Document Neeyg3Gq19RRLz5G9Rz1a15Xy

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ST. LOUIS COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI 1 EDWARD COLELLA, Plaintiff, vs. 7 MONSANTO CO., ET AL., 8 Defendants. No. 0 9SL-CC01972 Division No. 15 10 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ST. LOUIS COUNTY 11 STATE OF MISSOURI 12 13 NISHIDA, NICHOLAS WHITE, Individually and as 14 Survivor of MARK WHITE, Deceased, and ALISON 15 TUCKER, 16 Plaintiffs, 17 vs. 18 MONSANTO CO., ET AL., No. 0 9SL-CC019 64 Division No. 15 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF E. SCOTT TUCKER III 23 TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS 24 MARCH 9, 2011 25 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054205 1 INDEX 2 WITNESSES 3 All Witnesses: 4 E. SCOTT TUCKER, III for Plaintiffs Examination by Mr. Jensen 5 6 EXHIBITS 7 Exhibit 1 List of testimony since 2006 8 Exhibit 2 Curriculum Vitae 9 Exhibit 3 10/21/68 memo from 10 Elmer Wheeler to Bill Richard 11 Exhibit 4 Aroclor - Wildlife 12 Problem, Rough Draft 13 Exhibit 5 Excepts from gas chromatography 14 symposium, August 1957 15 Exhibit 6 3/4/69 memo from Scott Tucker to Bill Richard 16 Exhibit 7 5/26/69 memo from Elmer 17 Wheeler to Bill Richard 18 Exhibit 8 3/6/69 memo from Bill Richard to Elmer 19 Wheeler 20 Exhibit 9 July 1961 article by Harold Weingarten 21 Exhibit 10 June 1960 article by 22 Harold Weingarten 23 Exhibit 11 May 1961 article by Harold Weingarten 24 Exhibit 12 Final Report on Aroclor 25 in Gasses, May 15, 1954 Page 7 11 15 33 103 159 179 182 194 209 209 209 212 2 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054206 1 Exhibit 13 Journal of Analytical Chemistry article, 2 January 1947 3 Exhibit 14 October 1947 article by L.W. Daasch 4 Exhibit 15 AMA Archives of 5 Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Medicine 6 article, 1951 7 8 (Exhibits attached.) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 226 235 240 3 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054207 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ST. LOUIS COUNTY 2 STATE OF MISSOURI 3 4 EDWARD COLELLA, 5 Plaintiff, 6 vs. 7 MONSANTO CO. , ET AL. , ) ) ) ) No. 0 9SL-CC01972 ) ) Division No. 15 ) 8 Defendants. ) 9 ** 10 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ST. LOUIS COUNTY 11 STATE OF MISSOURI 12 13 NISHIDA, NICHOLAS WHITE Individually and as ) 14 Survivor of MARK WHITE, ) Deceased, and ALISON ) 15 TUCKER, ) ) 16 Plaintiffs, ) ) No. 0 9SL-CC019 64 17 vs. ) ) Division No. 15 18 MONSANTO CO., ET AL., ) ) 19 Defendants. 20 21 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF WITNESS, 22 DR. E. SCOTT TUCKER III, produced, sworn and 23 examined on the 9th day of March, 2011, between 24 the hours of eight o'clock in the forenoon and 25 six o'clock in the afternoon of that day, at the 4 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054208 1 offices of Husch Blackwell Sanders, 190 2 Carondelet Plaza, St. Louis, Missouri, before 3 Tara Schwake, a Certified Realtime Reporter and 4 Notary Public within and for the State of 5 Illinois, in a certain cause now pending in the 6 Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, State 7 of Missouri, wherein Edward Colella is Plaintiff 8 and Monsanto Co., et al., are Defendants; and 9 wherein Nishida, Nicholas White, et al., are 10 Plaintiffs and Monsanto Co., et al., are 11 Defendants. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054209 1 APPEARANCES 2 3 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: 4 ALLEN STEWART, PC 5 Republic Center 6 325 North St. Paul Street, Suite 2750 7 Dallas, Texas 75201 8 (214) 965-8705 9 by: Mr. Steve Baughman Jensen 10 sj ensen@alienstewart.com 11 12 FOR THE DEFENDANTS: 13 HUSCH BLACKWELL SANDERS, LLC 14 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600 15 St. Louis, Missouri 63105 16 (314) 480-1500 17 by: Mr. Charles E. Merrill 18 Charles.merrill@huschblackwell.com 19 20 ALSO PRESENT: 21 Ms. Tara Schwake, CRR, RPR 22 Mr. John Niehaus, Legal Videographer 23 24 25 6 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054210 1 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED 2 by and between Counsel for the Plaintiffs and 3 Counsel for the Defendants that this deposition 4 may be taken by Tara Schwake, Notary Public and 5 Certified Realtime Reporter, thereafter 6 transcribed into typewriting, with the signature 7 of the witness being expressly reserved. 8 9 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're on the 10 record. Today's date is March 9th, 2011, and the 11 time is 9:58 a.m. This is the videotaped 12 deposition of Dr. E. Scott Tucker, III, in the 13 matter of Edward Colella versus Monsanto, et al., 14 Case No. 09SL-CC0197 2, in the Missouri Circuit 15 Court, 21st Judicial Circuit, St. Louis County. 16 This deposition is being held at 17 Husch Blackwell Sanders in Clayton, Missouri. 18 The reporters's name is Tara Schwake, my name is 19 John Niehaus, we are with Midwest Litigation 20 Services. 21 Will counsel please identify 22 themselves for the record? 23 MR. JENSEN: Steve Jensen for the 24 plaintiffs. 25 MR. MERRILL: And Charlie Merrill 7 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054211 -X -X -X -X -X 1 from Husch Blackwell for the defendants. 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: If you could 3 please swear in the witness? 4 5 E. SCOTT TUCKER, III, 6 Of lawful age, having been produced, sworn, and 7 examined on the part of the Plaintiffs, testified 8 as follows: 9 EXAMINATION 10 QUESTIONS BY MR. JENSEN: 11 Q Good morning, Dr. Tucker. 12 A Morning, Steve. 13 Q We met beforehand, but if you would 14 state your name and your address for the record, 15 please? 16 A Absolutely. My name is Dr. E. 17 Scott Tucker, and as we discussed earlier, III. 18 I live in a city close to Greenville, South 19 Carolina, and I'm going to try to talk slowly, 20 I'm sorry. It's a town called Liberty, South 21 Carolina, and the exact address is 261 North 22 McAllister Road, Liberty, South Carolina, 29657. 23 Q All right. Are you currently 24 engaged in full-time employment? 25 A I do not have a W2 position in that 8 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054212 1 way. No, I don't work for any company full time 2 right at the moment. I have a real estate 3 business, I have a hay and horse farm, and I have 4 a consulting business, so it keeps me busy. 5 Q And you've been deposed before, 6 have you not, Dr. Tucker? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q On approximately how many 9 occasions? 10 A In what time period? I mean -11 Q Ever. 12 A Oh, gosh. You know, I really don't 13 know. It would probably be ten plus, I would 14 guess, at least. 15 Q So you know the general ground 16 rules, you've been through this before, I'm going 17 to be asking you questions. If you don't 18 understand the question, I'd like for you to let 19 me know that so we can be sure that we're 20 communicating properly. Is that okay with you? 21 A That's absolutely all right with 22 me. If there are other ground rules that you 23 feel are particularly important and you want to 24 go over them, I don't mind. 25 Q Well, basically the main thing is 9 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054213 1 if you don't understand my question, you're going 2 to let me know that you don't understand it, and 3 we'll try and either rephrase or make sure that 4 we're communicating properly. 5 And as far as breaks go, if you 6 just ask -- answer whatever question I've asked 7 you before you request a break, I'd appreciate 8 it. 9 A Okay, good. We can accomplish 10 that, I think. 11 Q The other ground rule that every 12 deponent needs to try to follow, and it's also 13 something I have to try to follow and Mr. Merrill 14 has to try to follow, and we'll all probably mess 15 up during the course of the deposition, it's for 16 the benefit of the court reporter, which is she 17 can only take down one person talking at a time. 18 So let's try not to interrupt each 19 other while we're -- while we're having this 20 little conversation. Okay? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q All right. So of the approximately 23 ten plus times that you've been deposed, how many 24 of those or what percentage of those had to do 25 with PCBs? 10 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054214 1 A My guess is probably around 90 2 percent. 3 MR. JENSEN: Okay. I see that Mr. 4 Merrill has brought with him today a copy of a 5 document that's entitled Nishida, et al. versus 6 Monsanto and Colella, et al. versus Monsanto, 7 List of Dr. Scott Tucker Testimony Since 2006. 8 And I'll mark a copy of that as Exhibit 1. 9 (Exhibit 1 marked for 10 identification by counsel for plaintiffs.) 11 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Dr. Tucker, is 12 this list as far as you know a complete list of 13 every case in which you have been deposed from 14 2006 to the present time? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And both of those cases involved 17 PCBs in some way? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Was Monsanto a defendant in both of 20 those cases? Or do you know? 21 A Yes, I think they were, weren't 22 they? I'm trying to remember. 23 MR. MERRILL: I don'tthink that 24 Monsanto was a party inAppleton. 25 A No, you're absolutelyright, I 11 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054215 apologize. In the initial one was Solutia; of course, Solutia was associated with Monsanto. And then the Appleton, it was more a deal between Appleton/NCR Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Okay. A Is that clear enough? I'm sorry about that. Q No, that -- I -- I think I understand, but just to follow up, the Appleton Papers and NCR Corporation versus Whiting Paper case, did that have to do with pollution -- PCB pollution from NCR's carbonless copy paper production? A Yes, associated with Fox River in Wisconsin. Q Okay. And that was a dispute between different companies about who should have to pay for the cleanup; is that correct? A That's correct. Q All right. And what was the nature generally of your testimony in that case? A My testimony had to do primarily, I think, with Monsanto's communication with the principals, NCR specifically, in terms of when we had given them information and the detail and the 12 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054216 1 type of information we had given them in terms of 2 what they knew, when they knew, and how they knew 3 it. 4 Q Okay. And Solutia and Pharmacia 5 versus McWane, the first case on Exhibit 1, what 6 did that case have to do with, to the best of 7 your knowledge and recollection? 8 A My recollection is had to do with 9 the cleanup of the Anniston, Alabama, site, and 10 it had to do with the distribution of the costs 11 relative to PCB and other contaminants. 12 Q All right. 13 A That's my best recollection. 14 Q Okay. And what generally was the 15 nature of your testimony in that matter? 16 A In both of these matters, it had to 17 do with my background as an expert and as a 18 factual witness. Actually, as a factual witness 19 in these cases relative to my experience with 20 Monsanto and PCBs. 21 Q All right. Have you evergiven 22 trial testimony? 23 A Yes. 24 Q All right. Onapproximately how 25 many occasions have you given trial testimony? 13 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054217 1 A I think one specific one, 2 Transwestern, back in about 1993, and it occurred 3 in Los Angeles, California, was the court. 4 Q And is that a case that involved a 5 suit by Transwestern Pipeline against Monsanto? 6 A Yes. 7 Q And Transwestern was saying that 8 Monsanto should be held responsible for 9 contamination of a natural gas pipeline? 10 A That's correct. 11 Q All right. And whatwas the nature 12 of your trial testimony in that case? 13 A Again, my testimony was as a fact 14 witness primarily, although I did talk a lot 15 about my area of expertise which, of course, is 16 PCBs and analytical chemistry. 17 Q Okay. Have you testified in any 18 other trials? 19 A I think there's been a couple that 20 I have over the years. One had to do with a 21 super sun -- Superfund site that I was associated 22 with in Lock Haven, Pennsylvania. 23 It was a cleanup, and it involved a 24 suit where Greenpeace was suing us not to -- so 25 we wouldn't be able to clean it up because they 14 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054218 1 didn't want us to do that. And so I was with the 2 Department of Justice, I testified with them in 3 that suit, which we were successful in cleaning 4 up the site. 5 Q So I take it that one had nothing 6 to do with you presenting any factual information 7 related to your time at Monsanto. Correct? 8 A That's correct. 9 Q All right. Any other trials 10 besides the two that you've mentioned? 11 A No. None -- none that I can 12 recollect at the moment. 13 Q Do you recall the outcome of the 14 Transwestern trial? 15 A I don't recall the specific 16 settlement, things of that sort. I know that - 17 I know that it went -- a lot of it went in 18 Monsanto's favor, there was no question about 19 that. 20 (Exhibit 2 marked for 21 identification by counsel for plaintiffs.) 22 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Now putting an 23 exhibit sticker for Exhibit 2 on what counsel has 24 kindly brought, a copy of your Curriculum Vitae. 25 Is that a true and correct copy of your current 15 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054219 1 CV, Dr. Tucker? 2 A Yes, it is. I think it goes beyond 3 the level of a CV because it has like -- you 4 know, other than like a Curriculum Vitae, but - 5 but it -- because there were three items I think 6 that were asked for in the reliance situation, 7 you know, job -- what you did over the years and 8 -- and that kind of thing, I can't remember, I'd 9 have to look at it. You - 10 MR. MERRILL: We're talking about 11 the notice, he's - 12 MR. JENSEN: Right. 13 A But it covers everything you had 14 asked for. 15 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) And so do I take 16 it, Doctor, that you actually prepared this 17 version of Exhibit 2 specifically for this case? 18 A No. 19 Q Oh, okay. 20 A I updated it specifically for this 21 case. 22 Q Okay. Fair enough. How old are 23 you, Dr. Tucker? 24 A How old am I? 25 Q Uh-huh. 16 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054220 1 A Seventy-one. 2 Q Seventy-one. And I see you got 3 your Associate's in 1961 from the University of 4 Michigan at Flint; is that correct? 5 A That's correct. 6 Q And a Bachelor's of Science in 7 analytical chemistry from Michigan State two 8 years after that? 9 A Yes, sir. 10 Q And then finally you gotyour Ph.D. 11 from the University of Iowa in analytical/organic 12 chemistry in 1968. Correct? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q All right. When you gotyour 15 Bachelor's degree from Michigan State in 16 analytical chemistry, I assume that in order to 17 get that degree, you had to take a lot of 18 laboratory courses; is that fair to say? 19 A Correct. 20 Q All right. And apparently your 21 concentration at that point was already in 22 analytical chemistry, right? 23 A The reason it says analytical 24 chemistry was because I had an NSF undergraduate 25 research grant that -- while I was there, and I 17 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054221 1 did work with one of the major professors who 2 then recommended me for graduate school and that 3 kind of stuff, and he was an analytical chemist. 4 Q Okay. And what was the nature of 5 the project that you worked on as a result of the 6 grant? 7 A The grant was non-specific as far 8 as the project was concerned; however, the things 9 I worked on were primarily electrochemistry and 10 those kinds of techniques, which he was 11 interested in. 12 Q All right. What type of analytical 13 chemistry methods were you using during your 14 undergraduate training at Michigan State? 15 A Certainly all the classical ones. 16 The instrumentation things at that -- in -- that 17 was in 1963 that I graduated from there, if I 18 remember correctly. 19 The instrumentation at that level, 20 they had the instruments, but they weren't 21 generally used by the students at an 22 undergraduate level and things of that sort, but 23 I had access to most everything I wanted. I did 24 some really early TC/GC work and things of that 25 sort just from a familiarization, because the 18 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054222 1 professor I worked for was interested in 2 educating me, and he was a very, very good 3 teacher, and we had a nice relationship. 4 Q Okay. And for the benefit of the 5 record, when you say "TC/GC," what does that 6 mean? 7 A It's a thermal conductivity 8 detector associated with a very rudimentary GC at 9 that time. 10 Q And GC is a gas chromatograph? 11 A Yes, sorry about that. 12 Q Okay. 13 A That's a synonym, or -- that -- or 14 whatever you want to call it, that I use so 15 frequently, that that is correct what it stands 16 for, gas chromatograph. 17 Q Okay. So at the time of your 18 undergraduate work at the -- at Michigan State, 19 Michigan State's lab that -- that you were 20 trained in had -- had a gas chromatograph with a 21 thermal conductivity - 22 A Yes. 23 Q -- detector? 24 A Yes. 25 Q All right. Do you know one way or 19 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054223 1 the other whether Michigan State's lab at that 2 time had a flame ionization detector? 3 A They could have. You know, at that 4 stage of the game, those weren't my missions in 5 life. My mission in life was to graduate, so. 6 Q You don't -- you don't -- I take it 7 you also don't know whether at that time Michigan 8 State's analytical chemistry lab had a GC with a 9 electron capture detector? 10 A No, I don't. And in fact -- well, 11 I'd be surprised if they did, but -- because that 12 was just shortly after the ECD, which is again 13 electron capture detector, came along. 14 Q But you're not -- you don't know. 15 A No. Like I said earlier. 16 Q All right. Then you went to the 17 University of Iowa and got your Ph.D. Was there 18 any -- did you go directly from graduating at 19 Michigan State to enrolling at the University of 20 Iowa? 21 A Yes. 22 Q All right. And do you recall what 23 kind of instrumentation you were using during 24 your graduate training at University of Iowa? 25 A Yes. 20 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054224 1 Q What was that? 2 A Well, the first semester I was 3 there, I was -- I was a graduate teaching 4 assistantship. And then after I had been there, 5 then I received a NASA trainingship grant for the 6 research that I was going to do. 7 And the research I did was 8 synthesizing chelates to react with metal ions of 9 interest to form colors that could be used to 10 measure them in all sorts of different places and 11 things of that sort. 12 So the instrumentation that I used 13 in terms of what I was doing, I did a lot of 14 synthetic organic chemistry. I did a lot of 15 studying of structural organic chemistry to 16 develop the kinds of lignins, they call them, 17 things that coordinate with -- chelate with 18 metals. 19 Q Okay. 20 A So that I could design the 21 molecules that I needed to do the job. And then 22 to evaluate how they did the job, we used things 23 like UV visible spectrometers, we used nuclear 24 magnetic resonance. 25 Pretty much since I was trying to 21 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054225 1 determine what I had and what I didn't have and 2 what it looked like and things of that -- we used 3 pretty much every -- any kind of instrumentation 4 that the university had at that time. 5 University of Iowa is, you know, a 6 big ten university, so they pretty much were at 7 the forefront in terms of research and that kind 8 of thing. So pretty much whatever was available 9 at that time, I got to use. 10 Q All right. Did the University of 11 Iowa while you were there have a mass 12 spectrometer? 13 A I'm sure they did. I did not use 14 the mass spectrometer there. 15 Q Okay. 16 A You know, I'm not so sure they did. 17 I don't know. I should be more clear about that. 18 Q Okay. And based on your 19 description, it doesn't sound like for your 20 research, your primary research on your graduate 21 work, that you were making use of gas 22 chromatography; is that correct? 23 A That's correct. 24 Q Did you have any courses in gas 25 chromatography at the graduate level at 22 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054226 1 University of Iowa? 2 A Yes. 3 Q And what kinds of, if you recall, 4 what kinds of detectors for the gas chromatograph 5 were you taught about in your graduate 6 coursework? 7 A Certainly the thermal conductivity, 8 or TC detectors. Certainly a universal detector 9 that's referred to as a flame ionization 10 detector, FID is again how they refer to that. 11 Let's see. I graduated from Iowa 12 in 1966, '60 -- '67, I think, or '68 was when I 13 was awarded the degree. I'm sure from a 14 theoretical viewpoint, they covered electronic 15 capture detectors too, but they were fairly new. 16 Q And do you recall one way or the 17 other whether the University of Iowa had an 18 electron capture detector? 19 A No. You had asked about 20 coursework, right? 21 Q I did. 22 A That was a separate question not 23 related to the first one? Okay, fine. Thank 24 you. I want to make sure I answered it 25 correctly. 23 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054227 1 Q Two different questions. Right. 2 As far as you can recall, when was 3 the first time you had the opportunity personally 4 to use a gas chromatograph with an electron 5 capture detector? 6 A After Dr. Keller, who we will 7 probably come across later, who was the head of 8 the applied sciences section at Monsanto whom I 9 worked for, discussed with me the Jensen and 10 Widmark work that had been published in about -11 I think the first unpublished information came 12 out in 1966, and it had to do with -- with PCBs 13 being found in weathered samples that they were 14 analyzing, they were pesticide chemists in 15 Sweden. 16 And I was asked to review that 17 article, and, you know, after I reviewed the 18 article, because we -- I found out we had 19 interest in it as Monsanto, then I began to look 20 around and see what we had that we could do the 21 same thing. So it would be in 19 -- sometime 22 after 1968 toward the end of the year. 23 Q All right. 24 A Would have been the earliest. 25 Q Okay. I have asked you a question 24 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054228 1 that's asked -- required you to jump ahead in my 2 little chronology here, but let me - 3 A I apologize for that. 4 Q No, no, no, that's not your fault, 5 that's mine. Let me ask you a question, when did 6 you start working at Monsanto? 7 A Okay. That's good. I started 8 working at Monsanto in late 1967. The degree 9 that I got from the University of Iowa was 10 awarded in '68, and the reason it was awarded in 11 '68 was because my typist -- we didn't have 12 computers and all the good stuff we have today - 13 didn't meet the deadline. 14 So I didn't get my thesis submitted 15 because of that, and so rather than just hang 16 around the university, I went to work for 17 Monsanto. And then I came back and defended my 18 thesis in '68 when it was awarded. 19 Q All right. 20 A So the answer to that question is 21 complex, but I went to Monsanto late 1967, and 22 then officially in '68. 23 Q Do you recall how you first got in 24 contact with Monsanto? 25 A Yeah, I do, as a matter of fact. 25 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054229 1 Recruiters for most of the chemical companies and 2 companies who were interested in analytical 3 chemists came to the university and scheduled 4 opportunities for the candidates who were 5 graduating to meet with them, if they were 6 interested. And it was kind of a bumper year, I 7 think I had something like thirty trip offers. 8 Monsanto was one of the ones that 9 had offered me a trip to come down, and what that 10 trip was, was they paid your way to come down and 11 show you what they did, how they did it, and 12 explain to you what you would do if you worked 13 for them. And of course, compensation and all 14 that kind of good thing too. 15 So that's how it happened. 16 Q So sometime in late 1967, you 17 started working at Monsanto. Correct? 18 A Correct. 19 Q Who were you directly reporting to 20 at Monsanto when you started? 21 A As I mentioned earlier, as I got 22 ahead of myself, and I did apologize for that, I 23 was working for a gentleman named Dr. Robert E. 24 Keller. 25 Q And at that time Dr. Keller was the 26 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054230 1 head of applied scientists -- sciences at 2 Monsanto; is that correct? 3 A Correct. 4 Q And what was your job title when 5 you were hired? 6 A I think I was hired as a senior 7 research chemist at that time. 8 Q What were your job responsibilities 9 when you were hired? 10 A Well, I think it's more in terms of 11 what were the responsibilities of the applied 12 science section within the company of Monsanto, 13 would give you a better view, if you don't mind. 14 Q Okay. Tell me that. 15 A Dr. Keller ran a section, it was 16 called the applied sciences which provided all 17 the analytical support for the organic chemical 18 division of Monsanto. 19 So the requirement for the applied 20 sciences was to provide any and all techniques 21 that the organic chemical division needed to 22 develop new products, to monitor existing 23 products, to modify those kinds of products. 24 Whenever they needed to measure something, they 25 would come to us, and we would either have the 27 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054231 1 technique in-house or we would develop it for 2 them. 3 Q Were there any people -- when you 4 first started in 1967 at Monsanto, were there any 5 people working under you? 6 A No. 7 Q Do you recall initially when you 8 started in late 1967 what your initial projects 9 were for the applied sciences division? 10 A Yes, I do. Dr. Keller assigned me 11 to a group that we had that was called the 12 spectroscopy group, and the group leader of that 13 group, I then reported to him, and they had 14 interest in a new technique that was just coming 15 to fruition as an important analytical technique. 16 The technique was called atomic 17 absorption spectroscopy. And I got the 18 assignment of looking to see what would be the 19 best instrumentation for us to buy to do the 20 kinds of things we needed to do to analyze metals 21 at very low levels. 22 And then in addition to that, my 23 assignment was to go ahead and make up the 24 purchase orders and all the equipment we would 25 need, procure it with appropriate permission and 28 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054232 1 things of that sort. And then when it arrived, 2 to unbox it, put it together, learn how to use 3 it, teach everybody else how to use it, and prove 4 its efficacy for what we were -- needed it for. 5 Q Okay. 6 A It was successful. 7 Q That's good. 8 A Which is kind of cool. 9 Q Now, am I correct that that project 10 you just described with regard to atomic 11 absorption spectroscopy had nothing to do with 12 finding PCBs in the environment; is that fair to 13 say? 14 A You are correct in surmising that. 15 Q Okay. Approximately how long did 16 you work on the atomic absorption spectroscopy 17 problem? 18 A Probably -- I would guess, start to 19 finish, probably around six months or so. 20 Q And during that time frame, is it 21 fair to say you were spending all of your time or 22 close to all of your time on that project? 23 A Initially, yes. 24 Q During that first six months, that 25 was true? 29 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054233 1 A I would -- okay, yes. 2 Q What, if you recall, was the next 3 body of work that you started to work on at 4 Monsanto? 5 A Well, as I kind of alluded to 6 earlier when I got ahead of myself, Dr. Keller 7 called me in one day and asked me to review some 8 information that we had received from some of our 9 people in the UK regarding the work that was 10 being done in Sweden by Jensen and Widmark 11 relative to PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls. 12 Q All right. So - 13 A And -- I'm sorry, go ahead. 14 Q I didn't mean to interrupt you. 15 A That's fine. 16 Q Are you finished? 17 A No, no, I think I answered your 18 question. 19 Q Okay. 20 A I don't need to get too verbose 21 here, I don't think. 22 Q Well, I have a tendency to 23 interrupt people, so I apologize. 24 So this would have been roughly six 25 months after you started at Monsanto; is that 30 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054234 1 right? 2 A In that time range. 3 Q And that would be approximately 4 mid-1968 that we're talking about? 5 A Mid to -- to the -- to the third 6 quarter -- end of the third quarter, around in 7 those kinds of ranges. That was how many years 8 ago, do you think? 9 Q That's -- 10 A I'm just curious, I'm trying to 11 remember. 1968 to '70, so that was forty-three 12 years ago or something like that. So the best of 13 my recollection is that's pretty correct. Toward 14 the end of the third quarter, start of the fourth 15 quarter, in that range. 16 Q This was a long time ago. Have you 17 reviewed any documents in preparation for this 18 deposition? 19 A Absolutely. 20 Q All right. And have those 21 documents that you've reviewed to some extent 22 helped refresh your memory about when different 23 events occurred? 24 A Certainly. They increased my 25 resolution. 31 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054235 1 Q Good. Specifically. 2 Before Dr. Keller met with you and 3 provided you a copy of a paper by Jensen and 4 Widmark, had you ever heard of those two 5 scientists ? 6 A Heard of which now? 7 Q The two scientists who wrote that 8 paper, Jensen and Widmark - 9 A No. 10 Q -- did you know who they were? 11 A No. 12 Q All right. Had you before that 13 meeting done any work that related to PCBs, 14 either at Monsantoor in any of your schooling? 15 A No. 16 Q What was the first task that you 17 took on that was specifically related to PCBs? 18 A Well, the task was what -- the task 19 that I was assigned. I was given the information 20 that was available at that time. I was asked to, 21 as a -- as a, you know, state-of-the-art, brand 22 new Ph.D. analytical chemist who was schooled in 23 the expertise, I was asked to look it over and 24 give my opinion as to the validity of what these 25 gentlemen had done. 32 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054236 1 Q Prior to your being assigned that 2 task, what was your understanding about the 3 extent to which anyone else at Monsanto had 4 undertaken any portion of that task previously? 5 A None. 6 Q Okay. So nobody had done any work 7 on PCBs in the environment for Monsanto as far as 8 you knew prior to your assignment sometime in the 9 mid to late 1968? 10 A That's correct. 11 Now, let me clarify that question, 12 make sure I understood your question. You're 13 talking about in terms of analytical chemistry. 14 Q Right. 15 A Okay. Thank you. 16 (Exhibit 3 marked for 17 identification by counsel for plaintiffs.) 18 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Okay, Doctor, I 19 have marked a document as Exhibit 3, it's Bates 20 stamp No. MONS 097123, it's dated October 21st, 21 1968, and it is a memo from E.P. Wheeler to W.R. 22 Richard. Have I correctly identified the 23 document? 24 A Yes, you have. Let me ask you a 25 question. What would you like me to do with 33 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054237 1 Exhibit 2? 2 Q You can just stack the exhibits up 3 here. 4 A Stack them up here? And Exhibit 1, 5 what was the other one? Just -- 6 Q Right, 7 A Yeah. All right. Thank you. 8 Q Okay. 9 A Would you repeat your question? 10 Q Have I correctly identified the 11 document? 12 A Yes. 13 Q All right. And you are listed on 14 the right-hand side of this document. Correct? 15 A Yes, I am. 16 Q 17 before? All right. So you've seen this one 18 A Yes, I have. 19 Q Have you seen it in preparation for 20 today's deposition? 21 A Yes, I did. 22 Q Okay. 23 A At least, I'm pretty sure -- no, I 24 know I did. I'm pretty sure I did. I don't -- 25 Q Okay. The first paragraph says, 34 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054238 1 "Attached is a Xerox copy of a technical paper 2 which Scott Tucker and I picked up in Washington 3 recently. This was provided us by Donald A. 4 Spencer of the National Agricultural Chemicals 5 Association." 6 Did you go on a trip with Elmer 7 Wheeler to Washington, DC, in October of 1968? 8 A Yes. 9 Q What was the purpose of that trip? 10 A The purpose of that, if I can 11 remember -- well, Elmer Wheeler was -- worked, of 12 course, for Emmet Kelly, and he was in, kind of 13 in the area of toxicology and things of that 14 sort, and environmental and all that kind of 15 stuff, which was handled in that -- at that point 16 in time in -- under the auspices of the medical 17 department, if I remember correctly. 18 And so that was kind of Elmer's 19 interest, and he asked that I, if I recall 20 correctly, that I go along with him as the 21 analytical chemist, because apparently we were 22 going to talk to somebody about the PCBs. 23 Q All right. Do you recall whether 24 anyone besides you and Mr. Wheeler went on this 25 trip? 35 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054239 A No. Q No, you don't recall; or no, no one else went? A Both. Q Okay. As far as you recall, nobody else went? A Yes . Q That's it. A Excuse me. Q No, no, it's my fault. So apparently you met with a Mr. Spencer; is that correct? A I have no reason to argue with what it says in the memo, but I don't particularly remember exactly. Q All right. All right. A But I would say we probably -- that Elmer and I probably met with Dr. Spencer, yes. Q Do you recall who he is independently of this paper? A No. Q All right. What is the National Agricultural Chemicals Association? A I don't know. Q All right. Do you recall -- so 36 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054240 1 later on in the memo it describes the paper that 2 Mr. Spencer apparently provided to you and Mr. 3 Wheeler. Right? 4 A Yes, it was a pre-paper. It was an 5 un -- it was unpublished information that was in 6 the format of a paper being prepared to publish. 7 Q All right. And do you recall 8 receiving that pre-paper or unpublished 9 presentation? 10 A Yes, I do. 11 Q And that was a presentation by a 12 Dr. Robert Risebrough; is that correct? 13 A Yes, it is. It was. 14 Q And who was Dr. Risebrough? 15 A He was kind of like an analytical 16 chemist who was doing work in the area of 17 pesticides, especially DDT and those kinds of 18 things. He was located in California, and one of 19 his big concerns were peregrine falcons and 20 things of that sort. So that's what I remember. 21 Q Was this presentation by Dr. 22 Risebrough of importance to you and what you were 23 doing at that time? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Why was that? 37 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054241 1 A Well, what -- I'm sorry, we lost 2 our mike. 3 (Off the record.) 4 A Okay. Where were we? 5 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Why -- why was Dr. 6 Risebrough's presentation of importance to you at 7 the time? 8 A Okay. Be -- as I -- as I recall, 9 it was the first time that we had a report of, 10 even though it was a preliminary report, of 11 anyone indicating that they too were seeing the 12 same kinds of extraneous peaks in their gas 13 chromatograms as were seen by Jensen and Widmark, 14 and identified by Jensen and Widmark as penta and 15 hexa, if I remember correctly, polychlorinated 16 biphenyls. 17 And the importance of the paper to 18 us was that here was a gentleman who -- a 19 scientist who was analyzing environmental 20 samples, very much like Jensen and Widmark at 21 their institute did, and he was seeing the same 22 thing they saw. 23 And he decided that what he was 24 seeing, even though it wasn't an absolute 25 identification of PCBs like Jensen and Widmark 38 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054242 1 did, that, gee, he must be seeing the same thing 2 in his chromatograms that Jensen and Widmark did, 3 because most of the pesticide analytical chemists 4 used the same kinds of gas chromatography 5 procedures with electron capture detectors and 6 the same kind of cleanups and things of that sort 7 to analyze environmental samples. 8 Did I go -- I didn't go too fast 9 for the recorder? Okay, good. I'll try to pace 10 it that way, so. 11 Q All right. So this was -- Dr. 12 Risebrough's work was the first time that 13 Monsanto became aware of an American scientist 14 finding PCBs in the environment; is that right? 15 A I would adjust that to say that it 16 was the first time an American scientist had 17 reported that he thought that what he was seeing 18 was PCBs based on what Jensen and Widmark had 19 demonstrated were PCBs in their work. 20 At that point in time I don't think 21 Risebrough had done mass spec work or any of the 22 absolute identification techniques, but, you 23 know, it was -- it was a legitimate projection. 24 Q All right. What -- well, based on 25 your recollection of this prepublication 39 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054243 1 presentation by Dr. Risebrough, did he express 2 doubt about whether what he was seeing in terms 3 of peaks on the gas chromatograph were actually 4 PCBs ? 5 A No, actually, he expressed 6 enthusiasm that interferences in his methodology 7 had finally been assigned to something that might 8 make sense. Because the peaks that they were 9 seeing, they had been seeing forever, as long as 10 they had done that kind of analysis, and nobody 11 knew what they were. 12 And so this was the first 13 breakthrough where someone actually had good 14 information that absolutely identified some of 15 the peaks as being PCBs. And so he was very 16 excited about it because he had been pestered by 17 what the heck were those for ages. 18 Q Okay. And just to get down to - 19 to basics of analytical chemistry, Dr. Tucker, a 20 gas chromatograph is an instrument that is 21 designed to identify the components of mixtures 22 in a chemical mixture; is that correct? 23 A No. 24 Q Okay. Then tell -- tell me what a 25 gas chromatograph is. 40 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054244 A A gas chromatograph is only part of the system, and the gas chromatograph is designed to separate the constituents. That's it. Q All right. And you have to use a detector in order to do analysis with a gas chromatograph. Correct? A Correct. In addition to the separation that occurs up front through the gas chromatograph, you have to have something at the end of the gas chromatograph that detects the separated components that come out of it. Q Okay. So -- A So that's called the detector. Q Right. So is it fair to say that the purpose of the unit -- the assembled unit of a gas chromatograph together with some type of detector, the purpose is to identify components of a chemical mixture? A The purpose is to detect them. Q Okay. The purpose is to detect them. And the output of a gas chromatograph with some form of detector during this time frame, the late 1960s, would have been in the form of a -of a graph; is that right? A Actually, the output is an 41 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054245 1 electrical kind of output, a signal -- 2 Q Okay. 3 A -- so to speak, that went up and 4 down or down and up, whichever, or that went 5 along doing nothing. And that was monitored, and 6 usually was put out onto a -- as a graphed on 7 graph paper that was on a roll. I'm -- 8 Q Okay. But is it fair to say that 9 connected to the -- the device of the gas 10 chromatograph with the detector is some kind of 11 printer that would graph the output? 12 A It would have been nice, but at 13 that stage of the game, that wasn't the case. 14 Q Okay. 15 A What it was, wasthere was a 16 mechanical integrator that as the signal came out 17 and went up, and then disappeared as the thing 18 passed through the detector and it came back 19 down, it would measure the number of strokes that 20 it took over a small area here. 21 And then you could count the 22 strokes in that area, which was a measurement of 23 the area of the peak, you could then relate to 24 what was coming out in terms of a value. 25 Q All right. So - 42 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054246 1 A They didn't have computers, there 2 -- there was nothing like CSI in those days, 3 believe me, so. 4 Q All right. So are you telling me 5 that what would happen is -- well. Let me not 6 put -- try to put the words in your mouth. 7 How would the output of the gas - 8 the GC with the detector, whatever it was - 9 A Right. System. 10 Q -- how would -- how would the 11 output of that system get put on graph paper? 12 A Well, the electrical signal went 13 into a recorder, it was called, that the graph 14 paper that came out, and that recorder monitored 15 the signal. And when the signal came in, it 16 drove the pen up; and then when the signal 17 disappeared, the pen came back down. 18 At the -- along the bottom of that 19 graph paper was a mechanical integrator, which 20 was a pen that went back and forth, back and 21 forth, back and forth, and slowed down, that kind 22 of stuff. If you measured the number of strokes 23 that that made, then you could relate that to the 24 area under the peak. And that area under that 25 peak would relate to the component that was 43 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054247 1 coming out. 2 Prior to that, you had to know what 3 you were looking for. You had to have a standard 4 of it that you ran through the instrument, and - 5 multiple standards of varying concentrations. 6 And then you took the response that you got for 7 those, and you made sure it was in the linear 8 range, not where it flattened out and everything 9 was the same, and you plotted that. And you made 10 a plot of area versus concentration. 11 Q All right. 12 A And then when you ran that 13 component that you're talking about through the 14 instrument, and assuming it was the same thing 15 that you used to calibrate it for, you'd compare 16 the area you got there to the area on the 17 calibration curve, and that would tell you the 18 concentration in the sample that you had 19 introduced as a liquid into the gas 20 chromatograph. 21 Q All right. Well, thank you. Now 22 let's try and see if I can break that down a 23 little bit. The output from the integrator, I 24 take it from your response, Dr. Tucker, that a - 25 somebody in the laboratory would have to take 44 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054248 1 that output and translate it into a graph that 2 had an area under the curve for each peak; is 3 that correct? 4 A Yes . 5 Q All right. And you would 6 accomplish that by, you know, interpreting the 7 signals that had been put on the paper by the 8 integrator; is that right? 9 A It was -- it was simple but 10 arduous. You just simply counted the strokes -11 Q Okay. 12 A -- that the mechanicalintegrator 13 made down at the bottom under the peak, starting 14 where it started up and starting where it ended. 15 Q All right. 16 A And then you could relate that to 17 -- you knew the concentration which you put in. 18 Q Okay. Then the graph that you 19 would create would -- would have peaks that 20 represented the different components of the 21 mixture; is that correct? 22 A It depended upon whether you had 23 multi components or a single component, and it 24 depended upon whether you were looking at a 25 single component in a multi-component system or 45 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054249 1 not. 2 So the -- the simplest case to 3 understand is that you injected a sample that had 4 one predominant peak that you were looking at, 5 and you had standards that you knew that 6 represented that peak, in other words, you 7 already identified what it was. 8 And then you could say, okay, I 9 injected this sample and I compared it to the 10 calibration curve and it had X number of 11 micrograms or nanograms in it. And then you 12 could relate that back to the concentration -- to 13 the amount of the sample that you had gotten that 14 from, and you could report a concentration 15 present in whatever that matrix was. 16 I -- you could -- you could also - 17 if you had multi-component systems and they were 18 consistent, you could also do the same kind of 19 thing with that. You just -- instead of, you 20 know, stopping the area after one peak, you just 21 take whatever peaks were of interest to you and 22 stop the area there, and then add up what was 23 under it, the area under it, and relate that then 24 back to a multi-component standard. Okay? 25 Q All right. If -- if what you are 46 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054250 1 injecting into the gas chromatograph is a mixture 2 that has unknown components, but you are trying 3 to look for to -- to determine whether specific 4 components are present, you can run a standard of 5 the components that you're looking for. Correct? 6 A Yes. 7 Q And when you run that standard, 8 you're taking a known quantity of that component. 9 So let's say, for purposes of this discussion, 10 you were trying to determine if Aroclor 1254 was 11 in a particular mixture that you were going to 12 inject into the chromatograph. 13 You could take a known vial of 14 Aroclor 1254 and put that through the gas 15 chromatograph first as a standard. Correct? 16 A Right. 17 Q All right. And then you'd take 18 your component mixture that you were going to 19 test, and you would inject that into the gas 20 chromatograph. Right? 21 A Yes -- you're asking me if you 22 could do, and I am agreeing you can. 23 Q Okay. And -- and when you did 24 that, assuming it was a -- this -- this component 25 mixture had several different chemicals in it, 47 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054251 1 what you would get as output ultimately after 2 you've done your work on the graph paper would be 3 a graph that had different peaks on -- on the 4 graph paper. Correct? 5 A Yes. Multi-component systems gave 6 multiple peaks. 7 Q Multiple peaks. And each of the 8 peaks in that multiple component mixture that is 9 represented on the graph paper, each of the peaks 10 on the graph represents a different component 11 within the mixture; is that correct? 12 A Component or components. You had 13 to depend on the fact that the chromatography 14 system, in other words, the column in the gas 15 chromatograph was -- had a high enough resolution 16 to separate each component, which they very 17 seldom did. 18 Q Okay. And in order to determine in 19 our hypothetical example whether or not Aroclor 20 1254, or some of the components of Aroclor 1254 21 are present in this mixture that we're testing, 22 you would compare the graph for Aroclor 1254 that 23 was your standard, correct, to the graph that was 24 the output for the unknown mixture? 25 A You would do that, but it's not as 48 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054252 1 simplistic as I think you are presenting to me. 2 As long as you knew that the sample 3 contained unaltered Aroclor 1254, 1260, or 4 Clophen A50 or Japanese material or whatever that 5 you were using as standard in it, and when you 6 ran the sample that you ran through, if it had 7 all the peaks with the same distribution and the 8 same fingerprint, we called, then you could feel 9 very confident that you probably had what you 10 knew you probably had in there. 11 On the other hand, if you were 12 dealing with a very weathered sample where the 13 fingerprint of the original industrial chemical 14 was modified significantly, you would not know 15 that at all. 16 Q Okay. And just to break that down 17 a bit, Aroclor 1254 and all of the Aroclor 18 products, Dr. Tucker, were actually mixtures of 19 different polychlorinated biphenyls; is that 20 correct? 21 A Right. On a theoretical basis, 22 each of the Aroclors contain a percentage of 209 23 different isomers. 24 Q Right. So there's -- there's 209 25 different isomers of PCBs. We also use the word 49 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054253 1 "congener" instead of "isomer"; is that correct? 2 A You can, yes. And that was a 3 theoretical routine. In the actual manufacture 4 of the materials, there were some highly 5 improbable structures that just didn't occur, and 6 so the actual real number of peaks were somewhat 7 less, somewhere around 100, 130. 8 Q All right. So when you ran, for 9 example, a standard where you had a known 10 quantity of Aroclor 1254 and you put that through 11 the gas chromatograph, what you would find as 12 your output for Aroclor 1254 would have a number 13 of different peaks. Correct? 14 A What I call the fingerprint. 15 Q Right. So that -- that fingerprint 16 has different peaks that come out on the graph 17 because it -- Aroclor 1254 is, in fact, itself a 18 mixture. Correct? 19 A It's a multi-component system. 20 Correct. 21 Q Right. It's not just one kind of 22 PCB, like it's not just made up of -- of one 23 isomer of PCB. Correct? 24 A That's correct. It was a 25 multi-component system that was based on the way 50 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054254 1 it was manufactured. 2 Q Right. So in our hypothetical 3 example where you're testing an unknown mixture 4 against a standard, and you've used Aroclor 1254 5 as a standard -- well, let me back up a second. 6 I'11 withdraw that. 7 We know today that PCBs were 8 released into the environment. Correct? 9 A You're asking me if I know that? 10 Q Right. 11 A Yes. 12 Q Okay. Andonce PCBs get released 13 into the environment, as these mixtures -- for 14 example, if Aroclor 1254 was released into the 15 environment, the mixture that is Aroclor 1254 16 starts to change after it gets released; is that 17 true? 18 A There are -- there are a number of 19 things that cause the distribution of the 20 multi-component system to change. 21 Q Right. Andso some of the 22 components of Aroclor 1254, when released into 23 the environment, stay exactly the same for a very 24 long time; is that fair to say? 25 A Yeah, that -- that general 51 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054255 1 statement is general enough to be correct. 2 Q All right. And other components of 3 a mixture like Aroclor 1254, when it gets 4 released into the environment, begin to change 5 within hours, days, or weeks of being released 6 into the environment. 7 A Yes. 8 Q Okay. So now as -- as some of the 9 components of Aroclor 1254 after it's been 10 released into the environment change and others 11 do not, we get a distribution which is different 12 from the original product. Right? 13 A That's correct. 14 Q And that process that we're 15 describing is sometimes described or labeled with 16 the shorthand of weathering; is that right? 17 A That's a terminology that's used, 18 yes. 19 Q Okay. And when -- if we go back to 20 our hypothetical example of your -- you've run a 21 standard of a 1250 -- Aroclor 1254 through your 22 GC, and you've also run a component mixture that 23 you don't know what's in it, but you want to try 24 and assess whether anything that's in Aroclor 25 1254 might also be in this mixture, you would 52 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054256 1 compare the two graphs of the standard of Aroclor 2 1254 with the graph that comes out when you - 3 when you run this unknown component mixture. 4 Right? 5 A That's a real simplistic 6 presentation of -- of -- of what goes on. And 7 the answer to the simplistic way you put it is 8 yes. 9 Q Okay. And there are multiple peaks 10 on the graph for the Aroclor 1254 standard. 11 Correct? 12 A Yes. 13 Q And there would - 14 A There can be. Yes. 15 Q Well, there would be because it's a 16 multi-component mixture. Right? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And the unknown componentmixture, 19 assuming it's a component mixture, would also 20 have multiple peaks. Correct? 21 A That's absolutely correct. There 22 are a large number of chlorinated aromatic 23 pesticides that were intentionally broadcast all 24 over the world that you do find in those 25 weathered samples. 53 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054257 1 There are things like Strobane, 2 toxaphene, dieldrin, aldrin, all -- all those 3 kinds of things, and I apologize, that -- and 4 that's just a start on the list, that show up 5 under these kinds of conditions that give you a 6 multi-component system. 7 So you need a real distinct 8 fingerprint that's not overlapping with these 9 other constituents to the extent where you can't 10 be sure, to use this kind of system to think that 11 you might have the materials in there. 12 Q All right. 13 A Now, there are a lot of things that 14 you can do to clarify that situation, and that's 15 why I took the opportunity to use the word 16 "simplistic presentation" of what went on. 17 MR. JENSEN: Very good. All right. 18 The court reporter -- or excuse me, the 19 videographer needs to change the tape, so why 20 don't we take a short break. 21 THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. 22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off 23 the record at 10:54 a.m. 24 (Off the record.) 25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on 54 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054258 1 the record on tape 2 at 11:01 a.m. 2 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) All right, Dr. 3 Tucker, before the break, we were talking about 4 an example of comparing a standard of Aroclor 5 1254 that's been run through a GC with an 6 electron capture detector, I assume; is that fair 7 to say that's what we've really been talking 8 about in this example? 9 A Yes, that was my assumption too. 10 Q Okay. So we've run a standard of 11 Aroclor 1254, and we've also injected an unknown 12 component mixture to try and identify whether any 13 of the components of Aroclor 1254 are in this 14 unknown mixture; fair to say that's -- that's 15 what we've been talking about? 16 A Yes, but I think the unknown 17 mixture requires clarification. Is it a standard 18 unknown mixture? Is it an environmental sample, 19 or an extract of something? Or -- 20 Q Let's -- let me ask it this way. 21 Let's say it's a -- it's a environmental sample 22 of soil. 23 A Of which? 24 Q Soil. 25 A Soil. Okay. 55 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054259 1 Q Soil. Okay? 2 A Dirt. 3 Q Dirt. Right. Does that make any 4 differenceto any of the answers that you've 5 given to this point? 6 A Yeah, becausethe components that 7 are extracted and go through the cleanup 8 procedures and the other kinds of procedures that 9 are used to get rid of things you're not looking 10 for, that you don't need to look for, will -- the 11 sample itself that's used dictates what you end 12 up with in terms of peaks that you see. 13 And the more complex the sample you 14 analyze, the more peaks you see, the more 15 interferences you have, the more difficult it is 16 to interpret whether or not you really have PCBs 17 or not, or whether they're pesticides, the ones I 18 mentioned, or whether they're phthalate esters or 19 whether they're polynuclear aromatics or whether 20 they're a multitude of things that electron 21 capture detectors can see, even though they are 22 very specific. 23 Q Gotcha. And you described in one 24 of your earlier answers a whole list of compounds 25 that would create what you called interferences 56 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054260 if you were looking for PCBs in an unknown mixture; is that right? A Right. It was an abbreviated list of products that are made to be used as pesticides that are frequently found in environmental samples. Q And are -- A And they're not single component systems. They're multi-component systems. I mean... Q Each one of these products that you listed off is itself has different components. Right? A Correct. Q All right. And is it true that the products that you identified, these pesticides, these were chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides? A Yes, for the most part. Q All right. And PCBs are also chlorinated hydrocarbons, correct? A Correct. Q And because -- A Methylene chloride is a chlorinated hydrocarbon Q All right. And because the 57 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054261 1 chlorinated hydrocarbon family has a similar 2 chemical structure, they would give peaks as the 3 -- an output in the gas chromatograph that were 4 close together to one another; is that right? 5 A If they were closely related to 6 each other. Chlorinated hydrocarbons are a huge 7 number of different compounds, and they include 8 aromatic, non-aromatic, they include all sorts of 9 things, so it's a really general term. 10 Q Okay. But the -- the compounds 11 that you've described, which were chlorinated 12 hydrocarbon pesticides, did, in fact, have a 13 sufficiently similar chemical structure to the 14 PCBs that their -- the peaks that would be 15 represented on the output of the gas 16 chromatograph would be close to the peaks for the 17 PCBs; is that right? 18 A Right. They would occur in the 19 same region. There would be some overlap 20 depending upon what they were. 21 Q Right. And that's because PCBs 22 have a very similar chemical structure to those 23 chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides that you're 24 describing. Right? 25 A That's part of the reason. The 58 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054262 1 other part of the reason is that we were using 2 packed column technology which doesn't give you 3 infinite resolution in terms of all these 4 different kinds of compounds that are closely 5 related. 6 Q All right. When you arrived at 7 Monsanto in late 1967, Monsanto already owned a 8 gas chromatograph with an electron capture 9 detector; is that right? 10 A They owned both, but they hadn't 11 really combined them. The gas chromatography 12 that was being done in the applied sciences at 13 the time I got there was mostly process related. 14 And the electron capture detector was so 15 sensitive to the constituents that it measured, 16 that it didn't have much to do for process types 17 of routines. 18 So as an interest, the 19 chromatography group had bought a detector. And 20 of course, they had lots of gas chromatographs 21 that they used with more universal detectors at 22 macro levels to measure constituents in the 23 products we manufactured, impurities too - 24 (Reporter interruption.) 25 A At the percent and high part per 59 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054263 1 million level. In other words, it was a macro 2 technique versus a very ultra micro technique. 3 But to be real truthful with you, 4 the detector just sat on the shelf, and because 5 of its -- its sensitivity, it hadn't been used 6 for much, if anything at all, to my knowledge. 7 But we did have one. 8 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) All right. And 9 that is the electron capture detector that you 10 used when you first began analyzing PCBs in 11 environmental samples; is that right? 12 A No. 13 Q No? 14 A No. 15 Q Okay. 16 A It was one that -- that was there, 17 and we hooked it up to get familiar with it 18 because it was like a brand new kind of thing. 19 And it was an area that we really didn't have any 20 interest in previously in the organic division 21 because we dealt with -- primarily with products. 22 So we familiarized ourself with its 23 limitations and its advantages and looked at it. 24 But the system that I bought was one that was - 25 mimicked the one that was used by pesticide 60 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054264 1 analysts. It was a biomedical system. 2 Q So when you were assigned the 3 project of trying to assess the validity of the 4 Jensen work, you -- one of the things that you 5 did was ordered new equipment; is that right? 6 A Yes. And it wasn't simply new 7 equipment, it was equipment that was way beyond 8 what we had. You know, as you pointed out, we 9 did have a single electron capture detector and 10 we did do chromatography. 11 Q The electron capture detector that 12 had -- that was already at Monsanto when you were 13 hired on was designed to be used in connection 14 with the gas chromatograph, correct? 15 A Sure. 16 Q That's the only purpose, as far as 17 I know, that an ECD has. Correct? 18 A In this context, yes. 19 Q Okay. Is there any reason that 20 that electron capture detector together with the 21 gas chromatographs that were already present at 22 Monsanto could not have been used to analyze 23 environmental samples for PCBs? 24 A Yes. As -- as I stated earlier, 25 the systems -- there were all sorts of different 61 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054265 1 kinds of gas chromatographs and all sorts of 2 different kinds of columns and all sorts of 3 different kinds of detectors. And the 4 chromatography that they did there was more macro 5 chromatography, it wasn't the analysis of 6 environmental samples. 7 The organic division itself didn't 8 really make any pesticides to speak of. We had 9 an agricultural division that was involved in 10 that kind of thing. I think they were. They 11 might have been. And so they had no experience 12 at the -- at those kinds of levels. 13 And so the system they bought was 14 just -- they bought one to see what it was. You 15 know, it's like, gee, maybe we should know 16 something about this, we might be able to use it 17 sometime down the road. Who knows? 18 Q Right. And - 19 A So the system that I bought was one 20 that duplicated, to the best of our ability with 21 US manufactured equipment, what was used by 22 Jensen and Widmark and what was used by pesticide 23 chemists who were interested in measuring those 24 things in environmental samples. And there were 25 differences. 62 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054266 1 Q Okay. I understand there were some 2 differences between what you bought and what was 3 already there at Monsanto; otherwise, you 4 wouldn't have bought the new system. Right? 5 A That's correct. 6 Q All right. And I also understand 7 your testimony to be that the -- the ECD that was 8 already present at Monsanto had gotten very 9 little use, and you've given the reasons for 10 that. But what I am asking you is whether it 11 could have been used, not whether it was used, 12 but whether it could have been used to look for 13 PCBs in environmental samples. 14 A Not really, in my opinion as an 15 analytical chemist. It -- it just wasn't ever 16 intended for that use, and it just -- if I had 17 tried to start with that detector, it would have 18 taken a couple of months to figure out how to get 19 it back to where it should be in terms of 20 operating and get it hooked up and do things of 21 that sort. It would have just been a -- really 22 slowed down the process, and we weren't 23 interested in slowing down the process. 24 Q And it's fair to say you never 25 tried to use that ECD to look at environmental 63 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054267 1 samples for PCBs. Correct? 2 A Correct. 3 Q So sitting here today, your best - 4 your best opinion is it would have slowed down 5 the process, but more likely than not, you would 6 have eventually gotten there using that -- that 7 existing ECD. Correct? 8 A Not me, because I was asked to do 9 what I thought was best as a professional. And 10 that was not best as a professional. The thing 11 to do best as a professional to duplicate the 12 work of Soren Jensen and Widmark in terms of what 13 they were doing was to get a system that was the 14 best equivalent system that I could to do the job 15 so there would be no question about what we 16 found, whether it was positive or negative. 17 Q I understand what you did, and I 18 understand the answer to that question. Let me 19 ask you a hypothetical question. Let's say that 20 you had been given a different assignment than 21 the one that you were actually given, and the 22 assignment that you were actually given was that 23 the minute that -- strike that. Let me -- let me 24 change the hypothetical in this way. 25 Let's say you had been hired in 64 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054268 early 1966. Okay? As -- as an analytical chemist at Monsanto. A Now, this is all hypothetical. Correct? Q Right. I mean, I understand this didn't happen. A This isn't based on anything I've said or anything -- it's different than what we've gone through so far. Q Correct. Because -A It's a situation that hasn't occurred. Q It's a situation -A Okay. Go ahead. Q -- that has not occurred because you were still in school in 1966. Right? A Well, that was the point I was making. Q Right. Okay. Let's -- let's try and change the world and -- and ask you a hypothetical question that we know did not occur All right? That's what I'm doing. And in this -- and in this world under this hypothetical scenario, you -- you complete your graduate studies in 1966, in early 65 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054269 1 1966, and get hired by Monsanto in early 1966. 2 Okay? You with me so far? 3 A Yeah, and I'm not having problems 4 following you, just in case you're wondering. 5 Q Okay. 6 A So I don't understand that 7 question 8 Q I haven't asked you a question yet, 9 I'm just other than make sure - 10 A Okay. You're asking me if I'm with 11 you. 12 Q Right. All I'm asking -- yeah, all 13 I'm asking is you understand the hypothetical so 14 far. Right? 15 A Well, I understand what you've 16 said, yes. 17 Q Okay. And the minute you get 18 hired, the first project that you are assigned is 19 for you to try and determine whether PCBs are 20 contaminating environmental samples of soil, of 21 water, of biological specimens like birds. 22 That's what you're asked to do is try and find 23 out whether PCBs are in any of these materials. 24 Okay? 25 A I -- it's your question, so -- 66 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054270 1 Q I'm asking whether - 2 A --I'm just trying to understand 3 it. So as far as I'm concerned, whatever you're 4 asking me is correct, and then I'll see how I'm 5 going to response to it -- my response to it when 6 you get there. 7 Q Okay. I just want to make sure you 8 understand the hypothetical, and you do. Right? 9 A I'm not having any intellectual 10 problems understanding the hypothetical question 11 that you're presenting so far. 12 Q Okay. Now, if you had been given 13 that task and, you know, the other circumstances 14 of this hypothetical were -- were true, would you 15 -- how would you have gone about doing it? 16 MR. MERRILL: I'm going to object 17 to the form of the question, and also object to 18 it based on lack of sufficient foundation. 19 That's just an objection for the record, you - 20 A I probably would never have been 21 given that assignment because nobody knew or was 22 even concerned about the fact -- there was no 23 information available whatsoever that that was 24 even a -- the most remote possibility in the 25 world of happening. 67 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054271 1 And so until Jensen and Widmark got 2 lucky and got a prototype mass spectrometer that 3 they were asked to use by LKB in Sweden and 4 discovered that there were PCBs, not Aroclors, 5 not commercial products necessarily, just that 6 there were PCBs in their sample, at that point in 7 time everybody began to ask what was going on. 8 So at that point in time was when 9 people who manufactured PCBs who were being 10 responsible would say, whoa, wait a minute, gee, 11 they're finding these in Sweden. I wonder what 12 that means. We do -- we manufacture these 13 materials. I wonder why they're seeing this kind 14 of thing in Sweden? So they probably want to 15 answer that question. 16 At that point in time, then, as a 17 brand new Ph.D. out of school, with the newest 18 kind of technology and that kind of stuff 19 available to me from a big ten school and all 20 that kind of stuff, I might have been given an 21 assignment like that to try and figure out if 22 these PCBs could be somehow related to an 23 industrial chemical product. 24 Now, that's a hypothetical answer. 25 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) I'm going to 68 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054272 1 object - 2 A Does that answer your hypothetical 3 question? 4 Q No. I'm going to object to the 5 form of the question as non-response to -- form 6 of the answer as non-responsive to the question 7 that I asked, and move to strike it, and then I'm 8 going to reask the question. 9 A Okay. 10 Q I want you to assume that you were 11 given that assignment. I don't want to hear 12 about whether you think that's likely to have 13 occurred. I want to know, assume that you were 14 given the assignment, how would you have gone 15 about trying to fulfill your responsibilities 16 under that assignment? 17 MR. MERRILL: Object to the form of 18 the question based on inadequate foundation. 19 A I would have looked in the 20 literature and I would have attempted to find out 21 any information I could about the particular 22 topic that you presented and about the techniques 23 that could be used to potentially answer the 24 question in the laboratory. 25 And then once I had gotten to that 69 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054273 1 state, if I decided that there was reasons to be 2 -- to go forward, that if the equipment was 3 available and things of that sort, I'd have done 4 just exactly what I did. 5 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) All right. Would 6 you have used the technology that was available 7 to you at Monsanto to do that project? And 8 again, we're talking about before -- if -- if 9 this assignment had been given to you before 10 Jensen and Widmark's paper had come out. 11 MR. MERRILL: Again, I'll object 12 based on inadequate foundation. 13 A Not necessarily. And -- and I can 14 elaborate on that if you'd like me to. 15 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Sure. 16 A Okay. Now you've asked me to 17 elaborate so I'm going to. 18 Q Go ahead. 19 A First of all, the kinds of 20 detectors that were available were universal, had 21 different concentration ranges, responded to 22 things differently and things of that sort, so 23 I'd have to understand what was an environmental 24 level. In other words, how sensitive would the 25 detector have to be. 70 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054274 1 I would have to understand, you 2 know, what -- what possibly could cause 3 interference, how specific did the detector need 4 to be and things of that sort. 5 That -- that -- based on -- I think 6 I probably would have wound up exactly where I 7 was when -- when I started doing what I did, 8 because eventually I would have figured out what 9 possible levels, I would have guessed and done 10 this and done that and all that kind of good 11 stuff, but I wouldn't have the faintest idea to 12 be right the first time or anything of that sort. 13 Without the discovery of Jensen and 14 Widmark, there simply wasn't an issue and/or a 15 problem that anybody was concerned with except 16 interfering peaks that were actually thought to 17 be DDT metabolites on their chromatograms. 18 So it just -- it's a hypothetical 19 situation I can't imagine myself in; and if I was 20 in that situation, as you asked me to imagine, I 21 would have done pretty much exactly as I did. It 22 was the straightest route between A and B. 23 Q Okay. And I appreciate your 24 answer, most of it was responsive, I'll move to 25 strike the non-responsive portion. 71 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054275 1 Dr. Tucker, would you agree that in 2 the 1940s, Monsanto was aware that Monsanto 3 itself was releasing PCBs into the environment? 4 MR. MERRILL: Object to the form of 5 the question. You kind of changed it right in 6 the middle, and I'm -- there was a word -- were 7 -- was the question were they releasing or were 8 they aware that they were releasing? 9 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Was -- were they 10 -- you would agree that Monsanto was aware as of 11 the 1940s that Monsanto itself was releasing PCBs 12 to the environment? 13 A You're asking me if I agree? 14 You're not telling me I agree. Right? 15 Q I'm asking you if you - 16 A Okay. 17 Q -- if you agree. 18 A I'm a little confused with the 19 dialogue that went on. Run the question by me 20 again, please. 21 Q Sure. Happy to. Would you agree 22 that as of the 1940s, Monsanto was aware that 23 Monsanto was releasing PCBs into the environment? 24 A When would I be asked that 25 question? I mean, I was born in 1939. So was I 72 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054276 aware in 1940 that they were releasing PCBs to the environment? I don't -- I really don't understand the structure of that question. Q Okay. I'll try -A I'd appreciate if you would clarify. Q -- I'll try it again. I'm not asking whether you were aware in 1940. You personally. I am asking whether you agree with the proposition that Monsanto the company was aware in the 1940s that Monsanto the company was releasing PCBs into the environment? A No, I wouldn't agree with that, and I have good reasons for not agreeing to that. Q Okay. So Monsanto had a manufacturing facility at that time in Anniston, Alabama. Correct? A Yes . Q that time. And that's where they made PCBs at A That's correct. Q And at that manufacturing facility in Anniston, Alabama, it was common practice in that time frame to release effluent into the environment. Correct? 73 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054277 1 A All plants have effluent, and it 2 was common practice in the industry, in the 3 world, to do that kind of thing. So yes. 4 But I don't know that specifically 5 about Monsanto. I have no information about what 6 Monsanto was doing in the 1940s in terms of their 7 process related routines. I know Swan Chemical 8 Company was down there in 1929. 9 So my assumption is, is that some 10 of whatever anybody manufactured at some level 11 probably might have been released to the 12 environment. Do I have any direct knowledge of 13 that? No. 14 Q Okay. So you don't know whether 15 Monsanto knew that there were PCBs in its 16 effluent in Anniston, Alabama. Is that what 17 you're saying? 18 A Yes. 19 Q You would agreethat Monsanto 20 should have known that there were PCBs in its 21 effluent in Anniston in the 1940s. Right? 22 A No. 23 Q How can you possibly say that with 24 a straight face? 25 A Thank you forthestraight face 74 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054278 1 part, I appreciate that, because I mean what I'm 2 saying. 3 I can say that because there were 4 not concerns of that sort that anybody thought 5 they ever had to be concerned about, because the 6 knowledge available at that point in time from a 7 historical viewpoint and from what I know about 8 the situations is that nobody had any idea that 9 anything of that significance was occurring or 10 with those ramifications at that time. They just 11 weren't sophisticated enough to know that. 12 Q Okay. So nobody was ever thinking 13 about pollution back then, I understand that's 14 your testimony, Dr. Tucker, but I am asking the 15 question of if somebody had thought about the 16 issue of whether PCBs were being released in 17 their effluent in -- in the 1940s, it was obvious 18 -- it would have been obvious even at that point 19 that that was true. Correct? 20 A No, I get the strong feeling you're 21 asking and answering your own question. So I 22 don't know what you want me to contribute to 23 that. I don't know that. And it's pure 24 conjecture from my viewpoint to answer that 25 question in the fashion you're trying to get me 75 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054279 1 to answer that question. 2 Q So you -- I take it from your 3 answer, you do not agree that if Monsanto had 4 asked itself the question in 1945, are there PCBs 5 in our effluent at the Anniston plant, that the 6 answer would have been yes, obviously? You 7 disagree with that. Correct? 8 A No, I don't disagree with that, but 9 what you're talking -- you -- you've gone from 10 environmental samples to plant effluent to inside 11 the plant where things are manufactured. 12 You've gone from the normal 13 practices that go on in plants in the 1940s and 14 that thing to the point where suddenly everybody 15 has the same level of concern and knowledge about 16 concerns as pollutants that they do today and 17 that kind of stuff, simply the way it didn't 18 happen. 19 And the people didn't have the 20 sophistication at that time to understand the 21 process. And so while they probably knew that 22 there was some, there was just no concern because 23 there was no reason to believe it was 24 significant. 25 Q Okay. So you agree that Monsanto 76 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054280 1 probably knew in the 1940s that there were some 2 PCBs being released to the environment in their 3 effluent in Anniston. Correct? 4 A You're asking me if I knew that? 5 The answer to that question is no. 6 Q That's not what I asked, Dr. 7 Tucker. 8 A Okay, well, I'm having trouble 9 understanding what you're asking, please. 10 Q I will try it again. Please - 11 A The question is really compound, 12 so. 13 Q I'm glad that you're a lawyer in 14 addition to being an analytical chemist. 15 A No, I apologize for that, I don't 16 mean to give that impression. 17 Q Okay. I will try it again. You 18 agree that Monsanto probably knew in the 1940s 19 that PCBs were in its effluent at the Anniston 20 plant? 21 MR. MERRILL: And I'll object to 22 the form of the question, there's lack of 23 foundation and calls for speculation. 24 A I can't disagree that that might be 25 true, but I can't concur with your fact that I 77 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054281 1 knew Monsanto knew. That's what I'm having 2 problems with. 3 So, you know, it would be difficult 4 to understand the technology that they had at 5 that point in time, that it was buttoned up to 6 the point where there was zero released. In 7 fact, zero doesn't exist, to be real truthful 8 with you. 9 So sure, there probably was some, 10 but did Monsanto know or need to know? I don't 11 know. And you're asking me to give you an 12 opinion on something I simply can't give you an 13 opinion on. 14 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) But if Monsanto 15 had asked itself the question in 1945, are there 16 PCBs being released to the environment from our 17 Anniston facility, you agree that the answer to 18 that question probably would have been yes. 19 Right? 20 MR. MERRILL: I'm going to object 21 to that - 22 A Well -- 23 MR. MERRILL: -- the form of the 24 question for -- let me get the objection in - 25 for lack of foundation, calls for speculation, 78 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054282 1 and asked and answered. 2 A I don't agree with answering your 3 question yes or no. And so I can't do that to 4 that kind of question, and I think I've already 5 answered it adequately. Now, if you want to 6 rephrase it and we can go around again and that 7 kind of stuff, I'd be happy to try to work with 8 you, but I think I've given my answer. 9 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Okay. And you've 10 already testified that you believe during that 11 time frame in the 1940s, it was common industrial 12 practice to release chemicals in effluent at all 13 kinds of plants. Right? 14 A I believe the question I answered 15 was hypothetical and was asking me to speculate 16 and give you an answer that was possible, maybe, 17 who knows? And I said based on the little I do 18 know about chemical processes and -- and about 19 how we became concerned about the impact of what 20 we were doing on the environment, that there 21 probably wasn't that level of sophistication or 22 concern at that time. So it was -- it was a 23 non-entity. 24 If they had seen, you know, some 25 visual thing that something was going on, they 79 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054283 1 might have become concerned and that kind of 2 stuff. 3 People don't manufacture materials 4 to throw away the product. They manufacture 5 materials to make money. And we spent a lot of 6 time adjusting reactions to the point where they 7 give you 100 percent versus 60 and things of that 8 sort. 9 So I wouldn't think that they - 10 they had incentive to do that kind of thing, but 11 -- and that's just the conjecture that I can 12 offer you that's kind of complex in trying to 13 answer your complex question. Hypothetical 14 question. 15 Q Move to strike as non-responsive. 16 The question I asked you was 17 whether -- well, I take it back. I'll ask you 18 this question. Whether I have asked it 19 previously or not. 20 Do you agree that in the 1940s, it 21 was common industrial practice to release some 22 level of chemicals in effluent to the 23 environment? 24 A It happened, yes. 25 Q Okay. And in fact, it was known at 80 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054284 1 that time that that was the common industrial 2 practice. Right? 3 A I have no information to verify 4 that it was known at that time. 5 Q You don't know one way or the other 6 whether industry was aware of this practice? 7 A In 1940, I was one year old. Okay? 8 And what you're asking me is what I have known 9 historically, which is anything I can't testify 10 directly to. I mean, there's other people that 11 could probably do that for you. 12 Q You've never done any research 13 yourself about what industrial waste disposal 14 practices were during that time frame; is that 15 right? 16 A That's correct. 17 Q Okay. And you don'tknow -- you've 18 not done any historical research to determine 19 what was known throughout industry about waste 20 disposal practices within industry. Right? 21 A In 1940, no. 22 And you're telling me what I know, 23 right? You say, "you don't know." You're not 24 asking me if I know that. I don't -- that's why 25 I'm having a problem with that. You're telling 81 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054285 1 me what I know, and no matter how I answer the 2 question, I'm telling you that I knew something 3 and maybe I didn't. So, you know, you can 4 continue if you want, but I want to explain why 5 I'm having difficulty answering the question. 6 Q Well, Dr. Tucker, I am allowed to 7 ask you what's called a leading - 8 A Sure. 9 Q --a leading question, and you're 10 entitled to say I'm right, I'm wrong, or you 11 don't understand. 12 A Okay. 13 Q So I am happy to try and rephrase 14 any question that you don't understand, and I'm 15 happy for you to say that I'm wrong. Okay? 16 I just want your testimony, but I 17 am entitled to phrase the questions how I want; 18 and if you don't understand them, you're entitled 19 to tell me that you don't. 20 A And that's what I thought I was 21 doing. 22 Q Okay. Have you done any research 23 into the historical analytical chemistry 24 techniques that were available in the 1940s? 25 A I am -- I am aware of a lot of the 82 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054286 1 history of analytical methods as they were 2 developing things for that sort, and if that's 3 the question, sure, at the university and things 4 of that sort we read about that. But have I done 5 any specific research into that kind of thing to 6 determine exactly what was going on and that kind 7 of stuff? No. 8 Q So just to make sure I understand, 9 is it true that for purposes of this case, you 10 have not done any historical research into 11 analytical chemistry methods that were available 12 in the 1940s? 13 A Okay. Let's see, how do I answer 14 that question? 1940s, you have chosen? 15 Q 1940s, for purposes of this 16 question. 17 A 1940 or '40s? 18 Q '40s. 19 A Okay. I don't recall much of 20 anything that I've read or been asked to read 21 that had anything to do with analytical chemistry 22 in 1940. 23 Q In the -- throughout the decade of 24 the 1940s. Right? 25 A Okay, what you're saying is from 83 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054287 1 1940 to 1949, is that my understanding? 2 Q That's what I'm asking. 3 A I think I might have seen one 4 article that was in 1948 in -- I was given 5 fifteen or sixteen articles, and I think they're 6 part of the reliance package that you have. One 7 of the articles, if I remember correctly, was 8 published in 1948. So that would be the 9 exception. 10 Q Okay. And I have looked at your 11 reliance materials, Dr. Tucker, and included in 12 those reliance materials is a group of articles 13 that were relied upon by some of plaintiffs' 14 experts; is that correct? 15 A Yes. 16 Q All right. And that's whatyou're 17 referring to right now when you say you've seen 18 one or two articles, or however many there are - 19 A That's correct. And I -20 Q -- from the 1940s? 21 A -- think there probably were, now 22 that we understand what we're talking about here, 23 I -- now that I understand what you're talking 24 about, I -- it's my problem, I think there were a 25 1947 and, you know, there might have been two or 84 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054288 1 three of them. Yes, that's correct. 2 Q Okay. And just to clarify, other 3 than reviewing those articles that were provided 4 as reliance materials by the plaintiffs' experts 5 in this case, is it true that you have done none 6 of your own historical research into what 7 analytical methods were available to chemists 8 during the decade of the 1940s? 9 A For pesticide analysis. 10 Q For anything. 11 A As I indicated, you know, I spent a 12 lot of time in school, and one of the topics that 13 we covered was analytical chemistry. 14 So I'm aware of a lot of the 15 classical analytical techniques that were used, 16 colorimetric procedures, titrimetric procedures, 17 decomposition procedures where they measure the 18 elements that come off of it and things of that 19 sort. So to that extent, I'm aware of those 20 kinds of things. 21 The articles that we were talking 22 about in the reliance documents had to do with 23 DDT, and it had to do with how they were trying 24 to measure macro levels of those materials in the 25 environment where they had put them. 85 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054289 1 Q Did you -- besides reading those 2 articles that were provided by plaintiffs' 3 expert, did you read any additional articles or 4 research any additional articles on your own from 5 the 1940s relating to the topic of historical 6 analytical chemical -- chemistry methods? 7 A That's a pretty -- you mean 8 relative to PCB analysis? Or what are you -- I 9 mean, that's a -- the answer to the question is 10 -- is yes. I mean, obviously I have at one time 11 or another looked from even a curiosity viewpoint 12 at what kinds of techniques were used by the - 13 the -- the scientists before I came along. 14 Q Okay. 15 A But did I -- did I do that for 16 PCBs? Or did I do that for DDT? Or I -- so the 17 answer to your question is yes, as long as it's 18 clarified that way. 19 Q Well, I wasn't asking about any 20 specific substance, Doctor. Let me ask it this 21 way. Have you done any research for purposes of 22 this case, apart from reading the articles that 23 were provided by plaintiffs' experts, into 24 analytical chemistry methods that were available 25 in the 1940s for any analyte? 86 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054290 1 A Any analyte. 2 Q Have you done any research beyond 3 what was provided to you for purposes of this 4 case? 5 A No. 6 Q Have you done any research for 7 purposes of this case about analytical chemistry 8 methods that were historically available for any 9 analyte in the 1950s? 10 A No. 11 Q Have you done any research for 12 purposes of this case in determining historically 13 what the analytical chemistry methods that were 14 available for assessing analytes in the period 15 1960 to 1968? 16 A For this case? 17 Q For this case. 18 A No. 19 Q I want togo back to when you 20 started on the PCB assignment in 1968. Okay? Go 21 back to what actually happened, away from 22 hypotheticals for a minute. Okay? I want to ask 23 you when you ordered a set of equipment, what 24 exactly did you order? 25 A Well, I did an exhaustive search of 87 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054291 1 the literature for the best techniques that were 2 available for analyzing PCBs in environmental 3 type samples, and I found that Jensen and Widmark 4 and the folks that had been doing it for a long 5 period of time were up to date and they were 6 using the proper kind of equipment. 7 So what I initially purchased after 8 I looked around -- and I looked for equipment in 9 the United States. At that time, you know, the 10 -- the distance between Sweden and the United 11 States was big time in terms of being able to get 12 things or equivalent and that sort, so. 13 But I was able to find gas 14 chromatographs manufactured by F&M, a company 15 named F&M, that was a biomedical gas 16 chromatograph that was of the type and the kind 17 that was specifically manufactured for the same 18 kind of things that Jensen and Widmark and the 19 other pesticide analysts were using. 20 And that -- that systemwas 21 equipped with two electron capture detectors. 22 And -- and also had an output for it andall the 23 things that were necessary to have a system that 24 would allow you to measure PCBs and chlorinated 25 hydrocarbons in the biological matrices that we 88 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054292 1 were interested in. So it was a biomedical gas 2 chromatograph. 3 Now, during the period -- about the 4 period of time that I ordered that, F&M became a 5 company called Hewlett Packard. Okay. And so 6 the gas chromatograph that I got, while it was an 7 F&M 402, was manufactured by Hewlett Packard. 8 And that was the one I bought which 9 was a system that was equivalent to what was 10 being used for the general pesticide analysis in 11 the Swedish community, in the United States, and 12 in other places. 13 Q And at the time you believed that 14 was the best equipment that you could purchase 15 for purposes of identifying PCBs in environmental 16 samples. Is that right? 17 A Actually, for measuring. 18 Q Okay. For -- for measuring PCBs in 19 environmental samples? 20 A PC -- for measuring chlorinated 21 hydrocarbons, which PCBs are. So yes, for 22 measuring them, but it didn't provide an absolute 23 identification of the materials. But it was a 24 system that was good for measuring, it was being 25 used by the pesticide analysts that were seeing 89 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054293 1 the peaks that ultimately were identified as PCBs 2 by Jensen and Widmark. 3 Q And you at that time did not 4 purchase a mass spectrometer; is that correct? 5 A No, I did not. 6 Q It -- so it's correct that you did 7 not. Right? 8 A That's correct. 9 Q Okay. 10 A You want yes/no answers? I can 11 try, but... 12 Q No, that question was poorly 13 phrased. 14 A Okay. 15 Q I apologize. Just want to make 16 sure that the record was clear. 17 A And the question was did I buy a 18 mass spectrometer. 19 Q That -- 20 A And the answer was no. Okay. 21 Q Okay. 22 A I just want to make sure myself, 23 so. 24 Q Okay. I -- I phrased the question 25 in a way that it was -- 90 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054294 1 A That's all right. I just want to 2 make sure it's accurate. 3 Q Did you later purchase a mass 4 spectrometer? 5 A A mass spectrometer was purchased 6 later, but we had a group that was called the 7 [inaudible] group of which I was a part of - 8 (Reporter interruption.) 9 A Spectroscopy group, 10 s-p-e-c-t-r-o-s-c-o-p-y, that I was originally 11 part of, and that was a spectroscopic technique. 12 And so that was a group that actually, in 13 conjunction with me, we ended up getting a mass 14 spectrometer, and they had experts working on 15 that. 16 Q But for the first several months 17 that you undertook lab analysis of environmental 18 samples looking for PCBs, you were using a gas 19 chromatograph with an electron capture detector. 20 Correct? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And at that time you were confident 23 that -- strike that. 24 Do you recall when the first 25 samples you ran -- when did you run the first 91 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054295 1 samples on your new system looking for PCBs in 2 environmental samples? 3 A Okay. So what you're asking me is 4 when did we first analyze environmental samples 5 for PCBs with the system, because a sample can be 6 a standard. Okay? And that's all I want to - 7 because we ran standards, and in fact, when we 8 developed the technique to verify that we were 9 doing it correctly, the first thing we worked 10 with -- and if you don't want me to go forward, I 11 won't, if I'm not answering your question. 12 The first thing we did was ran 13 standards of known concentration with known 14 materials through the instrument so we could 15 understand what we were going to see and make it 16 reproducible and relate it back to the 17 concentration and everything and that kind of 18 stuff. 19 At that point in time then we took 20 matrix materials which may have been 21 environmental samples that we knew would not have 22 PCBs in them, and we would spike those samples, 23 run blanks of the samples through the whole 24 process. And there was more to it than just the 25 gas chromatograph, I think you probably know 92 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054296 1 that. 2 There was a whole preparation 3 procedure that had to go on to get the materials 4 out of the matrix they were in and then to clean 5 them up and then to throw away 99 percent of the 6 constituents that you didn't need that would crud 7 up your system, and then finally you would 8 deliver that to the -- to the system. 9 So what we did was we did standards 10 first, and then we did samples that were free 11 from PCBs we knew because we had run blanks on 12 them, and we spiked them with PCBs and we ran 13 them through all these procedures that we had 14 developed over that period of time, and saw if we 15 got the same thing at the end. 16 When we had done that and we were 17 prepared to understand that our system would work 18 on PCBs if they were there and in those kinds of 19 matrices, then we went out and got what I would 20 consider real environmental samples. 21 Now, that may be a long way around 22 the horn to answer your question, but I think 23 it's -- it puts it in perspective. 24 Q I appreciate your answer. Did you 25 also run standards with known -- did you run 93 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054297 1 standards for some of the chlorinated hydrocarbon 2 pesticides that were possible interfering 3 factors? 4 A Every one that was available. 5 Q So you had output for standards for 6 some of your Aroclor products, number one, right? 7 A There were no standards for Aroclor 8 products. There were no standards for PCBs. 9 What we used was the commercial product that we 10 manufactured as a standard. Okay? And -- and we 11 had like 12, 21 -- 21 percent chlorinated, you 12 know, you know the whole litany. I think there's 13 nine or ten of them that were manufactured. So 14 we used each of those as a standard. 15 We knew that there were PCBs, we 16 knew there were Aroclors. So somehow or another 17 over the years, Aroclors had become PCBs and PCBs 18 had become Aroclors. Aroclors are PCBs that were 19 manufactured by Monsanto. We had those available 20 to us so we used those as standards. 21 When I set up that whole procedure, 22 I had the process people put together large 23 amounts of each one of those, and I labeled and 24 documented where they came from, under what 25 conditions they were produced, and all the things 94 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054298 1 that were associated with it, and we stored those 2 in a special spot so the integrity of those 3 materials would be kept, because we knew there 4 was no such thing as a standard for a PCB. 5 Ultimately those materials were 6 freely given to anyone who wanted to analyze 7 samples for PCBs, environmental samples. And so 8 that's how we started out. That's what we're 9 calling the standard. Okay? 10 Now, the standards for the 11 pesticides were readily available. There were 12 companies that manufactured those standards 13 because they had been around long enough. And 14 there were pure standards available for those 15 things too, not multi-component mixtures and that 16 kind of thing. You could even get -- for DDT, 17 you could get the DDE and -- and the other 18 constituents there, the ortho meta, ortho para 19 type products and that kind of stuff. 20 So what we used for standards was 21 the PCBs that we were knew [sic] PCBs. Okay? 22 But individual isomers and things of that sort 23 simply weren't available. 24 Q I understand. So you ran a 25 standard for each one of your different Aroclor 95 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054299 1 products. 2 A Correct. 3 Q And each one of those Aroclor 4 products, we've already talked about, was itself 5 a mixture of different PCB isomers. Correct? 6 A Correct. 7 Q Which the jury will also hear the 8 term "PCB congeners," and it's the same thing, 9 right? 10 A Yes. 11 Q So each -- each Aroclor product 12 that you ran a standard for was itself a mixture 13 of PCB congeners. Right? 14 A Correct. 15 Q And - 16 A And therewereoverlaps from 17 product to product as you got the chromatograms 18 and that kind of stuff -19 Q I gotcha. 20 A -- because they had -- well, you 21 know. I think I've answered the question. 22 Q And -- and each one of -- the 23 output for each one of those standards for each 24 Aroclor product would -- would have peaks 25 representing each one of the congeners; is that 96 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054300 1 correct? 2 A Not individual congeners, but it 3 would -- it would represent the mixture. You 4 would have a peak that might come up like this 5 and have multi components inside, and it wasn't 6 being resolved because the gas chromatograph was 7 not high enough -- be able to resolve them, so. 8 But you would get a fingerprint that would look 9 like and be characteristic of that product. 10 Q Okay. So is it fair to say that 11 each peak for your Aroclor standard -- let's - 12 let's to make it easier talk about the standard 13 you ran. You ran a standard for Aroclor 1254 at 14 some point. Correct? 15 A Right. 16 Q And when you -- when you got the 17 output for that standard, there were several 18 different peaks in that output. Correct? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Okay. And - 21 A Mountains, kinda. 22 Q Gotcha. Gotcha. 23 A Not -- not very discrete, sharp 24 peaks. There were no peaks that completely 25 resolved any of the isomers. 97 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054301 1 Q And Iunderstand that. 2 A Okay. 3 Q At least I understood your 4 testimony about that. 5 A Good. Thank you. 6 Q What I -- what I think I 7 understand, and just to make sure I do, is that 8 what you're testifying to is that at that time 9 those standards that you ran for Aroclor 1254 as 10 an example, you would have a peak or a -- or a 11 mountain, and that would be a group of -- that 12 would represent a group of isomers. 13 A Right. 14 Q It -- and -- and there would be 15 another peak that would represent another group 16 of isomers. 17 A Right. 18 Q And, you know, however many peaks 19 there were, but they weren't -- there wasn't an 20 individual peak for every different isomer. 21 Correct? 22 A Absolutely correct. 23 Q Okay. 24 A Yes. 25 Q All right. And similarly, you ran 98 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054302 1 a standard for -- for the -- a known quantity of 2 DDT and a known quantity of several other 3 chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides. Correct? 4 A A lot of other -- there were a lot 5 of them, basically. 6 Q And you had to do that before you 7 actually ran the environmental samples in order 8 to be able to do any kind of meaningful 9 comparison to try and figure out what was in 10 those samples. Is that correct? 11 A Right. We had no way of knowing or 12 predisposing, except conjecture, what might be in 13 the environmental samples we measured. So we had 14 to be prepared to see other things. And these 15 pesticides were intentionally broadcast around in 16 the environment so it wouldn't be unusual to 17 expect that you might see them, so that's why we 18 screened them. 19 Q Okay. When did you first begin 20 running standards on the new equipment that you 21 had ordered? 22 A "Standards" being Aroclor 23 standards? Or -24 Q Aroclor and chlorinated hydrocarbon 25 pesticides. 99 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054303 1 A As soon as we got the equipment set 2 up and it was functional, and even before we had 3 the extraction, separation, pre-cleanup, 4 concentration procedures done, we made up 5 standards with the knowns and ran them through to 6 make sure that we got reproducible results. 7 The results you get are dependent 8 on a lot of instrumental conditions and a lot of 9 detector commission -- conditions and a lot of 10 gas chromatography conditions. So those all had 11 to be standardized to be optimized to do what we 12 wanted. So we started running standards as soon 13 as we got the equipment up and functional. 14 Q All right. And that was in - 15 sometime in August or September of 1968; is that 16 correct? 17 A I don't know that it was specific 18 to August or September, but I would say it was 19 the latter part of the third quarter. I think 20 the first kind of samples we ran were in -- I 21 think it was like -- was it -- I'm trying to 22 remember. I think we had -- about in -- in 23 latter part of 1968. Late 1968. 24 Q Is when you were running samples; 25 is that correct? 100 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054304 A Not -- it depends on what you call samples. I talked to you about that earlier. Samples can be standards Q I -- I apologize. I -- I -A Okay. Q -- I meant to use the word "standard," and I used the word "samples." I was asking is it correct that in late 1968, you were running your standards? A Yes. I would say that. Standards. Yes. Q And is it fair to say that you began looking at environmental samples in around early 1969? A No, I don't think that's necessarily correct. I'm trying to remember. I think sometime in '69, we did, there was no question about that. By the -- by the 19 -- by March 19 -- no, okay. In 19 -- by 1969, we had published the first version of the Monsanto method for PCBs in environmental samples to be electron captured, and it was late '69 was when the first draft came out. So it was late '69. In 1970, the revision came out, and 101 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054305 1 then that revision was submitted to the American 2 Society for Testing Materials for approval for 3 use by everybody as a standard procedure for 4 measuring PCBs in environmental samples. 5 So does that give you a feeling - 6 that's my recollection. 7 Q That gives me a feeling for when 8 you, you know, first submitted and published the 9 standard method that -- that you developed. But 10 what I was trying to get at was when you first 11 ran on your new equipment environmental samples, 12 and isn't it true that that was sometime in early 13 1969? 14 A Not very early in 1969. 15 Q Okay. All right. 16 A That's my recollection. 17 Q Okay. 18 A I can -- I can -- yeah, it -- it - 19 there's information available that pins that down 20 better for you, but I just don't have it in my 21 head right now. 22 MR. JENSEN: Why don't we take a 23 short break for the reporter -- or excuse me, to 24 -- for John to change the tape. 25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off 102 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054306 1 the record at 11:55 a.m. 2 (Off the record.) 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on 4 the record on tape 3 at 12:05 p.m. 5 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Dr. Tucker, we 6 were just discussing when you may have done your 7 first analytical tests with your new equipment on 8 environmental samples, and I was going to see if 9 we can find a document that might help answer 10 that question. 11 (Exhibit 4 marked for 12 identification by counsel for plaintiffs.) 13 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Okay, I have 14 marked as Exhibit 4 a document titled at the top 15 Aroclor - Wildlife Problem, Rough Draft, and it's 16 Bates stamped MONS 035951 and the following 17 pages. 18 A Right. Okay. 19 Q And do you recognize this document? 20 A Yes, I do. 21 Q What is Exhibit 4? 22 A It's a rough draft of a status of 23 where we were at entitled Aroclor - Wildlife 24 Problem that I wrote. And the original date that 25 it -- was on it was 10/10/69, and then whoever 103 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054307 1 had this copy apparently modified the 10 to an 2 11. 3 Q All right. 4 A I think. I don't recall doing 5 that, but -- but I think 10 and 11 is not a - 6 not a big deal in the era that we're talking 7 about, but yes. 8 Q All right. And attached to this 9 memo is a chart. Correct? 10 A Correct. 11 Q And the chart appears to be, and 12 you tell me if this is correct, it appears to be 13 a list in chronological order of the 14 environmental samples of which you were aware at 15 the time in which PCBs had been measured; is that 16 correct? 17 A Yeah. Because, obviously, I think 18 on the first one where it's talking about sea 19 eagles in Sweden, I didn't do that measurement. 20 Q Right. And it's actually got a 21 list of -22 A It says who. 23 Q -- of who did it, when they - 24 A Correct. 25 Q -- when they did it, and what 104 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054308 1 analytical technique they used; and then where 2 you had it, it looks like it lists the 3 concentration of PCBs that was found. Correct? 4 A Yeah, where that was available. 5 Yes, sir. 6 Q All right. And if we look on the 7 page, what's marked as 035955, the first page of 8 the chart, it looks like there is one sample that 9 was done internally at Monsanto, and it looks 10 like December 31st of 1968. Is that correct? 11 A Okay. Where are youlocated for -- 12 Q I've got the - 13 A -- December of '68? What page - 14 oh, here it is. Aroclor; GLC; Fish; Anniston, 15 Alabama; Miller; Anniston, Alabama; 12/31/68. 16 Q Right. 17 A Okay. Yep. 18 Q And that was a -- that was a 19 environmental sample done internally at Monsanto 20 for PCBs. Correct? 21 A Yes. But not in my laboratory. 22 Q Gotcha. 23 A And it was a sample that was not 24 done with electron capture. It was done with a 25 typical flame ionization detector because it was, 105 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054309 1 like you were alluding to earlier, a outfall 2 sample where you expect to find the material 3 above part per trillion ranges and that kind of 4 stuff, so. 5 And this was done by the laboratory 6 down there. Later on -- that's why it says GLC, 7 and not GC/ECD. 8 Q Right. 9 A Later on we coached them into the 10 equipment they should buy, and had their analysts 11 come to our laboratory and train them in how to 12 do the analysis. 13 Q Okay. 14 A So I think it was Jim Brian -- no, 15 it was Lou Miller. Yeah. But anyway, yes. 16 Q All right. 17 A With all those qualifications, that 18 -- that's a yes. 19 Q All right. And -- and -- and did 20 you know, is it Mr. Miller or Dr. Miller? 21 A It's Mister more than likely, and I 22 think I probably did know him. 23 Q Okay. But - 24 A I think he was at -- in aprocess 25 related group down there. 106 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054310 1 Q All right. And he found PCBs using 2 gas liquid chromatography in December of '68; is 3 that correct? In fish? 4 A Yes . 5 Q And then turning the page to the 6 second page of the chart that's attached to 7 Exhibit 4, I see at the very top you've got 8 several samples from Snow Creek outside of 9 Anniston. Correct? 10 A Yes . 11 Q And - 12 A This was -- yes. 13 Q And -- and I apologize for 14 interrupting you, Dr. Tucker. 15 A No, that's all right. I was going 16 to say this is a natural progression. When we 17 got where we felt we were confident with 18 laboratory samples, we asked for plant samples 19 where we probably knew we would find the things. 20 And so that was why it's water and sediment from 21 the Anniston, Alabama, plant, specifically the 22 Snow Creek. 23 Q And these samples, at least 24 according to this chart, are the first samples 25 that you personally had run of environmental 107 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054311 1 samples finding PCBs. Correct? 2 A Yes. But they were not equivalent 3 in any way, shape, or form to Widmark's samples 4 which are weathered environmental samples, not 5 samples taken out of the outfall of a plant. 6 Q All right. And those -- in looking 7 at those, does this refresh your memory that 8 February of 1969 was the first time that you 9 personally had run environmental samples on -10 excuse me, looking for PCBs? 11 A Yes, environmental type samples in 12 our laboratory. Yes. Now, at that point in time 13 we were only looking at water and sediment, to be 14 real truthful with you, and that method was 15 published late '69. 16 Q Okay. 17 A As a special study. 18 Q Now, at that time you were using a 19 gas chromatograph with an electronic capture 20 detector, but you did not yet have a mass 21 spectrometer. Correct? 22 A That's probably true. I did not do 23 the mass spec work by myself. I did it in 24 conjunction with the spectroscopy group who had 25 the mass spectrometer. And I believe the method 108 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054312 1 for looking at PCBs in the environment using the 2 mass spec was published in '70. 3 Q All right. 4 A The internal method. 5 Q And if you look at the last page of 6 Exhibit 4, Dr. Tucker, it has at the bottom of 7 the chart a series of samples that are dated 8 October 30th of 1969, the geographic location of 9 the matrix was from Maryland Co-op, or Maryland 10 Coop? I don't know what that - 11 A I -- I'm sure that's an 12 abbreviation for cooperative. 13 Q Maryland cooperative? And - 14 A As like in a dairy cooperative or 15 something like that. 16 Q Right. And so thesewere a series 17 of samples of milk and water. Correct? 18 A That's correct. 19 Q And those were run inOctober of 20 '69, and this is the first set of samples, 21 according to this chart, where a mass 22 spectrometer was used in connection with the 23 GC/EC; is that correct? 24 A Right. And it -- what that -- it's 25 not in connection with, it's in parallel. 109 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054313 1 Q All right. 2 A Okay? The deal is, is that the gas 3 chromatograph was not connected to both the 4 electron capture and the mass spectrometer. 5 Okay? The work we did was GC/ECD, electron 6 capture work. And they verified it with the mass 7 spectrometer. And I worked with them getting 8 them sample and getting them the form they needed 9 to verify it using mass spec. 10 Q Okay. So at this point in time the 11 mass spec was not connected to the GC. Right? 12 A Not necessarily. And I think, the 13 best of my recollection, the first mass spec work 14 we did, I did in conjunction with a couple of 15 spectroscopists there, and we took samples that 16 we had and we concentrated them down and cleaned 17 them up very good and we got enough to introduce 18 directly into the mass spectrometer. 19 And it was a system that had light 20 charts, and you punched the button, it came out 21 so fast, you'd have 150 feet of chart paper. And 22 it was light sensitive, so at night after 23 everybody went home, we'd run it down the halls 24 and mark it off and verify it. So that was where 25 we were at at that point in time. 110 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054314 1 Q Later on did you have a mass 2 spectrometer which was actually connected to the 3 GC? 4 A Yes. We built our own interface, 5 jet face -- it's called the jet face separator. 6 Because the chromatograph's at high pressure and 7 the gas chromatographs sat in a vacuum. And so 8 you have to build an interface that connects the 9 two. They can't just run into each other. 10 And so you have what's called the 11 jet separator which is a heated piece of 12 equipment that connects the two. And that jet 13 separator throws away all the carrier gas and 14 only catches out the little stuff that's coming 15 through that are the peaks, and introduces that 16 into the mass spectrometer. So that's -- that's 17 the -- that was the very beginning. 18 Q All right. Now, with respect to 19 the samples you did in 1969 before using the mass 20 spec, were you reasonably confident that what you 21 were measuring as PCBs were, in fact, PCBs? 22 A You're talking about the water 23 samples, like the WGK water sample and that kind 24 of stuff? Yeah, that was the objective of it. 25 At that point in time we were Ill Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054315 1 prepared to say the method was working. And then 2 we got samples that we were pretty darn sure 3 would have this stuff in it and we ran those. 4 And then shortly after that in 1969, we published 5 the methodology internally for the analysis of 6 soil, sediment, and water for PCBs. 7 Q Mm-hmm. 8 A And then it was upgraded in -- in 9 March 1970 to include tissues and the other types 10 of biosamples. It -- it's just the progress that 11 we were going through. 12 Q And -- and so even though in 13 February of 1969 that you were not applying mass 14 spectrometer, you were confident that what you 15 were measuring on the GC/EC was, in fact, PCBs. 16 Correct? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And that was true for not only 19 samples that were taken in Anniston, but was also 20 true, for example, if you go to the next to the 21 last page of the Exhibit 4, 035958, you ran some 22 samples from Pensacola using EC/GC without mass 23 spec. Correct? 24 A Absolutely. 25 Q And you found PCBs in those 112 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054316 1 samples. Correct? 2 A Yes. 3 Q And you were confident at the time 4 that -- that, in fact, those really were PCBs 5 that you were measuring. Right? 6 A In -- in these samples, for sure, 7 because the fingerprints in those samples since 8 they were almost direct interjection of 9 materials. These were not typical environmental 10 samples. These were not exactly equivalent to 11 the transformations that the PCBs had gone 12 through that were seen in -- in the Sweden 13 samples. Okay? 14 For the -- for example, the Pensa 15 -- the Escambia River and the Pensacola, that was 16 where a unit leaked PCBs into the water, and we 17 knew it was there, and so we measured it. So we 18 saw fingerprints that were exactly what the 19 product looked like. Not abbreviated 20 fingerprints. 21 And if you notice, it says 1242, 22 not 1254. 1254 is the pentachlor, which would be 23 more like the materials that -- that were being 24 seen in Sweden. 25 Q How did you know that PCBs had link 113 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054317 1 -- had leaked into the environment in the plant 2 near Escambia River? 3 A I think the reason was, is that 4 there was a transformer, not PCBs, at that plant 5 -- but I think it was Escambia, I'm sure it was. 6 It was -- there was a transformer that leaked a 7 minor amount of material into a drainage ditch. 8 And the water at the other end, they wanted to 9 know if the PCBs had gotten down there, and so we 10 looked at it, and that may be where they came 11 from. 12 Q So by visual inspection, somebody 13 at the plant could tell that the transformer was 14 leaking, correct? 15 A They not only could tell it was 16 leaking, they corrected the situation 17 immediately. 18 Q Okay. They found a leak -19 A Right. 20 Q -- that you could -- you could -21 A Yes. 22 Q -- see it, right? 23 A Yes. I guess you could. I can't 24 tell you whether you could see it or not. I know 25 they knew it was leaking. 114 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054318 Q All right. And they knew that some of the liquid in that transformer -- well, first of all, they knew that the liquid inside of the transformer was PCBs, was Aroclors. Right? A Correct. Q And they knew that some of that liquid was getting out into the environment, correct? A They were asking the question, and we analyzed it. Q Well, they -A Verified it. Q -- they could actually see -- see that liquid A I don't think they could see a part per -Q Okay. A I don't think they could see five parts per billion PCBs in water, to be real truthful with you. So I -- that's -- that's why I'm not agreeing with you. Q I hear you. What I -- what I'm asking is they could see that the leak was -- was occurring in a spot where the liquid had an opportunity to go into the environment. 115 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054319 1 A I guess they could. I -- they sent 2 me the sample and said, "See if you can find PCBs 3 in it. " 4 Q Okay. 5 A And I found PCBs in it. And it was 6 -- if I remember, the way it's reported, I would 7 think that it was an exact fingerprint of Aroclor 8 1242. It's all -- 9 Q As I read the chart, it was 1254. 10 Right? 11 A I'm sorry? 12 Q Oh, you know what? I'm looking at 13 a different page. 14 A Yeah, you are. 15 Q I apologize. 16 A Because this is A,Aroclor, 1242. 17 Q I apologize. 18 A That's why I said -- that's what 19 all the stuff I said before was about. 20 Q No, I was looking at the wrong 21 page. 22 A Okay. I'm sorry. 23 Q My -- my fault. 24 A Not a problem. I bet I do it 25 before the day's over. 116 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054320 1 Q If you would turn to the second 2 page of Exhibit 4 with me, please. 3 A Of the table, or the -- 4 Q The actual exhibit. 5 A Okay. The writing. 6 Q The writing. Right. 7 A Okay. Great. 8 Q Right. The next to the last 9 paragraph begins, "The information to date." It 10 says, "The information to date indicates that we 11 have a global pollution problem, at the moment 12 restricted to aquatic areas because of the 13 transport and concentration of marine inhabitants 14 mechanisms." 15 A Right. 16 Q So the information to date that you 17 were talking of there was what? 18 A The information to date was the 19 general information that was available in the 20 complete literature associated with PCBs being 21 measured around. And so the conclusion -- the 22 very tentative conclusion that could be drawn at 23 that time was that was what this issue was. 24 This is not stating that the 25 information I generated here was confirming that. 117 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054321 1 It included everybody. It included Jensen and 2 Widmark and everybody. Risebrough. Tatten 3 [phonetic]. Hunten [phonetic], I mean, there 4 were a lot of people that -- that were concluding 5 different things. 6 And -- and they were -- it was, 7 first of all, global, okay? Sweden, United 8 States, California, St. Louis. You know, that 9 kind of stuff. So this sort of implies that this 10 -- this statement was based on only this 11 information, that was not correct. 12 Q Okay. So the best information 13 available to you at the time that you wrote this 14 was that PCBs were, in fact, a global 15 environmental contaminant. Correct? 16 A Yep, and we were so stating it. 17 Q By the way, do you recall what the 18 purpose of this particular paper that you wrote 19 was? 20 A Yeah, I believe earlier I said that 21 it was a rough draft of what we considered the 22 status of what was going on from our opinion 23 based on information and -- all the information 24 we had been able to get to that date, not only 25 from ourselves, but from other folks that were 118 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054322 1 interested in it. 2 Q And for whose consumption was this 3 intended? 4 A My management. All the way up the 5 company. 6 Q So it was for -- it was an internal 7 Monsanto document, it wasn't intended necessarily 8 for distribution outside of the company, correct? 9 A Yeah, but there would be no reason 10 why it couldn't have been. I'm certain portions 11 of it were. It was -- it was meant as an update 12 for the upper management in terms of what was 13 going on and what we were doing about it in my 14 particular area of the problem that I was 15 addressing. 16 Q The next sentence on the second 17 page of Exhibit 4 says, quote, "The levels of PCB 18 reported are considerably higher in industrial 19 areas than in the more remote areas so far 20 examined. While the amounts being found (PPT, 21 PPB, PPM) do not represent an acute toxicity 22 problem, they do represent long-term toxicity 23 problems," close quote. 24 So I accurately read that, correct? 25 A Yes. I almost wanted to say yeah, 119 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054323 1 you did a good job, but I -- I shouldn't do that. 2 God teach us to laugh, right? 3 Q That's all right. So what was your 4 basis for concluding that the amounts being found 5 represent long-term toxicity problems? 6 A Well, if these materials were in to 7 sense behaving in any way, shape, or form like 8 DDT in some of the other materials, then it could 9 potentially represent a long-term toxicity 10 problem. 11 Now, you have to remember -- well, 12 you don't have to remember. I remember that at 13 this particular point in time, we were saying 14 what could be possible based on this information? 15 The conjecture you were talking about earlier and 16 that kind of stuff. 17 I don't think necessarily that's 18 true for PCBs that we were seeing any long - 19 long-range specific toxicity problems that we 20 could attribute to them. You could with DDT. 21 Q So -- so is it fair to say that 22 this statement here that you say, "the amounts 23 being found do not represent an acute toxicity 24 problem, they do represent long-term toxicity 25 problems," that statement was based primarily on 120 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054324 1 what you knew at the time about DDT; is that 2 correct? 3 A I'm trying to remember when we - 4 we instituted a very large animal toxicity study 5 with Industrial Biotests, and I mean, we did dogs 6 and ducks and chickens and you name it. And we 7 did chronic as well as acute. And we generated 8 samples for -- as tissues that we could analyze 9 to see what was going on and stuff like that. 10 There were indications, and I'd 11 have to read the reports because I am not a 12 toxicologist, that there might be chronic 13 effects. Could be. But nobody knew yet. And 14 this is just, you know, like I said, it's kinda 15 like, well, what's the possible? 16 Q And you knew what the possible was 17 in large part based on what had already been 18 established with respect to DDT; is that correct? 19 A Well, what had been established 20 with DDT. The problems with DDT were first 21 noticed when they sprayed it around and killed 22 all the bugs, and the birds disappeared because 23 there weren't no bugs to eat. That's why the 24 birds went away. Later on there were some more 25 significant problems in terms of dead birds and 121 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054325 1 stuff like that. 2 So yeah, it was possible. If PCBs 3 were like DDT. 4 Q And in this particular -- if you'd 5 go to the next page, the last page of -- or 6 excuse me, the last sentence of the text above 7 your typewritten signature there says, "So far, 8 the Aroclor 5400 series have not been reported as 9 environmental contaminants." 10 The Aroclor 5400 series were not 11 PCBs; is that correct? 12 A That's correct. That's absolutely 13 correct. They were terphenyls versus biphenyls. 14 Q So these were polychlorinated 15 terphenyls, t-e-r - 16 A T-e-r-p-h-e-n-y-l-s. 17 Q Right. And that's abbreviated PCT. 18 Correct? 19 A Correct. That's absolutely 20 correct. 21 Q All right. And had you done any - 22 had you run any standards on the GC/EC for the 23 5400 series? 24 A Yes. 25 Q And so you were looking to see if 122 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054326 you were finding PCTs in your environmental samples; is that correct? A Correct. Q And to that point, approximately November of 1969, you had not found any; is that correct? A No. And nobody else had either. Q Okay. 9 A In fact, they were never really 10 found as an environmental contaminant. 11 Q Okay. So did you -- you continued 12 to look for them after that? 13 A I would have seen them -- with the 14 techniques we were using, if we were going to see 15 them, we would have seen them. But we never saw 16 them. And there's some -- there's some really 17 good reasons for that. 18 Q What are those reasons? 19 A Well, the quadrophenyls were never 20 manufactured or used in the same fashion as PCBs. 21 I mean, they were just kinda like two different 22 animals that were part of the same family. They 23 had some overlap, but not much. And -- and they 24 were also very high boiling. 25 And so the -- the properties that 123 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054327 1 would allow them to be distributed in terms of 2 uses, in terms of molecular properties, weren't 3 there. And so they -- they have never been - 4 they're just not out there to our knowledge at 5 this point in time. 6 Q Okay. 7 A And I don't think they are. 8 Q So it's your opinion that -- that 9 the chemical structure of PCTs are sufficiently 10 different from PCBs that it made it unlikely that 11 PCTs were going to accumulate in the environment; 12 is that correct? 13 A Absolutely correct. And there's 14 another one called quadrophenyls, it's a series, 15 and the same thing is true of that even more so. 16 Q Okay. Which -- do youremember 17 what series of Aroclors were quadrophenyls? 18 A They weren't. There was no series 19 of Aroclors called -- because it was never - 20 it's just chemically in the series. Biphenyl, 21 triphenyl, quadrophenyl. I mean, the terphenyls 22 were -- were three rings versus two, and I think 23 you know what I'm talking about because you're 24 familiar enough with that. Yeah, right? 25 Q I think so. 124 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054328 1 A Well, if you don't, I'd be glad to 2 enlighten you. 3 Q No, no. 4 A No, I'm teasing you. H 1 1 H 5 Q No, no. don't want to 6 necessarily have you be drawing -- drawing rings 7 and - 8A Okay. Boy, I see they never have 9 blackboards in here. 10 Q Okay. Do you agree, Dr. Tucker, 11 that when Monsanto learned that there were 12 reports of PCBs contaminating the environment, 13 the responsible thing for the company to do at 14 that point was to confirm those reports as soon 15 as reasonably possible? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Okay. Do you agree that to the 18 extent that they did confirm the presence of PCBs 19 in the environment, then the responsible thing 20 for the company to do was to take all precautions 21 to prevent more PCBs from being released into the 22 environment? 23 A Please repeat that question. 24 Q Sure. To the extent that Monsanto 25 confirmed the presence of PCBs in the 125 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054329 1 environment, the responsible thing for the 2 company to do was to take all precautions to 3 prevent more PCBs from being released to the 4 environment? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And that would include Monsanto 7 telling its customers to take all possible care 8 in the application, processing, and effluent 9 disposal of PCBs to prevent them from getting 10 into the environment. Right? 11 A Yes. 12 Q That would also include Monsanto 13 taking the same precautions at its own PCB 14 manufacturing facilities. Right? 15 A Sure. 16 Q And that would - 17 A I mean yes. I'm sorry. 18 Q That would include helping work to 19 develop alternatives to PCBs for use in 20 transformers and capacitors? 21 A Yes. 22 Q It would include terminating all 23 sales of PCBs for open, uncontrollable uses. 24 Right? 25 A Yes. 126 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054330 1 Q When did Monsanto first learn of 2 reports of PCBs contaminating the environment? 3 A Now you're talking about PCBs or 4 Aroclors ? 5 Q PCBs is what I'm asking. 6 A In 1966 when Jensen and Widmark 7 reported that some peaks that they had seen were 8 polychlorinated biphenyls. You're talking about 9 environmental samples, weathered environmental 10 samples, and that was the -- well, that's the PCB 11 story. 12 Q And in your view, Dr. Tucker, did 13 Monsanto take any action in 1966 to confirm 14 Jensen and Widmark's report? 15 A Yes. 16 Q What action did they take? 17 A They assigned me to figure it out 18 and to verify that what they were doing in Sweden 19 actually discovered PCBs. Not Aroclors, PCBs. 20 Aroclors -- PCBS were manufactured by a lot of 21 manufacturers that were global in -- in their 22 distribution, so. 23 And at that point in time, I don't 24 probably need to say it, but I'll say nobody knew 25 that the source of the PCBs were Aroclors. 127 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054331 Q All right. I -- I understand your answer, Dr Tucker, but I just want to make sure that we got the timeline straight. In late 1966, Jensen and Widmark reported the presence of PCBs in the -- in environmental samples. Correct? A Yes . Q All right. You did not work for Monsanto in 1966. Correct? A No. Q Okay. A Well -- Q Did you -- did you work -A -- I did sort of. Yeah, late 1966. Yeah, I -- you're right. Was it 19 -- no, '67, wasn't it? Or was it '68? My degree was awarded in '68. So I started at Monsanto in -- in '67. So answer to the question, no Q Okay. And I'll try it again. A Hmm? Q I'll try it again just to make sure the record is clear Did you work for Monsanto in 1966? A No. Q Okay. Are you aware of any efforts 128 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054332 1 by Monsanto in the year 1966 to confirm Jensen 2 and Widmark's work? 3 A No. 4 Q Are you aware of any work done by 5 Monsanto in the year 1967 to confirm Jensen and 6 Widmark's work? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Okay. What work was done in 1967 9 to your knowledge to confirm Jensen and Widmark? 10 A Dr. Keller received a communication 11 that came from Europe, from our representatives 12 over there, that what Soren Jensen and Widmark 13 had done. And after discussion, they decided 14 that they needed to verify that work, and they 15 assigned me to put together the equipment to 16 verify the analytical work after I was reviewed 17 what they did to make sure that I felt strongly 18 enough that it was good stuff. 19 Q Okay. And they assigned you to 20 that job in mid to late 1968. Correct? 21 A Yes. 22 Q So in 1967, is it fair to say that 23 Monsanto did not attempt to confirm in that year 24 the Jensen and Widmark's work? 25 A If you mean assigning me the job as 129 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054333 1 confirmation, yes. 2 Q Well, what -- what other work 3 besides the work that you did was done in the 4 year 1967 by Monsanto to confirm Jensen and 5 Widmark's work? 6 A Okay, let me -- let me say this. 7 Not confirm the work, but confirm the findings. 8 Okay? And -- and I'm quite sure that -- that - 9 and I seem to have some recollection that there 10 was a dialogue that went back and forth about 11 confirming what was going on, and go see Widmark 12 and blah blah blah and that kind of stuff. Go 13 see Gunther at the institute and things of that 14 sort. So they had started the ball rolling in 15 terms of trying to figure out what was really 16 going on. 17 The first communique that came 18 across was a Telex, and it talked about 19 polychlorinated biphenols, not polychlorinated 20 biphenyls. So there was even that confusion 21 associated whether or not these were really 22 polychlorinated biphenyls. 23 And so I know for a fact from 24 recollection that there was dialogue that went on 25 between the companies in terms of what's going 130 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054334 1 on, make sure this is that, and that and this, 2 and that kind of stuff. So they were trying to 3 figure out what was going on, if that's -- if 4 that -5 Q Okay. 6 A And that is, of course, an action 7 that led to eventually assigning me to do it. 8 Q I understand, I believe, but just 9 to clarify, as far as you are aware, in 1967, 10 Monsanto made no effort to actually replicate Dr. 11 Jensen and Dr. Widmark's work in terms of 12 analyzing environmental samples; is that correct? 13 A Right. Let's restrict that to Dr. 14 Widmark's and Jensen's work. 15 Q As opposed to? 16 A Well, as I said earlier, 17 Risebrough's work was based on a comparison of 18 chromatograms he got to what they got. And I'm 19 not sure he was doing real PCB analysis at that 20 time. I think he got those peaks because he was 21 analyzing samples for DDT. And he didn't know 22 what they were any more than Jensen did until he 23 got the information from Jensen and Widmark. 24 Q But in 1967, Monsanto didn't do any 25 analytical chemistry of its own to find PCBs in 131 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054335 the environment. Correct? A No, but I know in -- right when I got information about Risebrough's publication, that kind of stuff, when I was in Washington, DC, and that kind of stuff, we were in the process of beginning to get ready to do that because we were beginning to say, well, you know, these probably are PCBs and we need to find out more about them And -- and I think you had that memo out where Elmer and I went to DC. Q Right, and that was in 1968. Correct? A Yeah. Correct. Q Okay. So in 1967, as far as you know, no one at Monsanto was assigned the task that you eventually were assigned a year later? A That's correct. Q All right. Why not? A I don't think everybody was convinced in -- on -- on the level of work that had been done that there was a reality yet, or had even made the connection between our products and their products. Or that kind of thing. So even Jensen and Widmark had difficulty in the beginning when they saw those 132 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054336 1 as to why they were there. Because until they 2 really got into it and started looking around, 3 they didn't have the faintest idea where they 4 might be coming from. 5 They knew they were probably an 6 industrial chemical, but there was no reason to 7 believe that these things had found their way 8 everywhere in the world at that time. 9 And I think one of the first thing 10 they observed was over there, they used it in - 11 to paint marine hulls and ships and that kind of 12 stuff, and then I think well, okay, you know. 13 And that's kinda like the way it developed. 14 MR. JENSEN: Okay. It's 12:40, so 15 I don't want Mr. Merrill's - 16 THE WITNESS: You don't want him to 17 get grumpy? 18 MR. JENSEN: -- blood sugar to 19 drop. So why don't we take a break. How long 20 would you like to break? 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off 22 the record at 12:40 p.m. 23 (Off the record.) 24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on 25 the record at 1:27 p.m. 133 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054337 1 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Dr. Tucker, as far 2 as you were informed by Dr. Keller in 1968 when 3 he gave you this new task of trying to confirm 4 Jensen and Widmark's work, as far as you knew, 5 was there anything that had occurred between 1966 6 and 1968 that was of importance to your 7 investigation? 8 A You're going to have to run that 9 question by me again because I'm not clear what 10 the question is. Were there important things 11 going on? 12 Q Had -- had -- had Monsanto learned 13 something in between the time the Jensen/Widmark 14 paper was published and when you got the 15 assignment that was important to your task? 16 A That was important to my task. I'm 17 trying to remember when they got the copy of the 18 prepublication, which would have been important 19 to my task. 20 Q And you mean the Risebrough 21 prepublication? 22 A No.Not Risebrough at all. 23 Q Oh. 24 A Risebrough is in the United States, 25 and the - 134 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054338 1 Q Right. Right. Okay. 2 A -- original findings were in -- in 3 Sweden. And Soren Jensen gave a lecture, if I 4 remember correctly -- I don't know. 5 Soren Jensen gave a lecture, and in 6 that lecture there was a copy of it which was 7 eventually published, and that kind of thing, in 8 1967, I believe. And I believe they had that 9 when he gave me the assignment. 10 So did I need anything else to 11 begin my assignment and to complete it at that 12 point in time? No. 13 Q And as far as - 14 A So I guess no is the answer. 15 Q Okay. And just to clarify, as far 16 as you can recall and are aware, there wasn't any 17 intervening scientific report that was of 18 importance after Jensen, but before you started 19 your work in 1968. Is that right? 20 A I'm trying to think. There - 21 there was a guy who somehow or another determined 22 that those peaks were chlorinated, that contained 23 chlorine -- but no. No. Nope. 24 Q Okay. We -- today scientists refer 25 to a term called "persistent organic pollutant." 135 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054339 1 You're familiar with that. Correct? 2 A Yes. 3 Q All right. And is it fair to say 4 that term applies to PCBs? 5 A It's fair to say that term applies 6 to PCBs that are found in weathered samples after 7 they've gone through all the processes and 8 haven't been degraded, so that -- yes. 9 Q All right. And so weathered PCBs 10 are persistent organic pollutants. Right? 11 A Yes. Understanding there are 209 12 of them, only 130 max are out there, and a good 13 -- and only probably on the order of a maximum of 14 forty-six isomers really are in the ones that 15 were found out there. On the theoretical basis 16 because they looked at penta and hexa. 17 Q Okay. So your view is not all PCBs 18 are persistent organic pollutants, but many of 19 them are. Correct? 20 A That's correct. And that's been 21 proven by the data and -- that's around, and 22 that's a known fact. 23 Q Okay. All right. And would you 24 also agree that DDT, as an example, is also a 25 persistent organic pollutant? 136 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054340 1 A Yes, with the exception that in 2 very weathered samples, one of the metabolites of 3 DDT is more persistent than it is, and that's of 4 course DDE. But yes, DDT would -- I would 5 classify as a persistent organic -6 organochemical pollutant. 7 Q And in fact, isn't it true, Dr. 8 Tucker, that all of the chlorinated hydrocarbon 9 pesticides that you were describing earlier that 10 are -- that interfere with PCBs on GC analysis, 11 all of those are persistent organic pollutants, 12 isn't that true? 13 A Yes, sir. 14 Q And do you agree that DDT is 15 lipophilic? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q And that means it loves fat. 18 That's the literal translation, right? 19 A It means it has a high solubility 20 in lipid. 21 Q And effectively, that -- that means 22 that when animals take in DDT, it stores in their 23 fat tissue; is that correct? 24 A When animals take in DDT, it 25 accumulates in the fat. Yes. I'm not trying to 137 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054341 put words in your mouth, I'm just trying to give you my understanding. Q No, I -- fair enough. And would you agree that DDT is bioaccumulative? A That it bioaccumulates. Yes. Q And basically that term is -- is referring to the fact that it stays in fat tissue longer than you can get rid of it as an animal Correct? A Okay. Here's the rub from my viewpoint with that. If you continuously put the material into the environment, it continuously feeds into the animal, it continually bioaccumulates. If you take the material input out, then these materials will come back out of the fat eventually, and -- and the concentration goes down. And that's not only true for fat in animals that are exposed to these kinds of things, but also for trophic systems like Great Lakes and other places like that. Q Okay. A So yeah. Okay. Yes. I think. Q I think I understand your answer. And -- and you're saying they wouldn't 138 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054342 1 bioaccumulate if there was no additional exposure 2 to them. Right? You wouldn't get more in your 3 system if there wasn't more coming in? 4 A They would begin to disappear, 5 which has been shown. 6 Q Because they don't stay in your fat 7 tissue forever, they just - 8 A Correct. 9 Q -- stay there a long time. Right? 10 A Right. Yes. It's a -- it's a 11 perfect place for the animal to put it. So it 12 doesn't overwhelm other organs -- organs in its 13 body. 14 Q And would you agree that DDT is 15 also environmentally persistent? 16 A Yeah. Yes. 17 Q And those three characteristics of 18 being lipophilic, bioaccumulative, and 19 environmentally persistent, those three 20 characteristics together is basically the - 21 provide the reasons why DDT is considered a 22 persistent organic pollutant; is that fair to 23 say? 24 A They are the reasons that it is. 25 Yes. 139 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054343 1 Q Okay. All right. Have you done 2 any research -- strike that. 3 Do you know when it was known that 4 DDT was lipophilic? 5 A I think it's always been known that 6 molecules of that type are soluble in lipid-like 7 materials, but I think the term "lipophilic" 8 really came around when they began to analyze the 9 lipid pools in organisms and to find the 10 materials in there. So that's when the term came 11 about. All it says basically is that these are 12 very water insoluble materials. 13 Q Do you know when scientists began 14 finding concentrations of DDT in animal fat 15 tissue? And reporting it in the literature? 16 A Okay, there's a difference between 17 animals intentionally exposed and what we call 18 weathered bioaccumulated materials. Okay? 19 They -- in -- there's articles 20 that, I think in the -- in the references that 21 you provided, that talk about measuring DDT in 22 cow's milk and things of that sort, in the 23 lipophilic portion of the milk. So where they 24 were intentionally giving to them and that kind 25 of stuff, you know, they measured them in there 140 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054344 1 before. 2 But to measure them and understand, 3 as Soren Jensen and Widmark did, that they're so 4 persistent that they eventually find themselves 5 at very small concentrations way up in the food 6 chain is more what you would call what we're 7 talking about. But lipophilic is a 8 characteristic of those kinds of compounds. 9 Q When is it your understanding that 10 it was first known and reported in the scientific 11 literature that DDT was contaminating the food 12 chain? 13 A I -- I have to admit I wouldn't 14 know the exact date, but -- but I know that 15 certainly it was -- DDT was introduced, you know, 16 before world -- before the war, and -- and there 17 was a lot made and that kind of stuff. So I'd 18 say in -- probably in the 1960s or so. 19 Q Okay. But you don't -- you don't 20 know; is that correct? 21 A That's what I said. 22 Q Yeah. And just to make sure I 23 understand, the -- the three properties of being 24 lipophilic, bioaccumulative, and persistent, 25 those are the three properties that -- chemical 141 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054345 properties of DDT that make them likely to accumulate in the environment; is that correct? A Yes . Q Okay. Now, PCBs are lipophilic. Correct? A Yes . Q And PCBs are bioaccumulative. Correct? A Yes . Q And PCBs, at least some of them, are persistent in the environment. Correct? A Yes . Q And those same three properties are also shared by, for example, aldrin, another chlorinated hydrocarbon, correct? A Yes . Q And they're -- those three characteristics of lipophilic, bioaccumulative, and environmentally persistent are shared by dieldrin, right? A Yes . Q And those three characteristics are also shared by many other chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides. Right? A If they have the three properties 142 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054346 1 we talked about. Yes. 2 Q And there's a big group of them 3 that do have those three properties, right? 4 A There's a huge group of organic 5 chemicals greater than the chlorinated 6 hydrocarbon ones that have those properties, but 7 they don't have them to the extent that these 8 compounds have those properties. So yes, I 9 guess. 10 Q Are -- in the respect of chemical 11 similarity with regard to those three properties, 12 being lipophilic, being bioaccumulative, and 13 being environmentally persistent, are PCBs more 14 like DDT or more like PCTs? 15 MR. MERRILL: I'm going to object 16 to the form of the question. 17 A PC -- and PC -- 18 MR. MERRILL: And lack of 19 foundation. 20 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I didn't 21 mean to interrupt you. 22 MR. MERRILL: That's okay. 23 THE WITNESS: I jumped in on that 24 one. 25 MR. MERRILL: Okay. 143 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054347 1 A You're talking about 2 polychlorinated terphenyls. 3 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Correct. 4 A And you're indicating that the 5 polychlorinated terphenyls have the same 6 propensity that -- have higher propensity than - 7 I -- okay. 8 Q No, let me rephrase it. 9 A Yeah, please. 10 Q Let me withdraw that question and 11 try a different one. 12 So you've agreed that PCBs and DDT 13 are alike in that they're both lipophilic, 14 correct? In that sense, they're both alike? 15 A Yes, they have -- those are similar 16 chemical -- those are chemical properties of that 17 group of compounds. 18 Q Right. And that's also true 19 they're -- they're both alike in the sense that 20 they are environmentally persistent. Right? 21 A Right. 22 Q And they're both alike in the sense 23 that they are bioaccumulative. Correct? 24 A Right. 25 Q And those three properties are the 144 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054348 1 three properties that they share that make both 2 of them likely to accumulate in the environment. 3 Right? 4 A Right. 5 Q Okay. Now, are PCTs, as far as you 6 know, bioaccumulative? 7 A I don't know. 8 Q Okay. Have you seen any evidence 9 that PCTs are bioaccumulative? 10 A No. 11 Q Have you seen any evidence that 12 PCTs are environmentally persistent? 13 A No. 14 Q Are PCTs lipophilic? 15 A Yes. 16 Q So with respect to the 17 characteristics that make chemicals more likely 18 to accumulate in the environment, would you 19 agree, Dr. Tucker, that PCBs are more like DDT 20 than they are like PCTs? 21 A No. 22 Q No? Why not? 23 A Well, DDT was manufactured with the 24 sole purpose of being a poison. That's one big 25 difference, and neither one of those compounds 145 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054349 1 are acutely toxic or poisonous and that kind of 2 stuff, and they weren't manufactured for that 3 purpose. 4 In -- in -- I don't think those are 5 all the properties that are required to 6 demonstrate bioaccumulation, to demonstrate that 7 they build up in the food chain, things of that 8 sort. I think there's reasons why -- why -- why 9 terphenyls, chlorinated terphenyls have higher - 10 have higher lipid solubility and things of that 11 sort, and they still don't show up. I think 12 there's other reasons for it, so I think there's 13 more to it than that. 14 Q But in terms of the three 15 characteristics that we've discussed that make a 16 chemical more likely to accumulate in the 17 environment, PCBs and DDTs share all three of 18 those characteristics, right? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And PCBs only share -- excuse me. 21 PCBs and PCTs only share one of those 22 characteristics. Right? 23 A Would you identify the one they 24 share? 25 Q Lipo -- they're both lipophilic, 146 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054350 1 right? 2 A Right. And the other ones are? 3 Q Bioaccumulative. You've seen no 4 evidence that PCTs are bioaccumulative, right? 5 A No, I haven't. 6 Q And you've seen no evidence that 7 PCTs are environmentally persistent, right? 8 A No, nobody's attempted to 9 demonstrate that. 10 Q As far as you know, they are not 11 environmentally persistent; is that correct? 12 A There's no information in terms of 13 analysis of environmental samples and things of 14 that sort that would indicate that we're seeing 15 polychlorinated terphenyls accumulate in the 16 environment. 17 Q Are you aware of whether Monsanto 18 eventually got out of the PCT manufacturing 19 business ? 20 A I'm -- I don't -- I'm sure they 21 probably did, but I don't -- it wasn't -- it 22 wasn't a big deal, to be real truthful. There 23 weren't -- there were no demonstrated problems 24 with those particular materials. But I don't 25 know. 147 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054351 1 Q Okay. And so if Monsanto did get 2 out of the PCT business, you don't know why. Is 3 that right? 4 A No. 5 Q I am correct that you don't know? 6 A Yes. You are correct. 7 Q Okay. 8 A That I have no specific information 9 as to why Monsanto made the decision, if they 10 did, to get out of that particular business, or 11 not necessarily get out of that business, but no 12 longer manufacture the materials. 13 Q Would the technology have been 14 available in the 1940s to determine whether PCBs 15 broke down in the environment? 16 A No. 17 Q Okay. So you cannot conceive of 18 any experiment that could be done to -- that 19 could have been done, excuse me, at that time to 20 -- to make that determination? 21 A No. 22 Q Is that correct? 23 A Well, there was noexperiment done 24 at that time that would have demonstrated that 25 because they weren't capable of doing those 148 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054352 1 experiments. 2 Q Okay. 3 A So I don't know. So no. 4 Q And when you say, "they weren't 5 capable of doing those experiments," what do you 6 mean by that? 7 A Okay. Let me understand that your 8 question isn't multiple phase. Now, what was 9 your question? There was -- that they're not 10 bioaccumulating; is that correct? 11 Q No, I'm sorry, that's not what I 12 asked. What I asked was, was -- was the 13 technology available in the 1940s that could have 14 tested whether PCBs break down in the -- when 15 they're in the environment? 16 A I don't think so. No. 17 MR. JENSEN: Okay. So -- well, I 18 tell you what. John has to switch the tape. 19 Let's switch the tape. 20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We' re going off 21 the record at 1:46 p.m. 22 (Off the record.) 23 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We' re back on 24 the record on tape 4 at 1:48 p.m. 25 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Dr. Tucker, would 149 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054353 1 it have been possible in the 1940s to conduct an 2 experiment where Monsanto put -- dumped a hundred 3 gallons of Aroclor into a plot on the ground into 4 some dirt, and then came back three months later 5 and measured to see if there were any PCBs 6 present? 7 A Are you asking whether that's a 8 plausible thing to be done if somebody wanted to 9 do it? 10 Q If someone wanted to do it - 11 A Sure. Mechanically, everything, 12 yeah. Sure, you can do that. 13 Q And -- and if that had been done, 14 they would have been able to find that there were 15 still many PCBs there months after they were 16 dumped into the environment back in the 1940s. 17 Right? 18 A Yes, for obvious reasons. 19 Q And -- and what -- what do you mean 20 by that? 21 A Because if you dump pure PCBs on 22 the ground and you come back years later, it's 23 still going to be there because they're not in a 24 form or a concentration that can be presented to 25 the degradation processes that go on in the 150 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054354 1 environment. 2 Q Mm-hmm. So if you dumped a hundred 3 gallons of benzene, pure benzene onto the ground, 4 and you came back three months later, would the 5 benzene be there? 6 A Benzene is a totally different 7 compound. 8 Q What's the answer to the question? 9 A If I came back there, would - 10 would there still be benzene detectable there? 11 Yes. 12 Q Okay. Relative to the 13 concentration of PCBs, how much benzene would 14 there be? 15 MR. MERRILL: Object to the 16 question based on lack of foundation. 17 A Well, depending upon whether it was 18 on the ground, in the ground, or below the ground 19 would have something on that. 20 As long as it was able to be in 21 contact with the atmosphere, it would vaporize 22 because the boiling point of benzene is so low 23 relative to PCBs, that it would simply vaporize 24 into the air. But that doesn't mean that it's 25 been degraded or it's gone away, it just means 151 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054355 that it's been distributed Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Well, you wouldn't find it on the ground anymore if you looked on the ground? A You'd find traces of it. Q Yeah, but not -- you'd find -A So the answer to your question is yes, you'd find it on the ground. Q Okay. All right. You'd find -you'd find some benzene on the ground even using the technology that was available in the 1940s? A I would guess you would, yes. Q Okay. And if -- if you had two plots side by side, one of them a hundred gallons of Aroclor 1254 had been poured onto the ground, the other one a hundred gallons of pure benzene had been poured onto the ground, almost all of the benzene would have vaporized into the air. Right? A As I said, there are some other variables in there that would make me agree to that question, but benzene is a lower boiling compound and has a higher vapor pressure, it would disappear. Benzene is also not chlorinated and those kinds of things, so there's -- it's 152 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054356 1 like apples and oranges, so. 2 Q Right. And almost all hundred 3 gallons of the PCBs would still be there three 4 months later, right? 5 A More than -- yes. 6 Q All right. And many of those PCBs 7 would be in identical chemical form to what they 8 had been in when they were in the original 9 mixture. Right? 10 A Many of -- please phrase it -- can 11 you say that again? 12 Q Many of the isomers -- so -- so 13 that Aroclor 1254 we have established is a 14 mixture of different congeners of PCBs, right? 15 A It would be impossible to tell if 16 the isomeric distribution of the total content 17 that was there was exactly what was put down 18 because there could be degradation on the surface 19 and in contact with the ground where some of the 20 materials were degraded by the bacteria and/or 21 other physical chemical routines. 22 But the amount relative to the 23 hundred gallons you need to put on the ground is 24 so insignificant you would not be able to 25 determine that. 153 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054357 1 Q Okay. 2 A So you wouldn't be able to know. 3 Q Okay. And in the 1940s, I take it 4 you would agree that if someone had run that 5 experiment, no one would have been surprised that 6 when they came back three months later, the - 7 most of the PCBs were -- were still there? 8 A That's correct. 9 Q All right. And infact, if you had 10 come back a year later, no one would have been 11 surprised that most of the PCBs were still there. 12 Is that right? 13 A That's correct. 14 Q And if you had come back five years 15 later, no one would have been surprised in the 16 1940s that most of the PCBs were still there. 17 Right? 18 A That's correct, aslong as now 19 you're getting into a time range where you're not 20 dealing with 21 percent chlorinated biphenyl and 21 you're not dealing necessarily with 42 percent 22 chlorinated biphenyl. But if you're dealing with 23 the 54 percent chlorinated biphenyl, yes. 24 And the other problem, of course, 25 is, is that you can't see the degradation because 154 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054358 1 there's too much of the original material still 2 there so it hides any degradation that would be 3 happening. 4 So to answer your question, in the 5 1940s, you're absolutely correct, because they 6 didn't have the ability to do that. So yes. 7 Q When was the technology first 8 available to provide a GC electron capture 9 detector fingerprint of Aroclor? 10 A By who? 11 Q By anyone. 12 A Well, the detector was invented in 13 1960, so it'd have to be sometime after 1960. 14 And then you'd have to find somebody that wanted 15 to do it, and then you'd have to find somebody 16 that had Aroclors or PCBs to do it and that kind 17 of stuff. So it couldn't have been before 1960. 18 Q How do you know that it was 19 invented in 1960? 20 A Because J.R. Locklove [sic] is the 21 person who invented that use for that detector. 22 And it's the first documented use of that 23 detector. So that's when it became available to 24 do this kind of thing. So they couldn't have 25 done that before 1960. That's how I know. 155 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054359 1 Q Okay. What -- what are you relying 2 on for the 1960 date? Is there a document, or a 3 4 A Yeah, no, it's published in the 5 literature, and I'm sure that we can verify that 6 if you'd like to. 7 Q Okay. Is there any reference in 8 your reliance materials right now that includes 9 that date? 10 A I think there probably is. I think 11 Lock -- well, I don't know, to be real truthful 12 with you, but certainly it can be looked for. 13 And if it can't be found, it's -- it's in the 14 literature, and any competent analytical chemist 15 can find it in the literature. 16 Q All right. 17 A In fact, I know it's in the 18 relevance documents. Didn't you give him Mitch 19 Eriksen's book? 20 MR. MERRILL: Yeah. 21 THE WITNESS: Parts from that? 22 Yeah. Yeah, Dr. Eriksen has done a very good 23 roundup of all the facts about PCBs in all the 24 different areas and that kind of stuff, and I 25 think you were given three chapters of it in the 156 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054360 1 relevance documents, and it probably is in that. 2 MR. JENSEN: I'm familiar with 3 Eriksen's book, and I don't -4 MR. MERRILL: Yeah, we -- 5 MR. JENSEN: -- I don't believe 6 that it -7 MR. MERRILL: Yeah, we -- 8 MR. JENSEN: -- was produced as 9 part of -10 MR. MERRILL: We did. 11 MR. JENSEN: -- Dr. Tucker's 12 reliance materials. 13 MR. MERRILL: We did. 14 THE WITNESS: No, it is. I'm -- 15 MR. JENSEN: Okay. All right. 16 THE WITNESS: -- confident it's in 17 there. I'm sure you'll find it if you look. 18 MR. JENSEN: I -- I -- I believe 19 that you meant to. 20 THE WITNESS: Believe. 21 MR. JENSEN: I believe that you 22 meant to. I'm going to tell you, I don't think 23 it was. 24 MR. MERRILL: We can check the 25 disk, I don't know. 157 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054361 1 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 2 MR. MERRILL: Actually, I've got 3 the disk. 4 MR. JENSEN: Yeah, yeah, I think 5 you should, because I'm telling you, I've been 6 through the materials and it's not there. Having 7 said that, that's okay. 8 MR. MERRILL: You know, it might 9 have been in the supplemental. We did a 10 supplemental. 11 MR. JENSEN: When did you do the 12 supplemental? 13 MR. MERRILL: We did -- we sent you 14 two disks, I believe, and then there's -- then - 15 MR. JENSEN: I'm sure there was - 16 I'm confident that it was in the supplemental and 17 that that did not ever come to my attention. 18 THE WITNESS: I -- I think it's 19 reasonable to trust me that you'll find it. 20 MR. MERRILL: You don't know what 21 we sent him. 22 MR. JENSEN: No, no, I -- 23 THE WITNESS: No, but it's in 24 there, it's in Eriksen's book. I mean, I know - 25 MR. MERRILL: Oh, no. Okay. 158 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054362 1 THE WITNESS: He's a friend of 2 mine, I know he wrote the book. 3 MR. JENSEN: Okay. 4 (Exhibit 5 marked for 5 identification by counsel for plaintiffs.) 6 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) I have marked as 7 Exhibit 5 a document that is also part of your 8 reliance materials. Do you recall having seen 9 this before? 10 A Yes, I do. 11 Q All right. Andthis is excerpts 12 from papers that were given at a symposium on gas 13 chromatography in August of 1957; is that right? 14 A Yes. 15 Q All right. If you would turn to 16 [sic] me to what is Bates No. PLTEXP 9344. 17 MR. MERRILL: By the way, have we 18 -- have we marked this? 19 MR. JENSEN: I yeah, I'm sorry, 20 I marked it as Exhibit 5. 21 Q (BY MR. JENSEN)Now, if you look 22 at the bottom of this page 62 of the original 23 publication, the last sentence that carries over 24 to the top of page 63, it begins with the 25 statement, "High sensitivity ionization and 159 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054363 1 discharge detectors have already been described 2 by Ryce and Bryce, and by Harley and Pretorious. 3 "I would like here to draw 4 attention to two recent British developments in 5 the same direction. Dr. J.E. Lovelock (National 6 Institute for Medical Research, Mill Hill, 7 London) has shown how a considerable (times 100) 8 increase in sensitivity of the ionization type 9 detector may be achieved by using argon as 10 carrier gas. 11 "Argon atoms are easily raised to 12 an excited, but non-ionized and hence 13 non-conducting, state of about 11.5 volts. These 14 excited atoms store up ionization energy and pass 15 it on to the vapor molecules in collisions. 16 "Dr. R.C. Pitkethly," 17 P-i-t-k-e-t-h-l-y, "(British Petroleum Company, 18 Sunbury-on-Thames) has developed a simple and 19 improved discharge detector, in which the 20 discharge tubes are made from ordinary neon 21 indicator tubes." 22 Now, Dr. Tucker, isn't it true that 23 what is being described in that paragraph is the 24 first version of an electron capture detector? 25 A No. 160 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054364 Q Okay. What is it describing, then? A It's a -- it's describing an ionization detector, not an electron capture detector Q Mm-hmm. So -- A Would you show me where they mention electron capture in there? Q So are they not talking about electrons being measured there? A No. Q Okay. A They're talking about measuring ionized argon Q You ever heard of somebody named Eric von Hippel? A Who? Q Eric von Hippel? A That doesn't ring any bells at the moment. Q Okay. Would you agree or disagree that the electron capture detector is an improved version - (Reporter interruption.) Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Version of the argon ionization detector? 161 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054365 1 A I'd have to read whatever reference 2 you're talking about before I could give you an 3 opinion on that. 4 Q Did you ever use an argon 5 ionization detector? 6 A I don't think I have. They're 7 called pie argon ionization detectors or 8 something like that? No, I don't think I have. 9 Q Do you know what the sensitivity of 10 the argon ionization detector is? 11 A A hundred times more than whatever 12 they were dealing with before this article I 13 looked at was. But I don't think it's 14 particularly necessary that this one was in the 15 range of -- that the electron capture detectors 16 we used were. 17 Q Okay. So do you know one way or 18 the other whether an argon ionization detector 19 would have been sufficient to provide a 20 fingerprint of PCBs in environmental samples? 21 A No. 22 Q Do you know when Monsanto first got 23 an electron capture detector? 24 A Before I got there. 25 Q But you don't know when? 162 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054366 1 A That's it. 2 Q Okay. 3 A That's the best recollection I have 4 and the best estimate I can give you. So do I 5 know exactly when they got it? No. 6 Q Okay. So just so I understand, 7 your opinion is that by 1960, the technology 8 existed and was available by which you could 9 fingerprint PCBs in the environment. Correct? 10 A No, I don't think that's -- if 11 you're -- if you're discussing ananswer to an 12 earlier question, I don't think that's a 13 conclusion that could be drawn from it. 14 Q Okay. 15 A My recollection -- if you --well, 16 I don't know if you want to -17 Q No, go ahead. 18 A My recollection of the question was 19 when could it have happened, and I said after 20 1960 because that's when J.R. Lovelock really 21 began to have the electron capture detector 22 available for the kind of work that we were 23 doing. 24 And it was a very -- it wasn't the 25 one that we used. The one that we used was 163 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054367 obviously improved, and the one that the other pesticide analysis people used was obviously improved too . Q But the technology for creating such a fingerprint existed as of 1960. Is that your -- is that your testimony? A I don't know. It wasn't done, that was for sure. Q So -- A And those detectors that you were talking about earlier I don't think were used necessarily for pesticide analysis. But I don't know. I don't know. Q Do you have any reason to believe that the gas chromatograph electron capture detector that was -- became available in 1960 could not have been used to create a fingerprint for PCBs in analytical -- A No. I know it wasn't used, but... Q Because nobody thought to use it, right? A I'm sorry? Q Nobody thought to use it? A I don't know whether they thought to use it or they didn't consider it usable. I 164 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054368 1 mean, that -- I mean, you're asking me -- you're 2 asking me what I think. I think either one of 3 those conclusions could be drawn from that. I 4 know that if it had worked, there were lots of 5 people out there that were interested. 6 Q Okay. But you do know a little bit 7 about Monsanto's history with respect to 8 analyzing for PCBs in the environment. Right? 9 A A little bit. 10 Q Yeah. And not only because of the 11 work that you personally did, but because - 12 because you were put in charge of that project, 13 you had to learn what had happened beforehand. 14 Right? In Monsanto? 15 A Right. If they had already had 16 methodology available within the company to do 17 that kind of thing and a reason to do it, I would 18 have known about it, yes. 19 Q Right. 20 A I thinkthat was the question. 21 Right? 22 Q Right. And sono one at Monsanto 23 thought to do it. Right? Back in 1960? Before 24 it - 25 A No one had a need to think about 165 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054369 1 doing it, yes. 2 Q Okay. Well, whether they had a 3 need or not, no one did think about it. Right? 4 MR. MERRILL: I'm going to object 5 to the form of the question based on lack of 6 foundation, but anyway, go ahead. 7 A I can agree to the abbreviated form 8 of -- for that reason, I agree to what you say. 9 There's -- they didn't do it. 10 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) You would agree 11 that by 1957, Monsanto's chemists were experts in 12 the field of gas chromatography, right? 13 A Would I agree that they were? 14 Q Yes. 15 A I would agree that they had gas 16 chromatographs and they had experience in it, but 17 there were all sorts of kinds of gas 18 chromatography, as you are pointing out. 19 Q Would you agree that they were 20 experts, or not? 21 MR. MERRILL: Object to the form of 22 the question. 23 A In the types of gas chromatography 24 they used, if they had practiced them enough, 25 which I believe they did, they were probably 166 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054370 experts at the level they needed to be. Okay? Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Okay. A They didn't do environmental analysis then Q What kind of -- what kind of detector for the gas chromatograph was in use at Monsanto, if you know, in the late 1950s? A In the late 1950s? Q Uh-huh. A I don't know. Q Do you know what kind of detector was in use generally in gas chromatographs in the late 1950s? A I know the variety that were used, oh, yeah, thermal conductivity, flame ionization. Q Okay. And -- A Flame ionization, thermal conductivity Q What is the sensitivity of those detectors to -- to find chlorinated hydrocarbons in chlorinated hydrocarbon mixtures? A Well, I'd have to give you some ranges. The thermal conductivity would probably be the least sensitive of the bunch, and it's probably in the tenth of a percent or higher 167 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054371 1 range in terms of sensitivity for single 2 components. 3 For the flame ionization detector, 4 the -- they're probably -- the flame ionization 5 detector is probably about a factor of a thousand 6 to 10,000 times lower. So they would get down in 7 the part per million range for individual 8 components in a clear-cut case and that kind of 9 stuff. And those are the two detectors you were 10 asking about. 11 Q Okay. So is it fair to say that a 12 gas chromatograph with a flame ionization 13 detector in the late 1950s could have detected 14 PCBs in the part per million range? 15 A In an environmental sample; is that 16 the question? Or just, could they detect fifty 17 parts million -- parts per million of PCBs in a 18 nice clean sample with nothing else into it? 19 Q Okay. Well, let's -- let's break 20 it down. 21 A Okay. 22 Q So if -- let's say that the sample 23 is a sample of -- of insecticide that for some 24 reason someone has -- has cause to believe that 25 it may have gotten -- the insecticide may have 168 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054372 gotten contaminated with Aroclors. Okay? A Or PCBs. Q Or PCBs. And they want to find out if, and if so, how much PCBs are in this insecticide. Would the -- first of all, would the flame ionization detector have been able to run that kind of analysis at all? A Would have been able to run it through their GC, and you would have been able to detect it, yes . Q Okay. And you would have been able to detect it in, somewhere in the parts per million range? Detect PCBs in that sample -- A Depending upon the ratio of the two particular things that were in there. If there are a hundred times more of the pesticide in there than PCBs, you probably wouldn't be able to see them. Because the flame ionization detector is a non-specific detector. Anything with a carbon hydrogen or a carbon-carbon bond or any of those kinds of things will produce a response in the ionization detector. So it would not differentiate in any way, shape, or form between any of those kinds of things. It would 169 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054373 1 just give you a big blob. 2 Q Well, so at -- is there any level 3 of PCBs in that mixture with the pesticide that 4 the flame ionization detector would have been 5 able to say, yep, in this pesticide there's also 6 PCBs? 7 A No. 8 Q Okay. So if you've got a mixture 9 of a pesticide with some quantity of PCBs, let's 10 say it's half and half, would -- would Monsanto 11 chemists in 1957 have been able to determine that 12 PCBs were in that mixture? 13 A Only if they put it inthere. 14 Q Okay. So if you're -- if they were 15 given a -- let's -- let's -- let's put the 16 hypothetical this way, Doctor. If they are given 17 a bucket and they're told that there could be 18 PCBs in this, and in fact, the bucket has half 19 PCBs and half insecticide, would they have been 20 able to determine through analytical techniques 21 whether there were PCBs in it? Any PCBs? 22 A Using a flame ionization detector 23 with equal amounts of the two materials there. 24 No. First of all, a flame ionization detector 25 doesn't identify anything, it just detects 170 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054374 1 things. And it's a universal detector so it 2 detects everything that can be ionized in a 3 flame. Everything that will burn. And so it 4 just produces the results no matter what. 5 Now, even if you had gotten some 6 peaks and that kind of stuff, there would be no 7 way that you could say, oh, yeah, gee, that's - 8 that's PCBs. That's Aroclor. Because it's a 9 non-specific detector. It doesn't identify 10 things. That's why they had to have the mass 11 spectrometer. 12 Q Okay. And would there have been 13 any alternative technique -- let's say you had 14 this bucket, and they knew that there were some 15 PCBs and some DDT in this bucket. Is there any 16 technique for separating them available? 17 A No. As you've already pointed out, 18 the physical chemical properties of the two from 19 a -- are almost equivalent from solubility, from 20 resistance, from those kinds of things. So 21 they're so much alike that you would have to 22 design some really interesting separation 23 techniques to separate them. 24 Q Okay. 25 A Now, there probably were ways to do 171 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054375 1 it, I know ways to do it, but I don't think they 2 were necessarily available or understood at that 3 point in time. 4 Q Are you aware that Monsanto in the 5 1940s manufactured DDT? 6 A Yes, they did. I am aware of that. 7 Q Okay. And at that time Monsanto, 8 like all other chemical companies, had a quality 9 control process. Right? 10 A You're telling me. I'm just aware 11 of the fact that they did contract manufacture of 12 PCBs for the government. 13 Q Of PCBs, or did you mean to say - 14 A No, I'm sorry, I meant D -- I meant 15 DDT. I apologize. DDT. There was a huge need 16 for DDT at that point in time. A lot of chemical 17 companies undertook contract manufacture of those 18 materials for formulators that eventually passed 19 it on to the government, is my understanding. 20 Q Are - 21 A And you're asking me my 22 understanding. 23 Q I -- I hear you. Are -- is it your 24 understanding that the only customer that 25 Monsanto -- to which Monsanto sold PCB -- excuse 172 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054376 me, now I've done it. The only customer to which Monsanto sold DDT was the government? A I don't know. They could have been contracted to Montrose or any of the other major manufacturers that needed the extra capacity to supply what they were being asked to supply. It was during the war, if I know. And very frankly, I have no one-on-one knowledge of that fact, it's just something that I -- I know happened Q Okay. And how do you know? A Because I've been told that happened. But I -Q By whom? A -- I never confirmed it in the literature or looked in any Monsanto records or anything of that sort. I know that was a common thing that happened during that period of time. Q From whom did you learn this information? A Probably somebody associated with Monsanto. Q Monsanto's lawyers probably? A It could have been them, it could have been anybody that had that particular 173 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054377 1 knowledge that might have mentioned it. It's a 2 hearsay thing that I know, but I have no reason 3 to doubt that that's not true. 4 Q So you have done no independent 5 investigation to confirm who Monsanto sold DDT 6 to. Correct? 7 A No. Absolutely not. I have no 8 reason to do so. 9 Q Okay. You've no -- done no 10 independent investigation to determine how much 11 DDT Monsanto sold? 12 A No. Unh-uh. Absolutely not. 13 Q Okay. And as you sit here today, I 14 assume you don't have any idea what kind of 15 quality control measures Monsanto had in place 16 with respect to manufacture of DDT when it made 17 it; is that correct? 18 A You are correct. 19 Q Do you know what kind of quality 20 control measures Monsanto had in place in the 21 1940s and 1950s with respect to its PCB products? 22 A No. 23 Q All right. How about at any time? 24 Do you know what kind of quality control measures 25 Monsanto had in place for Aroclor products once 174 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054378 1 you got there? 2 A Yes, I'm aware of things that were 3 used to determine that the product had met -- met 4 the criteria as it came -- when it was produced, 5 yeah. 6 Q Okay. Could -- could Monsanto 7 chemists in the 1950s have been able to 8 distinguish a bucket of DDT from a bucket of 9 PCBs ? 10 A Well, I would say they probably 11 could tell they were different, that was sure. 12 Q Okay. Using analytical techniques, 13 or just by looking at it? 14 A I think just by looking at it. I 15 think DDT is a crystalline material, isn't it? 16 And I think PCBs are liquid, so to speak, or 17 gels, whichever way you want to look at it. So I 18 -- I say visual observation at that bucket level, 19 which you seem to be stuck on, would be easy. 20 Because we're not dealing with buckets at the 21 analytical level that I was working at. 22 So if you had a bucket of DDT which 23 is a crystalline material, and you had a bucket 24 of PCBs -- mixtures of PCBs which is not a 25 crystalline material, but a viscous fluid 175 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054379 1 material, I think you could differentiate. 2 Q And you would do so in that 3 instance with the bucket level, you'd do so just 4 by physical observation? 5 A Correct. But even then if I wasn't 6 aware that one was DDT and one was PCBs, I 7 wouldn't be able to tell you whether they were 8 PCBs or DDT. I'd be able to tell you that they 9 were different from each other. 10 Q Okay. So your testimony is you 11 couldn't have run any chemical analysis on them 12 to tell them apart; is that right? 13 A No, I didn't say that. You asked 14 me if I had a bucket of each -15 Q All right. 16 A -- on the ground, could I 17 differentiate them, and I tried to give you as 18 explicit an answer as I could, and as simple as I 19 could. You could take samples of it if they were 20 pure materials and do carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen 21 analysis which is a macro analysis, and then you 22 could back calculate to see if it fit the 23 molecular structure. 24 Now that would be a little easy 25 with DDT because it was a single component 176 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054380 1 system. With DDT -- with PCBs it gets a little 2 bit more difficult because it's a multi-component 3 system. 4 Q Okay. Could it have been done with 5 respect to PCBs in the 1940s? 6 A What? 7 Q What you just described. 8 A Carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen 9 analysis? Absolutely. 10 Q Yes. Okay. 11 A They could have run a melting point 12 on it, too, on the DDT. I mean, you know, there 13 were macro -- there were ways that organic 14 chemists determined what they had. And so I'm 15 saying [sic] to say there were -- there were 16 tests that would allow you to differentiate, but 17 I don't... 18 Q Okay. Would that -- would those 19 tests allow you to differentiate a mixture of DDT 20 and PCBs? 21 A Okay, I'm feeling the question is 22 could I say that instead of having pure PCBs and 23 pure -- pure DDT, I have a mixture of the two? 24 No, not really. 25 Q Okay. So back then, once they got 177 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054381 1 the mix together, there was nothing you could do 2 to tell them apart; is that your testimony? 3 A I'm not saying there wasn't 4 anything they couldn't do. There could be things 5 they could have done. I don't know what they 6 would be, and I don't know what they would do 7 with the expertise they had at that point in time 8 for the kind of example that you're presenting. 9 Q You agree that even without a mass 10 spectrometer, by 1966, gas chromatography with an 11 electron capture detector was capable of creating 12 a fingerprint for PCBs? 13 A Yeah. Yeah, I do. Because a mass 14 spec -- yes. Sure. 15 Q As far as you are aware, Dr. 16 Tucker, were the chronic toxicity studies that 17 Industrial Biotests did for Monsanto beginning in 18 the late 1960s the first time that PCBs were 19 tested by Monsanto for chronic toxicity? 20 A Was that the first time PCBs were 21 tested by Monsanto at Industrial Biotests for 22 chronic toxicity, is that what you're asking me? 23 Q By Monsanto or any -- or any 24 laboratory used by Monsanto, that's -- that's my 25 question. Was that your understanding? 178 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054382 1 A I don't have a detailed 2 understanding of that. I did work with 3 Industrial Biotests much later with doing animal 4 toxicity studies and tissue studies, but no, I 5 don't know. 6 (Exhibit 6 marked for 7 identification by counsel for plaintiffs.) 8 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Dr. Tucker, I'm 9 marking as Exhibit 6 a memo that I bet you 10 recognize. 11 A Thank you. Yes, I do. 12 Q Okay. And what is Exhibit 6? 13 A I'm sorry? 14 Q What is Exhibit 6? 15 A It's a memo that I recognize. I 16 couldn't help that. Sorry. All right. Back - 17 back to the real world here, and God teach us to 18 laugh, you know. 19 It's a memo I wrote entitled 20 Aroclor Wildlife Incineration of NCR Paper, and 21 it's copied to R.E. Keller and E.P. Wheeler, and 22 it's written directly to Bill Richards and signed 23 by myself. 24 Q And you -- you did a little 25 experiment where you burned up some carbonless 179 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054383 1 copy paper manufactured by the NCR Company; is 2 that right? 3 A Let's see. What I'm doing is 4 making sure it was NCR. Yeah. Yes. 5 Q All right. And from the results of 6 your experiment, you concluded that under the 7 conditions of your experiment, No. 1, "Aroclor is 8 easily volatilized when NCR paper is burned." 9 Right? I'm sorry. 10 A Yes. 11 Q I'm on the second page of your - 12 A No, that's fine. 13 Q Okay. 14 A Yes, that's true. 15 Q Okay. And No. 2, "Aroclor 16 undergoes little, if any, decomposition when 17 burned," right? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And No. 3,"Unfortunately, it 20 appears that significant air pollution can occur 21 via burning of NCR paper or other Aroclor 22 containing materials even under more strenuous 23 conditions." Right? 24 A Correct. 25 Q Okay. And that was in March of 180 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054384 1969. Right? A Correct. March 4th, 1969. Q By March 4th of 1969, did you have a view as to whether it was likely, whether it was probable that some of the PCBs found in the environment had been released into the environment as a result of burning of PCB containing materials? A It was certainly plausible. Q Okay. At that point, having just done that experiment, did you think it was probable that some of the PCBs in the environment had -- had gotten there that way? A Volatilization of the material, even at room temperature and above, was okay. But -- I said it was plausible, didn't I? Q You said plausible -A Did you use plausible or did I use plausible? Q You used plausible, and I'm trying to ask whether plausible, whether it rose to the level of more likely than not. A I think you used probable. Q Probable. Right. A And I -- I consider those two 181 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054385 1 equivalent. 2 Q Okay. So you think it wasmore 3 likely than not -- at the time you thought - 4 A Do you want me to say probable? 5 Q Yes. 6 A Probable. 7 Q Okay. All right. At the time you 8 thought it was probable? 9 A Plausible and probable to me are 10 the same thing, so yes. As long as -- 11 Q Okay. All right. 12 A -- you mean the same thing I do. 13 Q Okay. 14 A In fact, I think I said that in 15 here, didn't I? 16 Q Not in -- not inthose words, no. 17 (Exhibit 7 marked for 18 identification by counsel for plaintiffs.) 19 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) I've marked as 20 Exhibit 7 a document dated May 26th, 1969, which 21 is a memo from E.P. Wheeler to W.R. Richard, and 22 you are one of the people copied on the document 23 to the right. Correct? 24 A Yes, sir. 25 Q And have -- do you recall having 182 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054386 1 seen this before? 2 A Yes. I don't recall exactly 3 receiving it and that thing sort, but I recognize 4 the document, my name is on it, and I have no 5 doubt to believe that I saw it when it was 6 issued. 7 Q Okay. And so Mr. Wheeler says in 8 the first line of the memo, "Dave Nelson of MRC," 9 and what is MRC? 10 A Monsanto Research Corporation, I 11 would assume. 12 Q "MRC called me today to relay the 13 following information: No. 1, A Mr. Bob Day in 14 the Cincinnati Laboratories of the National Air 15 Pollution Control Administration had called him 16 and asked for any information Monsanto might have 17 relating to what might happen to chlorinated 18 biphenyls in products that might be incinerated." 19 Would you agree, Dr. Tucker, that 20 the experiment that you had done two months 21 earlier in March of 1969 was information that 22 Monsanto had relating to what might happen to 23 chlorinated biphenyls in products that might be 24 incinerated? 25 A No. 183 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054387 1 Q Okay. So your -- why is it that 2 your -- your experiment is not information 3 relating to what might happen to chlorinated 4 biphenyls in products that might be incinerated? 5 A Because I didn't incinerate them. 6 Q Okay. 7 A I mean, incineration to me means 8 something totally different than open burning of 9 a piece of paper. 10 Q Okay. And -- and your -- what is 11 the title of Exhibit 6? What's the subject line 12 13 A That's the one before? It could be 14 incineration. 15 Q -- subject line of the memo? 16 A It could be incineration, and it 17 is, but, you know, there's a -- incineration 18 that's used to completely destroy things as well. 19 So I'm not certain whether the Air Pollution 20 Control people meant did -- if we burn NCR paper 21 outside on the ground, that, you know, they would 22 want to -- that that was incineration. 23 So that's why I'm asking you to 24 clarify what you mean by the -- you think was 25 meant by the term "incineration," please. 184 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054388 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: One moment. 2 Your microphone. 3 A It -- there's a -- it's a moot 4 point, but there's a lot of difference between 5 incineration and that kind of incineration. 6 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Okay. So as far 7 as you were concerned when you read this memo 8 which has been marked as Deposition Exhibit 7, 9 your interpretation was that the federal 10 government was asking for something completely 11 different from what you did in March; is that - 12 is that your testimony? 13 A All I'm saying is based on what we 14 looked at here and what you said, it could be. 15 They might have been wondering about whether or 16 not we knew anything about incinerating those 17 materials as a disposal technique. Not 18 necessarily as the incineration of those 19 materials in open burning and things of that sort 20 to release them to the environment. 21 So I don't know. But I'm sure if 22 we read the rest of the memo and refresh my 23 memory, I may have a better recollection. 24 Q Okay. I can either at your -- your 25 choice, you can either read this to yourself and 185 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054389 1 then I can ask you some more questions about it, 2 or I can point you to specific pieces and ask you 3 questions about it. 4 A I'd prefer to read the whole -5 Q Sure. 6 A -- thing in a -- in the context, if 7 you don't mind. 8 Q Not at all. 9 A Okay, okay, good. 10 Yeah, see, it's exactly what I 11 thought if you read the bottom paragraph where 12 it's beginning to talk about waste materials 13 containing PCBs which will be incinerated in 14 experimental incinerators and things of that 15 sort. 16 I think they were more interested 17 in -- in -- in destruction of the materials than 18 -- than they were than just the free release by 19 somebody burning some paper in their back yard. 20 Q Okay. 21 A And that's why I tried to clarify 22 that. I'm not trying to be -- 23 Q Okay. All right. Well, let me - 24 let me point you to a different section, then I 25 want to ask you questions about it. 186 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054390 1 A Okay. Well, I'm -- I'm not done 2 yet. 3 Q Okay. Well, please finish. 4 A I thought I'd try to give you a 5 little relief before I got there because I didn't 6 want you to think I was just being obnoxious. 7 Okay, I don't -- I don't think it's 8 totally clear exactly what they wanted here. I 9 think they had two concerns, to be real truthful 10 with you. And I think they -- what they were 11 trying to say -- this is my opinion. 12 I think what they were trying to 13 talk about is if we burn things like we normally 14 do and things of that sort, will that distribute 15 PCBs? Will it vaporize the PCBs and distribute 16 them, or will they be destroyed? 17 And this is -- the exhibit 18 previous, Exhibit No. 6, is a very simplistic 19 experiment that says that under very not rigorous 20 incineration type conditions, the things are 21 easily volatilized, especially Aroclor 1242. 22 So I don't know exactly what they 23 wanted or what they were given. 24 Q Okay. But based on Exhibit 6, the 25 March 4th, 1969, memo, you would agree that it 187 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054391 1 was your view on March the 4th, 1969, that 2 significant air pollution can occur via burning 3 of NCR paper or other Aroclor containing 4 materials even under more strenuous conditions 5 than the conditions of your experiment. Right? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Okay. And one of the concerns that 8 was being asked about by Mr. Day in the federal 9 government was whether PCBs would be distributed 10 in the environment when PCB containing materials 11 were burned. Right? 12 A Yes. I think it is. "We cannot 13 conceive how PCBs get in the environment in a 14 widespread fashion, and that the company" -- I -15 where -- where are you? 16 Q Well, I mean, that -17 A What are you quoting? 18 Q I wasn't quoting anything. 19 A Okay. 20 Q I was asking you a question. Based 21 on your overall view of -22 A Okay, I was looking for a quote in 23 the memo, so what was your question? 24 Q Okay. I'll try it again. One of 25 the concerns that Mr. Day -- so this was a -- 188 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054392 1 this was an inquiry from a Mr. Bob Day who at the 2 time was working at the National Air Pollution 3 Control Administration. Right? 4 A That's what it says, yes, "A Mr. 5 Bob Day in the Cincinnati Laboratories of the 6 National Air Pollution Control Administration." 7 Right. 8Q And you -- now having had a chance 9 to, just as an aside, now having had a chance to 10 read the whole memo, that wasn't his permanent 11 job, was it? 12 A Who, Bob Day? 13 Q Right. 14 A I don't know anything about Bob 15 Day. 16 Q Okay. Well, if you would look at 17 the next to last paragraph on the first page of 18 Exhibit 6 -- 19 A Next to last paragraph. That one 20 that starts, "Mr. Day"? 21 Q "Mr. Day was under." Why don't you 22 read that to yourself, that whole paragraph. 23 A That's certainly convoluted, isn't 24 it? He's a military guy who is an ex-employee, 25 or employee-to-be of Monsanto in Pensacola; is 189 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054393 1 that -- 2Q So his permanent position, it 3 appears from this memo, was with Monsanto, right? 4 A Well, it was prior to military 5 service. I don't know if it was afterwards. I 6 don't understand. But yes -- 7 Q Okay. 8 A -- I understand -- 9 Q All right. 10 A I assume from the first line that 11 the guy had something to do with MRI and -- or 12 Monsanto, and he does, but it was kind of in a 13 roundabout fashion. Okay, I've read that. 14 Q Okay. So Mr. Day was at least at 15 the time working for the federal government and 16 had previously worked for Monsanto. Right? 17 A "He is a Monsanto employee from 18 Pensacola fulfilling his military commitment." I 19 think that's working for the federal government, 20 but it may be kind of different than what -21 Q As a -- in the Public Health 22 Service. Public Health Service was part of the 23 federal government, right? 24 A Is that what he -- is that what he 25 is? I thought maybe he was in the Army or 190 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054394 1 something. Oh, "as a member of the Commission 2 Corps in the Public Health Service." Yeah, it's 3 a very confusing memo, but okay. 4 Q So he didn't have to go to Vietnam; 5 instead, he was working for the Public Health 6 Service. 7 A Okay. Good. 8 Q Right? 9 A I see that. Right. 10 MR. MERRILL: Object to the form of 11 the question. 12 A Okay. Now I understand. 13 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) We're making a -- 14 A Okay. We're getting there. That 15 -- that was very -- 16 Q -- we're making an assumption which 17 is a reasonable inference. 18 A Now I understand somewhat the 19 relationship. 20 Q Okay. Anyhow, if you look at the 21 third paragraph of the memo there that starts, "I 22 did reach the latter," right? 23 A Right. 24 Q It says, "I did reach the latter 25 and after much discussion it turned out that some 191 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054395 1 member of Congress had sent a letter directly to 2 the NAPCA offices in Washington asking what NAPCA 3 knew about distribution of PCBs by incineration." 4 Now, isn't it a fair inference from 5 that, Dr. Tucker, that, you know, the member of 6 Congress was interested in finding out if burning 7 PCB containing materials would release PCBs into 8 the environment? 9 MR. MERRILL: I'm going to object 10 to the form of the question, it calls for 11 speculation. 12 A It -- it's possible. I -- I worked 13 in an area where we did commercial incineration 14 of PCBs when I worked for Waste Management and 15 that kind of stuff. Perhaps my other kinds of 16 knowledge is what confused me a little bit if I'm 17 confused. 18 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) All right. Well 19 20 A Because I -- if -- if not properly 21 incinerate -- incinerated, PCB containing 22 materials, the PCBs do survive if it's not rough 23 enough conditions and they do get into the 24 environment. So he may have been asking that. 25 And that's fine. And the point is? 192 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054396 1 Q Okay. Did -- does this memo 2 reflect that your work in March was shared with 3 the government employee? 4 A This memo does not specifically 5 indicate that that was intentionally or 6 non-intentionally shared with him, but it could 7 have been. That was -- that wasn't a secret 8 document in any way, shape, or form. 9 Q Okay. When you read this memo, did 10 you take care to make sure that Mr. Day received 11 a copy of your March 4th, 1969, memo? 12 A Not unless instructed to do so. 13 Because my function wasn't distribution of 14 company materials. 15 Q Okay. Did it occur to you when you 16 received a copy of this memo, which is Exhibit 7, 17 that Mr. Day should receive a copy of your March 18 4th memo? 19 A It was my understanding the memo 20 was to Bill Richards, and that Bill Richards was 21 the director of the functional fluid products 22 which had to do with Aroclors, and that if Bill 23 felt that that memo would be of use to this 24 gentleman, that he would probably share it with 25 him with no problems whatsoever. 193 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054397 1 Q So you person - 2 A So it wasn't my concern, it was an 3 FYI kind of situation in terms of the memo. I 4 wasn't directly required to do that, it wasn't my 5 job. I wouldn't even have thought that it 6 wouldn't have been shared with him. 7 But I don't see how you -- how one 8 could tell from this memo that it was shared with 9 him or it wasn't. 10 (Exhibit 8 marked for 11 identification by counsel for plaintiffs.) 12 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) I've marked as 13 Exhibit 8 a March 6th, 1969, document entitled 14 Aroclor Wildlife Accusations, from Mr. Richard to 15 Mr. Wheeler, and you are one of the people that 16 is copied on this memo, correct? 17 A The last guy on the list, right. 18 No, yes, you're right. 19 Q Okay. The memo starts by 20 describing a recent article published by Dr. 21 Risebrough; is that correct? 22 A In Nature, yes. 23 Q All right. And was published -- 24 Risebrough's article was published in December of 25 1968; is that correct? 194 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054398 A Right. On my birthday. Q And subsequent to the publication of that paper by Dr. Risebrough, do you recall whether there was any media attention given to the issue of PCBs in the environment? A Subsequent to the publication of Risebrough's paper in Nature, was there any immediate attention given to PCBs in the environment? That's the question? Q No, that's almost the question. A Okay, I missed -- Q Instead of immediate, I said media. In other word - A Media attention. Was I aware of media attention. I'm sure there was, but, you know, my job, again, wasn't to monitor media attention and that kind of stuff. I know Risebrough liked to -- to share things like that in that kind of media. Q All right. A And I'm sure in Nature that somebody probably picked it up, too. Nature's a, you know, an interesting document, an interesting publication. Q In what sense is Nature an 195 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054399 1 interesting publication? 2 A Well, it's a very good publication, 3 and a lot of very initial early things, before 4 it's really known exactly and that kind of stuff, 5 are published there so they can be thrown out as 6 a forum for people to look at and discuss and 7 work on. 8 Q Is it -- is it fair to say that 9 Nature back then and still today is considered 10 one of the most prestigious scientific journals 11 in the world -- 12 A Oh, absolutely. If I implied any 13 different, I'd be not who I am. 14 Q And just to finish my question, 15 which was one of the most prestigious scientific 16 journals in the world, right? We talked over 17 each other. That's all. 18 A Yes. It's a -- it's a prestigious 19 scientific journal in the world. 20 Q Okay. And the memo describes that 21 Risebrough attacked chlorinated biphenyls in 22 three ways, and it says, quote, "No. 1, a 23 pollutant widely spread by air-water; therefore 24 an uncontrollable pollutant." 25 Do you agree that PCBs are a widely 196 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054400 1 -- are widely spread by air and water, and 2 therefore, are an uncontrollable pollutant? 3 A No. 4 Q Okay. Why not? 5 A Well, if you don't put them in the 6 air and you don't put them in the water, they're 7 not a widely distributed, uncontrollable 8 pollutant. So the problem isn't that they're 9 automatically distributed in the environment 10 through the air and through water. 11 The problem is, is that you have to 12 put them in the air and the water. Just like the 13 problem with DDT had to be broadcast all around 14 to be found in those places. 15 So to call them an uncontrollable 16 pollutant because they haven't been controlled up 17 to that point in time because that wasn't 18 understood that they could do that, I don't -- I 19 think that's not necessarily true. 20 I think you could in some instances 21 probably have controlled it to the point where it 22 would have been okay. And I think that was a 23 philosophy and a strategy that was used by the 24 government and Monsanto itself. 25 Q All right. 197 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054401 1 A That helped, by the way, to bring 2 the situation under control. 3 Q Number 2, it says, "a toxic 4 substance." Do you agree that PCBs are a toxic 5 substance? 6 A I think the term "toxic" is so 7 broad that no one could disagree with it. 8 Q Number 3, "a toxic substance 9 endangering man himself." I'm going to assume 10 that you're not providing any opinions in this 11 case about whether PCBs are a toxic substance 12 that at environmental levels endangers people; is 13 that true? 14 A That's true. Unless I'm asked my 15 opinion, which is different. 16 I'm not a toxicologist, absolutely 17 no question about that. And so the use of a 18 toxic substance, for me to understand what's 19 going on there in point No. 2 is, you know, it's 20 just kinda widespread. 21 The calcium metabolism leading to 22 reproductive weakness in birds and that kind of 23 thing has always been kind of a nebulous routine 24 that was put off on DDT. And it may or may not 25 be true even today. So, you know, that's my 198 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054402 1 opinion, but I'm not a toxicologist. 2 Q Toward the bottom of the first page 3 of the memo it says, "Monsanto is preparing to 4 challenge certain aspects of this problem, but we 5 are not prepared to defend against all of the 6 accusations." Do you agree that at that time 7 Monsanto was not prepared to defend against all 8 of the accusations of Dr. Risebrough? 9 MR. MERRILL: I'm going to object 10 to the form of the question, lack of sufficient 11 foundation. 12 A Do I agree -- this is Bill 13 Richard's opinion, okay? And while it may or may 14 not have been mine, I'd -- I'd have to read a 15 little bit more than the statement you read to 16 understand what Bill was focusing on way back 17 then. 18 So you're asking me if it was my 19 opinion that we were not prepared to defend 20 against all the accusations? Which one of the 21 accusations are you talking about? And wouldn't 22 I need to read the rest of the memo to really 23 answer your question if I thought I knew 24 anything? 25 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Okay. Well, I 199 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054403 1 apologize, Dr. Tucker, but you did produce this 2 as part of your reliance materials. Right? 3 A Right. But I wasn't asked that 4 question as part of my reliance materials, and 5 I'd like to go back and make sure that I'm 6 specifically talking about what I'm talking about 7 by reading the memo. 8 Q Okay. Well - 9 A Is that -- 10 Q -- go -- go for it. 11 A Would you like me to do that? 12 Q Sure. 13 A Okay. 14 Okay. My take on this would be 15 that Bill Richards at that particular point in 16 time was saying that there are not definitive 17 studies and/or information available to support 18 A, B, and C. And so until those things are 19 available, we're not prepared to defend or to say 20 we should need to defend ourselves one way or the 21 other against these kinds of accusations because 22 they haven't been proven yet, they're conjecture. 23 Which is perfectly okay for Risebrough to do. 24 And in fact, we have numerous 25 studies, 1969, that we had started to begin to 200 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054404 1 gather information that would give us clues to 2 what was going on and have actual scientific 3 documentation, I think, to be real truthful with 4 you. That's my opinion. 5 Q And is Mr. Richard, in your view, 6 setting out that the goal of the research 7 projects at Monsanto would be to attack Dr. 8 Risebrough's position? 9 A No, I think that was a poor choice 10 of words by Bill. But Dr. Richards was an 11 interesting person, and he used words like that. 12 And I think he meant more along the lines of what 13 I kind of intimated. In the sense that we need 14 to generate the information to really conclude 15 whether we agreed or disagreed. 16 Now, Bill was an attack person, so, 17 I mean, you know, so he used "attack," but that's 18 not my words. 19 Q Toward the -- toward the bottom of 20 page 2 of the memo is -- is where the -- the word 21 "attacked" is used by Mr. Richard, and it starts 22 -- that paragraph starts with a statement that 23 says, "Risebrough has taken known Aroclor samples 24 and claims to have evidence of enzyme and hormone 25 change." The next sentence says, "Here there is 201 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054405 1 no question of identification." 2 And by that, did Mr. Richard mean 3 that there was no question that the material that 4 Dr. Risebrouqh was finding and reporting about 5 was, in fact, Aroclor? 6 A I am sorry. What was the question? 7 Please do that for me again. 8 Q Yeah. 9 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: One moment, I'm 10 sorry, I've got to switch tapes. 11 MR. JENSEN: I apologize, I forgot. 12 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off 13 the record at 2:48 p.m. 14 (Off the record.) 15 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on 16 the record on tape 5 at 2:55 p.m. 17 Q (BY MR. JENSEN)Okay. Dr. Tucker, 18 we were looking at what's been marked as 19 Deposition Exhibit 8 which is a March 6th, 1969, 20 memo from Bill Richard to Elmer Wheeler on which 21 you are copied. Correct? 22 A Yes, sir. 23 Q All right. Andthere on the second 24 page of the memo it says that -- in the next to 25 the last paragraph, or the last paragraph -- last 202 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054406 1 full paragraph on that page, it says that, "Here" 2 -- in the second sentence, "Here there is no 3 question of identification." 4 Is it your understanding that what 5 -- well, let me just ask you. What is your 6 understanding of what Mr. Richard was referring 7 to when he said, "Here there is no question of 8 identification"? 9 A Well, I think there's -- as I 10 stated earlier, in the earlier publications of 11 Risebrough, it was conjecture based on peaks that 12 appeared similar to peaks that were identified by 13 Jensen and Widmark as PCBs. Not peaks that were 14 identified by Risebrough as PCBs. 15 It's a fine point, but that early 16 in the understanding of what was going on in the 17 environment, everything was at stake in 18 determining what was correct and what wasn't 19 correct because there wasn't that much experience 20 to be wise about at that point in time. 21 So what he's referring to is that, 22 in my opinion, at this point in time, is that 23 Risebrough said he used Aroclor samples, 24 therefore, the PCBs were Aroclor PCBs, and not 25 some other PCBs from some other kind of a 203 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054407 1 contamination, a decomposition product, a 2 by-product of some other pesticide or things of 3 that sort, which were the questions that were in 4 the air at that time and hadn't been really 5 addressed to Bill's satisfaction, and to a lot of 6 people's satisfaction. 7 As far as Nature is concerned, it 8 is an excellent publication and very prestigious. 9 But I've noticed that with Nature articles, which 10 is what their -- their position is, is they 11 publish things that could be as science - 12 scientific opinions, which is just fine. 13 So these opinions that Risebrough 14 published were not necessarily represented on 15 actual data that nailed it right down 16 necessarily, and -- and I think that's -- that's 17 all he's kind of saying here. 18 He's saying, okay, the guy is using 19 Aroclors now, and it appears that he is saying 20 this, but nobody's seen any data yet. "Either 21 his position is attacked and discounted or" - 22 and again, he -- Bill uses the word "attacked," 23 but that's Bill, "or we will eventually have to 24 withdraw the product from end uses which have 25 exposure problems." 204 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054408 1 And you know what? That's what 2 happened. Not because of this, but because of 3 our own findings that understood that open uses 4 of PCBs were not a good thing for distribution - 5 to keep distribution into the environment from 6 occurring. 7 In fact, A, B, and C all occurred 8 based on, you know, scientific documented 9 information that was being projected somewhat by 10 Risebrough, but not exactly right. It wasn't - 11 it didn't have to do with his peregrine falcon 12 that those -- those things were done. 13 So I hope I've given you a little 14 bit better understanding what the memo meant to 15 me. 16 Q Okay. As we sit here today, Dr. 17 Tucker, is there any doubt in your mind that the 18 chemicals that Dr. Risebrough detected and 19 reported as PCBs in his December 1968 paper were, 20 in fact, PCBs? 21 A Do I doubt now -- 22 Q Now. 23 A -- in retrospect that they were? 24 No, I don't doubt it, I -- I just wasn't sure 25 that he had proven it to the same point that 205 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054409 1 Jensen and Widmark had. And -- and he hadn't 2 certainly proven that those PCBs were Aroclors. 3 Q Is there any doubt in your mind as 4 you sit here today that the PCBs that Dr. 5 Risebrough measured in his December 1968 paper 6 were predominantly originally manufactured by 7 Monsanto? 8 A I couldn't argue with that one way 9 or the other. And it could be true, there's 10 absolutely no question about it, but there's 11 absolutely no way to take a PCB molecule and 12 determine who manufactured it. 13 So the way you've stated your 14 question, it's just conjecture again, and it's 15 based on a pretty good conjecture since Monsanto 16 was the sole US manufacturer of PCBs in the 17 United States. 18 But could I look at the PCBs that 19 Risebrough looked at and somehow identify them as 20 being manufactured by Monsanto? No. Or Clophen 21 A50 which Rise -- which -- which Jensen used? 22 No. I mean, you couldn't. A PCB is a PCB. 23 Q All right. 24 A Just, I know you understand this, 25 but Risebrough wasn't identifying Aroclors in 206 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054410 1 those samples. He was identifying PCBs in those 2 samples. 3 Q In fact, those -- those samples had 4 what we have described in this deposition, or you 5 have described in this deposition as weathered 6 PCBs. Right? 7 A Absolutely correct. 8 Q So weathered PCBs, the mixture of 9 -- of the PCBs is different than the original 10 mixture that was sold as a product; is that - 11 that right? 12 A The weathered materials are -- are 13 different, absolutely, because some of the 14 isomers have disappeared because of the 15 degradation products -- degradation routines that 16 go on in the environment. 17 But the important point is to 18 remember in the context of the time we're at 19 here. Not today. The context here was that 20 PCBs, at least the specific ones and types they 21 were finding, could have come from someplace 22 else. Say, from -- as by-products in some of the 23 pesticides or those kinds of routines. 24 And those things hadn't been 25 adequately looked at to say, okay, guys, even 207 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054411 1 though you're not intentionally spreading these 2 around, even though we don't know how the 3 environment works to those things, that these are 4 your PCBs. 5 Q At -- at any time, Dr. Tucker, did 6 you ever see affirmative evidence that any of the 7 PCBs that were being detected in the environment 8 in the 1960s and 1970s were by-products of 9 chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides? 10 A By-products of chlorinated 11 hydrocarbon pesticides. No. But there were very 12 minor other sources that were insignificant 13 eventually that were found. There are PCBs in 14 the environment that don't come from the 15 manufacture of Aroclors. 16 But -- but it's -- it's -- I don't 17 want to -- for example, if you have biphenyl in 18 water and you chlorinate it, you'll get 19 monochlorobiphenyl. Okay. So now if you want to 20 twist things technically and blah blah blah and 21 that kind of stuff, I can say that 22 monochlorobiphenyl -- all the monochlorobiphenyl, 23 if it was in the environment, didn't come from 24 the manufacture of PCBs. 25 But that's a moot point. That's 208 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054412 1 just the kind of thing that's used to confuse the 2 issue and say we can't get forward to solving the 3 problem. And we didn't do that kind of thing. 4 Q And it's fair to say you looked for 5 evidence that some of these PCBs that were being 6 found in the environment were, in fact, breakdown 7 products of other chemicals? 8 A Right. Or manufactured as 9 by-products of other chemicals. Absolutely we 10 looked, there's no question about that. 11 And we found that there weren't 12 significant sources of those kinds of materials 13 that would account for what we were seeing, and 14 so we drew the appropriate conclusion based on 15 valid information. 16 (Exhibits 9, 10, and 11 marked for 17 identification by counsel for plaintiffs.) 18 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) I have now marked 19 as Exhibits 9, 10, and 11, three articles that 20 Mr. Merrill provided earlier today that he 21 indicated were additional reliance materials. 22 And -- and so I -- I'd like for you - 23 A These are Harold's publications. 24 Q --I'd like for you to generally 25 describe for me what those are and for what 209 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054413 1 purpose you were relying on them. 2 A Okay. They were given to me as 3 reliance documents to review, and to obviously 4 find out what they meant to me and what I know 5 about them and things of that sort. 6 Harold Weingarten was an organic 7 chemist at -- Ph.D. if I remember correctly -- at 8 Monsanto Research Corporation. Which at that 9 time was called Research and Engineering 10 Division, Monsanto Chemical Company in Dayton, 11 Ohio. Okay? Because MRI was in Dayton, Ohio. 12 Later on they changed the name to 13 MRI. So we used an MRI -- yeah, you were talking 14 about that Bob Day memo with MRI, right? Okay. 15 These -- and as I say, he was an 16 organic chemist, and what he was interested in 17 was studying how organic compounds can be made 18 and the reactions that they underwent due to 19 their molecular properties. Interesting, huh? 20 But at any rate, that was his mission in life. 21 And these things had to do with 22 steric effects of the Gomberg reaction. Okay? 23 And he was using PCBs -- individual isomers of 24 PCBs to determine what was the most probable way 25 to get them to do this and get them to do that, 210 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054414 1 and to make other things about them or to get 2 other molecules to react with them. 3 That's a real broad brush of what 4 he was doing, he was a little bit more specific 5 than that. But that's what this is all about. 6 Q And what's the relevance of all of 7 that to your testimony? 8 A Well, I think somebody looked at it 9 and saw gas chromatograph and thought, wow, okay, 10 this -- you know, that kind of thing. But it - 11 it's not -- let's see, this -- what was this 12 publication? 1962. 13 But he was -- in no way, shape, or 14 form was he doing environmental analysis or 15 anything of that sort. He was doing laboratory 16 analysis in his laboratory with macro levels of 17 samples and things of that sort, and fairly pure 18 system, one or two or three isomers that he knew 19 what they were and things of that sort. 20 And so from my viewpoint, I guess 21 the question could arise is, well, gee, they had 22 this gas chromatograph down there, why couldn't 23 it be used to measure environmental samples? And 24 I think the -- I've given the answer over and 25 over again, so. 211 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054415 1 Q All right. So you were provided 2 Exhibits 9, 10, and 11 by counsel, correct? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And you reviewed them, and after 5 reviewing them, your view is they're not 6 particularly relevant to your opinions; is that 7 right? 8 A They are relevant in the manner 9 that I understood them, but they're not relevant 10 to -- to when or when we could not measure PCBs 11 and things of that sort, even though it was a 12 Monsanto document, so. 13 Q Okay. They don't tell you anything 14 one way or the other about when PCBs could have 15 been detected in the environment? 16 A No. 17 Q Okay. 18 A Are we done with those? 19 Q Done with those. 20 (Exhibit 12 marked for 21 identification by counsel for plaintiffs.) 22 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Now handing you 23 what I've marked as Exhibit 12, Dr. Tucker, which 24 was also part of your reliance materials. Do you 25 recognize that? 212 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054416 A I will in a second. Yes, I -- yes, I recognize having seen the document previously. Q Was this document also provided to you by counsel to review? A Yes, it was. Q All right. Having reviewed this document, does it have any direct relevance to your opinions regarding when PCBs could have been detected in the environment? A Well, let me go through it real quickly and make sure my opinion is what I think it is. Yeah, I think -- let me say what I understand. This was Monsanto in Anniston, Alabama, that was measuring PCBs in air samples basically. And I think the question is, well, gee, if they could do that back in -- in March of 1954 -- is that 1954? It really is, isn't it? Not '64. Then why couldn't you do it back then too? And that's because this method is totally inappropriate for doing that kind of thing and not applicable to it. And furthermore, nobody knew that they even should be doing that kind of thing back in 1954. So my opinion remains the same after 213 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054417 1 reviewing this relevance document that was given 2 to me. 3 Q Okay. At any point, Dr. Tucker, 4 did you advise anyone at Monsanto that you 5 believed that Monsanto should withdraw from the 6 open use -- production of open use PCB sales? 7 A You know, they wouldn't ask me for 8 that kind of advice. They'd ask me questions 9 that had to do with what would cause them, that I 10 knew about analytical chemistry and what I've 11 been measuring things, would cause them to want 12 to withdraw from this application. 13 It was my opinion, and I agreed 14 with their opinions, that there were open 15 applications after we got the information and 16 understood what was going on that we should 17 withdraw from. And we did withdraw from those, 18 absolutely, no question about it. 19 I don't think there was a member - 20 I don't think there was any person involved at 21 Monsanto with this particular project that at 22 that point in time didn't agree with the fact 23 that we should withdraw from those kinds of 24 applications now that we knew what was occurring. 25 Q But I -- do I understand correctly 214 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054418 1 from your testimony that you personally never 2 spoke up one way or the other with regard to your 3 views about that subject? 4 A Well, when I was asked what my view 5 was, obviously I spoke up, but I -- I'm -- are 6 you trying to ask me if I had the authority to 7 recommend -- or what -- what are you asking me? 8 Was I -- I just said clearly that I 9 think -- didn't think -- I thought everybody was 10 in agreement with that when we did it based on 11 the information each and every one of us had 12 generated. 13 Q And that decision was made at some 14 point in 1970; is that correct? 15 A It was made by the corporate 16 committee and that kind of thing at -- at some 17 point, I mean, I don't know the exact date. But 18 it was -- it was pretty -- 1970, sure, that was 19 pretty close. 20 Q Uh-huh. So you don't -- you don't 21 recall exactly when PC -- PCB sales for open uses 22 were terminated by Monsanto? It's okay if you 23 don't, the record reflects whatever it is. 24 A I think -- I think I -- I could 25 easily find out, and I think 1970 sounds quite 215 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054419 1 reasonable. 2 Q Okay. And as far as you recall, in 3 1968, did you ever suggest to anyone at Monsanto 4 that that should be considered? 5 A That -- did I ever suggest to 6 anyone that that could be considered? That that 7 was a -- 8 Q That that should be considered. 9 That that alternative of terminating the sales of 10 PCBs for open uses should be considered. 11 A Okay. I would never talk about 12 terminating the sales. Okay? That was just 13 something that wasn't in my purview, and I knew 14 that. But I might talk about the fact that, from 15 what I was seeing, it would appear that uses that 16 were -- we didn't think were open before were 17 open, and we might want to start looking hard at 18 those in terms of the data we were generating. 19 So I may have talked about it. It 20 certainly was a conclusion, as I said earlier in 21 the earlier question, that we all agreed upon 22 based on the information we were generating. 23 Q Okay. Okay. At what point in time 24 did you have the information that you thought was 25 sufficient to guide that decision? 216 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054420 1 A Okay. And I like your choice of 2 words. "Guide that decision." I did not make 3 those decisions nor would those decisions be made 4 specifically on the information I generated. 5 But I think about in the period of 6 time that we're talking about, what I was doing 7 and what other people were doing were generating 8 information that would lead us to believe that 9 those kind of applications were not viable. 10 Q Okay. And what period of time is 11 that specifically? 12 A 19 -- you're talking the '70s, so I 13 think it's the '70s. 14 Q So you -- your best recollection is 15 you did not have sufficient information from 16 which to guide the decision to stop making PCBs 17 for open uses until sometime in the 1970s? 18 A Correct. Those decisions were made 19 as soon as bona fide information was available 20 and it dictated those kinds of things. So yeah, 21 as soon as the information was available, that's 22 what was done. 23 Q Okay. What -- what information 24 specifically are you talking about when you say, 25 "as soon as the information was available"? 217 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054421 1 A The information from the scientific 2 community. The information from the intended 3 uses in our analysis of whether or not the use 4 was open or closed in the new definition that 5 needed to be used now that we understood better 6 what open and closed meant. 7 And also in some instances I know 8 we talked about could better controls be now used 9 that we know needed to so we could continue the 10 use of the materials in areas where they are very 11 critical to human survival in things like 12 exploding transformers and things of that sort. 13 So, and, you know, this is -- this 14 is the same philosophy and the same path that the 15 government took. 16 Q Mm-hmm. Well, you knew by 1969 17 that PCBs were a global environmental 18 contaminant. Right? 19 A 1969. I -- I knew that they - 20 they had been found around the world. Now, if 21 that's a global contaminant, I guess that's the 22 same speak. Sure. We had examples of PCBs that 23 were being found other places and that kind of 24 stuff. And we also knew that PCBs were 25 manufactured in almost every country in Europe, 218 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054422 in Japan, and all over the place. So it was globally manufactured, not only globally distributed, so. Q But actually there wasn't any manufacturer of PCBs in the Arctic, was there? A No, absolutely not. Q But there were PCBs -- A And when were those samples analyzed? Q in -- There were PCBs found in the Arctic A When? Q -- 1969, weren't there? A Oh, I don't know if it was 1969, to be real truthful with you Q You don't know, all right. A That's correct. Q You don't know one way or the other? A You're right. I said I don't know. Q Okay. All right. A I was just under -- wanted to understand what you meant by "global." Q Would you agree that it was known in the 1940s that PCBs contained in paint, that 219 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054423 1 that was an open use? 2 A No, I don't think in the 1940s that 3 people necessarily thought that the use of PCBs 4 in paint was an open broadcast to the environment 5 use. I don't think they were sophisticated 6 enough back then to do that. If you're asking me 7 what I thought in the 1940s, we already know I 8 was one year old, so. 9 Q No, that's not what I was asking 10 you. 11 A No, but I -- I'm saying that there 12 were lots of uses of things that we had no idea 13 that -- that they could be broadcast in that 14 fashion. And until we were able to detect the - 15 the materials at the minute levels, part per 16 trillion, part per quadrillion levels and those 17 kind of stuff, did we even get an indication that 18 it was happening. 19 Q Well, Monsanto's chemists 20 understood the structure of PCBs back in the 21 1940s, right? 22 A To the extent that any chemist in 23 the 1940 understood structure. 24 Q Well, they designed them, right? 25 And produced them. 220 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054424 1 A No, they manufactured them by 2 reacting biphenyl with chlorine. And they were 3 manufactured by a company called Swan Chemical 4 Company back -- way back in 1929, and Monsanto 5 bought them. So they knew the industrial utility 6 of the materials. 7 Q Okay. They -- they manufactured 8 PCBs to a formulation that was designed by Swan; 9 is that -- is that what you're saying? 10 A PCBs were manufactured by the 11 chemical reaction that was used, and you just ran 12 the reaction until you got the degree of 13 chlorination that you wanted. And the product 14 utility was -- was defined by its viscosity, 15 whether or not it contained crystalline material 16 or not, was it a fluid. 17 The percent chlorine, in other 18 words, if there was a chlorine to hydrogen ratio 19 that was equal, it was non-flammable and wouldn't 20 create art form gasses that would explode and 21 things of that sort. 22 So there were a lot of physical 23 properties of the product that decided how it was 24 manufactured, but structure -- 25 Q Are you telling me that in 1935 a 221 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054425 1 Monsanto chemist working in Anniston producing 2 PCBs couldn't have drawn the chemical structure 3 of every one of those Aroclor - 4 A Oh, sure. Chemical structure. 5 Sure, you can draw that -- the -- the thing we 6 used to represent it on the board, but that 7 doesn't have to do with the structure of the 8 molecule. It's just the way -- it's our 9 shorthand for saying what it is. 10 And so when you say structure, the 11 implication is, is that you understand everything 12 that that particular structure could do anywhere. 13 Q Mm-hmm. 14 A And that wasn't the case at all. 15 Q Okay. Did -- was there any reason 16 to -- for a chemist or anyone else to believe in 17 1945 that if you put Aroclor into paint, that the 18 Aroclor would stay in the paint? 19 MR. MERRILL: I'm going to object 20 to the form of the question based on inadequate 21 foundation. 22 A Was the chemist -- did the chemist 23 believe that the Aroclor would stay there? 24 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Was there any 25 reason to believe that? 222 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054426 A Sure. Q What -- what -- what reason was there to believe that? A It extended the lifetime of the paint. Q Okay. So that some of the Aroclor must be staying there because it extends the lifetime of the paint. That's what you're saying. Right? A I'm sure that some of the Aroclor was staying there because it extended the lifetime of the paint. Q Right. A And that's why they put it there. Q Okay. A And -- and to give it flexibility as a plasticizer so that it wouldn't break off and get brittle and crack and all those kinds of routines. Q All right. Is -- is there any basis that you have to say that a chemist in 1945 could not have anticipated that some PCBs would be released from that paint? MR. MERRILL: I'm going to object to the form of the question, there's inadequate 223 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054427 1 foundation, it calls -- calls for speculation. 2 A The question is hard to answer 3 anyway, but sure, somebody could have maybe. So 4 would it have been something that was normally 5 something people would be concerned about? No. 6 Because we didn't know that that would happen 7 until we got information that showed it to us. 8 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Okay. 9 A That's why they manufactured DDT 10 before they had the information. 11 Q All right. If -- if -- do you 12 agree, Dr. Tucker, that if someone had thought 13 about the issue, and clearly you've testified 14 that no one -- your view is no one had reason to 15 think about it, but if somebody had thought about 16 the issue of whether PCBs were being released 17 into the environment by various applications of 18 products, that it was reasonable to infer, even 19 back in the 1940s, that PCBs could be released 20 from, for example, PCB containing paint? 21 MR. MERRILL: I'll object to the 22 form - 23 A No. 24 MR. MERRILL: -- of the question, 25 and the lack of foundation. 224 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054428 1 A No. The release from paint was so 2 slow and so low that those kinds of numbers 3 weren't even talked about back in those days. 4 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Mm-hmm. So it, in 5 your view, it was absolutely totally out of the 6 blue impossible to anticipate that PCBs could be 7 released from paint back in the 1940s? 8 A No, I didn't say that. 9 Q Okay. Do you know why Monsanto got 10 out of the DDT business? 11 A No. 12 Q Have you done any research to try 13 and figure that out? 14 A No. Was Monsanto in the PC -- in 15 the DDT business? 16 Q I thought we had already talked 17 about that. 18 A I thought they were a contract 19 manufacturer who were asked to use their 20 facilities to produce PCBs. Isn't that what I 21 understood at least. 22 Did Monsanto manufacture DDT as a 23 product? With the Monsanto label on it and every 24 -- that kind of stuff? I don't know, to be real 25 truthful with you. I just don't -- it doesn't 225 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054429 1 make any sense to me. 2 (Exhibit 13 marked for 3 identification by counsel for plaintiffs.) 4 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) I have marked as 5 Exhibit 13 a document that is a 19 -- January 6 1947 article from the Journal of Analytical 7 Chemistry titled Colorimetric Determination of 8 DDT in Milk and Fatty Materials. Have I 9 correctly described the document, Dr. Tucker? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Okay. And you've reviewed this 12 document. Correct? 13 A Yes . 14 Q The first paragraph of the document 15 says, "Recent articles have focused attention on 16 the possible danger to the public health from 17 contamination of such products as milk, butter, 18 eggs, meat, and fats when farm animals consume 19 DDT treated feed. Pharmacological investigations 20 have shown that ingested DDT accumulates as such 21 in the fatty tissues of experimental animals and 22 can be excreted in milk." 23 So from that description, would you 24 agree that by January of 1947, there was an 25 acknowledged issue as to whether DDT was 226 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054430 1 contaminating the food chain? 2 A Right. And I would point out it 3 says, "possible danger." 4 Q Right. And so there was -- there 5 was a scientific issue that was being explored by 6 January of 1947 as to DDT' s contamination of the 7 food chain, number one, right? 8 A No, I think it says that it -- if 9 you treat forage that cows consume, that it 10 demonstrates that something like DDT which is a 11 poison can get into the fat, and that the public 12 will -- that fat in the milk can go directly to 13 the consumer who would then do it. 14 That's not a weathered biological 15 sample. That's a sample that -- where the 16 exposure is intended totally, and they are 17 finding out that because of the properties of the 18 molecule, it transfers into the product that's 19 then directly sold to the consumer. 20 Q Are you testifying that exposure of 21 DDT was intentionally created to be in butter? 22 A I am not sure how you would draw 23 that conclusion from what I said, but no, I am 24 not. 25 Q Okay. And you're not test - 227 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054431 1 you're - 2 A DDT was not manufactured to be 3 incorporated into butter. 4 Q And DDT was not manufactured to 5 intentionally expose cows. Right? 6 A No. It was intentionally meant to 7 kill the insects that ate the forage be -- and 8 kill the forage before the cows could get to it. 9 Q Okay. So DDT was intended to be 10 broadcast into the environment. Right? 11 A Well, they sprayed it, yes. 12 Q Right. But it was not intended to 13 get into the food chain. We agree about that. 14 Right? 15 A It wasn't designed to do that. 16 That wasn't why it was manufactured. But they 17 did find that out when they started looking at 18 things. 19 Q And in fact, what the -- what they 20 found out was that DDT was unintentionally 21 getting into the food chain. Correct? 22 A I believe that's what we said. 23 Q All right. And that was known by 24 January of 1947. 25 A It was documented in January of 228 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054432 1 1947, yeah. When they sprayed forage with DDT, 2 fed it to cows, and analyzed the milk with the 3 procedure they had, they saw DDT. 4 Q Well, are you testifying that they 5 intentionally sprayed known contaminants -- let 6 me back up and withdraw that, try it again. 7 Is it your understanding, Dr. 8 Tucker, that what this is referring to is feeding 9 cows with -- with feed that was known to be 10 contaminated with DDT? 11 A The feed wasn't contaminated with 12 it, the feed was sprayed with it. That wasn't an 13 intentional contamination. They sprayed with it 14 to keep the insects -- to kill the insects. 15 Q All right. 16 A And then the horse -- and the cows 17 -- horses. I got horses on my mind. The cows 18 ate the feed. Now, if the feed didn't have DDT 19 in it, they never would have found DDT in the 20 milk, but they found it in the milk, and they 21 said possible danger to the public because the 22 DDT is going directly to human beings and it's 23 not intended for that. 24 Q And I just want to make sure we're 25 all on the same page here. These were not 229 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054433 1 experiments designed by somebody to say, okay, 2 let's give a cow feed that's been sprayed with 3 DDT and then see what happens? That's not what 4 there's -- these -- these papers are talking - 5 A Well, absolutely they're 6 experiments that were designed to prove or 7 disprove that. That feed that was sprayed with 8 DDT and the cows ate it, it would end up -- end 9 up in other places. Of course, this experiment 10 was designed to show that. That's what this 11 experiment showed. 12 Q Were these experiments, or 13 observations of what was going on without any 14 experiment being designed? There's a difference, 15 right? 16 A Okay. Where did they get their - 17 they -- they just went to the market and got some 18 milk and measured it? Or did they -19 Q Do you know -- do you know the 20 answer to this? 21 A -- or did they feed it to cows that 22 were lactating and collect the milk and see if 23 there were DDT in it? 24 Q Do you know the answer? 25 A No, I'd have to read the article 230 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054434 1 more carefully, because my first interest in the 2 article was as an analytical chemist and whether 3 or not the methodology that they had here could 4 have had utility at that point in time back in 5 1947 for doing what we do today. 6 And the answer to that question is 7 absolutely not. It's not specific enough, it's 8 not sensitive enough, it's subject to beaucoup 9 interferences, and can only work with where you 10 know what you got. 11 So that was my concern as an 12 analytical chemist, and that's why this is a 13 document that I looked at, and that's the way I 14 looked at it. Now you're asking me to look at 15 that docket -- document in a different fashion. 16 Q Okay. Well, I -- 17 A Is that your opinion or is that 18 what the document says? 19 Q I'm asking you whether you knew, 20 Dr. Tucker. That's all. 21 A Whether or not this was designed -- 22 I don't know whether these guys fed the cows -- 23 whether it was their cows or some dairy 24 cooperative cows and they fed the cows. Did they 25 measure the for -- the hay? I'm just curious, 231 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054435 1 because I'm really -- 2 Q You don't know, is the answer? 3 A Well, I'm looking to see if they 4 did. That was a question to you too. I assume 5 you went through this article. Maybe not. I'm 6 just curious where they got the milk. 7 Well, certainly I don't think they 8 were proposing that the DDT came from any other 9 source than the feed. But, you know, I think 10 that's -- 11 Q All right. So let's -- let's get 12 off of that subject and get onto the subject for 13 which you primarily read this article, and you've 14 already described or summarized your opinions 15 about it, but your view is that -- well, first of 16 all, let me -- let me ask you this. 17 Do you agree that this method was 18 capable of detecting DDT in milk at quantities as 19 low as one part per million? 20 A If they knew that what they were 21 dealing with was PCB. Because I think this is an 22 indirect procedure, is it not? 23 MR. MERRILL: DDT. 24 A Or DDT, I'm sorry. He's got me 25 saying PCB when I mean DDT and we're doing the 232 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054436 1 same thing. 2 This procedure was based on - 3 yeah. Measurement of the chloride produced by 4 decomposition of the DDT; is that correct? Or is 5 this -- 6 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Doctor, you're the 7 analytical chemist - 8 A Okay. 9 Q -- not me. 10 A Fine. Then I need totake time to 11 read it, so I hope you'll be patient. 12 Q I'm -- I'm just listening. 13 A Now, this is where they used 14 sulfuric acid and -- and nitric acid to produce a 15 color. And could this be used to do PCBs? I 16 kinda doubt it. In fact, I know that PCBs are 17 not impacted by sulfuric acid and nitric mixtures 18 because we used that as a cleanup procedure to 19 get rid of other things with PCBs in samples. 20 So the opinion I drew on this was 21 that it was not applicable to the analysis of 22 PCBs because it was indirect, because PCBs 23 wouldn't react with the materials because it 24 wasn't sensitive enough, and because there were 25 loads of interferences. 233 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054437 1 Q Okay. I heard that the first time 2 you said it, but the question that I asked you 3 was pretty simple, I thought, because - 4 A Was what? 5 Q It was pretty simple, I thought, 6 because I was reading from the abstract of the 7 article. It's -- the abstract says that the 8 method permits the detection and determination of 9 DDT in milk in quantities as low as one part per 10 million, and I was asking you whether you agreed 11 or disagreed with that statement. 12 A Yes, it does. 13 Q Okay. And yourview is that even 14 though this method could be used to detect DDT in 15 milk at quantities as low as one part per 16 million, it could not have been used to detect 17 PCBs in milk at quantities as low as one part per 18 million; is that correct? 19 A Correct. 20 Q But no one ever tried toapply it 21 to PCBs; is that correct? 22 A They don't need to. 23 Q What do you meanby that? 24 A Well, you know, if amolecule won't 25 undergo a reaction that's the basis for the 234 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054438 1 measurement, then why try it? And as I indicated 2 to you, we use sulfuric acid/nitric acid mixtures 3 as a pretreatment to clean up samples and get rid 4 of things and keep the PCBs. So the PCBs did not 5 react with that mixture. 6 So that's what I'm basing that on. 7 What confused me was the question you asked me 8 early on, and I don't even remember what it was, 9 but it certainly didn't have to do with the 10 analytical method. 11 (Exhibit 14 marked for 12 identification by counsel for plaintiffs.) 13 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Marked as Exhibit 14 14 another article entitled Infrared 15 Spectroscopic Analysis of Five Isomers of 16 1,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclohexane. And have you 17 reviewed this article, Doctor? 18 A Yes. 19 Q And this article, which was written 20 in October of 1947, provides a method where the 21 authors actually were able to separate and 22 identify in a sample different isomers of one 23 chlorinated hydrocarbon; is that correct? 24 A Let me ask a question, if I may, 25 for clarification. Was the sample of pure 235 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054439 1 material? 2 Q Doctor, I -- again, I - 3 A Okay. This is a procedure that was 4 used to measure the isomers in the pure material. 5 The infrared spectroscopy. 6 This wasn't, if -- if I remember 7 correctly, and I can again go through it 8 carefully, this wasn't an article that had 9 anything to do with measuring the materials in 10 the environment. And in fact, the technique of 11 infrared spectroscopy, again, is certainly not 12 applicable to environmental type analysis. 13 Q And why is that, Doctor? 14 A Well, because it's a very 15 generalized technique, and not specific. And it 16 requires -- it's mainly a technique that's used 17 with pure compounds in -- back in that -- those 18 days . 19 Now that they have computers and 20 four yea transferm -- transformation, infrared 21 spectroscopy and things of that sort, they - 22 they can use it as a GC detector. But even in 23 these cases, it's more of a general detector and 24 doesn't specifically detect things, nor is it 25 sensitive enough to do the job. 236 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054440 1 But I believe that this article had 2 to do with the analysis of known solutions of the 3 pure materials and had to do with differentiating 4 the isomers, the alpha, gamma -- gamma, beta. 5 Because in -- in this particular 6 pesticide, I think it was the gamma that was the 7 active ingredient, the one that they were 8 concerned about. Or -- one of them. At least 9 that's my recollection. 10 Q But your view, Doctor, is that all 11 these old methods were not specific enough to 12 differentiate be -- from one chlorinated 13 hydrocarbon from another, right? 14 A No, my view is in the environmental 15 sample, they weren't specific enough to 16 differentiate what was there from everything else 17 that's in an environmental sample. 18 Q Okay. 19 A And that theycouldn't -- I mean, 20 for example, infrared on an environmental sample 21 was not sensitive enough to even begin to measure 22 the levels of PCBs and -- and those kinds of 23 things that were in the samples. 24 Q Okay. So - 25 A So the technique isnot applicable. 237 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054441 1 Q All right. So this -- this 2 indicates in the abstract of the article that the 3 spectra of five pure isomers of 4 1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachlorocyclohexane and of a 5 mixture of heptachlorocyclohexane impurities have 6 been determined in the two to twenty-five micron 7 range. That's indicating what the sensitivity of 8 this test is, correct? 9 A No. It's indicating what amount of 10 material they needed to run the sample. There is 11 no denominator in that. It's not saying 12 twenty-five micrograms in a kilogram of material 13 or anything of the sort. This was an analysis 14 that was used for a pure sample. 15 Q Well, it was pure in the sense that 16 it was hexachlorocyclohexane, but it was made up 17 of a mixture of a bunch of different isomers, 18 right? 19 A Of hexachlorocyclohexane. 20 Q And it was able to separate those 21 different isomers from one another, right? 22 A No, it was able to get 23 characteristic infrared bands of each particular 24 isomer in the pure mixture, and use those to 25 estimate the concentration of the isomers in the 238 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054442 1 pure mixture. 2 Q Okay. And those isomers are very 3 closely chemically related to one another, right? 4 A The hexachlorocyclohexane? 5 Q Mm-hmm. 6 A Yeah, they -- yes. 7 Q And it's your view thatnothing 8 about this method would have any utility in 9 helping parse out PCBs from any other chlorinated 10 hydrocarbon in an environmental sample? 11 A My opinion is that it didn't then, 12 and it never has at any time even to today. 13 Q Well, I understand nobody attempted 14 to do it. 15 A No, I'm not saying that. 16 Q Okay. 17 A I'm saying that people who are 18 skilled in the business understand that this 19 technique is not functional because of problems 20 -- because of the way it does it. And so I'm 21 saying an analytical chemist would not choose 22 this technique to try to measure parts per 23 trillion of materials like PCBs and DDT and those 24 things in samples. It simply wasn't done. 25 And I'm telling you that analytical 239 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054443 1 chemists are knowledgeable enough that if they 2 could have done it that way and it was the best 3 way to do it, they would have. And that has 4 never been done. 5 Q Well, Doctor - 6 A But in a pure material where - 7 where you're looking for -- to differentiate 8 between isomers, it's a good technique. 9 Q Well, Dr. Tucker, you wouldn't - 10 you wouldn't look for it in environmental samples 11 using this technique even if it were applicable 12 today because you've got better instrumentation. 13 Right? 14 A The point is, is that even back 15 then, they wouldn't have done it. And no way 16 along the way, even when they didn't have the 17 tremendous things they have today, was it ever 18 conceived as a technique to do that. 19 It's not that kind of an analytical 20 detection technique. It's intended to look at 21 structural parts of the molecule, and that's why 22 in this case it could differentiate between the 23 isomers. 24 (Exhibit 15 marked for 25 identification by counsel for plaintiffs.) 240 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054444 1 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) I marked as 2 Exhibit 15 a 1951 article from the AMA Archives 3 of Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Medicine, 4 it's called Occurrence of DDT in Human Fat and 5 Milk. 6 It says, "Before it is possible to 7 evaluate any chronic occupational DDT exposure, 8 it is necessary to determine a baseline, i.e., 9 what exposure, if any, is suffered by the general 10 population. 11 "DDT has had widespread use. 12 Investigations conducted by the Food and Drug 13 Administration indicate that this has resulted in 14 traces of DDT appearing in some truck crops, 15 dairy and meat products, and more recently, even 16 in flour." 17 (Reporter interruption.) 18 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) So by 1951, the 19 FDA had determined that DDT was being -- was 20 contaminating the food chain. Correct? 21 A That's what it says, yes. 22 Q Okay. And the purpose of this 23 study was to analyze some samples of human fat 24 tissue to see if there was DDT in it. Right? 25 A I think the purpose was to report 241 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054445 1 on the results of analyzing those samples, 2 because I don't see any -- does he really call 3 out an analytical method here? There's -- let's 4 see. Who is these guys? Pickett [sic]. 5 Okay. That's the method that was 6 used for methoxychlor or DDT in biological 7 materials, and if I remember correctly, I'd have 8 to look at the other article that I think was in 9 those relevance documents that was by Pickett, 10 and I think that too was a colorimetric 11 procedure. We can -- we should probably check 12 that to -13 Q Okay. And -14 A If you're asking me if the method 15 they used is applicable to PCBs -16 Q So -- 17 A -- at environmental levels. 18 Q And so your opinion is there would 19 have been no way to use any version of the method 20 used in this paper which found -- well, let me 21 stop and start again. 22 You agree that the method that was 23 applied here was capable of detecting DDT in 24 human fat tissue at the part per million level. 25 Right? 242 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054446 1 A I agree that it worked, that method 2 worked for DDT under these conditions. 3 Q And in fact, it was finding 4 instances -- the detection limit there was -- was 5 as low as 0.01 part per million as reflected on 6 Table 2 of the document. Right? 7 A That's what it says, yes. 8 Q And nonetheless, your view is that 9 no version of this method or modification of this 10 method could have any application to detecting 11 PCBs in human fat tissue or in anything else; is 12 that right? 13 A Okay. And my point to you is that 14 there is no method called out here. That the 15 method is referenced here, and if you can tell me 16 from the method what procedure was used, which is 17 item -- which is reference No. 2, the one by 18 Prickett, then I can give you my opinion. And 19 I'm wondering whether that method was in the 20 relevance document. 21 Q Okay. You haven't done - 22 A What -- what method was used here, 23 please? 24 Q Well, Doctor, I'm asking you the 25 questions. You haven't done any research to 243 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054447 1 determine what the method was. Right? 2 A I reviewed the relevance documents, 3 and I guess my question to you, do you know 4 whether that document was in the relevance 5 documents? 6 Q Dr. Tucker, I'm asking the 7 questions, and the question now is did you do any 8 research to determine what the method was that 9 was used in this study by Laug? 10 A And what I'm trying to say is I'm 11 trying to remember if in the relevance document 12 there was a document that called -- that -- that 13 was the analytical method that's referenced here. 14 This is the same author on the 15 analytical method that's on this. And this 16 report just references the analytical method, but 17 the reference doesn't give me enough information. 18 But I do believe there was a method 19 in the relevance documents, if we could look, 20 that dealt with the determination of methoxychlor 21 or DDT in biological materials. 22 And if it was that method, then I'm 23 saying that that method could not be used to 24 measure PCBs in the environment for the reasons 25 that I've stated earlier. But I -- but I can't 244 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054448 1 tell from this what the analytical method is or 2 if it's the same one that you had in the 3 relevance documents by this particular author. 4 Q Okay. 5 A So, but I determined that most, if 6 not all, of the methods that I was given, the 7 sixteen or fifteen references, were not 8 applicable to PCB for a variety of reasons at 9 environmental levels. 10 Q Okay. 11 A So that's kind of a carte blanche 12 answer, but -13 Q I hear you. Dr. Tucker, did -- did 14 you do any independent research beyond looking at 15 the references that have been provided by 16 plaintiffs' experts as to whether any other 17 method could have been applicable to detect PCBs 18 in environmental samples at any level? At any 19 level? 20 A Well, first of all, they couldn't 21 detect them at a level that was useful to me, why 22 would I bother? So the answer to that question 23 is no, I had criteria that I used to determine 24 the methodologies that were the best and that 25 could do the job. 245 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054449 1 If the methods that were out there 2 didn't do that, then they were rejected. And 3 that's why I ended up doing what I did. Because 4 at that time I reviewed the literature, and so 5 had everybody else that was doing that kind of 6 information, and we all ended up doing the same 7 thing. 8 So if these methods were so darn 9 good, I wonder why everybody isn't using them 10 today? Because they're hellaciously simpler than 11 what's done today. And the issue is, is that 12 what's done today and what needed to be done is 13 much more complex than this type of thing. And 14 so, therefore, these methods in all sixteen or 15 fifteen references are not relevant. 16 Q I see. So - 17 A In my opinion. That's it. 18 Q Doctor, would you agree that nobody 19 at Monsanto asked the question in the 1940s, can 20 we find PCBs in the environment? 21 MR. MERRILL: I'll object to the 22 question, form of the question, and to its - 23 A I think the use - 24 MR. MERRILL: -- lack of 25 foundation. 246 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054450 A I think of the use of the term "nobody" is like never. And so if you're asking me to confirm never or nobody, I can't do that. So the answer is I never heard or was informed of or had any information that gave me any indication that anybody had. Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Okay. And in fact, you haven't heard or been informed of or been given any indication that anyone at Monsanto asked the question whether PCBs were in the environment at all until Jensen's publication in 1966; is that right? MR. MERRILL: I'm going to object to the form of the question and the lack of foundation A That's correct. Q (BY MR. JENSEN) And would you agree with me that -- let's -- let's change the tape. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off the record at 3:49 p.m. (Off the record.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're back on the record on tape 6 at 3:55 p.m. Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Doctor, have you 247 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054451 1 attempted to determine through any research 2 whether if you had been asked as a -- strike 3 that. 4 I'm going to ask you a hypothetical 5 question and assume that you were born much 6 earlier than you really were. Okay? And let's 7 assume that you were an analytical chemist for 8 Monsanto in 1945. All right? And you had been 9 given the assignment of trying to determine 10 whether PCBs at the part per million level or 11 higher could be found in any environmental media. 12 Have you tried to do an exhaustive 13 search of the literature to determine what 14 analytical techniques might have been employable 15 to answer that question? 16 A In 1945 specifically? 17 Q In 1945. 18 A No. 19 Q How about in any time in the 1940s? 20 A To do this hypothetical assignment? 21 No. 22 Q How about at any time in the 1950s? 23 A To measure PCBs in -- in the 24 environment at the one part per million level. 25 Q At the one part per million level 248 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054452 1 or higher. Right. 2 A Okay. And that's Aroclors that 3 you're talking about. 4 Q Any PCBs. 5 A Any PCBs. No. 6 Q What about -- same question with 7 respect to Aroclors? 8 A No. 9 Q Okay. So you've not done that 10 research Right? 11 A That's just what I said. 12 Q Okay, I'm just making sure I 13 understand. 14 A That's -- absolutely. Well, you're 15 correct. I was just doubling the answer for you. 16 Q Okay. All right. And is that also 17 true with respect to the time frame between 1960 18 and 1968? 19 A I don't think so. You're getting 20 pretty close to when I was assigned to do it. 21 Q Okay. How about -- how about 1962 22 when Jensen's paper was published? Is it -- is 23 it true with respect to that time frame that you 24 have not researched what you would have done, or 25 researched the historical literature to determine 249 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054453 1 what methods you would have applied during that 2 time frame? 3 MR. MERRILL: Object to the form of 4 the question. 5 A No, I did do that. 6 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Okay. For the 7 1960 to 1966 time frame - 8 A No, not 1960. As I said, you - 9 your question was just before -- or was it when, 10 or just before the Widmark paper was published? 11 Q I probably phrased it very poorly, 12 but my intention was to ask whether you had done 13 the research to determine how you would have gone 14 about, or what methods might have been available 15 for you to go about fulfilling that assignment if 16 it had been assigned to you in the time frame 17 from 1960 up until the time that Jensen's paper 18 was published? 19 A No. 20 MR. MERRILL: Object to the form of 21 the question. 22 THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry. 23 MR. MERRILL: That's all right. 24 A No, I did not. 25 Q (BY MR. JENSEN) Okay. I think I'm 250 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054454 1 about done, let me make sure. 2 A I'm sorry, I couldn't understand 3 what you -- 4 Q I think I'm about finished -- 5 A Okay. All right. 6 Q -- but I want to make sure that -- 7 A I'm deaf so I have to read lips. 8 So when I can't see your lips, I don't 9 necessarily know what you say all the time. 10 Actually, I'm not deaf, but a lot 11 of people think I am. 12 Q Once you ordered the equipment that 13 you purchased in 1968, how long did it take to 14 get it, approximately? 15 A I think it was probably six weeks 16 or something like that, max. 17 Q A few weeks, right? 18 A Yeah, it didn't take -- it didn't 19 take a huge amount of time, but it took whatever 20 time it was, I mean. Just like it might today, I 21 mean. They weren't necessarily items that they 22 had on the shelf. I mean, they kind of, okay, we 23 got all the parts to give this guy this. 24 MR. JENSEN: I pass the witness. 25 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry? 251 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054455 1 MR. JENSEN: I'm giving him the 2 opportunity to ask questions if he has some. 3 THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. Because I 4 can't hear you when you turn your face and talk 5 that way. 6 MR. JENSEN: I understand. I 7 apologize. 8 MR. MERRILL: I have no questions. 9 10 to go. 11 12 MR. JENSEN: That means you're free THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Signature? MR. MERRILL: We'll -- we're going 13 to read. 14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off 15 the record at 4 p.m. 16 (Wherein, the taking of the instant 17 deposition ceased.) 18 (Deposition to be read and signed 19 by the witness.) 20 21 22 23 24 25 252 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054456 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 3 I, TARA SCHWAKE, a Registered 4 Professional Reporter and Notary Public within 5 and for the State of Illinois, do hereby certify 6 that the witness whose testimony appears in the 7 foregoing deposition was duly sworn by me; that 8 the testimony of said witness was taken by me to 9 the best of my ability and thereafter reduced to 10 typewriting under my direction; that I am neither 11 counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of 12 the parties to the action in which this 13 deposition was taken, and further that I am not a 14 relative or employee of any attorney or counsel 15 employed by the parties thereto, nor financially 16 or otherwise interested in the outcome of the 17 action. 18 19 20 21 Notary Public in and for 22 The State of Illinois 23 24 My commission expires June 7, 2013 25 253 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054457 COURT MEMO IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI EDWARD COLELLA, vs . MONSANTO CO., ET AL. ) ) No. 0 9SL-CC01972 ) Division No. 15 254 NISHIDA, NICHOLAS WHITE, Individually and as Survivor of MARK WHITE, Deceased, and ALISON TUCKER, vs . MONSANTO CO., ET AL. No. 0 9SL-CC019 64 Division No. 15 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICER AND STATEMENT OF DEPOSITION CHARGES (Rule 57.03(g)(2)(a) & Sec. 492.590 RSMO 1985.) DEPOSITION OF E. SCOTT TUCKER Taken on behalf of the Plaintiffs March 9, 2011 Name and address of person or firm having custody of the original transcript: Allen Stewart, PC, 325 North St. Paul Street, Suite 2750, Dallas, Texas 75201 (X)For signature: Husch Blackwell Sanders TAXED IN FAVOR OF: Allen Stewart TOTAL: $ TAXED IN FAVOR OF: Husch Blackwell Sanders TOTAL: $ Upon delivery of transcript, the above charges had not yet been paid. It is required that all charges will be paid in the normal course of business. My commission expires: NOTARY PUBLIC Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054458 1 STATE OF ) 2 COUNTY OF ) 3 I, E. SCOTT TUCKER, do hereby certify: 4 That I have read the foregoing deposition; 5 That I have made such changes in form 6 and/or substance to the within deposition as 7 might be necessary to render the same true and 8 correct; 9 That having made such changes thereon, I 10 hereby subscribe my name to the deposition. 11 I declare under penalty of perjury that 12 the foregoing is true and correct. 13 Executed this day of , 14 2011, at . 15 16 17 Notary Public 18 My commission expires: 19 20 21 E. SCOTT TUCKER 22 23 TRS/E. SCOTT TUCKER, 3/9/11 24 COLELLA V MONSANTO, ET AL.; NISHIDA, ET AL. V MONSANTO, ET AL. 25 255 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054459 WITNESS ERRATA SHEET Witness Name: E. SCOTT TUCKER Case Name: Date Taken: COLELLA V MONSANTO, ET AL.; NISHIDA, ET AL. V MONSANTO, 3/9/11 ET AL. 256 Page # Line # Should read Reason for change Page # Line # Should read Reason for change Page # Line # Should read Reason for change Page # Line # Should read Reason for change Page # Line # Should read Reason for change Witness signature Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054460 [& - 29657] Transcript Word Index & & 254:11__________________ 0 0.01 243:5 035951 103:16 035955 105:7 035958 112:21 097123 33:20 09sl 1:5,16 4:5,16 7:14 254:3,8 1 1 2:7 11:8,9 13:5 34:4 180:7 183:13 196:22 I, 2,3,4,5,6 235:16 238:4 1:27 133:25 1:46 149:21 1:48 149:24 10 2:21 104:1,5 209:16,19 212:2 10,000 168:6 10/10/69 103:25 10/21/68 2:9 10:54 54:23 100 50:7 80:7 160:7 103 2:12 11 2:7,23 104:2,5 209:16,19 212:2 II. 5 160:13 11:01 55:1 11:55 103:1 12 2:24 94:11 212:20,23 12/31/68 1940s (cont.) 1969 105:15 84:20 85:8 86:5,25 148:14 101:14,20 102:13,14 108:8 12:05 149:13 150:1,16 152:11 109:8 111:19 112:4,13 103:4 154:3,16 155:5 172:5 123:5 181:1,2,3 182:20 12:40 174:21 177:5 219:25 220:2 183:21 187:25 188:1 133:14,22 220:7,21 224:19 225:7 193:11 194:13 200:25 1242 246:19 248:19 202:19218:16,19219:13 113:21 116:8,16 187:21 1945 219:14 1250 76:4 78:15 222:17 223:21 1970 52:21 248:8,16,17 101:25 112:9 215:14,18,25 1254 1947 1970s 47:10,14 48:20,20,22 49:3 3:2,3 84:25 226:6,24 227:6 208:8 217:17 49:17 50:10,12,17 51:4,14 228:24 229:1 231:5 235:20 1985 51:15,22 52:3,9,21,25 53:2 1948 254:11 53:10 55:5,11,13 97:13 84:4,8 1993 98:9 113:22,22 116:9 1949 14:2 152:15 153:13 84:1 2 1260 49:3 13 1950s 87:9 167:7,8,13 168:13 174:21 175:7 248:22 2 2:8 15:20,23 16:17 34:1 55:1 180:15 198:3,19 3:1 226:2,5 1951 201:20 243:6,17 254:11 130 50:7 136:12 14 3:3 235:11,14 3:6 241:2,18 1954 2:25 213:18,18,25 1957 2:48 202:13 2:55 202:16 15 2:14 159:13 166:11 170:11 2006 1:6,17 2:8,25 3:4 4:6,17 240:24 241:2 254:4,9 150 110:21 1960 2:21 87:15 155:13,13,17,19 155:25 156:2 163:7,20 164:5,16 165:23 249:17 2:7 11:7,14 2011 1:24 4:23 7:10 255:14 254:13 159 2:14 179 2:15 182 250:7,8,17 1960s 41:23 141:18 178:18208:8 1961 2:20,23 17:3 2013 253:24 209 2:20,22,23 49:22,24 136:11 21 2:17 1962 19 211:12 249:21 24:21 101:18,19,20 128:14 1963 217:12 226:5 18:17 94:11,11 154:20 212 2:25 214 190 5:1 6:14 1966 23:12 24:12 65:1,16,25 6:8 21st 1929 74:8 221:4 1935 221:25 1939 66:1,1 127:6,13 128:3,8,13 128:23 129:1 134:5 178:10 247:12 250:7 1967 25:8,21 26:16 28:4,8 59:7 7:15 33:20 226 3:2 235 3:3 72:25 194 2:19 1940 73:1,8 81:7,21 83:17,22 129:5,8,22 130:4 131:9,24 132:14 135:8 1968 17:12 24:22 31:4,11 33:9 33:21 35:7 87:15,20 100:15 240 3:6 261 8:21 26th 84:1 220:23 1940s 72:2,11,22 73:11 74:6,21 75:17 76:13 77:1,18 79:11 100:23,23 101:9 105:10 129:20 132:11 134:2,6 135:19 194:25 205:19 206:5 216:3 249:18 251:13 182:20 2750 6:6 254:15 29657 80:20 82:24 83:12,14,15,24 8:22 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054461 [3 - agree] 36 3 2:9 33:16,19 103:4 180:19 198:8 3/4/69 2:15 3/6/69 2:18 3/9/11 255:23 256:4 3:49 247:21 3:55 247:24 30th 109:8 314 6:16 31st 105:10 325 6:6 254:15 33 2:10 4 6 2:15 179:6,9,12,14 184:11 187:18,24 189:18 247:24 60 23:12 80:7 600 6:14 62 159:22 63 159:24 63105 6:15 64 213:19 67 23:12 128:14,17 68 23:1225:10,11,18,22 105:13 107:2 128:15,16 69 101:17,23,24 108:15 109:20 6th 194:13 202:19 2:11 103:11,14,21 107:7 7 109:6 112:21 117:2 119:17 149:24 252:15 2:4,16 182:17,20 185:8 402 193:16 253:24 89:7 70 40s 31:11 109:2 83:17,18 70s 42 217:12,13 154:21 75201 480-1500 6:7 254:16 6:16 492.590 8 254:11 4th 2:18 194:10,13202:19 181:2,3 187:25 188:1 193:11,18 1:24 2:20 209:16,19 212:2 254:13 2:13 159:4,7,20 202:16 5/26/69 2:16 54 154:23 5400 122:8,10,23 57.03 254:11 9:58 7:11 90 11:1 9344 159:16 965-8705 6:8 99 93:5 9th acknowledged 4:23 7:10 226:25 a action a.m. 127:13,16 131:6 253:12,17 7:11 54:23 55:1 103:1 a50 active 237:7 49:4 206:21 actual abbreviated 57:3 113:19 122:17 166:7 abbreviation 50:3,6 117:4 201:2 204:15 acute 119:21 120:23 121:7 109:12 ability 62:20 155:6 253:9 able acutely 146:1 add 46:22 14:25 62:16 88:11,13 97:7 addition 99:8 118:24 150:14 151:20 153:24 154:2 169:6,8,9,11 28:22 41:7 77:14 additional 169:17 170:5,11,20 175:7 176:7,8 220:14 235:21 86:3,4 139:1 209:21 address 238:20,22 absolute 38:24 39:22 89:22 8:14,21 254:14 addressed 204:5 absolutely 8:169:21 11:2531:19 addressing 119:15 40:14 53:21 98:22 112:24 122:12,19 124:13 155:5 174:7,12 177:9 196:12 adequately 79:5 207:25 adjust 198:16 206:10,11 207:7,13 209:9 214:18 219:6 225:5 39:15 adjusting 230:5 231:7 249:14 absorption 28:1729:11,16 80:6 administration 183:15 189:3,6 241:13 abstract 234:6,7 238:2 admit 141:13 access 18:23 advantages 60:23 accomplish advice 10:9 45:6 account 209:13 214:8 advise 214:4 accumulate 124:11 142:2 145:2,18 146:16 147:15 accumulates affirmative 208:6 afternoon 4:25 137:25 226:20 age accurate 91:2 accurately 119:24 8:6 ages 40:17 ago accusations 31:8,12,16 194:14 199:6,8,20,21 200:21 agree 72:1,10,13,14,17,21 73:9 achieved 160:9 73:13 74:19 76:3,25 77:18 78:17 79:2 80:20 125:10,17 acid 233:14,14,17 235:2,2 136:24 137:14 138:4 139:14 145:19 152:21 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054462 [agree - aroclor] agree (cont.) ama anniston apples 154:4 161:20 166:7,8,10,13 3:4 241:2 13:9 73:16,23 74:16,21 153:1 166:15,19 178:9 183:19 american 76:5 77:3,19 78:17 105:14 appleton 187:25 196:25 198:4 199:6 39:13,16 102:1 105:15 107:9,21 112:19 11:24 12:3,4,9 199:12 214:22 219:24 amount 213:14 222:1 applicable 224:12 226:24 228:13 46:13 114:7 153:22 238:9 answer 213:22 233:21 236:12 232:17 242:22 243:1 251:19 10:6 25:20 53:7 64:18 237:25 240:11 242:15 246:18 247:18 amounts 68:15,24 69:2,6,23 71:24 245:8,17 agreed 94:23 119:20 120:4,22 75:24 76:1,3,6 77:5 78:17 application 7:1 144:12201:15214:13 170:23 79:8,16 80:13 82:1 83:13 126:8 214:12243:10 216:21 234:10 analysis 86:9,17 90:20 93:22,24 applications agreeing 40:10 41:5 62:5 85:9 86:8 103:9 128:2,17 135:14 214:15,24 217:9 224:17 47:22 73:14 115:21 89:1091:17 106:12 112:5 138:24 151:8 152:7 155:4 applied agreement 131:19 137:10 147:13 163:11 176:18 199:23 24:8 27:1,11,16,1928:9 215:10 164:2,12 167:4 169:7 211:24 224:2 230:20,24 59:12 242:23 250:1 agricultural 176:11,21,21 177:9 211:14 231:6 232:2 245:12,22 applies 35:4 36:23 62:9 211:16218:3 233:21 247:4 248:15 249:15 136:4,5 ahead 235:15 236:12 237:2 answered apply 25:1 26:22 28:23 30:6,13 238:13 23:24 30:17 79:1,5,14 234:20 65:14 70:18 163:17 166:6 analysts 96:21 applying air 61:1 88:19 89:25 106:10 answering 112:13 151:24 152:18 180:20 analyte 75:21 79:2 82:5 92:11 appreciate 183:14 184:19 188:2 189:2 86:25 87:1,9 answers 10:7 71:23 73:5 75:1 93:24 189:6 196:23 197:1,6,10,12 analytes 56:4,24 90:10 appropriate 204:4 213:15 87:14 anticipate 28:25 209:14 al analytical 225:6 approval 1:7,184:7,18 5:8,9,10 7:13 3:1 14:16 17:7,11,16,22,23 anticipated 102:2 11:5,6 254:4,9 255:24,24 18:3,12 20:8 26:2 27:17 223:22 approximately 255:24 256:3,3,3 28:15 32:22 33:13 35:21 anybody 9:8 10:22 13:24 29:15 31:3 alabama 37:15 39:3 40:19 63:15 71:15 74:10 75:4 173:25 123:4 251:14 13:9 73:17,23 74:16 105:15 65:1 77:14 82:23 83:1,11 247:6 aquatic 105:15 107:21 213:15 83:21 85:7,13,15 86:6,24 anymore 117:12 aldrin 87:7,13 103:7 105:1 129:16 152:3 archives 54:2 142:14 131:25 156:14 164:18 anyway 3:4 241:2 alike 170:20 175:12,21 214:10 106:15 166:6 224:3 arctic 144:13,14,19,22 171:21 226:6 231:2,12 233:7 apart 219:5,10 alison 235:10 239:21,25 240:19 86:22 176:12 178:2 arduous 1:14 4:14 254:7 242:3 244:13,15,16 245:1 apologize 45:10 alien 248:7,14 12:1 25:3 26:22 30:23 54:3 area 6:4 254:15,18 analyze 77:15 90:15 101:4 107:13 14:15 35:13 37:16 42:20,22 allenstewart.com 28:20 39:7 56:14 61:22 116:15,17 172:15200:1 42:23 43:24,24 44:10,16,16 6:10 92:4 95:6 121:8 140:8 202:11 252:7 45:2 46:20,22,23 60:19 allow 241:23 apparently 119:14 192:13 88:24 124:1 177:16,19 analyzed 17:20 35:21 36:11 37:2 areas allowed 115:10219:9 229:2 104:1 117:12 119:19,19 156:24 82:6 analyzing appear 218:10 alluded 24:14 38:19 60:10 88:2 216:15 argon 30:5 131:12,21 165:8 242:1 appearances 160:9,11 161:13,25 162:4,7 alluding angeles 6:1 162:10,18 106:1 14:3 appeared argue alpha animal 203:12 36:13 206:8 237:4 121:4 138:8,13 139:11 appearing army alternative 140:14 179:3 241:14 190:25 171:13216:9 animals appears aroclor alternatives 123:22 137:22,24 138:19 104:11,12 180:20 190:3 2:11,24 47:10,14 48:19,20 126:19 140:17 226:18,21 204:19 253:6 48:22 49:3,17,17 50:10,12 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054463 [aroclor - beings] aroclor (cont.) asking (cont.) attacked back (cont.) 50:17 51:4,14,15,22 52:3,9 115:9,23 127:5 150:7 165:1 196:21 201:21 204:21,22 196:9 199:16 200:5 202:15 52:21,24 53:1,10 55:4,11 165:2 168:10 172:21 attempt 213:17,19,24 220:6,20 55:13 94:6,7 95:25 96:3,11 178:22 184:23 185:10 129:23 221:4,4 224:19 225:3,7 96:24 97:11,13 98:9 99:22 188:20 192:2,24 199:18 attempted 229:6 231:4 236:17 240:14 99:24 103:15,23 105:14 215:7 220:6,9 231:14,19 69:20 147:8 239:13 248:1 247:23 116:7,16 122:8,10 150:3 234:10 242:14 243:24 attention background 152:15 153:13 155:9 171:8 244:6 247:2 158:17 160:4 195:4,8,14,15 13:17 174:25 179:20 180:7,15,21 aspects 195:17 226:15 bacteria 187:21 188:3 194:14 199:4 attorney 153:20 201:23 202:5 203:23,24 assembled 253:14 ball 222:3,17,18,23 223:6,10 41:15 attribute 130:14 aroclors assess 120:20 bands 49:22 68:4 94:16,17,18,18 52:24 61:3 august 238:23 115:4 124:17,19 127:4,19 assessing 2:14 100:15,18 159:13 based 127:20,25 155:16 169:1 87:14 auspices 22:18 39:18,24 50:25 65:7 193:22 204:19 206:2,25 assigned 35:16 67:1869:1870:1271:5 208:15 249:2,7 28:10 32:19 33:1 40:7 61:2 author 79:17 118:10,23 120:14,25 aromatic 66:18 127:17 129:15,19 244:14 245:3 121:17 131:17 151:16 53:22 58:8,8 132:15,16 249:20 250:16 authority 166:5 185:13 187:24 aromatics assigning 215:6 188:20 203:11 205:8 56:19 129:25 131:7 authors 206:15209:14215:10 arrived assignment 235:21 216:22 222:20 233:2 29:1 59:6 28:18,23 33:8 64:20,22 automatically baseline art 67:21 68:21 69:11,14,16 197:9 241:8 32:21 221:20 70:9 87:20 134:15 135:9,11 available basically article 248:9,20 250:15 22:8 32:20 67:23 68:19 9:25 99:5 138:6 139:20 2:20,21,23 3:1,3,6 24:17,18 assistantship 70:3,6,20 75:6 82:24 83:11 140:11 213:16 84:4 162:12 194:20,24 21:4 85:7 86:24 87:8,14 88:2 basics 226:6 230:25 231:2 232:5 associated 94:4,19 95:11,14,23 102:19 40:19 232:13 234:7 235:14,17,19 12:2,14 14:21 19:8 95:1 105:4 117:19 118:13 basing 236:8 237:1 238:2 241:2 117:20 130:21 173:21 148:14 149:13 152:11 235:6 242:8 associate's 155:8,23 163:8,22 164:16 basis articles 17:3 165:16 171:16 172:2 49:21 120:4 136:15 223:21 84:5,7,12,18 85:3,21 86:2,3 association 200:17,19 217:19,21,25 234:25 86:4,22 140:19 204:9 35:5 36:23 250:14 bates 209:19 226:15 assume awarded 33:19 103:16 159:16 aside 17:1655:6 69:10,13 174:14 23:1325:10,10,18 128:16 baughman 189:9 183:11 190:10 198:9 232:4 aware 6:9 asked 248:5,7 39:13 72:2,8,10,22 73:1,8 beaucoup 10:6 16:6,14 23:19 24:16 assuming 73:11 81:6 82:25 85:14,19 231:8 24:25 25:1 30:7 32:20,23 44:14 47:24 53:19 104:14 128:25 129:4 131:9 began 35:19 64:8 66:8,22 68:3 assumption 135:16 147:17 172:4,6,10 24:19 60:10 68:7 101:13 69:7 70:16 71:20 72:24 55:9 74:9 191:16 175:2 176:6 178:15 195:14 140:8,13 163:21 76:4 77:6 78:15 79:1 80:16 ate 80:18 83:20 107:18 149:12 228:7 229:18 230:8 149:12 173:6 176:13 atmosphere 183:16 188:8 198:14 200:3 151:21 215:4 225:19 234:2 235:7 atomic 246:19 247:10 248:2 28:16 29:10,16 asking atoms 9:17 47:21 51:9 63:10 160:11,14 66:10,12,13 67:1,4 72:13 attached 72:15 73:8,9 75:14,21 77:4 3:8 35:1 104:8 107:6 77:9 78:11 79:15 81:8,24 attack 84:2 86:19 92:3 101:8 201:7,16,17 b beginning bachelor's 17:6,15 back 14:2 25:17 42:18 43:17,20 111:17 132:6,7,25 178:17 186:12 begins 117:9 159:24 43:20,21 46:12,24 51:5 behalf 52:19 80:17 54:25 63:19 75:13 87:19,21 92:16 103:3 1:23 254:13 behaving 130:10 149:23 133:24 138:15 150:4,16,22 151:4,9 120:7 beings 154:6,10,14 165:23 176:22 229:22 177:25 179:16,17 186:19 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054464 [believe - candidates] believe bioaccumulative (cont.) bond build 43:3 76:23 79:10,14 108:25 142:18 143:12 144:23 169:21 111:8 146:7 118:20 131:8 133:7 135:8,8 145:6,9 147:3,4 book built 157:5,18,20,21 158:14 biological 156:19 157:3 158:24 159:2 111:4 164:14 166:25 168:24 66:21 88:25 227:14 242:6 born bumper 183:5 217:8 222:16,23,25 244:21 72:25 248:5 26:6 223:3 228:22 237:1 244:18 biomedical bother bunch believed 61:1 88:15 89:1 245:22 167:24 238:17 89:13 214:5 biosamples bottom burn bells 112:10 43:18 45:13 109:6 159:22 171:3 184:20 187:13 161:18 biotests 186:11 199:2 201:19 burned benefit 121:5 178:17,21 179:3 bought 179:25 180:8,17 188:11 10:16 19:4 biphenols 59:19 60:24 62:13,14,19 burning benzene 130:19 63:2,4 89:8 221:5 180:21 181:7 184:8 185:19 151:3,3,5,6,10,13,22 biphenyl boy 186:19 188:2 192:6 152:10,16,18,22,24 124:20 154:20,22,23 125:8 business best 208:17 221:2 brand 9:3,4 147:19 148:2,10,11 13:6,13 28:19 31:12 62:20 biphenyls 32:21 60:18 68:17 225:10,15 239:18 254:22 64:3,4,9,10,11,14 88:1 30:11 38:1649:19 122:13 break busy 89:14 110:13 118:12 163:3 127:8 130:20,22 183:18,23 10:7 44:22 49:16 54:20 9:4 163:4 217:14 240:2 245:24 184:4 196:21 55:3 102:23 133:19,20 butter 253:9 birds 149:14 168:19 223:17 226:17 227:21 228:3 bet 66:21 121:22,24,25 198:22 breakdown button 116:24 179:9 birthday 209:6 110:20 beta 195:1 breaks buttoned 237:4 bit 10:5 78:5 better 44:23 49:17 165:6,9 177:2 breakthrough buy 27:13 102:20 185:23 192:16 199:15 205:14 40:13 28:19 90:17 106:10 205:14 218:5,8 240:12 211:4 brian c beyond blackboards 106:14 ralrinm 16:2 61:7 87:2 245:14 big 125:9 blackwell bring 198:1 19821 calculate 22:6 37:19 68:19 88:11 5:1 6:13 7:17 8:1 254:17,19 british 104:6 143:2 145:24 147:22 blah 160:4,17 17622 calibrate 170:1 bill 130:12,12,12 208:20,20,20 brittle blanche 223:18 44:15 calibration 2:10,15,17,18 179:22 245:11 broad 44:17 46:10 193:20,20,22 199:12,16 200:15 201:10,16 202:20 204:22,23 blanks 92:23 93:11 blob 198:7 211:3 broadcast 53:23 99:15 197:13 220:4 California 14:3 37:18 118:8 call billion 115:19 bill's 204:5 170:1 blood 133:18 blue 220:13 228:10 broke 148:15 brought 19:1421:1650:14 101:1 140:17 141:6 197:15242:2 called 8:20 27:16 28:11,16 30:7 bioaccumulate 225:6 11:4 15:24 41:13 43:13 49:8 56:25 139:1 bioaccumulated 140:18 bioaccumulates board 222:6 bob 183:13 189:1,5,12,14 brush 211:3 bryce 160:2 82:7 89:5 91:6 111:5,10 124:14,19 135:25 162:7 18312 15 210 9 221 '3 241:4 243:14 244:12 138:5,14 210:14 bucket calling bioaccumulating body 170:17,18 171:14,15 175:8 959 149:10 30:3 139:13 175:8,18,22,23 176:3,14 calls bioaccumulation 146:6 boiling 123:24 151:22 152:22 buckets 175:20 77:23 78:25 192:10 224:1,1 candidates bioaccumulative bona 138:4 139:18 141:24 142:7 217:19 bugs 121:22,23 26:4 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054465 [capable - clayton] capable center chelates chosen 148:25 149:5 178:11 6:5 21:8 83:14 232:18 242:23 certain chemical chromatograms capacitors 5:5 119:10 184:19 199:4 26:1 27:17,21 40:22 41:18 38:13 39:2 71:17 96:17 126:20 certainly 49:13 58:2,13,22 68:23 131:18 capacity 18:15 23:7,8 31:24 141:15 74:7 79:18 86:6 124:9 chromatograph 173:5 156:12 181:9 189:23 206:2 133:6 141:25 143:10 19:10,16,20 23:4 24:4 40:3 capture 216:20 232:7 235:9 236:11 144:16,16 146:16 153:7,21 40:20,25 41:1,2,6,9,10,16 20:9,13 23:15,18 24:5 39:5 certificate 171:18 172:8,16 176:11 41:21 42:10 44:20 47:1,12 55:6 56:21 59:8,14 60:9 253:1 254:10 210:10 221:3,11 222:2,4 47:15,20 48:15 50:11 58:3 61:9,11,20 88:21 91:19 certified chemically 58:16 59:8 61:14 88:16 105:24 108:19 110:4,6 5:3 7:5 124:20 239:3 89:2,6 91:19 92:25 97:6 155:8 160:24 161:3,7,21 certify chemicals 108:19 110:3 164:15 167:6 162:15,23 163:21 164:15 253:5 255:3 35:4 36:23 47:25 79:12 168:12211:9,22 178:11 chain 80:22 143:5 145:17 205:18 chromatographs captured 141:6,12 146:7 227:1,7 209:7,9 59:20 61:21 62:1 88:14 101:22 228:13,21 241:20 chemist 111:7 166:16 167:12 carbon challenge 18:3 27:7 32:22 35:21 chromatograph's 169:21,21,21 176:20 177:8 199:4 37:16 63:15 65:2 77:14 111:6 carbonless chance 156:14 210:7,16 220:22 chromatography 12:12 179:25 189:8,9 222:1,16,22,22 223:21 2:13 22:22,25 39:4 48:13 care change 231:2,12 233:7 239:21 59:11,1961:1062:4,5 126:7 193:10 51:16,20 52:4,10 54:19 248:7 100:10 107:2 159:13 carefully 64:24 65:20 102:24 201:25 chemistry 166:12,18,23 178:10 231:1 236:8 247:18 256:8,12,16,20,24 3:1 14:16 17:7,12,16,22,24 chronic Carolina changed 18:1320:8 21:14,15 33:13 121:7,12 178:16,19,22 8:19,21,22 72:5 210:12 40:19 82:23 83:11,21 85:13 241:7 carondelet changes 86:6,24 87:7,13 131:25 chronological 5:2 6:14 255:5,9 214:10 226:7 104:13 carrier chapters chemists chronology 111:13 160:10 156:25 24:14 26:3 39:3 62:23 85:7 25:2 carries characteristic 166:11 170:11 175:7 Cincinnati 159:23 97:9 141:8 238:23 177:14 220:19 240:1 183:14 189:5 carte characteristics chickens circuit 245:11 139:17,20 142:18,22 121:6 1:1,104:1,105:6 7:14,15 case 145:17 146:15,18,22 chloride 254:1 7:14 11:13 12:11,21 13:5,6 charge 57:23 233:3 circumstances 14:4,12 16:17,21 42:13 165:12 chlorinate 67:13 46:2 66:4 83:9 85:5 86:22 charges 208:18 city 87:4,7,12,16,17 168:8 254:11,21,22 chlorinated 8:18 198:11 222:14 240:22 Charles 53:22 57:17,20,23 58:1,6 claims 256:3 6:17 58:11,23 88:24 89:20 94:1 201:24 cases charles.merrill 94:11 99:3,24 135:22 137:8 clarification 11:16,20 13:19 236:23 6:18 142:15,23 143:5 146:9 55:17 235:25 catches Charlie 152:24 154:20,22,23 clarified 111:14 7:25 167:20,21 183:17,23 184:3 86:18 cause chart 196:21 208:9,10 235:23 clarify 5:5 51:19 71:2 168:24 104:9,11 105:8 107:6,24 237:12 239:9 33:11 54:14 73:6 85:2 214:9,11 109:7,21 110:21 116:9 chlorination 131:9 135:15 184:24 CC01964 charts 221:13 186:21 1:16 4:16 254:8 110:20 chlorine classical CC01972 check 135:23 221:2,17,18 18:1585:15 1:5 4:5 7:14 254:3 157:24 242:11 choice classify ceased chelate 185:25 201:9 217:1 137:5 252:17 21:17 choose clayton 239:21 7:17 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054466 [clean - consulting] clean commitment compound confident 14:25 93:4 168:18 235:3 190:18 77:11 151:7 152:23 49:9 91:22 107:17 111:20 cleaned committee compounds 112:14 113:3 157:16 110:16 215:16 56:24 58:7,10 59:4 141:8 158:16 cleaning common 143:8 144:17 145:25 confirm 15:3 73:23 74:2 79:11 80:21 210:17236:17 125:14,18 127:13 129:1,5,9 cleanup 81:1 173:17 computers 129:23 130:4,7,7 134:3 12:18 13:9 14:23 56:7 communicating 25:12 43:1 236:19 174:5 247:3 100:3 233:18 9:20 10:4 conceive confirmation cleanups communication 148:17 188:13 130:1 39:6 12:23 129:10 conceived confirmed clear communique 240:18 125:25 173:15 12:6 22:17 90:16 128:22 130:17 concentrated confirming 134:9 168:8 187:8 community 110:16 117:25 130:11 clearly 89:11 218:2 concentration confuse 215:8 224:13 companies 17:21 44:10,18 45:17 46:12 209:1 clophen 12:17 26:1,2 95:12 130:25 46:14 70:21 92:13,17 100:4 confused 49:4 206:20 172:8,17 105:3 117:13 138:16 72:18 192:16,17 235:7 close company 150:24 151:13 238:25 confusing 8:18 29:22 58:4,16 119:23 9:1 27:12 73:10,11 74:8 concentrations 191:3 215:19 249:20 88:14 89:5 119:5,8 125:13 44:5 140:14 141:5 confusion closed 125:20 126:2 160:17 concern 130:20 218:4,6 165:16 180:1 188:14 76:15,22 79:22 194:2 congener closely 193:14210:10221:3,4 231:11 50:1 58:5 59:4 239:3 compare concerned congeners clues 44:15 48:22 53:1 18:8 67:3,22 71:15 75:5 96:8,13,25 97:2 153:14 201:1 compared 79:19 80:1 185:7 204:7 congress coached 46:9 224:5 237:8 192:1,6 106:9 comparing concerns conjecture colella 55:4 37:19 75:4 76:16 187:9 75:24 80:11 99:12 120:15 1:4 4:4 5:7 7:13 11:6 254:3 comparison 188:7,25 200:22 203:11 206:14,15 255:24 256:3 99:9 131:17 conclude conjunction collect compensation 201:14 91:13 108:24 110:14 230:22 26:13 concluded connected collisions competent 180:6 42:9 110:3,11 111:2 160:15 156:14 concluding connection color complete 118:4 120:4 61:13 109:22,25 132:22 233:15 11:1265:25 117:20 135:11 conclusion connects colorimetric completely 117:21,22 163:13 209:14 111:8,12 85:16 226:7 242:10 97:24 184:18 185:10 216:20 227:23 consider colors complex conclusions 93:20 164:25 181:25 21:9 25:21 56:13 80:12,13 165:3 considerable column 246:13 concur 160:7 48:14 59:2 component 77:25 considerably columns 43:25 44:13 45:23,25,25 conditions 119:18 62:2 46:17,24 47:8,18,24 48:5,8 54:5 94:25 100:8,9,10 considered combined 48:10,12,16 50:19,25 51:20 180:7,23 187:20 188:4,5 118:21 139:21 196:9 216:4 59:11 52:22 53:3,16,18,19 54:6 192:23 243:2 216:6,8,10 coming 55:12 57:8,9 95:15 176:25 conduct consistent 28:14 42:24 44:1 111:14 177:2 150:1 46:18 133:4 139:3 components conducted constituents commercial 40:21 41:11,17 45:20,23 241:12 41:3 54:9 59:15,22 93:6 68:5 94:9 192:13 47:2,4,5 48:12,20 51:22 conducting 95:18 commission 52:2,9 55:13 56:6 57:12 160:13 consulting 100:9 191:1 253:24 254:25 97:5 168:2,8 conductivity 9:4 255:18 19:7,21 23:7 167:15,18,23 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054467 [consume - danger] consume convoluted correct (cont.) crack 226:18 227:9 189:23 215:14217:18219:17 223:18 consumer cool 226:12 228:21 233:4 create 227:13,19 29:8 234:18,19,21 235:23 238:8 45:19 56:25 164:17221:20 consumption coop 241:20 247:16 249:15 created 119:2 109:10 255:8,12 227:21 contact cooperative corrected creating 25:24 151:21 153:19 109:12,13,14231:24 114:16 164:4 178:11 contain coordinate correctly creek 49:22 21:17 18:18 23:25 33:22 34:10 107:8,22 contained copied 35:17,20 38:15 84:7 92:9 criteria 49:3 135:22 219:25 221:15 179:21 182:22 194:16 135:4 210:7 214:25 226:9 175:4 245:23 containing 202:21 236:7 242:7 critical 180:22 181:8 186:13 188:3 copy costs 218:11 188:10 192:7,21 224:20 11:4,8 12:12 15:24,25 32:3 13:10 crops contaminant 35:1 104:1 134:17 135:6 counsel 241:14 118:15 123:10218:18,21 180:1 193:11,16,17 7:2,3,21 11:10 15:21,23 err contaminants corporate 33:17 103:12 159:5 179:7 6:21 13:11 122:9 229:5 215:15 182:18 194:11 209:17 crud contaminated corporation 212:2,21 213:4 226:3 93:6 169:1 229:10,11 12:10 183:10210:8 235:12 240:25 253:11,14 crystalline contaminating corps count 175:15,23,25 221:15 66:20 125:12 127:2 141:11 191:2 42:21 csi 227:1 241:20 correct counted 43:2 contamination 12:18,19 14:10 15:7,8,25 45:10 curiosity 14:9 204:1 226:17 227:6 17:4,5,12,19 19:15 22:22 country 86:11 229:13 22:23 26:17,18 27:2,3 29:9 218:25 curious content 29:14 31:13 33:10 34:14 county 31:10 231:25 232:6 153:16 36:12 37:12 40:22 41:6,7 1:1,104:1,105:6 7:15 current context 45:3,21 47:5,15 48:4,11,23 254:1 255:2 15:25 61:18 186:6 207:18,19 49:20 50:1,13,18,20,23,24 couple currently continually 51:8 52:1,13 53:11,20,21 14:1963:18 110:14 8:23 138:13 57:14,20,21 61:14,17 63:5 course curriculum continue 64:1,2,7 65:4,10 67:4 73:17 10:15 12:2 14:1526:13 2:8 15:24 16:4 82:4 218:9 73:21,25 75:19 76:7 77:3 35:12 59:20 131:6 137:4 curve continued 81:16 84:14,19 85:1 90:4,6 154:24 230:9 254:22 44:17 45:2 46:10 123:11 90:8 91:20 96:2,5,6,14 97:1 courses custody continuously 97:14,18 98:21,22 99:3,10 17:18 22:24 254:14 138:11,12 100:16,25 101:8,16 104:9 coursework customer contract 104:10,12,16,24 105:3,10 23:6,20 172:24 173:1 172:11,17225:18 105:20 107:3,9 108:1,21 court customers contracted 109:17,18,23 112:16,23 1:1,104:1,105:6 7:15 126:7 173:4 113:1 114:14 115:5,8 10:16 14:3 54:18 254:1,1 cut contribute 118:11,15 119:8,24 121:2 covered 168:8 75:22 121:18 122:11,12,13,18,19 23:14 85:13 cv control 122:20 123:2,3,6 124:12,13 covers 16:1,3 172:9 174:15,20,24 183:15 184:20 189:3,6 198:2 controlled 197:16,21 controls 218:8 conversation 10:20 convinced 132:20 128:5,8 129:20 131:12 16:13 d 132:1,12,13,17 136:1,19,20 cow 137:23 138:9 139:8 141:20 230:2 daasch 3:3 142:2,5,8,11,15 144:3,14 cows dairy 144:23 147:11 148:5,6,22 149:10 154:8,13,18 155:5 227:9 228:5,8 229:2,9,16 229:17 230:8,21 231:22,23 109:14231:23 241:15 dallas 163:9 174:6,17,18 176:5 231:24,24 180:24 181:2 182:23 cow's 67 254 15 danger 194:16,21,25 202:21 203:18,19 207:7 212:2 140:22 226:16 227:3 229:21 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054468 [darn - developments] darn deaf demonstrated detect 112:2 246:8 251:7,10 39:19 147:23 148:24 41:19,20 168:16 169:10,12 data deal demonstrates 169:13220:14234:14,16 136:21 204:15,20 216:18 12:3 104:6 110:2 147:22 227:10 236:24 245:17,21 date dealing denominator detectable 7:10 88:5 103:24 117:9,10 49:12 154:20,21,22 162:12 238:11 151:10 117:16,18 118:24 141:14 175:20 232:21 department detected 156:2,9 215:17 256:4 dealt 15:2 35:17 168:13205:18208:7 dated 60:21 244:20 depend 212:15213:9 33:20 109:7 182:20 decade 48:13 detecting dave 83:23 85:8 depended 232:18 242:23 243:10 183:8 deceased 45:22,24 detection day 1:144:14254:7 dependent 234:8 240:20 243:4 4:23,25 30:7 183:13 188:8 december 100:7 detector 188:25 189:1,5,12,15,20,21 105:10,13 107:2 194:24 depending 19:8,23 20:2,9,13 23:8,10 190:14 193:10,17210:14 205:19 206:5 58:20 151:17 169:14 23:18 24:5 41:5,13,17,22 255:13 decided depends 42:10,18 43:8 55:6 59:9,14 days 38:23 70:1 129:13 221:23 101:1 59:19 60:4,9 61:9,11,20 43:2 52:5 225:3 236:18 decision deponent 63:17 70:25 71:3 91:19 day's 148:9 215:13 216:25 217:2 10:12 100:9 105:25 108:20 155:9 116:25 217:16 deposed 155:12,21,23 160:9,19,24 dayton decisions 9:5 10:23 11:13 161:3,4,21,25 162:5,10,18 210:10,11 217:3,3,18 deposition 162:23 163:21 164:16 dc declare 1:22 4:21 7:3,12,16 10:15 167:6,11 168:3,5,13 169:6 35:7 132:4,10 255:11 31:18 34:20 185:8 202:19 169:20,20,23 170:4,22,24 dde decomposition 207:4,5 252:17,18 253:7,13 171:1,9 178:11 236:22,23 95:17 137:4 85:17 180:16 204:1 233:4 254:11,12 255:4,6,10 detectors ddt defend describe 23:4,8,15 39:5 56:21 59:21 37:17 71:17 85:23 86:16 199:5,7,19 200:19,20 209:25 62:3 70:20 88:21 160:1 95:16 99:2 120:8,20 121:1 defendant described 162:7,15 164:10 167:20 121:18,20,20 122:3 131:21 11:19 29:10 52:15 56:23 58:11 168:9 136:24 137:3,4,14,22,24 defendants 160:1,23 177:7 207:4,5 detects 138:4 139:14,21 140:4,14 1:8,194:8,195:8,11 6:12 226:9 232:14 41:10 170:25 171:2 140:21 141:11,15 142:1 7:3 8:1 describes determination 143:14 144:12 145:19,23 defended 37:1 196:20 148:20 226:7 234:8 244:20 171:15 172:5,15,15,16 25:17 describing determine 173:2 174:5,11,16 175:8,15 defined 52:15 58:24 137:9 161:1,2 22:1 47:3,10 48:18 66:19 175:22 176:6,8,25 177:1,12 221:14 194:20 81:18 83:6 148:14 153:25 177:19,23 197:13 198:24 definition description 170:11,20 174:10 175:3 224:9 225:10,15,22 226:8 218:4 22:19 226:23 206:12 210:24 241:8 244:1 226:19,20,25 227:10,21 definitive design 244:8 245:23 248:1,9,13 228:2,4,9,20 229:1,3,10,18 200:16 21:20 171:22 249:25 250:13 229:19,22 230:3,8,23 232:8 degradation designed determined 232:18,23,24,25 233:4 150:25 153:18 154:25 40:21 41:2 61:13 220:24 135:21 177:14 238:6 234:9,14 239:23 241:4,7,11 155:2 207:15,15 221:8 228:15230:1,6,10,14 241:19 245:5 241:14,19,24 242:6,23 degraded 231:21 determining 243:2 244:21 136:8 151:25 153:20 destroy 87:12 203:18 ddts degree 184:18 develop 146:17 17:15,1723:1325:8 128:16 destroyed 21:16 27:22 28:1 126:19 ddt's 221:12 187:16 developed 227:6 deliver destruction 92:8 93:14 102:9 133:13 dead 93:8 186:17 160:18 121:25 delivery detail developing deadline 254:21 12:25 83:2 25:13 demonstrate detailed developments 146:6,6 147:9 179:1 160:4 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054469 [device - early] device disappear doctor dr (cont.) 42:9 139:4 152:24 16:16 33:18 86:20 170:16 208:5 212:23 214:3 224:12 dialogue disappeared 233:6 235:17 236:2,13 226:9 229:7 231:20 240:9 72:19 130:10,24 42:17 43:17 121:22 207:14 237:10 240:5 243:24 244:6 245:13 dictated discharge 246:18 247:25 draft 217:20 160:1,19,20 document 2:12 101:23 103:15,22 dictates discounted 11:5 33:19,23 34:11,14 118:21 56:11 204:21 103:9,14,19 119:7 156:2 drainage dieldrin discovered 159:7 182:20,22 183:4 114:7 54:2 142:20 68:4 127:19 193:8 194:13 195:23 draw difference discovery 212:12 213:2,3,7 214:1 160:3 222:5 227:22 56:4 140:16 145:25 185:4 71:13 226:5,9,12,14 231:13,15,18 drawing 230:14 discrete 243:6,20 244:4,11,12 125:6,6 differences 97:23 documentation drawn 62:25 63:2 discuss 201:3 117:22 163:13 165:3 222:2 different 196:6 documented drew 12:1721:1024:1 31:22 discussed 94:24 155:22 205:8 228:25 209:14 233:20 45:20 47:25 48:3,10 49:19 8:17 24:9 146:15 documents drop 49:23,25 50:13,16 52:11 discussing 31:17,21 85:22 156:18 133:19 57:12 58:7 59:4 61:25 62:2 103:6 163:11 157:1 210:3 242:9 244:2,5 drove 62:3 64:20 65:8 70:21 discussion 244:19 245:3 43:16 95:25 96:5 97:18 98:20 47:9 129:13 191:25 dogs drug 116:13 118:5 123:21 disk 121:5 241:12 124:10 144:11 151:6 157:25 158:3 doing ducks 153:14 156:24 175:11 disks 21:13 37:16,23 42:5 64:13 121:6 176:9 184:8 185:11 186:24 158:14 65:22 67:15 71:7 74:6 due 190:20 196:13 198:15 disposal 79:20 82:21 88:4 92:9 210:18 207:9,13 231:15 235:22 81:13,20 126:9 185:17 104:4 119:13 127:18 duly 238:17,21 disprove 131:19 148:25 149:5 253:7 differentiate 230:7 163:23 166:1 179:3 180:3 dump 169:24 176:1,17 177:16,19 dispute 211:4,14,15213:21,24 150:21 237:12,16 240:7,22 12:16 217:6,7 231:5 232:25 246:3 dumped differentiating distance 246:5,6 150:2,16 151:2 237:3 88:10 donald duplicate differently distinct 35:3 64:11 70:22 54:7 doubling duplicated difficult distinguish 249:15 62:20 56:15 78:3 177:2 175:8 doubt e difficulty 82:5 132:25 distribute 187:14,15 40:2 174:3 183:5 205:17,21 205:24 206:3 233:16 e.p. 33:21 179:21 182:21 direct 74:12 113:8 213:7 direction 160:5 253:10 distributed 124:1 152:1 188:9 197:7,9 219:3 distribution dr 4:227:128:11,169:6 11:7 11:11 16:1,23 24:6 26:23 26:25 27:15 28:10 30:6 eagles 104:19 earlier 8:17 20:15 26:21 30:6 directly 13:1049:7 51:1952:11 32:2 36:18 37:12,14,21 56:24 61:24 101:2 106:1 20:1826:1981:10 110:18 119:8 127:22 153:16 192:3 179:22 192:1 194:4 227:12 193:13 205:4,5 227:19 229:22 ditch director 114:7 38:5 39:11 40:1,19 44:24 49:18 55:2 72:1 75:14 77:6 82:6 84:11 103:5 106:20 107:14 109:6 125:10 118:20 120:15 131:16 137:9 163:12 164:11 183:21 203:10,10 209:20 216:20,21 244:25 248:6 193:21 division 127:12 128:2 129:10 earliest dirt 56:2,3 150:4 1:6,17 4:6,17 27:18,21 28:9 60:20 62:7,9 210:10 254:4 131:10,11,13 134:1,2 137:7 145:19 149:25 156:22 24:24 early disagree 254:9 76:7,8 77:24 161:20 198:7 docket 157:11 160:5,16,22 178:15 179:8 183:19 192:5 194:20 18:24 65:1,25 66:1 101:14 102:12,14 196:3 203:15 disagreed 201:15234:11 231:15 195:3 199:8 200:1 201:7,10 202:4,17 205:16,18 206:4 235:8 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054470 [easier - excepts] easier 97:12 easily 160:11 180:8 187:21 215:25 easy 175:19 176:24 eat 121:23 ec 109:23 112:15,22 122:22 ecd 20:12 61:17 63:7,25 64:7 106:7 110:5 educating 19:2 edward 1:4 4:4 5:7 7:13 254:3 effectively 137:21 effects 121:13210:22 efficacy 29:4 effluent 73:24 74:1,16,21 75:17 76:5,10 77:3,19 79:12 80:22 126:8 effort 131:10 efforts 128:25 eggs 226:18 eight 4:24 either 10:3 27:25 32:14 123:7 165:2 185:24,25 204:20 elaborate 70:14,17 electrical 42:1 43:12 electrochemistry 18:9 electron 20:9,13 23:18 24:4 39:5 55:6 56:20 59:8,14 60:9 61:9,11,20 88:21 91:19 101:22 105:24 110:4,5 155:8 160:24 161:3,7,21 162:15,23 163:21 164:15 178:11 electronic 23:14 108:19 electrons environment (cont.) established 161:9 192:8,24 195:5,9 197:9 121:18,19 153:13 elements 203:17 205:5 207:16 208:3 estate 85:18 208:7,14,23 209:6 212:15 9:2 elmer 213:9 220:4 224:17 228:10 esters 2:10,16,18 35:6,11 36:18 236:10 244:24 246:20 56:18 132:10 202:20 247:11 248:24 estimate elmer's environmental 163:4 238:25 35:18 35:14 38:19 39:7 55:18,21 et emmet 57:6 60:11 61:23 62:6,24 1:7,184:7,185:8,9,107:13 35:12 63:13,25 66:20 70:23 76:10 11:5,6 254:4,9 255:24,24 employable 88:2 89:15,19 91:17 92:2,4 255:24 256:3,3,3 248:14 92:21 93:20 95:7 99:7,13 europe employed 101:13,22 102:4,11 103:8 129:11 218:25 253:11,15 104:14 105:19 107:25 evaluate employee 108:4,9,11 113:9 118:15 21:22 241:7 189:24,25 190:17 193:3 122:9 123:1,10 127:9,9 events 253:14 128:5 131:12 147:13 31:23 employment 162:20 167:3 168:15 eventually 8:24 198:12211:14,23 218:17 64:6 71:8 131:7 132:16 endangering 236:12 237:14,17,20 135:7 138:16 141:4 147:18 198:9 239:10 240:10 242:17 172:18 204:23 208:13 endangers 245:9,18 248:11 everybody 198:12 environmentally 29:3 68:7 76:14 102:3 ended 139:15,19 142:19 143:13 110:23 118:1,2 132:19 45:14 91:13 246:3,6 144:20 145:12 147:7,11 215:9 246:5,9 energy enzyme evidence 160:14 201:24 145:8,11 147:4,6 201:24 engaged equal 208:6 209:5 8:24 170:23 221:19 ex engineering equipment 189:24 210:9 28:24 61:5,7,7 62:21 70:2 exact enlighten 87:23 88:6,8 89:14 99:20 8:21 116:7 141:14215:17 125:2 100:1,13 102:11 103:7 exactly enrolling 106:10 111:12 129:15 36:15 51:23 70:4 71:6,21 20:19 251:12 83:6 87:24 113:10,18 enthusiasm equipped 153:17 163:5 183:2 186:10 40:6 88:21 187:8,22 196:4 205:10 entitled equivalent 215:21 11:5 82:10,17,18 103:23 64:14 88:12 89:9 108:2 examination 179:19 194:13235:14 113:10 171:19 182:1 2:4 8:9 entity era examined 79:23 104:6 4:23 8:7 119:20 environment eric example 29:12 33:7 39:14 51:8,13 161:15,17 48:19 50:9 51:3,14 52:20 51:15,23 52:4,6,10 72:3,12 eriksen 55:4,8 98:10 112:20 113:14 72:23 73:2,12,25 74:12 156:22 136:24 142:14 178:8 77:2 78:16 79:20 80:23 eriksen's 208:17 224:20 237:20 85:25 99:16 109:1 114:1 156:19 157:3 158:24 examples 115:7,25 124:11 125:12,19 errata 218:22 125:22 126:1,4,10 127:2 256:1 excellent 132:1 138:12 142:2,11 escambia 204:8 145:2,18 146:17 147:16 113:15 114:2,5 exception 148:15 149:15 150:16 especially 84:9 137:1 151:1 163:9 165:8 181:6,7 37:17 187:21 excepts 181:12 185:20 188:10,13 2:13 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054471 [excerpts - find] excerpts expires fact (cont.) fat (cont.) 159:11 253:24 254:25 255:18 130:23 136:22 137:7 138:7 241:4,23 242:24 243:11 excited explain 154:9 156:17 170:18 fats 40:16 160:12,14 26:12 82:4 172:11 173:9 182:14 226:18 excreted explicit 200:24 202:5 205:7,20 fatty 226:22 176:18 207:3 209:6 214:22 216:14 226:8,21 excuse explode 228:19 233:16 236:10 fault 36:9 54:18 102:23 108:10 221:20 243:3 247:8 25:4 36:10 116:23 122:6 146:20 148:19 exploding factor favor 172:25 218:12 168:5 15:18254:18,19 executed explored factors fda 255:13 227:5 94:3 241:19 exhaustive expose facts february 87:25 248:12 228:5 156:23 108:8 112:13 exhibit exposed factual fed 2:7,8,9,11,13,15,16,18,20 138:19 140:17 13:18,18 15:6 229:2 231:22,24 2:21,23,24 3:1,3,4 11:8,9 exposure faintest federal 13:5 15:20,23,23 16:17 139:1 204:25 227:16,20 71:11 133:3 185:9 188:8 190:15,19,23 33:16,19 34:1,4 103:11,14 241:7,9 fair feed 103:21 107:7 109:6 112:21 express 16:22 17:1829:12,21 41:14 226:19229:9,11,12,18,18 117:2,4 119:17 159:4,7,20 40:1 42:8 51:24 55:6,14 63:24 230:2,7,21 232:9 179:6,9,12,14 182:17,20 expressed 97:10 101:12 120:21 feeding 184:11 185:8 187:17,18,24 40:5 129:22 136:3,5 138:3 229:8 189:18 193:16 194:10,13 expressly 139:22 168:11 192:4 196:8 feeds 202:19 212:20,23 226:2,5 7:7 209:4 138:13 235:11,13 240:24 241:2 extended fairly feel exhibits 223:4,11 23:15211:17 9:23 49:8 2:6 3:8 34:2 209:16,19 extends falcon feeling 212:2 223:7 205:11 75:20 102:5,7 177:21 exist extent falcons feet 78:7 31:21 33:3 54:9 85:19 37:19 110:21 existed 125:18,24 143:7 220:22 familiar felt 163:8 164:5 extra 60:17 124:24 136:1 157:2 107:17 129:17 193:23 existing 173:5 familiarization fid 27:22 64:7 extract 18:25 23:10 expect 55:19 familiarized fide 99:17 106:2 extracted 60:22 217:19 experience 56:7 family field 13:1962:11 166:16203:19 extraction 58:1 123:22 166:12 experiment 100:3 far fifteen 148:18,23 150:2 154:5 extraneous 10:5 11:12 18:724:2 33:7 84:5 245:7 246:15 179:25 180:6,7 181:11 38:12 36:5 61:16 65:9 66:2,14 fifty 183:20 184:2 187:19 188:5 f 67:3,11 119:19 122:7 131:9 168:16 230:9,11,14 experimental 186:14 226:21 experiments 149:1,5 230:1,6,12 expert 13:17 86:3 expertise 14:15 32:23 178:7 experts 84:14 85:4 86:23 91:14 166:11,20 167:1 245:16 f&m 132:14 134:1,4 135:13,15 figure 88:14,15 89:4,7 145:5 147:10 178:15 185:6 63:18 68:21 99:9 127:17 face 74:24,25 111:5,5 252:4 facilities 126:14 225:20 204:7 216:2 farm 9:3 226:18 fashion 130:15 131:3 225:13 figured 71:8 final facility 75:25 123:20 188:14 2:24 73 16 22 78 17 fact 190:13220:14231:15 fast finally 17:10 40:7 93:7 1413 20 10 25 25 48 13 50:17 58:12 67:22 77:25 39:8 110:21 fat financially 253:15 78:7 80:25 92:7 111:21 112:15 113:4 118:14 123:9 137:17,23,25 138:7,16,18 find 139:6 140:14227:11,12 50:11 53:24 66:22 69:20 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054472 [find - generated] find (cont.) flammable forth further 88:13 103:9 106:2 107:19 221:19 43:20,21,21 130:10 253:13 116:2 131:25 132:8 140:9 flattened forty furthermore 141:4 150:14 152:3,5,6,8,9 44:8 31:11 136:14 213:23 152:10 155:14,15 156:15 flexibility forum fyi 157:17 158:19 167:20 223:16 196:6 194:3 169:3 210:4 215:25 228:17 flint forward g 246:20 finding 29:12 39:14 68:11 108:1 17:4 flour 241:16 70:2 92:10 209:2 found 24:13,18 57:5 64:16 88:3 gallons 150:3 151:3 152:14,16 153:3,23 123:1 140:14 192:6 202:4 207:21 227:17 243:3 findings 130:7 135:2 205:3 fluid 175:25 193:21 221:16 focused 226:15 105:3 107:1 112:25 114:18 116:5 119:20 120:4,23 123:5,10 133:7 136:6,15 156:13 181:5 197:14 game 20:4 42:13 gamma 237:4,4,6 fine focusing 208:13 209:6,11 218:20,23 gas 23:23 30:15 180:12 192:25 199:16 203:15 204:12 233:10 folks 219:10 228:20 229:19,20 242:20 248:11 2:13 14:9 19:10,16,20 22:21,24 23:4 24:4 38:12 fingerprint 88:4 118:25 49:8,13 50:14,15 54:8 97:8 follow foundation 67:18 69:18 70:12 77:23 39:4 40:3,20,25 41:1,2,5,8 41:10,16,21 42:9 43:7 116:7 155:9 162:20 163:9 10:12,13,14 12:9 164:5,17 178:12 following fingerprints 66:4 103:16 183:13 78:25 143:19 151:16 166:6 199:11 222:21 224:1,25 246:25 247:15 44:1947:1,14,1948:14 50:11 58:3,15 59:8,11,20 61:14,21 62:1 88:13,15 113:7,18,20 finish follows 8:8 four 236:20 89:1,6 91:18 92:25 97:6 100:10 107:2 108:19 110:2 29:19 187:3 196:14 finished 30:16 251:4 food 141:5,11 146:7 227:1,7 228:13,21 241:12,20 fourth 31:14 fox 111:7,13 159:12 160:10 164:15 166:12,15,17,23 167:6,12 168:12 178:10 firm 254:14 forage 227:9 228:7,8 229:1 12:14 frame 211:9,22 gasses first 13:5 21:2 23:23 24:3,11 25:23 28:4 29:24 32:16 forefront 22:7 foregoing 29:20 81:14 frankly 41:22 73:24 79:11 249:17,23 250:2,7,16 2:25 221:20 gather 201:1 34:25 38:9 39:12,16 40:12 253:7 255:4,12 47:15 60:10 66:18 70:19 forenoon 173:8 free gc 18:24 19:5,8,10 20:8 43:8 71:12 91:16,24,25 92:4,9 4:24 92:12 93:10 99:19 100:20 forever 93:10 186:18 252:9 freely 52:22 55:5 106:7 109:23 110:5,11 111:3 112:15,22 101:21,23 102:8,10 103:7 40:9 139:7 95:6 122:22 137:10 155:8 169:9 104:18 105:7 107:24 108:8 forgot 109:20 110:13 115:2 118:7 202:11 121:20 127:1 130:17 133:9 form frequently 19:15 57:5 friend 236:22 gee 39:1 62:1568:10 171:7 141:10 155:7,22 160:24 162:22 169:5 170:24 178:18,20 183:8 189:17 190:10 199:2 226:14 231:1 21:9 41:22,23 67:17 69:5,5 159:1 69:17 72:4 77:22 78:23 front 108:3 110:8 120:7 143:16 41:8 150:24 153:7 166:5,7,21 fruition 211:21 213:17 gels 175:17 general 232:15 234:1 245:20 169:24 191:10 192:10 28:15 9:15 51:25 52:1 58:9 89:10 fish 105:14 107:3 fit 176:22 193:8 199:10211:14 221:20 222:20 223:25 224:22 246:22 247:14 250:3,20 255:5 fulfill 69:15 fulfilling 190:18 250:15 117:19 236:23 241:9 generalized 236:15 generally five format full 12:21 13:14 18:21 167:12 115:18 154:14235:15 238:3,6,12 37:6 formulation 8:24 9:1 203:1 function 209:24 generate flame 221:8 20:2 23:9 105:25 167:15,17 formulators 193:13 functional 201:14 generated 168:3,4,12 169:6,19 170:4 170:22,24 171:3 172:18 100:2,13 193:21 239:19 117:25 121:7 215:12217:4 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054473 [generating - high] generating goes graphs happening 216:18,22 217:7 16:2 53:6 138:17 53:1 67:25 155:3 220:18 gentleman going great happens 26:23 38:18 193:24 8:19 9:16 10:1 21:6 35:22 117:7 138:20 230:3 gentlemen 47:11,18 54:22 67:5,16 greater happy 32:25 68:7,25 69:4,8 70:17 78:20 143:5 72:21 79:7 82:13,15 geographic 79:25 83:6 92:15 102:25 greenpeace hard 109:8 103:8 107:15 112:11 14:24 216:17 224:2 getting 118:22 119:13 121:9 greenville harley 91:13 110:7,8 115:7 126:9 123:14 124:11 130:11,16 8:18 160:2 154:19 191:14228:21 130:25 131:3 133:21 134:8 ground harold 249:19 134:11 143:15 149:20 9:15,22 10:11 150:3,22 2:20,22,23 210:6 give 150:23 157:22 166:4 192:9 151:3,18,18,18 152:3,4,8 harold's 27:13 32:24 54:5 58:2 59:2 198:9,19 199:9 201:2 152:10,15,17 153:19,23 209:23 77:16 78:11,12 79:16 80:7 202:12 203:16 214:16 176:16 184:21 haven 102:5 138:1 156:18 162:2 222:19 223:24 229:22 group 14:22 163:4 167:22 170:1 176:17 230:13 247:13,20 248:4 28:11,12,12,13 59:1984:12 hay 187:4 201:1 223:16 230:2 252:12,14 91:6,7,9,12 98:11,12,15 9:3 231:25 243:18 244:17 251:23 gomberg 106:25 108:24 143:2,4 head given 210:22 144:17 24:7 27:1 102:21 12:25 13:1,21,25 32:19 good grumpy health 56:5 63:9 64:20,21,22 8:11 10:9 19:2 25:7,12 133:17 190:21,22 191:2,5 226:16 67:12,21 68:20 69:11,14 26:14 29:7 32:1 39:9 40:13 guess hear 70:9 79:8 84:4 95:6 156:25 54:17 71:10 73:14 89:24 9:14 11:1 29:18 114:23 69:11 96:7 115:22 172:23 159:12 170:15,16 187:23 98:5 110:17 120:1 123:17 116:1 135:14 143:9 152:12 245:13 252:4 195:4,8 205:13 210:2 129:18 136:12 156:22 211:20 218:21 244:3 heard 211:24 214:1 245:6 247:9 186:9 191:7 196:2 205:4 guessed 32:4,6 161:14 234:1 247:4 248:9 206:15 240:8 246:9 71:9 247:8 gives gosh guide hearsay 102:7 9:12 216:25 217:2,16 174:2 giving gotcha gunther heated 140:24 252:1 56:23 96:19 97:22,22 130:13 111:11 glad 105:22 guy heck 77:13 125:1 gotten 135:21 189:24 190:11 40:17 glc 46:13 63:8 64:6 69:25 194:17 204:18 251:23 held 105:14 106:6 114:9 168:25 169:1 171:5 guys 7:16 14:8 global 181:13 207:25 231:22 242:4 hellaciously 117:11 118:7,14 127:21 government h 246:10 218:17,21 219:23 172:12,19 173:2 185:10 half help globally 188:9 190:15,19,23 193:3 170:10,10,18,19 103:9 179:16 219:2,2 197:24 218:15 helped hrtllS go graduate 11023 31:22 198:1 9:24 10:5 20:18 28:23 18:2 20:5,24 21:3 22:20,25 hand helping 30:13 35:6,20 39:8,8 52:19 23:5 65:25 34:14 49:11 126:18 239:9 56:7 65:14 70:2,18 76:13 graduated handing heptachlorocyclohexane 79:6 87:19,20 92:10 93:3 18:1723:11 212:22 238:5 112:20 115:25 122:5 graduating hanrllprl hewlett 130:11,12 150:25 163:17 20:18 26:5 35:15 89:5,7 166:6 191:4 200:5,10,10 grant hang hexa 207:16 213:10 227:12 17:25 18:6,7 21:5 25:15 38:15 136:16 236:7 250:15 252:10 graph happen hexachlorocyclohexane goal 41:24 42:7,11 43:11,13,19 43:5 65:6 76:18 183:17,22 235:16 238:4,16,19 239:4 201:6 45:1,18 48:2,3,4,9,10,22,23 184:3 224:6 hides god 50:16 53:2,10 happened 155:2 120:2 179:17 graphed 26:15 80:24 87:21 163:19 high 42:6 165:13 173:10,13,18 205:2 48:15 59:25 97:7 111:6 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054474 [high - information] high (cont.) hunten immediate includes 123:24 137:19 159:25 118:3 195:8,12 156:8 higher husch immediately incorporated 119:18 144:6 146:9,10 5:1 6:13 7:17 8:1 254:17,19 114:17 228:3 152:23 167:25 248:11 huschblackwell.com impact increase 249:1 6:18 79:19 160:8 highly hydrocarbon impacted increased 50:4 57:17,24 58:1,12,23 94:1 233:17 31:24 hill 99:3,24 137:8 142:15,23 implication independent 160:6 143:6 167:21 208:9,11 222:11 174:4,10 245:14 hippel 235:23 237:13 239:10 implied independently 161:15,17 hydrocarbons 196:12 36:20 hired 57:20 58:6 88:25 89:21 implies indicate 27:5,6,9 61:13 64:25 66:1 167:20 118:9 147:14 193:5 241:13 66:18 hydrogen importance indicated historical 169:21 176:20 177:8 37:22 38:6,17 134:6 135:18 85:11 209:21 235:1 75:7 81:18 82:23 83:10 221:18 important indicates 85:6 86:5 249:25 hygiene 9:23 28:15 134:10,15,16,18 117:10 238:2 historically 3:5 241:3 207:17 indicating 81:9 87:8,12 hypothetical impossible 38:11 144:4 238:7,9 history 48:19 51:2 52:20 64:19,24 153:15 225:6 indication 83:1 165:7 65:3,21,24 66:13 67:8,10 impression 220:17 247:6,9 hmm 67:14 68:24 69:2 71:18 77:16 indications 112:7 128:20 151:2 161:5 79:15 80:13 170:16 248:4 improbable 121:10 218:16 222:13 225:4 239:5 248:20 50:5 indicator home hypotheticals improved 160:21 110:23 87:22 160:19 161:21 164:1,3 indirect hooked i 60:17 63:20 i.e. hope 205:13233:11 hormone 241 8 idea 7T11 758 1333 17414 201:24 horn 220 12 identical 93:22 horse 153:7 identification 9:3 229:16 11:10 15:21 33:17 38:25 horses 229:17,17 hours 39:22 89:23 103:12 159:5 179:7 182:18 194:11 202:1 203:3,8 209:17 212:21 4:24 52:5 house 28:1 huge 226:3 235:12 240:25 identified 33:22 34:10 38:14 40:14 46:7 57:16 90:1 203:12,14 58:6 143:4 172:15 251:19 identify huh 16:25 167:9 210:19 215:20 hulls 133:11 7:21 40:21 41:17 55:12 146:23 170:25 171:9 206 19 235 22 identifying human 89:15 206:25 207:1 218:11 229:22 241:4,23 242:24 243:11 iii 1:22 2:4 4:22 7:12 8:5,17 hundred 150:2 151:2 152:14,16 illinois 5:5 253:5,22 153:2,23 162:11 169:16 imagine 71:19,20 impurities 232:22 233:22 59:23 238:5 individual inadequate 95:22 97:2 98:20 168:7 69:18 70:12 222:20 223:25 210:23 inappropriate individually 213:21 1:134:13254:6 inaudible industrial 91:7 3:5 49:13 68:23 79:11 incentive 80:21 81:1,13 119:18 121:5 80:10 133:6 178:17,21 179:3 incinerate 221:5 241:3 184:5 192:21 industry incinerated 74:2 81:6,19,20 183:18,24 184:4 186:13 infer 192:21 224:18 incinerating inference 185:16 191:17 192:4 incineration infinite 179:20 184:7,14,16,17,22 59:3 184:25 185:5,5,18 187:20 information 192:3,13 12:25 13:1 15:6 24:11 30:8 incinerators 32:19 37:5 40:14 67:23 186:14 69:21 74:5 81:3 102:19 include 117:9,10,16,18,19,25 58:7,8 112:9 126:6,12,18 118:11,12,23,23 120:14 126:22 131:23 132:3 147:12 148:8 included 173:20 183:13,16,21 184:2 84:11 118:1,1 200:17201:1,14 205:9 209:15214:15215:11 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054475 [information - job] information (cont.) instrumental interpreting it'd 216:22,24 217:4,8,15,19,21 100:8 45:6 155:13 217:23,25 218:1,2 224:7,10 instrumentation interrupt item 244:17 246:6 247:5 18:16,19 20:23 21:12 22:3 10:18 30:14,23 143:21 243:17 informed 28:19 240:12 interrupting items 134:2 247:4,8 instruments 107:14 16:5 251:21 infrared 18:20 interruption J 235:14 236:5,11,20 237:20 integrator 238:23 42:16 43:19 44:23 45:8,12 ingested integrity 59:24 91:8 161:23 241:17 intervening 135:17 j.e. 160:5 j.r. 226:20 ingredient 237:7 inhabitants 95:2 intellectual 67:9 intended intimated 201:13 introduce 110:17 155:20 163:20 january 3:2 226:5,24 227:6 228:24 228:25 117:13 63:16 119:3,7 218:2 227:16 introduced japan initial 12:1 28:8 196:3 228:9,12 229:23 240:20 intention 44:19 141:15 introduces 219:1 japanese initially 28:7 29:23 88:7 250:12 intentional 111:15 invented 49:4 jensen inject 47:12,19 injected 229:13 intentionally 53:23 99:15 140:17,24 155:12,19,21 investigation 134:7 174:5,10 2:4 6:9 7:23,23 8:10 11:3 11:11 12:5 15:22 16:12,15 24:9 30:10 32:3,8 33:18 46:3,9 55:11 injecting 193:5,6 208:1 227:21 228:5 investigations 228:6 229:5 226:19 241:12 38:5,13,14,20,25 39:2,18 54:17 55:2 60:8 61:4 62:22 47:1 input 138:14 interest 21:9 24:1928:1435:19 46:21 59:18 60:20 231:1 involved 11:16 14:4,23 62:9 214:20 ionization 64:12 68:1,25 70:5,10,15 71:13 72:9 78:14 79:9 88:3 88:18 90:2 102:22 103:5,13 inquiry 189:1 interested 18:11 19:1 26:2,6 62:23 20:2 23:9 105:25 159:25 160:8,14 161:3,25 162:5,7 118:1 127:6,14 128:4 129:1 129:5,9,12,24 130:4 131:11 insecticide 168:23,25 169:5 170:19 insects 63:23 89:1 119:1 165:5 186:16 192:6 210:16 253:16 162:10,18 167:15,17 168:3 168:4,12 169:6,19,23 170:4 170:22,24 131:22,23 132:24 133:14 133:18 134:1,4,13 135:3,5 135:18 141:3 144:3 149:17 228:7 229:14,14 inside interesting 171:22 195:23,23 196:1 ionized 160:12 161:13 171:2 149:25 152:2 157:2,5,8,11 157:15,18,21 158:4,11,15 76:10 97:5 115:3 insignificant 201:11 210:19 interface ions 21:8 158:22 159:3,6,19,21 161:24 166:10 167:2 179:8 153:24 208:12 111:4,8 iowa 182:19 185:6 191:13 insoluble 140:12 inspection interfere 137:10 interference 17:11 20:17,20,24 22:5,11 23:1,11,1725:9 isomer 192:18 194:12 199:25 202:11,17203:13206:1,21 209:18 212:22 222:24 114:12 instance 176:3 instances 71:3 50:1,23 98:20 238:24 interferences isomeric 40:6 56:15,25 231:9 233:25 153:16 interfering isomers 224:8 225:4 226:4 233:6 235:13241:1,18 247:7,17 247:25 250:6,25 251:24 252:1,6,9 197:20 218:7 243:4 71:16 94:2 49:23,25 95:22 96:5 97:25 jensen's instant 252:16 institute 38:21 130:13 160:6 interjection 113:8 internal 109:4 119:6 98:12,16 136:14 153:12 207:14210:23 211:18 235:15,22 236:4 237:4 238:3,17,21,25 239:2 240:8 131:14 247:11 250:17 jet 111:5,5,11,12 249:22 instituted internally 240:23 jim 121:4 instructed 105:9,19 112:5 interpret issue 71:14 75:16 117:23 195:5 106:14 job 193:12 instrument 56:16 interpretation 209:2 224:13,16 226:25 227:5 246:11 16:7 21:21,22 27:4,8 64:14 120:1 129:20,25 189:11 40:20 44:4,14 92:14 185:9 issued 183:6 194:5 195:16 236:25 245:25 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054476 [john - level] john kind (cont.) know (cont.) lack 6:22 7:19 102:24 149:18 185:5 190:12,20 192:15 140:3,13,25 141:14,14,15 67:18 77:22 78:25 143:18 journal 194:3 195:17,19 196:4 141:20 145:6,7 147:10,25 151:16 166:5 199:10 3:1 196:19 226:6 198:22,23 201:13 203:25 148:2,5 149:3 154:2 155:18 224:25 246:24 247:14 journals 204:17 208:21 209:1,3 155:25 156:11,17 157:25 lactating 196:10,16 211:10213:21,24 214:8 158:8,20,24 159:2 162:9,17 230:22 judicial 215:16 217:9 218:23 162:22,25 163:5,16 164:7 lakes 7:15 220:17 225:24 240:19 164:13,13,19,24 165:4,6 138:21 july 245:11 246:5 251:22 167:7,10,11,14 172:1 173:3 large 2:20 kinda 173:7,10,11,17 174:2,19,24 53:22 94:22 121:4,17 jump 97:21 121:14 123:21 177:12 178:5,6 179:5,18 late 25:1 133:13 198:20 233:16 184:17,21 185:21 187:22 25:8,21 26:16 28:8 33:9 jumped kindly 189:14 190:5 192:5 195:16 41:23 59:7 100:23 101:9,23 143:23 15:24 195:17,23 198:19,25 101:24 108:15 128:3,13 june kinds 201:17 205:1,8 206:24 129:20 167:7,8,13 168:13 2:21 253:24 18:10 21:16 23:3,4 27:23 208:2 210:4 211:10214:7 178:18 jury 28:20 31:7 37:17 38:12 215:17218:7,9,13219:14 laug 96:7 39:4 54:3,5 56:8 59:4 62:1 219:16,18,20 220:7 224:6 244:9 justice 62:2,3,12 70:19 79:13 225:9,24 230:19,19,24 laugh 15:2 85:20 86:12 93:18 138:19 231:10,22 232:2,9 233:16 120:2 179:18 k 141:8 152:25 166:17 234:24 244:3 251:9 lawful keep 169:22,25 171:20 192:15 knowing 8:6 205 5 229 14 235 4 keeps 200:21 207:23 209:12 214:23 217:20 223:18 99:11 knowledge lawyer 77:13 9:4 keller 24:6 26:24,25 27:15 28:10 225:2 237:22 knew 13:2,2,2 33:8 40:11 45:17 13:7 60:6 74:12 75:6 76:15 lawyers 124:4 129:9 173:9 174:1 173:23 192:16 lead 30:6 32:2 129:10 134:2 179:21 46:5 49:2,10 67:21 74:15 knowledgeable 76:21 77:1,4,18 78:1,1 82:2 240:1 217:8 leader kelly 35:12 kept 92:21 93:11 94:15,16 95:3 known 95:21 107:19 113:17 47:8,13 50:9 74:20 80:25 114:25 115:1,3,6 121:1,13 81:4,8,19 92:13,13 93:25 28:12 leading 82:7,9 198:21 953 kill 121:16 127:24 133:5 134:4 99:1,2 136:22 140:3,5 171:14 185:16 192:3 141:10 165:18 196:4 leak 114:18 115:23 228:7,8 229:14 killed 199:23 211:18213:23 214:10,24 216:13218:16 201:23 219:24 228:23 229:5,9 237:2 leaked 113:16 114:1,6 121 '21 218:19,24 221:5 231:19 knowns leaking kilogram 238:12 kind 232:20 know 9:12,13,15,19 10:2 11:12 100:5 knows 62:17 79:17 114:14,16,25 learn 29:2 127:1 165:13 173:19 16:8 18:3 20:23 22:3,7 26:6 26:14 29:8 30:5 35:12,14 35:18 37:15 39:6 40:10 42:1,10 43:21 46:18 50:21 11:20 15:16,17 16:4,7 19:25 20:3,7,14 22:5,16,17 24:17 32:10,21 34:24 36:24 39:23 44:2 45:6 46:20 l.w. 3:3 lab 1 learned 125:11 134:12 lecture 135:3,5,6 54:10 60:18 62:10 68:13,18 49:14 51:7,9 52:23 61:8,17 19:1920:1,8 91:17 led 68:18,20 71:10 72:5 74:3 76:17 79:4,7 80:1,10,12 83:5,6 88:6,16,18 92:17 95:16,19 96:18 99:8 100:20 62:15,15 65:21 67:13 69:13 71:2 74:4,7,14 75:7,11,22 75:23 78:3,10,10,11 79:18 79:24 81:5,17,22,23,24 label 225:23 labeled 52:15 94:23 131:7 legal 6:22 legitimate 106:3 111:23 118:9 120:16 82:1,3 84:25 85:11 88:9 laboratories 39:23 130:12 131:2 132:4,5,23 133:11 135:7 140:24 92:25 94:12,12 96:21 98:18 100:17 102:8 106:20,22 183:14 189:5 laboratory letter 192:1 141:17 146:1 155:16,24 156:24 163:22 165:17 109:10 113:25 114:9,24 116:12 118:8 121:14 17:18 44:25 69:24 105:21 106:5,11 107:18 108:12 level 16:3 18:19,22 22:25 60:1 167:5,5,11 168:8 169:7 171:6 174:14,19,24 178:8 124:23 130:23 131:21 132:2,7,15 133:12 135:4 178:24 211:15,16 70:24 74:10 76:15 79:21 80:22 132:20 167:1 170:2 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054477 [level - material] level (cont.) 175:18,21 176:3 181:22 242:24 245:18,19,21 248:10,24,25 levels 28:21 59:22 62:12 71:9 85:24 119:17 198:12 211:16 220:15,16 237:22 242:17 245:9 liberty 8:20,22 life 20:5,5 210:20 lifetime 223:4,8,12 light 110:19,22 lignins 21:16 liked 195:18 limit 243:4 limitations 60:23 line 183:8 184:11,15 190:10 256:6,10,14,18,22 linear 44:7 lines 201:12 link 113:25 lipid 137:20 140:6,9 146:10 lipo 146:25 lipophilic 137:15 139:18 140:4,7,23 141:7,24 142:4,18 143:12 144:13 145:14 146:25 lips 251:7,8 liquid 44:19 107:2 115:2,3,7,14 115:24 175:16 list 2:7 11:7,12,12 54:4 56:24 57:3 104:13,21 194:17 listed 34:13 57:12 listening 233:12 lists 105:2 litany looked (cont.) man 94:12 206:19 207:25 209:4,10 198:9 literal 211:8 231:13,14 management 137:18 looking 119:4,12 192:14 literature 28:18 44:3 45:24 46:4 47:5 manner 69:20 88:1 117:20 140:15 56:9 57:1 91:18 92:1 212:8 141:11 156:5,14,15 173:16 101:13 108:6,10,13 109:1 manufacture 246:4 248:13 249:25 116:12,20 122:25 133:2 50:3 68:12 80:3,4 148:12 litigation 175:13,14 188:22 202:18 172:11,17 174:16208:15 7:19 216:17 228:17 232:3 240:7 208:24 225:22 little 245:14 manufactured 10:20 25:2 44:23 63:9 looks 51:1 59:23 62:21 68:9 72:1879:17 111:14 165:6,9 105:2,8,9 74:10 76:11 88:14,17 89:7 176:24 177:1 179:24 los 94:10,13,19 95:12 123:20 180:16 187:5 192:16 14:3 127:20 145:23 146:2 172:5 199:15205:13211:4 lost 180:1 206:6,12,20 209:8 live 38:1 218:25219:2 221:1,3,7,10 8:18 lot 221:24 224:9 228:2,4,16 Ikb 14:14 15:17 17:17 21:13,14 manufacturer 68:3 54:13 80:5 82:25 85:12,14 206:16 219:5 225:19 lie 99:4,4 100:8,8,9 118:4 manufacturers 6:13 127:20 141:17 172:16 127:21 173:5 loads 185:4 196:3 204:5 221:22 manufacturing 233:25 251:10 73:16,22 126:14 147:18 located lots march 37:18 105:11 59:20 165:4 220:12 1:244:23 7:10 101:19 location lou 112:9 180:25 181:2,3 109:8 106:15 183:21 185:11 187:25 lock louis 188:1 193:2,11,17 194:13 14:22 156:11 1:1,104:1,105:2,6 6:15 202:19213:17254:13 locklove 7:15 118:8 254:1 marine 155:20 lovelock 117:13 133:11 london 160:5 163:20 mark 160:7 loves 1:144:14 11:8 110:24 long 137:17 254:7 29:15 31:16 40:9 49:2 low marked 51:24 86:17 88:4 93:21 28:21 151:22 225:2 232:19 11:9 15:20 33:16,19 103:11 95:13 119:22 120:5,9,18,19 234:9,15,17 243:5 103:14 105:7 159:4,6,18,20 120:24 133:19 139:9 lower 179:6 182:17,19 185:8 151:20 154:18 182:10 152:22 168:6 194:10,12 202:18 209:16 251:13 lucky 209:18 212:20,23 226:2,4 longer 68:2 235:11,13 240:24 241:1 138:8 148:12 m look macro 16:9 24:19 32:23 47:3 59:22 60:1 62:4 85:24 56:10 63:12,25 97:8 105:6 109:5 123:12 157:17 159:21 175:17 189:16 191:20 196:6 206:18 176:21 177:13211:16 magnetic 21 24 main 231:14 240:10,20 242:8 9:25 244:19 looked major 18:1 173:4 22:2 60:23 69:19 84:10 86:11 88:8,8 113:19 114:10 making 22:21 65:18 180:4 191:13 136:16 152:3 156:12 162:13 173:16 185:14 191:16217:16249:12 market 230:17 marking 179:9 maryland 109:9,9,13 mass 22:11,14 39:21 68:2 90:4 90:18 91:3,5,13 108:20,23 108:25 109:2,21 110:4,6,9 110:11,13,18 111:1,16,19 112:13,22 171:10 178:9,13 material 49:4 106:2 114:7 138:12,14 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054478 [material - missouri] material (cont.) meant memo (cont.) methylene 155:1 175:15,23,25 176:1 101:6 119:11 157:19,22 201:20 202:20,24 205:14 57:23 181:14 202:3 221:15 236:1 172:14,14 184:20,25 210:14 254:1 michigan 236:4 238:10,12 240:6 201:12 205:14 210:4 218:6 memory 17:4,7,15 18:14 19:18,19 materials 219:23 228:6 31:22 108:7 185:23 20:1,7,19 50:4 54:11 66:23 68:13 measure mention micro 80:3,5 84:11,12 85:4,24 21:10 27:24 42:19 59:22 161:7 60:2 89:23 92:14,20 93:3 95:3,5 85:17,24 88:24 141:2 mentioned micrograms 102:2 113:9,23 120:6,8 211:23 212:10231:25 15:10 26:21 56:18 174:1 46:11 238:12 138:15 140:7,10,12,18 236:4 237:21 239:22 merrill micron 147:24 148:12 153:20 244:24 248:23 6:17 7:25,25 10:13 11:4,23 238:6 156:8 157:12 158:6 159:8 measured 16:1067:1669:1770:11 microphone 170:23 172:18 176:20 43:22 59:15 99:13 104:15 72:4 77:21 78:20,23 143:15 185:2 180:22 181:8 185:17,19 113:17 117:21 140:25 143:18,22,25 151:15 mid 186:12,17 188:4,10 192:7 150:5 161:9 206:5 230:18 156:20 157:4,7,10,13,24 31:4,5 33:9 129:20 192:22 193:14 200:2,4 measurement 158:2,8,13,20,25 159:17 middle 207:12 209:12,21 212:24 42:22 104:19 233:3 235:1 166:4,21 191:10 192:9 72:6 218:10 220:15 221:6 226:8 measures 199:9 209:20 222:19 midwest 233:23 236:9 237:3 239:23 174:15,20,24 223:24 224:21,24 232:23 7:19 242:7 244:21 measuring 246:21,24 247:13 250:3,20 mike matrices 62:23 89:17,18,20,22,24 250:23 252:8,12 38:2 88:25 93:19 102:4 111:21 112:15 113:5 merrill's military matrix 140:21 161:12213:15 133:15 189:24 190:4,18 46:15 92:20 93:4 109:9 214:11 236:9 mess milk matter meat 10:14 109:17 140:22,23 226:8,17 7:13 13:15 25:25 82:1 226:18 241:15 met 226:22 227:12 229:2,20,20 171:4 mechanical 8:13 32:2 36:11,18 175:3,3 230:18,22 232:6,18 234:9 matters 42:16 43:19 45:12 meta 234:15,17 241:5 13:16 mechanically 95:18 mill max 150:11 metabolism 160:6 136:12251:16 mechanisms 198:21 miller maximum 117:14 metabolites 105:15 106:15,20,20 136:13 media 71:17 137:2 million mcallister 195:4,12,14,15,16,19 metal 60:1 168:7,14,17,17 169:13 8:22 248:11 21:8 232:19234:10,16,18 mcwane medical metals 242:24 243:5 248:10,24,25 13:5 35:16 160:6 21:18 28:20 mimicked mean medicine method 60:25 9:10 19:6 30:14 57:10 65:5 3:5 241:3 101:21 102:9 108:14,25 mind 72:25 75:1 77:16 81:10 meet 109:4 112:1 213:20 232:17 9:24 27:13 186:7 205:17 86:7,9,10 118:3 121:5 25:13 26:5 234:8,14 235:10,20 239:8 206:3 229:17 123:21 124:21 126:17 meeting 242:3,5,14,19,22 243:1,9 mine 129:25 134:20 143:21 32:13 243:10,14,15,16,19,22 25:5 159:2 199:14 149:6 150:19 151:24 melting 244:1,8,13,15,16,18,22,23 minor 158:24 165:1,1 172:13 177:11 245:1,17 114:7 208:12 177:12 182:12 184:7,24 member methodologies minute 188:16 201:17 202:2 191:1 192:1,5 214:19 245:24 64:23 66:17 68:10 87:22 206:22 215:17 232:25 memo methodology 220:15 234:23 237:19 251:20,21 2:9,15,16,18 33:21 36:14 40:6 112:5 165:16231:3 missed 251:22 37:1 104:9 132:9 179:9,15 methods 195:11 meaningful 179:19 182:21 183:8 18:13 83:1,11 85:7 86:6,24 mission 99:8 184:15 185:7,22 187:25 87:8,13 237:11 245:6 246:1 20:5 210:20 means 188:23 189:10 190:3 191:3 246:8,14 250:1,14 missions 68:12 137:17,19,21 151:25 191:21 193:1,4,9,11,16,18 methoxychlor 20:4 184:7 252:9 193:19,23 194:3,8,16,19 242:6 244:20 missouri 196:20 199:3,22 200:7 1:2,11 4:2,11 5:2,7 6:15 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054479 [missouri - noticed] missouri (cont.) monsanto (cont.) multitude 7:14,17 254:2 32:14 33:3,7 39:13 59:7,7 56:20 mister 106:21 61:12,22 63:3,8 65:2 66:1 70:7 72:2,2,10,11,22,23 n mitch 156:18 73:10,11,15 74:5,6,15,19 76:3,25 77:18 78:1,10,14 204:15 mix 178:1 mixture 40:22 41:18 45:21 47:1,11 94:19 101:21 105:9,19 119:7 125:11,24 126:6,12 127:1,13 128:8,17,23 129:1 129:5,23 130:4 131:10,24 7:18,18 8:14,16 121:6 183:4 210:12 254:14 255:10 256:2,3 47:18,25 48:8,11,21,24 50:18 51:3,15 52:3,22,25 132:15 134:12 147:17 148:1,9 150:2 162:22 26:23 88:15 161:14 53:3,16,18,19 55:12,14,17 55:18 57:2 96:5,12 97:3 165:14,22 167:7 170:10 172:4,7,25,25 173:2,16,22 4611 153:9,14 170:3,8,12 177:19 174:5,11,15,20,25 175:6 177:23 207:8,10 235:5 178:17,19,21,23,24 183:10 192:2,2 238:5,17,24 239:1 mixtures 183:16,22 189:25 190:3,12 21:5 190:16,17 197:24 199:3,7 40:21 49:18 51:13 95:15 167:21 175:24 233:17 235:2 201:7 206:7,15,20 210:8,10 212:12 213:14 214:4,5,21 215:22 216:3 221:4 222:1 35:4 36:22 160:5 183:14 189:2,6 mm 112:7 151:2 161:5 218:16 225:9,14,22,23 246:19 14:9 107:16 247:9 248:8 254:4,9 255:24 222:13 225:4 239:5 modification 243:9 modified 255:24 256:3,3 monsanto's 12:23 15:18 165:7 166:11 173:23 220:19 12:20 13:15 14:11 18:4 194:22 195:7,21,25 196:9 204:7,9 49:14 104:1 modify months 29:19,24 30:25 63:18 91:16 19522 27:23 molecular 124:2 176:23 210:19 150:4,15 151:4 153:4 154:6 183:20 montrose 12:4,10,24 179:20 180:1,4 180:8,21 184:20 188:3 molecule 206:11 222:8 227:18 173:4 moot 1212 234:24 240:21 molecules 21:21 140:6 160:15211:2 moment 9:2 15:12 117:11 161:19 185:1 202:9 money 80:5 monitor 27:22 195:16 monitored 42:5 43:14 185:3 208:25 morning 8:11,12 mountain 98:11 mountains 97:21 mouth 43:6 138:1 move 69:7 71:24 80:15 mrc 1142 nphi ilm iq 198:23 necessarily 68:5 70:13 101:16 110:12 119:7 120:17 125:6 148:11 154:21 164:12 172:2 185:18 197:19 204:14,16 220-3 25T9 21 necessary 88:23 162:14 241:8 255:7 monochlorobiphenyl 208:19,22,22 mons 33:20 103:16 monsanto 1:7,184:7,18 5:8,107:13 11:6,6,19,24 12:2 13:20 183:8,9,12 mri 190:11 210:11,13,13,14 multi 45:23,25 46:17,24 48:5 50:19,25 51:20 53:16 54:6 57:9 95:15 97:5 177:2 28:25 30:20 54:7 56:10 71:3 78:10 93:6 127:24 132:8 135:10 153:23 165:25 166:3 172:15 199:22 200:20 201:13 233:10 234:22 14:5,8 15:7 24:8,19 25:6,8 multiple 25:17,21,24 26:8,17,20 44:5 48:6,7,8 53:9,20 149:8 27:2,12,18 28:4 30:4,25 21:21 27:21,24 28:20 29:4 110:8 129:14 167:1 173:5 218:5,9 238:10 246:12 needs 10:12 54:19 negative 64:16 neither 145:25 253:10 nelson 183:8 neon 160:20 new 23:15 27:22 28:14 32:22 60:18 61:5,6 63:4 68:17 92:1 99:20 102:11 103:7 134:3 218:4 newest 68:17 nice 19:3 42:12 168:18 nicholas 1:13 4:13 5:9 254:6 niehaus 6:22 7:19 night 110:22 nine 94:13 nishida 1:134:135:9 11:5 254:6 255:24 256:3 nitric 233:14,17 235:2 nitrogen 176:20 177:8 nobody's 147:8 204:20 non 18:7 58:8 69:5,6 71:25 79:23 80:15 160:12,13 169:20 171:9 193:6 221:19 nope 135:23 normal 76:12 254:22 normally 187:13 224:4 north 6:6 8:21 254:15 notary 5:4 7:4 253:4,21 254:24 255:17 notice 16:11 113:21 noticed 121:21 204:9 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054480 [november - output] november o'clock okay (cont.) opinion (cont.) 123:5 4:24,25 138:22,23 140:1,16,18 187:11 198:15 199:1,13,19 nsf October 141:19 142:4 143:22,25 201:4 203:22 213:11,25 17:24 3:3 33:20 35:7 109:8,19 144:7 145:5,8 148:1,7,17 214:13231:17233:20 nuclear 235:20 149:2,7,17 151:12 152:9,13 239:11 242:18 243:18 21:23 offer 154:1,3 156:1,7 157:15 246:17 number 80:12 158:7,25 159:3 161:1,11,20 opinions 42:19 43:22 46:10 50:6,12 offered 162:17 163:2,6,14 165:6 198:10204:12,13212:6 51:18 53:22 58:7 94:6 26:9 166:2 167:1,2,16 168:11,19 213:8 214:14232:14 198:3,8 227:7 offers 168:21 169:1,11 170:8,14 opportunities numbers 26:7 171:12,24 172:7 173:11 26:4 225:2 officer 174:9,13 175:6,12 176:10 opportunity numerous 254:10 177:4,10,18,21,25 179:12 24:3 54:15 115:25 252:2 200:24 offices 180:13,15,25 181:10,15 opposed o 5:1 192:2 182:2,7,11,13 183:7 184:1 131:15 object 67:16,1769:1,4,1770:11 officially 25:22 184:6,10 185:6,24 186:9,9 optimized 186:20,23 187:1,3,7,24 100:11 72:4 77:21 78:20 143:15 oh 188:7,19,22,24 189:16 oranges 151:15 166:4,21 191:10 9:12 16:19 54:21 105:14 190:7,13,14 191:3,7,12,14 153:1 192:9 199:9 222:19 223:24 116:12 134:23 158:25 191:20 193:1,9,15 194:19 order 224:21 246:21 247:13 167:15 171:7 191:1 196:12 195:11 196:20 197:4,22 17:16 41:5 48:18 87:24 250:3,20 219:14 222:4 250:22 252:3 199:13,25 200:8,13,14,23 99:7 104:13 136:13 objection Ohio 202:17 204:18 205:16 ordered 67:19 78:24 210:11,11 207:25 208:19 210:2,11,14 61:5 87:23 89:4 99:21 objective okay 210:22 211:9 212:13,17 251:12 111:24 obnoxious 9:20 10:9,20 11:3 12:5,16 13:4,14 14:17 16:19,22 214:3 215:22 216:2,11,12 orders 216:23,23 217:1,10,23 28:24 187:6 observation 18:4 19:4,12,1721:19 22:15,18 23:23 24:25 25:7 219:21 221:7 222:15 223:6 ordinary 223:15 224:8 225:9 226:11 160:20 175:18 176:4 27:14 29:5,15 30:1,19 33:6 227:25 228:9 230:1,16 organic observations 230:13 33:15,18 34:8,22,25 36:5 231:16 233:8 234:1,13 38:4,8 39:9 40:18,24 41:12 236:3 237:18,24 239:2,16 17:11 21:14,1527:17,21 60:20 62:7 135:25 136:10 observed 133:10 obvious 41:20 42:2,8,1445:11,18 46:8,24 47:23 48:18 49:16 51:12 52:8,19 53:9 54:21 241:22 242:5,13 243:13,21 136:18,25 137:5,11 139:22 245:4,10 247:7 248:6 249:2 143:4 177:13210:6,16,17 249:9,12,16,21 250:6,25 organisms 75:17,18 150:18 55:10,25 56:1 58:10 60:15 251:5,22 252:3 140:9 obviously 61:1963:1 65:1,14,19 66:2 old organochemical 76:6 86:10 104:17 164:1,2 210:3 215:5 66:5,10,17,24 67:7,12 69:9 16:22,24 81:7 220:8 237:11 137:6 70:16 71:23 72:16 73:4,15 once organs occasions 74:14 75:12 76:25 77:8,17 51:12 69:25 174:25 177:25 139:12,12 9:9 13:25 79:9 80:25 81:7,17 82:12 251:12 original occupational 82:15,22 83:13,19,25 84:10 ones 49:13 52:12 103:24 135:2 3:5 241:3,7 occur 85:2 86:14 87:20,22 89:5 89:18 90:9,14,20,21,24 18:15 26:8 56:17 136:14 143:6 147:2 207:20 153:8 155:1 159:22 207:9 254:15 50:5 58:18 65:21 180:20 92:3,6 94:10 95:9,21 97:10 op originally 188:2 193:15 occurred 97:20 98:2,23 99:19 101:5 109:9 101:19 102:15,17 103:13 open 91:10 206:6 ortho 14:2 31:23 65:12,15 69:13 134:5 205:7 occurrence 103:18 105:11,17 106:13 106:23 108:16 110:2,5,10 113:13 114:18 115:17 126:23 184:8 185:19 205:3 95:18,18 214:6,6,14 215:21 216:10 ourself 216:16,17217:17218:4,6 60:22 241:4 occurring 116:4,22 117:5,7 118:7,12 220:1,4 123:8,11 124:6,16 125:8,10 operating outcome 15:13253:16 75:9 115:24 205:6 214:24 occurs 41:8 125:17 128:10,19,25 129:8 63:20 outfall 129:19 130:6,8 131:5 opinion 106:1 108:5 132:14 133:12,14 135:1,15 32:24 63:14 64:4 78:12,13 output 135:24 136:17,23 138:10 118:22 124:8 162:3 163:7 41:21,25 42:1,11 43:7,11 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054481 [output - peregrine] output (cont.) papers pcb (cont.) pcbs (cont.) 44:23 45:1 48:1,24 50:12 12:10 159:12 230:4 119:17 126:13 127:10 242:15 243:11 244:24 58:3,15 88:22 94:5 96:23 para 131:19 172:25 174:21 245:17 246:20 247:10 97:17,18 95:18 181:7 188:10 192:7,21 248:10,23 249:4,5 outside paragraph 206:11,22,22 214:6 215:21 pet 107:8 119:8 184:21 34:25 117:9 160:23 186:11 224:20 232:21,25 245:8 122:17 147:18 148:2 overall 189:17,19,22 191:21 pcbs pets 188:21 201:22 202:25,25 203:1 10:25 11:17 13:20 14:16 123:1 124:9,11 143:14 overlap 226:14 24:12 29:12 30:11 32:13,17 145:5,9,12,14,20 146:21 58:19 123:23 parallel 33:7 35:22 38:25 39:14,18 147:4,7 overlapping 109:25 39:19 40:4,15 49:25 51:7 peak 54:8 parse 51:12 56:16 57:1,19 58:14 42:23 43:24,25 45:2,13 overlaps 239:9 58:17,21 60:10 61:23 63:13 46:4,6,20 97:4,11 98:10,15 96:16 part 64:1 66:19,23 68:4,6,9,22 98:20 overwhelm 8:7 41:1 57:18 58:25 59:1 72:3,11,23 73:1,12,19 peaks 139:12 59:25 75:1 84:6 91:7,11 74:15,20 75:16 76:4 77:2 38:12 40:3,8,15 45:19 owned 100:19,23 106:3 115:15 77:19 78:16 86:16 88:2,24 46:21 48:3,6,7,8,9 49:7 59:7,10 121:17 123:22 157:9 159:7 89:15,18,21 90:1 91:18 50:6,13,16 53:9,20 56:12 P 168:7,14 190:22 200:2,4 p.m. 103:4 133:22,25 149:21,24 202:13,16 247:21,24 212:24 220:15,16 232:19 234:9,15,17 242:24 243:5 248:10,24,25 252:15 particular 47:11 69:21 118:18 119:14 92:1,5,22 93:11,12,18 94:8 56:14 58:2,14,16 71:16 94:15,17,17,18 95:7,21,21 90:1 96:24 97:18,24,24 101:21 102:4 104:15 105:3 98:18 111:15 127:7 131:20 105:20 107:1 108:1,10 135:22 171:6 203:11,12,13 109:1 111:21,21 112:6,15 pen 112:25 113:4,11,16,25 43:16,17,20 39:9 package 84:6 Packard 89:5,7 packed 592 page 2 3 1057 7 13 107 5 6 109:5 112:21 116:13,21 117:2 119:17 122:5,5 159:22,24 180:11 189:17 199:2 201:20 202:24 203:1 229:25 256:6,10,14,18,22 120:13 122:4 147:24 148:10 169:15 173:25 200:15 214:21 222:12 237:5 238:23 245:3 particularly 9:23 36:14 162:14 212:6 parties 253:12,15 parts 115:19 156:21 168:17,17 169:12 239:22 240:21 251:23 party 11:24 pass 114:4,9 115:4,19 116:2,5 penalty 117:20 118:14 120:18 255:11 122:2,11 123:20 124:10 pending 125:12,18,21,25 126:3,9,19 5:5 126:23 127:2,3,5,19,19,20 Pennsylvania 127:25 128:4 131:25 132:8 14:22 136:4,6,9,17 137:10 142:4 pensa 142:7,10 143:13 144:12 113:14 145:19 146:17,20,21 pensacola 148:14 149:14 150:5,15,21 112:22 113:15 189:25 151:13,23 153:3,6,14 154:7 190:18 154:11,16 155:16 156:23 penta 162:20 163:9 164:18 165:8 38:14 136:16 168:14,17 169:2,3,4,13,17 pentachlor 170:3,6,9,12,18,19,21,21 113:22 10317 paid 26:10 254:21,22 paint 133:11 219:25 220:4 222:17,18 223:5,8,12,23 224:20 225:1,7 160:14 251:24 passed 42:18 172:18 path 218:14 patient 233:11 paul 171:8,15 172:12,13 175:9 people 175:16,24,24 176:6,8 177:1 28:3,5 30:9,23 68:9 76:19 177:5,20,22 178:12,18,20 80:3 81:10 94:22 118:4 181:5,12 186:13 187:15,15 164:2 165:5 182:22 184:20 188:9,13 192:3,7,14,22 194:15 196:6 198:12217:7 195:5,8 196:25 198:4,11 220:3 224:5 239:17 251:11 203:13,14,24,24,25 205:4 people's 205:19,20 206:2,4,16,18 204:6 1210 12 32 3 8 35 1 36 20 37:1,4,6,8 38:17 42:7 43:11 6:6 254:15 pay 43:14,19 45:7 48:2,4,9 12:18 70:10 110:21 118:18 134:14 179:20 180:1,8,21 pc 6:4 89:20 143:17,17 215:21 184:9,20 186:19 188:3 195:3,7 205:19 206:5 225:14 254:15 pcb 242:20 249:22 250:10,17 12:11 13:11 50:22,23 86:8 87:20 95:4 96:5,8,13 207:1,6,8,9,20 208:4,7,13 percent 208:24 209:5 210:23,24 11:2 59:25 80:7 93:5 94:11 212:10,14213:8,15216:10 154:20,21,23 167:25 217:16 218:17,22,24 219:5 221:17 219:7,10,25 220:3,20 221:8 percentage 221:10 222:2 223:22 10:24 49:22 224:16,19 225:6,20 233:15 peregrine 233:16,19,22,22 234:17,21 37:19 205:11 235:4,4 237:22 239:9,23 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054482 [perfect - prepared] perfect phrase plot population 139:11 82:17 153:10 44:10 150:3 241:10 perfectly phrased plots portion 200:23 90:13,24 250:11 152:14 33:4 71:25 140:23 period phthalate plotted portions 9:10 87:14 88:5 89:3,4 56:18 44:9 119:10 93:14 173:18217:5,10 physical pltexp position perjury 153:21 171:18 176:4 159:16 8:25 190:2 201:8 204:10,21 255:11 221:22 plus positive permanent picked 9:13 10:23 64:16 189:10 190:2 35:2 195:22 point possibility permission pickett 17:21 35:15 39:20 56:5 67:24 28:25 242:4,9 65:17 68:6,8,16 75:6,18 possible permits pie 76:14 78:5,6 80:6 92:19 71:9 79:16 94:2 120:14 234:8 162:7 97:14 108:12 110:10,25 121:15,16 122:2 125:15 persistent piece 111:25 120:13 123:4 124:5 126:7 150:1 192:12226:16 135:25 136:10,18,25 137:3 111:11 184:9 125:14 127:23 135:12 227:3 229:21 241:6 137:5,11 139:15,19,22 pieces 151:22 172:3,16 177:11 possibly 141:4,24 142:11,19 143:13 186:2 178:7 181:10 185:4 186:2 71:2 74:23 144:20 145:12 147:7,11 pins 186:24 192:25 197:17,21 potentially person 102:19 198:19 200:15 203:15,20 69:23 120:9 10:17 155:21 194:1 201:11 pipeline 203:22 205:25 207:17 poured 201:16 214:20 254:14 14:5,9 208:25 214:3,22 215:14,17 152:15,17 personally pitkethly 216:23 227:2 231:4 240:14 ppb 24:3 73:9 107:25 108:9 160:16 243:13 119:21 165:11 215:1 place pointed ppm perspective 139:11 174:15,20,25 219:1 61:8 171:17 119:21 93:23 places pointing ppt pestered 21:10 89:12 138:21 197:14 166:18 119:20 40:16 218:23 230:9 poison practice pesticide plaintiff 145:24 227:11 73:23 74:2 79:12 80:21 24:14 39:3 60:25 62:22 1:5 4:5 5:7 poisonous 81:2,6 85:9 88:19 89:10,25 164:2 plaintiffs 146:1 practiced 164:12 169:16 170:3,5,9 1:16,23 2:44:165:106:3 pollutant 166:24 204:2 237:6 7:2,24 8:7 11:10 15:21 135:25 136:25 137:6 practices pesticides 33:17 84:13 85:4 86:2,23 139:22 196:23,24 197:2,8 76:13 81:14,20 37:17 53:23 56:17 57:5,16 103:12 159:5 179:7 182:18 197:16 pre 57:17 58:12,23 62:8 94:2 194:11 209:17 212:21 pollutants 37:4,8 100:3 95:11 99:3,15,25 137:9 226:3 235:12 240:25 76:16 136:10,18 137:11 precautions 142:24 207:23 208:9,11 245:16 254:13 pollution 125:20 126:2,13 petroleum plant 12:11,12 75:13 117:11 predisposing 160:17 76:5,10,11 77:20 107:18,21 180:20 183:15 184:19 99:12 ph.d. 108:5 114:1,4,13 188:2 189:2,6 predominant 17:10 20:17 32:22 68:17 plants polychlorinated 46:4 210:7 74:1 76:13 79:13 30:11 38:1549:19 122:14 predominantly Pharmacia plasticizer 127:8 130:19,19,22 144:2,5 206:6 13:4 223:17 147:15 prefer pharmacological plausible polynuclear 186:4 226:19 150:8 181:9,16,17,18,19,20 56:19 preliminary phase 181:21 182:9 pools 38:10 149:8 plaza 140:9 preparation philosophy 5:2 6:14 poor 31:17 34:19 93:2 197:23 218:14 please 201:9 prepared phonetic 7:21 8:3,15 72:20 77:9,10 poorly 16:16 37:6 93:17 99:14 118:3,3 117:2 125:23 144:9 153:10 90:12 250:11 112:1 199:5,7,19 200:19 184:25 187:3 202:7 243:23 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054483 [preparing - puts] preparing probably (cont.) products provided (cont.) 199:3 76:21 77:1,18 78:9,18 27:22,23,23 49:18 57:4,11 212:1 213:3 245:15 prepublication 79:21 81:11 84:21 92:25 57:16 59:23 60:21 68:5 provides 39:25 134:18,21 106:22 107:19 108:22 94:6,8 95:19 96:1,4 132:22 235:20 presence 127:24 132:7 133:5 136:13 132:23 174:21,25 183:18 providing 125:18,25 128:4 141:18 147:21 156:10 183:23 184:4 193:21 198:10 present 157:1 166:25 167:23,25 207:15,22 208:8,10 209:7,9 public 6:20 11:14 46:15 47:4 168:4,5 169:17 171:25 224:18 226:17 241:15 5:4 7:4 190:21,22 191:2,5 48:21 61:21 63:8 150:6 173:21,23 175:10 193:24 professional 226:16 227:11 229:21 presentation 195:22 197:21 242:11 64:9,10,11 253:4 253:4,21 254:24 255:17 37:9,11,21 38:6 40:1 53:6 250:11 251:15 professor publication 54:16 problem 19:1 132:3 159:23 195:2,6,24 presented 2:1229:1771:1581:25 professors 196:1,2 204:8 211:12 69:22 150:24 84:24 103:15,24 116:24 18:1 247:11 presenting 117:11 119:14,22 120:10 progress publications 15:6 49:1 67:11 178:8 120:24 154:24 197:8,11,13 112:10 203:10 209:23 pressure 199:4 209:3 progression publish 111:6 152:23 problems 107:16 37:6 204:11 prestigious 66:3 67:10 78:2 119:23 project published 196:10,15,18 204:8 120:5,19,25 121:20,25 18:5,8 29:9,22 61:3 66:18 24:10 84:8 101:20 102:8 pretorious 147:23 193:25 204:25 70:7 165:12 214:21 108:15 109:2 112:4 134:14 160:2 239:19 projected 135:7 156:4 194:20,23,24 pretreatment procedure 205:9 196:5 204:14 249:22 235:3 93:3 94:21 102:3 229:3 projection 250:10,18 pretty 232:22 233:2,18 236:3 39:23 punched 21:25 22:3,6,8 31:13 34:23 242:11 243:16 projects 110:20 34:24 71:21 86:7 112:2 procedures 28:8 201:7 purchase 206:15 215:18,19 234:3,5 39:5 56:8,8 85:16,16,17 propensity 28:24 89:14 90:4 91:3 249:20 93:13 100:4 144:6,6 purchased prevent process proper 88:791:5 251:13 125:21 126:3,9 52:14 59:13,16 63:22,23 88:6 pure previous 64:5 74:7 76:21 92:24 properly 75:23 95:14 150:21 151:3 187:18 94:22 106:24 132:5 172:9 9:20 10:4 192:20 152:16 176:20 177:22,23 previously processes properties 177:23211:17235:25 33:4 60:20 80:19 190:16 79:18 136:7 150:25 123:25 124:2 141:23,25 236:4,17 237:3 238:3,14,15 213:2 processing 142:1,13,25 143:3,6,8,11 238:24 239:1 240:6 prickett 126:8 144:16,25 145:1 146:5 purpose 243:18 procure 171:18210:19221:23 35:9,1041:15,17,19,20 primarily 28:25 227:17 61:16 118:18 145:24 146:3 12:22 14:14 18:9 60:21 produce proposing 210:1 241:22,25 120:25 232:13 169:22 200:1 225:20 232:8 purposes primary 233:14 proposition 47:9 83:9,15 86:21 87:3,7 22:20 produced 73:10 87:12 89:15 principals 4:22 8:6 94:25 157:8 175:4 prototype purview 12:24 220:25 233:3 68:2 216:13 printer produces prove put 42:11 171:4 29:3 230:6 29:2 42:6 43:6,6,11 45:7,17 prior producing proven 47:14 50:10 53:7 85:25 33:1,8 44:2 190:4 222:1 136:21 200:22 205:25 94:22 129:15 138:1,11 probable product 206:2 139:11 150:2 153:17,23 181:5,12,23,24 182:4,6,8,9 52:12 68:23 80:4 94:9 provide 165:12 170:13,15 197:5,6 210:24 96:11,17,17,24 97:9 113:19 27:20 89:22 139:21 155:8 197:12 198:24 222:17 probably 175:3 204:1,2,24 207:10 162:19 223:14 9:13 10:14 11:1 24:7 29:18 221:13,23 225:23 227:18 provided puts 29:19 36:17,18 49:9,10 production 27:16 32:3 35:3 37:2 85:3 93:23 67:20 68:14 71:6 74:11 12:13214:6 86:2,23 87:3 140:21 209:20 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054484 [putting - rejected] putting quote real (cont.) recollection 15:22 119:17,23 188:22 196:22 78:7 93:20 108:14 115:19 13:7,8,13 31:13 39:25 q quoting 131:19 147:22 156:11 102:6,16 110:13 130:9,24 quadrillion 188:17,18 179:17 187:9 201:3 211:3 163:3,15,18 185:23 217:14 220:16 quadrophenyl r r.c. 213:10 219:15 225:24 reality 237:9 recommend 124:21 160:16 132:21 215:7 quadrophenyls 123:19 124:14,17 qualifications r.e. 179:21 raised really recommended 9:12 18:24 55:7 56:16 58:9 18:2 59:11 60:19 62:8 63:14,21 record 106:17 quality 172:8 174:15,19,24 quantities 160:11 ramifications 75:10 ran 73:2 77:11 113:4 123:9,16 130:15,21 133:2 136:14 140:8 163:20 171:22 177:24 196:4 199:22 7:10,22 8:14 19:5 38:3 54:23,24 55:1 67:19 90:16 103:1,2,4 128:22 133:22,23 133:25 149:21,22,24 232:18 234:9,15,17 27:15 44:4,12 49:6,6 50:8 201:14 204:4 213:18 232:1 202:13,14,16 215:23 quantity 47:8 50:10 99:1,2 170:9 91:25 92:7,12 93:12 95:24 96:12 97:13,13 98:9,25 242:2 248:6 realtime 247:21,22,24 252:15 recorder quarter 31:6,6,14,15 100:19 99:7 100:5,20 102:11 112:21 221:11 112:3 5:3 7:5 reask 39:9 43:13,14 records question 9:18 10:1,6 15:1823:22 24:25 25:5,20 30:18 33:11 range 31:2,1544:8 120:19 154:19 162:15 168:1,7,14 169:13 69:8 reason 17:23 25:10 36:13 58:25 173:16 recruiters 26:1 33:12,25 34:9 64:15,18,19 238:7 65:21 66:7,8,25 67:10,17 ranges 59:1 61:19 76:23 114:3 reduced 119:9 133:6 164:14 165:17 253:9 68:15 69:3,5,6,8,18,24 72:5 31:7 70:21 106:3 167:23 72:7,19,25 73:3 75:15,21 rate 75:25 76:1,4 77:5,11,22 210:20 166:8 168:24 174:2,8 222:15,25 223:2 224:14 256:8,12,16,20,24 refer 23:10 135:24 reference 78:15,18,24 79:3,4,14 ratio 80:13,14,16,18 82:2,5,9,14 169:14221:18 reasonable 158:19 191:17216:1 156:7 162:1 243:17 244:17 referenced 83:3,14,16 86:9,17 90:12 reach 90:17,24 92:11 93:22 96:21 191:22,24 101:18 103:10 115:9 react 224:18 reasonably 111:20 125:15 243:15 244:13 references 140:20 244:16 245:7,15 125:23 128:18 134:9,10 143:16 144:10 149:8,9 21:8 211:2 233:23 235:5 reacting reasons 246:15 63:9 70:1 73:14 123:17,18 referred 151:8,16 152:7,22 155:4 221:2 163:12,18 165:20 166:5,22 reaction 139:21,24 146:8,12 150:18 23:9 244:24 245:8 referring 168:16 177:21 178:25 210:22 221:11,12 234:25 recall 84:17 138:7 203:6,21 229:8 188:20,23 191:11 192:10 reactions 195:9,10 196:14 198:17 80:6 210:18 199:10,23 200:4 202:1,3,6 read 15:13,15 20:22 23:3,16 reflect 24:2 25:23 28:7 30:2 35:19 193:2 35:23 36:2,5,19,25 37:7 reflected 203:3,7 206:10,14 209:10 211:21 213:16214:18 216:21 222:20 223:25 224:2,24 231:6 232:4 234:2 83:4,20,20 86:3 116:9 119:24 121:11 162:1 185:7 185:22,25 186:4,11 189:10 189:22 190:13 193:9 38:8 83:19 91:24 104:4 118:17 135:16 159:8 182:25 183:2 195:3 215:21 216:2 243:5 reflects 215:23 refresh 235:7,24 244:3,7 245:22 199:14,15,22 230:25 receive 31:22 108:7 185:22 246:19,22,22 247:10,14 248:5,15 249:6 250:4,9,21 questions 8:10 9:17 24:1 82:17 186:1 232:13 233:11 251:7 252:13,18 255:4 256:7,11 256:15,19,23 readily 193:17 regard received 29:10 143:11 215:2 21:5 30:8 129:10 193:10,16 regarding receiving 30:9 213:8 186:3,25 204:3 214:8 95:11 37:8 183:3 region 243:25 244:7 252:2,8 quickly reading 86:1,22 200:7 234:6 recognize 103:19 179:10,15 183:3 58:19 registered 213:11 quite ready 132:6 212:25 213:2 recollect 253:3 rejected 130:8 215:25 real 15:12 246:2 9:2 50:6 53:5 54:7 60:3 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054485 [relate - right] relate repeat research (cont.) richard (cont.) 42:23 43:23,25 45:16 46:12 34:9 125:23 249:10 250:13 194:14 201:5,21 202:2,20 46:23 92:16 rephrase researched 203:6 related 10:3 79:6 82:13 144:8 249:24,25 richards 15:7 23:23 32:13,17 58:5 replicate reserved 179:22 193:20,20 200:15 59:5,13 68:22 74:7 106:25 131:10 7:7 201:10 239:3 253:11 report resistance richard's relating 2:24 38:9,10 46:14 127:14 171:20 199:13 86:5 183:17,22 184:3 135:17 241:25 244:16 resolution rid relationship reported 31:25 48:15 59:3 56:9 138:8 233:19 235:3 19:3 191:19 28:1339:17 116:6 119:18 resolve right relative 122:8 127:7 128:4 141:10 97:7 8:23 9:2,21 10:22 11:25 13:11,1930:11 86:8 151:12 205:19 resolved 12:20 13:12,21,24 14:11 151:23 153:22 253:14 reporter 97:6,25 15:9 16:12 17:14,20,22 relay 5:3 7:5 10:16 54:18 59:24 resonance 18:12 19:25 20:16,22 22:10 183:12 91:8 102:23 161:23 241:17 21:24 23:20 24:1,23 25:19 30:12 release 253:1,4 respect 31:1,20 32:12 33:14 34:6,7 73:24 79:12 80:21 185:20 reporters's 111:18 121:18 143:10 34:13,14,16 35:23 36:16,16 186:18 192:7 225:1 7:18 145:16 165:7 174:16,21 36:22,25 37:3,7 39:11,14 released reporting 177:5 249:7,17,23 39:24 41:4,14,24 42:25 51:8,12,14,16,22 52:4,5,10 26:19 140:15 202:4 responded 43:4,9 44:11,21 45:5,8,15 74:11 75:16 77:2 78:6,16 reports 70:21 46:25 47:16,17,20 49:21,24 125:21 126:3 181:6 223:23 121:11 125:12,14 127:2 response 50:8,15,21 51:2,10,21 52:2 224:16,19 225:7 represent 44:6,24 67:5,5 69:5 169:23 52:12,16 53:4,16 54:12,17 releasing 97:3 98:12,15 119:21,22 responsibilities 55:2 56:3 57:2,3,13,15,19 72:3,7,8,11,23 73:1,12 120:5,9,23,24 222:6 27:8,11 69:15 57:25 58:4,17,18,21,24 relevance representatives responsible 59:6,9 60:8,11 61:5 62:18 156:18 157:1 211:6 213:7 129:11 14:8 68:10 125:13,19 126:1 63:4,6 65:5,16,19,22 66:12 214:1 242:9 243:20 244:2,4 represented responsive 66:14 67:8 70:5 71:12 72:5 244:11,19 245:3 45:20 46:6 48:9 58:15 69:6 71:24,25 80:15 72:14 74:21 78:19 79:13 relevant 204:14 rest 81:2,15,20,23 82:10 83:24 212:6,8,9 246:15 representing 185:22 199:22 84:16,17 89:16 90:7 91:1 reliance 96:25 restrict 94:6 96:9,13 97:15 98:13 16:6 84:6,11,12 85:4,22 represents 131:13 98:17,25 99:11 100:14 156:8 157:12 159:8 200:2,4 48:10 restricted 102:15,21 103:18 104:3,8 209:21 210:3 212:24 reproducible 117:12 104:20 105:6,16 106:8,16 relied 92:16 100:6 result 106:19 107:1,15 108:6 84:13 reproductive 18:5 181:7 109:3,16,24 110:1,11 relief 198:22 resulted 111:18 113:5 114:19,22 187:5 republic 241:13 115:1,4 116:10 117:6,8,15 relying 6:5 results 120:2,3 122:17,21 124:24 156:1 210:1 request 100:6,7 171:4 180:5 242:1 126:10,14,24 128:1,7,14 remains 10:7 retrospect 131:13 132:2,11,18 135:1,1 213:25 required 205:23 135:19 136:3,9,10,23 remember 25:1 146:5 194:4 254:21 review 137:18 139:2,9,10 140:1 11:22 16:8 18:1831:11 requirement 24:16 30:7 210:3 213:4 142:20,24 143:3 144:18,20 35:11,17 36:15 37:20 38:15 27:19 reviewed 144:21,24 145:3,4 146:18 84:7 100:22 101:16 116:6 requires 24:17 31:17,21 129:16 146:22 147:1,2,4,7 148:3 120:11,12,12 121:3 124:16 55:17 236:16 212:4 213:6 226:11 235:17 150:17 152:9,19 153:2,4,6 134:17 135:4 207:18 210:7 research 244:2 246:4 153:9,14 154:9,12,17 156:8 235:8 236:6 242:7 244:11 17:25 21:6,7 22:7,20,20 reviewing 156:16 157:15 159:11,13 remote 27:7 81:12,18 82:22 83:5 85:3 212:5 214:1 159:15 164:21 165:8,14,15 67:24 119:19 83:10 85:6 86:4,21 87:2,6 revision 165:19,21,22,23 166:3,12 render 87:11 140:2 160:6 183:10 101:25 102:1 172:9 174:23 176:12,15 255:7 201:6 210:8,9 225:12 richard 179:16 180:2,5,9,17,23 243:25 244:8 245:14 248:1 2:10,15,17,18 33:22 182:21 181:1,24 182:7,11,23 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054486 [right - sensitivity] right (cont.) roundabout samples (cont.) scientific (cont.) 186:23 188:5,11 189:3,7,13 190:13 107:8,18,18,23,24 108:1,3 196:19201:2 204:12205:8 190:3,9,16,23 191:8,9,22 roundup 108:4,5,9,11 109:7,17,20 218:1 227:5 191:23 192:18 194:17,18 156:23 110:15 111:19,23 112:2,19 scientist 194:23 195:1,20 196:16 route 112:22 113:1,6,7,10,13 38:19 39:13,16 197:25 200:2,3 202:23 71:22 121:8 123:2 127:9,10 128:5 scientists 204:15 205:10 206:23 routine 131:12,21 136:6 137:2 27:1 32:5,7 86:13 135:24 207:6,11 209:8 210:14 50:3 198:23 147:13 162:20 176:19 140:13 212:1,7 213:6 218:18 routines 201:23 203:23 207:1,2,3 scott 219:16,20,21 220:21,24 59:17 74:7 153:21 207:15 211:17,23 213:15219:8 1:22 2:4,15 4:22 7:12 8:5 223:9,13,20 224:11 227:2,4 207:23 223:19 233:19 235:3 237:23 8:17 11:7 35:2 254:12 227:7 228:5,10,12,14,23 rpr 239:24 240:10 241:23 255:3,21,23 256:2 229:15 230:15 232:11 6:21 242:1 245:18 screened 237:13 238:1,18,21 239:3 rsmo sanders 99:18 240:13 241:24 242:25 254:11 5:1 6:137:17254:17,19 sea 243:6,12 244:1 247:12 rub sat 104:18 248:8 249:1,10,16 250:23 138:10 60:4 111:7 search 251:5,17 rudimentary satisfaction 87:25 248:13 rigorous 19:8 204:5,6 sec 187:19 rule saw 254:11 ring 10:11 254:11 38:22 93:14 113:18 123:15 second 161:18 rules 132:25 183:5 211:9 229:3 51:5 107:6 117:1 119:16 rings 9:16,22 saying 180:11 202:23 203:2 213:1 124:22 125:6 run 14:7 74:17 75:2 83:25 secret rise 47:4,7 52:20,22 53:3 55:5 120:13 138:25 177:15 193:7 206:21 55:10 72:19 91:25 92:23 178:3 185:13 200:16 section risebrough 93:11,25,25 107:25 108:9 204:17,18,19 220:11 221:9 24:8 27:12,15 186:24 37:12,14,22 39:21 40:1 109:19 110:23 111:9 222:9 223:9 232:25 238:11 sediment 118:2 134:20,22,24 194:21 122:22 134:8 154:4 169:7,8 239:15,17,21 244:23 107:20 108:13 112:6 195:3,18 196:21 199:8 176:11 177:11 238:10 says seeing 200:23 201:23 202:4 running 17:23 34:25 36:14 104:22 38:11,21,24 39:1,17 40:2,9 203:11,14,23 204:13 99:20 100:12,24 101:9 106:6 113:21 117:10 40:9 68:13 89:25 120:18 205:10,18 206:5,19,25 ryce 119:17 122:7 140:11 183:7 147:14209:13216:15 risebrough's 160:2____________________ 187:19 189:4 191:24 seen 38:6 39:12 131:17 132:3 194:24 195:7 201:8 river 12:14 113:15 114:2 road 8:22 62:17 robert 26:23 37:12 roll 42:7 rolling 130:14 room 181:15 rose 181:21 rough 2:12 103:15,22 118:21 192:22 roughly 30:24 s 196:22 198:3 199:3 201:23 34:16,19 38:13 79:24 84:3 sales 201:25 202:24 203:1 84:17 113:12,24 123:13,15 126:23 214:6 215:21 216:9 226:15 227:3,8 231:18 127:7 145:8,11 147:3,6 216:12 sample 44:18 46:3,9,13 49:2,6,12 234:7 241:6,21 243:7 scenario 65:24 159:8 183:1 204:20 213:2 seldom 48:17 55:18,21 56:11,13 68:6 92:5 105:8,19,23 106:2 110:8 111:23 116:2 168:15 168:18,22,23 169:13 scheduled 26:3 school 18:2 65:16 68:17,19 85:12 semester 21:2 senior 27:6 227:15,15 235:22,25 schooled sense 237:15,17,20 238:10,14 239:10 samples 24:13 38:20 39:7 53:25 32:22 schooling 32:14 schwake 40:8 120:7 144:14,19,22 195:25 201:13226:1 238:15 sensitive 57:6 60:11 61:23 62:6,24 5:3 6:21 7:4,18 253:3 59:15 70:24 110:22 167:24 63:13 64:1 66:20 76:10 88:3 89:16,19 91:18,25 science 17:6 27:12 204:11 231:8 233:24 236:25 237:21 92:1,2,4,21,22,23 93:10,20 95:7,7 99:7,10,13 100:20 sciences 24:8 27:1,16,20 28:9 59:12 sensitivity 60:5 159:25 160:8 162:9 100:24 101:2,3,7,13,22 102:4,11 103:8 104:14 scientific 135:17 141:10 196:10,15 167:19 168:1 238:7 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054487 [sent - specific] sent show sitting somewhat 116:1 158:13,21 192:1 26:11 54:4 146:11 161:6 64:3 50:6 191:18 205:9 sentence 230:10 situation soon 119:16 122:6 159:23 showed 16:6 54:1465:11,13 71:19 100:1,12 125:14217:19,21 201:25 203:2 224:7 230:11 71:20 114:16 194:3 198:2 217:25 separate shown situations sophisticated 23:22 41:3 48:16 171:23 139:5 160:7 226:20 75:8 75:11 220:5 235:21 238:20 sic six sophistication separated 95:21 155:20 159:16 4:25 29:19,24 30:24 136:14 76:20 79:21 41:11 177:15 242:4 251:15 soren separating side sixteen 64:12 129:12 135:3,5 141:3 171:16 34:14 152:14,14 84:5 245:7 246:14 sorry separation signal sjensen 8:20 12:6 19:11 30:13 38:1 41:8 100:3 171:22 42:1,1643:12,15,15,16 6:10 116:11,22 126:17 143:20 separator signals skilled 149:11 159:19 164:22 111:5,11,13 45:7 239:18 172:14 179:13,16 180:9 September signature slow 202:6,10 232:24 250:22 100:15,18 7:6 122:7 252:11 254:17 225:2 251:2,25 series 256:25 slowed sort 109:7,16 122:8,10,23 signed 43:21 63:22 64:4 15:16 18:22,25 21:11 29:1 124:14,17,18,20 179:22 252:18 slowing 35:14 37:20 39:6 63:21 service significance 63:23 70:3,22 71:4,12 75:4 80:8 190:5,22,22 191:2,6 75:9 slowly 83:2,4 85:19 88:12 95:22 services significant 8:19 118:9 128:13 130:14 7:20 76:24 121:25 180:20 188:2 small 140:22 146:8,11 147:14 set 209:12 42:20 141:5 173:17 183:3 185:19 87:23 94:21 100:1 109:20 significantly snow 186:15 187:14204:3 210:5 setting 49:14 107:8,22 211:15,17,19212:11 201:6 similar society 218:12221:21 236:21 settlement 58:1,13,22 144:15 203:12 102:2 238:13 15:16 similarity soil sorts seventy 143:11 55:22,24,25 56:1 66:20 21:10 58:8 61:25 62:1,2 17:1,2 similarly 112:6 166:17 shape 98:25 sold sound 108:3 120:7 169:24 193:8 simple 172:25 173:2 174:5,11 22:19 211:13 45:9 160:18 176:18 234:3,5 207:10 227:19 sounds share simpler sole 215:25 145:1 146:17,20,21,24 246:10 145:24 206:16 source 193:24 195:18 simplest solubility 127:25 232:9 shared 46:2 137:19 146:10 171:19 sources 142:14,19,23 193:2,6 194:6 simplistic soluble 208:12 209:12 194:8 49:1 53:5,7 54:16 187:18 140:6 south sharp simply solutia 8:18,20,22 97:23 45:1061:6 71:1476:17 12:1,2 13:4 speak sheet 78:12 95:23 151:23 239:24 solutions 42:3 62:8 175:16 218:22 256:1 single 237:2 spec shelf 45:23,25 57:8 61:9 168:1 solving 39:21 108:23 109:2 110:9 60:4 251:22 176:25 209:2 110:11,13 111:20 112:23 ships sir somebody 178:14 133:11 9:7 10:21 17:9,13 105:5 35:22 44:25 75:15 114:12 special short 137:13,16 182:24 202:22 150:8 155:14,15 161:14 95:2 108:17 54:20 102:23 sit 173:21 186:19 195:22 specific shorthand 174:13 205:16 206:4 211:8 224:3,15 230:1 14:1 15:15 18:7 47:3 56:22 52:16 222:9 site someplace 71:3 83:5 86:20 100:17 shortly 13:9 14:21 15:4 207:21 120:19 148:8 169:20 171:9 20:12 112:4 186:2 207:20 211:4 231:7 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054488 [specific - sugar] specific (cont.) stage stating 236:15237:11,15 20:4 42:13 117:24 118:16 specifically stake status 12:24 16:17,20 32:1,17 203:17 103:22 118:22 74:4 88:17 107:21 193:4 stamp stay 200:6 217:4,11,24 236:24 33:20 51:23 139:6,9 222:18,23 248:16 stamped staying specimens 103:16 223:7,11 66:21 standard stays spectra 44:3 46:24 47:4,7,15 48:23 138:7 238:3 49:5 50:9 51:4,5 52:21 53:1 steric spectrometer 53:10 55:4,10,17 92:6 210:22 22:12,14 68:2 90:4,18 91:4 94:10,14 95:4,9,25 96:12 steve 91:5,14 108:21,25 109:22 97:11,12,13,1799:1 101:7 6:9 7:23 8:12 110:4,7,18 111:2,16 112:14 102:3,9 stewart 171:11 178:10 standardized 6:4 254:15,18 spectrometers 100:11 sticker 21:23 standards 15:23 spectroscopic 44:5 46:5 92:7,13 93:9,25 stipulated 91:11 235:15 94:1,5,7,8,20 95:10,12,14 7:1 spectroscopists 95:20 96:23 98:9 99:20,22 stop 110:15 99:23 100:5,12 101:3,9,10 46:22 217:16 242:21 spectroscopy 122:22 stopping 28:12,1729:11,16 91:9 stands 46:20 108:24 236:5,11,21 19:15 store speculate start 160:14 79:15 25:6 29:18 31:14 54:4 stored speculation 63:17 216:17 242:21 95:1 77:23 78:25 192:11 224:1 started stores spencer 25:7 26:17,20 28:4,8 30:3 137:22 35:4 36:12,18 37:2 30:25 45:14 71:7 87:20 story spending 95:8 100:12 128:17 130:14 127:11 29:21 133:2 135:18 200:25 straight spent 228:17 74:24,25 128:3 80:5 85:11 starting straightest spike 45:13,14 71:22 92:22 starts strategy spiked 51:16 189:20 191:21 197:23 93:12 194:19 201:21,22 street spoke state 6:6 254:15 215:2,5 1:2,11 4:2,11 5:4,6 8:14 strenuous spot 17:7,15 18:14 19:1820:19 180:22 188:4 95:2 115:24 32:21 70:1 160:13 253:5,22 strike sprayed 254:2 255:1 64:23 69:7 71:25 80:15 121:21 228:11 229:1,5,12 stated 91:23 140:2 248:2 229:13 230:2,7 61:24 203:10 206:13 strobane spread 244:25 54:1 196:23 197:1 statement strokes spreading 52:1 118:10 120:22,25 42:19,22 43:22 45:10 208:1 159:25 199:15 201:22 strong St 234:11 254:11 75:20 1:1,104:1,10 5:2,6 6:6,15 states strongly 7:15 118:8 254:1,15 88:9,11 89:11 118:8 134:24 129:17 stack 206:17 structural 34:2,4 state's 21:15 240:21 19:1920:1,8 structure 58:2,13,22 73:3 124:9 176:23 220:20,23 221:24 222:2,4,7,10,12 structures 50:5 stuck 175:19 students 18:21 studies 65:25 178:16 179:4,4 200:17,25 study 108:17 121:4 241:23 244:9 studying 21:15210:17 stuff 18:3 25:12 35:15 43:22 68:18,20 71:11 76:17 79:7 80:2 83:7 92:18 95:19 96:18 106:4 111:14,24 112:3 116:19 118:9 120:16 121:9 122:1 129:18 130:12 131:2 132:4,5 133:12 140:25 141:17 146:2 155:17 156:24 168:9 171:6 192:15 195:17 196:4 208:21 218:24 220:17 225:24 subject 184:11,15215:3 231:8 232:12,12 submitted 25:14 102:1,8 subscribe 255:10 subsequent 195:2,6 substance 86:20 198:4,5,8,11,18 255:6 successful 15:3 29:6 suddenly 76:14 suffered 241:9 sufficient 67:18 162:19 199:10 216:25217:15 sufficiently 58:13 124:9 sugar 133:18 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054489 [suggest - testing] suggest swan tape telling (cont.) 216:3,5 74:7 221:3,8 54:19 55:1 102:24 103:4 126:7 158:5 172:10 221:25 suing swear 149:18,19,24 202:16 239:25 14:24 8:3 247:19,24 temperature suit Sweden tapes 181:15 14:5,24 15:3 24:1530:1068:3,11,14 202:10 ten suite 88:10 104:19 113:12,24 tara 9:13 10:23 22:6 68:19 6:6,14 254:15 118:7 127:18 135:3 5:3 6:21 7:4,18 253:3 94:13 sulfuric Swedish task tendency 233:14,17 235:2 89:11 32:16,18,18 33:2,4 67:13 30:22 summarized switch 132:15 134:3,15,16,19 tentative 232:14 149:18,19202:10 tatten 117:22 sun sworn 118:2 tenth 14:21 4:22 8:6 253:7 taught 167:25 sunbury symposium 23:5 term 160:18 2:14 159:12 taxed 58:9 96:8 119:22 120:5,9 super synonym 254:18,19 120:24 135:25 136:4,5 14:21 19:13 tc 138:6 140:7,10 184:25 superfund synthesizing 18:24 19:5 23:8 198:6 247:1 14:21 21:8 teach terminated supplemental synthetic 29:3 120:2 179:17 215:22 158:9,10,12,16 21:14 teacher terminating supply system 19:3 126:22 216:9,12 173:6,6 41:2 43:9,11 45:25 48:14 teaching terminology support 50:19,25 51:20 54:6,10 21:3 52:17 27:17 200:17 60:24 61:1 62:13,19 63:4 teasing terms sure 64:13,14 88:20,23 89:9,24 125:4 12:24 13:1 21:13 22:7 9:19 10:3 22:13,1623:13 92:1,5 93:7,8,17 110:19 technical 27:10 33:13 40:2 42:24 23:24 33:12 34:23,24 44:7 139:3 177:1,3 211:18 35:1 56:12 59:3 63:19 64:12 54:10 61:15 66:9 67:7 systems technically 74:6 88:11 119:12 121:25 70:15 72:21 78:9 82:8 83:3 46:17 48:5 57:9,9 61:25 208:20 124:1,2 130:15,25 131:11 83:8 90:16,22 91:2 98:7 138:20 technique 146:14 147:12 168:1 194:3 100:6 109:11 112:2 113:6 114:5 125:24 126:15 128:2 t 28:1,14,15,16 60:2,2 91:11 216:18 92:8 105:1 171:13,16 terphenyls 128:21 129:17 130:8 131:1 131:19 141:22 147:20 117:3 243:6 taken 185:17236:10,15,16 237:25 239:19,22 240:8,11 122:13,15 124:21 144:2,5 146:9,9 147:15 150:11,12 156:5 157:17 1:23 7:4 63:18 108:5 240:18,20 test 158:15 164:8 175:11 178:14 180:4 185:21 186:5 193:10 195:15,21 200:5,12 112-19 20T23 253 8 13 254:13 256:4 talk techniques 18:10 27:20 39:22 69:22 82:24 85:15 86:12 88:1 47:19 227:25 238:8 tested 149:14 178:19,21 205:24 213:11 215:18 218:22 222:4,5 223:1,10 224:3 227:22 229:24 249:12 251:1,6 8:19 14:14 35:22 97:12 140:21 186:12 187:13 21611 14 2524 talked 123:14 170:20 171:23 175:12 248:14 technology 59:2 68:18 70:6 78:4 testified 8:7 14:17 15:2 79:10 224:13 testify surface 96:4 101:2 130:18 143:1 148:13 149:13 152:11 81:9 153:18 surmising 29:14 surprised 196:16 216:19 218:8 225:3 225 16 talking 10:17 16:10 31:4 33:13 155:7 163:7 164:4 telex 130:18 tell testifying 98:8 227:20 229:4 testimony 2:7 11:7 12:21,22 13:15,22 20:11 154:5,11,15 44:13 55:3,7,15 70:8 76:9 27:14 40:24,24 44:17 82:19 13:25 14:12,13 63:7 75:14 survival 218:11 84:22,23 85:21 104:6,18 111:22 117:17 120:15 104:12 114:13,15,24 149:18 153:15 157:22 82:16 98:4 164:6 176:10 178:2 185:12211:7 215:1 survive 192:22 124:23 127:3,8 141:7 144:1 161:8,12 162:2 164:11 175:11 176:7,8,12 178:2 253:6,8 194:8 212:13 243:15 245:1 testing survivor 1:14 4:14 254:7 199:21 200:6,6 210:13 217:6,12,24 230:4 249:3 telling 43:4 72:14 81:22,25 82:2 48:21 51:3 102:2 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054490 [tests - transformations] tests things (cont.) three (cont.) today (cont.) 103:7 177:16,19 235:4 236:21,24 237:23 150:4 151:4 153:3 154:6 135:24 174:13 183:12 texas 239:24 240:17 156:25 196:22 209:19 196:9 198:25 205:16 206:4 6:7 254:16 think 211:18 207:19 209:20 231:5 text 10:10 11:21,23 12:8,23 throw 239:12 240:12,17 246:10 122:6 14:1,19 16:2,5 23:1224:11 80:4 93:5 246:11,12251:20 thames 26:7 27:6,10 30:17,21 31:8 thrown today's 160:18 39:20 49:1 54:10 55:16 196:5 7:10 34:20 thank 62:10 69:12 71:5 79:4,8 throws told 23:23 33:15 34:7 44:21 80:9 84:3,5,21,24 92:25 111:13 170:17 173:12 74:25 98:5 179:11 93:22 94:12 96:21 98:6 time top theoretical 100:19,21,22 101:15,17 7:11 8:24 9:1,10 10:17 103:14 107:7 159:24 23:14 49:21 50:3 136:15 104:4,5,17 106:14,22,24 11:14 15:7 19:9,17 20:2,7 topic thereon 110:12 114:3,5 115:15,18 22:4,9 24:3 26:25 27:7 69:22 86:5 255:9 116:7 120:17 124:7,22,25 29:20,21,22 31:2,16 32:20 topics thereto 131:20 132:9,19 133:9,12 35:16 37:23 38:7,9 39:12 85:12 253:15 135:20 138:23,24 140:5,7 39:16,20 41:22 51:24 59:13 total thermal 140:20 146:4,8,11,12 68:7,8,16 71:12 73:16,20 153:16 254:18,20 19:7,21 23:7 167:15,17,23 149:16 156:10,10,25 73:24 75:6,10 76:20 78:5 totally thesis 157:22 158:4,18 162:6,8,13 79:11,22 80:6 81:1,4,14 151:6 184:8 187:8 213:20 25:14,18 163:10,12 164:11 165:2,2 85:12 86:10 88:5,9,11 89:4 225:5 227:16 thing 165:20,25 166:3 172:1 89:13 90:3 91:22 92:19 town 9:25 16:8 22:8 24:21 26:14 175:14,15,16 176:1 181:11 93:14 98:8 104:15 108:8,12 8:20 38:22 39:1 42:17 44:14 181:23 182:2,14 184:24 108:18 110:10,25 111:25 toxaphene 46:19 60:18 62:10 64:10 186:16 187:6,7,9,10,12 113:3 117:23 118:13 54:2 68:14 74:3 76:14 79:25 188:12 190:19 197:19,20 120:13 121:1 124:5 127:23 toxic 80:10 83:5 92:9,12 93:15 197:22 198:6 201:3,9,12 131:20 133:8 134:13 146:1 198:3,4,6,8,11,18 95:4,16 96:8 124:15 125:13 203:9 204:16 211:8,24 135:12 139:9 148:19,24 toxicity 125:19 126:1 132:23 133:9 213:11,13,16214:19,20 154:19 172:3,7,16 173:18 119:21,22 120:5,9,19,23,24 135:7 150:8 155:24 165:17 215:9,9,24,24,25 216:16 174:23 178:7,18,20 182:3,7 121:4 178:16,19,22 179:4 173:18 174:2 182:10,12 217:5,13 220:2,5 224:15 189:2 190:15 197:17 199:6 toxicologist 183:3 186:6 198:23 205:4 227:8 232:7,9,21 237:6 200:16 203:20,22 204:4 121:12 198:16 199:1 209:1,3 211:10213:21,24 241:25 242:8,10 246:23 207:18 208:5 210:9 214:22 toxicology 215:16 222:5 233:1 246:7 247:1 249:19 250:25 251:4 216:23 217:6,10 231:4 35:13 246:13 251:11,15 233:10 234:1 239:12 246:4 traces things thinking 248:19,22 249:17,23 250:2 152:5 241:14 15:16 18:8,16,22,24 21:11 75:12 250:7,16,17 251:9,19,20 train 21:17,22 22:2 28:20 29:1 third timeline 106:11 35:13 37:18,20 39:6 51:19 31:5,6,14 100:19 191:21 128:3 trained 54:1,3,13 56:9,20 58:9 61:4 thirty times 19:20 62:24 63:20 70:3,22,22 26:7 10:23 160:7 162:11 168:6 training 71:4 76:11 80:7 83:2,3 thought 169:16 18:14 20:24 85:18,20 88:12,18,23 94:25 39:17 64:9 71:16 75:4,15 tissue trainingship 95:15,22 99:14 107:19 82:20 164:20,23,24 165:23 137:23 138:7 139:7 140:15 21:5 118:5 130:13 133:7 134:10 182:3,8 186:11 187:4 179:4 241:24 242:24 transcribed 138:20 140:22 146:7,10 190:25 194:5 199:23 211:9 243:11 7:6 147:13 152:25 169:15,22 215:9 216:24 220:3,7 tissues transcript 169:25 171:1,10,20 175:2 224:12,15 225:16,18 234:3 112:9 121:8 226:21 254:15,21 178:4 184:18 185:19 234:5 title transferm 186:14 187:13,14,20 thousand 27:4 184:11 236:20 195:18 196:3 200:18 204:2 168:5 titled transfers 204:11 205:12 207:24 three 103:14 226:7 227:18 208:3,20 210:5,21 211:1,17 16:5 31:11 85:1 124:22 titrimetric transformation 211:19212:11 214:11 139:17,19 141:23,25 85:16 236:20 217:20 218:11,12220:12 142:13,17,22,25 143:3,11 today transformations 221:21 228:18 233:19 144:25 145:1 146:14,17 11:4 25:1251:764:3 76:16 113:11 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054491 [transformer - uv] transformer try (cont.) typist unh 114:4,6,13 115:2,4 43:6 44:22 52:23 55:12 25:11____________________ 174:12 transformers 65:19 66:19,22 68:21 73:4 u unintentionally 126:20 218:12 73:7 77:10,17 79:7 82:13 uh 228:20 translate 45:1 90:11 99:9 128:19,21 144:11 187:4 188:24 16:25 167:9 174:12 215:20 uk unit 41:15,15 113:16 translation 225:12 229:6 235:1 239:22 30:9 united 137:18 transport 117:13 trying 11:22 21:2531:1047:2,10 61:3 67:2 69:15 75:25 ultimately 48:1 90:1 95:5 ultra 88:9,10 89:11 118:7 134:24 206:17 universal transwestern 14:2,5,7 15:14 treat 227:9 80:12 85:23 100:21 101:16 102:10 121:3 130:15 131:2 134:3,17 135:20 137:25 138:1 181:20 186:22 60:2 un 37:5 unaltered 23:8 59:21 70:20 171:1 university 17:3,11 20:17,19,24 22:4,5 22:6,10 23:1,17 25:9,16 treated 187:11,12215:6 244:10,11 49:3 26:3 83:3 226:19 tremendous 248:9 tubes unbox 29:2 unknown 47:2 48:24 51:3 53:3,18 240:17 trial 160:20,21 tucker uncontrollable 126:23 196:24 197:2,7,15 55:11,14,16,1857:1 unpublished 13:22,25 14:12 15:14 trials 14:18 15:9 1:15,22 2:4,15 4:15,22 7:12 8:5,11,179:6 11:7,11 16:1 16:23 35:2 40:19 44:24 undergo 234:25 undergoes 24:11 37:5,8 unusual 99:16 tried 63:17,25 176:17 186:21 49:18 55:3 72:1 75:14 77:7 82:6 84:11 103:5 107:14 180:16 undergraduate update 119:11 234:20 248:12 trillion 106:3 220:16 239:23 109:6 125:10 127:12 128:2 134:1 137:8 145:19 149:25 160:22 178:16 179:8 17:24 18:14,22 19:18 understand 9:18 10:1,2 12:9 46:3 63:1 updated 16:20 upgraded trip 26:7,9,10 35:6,9,25 183:19 192:5 200:1 202:17 205:17 208:5 212:23 214:3 63:6 64:17,18 65:5 66:6,13 66:15 67:2,8 70:23 71:1 112:8 upper triphenyl 124:21 trophic 224:12 226:9 229:8 231:20 240:9 244:6 245:13 254:8 254:12 255:3,21,23 256:2 73:3 75:13 76:20 78:4 82:11,14,18 83:8 84:22,23 92:15 93:17 95:24 98:1,7 119:12 usable 164:25 138:20 trouble tucker's 157:11 128:1 131:8 138:24 141:23 149:7 163:6 141:2 190:6,8 use 19:14 22:9,13,21 24:4 29:2 77:8 trs turn 117:1 159:15252:4 191:12,18 198:18 199:16 206:24 213:14 214:25 29:3 41:4 49:25 54:10,15 62:16 63:9,16,25 68:3 255:23 turned 219:23 222:11 239:13,18 101:6 102:3 126:19 155:21 truck 241:14 true 191:25 turning 107:5 249:13 251:2 252:6 understanding 33:2 67:10 77:9 84:1 155:22 162:4 164:20,23,25 167:6,12 181:18,18 193:23 198:17214:6,6 218:3,10 15:25 29:25 51:17 57:15 twenty 67:14 75:19 77:25 83:9 238:6,12 85:5 102:12 108:22 112:18 twist 112:20 120:18 124:15 208:20 136:11 138:2 141:9 172:19 172:22,24 178:25 179:2 193:19 203:4,6,16 205:14 229:7 220:1,3,5 225:19 235:2 236:22 238:24 241:11 242:19 246:23 247:1 useful 137:7,12 138:18 144:18 type understood 245:21 160:22 174:3 180:14 13:1 18:1241:1688:3,16 197:19 198:13,14,25 206:9 95:19 108:11 140:6 160:8 249:17,23 255:7,12 187:20 236:12 246:13 trust types 33:12 98:3 172:2 197:18 205:3 212:9 214:16 218:5 220:20,23 225:21 undertaken uses 124:2 126:23 204:22,24 205:3 215:21 216:10,15 217:17218:3 220:12 158:19 59:16 112:9 166:23 207:20 33:4 usually truthful typewriting 60:3 78:7 108:14 115:20 7:6 253:10 undertook 91:17 172:17 42:6 utility 147:22 156:11 187:9 201:3 typewritten 219:15 225:25 122:7 underwent 210:18 221:5,14 231:4 239:8 uv try typical 8:19 10:3,12,13,14,18 39:9 105:25 113:9 unfortunately 180:19 21:23 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054492 [vacuum - working] V view (cont.) water widmark (cont.) vacuum 243:8 66:21 107:20 108:13 132:24 134:13 141:3 111:7 viewpoint 109:17 111:22,23 112:6 203:13 206:1 250:10 valid 23:14 75:7,24 86:11 138:11 113:16 114:8 115:19 widmark's 209:15 211:20 140:12 196:23 197:1,6,10 70:10 108:3 127:14 129:2,6 validity views 197:12 208:18 129:24 130:5 131:11,14 32:24 61:3 215:3 ways 134:4 value viscosity 171:25 172:1 177:13 wildlife 42:24 221:14 196:22 2:11 103:15,23 179:20 vapor 152:23 160:15 viscous 175:25 weakness 198:22 194:14 Wisconsin vaporize visible weathered 12:15 151:21,23 187:15 21:23 24:13 49:12 53:25 108:4 wise vaporized 152:18 visual 79:25 114:12 175:18 127:9 136:6,9 137:2 140:18 203:20 207:5,8,12 227:14 withdraw variables vitae weathering 51:6 144:10 204:24 214:5 152:21 2:8 15:24 16:4 52:16 214:12,17,17,23 229:6 variety volatilization weeks witness 167:14 245:8 181:14 52:5 251:15,17 4:21 7:7 8:3 13:18,18 14:14 various volatilized weingarten 54:21 133:16 143:20,23 224:17 180:8 187:21 2:20,22,23 210:6 156:21 157:14,16,20 158:1 varying volts went 158:18,23 159:1 250:22 44:5 160:13 15:17,1720:1625:16,21 251:24,25 252:3,19 253:6,8 verbose von 35:24 36:3,6 42:3,4,17 256:1,2,25 30:20 161:15,17 43:12,20 54:16 72:19 93:19 witnesses verified vs 110:23 121:24 130:10,24 2:2,3 110:6 115:12 1:6,17 4:6,17 254:3,8 132:10 230:17 232:5 wonder verify w we've 68:11,13 246:9 81:3 92:8 110:9,24 127:18 w.r. 55:7,10,11,15 65:9 96:4 wondering 129:14,16 156:5 version 16:17 101:21 160:24 33:21 182:21 w2 8:25 146:15 wgk 111 :23 66:4 185:15 243:19 word 49:25 54:15 72:6 101:6,7 161:22,24 242:19 243:9 versus wait 68:10 whatsoever 67:23 193:25 195:13201:20 204:22 words 7:13 11:5,6 12:10 13:5 44:10 60:2 80:7 122:13 want 9:23 15:1 19:14 23:24 wheeler 2:10,17,19 33:21 35:7,11 43:6 46:6 48:14 60:1 70:24 138:1 182:16201:10,11,18 124:22 52:23 67:7 68:14 69:10,11 35:24 37:3 179:21 182:21 217:2 221:18 viable 217:9 vial 69:13 75:22 79:5 82:4,4,16 82:17 87:19,22 90:10,15,22 91:1 92:6,10 125:5 128:2 183:7 194:15 whichever 42:4 175:17 202:20 work 9:1 18:1,24 19:18 22:21 24:10 25:16 29:16 30:3,3,9 47:13 videographer 6:22 7:9 8:2 54:19,22,25 102:25 103:3 133:21,24 133:15,16 163:16 169:3 175:17 182:4 184:22 186:25 187:6 208:17,19 214:11 216:17 229:24 white 1:13,14 4:13,14 5:9 254:6,7 whiting 12:10 32:13 33:6 37:16 39:12,19 39:21 48:2 61:4 64:12 79:7 93:17 108:23 110:5,6,13 126:18 128:7,12,23 129:2,4 149:20,23 185:1 202:9,12 251:6 whoa 129:6,8,14,16,24 130:2,3,5 202:15 247:20,23 252:11 252:14 videotaped 1:22 4:21 7:11 wanted 18:23 95:6 100:12 114:8 119:25 150:8,10 155:14 187:8,23 219:22 221:13 68:10 widely 196:23,25 197:1,7 widespread 130:7 131:11,14,17 132:20 134:4 135:19 163:22 165:11 179:2 193:2 196:7 231:9 Vietnam war 188:14 198:20 241:11 worked 191:4 view 141:16 173:7 Washington widmark 24:10 30:10 32:4,8 38:13 18:5,9 19:1 24:9 26:12 35:11 92:9 110:7 165:4 27:13 127:12 136:17 181:4 35:2,7 132:4 192:2 188:1,21 201:5 212:5 215:4 waste 38:14,20,25 39:2,18 62:22 190:16 192:12,14243:1,2 64:12 68:1 71:14 88:3,18 working 224:14 225:5 232:15 234:13 237:10,14 239:7 81:13,19 186:12 192:14 90:2 118:2 127:6 128:4 129:9,12 130:11 131:23 25:6,8 26:17,23 28:5 91:14 112:1 175:21 189:2 190:15 Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054493 [working - zero] working (cont.) 190:19 191:5 222:1 works 208:3 world 53:24 65:20,23 67:25 74:3 133:8 141:16 179:17 196:11,16,19218:20 wound 71:6 wow 211:9 writing 117:5,6 written 179:22 235:19 wrong 82:10,15 116:20 wrote 32:7 103:24 118:13,18 159:2 179:19____________ zero 78:6,7 x xerox 35:1_____________________ y yard 186:19 yea 236:20 yeah 25:25 34:7 51:25 56:6 66:3 66:12 102:18 104:17 105:4 106:15 111:24 116:14 118:20 119:9,25 122:2 124:24 128:13,14 132:13 138:23 139:16 141:22 144:9 150:12 152:6 156:4 156:20,22,22 157:4,7 158:1 158:4,4 159:19 165:10 167:15 171:7 175:5 178:13 178:13 180:4 186:10 191:2 202:8 210:13213:13 217:20 229:1 233:3 239:6 251:18 year 24:22 26:6 81:7 129:1,5,23 130:4 132:16 154:10 220:8 years 14:20 16:7 17:8 31:7,12 94:17 150:22 154:14 yep 105:17 118:16 170:5 z Tucker, Scott (Defendant Expert) 2011-03-09 - COLELLA/NISHIDA WATER PCB-SD0000054494