Document 88aEqzyn7R8dOqME5oGv8aey

In The Matter Of: Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et al. George Roush, Jr Vo1 2, March 18, 1993 Concannon & Jaeger General Court Reporters 705 Olive Street Suite 604 St. Louis, MO 63101 (314) 421-1000 Original File roush2.dep, 108 Pages Word Index included with this Min-U-Script WATER PCB-SD0000022950 WATER PCB-SD0000022951 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et al. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA NEVADA POWER COMPANY, ) Plaintiff, ) -vs- ) # CV-89-555-LDQ (LRL) MONSANTO COMPANY, GENERAL) ELECTRIC CORPORATION, etal., ) Defendants.) INDEX WITNESS: Page: GEDRGE ROUSH Direct Examination by Mr. Bradley 125 Cross Examination by Mr. Featherstone 150 Redirect Examination by Mr. Bradley . 200 Recross Examination by Mr. Featherstone . 223 EXHIBITS Roush Deposition Exhibit A .............158 (Letter from Sinclair to Roush, dtd. 6*25-76) Roush Deposition Exhibit B ............163 (Monsanto Memo dtd. 8-27-76) Roush Deposition Exhibit C .............167 (Press Release dtd. 9-21-76) Roush Deposition Exhibit D .............181 (Itinerary dtd. 11-10-75) Page 123 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA NEVADA POWER COMPANY, ) Plaintiff, ) -vs- ) # CV-89-555-LDG (LRL) MONSANTO COMPANY, GENERAL ) ELECTRIC CORPORATION, et al., ) Defendants.) CONTINUATION OF THE DISCOVERY DEPOSITION OF WITNESS, to be used In an action pending in the District Court of Ihe United States, for the District of Nevada, wherein NEVADA POWER COMPANY is Plaintiff, and MONSANTO COMPANY, et al. are Defendants, pursuant to Notice, under the provisions of Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, taken on March 18, 1993, at the law offices of Messrs. Husch & Eppenberger, 100 North Broadway, St. Louis, Missouri, before John T. Concannon, a Notary Public within and for the State of Missouri. APPEARANCES The Plaintiff was represented by Mr. Ralph A. Bradley, of the law firm of Bradley & Merrell, c/o Jones, Jones, Close & Brown, 300 South Fourth Street, Ste. 700, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89101. The Defendant, Monsanto Company, was represented by Mr. Bruce A. Featherstone, of the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, 1999 Broadway, Ste. 4000, Denver Colorado, 80202. The Defendant, Westinghouse Corporation, was represented by Ms. Laurie Basch, of the law firm of Weil, Page 124 [1] GEORGE ROUSH, [2] of lawful age, having been previously sworn to tell the [3] truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, deposes [4j and says on behalf of the Plaintiff, as follows: [5] DIRECT EXAMINATION [6] QUESTIONS BY MR. BRADLEY: m Q: Dr. Roush, we're here on the second day of [8] your deposition, and you understand that you're still under [9] oath? [io] A: Yes. HU Q: All right. We had spoken briefly yesterday [i2] about Dr. Paul Wright, and you indicated that, as I recall, [13] that Dr. Wright was an employee of Monsanto's when you [i4] became an employee in 1973? [15] A: Yes. [i6] Q: Did Dr. Wright leave Monsanto to go work with [17] Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories during the 1970's? [is] A: Yes. [i9] Q: Was Dr. Wright a Monsanto -- As a rule, you [20] don't remember when Dr. Wright left Monsanto; is that [21] correct? [22] A: It was before me. What do you mean by -- [23] Q: Okay. Well, tell me what you know about Dr. [24] Wright's employ ment with Monsanto. When was he employed by [25] Monsanto? Page 125 [1] A: He was working for Monsanto when I came. [2] Q: Okay. [3] A: And he had been to Bio-Test before that. [4] Q: And before working with In dustrial Bio-Test, [5] had Dr. Wright been a Monsanto employee, do you know? [6] A: I think so. [7] Q: All right. And Dr.Wright eventually was [8] charged with a crime regarding the work that he did at IBT [9] Labs; is that correct? [io] A: I don't know. I didn't know the basis for [ii] that criminal -- that action in court. [12] Q: Do you know that he was charged with a crime [13] during the 1970's? U4] A: That word "criminal" never got to me from [15] Monsanto. [16] Q: Did Monsanto ever give any awards to Dr. [17] Wright for his role in forestalling EPA's promulgation of [is] regulations to limit discharges of PCB's? [19] A: No. [20] Q: I'm going to show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 1137 [2i] and ask you to look at that. Have you had a chance to [22] review that? [23] A: Yes. [24] Q: Had you seen that document before today? [25] A: I signed it in 1976. Page 126 Hi Q: All right. That's your signature down at the [2] bottom? [3] A: Yes. [4] Q: And what is that exhibit? [5] A: It's an achievement award. [6] Q: And it's dated 7-4-76 -- What is the date of [7] that? [8] A: 8-4-76. [9] MR. FEATHERSTONE: You're read ing that date by [io] your signature, Dr. Roush? Hi] THEWITNESS; Yes. Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421 -1000 Min-U-Scrlpt George Roush, Jr. VoL 2, March 18, 1993 112] MR. FEATHERSTONE: All right. U3] THE WITNESS: I'm relating that to Levinskas', [14] as well. [15] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) And did Monsan to give an [163 award to Dr. Paul Wright pursuant to this exhibit? [17] A: Yes. [is] Q: And was the amount of the award one hundred [19] dollars? [20] A: I think so. [21] Q: Was the award given at a ceremony? [22] A: No. [23] Q: Was it simply handed to Dr. Wright? [24] A: Yes. [25] MR. FEATHERSTONE: You're talk ing about the Page 127 [1] cash now? [2] MR. BRADLEY: Yes. [3] Now, I'm looking at the middle para graph of [4] the exhibit in which it says, the form says, "Describe the [5] achieve ment and its significance to Monsanto." And halfway [6] down, beginning on the far right-hand side it says, "In the [7] former instance..." Actually, let me go up. "Particularly [8] noteworthy were his..." meaning Dr.Wright's, "..efforts on [9] polychlorinated biphenyls, (Aroclors) and chlorinated tioj Isocyanurafes (ACL products).In the former instance, his [ii] excellent analysis and syntheses of widely scattered [12] observations played a prominent role in forestalling the [13] EPA's promulgation of unrealistic regulating to limit [14] discharge of polychlorinated biphenyls." Do you see that [15] there? [16] A: Yes. [17] Q: What did Dr. Wright do as part of his [is] excellent analysis and synthesis of widely scattered [ 19] observations which played a prominent role in fore stalling [20] EPA's promulgation of un realistic regulating to limit [21] dischar ges of PCB's? [22] A: As I read it back then, is, he did some work, [23] he looked at the PCB data that was available, and put it [24] together in a fashion that could be ac ceptable to the EPA, [25] and they agreed with the recommended course. Page 128 [i] Q: Is that a true copy of the award that you [2] signed in August of 1976? [3] A: I don't recall, but I would suspect it is. It [4] looks reasonable. I can't im agine doing it again. [5] Q: And is that a document that was written on or [6] about the date signed by Dr. Levinskas and you? Page 123 - Page 128 WATER PCB-SD0000022952 George Roush, Jr. VoL 2, March 18, 1993 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et al. 17) A: Yes. [8i Q: And the contents of that exhibit were [91 apparently written by Dr. Levinskas and you based upon no] knowledge you had of the information contained in the [in exhibit; is that cor rect? [12] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Object to the form. U31 A: The work that was done, was done by Paul [i4] Wright and evaluated by Levinskas. [i5] MR. BRADLEY: Would you read back that answer [i6] for me, please? ini (Thereupon, the reporter read back the previous [is] answer.) [19] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Was it Dr. Levinskas, you, [201 or someone else who developed the wording of Plaintiff's [211 Exhibit 1137? [22i A: Levinskas. [23] Q: And do you know whether Dr. Levinskas had [24i knowledge ofthe facts that were contained in Exhibit 1137 [251 when he wrote it? Page 129 HI A: Yes. [21 Q: And do you know whether Dr. Levinskas wrote [31 Exhibit 1137 at or near the time that Dr. Wright received [4] the award? [5] A: I can't answer that. [6] Q: And do you know whether this exhibit was made m as part of the regular practice of Monsanto's business, and [8] that they kept records of the awards that they gave? [91 MR. FEATHERSTONE: Let me hear back the [ioi question, please. [in (Thereupon, the reporter read back the previous [12] question.) [131 MR. FEATHERSTONE: Object to the form. [i4j Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Do you know whether this U5i record was -- excuse me -- this exhibit was part of the [i6] regular practice of Monsanto's business? [i7i A: I don't know. [is] Q: Did Monsanto regularly make awards? [19] A: I don't know. [20] Q: Did Monsanto occasionally make awards? pi) A: Yes. [22] Q: And when Monsanto made those awards, would [23] Monsanto maintain copies of those awards in its business [24] files? [25] A: I don't know. Page 130 in Q: You don't know whether these awards were -- [2] Well, let me ask it this way: Do you know whether awards [31 were kept in the ordinary course of Monsanto's regularly- [4] conducted business? [51 A: I'm sorry. [6] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Part of the problem here m maybe is that you're talking about awards, Mr. Bradley, and [8] the document says "Achievement Award Data Sheet." [91 MR. BRADLEY: Well, all right. Thank you. [ioi Do you know whether Monsanto kept copies of [in achievement award data sheets in the ordinary course of [12] their business activity? [131 A: I don't know. [Hi Q: (by Mr.Bradley) When you began work at [15] Monsanto, up to the time of your retirement, did you ever [i6i review minutes of the corporate development committee [i7j within Monsanto that oc curred prior to your employment at [i8j Monsanto? [i9i A: No. [20] Q: I'm now going to show you Plaintiff's Exhibit [21] 1252 and ask you if you've ever reviewed that document [22] before? That is a document that we received from Monsanto 1231 as part of our discovery. It was not attached to anything, [24] and I'm trying to figure out when it was written, what it [25] was attached to, if anything. Have you ever seen that Page 131 [1] document before? [2] A: I can't recall. [3] Q: I'm now going to show you Plaintiff's Exhibit [4] 1433, which we received from Monsanto pursuant to our [5] discovery, which is also undated, and ask that you review [6] that to tell me whether you've ever seen it before. [71 A: I don't think I saw that. [8] Q: While you were employed at Mon santo, did you [9] ever review a presenta tion by Dr. E. S. Tucker on [ioj semicontinuous activated sludge degradation? [11] A: No. [12] Q: While you were at Monsanto, did you review any [13] Monsanto docu ments relating to the biodegradability of [14] Aroclor 1221? [15] A: I don't think so. [161 Q: I'm now going to show you Plaintiff's Exhibit [17] 431 and ask if you've seen that document before. [is] A: No. [i9i Q: Okay. During the time you were employed at [20] Monsanto, did you review any correspondence in the 1950's [2i] between Monsanto and the State of Indiana, State Board of [22] Health? [231 A: 1950's? [24] Q: Correspondence 1950's. [25] A: I don't recall. from the Page 132 [ii Q: I will show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 442 and [2] ask you if you've seen that document before. [31 A: What was the question? [4] Q: Have you seen that document before? [5] A: No. [6] Q: While you were employed at Mon santo, were you m ever informed that Indiana workers reportedly became ill [8j due to inhalation of Aroclor vapors? [9] A: No. [ioj Q: I'm going to show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 441 [ii] and ask if you have seen that document before. [12] A: No, I hadn't seen that, either. [13] Q: When you worked at Monsanto, were you ever [14] informed that in the 1950's there were complaints of upper [15] respiratory tract, plus possible liver damage for workers [i6j exposed to Aroclors in Brazil? [17] A: No. [is] Q: Did Monsanto manufacture a product called [191 Inerteen? [20] A: I don't know. [21] Q: Did Monsanto mix chemicals on Monsanto [22] property where the mix ture was called Inerteen? [231 MR. FEATHERSTONE: Is there a time period to [24] your question? [25] MR. BRADLEY: Anytime. Page 133 [i] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Object to the lack of [2j foundation. Calls for specula tion. [31 A: I don't know. [4] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Do you know whether [5] Westinghouse used a product called Inerteen, which was [6j comprised of PCB's? m A: I don't know. [8] Q: Have you ever heard the word "Inerteen" [9] before? [ioj A: Yes. [ii] Q: Tell me how you know about In erteen. [12] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Object ot the form. U31 Q: (byMr.Bradley)Whatis Inerteen? U4] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Object to the form. No, I [15] don't object to the form. Object to the foundation. [16] A: Interteen is a product like PCB that can be [i7] used to -- as a dielectric. Page 129 - Page 133 Min-U-Script Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 WATER PCB-SD0000022953 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et al. [is] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) When did you first hear the [19] term "Interteen"? [20] A: I heard it many times at Monsan to. [21] Q: All right. And while you were at Monsanto, [22] did you read any docu ments indicating what the composition [23] of Inerteen is -- or was. Excuse me. [24] A: I've read it and I can't recall any more than [25] to say I've read that it was largely PCB's. Whether it's Page 134 [1] something else, I don't know. [2] Q: Do you recall whether -- Now you're reading -- [3] you learned that the inerteen was -- Let me -- was a [4] mixture of chemicals that were mixed by Monsanto? [5] A: Yes. [6] Q: Have you heard of a business called Cleveland [7] Works? [8] A: Cleveland what? [9] Q: Works. [10] A: No. [11] Q: In your work at Monsanto, did you ever learn [12] of the identity of a gentleman named E. C. Barnes? [13] A: If I did, it was casual. [14] Q: Do you know whether Westinghouse had an [15] industrial hygiene engineer named E. C. Barnes? [16] A: I don't know. [17] Q: While at Monsanto, did you review any [is] documents written by the industrial hygiene engineers of [19] Westinghouse regarding the toxicity of Inerteen? [20] A: No. [21] Q: Did you know whether, in the 1940's, [22] Westinghouse industrial hygiene engineers were indicating [23] that chronic poisoning may occur where there are repeated [24] or recur ring exposures to a sufficient concentra tion of [25] Inerteen (6935) vapor over a period of months or years, Page 135 [1] that such exposures may produce internal bodily injury [2] which may be disabling and could be fatal? [3] A: No. [4] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Object to the form. [5] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Do you know whether, in the [6] 1940's, Westinghouse's industrial hygiene en gineers were [7] indicating that Inerteen is absorbed through the skin and [8] can produce toxic reactions internally? [9] A: No. [10] Q: Have you heard of a male or female whose name [in is F. M. Clark? [12] A: Not that I recall. [13] Q: Do you know of a Dr. Jenkins --- [14] A: No. [15] Q: -- who was with Monsanto Chemical Company at [16] the Anniston, Alabama plant in 1941? [17] A: No. [18] Q: Do you know a gentleman named L. A. Watt? [19] A: Not that I recall. [20] Q: Do you know whether, in the 1930's, Monsanto [21] put out Aroclor booklets? [22] A: No. [23] Q: I'm now going to show you Plaintiff's Exhibit [24] 1190.This also was provided to us, I believe, by Monsanto [25] through our discovery, and it appears to be a section of Page 136 [i] something, but we don't know what it's a section of, so I'm [2] interested in your reviewing it to tell me whether you've [3] seen it before. [4] A: I haven't seen it. [5] Q: Do you know whether Monsanto ever produced a [6] document that had a -- an eleventh chapter or section which [7] was titled "Hazards" and which related to Aroclor? [8] A: No. The answer to that is, I don't know. [9] Q: All right. I'm now going to show you [io] Plaintiff's Exhibit 1208, which is also a document that we [ii] received during discovery, which is undated, and ask you to [12] review it to tell me whether you've ever seen it before. [13] Have you ever seen that document before, Dr. Roush? [14] A: I don't think so. No, I have not. [15] Q: Do you know whether, in the 1970's, Monsanto [16] ever distributed to the business group working with PCB's a [17] list of questions and answers which maybe asked by [is] customers receiving Monsanto's Aroclor PCB letter? [19] A: What's your question, now? [20] MR. BRADLEY: Would you read it back. [21] (Thereupon, the reporter propounded the previous [22] question.) [23] A: I don't know. [24] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Do you know whether Monsanto [25] ever instructed the business group working with PCB's that Page 137 [i] they should not give any answers to -- regarding Aroclor -- [2] Excuse me. Let me rephrase that. Do you know whether,in [3] the 1970's, Monsanto ever informed its business group that [4] they Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 Min-U-Script George Roush, Jr. Vol. 2, March 18, 1993 should not give answers to customers about Aroclor in [5] writing? [6] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Object to the form. [7] A: I don't know. [8] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Do you know whether,in the [9] 1970's, Monsanto ever indicated internally that they did [ioj not want customers to return Aroclor to Monsanto? [11] A: I don't know. [12] Q: Do you knowa gentleman named A. Olson? [13] A: I don't think so. [14] Q: Do you knowwhether Monsanto, in the 1970's, [15] had a sales department, division, section, regarding PCB's? [16] A: No, I don't know. [17] Q: Have you ever heard of a func tional fluids [18] group? [19] A: Yes. [20] Q: What is the functional fluids group? [21] A: I don't know. [22] Q: Do you know whether Monsanto ever produced a [23] document indicat ing that there is a problem with Aroclor [24] 1260 but not a problem with Aroclor 5460? [25] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Object to the [1] A: I don't know. [2] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Do you know whether, during [3] the 1970's,that claim was ever made by Monsanto? [4] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Object to the form. [5] A: I don't know. [6] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Do you know whether Monsanto [7] ever made pay ments for Dr. Paul Wright's criminal defense? [8] A: Yes. [9] Q: Who made the decision within Monsanto to pay [io] for Dr. Paul Wright's criminal defense? [ii] MR. FEATHERSTONE: The Magistrate has blocked [12] you from as king questions about that, so I will in struct [13] the witness not to answer, consistent with the Magistrate's [i4] rule on December 23,1993. [15] MR. BRADLEY: The Magistrate prohibited me on [16] the amount of the payment, not a rationale for the pay ment. [17] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Do you have the order? [is] MR. BRADLEY: Yes. [19] MR. FEATHERSTONE: May I see it? [20] MR. BRADLEY: I have a section of it. Page 134 - Page 138 WATER PCB-SD0000022954 George Roush, Jr. Vol. 2, March 18,1993 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et aL pi] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Do you have the 30(b)6 [22] Notice that was the target of the motion? Can I see both [23] of those? [24] MR. BRADLEY: Yes. [25] MR. FEATHERSTONE: May I hear the question, Page 139 [1] please? [2] (Thereupon, the reporter propounded the previous [3] question.) [4] MR. FEATHERSTONE: You're in structed not to ]5) answer on the grounds of the Magistrate's ruling. [6] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Do you know what reason [7] Monsanto paid for Dr. Paul Wright's criminal defense? [8] A: No. [9] Q: Do you know whether Monsanto made any payments [to] to Dr. Wright after the criminal prosecution for con viction [in of fraud in the case of the United States versus [12] Kepplinger, et al.? [131 A: My impression is yes. [14] Q: And what were the payments for? [15] MR. FEATHERSTONE: He said his impression, so [i6] I will object on the grounds of speculation. [i7] Go ahead and answer. [is] THE WITNESS: What was the ques tion? [19] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) What were the payments for? [20] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Object also to the form of [21] the question. [22] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Why did Monsan to pay money [23] to Dr.Wright following his criminal conviction for fraud [24] in the case ofthe United States versus Kep plinger, et al.? [25] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Object to the form of the Page 140 Hi question, and also to the absence of any showing of [2] personal knowledge or foundation. 13] A: I don't know. [4] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Do you know if Dr. Wright [5] has received any awards from Monsanto following his [6] criminal conviction for fraud? [7] A: No. [8] Q: No, you don't know, or no, he didn't? [9] A: He did not. [10] Q: Why did you have the impression that Monsanto tin made payments to Dr. Wright following his criminal [12] con viction? [13] A: He was not convicted -- Up until the time he [i4] was convicted, he was not -- [15] MR. FEATHERSTONE: He's talking about after [i6] the conviction.That's the question. [17] A: No. After the conviction -- [18] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) My question was, do you know [19] whether Monsanto made payments to Dr. Wright following his [20] conviction. pi] A: No. I thought it was before. The answer is, [22] they did not, I think. [23] Q: All right. And why do you think that Monsanto [24] did not make pay ments to Dr. Wright following his [25] conviction? Page 141 [1] A: I don't know. [2] Q: Did you review any statements from -- [3] A: Any what? [4] Q: Did you review any letters or bill ing [5] statements addressed to Monsanto regarding payments made [6] for the criminal defense of Dr. Wright? [7] A: No. [8] Q: Did you know how much money, if any, Monsanto [9] paid for the criminal defense of Dr. Wright? [10] A: No. [11] Q: Have you heard ofthe law firm of Wilmer, [12] Cutler & Pickering, in Washington, D.C.? [13] A: I don't know. [14] Q: Do you know whether any money was paid to the [15] law firm of Kirkland & Ellis regarding the criminal defense [16] of Paul Wright? [17] A: No. [18] Q: Do you know who, within Mon santo, made [19] payments for the criminal defense of Paul Wright? [20] A: No. [21] Q: Did Monsanto receive informa tion regarding the [22] criminal prosecu tion of Paul Wright during the time that [23] you were employed at Monsanto? [24] A: I don't know. [25] Q: Did you receive information? Page 142 [1] A: No. [2] Q: Did you speak with Dr. Wright regarding the [3] allegations of fraud made against him? [4] A: No. 15] Q: Did you speak with anyone within Monsanto [6] regarding the allegations of fraud made against Dr. Wright? [7] A: No. [8] Q: Did you speak with anyone from Industrial Bio- [9] Test Laboratories about the allegations of fraud brought [10] against Dr. Wright? [11] A: No. [12] Q: Did you speak with Dr. K. Landra regarding the [13] allegations of fraud brought against Dr. Wright? [14] A: No. [15] Q: Did you speak -- Dr. K. Landra was head of [16] IBT, wasn't he? [17] A: Yes. [18] Q: Did you speak with Dr. K. Landra regarding the [19] allegations of fraud brought against him? [20] A: No. [21] Q: Did you speak with Dr. K. Landra regarding the [22] allegations of fraud brought against other IBT employees? [23] A: No. [24] Q: Do you know whether anyone within Monsanto [25] spoke with Dr. Wright regarding the allegations of fraud Page 143 HI made against him? [2] A: No. [3] Q: Did you know whether Dr. Levinskas had [4] discussions with Dr. Wright regarding the allegations of [5] fraud brought against Dr. Wright? [6] A: No. [7] Q: Did you ever speak with Dr. Levinskas about [8] the allegations of fraud brought against IBT employees? [9] A: No. [10] Q: After you learned of the allega tions of fraud [ii] against IBT employees, did Monsanto do anything to [12] deter mine whether the studies it gave to IBT regarding [13] PCB's were done fraudulently? [14] A: I don't know how to answer that question. [15] MR. BRADLEY: Would you read that question [i6] back, please? [17] (Thereupon, the reporter read back the question.) [is] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) After Monsanto learned of [19] the allegations of fraud at IBT, did Monsanto request that [20] studies previously done by IBT regard ing PCB's be performed [21] by some other lab? [22] A: I don't know. [23] Q: Did Monsanto do anything after it learned of [24] the allegations of fraud against IBT employees to determine [25] whether the studies performed by IBT for Monsanto regarding Page 144 [1] PCB's were done correctly? [2] A: I don't know. ! 1 1 I i Page 139 - Page 144 Min-U-Script Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 WATER PCB-SD0000022955 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et at George Roush, Jr. Vol. 2, March 18, 1993 [3] Q: Did you have meetings with anybody after you [4] were employed at Monsanto to determine what should be done [5] regarding BBT studies regarding PCB's once you learned that [6] BBT employees had been charged with fraud? [7] A: Ask that again. [8] MR. BRADLEY: Would you read it back, please. [9] (Thereupon, the reporter read back the question.) [io] A: I don't know. [ill Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Did you ever at tend any [12] meetings where the subject matter of the charges against [13] BBT employees were discussed? [it] A: No. [15] Q: Did you read anything that was written by a [16] Monsanto employee regarding the allegations of fraud [17] against Dr. Wright or the other BBT employees? [18] A: No. [19] Q: Did you read any document writ ten by anyone [20] regarding the allega tions of fraud brought against Dr. [21] Wright? [22] A: No. [23] Q: When the allegations of fraud were brought [24] against Dr. Wright, was there an assembly of documents [25] within Monsanto regarding the allega tions of fraud brought Page 145 [1] against Dr. Wright? [2] A: I don't know. [31 Q: Do you know whether there was a request by [4] anyone within Monsanto to gather documents regarding the [5] allegations against Dr. Wright that he engaged in fraud? [6] A: I don't know. [7] Q: Do you know whether anyone within Monsanto [8] destroyed any docu ments regarding the work that -- Ex cuse [9] me -- either the work of Dr. Wright or the correspondence [103 to and from Dr. Wright, once there were allegations that he [in had committed fraud? [12] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Any cor respondence, any [ 13] documents, or was it related to PCB's? [14] MR. BRADLEY: Any dence. correspon [15] A: I don't know. [16] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) You didn't see any of that, [17] did you? [is] A: No. [19] Q: Was there someone within Mon santo during the [20] time Paul Wright was charged with fraud who you knew to be [2i] speaking with Dr. Wright regarding those allegations? [22] A: No. [23] Q: Was Monsanto concerned at all that, after Dr. [24] Wright was charged and convicted of fraud, that some of the [25] studies he had worked on for Mon santo may not have been Page 146 [1] valid? [2] A: Yes. 13) Q: And what, then, did Monsanto do about that [4] concern? [5] A: I don't know. [6] Q: Was someone placed in charge within Monsanto [7] for dealing with that concern? [8] A: I don't know. [9] Q: Would you know whether some one within the [io] medical department was responsible for addressing that [ii] concern? [12] A: No. [13] Q: Why not? You were the director of it. And I [14] don't mean to argue; I'm really trying to find out. [15] A: Someone would have made judg ments. Some [16] things were worthwhile looking at. There were some things [17] that were outdated and of no interest, no product, not [is] being used -- [19] MR. FEATHERSTONE: That's not his question. [20] His question was, you said that you did not know whether [213 someone within the medical depart ment was charged with the [22] respon sibility of responding to the concern about a test [23] done, or involving Dr. Wright, and when you said you didn't [24] know, Mr. Bradley wanted to know why you didn't know, since [25] you were the head of the medical department. Page 147 [i] A: Because a decision before that was made as to, [2] what things do we have to be concerned about. Those things [3] that were dead files were thrown away. And how they made [4] that decision, I didn't know. So what became a subject for [5] review or concern, or whether there was concern, wasn't [6] given to us. [7] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Wasn't given to the medical [8] department? [9] THE WITNESS: Right. [10] MR. FEATHERSTONE: All Right. [ii] A: So if they -- They gave us some things to look [123 at, but we didn't look at all of them. It was expansive. [13] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Who gave you things to look [14] at? [15] A: I'm not sure how that -- where that decision [i6j was made. [17] Q: Who gave die medical depart ment documents to [is] review regarding Dr. Wright? [19] A: They were given to Dr. Levinskas. [20] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Let's go off the record. [21] (Thereupon, a short col loquy was had.) [22] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Who was Dr. Levinskas [23] reporting to regarding this matter? [24] A: I don't know. [25] Q: Who was he -- Page 148 [1] A: I wasn't involved in that. [2] Q: All right. Do you know whether Monsanto ever [3] requested that BBT change study results to show that PCB [4] products were less toxic than originally claimed by BBT? [5] A: I don't know. [6] Q: Did you know whether Monsanto ever wrote to [7] BBT asking them to change a study result from absolutely [8] toxic to not toxic regarding PCB's? [9] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Object to the form. [10] A: I don't know. [11] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Did you have a discussion [12] with anyone within Mon santo during the time you were [13] employed there regarding documents sent by Monsanto to IBT, [14] where Mon santo asked BBT to change the results of studies? [15] MR. FEATHERSTONE: May I hear the question, [16] please? [17] (Thereupon, the reporter read back the question.) [is] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Object to the form of the [ 19] question. [20] THE WITNESS: I'd like to hear it again. [21] (Thereupon, the reporter read back the question.) [22] A: No. [23] MR. BRADLEY: I have nothing fur ther. [24] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Okay. Off the record. [25] (Thereupon, a short colloquy was had.) Page 149 [1] CROSS EXAMINATION [2] QUESTIONS BY MR. FEATHERSTONE: [3] Q: Dr. Roush, to set the chronology, I believe [4] you testified that you joined Monsanto sometime in 1973? [5] A: Yes. [6] Q: And you retired sometime in 1988? [7] A: Yes. Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 Min-U-Scrlpt Page 145 - Page 149 WATER PCB-SD0000022956 George Roush, Jr. VoL 2, March 18, 1993 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et al. [8] Q: And when you joined Monsanto in 1973, you had [9] joined as associate medical director? [10] A: Yes. [11] Q: When becoming the medical director when Dr. [12] Kelly retired at the end of 1974 -- [131 A: Yes. [14] Q: -- and from 19 -- from that point in 1974, [15] that is, the end of the year, until when you retired in [16] 1988, you were the medical director of Monsanto? [17] A: Yes. [18] Q: All right. Now, in response to Mr. Bradley's [i9] question, you made some schematics of the medical depart- [20] ment. Was the medical department a business group? [2i] A: No. [22] Q: You have used the word or the phrase "business [23] group." Were there a number of business groups at Monsan to [24] during the time you were medical director? [25] A: Yes. Page 150 [i] Q: And did each of the various busi ness groups [2] have responsibility for certain products? 13] A: Yes. [4] Q: And I take it there was a business group that [5] had responsibility for PCB products while PCB's were being [6] manufactured and sold by Monsanto? [7] A: Yes. [8] Q: All right. Was the medical depart ment a part [9] of any business group? [io] A: No. [i i] Q: Was the medical department, for instance, a [12] part ofthe business group that had responsibility for [13] PCB's? [14] A: No. [15] Q: Was the medical department while you were at [16] Monsanto separate and apart from the business groups? [17] A: Yes. [is] Q: All right. In response to Mr. Bradley's [19] question yesterday, you stated that the business group had [20] the responsibility for communicating with customers. [21] A: Yes. [22] Q: Did the medical department, it self, have any 123) responsibility for com municating directly with customers? [24] MR. BRADLEY: Objection to the form. [25] A: No. Page 151 [i] Q: (byMr.Featherstone)Inyourrole, first as [2] associate medical director and then as the medical [3] director, did you have any responsibility for communicat ing [4] directly with customers? [5] MR. BRADLEY: Object to the form. "Responsi- [6] bility" is vague. [7] A: No. [8] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) Did you, during your [9] employment at Monsan to, in fact ever meet with any of [ioj Monsanto's customers to discuss PCB's? HU A: No. [12] Q: Did you, during your employ ment with Monsanto, [13] have any writ ten communication directly to cus tomers of [14] Monsanto regarding PCB's? [15] A: No. [16] Q: Okay. To your understanding, who had [17] responsibility for com municating, either written or oral, [is] to the customers? [19] MR. BRADLEY: Object to the form. "Responsi- [20] bility" is vague, and he's already indicated he doesn't [21] know the answer to this, so he's speculating. [22] THE WITN ESS: What is the question, again? [23] MR. FEATHERSTONE: You want to read it back, [24] please, John? [25] (Thereupon, the reporter read back the question.) Page 152 ID Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) I'm talking now about [2] Monsanto's communica tions, either oral or written, to [3] Monsanto's customers. [4] A: I'm not sure what the title of the man was who [5] made contact with any of them. [6] Q: Do you now whether it was a busi ness group [7] responsible for PCB's or some other department or group [8] that had responsibility within Monsanto for those [9] communications? [ioj MR. BRADLEY: Object to the form. [11] A: I don't know. [12] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) Was it ever part of [13] your responsibility or job while you were at Monsanto to [14] review any written communications that Monsanto made to its [15] customers regarding PCB's? [16] A: No. [17] Q: Was it ever a part of your respon sibility [18] while you were at Monsanto to become familiar with or [19] review any of the oral disclosures that Monsan to made to [20] its customers regarding PCB's? [21] A: No. [22] Q: Is it safe to say that any com munications [23] regarding PCB's made by Monsanto to its customers were [24] handled by people other than yours or your department's? [25] A: Yes. Page 153 [i] Q: All right. And in preparation for your [2] testimony today, either Mr. Bradley's direct examination or [3] my cross examination, have you made any effort to review [4] the files or speak to people concerning what disclosures [5] Monsanto made to its customers regard ing PCB's? [6] A: No. [7] Q: Now, as an associate medical director and then [8] the medical direc tor at Monsanto, did you have any [9] responsibility or involvement in the specifications, [io] chemical specifica tions for Monsanto's PCB products? [ii] A: No. [12] Q: Did you have any responsibility for the [13] manufacture of those products? [14] A: No. U5] Q: Did you have any responsibility for the sale [16] of those products? [17] A: No. [18] Q: I want to ask you some questions about Aroclor 119] 1016, a product that Mr. Bradley asked you about yesterday. [20] A: Yes. [21] Q: Did you know it by the -- Well, strike that. [22] Did you have any involve ment in the development of Aroclor [23] 1016? [24] A: No. [25] Q: Did you have any involvement in any Page 154 [i] discussions that Monsanto may have had with its customers [2] regarding Aroclor 1016? [3] A: No. [4] Q: Did you understand Aroclor to refer to PCB's? [5] A: Yes. [6] Q: Do you know to what extent Mon santo kept its [7] customers advised of the development of Aroclor 1016? [8] A: No. [9] Q: Based on your knowledge of the responsibili- [io] ties and operations of the medical department, would you [ii] suspect the medical department to be involved at all in the [12] development of Aroclor 1016? [13] MR. BRADLEY: Object to the form of the ques- [14] tion. It calls for him to speculate. [15] A: No. [16] Q: (by Mr.Featherstone) Or involved at all in [17] the discussions with cus Page 150 - Page 154 Min-U-Script Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 WATER PCB-SD0000022957 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et aL George Roush, Jr. VoL 2, March 18, 1993 tomers regarding the development of [i8j Aroclor 1016? U9] A: No. [20] MR. BRADLEY: Same objection. [21] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) Do you know why Aroclor [22] 1016 was developed? [23] A: No. [24] Q: Do you know the purpose of Aroclor 1016? [25] A: No. Page 155 [i] Q: If there had been discussions be tween Monsanto [2] and its customers regarding the chemical makeup of Aroclor [3] 1015, can you think of any reason you would have been [4] in formed of those discussions? [5] A: That was very -- No. [6] Q: If there had been discussions, whose [7] responsibility would it have been to have those discussions [8] with those customers? [9] A: The business group. [10] Q: The business group that is responsible for [in PCB's? [12] A: Yes. [13] Q: Did you ever hear of any claim by any customer [i4] that the customer of Monsanto did not know that Aroclor [i5] 1016 had PCB's? [16] A: No. [17] Q: Did you ever hear of any claim by anyone [is] connected with the federal government that the federal [19] govern ment did not know that Aroclor 1016 had PCB's? [20] A: No. [21] Q: All right. I'd like to ask you about [22] Plaintiff's Exhibit 1421, which Mr. Bradley showed you [23] yesterday. Just so the record is clear on this, this is a [24] memorandum front a fellow by the name of Johansen to you of [25] August 27,1976? Page 156 [1] A: Yes. [2] Q: Was it Mr. or Dr. Johansen? 13] A: Doctor. [4] Q: Was he in the medical depart ment? [5] A: Yes. [6] Q: And does this memorandum relate to work [7] regarding employees at the W.G. Krummrich Plant? [8] A: Yes. [9] Q: All right. That was a Monsanto facility -- [10] A: Yes. [U] Q: -- that manufactured a wide variety of [12] chemicals -- [13] A: Yes. [14] Q: -- including PCB's? [15] A: Yes. [16] Q: And had, for some time, manufac tured PCB's -- [17] A: Yes. [is] Q: -- to your understanding? All right.Was [19) there an effort made on or about August 27th, 1976 to [20] survey the health of the workers in the PCB production unit [21] at the Krummrich Plant? [22] Let me withdraw that question and ask it this [23) way.Was there an effort on or about August 27th, 1976 to [24] take a look at the death certificates relating to people [25] who had worked in the Aroclor-manufacturing department at Page 157 [1] Krummrich? [2] A: Yes. 13] Q: All right. What was the purpose of that [4] review? [5] A: It was related to the Mobile state ment, that [6] they had melanomas at the research laboratory, as well as [7] pancreatic cancers. [8] Q: Was there a particular researcher whose name [9] was connected with that study, or that statement? [io] A: The medical director of Mobile. Hi] Q: Who was the medical director of Mobile? [12] A: Dr. Sinclair. [13] Q: Did you know Dr. Sinclair? [14] A: Yes. [15] Q: Did you speak with him? [16] MR. BRADLEY: Ever, about any thing, or about [17] this? [18] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Good point. [19] Did you speak at all with Dr. Sinclair about [20] the work that Monsanto was doing at the Krummrich facility? [21] A: The answer -- [22] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Off the record. [23] (Thereupon,a short colloquy was had.) [24] A: The answer is no, I guess. [25] (Thereupon,the reporter markedRoush Deposition Page 158 [1] Exhibit A, for identification.) [2] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) Dr. Roush, I'm going to [3] show you a letter dated June 25,1976. I've marked it as [4] Roush Exhibit A, and it's also been previously marked, I [5] believe, as Plaintiff's Exhibit 977. Is that a letter from [6] Mr. Sinclair [7] A: Doc -- [8] Q: --Dr. Sinclair at Mobile Oil to you? [9] A: Right. [10] Q: All right. Is this the Dr. Sinclair who's the [ii] medical director of Mobile that you just referred to in [12] your previous answer? U3) A: Yes. [14] Q: Now, does this letter refer to the report [15] issued by Mobile that you've testified to? [16] A: Yes. [17] Q: Now, Dr. Sinclair's letter states, in the [is] first paragraph, that he has in formed NIOSH "...of our [ 19] findings at Mobile's Paulsborough refinery." What is [20] "NIOSH," or what was it in 1976? [2i] A: It's the National Institute of Oc cupation [22] Safety and Health. [23] Q: And what was the basic function of NIOSH in [24] 1976? [25] A: To improve the state of health of workers in Page 159 [1] the United States. [2] Q: Second paragraph of the letter refers to a Dr. [3] Anita Bond. Were you familiar with that name in 1976? [4] A: Yes. [5] Q: Do you know whether the Mobile report was ever [6] published in a peer review journal? [7] A: It was not. [8] Q: Now, is the Anita Bond report as referenced [9] here, in Exhibit A to your deposition, the report that [io] prompted Monsanto and its medical department to take a look [ii] at the mortality, the death experience, if you will, of [12] workers at the Aroclor unit at the Krummrich Plant? [13] MR. BRADLEY: Objection to the form of the [14] question. No foundation. [15] A: Yes. [16] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) Now, in the -- Did you [17] have any involvement, by the way, in the decision to take a [i8] look at the death certificates and to make the mortality [19) review that Dr. Johansen was involved in? [20] A: I can't answer your question. [21] Q: Okay. Who started Dr. Johansen on his work [22] regarding the Krum mrich workers? [23] A: I did. [24] Q: And in performing his work, did Dr. Johansen [25] report to you, among others? Page 160 [1] A: Yes. [2] Q: At some point in time, did Monsan to go outside [3] of the company and hire an expert consultant in connection [4] with that study? Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 Min-U-Script Page 155 - Page 160 WATER PCB-SD0000022958 George Roush, Jr. Vol. 2, March 18, 1993 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et al. [5] A: Yes. [6] Q: Who was that expert consultant? 17] A: Dr. Maboubi. [8] Q: And -- With what group did Dr. Maboubi work? [9] In other words, where was he a consultant? [10] A: He was a consultant to Dr.Johan sen. [11] Q: All right. Was he an employee of Monsanto? [12] A: No. [13] Q: Was he an employee of some other company or [14] group? [is] A: University of Nebraska. [16] Q: Is there an institute connected with the [17] University of Nebraska that Maboubi was involved with? [18] A: The Epply Institute. [19] Q: WHat is the Epply Institute at the University [20] of Nebraska? [21] A: Their responsibility was cancer research. [22] Q: What was Dr. Maboubi's area of specialty? [23] A: He was an epidemiologist. [24] Q: What is an epidemiologist? [25] A: An epidemiologist is a specialist in evaluat- Page161 [1] ing, or studying the health and mor tality of populations. [2] Q: When you say "populations," are you talking B) about human populations, or rodents, or other animal [4] popula tions? [5] A: All -- Human populations. [6] Q: And how does an epidemiologist differ from a [7] toxicologist? If at all. [8] A: And epidemiologist is studying humans, and [9] he's evaluating the health status of a population, no) Q: Such as a work force at a plant like [ii] Krummrich? [12] A: Yes. [13] Q: Did Monsanto have a staff, in the medical [i4] department, an epidemiologist, in 1976? [15] A: No. [16] Q: Now, the third paragraph of Ex hibit A, I'd [17] like to go back to that. Dr. Sinclair writes, "May I [is] repeat my appreciation of your sharing your data with me." [19] Did Monsanto share data with Dr. Sinclair? [20] A: Yes. [21] Q: What data was that? [22] A: The results of the Fred Johannsen study of the [23] PCB mortality ex perience. [24] Q: At Krummrich? [25] A: At Krummrich. Page 162 [1] Q: And is this the same study that Dr. Maboubi [2] was involved in? [3] A: Yes. [4] Q: Were the results of the Monsanto study of its [5] Krummrich workers given to Mobile Oil through Dr. Sinclair? [6] A: Yes. [7] Q: All right. [8] (Thereupon, the reporter marked Roush Deposition [9] Exhibit B, for identification.) [io] Q: (By Mr. Featherstone) I have had marked as [11] Roush Exhibit B, a threepage document bearing the Bates [12] numbers NEV 024775 through 777. Let me show you Exhibit B. [13] Do you recognize that as a Monsanto memoran dum dated August [14] 27th, 1976? [15] A: Did you say B? [16] Q: Roush Exhibit B. in] A: All right. [is] Q: Do you recognize it as a Monsan to memorandum [19] dated August 27, 1976? [20] A: Yes. [21] Q: Does it relate the work of Dr. Johannsen and [22] Dr. Maboubi? [23] A: Yes. [24] Q: Does it relate to the work regard ing the PCB [25] workers at the Krum mrich Plant? Page 163 ID A: Yes. [2] Q: Would you please take a look at it and tell us [3] whether the -- whether it addresses -- the memorandum [4] ad dresses the findings to data regarding melanomas and [5] pancreatic cancer? [6] MR. BRADLEY: I object to the line of ques- [7] tioning. He hasn't indicated he is familiar with the docu- [8] ment. It, at this point, hasn't been authenticated, it's [9] hearsay, and I object to any questions based upon it. [10] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) Dr. Roush, are you [ii] shown as a carbon copy recipient on this document? [12] A: Yes. [13] Q: Is Dr.Johannsen? [14] A: Yes. [15] Q: Do you see a carbon copy to E.H. Harbason? [16] A: Yes. [17] Q: Who is E. H. Harbason? Was he with Monsanto [isj at the time? [19] A: Yes. [20] Q: All right. And a copy to D. R. Bishop? [21] A: Yes. [22] Q: Is that a Monsanto employee? [23] A: Yes. [24] Q: Do you recognize Macoe or Nolan? [25] A: Yes. the names Page 164 [i] Q: All right. And who were they in August Of [2] 1976? B] A: In personnel. In public relations. [4] Q: All right. Would you look through or read [5] through the first page of the exhibit and tell us whether [6] it, to the best of your recollection, accurately records [7] the results of the study as of August 27th, 1976? [8] MR. BRADLEY: Object to the form of the ques- [9] tion. The witness still hasn't indicated whether he's ever [10] seen this document before, so it hasn't been authenticated, [ii] and it's still a hearsay document, and so I object to the [12] form of the question. [13] A: My conclusion is that Monsanto did not have [14] melanomas -- [15] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) My initial question, [16] Mr. Roush, is whether the first page of the exhibit [17] accurately records the conclusions of the study as of [18] August of 1976. [19] A: Yes. [20] MR. BRADLEY: Same objections. [21] MR. FEATHERSTONE: All right. [22] Now, did -- In the study of its Mon santo [23] workers as of August of 1976, did Monsanto look for mela- [24] nomas, malignant melanomas? [25] A: Yes Page 165 [1] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) Did it find any? [2] A: No. [3] Q: In its study of its Krummrich workers, Did [4] Monsanto look for pancreatic cancer? [5] A: Yes. [6] Q: Did it find any? [7] A: No. [8] Q: Had the Mobile report indicated malignant [9] melanomas? [10] A: Yes. [11] Q: And pancreatic cancer? [12] A: Yes. [13] Q: Now, the earlier exhibit that Mr. Bradley [14] showed you and that I've shown you again this morning from [15] Dr.Johannsen talks about lung cancer. [16] A: Yes. [17] Q: Did the study of the Krummrich workers at [is] Monsanto report on lung cancer? [19] A: Yes. [20] Q: All right. Did Monsanto request Dr. Maboubi [21] to take -- to make any Page l6l - Page 165 Min-U-Script Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 WATER PCB-SD0000022959 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et al. George Roush, Jr. Vol. 2, March 18, 1993 study or evaluation of any informa- [22] tion regarding lung cancer of the workers at the W. G. [23] Krummrich Plant? [24] A: Yes. [25] Q: And what was Dr.Maboubi asked to do? Page 166 in A: To look at what data we had and to give his [2] interprelation of the data. [3] Q: When was he asked to do that? H] A: I'm not sure of the time, but it was about [5] this same time. [6] Q: August of 1976? [7] A: Yes. [8] Q: All right. And what did Dr. Maboubi report to [9] you and others at Monsanto regarding the findings [io] concerning lung cancer? [U] MR. BRADLEY: Objection. That's hearsay. [12] Object to the form of the question. [131 Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) Go ahead. [14] A: That the lung cancer excess, though [15] statistically above expected, was not -- had not been shown [16] to be related to work with PCB's. [17] (Thereupon, the reporter marked Roush Deposition [18] Exhibit C,for iden tification.) [i9] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) I have marked as Roush [20] Exhibit C, a press release dated September 2, 1976. It [21] also bears the designation Plaintiff's Ex hibit 559; is that [22] right? [23] MR. BRADLEY: Yes. I was just look ing for the [24] date. All right. [25] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) Dr. Roush, is this a Page 167 [ i] press release from September 2,1976? [2] A: Yes. [3] Q: All right. Does the press release relate to [4] the study of the Monsanto workers at the Krummrich Plant? [5] MR. BRADLEY: I'll object to the ques tion [6] about the document because it hasn't been authenticated and [7] it hasn't been shown to be anything other than hearsay. [8] The witness hasn't even identified or indicated whether [9] he'd seen the document before. [io] MR. FEATHERSTONE: John, would you read back [11] my question, please. [12] (Thereupon, the reporter read back the question.) [13] MR. BRADLEY: Same objections. [14] A: Yes. [15] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) Now, this Exhibit C, [16] the press release, is less than one week after Plaintiff's [i7] Ex hibit 1421, which Mr. Bradley showed you initially [is] yesterday; that is, the memorandum from Dr.Johannsen to [19] you, Dr. Roush. Would you please read through Roush [20] Exhibit C and tell us whether you are quoted at length in pi] that press release? [22] MR. BRADLEY: I object to the counsel's [23) statements characterizing and comparing the dates of the [24] ex hibits and ask that they be stricken. [25] THE WITNESS : The whole thing? Page 168 ID MR. FEATHERSTONE: Yes. [2] Now, are you quoted in Exhibit C? [3] A: Yes. [4] MR. BRADLEY: I object to the ques tion. What [5] I'd like to do is get a con tinuing objection to any [6] questions relating to this exhibit, since it has not been [7] authenticated and since it's a hearsay document. May I [8] have that continuing objection on the grounds of authenti- [9] cation and hearsay? [io] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Yes. [ill MR. BRADLEY: Fine.That's all I -- [12] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) All right. Now, having [13] reviewed Exhibit C, does the press release set forth the [14] findings of the study as of September 2, 1976? [15] A: Where's the date? Yes. [16] Q: And based on your review, is the press release [17] accurate in its state ment of the findings as of September [is] 2,1976? [19] A: Yes. [20] Q: All right. In Exhibit C, the press release, pi] does the document describe or refer to the Mobile Oil study [22] that you've testified to previously? [23] A: Yes. [24] Q: In the second paragraph of the first page of [25] the release -- Page 169 [1] A: Second paragraph. [2] Q: All right. And does that second paragraph of [3] the release state that Mobile Oil reported finding three [4] cases of melanoma and two cases of pancreatic cancer? [5] A: Yes. [6] Q: Does the press release report that Monsanto's [7] study of its workers found no cases of malignant melanoma [8] or pancreatic cancer? [9] A: Yes. [10] Q: Does the press release, on page three, report ui] what the study had found so far with regard to the [12] Krum mrich workers and lung cancer? [13] A: Yes. Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 Min-U-S cript [14] Q: And specifically, does the press release [15] report that for the former employees, deceased former [16] employees, who worked at the PCB unit at Krummrich during [17] any portion of their employment, that the lung cancer rate [is] was higher than the rate for the general U.S. population? [19] A: Yes. [20] Q: Does the press release then go on to say that [21] the study is continuing? [22] A: Yes. [23] Q: All right. Did you know D. R. Bishop to be in [24] the public relations department? [i] Q: And is this a press release that Monsanto [2] issued? [3] A: Yes. [4] Q: All right. Now, with regard to this time [5] period, September of 1976, was it, to your understanding, [6] still die busi ness group for PCB's that had the responsi- [7] bility for communicating with the customers? [8] A: Yes. [9] Q: And to the extent that any infor mation [io] regarding the Mobile Oil study or the Monsanto study of the [ii] Krummrich workers was communi cated to customers, to your [12] knowledge, that would have been hand led by the business [13] group? [14] A: Yes. [15] Q: Now, yesterday you also said that the study [16] resulted in a final paper; do you remember that? [17] A: No. [is] Q: All right. Did die study result in a final [19] paper? [20] A: Yes. [21] Q: All right. Do you know Dr. Zach? [22] A: It's not Dr. Zach. [23] Q: All right. Mrs. Zach. [24] A: Yes. [25] Q: All right. Did Mrs. Zach get in volved in the Page 171 Ui project involving Krummrich workers, the study of mortality [2] of Krummrich workers? [3] A: Yes. [4] Q: And did Mrs. Zach have anything to do with a [5] final report issued? [6] A: Yes. [7] Q: What was her involvement? [8] A: She was the one who did it and wrote it. Page 166 - Page 171 WATER PCB-SD0000022960 George Roush, Jr. VoL 2, March 18,1993 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et al. [9] Q: Let me show you what Mr. Bradley showed you tio] yesterday as Plaintiff's Exhibit 367. What is Exhibit 367? [i i] A: Well, it's a study of the mortality of [i2] Monsanto workers who had been working with PCB's. [i3] Q: Does this paper relate to the study that Dr. [14] Johannsen started? [15] A: Yes. [16] Q: And is this the final report of that study? [17] A: Yes. [18] Q: Was Mrs. Zach employed by Mon santo Company? [19] A: Yes. [20] Q: And David Mutch? Who was David Mutch?. [21] A: I think he was a student. [22] Q: Assisting Mrs. Zach? [23] A: Yes. [24] Q: Are the conclusions of the study shown on [25] pages five and six of Plaintiff's Exhibit 367? Page 172 [i] MR. BRADLEY: Can you excuse me for one [2] minute? [3] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Sure. [4] (Thereupon, a short recess was taken.) [5] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) All right. Dr. Roush, [6] with regards to Plaintiff's Ex hibit 367, the final report [7] that was issued on December 14th, 1979, does that report [8] discuss observations regarding pancreatic cancer or [9] malig nant melanomas? [io] A: Yes. [i i] Q: What does the report say was the results of [12] the study regarding malig nant melanoma? [13] A: There were none. [Hi Q: And what does the report say about pancreatic us] cancer in the workers at the PCB unit at Krumnirich? [16] A: There were none. [17] Q: Was there also a statement, con clusions [18] reached about liver cancer? [19] A: Yes. [20] Q: And what does the report say were the findings [2i] regarding the presence of liver cancer in the workers in [22] the PCB unit at Krummrich? [23] MR. BRADLEY: Object to the form of the [24] question -- [25] A: There was none. Page 173 [i] MR. BRADLEY: -- because the study doesn't [2] deal with liver cancer among the workers. It refers to [3] liver cancer among the deceased workers. [4] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) Mr. Bradley raises a [5] point. Let me ask you: The study looked at deceased [6] former employees; is that correct? [7] A: Yes. [8] Q: And the study looked for the presence of [9] malignant melanoma, pancreatic cancer, and liver cancer in [ io] those deceased employees; is that cor rect? [11] A: Ask the question again. [12] Q: Did the study look for -- Well, did the study fi3l report an absence -- that is, none -- of malignant melanoma [i4j in deceased workers? [15] A: In the study? [16] Q: In the deceased workers that were studied at [17] Krummrich. [is] A: That's right. Those that were studied. [19] Q: All right. Did it report an absence of [20] pancreatic cancer among deceased workers studied? [21] A: Yes. [22] Q: Did it report an absence of liver cancer among [23] deceased workers studied? [24] A: Yes. [25] Q: Do you know whether Mobile ever published a Page 174 [1] final report for its study? [2] A: Not to my knowledge. [3] Q: And was the purpose of the study that resulted [4] in Plaintiff's Exhibit 367 as a final report, a study to [5] see what the experience of the Monsanto workers had been as [6] a result of the Mobile report regarding malignant melanoma [7] and pancreatic cancer? [8] A: Yes. [9] Q: All right.You were asked yesterday some [io] questions to which you gave some testimony regarding [ii] hearing about an incident of chloracne. Do you recall that [12] incident of chloracne at Monsanto? [13] A: Yes. [14] Q: All right. Did that occur, to your knowledge, [15] before or after you joined Monsanto? [16] A: Before. [17] Q: Have -- With regard to what you heard regard- [is] ing that incident, what plant was involved? [19] A: The Anniston Plant, Anniston, Alabama. [20] Q: Is that a facility somehow in volved with the [2ij manufacture of biphenyl or PCB's? [22] A: Yes. [23] MR. BRADLEY: Object to the form of the [24] question. Do you mean, was it? Your question was, is it. [25] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Did I say that? Strike the Page 175 [i] whole question, then,and the answer, if Mr. Bradley [2] doesn't mind. [3] MR. BRADLEY: All right. [4] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) Was Annis ton a plant [5] that Monsanto used for the manufacture of biphenyl? [6] A: Manufacture of what? [7] Q: Biphenyl. [8] A: Yes. [9] Q: And to your knowledge, is it a facility that [ioj Monsanto acquired from Swan Chemical Company? [ii] A: Yes. [12] Q: I believe you told us that the inci dent that [13] you've heard about took place in Anniston before you became [i4] medical director? [15] A: Yes. [16] Q: Have you ever reviewed any records regarding [17] that incident? [18] A: No. [19] Q: All right. Have you ever made any investiga- [20] tion regarding that inci dent? [21] A: No. [22] Q: Let me show you -- And insofar as you've heard [23] anything about that incident, have you heard of any [24] inci dent of chloracne involving the PCB unit of Anniston, [25] other than the one inci dent? Page 176 [1] A: No. [2] Q: All right. Let me show you what's been marked [3] as Plaintiffs Exhibit 1190. Before I show you Exhibit [4] 1190, let me ask you this: You testified that you replaced [5] Dr. Kelly; isn't that correct? [6] A: Yes. [7] Q: You replaced Dr. Kelly when he retired? [8] A: Yes. [9] Q: All right. Did Dr. Kelly's involve ment with [io] Monsanto, indeed his job as medical director, date far back [ii] in time? [12] A: Yes. [13] Q: All right. Do you know how far back, roughly? [14] A: About 1940, or earlier. [15] Q: If Dr. Kelly had investigated the -- an [16] incident of chloracne at Annis ton, would you defer to his [17] judg ment? [18] MR. BRADLEY: Object to the form. It's vague, [19] speculative. Page 172 - Page 176 Min-U-Script Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 WATER PCB-SD0000022961 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et al. George Roush, Jr. VoL 2, March 18, 1993 120] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) Would you defer to his [21] judgment about the cause? [22} A: About the what? [23] Q: About the cause of any chloracne down there. [24] MR. BRADLEY: Same objection. [25] A: I don't know. Page 177 [i] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) Okay. Do you know what [2] may have caused any chloracne in that one incident at [3] An niston? [4] A: No. [5] Q: Let me show you what's been marked as [6] Plaintiff's Exhibit 1190. This is a document Mr. Bradley m showed you earlier today that you had not seen before. Let [8] me ask you this: Is there a reference to chloracne at [9] Anniston in the second paragraph of the first page of [toj Plaintiff's Exhibit 1190? [a] MR. BRADLEY: Well, I'll object to any [12] questions having to do with a document that hasn't been [13] authenti cated and is hearsay. Object to the form of the [i4] question. U5] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Well, is your objection to [i6j the form based on the lack of authentication and, there- [i7] fore, its hearsay nature? [is] MR. BRADLEY: Yes. U9] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Is that what you're saying? [201 MR. BRADLEY: Yes. [2i] MR. FEATHERSTONE: All right. Do you want a [22] continuing objection on that ground? [23] MR. BRADLEY: Please. [24] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Okay. [25] Second paragraph of the first page of Page 178 [i] Plaintiff's Exhibit 1190, does it deal with a repotted [2] incident of chloracne at Anniston? [3] A: Yes. [4] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) And insofar as you have [5] any knowledge of the incident at Anniston, do you have any [6] knowledge that's different than what's shown in the second [7] paragraph? [8] A: No. [9] Q: Let me ask you about some tes timony you gave no] in response to Mr. Bradley's questioning concerning a [ii] conference in Chicago on PCB's. [12] A: Yes. (131 Q: Do you recall attending a con ference in [14] Chicago on PCB's? [i5] A: Yes. Ii6] Q: You were also asked some ques tions by Mr. [i7] Bradley about a trip to Washington to meet with various fisj government agencies; do you recall that? [19] A: Yes. [20] Q: All right. In terms of time frame, was the [2i] meeting in Chicago regard ing PCB's one that occurred before [22] or after the visit to the government agen cies? [23] A: Before. [24] Q: Now, the meeting in Chicago, was that an open [25] meeting,a public meet ing? Page 179 [1] A: Yes. [2] Q: How many people were there? [3] A: Several hundred. [4] Q: Did it last days, or several days? 15] A: A week. [6] Q: There's been evidence in this case about a [7] national conference on PCB's in Chicago in November of [8] 1975. Did you attend that? [9] A: Yes. [10] Q: Is that the conference you were talking about [in in Chicago? [12] A: Yes. [13] Q: And then a document that Mr. Bradley showed [i4] you regarding your trip to some government agencies [15] regarding the IBT tests states there was a trip in -- or a [16] visit in November, 1975. Was that a trip that occurred [i7j shortly after the national conference on PCB's? [18] MR. BRADLEY: I'll object to the form of the [19] question.It's compound. [20] A: I'm not sure how close it was to the other [21] one, what time. When was the Chicago meeting? [22] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) Well, I believe it was 123] in November, but what I want is your recollection of [24] whether this meeting with the govern ment agencies was at or [25] about the time of the national conference on PCB's. Page 180 [i] A: Yes. . 12] Q: All right. Now, the meeting that's referenced [3] in Plaintiff's Exhibit 1251, do you recall going to [4] Washingtonand meeting with the government agencies, 15] various government agencies? [6] A: Yes. 17] Q: All right. And do you recall going with Dr. [8] Calandra from Industrial Bio Test -- [9] A: Yes. [10] Q: -- and other Monsanto people? [ii] A: Yes. [12] Q: Did you visit several agencies during that [13] trip, or just one? [14} A: Several. [i5] (Thereupon, the reporter marked Roush Deposition [i6j Exhibit D, for identification.) [17] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) All right. I've had [is] marked as Exhibit D to your deposition a two-page document [19] bearing the Bates numbers NEV 008412 and 008413. It's a [20] document dated November 10, 1975 from Mr. Papageorge to Dr. [21] Calandra and Dr. Roush and Mr. Weber. [22] All right. In November of 1975, did you know [23) Mr. Papageorge? [24] A: Yes. [25] Q: Was he involved in PCB's? Page 181 [1] A: Yes. [2] Q: Did he attend the meetings in Washington with [3] you? [4] A: I think he did. [5] Q: All right. Is Exhibit D the itinerary for [6j those visits to government agen cies in November? [7] A: Yes. [8] Q: And did you in fact see the various government [9] agencies that are listed on Exhibit D? That is, did you go no] visit them, each one? [11] A: Yes. [12] Q: And did you personally attend each meeting? [13] A: Yes. [14] Q: Was the subject matter of each meeting roughly [i5] the same? [i6j A: Yes. [17] Q: Now, Plaintiff's Exhibit 1251, presented by [is] Mr. Bradley, states -- concerns a meeting with NIOSH; is [19] that correct? [20] A: Yes. [21] Q: And this is the same NIOSH that you identified [22) for us earlier in this examination? [23] A: Yes. [24] Q: And the meeting says that, "A meeting was held [25] to discuss the results of certain polychlorinated biphenyl Page 182 [i] experimental animal exposure studies and their interpreta- [2] tion." Was that the purpose of the meeting? 13] A: Yes. [4] Q: At the meeting, was there any presentation [5] made regarding IBT tests? [6] A: Yes. 17) Q: All right. Was there a presentation regarding [8] the effects on rat livers Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 Min-U-Script Page 177 - Page 182 WATER PCB-SD0000022962 George Roush, Jr. VoL 2, March 18, 1993 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et al. from exposure to PCB's in [9] experimen tal testing by IBT? [10] A: Yes. [11] Q: Yesterday, Mr. Bradley showed you Plaintiff's [12] Exhibit 350. Did you recognize Exhibit 350? U3] A: Yes. [14] Q: I believe you identified that as a letter from [15] Dr.Calandra to you, April 18,1975? [16] A: Yes. [17] Q: Now, the cover letter refers to a meeting, and [is] I believe you told us yesterday that you in fact had a [19] meet ing with Dr. Calandra, as stated, or as referenced in [20] the cover letter; is that correct? [21] A: Yes. [22] Q: Now, the attachment to this letter, second [23] page of the letter, talks about review of a PCB meeting, [24] and then it goes on for four or five pages. Did your [25] meeting with Dr. Calandra relate to the interpretation of Page 183 [1] lesions in rat livers? [2] A: Yes. [31 Q: What are lesions? [4] A: Any abnormality that can be seen with a [5] microscope, in this case. [6] Q: You said "any abnormality." Does that include [7] enlarged cells in a liver? [8] A: Yes. [9] Q: Does the -- "any abnormality" in clude lesions [io] that are not cancerous? [it] A: Yes. [12] Q: Does the term lesion, or any ab normality, [13] include injury to the liver that's reversible? [14] A: Yes. [15] Q: Or that can go away? [16] A: Yes. [17] Q: Was the purpose of the meeting with Dr. [is] Calandra to assess whether the IBT findings regarding the [19] livers of the rats did or did not show cancer? [20] A: No. It was to assess the lesions that were [21] seen in the rats. [22] Q: Is that the IBT rats? [23] A: Yes. [24] Q: And in the attachment to the let ter to you, [25] does Dr. Calandra set forth IBT's views concerning the Page 184 [1] lesions seen as a result of dosing the rats with PCB's? [2] Ai Yes, it does. [3] Q: Would you look at the top of page three of the [4] attachment? In his letter to you,does Dr.Calandra [5] report, "The important point in the most recent study of [6] the sections is the fact that no hepatocellular carcinomas [7] were found, which is in agreement with the earlier [8] findings"? [9] A: Yes. [10] Q: What are hepatocellular car cinomas, or what [in did you understand them to be in 1975, April of 1975? [12] A: This says that hepatocellular car cinomas are [13] cancers of the liver of a specific type, [14] Q: All right. And hepatocellular refers to liver [15] cells; is that right? [16] A: Yes. [17] Q: And Dr. Calandra is reporting there are no [is] liver cell cancers? [19] A: Yes. [20] Q: The next sentence of the report, Dr. Calandra [21] says to you, "It must be emphasized that the diagnosis of [22] hepatoma by Gordon and Richter con notes a benign process [23] and must not be confused with the classical definition of [24] the term by human pathologists." Do you see that? [i] Q: And what was your understanding of the phrase, [2] "benign process"? 13] A: Benign means one that is -- one that will [4] revert to normal, or if it stays, it doesn't have any [5] effect on the health of the animal. [6] Q: Is Dr. Calandra there saying the hepatomas [7] that were found were benign hepatomas? [8] A: Yes. [9] MR. BRADLEY: Object to the form of the [io] question. No personal knowledge. Dr. Calandra -- [ii] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) Do you un derstand that [12] what Dr. Calandra found were benign hepatomas -- [13] A: Yes. [14] Q: -- as distinct from cancerous hepatomas? [15] A: Yes. [16] Q: Now, the next paragraph reads, "Further, Dr. [17] Squires reviewed a num ber of the same slides on Aroclor [is] 1260 with Drs. Gordon, Levinskas, Kimbrough and Richter and [19] agreed with the Bio-Test pathologist that liver carcinomas [20] were not present in the slides." [21] A: Yes. [22] Q: Do you understand that to be the IBT slides? [23] A: Yes. [24] Q: Now, in your -- Strike that. Plaintiff's [25] Exhibit 350 refers to your review of the information by IBT Page 186 [l] concerning livers in the rats exposed to PCB; is that [2] right? [3] A: Yes. [4] Q: All right. Now, does this review culminate in [5] the visit to the govern ment agencies in November of 1975? [6] A: Yes. [7] Q: Is what Dr.Calandra writes to you in Exhibit [8] 350 -- does that relate to the same general issue that was [9] dis cussed with the government in Novem ber of 1975? [10] A: Yes. [11] Q: Now, after Dr. Calandra's letter of April, [i2] 1975, did the medical depart ment at Monsanto retain any [13] addi tional consultants to take a look at the IBT slides? [14] A: Yes. [15] Q: In specific, did Monsanto retain a consultant [16] to take a look at the find ings regarding the livers of rats [17] ex posed to PCB's? [is] A: To specific ones, it did. [19] Q: And what was the purpose of that review? [20] A: To get an independent evaluation of these [21] liver lesions. [22] Q: Was the consultant asked to determine whether [23] the liver lesions were or were not evidence of cancer? [24] A: Yes. [25] Q: Who was the consultant who was hired? Page 187 [1] A: A Dr. Pour. [2] Q: Who is Dr. Pour? 13] A: Dr. Pour is a pathologist from the Epply [4] Laboratory at the University of Nebraska. [5] Q: is this the same Epply Institute or Center [6] that you identified in regard to Dr. Maboubi? [7] A: Yes. [8] Q: All right. And did you -- Did Mon santo retain [9] Dr. Pour and the Epply center before or after it visited [10] the government -- federal government agencies in November [ii] of 1975? [12] A: I think it was after -- before. [13] Q: Ifyou would take a look at Exhibit 1251, [14] which is a government memorandum of the meeting with [15] Monsanto. At the top of page two, the government [16] memorandum states that Industrial Bio-Test Labs had [17] sub mitted its material for review by the Epply Institute's [is] Dr. Pour. [19] A: Yes. [20] Q: Do you see that? [21] A: Yes. Page 183 - Page 187 Min-U-Script Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 WATER PCB-SD0000022963 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et aL George Roush, Jr. VoL 2, March 18, 1993 [22] MR. BRADLEY: I object to the form of the (23) question. [24] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) To your knowledge, is [25] that the same Dr. Pour that Monsanto hired? Page 188 [1] A: Yes. This is spelled wrong. [2] Q: How do you spell Dr. Pour's name? [3] A: P-o-u-r. [4] Q: And the memo says P-a-u-r. [5] A: Yes. [6] Q: What was Dr. Pour's finding regarding the -- [7] A: He didn't think there was cancer in the IBT [8] studies. [9] Q: Did you have that conclusion before you went [io] to the government agencies? [11] A: Yes. [12] Q: And when you went to Washington in November of [i3l 1975, did you and the others from Monsanto present the IBT [14] analysis and Dr. Pour's conclusions to the government [15] agencies? [16] A: Yes. [17] Q: Now, in any of your discussions with IBT, was [is] there ever any discus sion about falsifying or faking data? [19] A: No. [20] Q: Or falsifying or foking the analysis of the [2i] liver tissues from the rats? [22] A: No. (23) Q: Was there any discussion of any intention to [24] conceal from the government information regarding the [25] dosing of the rats with PCB's? Page 189 [1] A: No. [2] Q: All right. Did you have any inten tion of [3] concealing any information from the government? [4] A: No. [5] Q: Did you ever hear any Monsanto employee even [6j suggest misleading or concealing information from the [7] government? [8] A: No. [9] Q: All right. I next want to ask you about [io] Plaintiff's Exhibits 360 and 359, which you were shown [ii] yester day. Now, with regard to these exhibits, I'm going [12] to ask you, first, I believe you testified yesterday that U3) your first real knowledge about the Yusho inci dent was [14] gained at the national con ference on PCB's? [15] A: At the Chicago meeting. [16] Q: At that time did you learn infor mation [17] regarding the exposure of the people involved at Yusho? [18] A: Yes. Ii9] Q: What information did you learn at that time [20] about the exposure to the people at Yusho? [2i] A: The Japanese who were dis cussed were those who [22] had ingested PCB's, which had been the result of (23] contamination of cooking oils with PCB's. [24] Q: Did you gain any understanding of the size of [25] the dose or exposure? Page 190 [i] A: Yes. They were talking about ex posures in the [2] two-thousand-partsper-million range. It was gross [3] ex posure. [4] Q: And it was ingestion -- [5] A: Yes. It was in the cooking oils, heated [6] cooking oils. [7] Q: It was ingestion by the consump tion of food [8] heavily contaminated with PCB's? [9] A: That's right. [10] Q: Did you have any understanding of the [ii] differences between those exposures and the exposures that [12] someone working with the PCB electri cal fluid may have? U3] A: The concentration of PCB's in the atmosphere [i4] of these workers had to be below one milligram for cubic [i5] meter of air. That's one milligram versus two thousand [16] milligrams. That's one milligram for ten cubic meters, so [17] it's ten milligrams. [18] Q: When you say "the atmosphere of the workers," U9) are you talking about the air that they were breathing? [20] A: Yes. [21] Q: Is this inside a plant, for instance? [22] A: Yes. [23] Q: And you quoted us a number. Is that based on [24] some regulation? [25] A: It's a government regulation of one milligram Page 191 [l] per cubic meter is a maximum of exposure. [2j Q: Is that for an eight-hour day? [3] A: Yes. [4] Q: Continuously? Continuous ex posure, I mean. [5] A: Yes. [6] Q: How does that relate in terms of relative size [7] to the exposure -- the amount of exposure in the Yusho [8] case, as you understand it? [9] A: Their exposure in that con taminated oil was in [10] the order oftwo thousand parts per million. [ii] Q: I mean, is that -- how much big ger than the [12] workers' exposure are we talking about? U3] A: We're talking about the worker getting it at [14] one milligram per cubic meter of air. So we get about ten [15] cubic meters in an eight-hour workday, so there's a [16] difference between ten milligrams and the concentration in [17] the cooking oils at two thousand PPM. [is] Q: I mean, is it a big difference? H9] A: Ten versus two thousand is two hundred times [20] bigger. [2i] Q: And one was by ingestion, versus inhalation; [22] is that correct? [23] A: Yes. [24] Q: All right. Now, you were asked about 359, and [25] I guess 360, yesterday. This is a publication by NIOSH; is Page 192 [1] that correct? [2] A: Yes. [3] Q: And this publication is dated, ac cording to [4] the documents, in Novem ber of 1975; is that right? [5] A: Yes. [6] Q: The same month as the national conference on [7] PCB's in Chicago? [8] A: I think that's right. [9] Q: And the same month that Monsan to and others [ioj visited the government to talk about the liver effects [in shown in the IBT studies? [12] A: Yes. [13] Q: Mr. Bradley asked you about a sentence on page (i4j five, under the section headed -- or subsection headed [15] "Human." Did you see that? [16] A: Yes. [17] Q: And he specifically asked you about the [is] sentence that begins, "The known toxic effects of PCB's in [19] humans include..." Do you see that? [20] A; Yes. [21] Q: Now, there's a reference for that sentence; is (22] that right? [23] A: Yes. [24] Q: And that -- The way these docu ment work, you [25] put down a refer ence, and that means that's the authority Page 193 ID for that sentence? [2] A: Yes. 13] Q: And is the authority for the sen tence [4] regarding the effects, the known toxic effects, the one [5] that Mr. Bradley asked you about, is that a Yusho report, [6] or a report on the Yusho inci dent? [7] A: Yes. [8] Q: And that's the gross exposure that you were [9] just describing to us? [10] A: Yes. Concannon & Jaeger (314)421-1000 Min-U-S cript Page 188 - Page 193 WATER PCB-SD0000022964 George Roush, Jr. Vol. 2, March 18, 1993 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et al. (ii] Q: Yesterday when you said that you acknowledged [12] that sentence -- Have you conducted any -- your own d3] investigation ofYusho? [14] A: No. [15] Q: All right.Your information regard ing Yusho [i6] is based on what is made available to you in the public [17] litera ture? [is] A: Yes. [19] Q: Was a Monsanto PCB product at all involved in [20] Yusho, to your knowledge? [21] A: No. [22] Q: Was that PCB's manufactured by a Japanese [23] company, according to the reports? [24] A: I don't know. Japanese do make PCB's. [25] Q: All right. I take it that, based on your Page 194 [i] information regarding Yusho, you have no reason to disagree [2] with the sentence in here citing a report on Yusho and [3] purporting to summarize the known toxic effects shown in [4] the Yusho incident; is that correct? [5] A: If they would just include Yusho. [6] Q: All right. Is that how you under stand that [7] sentence? [8] A: Yes. [9] Q: As reporting the effects seen in the Yusho [io] patients? [ii] A: Yes. [12] Q: All right. From the Ingestion of high [13] concentrations of PCB's in the cooking oil? [14] A: Yes. [15] Q: Now, with regard to communica tions to [16] customers regarding the Yusho incident, again, I take it, [17] similar to your previous testimony, you were not involved [is] in any communications by Monsanto to its customers [19] regard ing Yusho? [20] A: No. pi] Q: And you have no personal knowledge of what [22] information may have been communicated by Monsanto to its [23] customers regarding Yusho? [24] A: No. [25] Q: That, to your understanding, would have been Page 195 [1] handled by the business group; is that right? [2] A: Yes. [3] Q: In talking about the exposures to workers, are [4] you familiar with some thing called vapor pressure? [5] A: Yes. [6] Q: And with regard to a fluid like PCB's, is [7] vapor pressure important in considering exposure, or [8] possible ex posure? [9] A: Yes. [10] Q: What is vapor pressure? [11] MR. BRADLEY: I object to the form ofthe [12] question. It's beyond the scope of direct exam. [13] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Okay. What is vapor pressure? [14] [i5] A: In industrial hygiene, vapor pres sure has to [16] do with the characteristic of a chemical to become airborne [17] by virtue of its bubbling off, or coming off from a [is] chemical. [19] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) Or a fluid? [20] A: Or a fluid. [21] Q: And I take it, it has to become airborne in [22] order to be inhaled? [23] MR. BRADLEY: Same objection. [24] A: Yes. [25] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) All right. Now, do you Page 196 [i] know whether the PCB fluids had a high vapor pressure or a [2] low vapor pressure? 13] MR. BRADLEY: Same objection. [4] A: It depends on the temperature. [5] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) Okay. At room [6] temperature or the temperature in which the product exists m before it's put to use, would it have a high vapor pressure [8] or a low vapor pressure? [9] MR. BRADLEY: Same objection. [10] A: The vapor pressure that's per mitted is one [in milligram per cubic meter. [12] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) That's the air [13] concentration on PCB's? U4] A: That's OSHA's recommendation, as well as [15] ACGIH. [16] Q: At the product's normal tempera ture, that is, [17] before it's put to work, does it tend to give off a lot of [is] vapor or very little vapor? [19] A: No. It has a low vapor pressure. [20] Q: What does that mean? [21] MR. BRADLEY: Object. It's beyond the scope [22] of the direct exam. Subject to the form. [23] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Are you ob jecting to beyond [24] the scope, or are you objecting to the form? [25] MR. BRADLEY: I'm objecting to the form of the Page 197 [1] question. [2] MR. FEATHERSTONE: All right. (31 MR. BRADLEY: And it's beyond the scope. [4] MR. FEATHERSTONE: You want a continuing [5] objection to beyond the scope? [6] MR. BRADLEY: Yes. [7] MR. FEATHERSTONE: All right. [8] What is meant by low vapor pressure? [9] A: It's less likely to become airborne. It's a [io] relative term. [ii] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) All right. And the PCB [12] fluids manufactured by Monsanto, do you know whether they [13] had a low or high vapor pressure? [14] A: Low vapor pressure. [15] Q: And does that -- What does that mean, in terms [i6] of inhalation ex posure? [i7] A: If it's low vapor pressure, it's less likely [is] to be inhaled. [19] Q: As contrasted with something with a high vapor [20] pressure? [21] A: That's right. [22] Q: We've seen in the documents here some [23] reference to the heating ofthe fluid. Does that have any [24] effect on vapor pressure? [25] A: It increases the vapor pressure. Page 198 in Q: Does than then mean an increased likelihood of [2] inhalation? 13] A: Yes. [4] Q: As the temperature goes up? [5] A: Yes. [6] Q: Let me finally ask you, Dr. Roush, about [7] Plaintiff's Exhibit 1137. It's a document that Mr. Bradley [8] showed you this morning. [9] A: Yes. [10] Q: It's one that you signed, I believe, in August [ii] of 1976; is that correct? [12] A: Yes. [13] Q: All right. The text of the docu ment, to the [14] best of your knowledge, was prepared by Dr. Levinskas? [15] A: Yes. [16] Q: And am I correct, from looking at this [17] document, it was Dr. Levinskas who recommended that this [is] hundred-dollar award be given to Dr. Wright? [19] A: Yes. [20] Q: And does the text of the docu ment in its [21] entirety set forth the reason for the award? [22] MR. BRADLEY: Objection to the form of the [23] question. No foundation, no personal knowledge. He didn't [24] write it. I don't know how he can answer that. [25] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) Well, let me ask you Page 194 - Page 198 Min-U-Script Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 WATER PCB-SD0000022965 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et al. Page 199 [i] this: Does Plaintiff's Exhibit 1137 set forth the reasons [2] forgiving Dr. Wright the award? 13] A: Yes. [4] Q: All right. With regard to Dr. Wright's review |5] and submission of data to the PEA that's referenced in [6j Plaintiff's Exhibit 1137 and about which you testified [7] generally this morning, do you know of any falsification of 18] any such data by Dr. Wright? [9] A: No. |io] Q: All right. Do you know of any improper con- [ii] duct ofDr. Wrightthat lead to Plaintiff's Exhibit 1137? pa) A: Say that again. U3) Q: Yes. Do you know of any award given to Dr. [14] Wright for falsifying or concealing information? [15] A: No. Ii6] MR. FEATHERSTONE: All right. No further [i7] questions.Thank you. [is] (Thereupon, a luncheon recess was taken.) U9] REDIRECT EXAMINATION [20] QUESTIONS BY MR. BRADLEY: [2i] Q: Dr. Roush, Mr. Featherstone asked you some [22] questions about Aroclor 1016, and you indicated that 123) Aroclor was the term given to products contain ing PCB's, [24] correct? [25] A: Yes. Page 200 ID Q: So that when reference was made to Aroclor [2] 1016, at least you under stand that product to contain [3] PCB's, correct? [4] A: I said I don't know what -- I haven't worked [5] with 1016. [6] Q: But at least relative to what you understood [7] to be Aroclor 1016, be cause it was an Aroclor, and Aroclor [8] contains PCB's, then you knew Aroclor 1016 contained PCB's; [9] is that fair to say? [io] A: It's a little bit strong. I'm not that far. [in That all came after I left Monsanto -1016. [12] Q: And the other Aroclors, for ex ample 1260, the [13] last two digits indi cated sixty percent chlorine content? U4] A: Yes, sir. [15] Q: And in the -- Well, around the time you began [16] your work with Mon santo, there was a claim that higher [17] chlorinated biphenyls did not biodegrade, whereas the lower [is] chlorinated biphenyls did biodegrade; is that true? [19] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Claimed by whom? 120] A: No. [2i] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Okay. When you began your [22] work at Monsanto, do you know whether Monsanto [23] dif ferentiated between the higher and lower chlorinated [24] PCB's regarding their biodegradability? |25] A: Yes. Page 201 [1] Q: And what did Monsanto claim about that? [2] A: The higher chlorinated were more resistant [3) than the lower chlorinated. [4] Q: Now, Aroclor 1016, the last two digits don't [5] reflect the chlorine con tent of that compound -- Let me ask [6] the question again. ForAroclor 1016, the last two digits [7] does not indicate the percentage of chlorine in that [8] product; is that correct? 19] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Objection.Absence of [10] foundation. Hi] A: I started out, I said I didn't know 1016. [12] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) My memory is thatyou [13] testified yesterdaythat 1016 had between forty-one and [i4] forty-two percent chlorine. Am I wrong? U5] A: You're wrong. 116] Q: All right. U7] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Wrong wit ness. [18] MR. BRADLEY: All right. U9] And was it your understanding that any product [20] that was identified as an Aroclorwas a product that [21] contained PCB's? [22] A: To my knowledge, yes. [23] Q: (by Mr.Bradley) All right.Now, do you know [24] whether Aroclor 1016 was ever referred to by a different [25] name? Page 202 [1] A: Yes. [2] Q: And what other name was it referred to as? 13) A: Inerteen would be an example. [4] Q: Well, did it ever have a name that did not [5] indicate it was an Aroclor? [6] A: I don't know. [7] Q: Have you ever heard of a product called MCS [8] 1016? [9] A: No. [10] Q: I'm going to show you what's been marked for [ii] identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1541 and ask you to Ii2] review that document for me. Have you reviewed it? [13] A: Yes. U4] Q: That is a report on the introduc tion of MCS [15] 1016 in Europe written by P. J. Marsh; is that correct? Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 Min-U-Script George Roush, Jr. VoL 2, March 18, 1993 [16] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Objection. No showing of [17] foundation for this witness to answer that question. [is] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Is that correct? U9] A: Yes. [20] Q: Who is P. J. Marsh? [21] A: I don't know. [22] Q: Did you see the distribution down at the [23] bottom? [24] A: Yes. [25] Q: Do you know P. G. Benignus? Page 203 [1] A: know the name. [2] Q: All right. [3] A: Don't know him. [4] Q: Do you know whether he's a Mon santo employee [5] in the St. Louis Mon santo employee? [6] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Is? 17] MR. BRADLEY: Was. [8] A: I don't know. [9] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Do you know whether a P. G. no] Benignus was ever a St. Louis Monsanto employee? [11] A: I do not know. [12] Q: Do you know whether a W. R. Richard was ever a [13] St. Louis Monsan to employee? [14] A: Yes. Ii5] Q: Do you know whether a J. R. Savage was ever a [i6] St. Louis Monsanto employee? [17] A: I'm sort of stuck with that list adjacent with [is] it that gives you a place. [19] MR. FEATHERSTONE: The ques tion, though, [20] Doctor, is whether you know that. He can ask whether the 121] document somehow reflects that. [22] A: No. 123] MR. FEATHERSTONE: They're two different [24] questions. [25] THE WITNESS: I understand, but it's still Page 204 [1] hard. [2] Q: (by Mr.Bradley) All right.Does the docu- [3] ment indicate that J. R. Savage is a St. Louis employee? [4] A: Yes. [5] Q: And does this document refer to what you know [6] to be Aroclor 1016? 17] A: I don't know 1016. [8] Q: Do you know whether MCS 1016 was claimed by [9] Monsanto to be similar to Aroclor 1242 in its electrical [10] and functional properties? [11] A: That's what this report says. Ii2] Q: Do you know whether Monsanto either performed [13] its own or commis- Page 199 - Page 204 WATER PCB-SD0000022966 George Roush, Jr. VoL 2, March 18, 1993 sioned biodegradation work which showed a [i4j clear advantage of MCS 1016 over Aroclor 1242? [15] A: I don't know. Ii6] Q: I'm going to show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 1564 [17] and ask you to review that document. [is] A: 1564? [19] Q: Yes. [20] A: Yes, sir. [21] Q: In 1973, when you began your employment with [22] Monsanto, did Monsanto have a Monsanto Chemicals, Limited, [23] research and development department in Ruabon? [24] A: I don't know. [25] Q: Did they in 1971? Page 205 [1] A: I don't know. [2] Q: Did they at any point during the period of [3] your employment with Monsanto? [4] A: I don't know. [5] Q: Is this a January, 1971 document entitled [6] "PCB's Environmental Studies"? [7] A: Yes. [8] Q: The document, for example, on page two, under [9] "Scope," 1.1 says "The development of analytical techni ques no] and procedures for interpreta tion are well advanced but [in some more effort is required to complete the work on (12] Aroclor 1262 and MCS 1016." Did I read that correctly? [13] A: I think so. [14] Q: Did you know whether the MCS 1016 there refers [15] to what you've called Aroclor 1016? [16] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Objection. Cumulative. [i7] It's been asked and answered. [is] A: I don't know. [19] Q: I'm now going to show you Plaintiff's Exhibit [20] 1544. [2i] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Do you want him to read the [22] entire document? [23] MR. BRADLEY: I want him to review the entire [24] document. He doesn't need to read it wordforword.but [25] I'd like him to become generally familiar with it. Page 206 HI THE WITNESS: I understand. [2] Q: (by Mr.Bradley) Have you general ly reviewed [3] that exhibit? [4] A: Yes. [5] Q: And do you recognize that as a confidential [6] Monsanto special study report regarding MCS 1016? [7] A: Yes. Page 205 - Page 209 Nevada Power Company v,, Monsanto Company, et al. [8] Q: And -- [9] A: And more. [10] Q: All right. And what else does it -- [11] A: Well, there's other chlorinated PCB's that [12] undergo degradation at different rates than 1016. [13] Q: All right. And this document demonstrates the [i4] different degrada tion rates for the different Aroclors, [15] including MCS 1016? [16] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Object to the form of the [i7] question and the absence of foundation for this witness to [ts] tes tify to these matters. [19] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Is that correct? [20] A: Yes. [21] Q: Would you turn to page three under table two. [22] A: On page three? [23] Q: Yes. [24] A: What is it? [25] Q: Under table two. Page 207 ID A: Yes. [2] Q: You see the reference to Aroclor 1254? [3] A: Yes. [4] Q: And a reference to Aroclor 1242? [5] A: Yes. [6] Q: And a reference to MCS 1016? [7] A: Yes. [8] Q: And a reference to Aroclor 1221? [9] A: Yes. [10] Q: What are the numbers under each of those? [ii] What do they repre sent? [12] A: If I take that left column, just deal ing with [13] the chlorines per biphenyl molecule. [14] Q: All right. And it shows the homologue number [15] of chlorine per biphenyl molecule for those four dif ferent [16] Aroclors? ini MR. FEATHERSTONE: I'U object now as beyond [is] the scope of cross examination. Improper redirect. [19] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Is that correct? [20] A: I think so. [21] Q: All right. And do you know whether the MCS [22] 1016 referred to on page three of Plaintiff's Exhibit 1544 [23] is what you've referred to as Aroclor 1016? [24] A: I think that's right. [25] Q: Now, I'm going to show you -- Before I show Page 208 [i] you any other documents, did Mon santo have any Aroclors [2] that you know of that were identified as MCS 1043? 13] A: I don't know. [4] Q: I'm going to show you Plaintiff's Exhibit [5] 1594. [6] A: Yes, sir. [7] Q: The second paragraph of that document refers [8] to Aroclor 1248; is that correct? [9] A: Yes. do] Q: And the third paragraph refers to Aroclor [ii] 1242, Aroclor 1254, and Aroclor 1260; is that correct? [12] A: Yes. [13] Q: And the first sentence of the wording under [i4] "BiodegradationTest ing Program" reads, "Results from the [15] last sampling period show that replace ment product MCS [16] 1043, which is free of four, five and six chlorine isomers, [i7] degrades at about twice the rate (56 percent in 48 hours) [is] of MCS 1016 and Aroclor 1242." And it goes on and [19] references MCS 1016 later in that same paragraph. Do you [20] know whether the MCS 1016 referred to in that paragraph is [21] the same Aroclor 1016 that you referred to with Mr. [22] Featherstone? (23) MR. FEATHERSTONE: Well, I object to the form [24] of the question. I object as beyond the scope of the cross [25] examination. Also, there's no showing of personal know- Page 209 [l] ledge of this witness to answer a question on that subject (2) on that docu ment. 13] (Thereupon, a short recess was taken.) [4] THE WITNESS: Ask your question again, please. [5] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Do you know whether the MCS [6] 1016 referred to in that paragraph is the same as the [7] Aroclor 1016 that you mentioned in your answers to some of [8] Mr. Featherstone's questions? [9] MR. FEATHERSTONE: And I'll assert the same [io] objections. Ii i] A: I don't know, but I would suspect so. [12] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Have you ever seen Monsanto [13] products that had the letters MCS in front of them? [14] A: No. [15] Q: You don't know -- [16] A: No, I have not. [17] Q: You wouldn't know what MCS refers to, then, if [is] there was such a product? [19] A: No, sir. ________________ Min-U-Script Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 WATER PCB-SD0000022967 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et aL [20] Q: When you learned of the Yusho incident, did [21] you go speak with somebody in Monsanto's business group [22] responsible for relaying information to Monsanto customers? [23] A: No, I did not. [24] Q: Did the medical department at Monsanto, while [25] you were there, undertake any effort to insure that the Page 210 [i] business group within Monsanto working with PCB's told [2] Monsanto's customers about the health and environ mental [3] effects of PCB's? [4] A: I don't know. [5] Q: All right. Do you have Plaintiff's Exhibit [6] 359 there, Dr. Roush? Would you turn to page five for me, [7] please? [8] A: Yes, sir. [9] Q: Mr. Featherstone asked you some questions [to] about the first paragraph under the section entitled uu "Human." [12] A: Yes. [13] Q: It says, "The know toxic effects of PCB's in [14] humans include an acne-like skin eruption (chloracne), [15] pigmenta tion of the skin and nails, excessive eye [16] discharge, swelling of eyelids and distinctive hair [17] follicles," correct? [is] A: That's what it says. [19] Q: There's a reference nineteen,and the nineteen [20] reference is to the Yusho incident? [21] A: Yes. [22] Q: It was known well before the Yusho incident, [23] though, wasn't it,Dr. Roush, that PCB's caused an acne- [24] like skin eruption, chloracne? [25] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Object to the form. ___ Page 211 [i] MR. BRADLEY: Would you read the question [2] back? [3] (Thereupon, the reporter read back the question.) [4] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Let me redo it. [5] Monsanto -- Was it repotted in the literature [6] prior to the Yusho incident that PCB's effects on humans [7] in cluded an acne-like skin eruption? [8] A: Yes. 19] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Objection. Cumulative. [io] A: Yes. [ill Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Was it reported in the [12] literature before the Yusho incident that the toxic effect [13] of PCB's on humans included chloracne? ii4] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Objection. Cumulative. [15] A: Yes. [16] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Was it reported in the [17] literature prior to the Yusho incident that the known toxic [is] effects of PCB's in humans included pigmenta tion of the [19] skin and nails? [20] A: No. [21] Q: Was it reported in the literature prior to the [22] Yusho incident that the known toxic effects of PCB's in [23] humans included excessive eye dis charge? [24] A: No. [25] Q: Swelling of eyelids? Page 212 ID A: I don't know. [2] Q: Distinctive hair follicles? [3] A: No. [4] Q: Now, the second paragraph under "Humans" says,[5] "Fora number ofyears chloracne of the face and neck has [6] been reported among workers exposed to chlorinated [7] hydrocarbons. Workers exposed to PCB's in the process of [8] insulating cables, in the production of condensers and the [9] manufacture of chlorobiphenyls have reported these skin [io] lesions along with systemic effects such as digestive [ii] disturbances, edema of the face and hands, burning of the [12] eyes, im potence and hematuria." Did I read that correctly? [13] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Objection. Beyond the [14] scope of cross, improper redirect. [15] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Did I read that correctly? [16] A: Yes. [17] Q: Are the references to that infor mation prior [is] to the Yusho incident? [19] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Improper redirect. [20] A: Kimbrough wasn't Japanese, but she could be [21] reporting the Yusho incident in this report in her paper. [22] MR. FEATHERSTONE: He's refer ring to reference [23] sixteen. [24] THE WITNESS: So am I. [25] MR. FEATHERSTONE: I was point ing out that is Page 213 [1] what you were referring to. [2] THE WITNESS: Yes. [3] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) How about refer ence twenty? [4] A: Twenty-two? [5] Q: Well, references twenty and twen ty-two are the [6] ones that are remain ing. [7] A: I see. Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 Mm-U-Script George Roush, Jr. Vol. 2, March 18, 1993 [8] MR. FEATHERSTONE: By the way, same obj ection. [9] The scope ofredirect. Improper. [io] A: I don't know. Hi] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Well, reference twenty is [12] dated 1936, is it not? [13] A: Yes. [14] Q: That's before the Yusho incident? [15] A: Yes, that was. [16] Q: And reference twenty-two is dated 1946? [17] A: Yes. [18] Q: And that's before the Yusho inci dent? [19] A: Yes. They sure are. [20] Q: In fact, that's about thirty years before the [21] Yusho incident, isn't it? [22] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Objection. Improper [23] redirect. [24] A: That's about right, yes. [25] What's the question? Is that before Yusho? Page 214 [1] Is that the question? [2] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) You've answered the question [3] that I've asked. [4] MR. FEATHERSTONE: You're cur rent. [5] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Mr. Featherstone asked some [6] questions about Plaintiff's Exhibit 350, and if you would, [7] I'd like you to locate that document, because I have a few [8] questions based upon what Mr. Featherstone asked you. Do [9] you have that there in front of you, Dr. Roush? [io] A: Yes. 350, yes. [ill Q: As I understand your testimony, Dr. Pour was [12] asked by Monsanto to review various slides of rat livers [13] that had previously been examined by IBT; is that correct? [14] A: Yes. [15] Q: Did Dr. Pour write a report regarding his [16] examination of the rat livers? [17] A: Yes. [is] Q: And as I understand your tes timony, Dr. Pour [19] was not shown all of the rat livers that -- the slides of [20] rat livers that were examined by IBT, He was rather shown [21] only some of the slides; is that correct? [22] A: I don't recall. [23] Q: Do you recall indicating to Mr. -- in response [24] to one of Mr. Featherstone's questions that Dr. Pour was [25] shown only some slides of the IBT rat livers? Page 215 [1] A: I don't recall having read that. [2] Q: Okay. Would you now look at page three -- Page 210 - Page 215 WATER PCB-SD0000022968 George Roush, Jr. VoL 2, March 18,1993 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et al. 13] A: Yes. [4] Q: --ofExhibit350.Mr.Featherstone asked you [5] about the first two para graphs. I'm now going to ask you [6] about the third, so could you review that for me? [7] A: All right. [8] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Talking about this para- [9] graph right here. [io] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) The one that begins, "Dr. [ii] Squires has stated in a letter..." ini A: All right. When you say -- [13] MR. FEATHERSTONE: No. I don't think he's [14] asked you a question yet, have you? [15] MR. BRADLEY: He was trying to tell me howl [i6] confused him. [17] THE WITNESS: I was looking for Pour, not [is] Squires. [19] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) All right. Accord ing to [20] that paragraph, "Dr. Squires stated in a letter to Dr. [2i] Kimbrough, dated November 12th, 1974 that, 'I defined [22] 'discrete nodules' and 'trabecularbasophilic hyperplasia' [23] as precancerous lesions, and thus indica tive of [24] carcinogenic response." Did I read that correctly? [25] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Object to the form. Page 216 [1] A: Yes. [2] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Are hepatomas or hepatomas [3] the same as discrete nodules or trabecular basophilic [4] hy perplasia? 15] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Object to the form and [6] foundation as to this witness's response to Dr. Squires' -- [7[ MR. BRADLEY: I wasn't asking what Dr. Squires [8] meant. I'm asking this wit ness whether they are the same. [9] A: Well, he is saying that these are two [io] different lesions, the discrete nodule and basophilic [ii] hyperplasia. [12] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Well, is the im portance of [13] that paragraph that at least some pathologists believed [14] that where there is a benign or cancerous process, that [15] even a benign change is an indication of a precancerous [16] condition? [17] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Object to the form of the [is] question. [19] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) Well, let me ask it this [20] way: The paragraph goes on and says, "This reflects a [21] point of view which is not shared by all pathologists." [22] And I assumed that paragraph references a split of opinion [23] among pathologists regarding whether discrete nodules, for [24] ex ample, as precancerous lesions, are in dicative with [25] carcinogenic response. Would you agree with that? Page 217 [i] A: It all depends on the -- each one of them has [2] to be individualized. [3] Q: Do you know whether in 1974 a credible portion [4] of pathologists believed that discrete nodules and [5] trabecular basophilic hyperplasia as precancerous lesions [6[ were indicative of carcinogenic response? [7] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Objection. No showing of [8] personal knowledge for this witness to respond to that, [9] lack of foundation. [io] A: What each one of the pathologists looking at [ii] this would have to do would be to individualize and look at [12] them. There are hepatomas that are known are not [13] precan cerous, and so the interpretation of this is up to [14] the pathologist. [15] Q: (by Mr. Bradley) All right. Ap parently, back [i6] in 1974, different pathologists had different ways of [i7] analyzing whether hepatomas were precancerous; is that [is] correct? [191 A: That would be my interpretation of it. [20] Q: Now, you have had some educa tion in the field [2ij of cancer and hepatomas, have you not? [22] A: Yes. [23] Q: In fact, you worked for the Na tional Cancer [24] Institute? [25] A: Yes. Page 218 [U Q: And by the time of November, 1974, you had [21 received training in the field of cancer research; is that [3] true? [4] A: Yes. Clinical. [5] Q: Now, if you'd look at Plaintiff's Exhibit 367, [6] which is the report by Judith Zach and David Mutch -- By [7] the way, am I pronouncing his last name correctly? [8] A: I think so. [9] Q: I'll show you my copy, Dr. Roush. Mr. [io] Featherstone asked you some questions about that exhibit [ii] regard ing the malignant melanoma, pancreatic cancer and [121 liver cancer in deceased workers. [13] A: Yes. [i4[ Q: Do you know whether those re searchers [i5[ determined whether the deceased workers, in fact, had [16] pancreatic cancer? [17] A: Yes. [is] Q: And how would they know that, Dr. Roush? U9] A: Apart from the death certificate. [20[ Q: The death certificate would iden tify the cause [21] of death, would it not? [22[ A: Yes. [23] Q: And if this one particular worker, for [24] example, died of a heart attack and there was no autopsy [25] done, no one would know if the fellow had pancreatic Page 219 Hi cancer, would they? [2[ A: There's a place on the death cer tificate for [3] that, "Contributing to cause of death." [4] Q: And they'd know that if they per formed an [5] autopsy? [6] A: Yes. [7] Q: If they didn't -- [8] A: They would know that if they didn't perform an [9] autopsy. [io] Q: How would they know if some body died in part [in -- Let me rephrase that. How would a person completing a [12] death certificate know whether pancreatic cancer existed in [13] some one who died from an apparent heart attack? [i4[ A: There's a place on the death cer tificate that [15] says "For contributing causes of death." [16] Q: I understand that. [17] A: All right. [is] Q: How would a doctor completing the death [19] certificate determine whether someone had pancreatic can cer [20[ if, in fact, it appeared they died from an acute heart [211 attack? [22] A: The doctor who filled out that death [23] certificate is supposed to know. [24] Q: How would the doctor know without doing an [25] autopsy? Page 220 111 A: Most of the people who die today do not have [2] autopsies. They used to have. Used to be, eighty percent [3] would have an autopsy. They don't do that any more. [4] Q: And then my question is, if some body died of a [5] heart attack, for ex ample, how would a doctor know whether [6] a person also had liver can cer unless the doctor did an [7] autopsy? [8] A: They are reporting them all the time based on [9] clinical records. [io] Q: In fact -- [ill A: This is a standard way of doing epidemiology, [12] however. [13] Q: In fact, the death certificate lists the cause [i4] of death. [15] A: Yes. [16] Q: And if there are known contribut ing factors, [17] those are listed as well? [18] A: Yes, sir. Page 216 - Page 220 Min-U-Scrlpt Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 WATER PCB-SD0000022969 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et al. George Roush, Jr. Vol. 2, March 18, 1993 [19] Q: And if there are illnesses within the body (20] that a doctor doesn't iden tify, then they're not listed on (21] the death certificate? [22] A: That's right. [231 Q: And as I understand your tes timony, as medical (24] director within Monsanto, you had no way of knowing what [25] the business group within Mon santo working with PCB's was Page 221 [i] relating to its customers, other than looking at some [2] safety data sheets; is that fair to say? [3] A: I don't know what the Chicago meeting on PCB's [4] -- how that was communicated, but Pm sure that was [5] communicated, as well. [6] Q: You just don't know -- [7] A: I don't know [8] Q: -- what the business folks were saying to the [9] customers? [io] A: That's right. Hi] Q: Have you ever spoken with one of the Monsanto [12] sales engineers who sold Monsanto PCB products to Monsan to [13] customers? [14] A: No. [i5] Q: Do you know whether the busi ness group within [16] Monsanto work ing with PCB's was headed by a doctor, a [17] medical doctor? [18] A: No, it was not. [19] Q: Do you know whether the busi ness group within [20] Monsanto work ing with PCB's was headed by a toxicologist? [21] A: No. [22] Q: Do you know whether the busi ness group within [23] Monsanto work ing with PCB's was headed by an [24] epidemiologist? [25] A: No. Page 222 [i] Q: Do you know whether it was headed by anyone [2] qualified to review a scientific article on toxicity of a [3] particular chemical? [4] A: Only in the department of medicine, [5] environmental health. [6] MR. BRADLEY: I don't have anything further. [7] Thank you very much. [8] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Okay. quickly, Dr. [91 Roush -- Real [io] MR. BRADLEY: I'll object to any recross as ni] not allowed by the rules. [12] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Fine.You can have a [i3] continuing objection to that for my five minutes worth of [14] ex amination. [15] MR. BRADLEY: All right. [16] RECROSS EXAMINATION [17] QUESTIONS BY MR. FEATHERSTONE: [18] Q: With regard to Plaintiff's Exhibit 1541,1564, [19] 1594 and 1544,haveyou ever seen any one of those exhibits (203 during your employment at Monsanto? [2i] A: No. [22] Q: Some of these exhibits talk about biodegrada- (23] tion studies. Were you ever involved in any biodegradation [24] study of PCB's at Monsanto? [25] A: No. Page 223 [1] MR. BRADLEY: You mean him per sonally? [2] MR. FEATHERSTONE: Yes. 13] MR. BRADLEY: Okay. [4] Q: (by Mr. Featherstone) Some of these documents [5] talk about an ap plied sciences group. Were you ever in the [6] applied sciences group? m A: No. [8] Q: You testified that you had no knowledge about [9] what was meant by MCS 1016. Did you have anything to do [io] with the assigning of chemical specification numbers to [1 n products or test chemicals? [12] A: No. [13] Q: Exhibit 1544 is from the analyti cal chemistry [H] group. Were you ever in the analytical chemistry group? [15] A: No. [16] Q: Do you have any training as an analytical (i7j chemist? [18] A: No. [19] Q: Do you have any experience or expertise to run [20] biodegradation studies? [21] A: No. [22] Q: Or interpret them? [23] A: No. [24] Q: All right. With regards to yourpersonal [25] training, you said that you are trained in the clinical Page 224 [1] aspect of cancer, human cancer? [2] A: That's my experience, yes. (31 Q: What does that mean, the clinical aspect of [4] human cancer? [5] A: I did chemotherapy on people with cancer. [6] Q: When Mr. Bradley was asking you questions [7] about the classification of various hepatomas or lesions, [8] is that something a clinical -- a clinician does? [9] A: No. [10] Q: Were you ever trained in that area? [11] A: No. Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 Miti-U-S cript [12] Q: Did you have any expertise in the classifica- [13] tion of hepatomas or lesions? [14] A: No. [15] Q: When you were engaged in this activity in [16] 1975, that is,participating in meetings regarding (17] interpreta tions, were you relying on other people? [is] A: Yes. [19] Q: Lastly, with regard to Exhibit 350, page three [20] where you were, page three of the attachment, where you 121J referenced the paragraph concerning Dr. Squires, did you [22] ever see this letter from Dr. Squires to Dr. Kimbrough of [23] November 12tli, 1974? [24] A: No. [25] Q: Did you know Dr. Kimbrough at that time to be Page 225 [1] a government toxicologist -- [2] A: Yes. 13] Q: -- with the Center for Disease Control? [4] A: Yes. [5] Q: And Dr. Kimbrough was someone who was running [6] her own toxicologi cal testing of rats with PCB's? [7] MR. BRADLEY: Objection. Beyond any scope of [8] recross. [9] A: Yes. [10] MR. FEATHERSTONE: No further questions. [iij MR. BRADLEY: No redirect. [12] [13] [14] GEORGE ROUSH [15] Subscribed and sworn to before me this _ day [16] of__, A. D., 1993. [17] MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: [18] [19] [20] Notary Public, within and for the State of Missouri [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] Page 226 [1] STATE OF MISSOURI) )SS [2] COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS) [3] I, John T. Concannon, a Notary Public within and for [4] the State of Missouri, duly commissioned, qualified and [5] Page 221 - Page 226 WATER PCB-SD0000022970 George Roush, Jr. VoL 2, March 18, 1993 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et al. authorized to administer oaths and to take and certify to [6] depositions, do hereby certify that pursuant to Notice in 17] the civil cause now pending and un determined in the [8] District Court of the United States, within and for the [9] District of Nevada, entitled NEVADA POWER COMPANY [to] Plaintiff, -vsMONSANTO COMPANY, et al., Defen dants, to be [in used in the trial of said cause in said Court,I was [12] attended at the law offices of Messrs. Husch & Eppenberger, [13] 100 N. Broadway, Suite 1300, in the City of St. Louis, [14] State of Missouri, by Ralph A. Bradley attorney for the [15] Plaintiff; by Bruce A. Featherstone, attorney for the [16] Defen dant, Monsanto Company; by Laurie Basch, attorney for [17] the Defendant, Westinghouse; and by GEORGE ROUSH witness, [is] in said office on March 18, 1993. [19] The said witness, GEORGE ROUSH, being of sound mind poj and being by me first carefully examined and duly cautioned [21] and sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth and nothing [22] but the truth in the case aforesaid, there upon testified as [23] is shown in the foregoing transcript, said testimony being [24] by me reported in shorthand and caused to be transcribed [25] into typewriting, and that the foregoing pages correctly Page 227 [ 1 ] set out the testimony ofthe aforemen tioned witness, GEORGE [2] ROUSH, together with the questions propounded by counsel [3] and the remarks and objections of counsel thereto, and is [4] in all respects a full, true and complete transcript of the [5] questions propounded to and the answers given by said [6] witness; and that said testimony so transcribed, was [7] subscribed to by the witness on the __ day of [8]____, A. D., 1993. [9] I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not of counsel nor [ioj attorney for any of the parties to said suit, nor related, [11] nor interested in any of the parties or their attorneys. [12] I FURTHER CERTIFY that Roush Deposition Exhibits A [13] through D, marked for identification and attached to and [14] made a part of this deposition, are the identical exhibits [15] referred to and identified by the witness in the foregoing [is] deposition. [17] WITNESS MY HAND and Notarial Seal, given this__ [is] day of__, A. D., 1993, at St. Louis, Missouri. [19] MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEM BER 12,1994 [20] [21] [22] JOHN T. CONCANNON, [23] Notary Public, within and for the State of Missouri [24] [25] Page 228 May 5, 1993 Bruce A. Featherstone, Esq. Kirkland & Eltis 1999 Broadway - Ste. 4000 Denver, Colorado 80202 Re: Nevada Power Company -vMonsanto Company, et ai. Dear Mr. Featherstone: This ietter, incorporated as the iast page of Mr. Roush's deposition, taken on March 18, 1993, wiii serve as notice to you that his testimony is now ready for reading and signing of same. You will recall you indicated a preference for him reading his deposition, rather than waiving signature. Enclosed please find the original signature page of Mr. Roush's deposition, along with an eratta sheet. Please have Mr. Roush read and sign his deposition and return the original signature page to me. I wiii then return the signature page to the original transcript, and notify Mr. Bradley of any corrections the witness may have made. Thank you for your cooperation in this regard. Sincerely, JOHN T. CONCANNON Shorthand Reporter Concannon & Jaeger General Court Reporters 705 Olive Street - Ste. 604 St. Louis, Missouri 63101 JTC:mpk Page 229 GEORGE ROUSH - DEPOSITION CORRECTION SHEET in Re: NEVADA POWER COMPANY Vs. MONSANTO COM PANY, et al. Upon reading his deposition transcript and before subscrib ing thereto, the deponent indicated the following: Page Line should read: Reason assigned for change: Page Line should read: Reason assigned for change: Page Line should read: Reason assigned for change: Page Line shouid read: Reason assigned for change: Page Line shouid read: Reason assigned for change: Page Line shouid read: Reason assigned for change: Page Line shouid read: Reason assigned for change: Page Line shouid read: Reason assigned for change: Page Line shouid read: Reason assigned for change: GEORGE ROUSH Page 230 CONCANNON & JAEGER Page 227 - Page 230 Min-U-Script Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 WATER PCB-SD0000022971 This Page Intentionally Left Blank WATER PCB-SD0000022972 WATER PCB-SD0000022973 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et at George Roush, Jr. VoL 2, March 18, 1993 f 'discrete 216:22 '1216:21 'trabecular 216:22 o 008412 181:19 008413 181:19 024775 163:12 1 1.1 206:9 10 181:20 100 227:13 1015 156:3 1016 154:19,23; 155:2, 7, 12, 18, 22, 24; 156:15,19; 200:22; 201:2, 5,7, 8, 11; 202:4, 6,11,13, 24; 203:8, 15; 205:6, 7,8,14; 206:12,14, 15; 207:6,12,15; 208:6, 22, 23; 209:18, 19, 20,21; 210:6, 7; 224:9 1043 209:2, 16 1137 126:20; 129:21, 24; 130:3; 199:7; 200:1,6, 11 1190 136:24; 177:3, 4; 178:6, 10; 179:1 12 228:19 1208 137:10 1221 132:14; 208:8 1242 205:9,14; 208:4; 209:11, 18 1248 209:8 1251 181:3; 188:13 1252 131:21 1254 208:2; 209:11 1251 182:17 1260 138:24; 186:18; 201:12; 209:11 1262 206:12 12th 216:21; 225:23 1300 227:13 1421 156:22; 168:17 1433 132:4 14th 173:7 1541 203:11:223:18 1544 206:20; 208:22; 223:19; 224:13 1564 205:16,18; 223:18 1594 209:5; 223:19 18 183:15; 227:18 19 150:14 1930's 136:20 1936 214:12 1940 177:14 1940's 135:21; 136:6 1941 136:16 1946 214:16 1950's 132:20,23, 24; 133:14 1970's 125:17; 126:13; 137:15; 138:3, 9, 14; 139:3 1971 205:25; 206:5 1973 125:14; 150:4, 8; 205:21 1974 150:12,14; 216:21; 218:3,16; 219:1; 225:23 1975 180:8,16; 181:20, 22; 183:15; 185:11,11; 187:5,9, 12; 188:11; 189:13; 193:4; 225:16 1976 126:25; 129:2; 156:25; 157:19,23; 159:3, 20, 24; 160:3; 162:14,163:14,19; 165:2, 7, 18, 23; 167:6, 20; 168:1; 169:14,18; 171:5; 199:11 1979 173:7 1988 150:6, 16 1993 139:14; 226:16; 227:18; 228:8, 18 1994 228:19 2 2 167:20; 168:1; 169:14,18 23 139:14 25 159:3 27 156:25; 163:19 27th 157:19,23; 163:14; 165:7 3 30(b)6 139:21 350 183:12,12; 186:25; 187:8; 215:6, 10; 216:4; 225:19 359 190:10; 192:24; 211:6 360 190:10; 192:25 367 172:10,10,25; 173:6; 175:4; 219:5 4 431 132:17 441 133:10 442 133:1 48 209:17 5 5460 138:24 559 167:21 56 209:17 6 6935 135:25 7 7-4-76 127:6 777 163:12 8 8-4-76 127:8 9 977 159:5 A abnormality 184:4, 6, 9, 12 above 167:15 absence 141:1; 174:13,19, 22; 202:9; 207:17 absolutely 149:7 absorbed 136:7 acceptable 128:24 according 193:3; 194:23; 216:19 accurate 169:17 accurately 165:6,17 ACGIH 197:15 achievement 127:5; 128:5; 131:8,11 acknowledged 194:11 ACL 128:10 acne 211:23 acne-like 211:14; 212:7 acquired 176:10 action 126:11 activated 132:10 activity 131:12; 225:15 Actually 128:7 acute 220:20 additional 187:13 addressed 142:5 addresses 164:3,4 addressing 147:10 adjacent 204:17 administer 227:5 advanced 206:10 advantage 205:14 advised 155:7 aforementioned 228:1 aforesaid 227:22 again 129:4; 145:7; 149:20; 152:22; 166:14; 174:11; 195:16; 200:12; 202:6; 210:4 against 143:3,6,10, 13,19, 22; 144:1, 5, 8,11, 24; 145:12,17, 20, 24; 146:1, 5 age 125:2 agencies 179:18, 22; 180:14, 24; 181:4, 5,12; 182:6,9; 187:5; 188:10; 189:10, 15 agree 217:25 agreed 128:25; 186:19 agreement 185:7 ahead 140:17; 167:13 air 191:15,19; 192:14; 197:12 airborne 196:16,21; 198:9 al 140:12, 24; 227:10 Alabama 136:16; 175:19 allegations 143:3,6, 9, 13, 19, 22, 25; 144:4, 8,10,19, 24; 145:16, 20, 23,25; 146:5,10, 21 allowed 223:11 along 213:10 already 152:20 among 160:25; 174:2, 3, 20, 22; 213:6; 217:23 amount 127:18; 139:16; 192:7 analysis 128:11,18; 189:14, 20 analytical 206:9; 224:13,14,16 analyzing 218:17 animal 162:3; 183:1; 186:5 Anita 160:3, 8 Anniston 136:16; 175:19,19; 176:4, 13,24; 177:16; 178:3,9; 179:2, 5 answered 206:17; 215:2 anybody 145:3 anyone 143:5,8,24; 145:19; 146:4,7; 149:12; 156:17; 223:1 apart 151:16; 219:19 apparent 220:13 apparently 129:9; 218:15 appeared 220:20 appears 136:25 applied 224:5, 6 appreciation 162:18 April 183:15; 185:11; 187:11 area 161:22; 225:10 argue 147:14 Aroclor 132:14; 133:8; 136:21; 137:7, 18; 138:1,4,10, 23, 24; 154:18, 22; 155:2,4,7, 12, 18, 21, 24; 156:2,14,19; 160:12; 186:17; 200:22, 23; 201:1,7, 7,7, 8; 202:4, 6, 20, 24; 203:5; 205:6,9, 14; 206:12,15; 208:2, 4, 8, 23; 209:8, 10,11, 11,18, 21; 210:7 Aroclor-manufactu ring 157:25 Aroclors 128:9; 133:16; 201:12; 207:14; 208:16; 209:1 around 201:15 article 223:2 aspect 225:1,3 assembly 145:24 assert 210:9 assess 184:18, 20 assigning 224:10 Assisting 172:22 associate 150:9; 152:2; 154:7 assumed 217:22 atmosphere 191:13, 18 attached 131:23,25; 228:13 attachment 183:22; 184:24; 185:4; 225:20 attack 219:24; 220:13, 21; 221:5 attend 145:11; 180:8; 182:2, 12 attended 227:12 attending 179:13 attorney 227:14,15, 16; 228:10 attorneys 228:11 August 129:2; 156:25; 157:19,23; 163:13,19; 165:1,7, 18, 23; 167:6; 199:10 authenti 169:8 authenticated 164:8; 165:10; 168:6; 169:7; 178:13 authentication 178:16 authority 193:25; 194:3 authorized 227:5 autopsies 221:2 autopsy 219:24; 220:5,9, 25; 221:3,7 available 128:23; 194:16 award 127:5,16,18, 21; 129:1; 130:4; 131:8,11; 199:18, 21; 200:2, 13 awards 126:16; 130:8,18, 20, 22, 23; 131:1,2, 7; 141:5 away 148:3; 184:15 B B 163:9, 11,12,15, 16 back 128:22; 129:15, 17; 130:9,11; 137:20; 144:16,17; 145:8,9; 149:17,21; 152:23, 25; 162:17; 168:10,12; 177:10, 13; 212:2, 3; 218:15 Barnes 135:12,15 Basch 227:16 based 129:9; 155:9; 164:9; 169:16; 178:16; 191:23; 194:16, 25; 215:8; 221:8 basic 159:23 basis 126:10 basophilic 216:22; 217:3, 10; 218:5 Bates 163.11; 181:19 bearing 163:11; 181:19 bears 167:21 became 125:14; 133:7; 148:4; 176:13 become 153:18; 196:16,21; 198:9; 206:25 becoming 150:11 began 131:14; 201:15, 21; 205:21 beginning 128:6 begins 193:18; 216:10 behalf 125:4 believe 136:24; 150:3; 159:5; 176:12; 180:22; 183:14,18; 190:12; 199:10 believed 217:13; 218:4 below 191:14 Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 Miti-U-Script 'discrete - below WATER PCB-SD0000022974 George Roush, Jr. VoL 2, March 18,1993 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et al. benign 185:22; 186:2,3,7,12; 217:14, 15 Benignus 203:25; 204:10 best 165:6; 199:14 beyond 196:12; 197:21,23; 198:3, 5; 208:17; 209:24; 213:13; 226:7 big 192:18 bigger 192:11, 20 bility 152:6, 20; 171:7 billing 142:4 Bio 143:8 Bio-Test 125:17; 126:3,4; 181:8; 186:19; 188:16 biodegrada 223:22 biodegradability 132:13; 201:24 biodegradation 205:13;209:14; 223:23; 224:20 biodegrade 201:17, 18 biphenyl 175:21; 176:5,7; 182:25; 208:13, 15 biphenyls 128:9,14; 201:17, 18 Bishop 164:20; 170:23 bit 201:10 blocked 139:11 Board 132:21 bodily 136:1 body 221:19 Bond 160:3, 8 booklets 136:21 both 139:22 bottom 127:2; 203:23 BRADLEY 125:6; 127:15; 128:2; 129:15,19:130:14; 131:7,9,14; 133:25; 134:4,13,18,136:5; 137:20,24; 138:8; 139:2,6,15, 18, 20, 24; 140:6, 19,22; 141:4,18; 144:15, 18; 145:8,11; 146:14,16; 147:24; 148:13, 22; 149:11, 23; 151:24; 152:5, 19; 153:10; 154:19; 155:13, 20; 156:22; 158:16; 160:13; 64:6; 165:8,20; 166:13; 167:11,23; 168:5, 13,17, 22; 169:4, 11; 172:9; 173:1,23; 174:1,4; 175:23; 176:1,3; 177:18, 24; 178:6,11,18, 20, 23; 179:17; 180:13,18; 182:18; 183:11; 186:9; 188:22; 193:13; 194:5; 196:11, 23; 197:3,9, 21,25; 198:3,6; 199:7, 22; 200:20; 201:21; 202:12,18, 23; 203:18; 04:7,9; 205:2; 206:23; 207:2, 19; 208:19; 210:5, 12; 212:1,4,11,16; 213:15; 214:3,11; 215:2, 5; 216:10, 15, 19; 217:2,7,12,19; 218:15;223:6,10, 15; 224:1,3; 225:6; 226:7, 11; 227:14 Bradley's 150:18; 151:18; 154:2; 179:10 Brazil 133:16 breathing 191:19 briefly 125:11 Broadway 227:13 brought 143:9,13, 19,22; 144:5,8; 145:20, 23, 25 Bruce 227:15 bubbling 196:17 burning 213:11 business 130:7,16, 23; 131:4,12; 135:6; 137:16, 25; 138:3; 150:20, 22, 23; 151:1,4,9,12,16, 19; 153:6; 156:9,10; 171:6,12; 196:1; 210:21; 211:1; 221:25; 222:8,15, 19, 22 c C 135:12,15; 167:18, 20; 168:15,20; 169:2, 13, 20 cables 213:8 Calandra 181:8,21; 183:15,19,25; 184:18, 25; 185:4, 17, 20; 186:6,10,12; 187:7 Calandra's 187:11 called 133:18,22; 134:5; 135:6; 196:4; 203:7; 206:15 Calls 134:2; 155:14 came 126:1; 201:11 can 134:16; 136:8; 139:22; 156:3; 173:1; 184:4,15; 199:24; 204:20; 223:12 cancer 161:21; 164:5; 166:4,11,15, 18, 22; 167:10,14; 170:4, 8, 12,17; 173:8,15,18,21; 174:2, 3, 9, 9, 20, 22; 175:7; 184:19; 187:23; 189:7; 218:21, 23; 219:2, 11,12,16; 220:1,12, 19; 221:6; 225:1,1,4, 5 cancerous 184:10; 186:14; 217:14 cancers 158:7; 185:13, 18 carbon 164:11,15 carcinogenic 216:24; 217:25; 218:6 carcinomas 185:6, 10, 12; 186:19 carefully 227:20 case 140:11,24; 180:6; 184:5; 192:8; 227:22 cases 170:4,4,7 cash 128:1 casual 135:13 cation 169:9 cause 177:21,23; 219:20;220:3; 221:13; 227:7,11 caused 178:2; 211:23; 227:24 causes 220:15 cautioned 227:20 cell 185:18 cells 184:7; 185:15 Center 188:5,9; 226:3 ceremony 127:21 certain 151:2; 182:25 certificate 219:19, 20; 220:2,12, 14,19, 23; 221:13,21 certificates 157:24; 160:18 certify 227:5,6; 228:9, 12 chance 126:21 change 149:3,7,14; 217:15 chapter 137:6 characteristic 196:16 characterizing 168:23 charge 147:6 charged 126:8,12; 145:6; 146:20, 24; 147:21 charges 145:12 Chemical 136:15; 154:10; 156:2; 176:10; 196:16,18; 223:3; 224:10 chemicals 133:21; 135:4; 157:12; 205:22; 224:11 chemist 224:17 chemistry 224:13, 14 chemotherapy 225:5 Chicago 179:11,14, 21,24; 180:7,11,21; 190:15; 193:7; 222:3 chloracne 175:11, 12; 176:24; 177:16, 23; 178:2, 8; 179:2; 211:14,24; 212:13; 213:5 chlorinated 128:9; 201:17,18, 23; 202:2,3; 207:11; 213:6 chlorine 201:13; 202:5, 7,14; 208:15; 209:16 chlorines 208:13 chlorobiphenyls 213:9 chronic 135:23 chronology 150:3 citing 195:2 City 227:13 civil 227:7 claim 139:3; 156:13, 17; 201:16; 202:1 claimed 149:4; 201:19; 205:8 Clark 136:11 classical 185:23 classifica 225:12 classification 225:7 clear 156:23; 205:14 Cleveland 135:6, 8 Clinical 219:4; 221:9; 224:25; 225:3, 8 clinician 225:8 close 180:20 colloquy 148:21; 149:25; 158:23 column 208:12 coming 196:17 COMMISSION 226:17; 228:19 commissioned 205:13; 227:4 committed 146:11 committee 131:16 communicated 171:11; 195:22; 222:4, 5 communicating 151:20, 23; 152:3, 17; 171:7 communication 152:13 communications 153:2,9,14,22; 195:15,18 Company 136:15; 161:3,13; 172:18; 176:10; 194:23; 227:9, 10, 16 comparing 168:23 complaints 133:14 complete 206:11; 228:4 completing 220:11, 18 composition 134:22 compound 180:19; 202:5 comprised 134:6 con 200:10 Concannon 227:3; 228:22 conceal 189:24 concealing 190:3,6; 200:14 concentration 135:24; 191:13; 192:16; 197:13 concentrations 195:13 concern 147:4,7, 11,22; 148:5, 5 concerned 146:23; 148:2 concerning 154:4; 167:10; 179:10; 184:25; 187:1; 225:21 concerns 182:18 conclusion 165:13; 189:9 conclusions 165:17; 172:24; 173:17; 189:14 condensers 213:8 condition 217:16 conducted 131:4; 194:12 conference 179:11, 13; 180:7,10,17,25; 190:14; 193:6 confidential 207:5 confused 185:23; 216:16 connected 156:18; 158:9; 161:16 connection l6l:3 connotes 185:22 considering 196:7 consistent 139:13 consultant 161:3,6, 9, 10; 187:15, 22, 25 consultants 187:13 consumption 191:7 contact 153:5 contain 201:2 contained 129:10, 24; 201:8; 202:21 containing 200:23 contains 201:8 contaminated 191:8; 192:9 contamination 190:23 content 201:13; 202:5 contents 129:8 continuing 169:5,8; 170:21; 178:22; 198:4; 223:13 Continuous 192:4 Continuously 192:4 contrasted 198:19 Contributing 220:3, 15; 221:16 Control 226:3 convicted 141:13, 14; 146:24 conviction 140:10, 23; 141:6,12, 16,17, 20, 25 cooking 190:23; 191:5,6; 192:17; 195:13 copies 130:23; 131:10 copy 129:1; 164:11, 15, 20; 219:9 corporate 131:16 correctly 145:1; 206:12; 213:12,15; 216:24; 219:7; 227:25 correspondence 132:20, 24; 146:9, 12, 14 counsel 228:2,3, 9 counsel's 168:22 COUNTY 227:2 course 128:25; 131:3,11 court 126:11; 227:8, 11 cover 183:17, 20 credible 218:3 crime 126:8, 12 criminal 126:11,14; 139:7,10; 140:7,10, 23; 141:6,11; 142:6, 9,15,19, 22 CROSS 150:1; 154:3; 208:18; 209:24; 213:14 cubic 191:14,16; 192:1, 14, 15; 197:11 culminate 187:4 Cumulative 206:16; 212:9, 14 current 215:4 customer 156:13,14 customers 137:18; 138:4,10; 151:20, 23; 152:4, 10, 13,18; 153:3,15, 20,23; 154:5; 155:1,7,17; 156:2, 8; 171:7,11; benign - customers Min-U-Script Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 WATER PCB-SD0000022975 Nevada Power Company v, Monsanto Company, et al. George Roush, Jr. VoL 2, March 18, 1993 195:16,18,23; 210:22; 211:2; 222:1, 9, 13 Cutler 142:12 D D 164:20; 170:23; 181:16,18; 182:5,9; 226:16; 228:8, 13,18 D.C 142:12 damage 133:15 data 128:23; 131:8, 11; 162:18, 19,21; 164:4; 167:1,2; 189:18; 200:5,8; 222:2 date 127:6,9; 129:6; 167:24; 169:15; 177:10 dated 127:6; 159:3; 163:13,19; 167:20; 181:20; 193:3; 214:12, 16; 216:21 dates 168:23 David 172:20,20; 219:6 day 125:7; 192:2; 226:15; 228:7, 18 days 180:4,4 dead 148:3 deal 174:2; 179:1 dealing 147:7; 208:12 death 157:24; 160:11,18; 219:19, 20, 21; 220:2,3,12, 14, 15, 18,22; 221:13, 14,21 deceased 170:15; 174:3, 5, 10,14,16, 20, 23;219:12,15 December 139:14; 173:7 decision 139:9; 148:1, 4, 15; 160:17 Defendant 227:16, 17 Defendants 227:10 defense 139:7,10; 140:7; 142:6,9,15, 19 defer 177:16,20 defined 216:21 definition 185:23 degradation 132:10; 207:12,14 degrades 209:17 demonstrates 207:13 depart 150:19 department 138:15; 147:10,21,25; 148:8,17:150:20; 151:8,11,15, 22; 153:7; 155:10,11; 157:4,25; 160:10; 162:14; 170:24; 187:12; 205:23; 210:24; 223:4 department's 153:24 depends 197:4; 218:1 deposes 125:3 deposition 125:8; 158:25; 160:9; 163:8; 167:17; 181:15,18; 228:12, 14, 16 depositions 227:6 Describe 128:4; 169:21 describing 194:9 designation 167:21 destroyed 146:8 determine 144:12, 24; 145:4; 187:22; 220:19 determined 219:15 developed 129:20; 155:22 development 131:16; 154:22; 155:7,12,17; 205:23; 206:9 diagnosis 185:21 die 221:1 died 219:24; 220:10, 13, 20; 221:4 dielectric 134:17 differ 162:6 difference 192:16, 18 differences 191:11 different 179:6; 202:24; 204:23; 207:12,14,14; 208:15; 217:10; 218:16, 16 differentiated 201:23 digestive 213:10 digits 201:13; 202:4, 6 DIRECT 125:5; 154:2; 196:12; 197:22 directly 151:23; 152:4,13 director 147:13; 150:9,11,16, 24; 152:2, 3; 154:7,8; 158:10,11; 159:11; 176:14; 177:10; 221:24 disabling 136:2 disagree 195:1 discharge 128:14; 211:16; 212:23 discharges 126:18; 128:21 disclosures 153:19; 154:4 discovery 131:23; 132:5; 136:25; 137:11 discrete 217:3,10, 23; 218:4 discuss 152:10; 173:8; 182:25 discussed 145:13; 187:9; 190:21 discussion 149:11; 189:18, 23 discussions 144:4; 155:1,17; 156:1,4, 6, 7; 189:17 Disease 226:3 distinct 186:14 distinctive 211:16; 213:2 distributed 137:16 distribution 203:22 District 227:8,9 disturbances 213:11 division 138:15 Doc 159:7 Doctor 157:3; 204:20; 220:18, 22, 24; 221:5, 6, 20; 222:16,17 docu 164:7; 205:2 document 126:24; 129:5; 131:8,21,22; 132:1, 17; 133:2,4, 11; 137:6,10,13; 138:23; 145:19; 163:11; 164:11; 165:10,11; 168:6, 9; 169:7,21; 178:6,12; 180:13; 181:18,20; 193:24;199:7,13, 17, 20; 203:12; 204:21; 205:5,17; 206:5,8, 22,24; 207:13; 209:7; 210:2; 215:7 documents 132:13; 134:22; 135:18; 145:24; 146:4,8,13; 148:17; 149:13; 193:4; 198:22; 209:1; 224:4 dollars 127:19 done 129:13,13; 144:13, 20; 145:1,4; 147:23; 219:25 dose 190:25 dosing 185:1; 189:25 down 127:1; 128:6; 177:23; 193:25; 203:22 Dr 125:7,12,13,16, 19, 20, 23; 126:5, 7, 16; 127:10,16,23; 128:8,17; 129:6,9, 19, 23; 130:2,3; 132:9; 136:13; 137:13; 139:7,10; 140:7,10, 23; 141:4, 11,19, 24; 142:6, 9; 143:2, 6,10,12,13, 15,18,21,25; 144:3, 4, 5,7; 145:17, 20, 24; 146:1, 5, 9,10, 21,23; 147:23; 148:18,19, 22; 150:3,11; 157:2; 58:12,13,19; 159:2, 8,10,17; 160:2,19, 21,24; l6l:7, 8,10, 22; 162:17,19; 163:1,5,21,22; 164:10,13; 166:15, 20, 25; 167:8, 25; 168:18,19; 171:21, 22; 172:13; 173:5; 177:5,7, 9,15; 181:7, 20, 21; 183:15,19, 25; 184:17, 25; 185:4,17, 20; 186:6, 10,12,16; 187:7,11; 188:1,2,3,6, 9,18, 25; 189:2,6,14; 99:6, 14,17,18; 200:2, 4, 8, 11,13, 21; 211:6, 23; 215:9,11,15,18, 24; 216:10, 20, 20; 217:6,7; 219:9,18; 223:8; 225:21,22, 22, 25; 226:5 Drs 186:18 duct 200:11 due 133:8 duly 227:4, 20 during 125:17; 126:13:132:19; 137:11; 139:2; 142:22; 146:19; 149:12; 150:24; 152:8,12; 170:16; 181:12; 206:2; 223:20 E E 132:9; 135:12,15; 164:15, 17 each 151:1; 182:10, 12,14; 208:10; 218:1, 10 earlier 166:13; 177:14; 178:7; 182:22; 185:7 edema 213:11 education 218:20 effect 186:5; 198:24; 212:12 effects 183:8; 193:10,18; 194:4,4; 195:3,9; 211:3,13; 212:6, 18, 22; 213:10 effort 154:3; 157:19, 23; 206:11; 210:25 efforts 128:8 eight-hour 192:2,15 eighty 221:2 either 133:12; 146:9; 152:17; 153:2; 154:2; 205:12 electrical 191:12; 205:9 eleventh 137:6 Ellis 142:15 else 129:20; 135:1; 207:10 emphasized 185:21 employed 125:24; 132:8,19; 133:6; 142:23; 145:4; 149:13; 172:18 employee 125:13, 14; 126:5; 145:16; 161:11,13; 164:22; 190:5; 204:4, 5,10, 13, 16; 205:3 employees 143:22; 144:8, 11,24; 145:6, 13,17; 157:7; 170:15,16; 174:6,10 employment 125:24; 131:17; 152:9,12; 170:17; 205:21; 206:3; 223:20 end 150:12,15 engaged 146:5; 225:15 engineer 135:15 engineers 135:18, 22; 136:6; 222:12 enlarged 184:7 entire 206:22, 23 entirety 199:21 entitled 206:5; 211:10; 227:9 Environmental 206:6; 211:2; 223:5 ERA 128:24 ERA'S 126:17; 128:13, 20 epidemiologist 161:23,24,25; 162:6, 8, 14; 222:24 epidemiology 221:11 Eppenberger 227:12 Epply 161:18,19; 188:3,5,9,17 eruption 211:14,24; 212:7 et 140:12, 24; 227:10 Europe 203:15 evaluat 161:25 evaluated 129:14 evaluating 162:9 evaluation 166:21; 187:20 even 168:8; 190:5; 217:15 eventually 126:7 evidence 180:6; 187:23 exam 196:12; 197:22 EXAMINATION 125:5; 150:1; 154:2, 3; 182:22; 200:19; 208:18; 209:25; 215:16; 223:14, 16 examined 215:13, 20; 227:20 example 201:12; 203:3; 206:8; 217:24; 219:24; 221:5 excellent 128:11,18 excess 167:14 excessive 211:15; 212:23 excuse 130:15; 134:23; 138:2; 146:8; 173:1 Exhibit 126:20; 127:4,16; 128:4; 129:8,11,21,24; 130:3,6,15; 131:20; 132:3,16; 133:1,10; 136:23; 137:10; 156:22; 159:1,4,5; 160:9; 162:16; 163:9, 11,12, 16; 165:5,16; 166:13; 167:18, 20, 21; 168:15,17,20; 169:2,6,13,20; 172:10,10,25; 173:6; 175:4; 177:3, 3; 178:6,10; 179:1; 181:3, 16, 18; 82:5,9, 17; 183:12,12; 186:25; 187:7; 188:13; 199:7; 200:1, 6,11; 203:11; 205:16; 206:19; 207:3; 208:22; 209:4; 211:5; 215:6; 216:4; 219:5,10; 223:18; 224:13; 225:19 exhibits 168:24; 190:10,11; 223:19, 22; 228:12,14 existed 220:12 exists 197:6 expansive 148:12 expected 167:15 experience 160:11; 162:23; 175:5; 224:19; 225:2 experimental 183:1, 9 expert 161:3, 6 expertise 224:19; 225:12 EXPIRES 226:17; 228:19 exposed 133:16; 187:1, 17; 213:6, 7 exposure 183:1,8; 190:17, 20,25; 191:3; 192:1,4,7,7, Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 Mln-U-Script Cutler - exposure WATER PCB-SD0000022976 George Roush, Jr. VoL 2, March 18, 1993 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et al. 9,12; 194:8; 196:7, 8; 198:16 exposures 135:24; 136:1; 191:1,11,11; 196:3 extent 155:6; 171:9 eye 211:15; 212:23 eyelids 211:16; 212:25 eyes 213:12 F F 136:11 face 213:5,11 facility 157:9; 158:20; 175:20; 176:9 fact 152:9; 182:8; 183:18; 185:6; 214:20; 218:23; 219:15; 220:20; 221:10, 13 factors 221:16 facts 129:24 fair 201:9; 222:2 faking 189:18, 20 falsification 200:7 falsifying 189:18, 20; 200:14 familiar 153:18; 160:3; 164:7; 196:4; 206:25 far 128:6; 170:11; 177:10, 13; 201:10 fashion 128:24 fatal 136:2 FEATHERSTONE 127:9,12,25; 129:12; 130:9,13; 131:6; 133:23; 134:1, 12, 14; 136:4; 138:6, 25; 139:4,11,17, 19, 21, 25; 140:4, 15, 20, 25; 141:15; 146:12; 147:19; 148:7,10, 20; 149:9, 15, 18, 24; 150:2; 152:1,8, 23; 153:1,12; 155:16, 21; 158:18,22; 159:2; 160:16; 163:10; 164:10; 165:15,21; 166:1; 67:13,19,25; 168:10,15; 169:1, 10,12; 173:3, 5; 174:4; 175:25; 176:4; 177:20; 178:1,15, 19, 21, 24; 179:4; 180:22; 181:17; 186:11; 188:24; 196:13,19,25; 197:5,12, 23; 198:2, 4,7,11; 199:25; 200:16, 21; 201:19; 202:9,17; 203:16; 204:6,19, 23; 206:16,21; 207:16; 208:17; 209:22, 23; 210:9; 211:9,25; 12:9, 14; 213:13,19, 22,25; 214:8,22; 215:4, 5,8; 216:4, 8, 13, 25; 217:5,17; 218:7; 219:10; 223:8, 12,17; 224:2,4; 226:10; 227:15 Featherstone's 210:8; 215:24 federal 156:18,18; 188:10 fellow 156:24; 219:25 female 136:10 few 215:7 field 218:20; 219:2 figure 131:24 files 130:24; 148:3; 154:4 filled 220:22 final 171:16,18; 172:5,16; 173:6; 175:1,4 finally 199:6 find 147:14; 166:1,6 finding 170:3; 189:6 findings 159:19; 164:4; 167:9; 169:14, 17; 173:20; 184:18; 185:8; 187:16 Fine 169:11; 223:12 firm 142:11,15 first 134:18; 152:1; 159:18; 165:5,16; 169:24; 178:9,25; 190:12,13; 209:13; 211:10; 216:5; 227:20 five 172:25; 183:24; 193:14; 209:16; 211:6; 223:13 fluid 191:12; 196:6, 19, 20; 198:23 fluids 138:17,20; 197:1; 198:12 folks 222:8 follicles 211:17; 213:2 following 140:23; 141:5,11,19, 24 follows 125:4 food 191:7 force 162:10 fore 178:17 foregoing 227:23, 25; 228:15 forestalling 126:17; 128:12, 19 form 128:4; 129:12; 130:13; 134:12,14, 15; 136:4; 138:6,25; 139:4; 140:20, 25; 149:9,18; 151:24; 152:5,19; 153:10; 155:13; 160:13; 165:8,12; 167:12; 173:23; 175:23; 177:18; 178:13,16; 180:18; 186:9; 188:22; 196:11; 197:22,24,25; 199:22; 207:16; 209:23; 211:25; 216:25; 217:5, 17 former 128:7,10; 170:15,15; 174:6 forth 169:13; 184:25; 199:21; 200:1 forty-one 202:13 forty-two 202:14 found 170:7,11; 185:7; 186:7, 12 foundation 134:2, 15; 141:2; 160:14; 199:23; 202:10; 203:17; 207:17; 217:6; 218:9 four 183:24; 208:15; 209:16 frame 179:20 fraud 140:11,23; 141:6; 143:3, 6,9,13, 19, 22, 25; 144:5,8, 10,19, 24; 145:6,16, 20, 23, 25; 146:5,11, 20, 24 fraudulently 144:13 Fred 162:22 free 209:16 front 210:13; 215:9 full 228:4 function 159:23 functional 138:17, 20; 205:10 further 149:23; 186:16; 200:16; 223:6; 226:10; 228:9, 12 G G 166:22; 203:25; 204:9 gain 190:24 gained 190:14 gather 146:4 gave 130:8; 144:12; 148:11,13,17; 175:10; 179:9 general 170:18; 187:8 generally 200:7; 206:25; 207:2 gentleman 135:12; 136:18; 138:12 GEORGE 125:1; 226:14; 227:17,19; 228:1 given 127:21; 148:6, 7,19; 163:5; 199:18; 200:13, 23; 228:5, 17 gives 204:18 giving 200:2 goes 183:24; 199:4; 209:18; 217:20 Good 158:18 Gordon 185:22; 186:18 government 156:18,19; 179:18, 22; 180:14, 24; 181:4, 5; 182:6,8; 187:5,9; 188:10,10, 14,15; 189:10,14, 24; 190:3,7; 191:25; 193:10; 226:1 graph 216:9 gross 191:2; 194:8 ground 178:22 grounds 140:5,16; 169:8 group 137:16,25; 138:3,18, 20; 150:20,23; 151:4,9, 12,19; 153:6,7; 156:9,10; 161:8,14; 171:6,13; 196:1; 210:21;211:1; 221:25; 222:15,19, 22; 224:5,6,14,14 groups 150:23; 151:1,16 guess 158:24; 192:25 H H 164:15, 17 hadn't 133:12 hair 211:16; 213:2 halfway 128:5 HAND 228:17 handed 127:23 handled 153:24; 171:12; 196:1 hands 213:11 Harbason 164:15,17 hard 205:1 hasn't 164:7,8; 165:9,10; 168:6, 7, 8; 178:12 haven't 137:4; 201:4 Hazards 137:7 head 143:15; 147:25 headed 193:14,14; 222:16, 20, 23; 223:1 Health 132:22; 157:20; 159:22,25; 162:1,9; 186:5; 211:2; 223:5 hear 130:9; 134:18; 139:25; 149:15,20; 156:13, 17; 190:5 heard 134:8,20; 135:6; 136:10; 138:17; 142:11; 175:17; 176:13,22, 23; 203:7 hearing 175:11 hearsay 164:9; 165:11; 167:11; 168:7; 169:7,9; 178:13, 17 heart 219:24; 220:13, 20; 221:5 heated 191:5 heating 198:23 heavily 191:8 held 182:24 hematuria 213:12 hepatocellular 185:6, 10, 12, 14 hepatoma 185:22 hepatomas 186:6, 7,12,14; 217:2, 2; 218:12,17,21; 225:7, 13 hereby 227:6 high 195:12; 197:1, 7; 198:13,19 higher 170:18; 201:16, 23; 202:2 hire 161:3 hired 187:25; 188:25 homologue 208:14 hours 209:17 human 162:3,5; 185:24; 193:15; 211:11; 225:1, 4 humans 162:8; 193:19; 211:14; 212:6,13,18,23; 213:4 hundred 127:18; 180:3; 192:19 hundred-dollar 199:18 Husch 227:12 hydrocarbons 213:7 hygiene 135:15,18, 22; 136:6; 196:15 hyperplasia 216:22; 217:4, 11; 218:5 I IBT 126:8; 143:16, 22; 144:8, 11,12,19, 20,24, 25; 145:5,6, 13,17; 149:3, 4,7, 13,14; 180:15; 183:5,9; 184:18,22; 186:22, 25; 187:13; 189:7,13,17; 193:11; 215:13, 20, 25 IBT's 184:25 identical 228:14 identification 159:1; 163:9; 167:18; 181:16; 203:11; 228:13 identified 168:8; 182:21; 183:14; 188:6; 202:20; 209:2; 228:15 identify 219:20; 221:20 identity 135:12 ill 133:7 illnesses 221:19 imagine 129:4 importance 217:12 important 185:5; 196:7 impotence 213:12 impression 140:13, 15; 141:10 improper 200:10; 208:18; 213:14,19; 214:9, 22 improve 159:25 incident 175:11,12, 18; 176:12,17, 20, 23, 24,25; 177:16; 178:2; 179:2, 5; 190:13; 194:6; 195:4, 16; 210:20; 211:20, 22; 212:6, 12, 17, 22; 213:18, 21; 214:14, 18, 21 include 184:6,9,13; 193:19; 195:5; 211:14 included 212:7,13, 18, 23 including 157:14; 207:15 increased 199:1 increases 198:25 indeed 177:10 independent 187:20 Indiana 132:21; 133:7 indicate 202:7; 203:5; 205:3 indicated 125:12; 138:9; 152:20; 164:7; 165:9; 166:8; 168:8; 200:22; 201:13 indicating 134:22; 135:22; 136:7; 138:23; 215:23 indication 217:15 indicative 216:23; 217:24; 218:6 individualize 218:11 individualized 218:2 Industrial 125:17; 126:4; 135:15,18, 22; 136:6; 143:8; 181:8; 188:16; 196:15 Inerteen 133:19,22; 134:5, 8,11,13, 23; exposures - Inerteen Min-U-Script Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 i i i i / WATER PCB-SD0000022977 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et aL George Roush, Jr. VoL 2, March 18, 1993 135:3,19, 25; 136:7; 203:3 informa 166:21 information 129:10; 142:21,25; 171:9; 186:25; 189:24; 190:3, 6, 16,19; 194:15; 195:1,22; 200:14; 210:22; 213:17 informed 133:7,14; 138:3; 156:4; 159:18 ing 162:1; 175:18 ingested 190:22 ingestion 191:4,7; 192:21; 195:12 inhalation 133:8; 192:21; 198:16; 199:2 inhaled 196:22; 198:18 initial 165:15 initially 168:17 injury 136:1; 184:13 inside 191:21 insofar 176:22; 179:4 instance 128:7,10; 151:11; 191:21 Institute 159:21; 161:16,18,19; 188:5; 218:24 Institute's 188:17 instruct 139:12 instructed 137:25; 140:4 insulating 213:8 insure 210:25 intention 189:23; 190:2 interest 147:17 interested 137:2; 228:11 internal 136:1 internally 136:8; 138:9 interpret 224:22 interpreta 183:1 interpretation 167:2; 183:25; 206:10; 218:13,19 interpretations 225:17 Interteen 134:16,19 into 227:25 introduction 203:14 investiga 176:19 investigated 177:15 investigation 194:13 involved 149:1; 155:11,16; 160:19; 161:17; 163:2; 171:25; 175:18,20; 181:25; 190:17; 194:19; 195:17; 223:23 involvement 154:9, 22,25; 160:17; 172:7; 177:9 involving 147:23; 172:1; 176:24 Isocyan u rates 128:10 isomers 209:16 issue 187:8 issued 159:15; 171:2; 172:5; 173:7 itinerary 182:5 itself 151:22 J J 203:15, 20; 204:15; 205:3 January 206:5 Japanese 190:21; 194:22, 24; 213:20 Jenkins 136:13 job 153:13; 177:10 Johannsen 162:22; 163:21; 164:13; 166:15; 168:18; 172:14 Johansen 156:24; 157:2; 160:19,21, 24; 161:10 John 152:24; 168:10; 227:3; 228:22 joined 150:4,8,9; 175:15 journal 160:6 judgment 177:17, 21 judgments 147:15 Judith 219:6 June 159:3 K K 143:12, 15, 18, 21 Kelly 150:12; 177:5, 7,15 Kelly's 177:9 Kepplinger 140:12, 24 kept 130:8; 131:3, 10; 155:6 Kimbrough 186:18; 213:20; 216:21; 225:22,25; 226:5 Kirkland 142:15 knew 146:20; 201:8 knowing 221:24 knowledge 129:10, 24; 141:2; 155:9; 171:12; 175:2, 14; 176:9; 179:5,6; 186:10; 188:24; 190:13; 194:20; 195:21; 199:14, 23; 202:22; 218:8; 224:8 known 193:18; 194:4; 195:3; 211:22; 212:17, 22; 218:12; 221:16 Krummrich 157:7, 21; 158:1,20; 160:12,22; 162:11, 24,25; 163:5,25; 166:3,17, 23; 168:4; 170:12,16; 171:11; 172:1,2; 173:15,22; 174:17 L L 136:18 lab 144:21 Laboratories 125:17; 143:9 laboratory 158:6; 188:4 Labs 126:9; 188:16 lack 134:1; 178:16; 218:9 Landra 143:12,15, 18, 21 largely 134:25 last 180:4; 201:13; 202:4,6; 209:15; 219:7 Lastly 225:19 later 209:19 Laurie 227:16 law 142:11,15; 227:12 lawful 125:2 lead 200:11 learn 135:11; 190:16, 19 learned 135:3; 144:10,18,23; 145:5; 210:20 least 201:2,6; 217:13 leave 125:16 ledge 210:1 left 125:20; 201:11; 208:12 length 168:20 lesion 184:12 lesions 184:1,3,9, 20; 185:1; 187:21, 23; 213:10; 216:23; 217:10, 24; 218:5; 225:7,13 less 149:4; 168:16; 198:9,17 letter 137:18; 159:3, 5,14,17; 160:2; 183:14,17, 20, 22, 23; 184:24; 185:4; 187:11; 216:11, 20; 225:22 letters 142:4; 210:13 Levinskas 127:13; 129:6, 9, 14,19, 22, 23; 130:2; 144:3,7; 148:19,22; 186:18; 199:14, 17 likelihood 199:1 likely 198:9, 17 limit 126:18; 128:13, 20 Limited 205:22 line 164:6 list 137:17; 204:17 listed 182:9; 221:17, 20 lists 221:13 literature 194:17; 212:5, 12, 17,21 little 197:18; 201:10 liver 133:15; 173:18, 21; 174:2,3,9, 22; 184:7,13:185:13, 14,18; 186:19; 187:21,23; 189:21; 193:10; 219:12; 221:6 livers 183:8; 184:1, 19; 187:1,16; 215:12, 16, 19, 20, 25 locate 215:7 look 126:21; 148:11, 12,13; 157:24; 160:10,18; 164:2; 165:4,23; 166:4; 167:1; 174:12; 185:3; 187:13,16; 188:13; 216:2; 218:11; 219:5 looked 128:23; 174:5, 8 looking 128:3; 147:16; 167:23; 199:16; 216:17; 218:10; 222:1 looks 129:4 lot 197:17 Louis 204:5,10,13, 16; 205:3; 227:2,13; 228:18 low 197:2,8,19; 198:8, 13, 14, 17 lower 201:17,23; 202:3 luncheon 200:18 lung 166:15,18,22; 167:10,14; 170:12, 17 M M 136:11 Maboubi 161:7,8, 17; 163:1,22; 166:20,25; 167:8; 188:6 Maboubi's 161:22 Macoe 164:24 Magistrate 139:11, 15 Magistrate's 139:13; 140:5 maintain 130:23 makeup 156:2 male 136:10 malignant 165:24; 166:8; 170:7; 173:9, 12; 174:9,13; 175:6; 219:11 man 153:4 manufacture 133:18; 154:13; 175:21; 176:5,6; 213:9 manufactured 151:6; 157:11,16; 194:22; 198:12 many 134:20; 180:2 March 227:18 marked 158:25; 159:3,4; 163:8,10; 167:17,19; 177:2; 178:5; 181:15,18; 203:10; 228:13 Marsh 203:15, 20 material 188:17 matter 145:12; 148:23; 182:14 matters 207:18 maximum 192:1 may 135:23; 136:1, 2; 137:17; 139:19, 25; 146:25; 149:15; 155:1; 162:17; 169:7; 178:2; 191:12; 195:22 maybe 131:7 MCS 203:7,14; 205:8,14; 206:12, 14; 207:6,15; 208:6, 21; 209:2,15,18,19, 20; 210:5,13,17; 224:9 mean 125:22; 147:14; 175:24; 192:4,11,18; 197:20; 198:15; 199:1; 224:1; 225:3 meaning 128:8 means 186:3; 193:25 meant 198:8; 217:8; 224:9 medical 147:10,21, 25; 148:7,17; 150:9, 11,16,19, 20, 24; 151:8,11,15, 22; 152:2,2; 154:7,8; 155:10,11; 157:4; 158:10, 11; 159:11; 160:10; 162:13; 176:14; 177:10; 187:12; 210:24; 221:23; 222:17 medicine 223:4 meet 152:9; 179:17 meeting 179:21,24, 25,25; 180:21,24; 181:2,4; 182:12,14, 18, 24, 24; 183:2, 4, 17, 19, 23, 25; 184:17; 188:14; 190:15; 222:3 meetings 145:3,12; 182:2; 225:16 mela 165:23 melanoma 170:4,7; 173:12; 174:9,13; 175:6; 219:11 melanomas 158:6; 164:4; 165:14,24; 166:9; 173:9 memo 189:4 memorandum 156:24; 157:6; 163:13,18; 164:3; 168:18; 188:14, 16 memory 202:12 ment 150:20; 164:8; 205:3 mentioned 210:7 Messrs 227:12 meter 191:15; 192:1, 14; 197:11 meters 191:16; 192:15 microscope 184:5 middle 128:3 milligram 191:14, 15, 16,25; 192:14; 197:11 milligrams 191:16, 17; 192:16 million 192:10 mind 176:2; 227:19 minute 173:2 minutes 131:16; 223:13 misleading 190:6 Missouri 226:20; 227:1,4,14; 228:18, 23 mix 133:21 mixed 135:4 mixture 133:22; 135:4 Mobile 158:5,10,11; 159:8,11,15; 160:5; 163:5; 166:8; 169:21; 170:3; 171:10; 174:25; 175:6 Mobile's 159:19 molecule 208:13,15 money 140:22; 142:8, 14 Monsanto 125:16, 19, 20, 24,25; 126:1, 5,15, 16; 127:15; 128:5; 130:18,20, 22, 23; 131:10,15, 17, 18, 22; 132:4,8, Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 Min-U-Script informa - Monsanto WATER PCB-SD0000022978 George Roush, Jr. VoL 2, March 18, 1993 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et al. 12, 13, 20,21; 133:6, 13, 18,21,21; 134:20,21; 135:4, 11, 17; 136:15, 20, 24; 137:5, 15, 24; 138:3,9,10,14, 22; 139:3,6,9; 140:7,9, 22; 141:5, 10, 19, 23; 142:5, 8, 18,21,23; 143:5, 24; 44:11,18, 19, 23, 25; 145:4,16, 25; 146:4, 7,19, 23, 25; 147:3, 6; 149:2,6, 12, 13,14; 150:4, 8, 16, 23; 151:6,16; 152:9,12, 14; 153:8, 13, 14, 18, 19, 23; 154:5, 8; 155:1,6; 156:1,14; 157:9; 158:20; 160:10; 161:2,11; 162:13, 19; 163:4, 13,18; 164:17,22; 165:13, 22, 23; 166:4, 18, 20; 167:9; 168:4; 171:1, 10; 72:12,18; 175:5, 12, 15; 176:5,10; 177:10; 181:10; 187:12,15; 188:8, 15, 25; 189:13; 190:5; 193:9; 194:19; 195:18,22; 198:12; 201:11, 16, 22, 22; 202:1; 204:4, 5,10, 13, 16; 205:9, 12, 22, 22, 22; 206:3:207:6; 209:1; 210:12, 22, 24; 211:1; 212:5; 215:12; 221:24, 25; 222:11, 12, 12,16, 20, 23; 223:20,24; 27:10, 16 Monsanto's 125:13; 130:7,16; 131:3; 137:18; 152:10; 153:2,3:154:10; 170:6; 210:21; 211:2 month 193:6,9 months 135:25 more 134:24; 202:2; 206:11; 207:9; 221:3 morning 166:14; 199:8; 200:7 mortality 160:11, 18; 162:1, 23; 172:1, 11 most 185:5; 221:1 motion 139:22 Mrs 171:23,25; 172:4, 18, 22 much 142:8; 192:11; 223:7 must 185:21, 23 Mutch 172:20,20; 219:6 N N 227:13 nails 211:15; 212:19 name 136:10; 156:24; 158:8; 160:3; 189:2; 202:25; 203:2, 4; 204:1; 219:7 named 135:12,15; 136:18; 138:12 names 164:24 National 159:21; 180:7,17,25; 190:14; 193:6; 218:23 nature 178:17 near 130:3 Nebraska 161:15, 17, 20; 188:4 neck 213:5 need 206:24 NEV 163:12; 181:19 Nevada 227:9, 9 next 185:20; 186:16; 190:9 nineteen 211:19, 19 NIOSH 159:18,20, 23; 182:18, 21; 192:25 nodule 217:10 nodules 216:22; 217:3, 23; 218:4 Nolan 164:24 nomas 165:24 none 173:13,16,25; 174:13 nor 228:9,10,11 normal 186:4; 197:16 Notarial 228:17 Notary 226:20; 227:3; 228:23 noteworthy 128:8 nothing 125:3; 149:23; 227:21 Notice 139:22; 227:6 November 180:7, 16,23; 181:20, 22; 182:6; 187:5,9; 188:10; 189:12; 193:4; 216:21; 219:1; 225:23 number 150:23; 186:17; 191:23; 208:14; 213:5 numbers 163:12; 181:19; 208:10; 224:10 o oath 125:9 oaths 227:5 Object 129:12; 130:13; 134:1,12, 14,15,15; 136:4; 138:6, 25; 139:4; 140:16,20,25; 149:9,18; 152:5,19; 153:10; 155:13; 164:6,9; 165:8,11; 167:12; 168:5, 22; 169:4; 173:23; 175:23; 177:18; 178:11,13; 180:18; 186:9; 188:22; 196:11; 197:21; 207:16; 208:17; 209:23, 24; 211:25; 216:25; 217:5,17; 23:10 objecting 197:23, 24,25 Objection 151:24; 155:20; 160:13; 167:11; 169:5,8; 177:24; 178:15,22; 196:23; 197:3,9; 198:5; 199:22; 202:9; 203:16; 206:16; 212:9,14; 213:13; 214:8, 22; 218:7; 223:13; 226:7 objections 165:20; 168:13; 210:10; 228:3 observations 128:12, 19; 173:8 occasionally 130:20 Occupation 159:21 occur 135:23; 175:14 occurred 131:17; 179:21; 180:16 off 148:20; 149:24; 158:22; 196:17,17; 197:17 office 227:18 offices 227:12 Oil 159:8; 163:5; 169:21; 170:3; 171:10; 192:9; 195:13 oils 190:23; 191:5,6; 192:17 Olson 138:12 once 145:5; 146:10 one 127:18; 168:16; 172:8; 173:1; 176:25; 178:2; 179:21; 180:21; 181:13; 182:10; 186:3,3; 191:14,15,16,25; 192:14,21; 194:4; 197:10; 199:10; 215:24;216:10; 218:1,10; 219:23, 25; 222:11; 223:19 ones 187:18; 214:6 only 215:21,25; 223:4 open 179:24 operations 155:10 opinion 217:22 oral 152:17; 153:2, 19 order 139:17; 192:10; 196:22 ordinary 131:3,11 originally 149:4 OSHA's 197:14 ot 134:12 others 160:25; 167:9; 189:13; 193:9 out 131:24; 136:21; 147:14; 202:11; 213:25; 220:22; 228:1 outdated 147:17 outside 161:2 over 135:25; 205:14 own 194:12; 205:13; 226:6 P P 203:15, 20, 25; 204:9 P-a-u-r 189:4 P-o-u-r 189:3 page 165:5,16; 169:24; 170:10; 178:9,25; 183:23; 185:3; 188:15; 193:13; 206:8; 207:21, 22; 208:22; 211:6; 216:2; 225:19, 20 pages 172:25; 183:24; 227:25 paid 140:7; 142:9,14 pancreatic 158:7; 164:5; 166:4,11; 170:4, 8; 173:8,14; 174:9, 20; 175:7; 219:11,16,25; 220:12, 19 Papageorge 181:20, 23 paper 171:16,19; 172:13; 213:21 para 216:8 paragraph 128:3; 159:18; 160:2; 162:16; 169:24; 170:1,2; 178:9, 25; 179:7; 186:16; 209:7, 10, 19, 20; 210:6; 211:10; 213:4; 216:20; 217:13,20, 22; 225:21 paragraphs 216:5 part 128:17; 130:7, 15; 131:6,23; 151:8, 12; 153:12,17; 220:10; 228:14 participating 225:16 particular 158:8; 219:23; 223:3 Particularly 128:7 parties 228:10,11 parts 192:10 pathologist 186:19; 188:3; 218:14 pathologists 185:24; 217:13, 21, 23; 218:4, 10, 16 patients 195:10 Paul 125:12; 127:16; 129:13; 139:7,10; 140:7; 142:16,19, 22; 146:20 Paulsborough 159:19 pay 139:9; 140:22 payment 139:16,16 payments 139:7; 140:9,14,19; 141:11,19, 24; 142:5, 19 PCB 128:23; 134:16; 137:18; 149:3; 151:5; 154:10; 157:20; 162:23:163:24; 170:16; 173:15,22; 176:24; 183:23; 187:1; 191:12; 194:19; 197:1; 198:11; 222:12 PCB's 126:18; 128:21; 134:6,25; 137:16,25:138:15; 144:13, 20; 145:1,5; 146:13; 149:8; 151:5, 13; 152:10,14; 153:7,15, 20, 23; 154:5; 155:4; 156:11, 15,19; 157:14,16; 167:16; 171:6; 172:12; 175:21; 179:11,14,21; 180:7,17, 25; 181:25; 183:8; 185:1; 187:17; 189:25; 190:14,22,23; 191:8,13; 93:7,18; 194:22, 24; 195:13; 196:6; 197:13; 200:23; 201:3, 8,8, 24; 202:21; 206:6; 207:11; 211:1, 3,13, 23; 212:6, 13, 18, 22; 213:7; 221:25; 222:3, 16, 20, 23; 223:24; 226:6 PEA 200:5 peer 160:6 pending 227:7 people 153:24; 154:4; 157:24; 180:2; 181:10; 190:17, 20; 221:1; 225:5, 17 per 192:1,10,14; 197:11; 208:13, 15 percent 201:13; 202:14; 209:17; 221:2 percentage 202:7 perform 220:8 performed 144:20, 25; 205:12; 220:4 performing 160:24 period 133:23; 135:25; 171:5; 206:2; 209:15 permitted 197:10 person 220:11; 221:6 personal 141:2; 186:10; 195:21; 199:23; 209:25; 218:8; 224:24 personally 182:12; 224:1 personnel 165:3 phrase 150:22; 186:1 Pickering 142:12 pigmentation 211:15; 212:18 place 176:13; 204:18; 220:2, 14 placed 147:6 Plaintiff 125:4; 227:10, 15 Plaintiff's 126:20; 129:20; 131:20; 132:3,16; 133:1,10; 136:23; 137:10; 156:22; 159:5; 167:21; 168:16; 172:10,25; 173:6; 175:4; 177:3; 178:6, 10; 179:1; 181:3; 182:17; 183:11; 186:24; 190:10; 199:7; 200:1,6,11; 203:11; 205:16; 206:19; 208:22; 209:4; 211:5; 215:6; 219:5; 223:18 plant 136:16; 157:7, 21; 160:12; 162:10; 163:25; 166:23; 168:4; 175:18,19; 176:4; 191:21 played 128:12,19 please 129:16; 130:10; 140:1; 144:16; 145:8; 149:16; 152:24; 164:2; 168:11,19; 178:23; 210:4; 211:7 plus 133:15 point 150:14; 158:18; 161:2; 164:8; 174:5; 185:5; 206:2; 217:21 pointing 213:25 poisoning 135:23 polychlorinated 128:9, 14; 182:25 population 162:9; 170:18 Monsanto's - population Min-U-Script Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 ; ( i i i I WATER PCB-SD0000022979 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et al. populations 162:1, 2, 3, 4, 5 portion 170:17; 218:3 possible 133:15; 196:8 Pour 188:1,2,3,9, 18, 25; 215:11,15, 18, 24; 216:17 Pour's 189:2, 6, 14 POWER 227:9 PPM 192:17 practice 130:7,16 precancerous 216:23; 217:15, 24; 218:5, 13,17 preparation 154:1 prepared 199:14 presence 173:21; 174:8 present 186:20; 189:13 presentation 132:9; 183:4, 7 presented 182:17 press 167:20; 168:1, 3,16,21; 169:13,16, 20; 170:6,10,14, 20; 171:1 pressure 196:4,7, 10,14,15; 197:1, 2, 7, 8, 10,19; 198:8, 13, 14, 17, 20,24, 25 previous 129:17; 130:11; 137:21; 140:2; 159:12; 195:17 previously 125:2; 144:20; 159:4; 169:22; 215:13 prior 131:17; 212:6, 17, 21; 213:17 problem 131:6; 138:23, 24 procedures 206:10 process 185:22; 186:2; 213:7; 217:14 produce 136:1, 8 produced 137:5; 138:22 product 133:18; 134:5,16; 147:17; 154:19; 194:19; 197:6; 201:2; 202:8, 19, 20; 203:7; 209:15; 210:18 product's 197:16 production 157:20; 213:8 products 128:10; 149:4; 151:2, 5; 154:10,13,16; 200:23; 210:13; 222:12; 224:11 Program 209:14 prohibited 139:15 project 172:1 prominent 128:12, 19 prompted 160:10 promulgation 126:17; 128:13, 20 pronouncing 219:7 properties 205:10 property 133:22 propounded 137:21; 140:2; 228:2, 5 prosecution 140:10; 142:22 provided 136:24 public 165:3; 170:24; 179:25; 194:16; 226:20; 227:3; 228:23 publication 192:25; 193:3 published 160:6; 174:25 purporting 195:3 purpose 155:24; 158:3; 175:3; 183:2; 184:17; 187:19 pursuant 127:16; 132:4; 227:6 put 128:23; 136:21; 193:25; 197:7,17 Q qualified 223:2; 227:4 ques 155:13; 164:6; 165:8 questioning 179:10 quickly 223:8 quoted 168:20; 169:2; 191:23 R R 164:20; 170:23; 204:12, 15; 205:3 raises 174:4 Ralph 227:14 range 191:2 rat 183:8; 184:1; 215:12, 16,19, 20, 25 rate 170:17,18; 209:17 rates 207:12,14 rather 215:20 rationale 139:16 rats 184:19,21,22; 185:1; 187:1,16; 189:21, 25; 226:6 reached 173:18 reactions 136:8 read 128:22; 129:15, 17; 130:11; 134:22, 24, 25; 137:20; 144:15,17; 145:8, 9, 15,19; 149:17,21; 152:23, 25; 165:4; 168:10,12,19; 206:12,21,24; 212:1,3; 213:12,15; 216:1, 24 reading 127:9; 135:2 reads 186:16; 209:14 real 190:13; 223:8 really 147:14 reason 140:6; 156:3; 195:1; 199:21 reasonable 129:4 reasons 200:1 recall 125:12; 129:3; 132:2,25; 134:24; 135:2; 136:12,19; 175:11; 179:13,18; 181:3, 7; 215:22, 23; 216:1 receive 142:21, 25 received 130:3; 131:22; 132:4; 137:11; 141:5; 219:2 receiving 137:18 recent 185:5 recess 173:4; 200:18; 210:3 recipient 164:11 recognize 163:13, 18; 164:24; 183:12; 207:5 recollection 165:6; 180:23 recommendation 197:14 recommended 128:25; 199:17 record 130:15; 148:20; 149:24; 156:23; 158:22 records 130:8; 165:6,17; 176:16; 221:9 recross 223:10,16; 226:8 recurring 135:24 REDIRECT 200:19; 208:18; 213:14,19; 214:9, 23; 226:11 redo 212:4 refer 155:4; 159:14; 169:21; 205:5 reference 178:8; 193:21,25; 198:23; 201:1; 208:2, 4, 6, 8; 211:19, 20; 213:22; 214:3, 11,16 referenced 160:8; 181:2; 183:19; 200:5; 225:21 references 209:19; 213:17; 214:5; 217:22 referred 159:11; 202:24; 203:2; 208:22, 23; 209:20, 21; 210:6; 228:15 referring 213:22; 214:1 refers 160:2; 174:2; 183:17; 185:14; 186:25; 206:14; 209:7,10; 210:17 refinery 159:19 reflect 202:5 reflects 204:21; 217:20 regard 170:11; 171:4; 175:17,17; 188:6; 190:11; 195:15; 196:6; 200:4; 223:18; 225:19 regarding 126:8; 135:19; 138:1,15; 142:5,15, 21; 143:2, 6, 12,18,21,25; 144:4,12, 20, 25; 145:5, 5,16, 20, 25; 146:4,8, 21; 148:18, 23; 149:8,13; 152:14; 153:15, 20, 23; 154:5; 155:2,17; 156:2; 157:7; 160:22; 163:24; 164:4; 166:22; 167:9; 171:10; 173:8,12, 21; 175:6,10; 176:16,20; 179:21; 80:14,15; 183:5,7; 184:18; 187:16; 189:6,24; 190:17; 194:4,15; 195:1,16, 19, 23; 201:24; 207:6;215:15; 217:23;219:11; 225:16 regards 173:6; 224:24 regular 130:7,16 regularly 130:18; 131:3 regulating 128:13, 20 regulation 191:24, 25 regulations 126:18 relate 157:6; 163:21, 24; 168:3; 172:13; 183:25; 187:8; 192:6 related 137:7; 146:13; 158:5; 167:16; 228:10 relating 127:13; 132:13; 157:24; 169:6; 222:1 relations 165:3; 170:24 relative 192:6; 198:10; 201:6 relaying 210:22 Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 Min-U-S cript George Roush, Jr. Vol. 2, March 18,1993 release 167:20; 168:1,3,16,21; 169:13,16, 20, 25; 170:3,6, 10,14, 20; 171:1 relying 225:17 remaining 214:6 remarks 228:3 remember 125:20; 171:16 repeat 162:18 repeated 135:23 rephrase 138:2; 220:11 replaced 177:4,7 replacement 209:15 report 159:14; 160:5, 8, 9, 25; 166:8, 18; 167:8; 170:6,10, 15; 172:5,16; 173:6, 7,11,14, 20; 174:13, 19, 22; 175:1,4,6; 185:5, 20; 194:5,6; 195:2; 203:14; 205:11; 207:6; 213:21; 215:15; 219:6 reported 170:3; 179:1; 212:5,11,16, 21; 213:6, 9; 227:24 reportedly 133:7 reporter 129:17; 130:11; 137:21; 140:2; 144:17; 145:9; 149:17, 21; 152:25; 158:25; 163:8; 167:17; 168:12; 181:15; 212:3 reporting 148:23; 185:17; 195:9; 213:21; 221:8 reports 194:23 represent 208:11 request 144:19; 146:3; 166:20 requested 149:3 required 206:11 research 158:6; 161:21; 205:23; 219:2 researcher 158:8 researchers 219:14 resistant 202:2 respects 228:4 respiratory 133:15 respond 218:8 responding 147:22 response 150:18; 151:18; 179:10; 215:23;216:24; 217:6, 25; 218:6 Responsi 152:5,19; 171:6 responsibili 155:9 responsibility 147:22; 151:2, 5,12, 20, 23; 152:3,17; 153:8,13,17; 154:9, 12, 15; 156:7; 161:21 responsible 147:10; 153:7; 156:10; 210:22 result 149:7; 171:18; 175:6; 185:1; 190:22 resulted 171:16; 175:3 results 149:3,14; 162:22; 163:4; 165:7; 173:11; 182:25; 209:14 retain 187:12,15; 188:8 retired 150:6,12,15; retirement 131:15 return 138:10 reversible 184:13 revert 186:4 review 126:22; 131:16; 132:5,9,12, 20; 135:17; 137:12; 142:2, 4; 148:5,18; 153:14,19; 154:3; 158:4; 160:6,19; 169:16; 183:23; 186:25; 187:4,19; 188:17; 200:4; 203:12; 205:17; 206:23;215:12; 216:6; 223:2 reviewed 131:21; 169:13; 176:16; 186:17; 203:12; 207:2 reviewing 137:2 Richard 204:12 Richter 185:22; 186:18 right 125:11; 126:7; 127:1, 12; 131:9; 134:21; 137:9; 141:23; 148:9, 10; 149:2; 150:18; 151:8, 18; 154:1; 156:21; 157:9,18; 158:3; 159:9,10; 161:11; 163:7,17; 164:20; 165:1, 4, 21; 166:20; 167:8, 22, 24; 168:3; 169:12,20; 170:2, 23; 171:4, 18, 21,23, 25; 173:5; 174:18, 19; 175:9,14; 176:3, 19; 77:2,9,13; 178:21; 179:20; 181:2, 7,17,22; 182:5; 183:7; 185:14, 15; 187:2, 4; 188:8; 190:2,9; 191:9; 192:24; 193:4,8, 22; 194:15,25; 195:6, 12; 196:1,25; 198:2, 7,11, 21; 199:13; 200:4,10,16; 202:16,18, 23; 204:2; 205:2; 207:10, 13; 208:14,21,24; populations - right WATER PCB-SD0000022980 George Roush, Jr. VoL 2, March 18, 1993 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et al. 211:5; 214:24; 216:7, 9, 12,19; 218:15; 220:17; 21:22; 222:10; 223:15; 224:24 right-hand 128:6 rodents 162:3 role 126:17; 128:12, 19; 152:1 room 197:5 roughly 177:13; 182:14 ROUSH 125:1,7; 127:10; 137:13; 150:3; 158:25; 159:2, 4; 163:8,11,16; 164:10; 165:16; 167:17,19,25; 168:19,19; 173:5; 181:15, 21; 199:6; 200:21; 211:6, 23; 215:9; 219:9,18; 223:9; 226:14; 227:17, 19; 228:2, 12 Ruabon 205:23 rule 125:19; 139:14 rules 223:11 ruling 140:5 run 224:19 running 226:5 s S 132:9 safe 153:22 Safety 159:22; 222:2 sale 154:15 sales 138:15; 222:12 Same 155:20; 163:1; 165:20; 167:5; 168:13; 177:24; 182:15,21; 186:17; 187:8; 188:5, 25; 193:6,9; 196:23; 197:3,9; 209:19,21; 210:6,9; 214:8; 217:3,8 sampling 209:15 Savage 204:15; 205:3 saw 132:7 saying 178:19; 186:6; 217:9; 222:8 scattered 128:11,18 schematics 150:19 sciences 224:5, 6 scientific 223:2 scope 196:12; 197:21, 24; 198:3, 5; 206:9; 208:18; 209:24; 213:14; 214:9; 226:7 Seal 228:17 second 125:7; 160:2; 169:24; 170:1, 2; 178:9, 25; 179:6; 183:22; 209:7; 213:4 section 136:25; 137:1,6; 138:15; 139:20; 193:14; 211:10 sections 185:6 semicontinuous 132:10 sent 149:13 sentence 185:20; 193:13,18, 21; 194:1,3,12; 195:2,7; 209:13 separate 151:16 September 167:20; 168:1; 169:14,17; 171:5; 228:19 set 150:3; 169:13; 184:25;199:21; 200:1; 228:1 Several 180:3,4; 181:12, 14 share 162:19 shared 217:21 sharing 162:18 Sheet 131:8 sheets 131:11; 222:2 short 148:21; 149:25;158:23; 173:4; 210:3 shorthand 227:24 shortly 180:17 show 126:20; 131:20; 132:3,16; 133:1,10;136:23; 137:9; 149:3; 159:3; 163:12; 172:9; 176:22; 177:2,3; 178:5; 184:19; 203:10; 205:16; 206:19; 208:25, 25; 209:4, 15; 219:9 showed 156:22; 166:14; 168:17; 172:9; 178:7; 180:13; 183:11; 199:8; 205:13 showing 141:1; 203:16; 209:25; 218:7 shown 164:11; 166:14; 167:15; 168:7; 172:24; 179:6; 190:10; 193:11; 195:3; 215:19,20, 25; 227:23 shows 208:14 side 128:6 signature 127:1,10 signed 126:25; 129:2, 6; 199:10 significance 128:5 similar 195:17; 205:9 simply 127:23 Sinclair 158:12,13, 19; 159:6,8,10; 162:17, 19; 163:5 Sinclair's 159:17 six 172:25; 209:16 sixteen 213:23 sixty 201:13 size 190:24; 192:6 skin 136:7; 211:14, 15, 24; 212:7,19; 213:9 slides 186:17,20, 22; 187:13; 215:12, 19, 21,25 sludge 132:10 sold 151:6; 222:12 somebody 210:21; 220:10; 221:4 somehow 175:20; 204:21 someone 129:20; 146:19; 147:6, 9,15, 21; 191:12; 220:13, 19; 226:5 something 135:1; 137:1; 196:4; 198:19; 225:8 sometime 150:4, 6 sorry 131:5 sort 204:17 sound 227:19 speak 143:2, 5,8, 12,15,18, 21; 144:7; 154:4; 158:15,19; 210:21 speaking 146:21 special 207:6 specialist 161:25 specialty 161:22 specific 185:13; 187:15, 18 specifically 170:14; 193:17 specification 224:10 specifications 154:9,10 speculate 155:14 speculating 152:21 speculation 134:2; 140:16 speculative 177:19 spell 189:2 spelled 189:1 split 217:22 spoke 143:25 spoken 125:11; 222:11 Squires 186:17; 216:11,18,20; 217:6, 7; 225:21, 22 SS 227:1 St 204:5,10,13,16; 205:3; 227:2,13; 228:18 staff 162:13 standard 221:11 started 160:21; 172:14; 202:11 State 132:21,21; 159:25; 170:3; 226:20; 227:1,4,14; 228:23 stated 151:19; 183:19; 216:11, 20 statement 158:5,9; 169:17; 173:17 statements 142:2, 5; 168:23 States 140:11,24; 159:17; 160:1; 180:15; 182:18; 188:16; 227:8 statistically 167:15 status 162:9 stays 186:4 still 125:8; 165:9,11; 171:6; 204:25 stricken 168:24 strike 154:21; 175:25; 186:24 strong 201:10 stuck 204:17 student 172:21 studied 174:16,18, 20, 23 studies 144:12,20, 25; 145:5; 146:25; 149:14; 183:1; 189:8; 193:11; 206:6; 223:23; 224:20 study 149:3,7; 158:9; 161:4; 162:22; 163:1,4; 165:7,17, 22; 166:3,17,21; 168:4; 169:14, 21; 170:7,11,21; 171:10,10,15,18; 172:1,11,13,16, 24; 173:12; 174:1,5,8, 12,12,15; 175:1, 3, 4; 185:5; 207:6; 223:24 studying 162:1,8 subject 145:12; 148:4; 182:14; 197:22; 210:1 submission 200:5 submitted 188:17 Subscribed 226:15; 228:7 subsection 193:14 sufficient 135:24 suggest 190:6 suit 228:10 Suite 227:13 summarize 195:3 supposed 220:23 sure 148:15; 153:4; 167:4; 173:3; 180:20; 214:19; 222:4 survey 157:20 suspect 129:3; 155:11; 210:11 Swan 176:10 swelling 211:16; 212:25 sworn 125:2; 226:15; 227:21 syntheses 128:11 synthesis 128:18 systemic 213:10 T T 227:3; 228:22 table 207:21, 25 talk 193:10; 223:22; 224:5 talking 127:25; 131:7; 141:15; 153:1; 162:2; 180:10; 191:1, 19;192:12,13; 196:3; 216:8 talks 166:15; 183:23 target 139:22 techniques 206:9 temperature 197:4, 6, 6,16; 199:4 ten 191:16,17; 192:14,16,19 tend 197:17 term 134:19; 184:12; 185:24; 198:10; 200:23 terms 179:20; 192:6; 198:15 Test 143:9; 147:22; 224:11 testified 150:4; 159:15; 169:22; 177:4; 190:12; 200:6; 202:13; 224:8; 227:22 testify 207:18; 227:21 testimony 154:2; 175:10; 179:9; 195:17; 215:11,18; 221:23; 227:23; 228:1,6 testing 183:9; 209:14; 226:6 tests 180:15; 183:5 thereto 228:3 Thereupon 129:17; 130:11; 137:21; 140:2; 144:17; 145:9; 148:21; 149:17, 21, 25; 152:25; 158:23, 25; 163:8; 167:17; 168:12; 173:4; 181:15; 200:18; 210:3; 212:3; 227:22 they'd 220:4 They're 204:23; 221:20 third 162:16;209:10; 216:6 thirty 214:20 though 167:14; 204:19; 211:23 thought 141:21 thousand 191:15; 192:10, 17, 19 three 170:3,10; 185:3; 207:21,22; 208:22; 216:2; 225:19, 20 three-page 163:11 thrown 148:3 thus 216:23 ties 155:10 times 134:20; 192:19 tion 155:14; 165:9; 166:22; 176:20; 183:2; 223:23; 225:13 tioning 164:7 tissues 189:21 title 153:4 titled 137:7 today 126:24; 154:2; 178:7; 221:1 together 128:24; 228:2 told 176:12; 183:18; 211:1 took 176:13 top 185:3; 188:15 toxic 136:8; 149:4,8, 8; 193:18; 194:4; 195:3; 211:13; 212:12, 17,22 toxicity 135:19; 223:2 toxicological 226:6 toxicologist 162:7; 222:20; 226:1 trabecular 217:3; 218:5 tract 133:15 trained 224:25; 225:10 training 219:2; 224:16, 25 transcribed 227:24; 228:6 transcript 227:23; 228:4 trial 227:11 trip 179:17; 180:14, 15,16; 181:13 true 129:1;201:18; 219:3; 228:4 truth 125:3,3,3; 227:21, 21, 22 trying 131:24; 147:14; 216:15 Tucker 132:9 turn 207:21; 211:6 twenty 214:3, 5,11 right-hand - twenty Min-U-Script Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 WATER PCB-SD0000022981 Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto Company, et al. Twenty-two 214:4, 5,16 twice 209:17 two 170:4; 188:15; 191:15; 192:10,17, 19,19; 201:13; 202:4,6; 204:23; 206:8; 207:21,25; 216:5; 217:9 two-page 181:18 two-thousand-part s-per-million 191:2 type 185:13 typewriting 227:25 u U.S 170:18 undated 132:5; 137:11 under 125:8; 193:14; 206:8; 207:21, 25; 208:10; 209:13; 211:10; 213:4 undergo 207:12 understood 201:6 undertake 210:25 undetermined 227:7 unit 157:20; 160:12; 170:16; 173:15, 22; 176:24 United 140:11,24; 160:1; 227:8 University 161:15, 17, 19; 188:4 unless 221:6 unrealistic 128:13, 20 up 128:7; 131:15; 141:13; 199:4; 218:13 upon 129:9; 164:9; 215:8 upper 133:14 use 197:7 used 134:5,17; 147:18; 150:22; 176:5; 221:2, 2; 227:11 V vague 152:6,20; 177:18 valid 147:1 vapor 135:25; 196:4, 7,10,14,15; 197:1, 2, 7,8,10, 18,18,19; 198:8,13,14,17,19, 24,25 vapors 133:8 variety 157:11 various 151:1; 179:17; 181:5; 182:8; 215:12; 225:7 versus 140:11,24; 191:15; 192:19,21 view 217:21 views 184:25 virtue 196:17 visit 179:22; 180:16; 181:12; 182:10; 187:5 visited 188:9; 193:10 visits 182:6 vs 227:10 w W 166:22; 204:12 W.G 157:7 Washington 142:12; 179:17; 181:4; 182:2; 189:12 Watt 136:18 way 131:2; 157:23; 160:17; 193:24; 214:8; 217:20; 219:7; 221:11, 24 ways 218:16 Weber 181:21 week 168:16; 180:5 Westinghouse 134:5; 135:14,19, 22; 227:17 Westinghouse's 136:6 What's 137:19; 177:2; 178:5; 179:6; 203:10; 214:25 Where's 169:15 whereas 201:17 who's 159:10 whole 125:3; 168:25; 176:1; 227:21 whose 136:10; 156:6; 158:8 Wide 157:11 widely 128:11,18 Wilmer 142:11 withdraw 157:22 within 131:17; 139:9; 142:18; 143:5, 24; 145:25; 146:4,7, 19; 147:6,9,21; 149:12; 153:8; 211:1; 221:19,24,25; 222:15,19, 22; 226:20; 227:3,8; 228:23 without 220:24 WITNESS 127:11, 13; 139:13; 140:18; 148:9; 149:20; 152:22; 165:9; 168:8, 25; 202:17; 203:17; 204:25; 207:1,17; 210:1,4;213:24; 214:2; 216:17; 217:8; 218:8; 227:17,19; 228:1,6, 7,15, 17 witness's 217:6 word 126:14; 134:8; 150:22; 206:24, 24 wording 129:20; 209:13 words 161:9 work 125:16; 126:8; 128:22; 129:13; 131:14; 135:11; 146:8,9; 157:6; 158:20; 160:21, 24; 161:8; 162:10; 163:21, 24; 167:16; 193:24; 197:17; 201:16, 22; 205:13; 206:11 workday 192:15 worked 133:13; 146:25; 157:25; 170:16; 201:4; 218:23 worker 192:13; 219:23 workers 133:7,15; 157:20; 159:25; 160:12, 22; 163:5, 25; 165:23; 166:3, 17, 22; 168:4; 170:7, 12; 171:11; 172:1, 2, 12; 173:15, 21; 174:2, 3,14,16, 20, 23; 175:5; 191:14, 18; 192:12; 196:3; 213:6, 7; 219:12,15 working 126:1,4; 137:16, 25; 172:12; 191:12; 211:1; 221:25; 222:16, 20, 23 Works 135:7,9 worth 223:13 worthwhile 147:16 Wright 125:12,13, 16,19, 20; 126:5, 7, 17; 127:16, 23; 128:17; 129:14; 130:3; 140:10,23; 141:4,11,19, 24; 142:6,9,16,19,22; 143:2, 6,10,13,25; 144:4, 5; 145:17,21, 24; 146:1, 5,9,10, 20, 21, 24; 147:23; 148:18; 199:18; 200:2, 8, 11,14 Wright's 125:24; 128:8; 139:7,10; 140:7; 200:4 write 199:24; 215:15 writes 162:17; 187:7 writing 138:5 written 129:5,9; 131:24; 135:18; 145:15,19; 152:13, 17; 153:2,14; 203:15 wrong 189:1; 202:14, 15, 17 wrote 129:25; 130:2; 149:6; 172:8 Y year 150:15 years 135:25; 213:5; 214:20 yesterday 125:11; 151:19:154:19; 156:23;168:18; 171:15:172:10; 175:9; 183:11,18; 190:11,12; 192:25; 194:11; 202:13 yours 153:24 Yusho 190:13,17, 20; 192:7; 194:5, 6, 13,15, 20; 195:1,2, 4, 5,9,16,19, 23; 210:20; 211:20, 22; 212:6, 12, 17, 22; 213:18, 21; 214:14, 18, 21, 25 z Zach 171:21,22, 23, 25; 172:4, 18, 22; 219:6 Concannon & Jaeger (314) 421-1000 Min-U-S cript George Roush, Jr. Vol. 2, March 18, 1993 Twenty-two - Zach WATER PCB-SD0000022982 This Page Intentionally Left Blank WATER PCB-SD0000022983