COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO TIMOTHY ARTHUR, et : al., : Plaintiffs, : Case No. A0307157 vs. : INTERNATIONAL : FLAVORS & : FRAGRANCES, INC., : et al., : Defendants. : Deposition of JOHN M. HOCHSTRASSER, a witness herein, taken by the plaintiffs as upon cross-examination, pursuant to the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure and pursuant to Notice to Take Deposition and agreement by counsel as to the time and place and stipulations hereinafter set forth, at the offices of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, 312 Walnut Street, Suite 3500, Cincinnati, Ohio, at 9:00 A.M. on January 5, 2006, before Erin Woodward and Richard W. Grubb, Notaries Public within and for the State of Ohio. - - - APPEARANCES On behalf of Plaintiff: Steven E. Crick, Esq. and Christopher R. Miller, Esq. Humphrey, Farrington & McClain 221 West Lexington Suite 400 P.O. Box 900 Independence, Missouri 64051 On behalf of International Flavors & Fragrances and Bush Boake Allen: J. David Brittingham, Esq. Dinsmore & Shohl 255 East Fifth Street Suite 1900 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 On behalf of Givaudan: Damond R. Mace, Esq. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey 4900 Key Tower 127 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1304 Also present: Richard W. Grubb S T I P U L A T I O N S It is stipulated by counsel for the respective parties that the deposition of JOHN M. HOCHSTRASSER, a witness herein, may be taken at this time by the plaintiffs as upon cross-examination and pursuant to the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure and notice to take deposition, all other legal formalities being waived by agreement; that the deposition may be taken in stenotype by the Notary Public Reporter and transcribed by her out of the presence of the witness; that the transcribed deposition was made available to the witness for examination and signature and that signature may be affixed out of the presence of the Notary Public-Court Reporter. INDEX WITNESS PAGE JOHN M. HOCHSTRASSER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CRICK: 5 EXAMINATION BY MR. MACE: 145 FURTHER CROSS BY MR. CRICK: 170 EXHIBIT MARKED PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 1 9 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 2 12 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 3 21 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 4 63 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 5 91 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 6 127 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 7 128 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 8 129 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 9 129 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 10 130 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 11 130 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 12 130 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 13 130 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 14 130 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 15 130 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 16 130 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 17 130 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 18 130 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 19 130 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 20 130 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 21 131 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO. 22 132 JOHN M. HOCHSTRASSER a witness herein, of lawful age, having been first duly sworn, as hereinafter certified, was examined and testified as follows: CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CRICK: Q. Good morning. A. Good morning. Q. Would you please state your name and address? A. My name is John Michael Hochstrasser. My address is 11317 Longdon Way, Union, Kentucky, 41091. Q. And are you employed today? A. I'm employed by myself. I'm self-employed. Q. We'll go through your backgrounds in just a few moments. Did you ever work for a company called Givaudan? A. Yes. Q. And that was formerly known as Tastemaker? A. That's correct. Q. When did you work for that company? A. I started in late 1972, and I left at the end of April of 1997. I believe it was April. Q. 1972? A. I'm sorry, 1997 is when I left, and I started in 1992. I'm sorry. Q. Okay. That was going to change things. A. Age does funny things to time. Q. All right. So, you were at Tastemaker/Givaudan between '92 and '97 -- A. That's correct. Q. -- for a period of about five years? A. That's correct. Q. And you were the director of environmental health and safety -- A. Yes. Q. -- during that entire time period? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever given a deposition before? A. Yes. Q. In any cases concerning Givaudan? A. No. Q. So you understand in general, the protocol of a deposition? You are on videotape. There's a court reporter taking everything down. I'll try not to speak over you if you try not to speak over me, so our reporter can get everything down correctly. Make sure you answer questions orally and don't make common grunts like uh-huh or huh-uh, because later on we won't know what that meant on the transcript. So if you could just say yes or no. If you have any questions about a poorly worded question of mine, please tell me and I'll try to revise the wording. Otherwise, I'll have to assume that you and I are on the same wavelength, and if I asked a question and you answered it, you understood what I was talking about. It's very informal, so if you ever need to take a break for whatever reason, that's fine. I understand we only have a few hours today. We've got another deposition this afternoon, and we'll end up rescheduling your deposition at some point down the road a little bit. Is it correct that during the years that you were director of environmental health and safety at Tastemaker, that several employees were diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans? A. Yes. Q. Janice Irick; do you remember that name? A. Yes. Q. She was one of the those persons diagnosed? A. Yes. Q. In fact, she died in around 1992? A. Yes. Q. And there was a coroner's report issued concerning her death? A. Yes. I don't recall it being diagnosed as bronchiolitis obliterans. Q. There was a question as to whether it was? A. There was a question of whether it was. Q. Mary Sue McGee, another employee who was diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans? A. Yes. Q. Joey Wallace? A. Joey Wallace it was -- it was never confirmed with biopsy, so it's -- Q. This might make things a little bit easier. Let me show you Exhibit No. 1. (Exhibit 1 was marked for identification.) MR. CRICK: And Damond, for some of these I've got extra copies and for some I don't. I apologize. Q. Exhibit No. 1 is a document Bates stamped TM007435, which I take it is a Tastemaker memo to you; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And it says, "John, listed below are the eight current or past employees with a confirmed diagnosis of BO, and the one suspected case." Did I read that correctly? A. That's correct. Q. And BO stands for bronchiolitis obliterans? A. That's correct. Q. Then down below that, it lists current employees with confirmed diagnosis. And it lists Cliff Walker, M.S. McGee, who is Mary Sue McGee? A. Correct. Q. Robin Gaskins, Ron Feldcamp, Gary Shea and Walt Vaske. Did I read that right? A. Yes. Q. Then it says past employees with confirmed diagnosis, and it says Joey Wallace; do you see that? A. Yes. Q. And past employees without a confirmed diagnosis, Janice Irick -- A. Yes. Q. -- the woman who is deceased. This all took place during the time that you were director of environmental health and safety -- A. Yes. Q. -- at Tastemaster? A. Tastemaker. Q. Thank you. Because the company changed names, I'm going to try to use the same name for it, but Tastemaker/Givaudan, we understand that's the same company? MR. MACE: Objection to form. A. It's the same company. Q. As far as you understand, it's the same company? A. Well, I only was there while it was Givaudan for a short period of time. Q. That's fine. Now in 1992, is that when you learned of Janice Irick's lung injury? A. Yes. Q. And at that point, Tastemaker began an investigation about the circumstances of her death? A. Yes. Q. And in 1992, diacetyl was one of the chemicals that was studied? A. No, we didn't study diacetyl in 1992. (Exhibit 2 was marked for identification.) Q. Let me show you Exhibit No. 2. MR. BRITTINGHAM: Do you have another one of those? MR. CRICK: I'm sorry; I don't have an extra one of every one of them. I'm sorry. Q. The first -- this is a document that's Bates stamped TM007408 through TM007421. MR. BRITTINGHAM: Tell you what. Could I just take a quick look through 1 real quick and then hand it back, and then I'll sort of know what you're talking about. A. These were all my original ideas that I had when I found out about the diagnosis. Q. Exhibit No. 2, is this a -- are these some of your notes? A. These are my notes. Q. And from reading this, it appears that the notes were prepared by you while you were a director of environmental health and safety in around 1992? A. Yes. Q. And if you look at the second page of Exhibit 2, Bates stamped TM007409, your notes talk about the disease bronchiolitis obliterans; is that right? A. Correct. Q. And down about two-thirds of the way down, it says "Substances: Diacetyl - literature search." Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. And this is something that you wrote in '92, when Janice Irick's exposure and death were being studied? A. Yes. Q. Now, several of the Tastemaker/Givaudan employees that I just read their names, filed Workers' Compensation claims; is that right? A. To my knowledge, yes. Q. And several of those claims were paid by the company? A. I have no knowledge of that. Q. Were you involved in the hiring of Dr. Stewart Brooks to study the incidence of disease -- A. Yes. Q. -- at Tastemaker? Dr. Brooks made a proposal for a study? A. Yes. Q. But Dr. Brooks didn't carry out that study? A. The epidemiology study, he did not carry out. Q. Were you involved in the hiring of Dr. James Lockey to study the incidence of disease at Tastemaker? A. Yes. Q. And Dr. Lockey found employees with bronchiolitis obliterans at Tastemaker? A. Yes. Q. Now, Dr. Lockey, when he was hired, he was under a confidentially agreement. Do you understand that? A. Yes. Q. Are you familiar with a group called the Flavor and Extracts Manufacturing Association? A. Just vaguely. Q. Sometimes called FEMA? A. Yes. Q. Were you involved in discussions with FEMA about bronchiolitis obliterans at Tastemaker? A. No. Q. You're aware that there were discussions between Tastemaker and FEMA about this subject? A. Just from hearsay. I don't have any direct knowledge of that. Q. You understood that the problems that were found at Tastemaker might not be limited to the Tastemaker plants? A. Yes. Q. You're aware that there was a FEMA conference on respiratory safety in the flavoring work place in '97? A. Yes. Q. That was just a little bit before the time that you left the company? A. Yes. Q. You attended that 1997 FEMA conference? A. Yes. Q. Givaudan/Tastemaker was not specifically named in the conference as being a company that had specifically suffered employee injuries of bronchiolitis obliterans; is that right? A. Yes. Q. You did not speak at the FEMA 1997 conference concerning the incidences of bronchiolitis obliterans at Tastemaker? A. No. Q. No employee of Tastemaker spoke at the 1997 FEMA conference; is that correct? A. No. Q. Am I correct? A. Yes. Q. Now, do you go by Dr. Hochstrasser? A. Yes. Q. You have a Ph.D. in environmental health, correct? A. Yes. Q. You've got a Master's of Science in civil and environmental engineering? A. Yes. Q. You've got a BS in mechanical engineering? A. Yes. Q. You were the director of environmental safety and health for a major flavors manufacturer? A. Yes. Q. And you have written articles that were published? A. Only one, which is noted on the bottom of my resume. It was -- Q. You never published an article about bronchiolitis obliterans in the flavoring industry? A. No. Q. Are you aware of any articles that were published concerning the findings of bronchiolitis obliterans at the Tastemaker facilities? A. No. Q. Is it also true that Tastemaker/Givaudan never told a customer that several Tastemaker employees had been diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans? A. I don't know that. Q. You never told any customers that your company had had employees diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans? A. No, I didn't have any responsibility for customer relationships. Q. Were you involved in any way with the material safety data sheets that were sent out by your company with sold products? A. Yes. Q. Did you ever advise that material safety data sheets specifically include the possibility that exposure could cause bronchiolitis obliterans? A. No. Q. Were you involved in any way with the determination of what wording or other information might be put on packages that contained the products your company was selling? A. Only personal protective equipment. That's the only part that I worked on. Q. Now, as director of environmental safety and health, did you ever advise the company that they should put on the label that inhalation of the product could cause bronchiolitis obliterans? A. No. Q. Are you aware of any label that's ever gone out from Tastemaker/Givaudan that inhalation of a product that was made at the company could cause bronchiolitis obliterans? A. Not while the time I worked there, during the time I worked there. Q. Are you aware of any material safety data sheet that ever came out of the company that indicated that inhalation of dust or fumes from the product could cause bronchiolitis obliterans? A. Not to my knowledge during the time I was there. Q. During the time that you were at Tastemaker/Givaudan, were there ever any animal studies performed to determine whether or not a particular chemical could cause bronchiolitis obliterans? A. I don't know. All that work was done by the toxicologist. Q. No one at toxicology ever advised you, as director of environmental health and safety, that there had been any animal studies? A. No. Q. Did anyone from environmental -- excuse me -- did anyone from toxicology ever advise you that animal studies of any kind had ever been done through Tastemaker concerning chemicals and bronchiolitis obliterans? A. No. Q. Was that subject ever even discussed? A. No. Q. Was it ever considered at the company that animal tests should be performed? A. Not to my recollection. (Exhibit 3 was marked for identification.) MR. CRICK: We'll make more copies next time. That's just his resume. Q. Is Exhibit 3 a copy of your resume? A. Yes, it's an old copy. Q. When were you born, sir? A. July 19th, 1938. Q. And where did you grow up? A. Cincinnati. Q. And you got your Bachelor's degree at the University of Cincinnati? A. Yes. Q. What year was that? A. 1963. Q. Then you got your Master's in civil and environmental engineering at the University of Cincinnati? A. Yes. Q. What year was that? A. 1972. Q. And your Ph.D. in environmental health, also from the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. What year was that? A. 1976. Q. Are you still a licensed professional engineer? A. Yes. Q. Licensed in Ohio, Illinois and New Jersey? A. And Kentucky. Q. You are a diplomat of environmental engineering? A. Yes. Q. And what does that mean? What academy is that? A. That's the American Academy of Environmental Engineers. Q. And if I look at your resume, that's what it says right beside it; is that right? You say what the field is, then beside it in parentheses, what academy? A. Yes. Q. Okay. What year did you become a certified industrial hygienist? A. 1980. Q. What is -- you're a qualified environmental professional; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. What does that mean? A. That means that I have the training and years of experience to be certified in environmental engineering and environmental sciences. Most of these are by examination, and you have to have a minimum of five years experience to qualify for any of these certifications. Q. What year did you become a qualified environmental professional, approximately? A. 19 -- let me think now -- about 1994, because I think that was the year they started qualifying environmental professionals. Q. That was during the time that you were director of environmental safety and health at Tastemaker? A. Yes. Q. You are a registered occupational hygienist? A. Yes. Q. What does that mean? A. That's similar to the certified industrial hygienist, only for Canada. Q. What year did you receive that? A. I don't recall. It was somewhere around the same time or -- about the same time that they implemented the ROH in Canada, which I don't recall what the date was on that. Q. And the exact date is not important. Was it in the '90s or the '80s? A. It would be in the '80s. Q. Why did you get that designation? A. Because I was working for consulting firms that did work in Canada. Q. We'll talk about that in a minute. What is a certified hazard control manager? A. That's just a certification. It's similar to other certifications, but it's in general for hazardous -- managing hazardous materials. Q. And where were you working when you received that certification? A. I believe I was at GD Searle in Chicago -- Skokie, Illinois. It was in the late 1970s, I believe. Q. At GD Searle, you organized and managed the corporate environmental affairs program for the company? A. That's correct. Q. You are a hazardous waste health and safety -- you have a license in hazardous waste health and safety management? A. That's a certificate that you have to renew every year. You have to be retrained every year. Q. And is that up to date? A. Yes. Q. And who were you working for when you first got that certificate? A. It's not a -- I don't know that it's a certificated course, it's just that you have to meet -- you have to meet the requirements under the OSHA hazardous waste rule of having a certain number of hours of training. And you could be grandfathered in. So essentially, my experience certified initially, and then I took eight hours of training every year after that. Q. Now, you worked for a flavors company for about five years, Tastemaker. Did you ever work for any other company that made flavors -- A. No. Q. -- or sold flavors? A. No. Q. So your only experience in the flavor industry is that five years with Tastemaker? A. Yes. Q. Since you left Tastemaker in '97, have you consulted for Tastemaker? A. No. Q. Have you consulted for any other flavorings companies? A. No. Q. To prepare you to go to Tastemaker or while you were with the company, did you pursue any education in the field of flavors? A. No. Q. Did you take any classes in the field of flavors in toxicology, or flavors in environmental safety? A. No. To my knowledge, there are no courses available like that. Q. Are there schools that teach flavor science or food science? A. Yes. Q. Did you take any courses in any food science colleges that might impact your work for Tastemaker? A. Yes. Q. What did you take? A. I took a course in odor control technology. It was a symposium at Rutgers University. Q. What is odor control technology? A. It's controlling odors that emanate from the manufacture of flavors. Q. Now, was that a course that you took in part because of the incidence of bronchiolitis obliterans at Tastemaker? A. No. Q. Now, there were actions that were taken at Tastemaker with regard to the inhalation of odors. Those actions were taken because of the possibility of disease? A. Yes and no. There was some general -- some were taken as the result of the possibility of disease, but others were taken because of controlling just exposures in general in the plant. Q. Okay. With the exception of your work since 1997 as a self-employed consultant, is this resume that we've marked as an exhibit, is it accurate? A. No, it's not. Q. What else needs to be changed on there? A. In 1998, I went to work for American Tool Companies in Wilmington, Ohio. Q. How long were you at American Tool Company? A. Until 2002. Q. What did you do at American Tool? A. I was a director of environmental health and safety for American Tool Companies. Q. And anywhere after American Tool? A. No. Q. Then you became self-employed? A. Yes. Q. What sort of consulting do you do now? A. I do industrial hygiene surveys, environmental permits, and anything that would fall into my field -- my fields that clients want to have done. Q. Now, you had five years of experience at Tastemaker dealing with issues concerning bronchiolitis obliterans among flavor employees, correct? A. Yes. Q. Did anyone from International Flavors and Fragrances ever contact you about consulting? A. No. Q. Are you familiar with that company? A. Yes. Q. Was there a peer that you had at International Flavors and Fragrances? A. Yes. Q. Who was that? A. I don't recall his name. And then when I was at Tastemaker, Joe Russo was an industrial hygienist for IFF, and I knew Joe Russo. Q. Did you ever talk to Mr. Russo about this issue of bronchiolitis obliterans? A. Yes, I called him. I did not mention bronchiolitis obliterans to him, I just was -- I just questioned as to how much industrial hygiene work was being done in the flavor department. Q. When did you call Joe Russo? A. That's hard to say. I believe it was in 1994 or '95. I'm not quite sure when it was. I called -- I called for him. He was gone. I'm trying to get some time -- I know I spoke with him early on, but I can't remember exactly when in that time frame, and then I called him back. He was gone. He had gone to Schering-Plough. And there was another person that had taken his place, and I called that person. And I can't recall his name offhand. Q. Okay. Now, so you did speak to Joe Russo? A. Yes, I spoke with Joe. Q. Do you recall any of the conversation you had with Mr. Russo? A. Yes. I asked about the industrial hygiene work in the flavor part of the business. And he said well, that they didn't have really any problems in the flavor department, they spent most of their time as industrial hygienists in the fragrance department of IFF, and that's where their focus was. Q. Did you advise Mr. Russo that there had been some lung injuries at the company? A. No, I did not. Q. Did you ask him if there had been lung injuries at IFF? A. I had asked him, I believe, had there been any problems and had they noticed any health problems in the flavor department. Q. Can you tell me why did you not tell Joe Russo about the bronchiolitis obliterans findings at your company? A. Because with legal counsel advice and whatever, I was kind of restricted. And that's the case in industrial hygiene today, where 30 years ago you could call somebody and talk to them. Today, you can't because legal -- because of advice from legal counsel and legal interventions and so forth. So you have to be careful about what you say when you're talking among industrial hygienists. Q. And that was why you did not tell Mr. Russo? A. Well, if there weren't any health problems, there was no sense in -- I just generally went after, you know, the question of whether there were any problems with the health of employees in the flavor department. He said no. He told me that they hadn't found any at all. Q. Was there a peer that you had at Bush Boake Allen? A. No, not that I know of. I didn't call Bush Boake Allen. Q. Did you call anyone from Flavors of North America? A. No. Q. Did you have a peer at Flavors of North America? A. I don't recall. Probably not because what I did was I went through the American Industrial Hygiene Association roster and tried to find the companies that had -- I had a peer at Givaudan. I called that person, but I didn't get a call back, so -- Q. Who did you call? A. I don't recall the gentleman's name any more, but it was part of the roster in 1993 and '94. Q. This was before Givaudan and Tastemaker joined? A. Yes. Q. Did you speak to anyone from Senscience? A. No. Q. Did you speak to anyone from a company called BASF? A. No. Q. Now, you did have a peer at BASF? A. Yes, I would have had a peer -- well, I don't know that, but I assume I would have had one. BASF has a quite a large industrial hygiene department. Q. Did you know anyone in the hygiene department at BASF? A. No. Q. We're going to go through it in a little bit, but you kept a diary while you were at Tastemaker? A. I keep notes in black notebooks, is what I do. Q. We were talking about your work history, and you said that the resume needed to be changed and I note that you had the job at American Tool in '98 till 2002, and since then, you had been a self-employed consultant. Are there any other changes that would need to be made to your resume? A. Let me look through this. Yes. I'm now an advisor on the external advisory committee to the College of Environmental -- Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Cincinnati in addition to the external committee that's on the last page. And I'm no longer a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Q. Can you tell me again what you said about the University of Cincinnati? A. Yes. I'm a member of the external advisory council to the College of Environmental and Civil Engineering. Q. What does that mean? A. It means that it's a group of people that advise the University on projects -- or the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering on projects, and also mentor the students in that department. Q. During any of your education and getting your Bachelor's or your Master's or your Ph.D., did you have any courses on the subject of flavors? A. No. Q. Did you have any courses on the subject of fragrances? A. No. Q. Your resume with regard to -- well, really all of your jobs, you -- virtually in every position you've been in have been involved in environmental health and safety for whatever company you were at? A. Yes. Q. You started off at General Electric; is that right? A. Yes. Q. That was your first job out of college? A. Yes. Q. And you were at GE for about nine years, till '72. What did you do at GE? A. From 1993 to 1968, I was a production engineer. I was responsible for getting parts in to the company and getting engines out the door on schedule for Vietnam. Q. Now, you said '93, but you meant '63? A. I'm sorry. Q. '63 to '69, you had that responsibility? A. Yes, '63 to '69 -- or '68. And from '63 to '68, I had responsibility for production engineering. And then from 1968 to '72, I worked in reliability and safety engineering doing systems safety analysis on aircraft engines, faulty analysis and FMEAs. Q. Did any of your work at GE concern hazardous substances in any way? A. Yes. Q. What sorts of hazardous substances were you dealing with at GE? A. Mainly exhaust gases from the aircraft engines where they take gases from the compressor and recirculate them through servos in the aircraft. And one of my responsibilities was doing the system safety analysis on the engines to ensure that toxic gases didn't mix with those compressor gases or compressor air that went into the cockpit, so that carbon monoxide didn't get into the engine cockpits or the aircraft cockpits. Q. So one of your primary concerns was preventing an occupational exposure to toxic fumes while you were at GE? A. Yes. Q. Were there any other hazardous substances you dealt with while you were at GE? A. Not on the sense of safety, with regard to safety. Q. My understanding is that some GE products were manufactured with asbestos. Did you ever deal with the hazardous issue of asbestos at GE? A. No. Q. Did you ever deal with the subject of asbestos at GE? A. No. Q. Now, you went from GE -- that's about the time you got your Master's? A. Yes. Q. What made you go into environmental health? A. Well, brief story. I was going through the engineering department to get to the admissions department to register for an M.B.A. And the head of the department stopped me and said why don't you take my water pollution control course, and I said well, I always wanted to do that. So that started me off, and that was 1968. Q. What sorts of classes did you take to get your Ph.D. in environmental health? A. Physiology, a course -- one semester course in toxicology, air sampling and analysis, analysis of air samples, a field -- we had field work in industrial hygiene and some noise courses. I don't have a list here of all of them, but it would be in my transcript. Q. What is physiology? A. That was just the study of the body parts and how they work -- renal system, cardiovascular system, etc. Q. So you learned all about lungs and the inhalation of chemicals and dust, and how they can affect the lungs? A. Yes. Q. And toxicology, what is that? A. That was how the -- how toxic substances affect the physiology of -- human physiology. And also a study with types of animal models were available for doing tox studies and that sort of thing. Q. Did you do any animal studies while you were working on your Ph.D.? A. No. Q. You just learned about them? A. Yes. Q. Have you been involved in any animal studies in your career in environmental health? A. No. Q. Have you ever consulted with a toxicologist by the name of Wernke? A. That doesn't sound familiar. Q. Did you study epidemiology in your pursuit of your Ph.D.? A. Just briefly. Q. What is epidemiology? A. It's the relationship of disease -- it's the organized study of relationship of disease to environmental conditions and exposures, and its relationship. Q. So you tried to determine -- in my nutshell summary -- how a substance could impact the population? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever been involved in any epidemiology studies? A. Not formally. Q. Did Tastemaker ever consult an epidemiologist? A. Yes. Q. Who was that? A. Dr. Susan Pinney at the University of Cincinnati. Q. Is she still at the University of Cincinnati? A. I believe so. Q. Did she do an environ -- or excuse me. Did Dr. Pinney do an epidemiology study at Tastemaker? A. I'm not sure. Her contact at Tastemaker was with Dr. Higley. Q. Did you ever see a report from -- is it Dr. Pinney? A. Dr. Pinney, yes. Q. Did you ever see a report from Dr. Pinney concerning her work at Tastemaker? A. No. Q. You mentioned Dr. Higley. That's Nancy Higley? A. Yes. Q. And she was a toxicologist? A. Yes. Q. And she worked for Tastemaker/Givaudan as a toxicologist? A. Yes. Q. She worked with you on this issue of bronchiolitis obliterans at the company? A. Yes. Q. My understanding is she's not with the company any longer. Do you understand that? A. I heard that. Q. I guess she's with Pepsi? A. Yes. Q. I want to talk a little bit about Tastemaker/Givaudan. Your resume says that you, quote, "developed, implemented and currently managed the global environmental health and safety program for this food flavors firm, with worldwide production locations in the United States, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico, Singapore, China and Japan." A. Yes. Q. That was all true? A. Yes. Q. Are those all the countries where Tastemaker had production facilities? A. Yes. Q. Did you travel to all those countries to visit the Tastemaker plants? A. Every place except Singapore, China and Australia. Q. Now, Australia had an incident of bronchiolitis obliterans as well; is that true? MR. MACE: Objection. A. I didn't know that. MR. BRITTINGHAM: Steve, can we just have an agreement that an objection by one defendant is good for all? MR. CRICK: Yes. MR. BRITTINGHAM: Okay. Q. What did you do -- when it says you developed a global environmental health and safety program, what does that mean? A. It means that I went through all of the aspects of safety and health and environmental issues for the facilities, and then either -- and then audited the facilities to make sure that they had all the pieces of programs in place to comply with laws and regulations, and that the health and safety of employees were protected, and wrote operation -- or standards and so forth for the company to comply with rules and regulations in the company's policy in environmental health and safety. Q. So there was a standard, say, notebook of safety protocol for Tastemaker? A. Yes. Each plant had its own safety book, employee safety manual, and then we had corporate documents that went around and each company had to develop their -- or had to match the company philosophies and programs for. Q. Now, the subject of bronchiolitis obliterans, did that become a part of this safety protocol that you put together for the company? A. Not the written protocol, but it became part of a special program that we had at Tastemaker. Q. And that program was what? A. That was -- involved the committee that met and different aspects of the program were managed by different people. Nancy Higley managed the toxicology. I managed the industrial hygiene. Janice Dees, our occupational nurse, handled the medical part of it, and -- with her consultants, Dr. Lockey and Dr. Pinney. And then Nancy Higley also worked with Dr. Pinney on the data, working over the data from the questionnaires and so forth that Janice conducted. Q. Now, this all concerned your efforts to protect Tastemaker/Givaudan employees from being exposed to harmful fumes? A. Yes. Q. Who at Tastemaker/Givaudan had the responsibility to make sure that your customers were not exposed to those same fumes -- MR. MACE: Objection. Q. -- during the use of products? MR. MACE: Objection. THE WITNESS: Do I answer that? MR. MACE: Yes. A. Okay. The customer relationship, the customer part of it was product safety, and Nancy Higley had responsibility for product safety. Q. So I take it you did not discuss the issue of bronchiolitis obliterans with any Tastemaker/Givaudan customers? A. No. Q. Do you know if Nancy Higley talked to any Tastemaker/Givaudan customers about your experiences of bronchiolitis obliterans? A. No. Q. That was a bad question. Did Nancy Higley speak to any customers of Tastemaker about the incidence of bronchiolitis obliterans at the plant? A. I have no knowledge whether she did or didn't. Q. Your resume says that you were responsible for the medical, environmental, industrial hygiene, occupational safety and process safety programs at the company. A. Yes. Q. What is process safety? A. That's looking at all the production lines and ensuring that they can operate without creating a major hazard -- any fires, explosions, that type of thing -- and also to make sure that the protective equipment is listed in the process sheets that we use. Q. Okay. Your resume says that you represented Tastemaker's interests with regulatory agencies, community groups and trade associations? A. Yes. Q. You did that? A. Yes. Q. What trade associations did you work with? A. I don't recall any more. It wasn't FEMA, although I did -- when I started, there was a safety program that was given in the fall of 1996 for the flavor on safety issues. And I think the IFF people put that together along with FEMA. And then I talked to the IFF people there about, you know, participating in these seminars, and they were open to getting some help rather than having to do this all by themselves. So, I talked at one point, I think in February of the following year, to them about, you know, the next organization or the next safety meeting and whatever. So I was trying to work with FEMA from that standpoint, and with the IFF people to participate in that training program. Q. Now, you said that that was a seminar that was put on in 1996? A. Yes, it was November of 1996. Q. Now, I'm aware of a FEMA seminar on respiratory safety in the flavoring workplace that took place in '97. So is this a different seminar? A. This was different, yes. Q. And what was the subject matter of that '96 seminar? A. It was OSHA compliance, and had to do with OSHA compliance and environmental issues and so forth associated with the flavor industry. It was generally more of an OSHA compliance seminar. Q. More along the lines of keeping your employees safe as opposed to things that might go on -- did it have anything to do with disclosures that might be given to customers about safety? A. Not that I recall. It had to do more with electrical safety and ventilation issues, and that type of -- that type of thing, mainly from a safety -- it was more safety oriented than it was industrial hygiene oriented. Q. But ventilation was one of the topics? A. I don't recall. I would have to see the notebook to recall everything that was in there. It was a multiple thing that you could go pick your part that you wanted to go to. There were simultaneous presentations. Like I went to the electrical part of it, and then I believe -- yes, I believe there was a thing on ventilation as far as the OSHA ventilation standard was concerned, now that I think back on it; that there's some requirements in OSHA about ventilation, that they presented those. Q. And this was a seminar that was put on by FEMA, with IFF? A. It wasn't only IFF, it was -- there were some other people involved from the flavor industry. I don't recall. But I remember that the IFF people were, I believe, the predominant people in that presentation. Q. Do you remember who any of the IFF individuals would have been? A. Yes. Phil Doucette was the one that I spoke to and talked to about possibly participating in that, and helping them get the courses put together. Q. And there were conference materials that participants received? A. There was a notebook full of OSHA regulations and stuff. Q. Do you happen to recall -- I know this is off the cuff; you haven't thought about this for a while, but do you happen to recall if material safety data sheets would have been a part of that? A. They might have been. I just don't recall. Q. And you did you speak at this conference? A. No. Q. Did anyone from Tastemaker speak at the conference? A. No. Q. When you went to this 1996 IFF-FEMA conference, did you happen to tell anyone about the issues of ventilation that you were experiencing in part because of the bronchiolitis obliterans findings? MR. MACE: Object to the form of the question. A. No. I might have spoke to somebody about the re-ventilation things that we did and how we constructed the re-ventilation, and some of the experiences we had in actually the design of the ventilation systems. Q. Okay. We're going to get to that in just a little bit. Are there any other trade associations that you dealt with while you were with FEMA -- or with Tastemaker? A. I don't recall. Q. What is FEMA; do you know? A. It's the fragrance or -- Q. You don't have to memorize the name. A. Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association, Flavor and -- Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association. Q. And that wasn't meant to be a test, but it's an association made up of flavoring companies like Givaudan or Tastemaker or IFF or BBA? A. Yes. Q. And did you ever go to any FEMA meetings beside the '96 and '97 conferences? A. No. Q. Who is Michael Davis? Do you remember that name? A. Yes, Mike Davis was the president of Tastemaker -- CEO, I believe, of Tastemaker. Q. Now, Mr. Davis was well aware of the issue of bronchiolitis obliterans that was being experienced at the plant? A. Yes. Q. Was he kept regularly advised of the situation? A. Well, the advice -- yes, he was. Q. Do you know if he had a role with FEMA? A. I don't know what his role with FEMA was, if he had one. My contacts usually worked through Nancy Higley. Nancy Higley had a real good rapport with FEMA, so things I passed through Nancy if had a question about something. Q. Have you ever heard of another association called RIFM? A. No. Q. Research Institute for Fragrance Manufacturers? A. No. Q. Have you ever heard of something called the RIFM-FEMA data base? A. No. Q. On your resume, you list the American Industrial Hygiene Association, and it says that you were on the occupational medicine committee? A. Yes. Q. What did that committee do? A. We looked at biological standards, developing biological testing standards for occupational exposures like blood -- what can you get from blood samples, urine samples, etc.; how can you medically diagnose a specific exposure. Q. You were on the AIHA, American Industrial Hygiene Association occupational medicine committee between 1990 and 1994? A. Right. Q. That was during the same time that Janice Irick died, and Joey Wallace and Mary Sue McGee were diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans? A. Yes. Q. Did you take any investigation or invite any investigation through the AIHA about this problem that was happening at the company? A. No. The AIHA medical committee has an agenda of certain substances that they were looking at the possibilities of how to determine biologically if someone was exposed to. So we worked on that agenda, which is quite large. Q. Did you advise anyone at the American Industrial Hygiene Association that there was this finding of bronchiolitis obliterans at your company? A. No. Q. Did you ask anyone at the American Industrial Hygiene Association for any advice about bronchiolitis obliterans? A. No. I believe that there was no need to do that because we were already working with the best physicians available in the medical profession to do that, with Dr. Brooks and Dr. Lockey. Q. Okay. Could you tell me, sir -- you're the first deposition in the case, so you have to answer a lot of questions that whoever was going to be the first one is going to have to answer. And it just happens to be you -- A. Sure. Q. -- so I apologize for that. Could you tell the jury a little bit about Tastemaker/Givaudan? What exactly is that company? A. Tastemaker makes flavors for additives to products. And that's all they do or all they did when I was there, was make flavor substances. Q. So they didn't make fragrances or say perfumes? It was all flavors for foods? A. Yes. Q. And Tastemaker, did that start out as a company called Fries and Fries? A. Yes. MR. MACE: Objection. Q. Did I say that correctly, Fries and Fries? A. Yes. Q. That was based in Cincinnati, Ohio? A. Yes. Q. And then at some point, the company became -- through whatever corporate wrangles, the company became known as Tastemaker? MR. MACE: Objection. A. Yes. Q. And Tastemaker was what the company was called when you became employed there? A. Yes. Q. It's still based in Cincinnati, but the company also had plants in other parts of the United States and the world? A. Yes. Q. Where else in the United States did Tastemaker have plants? A. Well, I would have to split it up because when I went to work, there was a joint venture. So we combined plants from two different companies. And so we had plants in Middletown, New York, in the Tampa, Florida area, Lakeland, Florida, and Cincinnati in the U.S. We made flavors in the U.K. There were three plants in the U.K., one in Barneveld in the Netherlands, one in Australia, an office, small manufacturing facility in Japan, same with Singapore, and two facilities in Mexico. Q. Was there also a plant in St. Louis, Missouri? A. Not at the -- oh, later on in 1995, we purchased Consolidated Flavors Corporation in St. Louis. We closed the plant in Middletown, New York and we closed two plants in the U.K., and consolidated everything in Milton Keynes in the U.K. And we closed the plant in Tampa and sold that to Firminage, and kept the one -- we kept the one in Lakeland, Florida. Q. Now, you said that this was a joint venture of two companies? A. Yes. Q. Was that Tastemaker and Givaudan? A. No. Q. Who was that? A. It was Mallinckrodt and Hercules. Q. For those who don't understand on the jury, what is Mallinckrodt? A. Mallinckrodt is a commercial chemical company. It was headquartered in St. Louis, and had holdings of chemical companies all over the world. Q. And did Mallinckrodt manufacture flavors for foods? A. They owned Fries and Fries, which was their flavor company. Q. Okay. And Hercules, can you explain who was Hercules? A. Hercules owned the Polak Frutal Works, which was a flavor company within Hercules. Q. Can you say that name again? A. Polak Frutal Works. I believe it was P-o-l-a-k. Q. Frutal, F-r-u-t-a-l? A. Frutal Works, yes. PFF was what it was known for short. Q. And what did PFF do? A. They manufactured flavors, both companies. This was both -- their total flavor operations. Q. And those two companies ended up joining together, and did that become Tastemaker? A. It became -- Tastemaker was a joint venture between the two companies. Q. Okay. And so after this time that the joint venture began is when Tastemaker purchased Consolidated Flavors in St. Louis? A. Yes. That was a few years after they had formed the joint venture, that they purchased Consolidated Flavors. Q. Now, the primary plant of Tastemaker, was that in Cincinnati, Ohio? A. Yes. Q. And when you left in 1997, was that still the case? A. Yes. Q. Now, at some point, Tastemaker became Givaudan? A. Yes. Q. Did the headquarters for the company shift to the Netherlands? A. Not to my knowledge. I don't recall what happened afterwards. We were still -- there were still headquarters in New Jersey for Givaudan and still headquarters in Cincinnati for Givaudan. So there was a combination of people moving back and forth between those two locations, as far as I could recall, when I left. Q. And did you have any communications with anyone on environmental health and safety or employee health issues in Europe? A. Yes. Q. Who was that? A. I don't recall who the people -- oh, the health and safety, environmental health and safety person in Barneveld in the Netherlands was Ron Bullee. Q. Bullee? A. B-u-l-l-e-e, I believe it was. Q. And he had a position comparable to you -- A. Yes. Q. -- but in the Netherlands? A. Yes. And then we had a person in the UK, but it changed and I don't recall who was all handling in the U.K. any more. I don't have their name. Q. We talked a few minutes earlier about associations. Were you a member of any trade groups or associations of people that were doing environmental health in the flavoring industry? A. No. Q. Or were you even aware of any others beside FEMA? A. No, I wasn't aware of any group. Q. And you didn't really directly participate in FEMA yourself? A. No. Q. Were you ever asked to be involved with FEMA? A. No. Q. I'm getting ready to shift over into some things about the company. Let's take a quick break. MR. MACE: Sure. (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) Q. I'm going to tell you where I'm going. And I'm not picking on you, but I want to cover a couple areas concerning Tastemaker's organization and buildings. So let me hand you Exhibit 4. (Exhibit 4 was marked for identification.) MR. CRICK: Take a look at that and then give it back to me, Dave. A. Yes. Q. Do you recognize that document, Exhibit 4, to be a description of the sort of organizational flow chart at Tastemaker during at least part of the time that you were at the company? A. Yes. MR. BRITTINGHAM: Steve, can you just tell me the first Bates number? MR. CRICK: It's TM000866 through 870. MR. BRITTINGHAM: Okay. Q. Now, this exhibit says that it's the environmental health and safety organization, so that's a flow chart for your department? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Not for the whole company itself, or part -- bad question. So during the time that you were with Tastemaker, the CEO was Mike Davis? A. Yes. Q. And then below him we have five different departments -- citrus specialties, Americas, general counsel, Europe and the Far East? A. Yes. Q. R. Pellegrino, that's Robert Pellegrino? A. Yes. Q. Do you happen to know, is he still with the company? A. I don't know. Q. When you left, he was still with the company? A. Yes. Q. And M. Taylor, what is that person's first name? A. Mike. Q. Mr. Pellegrino had responsibility for all the manufacturing facilities in the United States? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And Mike Taylor, as citrus specialties vice-president, what was his responsibility? A. His was the plant in Lakeland, Florida. Q. Because that's where all the citrus work was done? A. Yes. Q. And the general counsel was Karen Duros? A. Yes. Q. Was she still with the company when you left? A. No. Q. Okay. Who took over as general counsel after Ms. Duros left? A. I don't know. Q. Was that Mr. Connor? A. No, Mr. Connor was human resources. Q. Okay. A. Mike Connor was human resources. Q. Was he an attorney? A. No. Q. And then S. Sumption? A. Steve Sumption. Q. He was the head of manufacturing plants in Europe? A. Yes. Q. And L. Blau? A. Leslie Blau. Q. Is that a man? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Blau was the head of manufacturing for Tastemaker, for its plants in the Far East? A. Yes. Q. That would be the China, Singapore, Japan plants? A. Yes. Q. Then below that, it says director of EHS -- that's environmental health and safety -- John Hochstrasser. A. Yes. Q. Now below that, it's in black, and I have no idea what that is. Can you tell us what that is supposed to be? A. Those were dotted line responsibility to the other health and safety people in -- Q. I'm going to give you my pen. A. And I don't know what they were. One would have been Ron Bullee, but I have no idea without seeing the other one, who was identified -- oh, I do know citrus specialties was Gary Wong and -- should I just write them in here? Q. That would be great. A. Okay. MR. MACE: Mr. Hochstrasser, I don't know if it will help you or not. There are other names on the subsequent pages that may or may not help you. Glance through it. Q. Go through the whole document. A. Sure, sure. MR. CRICK: Thank you, Damond. MR. MACE: No sense in guessing. A. That's right, they're all listed here because those people all had dotted line to me. If they had any issues, they would come to me with them. Gary Wong and Ron Bullee and Filsell and Jack Knights. Q. Go ahead and write on that first page and -- A. Okay. Q. -- and we'll go to the other pages. A. That would be Gary Wong and then it would be -- let's see -- Paul Farrell. I believe this is the way it worked, but -- and then I would have one for the UK and one for -- Ron Bullee and G. Filsell. Okay. Yes, it was two L's and two E's. And then I think that was Gary, but I don't remember. He was new. So -- and I think that was Europe UK, Europe Netherlands and -- I'm not sure if these are all right, but -- Q. Can I take a look? A. Yes. But this was -- C-i-n-c-i-n-n-a-t-i. I don't think these are right. I don't know what was in here, so -- Q. That's okay. A. But I think those were some of them, and what is listed in the ones in the following pages, all those people would have been listed in the following pages. Q. All right. So Gary Wong, what did he do? A. He managed the environmental health and safety program for the plant in Lakeland, Florida. Q. And Paul Farrell, what did he do? A. He managed the health and safety for the plant in Cincinnati. He didn't manage environmental, I managed the environmental directly for the plant in Cincinnati. Q. Then what did -- I lost that. What was it that Mr. Farrell did then? A. He handled health and safety for the plant in Cincinnati. Q. And then you did environmental? A. I did the environmental, between me and the engineering department, because the corporate engineering department was there. So between the two of us, we did all the environmental work for Cincinnati. Q. So Farrell was more slip and fall, electrical type thing? A. Yes. Q. More the physical structure of the plant, and you were more of the environmental issues? A. Yes. Q. So with regard to this bronchiolitis obliterans issue, Mr. Farrell would not have been involved in those issues? A. He was only involved in helping us identify -- he was actually instrumental in helping us identify some of the issues. That one document that you gave me was 7409, where it says that substances diacetyl, Paul mentioned that because he had -- it was one of their irritating materials that he had a full face piece respirator program for for the raw material, to transfer the raw material, because it caused burning of the eyes. So since the facility didn't have -- use quarter mask respirators and goggles, he used the full face piece respirator to protect their eyes. So he had that program in place when I got there, when I started working for them. Q. And Mr. Bullee, what did he do? A. He ran the environmental health and safety program for the plant in Barneveld, Holland, in the Netherlands. Q. And Mr. Filsell? A. Filsell? He ran the environmental health and safety program for the plant in Milton Keynes in the U.K. Q. Now, was there another director of environmental health and safety that dealt with Europe and the Far East? A. There was no one else in Europe. In the Far East, there was a gentleman in the plant in Australia that had health and safety responsibilities in Australia. There was no one designated for Japan and Singapore, because they were mainly shipping departments that would blend -- do a few blendings at that time. We eventually built a plant in Japan, but at the time that was written, all he did was -- there were just no -- it was just a general health and safety program for those two facilities. And in Mexico, Francisco Corona was the operations director down there, and he had health and safety and environmental responsibility for the plants in Mexico. Q. Down below on Exhibit No. 4, it lists senior industrial hygienist. There's no name there. A. Yes. Q. Who did that become? A. That became Glenn Ingraham. Q. And I believe it was heard earlier today that he's in Indianapolis now? A. He's on the West Coast somewhere. Q. Oh, he's in Los Angeles? MR. MACE: I believe that's right. Q. And then beside that -- what was Mr. Ingraham's responsibility? A. He was to take over the industrial hygiene sampling and the administration of the industrial hygiene program for the Cincinnati facility, and actually any of the other facilities that we were doing industrial hygiene, because I was getting spread thin from all the facilities. Q. So he was involved in some of the air sampling as a part of this bronchiolitis obliterans investigation? A. Yes. Q. He worked with Roy McKay out of University of Cincinnati? A. Yes. Q. And beside the industrial hygienist line on Exhibit 4, there's a line for Janice Dees? A. Yes. Q. And what was -- I don't have it in front of me. What is her responsibility? A. She ran the entire medical program. She was responsible for managing the medical program and coordinating with all the physicians. She was a certified occupational nurse. Q. So Givaudan had a certified occupational medicine person that worked full time for the company? A. Yes. Q. And she dealt with the doctors that did consulting work -- A. Yes. Q. -- for the company, because during the time that you were there, you consulted with numerous doctors about bronchiolitis obliterans at the Tastemaker plant? A. Just one doctor. That was Dr. Brooks. That was before Janice Dees. When I hired Janice Dees, I was working with Dr. Brooks. Q. And then once Janice Dees came on, besides Dr. Brooks, there was several other doctors that were consulted? A. Yes, Dr. -- well, Dr. Brooks consulted with other physicians, and then we hired Dr. Lockey and he consulted with other physicians. And Janice Dees also consulted with other physicians. Q. And was there a doctor -- is it Baughman -- Baughman? A. Baughman, Dr. Baughman. Q. Who was also at the University of Cincinnati, who did some consulting work for your company on this issue? A. Dr. Baughman didn't consult with us when I was there. He was the physician for one or two of the employees, I believe, that we had -- Q. Okay. A. -- at the time. Q. Were you aware that Dr. Baughman was the doctor that your company used as a part of the Workers' Compensation claims? A. I don't recall that because I wasn't involved in the Workers' Comp claims. Q. You weren't? A. No. Q. You aware, though, that Dr. Baughman diagnosed several of the employees as having bronchiolitis obliterans? MR. MACE: Objection. A. Yes, he mentioned the bronchiolitis, yes, on -- it wasn't several. I think it was -- to my knowledge, it was two possible, I think it was. He didn't say they actually were, he said it's possible bronchiolitis obliterans. Q. We're not going to go into all those paper details today because we don't have time to do all that. Dr. Colby at Mayo Clinic, he was consulted by the company? A. Yes. Q. In fact, he was the doctor who was asked to look at the Janice Irick issue. He was one of the first doctors consulted? A. Yes. Q. Did Dr. Colby ever come to Cincinnati to see the plant? A. Not while I was there. Q. Ian Munro, who was that? A. I don't know who that was. Q. If you look at the Exhibit 2, your notes, the second page right up at the top, there's an Ian Munro with CanTox. Did you consult with Ian Munro? A. I wrote that, but I can't recall who it was or where it was. It says CanTox, Incorporated, which would have been probably some place to go to to get information on chemicals. Q. He's a food flavoring expert. A. Oh, is he? Q. You didn't consult with Dr. Munro then? A. No. I don't know why I wrote that -- wrote that in there. I don't recall. Q. We know from reviewing some of the records, that Givaudan/Tastemaker consulted with industrial hygienists like Roy McKay, and epidemiologist Susan Pinney, occupational medicine doctors, Dr. Brooks, Dr. Lockey, correct? A. Yes. Q. Tastemaker consulted with Dr. Colby at Mayo Clinic, and did some work with Dr. Baughman at the University of Cincinnati. But I haven't seen any records of any food flavoring safety specialists that were consulted at all. You had none of those? A. No, I wasn't aware of any. And this may have been -- because these were just notes that I wrote down in 1992, when I first became aware of the issue. I was going through trying to find everything I could find and make notes of them. So, it's just a general list of notes. Q. Was there another consultant -- I can't remember his name -- Schramm or Scherig? A. I don't recall that name. Q. I'll find the document later. Down also on this Exhibit 4, the flow chart, beside Janice Dees -- by the way, Janice Dees, she passed away? A. Yes. Q. Do you know what she died of? A. No. Q. Do you know who took over Janice Dees' role when she left the company? A. There was no one when I left. Q. Who was Janice Flick? A. She was a manager of the liquids department, I believe, the liquids production department. Q. Was she still with the company when you left? A. I don't recall. Q. Now, also this Exhibit 4 lists environmental health and safety associate, L. Schwinn. A. Yes. Q. Who was L. Schwimm? A. That was the secretary for the department. She was the secretary for the department. Q. The second page of Exhibit 4 is another flow chart for the Americas, and it has you listed as corporate director of environmental health and safety. And I would like to know what the responsibilities of these individuals on this page would have been. A. Okay. Paul Farrell, I said he's safety and security manager for the Cincinnati production facility. And Don Ball was the engineering manager. He managed the engineering. So that's why I said I work with those two with environmental issues. And Cele Hennequin actually was handling -- that I recall, was handling the environmental part of it. And I was working with Cele on the environmental part because she had responsibility for managing all of the waste materials from the production operations in Cincinnati, so -- Q. So Mr. Ball -- what was his first name? A. Don. Q. Don Ball? Was he involved in the ventilation changes that took place at the company? A. Yes. Q. And then you have EHS coordinator, F. Corona? A. That's -- Francisco Corona was actually the operations director for all of the operations in Mexico, and he managed the environmental health and safety issues for that. I mean, he had some safety people that worked under him. Q. Okay. And then P. Hall? A. Pat Hall. Q. Pat Hall had that same responsibility in Canada? A. Yes. There was a distribution facility in Canada, but what we found was they also blended some things. And we stopped doing that up there, so it really wasn't -- that position didn't last for long, as a health and safety person. Q. Okay. You can skip the next page. You already explained -- A. Yes. Q. -- Mr. Wong. And I think I understand the next page. The last page concerning Japan, B. MacKay? A. Bruce MacKay. Q. Was he the operations person for Australia? A. Yes. Q. And he also had responsibility for environmental health and safety? A. Yes. Q. With regard to the products that are made at Tastemaker, can you tell me what are the primary products that were made at the company when you were there? A. Food flavors. Q. Were there any products that were bigger selling than others? A. I don't know. Q. What were the products that you most thought of when you thought of Tastemaker? A. I didn't think of products per se. I didn't have any involvement with the products, I was just involved in their manufacture. And the only way I knew products is from the industrial hygiene standpoint, when we did sampling and would look at the process sheets to see what products there were. Q. Well, it's my understanding that Tastemaker/Givaudan would have had a number of scientists that worked for the company besides the ones that worked in environmental health and safety; is that right? A. We had other scientists. They were food flavors flavorists, mainly. Q. What is a flavorist? A. They develop the flavors, new flavors. They find new ways of making the flavor and then they develop new flavors. They're flavor chemists. Q. And Chris Soper, is he one of the flavorists? A. I don't know. I don't recall Chris' name. Q. Did you know any of the flavorists when you worked at the company? A. I knew some of them, but not -- I don't recall their names any more. I knew enough to talk to them and so forth. Q. Do you know who was in charge of the flavorists? A. That would have probably been -- there was someone who worked for Bob Pellegrino that -- Bob Steinke, I believe was the head of research. Q. Steinke? A. Steinke. S-t-e-i-n-k-e, I believe it is. Q. When you were doing your research investigation concerning bronchiolitis obliterans at the plant, did you consult at all with Mr. Steinke? A. Not that I recall. Q. Did you or Ms. -- I forgot her name -- Nancy, what is her name? A. Dr. Higley. Q. Dr. Higley. Did you or Dr. Higley consult with any of the flavoring scientists about whether the flavoring side had ever studied whether or not particular chemicals were hazardous or safe to eat? A. I did not. Dr. Higley was really the contact with the R&D department because she handled all of the MSDSs and all the formulas. She's the one that actually worked out the formulas and got them into production sheets and whatever, with the research chemists and the development chemists. Q. So Nancy Higley was -- she was really the safety person at the plant then? MR. MACE: Objection. Q. With regard to individual chemicals and their toxicity, she's the person for both safe eating and for the environmental exposures? MR. MACE: Objection. A. No, no. She only handled the products and the manufacture of the products, and then she developed the material safety data sheets from whatever pieces went into the products. From an employee exposure standpoint, I managed those issues and did the industrial hygiene work, helped design the ventilation, made the corrections in the production facilities necessary to protect the employees in the manufacture of these substances. Q. I got you. So you two worked sort of hand in hand? A. Yes. Q. So at Tastemaker, I understand that the company had a toxicologist, Dr. Nancy Higley, they had you with your qualifications in charge of environmental health and safety, but then on the food manufacturing side, there were flavorists like Bob Steinke. Was he -- do you know if he was a Ph.D. scientist? A. He was a Ph.D. Q. Do you have any idea what his Ph.D. was in? A. I don't know. Q. There were other Ph.D.s in food science that worked at the company, though? A. Yes. Q. Were there Ph.D. chemists that worked at the company? A. I don't recall. Q. Did they have biologists? A. I don't recall. Q. Were there any medical doctors that were on full time with Tastemaker? A. No. Q. The medical doctors were just consulted as needed? A. Yes. Q. Was there a laboratory at Tastemaker? A. Yes. Q. Now, was that a laboratory that you had access to? A. Yes. Q. Was there a laboratory for environmental health and safety, and then a separate laboratory for the flavoring department, flavoring scientists? A. No, we didn't have an environmental safety and health laboratory. Now, what you term as access, I could get to them, but I didn't do -- none of my analysis work or anything was done in the laboratories at Tastemaker. They were always sent out to American Industrial Hygiene Association certified laboratories. Q. So the laboratory at Tastemaker was primarily used for testing foods, as opposed to the environmental safety issues? MR. MACE: Objection. A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. And there was a research laboratory and quality control laboratories, so there were two different types of laboratories. Q. What sort of research work did they do in the research laboratory? A. I don't know. That was all flavors. That's what the flavors -- developing flavors, that's where they worked. Q. Okay. And do you know what work was done in the quality control laboratory? A. That was just taking finished product and making sure it met specs, and doing the chemical analysis to make sure it met the specifications. Q. Now, you don't have any training or background in the manufacturing of flavors? A. No. Well, I have to qualify that. I do have -- from working there, I have experience in manufacturing flavors. Q. I meant more of as the scientist making the flavors, creating the flavors. A. No, that would be purely a chemical issue for chemists. Q. I would like to talk a little bit about the Tastemaker plant itself. A. Which plant? Q. The Cincinnati plant. A. Okay. Q. It was the Cincinnati plant where the initial bronchiolitis obliterans injuries took place; is that right? A. Yes. Q. The individuals I named before -- Janice Irick, Mary Sue McGee, Joey Wallace, Ronald Feldcamp, Robin Gaskins, Terry Roberts, Gary Shea, Walt Vaske, Cliff Walker -- they all worked at the Cincinnati plant? A. Yes. Q. I've never been inside the plant and I'm trying to get a feel for what all happened within the building. A. Okay. Q. And so this is not a blueprint, but what I would like you to do is try to sketch out for me what the plant looked like, and then we're going to talk about what is within the plant. MR. MACE: Is this when he arrived in '92 or -- MR. CRICK: Sure. Thank you for that clarification. MR. MACE: While he's drawing that, can we go off the record for a second? I want to hit the restroom. MR. CRICK: We're off the record. (Off the record.) (Exhibit 5 was marked for identification.) Q. I've just handed you Exhibit No. 5. That's the drawing that you just made of the Tastemaker plant? A. Yes. Q. Now, is this the way that the plant looked when you came to the facility in '92? A. Yes. I want to add one little thing down here on the bottom of this. I'm going to say old house. You want me to add that in? I forgot about that. It looked -- except I have what is on the right side, it's called new spray dry and old spray dry. When I first arrived, only old spray dry was in existence. There was an old spray dry building, and then the new spray dry was being constructed at that time. It had just -- the surveying had just been completed and we built this new spray dry building on the side. Q. And was the new spray dry being constructed when you came to the -- A. No. When I first started, the surveying and stakes were already out and by February, January and February of '93, construction had begun on the facility. Q. Okay. So you took occupancy of that in the '93, '94 time frame? A. Yes. Q. Would you mind writing that down? Write where the new spray dry is. A. It's kind of a wiggly line that goes around, where the new spray dry encompassed. Q. Yes, sir. A. So that's new spray dry constructed in 1994, okay? Q. Now, pointing is hard on the record, but in this spray dry building, you've got in the upper left quarter, old spray dry. Is that correct, there's a line divided there? A. Yes, yes. That was the old -- actually where the old spray dry building was. Q. And then so the new spray dry just almost completely surrounded the old one? A. Yes. Q. So it looks like there -- and I can't tell; is this another area up above? A. No, that was just a storage area out there, and there was a road that went in the back. And I have an asterisk on the waste storage because that was constructed around 1995. So I'm making a note of that, that I believe that was contructed in 1995. Q. Okay. And this line in the middle of new liquids, what is that for? A. That's -- I drew that out. There shouldn't have been a line there. Q. Okay. So when you joined the company in '92, looks like there were five buildings -- small orders, warehouse, the building with QC and process flavors, the house, and then the one building that had the liquids, the chemical and spray dry? A. They were actually contiguous here. The old liquids and new liquids were attached, and chemical manufacturing was attached. Old spray dry was actually attached to the old building, and then eventually new spray dry became a separate -- almost a separate building from the -- was separated from the liquids and chemical manufacturing departments. Q. Okay. So the flavorists worked in the building that says QC laboratory and process flavors? A. No, they worked in the corporate office, which was across the street on Paddock Road, which was over across Interstate 75 and Paddock Road. Q. Is Paddock Road down at the bottom? A. No, that would have been -- coming across here would have been Interstate 75. And then Paddock curved way up here on the end, and it was over across 75, up about here. It would have been this area right here, across Interstate 75. In order to get to it, you had to go up to this street that -- right in the back here, there's a street. And you go up here all the way up to Paddock Road and back down and over. You couldn't get to that -- Q. Can you just write on that drawing, HQ and flavoring manufacturing? MR. MACE: Well, it wasn't the flavoring manufacturing. A. It wasn't the flavoring manufacturing, it was HQ and research. That was it. Q. Okay. So HQ and research was on Paddock Road? A. Yes. Q. And then where were the flavors actually made? A. They were made -- liquid flavors were made in liquids, powdered flavors were made in spray dry. And then processed flavors were flavors made from mainly natural ingredients like bananas and tomatoes and different types of natural vegetables and things -- garlics were made in there -- and fish flavors and meat flavors. Q. Okay. So there was a laboratory over on Paddock Road where the headquarters was, where they did the research work? A. Right. Q. And then there was a quality control laboratory over on your campus where they would do check work on the products that had been made over there? A. Yes, there was a QC lab here. And I didn't put the second floor into this building, but there was another QC lab on the second floor of that new liquids, old liquids chemical manufacturing building. It was up towards the back side of the new liquids, or actually to the back side of the chemical manufacturing area, in that area. Q. Now, you are familiar with -- you're aware that Tastemaker made butter flavorings? A. Yes. Q. So the liquid butter flavorings would have been made in the liquids room? A. Yes. Q. Now, you have a new liquids and an old liquids. What does that mean? A. That was the old production building and the new production building. They both made liquids. But when they added onto this facility, they put what is called a new liquids department, which was just a new facility to add to the production capacity. Q. Were butter flavorings made in both new liquids and the old liquids departments? A. I don't recall. Q. But if it was a butter flavoring liquid, it would have been made in one of these two rooms? A. Yes. Q. And then the spray dry, what is that? A. That was making the powders, actually spray drying the materials, combining them with a particulate material and then spray drying them and drying them to make a powdered flavor. Q. And those were made in the spray dry room? A. Yes. Q. And then there's a room, chemical manufacturing? A. Yes. Q. Tell me again what that was. A. That made specific chemicals that the researchers had developed for -- they were usually proprietary chemicals that -- materials that were ingredients for vehicles for the flavors. Q. Okay. So Tastemaker actually had patents for certain of its flavorings? A. I would assume they had patents. I don't know. But they had certain flavors that were proprietary, that only they could make. Q. Okay. Now, you have a warehouse and you have a spray dry warehouse. A. Yes. Q. In the building that's just called warehouse, what was that? A. That was raw materials. That's where all the raw materials came in. And the quality control people looked at those samples and they were dated. So they had expiration dates on them and so forth. Q. And the spray dry warehouse, was that the same thing after that? A. Yes, there were -- the raw materials stored in there were mainly the powders that were added to the flavors. And then the finished products, spray dry products were stored in there also. Q. Okay. And what was kept in the waste storage building? A. That was built in about 1995. When I got there, there were drums of waste materials stored along the side of the buildings, so we decided to build a complete building to get them out of the weather and store them in a secure facility. Q. Did you ever have problems with the wastes spilling? A. Not really. We had some spills, but they were small and just cleaned up right at the spot. Q. Did the EPA ever come out to the Tastemaker plant and check? A. Yes. Q. It is not a Superfund site, is it? A. No. Q. And then there is a house between process flavors and old liquids. What was that for? A. That was an old house that had been held over from the -- from when it was Fries and Fries. And Cele Hennequin and Paul Farrell both had their offices in that facility, in that old house. Q. Where was your office at? A. My office, when I first started, was right above the corner that says -- where it says -- well, where it says old liquids, if you come up right -- I'm trying to think now. Yes, right above old liquids and right about the middle, near the top, I'm going to put -- my office was right here. And that's in 1992 to -- I think it was 1994 or 95. I can't remember when I went over to work for Karen Duros, but I think it was probably 1994. That would seem right. I'm just going to put H-o-c-h-s-t-r-a-s-s-e-r office, 1992 to 1994. Q. And then at that point, did you move over to Paddock Road? A. I moved over to Paddock Road when I started to work for Karen Duros. Q. Now, Karen Duros was the general counsel? A. Yes. Q. Why was it that you reported to the attorney? A. Well, when I first went to work there, I worked for the vice-president of operations for North America, and his name was Randy Schmelzle. And Paul Farrell and Cele Hennequin reported directly to me at that facility. So I was really doing the facility stuff, plus all the worldwide. In 1994, Randy Schmelzle left and he was replaced by Jerry Biscopink, who didn't want EH&S reporting to him, so they moved me over to report to Karen Duros. He didn't want a corporate function reporting to him. Q. He just wanted to be responsible for the making of the flavors? A. Essentially, he was vice-president of operations for North America, for the North American facilities. Q. Okay. Now, approximately how big is this liquids area? A. I don't recall what the square footage was or how big. Q. And -- that's okay, but I don't even know a ballpark. Would it be -- A. Maybe 100 -- the new liquids across the back? Maybe 100 feet across the back. Does that sound right? I'm thinking. That would probably be about right, 100 feet, maybe about 100 feet. And then wide, probably 40 to -- about 40 feet wide would seem about right. Q. You're familiar with the ventilation system that was in the plant? A. Yes. Q. The ventilation system changed over time? A. Yes. Q. The drawing that you've given me, were there more changes to this physical structure than what you've shown here? A. No. The old house was torn down and process flavors evacuated. We built a new plant in Devon, in Kentucky. So that was one I didn't add on there. I had responsibility for the Devon plant on there after they bought it, too. But mainly Paul did the safety work, all the safety work at both facilities then. But process flavors moved to Devon, Kentucky, and then there was a new spray dry building that was built and a waste storage building that was built. And then it just physically stayed essentially the same. I don't recall any other changes. There was some security changes. We fenced the property and put a guard out at the gate and so forth on that. It was just a wide open facility when I moved there. Q. In the liquid department, about how many tanks were there where they made liquids? A. Oh, gee, I don't recall how many tanks. Let me picture this in my mind, because in new liquids, there's some very large tanks in new liquids compared to -- old liquids didn't have as large of tanks as new liquids. New liquids was built with a very high ceiling, and old liquids, the old liquids had a skylight that you could open up and vent to the outside. But I don't recall how many tasks were in there. Gee, I just don't recall how many tanks. Q. Would it be in the area of 50? A. No, there weren't that many tanks. It would have been more like 10 to 20 tanks in old liquids, and more like maybe 10 tanks, 10 to 15 tanks in new liquids. Q. Okay. How about in the spray dry area? A. Those were different. Yes, those had small tanks that they mixed things in, and then each -- there were spray dry bays -- in the back side of that new spray dry building, there were bays that each one had a spray dryer unit and a place -- the spray dryers were up higher. There was a blending floor on the second floor that blended things that went into the spray dryers, and then there was a packaging line on the first floor in each one of those spray dry bays. MR. CRICK: David, this is more Mr. Soper's area anyway, isn't it? MR. MACE: I'm not so sure about that. In terms of the layout of these areas? MR. CRICK: The making of the flavors. MR. MACE: I'm not sure that that's Soper so much. MR. CRICK: As who? MR. MACE: Mr. Stickley, George Stickley. He worked in liquids, so I'm trying to get him set up. MR. CRICK: Okay. Q. What kind of ventilation system existed in the old and new liquids area and in the spray dry area? A. It was general ventilation. The ducts, the exhaust ducts that were up high in the building were just general ventilation systems that removed any odors or whatever from the plant, and exhausted them to the outside. In the new liquids production, there was supplied air down -- there were two big ducts that came down and supplied air into the building, and then it was just a general ventilation that exhausted the air out of the building. There was no local ventilation on each tank or whatever. Q. For the jurors who are not familiar with ventilation like you are, general ventilation would be what you would see in any house or building? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. And then local ventilation, you said that there was more particular ventilation for a particular area where you said you had air brought in? MR. MACE: Objection to form. Mischaracterization. A. There was always a supply air that came in. We always supplied air in so we could exhaust air out. So we had a pretty good turnover in general ventilation in those areas when I started there. And then there were the skylights that you could open up and ventilate in the summertime, just let the odors out. But that was just the general ventilation for the area. There was -- I'm trying to think now -- there was a small compounding area next to liquids that was -- they compounded -- it comes off the manufacturing area right here, that all the formulas were compounded before they were put into the liquids production operation. Q. What does that mean, compounded? A. They took the formula sheets and mixed all the small quantities of items into small pails and so forth and containers, before they would mix them into the large batches. It's part of the batch process. But they would receive a formula sheet there and then mix all these things on bench top, and then take them out in production and add them to the mixers in the production area. Q. So in the new and old liquids area, it was primarily just general ventilation, and then you had the skylights that you would open in the summer and close in the winter? A. That was only in old liquids. And we had a lot of supplied air that came down, that swept through the facility. Q. Now, what about in the spray dry area? What sort of ventilation was in there? A. There wasn't a lot in the old spray dry area. That was more general. And there was a little bit of local that the engineers had added over the years. And I didn't get to see that much of old spray dry because of -- because of the construction in that facility, that didn't take -- the new spray dry didn't take that long to build. And when we designed -- when we were going through the design reviews for the new spray dry building, we added an awful lot of local ventilation in there. Each packaging line had its own local ventilation. The mixing bays had their local ventilation. And we had a lot of general ventilation that we put into that new spray dry building. Q. Why did you do that? A. Because the packaging lines were dusty. When you go to package and you're using powders, general ventilation won't take the powders off. You've got to use local ventilation to pull powders off at the packaging. When the material is coming out of the hopper and into the drum or into the bay, you've got to get local ventilation down on there to capture the particulates being released. Q. Now, how many years had that old spray dry area been in use? A. I have no idea when it was built or -- Q. More than 10 or 20 years? A. I would -- yes, I would say that it was that old. Q. And it had been used all that time with just the general ventilation and the dust problems that went along with that? A. Yes. Q. And then in the '93, '94 time period, Tastemaker built the new spray dry area and said we need to improve the ventilation. Were you involved in that decision? A. Yes. Q. Did you help determine what sort of ventilation should go into the new spray dry area? A. Yes. Q. And you said there was more local exhaust over each of the mixing areas. What type of ventilation specifically was it? A. They were ducts that came down to where the material came out of the hoppers into the package and was formed at that point, so that to capture any of the fugitive dust that got out, the dust that escaped from going into the bay that would have gone out in the plant, the local ventilation captured that dust and collected it. Q. Now, you have somewhat of a background in ventilation with your engineering degrees? A. Yes. Q. The term acceptable ventilation, is that a term of art in engineering? A. I don't know what it's acceptable to. That's a general term. I don't know what would be acceptable engineering or ventilation. It would have to be defined against some standard of some kind. Q. Okay. A. What I used was the industrial ventilation manual that's produced by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Q. If you are going to create ventilation, is it important to know what it is that you are trying to exhaust out of the room? MR. MACE: Objection. A. Not necessarily. You need to know the form of your powders so you can -- you can design a ventilation system for powders and you can design a ventilation for vapors. So if you know you have vapors, if you know they're cold vapors or hot vapors, you know what kind of ventilation system you need just by the way these materials physically act in the environment. Q. Sure. Some dusts are hazardous, some dusts are not. Would you agree with that? A. Yes. Q. Would you in general need to have a different type of ventilation system for a hazardous dust like asbestos, than you would for a non-hazardous dust? A. Well, the ventilation systems are pretty similar for asbestos and powders of any kind. I mean, if you're trying to capture -- whatever you are trying to capture, it has a physical form to it. All you're after is a system that would capture that physical form. So it doesn't make any difference if it's highly hazardous like asbestos or it's a non-hazardous material, a non-hazardous powder. The design is still essentially the same for the ventilation systems for capturing those substances. And the other -- when you're dealing with vapors, the only difference in vapors is -- from being hazardous or toxic or non-toxic is -- there isn't any difference in your capture system. If it's hazardous, it can explode. Now you've got a different material that you have to be intrinsically safe in your system so it doesn't spark or static electricity or ignite. But as long as you know what the physical form of the material is, you can design a ventilation system to capture that material. MR. CRICK: Let's go off the record. (Off the record.) Q. I want to make sure we're -- that I understood what you just said, that if you were designing ventilation for a manufacturing facility -- for two manufacturing facilities; one was making products with asbestos and the other one was making products with -- a product that created a non-hazardous dust, you would recommend the same ventilation system? A. It's the same type of system except that -- unless you want to completely enclose the system. Then there's ventilation called glove boxes, where you mix small quantities in glove boxes. But you couldn't do that in a production operation. For production operations, the principals of ventilation are still the same. It may change in the actual velocity that you pick the material up, but the design of the ventilation system is essentially the same. The filter system on the end of that that collects the materials before you exhaust them, that might be more efficient than it would be for a powder, but it's still the same ventilation. Still the same principals apply regardless of what type of powder or fiber that you use. Q. And you said a closed system or a glove box. What is that? A. Yes, a glove box is when you're dealing with highly potent carcinogens. Let's say you don't want to expose them to the air. You don't want any exposure whatsoever. And you're mixing small quantities and you're working -- you have two gloves that go inside of a box and it's completely sealed, and your materials come in from the outside, and you mix those in a box. And -- similar to when you're doing radiation type things. There's enclosures what are called Waldos, that are arms that go out, remote arms, that mix things. Those are the most severe things if you are dealing with highly hazardous materials or pathogens. Let's say you're trying to work with pathogens. You work with those in a glove box or someplace in a totally enclosed operation. But you wouldn't necessarily do that for the manufacture of fiberglass or asbestos or powders. They're all -- the same principles of ventilation and manufacturing would apply to those. Q. In ventilation, what is a closed system? A. A closed system means that it's completely closed and there's no outside atmospheric contact with the inside of that enclosure. In other words, you would completely enclose the facility, seal it, or where you're making the material transfer, completely seal it off, and the only air coming in there would be coming in to -- supplied in from the outside. And every bit of the air coming out would have to be captured and treated in some manner. So you're totally enclosed in that system versus a manufacturing facility, which there are open tanks and so forth, and have a general ventilation system. Q. Was there a closed system at any place in the Tastemaker facility? A. Not that I recall. Q. During the time that you were there until you left in '97, was it primarily a general ventilation system in the liquids area? A. No, we changed all that. Q. Now, I know in the spray dry, you changed and had the ventilation system you just described with the hoods or special exhaust -- A. Right. Q. -- over each of the tanks. Did you do the same thing in the liquids area? A. Yes. Q. So over each one of the tanks, there was a special exhaust that was put in? A. There was an option on the special exhaust. And the option on the special exhaust for each one of those tanks was that we implemented a rule that when you open the top of a tank, you had to be in a full face piece respirator because there's a head space in those tanks that would expose people. And we found we had an issue with acid aldehyde, which was one of our vehicles. We used a lot of acid aldehyde. And we were really trying to control those highly volatile things like acid aldehyde. So everybody that was required to open a tank had to wear a respirator. And then when we re-ventilated it, we put a trunk ventilation system over to that area so you could crack the top and suck the head space out of that tank before you opened it. Q. Crack the top and suck the head space? A. Yes. Q. That kind of went over my head. A. Essentially what you're doing is putting a vacuum down into the tank and pulling the vapors from the head space in the tank. In the tank, the liquids would be down here. There would be a head space up in the top of the tank, and that would be vertically a saturated vapor. So you didn't want employees to open that tank top and inhale what was coming out of that tank. So what we did was we designed local ventilation to come down to that tank top so when they went up with a full face piece respirator, they would crack the top of that tank, put the vacuum line down and pull that head space out of there, and it went through an air pollution control equipment. Q. Why did you do that? Why did you make those changes? A. Because it was general ventilation and the odors around the plant were very high. We wanted to first of all, protect the employees. We found that when we were designing this, that one of the employees that was diagnosed with the bronchiolitis had had a large exposure to acid aldehyde, which she attributed her condition to that large inhalation of acid aldehyde. So we wanted to make sure that we had all the volatiles, especially the acid aldehyde materials covered, and to do that, we had to do every tank, because we could have used acid aldehyde in any one of the tanks in volume. So essentially we re-ventilated the whole system to protect against all those vapors. And also at that time, we didn't know specifically what -- if there was a causative -- specific causative agent, so we wanted to pull everything out of there we could get out of the work area. Q. Who was that one employee? A. That was Robin Gaskins -- or excuse me -- it was Mary Sue McGee. She was the first one, Mary Sue McGee. Q. So one of the reasons that Tastemaker changed its ventilation was because of the problems that had happened with Janice Irick and Mary Sue McGee and the others? A. Yes, because it was my recommendation that we could look for whatever the causative agent is for the next ten years and never find it, because there just wasn't enough information available to identify cause and effect. So the only way we could go about it -- and this is a standard practice in industrial hygiene. You can actually eliminate a health hazard by controlling without ever knowing what the health hazard was. So it made more sense to invest in re-ventilating the entire building and getting rid of every possible exposure that we could, and get rid of the issue from that standpoint. Q. Did you ever suggest to the company that the company advise its customers what type of ventilation you were using to protect your employees? A. No. Q. Did you ever participate in writing the ventilation section of the material safety data sheets for Givaudan Tastemaker products? A. I don't recall writing that section for the MSDSs. Q. Can you tell me what department Janice Irick worked in? A. I would only know from the records. It was defined as the liquids manufacturing area. Q. You didn't ever know Ms. Irick? A. No. Q. She died by the time you had joined the company? A. That's correct. Q. Mary Sue McGee, do you know what department she worked in? A. I believe she was in the liquids department. Q. How about Joey Wallace? A. Joey Wallace? He worked in process flavors, I believe. Q. He worked in a different building altogether? A. Yes. Q. Ron Feldcamp? A. I don't recall where he worked. I think he was in the warehouse or someplace, but I wouldn't -- I don't actually recall Ron's. He was a later diagnosed case. Q. Robin Gaskins? A. She was in liquids also. Q. And Terry Roberts? A. I don't know Terry Roberts. Q. How about Gary Shea? A. Gary Shea was not in liquids, but I can't recall where he was. Q. How about Walter Vaske? A. He was in spray dry, I believe. One of the -- Gary Shea or Walt were in spray dry; I remember that. And one was in the warehouse, but I don't recall how they were split up. Q. How about Cliff Walker? A. Cliff was in process flavors also. Q. So you had persons diagnosed or alleged to be diagnosed with bronchiolitis obliterans that worked in process flavors, the warehouse, the liquids and the spray dry areas? A. Yes, the initial -- the initial ones were Joey Wallace and Cliff Walker. Dr. Baughman I believe was the one that suggested they might have bronchiolitis. And then Janice Irick worked in liquids. And those were the initial once we worked with in 1993. Q. Butter flavors were made in the liquids room, the liquid butter flavors were? A. Yes. Q. And the powdered butter flavors were made in the spray dry room? A. Yes. Q. Do you know, were any butter flavors made in the process flavors area? A. Not to my knowledge. We couldn't -- I don't believe we ever identified any butter flavors being produced in process flavors. Q. What was it again they made in process flavors? A. They took meat, USDA meat and boiled it and made meat flavors out of it. They used seafood, shrimp and so forth, and made shrimp flavors out of that. Tomatoes, any kind of vegetables, they made vegetable flavors. There were big vats that boiled those things down and some additives were put to them to make the flavors. Q. And do you know if diacetyl was used at all in the process flavors area? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. But it was in the liquids and it was in the spray dry area? A. Yes. Q. And it would have been in the warehouse, too? A. Yes. If you are storing the powders in the warehouse, it would have been in all the warehouses, including -- diacetyl would have come in as a raw material in the raw material warehouse. Q. Now, you said there were a lot of odors that were in the plant in general? A. Yes. Q. That's why you wanted to change the ventilation system? A. Well, no. I wanted to change the ventilation system precisely to get rid of the issue. It was to do this while we were trying to look for a cause, because it could have taken us forever to find a cause, where by re-ventilating the whole facility, we possibly could have gotten rid of the problem by re-ventilating the facility. Q. When this bronchiolitis obliterans issues came up, you instructed some of your employees to do some research on the topic? A. Yes. Q. They did some research on the general subject of bronchiolitis obliterans? A. Well, I didn't instruct anyone. We had a group that met together as an emergency meeting, and certain tasks were assigned to people to do. At that time, I didn't have -- Paul Farrell and Cele Hennequin reported to me, so I did have some things for them to do. But generally, these things were assigned to people within the group. Q. And who was in the group? A. Well, Nancy Higley -- the original meetings included Mike Davis, and -- in 1992, included Mike Davis and Bob Pellegrino and Terry Bono-Stewart, who was our human resources manager at the time -- Nancy Higley, me. I can't remember who else were in there, but these were more. I think Karen Duros sat in these meetings also. There were about eight people or so that metal initially because of the seriousness that we considered this. A coroner was asking us for information about Janice Irick. We had to comply with that. Plus, Dr. Baughman had reported these two other employees as possibly having bronchiolitis obliterans. So what we were trying to do was get a handle on this and which direction to go. This was in December of 1992. So there were a lot of people involved at that time to get the right directions on this. And that 1992 is when the decision was mid to re-ventilate the entire facility in those meetings. Q. Okay. I don't have a whole lot of time left before we have to stop, so I want to go through and just have you identify several exhibits so we can short circuit that for the next time through. (Exhibit 6 was marked for identification.) Q. Is Exhibit 6 a set of your notes? A. Yes. Q. And you wrote those notes around the dates that are given on those? A. Yes. MR. BRITTINGHAM: Since you don't have an extra copy for me, why don't you give me Bates numbers here, if you don't mind. MR. CRICK: The one I just handed was TM007296. A. Yes. These aren't all of my notes. There's some in here that aren't mine. This was a list I believe I gave to Janice Dees. Q. So is the first five pages or so your notes? A. One, two, three -- the first four pages are my notes. Q. And the last page, is that Janice Dees? A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. I believe these are Janice's notes here. But she didn't sign them or anything. I couldn't be sure. (Exhibit 7 was marked for identification.) Q. Exhibit 7, are these some of your notes from '93? A. No, those aren't my notes. These look like they might be Janice's notes. MR. BRITTINGHAM: Is there a Bates number there, Steve? MR. MACE: TM9370. (Exhibit 8 was marked for identification.) MR. MACE: There's two here? MR. CRICK: There's two different documents. Q. Exhibit 8, are these some of your notes from '93? A. Yes. MR. BRITTINGHAM: Bates? MR. MACE: TM6077. MR. BRITTINGHAM: Through -- MR. MACE: 103. (Exhibit 9 was marked for identification.) Q. And Exhibit No. 9, TM009355 to 9359? A. Those may be Janice Dees' notes. Yes, these are definitely not my notes. Q. Do those appear to you to be Janice's notes? A. They could be. 2/4/93? No, this wouldn't be Janice's notes because she wasn't there in 2/3/93. Q. So these would be Nancy's notes? A. I don't know if they're Nancy's notes or whose they are. So these wouldn't be Nancy's. The other one wouldn't be Nancy's -- the 9370 wouldn't be Janice's either because it's the same handwriting. So I don't know whose notes these are. Q. Okay, thank you. (Exhibits 10 through 20 were marked for identification.) Q. Let me show you Exhibit 11 -- or 10. I'm going to hand you Exhibits 10 through 20. A. That's definitely mine. Q. Are these your log books? A. Yes, these are my log books. Let me make sure that all of them are my logs. MR. MACE: Let the record show he's obviously not going through every page of each of these. A. I can just flip through them, but they look to be my logs. I haven't seen some of these for a while. Yes, these are mine. They're mine. Q. And these were all prepared by you as a part of your work -- A. Yes. Q. -- at Tastemaker on the dates that are shown on the logs? A. Yes. Some of them, you'll find -- in some probably, notes that go beyond the date on here at the end of the book. Sometimes before I switched to a new book, I would continue notes in that book. (Exhibit 21 was marked for identification.) Q. Let me show you Exhibit 21. What is that? A. That's my notes from a presentation that I made. Q. It's called Occupational Health Investigation Update? A. Yes. Q. June 10, 1994? A. Yes. Q. Bates stamped TM007367 through 375. Who did you give this presentation to? A. I don't recall who this was to. I gave several presentations. I had annual presentations to give on state of the program to the board of directors. And this was June 1994. I have no idea which one this was. (Exhibit 22 was marked for identification.) Q. Let me show you Exhibit 22. Can you tell me what that is, please? A. Well, not everything in here was part of the presentation. Q. Oh, well then, we'll pull out the stuff that's not. I assumed that it was. A. Well, I've got to remember whether all this was -- yes, probably -- yes, it was. I was looking at Dr. Lockey's -- I didn't remember his resume being this extensive in this, but yes, that's fine. This was a presentation I gave to the Givaudan people right after they became involved in the program. Q. And it looks like these are slides that you showed? A. Yes. Q. And it describes what your history had been with investigating this bronchiolitis obliterans situation at the company? A. Yes. Q. The last resume that's in that group is a gentleman named Gerald Schoenig, Ph.D.? A. Yes. MR. MACE: I think he pronounces it Schoenig. Q. Schoenig? A. Thank you. Q. He's a toxicologist? A. Yes. Q. And why did the company decide that they needed to bring another toxicologist in besides Ms. Higley? A. Dr. Higley, we had -- we had focused on acid aldehyde as being a causative agent of the bronchiolitis obliterans or the pulmonary problems that we were seeing because out of the -- we were able to identify four employees who had been diagnosed with possible bronchiolitis obliterans, and one that had been confirmed with bronchiolitis obliterans who had had massive accidental exposures to acid aldehyde. So -- and we could not find anything in the literature, and I could not -- on acid aldehyde, any additional things that would relate it to bronchiolitis. I went to the EPA to go through their substantial risk reporting under TOSCA, and they had no information under substantial risk. And I called our supplier of acid aldehyde, Hoest Celanese, and they had no history of a massive exposure of acid aldehyde causing this problem. But still that was what we were focused upon because we had four cases like that. So Nancy hired outside -- an outside consultant to review the aliphatic and aromatic aldehydes and do a complete tox review to see if there were any indications in there of these materials being more toxic than reported in the -- currently reported in the literature. Q. And he didn't report any additional hazards associated with acid aldehyde, did he? MR. MACE: Objection. A. All I know is that acid aldehyde and the aldehydes in general, his conclusion was they were much more toxic than had originally been reported. And I only met with the gentleman once in Nancy Higley's office. He had produced the first aldehyde study, and the conclusion on that was they were much more toxic than had previously been thought. Q. Just to wrap up for today, did the company ever tell its customers that purchased products that contained acid aldehyde, that the company believed that acid aldehyde could cause bronchiolitis obliterans? A. Well, I wouldn't have been in that -- in that group. That would have been product safety that would have been -- which was Nancy Higley's area, to inform the customers. Q. Are you aware if Givaudan or Tastemaker ever advised a customer of theirs that had purchased a product that contained acid aldehyde, that the company believed acid aldehyde could cause bronchiolitis obliterans? MR. MACE: Objection. A. I wouldn't have had any contact with those people. Q. Do you know if the company ever claimed in legal proceedings, that acid aldehyde did not cause bronchiolitis obliterans? A. I don't know of any legal proceedings at all that would have -- Q. Worker's Comp claims? A. Oh, Workers' Comp claims? I don't recall, because I didn't see the Workers' Comp claims. Q. Were you involved in any of the inspections by the Ohio Industrial Commission, of the plant? A. No. Q. Do you know that that happened? A. I don't know for sure. With the Compensation, I would assume it happened, but it wasn't -- that was human resources that managed all of that. Q. Okay. Were you aware that the company had been sued by the State of Ohio for violations of environmental health statutes? MR. MACE: Objection. A. State of Ohio? No, I hadn't been aware of that. Q. Did the company do any specific tests, any -- did they sponsor any animal studies on acid aldehyde? A. I answered that before. Q. The answer was no? A. No, no animal studies that I know of, put it that way. Q. During this time you were doing your original research, you became aware that NIOSH had found bronchiolitis obliterans at a plant in Indiana, the Baker's plant? A. Yes. Q. And you saw that report? A. Yes. Q. When the bronchiolitis obliterans came up at the Tastemaker plant, did you contact those NIOSH investigators? A. No. Q. Did anyone from Tastemaker contact NIOSH at all? A. I believe that Janice Dees may have because it was Janice Dees that found that study. And it was sort of obscure and out of the way. And she found it, and I believe she may have talked to the NIOSH people at that time, and that's how she found the study. Q. Okay. What is NIOSHTIC? A. It's the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Q. Well, yes, that's what NIOSH is. A. Yes. Q. NIOSHTIC with a T-I-C, do you know what that is? A. No. MR. CRICK: I've got obviously lots to go through, but you need to -- you've got this phone call to make, and I wanted to take a break before we did the next person, so we might as well stop now. MR. MACE: If you want to. I mean -- we can go off the record. (Off the record.) Q. Dr. Hochstrasser, if you would look at the Exhibit No. 2, it's your notes from 1992. A. Yes. Q. And if you would look on the second page, there's a reference to substances: diacetyl. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. There's a reference to a literature search? A. Yes. Q. What happened to the records from that literature search? MR. MACE: Objection. A. I have no idea. I don't recall the literature search being done, but -- I believe it was, but I don't know -- I wouldn't know where they would be. Q. You didn't keep a file of the literature on diacetyl? A. No. All the literature searches were done by Nancy Higley, because she had a contract to do searches. Q. Okay. Would you go back a couple of pages to -- it's Bates stamp 7411. A. Yes. Q. Right in the middle, there's a reference to -- below, where it says Janice, 1985, looks like Mel Enderle. Can you read that? A. Right. Q. Who is that? A. That doesn't look -- is that my writing? It might be. I don't know who Mel Enderle -- I don't recall who Mel Enderle is or was. Q. It says Mel Enderle sent MSDS. You don't know what that means? A. No. Q. When you did your literature search or when you did your initial search on chemicals, did someone contact all of the suppliers for chemicals that Tastemaker was using? A. No. We had MSDSs from every one, so we went through all the MSDSs that we had. Q. Okay. Now, I haven't been -- strike that. All right. We're off of that document for right now. A. Okay. Q. When Tastemaker employees are cleaning, cleaning the tanks, cleaning the plant, how did that take place? Is that a daily occurrence? Is that a weekly occurrence? A. That's generally a daily occurrence. Q. How did they do that? A. That was generally done with hot water. Q. Okay. Were there any -- was there any chemicals or anything used to sanitize the tanks between one chemical batch and another? A. Yes, there was, but I don't recall what they were. Q. Do you know how the cleaning went about? How did they do the cleaning? A. No, I just was present once in cleaning out some spray dryers for kosher, before the people came to inspect it. Q. Can you tell me what steps were involved in doing the cleaning? A. No, I got there late. But they were washing it out with hot water when I got there. Q. Did the Tastemaker employees -- were they required to wear respirators when they were cleaning tanks? A. I believe this gentleman was wearing a respirator when he was cleaning that tank. Q. Do you have any idea why? A. No. Q. Did Tastemaker ever conclude that cleaning liquids could cause bronchiolitis obliterans? A. No, we didn't consider that. Q. You didn't even look into that issue? A. No. Q. And -- A. It didn't fit any of the profiles of the people that had gotten -- or were diagnosed. Q. Okay. You left the company in 1997. Can you tell me why you left? A. I was let go from the purchase of Givaudan. Q. Why was that? They had another person in your position? A. They had a person at Givaudan, Dave Johnson, who they put in charge of the program. Q. Now, what background did he have? A. He was a certified safety professional. Q. And had he been with Givaudan for quite awhile? A. No. Q. He was new? A. He was new to Givaudan, about a year possibly, or -- six months or a year. Q. And you had been with Tastemaker for five years. Did they give you any -- I don't really want to pry into this and I don't have really any questions about it, but did they give you any specific reason why they felt that Dave Johnson should have this position instead of you? A. No. The only reason that was given was the human resources people and whatever in New Jersey liked Dave Johnson, so they wanted him to run the program. And that was it. Q. Was there any thought that the environmental safety and health that had been in effect at Tastemaker was in part at fault for what had happened with the employees at the plant? A. No. Q. Were you ever told that there was some criticism of the environmental health and safety department because of the number of cases of bronchiolitis obliterans? A. No. MR. CRICK: I think that's all we're going to do right now because I don't want to -- next we're going to get into a lot of specific documents, and it just makes sense to do that all at one time. MR. MACE: That's fine. Dave, do you have any? MR. BRITTINGHAM: Not at this point in time. I would reserve -- if we're going to finish him later, I would reserve the right to ask questions at a later point in time if necessary. EXAMINATION BY MR. MACE: Q. Dr. Hochstrasser, I just wanted to ask a few clean-ups and look through my notes here. Earlier today, Mr. Crick asked you about Dr. Brooks proposing some epidemiology work. Who was Dr. Brooks proposing to do that work? A. He was proposing a graduate -- Ph.D. graduate student to do the work. Q. Okay. Did Dr. Brooks get back to you on that person's availability? A. Yes, he did. Q. What did he tell you? A. He got hold of us a little later and said that person was no longer available to do the study, that she picked another Ph.D. thesis topic. Q. Was epidemiology work, in fact, done by Tastemaker? A. Yes. Q. And Dr. Brooks -- in terms of the information that was made available to him, was all the information that you had available made available to Dr. Brooks? A. Every piece of information I had was given to Dr. Brooks. Q. Okay. And did Dr. Brooks give you any -- at the end of the day, did Dr. Brooks give you any statements in terms of causative agents? A. He only identified gum arabic and enzymes as possible causes. Q. Did Dr. Brooks ever identify diacetyl as a cause of any of the lung issues? A. No. Q. Did Dr. Brooks ever identify butter flavors as a cause of any of the lung issues? A. No. Q. If you could look at Exhibit 21 -- I don't know if they're in order or not -- A. Yes. Q. You said that was a presentation you made in June of '94? A. Yes. Q. And over on the page that's got 370 at the bottom -- MR. BRITTINGHAM: I'm sorry; what exhibit is that, Damond? MR. MACE: It's Exhibit 21. Q. You're reporting on that page on Dr. Brooks' visit? A. Yes. Q. And what was your second to the last bullet point? A. It says, identified gum arabic and enzymes as potential causative agents. Q. Exhibit 6, I think you said those -- we're going to a different exhibit -- those were some handwritten notes of yours, at least most of the pages, you said? The first four pages, you said? A. Yes. Q. If we go to your fourth page, under Dr. Brooks, your fourth bullet point, can you read that? A. It says identified gum arabic and enzymes. Q. Dr. Lockey -- were you involved in the decision to switch from Dr. Brooks to Dr. Lockey? A. Yes. Q. What was the reason for that decision? A. Well, Dr. Brooks was -- had identified all local people to do the work for him, and so -- he even identified that he was going to have to get a local physician because he was at the University of South Florida and would have to travel up. So he was involved in that. And he had identified Dr. McKay and Dr. Pinney as two of the people that he would use. And then when Janice Dees came on board and she said, well, why don't we just use Dr. Lockey. And I was not aware of Dr. Lockey's credentials at that time. Once we saw Dr. Lockey's background and history and his credentials, we switched to Dr. Lockey. And also Dr. Lockey's brother was at the University of South Florida. He's an asthma and pulmonary specialist. So actually, these were probably the best three people or two people in the country at that time, familiar with the disease. Q. In terms of the information that you made available to Dr. Lockey, did you make all the information that you had available, available to Dr. Lockey? A. Yes. Q. And at the end of the day, what did Dr. Lockey tell you about potential causative agents? A. The only causative agent that Dr. Lockey identified was acid aldehyde as a possible cause. Q. Did Dr. Lockey ever identify diacetyl as a cause of any of the lung injuries you were seeing? A. No. Q. Did Dr. Lockey ever identify butter flavors as a cause of any of the lung issues? A. No. Q. Mr. Crick mentioned that Tastemaker had a confidentially agreement with Dr. Lockey. Why did you need a confidentially agreement? A. Everybody signed a confidentially agreement, but when Dr. Brooks -- we were talking to Dr. Brooks, he mentioned publishing the results. So when Dr. Lockey came on board, we also talked to him about that. And in order to publish, we thought it needed a special confidentially agreement inside of the standard one so he could publish, so we could let him publish. Q. What was the concern about? Why did you need a confidentially agreement? A. Because we deal with a lot of proprietary information in formulas and things like that, so we wanted to make sure that none of the proprietary information was released. Q. Mr. Crick had gone through with you some of the departments and products and things. Are there raw materials used to make the products? A. Yes. Q. Is there a difference between the raw materials and the products? A. There's a significant difference between products and raw materials because the raw materials are in much higher concentrations and much higher levels than in the finished product. There's only a minor part of the actual raw materials remaining when the products are made in the final product. Q. In terms of the -- back in the mid '90s when you were doing this investigation or involved in it, just ballpark, about how many raw materials was Tastemaker using? A. We started out with a list of 3,000, and eventually pulled it back about 2,500. Nancy wanted to get it to 2,000, but I don't think we ever made it. Q. And in terms of on the other side, going out the door, how many products, just ballpark, did Tastemaker have? A. Oh, just thousands because every product was a customized product for the user, for the customer. Q. So apart from butter flavor -- Mr. Crick asked you about butter flavor. Apart from butter flavor, there were thousands of other products being made at the plant? A. Yes. Q. You responded to a question Mr. Crick asked you that you had some thought that the issue might not be limited to the the Tastemaker plant. Did you do anything to check that out? A. Yes. Q. What did you do? A. Well, we went outside to -- I made a couple phone calls outside to check outside. I went and checked the EPA substantial risk list of chemicals, any chemical effects reported that would have caused this disease. And we were trying to check all of our other plants to make sure that this issue didn't exist in any of the other plants that we had. Q. Did you do follow up to look into the other plants of Tastemaker? A. Yes. Q. And what did you find there? A. Well, we had started the pulmonary function test program that we focused on Cincinnati. We expanded that program to St. Louis and to Tastemaker, Inc. And then to Lakeland, Florida, to the UK and to Australia and Holland. So we actually sent Dr. McKay and Dr. Lockey and Janice Dees over to the UK to train physicians on using the specialized pulmonary function test equipment, and then sent them onto the Far East to do the same thing. So they trained all of the physicians to do that. Q. Did you find any similar respiratory issues at any of the other plants? A. Not as far as the studies went, no. Q. And you said you made some calls, and you told Mr. Crick you called Mr. Russo or somebody? A. Yes. Q. Did he report back any type of respiratory injuries? A. No, he just told me they hadn't had any issues that he knew of, in the flavors department at all. Q. You mentioned to Mr. Crick that you attended the FEMA conference in -- I think it was March of '97? A. Yes. Q. And was bronchiolitis obliterans mentioned at that conference? A. Well, it was mentioned in the written document that went along with it on the -- referencing the Baker study, but it had -- it also referenced bronchiolitis obliterans as a possible disease from exposures. Q. And was acid aldehyde mentioned in the conference? A. Yes, it was. Q. You talked about this distinction between products and raw materials. In terms of the respiratory issues that you were seeing, what was your thinking with respect to whether it was related to products or raw materials or both, or what? A. We presumed it was product because the cases we had were in areas -- or in raw material rather, because it was in areas where they used massive raw materials. We didn't see it in the packaging departments or things like that, we saw it in the manufacturing areas where the high levels of raw materials were being used. Q. You were talking to Mr. Crick about your training in industrial hygiene and your certifications and things. In environmental health and safety in this time period, the mid '90s, were there customary or standard levels of ventilation? A. Yes, everything in industrial ventilation is usually designed using the industrial ventilation manual that's produced by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygiene. And they update it every year. So those are the principles that we use to design exhaust ventilation. Q. Now, when you arrived at Tastemaker, did you say it was '92? A. Yes. Q. When you arrived in '92, in terms of the existing levels of ventilation at the Tastemaker Cincinnati plant, were those levels up to the standard ventilation practices? A. Oh, no, no. Q. On ventilation and these standards, you were asked some questions about dust and dusty conditions. Are there general standards out there in terms of dust limits? A. Yes. Q. What type of standards are you familiar with? A. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists has threshold limit values for dust, and so does OSHA. And there are general levels. OSHA's -- they're called particulates not otherwise classified. They used to be called nuisance dust. But those levels in OSHA is 15 milligrams per cubic meter for an eight-hour time weighted exposure, and ACGIH is 10 milligrams per cubic meter. And then there's a grain dust standard that ACGIH has. It's 4 milligrams per cubic meter. And that's what we used internally to design our systems to, that all levels had to be below 4 milligrams per cubic meter. Q. So in terms of these levels that you were shooting for in your ventilation, these were from public standards? A. These were from standards. Q. This was no unique levels that you were setting? A. No. Q. And those are well-known standards? MR. CRICK: Leading. A. Yes. Q. Are those well-known standards? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Crick asked you a question about whose responsibility was it to make sure that customers were not being exposed to the same fumes. Would customers would be exposed to the same fumes that the Tastemaker employees would? A. Not to my knowledge because the products have such low levels of these substances in them compared to what we used in the raw materials that the levels would be different, the exposures would be different. Q. You told Mr. Crick that you did not contact any customers on this issue. Why not? A. Because that was -- I didn't deal with the customers. That was the product safety people that dealt with the customers on this. And there wasn't any need to. We didn't -- really didn't have any presumption that it was -- or any idea that it might be a product problem versus a raw material problem or production problem. Q. You referred to St. Louis a minute ago, and you said -- Mr. Crick was asking you about St. Louis. When that entity was acquired, was that part of Tastemaker Corp.? A. They made that a separate company. They called it Tastemaker, Inc. We assumed it was going to be a part of the company, but it was set up as an individual entity, individual company. Q. So that was a separate company? A. Yes. MR. CRICK: I'm sorry; what was a separate company? MR. MACE: Tastemaker, Inc. THE WITNESS: The St. Louis, Bridgeton, Missouri -- MR. CRICK: Thank you. THE WITNESS: -- facility. Q. On the diagram you drew for Mr. Crick, Exhibit 5, it goes without saying that's not to scale or anything, correct? A. No. And there's some things missing in here. You really need a plot plan of some kind. Q. He asked you specifically were butter flavors -- were liquid butter flavor is made in liquids, and you said yes. Were there other products besides butter flavors made in liquids? A. There's thousands of products made in liquids. Q. And he asked you did they make some spray dry butter in the spray dry department, and you said yes. Were there things besides butters made in the spray dry? A. Yes, thousands of products were made in there also. Q. He was asking you some questions about waste storage and some barrels of waste and things being moved. At Tastemaker, was diacetyl considered a hazardous waste? A. No. Q. You said you made some -- you and others at the company were involved in making some changes to the -- A. Could I clarify about diacetyl? Q. Sure. A. We did produce so little diacetyl waste, unless we had a bad product or something, we wouldn't have sent it out as a waste. Q. You were telling Mr. Crick that you and others were involved in reducing the dust levels when you got involved in the ventilation changes. In your experience in the environmental health and safety field in this time period, the early '90s, was it common knowledge that dust needed to be controlled? A. Oh, yes. Q. You were talking to Mr. Crick about what information you do and you don't need in order to try to arrange appropriate ventilation or adequate ventilation. Is flash point an important piece of information for that? A. Yes. Q. Why? A. Because if things -- if substances flash at a low level, then you may have to have intrinsically safe equipment so you don't blow your operations up or cause a fire in your operations. And also, it's important because the lower the flash point, the quicker it vaporizes. There's some things that their flash points are below room temperature and those start vaporizing immediately upon exposure to the atmosphere, so their vapor release is much higher than products with higher vapor pressures. Q. Do substances with low flash points require ventilation for that reason alone? A. Yes. Q. What does flash mean? What is a flash point? A. Well, flash is -- I think we're stating it different. Flash is when -- usually you use when -- Q. What is a flash point? A. When it flashes as a fire. But the lower the molecular weight a substance is, the more it will vaporize, I mean, readily. Q. You were talking about head space in responses to Mr. Crick. Again, in the environmental health and safety field, in your view, was that common knowledge in that field back in the early '90s, that head spaces tend to accumulate vapors? A. Oh, yes. Q. That was nothing new that you came upon? A. No, no. All batch tanks are like that. Q. You told Mr. Crick that you never advised any Tastemaker customers what type of ventilation Tastemaker was using to protect the Tastemaker employees. Why not? A. Our -- we designed our MSDSs because -- in a way that we used adequate ventilation, meaning that whoever receives the material has to make an evaluation on how they're using that material in order to be able to design the ventilation system for their particular use. You can't state specifically what type of ventilation to use for operations which you never see or have no idea of how your customer is going to use them, so we use the term use adequate ventilation on the MSDS. Q. You talked about this revised ventilation that you and others at Tastemaker put in. Was the revised ventilation something unique? A. No, it was standard practice, industrial ventilation practice. Q. Mr. Crick asked you briefly about measuring for substances. Did you make -- did you and others at Tastemaker make measurements of the levels of acid aldehyde at the plant? A. Yes, we did. Q. What did you find? A. We found them to be much too high, both ACGIH TLV and OSHA PELs. Q. Did you make measurements that would allow you to make determinations in terms of the amount of diacetyl that you found? A. Yes. Q. What did you do on that? A. We took thermo -- carbotraps and they're thermally disorbed carbon tubes, and they analyzed as C4 hydro -- dioxy hydrocarbons, and that we assumed was diacetyl. And the highest level we had was around three-tenths of a part per million. Q. And were there areas of the plant where you found no -- you couldn't even find any? A. We couldn't find any. And we never found any in processed flavors. And there were other places also that we didn't find. Mainly, we found, I think, in one or two instances in liquids. Q. If you go to Exhibit 2, Mr. Crick was just asking you some questions about that. Could be the one sticking out. A. There it is. Q. I believe you said the timing of these notes, you believe was in '92? A. Yes. Q. Over on the third page of the document, is that your handwriting for item number 2? MR. CRICK: Which exhibit are you looking at? A. Third page. I'm sorry. Yes, that's mine. Q. What does that say? A. It says identify common exposures. Q. Was diacetyl a common exposure to all the individuals who were having lung issues at Tastemaker? A. No. Q. Over on that page that's 7412 at the bottom, there's Janice and then compounder and raw material. And then what does the next sentence say? A. Determine active -- oh, raw material exposed to everything. Q. What is that referring to? A. That means the compounders are exposed to every raw material that we get into the plant, that we use in a -- in our mixes, in our formulas. They compound, make the small quantities of everything that goes into spray dry and into liquids production. Q. And are they dealing with the pure 100 percent of those substances? A. Yes. Q. The next page, is that your handwriting with the circle, where it says viral? A. Yes. Q. And what is that in reference to? A. That was in reference to a couple of the issues we had with viral infections, that Janice Irick had a viral infection from an operation that she had. And also it was one of the things I considered in my initial considerations of what could be a cause of this disease, because viruses have known to cause this disease or have been reported to cause it. Q. Back on page -- toward the end, 7419, is that your handwriting as well? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Then if you could look at Exhibit 1 -- A. Okay. Q. Exhibit 1 was the listing of people that Mr. Crick had given to you -- Walker, McGee, Gaskins, Feldcamp, Shea, Vaske, Wallace and Irick. Was there -- at the end of the day, was there any question as to whether these people had bronchiolitis obliterans or not? A. Yes, there was. Q. And was there any question as to whether the lung issues that they did have were work related or not? A. There was always question if they were work related. Q. For example, Ms. Irick, who Mr. Crick asked you about and mentioned that she had passed away, did Tastemaker do any investigation to try to find out the cause of her lung issues? A. Yes, we did. Q. What did you learn? A. We couldn't find anything in the reviews that we went through. And finally, my conclusion was going back to the viral infection, when she reported she had the disease -- according to the documents we had, reported getting the disease almost immediately after having the viral disease. So that got me more over on focusing on viral issues. Q. Okay. Did others of these people have some pre-existing issues or other things going on? A. Yes, they did. Q. And the questions that you had, were they coming from Tastemaker or were they coming from the doctors that you were consulting with? A. Questions? Q. Questions about whether they even had bronchiolitis obliterans, or whether it was work related. A. The doctors questioned it. MR. MACE: I've got nothing further for you at this time. Thank you. FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CRICK: Q. I just have maybe two questions, because we're going to cover most of this stuff again when we go through the documents. A. Okay. Q. You left the company in '97, and do you understand that after you left Tastemaker/Givaudan, that there was a study of a microwave popcorn plant in Jasper, Missouri? A. I heard that, yes. Q. And that there was, as a part of that study of the microwave popcorn plant in Jasper, Missouri, there was a large investigation that was performed by NIOSH? Are you familiar with that? A. Yes. Q. Have you made any study of that NIOSH report? A. I've read the NIOSH reports, but -- Q. Was that done -- why did you do that? A. Because I was just curious as to what they found in the reports. Q. You understand that NIOSH concluded that diacetyl was an ingredient that caused bronchiolitis obliterans at the popcorn workers -- MR. MACE: Objection. Q. -- plant in Jasper, Missouri? MR. MACE: Objection. Mischaracterization. MR. BRITTINGHAM: Objection to the form of the question. Q. Do you understand that? A. I knew what their conclusions were. Q. You've read -- have you read all the NIOSH reports? A. I haven't read all the reports, no. Q. Did you read the New England Journal of Medicine article? A. I read that, yes. Q. Have you read any of the articles by Ann Hubbs? A. No, just the New England report was all I had access to, and the NIOSH reports. Q. And how did you get those? A. I got those off line from New England Journal of Medicine, because I get the New England Journal of medicine reports. Q. Do you know that there's been some studies at microwave popcorn plants in other parts of the United States, that found incidence of bronchiolitis obliterans? MR. MACE: Objection. MR. BRITTINGHAM: Objection to the form of the question. A. The only reports I know of are the ones generated by NIOSH. Q. Are you aware that NIOSH has inspected other plants and found incidence of -- and there's been findings of bronchiolitis obliterans in other microwave popcorn plants? MR. MACE: Objection. MR. BRITTINGHAM: Objection. A. Well, I would like to comment that I don't believe NIOSH because they departed from their normal hazard assessments that they normally did in the past, and reached conclusions that are not supported by fact. Q. I see. And -- okay. MR. CRICK: We'll just leave it there for today. Thank you very much. MR. BRITTINGHAM: No questions. I'll just reserve my right to ask questions at a later point in time when we resume. MR. GRUBB: So we're continued in progress? MR. MACE: Yes. JOHN M. HOCHSTRASSER - - - (DEPOSITION CONCLUDED AT 2:25 P.M.) - - - C E R T I F I C A T E STATE OF OHIO : SS COUNTY OF WARREN I, Erin Woodward, the undersigned, a duly qualified notary public within and for the State of Ohio, do hereby certify that JOHN M. HOCHSTRASSER was by me first duly sworn to depose the truth and nothing but the truth; foregoing is the deposition given at said time and place by said witness; deposition was taken pursuant to stipulations hereinbefore set forth; deposition was taken by me in stenotype and transcribed by me by means of computer; deposition was submitted to the witness for examination and signature; I am neither a relative of any of the parties or any of their counsel; I am not, nor is the court reporting firm with which I am affiliated, under a contract as defined in Civil Rule 28(D) and have no financial interest in the result of this action. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal of office at Cincinnati, Ohio this 11th day of January, 2006. _______________________ My commission expires: Erin Woodward July 30, 2008 Notary Public-State of Ohio