentially negative with respect to carcinogenicity. 18 Q. Really? 19 MR. GOUTMAN: Is that a question? 20 MR. ZIEGLER: Let's mark this document 21 as Exhibit 5. (Indicating). 22 (The above-referred to document was 23 marked as Levinskas Exhibit 5 for 24 identification) Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46844 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 45 1 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 2 Q. Exhibit 5 is correspondence to Dr. Calandra 3 from George J. Levinskas dated February 4, 1975. 4 MR. GOUTMAN: This refers to a rats 5 study. You were talking about mice. 6 MR. ZIEGLER: I'm not sure what 7 difference that makes. 8 MR. GOUTMAN: I think it did to this 9 witness and that's why, perhaps - - 10 THE WITNESS: I think I said that I had 11 forgotten, but she did do a study in mice and I 12 think the results were essentially negative. 13 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 14 Q. Did she do a study in rats? 15 A. Yes, she did. 16 Q What did the study for rats show? 17 A. She did a study in fema1e rats fed for just 18 under two years and she reported finding liver cancer 19 in those rats. In some of those rats. 20 Q. And you had a chance to review that work, did 21 you not? 22 A. Dr. Kimbrough came to Monsanto to inform 23 Monsanto of her findings, and I was present at the 24 meeting at which she told us about those findings. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46845 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 46 1 Q. And you made three conclusions with respect to 2 that particular study, which you placed in Exhibit 3 Number 5; is that not correct? 4 MR. GOUTMAN: Obj ection to the form of 5 the question. 6 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 7 Q. You made three conclusions on her study which 8 you put in this exhibit; is that correct? 9 A. Let me have time to read the memo to refresh 10 my memory. 11 MR. GOUTMAN: I would just obj ect 12 because it is a summary of a meeting; not a 13 summary of a study. Subj ect to that obj ection 14 he can answer. 15 THE WITNESS: I would reiterate 16 counsel's statements. You said - - I do not - - 17 I did not review her study. This is a report 18 of a meeting that was held and these are the 19 conclusions that I drew from the meeting. 20 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 21 Q. And as you state in the memorandum, the 22 purpose of your meeting was to review sections of 23 liver tissue from Dr. Kimbrough's two year study in 24 which female rats were fed 100 ppm of Aroclor 1260; Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046846 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 47 1 correct? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. And you made three conclusions in that regard, 4 did you not? 5 A. Let me clarify two points. The review of the 6 liver sections was made by pathologists, one of which 7 is Dr. Kimbrough, one of which was a Ward Richter, 8 who is mentioned here, and another one is Dr. Squire, 9 and another one whom is Dr. Levitt. They were the 10 people reviewing the slides and they were drawing the 11 conclusions. I am not a pathologist; I am an 12 observer at this meeting trying to summarize what 13 these people decided. That's one point. 14 And as I said earlier, I did not review 15 Kimbrough's data. 16 Number three, when Kimbrough came to 17 Monsanto and reported finding tumors in rats fed 18 Aroclor 1260 and Monsanto had a study that said 19 Aroclor 1260 did not produce cancers in rat livers, 20 then I was given the task of trying to resolve, find 21 out -- at that point I was to find out what is the 22 basis for the difference in the findings. There 23 could be many, many reasons for differences in 24 findings, and this is one of the steps that we took Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046847 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 48 1 to try to resolve or understand why two different 2 studies gave somewhat different results, and this was 3 the conclusion drawn from my listening to the 4 pathologists comparing slides. 5 Q. As you stated, three conclusions can be drawn. 6 One of those conclusions -- 7 A. Conclusions drawn from the meeting; not from 8 the study. 9 Q. And one of those conclusions was that in your 10 earlier study the severity of liver lesions was 11 greater in fema1es than in males; is that correct? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. And the second conclusion was that, to a large 14 extent, substantially the same type of lesions were 15 observed in both studies, except that the lesions 16 seemed to be more advanced in Kimbrough's study. 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. And in addition, although there was some 19 variation in terminology, the findings were 20 reasonably close; correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And the third conclusion was that there were 23 definite liver adenocarcinomas in Kimbrough's study; 24 is that correct? Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046848 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 49 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. And during that meeting -- who did Dr. Richter 3 work for? 4 A. Dr. Richter was at one of the medical schools 5 in the Chicago area and he also worked as a 6 pathologist for Industrial Bio-Test which had done 7 the studies. I don't know the nature of his 8 relationship with IBT, but he was on the faculty of 9 one of the area medical schools. 10 Q. And he expressed to you that two of the 11 animals in your study approached the same type of 12 lesions that Dr. Kimbrough had observed; isn't that 13 correct? 14 MR. GOUTMAN: You misread that. 15 THE WITNESS: He said that --he 16 expressed a view that two of the animals in the 17 Monsanto study approached the type of lesion 18 Kimbrough observed, but had not quite, had not 19 developed into the same lesion observed in 20 Kimbrough's studies. 21 BY MR. ZIEGLER; 22 Q. And he expressed that to you. 23 A. Yes. 24 I might add that, related to the first Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46849 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 50 1 conclusion, in our earlier studies the severity of 2 liver lesions was greater in females than in males, 3 Kimbrough's study was done only in female rats, so as 4 part of the information package, in assessing those 5 findings, we pointed out that the males were less 6 severely affected than females. Since Kimbrough had 7 done only females she would have seen the most severe 8 lesions, so we were beginning to try to reconcile 9 these diverse findings into an understandable 10 situation. 11 Q. And we will talk about that shortly. 12 Let's mark this as Exhibit 6. 13 (Indicating) 14 Levinskas Exhibit 6 is correspondence 15 from D.E. Gordon to Dr. Levinskas dated March 16 24, 1975. (Indicating). 17 (The above-referred to document was 18 marked as Levinskas Exhibit 6 for 19 identification) 20 MR. GOUTMAN: I take it, Jim, that you 21 got this also from the lawyer, Mr. Murdock, in 22 Louisiana? 23 MR. ZIEGLER: Perhaps. I don't know. 24 MR. GOUTMANs Do you know that we did Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046850 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 51 1 produce this in this litigation as well? Do 2 you have some preference for illicitly obtained 3 documents ? 4 MR. ZIEGLER: This is your 5 representation, that it is illicitly obtained. 6 If that's the case, I don't know why It would 7 have a confidentiality order over it. It seems 8 to serve no purpose for that. 9 MR. GOUTMAN: Then you can question the 10 judge who entered the order, but, in any event 11 12 MR. ZIEGLER: Why Monsanto would be 13 voluntarily producing these documents in one 14 litigation and seek protection in another 15 escapes me, but you can take that up with the 16 judge in the Louisiana case. 17 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 18 Q. I would just ask if you could read that. 19 please. Exhibit Number 6. 20 A. All right. 21 A. Okay. 22 Q. All right. Can you identify this document for 23 us, please. 24 A. This is a letter from Don Gordon, who was a Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046851 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 52 1 pathologist at IBT. It is his trip report, if you 2 will, for the same trip that the previous exhibit 3 referenced. 4 Q. And had you requested a copy of Dr. Gordon's 5 trip report from Dr. Gordon? 6 A. What I had done was summarize what I thought 7 had happened at the meeting, and I sent a copy of 8 that to Don Gordon for his comments to see whether he 9 agreed or disagreed, or did I misquote him or 10 misunderstand him. And this specific sequence 11 escapes me now, but this is his reply or his comments 12 on the meeting. 13 Q. And do you recall that Dr. Squire, Robert 14 Squire, who was the head of the Tumor Pathology 15 Branch of the National Cancer Institute concurred in 16 Dr. Kimbrough's findings that there was a high 17 incidence of hyperplastic and neoplastic lesions in 18 the liver of the test animals? 19 A. I would turn the comment around. I believe 20 Dr. Kimbrough went to seek Dr. Squire's opinion as to 21 the lesions she had seen. And as stated in this memo 22 here. Dr. Squire had proposed a new classification 23 scheme and he applied his classification scheme, 24 which includes these references that you made to the Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046852 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 53 1 hyperplastic and neoplastic lesions, so that if she 2 was using Squire's classification scheme, I don't see 3 that he has to agree with it. Of course he would 4 agree with it. 5 Q. The fact of the matter is that they both 6 agreed that carcinomas, cancer, was found in the test 7 rats; isn't that correct? 8 A. Using their criteria for diagnosis they found 9 carcinomas, that's correct. 10 Q. And you recall at the meeting that they both 11 expressed the opinion that the test rats showed a 12 high incidence of cancer? 13 A. I would not put the word "high" in there. 14 There was an incidence of cancer. There was a series 15 of lesions including cancer. My recollection is of 16 the 200 or so rats that Dr. Kimbrough had on study 17 there was something on the order of 20 or 40, no more 18 than 20 or 40, that had cancers, so the bulk of the 19 animals, the large number, did not have cancer. 20 Q. So to the extent that Dr. Gordon believed that 21 Dr. Kimbrough had found a rather high incidence of 22 cancer, you would not agree with his characterization 23 of high incidence. 24 MR. GOUTMAN: Objection. That isn't Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046853 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D 54 1 what the report says. 2 THE WITNESS: I was going to say, 3 reading the report, "In summary. Dr. Kimbrough 4 found a rather high incidence of hyperplastic 5 (nodular hyperplasies) and neoplastic 6 (hepatomas, carcinomas), lesions in the liver", 7 so that the aggregate of all of those lesions 8 was a high incidence, but that doesn't mean 9 that there was a high incidence of the 10 carcinomas. 11 MR. ZIEGLER: I see the distinction that 12 you are making. 13 MR. GOUTMAN: It is the distinction that 14 the author of that report made. 15 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 16 Q. And Dr. Gordon attempted to give you two 17 possible explanations for the differences in the 18 findings of Dr. Kimbrough's study and the findings in 19 the IBT studies, is that not correct, with respect to 20 the incidence and severity of the liver lesions? 21 MR. GOUTMAN: In this document? 22 MR. ZIEGLER: Right. 23 THE WITNESS: I would say within this 24 document Dr. Gordon was doing - - what we were Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046854 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 55 1 trying to do is to try to understand why we 2 were seeing different results, yes. 3 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 4 Q. And what did you learn from Dr. Gordon from 5 this document when you received it? 6 A. I guess I have a little difficulty with the 7 question. I can't recall what I learned from the 8 document that I hadn't already learned by being at 9 the meeting. It confirmed the conclusions I had 10 written earlier in the previous item to Dr. Calandra. 11 It uses some different phraseology but I don't think 12 there's any basic disagreement between what Gordon is 13 saying here and what I had said in the previous 14 exhibit, so I'm not sure what I learned from the 15 document except that he is doing the same thing we 16 are doing. He's trying to question whether the 17 difference in the rats, and he points out the sex 18 difference, which I had indicated she had only one 19 sex, the female rats, and we had done both males and 20 females, and the males show a less effect than 21 females, so that's one reason why she showed more 22 effects. 23 Q. So the two reasons that were postulated at the 24 meeting for the differences in the results of the two Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046855 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 56 1 studies, one was the strain of rat and two was in the 2 fact that Dr. Kimbrough used only female rats; is 3 that correct? 4 A. Those are among the possibilities that could 5 be considered in trying to rationalize or explain the 6 differences, understand the differences. 7 Q. And Dr. Gordon did not postulate any other 8 reasons for the differences that I can see 9 immediately in this document. Can you recall any 10 others that were discussed at your meeting? 11 A. It' s not listed as a point, but they do make, 12 I should add that there's also attached to this 13 document a report by Dr. Richter, but they both talk 14 about the fact that they are using somewhat different 15 terminology, different classification scheme. That's 16 another factor that should be considered. 17 Q. So you think that Dr. Kimbrough is using a 18 different classification scheme than the IBT, than 19 what was used in the IBT test; is that correct? Is 20 that what your testimony is? 21 A. No, I'm saying that the pathologists at IBT, 22 and you can look at Ward Richter's memo, which is 23 the next to last page, in item four it says, "Dr. 24 Squire and Dr. Kimbrough are using a new and revised Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046856 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 57 1 terminology for the categories and list them as 2 follows." He has a column "My Terminology" and Dr. 3 Squire's, and "My Terminology" is listed as classical 4 use, this is Dr. Richter's, and then Dr. Richter says 5 that Dr. Squire's is revised terminology, so they are 6 pointing out the definitions they are using are 7 different. 8 As I indicated earlier, I'm not a 9 pathologist. I sat in on the meeting and I listened 10 and I tried to report what was happening, but I was 11 not a participant in the evaluation of it. I'm a 12 scientist trying to understand what is going on. 13 Q. I understand that. What page are you reading 14 from? 15 A. It is the next to the last page of the 16 exhibit. It starts off with the February three date, 17 1975. And Dr. Donovan Gordon, IBT, and it is signed 18 on the last page by Ward Richter. 19 Q. Do you see there on point number three on that 20 same page where the author states, "If we both read 21 the same slides there might be a little variation in 22 numbers of lesions in the different categories but no 23 difference"? 24 A. Yes. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046857 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 58 1 Q. Does that indicate to you that the author 2 is - - strike that. 3 Who is Dr. Richter with? Was Dr. 4 Richter with IBT? 5 A. I indicated earlier that he was teaching at 6 one of the medical schools in the Chicago area. And 7 he also was doing pathology work for IBT. I don't 8 know the nature of the relationship he had as a 9 consultant or part-time or whatever. I have no 10 knowledge of that. But he was -- he did pathology 11 work for IBT. 12 Q. But Dr. Richter indicates, even as you state, 13 even if they are using different classification 14 schemes, on point number three on the second to last 15 page he indicates that there might be a little 16 variation in the numbers of lesions in the different 17 categories, but no maj or difference. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Does that change your mind as to whether or 20 not the classification schemes may have been 21 responsible for the different findings of the two 22 studies? 23 A. From my experience, I would take that to mean 24 that you recognize that when you are looking under a Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046858 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 59 1 high power microscope section and you have got a 2 piece of tissue no bigger than your fingernail, and 3 you are focusing on something that is like no bigger 4 and perhaps smaller than a grain of salt, so that 5 when you look at the slide, if you try to look at the 6 whole slide and look at a grain of salt time and time 7 again, of course that whole piece of tissue, this 8 could be an endless chore, so a pathologist will sort 9 of look at it and scan back and forth and get an 10 overall impression of that tissue. Now, a big thing 11 like a cancer or a benign tumor, a hepatoma, that 12 will stand out in its characteristics, but when you 13 are talking about vascularization, you are talking 14 about some degeneration of cells, you are talking 15 about some of the peripheral observations apart from 16 tumors and you start counting them, you are not going 17 to count the whole section because it is an endless 18 chore, so depending on which field, which area, the 19 pathologist focuses on and looks at he may see 20 something a little bit different than somebody who 21 looked at the other corner, so I think what he's 22 saying there is he's not talking about the tumors, 23 he's talking about other kinds of lesions that he has 24 recorded in the liver, and if you tabulate them, some Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046859 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 60 1 guys say that there's 17 and some guys say that 2 there's 12. 3 Q. So he is not talking about the classification 4 scheme in terms of carcinomas or non carcinomas. 5 A. No, I think in number two he says, "My 6 evaluation tends to be a little more conservative 7 than theirs. For example: They would call some of 8 my hepatomas carcinomas but with some question." 9 That's where he is talking to the cancer. I think he 10 is talking other differences in number three. 11 Q. Do you know why they would cal1 some of the 12 hepatomas carcinomas? 13 A. I go back to point four where he puts the 14 terminology in there. The second item. What Richter 15 would call nodular hyperplasia and hepatoma in 16 mixture. Squire would call nodular neoplasia or 17 neoplastic nodule, and earlier comments about Gordon 18 saying that the hyperplastic and neoplastic lesions 19 in the liver, that's this. (Indicating). 20 Q. So as I understand you, the reason why Dr. 21 Richter called these hepatomas and not carcinomas was 22 simply by virtue of, if I understand this correctly, 23 simply by virtue of his nomenclature of what he was 24 seeing; is that correct? Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046860 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 61 1 MR. GOUTMAN: Objection to the form of 2 the question. 3 You can answer as to why Dr. Richter, 4 if you know, why Dr. Richter did what he did. 5 THE WITNESS s Well, my understanding of 6 pathologists, from working with them, is that 7 there is some subjectivity in determining how 8 abnormal and what -- the borders between normal 9 and abnormal aren't always that clear. Normal 10 tissues, cells, have some variation. They get 11 to be changed, altered, more bizarre, and 12 finally they get to be full blown cancer. 13 People don't have any difficulty defining full 14 blown cancer, they don't have difficulty 15 describing normal, reasonably normal tissue, 16 but somewhere in that area, it's not an 17 overnight change, it is a gradual change, 18 distortion, changing, and many say it is going 19 over the hill and we now call it a cancer. 20 Where you look at that slide, section, how you 21 look at it, what your own experience is there's 22 a certain degree of subj ectivity there, and I 23 think we are seeing that reflected in the 24 opinions of these different people. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046861 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 62 1 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 2 Q. And in terms of their subj ective evaluations, 3 doctor, what you are saying is that Dr. Richter was 4 more conservative than Dr. Kimbrough. 5 A. No, I'm quoting Dr. Richter, who says he may 6 be more conservative. 7 Q. Okay. Would you agree with his assessment of 8 his subj ective evaluation, that he was more 9 conservative than Dr. Kimbrough? 10 A. I have indicated that I do not look at slides, 11 I am not a pathologist; my attempt is to gather the 12 information that I can and to try to make some sort 13 of sense out of it. Some a11empt to understand it. 14 Q. Do you remember corresponding with Dr. 15 Calandra in regard to the Aroclor 1254 studies 16 dealing with careinogiStic properties of PCBs in 17 rats? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Okay. And do you recall that Aroclor 1254 20 study found that that particular type of Aroclor was 21 slightly tumorigenic at levels of 100 ppm when fed 22 continuously in the diet of the rats for two years? 23 Do you recall that? 24 A. I would have to look at the reports. I cannot Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046862 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 63 1 claim to recall precise wording of reports over the 2 years. 3 MR. ZIEGLER: This will be seven. 4 (Indicating). 5 (The above-referred to document was 6 marked as Levinskas Exhibit 7 for 7 identification) 8 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 9 Q. ' What I'm handing you is a copy of Bio-Test 10 Lab, I think report, to Monsanto Company entitled, 11 "Two Year Chronic Oral Toxicity Study With Aroclor 12 1254 In Albino Rats11 dated March 24, 1975. 13 I will tell the witness that this is 14 not the final draft of the report. 15 A. I would add to your description that it also 16 says, "Histopathological Evaluation of Additional 17 Liver Sections". This is not the complete chronic 18 oral toxicity report, which if memory serves me right 19 is probably about three to five inches of paper. 20 Q. But Dr. Gordon concluded in this particular 21 draft that Aroclor 1254 appeared to be slightly 22 tumorigenic; is that not correct? 23 A. The wording says that the 1254 appears to be, 24 appears to be slightly tumorigenic at levels of 100 Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046863 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 64 1 ppm, 100 parts per million, when fed continuously in 2 diet for two years. That was in the summary of the 3 report. 4 Q. And do you remember talking with Dr. Calandra 5 about changing the language "slightly tumorigenic". 6 Do you recall discussing that with him? 7 A. I never talked to Dr. Calandra about it. I 8 did write to him. 9 Q. You corresponded with Dr. Calandrain that 10 regard then; correct? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Do you know if these tests were ever produced 13 to any governmental agency, this particular test? 14 A. I have no personal - 15 MR. GOUTMAN: Objection. 16 THE WITNESS: I have no personal 17 knowledge of whether these were given to 18 government agencies because there was no 19 regulatory requirement for us ever to give a 20 PCB report to a government agency that I'm 21 aware of. 22 MR. GOUTMANs I think you are operating 23 under a fundamental misunderstanding. This is not 24 a test. The tests was completed in 1971 and a Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046864 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 65 1 report was issued about that. This is going 2 back and taking sections of the liver and 3 reinterpreting them. 4 MR. ZIEGLER: I understand. Exactly. 5 MR. GOUTMAN: This is not a test. I 6 think your questions have been phrased as 7 though it is and it's not a test. 8 MR. ZIEGLER: It is a report. H rr 9 MR. GOUTMAN: s not a report of a 10 test; it is a report of going back and looking 11 at histopathologic sections of rat tumors. 12 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 13 Q. With that clarification, are you telling me 14 that this report, that you believe this was, this 15 report, was not produced to any governmental agency 16 or you don't know whether the report was produced to 17 a governmental agency? 18 A. I said I'm not aware that there was any 19 requirement to produce it. I did not, personally, 20 give it to them. Now, I presume, but I have no basis 21 for documenting, that it was made available to many 22 people, including government agencies, who asked for 23 them. 24 Q. Do you know what the purpose, do you know what Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046865 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D 66 1 Monsanto's purpose was in making those, in this 2 particular report, available to governmental 3 agencies? 4 A. I have indicated I don't know - - I was not 5 involved in the dissemination of this report and I 6 really can't tell you. 7 Well, the -- 8 Q- There's no question pending. 9 A. Okay. 10 Q. There's no question pending. 11 A. No comment. 12 MR. ZIEGLER: Let's mark this as 13 Levinskas Exhibit 8. (Indicating). 14 (The above-referred to document was 15 marked as Levinskas Exhibit 8 for 16 identification). 17 MR. PENDERGAST: Was this identified? 18 MR. ZIEGLER: No, I will identify it. 19 Exhibit Number 8 is a transmittal from W.B. 20 Papageorge, PAPAGEORGE, dated 4/6/75 21 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 22 Q. Going back -- I'm sorry. Have you had a 23 chance to read Exhibit 8? 24 A. Okay. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046866 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 67 1 Q. Going back to this meeting at which you 2 attended and Drs. Kimbrough, Squire, Gordon, and 3 Richter attended, did you express any opinions at 4 that meeting with respect to the validity of, the 5 accuracy, of Dr. Kimbrough's findings? 6 A. I have never expressed an opinion on the 7 accuracy. She had findings that she reported and I 8 felt those - - that was information that we had to 9 somehow contend with. We had to understand it. 10 Whatever. That was my thought. I never questioned 11 the validity of her data. 12 Q. That's what I'm getting to. At that meeting 13 Dr. Kimbrough expressed the opinion that her work 14 showed that PCBs cause cancer in those rats; is that 15 correct? 16 A. She came to Monsanto and told us that. We 17 were talking about that same study. 18 Q. And Dr. Squire agreed with her; is that 19 correct? 20 A. Dr. Squire reviewed the slides on his 21 terminology and he said yes, I agree there's cancer 22 in there. 23 Q. And from Dr. Richter's comments to you after 24 the meeting you were not satisfied with Dr. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046867 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 68 1 Kimbrough's and Dr. Squire's opinions or conclusions 2 with respect to her study? 3 MR. GOUTMAN: Obj ection to the form of 4 the question. 5 THE WITNESS: I don't know where the 6 inference came that I was not satisfied or 7 unhappy with it. I don't see that anywhere in 8 what's been going on. 9 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 10 Q. Exhibit Number 8 shows that you requested the 11 Eppley Institute For Research In Cancer to review 12 some of Dr. Kimbrough's work; is that correct? 13 A. The exhibit you are referring to, we are 14 sending to Dr. Philippe Shubik at the Eppley 15 Institute For Cancer in Omaha, Nebraska, and we are 16 asking him to look at the totality of the information 17 we had, which includes the Monsanto data and the 18 Kimbrough data, and asking him for his advice and 19 opinion as to what suggestions he may make for us to 20 understand or to come to understand the data that was 21 on the table. 22 Q. Well, my question is if you already have the 23 opinions of these two doctors from the Center for 24 Disease Control and the National Cancer Institute, Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046868 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 69 1 why were you looking for another opinion as to the 2 correctness of Dr. Kimbrough's findings? 3 MR. GOUTMAN: Objection. He didn't say 4 that. 5 THE WITNESS: I would repeat what I 6 said. We were not disputing Kimbrough's 7 findings, we were not denying the Monsanto 8 findings; we are trying to understand why 9 supposedly similar experiments came up with 10 different results. We are asking Dr. Shubik# 11 who was a prime, long time researcher in the 12 field of chemical carcinogenesis, was a 13 recipient of many, many grants from the 14 National Cancer Institute, he is a top notch 15 expert and we are asking him for any 16 suggestions that he can offer us to help 17 understand the situation, so we are not asking 18 to disprove Kimbrough's data and we are not 19 asking him to do anything else with the 20 Monsanto data except to consider them and see 21 what we can do to resolve the differences or 22 understand the differences. 23 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 24 Q. Do you know if it was -- well, it was Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046869 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 70 1 Monsanto's policy to challenge wherever possible 2 findings with respect to health effects of PCBs where 3 they were shown to have an adverse effect on animal 4 health; isn't that correct? 5 MR. GOUTMAN j Objection. 6 THE WITNESS: I'm not aware that it was 7 a Monsanto policy. I can say with conviction 8 that it was not my perspective to challenge 9 data. My goal is to try to understand data and 10 to give what I consider technically valid 11 interpretations of the data. 12 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 13 Q. Have you ever seen any reports, Monsanto ,14 reports called Report of the Aroclor Ad Hoc 15 Committee? Have you ever seen anything like that? 16 A. I may have. I really can't say. 17 Q. It contains company recommendations for 18 actions with respect to PCBs? 19 A. I would have to say again I may have seen 20 them. I see lots of things, but I don't specifically 21 recall any particular event. 22 MR. ZIEGLER: Let's mark this as 23 Levinskas 9. (Indicating). 24 (The above-referred to document was Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046870 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 71 1 marked as Levinskas Exhibit 9 for 2 identification) 3 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 4 Q. Exhibit Number 9 is correspondence by 5 George J. Levinskas dated July 18, 1975 regarding the 6 Aroclor two year rat feeding studies. 7 A. I'm ready. 8 Q. You knew the report on the Aroclor two year 9 rat feeding study was going to be produced to 10 government agencies, didn't you? 11 A. It had been produced to government agencies. 12 Q. You knew that the latest draft of the report 13 would be produced to government agencies; isn't that 14 correct? 15 A. No, we are talking -- 16 MR. GOUTMAN: Objection. 17 THE WITNESS: The two year rat feeding 18 studies had been produced to agencies, at least 19 the Food and Drug Administration and I think 20 the EPA. We are now talking about additional 21 liver sections from that same study that were 22 evaluated. 23 If I may go back a step, when the 24 question of carcinogenicity came up we went and Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46871 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 72 1 had slides made of all available livers from 2 the Monsanto studies to see if the tumors were 3 there, the cancers were there. Those slides, 4 they are selected portions of those slides 5 because there are too many in total, were taken 6 down to Dr. Kimbrough and Dr. Squire, and 7 Gordon, Richter, Squire, and Kimbrough looked 8 at Monsanto slides and at Kimbrough slides and 9 they went back and forth. I think there was 10 general agreement, when we talk about the 11 lesions were more severe in the females than 12 ma1es, that there were cancers in Kimbrough's 13 data and there were no cancers in IBT data, 14 Monsanto data. I think that was a consensus of 15 the four pathologists, so now we are talking 16 about those liver sections only; not the 17 complete two year rat study that this is 18 referring to. (Indicating) 19 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 20 Q. That wasn't my question. 21 A. Well -- 22 MR. GOUTMAN: Obj ection . 11 was your 23 question and he gave you an answer. Your 24 question was misleading in that it misstated Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46872 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 73 1 what happened. 2 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 3 Q. You knew that when this report was given to 4 the government that the phrase "slightly tumorigenic" 5 would be bothersome, and so for that reason you had 6 them amend the report to it "does not appear to be 7 carcinogenic". 8 MR. GOUTMAN: Obj ection to the form of 9 the question. 10 MR. ZIEGLER: Isn't that correct? 11 MR. GOUTMAN: Obj ection to the form of 12 the question. 13 THE WITNESS: I do not agree with that 14 statement. 15 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 16 Q. Let me ask you this, and I'm not, going to have 17 this marked immediately. Do you know whose 18 handwriting this is? (Indicating)? 19 A. No, I don't, and I can only say with 20 conviction that it's not mine. 21 MR. ZIEGLER: This will be Levinskas 10. 22 (Indicating). 23 (The above-referred to document was 24 marked as Levinskas Exhibit 10 for Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46873 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 74 1 identification) 2 MR. GOUTMAN: What do you want him to 3 look at now? 4 THE WITNESS: I have got nine and ten. 5 MR. GOUTMAN: What is it that you want 6 to direct his attention to? 7 MR. ZIEGLER: I want to direct your 8 attention to Exhibit Number 10. 9 THE WITNESS: Ten. 10 MR. ZIEGLER: You can take a look at 11 that. 12 MR. GOUTMAN: Note my obj ection. This 13 is not this witness's writing. He's never seen 14 it before and it is undated. 15 MR. ZIEGLER: It is a Monsanto document. 16 I'm going to ask him about it. 17 MR. GOUTMAN: I don't know that it is a 18 Monsanto document. It doesn't have any Bates 19 stamp that I would be familiar with. Where did 20 you get it? 21 MR. TEDFORD: Louisiana, probably. 22 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 23 Q. Exhibit Number 10 the author states that the 24 tumor incidences in females with 1254s is Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46874 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 75 1 bothersome; 82 percent at ten ppm and 100 percent at 2 100 ppm. If one tabulated and reported these data, 3 it would probably raise questions even though most of 4 these are benign." 5 MR. GOUTMAN: That's what it says. 6 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 7 Q. And the fact is, Dr. Levinskas, you knew, and 8 it was discussed in your department, that if these 9 findings were presented to the government or if it 10 was concluded that PCBs were slightly tumorigenic, 11 that it would probably raise questions with the 12 government; isn't that correct? 13 MR. GOUTMAN: Obj ection. 14 THE WITNESS: I think you made 15 statements that I certainly do not agree to. I 16 have not seen this document before. I don't 17 know its origin or its purpose. I don't recall 18 hearing about it. And I challenge and I 19 disagree with the view that I knew something, 20 and I have no objections to the phraseology in 21 reports that people make provided the 22 phraseology, the data, the phraseology is 23 consistent with the data in the report. So I 24 disagree wholeheartedly with your comments. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046875 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 76 1 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 2 Q. You don't disagree with - 3 MR. GOUTMAN: Excuse me. 4 A. And I - 5 MR. GOUTMAN: Wait for a question. 6 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 7 Q. You don't disagree with the data in the report that 8 shows that the PCBs were slightly tumorigenic? 9 A. I have never disagreed with that statement. 10 Q. So that was an accurate statement - 11 A. It is consistent with the data. 12 Q. And that was an accurate statement which you 13 had deleted from the report? 14 A. No, I did not delete it. 15 Q. You didn't have that deleted? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Do you have Exhibit Number 9 in front of you? 18 A. All right. , 19 Q. Didn't you suggestto Dr.Calandra that he 20 take that language out of that report? 21 A. I think we are getting things confused again. 22 The original two year reports, I believe, I would 23 have to go back and double check, but I think the 24 original two year reports talked about hepatomas in Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046876 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 77 1 the 1242, 1254, 1260 rate. The hepatomas were 2 discussed between Squire and Kimbrough and Richter 3 and Gordon as we have said before. Those original 4 two year reports were sent to government agencies. 5 The tumorigenic statements, which I think the '6 originals went to the government agencies. That s 7 true. 8 Now, with respect to Exhibit 98 10 MR. GOUTMAN: This one. (Indicating). 11 THE WITNESS: With respect to Exhibit 9, 12 if you will look at the last table, last page, 13 what I recall on this one, and it is all I 14 recall, is that I was given two sets of reports 15 which had been issued by Bio Test which 16 discussed the observations on the liver 17 sections from all of the rats. That's why I 18 made the earlier distinction that we are 19 talking about the liver sections and not the 20 full two year report. And I was asked to 21 compare, to take a look at those reports, and I 22 think I can check the report quite easily 23 because if you tell me that you did something 24 in the procedures I look to see in the tables Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46877 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 78 1 if the data is there to support what you said 2 you did or did you do what you said you did. 3 When I got through I put together the table 4 that is the third page of Exhibit Number 9. 5 And I said when I look at what you have 6 written, in one set of reports which I label as 7 11 Supplemental Report #1", (mailee) you said 8 three times slightly tumorigenic, slightly 9 tumorigenic, slightly tumorigenic for three 10 reports. When I look at the second 11 supplemental report #2, and I have the 12 identified, I put "JCC delivered", I presume 13 that I was told that JCC had delivered, and I 14 say in the second version you say "does not 15 appear to be carcinogenic", "slightly 16 tumorigenic", and "does not appear 17 carcinogenic", you have changed the wording in 18 two out of three reports from one version to 19 the other. I did not ask him to make those 20 changes. All I know is that I had two sets of 21 reports with two different sets of terminology. 22 And I said as long as you are finding the same, 23 basically the same findings in both sets of 24 reports, your conclusions are similar, you have Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046878 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 79 1 changed the phrasing two out of three times, I 2 would prefer that you change the third one to 3 be consistent, for one thing, and since we are 4 now talking specifically on cancers, not on 5 tumors in general, I would like the report to 6 reflect as accurately as possible the issue of 7 concern, so I asked, I think I said I asked, I 8 say second paragraph, "In two instances, the 9 conclusion of ' slightly tumorigenic' was 10 changed", I don't know who changed it, I 11 didn't, "to 'does not appear to be 12 carcinogenic.' The latter phrase is 13 preferable. May we request that the Aroclor 14 1254 report be amended to say 'it does not 15 appear to be carcinogenic'", and this is my 16 tabulation of the basis for the request. 17 So I'm saying if you are talking to a 18 specific subj ect -- if you can use - - if you are 19 comfortable and you think the term "does not 20 appear carcinogenic" is valid in two times out 21 of three, why not make it three out of three 22 since we are talking about the same thing all 23 three times. That's what is behind that 24 statement and behind that table. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46879 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 80 1 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 2 Q. So the conclusion "slightly tumorigenic" was 3 never placed in the final report, was it? 4 A. I believe "slightly tumorigenic" is in the 5 final report which has details of the two year rat 6 feeding studies. It appears in each of those three 7 reports, I believe. I would have to go back and 8 double check the reports. 9 The supplemental information, which we 10 are talking about, which is like in your Exhibit 7, 11 we are talking now about the changes to be made only 12 on the reports of liver sections which were the 13 supplemental reports, one of which is your Exhibit 7, 14 because we are talking every time about the Aroclor 15 two year rat studies. People keep talking about the 16 two year rat study, but the two year rat study report 17 is done. We went back and did additional work to try 18 to get at this question of the carcinogenicity, so 19 the slightly tumorigenic statement went to the 20 agencies. If this second report went to the agencies 21 it also would have said, it would have the new 22 phraseology. 23 Q. So the supplemental report that went to the 24 government omitted the phrase "slightly tumorigenic". Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046880 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 81 1 That's my question. 2 MR. GOUTMAN: Objection to the form of 3 the question. There's been no foundation laid 4 as to whether the supplemental report was ever 5 submitted to the government, whatever that 6 means. 7 Go ahead. You can answer. 8 THE WITNESS: I was going to say that 9 this supplemental report drew a conclusion 10 based on the data which in my professional 11 judgment, opinion, was not inconsistent with 12 the conclusions, was not contradictory to what 13 we had said earlier, was a more specific 14 enumeration of a specific point, which was of 15 certain concern to people. 16 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 17 Q. You testified earlier that you sent 18 Monsanto's data and the results that it had generated 19 in its two year rat study and Dr. Kimbrough's study, 20 you sent those along to the Eppley Institute, and 21 could you tell us what the Eppley Institute concluded 22 from their review? 23 A. There were two things that happened. One is 24 that Dr. Shubik suggested that you get a pathologist. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046881 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 82 1 Dr. Peter Pour, that we use him to look at the 2 Kimbrough slides and the IBT slides. And that was 3 done. 4 And then at a later date he had an 5 epidemiologist and a suggestion was made that we use 6 his epidemiologist to look at the health status of 7 the employees at Monsanto who were making Aroclors. 8 Q. And what were the results of the Eppley 9 Institute's reevaluation of Dr. Kimbrough's study? 10 A. Dr. Pour was the only person who looked at all 11 of Kimbrough's slides and all of the IBT slides. He 12 concluded that he did not see any cancer. I think he 13 saw one cancer in the liver, but that was a 14 metastasis that had come from some other source. It 15 wasn't primary. But he concluded that he saw no 16 liver terms. I shouldn't say that. No liver cancer. 17 MR. PENDERGAST: How do you spell the 18 last name? 19 THE WITNESS s POUR. It is really 20 Pour, I guess, but they pronounce it Pour. 21 He did say something to the effect that, 22 I don't recall a number, he saw something like 23 20 or 30 slides in Kimbrough's data that he 24 said were -- things were happening. There were Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046882 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 83 1 some things that were happening. But he says I 2 have a piece of static tissue under the 3 microscope and I don't know whether it is 4 getting better or getting worse, but he 5 concluded that there were no tumors. Whatever 6 the epidemiology studies were done I was not 7 involved in taking a look at the Monsanto 8 workers or not. I really have no knowledge of 9 how it was done or - - I can't add anything to 10 it. 11 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 12 Q. And you were pleased with Dr. Pour's 13 findings, weren't you? 14 A. I have difficulty with your adj ectives. I 15 accepted Dr. Pour's findings as another piece of 16 information to use to try to unravel or understand 17 what we had on the table. 18 Q. It was actually more than that. You accepted 19 Dr. Pour's findings as Monsanto's position on the 20 differences in Kimbrough's study and the IBT study; 21 isn't that correct? 22 MR. GOUTMAN: Obj ection to the form of 23 the question. No foundation as to whether this 24 doctor was responsible for forming "Monsanto's Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046883 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 84 position" or what that phrase could possibly mean in this context. In any event, you can answer the question if you understand it. THE WITNESS: Well, I don't recall specifics now, but I would disagree with the characterization. BY MR. ZIEGLERs Q. Didn't you write a press release or help draft a press release for Monsanto making a Monsanto Company announcement about Dr. Pour's results? A. I would 1ike to see thedocument. I don't recall writing press releases. Q. Sure. You helped draft this, didn't you? This will be Exhibit Levinskas 11. (Indicating) . (The above-referred to document was marked as Levinskas Exhibit 11 for identification) BY MR. ZIEGLER: Q. And LevinskasExhibit 11 iscorrespondence dated November 17, 1975, by George Levinskas and it has some attachments to it. Look at the second page of that, Dr. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046884 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 85 1 Levinskas, if you could. 2 MR. GOUTMAN: Excuse me. He's going to 3 read the exhibit that you put before him. 4 MR. ZIEGLERs Okay. 5 THE WITNESS: I would go back to my 6 original statement - 7 MR. GOUTMAN: There's no pending 8 question. 9 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 10 Q. The pending question is, if he can go over to 11 the second page, D.R. Bishop states, in his 12 memorandum, that the press release incorporates your 13 comments. Do you disagree with what Mr. Bishop 14 states there? 15 A. I would make two observations on that. One is 16 for various reasons I would, I may on occasion 17 summarize or write up or put together information, 18 sort of a status report, and Dan Bishop may have 19 gotten one of those statements and taken sections of 20 it to put in a news release. Dan was in public 21 relations. 22 I would like to go back to the first 23 page -- 24 Q. Well - - Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046885 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 86 1 MR. GOUTMAN: Finish your answer, 2 doctor. 3 He's going to finish his answer. 4 MR. ZIEGLER: I move to strike the rest 5 of his answer as being nonresponsive. 6 MR. GOUTMAN: Finish your answer. 7 THE WITNESS: I was going to go back to 8 the first page, the second paragraph I say, 9 "The news release prepared by Dan Bishop which 10 accompanied his memo of November 17, 1975 11 should not be released. It should be destroyed 12 to prevent its inadvertent use or misuse." 13 I would take that as an interpretation 14 that I did not agree with what Dan Bishop was 15 saying. 16 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 17 Q. My question to you is on the second page Dan 18 Bishop states that the second draft of the news 19 release summarizing Dr. Pour's reevaluation of Dr. 20 Kimbrough's study incorporates comments from Dr. 21 Levinskas. Are you challenging that particular 22 statement? 23 MR. GOUTMAN: He just answered that 24 question, that he prepared a memorandu -- Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046886 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 87 1 MR. ZIEGLER: No, I want an answer to 2 that question. 3 MR. GOUTMAN: You did get an answer. 4 You may give it again. Doctor, if you 5 want. 6 MR. ZIEGLER: Did you make comments on 7 the news release? 8 MR. GOUTMAN: No, he didn't say make 9 comments; it incorporates comments. That's 10 what it says. 11 THE WITNESS: I'll go back and reiterate 12 what I said. For various reasons at different 13 times with different products I would put 14 together summaries or status of information and 15 so forth, and I may well have done this in 16 respect to PCBs including Dr. Pour's 17 evaluation. Dan Bishop says it incorporates 18 comments. He could have taken one of those 19 statements and taken sections and put them in 20 his news release. That does not mean that I 21 prepared a news release or that my intention of 22 preparing a document was that it should be a 23 news release. When I say information, it is an 24 internal summary for people, to let people know Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046887 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 88 1 where things stand, what is going on, where our 2 status is. 3 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 4 Q. My question is a little bit different than 5 that. My question is not whether or not he took 6 something that you had previously done, but my 7 question to you is that he gave you a draft copy of 8 his news release announcing Monsanto's position on 9 these issues and you made comments to him in that 10 regard. 11 MR. GOUTMAN: Objection. 12 THE WITNESS: My comment was don't use 13 it. 14 MR. GOUTMAN: Excuse me. 15 Obj ection to the form of the question. 16 He's already answered that question twice now. 17 He said he doesn't recall ever making any 18 comments on drafts. He says that it is his 19 belief that Mr. Bishop would have taken 20 memoranda that he prepared for internal 21 consumption and incorporated that in the press 22 release. Now, you can ask that question five 23 more times and I suspect that you will get the 24 same answer that you got the first two times Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046888 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 89 1 you asked it. 2 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 3 Q. Why don't you turn back a few pages to D.R. 4 Bishop's memorandum to you, if you could, please, and 5 read that. 6 MR. GOUTMAN: It is D.R. Bishop's 7 memorandum to six different people. 8 MR. ZIEGLER: Yes. 9 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 10 Q. Stating, "Please let me have your comments 11 and/or approvals as soon as possible by next Monday." 12 Did I read that correctly. Dr. 13 Levinskas? 14 A. That's what he says. 15 Q. He was asking you for your comments; isn't 16 that correct? 17 MR. GOUTMAN: Was asking for comments 18 or approval, and three days later Dr. 19 Levinskas says you can't send it out. 20 MR. ZIEGLER: Listen, we are going to 21 get to the bottom of this. 22 MR. GOUTMAN: I hope we do. It is a 23 very, very difficult issue here, about a press 24 release that was never sent out. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046889 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 90 1 BY MR., ZIEGLER: 2 Q. On November 14 he asked you for your comments; 3 isn't that correct. Dr. Levinskas? 4 MR. GOUTMAN: Objection. That isn't 5 what it says. Comments and/or approvals. 6 That's what it says. 7 You can answer the question. 8 BY MR., ZIEGLER: 9 Q. He asked you for your comments, doesn't he? 10 MR. GOUTMAN: Objection to the form of 11 the question. 12 You can answer. 13 BY MR., ZIEGLER: 14 Q. 15 A. On November 14. Dan Bishop's memo is addressed to several 16 people, one of whom is me. 17 Q. 18 A. That's right. And he asked for your comments. And he asked for comments and approval. 19 MR. GOUTMAN: And/or approval. 20 THE WITNESS: And I don't recall what I 21 specifically said to him, what, if anything, I 22 said to him on that. I don't recall. 23 BY MR., ZIEGLER: 24 Q. And that brings me back to my original Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046890 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 91 1 question. He says in his memorandum three days later 2 that it incorporates your comments. 3 A. Well -- 4 Q. And you made comments to him. You helped him 5 prepare this latest draft, didn't you? 6 MR. GOUTMAN: Objection to the form of 7 the question. 8 You can answer if you have anything 9 additional to say in answer to that question 10 that's now been posed five or six times. 11 THE WITNESS: He says it incorporates 12 comments from me and others. It does not say 13 that the comments were specifically in 14 reference to his November 14th memo. They 15 could have been earlier comments. I do not 16 recall making specific comments on this 17 document. I do recall, it refreshes my memory, 18 causes me to recall, that I felt that this 19 should not be released. 20 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 21 Q. That was after you made your comments? 22 MR. GOUTMAN: Objection. 23 Don't answer the question. That's been 24 asked now six or seven times. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46891 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D 92 1 He's not going to answer it again. 2 THE WITNESS: Can I take a short break? 3 MR. ZIEGLER: Sure. 4 (Deposition recessed). 5 MR. GOUTMAN: Levinskas 11, again, is a 6 document produced from the Scott litigation. 7 It was subj ect to a protective order and I pose 8 that obj ection as well. 9 MR. ZIEGLER: Did you produce that to 10 us? 11 MR. GOUTMAN: I can't tell you off the 12 top of my head. 13 MR. ZIEGLER: This will be Exhibit 14 Levinskas 12. (Indicating). 15 (The above-referred to document was 16 marked as Levinskas Exhibit 12 for 17 identification) 18 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 19 Q. Exhibit Number 12 is a memorandum to Dan and 20 it is entitled, "Explanation of the Levinskas IBT 21 Tabulation". It contains typewritten and handwritten 22 statements. 23 MR. PENDERGAST: What is it dated? 24 MR. ZIEGLER: It appears to be signed by Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46892 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 93 1 an O'Neill, O N E I L L, and dated 5/16/83. 2 MR. GOUTMAN: Just same objection as to 3 another document produced in the Scott 4 litigation. 5 MR. ZIEGLER! Did you produce this to 6 us in the PennDOT case? 7 MR. GOUTMAN: I don't know. I produced 8 48 boxes of documents and I cannot at present 9 recall each and every one. 10 THE WITNESS: I wrote the document. I 11 don't know if it makes an awful lot of sense. 12 MR. GOUTMAN: Wait for a question. 13 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 14 Q. Tell me why was Monsanto validating IBT 15 studies required by the government? 16 A. IBT inspectors, I guess, raised questions 17 about some of the IBT data, and my recollection is 18 that somebody in Monsanto got a letter from one of 19 the agencies, whether it was EPA or FDA I'm not sure, 20 and it was a listing of studies by number and some by 21 name. It was addressed to someone else in Monsanto, 22 it was given to me, and we were asked to identify the 23 studies on that list which were Monsanto studies that 24 had been submitted to a regulatory agency. And so I Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46893 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 94 1 went through all of the available records that I 2 could find to identify all of the studies, and these 3 were a variety of products from very short term to 4 relatively long term studies, identify all that I 5 could that were Monsanto items. 6 Q. And you identified 277; is that correct? 7 A. I don't recall the number -- of that list. And 8 then there were one or two that I raised questions about. 9 There are a few, probably more than one or two, but a 10 half dozen or so that I raised questions about them, 11 I couldn't identify based on the data and so forth, 12 and that was sent back to the government. 13 Q. And there were additional studies which were 14 not sent to the government which Monsanto attempted 15 to validate; is that not correct? 16 A. Well, you are getting a little ahead of me. 17 So we went back to IBT to try to get 18 the data, to check on some of these studies, and 19 apparently many other people who had used IBT had 20 similar situations because there were so many people 21 going up to IBT trying to get records, including some 22 government agencies, I guess. Basically the 23 government shut down IBT. And then they kept some 24 people on to send the data out to the companies that Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46894 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 95 1 had sponsored the studies. So what we did 2 internally, and this sort of suggests, I don't know 3 who wrote this memo, I haven't seen this document 4 before that I recall, but what we did in the medical 5 department was we looked at everything that we had 6 done at IBT, every study of any kind, and put them 7 into three categories. Category one, the high 8 priority, were items that we had sent to a regulatory 9 agency asking them to take regulatory action, that if 10 we made that request we wanted to know whether the 11 information that we had given them was valid or 12 invalid or questionable, that if we had made a 13 request for agency action it was our obligation to 14 tell them how good that data was. 15 The second category was items that had 16 not been submitted to a regulatory agency, but were 17 of great interest to Monsanto's commercial products 18 and if we had information that we were using to 19 evaluate safety or handling of them, we wanted to 20 know how good that data was. 21 The third category was items that had 22 either been experimental samp1es or products that 23 were no longer commercially viable and for whatever 24 reason those got the bottom category, so we had three Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046895 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 96 1 categories of products. That's what this suggests to 2 me, because it says we validated. It says 277 IBT 3 studies. I can't vouch for the number. I don't know 4 who put this together. Another 80 studies for our 5 own information. And a third category, this is a 6 little different, this talks about cyanurate, which 7 is a product that Monsanto owned, other people, FMC, 8 made, and it talks about three of the companies 9 working on that. 10 Q. Do you know -- strike that. 11 IBT, would you agree with me that IBT 12 did many of the studies for Monsanto concerning PCB 13 toxicity in animals? 14 MR. GOUTMAN: Obj ection to the form of 15 the question. 16 You can answer. 17 THE WITNESS: Of the studies that I'm 18 aware of IBT did a fairly large number of the 19 s tudies. Not j ust on PCBs, but for Monsanto 20 and for many other companies. 21 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 22 Q. And at some point in time, approximately 1975 23 or 197 6 - - when was it that you discovered that IBT 24 had gross deficiencies in some of the studies that it Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046896 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 97 1 had done for Monsanto? 2 MR. GOUTMAN: Objection to the form of 3 the question. No foundation as to what this 4 witness ever found. 5 THE WITNESS s Well, first, I'm not sure 6 of the time. I gave you a recital of how we 7 got into the business of validating and why we 8 were validating studies. 9 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 10 Q. You were validating because the IBT studies, 11 some of the IBT studies that were done for Monsanto 12 had some serious problems; isn't that correct? 13 MR. GOUTMAN: Obj ection to the form of 14 the question. 15 THE WITNESS: No, I wouldn't agree with 16 serious problems. 17 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 18 Q. You wouldn't agree. 19 A. Questions were raised about the reliability of 20 IBT data and it was our purpose to look at those 21 studies in so far as we could to try to resolve the 22 question as to whether the data were available to 23 support the conclusions that were drawn in the 24 reports, and I might add that I had some outside Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46897 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 98 1 experts, retirees, old timers, who were asked not 2 only to review the data and to see if the data 3 supported the conclusions, but in their judgment were 4 the conclusions correctly drawn and would they agree 5 with the conclusions, so we started reviewing and 6 validating, attempting to validate, many studies. I 7 think the characterization with respect to the 8 deficiencies through operations is invalid. 9 Q. Let me ask it to you this way. Would you 10 agree with me that falsification of records, such as 11 the recording of observations which were not actually 12 made, is a serious problem in an IBT study? 13 A. I would agree with that statement that 14 falsification of data for observations which were not 15 made is a serious problem in any study. 16 Q. Would you agree that lack of written SOPs 17 would be a serious problem in a rat study? 18 MR. GOUTMAN: Obj ection to the form of 19 the question. 20 THE WITNESS: I would have to take that 21 statement in two different parts. At the time 22 that we are talking about with respect to IBT 23 there were no standards, there were no 24 reference points, there was nothing against Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046898 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 99 1 which you could evaluate such a thing, so it 2 was either done or not done depending on the 3 laboratory. 4 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 5 Q. But if they claimed to follow unwritten SOPs, 6 but this was found not to be true, that would result 7 in a serious problem with their studies; isn't that 8 correct? 9 MR. GOUTMAN: Objection to the form of 10 the question. 11 THE WITNESS: I have difficulty with 12 that statement. I don't see how you can 13 evaluate compliance with an unwritten SOP. 14 This is what I tried to say earlier. 15 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 16 Q. So you don't agree with the statement. 17 MR. GOUTMAN: Excuse me. Don't 18 interrupt the witness. 19 Please continue. 20 THE WITNESS: I said the statement how 21 can you evaluate compliance with an unwritten 22 SOP? If there's no written document how do you 23 check the compliance -- if there's no written 24 procedure? ' Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46899 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D 100 1 MR. ZIEGLER: Would animal substitutions 2 be a serious problem in an IBT study? 3 MR. GOUTMAN: Can you read back the 4 question. 5 (The last question was read back by the 6 Court Reporter). 7 MR. GOUTMAN: Obj ection. Overly broad. 8 Vague. 9 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 10 Q. Does that sound like a serious problem to you? 11 MR. GOUTMAN: Same obj ection. 12 THE WITNESS: I would have to object to 13 the question because there are -- no, 14 substitution has a lot of different meanings in 15 a study. There are times when studies have had 16 substitutions and were perfectly valid. 17 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 18 Q. Is having unreported extra animals used in an 19 IBT study, is that a serious problem to you? 20 MR. GOUTMAN: Obj ection. Overly broad. 21 THE WITNESS: Again, I would have to 22 have specific details on it because there are 23 times when things such as that were done. 24 MR. ZIEGLER: What about poor Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON00469QO GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 101 1 accountability in handling of test substances? 2 Is that a serious problem? 3 MR. GOUTMAN: Objection. Overly broad 4 and vague. 5 THE WITNESS: Define "poor 6 accountability". 7 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 8 Q. What about this one? The preparation of 9 records reporting observations which were not made 10 and the issuance of final reports known to be false? 11 Does that sound like a serious problem to you? 12 MR. GOUTMAN: Let me just interpose an 13 objection. What you are referring to has never 14 been charged against IBT PCB studies. You are 15 taking that out of a context, out of the 16 context in terms of allegations against IBT 17 with respect to other substances and tests and 18 it is completely unfair and misleading. In 19 fact, as you know, there was never any criminal 20 indictment with respect to IBT's conduct in the 21 PCB studies. 22 MR. ZIEGLER: Thanks for the speech, but 23 I'm asking you whether this sounds to you like 24 a serious problem. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46901 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 102 1 MR. GOUTMAN: I'm telling you that you 2 are going through a litany of allegations made 3 against IBT that has absolutely nothing to do 4 with the PCB studies and you know it, and I 5 don't know why you are doing it other than to 6 mislead the witness and mislead the record. 7 THE WITNESS: I would have to say that 8 at the time this was going on there were no 9 such things as good laboratory practices which 10 were instituted later; there was no requirement 11 for standard SOPs, and today the difficulty is 12 that we look at yesterday's issues with today's 13 eyesight, and that in the absence of records, 14 in the absence of SOPs, in the absence of 15 laboratory practices against which to judge 16 compliance it is difficult to evaluate 17 statements taken out of context. From what I 18 know of IBT's operation, I would say that their 19 operation, from what I saw of it, was not 20 significantly different from that which were in 21 many other laboratories at the time, and even 22 the government agencies used IBT. 23 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 24 Q. Let me go back to my original question. The Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46902 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 103 1 issuance of a final report known to be false is a 2 serious problem, isn't it? 3 MR. GOUTMAN: Objection. Same 4 objection as before. 5 THE WITNESS: I say it is a statement 6 taken out of context. Yes, if you are writing 7 down things as a scientific conclusion that are 8 obviously and knowingly false, then I think 9 that's true. If we are having disagreements 10 over the interpretation of data, it's not 11 necessarily false and misleading. So I think 12 taking isolated statements, allegations, out of 13 context and saying yes, no, maybe, I think is 14 really not very helpful. 15 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 16 Q. Concealment of circumstances relating to 17 animal mortality. 18 MR. GOUTMAN: How long are you going to 19 go through this list because it is not 20 probative of any issue in this case? 21 MR. PENDERGAST: I want to join in that 22 objection. I think the record on this is 23 pretty clear with respect to what happened to 24 IBT. This is completely irrelevant, as far as Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46903 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 104 1 I can tell, to any issue in this case, so 2 whether reading a report relating to an 3 investigation of IBT or reading a published 4 decision on a conviction resulting from that 5 investigation doesn't matter because Attorney 6 Goutman is absolutely accurate in saying it has 7 nothing to do with the PCB studies. 8 MR. ZIEGLER: I'm afraid I don't agree 9 with that. 10 MR. GOUTMAN: Are you representing for 11 the record that the indictment and those 12 allegations pertained to the PCB studies? Is 13 that your representation? 14 MR. ZIEGLER: That's my argument, yes. 15 That's right. And you can live with that. 16 MR. GOUTMAN: I think that's 17 interesting. That's interesting. We will deal 18 with that with our judge. 19 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 20 Q. Did you have an opportunity to validate, we 21 were talking, if I could see, are you telling me that 22 after Monsanto found out about the circumstances at 23 IBT it was not at all concerned about the validity of 24 any of the Aroclor animal studies? Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46904 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 105 1 MR. GOUTMAN: Objection. He just said 2 at length that - 3 MR. ZIEGLER: I don't want your 4 testimony. 5 MR. GOUTMANs I'm going to make an 6 objection because you have a tendency to ask 7 questions over and over and over again until 8 you get an answer that you can live with. He's 9 already said that they attempted to validate 10 these studies. Now, are you looking for some 11 other additional information? 12 MR. ZIEGLER: Actually he didn't say 13 that, at least that's not how I understood his 14 testimony. 15 If that's correct I want to hear it. 16 MR. GOUTMAN: You heard it once. 17 THE WITNESS: Let me reiterate. When 18 questions were raised about IBT studies 19 Monsanto was interested. It was decidedly 20 interested. 21 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 22 Q. And that included the Aroclor studies, didn't 23 it? 24 A. I'm talking about IBT's studies - - Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046905 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 106 1 Q. Dicin' t you - - 2 MR. GOUTMAN: Excuse me. You are not 3 going to interrupt this witness again. Please 4 comp1ete your answer. 5 THE WITNESS: We then reviewed all, I 6 said all of the studies that we had done at 7 IBT, and we gave the priority to those studies 8 which we had submitted to a regulatory agency 9 with the request for regulatory action because 10 we felt that they acted on something that we 11 had told them. We wanted to be sure that that 12 information was valid. 13 Category two, things that were of 14 interest to Monsanto that we felt we had an 15 obligation, either our own interest was such 16 that we would validate, and the third category 17 was discontinued products, sample materials 18 that never got to be commercialized and so 19 forth. I do not recall saying one way or the 20 other where PCBs were in those three 21 categories. 22 MR. GOUTMAN: Let's take a break. 23 (Deposition recessed). 24 MR. ZIEGLER: This will be Levinskas Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046906 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 107 1 Exhibit 13. (Indicating). 2 (The above-referred to document was 3 marked as Levinskas Exhibit 13 for 4 identification) 5 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 6 Q. Exhibit 13, I'm going to ask the witness for 7 some assistance in identifying the author of Exhibit 8 13 . 9 MR. PENDERGAST: Is it an IBT document? 10 MR. ZIEGLER: IBT document dated January 11 14, 1972. 12 THE WITNESS: You know, I really don't 13 know. It is on IBT letterhead. It has got an 14 address in the corner. Green Valley, Arizona. 15 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 16 Q. Do you recognize the signature on page two? 17 A. There was a guy named Otis that used to work 18 at IBT. 19 Q. Otis? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Do you know what Otis' last name was? 22 A. There was an Otis Fancher. 23 Q. Can you spell that for me, please? 24 A. FANCHER, but I'm not familiar with this Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46907 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 108 1 handwriting to say that this was his. 2 Q. Were there any Dons or Dans who worked in your 3 department at the time you came on board with 4 Monsanto? 5 A. Not in the department. 6 Q. Do you know who this person might be writing 7 to, assuming that it is at Monsanto? 8 MR. GOUTMAN: Objection. 9 THE WITNESS: I don't know whether it 10 was at Monsanto. As I say, I don't know. I 11 haven't seen it before that I can recall. And 12 I don't know who; all I can say with certainty 13 is that I don't recall a Don or Dan in the 14 medical department while I was there. 15 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 16 Q. When he states on the second page, "I am 17 ashamed to publish the work done in these studies", 18 do you know if he is referring to the Monsanto PCB 19 toxicity studies in animals? 20 MR. GOUTMAN: Obj ection. Calls for 21 speculation. 22 You can answer. 23 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm not sure what 24 study he is talking about. And I'm not aware Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046908 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 109 1 that he was -- I shouldn't say that. I don't 2 know what he's planning to publish and I don't 3 know what studies he's referring to. 4 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 5 Q. When he says, "Some of my conclusions are not 6 in agreement with those of the reports or with 7 statements which have been made by Kip and by 8 Monsanto in discussions with the FDA", does that help 9 you in determining what reports he's talking about? 10 MR. GOUTMAN: Do you want him to read 11 the mind of someone who he doesn't even know, 12 in fact, who this author is? Is that the 13 question? 14 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 15 Q. Did Otis ever come to you and discuss his 16 feelings that he was ashamed to publish the work in 17 those studies? 18 A. I said I have not seen this memo before. I 19 have never discussed PCBs with FDA. I don't know who 20 he says when he says "and by Monsanto", I don't know 21 what, when he says -- when he says, "my conclusions 22 are not in argument with those", and so forth, the 23 reports, I have no basis for knowing what his 24 conclusions were or what the basis of his agreement Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46909 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 110 1 is. I have never been a Monsanto participant in 2 discussions with FDA on PCBs, so I can't really add 3 anything to the -- I'm even at a loss to try 4 speculating. 5 MR. GOUTMAN: Don't. 6 THE WITNESS: I'm not going to. 7 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 8 Q. Did anyone from Bio-Test ever come to you and 9 state to you that they had a notion that much of the 10 data are either fudged or collected with carelessness 11 or incompetence, particularly the data for the 12 supplemental studies with 1242? 13 MR. GOUTMANs We are talking about the 14 chicken study; right? I don't want the record 15 and I'm sure you don't want the record to be 16 misleading, that this letter is discussing the 17 study with chickens; not rats. 18 MR. ZIEGLER: I mean, if that's what the 19 witness is interpreting this, that's fine. 20 MR. GOUTMAN: The witness didn't say 21 anything about it. The document, itself, is 22 talking about the chicken studies, of course, 23 and you know that and I just want the record to 24 be clear on that issue. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46910 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. Ill 1 MR. ZIEGLER: The document speaks for 2 itself and I will let it, as opposed to having 3 you sit here and interpret it. 4 THE WITNESS: Well, what I see is he's 5 talking about chickens. I have never had 6 anybody in IBT come up to me and make any 7 statements about the lack of quality or 8 integrity or the validity of the data, and I 9 have never seen this document that I can recall 10 before. I have no basis for agreeing or 11 disagreeing with the statements in there. I 12 just can't comment on them. 13 MR. ZIEGLER: Do you know if you 14 produced this? 15 MR. GOUTMAN: I doubt it. It's not our 16 document; it is Bio-Test's. It wasn't sent to 17 us . 18 MR. ZIEGLER: Are you claiming that 19 Monsanto never received this document? 20 MR. GOUTMAN: I'm not claiming anything. 21 I think you are going to have to do some 22 discovery on that. 23 MR. ZIEGLER: These problems at Bio-Test 24 that we were discussing, how did those problems Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046911 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 112 1 first come to your attention? 2 MR. GOUTMAN: Objection. What do you 3 mean by "these problems"? 4 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 5 Q. Problems such as falsification of data, 6 substituting animals, those sort of things that we 7 have been discussing for the past 45 minutes. 8 MR. GOUTMAN: Has it been established 9 that this witness was aware of the problems 10 that you just enumerated? Because that 11 question - 12 MR. ZIEGLER: I'm asking. 13 MR. GOUTMAN: That question presumed 14 that this witness had stated that he was aware 15 of those problems at IBT and as such it was a 16 very misleading question, I'm sure you would 17 recognize, and therefore I object to the 18 question. 19 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 20 Q. Thank you for coaching the witness. I don't 21 agree with your characterization. 22 How did it first come to your 23 attention? 24 A. I know I said this once in detail and once Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46912 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 113 1 less detailed earlier, somebody in Monsanto, I don't 2 recall who it was addressed to, had a letter from a 3 regulatory agency, one of the government agencies, 4 asking us to identify studies that had been submitted 5 to them. And that that lead to an attempt to 6 identify those studies and to -- 7 Q. I'm sorry. Go ahead. 8 A. And to do that we had to get information. 9 Q. Do you know what year that was? 10 A. I would say probably about the mid '70's. I 11 don't recall specifically. 12 Q. Was it '75? '76? 13 MR. GOUTMAN: Don't guess. If you don't 14 know, say you don't know. 15 THE WITNESS: I don't know. Unless 16 there's something fantastic that happens, my 17 chronology is very bad; all I know is that 18 sequentially we do things and go along. 19 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 20 Q. If Monsanto had received a report in 1972 that 21 IBT was fudging data or collecting it with 22 carelessness or incompetence, or if you had received 23 that sort of report in 1972, would you have begun the 24 sort of investigation that you began in the mid '70's Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46913 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 114 1 earlier? 2 MR. GOUTMAN: Objection. It is 3 hypothetical. I can represent to you that that 4 document was not sent to Monsanto and Monsanto 5 got that document only when it was subpoenaed 6 from IBT by the government as part of their 7 investigation. 8 THE WITNESS s I have said I have not 9 seen the document before. If I can give you my 10 personal reaction, and I will go back to what I 11 have been trying to say all along, as a 12 scientist my purpose is to try to get 13 information and to evaluate the information 14 that has been used. It should be obvious that 15 if somebody came to me with an allegation that 16 something was not perfectly in order, I would 17 have gone after it to find out what was going 18 on. I do not recall anybody raising questions 19 in Monsanto or my associates among the 20 toxicology fields with IBT prior to that letter 21 that we received that I mentioned earlier from 22 the regulatory agency. 23 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 24 Q. When you started going through your validation Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46914 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 115 1 process in the mid 1970's how did you determine 2 whether or not data was falsified in the IBT reports? 3 A. We could not determine whether data was 4 falsified. Let me make two comments on that. I had 5 the retired director of Carbide's laboratory, a 6 toxicologist for many, many years, and two 7 successfully retired directors from Kodak's 8 laboratory. I got them to help me. And we went 9 through a procedure. We took the available records 10 that we could get from IBT on the study and I asked 11 them to check the data against the report. In other 12 words, was it in the report. Do records exist to 13 support the data. If they found some discrepancies, 14 would they assess whether the discrepancies were 15 significant and could alter the effects, the 16 conclusions drawn, or were they relatively 17 insignificant. For instance, if they said we weigh 18 animals once a month and they missed one or two body 19 weights, that's sort of insignificant. Then I asked 20 them were the records there to support the statements 21 that were in the report. If they were there would 22 they look at it and then let me know or offer their 23 comments as to whether not only were the data there 24 to support the conclusion, but did they agree with Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46915 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 116 1 the conclusion that was drawn from the report. 2 We put together a volume on every 3 report that we looked at. And EPA had requested 4 three states: Valid, invalid, or partially valid, 5 and I added a fourth category. I said valid, 6 invalid, partially valid, and no information, unable 7 to draw conclusions. Because there were some cases 8 we could not get any records. And then each of these 9 individuals, these retired, respected senior 10 toxicologists, signed off on his report. We 11 submitted a copy of the report, a marked up copy, 12 showing the things we discussed, the toxicologists' 13 conclusions and so forth to the agency. The EPA 14 accepted ours and they accepted our validation 15 procedure to the extent that they recommended it to 16 the rest of the industry. 17 Now, the second part of your question, 18 how do we determine if they were valid. Dr. Henry 19 Smyth, Dr. Henry Smyth, Jr., the retired director of 20 Carbide, he had a comment on one of his that I 21 thought was rather significant. He said everything 22 is there. And he says, you know, it all looks like 23 it fits. But the only way to determine whether it is 24 really valid would have been to take a movie of the Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046916 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 117 1 entire operation from the first day to the end of the 2 report. So with respect to validation, you can only 3 go on the basis that the records were available, the 4 records were examined, they were correctly reported 5 in the report, and the conclusions drawn were 6 supportable by the data. That's our basis for 7 validation. 8 Q. All right. And so that's my next question. 9 That was actually my question previously. The fact 10 is that you could not take a movie. There was no 11 independent way to know whether the data was fudged 12 or not when you went through your validation process. 13 A. There was no way to know whether data was 14 fudged or was not fudged. I'm describing the process 15 we used. 16 Q. 17 A. That's right. That's right. 18 Q. There' s no way, no independent way to tell one 19 way or another is what you are saying. And there was 20 no way for the EPA to know one way or another whether 21 the data was fudged when they accepted your 22 validation of the report; isn't that also correct? 23 MR. GOUTMAN: I'm sorry. What report 24 are we talking about? Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46917 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 118 1 MR. ZIEGLER: Of the reports that you 2 submitted to EPA for validation. More 3 particularly, the Aroclor reports. 4 THE WITNESS: Let me go back on the 5 Aroclor reports. I'm describing a process that 6 we used to validate studies. In so far as I 7 know, no, there was never a requirement that 8 Monsanto should submit a PCB study to an 9 agency. We never asked an agency to take 10 administrative action and we never submitted a 11 report with that intent. When the PCBs, it's 12 my understanding, when the PCBs were getting to 13 be an environmental issue and the studies that 14 we talked about earlier, which were nearing 15 completion when I joined the company that data 16 was made available to the people in the 17 agencies as it was developed for their 18 guidance, for their information, and subsequent 19 work that was done I presumed was made 20 available, it was a continuation of that 21 information process, but we never asked the 22 regulatory agency to take administrative action 23 on something that we submitted with respect to 24 PCBs. So there's no requirement that we do Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46918 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 119 1 this; it was done voluntarily, and it is a 2 little different from, say, pesticides where a 3 registration is required from the agency. 4 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 5 Q. I think you said earlier, though, that the EPA 6 accepted the data as valid. Did I misunderstand that 7 comment? 8 A. No, the studies that we validated, because we 9 had asked an agency to take regulatory action, the 10 agency has accepted those that we said were valid. 11 We have no requirement, we did not request a 12 regulatory action on PCBs. We have never, as far as 13 I know, we have never requested a regulatory action 14 on PCBs. So the agency was not interested in our - - 15 did not ask us to validate them. We did make the 16 information available to them as it was developed as 17 far as I know. 18 MR. ZIEGLER: I don't have any further 19 questions. 20 MR. TEDFORD: I don't have any 21 questions. 22 MR. PENDERGAST: I just have a couple. 23 24 BY MR. PENDERGAST: Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046919 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 120 1 Q. While you were at Monsanto were you aware of 2 anyone doing any work to determine whether PCBs could 3 migrate between substances? 4 A. I'm not aware of any specific studies in that 5 area. Like many chemicals, when PCBs get to be in 6 the headlines, they become a source of interest to 7 many people. Fund money becomes available and all 8 kinds of research studies spring up. And it would 9 not surprise me that such studies would be done, but 10 I have no awareness of them. 11 Q. My question was more specific to Monsanto. 12 Are you aware of anybody within Monsanto who would 13 have done any work along those lines? 14 A. I can't recall anything specifically looking 15 at migration studies. I can't speak for all of 16 Monsanto, but I don't have knowledge. 17 Q. I don't want you to speculate, but under whose 18 purview would that have been while you were with the 19 company? 20 A. Well, I have indicated in the beginning that 21 my initial interest was to look at new products and 22 new uses of existing products. For practical 23 purposes, except that they were still there, PCBs 24 were on their way out. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046920 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 121 1 MR. GOUTMAN: He wants to know whether 2 you can name somebody who would have been 3 responsible for something like a migration 4 study. Can you name any such person? 5 THE WITNESS: I can't name an 6 individual, but at the time the existing 7 products were what we call a business group. 8 The unit, the chemical unit that had a 9 responsibility for the product, they would be 10 the ones who would do that sort of study. I 11 can't name individuals who might have done it. 12 BY MR. PENDERGAST: 13 Q. And with respect to the plasticizer 14 applications of the Aroclors who would have been the 15 head of that group? 16 MR. GOUTMAN: When? From '71 to - - 17 BY MR. PENDERGAST: 18 Q. From when you started. 19 A. Oh, I really -- these people change and it is 20 some time before I find out about some of these 21 people. The plasticizer group was -- Monsanto had 22 many plas ticizers, one of which was PCBs. The PCBs 23 were also used as functional fluids. So who had 24 responsibility for the plasticizers, was it the PCB Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46921 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 122 1 people? 2 MR. GOUTMAN: If you know tell him, but 3 if you don't know say you don't know. 4 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 5 MR. PENDERGAST; That's all I have. 6 7 BY MR. GOUTMAN: 8 Q. I have some follow-up questions, Doctor. 9 With respect to the IBT rat 1242, 12 54, 10 and 1260 studies that were published in 1971, did 11 those studies show the development of tumors in some 12 of the rats' livers? 13 A. You said published. 14 Q. Reported. Issued. 15 A. I'm not aware thatthey had been published. 16 Q. I'm sorry. 17 A. I think I testified on this not too clearly 18 earlier. The results of the two year feeding studies 19 were reported, conclusions were drawn in the reports. 20 The two year rat feeding studies on each of the three 21 Aroclors and for practical purposes we can say that 22 those reports were finished. Practical purposes or 23 impractical. Subsequently when the questions came 24 up -- Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046922 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 123 1 Q. I'm just asking you about the 1971 test. Did 2 those tests and that data show the development of 3 tumors in some of the livers of these rats - 4 A. They reported hepatomas in the rat livers. 5 Q. And was that data and those reports turned 6 over to the FDA in 1971? 7 A. I don't know when it was turned over, but I 8 presume it was turned over to FDA. 9 MR. ZIEGLER: I move to strike his 10 answer. It is pure speculation. 11 BY MR. GOUTMAN: 12 Q. Sir, do you know whether the FDA was made 13 aware of IBT test results? 14 A. I would have to assume they were because 15 somewhere along the line the additional liver 16 sections that we talked about in those supplemental 17 reports, those slides were made available to FDA 18 pathologists. 19 MR. ZIEGLER: Same objection. It is all 20 based on assumption. Conjecture. 21 BY MR. GOUTMAN: 22 Q. And you know that, sir? 23 MR. ZIEGLER: I object to the leading 24 nature of the question. Objection to the form Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46923 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 124 1 of the question. 2 MR. GOUTMANs I'm sure you do. 3 THE WITNESS: My statement is based on 4 the fact that I can recall our getting a 5 package, I don't recall the details, but we got 6 a package of slides that were being returned to 7 us from FDA. 8 BY MR. GOUTMAN: 9 Q. Approximately when would that have been? 10 MR. ZIEGLER: Wait a second. I'm going 11 to interpose an obj ection and I move to strike 12 as non responsive. 13 MR. GOUTMAN: I don't think that's an 14 objection that you can make, but, in any event, 15 approximately when was that, sir? 16 THE WITNESS: I would say it is probably 17 mid or latter part, somewhere around the middle 18 ' 70's. 19 BY MR. GOUTMAN: 20 Q. And when you received the results of the 21 Kimbrough study. Dr. Kimbrough reported those directly 22 to you and to others at Monsanto; is that correct? 23 MR. ZIEGLER: Objection to the form of 24 the question. Leading. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46924 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 125 1 BY MR. GOUTMANs 2 Q. To whom did Dr. Kimbrough report those 3 results? 4 MR. ZIEGLER: You are leading your own 5 witness, counsel. 6 THE WITNESS: I think I have indicated 7 earlier that Kimbrough came to Monsanto and 8 she presented her results verbally. 9 BY MR. GOUTMAN; 10 Q. And -- 11 A. And Elmer Wheeler, Dr. Kelly, and I, at least 12 the three of us in the medical department were there, 13 in addition, and I don't recall all of the people, 14 but several other people from Monsanto were in the 15 same room. There could have been ten or 12 of us. 16 Q. Now, did she indicate, during that 17 presentation, as to whether in her opinion her 18 studies showed the development of cancers as opposed 19 to just tumors? 20 MR. ZIEGLER: Obj ection to the form of 21 the question. That's another leading 22 question. 23 MR. GOUTMAN: No, it's not. 24 THE WITNESS: I think it has been said Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46925 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 126 1 earlier that she came to report that she had 2 found cancers in the livers of the rats that 3 she had studied. 4 BY MR. GOUTMAN: 5 Q. Now, based upon your understanding of IBT' s 6 study completed in '71 did they report any cancers? 7 A. They reported hepatomas, which are considered, 8 at that time were considered by the pathologists as 9 benign tumors. 10 Q. My question was did they conclude that there 11 were any tumors in the rats studied in the IBT tests? 12 Excuse me. Cancers. 13 A. No, they did not conclude there were any 14 cancers. They reported the presence of benign tumors 15 only. 16 Q. When Dr. Kimbrough presented the results of 17 her studies did you find any inconsistencies between 18 her studies and IBT's studies in terms of the 19 conclusions reached? 20 A. Well, they had two opposite conclusions; one 21 said there are cancers and one said there are not. 22 Q. As a scientist, doctor, what are the ways in 23 which a scientist can resolve inconsistencies between 24 two studies of the same chemical? Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046926 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 127 1 A. There are a variety of ways that it could be 2 done. I think I have indicated several we attempted 3 to do. One is we went back and looked at all -- a 4 usual study they would take a select number of 5 animals from each group and look at them. Usually we 6 would not look at the rest of the tissues. So they 7 went back and looked at the additional liver sections 8 which had been stored but not examined 9 microscopically. That's what the supplemental 10 reports are. We went and talked to Dr. Philippe 11 Shubik, people who dealt with carcinogenicity all 12 their professional life, and asked them what 13 recommendation would they have for trying to resolve 14 these differences in results. And this is all part 15 of that. 16 Q. You looked at slides. 17 A. We looked at additional slides because they 18 were readily available. The animals had been fed for 19 two years and we could do that quickly without having 20 to spend more time with the animals. 21 Q. And you went to a physician at the Eppley 22 Cancer Institute. 23 A. Yes, Phil Shubik. 24 Q. And did you also go and visit the National Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46927 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 128 1 Cancer Institute with slides from both studies? 2 A. We took some representative slides from the 3 Monsanto studies and we went down to the National 4 Cancer Institute to meet with Dr. Squire and Dr. 5 Kimbrough to let the pathologists look at the tissues 6 from both sides of the fence, as it were, to see what 7 their agreement was. 8 Q. Now, Dr. Kimbrough was from the Center for 9 Disease Control? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Is that a federal agency? 12 A. Yes, it is a public health service agency. 13 Q. And the National Cancer Institute, is that a 14 federal agency? 15 A. It is one of the federal institutes of health. 16 Q. And I think you indicated that Dr. Kimbrough 17 and Dr. Squire had an opportunity to review the 18 slides of the IBT studies with their own two eyes; is 19 that correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And did they communicate any conclusions to 22 you as to whether their review of those IBT slides 23 showed cancer? 24 A. I don't recall that -- at the meeting they did Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46928 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 129 1 not see, they did not report seeing cancer in the IBT 2 slides. I do not recall having a written 3 communication from either of them. I believe I did 4 send a copy of some of the memos that are here to Dr. 5 Kimbrough summarizing my impressions of the meeting 6 with them. 7 Q. My question is during the meeting did Drs. 8 Kimbrough and Squire from CDC and NCI, respectively, 9 tell you whether they saw any cancers on the IBT 10 slides? 11 A. They did not address me directly, but during 12 the discussion they agreed with Gordon and Richter 13 that the IBT slides did not show cancer. 14 Q. Did you ever learn from Dr. Kimbrough as to 15 whether NCI around this time was doing its own two 16 year study of Aroclor 1254? 17 A. 17 m not sure where we heard the information 18 first, but we did hear that the National Cancer 19 Institute was sponsoring a two year feeding study on 20 Aroclor 1254 in rats. 21 Q. And what were the results of that study? 22 MR. ZIEGLER: Objection to the form of 23 the question. Asking for hearsay. 24 THE WITNESS: There was such a study Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46929 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 130 1 done and the reports were issued by the 2 National Cancer Institute as part of the 3 National Toxicology Center. 4 BY MR. GOUTMAN; 5 Q. And you reviewed those reports? 6 A. I read the reports. 7 Q. And what did they say? 8 MR. ZIEGLER: Same obj ection. 9 THE WITNESS: My recollection is that 10 they concluded that Aroclor 1254 was non 11 carcinogenic in rats. 12 BY MR. GOUTMAN: 13 Q. When Dr. Kimbrough from the Center For Disease 14 Control and Dr. Squire from NCI reviewed the IBT 15 slides did they note the presence of tumors? 16 A. I can't recall specifically whether they used 17 that word 11 tumor11 or not. Squire was using the term 18 11 hyperplastic nodules" and so I don' t know whether 19 they used the word "tumor" or not. I can't say. I 20 don't have a record that they did or didn't. 21 Q. Did the 1971 IBT Aroclor studies set forth in 22 the body of their reports the actual data showing 23 tumors? 24 A. There were summary tables showing the number Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46930 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 131 1 of, particularly on the liver pathology, showing the 2 number of animals and the various findings, including 3 hepatomas in the livers of those animals. 4 Q. Now, did you, when you asked IBT to go out 5 and get additional liver samples from the rats 6 involved in the 1971 study, was it your purpose - 7 what was the purpose of that? 8 A. Well, at the end of the study tissues from all 9 of the animals would have been preserved in 10 formaldehyde. A selected number would be looked at. 11 So if we are looking for something that is less than 12 100 percent incidence we may have missed it. 13 Q. What were you looking for? 14 A. We were going back specifically to see if 15 there were any liver tumors in those livers which 16 grossly, superficially did not appear to be normal. 17 Q. Sir, you already knew they were tumors? 18 MR. ZIEGLER: Objection to the form of 19 the question. 20 THE WITNESS: They were tumors - - 21 MR. ZIEGLER: I'm sorry. I need to 22 interpose an objection. 23 MR. GOUTMAN: After he's finished his 24 answer. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46931 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 132 1 MR. ZIEGLER: I object. 2 MR. GOUTMAN: You are going to interrupt 3 him any time you want. 4 MR. ZIEGLER: Obj ection to the form of 5 the question on the basis that not only is he 6 leading, but now, because he's not getting the 7 answer that he wants, he's arguing with his own 8 witness. 9 BY MR. GOUTMAN: 10 Q. Sir, what was the purpose of your asking IBT 11 to get additional pathological material from the 12 livers of those rats? 13 A. I think I started to say that since only a 14 limited number of livers were examined at the end of 15 the study, which was customary, the question was 16 asked about liver pathology, so we had livers that 17 had been treated and were sitting in formaldehyde and 18 that was a readily available material that we could 19 look at to see if there were tumors, cancer, things 20 in there that we had not seen before. 21 Q. Had the IBT study of '71 already reported the 22 presence of tumors? 23 A. It reported the presence of hepatomas, benign 24 tumors. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46932 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 133 1 Q. Had it reported the presence of cancer? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Now, with respect, sir, to the letter that you 4 wrote to Dr. Calandra, which we have marked as 5 Exhibit 9, where you were requesting a change in one 6 of the draft reports from 11 slightly tumorigenic" to 7 "does not appear to be carcinogenic", would you 8 explain why you made that request? 9 MR. ZIEGLER: Asked and answered. 10 Obj ection to the form of the question. 11 BY MR. GOUTMAN: 12 Q. Go ahead. 13 A. I think I haveindicated tworeasons. One is 14 the findings in all three studies were basically 15 similar. And I say if you change the wording in two 16 why not change it in a third one to be consistent 17 because I like consistency in the reporting of data, 18 and the second one is that at the time the review was 19 done, the specific question we were asking was not 20 just overall toxicity with carcinogenicity, but since 21 the phrase "does not appear to be carcinogenic" was 22 more specifically directed to that question I asked 23 him, I said that the tumorigenic statement, I 24 believe, has already appeared in the original two Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046933 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 134 1 year report which I said for practical purposes we 2 are finished at this stage of the game, so that both 3 statements have been presented publicly about the 4 tumorigenic and noncarcinogenic. 5 Q. Sir, with respect to Levinskas 7, which was a 6 draft of the supplemental report, I believe your 7 testimony was, was this report submitted to any 8 government agency, to your knowledge? 9 Take a second. 10 A. I really don't know. 11 Q. At any time. 12 If you don't know you don't know. 13 Q. At this same meeting did Drs. Richter and 14 Gordon, this meeting at NCI, did Drs. Richter and 15 Gordon also review the pathology material from IBT? 16 A. Yes, the purpose of the meeting was Richter 17 and Gordon brought down typical representative slides 18 from the IBT studies and Dr. Kimbrough brought along 19 typical representative slides from her study. 20 Q. Did Drs. Richter and Gordon express to you 21 whether they saw any cancer in the IBT slides? 22 A. The specific wording is in one of these 23 exhibits, but I believe their conclusion was if they 24 used Squire's new terminology they would agree. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46934 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 135 1 Q. Excuse me. I'm talking about the IBT slides; 2 not the Kimbrough slides. 3 A. No, let me go back. 4 Q. Let me rephrase the question. With respect to 5 the IBT slides, we have been here a while, did Dr. 6 Richter and Dr. Gordon express an opinion as to 7 whether those slides showed cancer? 8 A. To the best of my recollection, they said 9 that -- no, they did not consider those cancerous 10 lesions. 11 Q. And did Dr. Squire and Kimbrough agree with 12 them? 13 A. My recollection is that Squire and Kimbrough 14 did not make a statement that they saw cancer in the 15 Monsanto slides, IBT slides. 16 MR. GOUTMAN: Can you read back that 17 answer. 18 (The last answer was read back by the 19 Court Reporter) 20 THE WITNESS: They did not make a 21 statement that they saw cancer. 22 BY MR. GOUTMAN: 23 Q. Did they make a statement, sir, that they did 24 not see cancer? Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46935 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 136 1 A. My recollection is that they agreed that they 2 did not see cancer in the IBT slides. 3 MR. GOUTMAN: That's all I have. 4 5 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 6 Q. With respect to your testimony that they did 7 not make a statement that they saw cancer in the IBT 8 slides, would you consider -- I take it you don't 9 consider a carcinogenic response the same thing as 10 cancer; is that right? Do you understand what I mean 11 by "carcinogenic response"? 12 A. A carcinogenic response, that phrase, is the 13 equivalent of saying cancer. 14 Q. Do you remember Dr. Squire ever stating that 15 he defines discrete nodules as precancerous lesions, 16 and thus the indictive of carcinogenic response? 17 A. The context in which he is saying that I think 18 is a different context than I was saying carcinogenic 19 response earlier. Dr. Squire said he considered 20 these lesions a precancerous response. And I can, 21 with the few comments I made at the meeting because I 22 was an observer, I said -- we were outside of 23 Washington, DC. I said I presume this road out here 24 goes to Washington, DC. He said that's correct. I Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46936 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 137 1 said. You are telling me that every car that goes 2 down that road is going to go to Washington, DC. I 3 said that isn't true. Some of those cars will break 4 down before they get to the Washington, DC limits. 5 And some will turn around and go back and some will 6 go off on side roads. 7 Q. Some of them will make it to Washington, 8 though, won't they? 9 A. That's correct, so that if a cell goes through 10 changes and ultimately becomes cancerous every change 11 doesn't necessarily mean it is going to become a 12 cancer. That was the point I'm trying to make. And 13 he is saying that every time - - 14 Q. So when you say that Dr. Squire and Dr. 15 Kimbrough agreed that the IBT slides did not show 16 cancer, you are not saying that they believed that 17 these cells could not become cancerous; right? Under 18 your analogy. 19 MR. GOUTMAN: Obj ection to the form of 20 the question. 21 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 22 Q. Or that the cells did not show a carcinogenic 23 response. 24 MR. GOUTMAN: Obj ection. It is a multi Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46937 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 138 1 part question at this point. Which part do you 2 want him to answer? 3 MR. ZIEGLER: Both. 4 MR. GOUTMAN: Well, it is improper. He 5 is not going to answer both at the same time. 6 Break it down, please. 7 MR. ZIEGLER: Are you instructing him 8 not to answer? 9 MR. GOUTMAN: It is a multi part 10 question. Please break it down for him. 11 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 12 Q. Do you remember that Bio-Test conceded that 13 it had no means at its disposal to dispute the 14 findings of Kimbrough that Aroclor 12 6 0 in female 15 Sherman rats is a liver carcinogen except on the 16 basis of experimental design? 17 A. I don't recall who made that statement and I'm 18 not sure. I have said several times that I accept 19 the fact that Kimbrough's data showed cancer in rats. 20 That statement I just don't have connection with. 21 Q. Do you have a problem with the statement I 22 just made? 23 MR. GOUTMAN: He just answered the 24 question. He just answered that. Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46938 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 139 1 THE WITNESS: It is not a statement that 2 I would make. 3 BY MR. ZIEGLER: 4 Q. I asked you earlier, we talked earlier about 5 your validation of the IBT studies. Did you generate 6 documentation with respect to this validation process 7 that you went through? 8 A. Tremendous reams of paper. 9 Q. Really? Okay. 10 A. Which were submitted to the regulatory 11 agencies. 12 Q. And were those in existence, that you recall, 13 at the time you left your position with Monsanto in 14 1991? 15 A. I would have to assume they were. I don't 16 know. 17 Q. Did you have them in your files or did you 18 send them to the filing system? Can you tell me what 19 you did with those? 20 A. When good laboratory practices, regulations, 21 were passed, we created a quality assurance unit 22 which we did not have previously. And they were the 23 ones that collected the data, checked on our 24 operations and so forth. They were the possessors Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46939 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 140 1 of the final repository, if you will, of archival 2 records, including those reports. Now, what happened 3 since I left the company I have no idea because 4 Monsanto has split into two separate companies. I 5 really just don't know. 6 Q. I don't expect you to know what happened 7 to your records after you left the company. 8 A. But there was a quality assurance unit that 9 had custody of that information and materials and 10 that's the group that also got the slides on the PCB 11 studies that we got back from FDA. 12 MR. ZIEGLER: No further questions. I 13 do appreciate your time and your efforts in 14 this . 15 MR. PENDERGAST: No further 16 questions. 17 MR. GOUTMAN: No further questions. 18 MR. TEDFORD: No questions. 19 (Witness excused.) 20 (Deposition concluded at 1:45 p.m.) 21 22 23 24 Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMON0046940 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D 141 1 CERTIFICATE 2 3 I, JOHN W. BEGLEY, a Registered 4 Professional Reporter and Notary of the State of 5 Pennsylvania, do hereby certify that I reported the 6 deposition of Dr. George P. Levinskas in the 7 foregoing matter; that the foregoing is a true and 8 correct transcript of the stenographic notes of 9 testimony taken by me. 10 I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not an 11 attorney or counsel of any of the parties; nor a 12 relative or employee to any attorney or counsel 13 connected with the action, nor am I in any way 14 interested in the result of said case. 15 16 17 18 DATE : 19 *NOTE: The certification appended hereto does not 20 apply to any reproduction of same unless under the 21 direct control and/or supervision of the certifying 22 court reporter. 23 24 Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46941 GEORGE J. LEVINSKAS, Ph.D. 142 1 LAWYER'S NOTES 2 PAGE LINE 3 3 CHAN&e HklOAl To Tf> c>fi/ 4 18 C/Y^wi g-__<A8o/q 71- TQ 45 l) U/r 'TE ^ ~& a Urf 6 2B- 4- ____ % &7 --/ic2_ _____HUiJtt-S --TIkjAlaQjz...,________________ 8 ___Q&0 C/1/t/VGg-,S co*t> Potf/Q fc-___P OQ f{ _iSL9 _a</_ cM/VOP Ftt<TW4e 72 <*ifRir_________ 10 U- _2. cf/AflJg, <JPC ss FoLty__ 74 S`c?o q ^5 / ^ /, 1/ 11 j3_3 12 13 14 iLlo e HA/*G<L_____LsUJjyLJZ2_-&j^^ _______B isj (V/=AA ___To AtVT> or- s&'VTgr/i/c^ CrfMc OP .. 7g> s>./^ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Jurist-Begley Reporting Services TOWOLDMONOQ46942